User talk:Matt57/Archive 3

Edina Lekovic

Since your article was substantially different, you may wish to simply talk to SV about having it undeleted rather than go through the entire DRV process. When in doubt, it makes more sense to talk to deleting admins before going through lengthy process. JoshuaZ 15:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont know if she'll listen to me but ok then I'll try. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I supported you at the DRV, but note that Image:Edina Lekovic-screenshot from CNN.jpg is almost certainly not Fair Use; it's just a picture to show what she looks like, and since she is living, and not reclusive, even showing up to give speeches and such, a free image clearly can be created. Have you tried just emailing her and asking for one? Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission is the official page, but User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content is advice from someone who is excellent at it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Edina_Lekovic-screenshot_from_CNN.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Edina_Lekovic-screenshot_from_CNN.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Edina Lekovic-screenshot from CNN.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Edina Lekovic-screenshot from CNN.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahmed Yassin

Are you talking about removing "Hamas is a terrorist organization" or "Antisemitism"? There are no sources for "Antisemitism".Bless sins 01:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Your current campaign

Ok, you made your point (rabidly) on the RfA. Going around decimating articles claiming they're all unreferenced and original research is getting a bit pointy, don't you think? Please stop and consider that your actions aren't doing anything to help the project. Shell ^babelfish 00:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Please stop, Matt57. You are applying the wrong standards. Most of these people are not living, so the standard for including facts is "reference-able" not "referenced." - Jehochman ^Talk 01:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So can I make up a page for a dead "John Tree" and put in OR there? I dont think so, right? You guys need to stop being bodyguards of Elonka or her family articles.

Now: do you have any problems with the OR I deleted at Antoni Dunin? If so, I'll see you there on the talk pages. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope - notice I didn't revert that because I don't believe the information was contained in the references in that case. I'm working on some research atm to see if any references for that information can be found - things from Poland before WWII can be difficult at best though :( Shell ^babelfish 01:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What information did you bring back that was mentioned in the references? Make sure you guys read WP:V:

Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

So, dont bring in anything without providing a reference. If its difficult to find information on anything, it will be deleted. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted after discussion, no? ~ Riana ⁂ 02:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've put in tags for some time now in some of the articles and no one came to put in references. Elonka too choose to completely ignore me when I asked her about what should be done about these articles she made. Its time for the articles or the OR to go. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing requirements

Matt, let me stress the following points:

1. Our policy does not require inline citation. It is totally acceptable to list the sources used to write the article at the end of it. Nowhere does it say each statement has to be individually referenced, just that there must be a source for it.
2. Print references are just as good as online ones. The fact that you are unable at this moment to look them up and read them is immaterial. Also, foreign language sources are acceptable even if you cannot understand the language they are in.

Please bear these points in mind which going about your aggressive campaign. WjBscribe 02:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont care if you're going to make allegations about my 'campaign'. So is your action to defend her articles needlessly a campaign (in fact you campaigned for her by creating her RfA). On to more important things: WP:V says if anything is challenged, it may be removed. You read that, right? Here you go again:

Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

There. What are the references saying? Nothing that we can see. The editor who put them in (Elonka) refuses to respond to my questions. I have no choice but to remove them as dubious, unreliable and most of all unverifiable. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say that those reliable sources have to be part of an inline citation. They can be validly added to the end of an article and the fact that you are unable at present to obtain a copy of the sources does not make then "unverifiable". Clearly all those publications could be obtained and checked for the information, therefore they are acceptable sources. WjBscribe 02:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So what if I made an article on "Johny Loonytree" and put a reference that said "Moon magazine 1432, issue #451" - what if I made a false reference, or a reference that really didnt talk much about Loonytee? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I could say "there is no such reference", but not without bothering to check first. Shell ^babelfish 02:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I have made no false references, please do not accuse me of such. --Elonka 02:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ive asked you many times about what we should do about your family articles - why did you not respond before Elonka? What do the references say? If you have the references, why dont you put them in? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I did not accuse you of false references. AGF. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So which sources reliability are you challenging? Can you give some details? Right now, all I see is you blindly removing content without bothering to check references. And for the record, your deletions showed up on the IRC vandal bot as possible vandalism, which got me looking - seeing your contribs and user page made me look further. Shell ^babelfish 02:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, as I've said multiple times, I am no longer involved in the editing of those articles. I have read them, and to my knowledge the information that is in those articles is both true and sourced. If you have a specific question about a specific fact, you are welcome to ask me, but right now you just seem to be wholesale deleting large chunks of information, which does not strike me as acting in good faith. I have also been concerned by the way that you seem to get focused on articles related to me, to the exclusion of anything else on Wikipedia. I recommend that you concentrate on working on multiple articles, not just Elonka-related ones. Other than that, I am not going to get involved. --Elonka 02:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes well, you dont have to do anything here. Your friends are willing to do anything to save your family articles. WP COI says, people cant put in information about their family members and 3rd party reliable sites must be provided. Thats the reply for you too, Shell. Elonka.com is not a reliable source for articles about Elonka's dad and mom. WP:COI says we need reliable 3rd party references. Since this was originally a COI issue where she wrote articles about her mom and dad and gave references from her personal site, why did you bring in back these invalid contestable contentious sources that violate WP:COI? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, why dont you start by telling me first why you didnt respond to my queries on your talk page for more than a week? And since you said I can ask you about any specific fact, all the articles are full of unreferenced unverifiable information. Why did you not put in these 3rd party references? Please start with Antoni Dunin. Rereferences to Elonka.com will have to go as per WP:COI. Every other statement will have to be referenced by 3rd party sources or I will remove it. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, primary sources are perfectly acceptable for factual information. 3rd party sources have been added for claims outside of birth/death/children/birthplace factual type things. I also removed a number of statements from Antoni Dunin that were not basic fact - I'm sure Elonka knows where her grandfather was when he died, but I left that out for the time being. You also have to consider the time period and location you're dealing with here - you do know what happened in Poland to royal families and many others during WWII? As a side note, why are you so interested in Elonka's involvement if you feel the COI is so great a problem? Shell ^babelfish 03:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask for an RfC then. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you've now taken to using sockpuppet accounts to avoid the WP:3RR, I've taken the issue to ANI in the hopes of having some outside editors look at the situation. Please try continuing dispute resolution and discussing the issues instead of using methods that are only going to cause problems. Shell ^babelfish 04:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, lol. Thats not my sock puppet. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Chaser thanks for the unblock. Sure I'll wait for the RFCU results, I'm not in a hurry for those articles. As for my allegations I felt I was being attacked by everyone so I wondered whose sock it was and I've had problems with some of those editors, hence my suspicion. Now I see it was a sock puppet of David york which I suspected at first belonged to SlimVirgin because it came right around her edits. Ok well I retracted my comments. All these were just socks of previously banned users, not of any established users, I'm pretty sure now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for your cordiality.--Chaser - T 05:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Chaser. Can't blame you for making what seemed at first glance like an obvious call. Matt57 may seem a little monomaniacal on the Dunin articles (so he's been accused,) but in my experience, he's a lawful user and a straight shooter who would never play these kinds of games.

Matt57, neither Elonka, SlimVirgin nor Shell Kinney would have set you up like this. I'd guess WP has been pwnd once again by His excellency. We may find out soon enough.Proabivouac 05:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 48 hours for violation of the three-revert rule on Antoni Dunin and various other articles through the use of obvious sockpuppets, MiiMiiMiiM and MiiMiiM. You may contest this block with {{unblock|your reason here...}}.--Chaser - T 04:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

Checkuser cleared you. I also added a note to that effect in your block log. Cheers.--Chaser - T 03:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Now see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kirbytime.Proabivouac 03:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Another sock to block

MiiMiis (talk · contribs) - Please someone do a checkuser, this is His excellency for sure. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I must concur that this looks like a set-up; see [1]. That's not a credible slip-up.Proabivouac 04:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks P.! Good we got a Checkuser filed on me. Another sock of the id. His Excellency. Sure, I can wait until the CU results are out. I'm not editing a lot here anyway nowdays. Whoever you socks are, thanks for the laughs. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Crossing fingers

Matt, I sincerely hope the checkuser unearths a banned sockpuppeteer and clears you. I also hope this incident prompts you to reconsider your recent decisions. If someone did exploit this situation to get you blocked, they were able to succeed only because your actual edits made the socks look plausible. This doesn't mean you deserved that; far from it. Disruptive editors have occasionally impersonated me also. The best defense is to conduct oneself in a way that no one takes the hoax seriously.

As you know, I conominated Elonka's RFA and my input at the Muhammad images mediation reached a similar evaluation to hers. If that affects my opinions here it's purely unintentional. I have no desire to attack you. You're a good editor and once in a while anybody can get carried away. I'm looking for a helpful and nonconfrontational way to express that something went off track here and the important thing is to move in the right direction again. Durova^Charge! 05:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Well yes all I care about is the Elonka articles. I filed an RfC. I dont mind the block or Checkuser, stuff happens. Infact this has put me in a good light and will make an admin think twice before blocking me next time so what happened was the opposite of what the sock puppet (or online terrorist more accurately) wanted to happen. And I cant smile all the time if there's 10 people rushing in to revert my edits at Elonka's articles. They feel they have to defend their friend. Thats all there is to it. If it was any other article, no one would have bothered. As for me, I want to make sure unreferenced stuff doesnt stay in. Lets see what the RfC says. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, you might want to modify, "Articles to clean up for Elonka" - it's considered poor form to single out editors from your userpage like this.Proabivouac 06:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the title. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My Signature

I dont agree with your assessment of my signature as "little too loud". I have read the policy & i dont find anything in my signature which violates it. Thanks. -- Đõc §aмέέЯ  02:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerns

Matt, I know I'm not in the best position to express this. My motives might be called into question, which is why I'm not acting. I do want you to know that more than one editor has contacted me privately - not knowing that others had done the same - and discussed the possibility of a user conduct WP:RFC on you. I will not initiate such an action. If one does open I may certify that I attempted to resolve the dispute and failed (noting the level of my own involvement, of course). I hope no such measure becomes necessary. You deserve to be aware that it's under discussion. Durova^Charge! 17:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeating here, I dont know what those concerns/disputes are, who the editors are and where they contacted me to solve the problem and failed. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I treat e-mail as confidential by default. Look through the recent posts to this talk and related pages - they're among the names. If I thought these were unfair opinions I would discourage them and post in your support if RFC were to open. I freely acknowledge the potential for unintentional bias in my analysis. Yet, Matt, your actions and comments appear to proceed from an assumption that the people who disagree with you are acting out of bias. I see too many recent posts from established editors whose opinions I respect. Basically, please slow down and let the dispute resolution process address this. Durova^Charge! 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Formal notification to cease harassment

Okay Matt, you want something formal,[2] so here:

Matt, you are harassing me. You and I had a difference of opinion at Talk:Kaaba about a month ago, in early July. Shortly after that, you decided to oppose my nomination for adminship because of it.[3][4] This was of course your right, but then you further escalated, getting so involved in arguments at the nom,[5][6] that multiple other editors were telling you to back off.[7][8][9][10][11][12] Then after the nomination was over, you further escalated your actions, and are now pursuing revenge against me at a variety of locations, mostly focused on deleting or blanking articles about my relatives.[13][14] [15][16] A simple glance at your contribs (Matt57 (talk · contribs)) shows that this has been your primary activity for weeks now, working on "the Elonka articles."[17][18][19][20] And on the few other subjects that you're working on, you're getting complaints there too.[21][22]

Primarily though, you have been blanking articles about my relatives (going right up to the edge of 3RR),[23][24] or arguing at talkpages for removal of information, or you are forum-shopping and trying to bring other editors in to your cause.[25][26][27] You have also been mis-representing the situation in various venues, such as the thread on obituaries that you started at WP:BIO, where you tried to twist things to get a NY Times article discounted as an invalid source. Most editors disagree with your actions,[28][29][30] [31][32][33] even telling you that you are in violation of WP:POINT,[34][35][36] but you have been ignoring their good faith cautions. You cling to any single editor who offers even partial agreement, and then you discount everyone else disagreeing with you as "a large group of defensive editors."[37][38][39]

You've even created a section on your userpage, proving that you have a crusade against articles related to me.[40]

Matt, you need to stop. You have a clear conflict of interest on anything related to me right now. You have crossed the line into harassment. It's one thing to have a good-faith challenge to a piece of information, and it's another to specifically target a series of articles that are related to another editor with whom you've had a prior disagreement.[41] You have been told that there's a problem,[42][43] and asked to stay away from me,[44] and you have refused.[45][46] Further, this dispute has now extended to a deletion debate at the Commons, where you are continuing with bad faith accusations towards me.

Matt, please remove information about me from your userpage, please stop working on articles related to me, and please find something else to do on Wikipedia. I'd even be happy to work with you on some other subject. Just over the last few weeks alone, I've created or expanded several articles related to medieval Islamic history. Why not help me with one of them? Or check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Most wanted, where there are tons of redlinks... It would be very helpful to Wikipedia if you could even go through and create a few stubs here and there. Seriously, there is so much that needs doing on Wikipedia.... I find it helpful, each day that I do something on Wikipedia, to think, "Are my activities productive? Is this the best use of my time?" It is my recommendation that you ask yourself this question as well. Sincerely, Elonka 02:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Elonka has had the page deleted User:Elonka/Work1 along with all the responses which have already been made thereto.Proabivouac 02:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes its been deleted, but if anyone needs it for future reference, I've saved a copy here as well as locally.

Elonka, we've had this discussion already and I had responded to it on the page you just got deleted. I'll repeat my response here which is valid and I want people to see it so here it is: I have read your note carefully and all I have to say is: please assume good faith. While I opposed you at your RfA, that doesnt mean I'm now pursuing revenge against you. For what would I pursue revenge for? I have removed that list of articles from my talk page (which was only a to-do list anyway) and that was reasonable for you to ask me to do, but for you to tell me to stay away from these articles is claiming ownership of these articles (WP:OWN). I can edit these articles just like any other editor and these articles are not different from the rest. The same standards of reliability must be applied to these articles, as any other article. I was disappointed to see your note, which is an attempt to make me stop working on them. I can reply for each set of the diffs you have given, but I dont want to argue on this. I feel that you're upset on this whole affair. I assure you again, I'm not out there to get you or 'take revenge', I have nothing against you. I just want to make sure that the articles are reliably sourced, thats all. Is not the right thing to do? Do you agree with Jimbo when he did ([47],[48]) the same thing I did? Lets talk more and assume good faith. I want to make sure we're all on the same page.

To update this reply after our discussions: Since you didnt want to respond to the questions I had about you using your personal website as sources for your family articles, there is nothing further to discuss at the moment. Unless you tell me explicitly not to contact you, I might contact you again to clarify some references you have used on those articles. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, since the place where this has been addressed has been deleted, re: "You have a clear conflict of interest on anything related to me right now." See WP:COI - it has nothing at all to say about anything that Matt57 has done. It has everything to say about your creation of these articles, and now about your attempts to intimidate Matt57 out of bringing them into compliance with our source policies. From WP:COI#What is a conflict of interest?:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion, or a vanity press…Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, his family members…places the author in a conflict of interest…If you do write an article on area in which you are personally involved, be sure to…cite reliable, third-party published sources.

Matt57 isn't violating that in any way. You did when you created these articles, and you're doing so now, indirectly, as well as WP:OWN, when you attempt to bully others out of fixing the problems.Proabivouac 03:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt and using reliable sources!!!!????? Indeed he has a long history of POV pushing using unreliable random websites and other source-related issues. (for the most recent one check out this [49]). Matt and reliable sources?? The two don't get together, I am sorry. --Aminz 03:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, it's considered poor form to jump into unrelated disputes to pursue your own. Have you even looked at the articles in question? Matt57 is quite correct.Proabivouac 03:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove my comments[50].

What I am saying is relevant both because of "And on the few other subjects that you're working on, you're getting complaints there too." & because this is related to usage of reliable sources. --Aminz 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, supposing that what you say is true (?), it's not about Matt57 adding unsourced material, or removing sourced material. It's about Matt57 removing original research that Elonka added contra WP:COI. The fact that Matt57 has preexisting enemies doesn't change the fact that he's entirely correct in this instance.Proabivouac 03:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, this is not the topic of this section. You may open up a new one if you want. In Islam related articles, there's great debate on whats considered reliable. Ali Sina and Craig Winn are notable critics of Islam. Again, this is not the topic of the discussion so please open up a new section below if you have any concerns. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Whats your real username?

I'm not certain what "H.E. id." means. The reason for multiple accounts is clearly explained on my user page: "Multiple accounts are necessary because of Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China and Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China." This account is for editing that might attract attention from the mainland authorities; I have another account for 'innocent' subjects. They are both real usernames. Thank you for your interest. Seektruthfromfacts 17:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Storage of deleted content in userspace

Please do not store previously deleted content in your userspace, as you did by storing the contents of User talk:Elonka/Work1, for which Elonka requested deletion, into User:Matt57/Sandbox. As I see you have indicated above, you already have your own local copy stored on your computer; anyone who has a valid reason to view the content can simply request a copy of the deleted revision from any administrator, and if the page is later required for evidence in dispute resolution it can be temporarily restored. Storing deleted content like this is only going to further inflame this dispute. --Krimpet 04:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Elonka herself has just restored a component of the very same deleted material, User:Elonka/Work1, on this page; see User talk:Matt57#Formal notification to cease harassment above.Proabivouac 04:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a bizarre charge, let's straighten things out here. A few days ago, I started working on a post to Matt's talkpage. But it was a large post, that involved many diffs (and actually took a couple days to write), so I created it quietly in a subpage of my own userspace that I have used for many other similar "draft" purposes, "Work1".[51] However, before I was even done writing it, both you (Proabivouac) and Matt57 had found it, evidently because Matt was repeatedly reviewing my contribs, and then he emailed you. Both of you then started arguing with me on its talkpage, making further bad faith accusations. I tried for a few days to engage in good faith communication, but things obviously weren't going anywhere, and indeed, both of you seemed to be escalating. So, I finished the post that I'd been working on in the first place, posted it where I'd intended to post it in the first place (see above thread), and requested deletion of the subpage via {{db-owner}}, just as I've done many times before. That's not "restoring deleted content", that's "deleting a draft subpage when I was done using it." Please don't twist things. --Elonka 04:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to characterize the conversation in such a biased fashion, please undelete it so all can view it for themselves. I made no "bad faith accusation," nor did I attempt to "escalate" anything.Proabivouac 04:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, you have two wikis of your own, one of them password protected. You can easily use those as private scratchpads without having to cause all this and then getting an admin to delete it. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Krimpet, I thought I had a right to that content too because I had participated in it. I considered it somewhat inconsiderate of her to use it for herself and then get it deleted without notice. Thankfully I had saved a copy which had all our replies. Anyway, thanks for the offer to recover it if we need to, and I have a local copy of it if I need. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The relevant question

Elonka, the relevant question is, will you allow other editors - including Matt57, myself and anyone else - to bring the articles which you created about your relatives contra WP:COI, WP:OR and WP:RS, including what amounts to a glowing resumé for your father, into compliance with Wikipedia's sourcing policies without being subjected to bullying and harassment by you or anyone else you summon to this discussion? If the answer is yes, then you can start right now by taking those articles off your watchlist and leaving Matt57 alone.Proabivouac 04:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:HARASS and Elonka

Posting links to people's private sites, watching every single edit they make, keeping a stalk-list of articles... this is all NOT OKAY. You're following Elonka around and quite frankly scaring me that you're going to do something quite unwise.

Stop now. Seriously. There are a WHOLE BUNCH of articles that Elonka's not editing. Go edit one of those instead for a while. Request unblock if you want, but you really need to stop this behavior. Please use the 24 hours provided to reconsider your course of action concerning your fellow editor. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Matt57 in case others are interested in voicing opinions on both the situation between the two editors and also this block. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"There are a WHOLE BUNCH of articles that Elonka's not editing. Go edit one of those instead for a while."

Kylu, to my knowledge, Matt57 isn't editing any articles that Elonka's editing (though she's invited him to do so.) Which articles did you have in mind when you wrote this?Proabivouac 05:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Posting a link to Elonka's wiki is not posting confidential personal information. She has that link on her Wikipedia profile: User:Elonka/About. See the huge heading there? "Other wikis I own or manage various other wikis such as:". She has the link to her old wiki on the new wiki's main page, which says: "For the older wiki which contained book information, please go to: www.... ". Whats so confidential about that? You definitely didnt even investigate to see if the links I posted were conidential or not. Its all public information and that was a genuine suggestion I made for her (to use her wiki as a scratchpad so she doesnt have to get people to delete it). Where have I stalked her? This is uncalled for. I have not followed her around for anything. This is going overboard. I cant even post links to her public website, which she has on her Wikipedia profile page? Krimpet's allegation of me stalking Elonka on other wikis (the Commons) is completely untrue. I have closedly been involved with the Muhammad images issue and I keep a watch on the Commons on the Muhammad article too and I dont believe I made the allegation that Elonka was wikistalking me, thats definitely not true. From the strikeout comment, looks like Krimpet was refering to someone else, not me. Most of all, me and Elonka are NOT editing a certain article. We havent editing any common article except for the last few days, where she wrote me the note and we were talking about that there. Did Elonka contact people on IRC to block me? I didnt do anything wrong, this is an unfair block. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Per User:Elonka/About, Matt57 has once again been blocked for an infraction (involuntary posting of personal information) he did not commit.Proabivouac 12:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I wil not reject this unblock request as I have been previously involved in some elements of disputes relating to it. I wholeheartedly endorse the block however. Matt's edits have become increasingly focused on Elonka and his sole intent appears to be making life unpleasant for her. The fact that he arrived to comment on a message for him while it was still being drafted and before he received it shows just how closely he is watching her contributions. Whatever legitimate concerns he may have about the sourcing of some articles connected to her, he has approached this matter in a bullying and heavy-handed manner. A number of respected editors have asked Matt to back down and have pointed out that the zeal with which he is acting is unsupported by policy. Matt, I seriously hope you will reconsider you conduct after this block expires - if you do not, I will have no choice but to pursue tougher sanctions against you. I remind you that Wikipedia is not a battleground and it certainly is not a place for you to settle personal scores. WjBscribe 12:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WJBscribe, Matt57 has twice in a row been blocked for infractions - in the last case, sockpuppetry, in this case, revealing personal information - that he didn't actually commit That's not a trivial point. No, "okay, so didn't do this, but…" We blew it again.Proabivouac 13:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The block was completely unfair (to say the least). I'll take this to the community later in a very serious manner (RfC, among other things). I have been blocked, threatened with blocks and what not, for what? For fixing up COI and RS problems in a group of articles, the editor and creator of which should have been warned in the first place for making these violations. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• You have been unblocked. See WP:ANI for details. This is a content dispute in which neither side has been particularly nice, but a block is not the answer. I suggest taking the content to WP:RFC. >Radiant< 12:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Some advice

Matt, I strongly advise you to stay away from Elonka completely. Please don't edit articles she is editing, or comment on their talk pages. Ditto with articles she has created. Just leave her alone, and then you can both continue to edit happily, and this situation will go no further. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

He's not editing articles she's currently editing. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The details don't matter. He needs to stay away from her completely, so that there's no further room for misunderstanding. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Details matter very much. It's unfortunate that other people have misunderstood the situation, but that's not Matt's fault. Although, what you say is good advice, but I still respect Matt's choice to edit what he wants to edit. -- Ned Scott 05:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As Scott mentions, details are certainly important - in particular the "detail" whether an allegation of misbehavior has basis in fact. >Radiant< 11:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What about articles and subjects in which Matt57 was involved before Elonka chose to become involved? Must he quit those, too, or must Elonka likewise make an effort to stay away from Matt57? It really makes no sense, does it, that Elonka would continue the Muhammad image shenanigans were she trying to stay away from him? Truthfully, I felt she was baiting him in a tit-for-tat, since she didn't want to be seen directly confronting him on "her articles." Now she's dived into Islam-related articles, where Matt57 is known to participate. I don't think it at all credible that she's trying to avoid him.Proabivouac 11:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, thanks for the suggestion. I see your point but the most reasonable solution to this is that perhaps I take a break, minimize my interaction with Elonka from now on and only talk to her if its really necessary, e.g. I have a right to ask her cordially if she has any information on a reference she has used on an article (when its Islam related or related to her family). If she doesnt want to respond or tells me explictly to not talk to her, thats ok with me. I know you might not believe me, but I'll say it still: I was 100% sincere and had no intentions to cause irritation when I gave her the suggestion to use her personal wiki as a scratchpad. The reason I gave the URL of that particular wiki was that she has two (this is all public information again), so I had to specify which one I meant. Again, this was 100% sincere and a light bulb moment, that, well she has her own wiki so why not use that? Then she wouldnt have to get it deleted, nor cause attention from other editors but now I see the point: if she made interwiki links on her scratchpad there, they'd turn up as red. Even then it was a good suggestion. I should be free to edit any articles I want to; I'll just have to be extra careful knowing that I may be blocked for something which may be a false/misunderstood allegation. I will contact Kylu for more detail on what evidence he/she decided to block me for. The only allegation for the block was that I supposedly gave out non-public information, which was completely false as you know now. I could go on more but we should let go of this and get back to where we were. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)