User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 44

Alkalada

I'm informing You since You've had experience with this guy before...

See User_talk:Alkalada. If I remember, You blocked him for much lesser violations. :)))

BTW he is a meat-puppet of an indefinitely blocked user continually evading his ban - User:Hahahihihoho (nth by now, User:Thunderman was one of many]]). --PaxEquilibrium 16:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fred. PaxEquilibrium means Alkalada is a sockpuppet, not meatpuppet, of Hahahihihoho. If you recollect, I had originally blocked Hahahihihoho indefinitely, he appealed to ArbCom and promised to edit constructively, and you unblocked him (with no objection from me—actually I had advised him to appeal) for a second chance. I see you have now yet again blocked him for a month. Wouldn't you say this is getting a little ridiculous? See how many times he's been let loose for another bout of disruption, which must be very trying for other editors of these articles, and how quickly you've always had to re-block. I was all for the second chance (in spite of the editor never having edited constructively), but it looks to me like he has used up his second chance, third chance, and fourth chance. Regards, Bishonen | talk 18:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Help with sockpupettry

Hi Fred, I need your help. REDVERS, one of the Administrators that is working with the Fellowship of Friends page, left me the following message:

Hi, Mario. On the talk page of Fellowship of Friends, I offered Wikipedia's best way for how to resolve these disputes (basically WP:RS); sadly, this was basically ignored and very obvious sockpuppetry was resorted to instead, by people who held the high ground in the dispute.

I wrote to REDVERS but he didn't reply to me. Do you know how can I find out who the sock pupeteers are based on this and this? Thanks a lot! Mario Fantoni 18:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got it

I am slow on the uptake, Fred...hence my choice in username. Thanks. For the record, I don't really care what they say about me anymore, and indeed I did overreact to their provocations. I'm not an "internet" guy...not well versed in the usenet days at all and only contibute online here on wiki, so I was unprepared to know how to deal with trolling. It has been an education.--MONGO 18:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a quick comment

There is a discussion that would benefit greatly from a brief comment by someone familiar with core policies. Particularly, there is debate over whether Wikipedia has an established "no censorship" policy that prohibits editors from excluding offensive images from an article. WP:NOT#CENSOR and the rejected Wikipedia:Censorship seem relevant. Thanks! Gnixon 00:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged for the quick response. Gnixon 01:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm imposing too much on your available time, but I wonder if you could comment on the possibility of allowing editors to self-censor against offensive images. I'm imagining cookies that would mask any image with a certain content tag. For example, if I select the "no penises" option, images with the "penis" tag wouldn't display when I view articles. Does that idea violate any established policy? Thanks, Gnixon 05:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem article

Hi Fred. Could you give Scientology Finance a look? Thanks. Steve Dufour 05:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

external links and blocking warnings

Since you answered my question whether or not I could be blocked for adding that link to the debate at Wikipedia talk:Attack sites, I'd like to extend the question for some more "predictability of legal decisions". I put this comment to a user talk page, and was given a "final warning". I replied here. So, are all links to WR on user talk pages forbidden? Is it forbidden to "link by proxy" (to a Google search, in this case)? May I or may I not suggest to someone to try a Google search with the keywords "aware of the following faults"? I'd appreciate further clarification. —Alde Baer ~~user:Kncyu38~~ 14:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impostor account

Hi fred. I edit under User:SiobhanHansa but sign as Siobhan Hansa. It's recently been brought to my attention that there is an account User:Siobhan Hansa who made some nasty edits. You blocked the account back in January. I've never edited under it and don't want users who see it to associate it with me. Is there anything I can do about it? Thanks -- Siobhan Hansa 15:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Siobhan Hansa 16:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph Dispute on the B-36 Article Page

This particular issue goes awhile back. I've done the suggested advice and let the situation cool down before I attempt to resolve this situation.

This is the problem, the user Rogerd has been trying to put his personal photograph on the B-36 article. He does not hide the fact that he took it since it is featured on his personal photograph gallery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rogerd/photo_gallery

I feel very strongly that he is bias towards his photograph versus the official U.S. Air Force photograph taken of the same aircraft, which in my opinion, is of better quality and is not crooked. In addition, this photograph does not show any museum spectators and does not obsecure the aircraft from view and shows more of the aircraft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:060315-F-1234P-001.jpg

I feel that I was unfairly overwhelmed by his inner circle of users on Wiki and the dispute is still unresolved in my opinion.

-Signaleer 18:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Evidence posted on Falun Gong arbitration page

I'd appreciate it if you could take a moment to read a brief addition to my evidence posted here: [1] It concerns a recent series of blanking edits done on the Epoch Times page by a pro-Falun Gong editor who is using an anoyomous account. --Tomananda 19:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandt

Whoops, I was only trying to help but I wont revert myself, I'll do what you ask. I am glad to hear you are negotiating and wish you the very best with that. Regards, SqueakBox 21:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

You might want to take a look at this thread. WjBscribe 01:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cookies?!?!?

Fine so suddenly everything Brandt's done doesn't amount to anything. The legal threats, stalking, harassment all forgotten. But giving him a plate of cookies. Thanks for the kick in the teeth to everyone he's affected... Can't quite believe it 03:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah you didn't add the cookies- just commented on them, sorry. Still I'm not coping well with the apparent celebrations of his unblock and you seemed to be approving the gesture... Can't quite believe it 03:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing how people jump to conclusions, especially when they don't understand the whole story of what was discussed between DB and JW. Assume good faith? Daniel Bryant 03:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I thought Fred's comments were disapproving so we probably shoudlnt try to read too much into them, SqueakBox 04:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hopeful. I've grown to like Daniel Brandt. I wish him well here. Fred Bauder 11:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to assume good faith with respect to an action by Jimbo Wales (!) and accept that the unblocking was undertaken on a considered basis and for presumptively valid reasons. I am sure that your involvement, Fred, has been on the same basis. However, in making statements about the user in question like the one just above, please be more sensitive to the feelings of the editors and former editors here whose lives he has affected. Newyorkbrad 12:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fred. Common courtesy is to offer someone food and drink if you invite them into your home, SqueakBox 15:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify your statement about Brandt's unblock?

Regarding this, is Jimbo formally overruling the ArbCom's decision and making the Brandt unblock a WP:OFFICE action?

If the WP:OFFICE has decided that there is to be no more discussion of this point – or at least that further discussion would be fruitless – then someone needs to say so clearly. We're spinning our wheels here; a large part of the community is very upset about Jimbo's action here, and the silence from Jimbo is extremely frustrating. Your input (or, better yet, Jimbo's comment) is both welcome and desperately needed at Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#Jimbo authority. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note about HK

I'll respond to this by e-mail. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help - RS

Hi Fred,

1. I recall that you have got a copy of a book titles something like " facts of the ME conflict" - what was the conculsion ? id this a WP:RS source ?

2. Is DPA considered a WP:RS source: http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=26&story_id=29259 (original: http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/aktuelles/presse/2006/36.html and AFP: http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060412-093359-1169r.htm )

3. Are Mallmann and Cueppers considered an academic source about Husseieni ?

4. Is this a WP:RS source: http://www.marxists.de/

Thanks, Zeq 10:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been too long for me to answer most of those questions Fred Bauder 11:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/isrpalndx.htm would be a source for the Trotskyist positions. Fred Bauder 11:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I found out this: http://www.amazon.de/Halbmond-Hakenkreuz-Dritte-Araber-Pal%C3%A4stina/dp/3534197291/ref=sr_1_1/302-7515921-0573617?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177162152&sr=1-1 which is an academic source.

And btw, all these questions when you have the time of course I would appriciate an answer as they are related to a current ArbCom case.

Do you think http://www.marxists.de/ can be used as source about Israel/Palestine history ? Zeq 13:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on the individual essay. Fred Bauder 14:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can this [2] by Lenni Brener be used as wp:RS on the Stern Gang ? Zeq 15:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions

During the Starwood Arbitration which concerned the accusations of COI of User:Rosencomet, after you signed on as one of the Arbitrators I asked you why you voted Keep on an autobiographical article written User:Rosencomet and copied from his website. As that was on of the issues of the Arbitration and the vote seem to indicate partiality toward Rosencomet to me I asked you about that vote, you may remember. You answered that your vote was impartial. As it turned out the article was deleted anyway.

Now I find that you are feeding User:Rosencomet information that I am a sock puppet. See the most recent evidence of your accusation posted to User talk:William M. Connolley: Please tell me what you think of these edits ([3], [4], [5]) in light of this information (1st sentence). Am I being trolled here? Jefferson Anderson 15:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comes from your post on User:Rosencomet's page: (see bottom lines) [6]

Now I am being accused by User:Rosencomet [7] [8] as well as Jefferson Anderson as noted above. These are only the ones I know about.

Would you be willing to explain why you did not ask or tell me about this if you think I am a sockpuppet? Surely you realise that since last fall I have been stalked and harassed by Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati all staunch supporters of User:Rosencomet. He had other supports but he only utilised them when the sockpuppets were blocked. Now I am being harassed by Jefferson Anderson also a supporter of User:Rosencomet who escaped blocking by Suspected sock puppets/Jefferson Anderson only by leaving Wikipedia until the case was closed. He had already escaped Arbitration through the efforts of his AMA Advocate.

I have tried to be a good Wikipedian after by brief problem of sockpuppets last summer dubbed "the granny defense" by Rosencomet and supporters. I have over 18,000 mainspace edits since May 2006 when I joined Wikipedia. Why would a person like me, a 65 year old grandmother only interested in writing, want to bother with sockpuppets? I am trying to understand this and trying to evaluate if I can withstand another relentless onslaught of stalking, harassing, and vandalising. Please, if you can, give me some information and advice about all this. I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you! Sincerely, Mattisse 20:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I will probably be accused of something by writing this to you. I just do not know what else to do. Sincerely, Mattisse 20:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not sure what is going on. Fred Bauder 23:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Mattisse and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse. Fred Bauder 23:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little help, I hope, from Rosencomet

Dear Fred,

Perhaps this can help clear things up. It is, IMO, a growing problem, including conflicts with Aeon, Steve Caruso, Thatcher, and Walton, and IMO harrassment of User:Jefferson Anderson (who was long ago determined to NOT be a sockpuppet nor involved at ALL in the now-closed Starwood issue, and has been requested by Aeon his advocate for Mattisse to leave him alone). Now it seems you may be the next abritrator to be dragged into the drama.

Please note, before I begin, that this is not happening on the Starwood article or any articles associated with it (at least since early February), but on unrelated articles and talk pages including my own, despite requests not to post there. Also, I have never used the phrase "granny defense" (or even heard of it before reading it here), Mattisse has been determined to have used at least 18 sockpuppets, and her history includes vague statements about not knowing which sockpuppets are "really hers" and suggestions that some might be her grandchildren.

Back on February 13th there was some sort of conflict between User:BackMaun and User:Khabs. BackMaun had made a few edits January 6-8, then set up a user page on Feb. 1st, then starting on Feb. 10th began editing articles specifically following the contributions of User:Jefferson Anderson and me. In my case, they were very diverse and unlikely to have been motivated by anything else but an intent to follow my edits. In both cases, they were often nonsensical edits, merely breaking links by substituting wrong middle initials in names or duplicating info already in the article. Meanwhile, on Feb. 19th, User:Alien666 appeared after no edits since Sept. 26th, with a user page that said "Wish me luck this time." This user had reverted my work on some of the same articles in September, and began doing the same again.

This interchange, which was my first interaction with Khabs, began on Feb. 13th. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

I suspected BackMaun and Alien666 might both be sockpuppets of Mattisse (or perhaps Timmy12) based on the edits, and the fact that on BackMaun's talk page had the post "Hi, Mattisse!" on it (I think left by Hanuman Das). I asked you to run a checkuser, and you said:

"Checkuser shows the three users share an ip from time to time. How serious is the problem? Fred Bauder 18:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)."

I shared this info with Khabs that day[20]. Note that I did not use your name, stated only what I said without asserting that what was apparent was actually the case, and merely asked him if he wished to weigh in. Note that BackMaun initially tried to characterize me as having "warned him that Khabs was out to get him/her", the opposite of the truth. Khabs was apparently blocked as a sockpuppet of Ekajati and disappeared right after that; I have found no record of that determination. No action on Mattisse et al.

I have asked BackMaun to stop posting messages on my talk page twice, but recently, ever since Jefferson Anderson returned to editing, he/she has been posting accusations and demands there. [21] [22] [23] [24]

Evidently, I am also a subject of debate on User:William M. Connolley's talk page, which seems strange to me since I have not up to this date had any exchange with him nor posted on his talk page, though I feel compelled to do so now if only to ask if he knows why BackMaun and Mattisse are dragging us into a conflict. He seems to have been involved in a revert war between BackMaun and Jefferson Anderson over T. J. Anderson. (Perhaps he/she believes William Connolley is the one who posted the "Guess what" post; I always assumed it was Khabs.[25]) Here are a couple of statements BackMaun has made there: "Doing the bidding of Jefferson Anderson", "Before you start issuimgs warning on behalf of Rosencoment and his army of Sockputtets and on the suspected list of sockpuppet friends".

I have never used a sockpuppet, nor am I interested in getting into another battle. (This does not involve Starwood-related articles at all, I say again.) I suspect that BackMaun and Alien666 are either Mattisse or Timmy12 (or both: I'm not at all convinced they are not either the same or working together), and I believe a checkuser on User:RasputinJSvengali would be in order as well. Considering the fact that Ekajati and everyone associated with him/her has been driven off Wikipedia completely (including a few people for whom there was little evidence of wrongdoing IMO), and both Mattisse and BackMaun keep harrassing Jefferson Anderson and me, I hope something can finally be done to chip away at the teflon and make these folks as accountable for their actions as everyone else. Rosencomet 16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you do Check Users up on request

May I request some? I know I am not a pal of yours and Rosencomet is, but is there not a facade of fairness supposed to exist on Wikipedia? Please reply as I was not aware of this service you offered. Sincerely, --Mattisse 03:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you do them for Rosencomet, a party in an Arbitration case you ruled in, would you do them for me too? The red tape is a drag, and since you don't require it, could I submit a list to you? Please answer, as you tend to ignore me or give superficial answers. How do I get on your special list, since just being a good user rules me out? Sincerely, --Mattisse 04:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email me with a list. Fred Bauder 04:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(editorial conflict)

Since you do Check Users up on request

May I request some? I know I am not a pal of yours and Rosencomet is, but is there not a facade of fairness supposed to exist on Wikipedia? Please reply as I was not aware of this service you offered. Sincerely, --Mattisse 03:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you do them for Rosencomet, a party in an Arbitration case you ruled in, would you do them for me too? The red tape is a drag, and since you don't require it, could I submit a list to you? Please answer, as you tend to ignore me or give superficial answers. How do I get on your special list, since just being a good user rules me out? Sincerely, --Mattisse 04:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.S. Why is Rosencomet your favorite and in line for favorite requests from you? How did he get on that footing with you? Is is because you voted keep to his copy-paste autobiography in ADF after your involvement in the Starwood arbitration had started" Or did you do that because of a preexisting relationship with Rosencomet, or what?. Please answer me, as I would like to known how this is speial status is achieved? Since you have not acknowledged my previous request yesterday, whereas you act on Ronsencomet's reequests instantly, I am requesting equal treatment. Sincerely, --Mattisse 04:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not proper to notify someone if they are found to be sock puppets, instead of supplying the information to their persecutors only so they can use as needed?

Is there not a fairness issue involved here. You supply inside information to your friends only? Sorry, I prefer to play by the rules. There are policies written about how serious requests for check user are and how certain criteria are to be fulfilled first. Apparently you are above the law, or so it seems. You are offering to do it in secret for me also now and without the Wikipedia mandated procedures. Sorry. I prefer not to engage in the underhanded behaviors you offer. Sincerely, --Mattisse 04:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even care to be fair?

Now I am being accused by your friends Rosencomet and Jefferson Anderson of being a sock puppet (again), thats to you. I am not allowed privy to the evidence as your friends are. Do you want to put a 65-year-old grandmother, a licensed psychologist only interested in editing articles, through another 10 months of relentless harassment, stalking, and accusations from sock puppets because you like Rosencoment? No wonder Wikipedia is going down the tubes. You ae driving away people who seriously want to contribute in favor of supporting trolls and their friends. I would appreciate an explanation of your behavior and your rational if this is not true as it seems to be by appearances. The sock puppet ring of User:Ekajati was shut down, no thanks to you as you were supporting them, the supporters of Rosencomet. Now thanks to your "CheckUser" I am in for another 10 months of accusations and harassment.

So you are telling me anyone can ask for checkuser without rules or regulations despite written policy, just if you feel like doing it? I wish I could remove my 18,000 mainspace edits, made in good faith, because I truly believed this organisation was on the up and up. Now you are telling me clearly otherwise. So much for published policies and rules. Just ask you and you will do it as you are apparently above having to bother with rules. And let's put Mattisse through hell again. just for the fun of it, no matter that she is an excellent editor. Who cares? Editing and good articles are only an excuse to draw naive people in so you can torture them. Thank you. Sincerely, --Mattisse 05:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mail you a list? Despite you offer, I am not interested in breaking rules and being underhanded

I am not interested in persecuting others. I just want to be left alone to edit without constant stalking, harassment and accusations. This seems hard for you to believe. So no, I am not interested in you underhanded offers. Sincerely, --Mattisse 05:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Mattisse and Rosencomet

Hi, I am the current AMA Advocate for Mattisse. I understand that ArbCom and AMA don't always get along well, but I just wanted to provide you with my understanding of the background to this case.

I am sure you are aware of the Starwood arbitration case, since you were one of the arbitrators. ~~At that time, Rosencomet was cautioned; no action was taken against any other editors.~~
During the same process, Ekajati was found to be a serial puppetmaster. His/her confirmed sockpuppets included User:Frater Xyzzy who has been indefinitely blocked. Ekajati and his/her sockpuppets were also guilty of constant harassment of Mattisse. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati.
Jefferson Anderson was accused of being a sockpuppet of Ekajati/Frater Xyzzy; see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jefferson Anderson. That case was closed without a CheckUser because Jefferson Anderson had retired from Wikipedia, and because it was assumed that the arbitration ruling would handle it (which it did not).
Mattisse herself was also accused of sockpuppetry at one stage. However, she has informed me that those sockpuppets were a result of her grandchildren using her computer, and has assured me that they had nothing to do with the Starwood case (as can be confirmed by looking at their contribution histories). See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse. Reviewing the evidence, I do not believe that she was guilty of inappropriate editing behaviour.
Recently, Jefferson Anderson returned to Wikipedia and immediately came into conflict with Mattisse. It is now immaterial whether or not Jefferson Anderson is a sockpuppet of Ekajati, and this cannot be reliably confirmed by CheckUser, because his/her IP address may be dynamic. So a CheckUser would not be particularly helpful at this stage.
Rosencomet, without being contacted by myself or Mattisse, contacted me on my talkpage at around the same time he contacted you. I do not know why he is participating in this dispute, which was previously between Mattisse and Jefferson Anderson. He has been civil towards me, but has made negative comments towards Mattisse.

I hope that this information is helpful. I apologise for probably telling you several things you knew already, but I just want to ensure that the history of this dispute is well-documented and clear, both for you and for anyone else involved. Thank you for taking the time to help with this case. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 09:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walton, some minor points. Jefferson Anderson and Frater Xyzzy were found to be using the same IP address but were not confirmed to be part of the Hanuman Das/Ekajati/999 sockpuppet ring. Anderson/Frater were named in the case because they were harassing Paul Pigman and Kathryn NicDhàna over Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism; Paul and Kathryn assumed they were from the same family of sockpuppets that were harassing them over the Starwood matter. It is possible that Anderson is an "escaped" sockpuppet of Ekajati/999/Hanuman Das, but that was not confirmed at the time and can not be confirmed now. Frater Xyzzy is indefinitely blocked, so as long as Jefferson Anderson behaves himself, there is no further reason to pursue him, just as there would be no further reason to pursue Mattisse if she stopped using sock puppets. Also, Mattisse's claim that her only sockpuppets were her grandchildren is contradicted by the evidence. Please read the Workshop page, especially here and here. There is a checkuser that was run by bureaucrat Rdsmith4 in September and documented on Mattisse's talk page but not in the RFCU case. These sock puppets edited the Starwood matter disruptively as shown on the workshop page. Thatcher131 15:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out all my comments concerning Rosencomet, as per his comments on my talk page. I also may have misunderstood the sockpuppet issue, but I will revise that shortly. Please feel free to ignore my comments in the meantime. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I apologise for my comments to you last night. I was incoherent, frustrated, and exhausted. I will not be posting again. I will not be editing again unless some fairness returns (if ever) and I have a fighting chance to survive and write and edit articles in peace on Wikipedia. Again I apologise. You need not bother with me as I accept you assessment that Rosencomet is more important and contributes more to Wikipedia than I do, and is therefore is more worthy of your time and protection. Sincerely, --Mattisse 12:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The User:Khabs mentioned so prominently in Rosencomet's post above is a confirmed sock puppet of User:Ekajati.[26] Not that it is of consequence. All his die-hard supporters have been sock puppets. But that seems not to matter. Sincerely, --Mattisse 13:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]