User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 16

lscherer3, who spammed wikipedia with his unique and original (research) categorisation of Puzzles, attempting to twist Puzzle articles to his very amateur non-standard categorisation, and adding inflated views of his own competence, including articles about himself, 200+ articles supporting his categorisation and with little other content, over 50 rather poor images supporting that categorisation, and claims in articles such as Turing Machine to have himself made such a machine.

- Noitall for vehemently anti-Islamic POV pushing (which is now regarded by the community as being absurdly obvious, but at the time I was one of the few editors combatting his behaviour), as well as his other social-conservatism POV pushing - such as the fiasco he/she and others caused over Wikipedia:Wikipedians for decency
- UninvitedCompany for wholesale unilateral action, ignoring the community, ignoring NPOV, and violating admin priveleges by using them in areas where he/she is directly involved
- SimonP, for
  - his/her mass unilateral action over the location of certain editorial templates, which is of a similar type to Kelly Martin's (and we all know what the community thinks of that)
  - his/her spamming wikipedia with masses of bible fluff in the form of articles for every single verse of the bible, rather than in the manner of encyclopedia treatment of the subject (i.e. articles about topics, subjects, and narratives)
  - his/her violation of Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources in including the entire source text of over 6 chapters of the bible inside the six articles about those chapters, and his/her violation of WP:NPOV for only using the KJV translation in doing so.
What or who is CheeseDreams and what is his/its connection?

Recently I started some centralised discussion about the Bible-source-text issue, it didn't go in the direction Simon would have liked at all, and consequently this action of Simon appears to be a (somewhat obvious) case of sour grapes, and seeking revenge.

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 00:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previous cases are at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril-, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2. The records of the community imposed ban can be found at User talk:-Ril-/ban. At this point -Ril- is less violating polices, and more simply making a mockery of them. Wikipedia is founded upon consensus, but -Ril- has spent months working on ways to circumvent the prevailing consensus on Bilbe verse articles. He has repeatedly used a certain technique to get his own way:

First he creates a new policy page, such as Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text
Then he advertises the page on the user pages of anyone he thinks will agree with him. (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].
A handful of the of people he has notified do comment on the page in question. Since they have agreed with -Ril- in the past, they mostly agree with him
Only after a number of his allies have commented does he inform those he disagreed with of the new discussion, and presents the situation as a fait accompli. (e.g. [6])
Despite previous discussions with much larger participation, such as Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses, he then treats the new pages as policy and begins implementing them.

At this point I am pretty much ready to ban -Ril- as a sockpuppet of the hard banned user CheeseDreams, but it would be better if a more neutral party were to do so. - SimonP 00:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic Judaism Continued Problems

I followed your advice and tried revising the article to be more neutral. (Admittedly, I'm still a bit awkward with Wiki codes) In the process, the article got locked and no alert tags appear to reflect the controversy around the article as it is worded. As I predicted, Eliezer and OpenInfo's propoganda prevails.KnessetP.R.Guy 13:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this article was written by a collaborative effort that includes members of many different religions. I have only modified approximately three sentences in the article itself (after leaving large amounts of comments in the discussion page).

What you are proposing to write would fill the article with complete propaganda by members from the UMJC, and leave no other POVs. OpenInfo 01:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RJII case

Don't you think you, as the lead administrator in the case, should let me, the lead plaintiff in the case, know of the existence of a "Workshop page"? I just found out about it today. Also, let me tell you, I am not pleased with the false statements you've been making. RJII 15:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC) By the way, don't take anything I say personal, because I don't mean it that way. It's just "the case." RJII 16:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deeceevoice case

I urge you to reconsider your support vote on the "offensive userpage" section. Having an offensive rant on one's userpage, unless it personally attacks other users, should be perfectly acceptable, because offensiveness is subjective. Please see User:Striver as a case in point. Administrators should not be making judgement calls on this kind of thing. KI 16:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deeceevoice

I have unprotected her user talk page. She needs to discuss matters such as personal attacks and communication with other users. Fred Bauder 23:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping me the note. She does need to discuss this, I agree, but my prediction is that she will not — when has she ever discussed these things, except to pour scorn and contempt on those mentioning it? You know the background and history. I hope I'm wrong, but, ultimately, if she still persists in persuing personal attacks, we should use technical means to stop it, and that will likely include protecting her talk page if she makes attacks there. — Matt Crypto 23:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WebEx and Min Zhu voting

I noticed that you authored the "proposed principles" for this case but have yet to officially cast your votes for them. Did you mean to vote for them? --TML1988 22:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WebEx and Min Zhu/Proposed decision

Thanks for the notice and the opportunity to comment directly; I hope I'm doing so in the right place. Quite a mess to sort through, wasn't it? You were quite correct in assuming I would respect the decision you proposed. I'd have no further comments to add to the matter as well. Thanks again. FeloniousMonk 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Can people not involved in a arb. case help present evidence? Wiki eZach 02:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput

Fred, I will take the action item to update the page numbers in the referenced books. Also I had left a comment on rajput arbitration page. Do I need to give you more data or is that comment sufficient? I am relatively new here and I do not know how arbitration proceeds. Please advise. Shivraj Singh 18:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred,

My impression was that Arbitration committee would decide based on the correctness/authenticity of the argument. Am I wrong? Backman's intervention added fuel to the fire. He jumped into the middle of a heated debate and sided with muslim POV without having done any research on the topic. Muslim group till his intervention, had, after perhaps two dozen requests, come up with one source supporting the claim of muslim rajputs. This book was by Denzil Ibbetson, a british officer. In this same book Ibbetson gave the case of Hindu rajputs who lost there rajput status because they started practicing widow remarriage. When this fact was pointed out to muslims and Backman they looked away. Note Islam is multiple degrees of separation away as they not only practice widow remarriage, they eat beef and do not follow hindu religion.

In addition the muslim group claimed that "jihaad seeking muslims" are rajputs. When I asked Backman why is he supporting the claims of such group who are equating muslim terrorists of the world with us rajputs, he chose to remain quiet.

Backman also had a very condescending and racist attitude. I gave him benefit of doubt and tried to reason with him multiple times, e.g. [7], [8]. Then Backman abused pretty much all Indians here [9]. After reading this I realised he is a racist person and has a superiority complex.

He then did a search on the internet and came up with a few books whose subject had something to with rajputs. All but one were irrelevant. The one that was relevant was already used in the article (Lindsay Harlan book). When I asked him why is he pushing references that he has not read a single page from he had no answer. He said something to the effect "at least I can cite them correctly". I told him that is not good enough [10].

He also kept blocking people at whim and Admin User:FireFox had to tell him to not perform any admin functions as he is pushing his POV on the rajput page [11]

Do let me know if you need more data regarding Backman.

Shivraj Singh 18:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly reminder

Hello, Fred Bauder/Archive 16. Just a friendly reminder that I would appreciate it if you would answer some of the interview questions above; I would love to have complete responses from all of you for Monday's issue of The Wikipedia Signpost. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Opinion on Robert I's Arbitration

I am a 61 year old retired English solicitor. I know both Robert Isherwood and Gregory Lauder-Frost. I can confirm that they are friends and that they live not far from one another (60 miles apart).

I was asked by Robert to examine what has happened to him and to give my opinion. My view is that he has been treated unfairly.

Robert made several attempts at complaints and also requested arbitration before other users. These were ignored. It may be that (like me) he is unable to properly find his way around the very confusing Wikipedia pages and headings.

That is definitely part of the problem. While light years more transparent and accessible than the English legal system, our procedures for resolving disputes are somewhat complicated and a bit of experience goes a long ways. A new user does not know where to turn or who to turn to. They make obvious mistakes and often get themselves into needless trouble. I did not notice Robert I until the request by C.J. Curry showed up in requests for arbitration. Whatever he did, did not cross the threshold of taking effective action to resolve outstanding problems. Fred Bauder 14:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User C.J.Curry however, made a request for arbitration which was immediately taken up. He appears to be the main protaganist in this dispute although he called in support from at least two other users, home on the range and ground zero, all of whom appear to know each other, and, indeed, praise each other. All three would appear to have the same political ideas.

Yes, here is his request Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Robert_I#Statement_by_CJCurrie. Somewhat overstated. Our checks just show everyone comes in from British Internet, so no telling. Fred Bauder 14:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert has one computer at his flat. He and his son use it. Gregory Lauder-Frost lives in Berwickshire and having remarried in 1998 has a young family. He has a very old computer which he and his wife both use. Gregory is not IT literate. He regards the internet as a dangerous source of disinformation.

This does not surprise me, although a few older folks really get into it. Fred Bauder 14:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that occasionally the same computer or computers with similar ISP number have been used, purportedly by one person using aliases. Without proof this would not stand up in our courts.

What shows up is that Robert I and the person purporting to be Gregory Lauder-Frost are coming in on BI rotating ips. Fred Bauder 14:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that several posters use similar language terms, phraseology, etc., and therefore it has to be the same individual making the postings. This would be thrown out of our courts. The majority of those attending a good public school, especially boarders, leave school with the same English language and linguistic attributes.

Starting to pick them up myself. Fred Bauder 14:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert has been banned for "aggressive editing". However, it was Robert's articles which were aggressively edited and often deleted, not visa-versa.

He was definitely engaged in tendentious editing. Fred Bauder 14:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On several occasions "sources" were absolutely demanded and even when given were still ignored on the most specious grounds, such as assertions that a speaker/writer was being "sarcastic" or that the source had then to be checked. On several occasions sources were given in the references or publications and they were still ignored and the comment in the article deleted.

Robert's articles have been stated by Mr C J Curry to be "right-wing propaganda" which he a some sort of duty to eliminate. Having examined the original articles it may be contended that by quoting the organisation's won opinions and objectives may appear biased. But nor more biased than deleting them and relacing them instead with the detrimental opinions of a few journalists. In British courts a quote from a journalist is inadmissable without the journalist being present with the evidence used for the article concerned.

One of Robert's detractors has stated that Gregory Lauder-Frost's article was "vanity" and that Lauder-Frost was "on the fringe of the fringe". These statements were absolute opinion. The evidence does not stand up.

It may be that an article has not been written in a particular Wikipedia manner, but that should not make it inadmissable. Gregory was, in his time, a prominent figure. His activities in the various pressure groups, and indeed within the Conservative Party, made him, shall we say, a fascinating figure. He was a friend with Alec Douglas Home and numerous MPs. He was on a restricted guest list for a House of Commons Dinner on 4th October 1990 for John Major following his becoming Prime Minister (that is not on your article page) and he sat in front of Margaret Thatcher in a reserved seat for McWhirter's memorial service (deleted from the article). These things demonstrate that he was far from persona non grata, and definitely not on the fringe.

These points definitely should be included in any article on him. Fred Bauder 14:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not the time to list here the seemingly endless lists of the manner in which Robert's comments and articles have been attacked. But it is unjust that these attackers are now confirmed as being wholly in the right and Robert wholly in the wrong. Articles on individuals and groups on the British Right should be fair and balanced and give some good idea of their opinions and views, of what they believe they stand for, and also the juxtaposed comments of others. Comments designed to place them in an unfair and bad light should at the very least be supported by evidence.

It has been suggested that the term "European" is meaningless. The Oxford English Dictionary is cited with definitions. Some words have numerous definitions. It is not possible to accept them all. most people would settle upon one. Robert has done this and been unjustly attacked as denying the "authority" of a dictionary which today carries words and definitions which would never have been acceptable to pre-1950 editors, and which are, at the end of the day, the opinions of the editors. Its all a matter of opinion.

Please see my comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Robert_I/Workshop#Aggressive_point_of_view_editing. We have nativists in America too, so an "American" is a white Anglo-Saxon. While they make their point it is very petty to rag Robert I in this wayTalk:Gregory_Lauder-Frost#What_is_a_European.3F. Fred Bauder 14:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most appalling aspect of Robert's treatment appears to be that he has been treated as though he had made shocking or pornographic statements, that he had abused others in a dreadful manner etc. My reading is that he was very often provoked into robust responses by seemingly quite arrogant, even pompous, comments made by his detractors.

Provocation is definitely a problem on Wikipedia. I have seen it compared to the baiting of a bull at a bullfight. This goes to our policy on newcomers, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Fred Bauder 14:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of these points appear to have been noted by the arbitrators at all.

Noted at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Robert_I#Robert_I_a_new_user that inexperience played a role. Fred Bauder 14:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitrators appear to have commenced their arbitration from an automatic position that Robert was absolutely wrong, and that he had committed some fantastic crime on Wikipedia. My own opinion is that he has obviously spent hours on end researching and submitting articles and information to Wikipedia, articles which previously were not there, and which filled a vital information gap. These were then attacked by ideological enemies under the guise of "neutrality" etc. In fact, what was criticised as opinion, was usually replaced by opinion.

Phrases such as "hard-right", "far-right", "extreme-right", "holocaust denier", "White-minority government" etc., are all loaded with political inuendo. They weould not be permitted when giving evidence in a British court as the court would be making the decision, not the witness.

This goes to content which according to our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy contemplates fair expression of all significant points of view regarding a subject. If there are reliable published sources which use such terms in connection with Gregory Lauder-Frost and the associations he has participated in, then those views, properly attributed, may be included in an article. Likewise positive views such as you express should be also. Fred Bauder 14:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His detractors' arguments, I submit, would not have the gravity of evidence in our courts for the drastic treatment/decision made by you on Robert Isherwood.

No nor they intended to. Robert I has not been convicted of a crime or even been found responsible for damages. He has only been banned from editing on the site until any legal issues have been resolved and from editing in a subject area that he is clearly overly involved in. That way no further legal issues can arise in addition those already existing and editing of the articles can proceed in an ordinary way. It is hoped that despite banning Robert I a balanced article will develop but monitoring of articles is not our role. Fred Bauder 14:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael.

Can do

I'll have it within 24 hours. Phil Sandifer 19:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's done, btw. Phil Sandifer 17:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

proposed remedy

thanks Fred, I guess; I will have so much more spare time as an ex-admin due to not caring whether Wikipedia articles are revised to agree with the dream world of nationalist fanatics. Although, in the light of this I fail to see how you could twist my annoyance with our Rajput rednecks into "ethnic contempt" (it's true that other Indians wrote me to apologize for them, too). dab (ᛏ) 22:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachamann,

I challenge you to provide one single proof that any Indian apologized to you after that disgusting s-word personal attack. If they apologized to you in wikipedia talk pages, provides the diffs. If they apologized in email, post their email (with their email addresses so that I can reconfirm writing back to them). It is simply impossible that any Indian will have even an iota of respect for you after that lowly attack.

Personal attacks are not acceptable even by common editors. An admin doing that is simply shocking. I do not care what arbcom decides about your fate, you are simply a persona-non-grata from India related pages. If they want to keep you an admin, fine. But we will not accept your admin role in India related pages.

Sisodia 01:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser Request

I'd like to have a checkuser run on myself. I recognised your name as an Arbitrator of a case to which I am a party, so I selected you from the Checkuser Admins list. I haven't done this before, so I'm not sure what you need. If you need my permission, you have it. You also have my permission to share whatever you find with any direct party to this case. Specifically, individuals are trying to show that I am the same Earthlink ISP using person that edited an article back in 2004. They are also interested in showing that I am a user named Rob. I've edited on Wikipedia for less than a year, and my name isn't Rob.

Any help to remove this obstacle would be appreciated. 165.247.202.116 09:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, why not just give us the name of your registered account? Ten Dead Chickens 21:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Soldier

Hi,we're probably about ready to close this case but, as you're still registering an objection, I thought it as well to ask you if you mind if we go ahead. --Tony Sidaway 13:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Just a note letting you know that I sent you an email a couple days ago that you have yet to respond to. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Wilkes

User:Ted Wilkes is still denigrating my contributions. He made this unfounded request for arbitration accusing me of having inserted fabricated information into the Nick Adams article and claiming that Adams and his wife were never divorced. This request was immediately, and significantly, deleted by a Wikipedia administrator. Nick Adams's divorce from his wife is mentioned on the following webpages:

"... he had waged a long and tedious divorce and custody battle with his ex-wife, Carol Nugent... Nick won an expensive custody battle after proving that Carol was an unfit mother because she was having an affair with a fellow named Paul Rapp." See [12]
"He had a troubled life, which included separating from his wife (but retaining custody of his 2 children)..." See [13] and [14]
"His personal life was in turmoil as well, as he and wife Carol Nugent became increasingly estranged." See [15]
"... unfortunately by the time he got back to the states it had already severed his marriage with actress Carol Nugent." See [16]
"Married to actress Carol Nugent, and his divorce from her was expensive. However, he won the case, since it was proved Nugent had an affair, and he was given custody of their two children." See [17]

Here is the best account of Adams's divorce from his wife:

"While appearing on 'The Les Crane Show' the following evening to plug Young Dillinger, Nick shocked audiences by announcing that he was leaving his wife. ... After that announcement, Nick's career and personal life went into a tragic free fall. Nick and Carol publicly announced a reconciliation a week later, on Jan. 19. ... Alienated from Carol, Nick fell in love with actress Kumi Mizuno and even proposed marriage to her later. ... Nick and Carol's reconciliation didn't survive Japan. At the end of July 1965, they decided on a legal separation. Carol filed for divorce in September. Nick was still in Japan when Carol was granted a divorce and custody of the children on Oct. 12. On Jan. 26, 1966, Nick and Carol announced another reconciliation on a local television show, 'Bill John's Hollywood Star Notebook.' It wouldn't last. ... On Nov. 26, 1966, Carol resumed divorce proceedings and obtained a restraining order against Nick. Carol alleged that Nick was 'prone to fits of temper' and in a special affidavit charged that Nick had 'choked her, struck her and threatened to kill her during the past few weeks.' 'I'm going to fight this thing all the way,' Nick said. 'I want to keep possession of my home and possession of my children.' It was the beginning of an acrimonious, contested divorce and child-custody battle. Nick became enraged after discovering that Carol's boyfriend was physically disciplining his children and telling them that Nick was 'a bad man' and a 'bad daddy.' Nick hired an attorney, former L.A.P.D. officer Ervin Roeder. Robert Conrad says, 'He (Roeder) was a very, very tough guy and he was a kind of man that was tough to like.' Nick got a restraining order prohibiting Carol's boyfriend from coming to the family home and being in the presence of the children. On Jan. 20, 1967, while waiting for a court hearing to begin, Nick was served with an $110,000 defamation suit by the boyfriend. Ervin Roeder's job was to wrest custody of Allyson and Jeb Adams from their mother. It was one he did well. On Jan. 31, Nick won temporary custody of his children. It was a hollow victory in his tug of war with his wife. Jeb Adams said, 'He saw it as a competition, basically, more than anything of getting custody of us. But, a matter of a week or two later, he gave us back to my mom.' She later regained legal custody of her children." See [18] Onefortyone 16:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser request

On WP:AN you can see a quite a few lenghty conversation about a current debate among Wikipedians. It's about a situation about the creation/deletion of a template called Template:User Pedophile. Many users were desysopped and new users are creating new templates of the same nature. I saw where you voted on the RFAr about it but it would also help to stop the users who are creating these templates. The users I believe to be in connection are:

Joeyramoney (talk · contribs)
Dschor (talk · contribs)

Could you run a checkuser to see if there are any relations to these users and to see if any sockpuppet accounts were made? — Moe ε 01:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a similar request (involving only Dschor (talk · contribs)) on WP:RFCU. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DCV plans to ignore ruling

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADeeceevoice&diff=38595101&oldid=38550250--Urthogie 09:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remedies and surrealism

I received the following inquiry on my talk page, in a section titles Beckjord remedies. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tony, thanks for the message about the Beckjord decision. There's a bit of a surreal touch to the remedies, with B being banned from editing Wikipedia for a year, along with a number of detailed remedies about how he is to edit Wikipedia. Are the other remedies supposed to kick in after the year has gone by, or are they just alternative remedies that also got a lot of votes? See, if that's not clear to me, what's it going to do for Beckjord, who notoriously finds everything Wikipedian surreal and self-contradictory anyway? I wish you would add some sort of clerkly overview to clarify it. Bishonen | talk 08:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I replied:

It's possible that the Committee has some kind of unwritten precedence rule that says "if the editor is banned for twelve months, none of the permanent remedies apply", or something. I'll ask Fred Bauder what he thinks. Speaking for myself I can find no logical contradiction in any of the remedies so I included all of them in the final decision. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think she has a good point--is there any rule for deciding when one remedy supersedes another? Obviously if a ban for three months and one for six months pass, with equal scope, then the longer ban supersedes the other, but what if there is an indefinite probation order and a twelve month general probation? If there are conventions for this and they're written down, perhaps they ought to be on the wiki. If they're not written down yet, then they should be on the wiki. Clerks need to be able to close cases with a degree of confidence that they have correctly interpreted the Committee's wishes. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies, Fred and Tony; please to note that the matter needs above all to be made incandescently clear to Beckjord — clear in the place where he'll read about it (=on the Beckjord RFAr page). For one thing, I don't want him to feel, or claim to be, justified in going counter to a stricter remedy by pointing to a milder one. Bishonen | talk 21:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Fred

Normally I'd leave you alone on matters to do with arbitration: I know you are a very busy man, and don't wish to burden you any more than is necessary (you have a tremendously difficult and time-consuming job, for which you have my deepest respect and admiration). Anyway, I'm just messaging you to make sure you understand that the reason that I restored that pedophile infobox was not because I support pedophilia (I do not), but because the deletion was done without any discussion while the template was on TfD. Actually, a small correction: it was discussed on #wikipedia-en-admin, somewhere there is no record of discussion, and a place where normal editors who aren't admins cannot go.

This is turning into a rant, but the point I am trying to make is that I thought that Wikipedia was meant to be a place where transparency ruled supreme. I can understand discussing sensitive issues such as arbcom proposed decisions and issues of defamation behind closed doors, but normal admin related activity? Surely we want to keep this in the open!

Would it be possible to have your opinion on this matter? This is an important issue for me. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other day Radiant blocked Netoholic for incorrect reasons. I was going to reverse the block, but someone beat me to it. Should they not have reversed it? Hardly seems fair to Netoholic. What about speedy deleting a contentious page like Wikipedia:Votes for deletion? As for discussion, how do we keep this open when decisions are now starting to be made behind closed doors? If I go into the admin IRC channel, they will have to rehash the reasons why they made decisions over and over again, eventually they won't bother. If the decision is not made on-Wiki, what do we do then? How do we maintain accountability? This is what I'm asking from an experienced Arbitrator. I'm very concerned about the project's direction. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Wikinfo.org?

It's gone? Is it possible to get it back on line somewhere? I'd like to see some of its pages again. DutchSeduction

http://wikinfo.org/wiki.php? Fred Bauder 13:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of probation?

I think User:Ted Wilkes is now continuing edit warring and, together with User:Wyss as it seems, still harassing me. For their behavior, see the following Wikipedia pages: Talk:Nick Adams, Memphis Mafia, Talk:Memphis Mafia, Boze Hadleigh, etc. In my opinion, this may be a violation of the arbcom probation order which says that "Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality." [19]. On the Talk:Nick Adams page, Wilkes again goes as far as to call me a "convicted liar" which is certainly a personal attack and unacceptable. See [20]. On the Memphis Mafia page, he has added a fabricated text to my direct quote from Peter Guralnick's book, Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley. In the book, the original passage reads:

"Nick Adams and his gang came by the suite all the time, not to mention the eccentric actor Billy Murphy, longtime friend of John Wayne and Robert Mitchum..." See [21]

Ted Wilkes's version reads:

"Nick Adams and his gang (roommate Dennis Hopper, Russ Tamblyn, Red West) came by the suite all the time, not to mention the eccentric actor Billy Murphy, longtime friend of John Wayne and Robert Mitchum ..." See [22].

This is of much importance, as another source, namely Rona Barrett's autobiography, Miss Rona (1974), says that "Nick had become the companion to a group of salacious homosexuals." It seems as if Ted Wilkes, with such additions, tries to obscure the impression that the members of Adams's gang were homosexual. Wilkes has also repeatedly deleted two external links to websites concerning the Memphis Mafia, presumably because the content of these sites is not in line with his personal view. See [23]. He only accepts hyperlinks to external personal webpages he likes. This is POV and not O.K. Perhaps some administrators or arbcom members may have a look at the related pages. Thank you. Onefortyone 19:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: Onefortyone's continued misrepresentations to deceive Wikipedia Administrators and fabrications and another violation of his probation:

Wikipedia Mentor FCYTravis removed this Rona Barrett reference from the Nick Adams article as per his Revision as of 19:56, 6 December 2005 here. FCYTravis then informed Onefortyone of his deletion and his reasons on the Talk:Nick Adams page on 20:40, 6 December 2005 as seen here

I worked with FCYTravis to achieve a consensus and the last edit to the Nick Adams article by Wikipedia Mentor FCYTravis was on 02:01, 8 December 2005. However, Onefortyone waited a few hours then disdainfully ignored his Wikipedia Mentor and violated his Wikipedia:Probation and reinserted it in this Revision as of 04:33, 8 December 2005 - Ted Wilkes 22:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told, Ted, you should have mentioned that, before he made his statement, administrator FCYTravis had repeatedly reinserted the Rona Barrett quote together with some other quotes frequently deleted by you at that time (December 2005). See your own statement here. On 8 December, this administrator only said that he had removed the quote from Rona Barrett because he "didn't think it adds anything." About two hours later, I reinserted it together with an additional quote which now made more sense. FCYTravis was online at the time when I included the additional source. As there was no further discussion about the matter, there can be no doubt about the fact that he accepted my contribution. It should also be mentioned that my version is still included in the article. Onefortyone 01:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another instance of Onefortyone violating his probation and defying his Wikipedia Mentor

In the article Elvis and Me, Onefortyone inserted text that was deliberately taken out of context from completely different parts of the book and on different subjects entirely. And, after deleting key words that would reveal his fabrication, Onefortyone merged them to create a completely false impression of what author Priscilla Presley had written.

On the Talk:Elvis and Me Wikipedia Mentor FCYTravis agreed, stating in his Revision as of 19:19, November 13, 2005 here "I agree that inserting those out-of-context passages in that section is not helpful to the reader and potentially misleading."

Again, Onefortyone waited for time to pass then on 23:46, December 24, 2005 he defied his Wikipedia Mentor and reinserted and again did it in an out-of-context position to mislead and change the entire factual meaning to suit his agenda. - Ted Wilkes 15:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told, Ted, you are the person who has added fabricated passages to the text. You have repeatedly included the words "Pentecostal", "virginity" and "slut" in the Elvis and Me article, thereby deleting the direct quotes from the book I had inserted (see [24]). The fact is that these words nowhere appear in Priscilla Presley's book, as an Amazon search proves. See [25], [26] and [27]. Therefore, I rewrote the said paragraph which included the correct quotes for many weeks. Now you are continuing edit warring, Ted, as you have reinserted your fabricated version of the text and removed another paragraph including critical remarks by Suzanne Finstad about Prescilla Presley's book (see [28]) which certainly belong to the Elvis and Me article. It seems as if you are trying to suppress critical remarks about one of your favorite books. This is not acceptable and not NPOV. Onefortyone 23:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Workshop

Thanks for your comments on my proposal. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you talk of your bad experience with probation: linas also was thinking that the remedy should include some probation component, so maybe it would be good if you could give a brief summary of why you think a remedy along these lines would work. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 21:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is any one listening ?

I made motions, presented evidence but it seems no on is paying any attention. Indeed, now the article had to be protected again because edit wars are continuing by other parties. [29] ArbCom should realize that the process is totaly broke. Protection does not cause "dialogue". Banning does not cause NPOV. I seriously suggest you come up with a different process for such articles. Some proposals were made in the ArbCom case. Sincerely, Zeq 04:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for looking at the case

I hope that a better process to deal with such contentious issues will come out of this case. Seriously, the idea of having a "stable" public version while the "unstable, non-public version" is being developed works well for all software that is developed in this world. An article developed by multiple authors is not very different in it';s devlopment process. Imagine how much of the insentive to vandalise and to POV it would remove if someone knows that until the article will be seen by the general public it will have to reviwed by the "development team" (i.e. the editors) who would remove any nonsense. Vandalism would be thing of the past. Zeq 16:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified "Thank you " for looking on my case.

I hope that a better process to deal with such contentious issues will come out of this case. Seriously, the idea of having a "stable" public version while the "unstable, non-public version" is being developed works well for all software that is developed in this world. An article developed by multiple authors is not very different in it';s devlopment process. Imagine how much of the insentive to vandalise and to POV it would remove if someone knows that until the article will be seen by the general public it will have to reviwed by the "development team" (i.e. the editors) who would remove any nonsense. Vandalism would be thing of the past. Zeq 16:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS I still think that it would be best if you, given your views would recuse yourself from the specifics of this case. Of course any contribution to a better overall process has nothing to do with the specifics of this case. Zeq 16:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse

Dear Fred,

I am saying this in a postive way, as I respect any person's view. You have a right to your view - even if it is a unique one. The basis for recusal is that you have shown that this view bias even your terminology. The level that you can distance youir rulling from your views remain to be seen but make no mistake about it: The basis exist.

As someone who is in the legal profession you know that justice must not only be done but be seen as fair. As such it would have been best if you yourself recuse yourself so that later no issues can be raised about the rulling. Sincerely,

Zeq 19:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Already I can see that the ArbCom did not temporaraly ban Zero who is as pasrt of the discussion as Ian or myself. Bias ? I sure think so. Zero is an articulate anti-israel voice and that is the reason he was not temporaraly banned. But in any case I don't think long term banning is the answer: The process is what need to be fixed. Zeq 19:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero was as apart of this case as I was. In fact he was more. The original case was about heptor and Zero (they were the one arguing about sources). I can already see how the facts do not amtter in this case. Too bad. Zeq 20:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Refreash your memory here is the list of involved parties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=35666815#Citing_credible_sources:_Zeq_and_Heptor

But let me make this same suggestion:

Forget the "parties" fix the process. The process failed twice:

Mediation about sources in 1948 war (although the policy about sources is very clear)

NPOV in Palestinian Exodus (NPOV policy is clear yet it is unimeplmentable as this article failure to be fixed in over 3 years proove.

Zeq 20:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]