User talk:Matt 800

Welcome

Hello, Matt 800, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Shirt58 (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

In response to your feedback

See WP:Dispute.

Ariconte (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

I don't plan to comment on your RFC or AFD commentary itself but you have clearly outed another editor's private home address. This will almost certainly get you blocked - posting someone's personal details is not okay, regardless of the context. Please see WP:HARASSMENT. I strongly suggest you remove the details from the three places you published them. Stalwart111 11:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I've posted a note at ANI to get an admin to remove it properly. Stalwart111 12:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove it immediatly. My point was that she clearly used an SPA. It seems that the page was already removed by Boing! said Zebedee.Matt 800 (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the RFC and I have removed your disclosure of the person's personal details from the AfD. It is absolutely not permissible to publish any editor's personal details on Wikipedia, no matter what policies you might think they have broken - see WP:OUTING. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree however I think the Wikipedia:Harrassment is more on her side trying to remove the articles and constantly charging baith faith for any editor who does not agree with her.Matt 800 (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty unlikely that trying to delete an article would be considered harassment - harassment is targeting editors personally, not targeting articles. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I might add a comment, I think this editor was trying to point out that editor Rangell has asked for French sites on the House du Souich page and then seems to have subsequently deleted the French wiki sites speaking of the family: one for the page on regional coat of arms and another for the image of the coat of arms itself. She needs to leave the French sources alone so that FRENCH wiki editors can comment. That is where I see the impartiality come into play. Besides the point that she accuses SPA and then does it herself. It probably isn't harrassment but its certianly not good faith editing either.--France2007 (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm sorry if I acted not in a good way, I just find it so difficult to keep justifying and bringing references to proove her wrong about her allegations, but she just keeps on and on about the fact she believes it's a hoax. Do you think digging all these references in XVIIth century books would be a complete fabrication ? Come on... I would like to not assume bad faith on her part, but it's really hard to believe.Matt 800 (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For my defense, I just used what is called the mosaïc theory which is taking public information from different websites and put them together. So in the end, no private information where put on the page, only available and public information. Also, according to the wikipedia page, Harassment is defined as follow: "threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project." None of these where written on the page. <REDACTED - Stalwart111 01:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC) >. On the board of urgent attention required, User "User:Only in death does duty end" got my point and posted the following : "Interesting - Well its not outing to list what an IP editor has done or where their IP geolocates to. They have provided that info by editing as an IP. Whats not on is accusing an editor here with a username from being that IP. Of course if an editor here is actually silly enough to start deleting stuff on fr-wp (in order to bolster an 'its not on fr so its not notable to the French' argument) as an IP, its got to be looked at somewhere/how. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)"[reply]

Regarding the accusation of SPA with User:France2007, I had noticed that France2007 rephrased some of my posts, but I never complained to an admin considering that France2007 was the "admin" of the page as the Author and that the modification where not substantial and mostly to correct my english I guess.Matt 800 (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably read Wikipedia:Harassment through to the end. Further down it says -

"Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not."

...which is fairly obviously what you did. While posting an IP address might not be strictly forbidden, as Only in death does duty end also made it clear; "Whats not on is accusing an editor here with a username from being that IP", which is what remains in your "replacement" comment on that AFD. Posting basically the same thing here and linking an editor to an IP address would be, I imagine, also not okay (as appears above).

Regardless of how "correct" you think you might be or how "just" you think your actions might be, harassment is about the worst thing you can get involved in here, so avoiding even the perception of it is usually well advised. Maintaining those comments here is likely to get you in trouble. You'll note that my post to WP:ANI simply asked for the information to be removed. I didn't call for or even suggest a block. I believe this was more a misunderstanding of the rules (or certainly the spirit of the rules) rather than a deliberate attempt to do harm. But subsequently claiming (or even suggesting) that the harassment was somehow justified will never go down well. Probably best to remove the above comment (you can remove this one too if you like) and move on. The article has been deleted now so holding on to the stick is probably pointless anyway. Cheers, Stalwart111 22:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

France2007

It would appear that you are operating another Wikipedia account, that of user:France2007, and are using it to deceptively manipulate the AfD discussion, mentioned above. Doing so is not permitted under the policy on alternate accounts. Consequently I have opened an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/France2007. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of France2007 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then. That will make it hard for you to respond to my suggestion above. I'll just go ahead and redact it for you. Stalwart111 01:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]