Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Shorne and Fred Bauder

Added material from Requests for Arbitration

[In response to Jwr's change of vote from Abstain to Accept]

1. What bullshit! You obviously did not even read the discussion. In any case, I completely reject this kangaroo court, which has consistently failed to answer my numerous questions about the lack of my response to my own cases brought against VeryVerily. I do not recognise the jurisdiction of this band of "arbitrators", of which POV-pusher Fred Bauder is a member. Go ahead and ban me; that's obviously what you intend to do. Shorne 03:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   I find it fascinating that accepting a case (which does not bind me to ban or even censure the involved parties) makes me worthy of profanity and derision, not to mention prophecy (since you have no way of knowing what I read). Thank you for these insights, Shorne -- I, for one, will consider them carefully. Jwrosenzweig 23:40, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. Consider them all you want. I have nothing but disdain for this kangaroo court, for reasons already discussed. Shorne 07:22, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Complaint and discussion from RfA/Shorne and Fred Bauder

User:Shorne engages in edit wars on the articles, Great Purge, Communism, Communist state and People's Republic of China. He claims to be removing POV material and demands documentation, but no matter how minutely referenced, removal continues. Most references are unacceptable in his view including references which are generally accepted in the scholarly community. When negotiation is attempted he pleads lack of time and energy, but continues to have plenty of time and energy for his edit wars with me and other editors. Extensive discussions on article talk pages have been to no avail, see especially Talk:People's Republic of China, for example this edit: [1]. Mediation has been refused, see [2] Fred Bauder 22:09, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

My position - Shorne engages in passionate defense of communism on Wikipedia. His zeal for the topic portrays someone who is at best an apologist, and at worst a militant. While I respect his fundamental right to believe whatever he wants about communism/socialism, his rapid-fire edits and ensuing discussion wars leave little room for compromise. He has displayed a reckless disregard for the norms of the Wiki community. He is fighting a war against accepted historical facts, and he refuses to give an inch. User:BigSlick Nov 9, 2004

The claim that mediation has been refused is a gross misrepresentation unbecoming of an arbitrator. My comments on this matter can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I refuse to proceed until my own complaint against VeryVerily has been addressed or a disinterested mediator or arbitrator speaks with me personally. Shorne 22:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fred Bauder mentions four pages, I have been only following one, Great Purge. I do not see a problem with Shorne's actions on Great Purge. This is a page that VeryVerily is continually reverting, ignoring the three-revert rule incidentally. The edit back-and-forth with Fred Bauder and Shorn on Great Purge is Fred Bauder putting in a paragraph that says the work of cold warrior hawks is "definitive", while any other work is "revisionist". Not that it matters for what Fred Bauder is trying to put in the article, but the opinions are not "generally accepted in the scholarly community", whatever that means. Ruy Lopez 02:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I remain open to mediation should Shorne chose to join me in requesting it. When I requested joining the VeryVerily mediation he refused, see [3]. He has plenty of time and energy for his edit warring though. Fred Bauder 23:17, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I request that Shorne be banned temporarily from editing articles which relate to communism. He is a new editor and there is some evidence he does not understand the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, believing that rather than including diverse points of view the goal is to achieve what he calls "balance", see [4] Fred Bauder 23:17, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

With Very Verily flouting the three revert rule on that page continually, you want Shorne banned because he says he says he wants a page with "balance"? Ruy Lopez 02:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Groundless. In addition, it is inappropriate, according to user Neutrality (see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily), to institute bans of any sort outside arbitration. It will be found, in addition, that it is Fred Bauder who keeps inserting the most appallingly blatant POV assertions into articles, showing disdain for the agreements of other users on the talk page, as, for example, in Talk:Communism in the past hour or two.

I hereby request that Fred Bauder be expelled from the arbitration committee, as he apparently lacks the intelligence, the impartiality, and even the understanding of administrative procedures needed to discharge the rôle with anything resembling propriety. Shorne 23:35, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I assume Fred was asking for your ban to be part of the relief offered by the arbcom.

Furthermore, I have to wonder what you mean when you say you refuse to continue. Snowspinner 23:46, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

As I have explained in my complaint against VeryVerily, which has not yet seen one bit of action, I feel that it would be a mockery of justice to give Fred Bauder's complaint precedence over one that I filed earlier. I note with interest that hsi complaint received an answer in 97 minutes, whereas mine still has not received one word from anyone on the committee after two days. In addition, I feel that Fred Bauder has not made adequate efforts to resolve the dispute through discussion and is merely exerting strong-arm tactics to get me suppressed through bureaucratic means. Shorne 00:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I concur. VeryVerily is the one being antagonistic to Shorne (among many others), and had mediation charges brought back in August. And absolutely nothing has happened, even though he openly breaks the three revert rule which he has been banned for before. Yet within one day, Shorne enters mediation and on the same day jumps onto the arbitration page. It would be a joke for VeryVerily, who has been banned for this type of behavior before, to continue to get away with his antagonism towards Shorne and others, while Shorne can jump onto the mediation page and then onto the arbitration page within the space of a day. Ruy Lopez 02:49, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can't find your complaint against VV. Where is it? Snowspinner 00:33, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. Perhaps you cannot find the complaint because VV moved it at least three times, against the instructions of the chairman of the committee (see the most recent entries at User talk:Bcorr for the sordid details). The last location was Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily. I hope it will still be there when you read this. Shorne 00:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have one last thing to say on this subject. I believe, as do user Ruy Lopez and probably others, that any dispute that may exist between Fred Bauder and me can be resolved through discussion once VV has been brought under control. Although I strongly disapprove of Fred Bauder's behaviour in many (not all) instances and feel that he is baiting me by continually making POV changes and moaning about the supposed left-wing bias that dominates Wikipedia, I have never denied that he does at least hold discussions on talk pages, and we have successfully negotiated on issues before. The principal contradiction is between those of us who are trying to get real work done and about three users (VeryVerily, TDC, Adam Carr) who use the site as a bully pulpit and prevent anyone who doesn't agree with them from doing anything. The behaviour of VV alone has created such hellish chaos during the past several days that adequate discussion on a dozen or more pages has been practically impossible. I feel, therefore, that this aggressive push to arbitration within the space of a day or two is premature and that the way to approach it would be to start with a single article—say, Communism—, protect it if necessary, and resolve the remaining issues through a discussion. Fred Bauder never proposed this; he simply took the push directly to arbitration, presumably in a tit-for-tat response to my complaint about his associate. Shorne 01:01, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I think a lot of this is a misunderstanding. Mediation tends not to have any official action until the other party accepts mediation, which, as I look at the page, it doesn't look like VV has done. Since mediation is a voluntary procedure, there's nothing really to be done on that. Arbitration, on the other hand, is not voluntary. And so it requires actiona nd response.

You could concievably try escelating to a request for arbitration against VV, but with two requests already in progress, it would probably be redundant, and you would be better off adding evidence to one of the existing ones. Snowspinner 01:05, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. I have already expressed a willingness to merge my request with one of the other two (or to merge the three into one), and at least three people did add comments to one of the requests for arbitration filed against VV, who promptly deleted all the comments on the grounds that they were irrelevant. (You'll find them on the talk page.)

I do hate to bother you again for advice, but would you consider it proper for me to petition for arbitration immediately, taking VV's repeated failure to answer my call for mediation as a constructive refusal? Shorne 01:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Motion to close

It's about time to close this case, since one of the parties, Shorne, has not contributed since December 6. He many well not come back, especially because of the recent ruling upon him. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 18:22, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with this, provided it can be reactivated should he or a sockpuppet start up again. Because of the number of edits involved and the difficulty of presenting an adequate case this is draining a lot of my time, for something that may be moot, if he actually has left. Fred Bauder 22:19, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)