User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 42

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Damir Mišić

Hello. I'm sorry to bother you yet gain about User:Alkalada, but Akhilleus advised me to contact you after I left this message on his talk page.

Hello. I was the person who initiated this report. I noticed that when you (Akhilleus) closed the discussion, User:Hahahihihoho, User:Thunderman and User:Horde Zla are all indef blocked for being the disruptive troll, Hahahihihoho. But I also noticed that User:Alkalada (who is a 100% proven sock of Hahahihihoho) is not currently indef blocked as his sock. I think this is not the right decision; besides the fact that he is Hahahihihoho, User:Fred Bauder gave User:Alkalada another chance and unblocked him. But then, two days after the unblock, he was blocked again - this time for one week, for incivility, personal attacks etc. After that block expired, Alkalada was blocked yet again - this time for one month (See his block log). This latest block expired recently, and he has immediately jumped straight back into his POV editing, personal attacks and blind reverts. I believe this user will never learn from his blocks, and will never change his ways. I think it's only fair that he be indef blocked, just like all the other socks of User:Hahahihihoho. —KingIvan 05:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not indefinetly blocked Ivan, please, please... get it!

And in EVERY revet I made I have explained myself on the talkpages, Fred Bauer, you can watch and see it yourself. I have clearly stated why I edit.

Btw... please... bann user Semberac, he uses vandalism without any references and he is calling all bosniaks lier. He makes personal attacks.

Thanks // Alkalada 13:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Alkalada's post-

You are indefinitely blocked. Since it is proven that you are Hahahihihoho, and you and most of your sockpuppets are indef blocked, your Alkalada account should be indef blocked as well, for the sake of consistency, as all of your other accounts are blocked based heavily on your POV edits - your account named "Alkalda" is no different. Furthermore, Semberac did not use vandalism of any sort; he merely reverted your unsourced/POV edits - vandalism and content dispute are very different things.

New post for Fred Bauder- Pretty much all of your admin actions have been good decisions, but I must say, unblocking Hahahihihoho/Alkalada most certainly was not a good idea. It really is 100% certain now that he has not and will not learn how to behave here on Wikipedia. Please reinstate the indef block. —KingIvan 01:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Urgent last request- Please reply

My last request would me for you to disengage the autoblock.
Please try to understand. This is only my temporary IP. I dont mind you banning my real IP. I can promise you I wont be editing at all. Please also take into consideration the "offences". I am not a vandal. I really wish you to take my last request seriously. I am asking you as a friend, as I have always had my best intentions on Wikipedia, and I dont deserve a dishonourable discharge. please let me know what you can do for me. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 23:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 03:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

About evidences

I was wondering how days more do I have to add them. As you noticied, the last days I more writen text than direct diff. sor of evidence because the last few days I didn't have much time and diff. time are much more time consuming. So, how much time do I have left? Fad (ix) 16:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Appeal of probation

As you were one of the few voices of sanity during the highways arbitration case, I would appreciate your support in my effort to have my probation lifted. Thanks. —phh (^t/_c) 13:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Free Republic case

Fred, in re: Free Republic, I wanted to be sure you are aware of a thread on AN/I pointing to [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795382/posts this] from Free Rpublic, where BryanFromPalatine recruits more editors; and this alleging that Dean Hinnen is BryanFromPalatine. Bryan has been community banned for disruption, there isn't much evidence on the case page relating to this as he was banned so what was the point of going into it. However there is broad sentiment for banning Dean as a sock and/or meat puppet even before American Politics Journal made its allegations, so I was surprised to see you considering an article ban only. Cheers and keep up the good work (one Wikipedia job I will never seek, to be sure). Thatcher131 13:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Proposed decision#Blocking of David Levy

You expressed the opinion that Phil's decision to block me for "trolling" was "appropriate." Could you please explain your reasoning? Thanks. —David Levy 15:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the controversy which resulted in the blocking related to this exchange. Fred Bauder 16:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why was it appropriate for Phil to label my good-faith editing "trolling" and block me while he and I were engaged in a content dispute? Do you take issue with my criticism of Phil's decision to utilize the administrative rollback function in a content dispute (which the ArbCom unanimously agreed is inappropriate)? Should I not have directed Phil to the page on which the relevant issue was under discussion (with no consensus for his actions)? —David Levy 16:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you find that discussion now. I have looked and could not find it. I believe my objection was to posting of logs, or rather reference to logs that could not be posted, but I'm not sure. Fred Bauder 17:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is archived here. I was one of several editors who reverted the removal of a question for which there was no consensus regarding its appropriateness (or lack thereof). Phil (who directly opposed me in this dispute) blocked me for "trolling" (which was a flagrantly false accusation of deliberate, bad-faith disruption), and an uninvolved sysop (Steel359) unblocked me three minutes later. —David Levy 18:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please try to avoid inserting material derived from drama sites in the future. That's the problem. Fred Bauder 18:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

1. You're retroactively applying a subsequent ArbCom ruling. At the time, the aforementioned discussion and clear lack of consensus for the question removal were all that we had to go by.

2. You're condoning Phil's characterization of my edits as "trolling" (which refers to a bad-faith act of intentionally trying to cause disruption). Do you believe that I was trolling? How about the three other editors (including two other administrators) who reverted the question removal? —David Levy 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong, but that's the reason. Fred Bauder 19:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for clarifying. Perhaps you could add a notation to this effect. —David Levy 20:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, Fred! I sincerely appreciate it.  :-) —David Levy 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

BabyDweezil

Thanks for letting me know, Fred. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Clayboy

Wouldn't it be better to delete the talk page as well? There are a lot of things there too which can be "detrimental to the reputation of Wikipedia". - Aksi_great (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...

WP:V, WP:NOR, as well as WP:RS was superseded by WP:A. Thought you'd like to know that. :) - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 23:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You are prominently mentioned on Free Republic!

By our departed 'friend' 'Bryno' [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795382/posts?q=1&&page=201 Freeper Funnies] and an update to the Bryno situation. Bryno exposed - FaAfA (yap) 06:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have time please vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination)

Fred Bauder I am terribly sorry to bother you, and I honestly don't know which way you would vote. I do think that editors there regard you enough so that the mere act of voting would go toward ending this latest dispute. (I realize when you re-wrote the article you didn't want to have to "babysit" it for lack of a better term, so please understand that I would not have come here for anything else than to save what I believe is an informative article.) Thank you for your time, Anynobody 07:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to participate, even though it wasn't what I was hoping for I appreciate your response. Anynobody 23:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Fred. Thank you for your support of my Schwarz nomination and thank you very much for your past efforts at minimizing the inappropriate use of that article. You might want to copy-edit your vote as you seem to have tripped over a double negative (smile) Thanks again. --Justanother 17:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the FR RFAr proposed decision

Fred - I've documented some problems with the FR RFAr proposed decision that need to be addressed, and hopefully rectified. Please see Problems_with_the_proposed_decision and respond there. Thanks. - FaAfA (yap) 03:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Trodel/Barbara Schwarz

Trodel/Barbara Schwarz - Thanks --Justanother 16:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I took so long

Dear Mr. Bauder, I have just read your January invitation to the arbitration and apologize as I took an extended break from Wikipedia after trying to get involved in improving the Waldorf article - for the readers. Generally, my frustration was that there seemed to be much "jockying for position" among various factions and no real sense of responsibility toward presenting a clear, balanced article about Waldorf education (period). I told a previous arbitrator and will have to tell you the same that I wish you the very best but am not interested in participating in any way.

Perhaps there are some who wish to use this type of behavior to drive everyone else away so they can promote a skewed viewpoint, but if that is all they have time for in their lives, well, I feel quite sorry for them.

I see the article is up with a nice photo, but I will choose to not even read it - ever. My experience was THAT bad.

 Wonderactivist 18:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Again?

"... Eventually I managed to get most of these biographies reinstated by waiting several months and then trying again, when Louis Blair was not looking. ..." - Sam Sloan (Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:12 pm)

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_frm/thread/7d8fd30b87dcbe95?scoring=d&hl=en

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=68693060#Sam_Sloan

(This is posted here by Louis Blair (March 13, 2007))

Socionomics

Now that the Robert Prechter case has closed, is it time to delete Socionomics? TML 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Its talk page should go, too. TML 02:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Fred: Thanks for taking the time and effort to look at the evidence and reach decisions in the Starwood Arbitration. While I personally might wish for a stronger decision on Rosencomet's future actions relating to these articles, I realize this was not an easy case in some ways. I believe that this case should never have reached the level of Arbcom in the normal course of Wikipedia discussion/consensus, policy application, and conflict resolution. In my opinion, there is little about the central dispute in this matter that isn't adequately and rather definitively covered in already existing policy. (Leaving aside the actions of the Ekajati, et al. sockpuppet hydra.) Nonetheless, I greatly appreciate your efforts toward resolving the situation. Thank you again. --Pig^man_dialogue 17:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation

You should have just gotten two emails; one with one phrase, the other ending in a question, neither signed with an encrypted key as the first was. Feel free to delete this after you have read it. -- Avi 20:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Strangeness on your talk page

Very weird, but when I view your talk page, I get the "you have new messages" alert displayed at the top, even though my own talk page has not been edited for days. I thought maybe you had hard code on your page causing that to display, but I don't see anything. Doesn't seem to happen when I view any other pages, talk or otherwise. Bizarre, eh? - Crockspot 19:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, that strangeness suddenly just ceased when I left the above message. I guess your talk page REALLY wanted to hear from me. - Crockspot 20:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Starwood arbitration

Since this case looks finished, please vote to close. The case is three months old and I'd like to close it tonight or tomorrow morning. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 20:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Related to anthroposophy

Hello! I started a discussion on a Talk:Anthroposophy#About anthroposophical sources. I was told that I should ask you to join it. Could you engage on a conversation there, please? Erdanion 20:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Starwood, Round 900

Hi Fred, could you take a look at what is happening here: Talk:Starwood Festival#Request For Comment: Child Care and Youth Programming? After one edit to the Starwood article, where I removed a phrase that seemed to me to be very advert-like, Rosencomet (talk · contribs) has started an RfC over the phrase. I think he is being very WP:OWNy. He's also once again veering into personal attack territory. The previous RfCs clearly expressed that Rosencomet has a WP:COI conflict of interest in this matter, and shouldn't be working on this article at all. It has been suggested in the arbitration that Rosencomet avoid "editing aggressively". While he has not been edit-warring on the article itself, I consider his attacks and accusations on the article talk page, in the arbitration, and on various talk pages, to certainly be "aggressive". He is also Canvassing for this RfC: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] . Rosencomet is no longer a newbie, and has been told many times that this sort of behaviour is wrong. He is also back to his habit of posting the same long rants and accusations on the talk page, and then copying and pasting them onto my talk page, even though I (and others) have expressly requested that he not do this. Thanks. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for adding so much text to your talk page, but I don't feel I can let this go without comment. I feel that I am being sucked into a battle when all I want is to edit in peace, and in compliance with what I have been told I can and should do.

Comment Once again, Kathryn is trying to prejudice this arbitration against me even concerning discussions on a talk page. I added what I consider to be a quite valid feature of this event, child care and youth programming, under the appropriate heading. When Kathryn deleted it, I did NOT revert it, but discussed it on the talk page. But the response that came from Pigman (concurred with by Kathryn) showed, IMO, that the issue of the addition being "promotional" was just a cover for their personal and unsupported conclusions about the morality or "family-friendliness" of both the programming and the "social atmosphere" of the event.

Well, the reason it strikes me as advertising copy in this article is because of the strong integration of drugs and sex into the Starwood programming and in the social atmosphere outside of programming.

Yes, I admit this offended me, and my reaction reflected that. If there was any "attack", I believe it was this unsupported negative characterization. THAT is what my strong words were about, not just that a sentence I added was deleted. (Perhaps they were baiting me; I don't know.)

I opened the RFC only AFTER Pigman's comments, to focus on the issue of whether a mention of the fact that the event has child care and youth programming was appropriate under the heading "Activities". (I also hoped that this would help further differentiate between Starwood and WinterStar, which they have been pushing to have merged.) I had pointed out that whole paragraphs devoted to such programming exist in the articles of similar events, and quoted them. It seemed to me that the responses, for the most part, supported keeping the mention of the programming, but argued that the term "family friendly" may not be appropriate for various reasons. I accepted this, and re-posted the info without the characterization. Another editor has now deleted it saying (as he has said in the past) that child care and youth programming is "utterly unnotable". Again, I did not revert him, but asked for an explanation as to why he thought so, and whether his evaluation extends to the other articles with much more extensive language describing their similar programming.

I do not think I have done anything wrong here. I am asking for the opinions of other editors on the talk page of the article and not engaging in a revert war. Kathryn and Pigman, however, continue to ignore the conclusion of this arbitration that my editing is not prohibited, and seem to conclude that ANY defense of my positions, even on the talk pages, should be regarded as "agressive editing". Kathryn even calls asking for an RFC agressive editing.

I sincerely believe that Pigman, Kathryn and Weniwediwiki (who, on these issues, edit as one) have shown enough NPOV on this issue that they should be given the same admonishment against agressively editing these articles as I have been giving. They have shown a pattern of following my contributions far beyond this article, have called two mediations and an arbitration (and, IMO, ignored their results), have defended the actions of a serial sockpuppeteer on many of the articles I have created and/or contributed to, and are now casting aspersions on the subject of this article with no cited sources. I am not asking for blocks or punitive action, but I would like some recognition that much of this unpleasantness has been (and continues to be) instigated by this group. I would really like to see it stop; I certainly have not visited the articles they create or contribute to, reverted their work, and fought battles about it that drew in many other editors and arbitrators.

As for canvassing, I merely informed several people who had commented on issues regarding this article that an RFC had been opened, and welcomed their input. I get such notifications from others at times. I said not one word about how I thought they should vote and, in fact, some of them did not support my position. If I have done something wrong there, I apologize; this was the first RFC I've ever called. Rosencomet 19:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

armenia-azerbaijan arbitration workpage

I would like to draw your and ARbcom members attention to a bulk of personal attacks and accusation with which user:Fadix flooded workshop page. He openly admits that he will continue his attacks. It is absolutely unacceptable. Workshop page is destroyed. It is very bizzare that almost no other Armenian users participate in the discussion despite there are several involved. I have feeling that they communicated with each other and this is a strategy: Fadix bombs and tarnishes all Azeri editors involved (me, Adil, Atabek and Grandmaster). We have to response to all these allegations. And here is clear picture - Fadix vs. 4 bad Azeri editors. We can not keep silence because he constantly accuses us in sock- and meat pupetting, harassing, saying that we are government representatives, and so on. Maybe he wants that someone from us will lose his temper and make personal attacks. That will equal the situation because now several Armenian editors are listed in workshop for personal attacks. How long it will be allowed to harrass us - he repeats over and over again that we are oficial reps, etc. I kindly and urgently request temporary injection - no more personal attacks and harrasment on workshop page. --Dacy69 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)