Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/172/Evidence
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please choose an appropriate header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.
If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence.
Be aware that the arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent.
Evidence by Sam Spade
[edit](172 contests that this is not relevant/resolved issues)
- Kim Jong-il/Talk:Kim Jong-il (Failing to discuss reverts in talk)
- Efraín Ríos Montt - History / Talk:Efraín Ríos Montt (failing to properly discuss reverts in talk)
- History of the United States (1865-1918) - refusal to accept NPOV / Talk:History of the United States (1865-1918) (failing to properly discuss reverts in talk)
- Talk:History of the United States (1980-1988) - refusal to accept NPOV / Talk:History of the United States (1980-1988) (failing to properly discuss reverts in talk)
- History_of_El_Salvador - refusal to accept NPOV / Talk:History_of_El_Salvador (failing to properly discuss reverts in talk)
- Multinational_force_in_Iraq- refusal to accept NPOV / Talk:Multinational force in Iraq (failing to properly discuss reverts in talk)
- Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989 - refusal to accept NPOV / Talk:Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 (failing to properly discuss reverts in talk)
Additional evidence
[edit]My experience with 172 has been that he freely reverts based on his point of view entirely without reference to whether or not his reverts are supported by facts, especially with regards to articles he feels he controls. Basically he insists on having his way, meaning that his leftist point of view must prevail especially with respect to the structuring of articles, see these reversions to the article Communist state: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. In fairness, this dispute occured in the fall of 2003. There is a long history to the article, first it was divided then merged and now does concern the practical implications of applied communism although the content remains hotly contested. Fred Bauder 13:13, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
A more recent incident can be seen at Talk:History of Russia and the Soviet Union (1917-1927) where my attempt to introduce the term Red Terror, a policy boldly announced by Lenin and other early Soviet leaders, and for which there is excellent documentation could not, according to 172 be part of the article, History of Russia and the Soviet Union (1917-1927). See [9], [10], [11], He then placed notes on my talk pages, [12], corrected a typo and [13]. however the article, since redirected to History of the Soviet Union still does not contain even the word "terror", let alone Red Terror, one of the central policies of Lenin and the other early Bolsheviks: Felix Dzerzhinsky, first head of the Cheka, June, 1918 in the newspaper, New Life: "We represent in ourselves organized terror - this must be said very clearly - such terror is now very necessary in the conditions we are living through in a time of revolution," I must concede that I did not struggle with 172 at length over this matter. I just let him have his way and put the article on Wikinfo the way I wanted it Wikinfo article. Fred Bauder 13:13, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Notice at [14] that 172 is a gentleman and offers to work the words in eventually, when HE gets around to it. After all, it's his article. Fred Bauder 20:26, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Personal attack
[edit]Please see 172's personal attack. I have received a couple of personal emails from Abe Sokolov of the same tenor, 'Maybe there's no difference to a senile 1950s McCarthyite throwback, but I'm just a teacher-- not some Maoist radical. Take a look at some of the articles I've writen-- none of which are in the style of Shorne's Communist agitprop... I doubt that you have the capacity to grasp this, though. I mean, you even thought that, say, Jtdirl was a "leftwing historical revisionist." -172' and "You think that I'm Shorne? You're such a goddamn crackpot." He thinks phrasing a personal attack in the form, "I'm going to refrain from stating the inferences that I draw regarding Fred Bauder's mental health after reading the above." somehow converts it in a clever way to an example of refaining to make a personal attack. He says he is just a teacher, and perhaps he is, but his work here is not not teaching but pushing the political line of a discredited regime that once did call anyone who disagreed with them crazy and had the power to abuse them by hospitalizing them.
The attack continues
[edit]"Yes Fred, it is all a Communist conspiracy. I report to Pyongyang, helping the DPRK pave the way for the eventual Stalinist takeover of America. I have multiple user accounts, and seek to infiltrate both the education system and Wikipedia. When my Party comes to power, everyone who has disagreed with me on Wiki will be deemed crazy and the Party will have the power to abuse them by hospitalizing them. 172 17:07, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)"
The comma reversions
[edit]Listed on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever are these reversions by 172: (rv (see talk)), Revering VeryVerily's illiterate, ungrammatical changes and Reverted edits by VeryVerily to last version by 172 at which point the page was protected. After unprotection, the punctuation error was fixed at restored VV's version, taking into account the objections that 172 named as the reason for his reversion. There should be no further squabbles on this issue, at least.. Find the discussion between 172 and VeryVerily from the talk page:
Here's a grammar lesson for the self-proclaimed infallible arbiter of neutrality. Put commas and periods within closing quotation marks, except when a parenthetical reference follows the quotation. 172 12:28, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Look at this spectacle everyone. There's a page protection because I've decided to correct a series of grammatical errors by VV. That's pretty tendentious even for him. 172 22:34, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Look at the actual spectacle. 172 is not "correcting" anything but simply reverting me, not behavior consistent with mere correction of any alleged "errors" (such behavior usually consists of a minor tweak). -- VV 01:04, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Look at the page history instead 1 You got reverted because the bulk of your changes line by line took the commas and the periods that were correctly placed within the closing quotation marks outside the closing quotation marks. Other than that, you made a few inconsequential but obsessive word choice changes. If these changes mean so much to you, then clean up your own grammatical mess. 172 01:16, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Your own obsessiveness is comical, but yes I will defend my edits against crypto-vandalistic reversions; your claim I'm "illiterate" is quite daft indeed. You probably haven't even read Wikipedia:Manual of style#Quotation marks, too busy as you are reverting everyone in sight. -- VV 01:20, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- You just got lucky finding that entry. Since when do you use British English? 172 01:24, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- It's really just inconceivable to you somebody might actually care about the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia? Of course, I took note of and read that page long ago. It helps in making good edits to know the rules. -- VV 01:32, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Those weren't "guidelines." The use of British English isn't mandated on WP. We can use either, but should stay consistent in each article. Thus, when I find an article written in American English, I'll use the grammar, language, and spellings I'm used to. But if I find an article that's mostly using British English, I'll try to use British English. For example, that's why I was stuck using British English in New Imperialism, even though it's not what I'm used to using. Although I was the main author, the vast majority of the other editors weren't from the US (perhaps because the article's mostly focused on the British Empire). Regarding this article, aside from your chages, the article seemed to be using the US spellings, so your changes made no sense in that particular context.
- Those weren't "guidelines." The use of British English isn't mandated on WP. Instead, we're supposed to keep the language consistent in each article. When I find an article written in American English, I'll use American English grammar/language/spellings (which is what I'm used to); if I find an article written in British English, I'll try to use British English. Incidentally, that's why I was stuck using British English in New Imperialism. Although I was the main author, the other editors weren't from the US (and this makes sense, given that the article's mostly focused on the British Empire). Anyway, in this article your changes made no sense in this article, since it seemed to be using the US spellings. 172 01:59, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Those weren't "guidelines." The use of British English isn't mandated on WP. We can use either, but should stay consistent in each article. Thus, when I find an article written in American English, I'll use the grammar, language, and spellings I'm used to. But if I find an article that's mostly using British English, I'll try to use British English. For example, that's why I was stuck using British English in New Imperialism, even though it's not what I'm used to using. Although I was the main author, the vast majority of the other editors weren't from the US (perhaps because the article's mostly focused on the British Empire). Regarding this article, aside from your chages, the article seemed to be using the US spellings, so your changes made no sense in that particular context.
- It's really just inconceivable to you somebody might actually care about the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia? Of course, I took note of and read that page long ago. It helps in making good edits to know the rules. -- VV 01:32, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- You just got lucky finding that entry. Since when do you use British English? 172 01:24, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Your own obsessiveness is comical, but yes I will defend my edits against crypto-vandalistic reversions; your claim I'm "illiterate" is quite daft indeed. You probably haven't even read Wikipedia:Manual of style#Quotation marks, too busy as you are reverting everyone in sight. -- VV 01:20, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oh, for the love of. . . either of you could have ended this extremely silly dispute at any time by making a few very small edits, edits which would have required considerably less work, and created considerably less ill-will, than this lengthy argument (I would do it myself were the article not protected because of this petty squabble). I know you two don't get along well, but could you perhaps put your energies to some slightly more constructive use? —No-One Jones 02:07, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I've made many attempts to work constructively with 172. He is not interested. As far as he's concerned he is absolutely right and working with others in the community would be a needless distraction. I'm no longer willing to be accommodating when he reverts my edits without rhyme or reason. -- VV 02:09, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- At least fight over something meaningful, will you? This is an obvious candidate for Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever. —No-One Jones 02:11, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I don't care whose fault it is (not that you should try to play the innocent victim here)—this is still a moronic edit war. —No-One Jones 02:31, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Response by 172
[edit]Yes Fred, it is all a Communist conspiracy. I report to Pyongyang, helping the DPRK pave the way for the eventual Stalinist takeover of America. I have multiple user accounts, and seek to infiltrate both the education system and Wikipedia. When my Party comes to power, everyone who has disagreed with me on Wiki will be deemed crazy and the Party will have the power to abuse them by hospitalizing them. 172 17:07, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have been trying to make a few minor changes to the Soviet Union article, I want to include some basics about the economic problems and the totalitarian aspects of the government.
A review of the history of that page shows 172 has been constantly reverting my changes and has acted with tremendous hostility to a new user.
His user pages shows he is a highly experienced user, so I find his treatment of me (with two weeks under my belt) to be puzzling. I can cite individual examples of abuse, allegations, threats and misconduct if that is helpful.
I understand from IRC that 172 is seen as a problem user who was given an adminship unwisely. I am scared that he abuses his power to get his own way. He seems to work in a group with similar POV.
Repeated Removal of POV tag
[edit]I don't know if it's a breach of rules, but it seems particularly unhelpful that 172 removes the POV tag from the Soviet article. On IRC I am told it is very bad to do this. It certainly is annoying when the article needs a comprehensive overhaul.
One Revert Undertaking
[edit]I notice that 172 has undertaken to voluntarily refrain from more than one revert. One the Soviet page he has reverted many times and made very hostile remarks, including falsely alleging that I am one or both of two discredited users Chuck or Reithy. I can cite many examples of this and also of him drumming up support on his associates' user pages to get me blocked. Libertas