User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 55

personal attak?

where i can report personal attacks? [1] --Ilhanli (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.

User:Zeraeph

I see that you've protected the pages for Zeraeph. I am wondering if you could post a message on his page, or drop him an e mail for us. The Psychology Workgroup at Citizendium is requesting his application as an author/editor. Thank you. Michael J. Formica, Editor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.118.244 (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Dbachmann Arbcom case

Sorry if this is seen as presumptuous or speaking out of turn, but there have been a few alternative proposals of action in the case you had earlier expressed opinions in. You may wish, at some point, to review the subsequent proposals and see if you would agree to any of them as well. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible problem with sign-up page on Wikinfo

Hi - have you seen Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Contacting wikinfo? It sound as through there may be a problem with the reCAPTCHA on the sign-up page. Warofdreams talk 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Request to unblock User:vittala

I have just become aware that an editor called user:vittala has been banned as a sockpuppet of mine. This is not true, and I'd like to see his/her account unblocked. Vittala is not me, nor does Vittala even live in the same state as me. I'd like very much to know by what evidence Vittala was declared a sock-puppet of anyone, much less specifically me, and who did it. Rosencomet (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I know who did it: Guy, who has been involved with conflicts with me before, and voted on two deletion nominations Vittala voted on. Vittala is a newcomer who is not me, was not recruited by me, and has not been able to edit other matters because of this block, placed just hours after hir first edits. This would not look like a "single purpose account" had this speedy block not been placed. This block was placed while the nominations were still open, too, which I believe is improper as well. Yes, Vittala chose to make his first edits comments on these two deletion nominations, but it was not done at my direction but by Vittala's own choice. And none of this bears on the stated reason for the block; the untrue and unsupported accusation that we are the same person. Rosencomet (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to a suggestion by User:Newyorkbrad, User:Vittala has been unblocked as a result of a discussion on WP:ANI, and the editor who did it has agreed to "keep an eye on him". The expressed feelings were that an indefinite instablock with no discussion was too harsh and quick a reaction under the circumstances, and that it was a case of "biting the newbie". Thanks as well for your attention to the issue. Rosencomet (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Your image

Geekmaster1 (talk · contribs) defaced your image on January 23, which I reverted today. TML (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought you looked different! I should have realised when I saw that you no longer looked like your brother... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please desist from gratuitous personal insults in your arbitrator votes

Yes, please do that. Claiming that somebody has a "disruptive personality",[2] or indeed expressing any kind of negative opinion about a user's personality, is offensive and impertinent. Please try to conduct yourself appropriately on arbitration pages. Bishonen | talk 19:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC).

How dare you refer to me as an emotional cripple? Giano (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he was saying that the proposed resolution was "wimpy" (i.e., that it lacks teeth, impact, etc.)--which is still an odd thing to say, since he seemed to be voting in favor of the harshest penalties. I don't think anyone as calling you wimpy.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fred, please do not call people names on the proposed decision page. You may think the proposed sanction is "wimpy", but there's absolutely no reason to call someone a "bull in the china closet," a "disruptive personality" and a "bad apple". Tensions are high on that arbcom and it doesn't help if the arbitrators join in on the name calling. Thank you. SGT Tex (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that Bauder, who did not seek re-election last December, has been on a crusade to drive out valuable mainspace contributors Giano, Bishonen, and Geogre. see for exampleWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Proposed_decision#Geogre_desysopped His partial conducts and biased rhetorics are a disgrace to the arbitration committee. However, it is not a surprise to see him seize this opportunity (most likely his last arbCom case in his tenure) to seek revenge in his personal vendetta.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry too much CG, as I said the other day, they are all retiring in disgrace now anyway. No one is fooled any longer. Giano (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I often have the urge to contribute a lot to this site, but I am eventually able to remind myself of instances like this and remember that it just is not worth it. I don't know why Giano takes all this abuse. I would've quit a long time ago and let the drama mongers continue to rule the site, as Jimbo desires. As long as malicious behavior like this is still allowed, Wikipedia is an extremely flawed project. I do not feel safe that any information I contribute, whether it be a full article of a basketball tournament or a fair use rationale on an image, will remain standing in 2010. It's not worth it. I regret every contribution I've ever made to the mainspace. SashaNein (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop being such a drama queen! _→AzaToth 09:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If such were true, I'd be an administrator by now. SashaNein (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Change agent

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Change agent, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for more info

Hi Fred, I really hate to do this, but could I ask you to see if you remember something about an incident about a year and a half ago when Mantanmoreland was using multiple accounts on one article? It's important regarding an ongoing discussion regarding the links between Mantanmoreland and another account. Let me know if you can help. Thanks.. SirFozzie (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fred; the specific question we're trying to either confirm or rule out is whether the Tomstoner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account turned up in your checkuser of Mantanmoreland. Some editors think Mantanmoreland referred to Tomstoner's edits as his own. We'd just like to know one way or the other whether you have any input regarding that. Thanks for your help. Durova^Charge! 02:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The da Vinci Barnstar

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For extreme helpfullness on privacy issues Law Lord (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about an old RFCU

Hi Fred, I asked Jpgordon a question on his talk page, the link is [3]. I was hoping you might be willing to discuss it as well. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant section in blocked User talk:A.Z.

Hi Fred. Would it be possible to remove, from the above user talk, the section/link on the AfD debate for the article on M. Giuliano ? First, that debate is now over and the user is blocked anyway. Second, the user has something to do with peadophilia, and it is quite annoying that his user talk comes up when you click "what links here" in the Giuliano article. Thanks for your cooperation. Cheers. --CCorward (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: 142.22.209.125

It is my understanding that being a school IP is no reason to curtail blocks or block length (else {{schoolblock}} would essentially be useless, no?), and in fact I have blocked dozens of such IPs for lengths of time longer than 2 weeks several times before. I actually blocked based on this edit, not whatever was oversighted. This vandalism was made directly after the expiration of a 1 week block, so a 2 week block was appropriate under the circumstances IMO. I will defer to your judgment, however, so I have no problem with you unblocking if you feel that is the appropriate action. (I just refeshed my other window seeing you in fact reblocked, however, making this moot :P). Cheers VegaDark (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Tasc0 unblock

I feel you went a little to far with you unblock on User:Tasc0. Pretty much every user who does a death threat on wikipedia get blocked indefinetely, why should this user be different, because he WAS a good User? The threats he left were some of the most disturbing and horrorific comments I have ever seen and I feel his unblock should be reviewed ASAP. Shame on you Fred, shame on you for unblocking this mad man. 166.109.97.101 (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please help

Dear Fred,

I am hoping you can help me. It's the same old problem I've been experiencing with Pigman, Kathryn and Mattisse. In particular, Kathryn has been claiming that I have no right to edit any article about anyone who at any time has appeared at the Starwood Festival or WinterStar Symposium, or even any author who has ever been published by Llewellyn Worldwide. I have examired the COI guidelines, and do not believe that my edits are in violation of any rules.

I work with ACE, the people who run the two events, on a voluntary basis. I have no more vote than anyone else, and that's a group that has over thirty members, when they decide who will be booked or not. Most of those appearing do so for free. I receive no money from ACE for ANYTHING I do. I do not, as Kathryn keeps characterizing it, "hire" anyone. I also do not sell anything; ACE sells books, CDs, tapes and T-shirts, primarily at the events. My actual living is made in an entirely different way.

To say that I can't edit an article about an author like, say, Gavin Frost (who has never been paid to appear at Starwood) or a theatre group like ArcheDream (who has appeared twice in the 27-year history of the event), would be like saying that no one who works on a Star Trek convention can edit the articles of any cast member, author, etc who's ever appeared there. We're not talking about promotional edits or links to a commercial website; she objects to ANY editing[4].

Furthermore, because ACE was given permission to re-issue a few Llewellyn tapes in the eighties, she claims I have no right to edit ANY article by an author who has been published by Llewellyn Worldwide, the biggest occult publisher in the world! She characterizes the Lewellyn "stable" of authors as "basically the same crowd you hire for Starwood", which is absurd. First, I hire no one; submissions for these events are voted on by a committee which can consist of as many as 30 members, and I have no greater vote than any other. Second, Starwood has hosted a handful of Llewellyn authors (among over a hundred speakers and entertainers of all sorts); it would be difficult to run a Neopagan festival without booking authors who have at least one Llewellyn title. Third, there are hundreds of Llewellyn authors. Llewellyn is over 100 years old, with authors from around the world. Fourth, I have never had a financial relationship with Llewellyn, though that's what she keeps saying, nor have I ever worked for them or made a penny personally from them. ACE has sold some tapes and CDs reissued from old Llewellyn tapes, and ALL revenue that comes to ACE goes into ACE programs. ACE has no paid employees, nor stockholders. To bar me from editing any Llewellyn authors would not only be barring me from the majority of occult authors at all, but it would practically be like telling someone who helps organize a Star Trek convention that he can't edit anyone who appeared on NBC or a Paramount movie, or someone who organizes a comic book con that he can't edit any articles about Marvel comics, characters, films, etc since the con got permission to sell T-Shirts with Spider-Man on them, or had Stan Lee speak there.

This comes after Mattisse (I'm sure you remember her activities), Pigman and Kathryn went on a spree in January, tagging half of the articles I've written or worked on with citation requests (which is just how the whole problem I had a year ago began), and edited or rewrote much of my work. I feel that they were trying to instigate a revert war so they could entrap me into violations that would get me in trouble with the arbitrators I had previously been called before (including you), and this is supported by Pigman's conversations with Thatcher and on the COI noticeboard and the Enforcement noticeboard. Pigman maintains a watchlist solely made up of all the articles I have created or contributed to[5]. Meanwhile, rather than fighting, I was pleading for help from Thatcher (which never came).

I desperately need to have an arbitrator, preferably from the cases I had against me, state for the record that I am not violating the arbitration, and am not disallowed to edit articles by either speakers or entertainers simply because somewhere in their appearance history there was one or more appearance at the Starwood Festival or WinterStar Symposium, events run by an organization I am a volunteer with and neither receive payment from nor hire for. I also need a statement that there is no reason I can't edit an article about a Llewellyn author.

I have not been editing in a promotional manner, nor edit-warring. I have been discussing my edits on the talk pages whenever they are in conflict with another editor. What I really want is for someone to get the tag-team of Pigman, Kathryn and Mattisse to get off my case. It is causing me a great deal of anxiety, and interfering with editing which I believe has improved the articles I've worked on and made a contribution to Wikipedia.

I am hoping you can and will help me. I do not want to be dragged through another conflict with these editors, nor do I want to be driven from Wikipedia by their actions. Please reply on my talk page.

Sincerely, Rosencomet (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to edit any article, including articles about associates, provided you cite reliable sources. It is best to not rely on personal knowledge. Fred Talk 00:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response. I hope this will help stop Kathryn and Pigman from claiming that I am violating Wikipedia policies by editing these articles. I appreciate your quick attention, and hope my editing lives up to Wikipedia standards. Rosencomet (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Update

Just as an update, I posted this in response to Kathryn's latest accusation of me violating Wikipedia policies and my creation of an article about an event held in the 1970s by Llewellyn International, which she claimed I had a "past business arrangement" with (I did not) and that "whose stable of authors are basically the same crowd you hire for Starwood" (which is untrue). She also said that I was "editing WP:COI articles of people whom you have hired to perform at the Starwood Festival" (I do not hire people) and "I am stunned that you are back to violating these policies".

"I specifically asked Fred Bauder to "state for the record that I am not violating the arbitration, and am not disallowed to edit articles by either speakers or entertainers simply because somewhere in their appearance history there was one or more appearance at the Starwood Festival or WinterStar Symposium, events run by an organization I am a volunteer with and neither receive payment from nor hire for. I also need a statement that there is no reason I can't edit an article about a Llewellyn author."

His reply was "You are welcome to edit any article, including articles about associates, provided you cite reliable sources. It is best to not rely on personal knowledge."

I hope this finally settles this issue, and I can continue editing articles without the constant accusations that I am violating Wikipedia policies by doing so. I have tried to be careful about avoiding original research, properly citing sources (with a preference to third-party sources; however, Wikipedia policy clearly allows for non-third-party sources in some circumstances, such as author's official websites), and other Wikipedia policies & guidelines. In the future, I would ask that you and Pigman limit your objections (if you must object at all) to the actual edits I do, rather than the fact that I am the one who has done them."

Pigman posted a response, for some reason, which in part said:

"I would also hope that you have a better understanding of Wikipedia structure/process to know that the opinion of a single (former) Arbcom member is not some dispensation of approval from an on-high authority toward your actions and editing. I would also note that Fred's comments show he has not been particularly attentive in these matters, either during the Starwood Arbcom case or to your current activities. Fred is a longtime editor expressing his opinion to you and I would implore you to refrain from using his words as a justification or excuse for disregarding policy."

I must say, and have stated on my talk page (where all this is), that I found it appallingly disrespectful to shrug off your statements this way and to imply that you made them without thought or consideration. I also told him that I had also requested comment from Newyorkbrad, who specifically said "it might be best if Fred, who wrote the prior decisions, and who has now left the committee so he would not have the problem of prejudging a situation that might come before the committee again, or another arbitrator who was on the committee last year, were to look into the issue." I also told him that it is my opinion that he and Kathryn have personal issues concerning me, ACE, and Starwood (giving an example of supporting evidence), seem to have taken it upon themselves to become the "Rosencomet watchdogs" (citing Pigman's watchlist comprised wholly of articles I have written or edited), and that I felt it created a hostile environment and asked that they back off following and editing my work. If they really think I am violating policies, I feel they should arrange for me to be watched by someone who is objective and won't nitpick and set the bar higher than other editors.

You can see all this on my talk page. I am informing you of this in case Pigman and Kathryn insist on pushing this, despite my pleas to arbitrators and comments by both you and, in the past, Thatcher that I am not editing in any way that merits blocking or punative action. I hope this will not escalate, but the out-of-the-blue tagging and editing spree they (with Mattisse) did a couple months ago makes me fear that they are not through using me as their personal project. Rosencomet (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem. I am quite sympathetic to you, and probably willing to overlook minor matters others might not. But basically, it is my belief that, if you use reliable sources and commonsense, you can edit articles regarding people and organizations you are associated with successfully. They are probably correct that I am somewhat discredited, having been on the losing side of several important disputes. Fred Talk 02:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I do not want these conflicts, and I'm willing to defend my edits on their own basis. It's just this "you aren't allowed to edit them at all in any way" business that made me seek help, especially with Llewellyn. I am at best associated on a non-paid basis with an organization, and it had a single small business deal with Llewellyn in the eighties (permission to re-issue a few cassette tapes), and Kathryn said it meant I couldn't edit any author who had ever had a book published by Llewellyn in any way. I find that to be a tortured interpretation of COI, and I thank you for weighing in on the issue. I would greatly appreciate any suggestions as to another arbitrator or official that I could work with to help me in these matters.Rosencomet (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A Couple of Questions

As long as you are helping me out, I do have a couple questions:

1. Is the biographical material provided by a reputable publisher about an author, such as at the back of a book or on the publisher's website/catalog, an acceptable source? Or a performer on a CD, album, booking agency's catalog or copy accompanying the announcement of an appearance? How about the biographical material in a course catalog for a school, event, or appearance of an author in a program hosted by an organization or university? Must one find a newspaper article or quote a book by someone other than the subject, when the person who wrote it probably got their info from one of the above sources anyway?

It depends on the nature of the information. If it is just someone's middle name or place of birth, no problem. That their stuff is good, better get a more reliable source such as a review. Fred Talk 02:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely! I wouldn't put a value judgement into an encyclopedia article, anyway. I meant something like "he has a B.A. in Sociology" or "he is a member of such-and-such organization", or "he is an herbalist" (when he's written several books on the subject), and where there is no controversy, like someone claiming the university is a diploma mill or a member of the organization saying he isn't a member. Just simple facts. I certainly agree that you can't trust a publisher's statement that an author is "the best-respected authority in their field" or something like that.Rosencomet (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

2. How does one close an account? I opened one once for a single purpose, never used it again, stated it's purpose, and informed an arbitrator why I had done it. Nonetheless, I have been accused of sockpuppetry simply because it exists, though I have never used it for such a purpose. I would like to simply eliminate it, but don't know how.

You are allowed to have multiple accounts. One way of dealing with it is to make that account a redirect to the account you are using. That clears up the situation relatively well. Fred Talk 02:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I promise I won't pester you with questions in the future, but occasionally I need a little help and/or advise. Thanks, again. Rosencomet (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that I do very little work here, devoting the bulk of my efforts to Wikinfo and other projects. Fred Talk 02:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)