Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive338

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?). James086^{Talk | 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. James086^{Talk | 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:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray O. Wyland
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Reed Horton

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:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myra Hemmings

There, she is making threats of me making a

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

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)

Resolved

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)

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: 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 65.93.216.199 (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 65.93.211.252 (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Both users blocked 24 hrs slakr^\ talk /

There appears to be an edit war going on at Dan Debicella between User:Ratsofftoya and User:64.148.1.113‎. 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

Resolved

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 me...as 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 (talk • contribs) 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

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)

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.

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)

Unresolved

 – Topic currently unresolved. Discussion continues on subpage --slakr^\ talk / 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. :) --slakr^\ talk / 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 =) --slakr^\ talk / 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)

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

accessibility. --slakr^\ talk

 / 08:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Davnel03 16:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Davnel03 16:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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. —

229

17:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I did refresh but apparently not. -- ALLSTARecho 17:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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

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,

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

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.

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)

• 12-07T11:30:41
• 12-08T11:27:59
• 12-08T15:35:46
• Not a revert, but slanderous
• 12-09T09:33:30

The user has done this on a couple other pages as well, all

Blatant violations of

WP:AIV if necessary. I have left Great Soul such a warning. Someguy1221 (talk

) 01:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Davnel03 17:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Davnel03 17:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)