User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 45

Block of User:BlueRibbon

Please direct all such concerns regarding this matter directly to the arbitration committee. Fred Bauder 13:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not disscuss this sort of wiki buisness on a mailing list, or anywhere off-wiki. i will be filing a formal RfArb, on the proper page, since you wish this dealt with by the ArbCom. DES ^(talk) 15:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

I have rarely seen such an example of incivility as that which you, Fred, have been subjected to by Mattisse. I apologize for whatever part I may have played in that happening. Though I would be happy to have you as a friend, especially after seeing your fairness and willingness to reexamine the evidence and revise your judgement concerning the Starwood arbitration, it should be said that we have no relationship outside of Wikipedia, nor have we worked together on any Wikipedia project. This sort of accusation of bias and partiality is just another reason Mattisse tends to burn out those who interact with her.

When I asked you to do that initial checkuser, I didn't know who you were. You were just an arbitrator who had done checkusers before and had seemed sympathetic to a request concerning harassment by sockpuppets. Nor did I know if my guess was right; BackMaun and Alien666 might just have been editors with similar interests. I don't know why Mattisse would object to a checkuser and get so steamed about it; if they are not the same person, the checkuser would prove it, and if they are, she has no basis for complaint. My guess is that they are the same, and she is angry that you would be willing to expose her, but that is only a guess. I am often baffled as to Mattisse's motivations. You may feel free to run a checkuser on me any time you like, by the way.

As to why I was involved in this dispute, there are a number of reasons. First, Jefferson Anderson has regularly been accused and, IMO, harrassed by Mattisse over the Starwood arbitration, when he was NEVER a part of it nor even edited any of the articles related to it. Second, it was the behavior of BackMaun and Alien666 I was trying to track; it just seemed to me that the root of the problem MIGHT have been that they were socks of Mattise, and I wanted to find out if it was so. Third, Mattisse kept bringing up my name and Starwood in the contention between her and Anderson. Fourth, BackMaun kept doing the same thing.

Walton has greatly mischaracterized both Mattisse's and my role in the Starwood arbitration, and the decision in that case, but I will address that on his page. Again, although I still welcome any help you can give me to stop the behavior of BackMaun, Alien666, and (possibly) RasputinJSvengali, it was never my intention to see you become a target of Mattisse, nor did I even for a moment expect such a barrage of uncivil behavior as shown above. Rosencomet 16:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out my comments above regarding Rosencomet and the Starwood arbitration, as per my discussion with Rosencomet. Please feel free to disregard my comments. I will review the evidence in more detail and revise my assessment later. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I told him he needn't have done that; it was quite enough that he seriously considered my response and reexamined the issue in light of the new information. I don't expect to be agreed with all the time; I thank him (and you) for your time and consideration. Rosencomet 22:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration

You have been cited as an involved party in This new Request for Arbitration. DES ^(talk) 23:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please direct all correspondence regarding this matter to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. Fred Bauder 19:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask for Assistance

Dear Fred Bauder: I am asking for your assistance on what to do about another Wikipedian who watches my edits, follows me to that page, reverts whatever work I have done, and then writes in the edit summary negative personal attack comments about me. For example, yesterday I edited the Robert Byrd article to place it back in the format that it has been in for over a year, back to where concensus agreed on the format. This particular Wikipedian followed me over there reverted me and wrote on the edit summary, "(No such consensus at all exists on page. Serial vandal "Getaway" is lying. REVERTED! : ))". He/She follows me wherever I go and reverts me and makes various comments about me being a "serial vandal", a "sockpuppet", a "meatpuppet", etc. 98% of the time these comments have nothing to do with the actual article on which he is reverting me. It is like he is deliberately trying to get me to make nasty comments to him/her in return. Also, he/she digs up information about me from months and months ago and places these comments on talk pages throughout Wikipedia. I just want him/her to back off. Can you assist me? I would be most appreciative. Your assistance on the Friends University article previously was most helpful.--Getaway 14:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fred. Though Getaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may not have been sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting over the last few days, he has a long, admitted history of it. Please see Woohookitty's comments on his Talk Page (and Getaway's replies on Woohookitty's) for more about this. Getaway engages in bad faith edits, disruptive edits, personal attacks, and disregards consensus with nearly every edit he makes. His red herring tactic is to falsely accuse other editors of exhibiting the same atrocious behavior he is. I guess he's upset now that he's being called on it. However, he's going to continue to be called on it.

Incidentally, it seems abundantly clear that Getaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is just the latest incarnation of Keetoowah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as his personal attacks, bad faith edits, and disruptive, consensus-disregarding edits to the exact same articles show. More on this soon. Eleemosynary 01:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eleemosynary: Please stop your personal attacks on me. At least now you making false claims about me on Fred Bauder's page. I'm not going to stop editing Wikipedia and you are not going to get me to stop. Take care.--Getaway 16:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem here, you say Getaway is Keetoowah. Ok, he's an Indian and so am I, you are not, and you are being very rude to him. Fred Bauder 20:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat: Getaway = Keetoowah. Saying so is not "rude," but exposing a user disciplined for personal attacks who is now sockpuppeting, meatpuppeting, editing in bad faith, disrupting Wikipedia, and serially violating about a dozen Wikipedia policies. I will shortly be posting several diffs proving Getaway is Keetoowah. I am not being "rude" to him at all. This has nothing to do with anyone being "an Indian." It is distressing, to say the least, that you seem to think it does. Eleemosynary 20:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say he is sockpuppeting, but running checkuser on him shows he's not. It he is Keetoowah, it has a great deal to do with him being an Indian. I'm not going to play pretend on that score. Courtesy goes a hell of long ways. Fred Bauder 21:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see the confusion. I am saying Getaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same user as Keetoowah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This is borne out by his sockpuppeting, meatpuppeting, editing in bad faith, disrupting Wikipedia, and serially violating about a dozen Wikipedia policies. Again, check Woohookitty's comments[1] on Getaway's Talk Page for evidence of his sockpuppetry. Your accusations that this has anything to do with race are as offensive as they are ludicrous. Keetoowah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned, temporarily, for a series of violations. He went away for a while, but is now back, continuing to be disruptive under his new identity, which is Getaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). No one is "playing pretend" on any "score." And I look forward to your retraction of racist allegations. Cheers. Eleemosynary 23:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more courteous to this user. Whoever he is, attacking him repeatedly is not going to make him act better. Fred Bauder 23:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is that the user in question (Getaway aka Keetowah) has a history of attacking you for being a "Ward Churchill apologist" and an anti-American[2]. That makes his coming to your page to beg for a defense all the more shameful. Eleemosynary 01:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keenly aware of that history. That's why I am sure that he is a Cherokee and should be treated with respect rather than contempt, if you want to get anywhere with him. Jeff Merkley has pointed out that our history is not good. Driving people off Wikipedia because they don't agree with us about every issue is neither kind nor useful. Fred Bauder 01:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is trying to "drive" anyone off Wikipedia. But it is important to call him on his disruptive edits. He will be treated with precisely the same level of respect with which he treats other editors. At present, that level is zero. I hope, for his sake, he improves it. Eleemosynary 01:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy on age limits for editing - where is the written policy since you say I am too old to edit?

Thank you for telling me I am too old to edit on Wikipedia. Could you tell me what the age limit is? Could you direct me to the Wikipedia policy on age limits? Thank you very much. HeadlessJeff 14:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is 65. I face forceable retirement myself in June, 2007. Fred Bauder 14:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you direct me to the written policy? Thank you very much. HeadlessJeff 14:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a joke, Gramma Fred Bauder 14:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is welcome to edit. However, you should maintain some flexibility in order to get on well. Fred Bauder 14:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot seems to be a joke to you when it comes to me. In fact, I feel you believe I am a joke. I would prefer you not call me names, especially as you have made it clear you are not AGF when it comes to me. Instead, I would be much nicer if you would treat me as a human being and help me. (By flexibility you mean . . . never tagging?) Thank you very much! HeadlessJeff 14:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have been complimented by several for the tagging of articles I have done (excluding the sock puppet ring of Ekajaki/999/Hanuman Das/Frater Xyzzy etc. on behalf of Rosencomet who, of course, have not complimented me) could you explain your advice to me "I was thinking that you might adopt a more subdued tone in your editing, a more modest approach" which you later defined as no more tagging? You are saying I should not request an article to be wikified or cite its sources? Further, other than issues over the sock puppet ring, I have no trouble with other editors (except you as you will not give me information I can understand and treat me like a joke.) Sincerely, HeadlessJeff 14:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive tagging is what got you into trouble. Fred Bauder 15:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was 10 months ago, lasted for a period of weeks and has not been repeated. At the time I was doing what I thought Wikipedia wanted done in the backlog bins. I apologise for misunderstanding the instructions. I thought I was helping to improve Wikipedia. I was naive. People have complimented me for what I did, even if unwittingly I went overboard. To clarify for the present, you are saying to disregard the steps to follow that Wikipedia has posted with the wikify backlog? How long are you going to hold one mistake against me? Thank you very much. HeadlessJeff 15:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the general agreement is that those tags were correctly placed and the ultimate effect was that the articles were improved. This is the general agreement. Thank you very much. HeadlessJeff 15:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much longer is this going to be held against me by you? Have you looked at my contributions, barnstars etc.? Are you even interested that you are forcing away from Wikipedia an excellent editor? Do you care about the quality of the articles on Wikipedia? It does not seem like it. I would think you would want to encourage good editors instead of disparage them, take away the joy, and encourage them to lose interest in improving Wikipedia. HeadlessJeff 15:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::: A sockpuppet ring twice as big as Ekajati's also got Mattisse in trouble (not enough trouble, IMO); or should I say "HeadlessJeff". Also creating fake articles and attributing them to "the Starwood people" on other editors' talk pages, like Musart, Ann Hill, What Witches Do, and Children of Earthmaker, which I find to be a MUCH more obvious act of hostility and duplicity. That sockpuppetry started at least as early as May of 2006, the very month she began editing, with User:NothingMuch, and continued until it was caught in September (User:AwfulMe, User:AgastNeey, User:LymphToad, User:LiftWaffen, etc). That's five months, and it would surely have continued had she not been caught. Shouldn't HeadlessJeff be added to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse, and also User:BackMaun and User:Alien666? Shouldn't a checkuser be run on User:RasputinJSvengali and User:Timmy12 as well? Are there more?

In all fairness, I don't see why being a prolific editor entitles Mattisse to be treated any differently than Ekajati. And I don't see why she should be badgering you, Fred, or harassing User:Jefferson Anderson (User:Mattisse/jeffy, User:Mattisse/jaANI, User:Mattisse/me6, User:Mattisse/me7, User:Mattisse/Working on/See), who has been determined not to have ever been anyone's sockpuppet.Rosencomet 15:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosencomet, please be aware first, that "HeadlessJeff" is merely a new signature and the actual account making the above comments is still User:Mattisse; second that RasputinJSvengali and Timmy12 have not edited recently enough for checkuser; and third, JeffersonAnderson and Frater Xyzzy were probably sockpuppets of each other, although they were probably not from the Hanuman Das/Ekajati/999 family. Thatcher131 16:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I sure hope no one is confused and thinks this is a different editor; I am pretty sure the name "HeadlessJeff" was around in months past. I'll have to research it. 2. How recent does an edit need to be to allow a checkuser, just for my own info? 3. Please don't accuse someone of "probably having been a sockpuppet" without being able to verify it. If it's too late for me to bring up RasputinJSvengali, who was editing March 9th, then you should treat Frater Xyzzy, who hasn't edited since February, the same.Rosencomet 17:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. There is no user HeadlessJeff [3]

2. The specific time frame is not released, to avoid making it easier for sockpuppeters to escape detection.

3. JA and Frater were confirmed at the time of the Starwood arb, see the workshop page. Frater was indef blocked. I can give you more details but Fred's page is not the place. Thatcher131 17:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had it too.

I plan on self-destructing here. Good work is not rewarded but punished. AGF is awarded only certain favorite people. You think I am a joke I will act like one. I no longer expect any "help" here. This is a closed club where buddies help buddies and I am not and never will be a buddy. So I have nothing to lose. HeadlessJeff 17:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Rosencomet is right. HeadlessJeff 17:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And of course it does not count that User:Jefferson Anderson harassed me and others. So much for unbiasedness or AGF. You guys did nothing to protect me and do everything to protect my attackers. HeadlessJeff 17:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to keep it a secret that User:Khabs was a sock of User:Ekajati?

When Rosencomet is using Khabs as "evidence" against me, you want to cover up the sock relationship. I guess it means nothing in Rosencomet's case. Why is that, when rumors are encouraged about me, but the truth is covered up about Rosencomet's allegations about me? Why? HeadlessJeff 17:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What secret? It's on the list of Ekajati's sockpuppets, and it's there when you click on User:Khabs. All I refered to, if you want to call that "evidence", is BackMaun's behavior towards Khabs. Khabs has nothing to do with my "case", whatever that may be. As far as I can see, he did nothing to you... unless you are admitting you are the same, like the checkuser seems to indicate. Yet it was you, not User:BackMaun, that put the sockpuppet tag on Khabs' userpage. He got blocked for doing what you've done many times as often. If BackMaun is you, and the harassment of User:William M. Connolley, User:Jefferson Anderson and me is your doing, you should be treated the same. Fair is fair. Rosencomet 18:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, since you never replied

That (the overboard tagging) was 10 months ago, lasted for a period of weeks and has not been repeated. At the time I was doing what I thought Wikipedia wanted done in the backlog bins. I apologise for misunderstanding the instructions. I thought I was helping to improve Wikipedia. I was naive. People have complimented me for what I did, even if unwittingly I went overboard. To clarify for the present, you are saying to disregard the steps to follow that Wikipedia has posted with the wikify backlog? How long are you going to hold one mistake against me? Thank you very much. HeadlessJeff 15:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the general agreement is that those tags were correctly placed and the ultimate effect was that the articles were improved. This is the general agreement. Thank you very much. HeadlessJeff 15:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much longer is this going to be held against me by you? Have you looked at my contributions, barnstars etc.? Are you even interested that you are forcing away from Wikipedia an excellent editor? Do you care about the quality of the articles on Wikipedia? It does not seem like it. I would think you would want to encourage good editors instead of disparage them, take away the joy, and encourage them to lose interest in improving Wikipedia. HeadlessJeff 15:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're making me crazy. You might have had the same effect on others. Fred Bauder 17:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is taking you so long to ban me?

Please! Put me out of my misery! HeadlessJeff 17:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is admit that you were Timmy12, BackMaun, Alien666 and whatever other puppets you've used that nobody caught on to, and state that you will not give up creating and using new sock puppets. I'm sure you will then get your wish. Jefferson Anderson 18:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again I ask you: why do you want to keep it a secret that User:Khabs was a sock of User:Ekajati?

You let others spread every possible allegation about me all over. I had to beg to finally get someone to remove huge banners Mattisse is a sockpuppet off of articles. User:Netsnipe would not do it because he was not my waiter, my houseman -- he thought I was asking too much. Such banners are still spread all over the place but I have given up. Oh, to be a favorite like Rosencomet. Not for me though. I am too "prolific." I wrote too many good articles, got too many barnstars, helped out too many editors, failed to promote myself, failed to favor only certain articles, was too unbiased. Very stupid of me. HeadlessJeff 17:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some favorite. I was dragged through two mediations and an arbitration over a period of many months during which nearly everyone who supported me was either banned or pressured into retirement, even though I never once used a sockpuppet. You used at least 18, and never even got reprimanded. And if you are BackMaun, you are still causing problems with the same behavior, while portraying yourself as a victim. I can't think of anyone who is given more special treatment than you, even as you drive advocates and arbitrators crazy. You seem to think writing a lot of articles gives you a license to mistreat other editors.

And, Fred, I'm sorry this conversation has gone this far and filled your talk page. If it will no longer refer to me or the Starwood case, and I don't see additional unwarranted attacks on those who I think should be stood by, I'll stop contributing to this mess here. But in parting, I will ask you and Thatcher if April 21st, the last edit by User:BackMaun, is recent enough for some action, or if the positive checkuser you already ran on Mattisse, BackMaun and Alien666 is enough in light of BackMaun's recent behavior regarding me, Jefferson Anderson, and William M. Connolley. Please reply on my talk page.Rosencomet 18:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timmy12 abused and driven off Wikipedia

Have you ever looked at User:Timmy12 page? A perfectly innocent person who was abused by Wikipedia and driven off apparently forever. Where was the AGF? How could you let this happen? And he asked for help! Over and over he did. HeadlessJeff 18:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I so strongly reminded of the Mock Turtle when reading your comments? Jefferson Anderson 18:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I don't get this one. (Not unusual for dumb old me.) Is this another Wikipedia joke of yours, Mr. Bauder? Since it is Jefferson Anderson, perhaps he is referring to my signing that name previously, after which I receive much mail from Wikipedia asking me to change my email and password to that name. The original post I believe was to my AMA Advocate so apparently I was stalked there. Who else would care but Jefferson Anderson? HeadlessJeff 19:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, it's not stalking to be aware when one is being talked about and to join the conversation. You're the one that's been badmouthing me all over Wikipedia. Please read WP:STALK more carefully and stop with the usual round of false accusations already. Jefferson Anderson 19:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., see also pathos and mania. Jefferson Anderson 19:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. How helpful and kind. HeadlessJeff 19:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is why User:Timmy12 was driven off Wikipedia

he kept finding links like these on Rosencomet's articles, and it was unacceptable to find these links:

http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=Owain
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=paul+krassner
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=ralph+metzner
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=ina+may+gaskin
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=sally+eaton
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=jim+donovan
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=robert+anton+wilson
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=halim+el-dabh
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=yvonne+frost
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=gavin+frost
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=deborah+lipp
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=krippner
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=penczak
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=nema
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=jay+stevens
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=louis+martinie
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=paxson
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=hardin
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=stephen+gaskin -for 2nd time
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=robert+anton+wilson - 2nd time
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=jim+donovan - for 2nd time
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=paul+krassner - for 2nd time
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=krippner - for 2nd time
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=deborah+lipp - for 2nd time
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=ralph+metzner - for 2nd time
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=nema -for 2nd time
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=sally+eaton - for 2nd time
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=halim+el-dabh - for 2nd time
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=robert+anton+wilson - for 2nd time.
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=yvonne+frost - for 2nd time
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=Owain - for 2nd time
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=robert+anton+wilson - 3rd time
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=yvonne+frost - for 3rd time
http:--search.freefind.com/find.html?id=11183588&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=stephen+gaskin] - for 3nd time

Rosencomet was spamming Wikipedia with the help of the sock puppet ring. It seems from your actions, that is fine with you. I had to change the links some as it seems they now are blacklisted, thanks to Timmy 12 HeadlessJeff 18:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of these links were placed there to answer your demands, under your various sockpuppet names, for citations in your mad tagging spree that was the only reason Ekajati got involved in the first place. As I've said many times before, I did not know at the time that search engine links were frowned upon; it was to an internal search engine within a website, and I thought it was a neat way to deal with the fact that there were several references in the same large website that were asembled in a nice little list when you clicked these links instead of creating several references for each article. Timmy12 needn't have bothered, and he was certainly not civil about it; the moment I got a firm statement from an arbitrator that the external link citations were not necessary, I deleted any that were left myself.

And I am not convinced that Timmy12 wasn't either you, or working under your direction, or in tandem with you; and as the arbitration said, two or more editors who edit as one can be viewed as a single editor. If Timmy12 was an innocent, I feel sorry that you sucked him into this thing, just as I feel sorry that you instigated Ekajati and Co. into their extreme reactions and lost Wikipedia their editing, and Ars Scriptor's, and others. You are the one who is never made to follow the same rules as other editors. Fair is fair. Rosencomet 19:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. Your spamming and your sock puppet support was totally my fault. I have apologised to you for any misery I may have caused you but you prefer not to accept and not to move on. So, I cannot either. The joy is gone. So I will join you on the side of evil. Please accept me. HeadlessJeff 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timmy was told to stop asking for help on ANI as it was getting to be a drag to admins. HeadlessJeff 18:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of socks, I think it's time to wad one up and chew on it. ;0 - Crockspot 18:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. HeadlessJeff 19:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well kick off your shoes and get to it then. - Crockspot 19:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that Crockspot is right, of course. What is taking so long? As he/she says (my bet is a male) "kick off your shoes and get to it then." HeadlessJeff 19:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you don't "get it", I believe that Crockspot is suggesting that you gag yourself with your own (physical) socks. Jefferson Anderson 19:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, is that what he is saying? I didn't get it. Which socks is he refering to? Perhaps you know and can advise me. HeadlessJeff 19:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning:

. Next one to post here gets blocked. Back away from each other, take a break, go edit something else, walk your dog, whatever. Please. Now. Thatcher131 19:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected Sockpuppet: Mattisse (4th) case

I have opened this case, having seen too little real action taken on this situation, and not wishing to be told once again that it is too late to investigate the issue. [4] Rosencomet 21:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU procedure

Fred, I apologise, I'm not totally unfamiliar with checkuser process and policy, so I have a couple of questions. How long since an editor has stopped editing can a report be conclusive? How long does an individual case usually take? Regards, Iamunknown 05:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that you are biased

I am not alone in my thinking as many think the same. Since 65 is approaching for your, might be a good time to find something else to do beisides making refusing to provide help to the "out" people on Wikipedia. Sinderely, --Mattisse 06:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to be the king. (Mel Brooks). But true, would you agree? Sincerenly, --Mattisse 06:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh pleae weight in on my nth suspected sock puppet case.

Being a fan of Rosencoment as it seems, here is your chhance. Dont't want you to msis it. Get rid of that old woman with the unruly grandchildren. She is over 18 after all, which surely disqualifies her from Wikipedial as just an old frump who happens to know how to write an copy editl Of minimal importance on Wikipedia compared to being a young jock.(But your can fantasise as the king)! Somcerely, --Mattisse 06:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for your views

Regarding the recent fuss over the Israeli military relations article. I've created Israel-United States military relations partly as a merge of that article, partly as a content fork of Israel-United States relations (which it's intended to parallel) and partly as a chunk of new content sourced largely from Jane's. The format is intended to be usable as a standard template across multiple articles of this type - see the explanation on Talk:Israel-United States military relations. I've not announced it widely yet because I want to get some views from sensible (!) editors first; could you take a look and let me know what you think? -- ChrisO 00:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for banning a user for breaking 3RR

Hello Fred Bauder, User:Samuel Luo (an involved party in pending ArbCom case [5]), is currently engaged in a revert war; see [6]. He has already broken the 3RR. ---Olaf Stephanos 00:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your input would be good

I saw you voted in the AFD for this page. Check out the current straw poll at Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#A_quick_straw_poll for a present initiative to rename the page.--Urthogie 13:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're probably sick of this, but...

I'm not sure who to get help from on this, but User:Mattisse is presently engaged in a tagging spree on Talk:Starwood Festival, with 9 so far, and the addition of lots of old information about the Ekajati sockpuppets (who were all blocked two months ago). She is also evidentally ramping up an attack on Thatcher131, who in my opinion was trying very hard to calm her down and try to help her; and incidentaly using left-handed personal attacks against me, referring to Thatcher as suggesting she "lower herself to my level" and other such talk. I don't have to tell you about her treatment of you; it's right on this talk page. She treated SilkTork the same, and there have been others in the recent past.

I would like to support Thatcher131 and you in any way I can, but I don't know if there IS a way that you would consider a help. I certainly think it's time to declare the patience of the Wikipedia community exhausted with this pattern of behavior and constant incitement, but that's just me. In any event, I added a link to the four Mattisse sockpuppet cases and the list of 18 socks to her diatribe on Talk:Starwood Festival with the note that I'd much prefer someone delete both her and my posts on this subject and help us avoid a revert war. I wanted you to know before I was accused of violating the arbitration's warnng against aggressive editing, but this is obviously not what they were referring to. This has nothing to do with the content of the article, but IMO just Mattisse picking fights, and I don't want another bad scene to happen here. I hope you can help. If you prefer not to get involved, I can well understand, but in that event your advice would be welcome.

With all due respect, how long will it take before Mattisse is blocked, at least temporarily, just for her constant uncivility and provocation? When will she actually retire or at least take the "Wikibreak" she keeps threatening? Rosencomet 20:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS The tags are now being placed in the middle of paragraphs of text. None are signed. Rosencomet 20:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thatcher131 has been kind enough to take care of these deletions. I hope you don't mind having been kept aware of the situation. The conversations between them on Thatcher's talk page are quite enlightening (if you have a ridiculous amount of time to kill). :-) Rosencomet 20:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason's unblocking

I was under the impression that such unblocking required at minimum the general consent of the ArbCom given that there was a communal ban. Am I missing something here? JoshuaZ 01:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason appealed his community ban to ArbCom. I agree with the unblock. He is under strict remedies and will be under close scrutiny. Hopefully the time away from the project helped. FloNight 01:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The indefinite ban had very, very strong community support, and I do not think his unblocking will prove to be a popular or wise decision. Jason caused long-running and wide-spread disruption and is a skilled sock puppet master, running dozens of sock puppets that wasted literally hundreds of hours of productive editors time to uncover. Time of volunteers, let's keep in mind, that could have been better spent editing the encyclopedia. And all this for a very, very low-return-on-investment contributor; I can not think of a single positive and significant contribution Jason has made to the project. If his nonsense and self-promotion factory starts up at Wikipedia again, I'll one of those in a very long line of editors and admins clamoring for this block to be reinstated. The community is going to have a very, very low threshold for tolerance of his shenanigans again. FeloniousMonk 02:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I respect the ArbCom's decision in this regard, I must say that it seems unwise. I would feel much more comfortable with this if Jason would promise 1) not to use sockpuppets any more and 2) clarify whether he thinks Christians should be involved in Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 02:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is required to use one account. Hopefully he will not push his particular brand of Christianity. Fred Bauder 02:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also he apologized for using sockpuppets and promises to work well with other editors. FloNight 03:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "new user" AthurR3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added a link of his the other day. He denied his poor behavior the other day. I am also against the unblock.Arbustoo 06:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this for real? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary Within five hours of his unblock he managed to mention his organization and linked to a google search of it. Arbustoo 06:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, in the last couple of weeks Gastrich was sockpuppeting to add himself to articles and asking for his sites to be removed from the blacklist, again using an undeclared sockpuppet (his main account is blocked) on Meta; his latest sock was indefed for this on Meta on 15 April [7]. As far as I can tell, and according to the unanimous community ban debate which followed his continued sockpuppeting after his ArbCom ban, Jason Gastrich is not capable of making any edits other than to push his POV and his vain objectives. He is the single most disruptive user I ever encountered, he uses cybersquatting, off-wiki solicitation, sockpuppets, meatpuppets, ah-hominem attacks, and more to the point as far as I can tell not one of the substantial community of editors and admins whose time was sapped by the original problems was consulted over this. I am really really disappointed. Gastrich is, was and always will be a vanity spamming POV pusher, and the project needs him about as much it needs links to Encyclopaedia Dramatica. He's already "Gastroturfing" an AfD by inserting meaningless Google searches and insisting that having "an address" on Google is evidence of encyclopaedic notability; he knows this is nto true because he is experienced in AfD from a year back.

Given that block and ban evading sockpuppetry was one of the worst black marks against him, AthurR3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dryve (second nomination) would indicate that he came back as sockpuppets, was found out, appealed to you and found a soft spot. Gastrick is desperate to use Wikipedia o promote himself and his agenda.

A lot of us, myself included, expended much effort trying to persuade him to be less disruptive. We failed. We failed because he explicitly states that where his personal beliefs conflict with Wikipedia policy, his beliefs must win. Guy (Help!) 07:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add Gastrich's cybersquatting of Michael Newdow's name to a list of spam. Here's a list of his sock puppet activity at that article:

29 March 2007 930Luau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Add Gastrich's, which he cybersquatted
13 July 2006 Michael Bonjorno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[13]
2 February 2006 Turkmen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[14]
21 December 2005 Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[15]

I think this case shows a fine example of why Gastrich came to wikipedia. Arbustoo 18:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make your suggestion here. Fred Bauder 21:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archive links

Fred,

Do I have to have links to my talk page's archives? I'd prefer to avoid linking them to my talk page. Arbustoo added them after I removed them, so I wanted to check with you before I did anything. --Jason Gastrich 06:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]