Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive187

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

David R. Usher[edit]

Threatening comments[edit]

Sorry to bother you, I would like to report a User (davidrusher) making threats against me on the Men's rights talk page: since it is obvious that we have at least one feminist (Cailil) who is misusing Wiki standards to force a feminist world perspective on the MRM, and where he is attempting to prevent a real definition of the movement on Wiki by attempting to "single me out" and somehow being unqualified to present a credible overview of the movement, I will do an article about this over the weekend, and publish it on at least a dozen major websites. and Apparently at least one of the folks editing this section need an education from MRM's. This is our section, and no feminists will be allowed to mess it up. I request that Cailil's editing privileges be revoked. He has proven himself to be a feminist censor, not a balanced editor.. I'm really not sure what to do. I apologise if this is the wrong to place to post this. The full diff is here--Cailil 00:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If not threatening, it certainly smacks of a article ownership attitude.
As we've seen with other groups such as the Scientologists, some folks seem to think that they "own" articles that are about them or their political or other group ... and that they should get to control what is included in them. This is against Wikipedia rules, and other editors should make a point of stepping in to resist article ownership.
In this case, it would be useful if Wikipedians who do not think of themselves as either "feminists" or "men's rights advocates" would step in and take a look. --FOo 01:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
John Broughton has attempted to engage in discourse with the editor in question on his talk page to apparently no response or avail. I'll second his comments in a few minutes; hopefully this user can still be reached. —bbatsell ¿? 01:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Cailil has brought my attention to this post that is a pretty clear violation of policy, calling for those with a particular viewpoint to edit Wikipedia. I'm completely uninformed with regard to the topic, so I'm not sure exactly how much help I can personally be, but the following articles are going to need some extra pairs of eyes over the next few weeks:

Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? 00:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Rusher to call off the dogs, and if he doesn't, I think a block - probably an indef one - is in order. Also, the first (probable) meatpuppet, Afp2258 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), just showed up on Men's rights. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
A commenter on that article that Rusher wrote is now recommending attacks on the following articles:
I'm asking other admins to help by watchlisting these pages for meatpuppetry - there's no way I can keep tabs on all of them. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request by User:Lior[edit]

Lior (talk · contribs) was indefblocked by User:Finlay McWalter about half a year ago for making one quite outrageous remark during a discussion related to the Israel-Lebanon war [1]. He's now back with an unblock request and what sounds - to me at least - like an honest apology [2]. From what I've seen in a very cursory glance at his earlier contributions, he seems otherwise to have been a decent contributor. Finlay has himself been inactive for some weeks and can't be reached for consultation. Under the circumstances I'd personally tend towards unblocking. Thoughts? Fut.Perf. 21:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your read of the situation. I think it's reasonable to unblock and monitor. —bbatsell ¿? 21:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I also agre with Fut. Perf.'s analysis of the situation and his proposed course of action. Bucketsofg 21:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I also agree -- it's been quite some time, and the user made what looks to be some good edits before their block. Checking their talk history (deleted or otherwise) and looking for links to their user/talk pages hasn't dug up any terrible history of abuse. I see no problem with an AGF-unblock. Let it be clear that further problems would lead to another block, but I generally trust them to know where the line is. *nod* Seems genuine. Would do it now, but don't want to steal FutPref's chance. ;) Luna Santin 04:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

URGENT! Dealing with anon user.[edit] (talk · contribs)

This anon user has been making personal attacks towards myself and other users for quite awhile. I've been requesting a permanent ban towards this person, since I've civilly attempted to deal with him in the past and he refuses to drop the personal attacks. I'm getting tired of dealing with his BS. Jonny2x4 23:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That IP is already blocked:
06:39, January 28, 2007 Steel359 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked " (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (WP:NPA)
So, looks like it is already taken care of. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
And FWIW, we don't "permanently ban" IP addresses unless they're open proxies. That can't be said often enough around here, given the frequency with which we're asked to indef-block IPs. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
We don't permanently block IPs, unless they're open proxies. Superm401 - Talk 23:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
A ban is quite different from a block. Thank you for bringing this matter here, however. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
We don't permanently block IPs, unless they're open proxies. Veinor (talk to me) 04:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Imdanumber1 is reverting my talk page[edit]

Imdanumber1 has several times restored text on User talk:NE2, calling my removal of it vandalism. As far as I know, there is no rule against removing comments once they have been read, especially when the removal is being done to save Imdanumber1 embarrassment when he reads Wikipedia:Vandalism and realizes that it is not vandalism to list a page he created for deletion. Can someone please advise? --NE2 03:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

He added Template:uw-tpv2 to my talk page. Since Wikipedia:Vandalism specifically states "Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own", should this template be edited to clarify that? --NE2 03:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, it is bad etiquette to remove content from talk pages. Just because it is your userpage doesn't mean rules don't apply to it. --Imdanumber1 (talk contribs) 03:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
First off, yes it does, and second, it is perfectly acceptable to remove frivolous warnings about not consulting you before starting an XfD. -Amark moo! 03:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Bad etiquette does not mean unacceptable. I've seen a lot of ridiculous incivility from both of these editors. It's a little bit silly to perpetuate this with an ANI complaint. It's also a little bit silly to remove comments when it's obviously inflammatory. You both aren't doing much good here. alphachimp 03:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
It's generally more acceptable to archive comments rather than delete them. But it is your choice, as they are in the edit history anyway. --Steve (Slf67) talk 03:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not trying to be incivil, and I would like to change if I am. Can you please point out where I have been incivil and how I can correct it? --NE2 03:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Was this the proper place to put this, or would it have been better somewhere else, like the village pump? I have recently been reading discussions here and pasting a few comments, and so this was the first place that came to mind; upon reflection, it might have been better elsewhere. Should I have asked for advice elsewhere? --NE2 03:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

IMO, it was correct to raise your issue here. --210physicq (c) 03:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this was the place to bring the issue up. I would strongly urge you to archive instead of blank your talk page (unless comments are obviously personal attacks/uncivil/nonsense warnings). Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I usually do archive my talk page, but I believe these were "nonsense warnings", warning me for vandalism for listing a template on TFD. --NE2 06:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and uncivil behaviour from Snickerdo (talk · contribs)[edit]

On January 22, I added some notable, verifiable information to the St. Catharines, Ontario article.[3] I was in the process of carrying on a civil discussion with Trappy (talk · contribs) on the article talk page regarding where the information would be best placed within the article, when a second user, Snickerdo blanked the information[4] When I attempted to discuss this action with the user, I began to be met with uncivility and personal attacks.

Here is the first instance of content blanking, [5] and here is the second [6]

Here are the diffs for the uncivil posts/personal attacks.

1. [7]

  • "Yankee76, I suggest you back off and stop calling people 'vandals' for working hard to preserve the quality of articles they have worked on for many years. Your arrogance, as well as actually using PETA as a source of data (hahahahahaha) gives you very little credibility in this situation."

(note the reference to me calling people vandals stems from a 1st level warning for removing content from Wikipedia - lies are considered a serious example of uncivility.)

2. [8] Snickerdo

  • "God Yankee, you can't even spell the name of the city correctly."
  • "If you don't like consensus and fell that you should be able to crap on any page you like, I'm sure there are many other pages, such as Lambton County, that you can destroy with your own views on Good Faith and the like. *rolls eyes*"
  • "I am getting sick and tired of the arrogance and bullcrap on Wikipedia that comes from users like Yankee."

3. [9] - Snickerdo claims I threatened him and claimed he was "just going to keep removing the reference and keep telling him to go to the talk page".

4. [10]

  • "I'm sorry, you became an administrator when? So you now are the final and last word on Wikipedia policy and direction? Who's the strongarm now? Bring it on."

5. [11]

  • "You want to get an administrator involved? Bring it on. I look forward to having someone other than you to bitch at about this."
  • "STOP being ignorant and stop trying to make a point where there is none. I have already checked, you are not an administrator, stop trying to act like one"

6. [12]

  • See edit summary. This is after I asked for the source of a particular statement.

You'll notice by reading his posts on Talk:St. Catharines, Ontario, that Snickerdo displays a blatant disregard for WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, WP:V, and WP:NPOV (the user lives in the city of the article as well- which may explain resistance of adding information that could be see as showing his hometown in a negative light). I'm asking for a 24-hour block for disruption and admin moderation. Thanks. Yankees76 04:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive talk page behavior by User:[edit]

Anonymous user was recently blocked as suspected sockpuppet of indef-banned User:Germanium. Today, anonymous user has repeatedly added the same comment to the talk page after it was moved to the page reserved for comments unrelated to the article itself. 17:47 22:57 23:47. This appears to be a violation of WP:3RR. The first comment was removed by User:Alphanon as one of his first edits. Another anonymous user has posted identical comments on the talk page [13]. User: has also posted mildy-harassing messages on my talk page and Alphanon has left parallel messages at User talk:Trovatore. The comments of the anonymou suser on my talk page were copyedited by Alphanon history.

It appears the anonymous is still a sockpuppet of Germanium, and Alphanon likely is as well, although checkuser will be required to find out.

User:Alphanon has also recreated recently-speedy-deleted article 1/0 (literal translation); I can't check the history before the recreation to see who created it before that.

CMummert · talk 05:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: this IP has previously stated he was User:Germanium when requesting an unblock: [14]. -SpuriousQ 06:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Lilwyte's image uploads[edit]

This user has uploaded many images which are either specified as fair use without any rationale or have no source or copyright information whatsoever. All these images have been tagged as such and multiple messages have been left on the the user's talk page. These messages have had no effect, however, and the user continues to upload images which provide no information about their origin or copyright status. I am aware that a precedent exists for short blocks to prevent users from continuously uploading images without the required information. I am not sure, however, whether or not this user meets the qualifications for such a block. I would appreciate it if an administrator could look over this user's upload history and determine whether or not a temporary block or further warning is merited. Regards, NickContact/Contribs 06:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblock Tengri[edit]

Dear Wiki Administrators, user Tengri has been blocked by admin Khoikhoi indefinitely being accused as a sockpuppet of myself. The blocking was made at the accusation of user Azerbaijani who made a request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser accusing 6 different users of being sockpuppets of AdilBaguirov. It's clear from the discussion at Azerbaijan Talk page from several users that Azerbaijani is involved in constant POV and arbitrarily removes scholarly references from the Wiki pages, often unilaterally making decisions and even insisting what should and should not be shown without any consensus. This results in blocking of several pages at Wiki. My repeated requests to admin Khoikhoi have not been properly addressed, neither could he legibly prove me his claim that Tengri and Atabek is the same person, only because we are friends and used the same IP a week ago. It's clear that we persistently use different IPs. Also, based on the following rules at Wikipedia:Blocking Policy:

Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited.
Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. They should not be used as a punitive measure.

and the fact that no action is taken by administrators regarding concerns raised at Azerbaijan Talk by several users against the POV behavior of Azerbaijani, that the blocking action against Tengri should be reconsidered. Thank you for your consideration. Atabek 01:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

After some investigation, I find Khoikhoi's block of Tengri to be justified. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
CheckUser confirmed the sockpuppetry. Please use dispute resolution for your specific content disputes. Dmcdevit·t 06:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been racially attacked time and time again.[edit]

Both racially and being mocked.

This member User:Cali567 had already been given warnings of not to attack others, but he has continued to vanadlise my talk page in Seong0980. I have reached out in my talk page and suggested he could be a nice person, and I apologised if I made any incorrect suspicions, but he keeps on calling me crap, amongst other racial puns. This is getting really annoying, and he doesn't seem to care if he gets IP blocked unitl it has happened to him. Please help.

From the discussion board in another area, he said: "Now a little tattle-tail is going and trying to get administrators on his side...I'm NOT SORRY FOR SAYING THAT and I'm NOT sorry for adding that he may be of Asian descent!." (in the Talk - 1st World : cocpy and paste to locate) I am thinking, is Wikipedia anti-Korean, thus he was not given a punishment? I am still deeply insulted that he is still making smart remarks. Again, please help. User:Seong0980 29 January 2007.

This appears to have begun as a rather silly edit war at First World. If you get your sources straight I am sure there is room enough in the article for the countries that qualify. I don't see how he vandalized your talk page. You don't own your talk page. This seems like something that could be easily solved if you calmed down, both of you. Wikipedia is not "anti" anyone. MartinDK 08:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. Having looked at the dispute, both of you have been rather uncivil towards each other. May I suggest you try editing other articles for a short while? yandman 08:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay we will, thanks guys for the feedback, you don't know how important it is to have responses as quick as this. -- Seong0980

Adding a user's name in support of a proposal without their knowledge or consent[edit]

User:JFBurton has proposed a project about Derbyshire. I discovered that my name had been added as supporting this proposal without my knowledge or consent. I removed it and posted a message on User:JFBurton's talk page which expressed my displeasure, commenting that, even though I do think such a project would be worthwhile, I would only consider adding my own name to the proposal if he apologized for the unauthorized addition. I consider this is quite a reasonable request under the circumstances. His response on my own talk page has merely been to ask me to "Chill Out About It", with a further comment, but no apology. I would be happy if I could get a view from any admin people about whether his actions were wrong, whether my response was unreasonable, and what should happen now, if anything. It does seem to me that adding editor's names without their consent or knowledge to things is quite undermining of many aspects of wikipedia.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Uh, yeah, it's called "forgery". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That sort of thing is to be very strongly discouraged. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, I believe we're talking about this. So it appears there were 2 usernames placed, not just one. Keesiewonder talk 19:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that JFBurton also forged User:Linuxlad's name at the same time: [15]. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This should be treated like votestacking, since that's really what it is. -Amark moo! 19:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Just erased Mel's comments about it here. Needless to say I have resorted it. --Fredrick day 19:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • He says it was an error, that he believed he could add the names of those editors he knows are interested in the subject. Not sure how compelling that argument is. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I would believe it not knowing this editor from adam. Assume good faith? Unless there is a pattern or history, ect--Tom 19:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • He should be able to figure out that being interested in the subject does not mean you are obligated to support anything particular about it. -Amark moo! 19:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll AGF but let's say it's all a terrible misunderstand - why does he delete Mel's comment with a edit summary of "adding comment" - when in fact, he's deleting someone's comment ? that bit does not make sense to me. --Fredrick day 20:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Upon VERY quick review, the user "listed" some other uses names. He did not "forge" somebody else's signature to make it appear that they signed something which is much much worse. Anyways, this analysis was based on a 45 second review on the material, so if I am totally off base I apologize in advance. Cheers --Tom 19:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Disregard, I am confussed I guess about what happened :) --Tom 19:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that he wasn't being deliberately dishonest in adding the names, but (as his previous behaviour has shown) he has very poor judgement, especially in his interactions with other editors. My inclination is to let it drop. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I am happy to go with the view that it should be dropped. I am sad he did not seem able to apologise, as I did state that I would be happy to support the project so long as he did apologise for his actions. Of course, I may still support his proposed project, as it could be very worthwhile. But, I think, not just yet would be best.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
FWIW there is also a non-null, recent block log. Not necessarily relevant to this discussion, but, history just the same. Keesiewonder talk 00:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Excellent timing for a RFA then. --Van helsing 11:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


User:Reapor is a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user according to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Decato. Please take appropriate action JRSP 20:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. JRSP 11:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Countries/groups/people that I consider threats to World Peace[edit]

I've been noticing a few users having this section in their userpages. A recent discussion is taking place at User talk:Khalidkhoso#Countries you don't like where User:Aminz and User:Proabivouac are asking that user to consider removing that from his userpage. Other users who are also concerned by this are User:Szhaider#Countries that I consider threats to World Peace and Humanity, User:Expatkiwi#Countries and Groups I don't like, User:Shamir1. Maybe there are other userpages out there.

I personally consider these userpages' contents as inflammatory and unnecessary and believe these sections should be removed because they are discouraging to other contributors and distract from our task of creating an encyclopaedia. We already have a policy which prevents users to have an inflammatory username but i am wondering if this case is covered by WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site.

Note that i had blocked User:Embargo a month ago because of their userpage at the time. I am also keen to know about your opinions if their actual userpage is still innapropriate as the rest of other users above-mentioned. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 10:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

These lists are definitely unacceptable. WP:SOAP covers it, as does Jimbo's quote on WP:USER. yandman 10:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Removed those you mentioned, plus another one who appears to be the start of the whole thing. All of it was inflamatory content (avoiding the use of the word trolling). They are perfectly entitled to their opinion, but this is not the place to express it. ViridaeTalk 10:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I cannot second this strongly enough. As it happens, such material is prohibited by, Wikipedia:User pages#What can I not have on my user page?, but it is rarely enforced. We should start enforcing it. These sections, per FayssalF are inflammatory and unnecessary, and distract from our task of creating an encyclopaedia.Proabivouac 10:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't keep this around. A similar thing would be User:Weatherman90/deathpool (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Weatherman90/deathpool). Some things are just not in good taste, and I think these lists are an example of them. – Chacor 10:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Khalidkhoso's userpage is now protected because he reinserted the objectionable content multiple times. If anyone disagrees, feel free to discuss it with me. ViridaeTalk 10:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't think anyone should be finding fault with protection because the material being readded isn't something we should be encouraging onwiki. – Chacor 10:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Just making sure. ViridaeTalk 10:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Tokyo Watcher[edit]

Tokyo Watcher falsified ratings of the {{Template:Wikiproject Japan}} template at Talk:Tsuki no Misaki, denied any discussion, and finally removed the template.

Recreation of Hijiri zaka and other articles concering non-notable slopes which were deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hebi zaka. After my deletion with notice, he or she reverted it with abuse of the {protected} template at [16], accused me without grounds at [17].

major part of these are previously appeared on Excavator's first edit and second one
--Excavator 16:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I get the feeling that this is a newcomer who doesn't quite understand how things are discussed and decided as a community as a whole on Wikipedia. Also, I get the feeling English is not this user's first language - complicating things. Regarding the priority template, a newcomer might ask, "Where did these ratings come from?" Because Wikipedia isn't a database interface unless you are a developer, they could might as well be thinking that any arbitrary user could change these ratings to what they wanted. x42bn6 Talk 17:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the prompt comment. The user also has an account on Japanese Wikipedia and I think Japanese is the user's first language. However, the user seems to be troublesome even on it because of the user's uncomprehension of Wikipedia and a sort of obstinacy. In my feeling, the user could wear out the community of English Wikipedia more easily and I'm afraid some kind of cooperation between English and Japanese Wikipedia communities would be efficient. --Excavator 18:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC) change work out to wear out --Excavator 15:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not a sysop - just giving out my views. Perhaps someone who is ja-3 or something could talk to this user if English is not helping? x42bn6 Talk 12:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you x42bn6, your objective views are helpfull for me.
BTW, a new accusation arrived at Hijiri zaka. I'll try to give the user an explanation as plain as I can again... --Excavator 15:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Davidrusher indef-blocked for legal threat[edit]

See above for more details, but in a nutshell, Davidrusher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a columnist who issued a call for meatpuppets to come after the Men's rights article. He just posted this long mini-essay on its talk page, and included a legal threat: Now, I state this to all editors: you WILL NOT play games to keep the Men's Rights and Father's Rights sections nothing more than a feminist misrepresentation of the movement. To do so is a violation of all academic principles, and may be cause for a lawsuit. I have blocked him indefinitely. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • FYI On his talk page Davidrusher has posted three emails on he has sent User:MrDarcy, which may need some attention. --Slp1 13:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed - more eyes on this would be a good thing. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible wikistalker[edit]

I hit what looked to me like a mild case of wikistalking today from Mathmo (talk · contribs), and when I went to his Talk page to issue a equally mild warning, I discovered a complaint about an earlier, more serious case. This sort of behaviour seems to be his response to disagreement with other editors; it might be innocent in intent, though he can't be unaware of the problems attached to it, as his earlier accuser made them clear, and Mathmo demonstrated his knowledge of the letter of the law in response. I've left a warning, but other admins might keep an eye open for this sort of thing from him in future. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but just as a follow up: forget about the wikistalking for the moment; one of the changes that he's insisting on is the insertion of a link to a pornographic website ([18]). I'd removed this from the references section before he'd arrived, but he's now inserting it into the text. It's unnecessary, and there's no indication that it doesn't lead to a document giving an account of the porn-related usage of "teenybopper". What's the policy on such links? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty suspect judgement to me - you can find porno sites with all sorts of names - it does not mean the term is widely in use in that manner. --Fredrick day 13:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The link is clearly spam-tastic and should go. - brenneman 13:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I think that he's stopped trying to replace the link, but I'll keep an eye on it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


This user has been vandalising a series of articles [19], for instance Whipps Cross University Hospital with the repeated addition of references to a Tony Simkins whose article has been speedied on a couple of occasions. Grateful for administrator intervention. MLA 13:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Blocked, look out for reappearances with other IPs. I'll semiprotect the articles if necessary. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Further on the Professor Tim Pierce situation[edit]

Response from Jimbo[edit]

Note from Jimbo: Wow, this is just wildly inappropriate. I spoke to Mr. Pierce by telephone several days ago and the issue was completely resolved back then. I think Zoe's pursuit of this in this way is wildly inappropriate and should cease immediately, and that she should apologize to him for it. I very much do not approve of this kind of random hostility from Wikipedia editors.--Jimbo Wales 09:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Jorcoga Hi!09:12, Saturday, January 27 2007
For my part, I think this issue to have been entirely overblown, and I surely can't understand editors' being so irked by a relatively innocuous incitement to vandalism, but I don't think Jimbo's upbraiding of Zoe to be particularly constructive. Zoe appears to have made her role as a "private citizen" (as against an official representative of the Foundation) exceedingly clear in her correspondences (I may have misstated the case a bit; see Opabinia regalis infra), and there appears here to be no prospective disruption of the project (I suppose one might suggest that were Pierce, for instance, to be fired, bad press for the project might entail, but that's seems rather unlikely), such that, whilst off-Wiki actions that harm the project or imperil editing might be dealt with on-Wiki, there appears to be no need for on-Wiki action or comment here (the issue probably ought not to have been at AN/I at all). I may be altogether puzzled over this stir, and Jimbo might think Zoe's actions to be immoral (I personally have no moral objection), but it is not appropriate for one editor to evaluate the propriety or morality of another editor's actions, especially those that take place off-Wiki and only tangentially affect the project. Jimbo's comment comes very close to referencing an editor rather than her conduct and, even as I might agree with his description of this situation, I can't help but understand it has high-handed. Joe 20:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
"I spoke to Mr. Pierce by telephone several days ago and the issue was completely resolved back then." Well that's nice. He or Jimbo should have told Zoe that. It isn't like Mr. Pierce didn't know Zoe was writing to him. No offense, but that lack of communication here from the WMF end is a much bigger problem than Zoe's conduct. If she'd been informed, I doubt she would of continued to pursue this. Someone needs to apologize to her for not letting her know what was going on. Nor was the hostility "random" (AGF Jimbo?). Vandalism is not a "random" subject around here. pschemp | talk 20:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Aye, endorse a lot of that from Joe. Quite simply, do we have a guarantee that this will not happen again? If so, then this whole thing can be archived and forgotten. Moreschi Deletion! 20:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Guarantee from whom? Mr Pierce or Zoe? (That's a rhetorical question). Carcharoth 23:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The voice of reason. This was massively, massively inappropriate. Hopefully all concerned are suitably chastened and that's the end of it. It seems like the University saw this complaint for the spurious nonsense that it was, but if not I hope Jimbo has attempted to use his influence to make right any damage done to Mr. Pierce's reputation. Badgerpatrol 16:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • With respect Jimbo, it is worth remembering that Zoe did what she did out of concern for the integrity of Wikipedia, and to protect the encyclopedia. Her actions, if over-zealous, were done in good faith and it would do well for us all to remember that we are all valued contributors until it is proven we are destructive influences. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 20:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
If people had known the issue was completely resolved I'm sure this wouldn't have been all over the noticeboard for the subsequent several days. Jimbo's remarks to Zoe may be taken as more harsh than they are meant, and might have done less harm if sent by email. Tom Harrison Talk 21:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone assumes bad faith here, but Zoe's emails were overly aggressive nonetheless. Things like "Please respond to me, or I may find it necessary to take this information to the press" are simply unacceptable, IMHO. We are supposed to be polite, nice and friendly. And those comments in this thread that compare vandalism on Wikipedia with vandalism in the real world (Y'know, that's where it takes a little bit more than one click to repair the damage that was done) are just mind-blowing. While Jimbo's words could've been a bit more diplomatic, I'm glad he did comment in this thread. --Conti| 21:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Joe says above that Zoe made her role as a 'private citizen' clear in her messages; actually I think it was quite the opposite from her first letter. I would never think to sign a message "Wikipedia system administrator" (system administrator?) and, even if we in the Wikipedia world know that 'admin' doesn't imply action associated with the Foundation, there's no reason to suppose that Mr. Pierce would have known that. That said, pschemp is right that if the situation had already been resolved, a note to that effect in the original thread would likely have preempted all of this. Opabinia regalis 22:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I based that comment on a review of only some of the correspondence, and in my cursory review I somehow missed "Wikipedia system administrator". Though I don't know that one would have inferred from Zoe's note that she was writing in some official capacity, I readily concede that my initial characterization was not quite accurate. To the extent that Jimbo's comments were restricted to Zoe's ostensibly acting as a Foundation representative, they were probably, as Conti observes, not inappropriate (at least in substance if not in tone); I do continue to think, though, that his comments were unnecessarily broad in scope. Joe 23:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
what? someone unconnected with Wikipedia would not infer that an email coming off someone identifing themselves as a XXXXX,XXXXX Wikipedia Systems Administrator was not actually from Wikipedia (and no I don't expect anyone not connected to the project to any distinction between this site and the actual foundation) - pull the other one. --Fredrick day 00:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

While I'm glad that it's resolved and we can all move on, I think it's important to note that there can be no doubt at all that Zoe's intentions were to protect the integrity of the encyclopaedia, and that she would have dropped the matter immediately if either Jimbo had stated that the matter had been resolved or Mr Pierce had agreed not to do it again. I haven't involved myself with this topic so far, but I read various comments about trying to ruin a man and deprive him of his livelihood, etc., and it was obvious that Zoe was looking for a simple assurance that he didn't intend to give this assignment to any future students, and that he was refusing to give this assurance. Musical Linguist 22:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

She would have dropped it if Jimbo has stated it had been resolved? What about all the editors and admin who said "hold on a minute this is wrong" - right until the end, Zoe did not acknowledge any concern - she carried on in an entirely high-handed manner. She did not try to get any concensus about WHOM to e-mail or WHAT to email - she just want off as a loose cannon. ---- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fredrick day (talkcontribs) 00:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
Fred, you seem familiar somehow. Would we know you better under a different username? Regards, Ben Aveling 03:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I had a previous account - it was never blocked, warned or anything like that. I used my right to vanish and started again from scratch. All activity with the old account ceased before I started using this one, I have not edited any article that my old account did or anything of that natute to game the system. So the answer is "yes" and the answer to the second un-asked question is "no I'm not the sockpuppet of some banned user". --Fredrick day 10:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that if Jimbo had made it clear here that he'd taken care of it, Zoe (whose efforts in this matter I thoroughly applaud) wouldn't have felt compelled to pursue it. "Random hostility" isn't a good description of her actions at all. Her actions were neither random (Pierce fired the first salvo here) nor hostile (she made a good-faith effort to resolve it directly with Pierce in a way that protected Wikipedia from future attacks). Asking her to stop is completely within Jimbo's rights, but let's not pillory her for actions that a lot of experienced users and admins supported. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that settles that, then. Go vandalize all you want, nobody at Wikipedia gives a flying fig. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need to go OTT. We deal with vandalism all the time. It's not a big problem. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I think the main point here is that some things just do not rightly fall under the purvey of editors and admins. What should have happened once the Pierce incident was discovered was to report it to Brad and Jimbo. There is a time to "know your role" and not overreach it. There is a time to work through and under authority. This was one of them. No blame, just live and learn. CyberAnth 04:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Particularly the learning bit. Please let's not forget this incident when something similar happens again in the future. Let's hope that individual admins won't be so quick to take certain actions upon themselves, and let's hope that there is better communication and understanding all round between admins and the WMF staff. Carcharoth 23:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

For those of you not watching WP:JIMBO, here are the details of the resolution. —xyzzyn 00:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This Professor sounds real childish anyway - best not rise to his bait. LuciferMorgan 01:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What an odd statement. We are talking about a guy who has been hounded for several days, has been accused- totally without any justification whatsoever- of committing a crime, and seems ultimately to have (bizarrely) been threatened with having the G-Men sicced on him! All this for setting a well-intentioned, albeit perhaps a little clumsy, class assignment with a very important and worthwhile aim (and, let us hope, effect). I am fed up with seeing this guy unfairly maligned when he has done absolutely nothing wrong. It strikes me that it is not he that has acted childishly in this scenario. Jimbo has handled the situation as it should have always been handled- sensibly, proportionately, and in an adult fashion. Let that be the end of it. Badgerpatrol 02:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
It appears from her talkpage that Zoe has now left the building. --Fredrick day 17:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it does. And that's a big loss. She was (is) one of the best we've got. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:JB196 socks[edit]

DragonKidfan432 (talk · contribs), Bigdaddydriver (talk · contribs), Hipchop (talk · contribs), Shopstermax (talk · contribs), Histogramunited (talk · contribs), Aqua Nation (talk · contribs) and DogJesterExtra (talk · contribs) appear to me to be more sockpuppets of JB196 following his MO of new accounts immediately appearing and nominating wrestling relating articles for deletion. Each of these users has also signed their AfD in the same way - no punctuation at the end of the line. Bigdaddydriver also has as one of his contributions the edit summary "(RV VANDALISM)" which, while the edit was reverting the removal of an afd template, follows JB's pattern of reverting any edit against him as RV VANDALISM. I discovered these accounts while looking at the contributions of User:DogJesterExtra who only appeared today and has been removing refs from articles and is the only person to have voted in every one of the AfD's of the sock accounts. The accounts only other edits, besides the AfD's, are to make their own userpage consisting of one line. Could an admin take a look and give their opinion? –– Lid(Talk) 17:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that prior to creating the AfD Shopstermax (talk · contribs), the oldest account, also removed refs from wrestling articles. –– Lid(Talk) 17:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Not really...If you look at , , they're all listed there and there. DogJesterExtra 18:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The user talk is an automatic bot which links to all AfD's that it crawls for such as the AfD posted by ((User|Shopstermax}}, whose article Nadev Rozenfield is linked nowhere else but the bot post on that users page. –– Lid(Talk) 18:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
More accounts - Several of these accounts first act after being created was to create another account greatly increasing the likelihood of sockpuppetry. These are:
These accounts have also been used on wrestling related articles to remove sources as well as ZimZamZang focussing on the article Professional wrestling in Australia, which has been targetted by JB196 in the past. I may file a RFCU to see if any more of these exist. –– Lid(Talk) 19:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Yup, I'd go straight for RFCU (if the circumstantial evidence isn't enough to block already), Barber fought with [[User:CurseofFenric] before on the Professional wrestling in Australia article, so I have a strong suspicion this is JB trying again to disrupt WP. I will also tag the AfD's with the comment that if the various creators are WP:SOCK accounts, the AfD's will be db-banned as a speedy keep with no prejudice towards renomination SirFozzie 19:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Why are these afd's still open? Aren't we supposed to close any afd's that jb opens? 21:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
We haven't "Proven" That the accounts are WP:SOCK accounts (although there's a WP:RfCU open against all of them. Until it's proven (or an admin decides that there's enough circumstantial evidence that this is another set of JB socks), our hands are tied. It's one of those things where I'm sure it's him, but my opinion don't count for much, at least in this :) SirFozzie 05:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The RFCU has been deemed Unneccessary as it seems there is already enough evidence that these are all sockpuppets of JB196 so would an admin mind blocking them all? –– Lid(Talk) 20:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Per that result, I'm going to close the afd's, even though I'm not an admin. That seems like an OK from jpgordan. Any admins, please block them now. Part Deux 21:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Update - many more socks - Many thanks to SirFozzie (talk · contribs) for bringing it up and admin Jpgordon (talk · contribs) for running the CU but a total of fifty socks have been uncovered by the checkuser, some known many unknown, that need blocking. The full list can be found here and require admin help blocking them all. –– Lid(Talk) 07:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged all socks listed at the RfCU case page. Phew. Luna Santin 07:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Holy crudstunk, I thought we might find a few more.. but sixty or so? (even if some of em were retreads?) That's ridiculous. Thanks Lid for updating the LTA page on JB. SirFozzie 16:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Multilingual Warnings?[edit]

Are there templates which can warn a user who doesn't speak English? I ran into this problem with this IP user. Can someone help? Thank You. Real96 21:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

no template I know of. But I have to ask, if they don't speak any English, why are they editing here? pschemp | talk 21:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Should I warn the user with this? I don't know why they are editing here. I tried to warn the user to edit on ITA WP on the talk page, but she still speaks Italian on the talk page.

I found the 1st level warning on ITA WP.

Grazie per aver fatto un test con Wikipedia. La modifica che hai effettuato ci è sembrata essere un test; la tua prova è stata quindi rimossa e la pagina ripristinata. Per favore, per ulteriori prove, utilizza la pagina delle prove, dal momento che le voci vengono ripristinate rapidamente. Puoi dare un'occhiata alla guida introduttiva per imparare a contribuire sulle pagine del nostro progetto. Grazie. Real96 21:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons also has some at Commons:Message templates, although most are not what you need, a few might be helpful. Click on the language you want to get the text you need. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 00:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

We need a Rosetta Stone type template saying that if you cannot speak English, then you cannot contribute here. Then have links to the other language's Wikipedia. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. Have the four major Anglo-languages (French, Spanish, Italian, German) as well as the Asian languages (Japanese, Chinese, Korean et. al). I am sure that there are a category of users who are bi/multi-lingual and they can help with the messages (from test-1 to test-5). I would enjoy working with you with that project, if one ever exists. Real96 07:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I suppose you mean Western languages aside English not Anglo-languages?!? --Asteriontalk 09:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Exactly. Western languages versus non. Real96 03:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I think a Rosetta Stone template is a great idea. Perhaps the kind folk at commons would help us create it? I'll try to go ask for help if someone else hasn't started this. What would the exact wording need to be? Needs to be encouraging and useful. ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

We need a Rosetta Stone type template saying that if you cannot speak English, then you cannot contribute here. Wow, that would be very helpful, but wouldn't it be hard to enforce? Some editors claim a basic proficiency in English, which they don't evidence - I've edited many articles where most of my time was spent cleaning up English grammar and punctuation to a rudimentary level. Also, how do we feel about talk pages almost exclusively in other languages? I've encountered personal attacks oon talk pages in other languages, and had to go hunting for an admin who spoke the language and could deal with it, and I've had to go to other wikis to find basic policies to quote for non-English speakers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean hard to enforce, since we already require English as the language of contributions. For those who speak only some English, or speak it poorly, they can still benefit the project. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Right - so I'm still not following the original comment about not contributing here if you cannot speak English? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Also certain obvious errors and interwiki's require almost no english to correct. If people's contributions are a problem they should probably be pointe to a wikipedia in a language they are fluent in, but I don't think that setting any kind of enforceable standard is a good idea. Eluchil404 16:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, a template that helps the user find the right place, and gives a little guidance to them, in the user's native language, might be a friendly thing to do. ++Lar: t/c 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, for example if Spanish text is inserted into a page, the user can be warned with:

Bienevidos a Wikipedia de Ingles. Este enciclopedia es totalmente en Ingles. Por favor, va al [ Wikipedia de Espanol] para contribuya en espanol. Gracias!

(note: my spanish is a little weak.) Real96 02:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
A good start would be here. Lectonar 16:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandal Only Account[edit]

English123 (talk · contribs) appears to be a vandal-only account. Nationalparks 03:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Might want to post this on WP:AIV, but here works just as well ;) —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 03:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
In my (limited) experience AIV would have knocked it back as having no recent activity --Steve (Slf67) talk 05:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Which is why I posted it here... Nationalparks 15:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
True, but when I do AIV, I know vandal only accounts don't need to be currently active to block. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This will make you laugh[edit]

Fensteren (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) arrived on 13 Jan and made a couple of token edits. On Jan 20 "he" replied to a welcome message, two edits. "His" first edit of any substance was to pick up a conversation in the middle on a vexatious suspected sockpuppet investigation on BenBurch and FAAFA: [20].

At 15:49, User:DeanHinnen posted a comment on "his" talk starting "You sound like a very level-headed voice with regard to BenBurch and FAAFA on the Free Republic article"... ([21])

At 19:55, January 20, 2007, User:DeanHinnen posted an invitation to articipate in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BenBurch to "his" talk: [22] and at 22:27, January 28 2007 he did so.

At 22:45, January 28, 2007, Fenstern made his first edit to (the talk page of) Free Republic, where he was supposedly already a voice of reason with plenty of experience with BenBurch and FAAFA.

I am more than happy to believe that Fenstern does indeed have a long history on that article and with those users... but not under that account. I have blocked "him" as a sock of User:BryanFromPalatine. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you made a good call. DurovaCharge! 18:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus personal attacks[edit]

He's at it again. I'd have blocked him, but I might be thought of as being in conflict with him, so could someone else have a look and see if they agree with a block? The latest attack is here, in which he dscribes another editor's minor formatting improvement as anti-Semitic, and then argues in his usual peculiar style at user talk:Ludvikus#Reverts on Jews and Bolshevism topics.

Or would it be OK for me to block him, as I'm unconnected to his current conflict? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's unacceptable behavior by Ludvikus. I've left him a firm warning that repeating this will result in a block. My opinion is this one example on its own doesn't warrant a block, but any further repetition of this sort of behavior should garner a block. If you see further examples, please feel free to bring them to my attention and I'll be happy to act as an outside opinion. Best, Gwernol 15:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. In fact it's the latest in a very long line of such instances; User:FT2 is at present trying to get Ludvikus to behave better, in a last attempt before an RfC (or even RfAr) — see User:FT2/Evidence pages/Philosophy. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Self promotion[edit]

A user DavidShankBone appears to be a fashion photographer. Recently he had uploaded numerous photos he attributes to himself, and offers under creative commons licensing. I removed some self-promotional wording from his user page. He appears to have replaced valid photographs in numerous articles with his own photographs. My personal judgement (just my opinion) is that in most cases he added his own lower quality, less precise image to replace a better image. I see this as an extension of his self-promotion attempt.

I expect that he will be upset at having some of those images reverted. First, I want to be sure that my opinion that self-promotion on your own user page (offering free use of your images) is really not appropriate, and that others agree that large scale replacement of other images with his own images is not appropriate.

I'm only asking for other editors opinions here, not trying to demonize anyone. Of course he has made other valuable contributions, but I am only asking about borderline self-promotion! Atom 16:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

He does seem to have added some images of buildings where there were no images before. But his habit of removing someone elses image, or moving the lede image down into the article and placing his image in lede seems self-promotional. This is reinforced (for me) in that the previous image seems of better quality(IMO).

  • Self promotional user page[23] (now edited)
  • Replaced photos in articles[24][25]
  • Low quality additions to articles.[26][27]
  • Moved lede image sown, and replaced with his own image.[28][29]
  • Added a good photo where none existed before:[30]
  • Adds a poor quality image to an article that already has four better quality images. The name of the image has his name imbedded to self-promote.[31]

Atom 14:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure what this editor's issue is, but I suspect that she just does not like the Imitation of Christ photograph from Tara Subkoff's show. I make no habit of replacing people's photographs, and I've added HUNDREDS of high-quality photographs where non previously existed. If the article is small and I have a better one, then I replace it; however, my habit is to move the existing one to a less prominent spot, such as on the Rockefeller Center page. But this editor has followed NO guidelines in reverting my edits nor in listing my images for deletion. My images give quite a bit of value to the pages. I've added hundreds of photographs to the site without self-promotion. First, I'm a law student, not a fashion photographer, or any sort of photographer. Second, I don't self-promote, since I earn no money from photography nor do I put my User name anywhere on the page. Third, moving a lead photograph when it is of poor-quality, or when there is a better photograph available, is not against any policy on this site - where are you coming from on this? I will address each of the issues below:
  • Self promotional user page[32] (now edited)
This is my User page and the editor removed a line where I invite people to use my photographs, which has been done by blogs, magazines, etc. I am highlighting that my images are open use, and this editor thinks that is self-promotion?--DavidShankBone 14:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The Vogue article had two different magazine covers on its pages and I replaced one magazine cover with a photograph of two of Anna Wintour, its editor-in-chief, and Andre Leon Talley, its editor-at-large. This was inappropriate? --DavidShankBone 14:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Low quality additions to articles.[35][36]
  • Moved lede image down, and replaced with his own image.[37][38]
I shuffled the photographs on the page to replace low-quality image of the Prometheus statue (which I placed toward the bottom) with a photograph showing the whole of Rockefeller Plaza taken from an office building (a shot that is difficult to get unless you have access - I had access, it was at law office).--DavidShankBone 14:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Added a good photo where none existed before:[39]
  • Adds a poor quality image to an article that already has four better quality images. The name of the image has his name imbedded to self-promote.[40]
I don't know what the User means by "embedded" by name - it's in the title of the photograph, but that's not self-promotion. Self-promotion deals with putting your own name in the article. Google doesn't even pick them up.

One of my hobbies is going around taking photographs of famous buildings, people and places around New York City. I do a lot of interesting stuff. This editor's actions above has a dampening affect on contributions. Much of what he has reverted or flagged for deletion has no business having done so. A perfectly great example of sequins I put on the Sequin page has been flagged for deletion? I replaced a 96KB photograph of a sequined ass with a full-sequined dress at 863KB - is this really a proper use of this editor's time? At one moment the editor complains I'm putting up too-poor-of-quality photographs; then the editor complains when I put better quality photographs up. Compare the former photograph with the one I put up.

My apologies. Obviously we have different opinions which I am sure we can work out on the talk page of a given article. In this case another opinion might be that a very good closeup of sequins on the sequin article was removed and replaced with a very large image that showed less detail of sequins, and more detail of unrelated things. The database now has an 863KB image instead of one one-tenth that size that illustrated the topic of the article better.
Regarding self promotion, that can be done in a variety of ways. You deserve attribution for the image, and that should be part of the image attributes in the database. Attaching your name to the name of the image is not how we normally do that. By itself it is minor, with the other aspects I complained about, it seems like self-promotion to me. Atom 16:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm totally perplexed by this. I also don't appreciate that this editor is making edits to my User page, highlighting a benefit of our open-use images, and only as an after-thought checks it out. Is this really how we want to operate? --DavidShankBone 14:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I also note this editor has followed no guidelines with this entry. The editor has reverted the images and pages, has flagged them for delete without creating discussion pages for the same (even the Sequin photograph]], has made no attempt to contact me or raised the issues on the Talk pages. --DavidShankBone 14:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually I did. I just had not finished that process before you reverted my valid ifd. But, that is besides the point. Do you have a problem with people discussing the value of that particular image? My objection was that at least one of the models seems underaged, but there is no indication that you have the models consent for the photograph, or their ages. It's insertion into the breast article without discussing with other editors (when image content is an open and active discussion on the article) is what brought my attention to the self promotion.