User talk:Theresa knott/archive19

archive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

---

Welcome to my talk page. If you've come to complain, whine, moan, question my judgment, my intelligence, my sanity, or tell me off in any way, that's fine. I'm a big girl who can take it. If you've come to chat, compliment me, have a laugh, or discuss articles that's even better.

User:Yoshih9

Hi, I recently noticed that in this user's talk page you subtlely warned him/her not to vandalise. Recently, he has uploaded a rather disturbing, pornographic and copyrighted image. This is it. I put a speedy deletion tag on it, but I'm not sure if that is the right move. Please advise me on this matter. Thank you.

By the way, your talk page had 100kb so I'd archived it. =) σмgнgσмg 05:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Watt balance/Kilogram picture

Theresa. I need your advise and (hopefully) help. I think I’m in the right here and suspect I’ve been dealing with someone who has been anointed with great Wikipedia powers but I don’t think he has been exercising his powers properly at all. I’ve been working on the Kilogram article. I created the image of the IPK at the top of the page because the original photograph (something I had nothing to do with) was copyrighted and was yanked. I also placed the Watt balance image in the article. Here is an old version of the article as I had the picture originally placed; please click on that link and then click on the 7.2.1 section to see how I had used it.

User User talk:Swatjester deleted the picture. He left no other commentary or discussion anywhere other than a cryptic edit summary stating “bad fair use image.” I had a lengthy discussion with him (full account here). I think you will find that exchange most illuminating. The link I provided here is a history file of his talk page because he created a Twinkle to automatically delete my last response.

Swatjester stated “The problem is that people are coming to the kilogram page to learn about kilograms. A watt balance, while similar, is not the subject of the kilogram page. For fair-use purposes, that makes it too far attenuated.”

Actually, his first argument was “It still fails to meet the requirement of ‘significantly increases reader's understanding of the subject, and more importantly, it's omission is not detrimental to the understanding of what the subject is.’ ” I replied that no common person has any notion of what a Watt balance is so a picture of it is crucial to understanding the basic, essential nature of what a new, electronic kilogram would be. His claimed basis for deleting the picture has varied as fast as I addressed them.

In a nutshell, my position is that the Watt balance is current government research into a new electronic definition of the kilogram. Given that the International Prototype Kilogram (the artifact upon which the kilogram is based) has proven unstable and there is currently intense interest in finding a new definition, the Watt balance is obviously germane to the topic of “kilogram.” Further, according to the NIST’s policy, the picture is free to use whenever it is used to discuss NIST projects directly. I currently have the Watt balance picture being used in the Watt balance article, and I had used it in the Kilogram:Watt balance section (a section of the Kilogram article directly dealing with the project.

I think the Watt balance image fair use rational clearly supports and explains my reasoning for why the image is proper fair use in the Kilogram article.

Can you help(?) or at least articulate, better than Swatjester has accomplished so far, as to why an picture of a current U.S. government project to develop a new kilogram standard doesn’t sufficiently discuss the subject of “kilogram”? Greg L (my talk) 02:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Now how about the real story: I was looking at the Kilogram article, and noticed that the picture was fair use. The picture is of a "watt balance", which to the immediate observer has nothing to do with the kilogram, unless they read through the article. Apparently, the purpose of the picture is that the watt balance maybe one day will be the new standard for the kilogram. As of right now, it is not. I did not delete the picture, I removed it from the article, citing that it was not a good fair use image, which it fails under WP:NFCC numbers 3(a) and 8. The Kilogram article already has quite a few pictures; it does not need an additional one that is non-free, and of a topic not directly related to the Kilogram, i.e. it's a non-free image where a free one would suffice. Its omission does not hurt the encyclopedia; its inclusion does. After removing it, and explaining why several times to Greg L, he increasingly became irate, began accusing me of shifting my reasons, and I did not wish to continue the conversation on my talk page anymore. I therefore reverted his comments on my talk page (after asking him not to comment further), and he not only reinserted the image, but copy/pasted our talk page conversation to the article talk page (no attribution). I reverted those as well.

If you will look at Greg L's page, he has an extreme problem with incivility and ownership regarding the Kilogram article, see for example: "Whats your problem...People like you make editing Wikipedia so un-fun. That’s fine, I’ll play your petty game. Do you just go around in the world angry over something and take your frustrations out on others?" in response to a good faith comment from another user; this Wikiquette alert on his editing on the kilogram article, this uncivil response, this even more uncivil addition to it, this attack on someone who just attempted to explain how he was working in good faith to help Greg L,[1],[2], this personal attack on another user on his talk page, etc.

The guy has severe WP:OWN issues, I've done all I can to explain to him why he can't have his image in the article, if he can't take it civilly and rationally, I'm not going to discuss it further with him (which is why I reverted him on my talk page). If he can't continue to be civil following that, and attempts to be disruptive on the kilogram article, he'll be blocked. I've warned him already (I didn't want to do it, you'll note the several exchanges we had first discussing the issue,) but that's how it is. It may also be worth noting that he didn't bother to inform me of this discussion either; I stumbled upon it through my article watchlist. That's good faith for you right there....⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I placed the image in the Watt balance article because after Swatjester deleted the picture from the Kilogram article, it was orphaned and Orphanbot flagged the image for automatic deletion. After Swatjester indicated in his discussion that he thought the Watt balance article was perhaps a suitable place for the image, I placed it there so if he again deleted it from Kilogram article, the image itself wouldn't eventually be deleted. I was not trying to be provocative with the additional placement. In advance, thanks for you attention to this matter. Come to think of it, the only way I learned Swatjester had deleted the image from the Kilogram article was by receiving a message from Orphabot. Even if Swatjester’s judgment about the image proves correct, was his method of dealing with this image the proper way to do this? You may recal that the last time I sought out your help was this instance with a Z machine picture. Based on that experience, I thought there are special pages where these issues are posted for discussion in a more managed manner with input from others to reach a consensus or a decision by someone who is specially charged with these matters. Is he following proper protocol? Greg L (my talk) 03:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As I told you earlier, there is nothing wrong with it being on the Watt balance article, which has no other pictures and clearly is relevant to the subject. It simply cannot be in the kilogram article, which has plenty of other pictures and is not relevant enough about the subject. And once again, I didn't delete it....I removed it from the article.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing content from an article is something that anyone can do. It takes no admin powers, it simply involves going into the edit page and removing the content.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Rebuttal: I’ve never before had any issues with an administrator until you came around. Your conduct and entire method of operating calls your judgment and maturity into question in my opinion. First, above, you stated “…if he can't take it civilly and rationally…” and you wrote above “…and [while explaining my reasoning] several times to Greg L, he increasingly became irate, began accusing me of shifting my reasons, and I did not wish to continue the conversation on my talk page anymore.” The record (full account of our discussion here here) speaks for itself. Nowhere am I “irrational” or “uncivil” whatsoever to you unless one equates disagreeing with you as being “uncivil” and “irrational”. Furthermore, your above dredging up old history of exchanges with other regular contributors shows that 1) that you are absolutely obsessed with getting your way at any cost, and 2) are willing to resort to the very sort of prohibited conduct (assuming a lack of good faith and engaging in personal attacks) that any other administrator would admonish other contributors against were they to do so. Your behavior was the only reason I couldn’t believe you could really be an administrator. Fortunately, Wikipedia has remedies for administrators who give Wikipedia a bad name. Whether that remedy is indicated in this case should be left to others; I certainly have my reservations. Greg L (my talk) 07:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Greg, fair use is a strict standard. For the kilogram article, the picture did not meet those stringent standards which must be met. For the Watt balance article, it does. This is not a personal matter of Swat's, it's a matter of us all following the fair use standards so Wikipedia doesn't run the risk of copyright violation lawsuits consuming the money needed for more servers, etc. (Hey, it's not like Swat and I haven't clashed in the past.) Please assume good faith here; he's in the right on this one. --Orange Mike 14:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Orange Mike: Did you even read anything I wrote above? What I wrote above has nothing to do with the merits of the Watt balance picture being in the Kilogram article. I certainly hope that you weren’t trying to simply divert the issue. What I wrote above pertains to the issue of the manner in which Swatjester operates. It appears to me that the rules of conduct of being truthful, assuming good faith, and not engaging in personal attacks—all of which are totally irrelevant to the issue at hand—don’t apply to Swatjester. First, I was writing to Theresa Knott, not him. But in the process of editing my message, he chimed in and started addressing both her and me. Secondly, rather than address the merits of the issue (suitability of the picture for that article), he waded into a long rant of past history he dredged up in my dealings with other editors and wrote what amounts to “don’t agree with Greg L’s position because he’s an all-around poopy head.” Hogwash like that wouldn’t be tolerated from any normal contributor for one second. Further it shows that rather than dealing with the issue of the picture based on the merits, his judgment was more-than-tainted by a dislike for someone who had the chutzpah to disagree with him. That this sort of behavior came from an administrator and that he resorted to it to such an extreme on the talk page of another administrator is most telling. Do you think he has demonstrated the sort of maturity and judgment necessary to be Wikipedia administrators? Obviously not.

  And a last point, as I stated above, I've never before had problems with administrators, only regular contributors. Political correctness aside, some regular contributors can act like morons in a hurry. Obviously conflict will arrive on occasion in a collaborative writing environment like Wikipedia. Administrators are here to bring calm to chaos. In his above ‘Greg L is a poopy head’ rant, Swatjester cited a Wikiquette alert. I’ll have you know that that dispute was resolved and the lady who posted that alert ended up giving me a Barnstar for my work on the very article (the Kilogram article as a mater of fact) that was the source of the conflict. Orangemike: so if you respond to this, please try to stay on-topic and don’t throw around that “assuming good faith” business like you did above. I am assuming good faith on his part (as far as he is looking out for the interests of Wikipedia). I am simply stating that someone who demonstrates zero regard for the rules has zero business being in a position to enforce them.

  P.S. During the course of revising the Kilogram article, I exchanged dozens of e-mails with Richard Steiner at the NIST to check facts and get more information. Last night, I e-mailed Richard asking for non-copyrighted pictures. I just checked my e-mail and see that he sent me some non-copyrighted (free) pictures. I would appreciate it if someone would tell me exactly what license tag I use in this instance. I would also very much appreciate it if someone would make sure Swatjester’s Twinkles won’t interfere with my editing. Greg L (my talk) 16:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well Greg, if you are assuming that I am looking out for the best interests in Wikipedia, and you understand that what you did was against policy, why did you fight so hard on it? The answer is, because you have a SEVERE WP:OWN problem. It's VERY bad. It got you in trouble with other editors before, and now it's getting you into trouble with me. And rather than accept that you have a problem and attempt to fix it, you attack anyone that agrees with you? You're getting mad at Orangemike now? Your behavior is really getting disruptive Greg L. There is only so much that we can attempt to reason with you before you simply waste everyone else's patience and time. And please, stop bringing the fact that I used WP:TW into this. It is a script. Anyone can use it. I used it CLEARLY within the bounds of propriety. As for emailing the Richard person, he will need to contact permissions-en@wikimedia.org and explicitly license them to us under a free license. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Your above response proves my point Swatjester. And you should stop confusing disagreeing with someone as “getting mad.” Greg L (my talk) 17:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The following was (mostly) copied from User_talk:207.190.198.130, where an issue arose because Swatjester thought another anonymous contributor, who backed my position on the use of a photograph and reverted Swatjester, was blocked for 48 hours because of it. I’ve include that unanswered monologue here, in this higher profile venue because a number of other editors backed Swatjester in his block; I’m speaking to them too. I’ve corrected some text after finding it is simple to track the contributions of an anonymous editor. Greg L (my talk) 20:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is Greg L writing. For the record, there have only been two anonymous edits to the Kilogram article and I made one of them: difference here, which I made on 16:15, 14 October 2007. And for the record, I happen to have been traveling and was in Leavenworth Washington for their Oktoberfest festival. As the new location gave me a unique I.P. address, and since I saw that Swatjester had placed a Twinkle on me, I decided to not log in when I reverted Swatjester’s edits. I thought his reasoning flawed (and still do). And at that time, Swatjester’s method of operation had lead me to believe he was a rogue editor, not an administrator. I also believed my edit comment that accompanied my reversion made it abundantly clear it was I who was behind it. I couldn’t possibly anticipate that less than 24 hours later, someone else would make the exact same reversion citing similar reasoning. As a matter of fact, this Whois I.P. trace on 68.116.23.6 comes back to Kennewick Charter Communications: the nearest big city to Leavenworth. I am G*d-damn sick of this dispute and there is now a substitute picture that will suffice. I can see that “207.190.198.130” is no fan of my work on the Kilogram article. Fair is fair though, and from what I can see, he is being unfairly treated for one single act of defiance.

Why do I think this is the case? I see in the Kilogram history that the second anonymous edit to the Kilogram article was made by “207.190.198.130” (difference and edit comment here), which was made on 08:05, 15 October 2007. After checking this contributor’s edit history, it appears that over the course of three hours after having made one edit to the Kilogram article that was contrary to Swatjester’s desires, Swatjester posted four messages on that page, the last of which resulted in “207.190.198.130” being blocked. I note that the block came 47 minutes after “207.190.198.130” liped off to him and doesn’t seem to correlate with any further edits. This is unfortunate because a simple I.P. trace would show that “207.190.198.130” traces to the other side of the country, to Massachusetts, and to a particular location that helps one understand why “207.190.198.130” might like to remain anonymous (a mistake in the long run, registering protects your identity better). It is doubly unfortunate because this dispute isn’t over a violation of a black & white issue; it’s over a grey area, where the issue is whether or not a photograph of an electronic kilogram pertains sufficiently enough to the subject of “kilogram” to merit the use of non-free content in the Kilogram article. Clearly, reasonable people can disagree on that subtlety. I haven’t looked at the rules, but I’m sure that official Wikipedia policy is to give a warning and wait for a repeat of the behavior. I can see that this was not the case in the Kilogram article and the block was placed due to the perception that Greg L and “207.190.198.130” were one in the same, and that “I” liped off to him.

Administrators should be advised that they

1. should clearly identify that they are an administrator who rightfully posses the powers to block users, and
2. that their reasoning should be clear, rational, measured, mature, should adhere to Wikipedia rules of conduct (such as “assuming good faith,” “not engaging in personal attacks,” and “sticking to the crux of the dispute), and
3. should stop equating and labeling the reverting of their edits as “vandalism.”

That last point addresses a situation where some administrators come across as if the force and righteousness of “Truth, Justice, and The American Way™©®” has gone to their heads and they equate reversion of their edits as “contempt of cop” (it’s time to bust some defiant hippie skull now). When any other two regular contributors have a conflict, it’s called an “editing or reversion war.” When a regular contributor disagrees with an administrator, the “vandalism” paintbrush is whipped out too quickly as a justification to block someone; particularly when there is a debatable grey area. And doubly especially when administrators don’t even identify themselves as one and don’t behave at all like one. The “you heard my threats and felt my billy club on your head so who might I be?”–technique doesn’t go far in my book. Administrators should also be patient. Waiting an extra few days and first going to a Fair-use review isn’t going to hurt anything; we’re not trying to extract critical intelligence out of a top Al Qaeda operative to save lives here. I think administrators should suggest reviews on their own, rather than having a frustrated contributor have to discover that venue themselves. What started all this out on the wrong foot was the fact that Swatjester simply removed the photograph from the Kilogram article and left only an edit summary saying “bad fair use image”. Orphanbot alerted me that the photograph was scheduled for deletion because of it. I’m sorry, but many reasonable editors would assume those were the actions of a rogue editor, not an administrator.

Lastly, to “207.190.198.130”: In response to your post on my talk page, I did e-mail Jimbo after incorrectly thinking my post on his talk page had been deleted (it was a database catch-up thing I think). I rather unwisely publicly declared so here on the talk page of the person I (incorrectly) thought responsible for the deletion. I don’t think it proper to comment on what may or may not have transpired after that. However, I deeply regret that so much stink has come over so little sh*t. Wikipedia has been an enjoyable hobby for me and I did not have fun over than damned photograph. The whole experience has highlighted several areas of Wikipedia that could benefit from some changes. Greg L (my talk) 02:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: I see here on the Kilogram talk page that Swatjester still thinks that “207.190.198.130” is User:Greg L. Well, how about a little common sense and detective work? Posts from “207.190.198.130” are elsewhere on that very same talk page on this“C-12” topic and on this “FG-5 accuracy” topic. I argued against “207.190.198.130” in both. Who in their right mind would think I would start arguing with myself fourteen days before this latest incident?!?  Would it be because I wanted to pre-establish a contrived alibi in case I ever had to resort to using my secret alias that had been cultivated via carefully crafted, fake arguments with myself? Further, “207.190.198.130” made a couple of contributions to the Kilogram article, one of which (edit changes and edit summaries here and here) I thought was unsupportable so an edit war occurred (here, here, here, and here). Do you think someone could possibly advance a plausible hypothesis that I would engage in an edit war with myself (and debate myself while doing so) in preparation for using a hidden sock puppet at some point in the future? Industrial-strength preposterous. Greg L (my talk) 13:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from my edits, I've been away for the past 7 weeks and know nothing about any of this, so this is a hellova lot of stuff for me to read through. From a brief read through I can see you are upset, but I'm not sure what this is about. Can you briefly summarise, in two or three sentences only which issues have yet to be resolved? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The spark that lit the fuse of another, more important issue was over a grey area of Wikipedia policy with regard to non-free content. The issue was whether or not a photograph of an electronic kilogram pertains sufficiently enough to the subject of “kilogram” to merit the use of non-free content in the Kilogram article in a section dealing specifically with that topic (scroll down to 7.2.1). The powder keg on the end of the fuse was what I perceive to be unprofessional conduct by Swatjester and institutional “circling of the wagons” by administrators, rather than proper policing of their own ranks. I should add, that Hank-wang very politely made suggestions to Swatjester. There is now a substitute picture that will suffice. I think Swatjester and I are pulling singed tail feathers out of our butts after working to flame each other so hard and are sick of it. My latest post is to address the bigger issues I cited. Greg L (my talk) 21:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

OK I'm glad to hear that the picture issue has been resolved and a compromise picture added that you can live with. That at least is one thing. As for unprofessional conduct, I think it is pertenant to remember that admins are volunteers, not professionals and so whilst expected to behave politely (same as everyone else) threy are not expected to behave professionally. Having said that, I can't actually see what he did wrong. The initial exchange was pefectly polite. He could have written a longer edit summary but he is only human, no one is perfect. I will read your lasted post in more detail. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I would really appreciate your thoughts on the merits of the fair-use rational. The current picture is of much lower quality. I understand the volunteer part. I think I’ve made my point regarding the behavior expected; administrators mustn’t resort to name calling and personal attacks that are dismissed in a nanosecond by most other administrators when regular contributors do it. I think I’m done on that point. I’m feeling much better now, thank you, and am no longer a danger to myself or others. ;-) Greg L (my talk) 21:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I have no expertise in that area at all, having never uploaded a fair use picture myself. I do know that as Wikipedia has a "free" mission our policies tend to be very strict, overly strict IMPO in fact, far beyond that any lawyer would judge. As a general rule, a free image is always preferred over a non free one even if the free one is of a much lower quality. A low quality free image encourages the creation of a better quality one. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

“…overly strict IMPO…”: I second the motion. Thanks for looking into it. Greg L (my talk) 21:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds closed

The above-linked arbitration has closed, and the committee has recognized that the SevenOfDiamonds account is a sockpuppet of NuclearUmpf. It has been blocked indefinitely in accordance with this decision. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hdayejr is evading a block

Figured I'd post this here because you were the one who extended his block to indefinite: He trolled my user talk page from an anonymous IP almost a month after a discussion between myself and another user ended. I know it's him because of his accusations of me trolling on a Usenet group, the bringing up of Steve Gavazzi (with whom he has a longstanding disagreement), and the fact that he's threatened to report me again. I would like to see the entire IP range blocked, if possible, because he will continue to do this if left unabated. --ChrisP2K5 04:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Twice now, in fact...this user and this user are quite clearly Hdayejr. -TPIRFanSteve 18:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked both IPs for a month. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ref Desk talk

I replied to your comment about bowdlerising swear words. --Dweller 16:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Dominic J. Solntseff

He's put back his insult on my talk page after you warned him [3]. Maybe now you'll do something. He clearly wants to be blocked.--Atlan (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw the block. Thanks for the quick response.--Atlan (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Antipotter

Thank you. He was causing a fair bit of havoc around the place. asyndeton 13:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah he was just being a silly kid. I block 'em for breakfast. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice

nice block here. Can I add that one to my quotes? Kwsn(Ni!) 17:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked it. Of course you can quote me. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Your warning on User talk:StoeticKing

May I humbly suggest that your warning to User:StoeticKing was not as civil as expected from a Wikipedia editor, yet alone an administrator? There are templates available for warning neardowells and I would suggest that it is better to use those rather than let your behaviour be called into question alongside the vandals you are warning. B1atv 21:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No I disagree. It wasn't incivil, but simply more colloqial. There is a world of difference between the two. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandal tags used only for vandlas

Thank you. I did leave a message on the page, but it was erased. Basejumper2 04:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What is User:Yidisheryid up to here?

Hi Theresa, please see this [4] and this [5] by User Yidisheryid (talk · contribs) and my responses at User talk:Basejumper2#Aish Hatorah and User talk:Lookzar42#Reminder what puppets & co really evoke, and finally my last at User talk:IZAK#Sockpuppet?: "NOTE: I must now suspect that perhaps User Yidisheryid (talk · contribs) is involved as a possible suspect since he has also recently been blocked for sockpuppeteering, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yidisheryid, and of all things he finds it worthy to leave messages of "comfort" to both User:Basejumper2 [6] and to self-admitted sockpuppet User:Lookzar42 [7]. So much for his antics. IZAK 13:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)" Maybe a Wikipedia:Checkuser of all three, User:Yidisheryid, User:Basejumper2 and User:Lookzar42 would be helpful and in order. Thanks a lot, IZAK 13:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser for what though? What exactly have they done wrong? I'm pretty sure they have to do something abusive. (and the moment they do I'll block) The advice you gave about not feeding trolls applies to you as well. If a troll's aim is to get a rection then they best way to no feed them is not to react.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I guess I'm coming to you because you seem neutral. I was very concerned this would happen, which is why I was so concerned with the user:Shia1 situation. It's also why I opened up user:Looklizard42 to handle that situation. Unfortunately I forgot to change accounts when I responded, so now I'm being harrassed.

It seems that any editor involved in editing articles in wikiproject:Judaism who tries to get contorversial articles neutral like I've done with Aish HaTorah, Jews for Jesus or ones on controversial figures and Israeli politics, is farely quickly accused of sockpuppetry, and banned by one of the admins from that project. Now I am also being accused of it. (Take a look at my talk page and as you see here.)

Can you please use the checkuser to examine my present account, my previous account User:Basejumper which I lost the password to, and confirm with me and user:IZAK that my dual account User:Lookzard42 which I opened to handle the Shia1 issue, particularly to compartmentalize my wikipedia life to avoid what is now going on now right here, is not a sockpuppet but a legal use of a dual account as allowed here:

"Keeping heated issues in one small area Some editors use different accounts in talk pages to avoid conflicts about a particular area of interest turning into conflicts based upon user identity and personal attacks elsewhere, or to avoid harassment outside of Wikipedia. A person participating in a discussion of an article about abortion, for example, might not want to allow other participants an opportunity to extend that discussion or engage them in unrelated or philosophically motivated debate outside the context of that article.

If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action."

I would really like to see this kind of thing stopped, as I truly suspect it is a case of an "owned" wikiproject. After confirming that my account is not a sockpuppet, or has ever been used negatively, can you advise me what to do to make sure these admins and users do not continue to wiki-stalk and harrass me.

I edit Christian articles, science articles, sometimes things about the gay community, and I also like to edit Jewish articles quite a bit; but I would like to be able to edit Jewish articles without being harrassed or unjustly accused of sockpuppetry.

Thank you so much. Basejumper2 19:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, when someone is blocked for sockpuppetry the often (in fact usually) come back with another sock account and try to defend their old account. This happens so regulaly that admins are automatically suspicious of anyone who tries to defend an old sock account. You made a big mistake in creating a sock of you own but you don't need me to tell you that!

Anyway, what to do now. If you want to edit articles I suggest you simply do so. The best way to convince people that you are not a sock of a banned user is not to act like one but simply get on with editing articles. As for checkuser, it cannot be used to prove innocence I'm afraid. In fact it doesn't prove guilt either it is simply a tool in the arsenal. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

But the looklizard ISN'T a sock. That's a fair use of a double account in the policy. And I was smart to use it, because had I continued to for that one issue, I would have avoided that issue spilling into my usual account. We've seen from that discussion, that users can be blocked for sockpuppetry without a hearing. I'd like to open a case against myself for being a sockpuppet of the gentleman user:IZAK insulted on my talk page, have evidence brought, including a checkuser and editing history, as well as IP info. I've been editing wikipedia for months and months now, and haven't done anything except benefit it. I do not believe anyone can really see the recent action of IZAK as good faith. Is there a way to bring a complaint? Basejumper2 20:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"We've seen from that discussion, that users can be blocked for sockpuppetry without a hearing." No we haven't seen anything of the sort. Don't believe your own hype, and don't get worked up over something that happened in the past just because you don't understand it.

As for IZAK's accusation. Ignore it! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• If sockpuppet User:Lookzar42 poses a question about the fate of User:Shia1 (who is suspected of using one or more accounts abusively), and in turn User:Basejumper2 admits that he created User:Lookzar42 as a sockpuppet (with whatever rationalization) in addition to his previous account at User:Basejumper, and is in turn "defended" by User:Yidisheryid who was blocked for usage of sockpuppets, it makes for a very confusing situation. Why should User:Basejumper2 not be called a sockpuppeteer? Hence requiring of a Wikipedia:Checkuser of all of them to clarify who they are and what is really going on here, and that maybe this is just one huge farce and waste of time, and that they should all just be blocked for their violations of WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT and more. That is not "harasment" it is a requst for clarification. IZAK 02:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Because asking a question on the AN/I is not an abusive use a second account, that's why. We are required to assume good faith unless we have evidence to the contrary and I haven't seen anywhere near enough evidence in the case of User:Basejumper2 to think he is lying. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyways...Thank you for your help and advice. I'm just going to go about my normal activities as you suggested, and if any strange happenings happen, I hope I have your permission to make you aware of them. Thanks. Basejumper2 08:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 08:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

LookingGlass REDIRECT

Thanks for trying to fix my "lookingglass" redirect. Unfortunately, it didn't get the job done.
I think there is a problem with the editing software. If you try to edit #REDIRECT, the software thinks you mean # REDIRECT. I have tried this on several redirect pages, and the result is the same. If you actually Save the edit, it wrecks the link. (I Saved ONLY the lookingglass page BTW, to avoid damaging innocent pages).
I have reverted the lookingglass redirect to the original file, which works.
Thanks again Rhampho1949 02:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No it does work I just checked it! The software does have a "feature" where the does what you describe the first time you save or if you look at an older version. Perhaps that was what was happening to you? Try clicking here Through the lookingglass and see if it works. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I just clicked it. It works just as it should! Curiouser and curiouser...
Rhampho1949 12:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Apology but I am scared

I am sorry, but this WAS person is truly scaring me. There appears to be overreaction on both sides. I just want this person to stop blanking my edits and leave me alone at this point. All I did was to start out by suggesting to two of the main editors of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture that they shouldn't feed the trolls, because the discussion was getting pretty hot over there, he was blanking other people's stuff and accusing them of "ownership". When I did, this person has placed a threat on my talk page, blanked all my attempts to send messages to other editors, calling them "personal attacks" and is now calling in reinforcements. I am only asking for help because I have never had someone go in and blank everything like this before. I have also never been threatened like this on my talk page before (people yell at me all the time for edit stuff, I don't care about that so much, this is different). I won't bother you again, but I only contacted Guy because he recently replied to this person and seemed to be tired of him, anyone else I contacted are admins who have helped me before. Please, I am making good faith attempts to have someone look into this situation. Montanabw^(talk) 19:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are scared then step away from your computer for crying out loud! Go and have a cup of tea and calm down. The situation has been looked at on the AN/I please take the advice of the people there and simply stop. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and while I was writing, note This Montanabw^(talk) 19:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's his own talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing notices

Sorry about that. I had heard that from others elsewhere. Also, as the warning was placed by me, inaccurately I admit, someone else has linked to it, as evidence of his own position. Considering I had been responsible for the move, I thought it made sense to ensure that anyone who saw it knew that it was withdrawn by the person who posted it. Sorry for the mistake, but I wasn't sure how to ensure any other way that it was known my removal of the comment was known. Things have been going a bit fast here lately. Personally, I'm leaving it alone and replacing the now-unusued Webcomics banner for the rest of the day, I hope anyway. :) John Carter 19:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sensible. This will all settle down once those involved calm down. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am calming down. Some. The blanking of comments on discussion pages all over the place was a new one for me. My intention wasn't to spam, I was just trying to find SOMEONE who was actually online. John is one of the lead workers on WikiProject Agriculture and I have a lot of respect for what he and Doug are doing there and was trying to help. What I intended as a friendly, about half-joking comment about trolls, trying to cool down a heated discussion over there just backfired and blew up into something I never intended. Montanabw^(talk) 20:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

These things happen from time to time. Everyone occasionally handles a situation badly. I myself has done so on a number of occasions. So nothing to worry about. I'm glad things have settled down. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

you should know...

This seems highly inflammatory, coming from an editor previously blocked for harrassing others and poking with sticks. ThuranX 22:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Good writin'

You wrote this when you blocked Dominic Soltsneff for a a week: "Childish personal attacks. We are here to wrote an encylopedia. Are you?" Compelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.167.209 (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I know, my spelling is terrible :-( Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to add references to Jess Margera. — Ocatecir^T 01:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, part two (more than just me thanking you for something!)

I appreciate the attitude you have taken toward me given my juvenile lapse yesterday. I apologize for both the spirit of spite that was behind my comment on the talk page, as well as the inadvertent deletion of your helpful comment that mine caused as well. K. Scott Bailey 11:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks for the heads up. As the main offended party, it makes sense for you to do it. I hope he'll learn his lesson and improve his behavior. Time will tell. Crum375 13:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I think it's clear--both from my previous contribs, and my subsequent contriteness--that this was an isolated incident. As I said in the thread on my page, I could understand the instablock, given that you thought I had intentionally blanked Theresa's note. I do appreciate your not contesting this unblock as well. The block, in my opinion, was hastily created, but was done completely in good faith, which is why I never posted a request to unblock, preferring to try to help you--as the blocking admin--understand my perspective, and that the most egregious aspect (blanking Theresa's contrib) was unintentional. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 14:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The webcomic vandal

Looks like he is now in 3RR on a few of them and does not intent to stop. He removed my AIV report. Spryde 14:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No idea

Too late. You entered my lair. MBWA-HA-HA-ha...*choke*... *cough*. So, it's always nice to meet a fellow idiot. There are so few of us these days, what with the immense power the internet and television have to educate and enlighten without providing the first clue about how to actually think. Now, back to our program. --Milkbreath 14:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I was afraid I'd screwed that up. I was in a hurry. The new sig was a one-time thing just for you. --Milkbreath 15:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wtimrock

Since you are the admin who actually got Wtimrock to actually respond to someone, could you please have him notice that the "minor edit" button shouldn't be used for every single edit, especially the ones that aren't minor? Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 22:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

He's obviously not checking the button each time but has it set in his preferences. I will email him but generally take the view of "Dont sweat the small stuff" Theresa Knott | The otter sank 02:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for taking care of the personal attack in AFD. Funny how he points me out but accounts that stated keep that actually are single purpose accounts he totally ignored.Ridernyc 05:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Theresa

This is HolokittyNX - we met working on the Justin Berry article. Would you mind taking a look at the [talk page] for Pedophilia Article Watch? Posts are being vandalized, and direct profane insults are starting to show up. - HolokittyNX 03:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Obscene and trolling comments like this one clearly need refactoring as we are not here to either promote pedophilia or troll other users and this was clearly both. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but your instructions on the WP:PAW talk page have been ignored. (link) -HolokittyNX 00:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't believe Theresa knew what your trolling comments consisted of, they are obscene and have been removed for that reason. if you wish to graphically talk about child seual abuse in this kind of deliberately provocative pro-pedophile way I suggest you do so off wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The comments were clearly highly provocative and meant to be so. I thought such rude behaviour was not allowed in wikipedia? Pol64 00:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)