Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive338

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

Noticeboard archives

A user disrupting by nominating all of the articles that I have worked on for WP:AFD[edit]

A user Justinm1978 is disrupting the encyclopedia by nominating all of the articles that I have worked on for AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nellie_Pratt_Russell and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Myra_Hemmings, see User:Miranda/header. He did not tell me that he was going to nominate the articles for AFD, as seen per the guidelines. Is this stalking? Miranda 10:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is disruption especially since an AFD is a discussion; articles will be kept if they meet the criteria for inclusion. Taking a brief look at your header, Lucy Diggs Slowe and Elma Lewis weren't nominated, probably some others too (I didn't check) so it's not all the articles. I doubt it is stalking; he could have come across Category:Alpha Kappa Alpha Founders which contains those articles and it is unlikely that a user would stalk another for no reason, it's usually as a result of a prior dispute (unless there has been a prior dispute?). James086Talk | Email 11:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking to the author is the decent thing to do upon nominating massive number of their articles for deletion, but maybe I'm behind the times. El_C 11:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I think it's a bit rude not to, but I don't think that constitutes disruption unless Justinm1978 was trying to do it without Miranda noticing. However I think it's assuming bad faith to call nominating articles which Miranda has worked on for Afd disruption. If there is evidence that Justinm1978 did this to irritate or anger Miranda then it would be disruption, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. James086Talk | Email 11:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I just created Lucy Diggs Slowe, when I just noticed that all of the articles related to Delta Sigma Theta and Alpha Kappa Alpha founders were up for deletion. See this, as well as this made by his IP. After I removed the PRODS, he said "Please address issues instead of reverting. Miranda 11:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any stalking or distribution. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

He shouldn't have reverted your removal of the Prods (he seems to have been warned about this) and could have been more courteous, but it appears that he genuinely feels the subjects aren't notable. Is there any previous history that would indicate he has a bad-faith reason for nominating the articles? Shell babelfish 12:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The AFD has been closed as no consensus on the block nomination. This is a good move and will allow discussion on the articles individually. I know Miranda has put many hours into these articles and the block nom of them must be troubling. Justinm1978 showed a poor understanding here and that has been duly noted by others at his talk page. -JodyB talk 12:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Do I have an opportunity to respond to this rather hurtful accusation Miranda has levied against me? If so, please direct your attention to these links:

Which were nominated by Miranda for deletion solely because I made the deletion nominations on articles she worked on. In addition, prior to opening this complaint here, she initiated this discussion, which was moved to the AfD talk page because it was harmful to reaching consensus. Additionally, she is continuing to push her POV and be disruptive on another series of articles I nominated for deletion due to non-notability, as shown here:

There, she is making threats of me making a point when I'm not; accusing me of WP:BITE even though she clearly bit a new user who disagreed with her before; claiming I am "pushing for Alpha Phi Omega" over other organizations, even though my comment was that I'd be ok with a merge if they are not found to be notable: [1] [2]; I also have no control over if the articles were speedy kept or not, in fact the reason they were speedy kept was given by an admin as them being clearly bad faith noms; in addition, her comments on all of these articles show to me a clear sense of ownership, as anybody who makes a change she does not agree with is immediately warned that they are vandalizing in addition to her commends on the AfD's that go along the lines of "I put a lot of work into this". The accusation given of Miranda of this being race-related are horribly misplaced, and I strongly encourage her to retract those unless she has some serious, strong evidence of such.

As for her accusations that I'm out to "nominated NPHC founders for deletion", she should note that the two links she references ([3] and [4] are not me trying to censor wikipedia. The first is actually an article created by me that I was intending to send the Alpha Phi Alpha founders and Alpha Kappa Alpha founders into. The second is me referencing that intention.

I would like to note that while I am being accused of being disruptive, I do find her abuse toward me and anybody who disagrees with her (see previous bite as mentioned above) to be disruptive in itself. I personally do not care how long you have been contributing to the project, how many articles you have written, etc. That does not give you a pass on respecting others, nor does it make your contributions more valid than mine or anybody else's. I agree she has made some great contributions, but not everything is notable. I do not think everything is notable, hence the AfD to allow the community to decide. I will be resubmitting them all individually, as recommended in the AfD, and let the community sort it out. If they are notable, the community will agree as such, and I will be satisfied. If they are not notable, then they will be deleted. Either way, I'm ok with the result. Justinm1978 (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Meh, sorry you feel this way, but you have been in two previous cases, like mediation cases regarding determining if an organization is "social" or service see example edit summary, one without an edit summary as well as taking out "incorporated" in articles regarding sororities and fraternities (see this discussion as well) (edit without a summary). Me warning about WP:3RR is seen here, he responds with this and after I reverted his edit, he reinserts and accuses me of a personal attack. Most of his mainspace edits consist of reverting and POV pushing. He did this as well with his IP address to notable individuals. He also has submitted in the past a CU case to people who revert to certain revisions, thus assuming bad faith. I would like to see what the community would think about editing restrictions for Justin, because I think that 1.) most of his contributions are disruptive in nature and 2.) his POV pushing is causing stress for some editors who want to add to the encyclopedia, specifically for those belonging into a sorority/fraternity or want to know more about sorority/fraternity life. Also, he did not notify me that he was going to nominate for deletion these articles. I had to find out on my own. Miranda 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Upsetting posts[edit]

I recently placed a speedy deletion tag on the userpage of Ipernar (talk · contribs). (diff) He later posted this message on my talk page, which I removed. Today he put this on my talk page. What am I supposed to do?--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 15:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

☑Y Blocked by Nick. —Animum (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit conflict: I'm not and admin, but I would imagine there is nothing they can do at this point, unless he continues to harass you, which is what he is doing. Guess I was wrong. I've left him this note anyways, but I guess he was blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
You are not being stalked, and please do not use such hyperbole for what was actually a polite exchange; it trivialises serious problems. You were being proselytised. You went to his talk page and asked him what he meant, and he answered your question. While I quite agree the messages were out of keeping with appropriate user behaviour, there were no threats to you (not even a "you're going to Hell if you don't accept Jesus as your saviour") and the user wasn't following your every edit or contacting you outside of Wikipedia or demonstrating that he was trying to find your RL identity. Let's save the "stalking" word for situations where people are actually at risk of harm, please. Risker (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, those posts were upsetting, and I'm sure you would have found them just as upsetting if they were on you're tlak page--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 16:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe so, however it hardly qualifies as "stalking", I'm afraid. Best thing to do is revert and ignore, really - Alison 20:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sock war on Afghanistan-related articles[edit]

We need as many uninvolved admins as possible keeping an eye on more or less all Afghanistan-related articles. There's a never-ending sock war going on there. We had three or four main native contributors to Afghanistan topics, all involved in an ethnic dispute between Pashtuns and Tajiks. All of them are now banned (most notably User:NisarKand, User:Tajik and most recently User:Beh-nam; see also section #User:Beh-nam above). All three of them are socking, all the time. My estimate is that some 75% of all edits to all Afghanistan-related articles we've seen in the last few months have come from banned socks. Fut.Perf. 17:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Beh-nam never made any socks during the last two years. And neither did Tajik. User: Thatcher131 banned Tajik for being Tajik-Professor but right now it is determined that he was not Tajik-Professor (see his checkuser page). Then when Beh-nam started asking questions about this Thatcher started feeling the heat. Also Beh-nam did a checkuser on Thatcher's friend, and Thatcher's friend was proven by checkuser to use sockpuppets. Thatcher excused his own friend, but then he banned Beh-nam and accused him of proxy'ing for user: Tajik. Thatcher is a corrupt admin and protects his friends and all those that support Pan-Turkism across Wikipedia and finds ways to ban anyone who might be a threat to his friends or Pan-Turkism on Wikipedia. Beh-nam has sent man emails complaing about this to ArbCom, they are ignored.
Yes NisarKand has made dozens and dozens of sockpuppets. And they were all ignored. When Beh-nam reports them he got banned several times for "harrasing". This made his block log look bad and now Thathcer is using that as even more justification ot get Beh-nam band. Beh-nam reverts vandlism, what happens? He gets blocked. Beh-nam reports sockpuppets? What happens? He gets blocked. Beh-nam reports sockpuppets of friends of Admins? What happens? He gets banned and then his previous block get is used against him.
User: Tajik, was one of the finest editors here, check his awards. I asked for help to you and others to help unban him but you just ignored. There are very few people with as much knowledge and references as him, and not many of them would volunteer their time. Without him all Afghanistan related articles are going no where. I think Wikipedia should take the responsibility and investigate the Admin user: Thatcher131 and his bans of user: Tajik and then user: Beh-nam. user: NisarKand though is another story, he was banned for several long racist rants so he should remain banned. Tajik and Beh-nam however were banned mainly just because Thatcher131 had a problem with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Awards != good editor. We determine good editors by the quality of their edits. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC) And he's been community banned, so he's pretty much out of luck, unless he can find an admin willing to unblock. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
He made three articles Featured status and helped more articles get to Good status. So how's that not a good editor? He's only banned because Thatcher felt Pan-Turkism on Wikipedia threatened by him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Dan Debicella[edit]

Resolved: Both users blocked 24 hrs slakrtalk /

There appears to be an edit war going on at Dan Debicella between User:Ratsofftoya and User:‎. I have warned both. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 22:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well they're both at 7 reverts now, including alternate IP reverts, and both have reverted after receiving their warnings. It concerns me, though, that both versions are completely unsourced. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I've reported this to WP:AN3. Hopefully they'll start talking when they return from their (presumed) blocks, or just stay away from that article. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fasach Nua disrupting IfD[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{resolved}} How is this resolved? First, one of the user whom it's about places the resolve tag, which is a no-no. Second, the user filing the complaint which this complaint is about somewhat fractured the discussion as a result of this, erm, tagged resolution by starting a subsection, and then you ask him whether "we really need a seperate thread for this?" Well, you give him the impression that this notice he started has been 'resolved' (read: closed) after three responses. Appearances and decorum count, even in this busy bd. Ad. I don't think you correctly linked to the deleted image (you later restored). El_C 03:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fasach Nua (talk · contribs) is being disruptive in this IfD discussion. He nominated it as soon as I uploaded it after the prior image was deleted, restored by me (my mistake) and susequently speedied after it became clear that no sensible discussion was possible during that image's extended IfD. Now he nominated Image:DW Fear Her.jpg for the same reason; being "decorative", which is a misnomer. Now he actively disrupts it by pasting one of my arguments into the image's fair use rational, which I reverted (but it's back again, guess who...) This is a bad faith nomination, and this behaviour is disruptive. I would like it speedy closed and Fasach Nua warned. EdokterTalk 20:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Even though I, along with Edokter, am a member of the Doctor Who Wikiproject, I've closed it as disruptive. Will (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Will. If any of us stepped out of bound, review is welcome. EdokterTalk 22:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I try not to use this forum, as I think generally most things can be handled without admin intervention, but could someone take an objective look into these three edits [5] [6] [7] by this user, thanks Fasach Nua (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. Do we really need a seperate thread for this?
  2. Stop being disruptive.
Thanks, Will (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I think a separate thread is necessary to discuss a non-admin [8] closing Admin incident and speedily closing discussions on blatant fair use violations, it is quite a separate issue from a user's right to object to the use of inappropriate images Fasach Nua (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not an admin, but I personally see nothing wrong with Will's actions. He knows what he is doing. - NeutralHomer T:C 22:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Just as an aside, I also took issues with Neutralhomer placing resolve tags on notices involving himself, but I'm pretty certain (though not positive) I'm not confusing him with Sceptre in this extension. El_C 03:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Spectre was once an admin, IIRC, so he knows what he's doing. I'd be more concerned if it were a beginner to Wikipedia closing discussions. However, if the filer is being disruptive with requests then there is every right to close requests by that filer. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Always look at the substance. Being a veteran is no indication of being correct. That approach tends towards elitism. El_C 03:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
First is was "decorative", now "blatant fiar use violation"? There is consensus on Wikipedia to allow screenshots, provided it be kept to a minimum (meaning one fair use image per article). However you somehow seem on a crusade to have this particular article get rid of it's screenshot. First with a CSD G4 nomination, now for being "decorative", which is an argument only used for overuse of images on a single page. Both nominations were baseless, and the second one in particular was onle made to make a point. There is nothing wrong with using a single screenshot on an episode article; in fact it is common practice. Then you became disruptive, taunting me into using my "admin powers" when you full know well that I can't, and won't. Fortunately, I'm not the only admin. EdokterTalk 22:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If I knew anything about the situation beyond screamsheet knowledge, I'd know what to look for in Fasach's contribs. What I'm getting is that someone has a grudge against an image and wants it gone, and has failed in his attempts to do so (because there was no foundation for his attempts), and is backlashing against the user who closed the second discussion as bad-faith. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I find it odd that this article was fine without this image a couple of hours ago, and now suddenly it is necessary to include it in order to explain some unknown "key element of the plot", yet the uploader justifies it elsewhere on the grounds that "Every Doctor Who episode has a screenshot". I find it unfortunate that User:Sceptre doesen't consider that it is legitimate to discuss if the use of this image is necessary or in wiolation of WP:FU. I would have been happier if an actual admin or someone outside the relevant wikiproject who doesn't have a vested interest took these actions. Fasach Nua (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I would have done the same, Fasach, if the nom was disruptive. Asking the other parent to abide a bad-faith nomination doesn't work. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 23:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Was the nomination disruptive? Fasach Nua (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
From what I read there and at the image description page, yes. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 23:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll admit what I did at the image page was a bit cheeky, and I probably shouldn't have done it, but was the nomination itself disruptive? Fasach Nua (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
(On an aside should we switch this to a talk page?) Fasach Nua (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It appeared to be. I also see no reason why the image should be deleted from the page - its fair-use rationale for the article it's in is legitimate, it's irreproducible, and everything else for the image is in order. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 23:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I am unconvinced that it is there for any reason beyond decoration, I dont believe it in anyway enhances the explanation of the plot, (I can't even see where it is referenced), but I'll leave well alone Fasach Nua (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but is anyone is actually looking at the diffs cited here, before seemingly automatically not-siding with the person with the red-link for a user name whom most of us don't know? Possibly, so I'll start (looking at the diffs): how is citing Wikipedia as a reference makes sense? [9] Naturally, it makes more sense to nominate a whole subsets of images for deletion, but to the argument that "Every Doctor Who episode has a screenshot" which is stated in the ref, I say 'every Family Guy episode had a screenshot,' why do we let copyrights paranoia win there and not elsewhere? They should have lost elsewhere, too. There has to be something rational behind why-this-not-that, no? (rhetorical: the answer is no, fair use is entirely arbitrary fiefdoms!) As for closing noticeboards threads that pertain to himself,[10] regardless of how valid these may be, I had already cautioned Sceptre against doing this. So, that's not a good sign. I guess the most annoying thing for an admin reviewing this is that the original authors of this thread (not the subsection), both here and on the IfD, are just giving us enough background. Would it kill them to give us a link or two, or a sentence or two? Just let us know, then, why do you feel it's POINTy, what are the immediate antecedents behind it? El_C 03:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't want to get sucked into this, I suspect the combativeness arises out of this discussion Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_November_28#Image:Fear_Her.jpg, there was also a slight disagreement over a fair use image with this uses at [11] [12], beyond that I don't know much more Fasach Nua (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You are already sucked in, if fact, you started it. The original image is deleted; that should have made everyone happy. But when I uploaded an improved image, with a proper rationale, you nominated it immediately for reasons I can only guess. Your understanding of fair use needs work. You keep removing images from pages, while the images have perfectly good rationales. You still have not properly adressed what is wrong with the fair use rationales provided; you just keep yelling "blatant fair use violation". So unless you can actually provide some valid reasoning, I suggest you refrain from further disrupting Wikipedia. EdokterTalk 15:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, let IfDs run their course; speedily or otherwise, let an uninvolved admin handle it. El_C 15:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
On the issue of Tom Baker, the "perfectly good rationale" as you put it appears to be no rationale at all Image:Bakert.jpg, I would dispute whether no rationale is perfectly good!
If you want my objection to the other image then it is 3A, "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary". I do not believe that the Fear Her article necessitates this image, I can see no contribution beyond asthetics! I think this is the wrong forum to discusss this and I think the idl should have been left open! Fasach Nua (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually looking at the Image:Bakert.jpg page again, it explicitly forbids its usage in that article, and in my opinion, that is as far as you are going to get from a "perfectly good rationale" Fasach Nua (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've let this go off topic, however summing this up my Wikipedia:Disruptive editing consisted of:

  • Removing a fair use image from an article, when the image had no rationale for inclusion there Image:Bakert.jpg
  • Listing a previously deleted image for deletion, as the user was circumventing policy, and unwilling to go to go through Wikipedia:Deletion review
  • Listing a FU image at idl as I did not feel it was necessary Image:DW Fear Her.jpg, as it wasn't necessitated a few hours prior Fasach Nua (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You're missing the completely disruptive edit to the image page. Will (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I made this edit [13], which was virtually identical to yours [14] Fasach Nua (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
That was a mistake - I was looking at the diffs, I closed the IfD, and must've edited your revision to remove the tag. Will (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Last warning[edit]

Fasach Nua, your disruptive behaviour stops now. If you see an error in a fair use rationale, you either explain what the error is, or better yet, fix it yourself. Reasons like "unnecessary", "decorative" and "blatant fair use violation" are not valid reasons for removal/nomination. Simply removing the image (as you did with Tom Baker) and nominating images for deletion without valid reasoning only demonstrates that your intentions are not in the best interest of Wikipedia. You will be blocked if you continue this fruitless crusade. EdokterTalk 00:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not a blockable offecene to follow WP policy, and I would strongly suggest you should consider going down the route of WP:CIVIL. You are just engaging in trolling, the Tom Baker image was removed as it is WP policy not to use fair use images without fair use rationales. If you are opposed to this policy I would suggest you get this changed, rather than attacking and threating me for following it. If you do not accepect article 3A WP:FU as valid, it may be an idea to get that policy altered aswell, rather than degenerating to arguemts above or such nonsence as [15]. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
You have a point with the Tom Baker image, although a case may be made for #1 (not 3a) saying that, while it is a living person, any picture taken these days will not be representative of Baker during his acting career. However, you're not strictly following policy on the Fear Her image. For example, NFCC #8, which appears to be the reason you're opposing this image - the image is significant to the subject of the article (the episode, entire premise of the plot), while the image would be better at describing the child's drawings than a full paragraph of text. Will (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you misundersand the case for the Tom Baker was there was not a rationale given on the image page
The reason I am opposing Fear Her image is 3A it is not nessicary, and as you say it 'can be described using text, which would suggest that there is a free alternative to this image! Fasach Nua (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Plot summaries, IIRC, are derivative works. I could equally argue that the image is necessary to describe the child's powers while not delving into too much detail in the plot summary. Will (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It would have been nice to thrash this out on an idl discussion, it is unfortunate that debate on this issue has been deemed disruptive :-( Fasach Nua (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I think an admin should not throw round threats like that, and I would suggest you consider you consider your position as a WP administrator Fasach Nua (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The user is right "It is not a blockable offecene to follow WP policy", however his actions can be easily perceived as being disruptive trying to prove a point which may be blockable, regardless if the image is being used in a "decorative" manner. As a matter of fact having at least a image appears to be part of the manual of style that deals with television episodes. - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the "the manual of style that deals with television episodes"? I can't find it on the mail WP:MOS page Fasach Nua (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
You are seriously suggesting that removing a fair use image from an article, for which a usage rational has not been supplied, and to not use this image has consistantly been the consensus of the editors of this article, qualies as WP:POINT, and any editor removing such an image should be blocked? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
We're talking about the Fear Her image, not the Baker image. Will (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The warning was issued after the edit to the baker image, that is why I am being threatened with a block, I have not edited the Fear her image since the discussion closed, and I have already said that I will not edit it, [[16]] Fasach Nua (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually no, I'm saying that the obvious disruption you caused here [17] can easily be perceived as a violation of WP:POINT. - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it probably was a violation WP:Point, I have already said I shouldnt have done that, [[18]], and why I havent pursued it, however, is a block threat on the grounds of the Tom Baker edit justifiable, and at the risk of getting on topic was the idl disruptive? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Besides (repeatedly) removing the image from Tom Baker, you had another choice: How abaout adding a fair use rational. That would have been a constructive edit. And where is this consensus that you speak of? I see nothing about the image on the Tom baker talk page. Point is: using fair use images is not a sin, so you should not go raging around trying to get them removed whereever possible. Fixing any fair use issues is just as good, if not better approach to 'following policy'. EdokterTalk 16:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem with adding a fair use rationale is there is none for the prurposes it was being used for, the image page itself says "images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project", the purpose Sceptre used it for in the same article was an entirely different matter, to which I have no objections!
I think your knowlede of Fair use is poor, and "trying to get them removed whereever possible" as you state it is actually what you should be doing, the policy clearly states "Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.".
At the risk of going on topic how was the ifd disruptive? Fasach Nua (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Fasach Nua is making a valid point about overuse of fair-use images. Our policy is to reduce them. Fasach Nua is perfectly entitled to challenge the use of images that he considers purely decorative or otherwise unsuitable under our strict non-free content criteria. People don't get blocked for this. The "warning" above, and from an admin apparently involved in the article dispute, is bogus. I'm not seeing anything disruptive here, and if anybody actually blocks him I hereby state my intention of considering an immediate unblock. Fut.Perf. 10:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Overuse? There was only one image being used (in both cases). If Fasach has a valid point, it is is responsibility to explain what is wrong, instead of revert warring and yelling "decorative" and "blatant violation". It wasn't until warned that he actually did explain the problem.
One final word... This fair-use paranoia has to stop. We alrady dealt with actual overuse of fair use images in episode/character list pages. Let's not let this progress to all fair use images that are actually used within policy. If I see another single image being removed form a single page, it better be done with a very well defined reason. Otherwise, Wikipeida as a whole should just ban fair use images alltogether. EdokterTalk 13:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
So looking over the history of Tom Baker
Fasach Nua :remove fair use image without rationale
Edokter :Undid revision 176126907 by Fasach Nua (talk) Nonsense
Fasach Nua :(Undid revision 176217604 by Edokter (tak)
Edokter :Extensive fair use rationale provided on image page.
Fasach Nua :Undid revision 176568796 by Edokter (talk), No fair use rational given on image page
Edokter :Undid revision 176594356 by Fasach Nua (talk) This has got to stop!)
This was followed by a block warning above made by Edokter
What is your interpretation of "remove fair use image without rationale"?
What is your interpretation of "No fair use rational given on image page"?
At the risk of going on topic how was the ifd disruptive? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I would contend that this is a bad faith complaint, and more about User:Edokter frustration at their own inability to comprahend basic WP policy. This complaint is distruptive and as User:Edokter cannot defend or is unwilling to defend the original image usage under criteria 3A has chosen to attack me in the hope of distracting from the ifd thread, and is trying to bully me away from looking at FU issues on his particular wikiproject Fasach Nua (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Very well. To go to the root of the problem:
  • This was your disruptive edit in the IfD.
  • Please define "decorative" in ralation to WP:NFCC. EdokterTalk 14:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Of the 4 possible definintions listed at WP:DISRUPT, which does my behaviour fall into?
For the 5th time in this thread a FU image used for only decorative purposes is a violation of 3A. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If an argument presented in an ifd debate to keep an image is valid there, why is it not valid in the fair use rationale, surely they should be one and the same? Fasach Nua (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The first.
  • I cannot find "decorative" in that policy either. But if you refer to "necessary", that is left for intepretation by the community on a case by case basis.
  • No they are not. IfD is a discussion internal to the Wikipedia community. A FU rationale is a legal communiqué toward the copyrightholder. EdokterTalk 14:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
3A says "minimal usage", and would normally only be called, for example, if six fair use images were used on a single episode page. A single screenshot relevant to the plot is allowed under the TV MoS. If you're objecting to the use of the image, the word "decorative" applies to places where images are used but not explained fully (e.g. lists of episodes or discographies as identification aids only). Will (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
So my disruptive bahviour is "Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.".
  • This continuious editing is two edits
  • This extended time is eight minutes
  • The opposition from one or more other editors is one unexplained undo from yourself, for unkown reason?
Sorry I misread that
  • This continuious editing is one edit
  • This extended time is no time
  • The opposition from one or more other editors is one unexplained undo from yourself, for unkown reason?
You have not left this to the community to decide, you have stifled discussion on this issue and got a fellow wikiproject member to close the discussion early, and you are now engaging in harassment by engaging in this ridiculous this incident complaint.
On the issue of ifd, the only valid consideration for keeping a FU image is the merits of its usage rationale, any other considerations are irrelevant and shouldn't be presented Fasach Nua (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
First, I did not get enyone to do anything. Second, IfD is used for discussion wether images are kept or not, and includes much more aspects then just the fair use rationale; even free images are discussed at IfD. This demonstrates that you have the wrong idea of IfD.
Lastly... I am quite done here. If you feel the IfD on Image:DW Fear Her.jpg was closed improperly, take it to deletion review. Discussion regarding the fair use of Image:Bakert.jpg should go to fair use review. This is obvioulsy going nowhere, so this discussion is closed. EdokterTalk 15:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Keepscases speaks[edit]

Resolved: Davnel03 16:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry my contributions have led to such a discussion here. Now that my block has expired, I'd like to say my piece.

I *still* feel that my block was unfounded. I believe that those who have blocked me, or have supported my block, cannot possibly be assuming good faith.

Just to make sure everything is clear, I'll post my "offending" text here in its entirety.

Starts now: You may be interested to know

I think Sarah is a lovely name, and you should be proud that you own it on Wikipedia. That said, I have dated four Sarah's. The first one broke up with me because she was a lesbian. The second one broke up with me to become a stripper. The third one broke up with me because, after a long night of drinking, I left the toilet seat up!! She kicked me out of her house and made me drive home drunk, for that! The fourth one, I don't honestly have anything bad to say about, but after one date she did decide she didn't want to see me any more.

I just felt compelled to tell you all that.

That is what I left for Sarah.

I have been accused of "sexual harassment". This disturbs me. Exactly what is considered "harassment"? Certainly, leaving numerous messages for someone could be construed as "harassment"...but I left exactly one. Certainly, messages including graphic or personal content could be...but mine contained no such thing. I have had an interesting history dating Sarah's, and I thought this user might be interested to hear about it. That's it. I would be very interested to hear how exactly my comment could be construed as "sexual harassment". My personal opinion is that the user who blocked me was way too eager to find a reason to do such a thing...and there are apparently numerous similar issues in his past. ANYWAY, the point is, I have never, nor will ever, have any desire nor intention to harass someone.

All that said, I truly have no desire to be blocked from Wikipedia. I find Wikipedia to be an invaluable resource, and an analysis of my edits will show I've never done anything to this encyclopedia that wasn't in good faith.

Despite the fact that there are many editors (who have contacted me privately, or have publically stated they enjoy what I do) who appreciate I've said, I have no desire for another block. So, I'd just ask that you really try to Assume Good Faith...and if you can't, please let me know, hopefully we can work it out without any more drama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepscases (talkcontribs) 06:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the matter can be summed up fairly succinctly; your personal life has zero consideration regarding your editing the encyclopedia. Your real life interactions with people with the name Sarah is uninteresting in the context of contributing except that it provides an indication why you have directed your interest toward an editor who uses that name. It would be best if you don't (and hadn't) allowed your personal experiences dictate how you contribute. I strongly suggest that you put this incident behind you, not interact with editors based on similarity to people from your own life, and not seek to explain your actions in the context of your own experiences - It is not relevant . Please note that AGF works both ways, so please believe me when I say that it is your actions that were the problem and not the reaction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... I just hope nobody calls me a sexual harasser when I give out 8 of March carnations to female editors.... Zocky | picture popups 10:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Your block was only partially about Sarah. It was also about the unfunny comments you added to RfA which were sexually harrasing. While I would not have blocked you for the Sarah comments alone, coupled with those at RfA you were asking for trouble. Heed LessHeard vanU's comments seriously. - JodyB talk 14:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU's comments explained nothing about "sexual harassment," and I find it difficult to believe that a single comment that some feel to be "uninteresting" or "irrelevant" is grounds for a block.
I'll acknowledge that a couple of my RfA comments have been viewed as inappropriate, and for that I have served my time. But the "sexual harassment" label is still extreme and undeserved. I assure you, if I wanted to harass people on Wikipedia, which I don't, I could certainly do it more effectively than asking a user named "Keith D" if he plans on editing Wikipedia in the nude. Keepscases (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I will explain the sexual aspect of the situation - you noted that you had "dated" four females who had the name Sarah, two of whom you comment on in a manner indicative of a sexual identity. I have no desire to know what you mean by "dating" as far as romantic activity is concerned - and the recipient would also not know that either - but at least one individual is indicated as having been in a relationship with you. Therein is the sexual implication of your unsolicited post.
Unsolicited posts to anothers talkpage regarding the correspondees personal life is considered a poor idea, especially if there has no prior interaction between the parties. I think the only policy I can point toward is WP:NOT#... a social networking... site, which is more directed at consenting parties, but it is indicative of a general disapproval of excessive personal detail being used in communications. Is it harassment? Well, substitute Sarah with "Jew/Black/Bleeding Heart Liberal" and imagine the offense that may be felt by any editor who self identifies with the first two labels (obviously, the Bleeding Heart Liberal is bound to believe that you are perfectly within your rights to express yourself as you wish in whatever medium you choose - but then we are a bunch of pinko woosies...) if they were to receive an email regarding your past experiences of other members of that minority. Hmmm? I hope you can see that your approaches, no matter how innocent in intent, may be the cause of discomfort to another member of the community - and that is the bottom line.
I hope I have clarified my earlier comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You've clarified your comments, but while I'll admit to a few of my own comments perhaps being "inappropriate", I will not, and will never, acknowledge *anything* resembling "sexual harassment". I mean, if I were to tell someone here that "I am the father of two wonderful children," that has "sexual implication" as well. It's just not fair to stretch things that far. Keepscases (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Keepscases, imagine that you were being interviewed for a new job or perhaps a promotion, and then after several ordinary questions, you were suddenly asked "Do you find these women nice to look at?". This is very much like what you did on an RfA, where you asked the candidate (quoted verbatim) "Do you find these men nice to look at?". This wasn't a matter of asking the candidate if she would verify an external source. In this context, the question was completely inappropriate, and yes, even sexually harassing. Keep in mind that because you're asking the question on the RfA, you're putting pressure on the candidate to react, either by choosing to answer the question in some way or to ignore it. Your question introduced an element of sexuality that doesn't belong in an RfA. Inappropriate sexual content + pressure on the candidate = sexual harassment. --Kyoko 19:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this is the nub of the problem; you do not consider what you said - skimping over your sexual relationship history (and there is no other history given) with persons named Sarah, to a user named Sarah - as being sexual harassment, but the community considers that it may be so. It ain't about you, it's about the community and what is considered acceptable practice. If you and the community agree to differ then fine, but if you want to continue to act as you have previously because of your perceptions of your actions then you may have to consider that this community is not the place to do it. Really. Wikipedia welcomes and wants anything you can offer us in the way of article contributions, improvements to the running of the site, and all those mundane tasks that help build the encyclopedia, but we don't wish to have editors writing (unbidden) on the talkpages of other contributors in a manner that may be considered worrisome or inappropriately. While this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, this isn't the website that invites people to leave possibly disturbing comments on other contributors pages. To use your own example, no, I wouldn't consider placing the message of me being the father of two wonderful children (which happens to be true) on some stangers talkpage, because it may be inappropriate. Is it an example of sexual harassment? It could be considered so if the individual is gay. I don't do it (and I doubt if I could see any instance where it might be germane to some (psuedo)anonymous editor) and I suggest you don't either. Please, just edit the encyclopedia and only exchange familiar posts with people with whom you have first established a (cyber) relationship. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
A question: Keepscases, would you consider asking a bank clerk such a question when you were paying in cash at the bank? If a delivery person turned up at your front door asking for your signature for a package, would you ask them? If the checkout staff at your local supermarket had a badge with the name "Sarah" would you apropos of nothing tell them your "Sarahs I have known" story? You seem to think such behaviour is appropriate, so if not, why not? Tonywalton Talk 20:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And for $DEITY's sake, no more dating lesbians and leaving the toilet seat up. Dating Strippers is okay though! --WebHamster 14:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: I'm all for the toaster idea. --WebHamster 14:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
So am I allowed to respond to User:WebHamster with information about my personal life? I'm not being argumentative; this is a sincere question. I have a very hard time believing that personal information/thoughts on non-encyclopedia pages are grounds for blocking. Keepscases (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Keepscases: imagine how you would feel if someone left the paragraph that you wrote on Sarah's page, only with your real name instead of Sarah's. At the very least, I believe that you would have an odd impression of the writer, and you would wonder what the person's intentions were.
I looked at your comments on the RfAs, and I agree that they shouldn't have been made. There was another RfA in which you asked the candidate "if she found these men nice to look at". That question has nothing whatsoever to do with a person's suitability to be an admin. It's an inappropriate question, and could be considered sexual harassment. Even if you don't mean any harm, if other people are telling you that your behaviour is inappropriate, you should heed their words and stop. --Kyoko 17:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree regarding whether my question had anything to do with the user's suitability to be an admin. She declined to look at a non-Wikipedia website? I don't believe users unwilling to check outside sources should be made administrators. I will take more care in what I contribute in the future, but "sexual harassment" is really not a term that should be thrown around lightly. Keepscases (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
How's "just plain creepy and wrong" sound? Because that's the first phrase that pops into my head when I read your comments - Alison 18:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Seconded - your RFA questions are either inappropriate or just downright creepy as mentioned above. --Fredrick day (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I have already promised to take more care with my contributions from now on. That is all I can do. I am truly sorry if my questions and comments were interpreted negatively by some, but I still maintain that I meant no harm, and that an indefinite block was undeserved. Keepscases (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI an "indefinite" block is entirely the appropriate response to problems regarding an editors behaviour - it can be lifted immediately the problem is resolved, be it minutes, days, months or never. It is not possible for a blocking admin to say that the behaviour in question will cease after 24 hours or 1 week and set a tariff accordingly. Blocks are preventative, and the indef block is often the best prevention possible because it relies on the blockee being the major part of the solution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Sohailsyte and User:Sohailstyle[edit]

Resolved: Sohailsyte blocked, impersonation. Cheers, Davnel03 16:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Sohailsyte (ends with "syte") has a short history of contributions. Much of his activity has consisted of leaving (and replacing) insulting and threatening messages to myself and one other user. [19], [20], [21], [22], [23].

In these messages, Sohailsyte "manually" signs them as "User:Sohailstyle" (ends with "style"). Hence the responses to Sohailsyte (yte) have gone to Sohailstyle (yle)'s talk page. I'm not sure if these two users are the same person, though it appears they are, and I have no idea what the point of this misdirection is.

One certain fact is that User:Sohailsyte's contributions to Wikipedia consist mainly of leaving threatening, insulting and entirely unprovoked messages on user's talk pages.

RedSpruce (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

lost password?ThuranX (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I think that User:Sohailsyte is a hoax, as evidenced by User:Sohailstyle's later question to Zora [24]. The threatening comments by the probable hoaxer seem quite out of character. Mathsci (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hoax or not, this looks like a clear violation of WP:UN#Inappropriate_usernames as it is a Confusing username mak[ing] it unduly difficult to identify users by their username. The fact that the two userpages at Sohailsyte and Sohailstyle doesn't help either and may not be coincidence; I think syte is a straight copy of style. At the very least that list of "articles started" on syte is a complete hoax (unless Special:Contributions/Sohailsyte has gone haywire). In fact the edit history of Sohailsyte is interesting - they started with a copy of User:Sohailstyle's talkpage by mistake. Tonywalton Talk 21:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks like clear impersonation. I've notified -syte of this thread, to allow them a chance to explain. —Random832 02:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Sohailsyte blocked for impersonation. Any forthcoming explanation will be found on the user's talk page; that is, assuming any explanation is forthcoming. —Kurykh 22:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Case undiscussed unblocks[edit]

Unresolved: Topic currently unresolved. Discussion continues on subpage --slakrtalk / 11:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Moved topic over 50k to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Daniel Case. Davnel03
I guess undiscussed, unilateral acts are the new way to go. El_C 11:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, can you do something about your sig, it is extremely distracting. El_C 11:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
El_C, I haven't been following the conversation, but I dunno if he meant anything by it. Honestly, I was about to do the same thing, because this page is already huge, and it was slowing my browser down :P Anyway, cheers. :) --slakrtalk / 11:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I wasn't implying he was doing anything more than very brightly {{resolving}} yet another ANI thread, but 50k isn't that much and usually folks ask if they should move threads to ANsub-pages. Dosen't matter. Out of sight is good, I suppose. El_C 11:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Quote from the top of the page: When moving very long threads to a subpage, add a link to the subpage and sign without a timestamp: "Davnel03"; this prevents premature archiving.. That's why I did it. The discussion was getting quite long, so I think it would be for the best if it was moved to a subpage. Cheers, Davnel03 11:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, 50K is not very long by the standards of this board, but whatever. It probably outlived its usefulness, anyway. El_C 11:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Added an {{Unresolved}} to further emphasize the point. Cheers =) --slakrtalk / 11:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the split. Its a lot easier to watch now, this page is very active and its hard to find points of interest.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Davnel03 page move is a great strategy to stop arguing on WP:ANI. It does lessen dreaded "wikidrama". But on the other hand, I am concerned that moving active arguments maybe an effective way to quiet dissent and pardon bad behavior. T (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand your concern. Splitting a topic to a new page does reduce its visibility on one hand. On the other, however, it makes it easier to address new problems as they arise while allowing the editors interested in the topic to follow the discussion more easily. If too many edits are occurring on this page due to that one particular topic, edit conflicts pose a practicality concern for dealing with and resolving the rest of the problems already listed or attempting to be listed on this page. Couple that with a constantly long page to begin with, it becomes a serious issue of accessibility. --slakrtalk / 08:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: Davnel03 16:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this an attack page? Corvus cornixtalk 04:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm deja vu. I seem to remember this coming up on here before, although i've no idea when, and looking at his/her talk its come up on there a couple of times, and since at least one ANI discusion that i can remember, plus those on his talk page, its unlikely he's gonna change it. As for whether of not i could be construed as an attack, that quite difficult. Perhaps if User:MER-C and User:A Man In Black could be asked if they find it offensive--Jac16888 (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec)"Category:FYAD" does not strike me as something that's appropriate for a userpage. sh¤y 04:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
What's FYAD? Corvus cornixtalk 05:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
[25]? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
According to Urban dictionary it's either stands for Fuck You And Die, or it's a cool place to hang out, either way, neither is a personal attack. However, saying that certain editors, and administators no less, should not be able to use the edit button, is commenting on the contributor and not the content. Whether or not it's a personal attack, ignore that fact, it is a clear intent to draw attention to himself that he dislikes those editors and thats not what the userpage is supposed to be used for. I'm removing it. — Save_Us_229 05:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Did this need to be an ANI thread? Afterall, this is not the wikipedia complaints department. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a fairly normal concern to bring to AN/I. — Save_Us_229 05:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Just because its commonly done does not make it the proper venue. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Name a better venue. — Save_Us_229 06:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I know how this goes. The user will revert the page, and people will stand around and do exactly nothing about it. Oddly, we've tried taking this to MFD before, and been told that wasn't the right venue either. With all due respect, sometimes our bureaucracy here makes former communist nations look like well-oiled machines of government. If it's inappropriate, remove it, and if he revert wars, as he's done, bring it here to see the user blocked. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
For a case of incivility? WP:WQA. Or perhaps reopen the discussion on the user's talk page. It seems the former discussion of this went stale there and noone bothered to discuss this with him again before trying to escalate this into an "incident". I can't see a reason to claim this as an incident that needs admin intervention until the user does something needing intervention, ie. edit wars over the removal. Dispute resolution IS a good thing, we should try it before bring people to "court". Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
FYAD is a forum on the Somethingawful forums, and with regards to the two users listed, I have stated that if they complain (they havn't), they'll be removed. There, problem resolved. How about you go fix up something that's actually a problem now instead of harrassing me? And you are quite correct that I will revert any specious edits to my user page. Jtrainor (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As expected[edit]

Jtrainor decided to travel down the road of revert land and reinsert the personal attacks [26] only for User:Betacommand2 (Betacommand's vandalism reverting account) to remove the personal attacks again [27] Will someone please speak to Jtrainor about why the personal attacks are inappropriate? He seems to think that because he says the users haven't complained about it yet that personal attacks can stay and that removing the personal attacks is vandalism. — Save_Us_229 20:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read what I typed above? Jtrainor (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Did you even read this, this or this? Your userspace is not a place to post scrutiny on other editors making personal attacks, period. It doesn't matter whether they love it or hate it. Personal attacks are not something that the userspace is intended use is for. — Save_Us_229 20:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It is not a personal attack, but an opinion. Anyways, I posted to those two users' talk pages asking if they care to give a specific yes/no answer instead of an implied one. Should they say they don't care, it stays. In the meantime I have requested protection of my user page to prevent vandalism. Jtrainor (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
... which I have declined. I see no vandalism here, nor does WP:PROT cover this - Alison 21:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
And you were also advised to read WP:NPA and WP:UP. I suggest you do that because you don't seem to understand. It don't matter what they say or word it, they are personal attacks as you are commenting on the contributors and not the content, and that is not allowed, period. Do you understand? — Save_Us_229 21:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to give notice here that I will continue to revert my page within the limits of 3RR until I hear back from AMIB and MER-C, at which time the page will be updated accordingly. I view your edits of my user page as vandalism and violation of WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL. The fact that you have ignored everything I've even said here also shows that you've clearly made up your mind about this. Jtrainor (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I wouldn't see you being unblocked if someone were to report you for 3RR on your own userpage. There are several editors who have told you that the material is inappropriate. The administrator above said it was not vandalism and good-faith contributions cannot be treated as vandalism, so your point is moot. You claim to be upholding WP:CIVIL, yet you violate it along with assume good faith and no personal attacks and our userpage guidelines at the same time. If I were you I would wise up and not persist in engaging in a revert war with several editors placing contentious material on your userpage. — Save_Us_229 21:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There is no 3RR as regards personal attacks. Personal attacks are not permitted, period (I realise that I am repeating what has already been written). If you disagree that they are personal attacks you are permitted to question and promote their validity, but they must first be removed. You have no "right" to post material that others have determined are personal attacks. Reposting such content may attract sanctions. I haven't seen the comments referred to, but felt I should warn you that you are possibly violating policy by retaining the content when asked not to. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Save Us 229 is wikistalking jtrainor. I request admin intervention. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the contribution link and commenting where relevant isn't wikistalking. I suggest you never leave me a message like on my talk like that anymore.Save_Us_229 08:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Or what? Are you threatening me, Save Us 229? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Making a mere suggestion is all. — Save_Us_229 08:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
No, but following someone around and being an <personal attack removed> to them is. I too can call a spade a spade. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
You haven't learned anything from this thread about personal attacks, have you? Calling a spade a spade doesn't mean you can make personal attacks. Now if you don't mind, this discussion is closed. — Save_Us_229 08:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for you to refactor your threat, <personal attack removed>. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
And as I said, there is no threat. But if it will make you happy.. — Save_Us_229 09:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Having heard back from AMIB and MER-C, that stuff will stay gone. The whole rest of you may feel free to fly away and bother someone else now.

It does not escape my notice that suddenly people are just happening to start harrassing me after I post an unpopular opinion on the village pump. Well, have fun watching me, because despite what some might say about me, I do actually like contributing here, when people arn't screwing around with me, at least. Jtrainor (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Soulgany101[edit]

Resolved: Davnel03 16:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I think I'd better post this here too. This editor has made repeated efforts to set up articles to promote a non-notable agenda as mainstream psychology. When one article is AFD'd or has his agenda excluded by consensus he tries to create another one, however with Cassandra complex (psychology) he has crossed the line into creating a sockpuppet account and using it in conjunction with at least two IPs to circumvent 3RR and hold the links he wishes to promote against all comers. He is also repeatedly blanking the Sockpuppet tag from User Talk:Goddessculture. I can't do a thing with him, I have tried.--Zeraeph (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There were also these edits, although they might be good. I have no idea what that article is about, anyway, so I can't judge. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The IPs don't all resolved to the same city (or even province), but this just screams COI/meatpuppet army. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
If you check here on this geographic locator you will see they are all the same town/city (I won't name it) --Zeraeph (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
He has now performed his 4th revert to User Talk:Goddessculture as his reversions are to blank warning templates, is that 3RR? There seems to be a serious element of WP:POINT at play here too. My honest impression is that he is of the opinion that he is a law unto himself here. --Zeraeph (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Where does it say that one cannot remove warnings and tags from their own user pages? Actually, all I know of is this, which says the opposite. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This is already a sock puppet report; why here as well? Zeraeph called me and many others sockpuppets in the past, never retracted the accusation although proven glaringly wrong by Checkuser, and has a history of forum shopping. I can't believe I have to go look for the diffs yet again; I may as well store them in favorite places, because the pattern repeats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/A Kiwi. There was also a previous incident at alexithymia, August 17 2007, where Zeraeph massively revert warred in a blanking frenzy, removing text that was well referenced by Soulgany101. They had asked me to mediate, and I saw no problem with Soulgany's edits. Strangely, although the article was protected by an admin, no one was blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
You are totally misrepresenting your own knowledge of that incident, I removed text in good faith that appeared to be effectively uncited because the citation format had been changed to one I did not recognise (see these first edits AND the edit summaries ). At the time I had just crashed my car and was in shock, something of which you were fully aware. ( ) --Zeraeph (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Sandy, I feel that you are stalking and bullying me for no valid reason at this stage. I feel that you wish to make it impossible for me to participate fully in Wikipedia on equal terms with other editors. Please stop it. You have just accused another editor of stalking you for about 100th of what you have just done to me here ( I would also like to point out that, as you now know, I was correct in requesting Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/A Kiwi as that editor turned out to be exactly the person I assumed them to be. Let's either take this to arbcom once and for all, or you leave me in peace --Zeraeph (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain your reference to A_Kiwi, out of curiosity? Additionally, I think the AN/I post is irrelevant given the sockpuppet report. A checkuser clears it up if the evidence of sockpuppetry warrants it, but it isn't for AN/I as far as I can tell. AvruchTalk 03:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Avruch, I was on my way to bed and the problem seemed to be escalating. I was also concerned by the blanking of the sockpuppet tags. I had asked the User:Soulgany101 to clarify his identity and he made no move to do so. As for the situation with User:A_Kiwi, User:SandyGeorgia is now fully aware that I was 100% correct to be concerned about the identity and intentions of User:A_Kiwi in relation to myself, which is all that needs saying at this, much later, time. I made the mistake of assuming that User:SandyGeorgia was a manifestation of the same person because her behavior and attitude to me was so similar, a coincidence for which I am hardly responsible, though I have, of course apologised for my assumptions, I do not think I deserve to be bullied off Wikipedia by User:SandyGeorgia for more than a year later because of it.
I barely participate here at all now because of this. I just watch a couple of articles for vandalism and SPAM/self promotion that I am familiar with. I happened to see User:Soulgany creating an article on his favorite topic using 2 IP and a new identity, so I tried to apply policy. I do not think this warrants an ad hoc personal attack relating to irrelevant issues from over a year ago from User:SandyGeorgia --Zeraeph (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Look folks, this is all a bit of a storm in a teacup. I'm Soulgany101 and now Goddessculture. I am a novice on Wikipedia having only started editing this year. After a somewhat blundering beginning I thought it might be good to choose myself a new username and start afresh. In my complete ignorance of WP policies I literally thought I could have as many usernames as I wanted, and chose Goddessculture as my new account. I assumed that old accounts would just become obselete and could be deleted with a button push, but soon found out that any account I started remained in place, and this is what confused Zeraeph. I also became lazy with logging in a few times which added to Z's suspicion. I may have been ignorant and dense, but let me assure you my aim was not to multiple-vote or to deceive, although I thought the anonymity of not logging in was kinda good.

I have put a "disused" statement on previous account, which I trust is clear. I will also make every effort to log in each time so as not to create confusion. (I might add that a few times after I have logged-in I am again unlogged in as little as ten minutes due to some glitch in the system, though this is only occasionally).

You live and learn. From this point forward I'll use only the Goddessculture account, and no other.

For the record, although this has resulted from my mistakes, I also am quite certain that Zeraeph dislikes my approach to certain subjects and would be more than happy to find any technicality which would remove me from the WP system, and to use plenty of hyperbole to achieve that end.

I hope that clears things up a bit. Goddessculture (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hardly, see (and here: which you have already seen) . I admit I dislike your approach to certain subjects, I also dislike your tendency to use anon IPs without identifying yourself and your attempts at promoting specific non-notable agenda (and if you can get User:SandyGeorgia to establish that your favorite agenda are notable and encyclopaedic, with proper citations, up to the standard she demands from others, fine, I will accept them, but NOT based on self published websites!). I have no particular problem with your other edits and have never wished or attempted to have you removed from the WP system. --Zeraeph (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Image fix[edit]

Resolved: Fixed. Davnel03 16:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Would an admin fix this please. Someone vandalised the image and I tried to roll it back to the original but apparently rollback doesn't work with images as it does with articles. It needs to go back to the original image. -- ALLSTARecho 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Who thought that putting animated gifs in a stub notice was a good idea?Geni 17:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
That's beside the point... -- ALLSTARecho 17:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The image has already been reverted. hwoever I find it's authorship claim questionable.Geni 17:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It rolled back Allstarecho, refresh your browser. — Save_Us_229 17:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought I did refresh but apparently not. -- ALLSTARecho 17:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

SmackBot malfunctioning?[edit]

Resolved: Edits rolled back. Davnel03 17:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Something tells me the bot shouldn't be changing articles from looking like this to looking like this. One Night In Hackney303 18:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

He's replacing Template:POV with Template:POV-statement which is a different template; somebody block him temporarily and rollback all of his recent edits. <eleland/talkedits> 18:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the bot an contacted the operator about it - it needed to be stopped quickly as it was starting to make secondary edits to some pages meaning rollback won't work on them all. Give me 5 mins and I'll start rolling back. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, people! You don't need to block AWB-based bots in order to stop them. Simple talk page post is enough. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 18:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It's faster to simply block the bot than it is to check to see if a talkpage message will stop it, then block the bot if it didn't. --Carnildo (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Right, I've rolled back all the edits that are obvious, the rest are mixed in with other edits so I can't go blind reverting. Not really sure what else to do unless we just blind revert all of SmackBots edits for today..... Ryan Postlethwaite 19:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Comic Guaranty LLC[edit]

Resolved: Username blocked. Davnel03 17:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone deal with this? Look at the history. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As Jasonewert was clearly here to simply attack a person names Jason Ewert [28] [29] he has been username blocked. IrishGuy talk 22:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate block of Ethajak[edit]

Anthony.bradbury recently placed a block against Ethajak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for "vandalism". The term "vandalism", as defined in Wikipedia's vandalism policy, refers to "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia", and expressly provides that "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Nowhere are putative violations of WP:NOT#CENSORED defined as "vandalism" in the vandalism policy. Moreover, it is obvious from an examination of Ethajak's edits that he was engaged in a content dispute over Erection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), not a deliberate effort to harm Wikipedia, as the term vandalism implies. The characterization of Ethajak edits as vandalism, in warnings on his talk page, and in his block log, reflects a failure to assume good faith. Moreover, by blocking a user whose content edits he has reverted, Anthony.bradbury has blocked a user with whom he is engaged in a content dispute. I ask that this inappropriate block be removed. I further note that Ethajak's unblock request was recently declined on the grounds that while Ethajak's edits weren't actually vandalism, he was "edit warring to push... [his] personal POV... [He] wildly breached WP:3RR and never even attempted to garner consensus on the talk page as... [he] continued warring." While I concede that Ethajak's edit warring was disruptive, as a new user possibly unframiliar with Wikipedia policy, Ethajak should have been informed of the relevent policy and asked to stop edit warring, being blocked only if he continued. The false accusations of vandalism against Ethajak likely inflamed the situation, and consituted a serious violation of WP:BITE. Morever, even if Ethajak were to be blocked for edit warring, he shouldn't have been blocked by an administrator who was reverting his edits [30]. John254 22:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to AGF on a user who uploads not one but three pictures of penises on account creation. Will (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Ethajak uploaded the diagrams to replace a photograph in Erection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It appears to be insinuated that he uploaded "three pictures of penises" for the purpose of defacing pages with them, which is clearly not the case. John254 22:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Ethajak was informed several times that his edits weren't appreciated. Edit warring without discussion after other editors have reverted and voiced their complaints is no less blockable than vandalism. At worst, Bradbury chose an incomplete block explanation. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:BLOCK, administrators must not block users who they are edit warring against, as Anthony.bradbury was. Moreover, the unjustified vandalism warnings placed on Ethajak's talk pages do not constitute acceptable communication concerning Wikipedia's policy against edit warring. John254 22:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
He was not involved in an edit war. The revert and the block came within one minute of eachother. It was functionally no different from blocking then reverting. So no, no. And the first warning said it all. Like I said before, that he saw (or ignored entirely) the message, and kept on reverting is what was unacceptable in his behavior. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
When one reverts edits in a content dispute, one becomes involved in said content dispute, and ineligible to employ one's administrative tools therein. Furthermore, template:uw-notcensored1 was inappropriate in this situation, as WP:NOT#CENSORED only provides that sexually explicit material may be included in relevant articles, not that it must, actual inclusion be decided on the basis of editorial discretion -- i.e., a content dispute. Ethajak should have been politely informed of Wikipedia's policy against edit warring, and blocked by an uninvolved administrator only if he continued -- not falsely accused of vandalism, and blocked for such by an administrator who reverted one of his edits. John254 23:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Additionally the diagrams he personally released into the public domain...aren't his. See here. IrishGuy talk 22:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect use of image licensing tags isn't necessarily vandalism -- it could simply be a mistake by a new user. John254 22:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Um no. The images had the artist signature removed and then a gray filter to make it look different. It was a blatant copyright infringement. IrishGuy talk 22:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Sceptre, hard to AGF and the block appears to be valid. The images all appear to be the same except the first upload is in color. All of them are of penile implants apparently from this site (copy/vio) [31].--Sandahl 22:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Vandalism defines only "repeated uploading of copyrighted material" after being warned as vandalism: "Uploading or using material on Wikipedia in ways which violate Wikipedia's copyright policies after having been warned is vandalism. Because users may be unaware that the information is copyrighted, or of Wikipedia policies on how such material may and may not be used, such action only becomes vandalism if it continues after the copyrighted nature of the material and relevant policy restricting its use have been communicated to the user." Perhaps we could assume good faith at least to the extent that the vandalism policy does. John254 23:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
There is assuming good faith and then there is ignoring the obvious. When someone takes an image from online and uploads it to Wikipedia...but then a few minutes later uploads a "new" version that has removed the artist signature and converted it to black and white thrn that user knew exactly what he was doing. He was violating copyright and trying to hide it. IrishGuy talk 23:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
If a user really were "violating copyright and trying to hide it", then it would have been far more effective for him to simply modify the photograph before performing any uploads. Moreover, he wouldn't have provided explicit credit to the copyright holder of the image, and specifically stated that the image was edited, as he did here. Ethajak should have been encouraged to contribute in a more productive manner, and blocked by an uninvolved administrator only if he continued making disruptive edits, not falsely accused of vandalism. John254 23:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no "interpretation" involved here as far as use of images on WP is concerned. He placed a copyright image on WP and that is not permitted. He has tampered with it by removing a signature and the colour attributes. He certified that he is the copyright holder of the image here [32], which is quite untrue. The image will be deleted for copyright infringement. Mathsci (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
(The image was deleted while I posted the above.) Mathsci (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the alleged 3RR from Anthony. If anything, Ethajak was being disruptive for warring with censoring and copyrighted images. bibliomaniac15 00:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There was no attempt to notify Ethajak of Wikipedia's copyright or edit warring policies before he was blocked. Not informing new editors of the actual objections to their edits, then incorrectly accusing them of vandalism, and blocking them on that basis encourages potentially productive new editors to leave. The guideline please do not bite the newcomers was designed as a caution against situations such as this. John254 00:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering. Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact and was never meant to be. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not claiming that WP:AGF is "a suicide pact". I'm claiming that editors should not be blocked for vandalism unless it is evident that their contributions are clearly such. The insinuation that asking Ethajak not to engage in edit warring, and not to upload copyright violations, before he was blocked, would somehow amount to Wikipedia's "suicide" is without merit. John254 00:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
He was warned twice about replacing one of the thumbnail images with his own plagiarised image. He was told about wikipedia censorship policy and warned that he could be blocked. Yet he took absolutely no notice of the two warnings and continued with the insertion of his image. That seems to be deliberate vandalism. Mathsci (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
That's circular logic. The placement of a template:uw-vandalism4 warning [33] assumes that Ethajak's contributions were vandalism prior to the warning; if they weren't, then the warning was invalid, and his continued edits after receiving an invalid warning don't imply anything. The template:Uw-notcensored1 warning was likewise invalid -- it is intended to be used where users blank sexually explicit content without explanation, or with a frivolous explanation; as explained above, a genuine dispute over whether any given image should be included is a content dispute, not vandalism. Ethajak should have been informed about the actual legitimate objections to his edits. John254 01:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not circular logic at all. The two unheeded warnings were quite clear. [34] Are you suggesting that first time users are allowed to ignore all warnings, even when there are messages flashing up in front of them? Mathsci (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
BTW, contrary to your initial statement, neither warning was from Anthony.bradbury. Mathsci (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Censorship referred to his removal of an image, just in case you hadn't worked that out. Mathsci (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't claim that the vandalism warnings were issued by Anthony.bradbury, though this may have been mistakenly implied by context in which the warnings were described. Nor am I "suggesting that first time users are allowed to ignore all warnings, even when there are messages flashing up in front of them". I am, however, asserting that new users cannot be expected utilize telepathy to ascertain the intentions of the users issuing warnings. They cannot be expected to understand that a "stop vandalizing" warning actually means "stop edit warring", or that a "not censored" warning actually means "don't upload copyright violations". Unless, of course, we assume that any good faith user who received a template:uw-vandalism4 warning would be so insulted that would leave Wikipedia immediately. John254 01:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent for sanity) If a user (newbie or otherwise) can't associate his revert war with the bright new message bar and harsh warnings, he probably intends to edit war regardless. Were little slip ups made on his inevitable path to being block? Maybe a nicer, personalized message would have done better than templates. But at this point you have to simply ignore the rules and consider, will anything good come from unblocking this user? Why not let him cool down from his edit war over the course of his block. If he wants to continue this tomorrow, he can start a discussion somewhere. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If personalized messages weren't going to be written, then template:uw-3rr and template:uw-copyright would have provided adequate warning. There is a reason, after all, why we have warning templates customized to various situations, instead of a general warning along the lines of {{warning|We don't like your edits. Don't continue making edits we don't like, or you will be blocked.}} Furthermore, if Ethajak were going to be blocked without effective warning for edit warring and copyright violations, his block log should at least reflect that fact, rather than containing an unjustified use of the term "vandalism", which effectively accuses Ethajak of being amongst the lowest of scum on Wikipedia. John254 02:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me also observe that I wasn't aware of Ethajak's copyright violations when I first made this report, and, in all likelihood, neither was the blocking administrator -- I don't believe that Anthony.bradbury would have blocked Ethajak for "vandalism" through copyright violations, but wouldn't have deleted the copyvio images (the images were initially deleted at least 12 minutes after the block, by a different administrator, characterizing the images as vandalism, not copyright violations). What we are faced with, here, is a situation in which any replacement of sexually explicit material with less explicit material is being treating as vandalism, not a content dispute. WP:NOT#CENSORED notwithstanding, I believe that this reflects a failure to assume good faith (note that even many indisputable fundamental policy violations, such WP:NPOV violations and the insertion of original research, are not inherently treated as vandalism.) Of course, the applicability of WP:NOT#CENSORED to this situation is doubtful, as the policy provides that "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content", not that they must. John254 03:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
that sort of attempt to evade not censored can & does happen, but I do not see this as an instance of it. DGG (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The user in question was engaging in edit-warring to include a copyrighted diagram of a penile implant, violating not only the 3RR, but our image use policies as well. Enforcing policy by reverting the insertion of an improperly-licenced image does not prohibit that administrator from further enforcing policy by means of blocking. FCYTravis (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Resolved: User warned. Davnel03 17:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Great Soul (talk · contribs) has continuously inserted libelous statements onto Vishwa Hindu Parishad and other articles, in a probable violation of WP:3rr as well. He has utilized a sockpuppet, Special:Contributions/

The user has done this on a couple other pages as well, all unsourced and has been warned not to engage in this editing. This seems to be a vandal only account.Bakaman 00:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Blatant violations of WP:NPOV accompanied by no discussion can be dealt with the same as trivial vandalism, using the appropriate warning templates and report to WP:AIV if necessary. I have left Great Soul such a warning. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Need help with editor removing fact tags[edit]

Resolved: Davnel03 17:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

An editor on one of the article's I've been working has twice removed a {{fact}} tag I placed on an article less than 24hours ago (Dec 9, 14:12).

The first time the editor removed the tagDec 9, 23:35, they tried to provide an extended argument to prove that this statement was true and so didn't need a fact tag. I explained that according to WP:V the burden of proof was on the provider of the uncited claim, and that she would either have to change the substance of the claim or add a citation. I also referred her to WP:V and WP:NOR. I then restored the {{fact}} tag.

The editor then rephrased it making a minor rewording (effectively changing "X unanimously does" to "no X does not") and then removed the fact tag(Dec 10, 00:28). I suppose she might have misunderstood what it meant to change the content of the claim. I'd like at least to assume good faith and suppose she had. In any case, the claim still needs a citation so I replaced the {{fact}} tag.

Further complicating the situation is that the editor in question is removing fact tags on an article that she herself nominated for AfD. The AfD has expressed concerns about sourcability of the article so those fact tags are absolutely necessary for us to keep track of which claims still need sourcing and which do not. In effect the editor, intentionally or unintentionally is sabataging attempts to repair the article.

I'm not sure what to do next. I'm hoping she'll refrain from removing the fact tag again. On the other hand I'm not sure what to do if she does. Its important that these fact tags stay in place, but I certainly don't want myself blocked for undoing someone's edits 3X. I'm not at all experienced in these situations. Help needed. Thanks in advance. Egfrank (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleting previous comments. What a mess that AfD is. I've voted, so don't take my advice is neutral necessarily (nor am I an admin) but my advice would be to refrain from edit-warring over fact inserts until the AfD is sorted out. Once its decided if the article will survive or not, then an RfC on the enormous number of issues and warring POVs might be appropriate. AvruchTalk 01:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
You sum it up well. There are so things that need fixing that I think we can let this one sentence ride for now. Thanks, Egfrank (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Avruch, except that i think a RfC might produce yet more of a mess even afterwards, and we should better hope for a fresh start. DGG (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Resolved: Davnel03 17:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

When looking, for other good reasons, at SandyGeorgia's edit history, I found the name of an article she had commented on the day before interesting, and commented on a related AfD, here. I have now received a warning claiming that this one occurence, on one article, is Wikistalking. This seems to me a much tighter definition than the "following a user around Wikipedia" that WP:STALK uses; it has been combined with an undiscussed revert of a copyedit, here.

If it is consensus that this was stalking, I will apologize; if so, I suggest that WP:STALK be reworded; but I don't think this was, or can have been, the intent. Good editors visit interesting articles which I did not know existed; and I came here to look at interesting articles. I trust, on the other hand, that this is not an effort to use admin powers to gain an edge in a wording discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The timing (unclear why you say "the day before")
I don't recall ever seeing you before at Hugo Chavez or Venezuelan-related articles. Since you have had other disputes with me, there is reason for concern that you follow my contribs to an AfD in a topic area I frequent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Sandy, all contributions to an AfD discussion are welcomed. The history is there on the AfD for the closing admin to see. Trust them to take it into account if need be. Posting annotated timelines is not really going to help. Comment on the comments by the editor, not on the editor. Carcharoth (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I put up the timing because I thought his reference to "the day before" strange, since it was immediate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe what initially drew my attention was this edit; I got to the AFD through several pages, but saw no reason to act until I did. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, I wouldn't view that as stalking. I agree that you need more than one such incident of "following" for it to become stalking. I often follow up things I notice while reading other people's talk pages after leaving them a note. Looking through someone's contribs is also OK (that's why we have contribs logs), but following up on something seen there is slightly more "following" than seeing an interesting discussion on their talk page. I also think Marskell and SandyGeorgia need to calm down. Carcharoth (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Where have I or Marskell been uncalm? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Where you said "there is reason for concern". If you really think this is a problem, keep an eye on it and then come back later with more evidence. A single incident like this doesn't constitute stalking, in my view. If you could show a series of such incidents, and consistent opposition to your comments, then it might be different. Marskell has been decidedly less calm than you though, I'll give you that. (striking through after talk page discussion - I accept Marskell was only being acerbic here Carcharoth (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)) To be fair, I also think Septentrionalis didn't need to drag this over to ANI. You, Marskell and Septentrionalis are all experienced editors and should try harder to work together. I suspect the real issue is at WP:FAR, and that the AfD and stalking accusations are just a sideshow resulting from tensions at that page. Carcharoth (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I brought it here because I really wanted to know if this were a general understanding I had missed out on; WT:STALK might have done equally well, now that I think of it, but it didn't occur to me. I thank you all for your comments. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Everyone gets their contributions history looked at and their talk pages watchlisted once in awhile. As long as you're not making a point of following any other editors around all the time, then I wouldn't worry about any well-intentioned warning. ➪HiDrNick! 03:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
And further, helpful peering over someone's shoulder and helping them out is, well, helpful. Though there are certain personality types that bridle if you do this, and it is best to back off at that point. I've always welcomed people popping into a conversation out of the blue. It reminds me that there are always more people reading and watching than you think. Carcharoth (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I notice four reverts by Septentrionalis and three by Marskell in the history of the FAR page. You should both be more careful, lest ye fall afoul of 3RR. I agree with Carcharoth that there is no evidence of stalking in the above diffs. More than participating in an AfD that you've contributed to is required to violate WP:STALK. The FA official types have (from what I've read, which is not authoritative) facilitator authority over the process, not the rules. These are open to discussion and modification like anything else, and the deputies and delegates should be diplomatic about relatively minor edits. AvruchTalk 03:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
it's generally good to have new eyes on a disputed subject. And we want to encourage participation in AfD. DGG (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If anybody wants to comment on the wording of {{FAR-instructions}} or the general question of FAR standards, new voices are always welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
PMA entered a separate dispute within minutes of disputing with Sandy on the template. C'mon. My second link was perfectly calm and an accurate summary. Marskell (talk) 08:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
To add to the chorus: it's not stalking. It's commonplace to see an odd or curious-sounding edit, check contribs, and wonder what the item on the list there means. In fact, it's one of the things that Wikipedia is set up to encourage. It's how we make friends, as well as enemies. Clicking on contribs is normal. Stalking is different. Those who silently track every edit to build black books are stalking. Those who go to follow every edit with a contradiction are stalking. Those who watchlist talk pages of "enemies" so that they can be there to exploit any controversy are stalking. I should know, having been the victim of all three of these in the past. It's also a form of stalking, incidentally, to look for users leaving and then nominating all of their articles for AfD or FAR. Geogre (talk) 10:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Geogre, if someone you had disputed with in the past showed up on an AfD, or any forum, to offer you "helpful advice" minutes after a separate dispute, would you take it as good faith? I think not—I think you would reasonably conclude that it was an attempt to escalate. I would not have linked to STALK had it been two editors who'd never encountered one another previously. But PMA has been disrupting various instruction pages for months (see revision history of MoS and WIAFA, for instance). He was initially reverted because he had garnered zero comments on making changes. It's not the first time.
I have no idea who's doing the nominating on the two you're referring to at FAR. Perhaps it is bad faith, but you should contact the nominators directly about their motives. Or tell me or Joel, if you seem some coordinated attempt to bring down an editor on FAR. Marskell (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it is innocent, however, I also wouldn't say that it's stalking. It may indeed be conflict escalation, but we water down "stalking" to meaningless when we use it to cover everything from "attempting to frustrate someone" to "deciding to pursue a policy disagreement." Suppose that I see that user:Bobo has posted that there is a "semi-policy" he just wrote blocking all people who compare others to Hitler. Well, that's wrong. I might tangle on the project page, but then I might go to the edits to see if Bobo has been trying to implement this. Is that stalking or cleaning up? In other words, we can't say that this is stalking by itself. If there is no legitimacy to the actions, then they should be easy to bat away. If it's a repeated phenomenon, it crosses into harassment. If it's one... meh. As for history of disrupting the policy pages, that begs the question. I don't like hearing "ban 'em to hell" talk being offered to the "noticeboard culture" of AN/I over a single nomination. (And I wouldn't think the FAR nomination of the Lisbon Earthquake were ganging up on the departed, had it not been followed by the user's other FA today.) Geogre (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Not innocent but not stalking is fair enough. I linked in part because the wording gets to the point well: "the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor." I wasn't meaning to suggest a block or ban on anybody, to be sure; it just seemed an extremely unhealthy move. And the fact remains that Pma doesn't attempt to initiate any discussion before making instruction changes of the sort in question.
FAR, hm. You've explicitly accused User:Rodw of bad faith on the second nomination. That is unfair without evidence of coordination. (This particular topic should migrate somewhere else.) Marskell (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Re: Protection of China and Names of China[edit]

Due to persistent abuse of sockpuppets by Peter zhou (talk · contribs)/JackyAustine (talk · contribs), the articles China and Names of China have been full protected to prevent further disruptions by this long term abuser. If there are any sysops that disagree with my actions, I am willing to discuss, and I would not oppose any reversal of or amendment to my actions. nat.utoronto 03:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest lowering the protection on China. It is far too high profile an article to have on indefinite full protection IMO.