User talk:Arights

Right.

Just so you know, I deleted the two images you uploaded because a) you lied about the license-status of these images, they were not made by you and you therefore can't decide that they are in the public domain and b) I accuse you of being a (or the) troll who comes here for quite some time now, always under a different name, acts innocently and tries to convince everyone that furries are perverts. Just stop it, mkay? Feel free to complain about me wherever you want. --Conti|✉ 23:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on your take page but you are on vacation. I have tried to figure out this problem myself without you. Arights 07:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated your reuploads for deletion. Although I'm kinda sure you know it already, you can only license such images under the GFDL or CC when you make them yourself. This means being the photograph, and being allowed by the people on the photographs to license the images under a specific license. Just downloading them somwhere and editing them a little gives you no rights to the images, they are therefore still unfree and should be deleted. --Conti|✉ 18:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did not respond to my comments and after waiting nearly a week I tried them with more copywrite information. You could have responded to me before nominating them. You also could have discussed things instead of just trying to delete everything I do. Arights 06:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not whether there is enough copyright information. The point is whether you own the copyright, or have permission from the copyright owner to post the pictures. Unless you can show otherwise, those pictures are someone else's property, and only that person has any say about what can be done with them. --Coyoty 01:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pick a tag. Is it a comic panel or a screenshot? Does not look like comics to me. What television program did these come from? You need to specify, otherwise it cannot be determined if they are fair use or not. -Nv8200p talk 00:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I am not an administrator, so I cannot directly help you in this matter, though I can recommend that you remain calm and follow all the steps on Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. If you do so, I am sure that the matter will be cleared up and the user, if he is acting improperly, will be reprimanded; there is no need to behave hastily or covertly, as the majority of Wikipedia users are very reasonable, open, friendly people. In other words, first try to resolve it through discussion on his Talk page; if that fails, try Wikipedia:Requests for mediation (if you want dispute-resolving help from a neutral user) or Wikipedia:Requests for comment (if you want input from the community at large, which sounds like what you're looking for now). If you are looking for administrator help in some area, you may also find the Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention page of value; all of these options are preferable to spamming random users' talk pages with requests for intervention, though I understand that you are simply unfamiliar with how things work around here, and sympathize. If there's anything specific you'd like my help with, or if you have any questions, please feel free to ask. -Silence 06:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen admin abuse complaints before and the person who complains is made fun of and banned for complaining. I find the worst admins at the top of the power. Arights 06:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin either. I am willing, however, to act as a mediator. Computerjoe 's talk 07:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I'm not an admin. I will give you three pieces of advice though. First, edit other pages and keep away from this guy. Second, if you can't do that, get a new user ID just for those pages and try to stick within the policies of Wikipedia. Don't let the guy in question know that you're you. If another user breaches the policies, note it on their talkpage politely and make a note for the case you will later bring against them. If he protects pages he's editing, blocks you for disputing content, anything like that, then note it. Just make sure you personally stay within the policies, stay cool and stay polite. Third, start an RfC. You'll need to find someone else who has also suffered at this guy's hands. If he's as bad as you make out, it won't be hard to find someone. If the RfC doesn't bring an outcome you can live with, take your case to the arbcom. They will almost certainly back the admin and make out you are full of shit, so if you go that route, just lay out your evidence and walk away. Don't get involved. Don't let it get to you or make you mad. Grace Note 07:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm sorry you're in this situation, but I'm not an administrator. Anyway, I think you should follow users Silence and Grace Note's advices. I'd also suggest you contact admin Redux. I'm positive he will advise you on how to proceed. Hope you work things out. Regards, —Lesfer ^(talk/mail) 13:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, an RFC would probably the best. I certainly don't object to more people looking into this. --Conti|✉ 15:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like your sock puppet Coyoty? Arights 06:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop spamming

Please stop spamming your message to various talk pages. Report it once on WP:ANI and wait for responses. --Cyde Weys 07:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are not spam, but a cry for help. They are specific users based on a search result.

I looked through that vandalism in progress and I see no place where to report abusive admins who impersonate me on other wikis. Doesn't it go in the section with the title complex? With you being an admin you would know how any complaint there from a normal human being regarding admins gets the complainer laughed at and banned. How do I properly report ContiE and where would user impersonation on another wiki be in?

You are considerably uncaring about myself and my awful situation it does seem. Arights 08:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't VIP-worthy or AIV-worthy. It is a dispute. You should use Wikipedia:Requests for Comment. Computerjoe 's talk 08:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What were your search criteria, exactly? I'm one of the people you contacted, but I have no prior dealings with you and am not a contributor to furry-related articles. And if you're so suspicious of admins, why did you post your "cry for help" to their talk pages? —Psychonaut 08:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FursuitAttachment.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:FursuitAttachment.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Furvert

I noticed your entry on ALR's talk page, and I don't really see what ContiE did wrong. It might have been premature to remove the other image, although I agree with Psychonaut that it's hard to make out to the point of being pretty useless. As for the animated image, I think the case against it was made pretty strongly. As a side note, you can see that ContiE waited to remove the images, they were up for more than two months before the edit, and you can actually see ContiE reverting someone else's edit to the last version by you. I didn't look into anything else you said (actually, I don't know how to look into it, you weren't too clear on what you were saying), but from what I've seen so far, it looks like ContiE wasn't acting all that badly here. OsgoodeLawyer 15:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ContiE only wanted to remove them because I added them. The reverts to me were not removal of the pictures. He reverted new content about something or whatnot http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Furvert&diff=38054027&oldid=38006819 Arights 06:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message regarding ContiE

Hi, you left a message on my talk page regarding your problems with ContiE. My advice to you would be to go down either the RfC route, or the Meidation Route. I should also point out that I'm not an administrator, so I'm not sure where you got that impression from. If you need a hand in finding out how to use the RfC or Mediation Committee then I'd be happy to help. --Wisd e n17 16:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I complained about an admin there I would not just be banned, but my talk page would be protected. Arights 06:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the issue

I don't want to get involved, but... leaving lots of messages on talk pages is not the best way to get your message across. I don't really mind at all, but to certain admins, lots of messages = spam = vandalism = instaban! I agree - if you think others have had similar issues with ContiE, then create an RFC. – ugen64 19:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are indefinitely blocked

Dear Arights: I have blocked you indefinitely from editing Wikipedia due to heavy spamming of administrator talk pages with a message that makes personal attacks and unsubstantiated, serious allegations against a Wikipedia administrator. This sort of behaviour is not justifiable on Wikipedia, and I regret to say that individuals exhibiting such behaviour are not welcome as members of our community. If there was a serious substantative issue it would have been sufficient to file a request for comments or to post a single, reasonably-worded message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as opposed to mass-spamming. A cursory analysis of the matter shows User:ContiE's conduct to be perfectly legitimate, and indeed the title of your spam messages opens with an allegation that he is impersonating you on other wikis without any kind of proof of such a claim; you do not even point to wikis he is alleged to have impersonated you on. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responding From My Talk Page And The Above

Jeez. No wonder Wikipedia sucks. You might get indefinately blocked at any time arbitrarily. Karm a fist^{Save Wikipedia} 02:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I searched on google for people who understood that admins abused their powers and contacted them. The vandalism in progress is too confusing to find a place to report admins who abuse their powers and impersonate users as a poor attempt at justifying their abuse.

When asked to stop, I stopped. I can not find any where that says contacting others for non-commercial and personal messages on wikipedia is against the rules. There are rules like assume good faith, but admins have never done so--only assuming bad faith. The claim of spam is a complete lie and it is libel because spam is only commercial messages.

I also did not do an RFC because I looked to see instances that others have done before of this. Anyone who complains of admins there gets banned.

Banning someone idenfinately on false charges (spam = commercial messages only) is against the rules. I ask that NicholasTurnbull be de-adminned and indefinately banned. The second false charge is that it makes personal attacks -- this is how ContiE is. The third false charge is that it is "unsubstantiated", when they are provable including ContiE's impersonation of myself.

I request that the assume good faith page mention that admins regularly assume bad faith since I cannot request this on its talk page.

I also seriously demand the image deletion that Psychonaut requested be delayed until seven business days until after my access is restored. Arights 06:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock is rejected. I've looked the case over, and your trolling will not get you anywhere. NSL E _(T+C)^{(seen this?)} at 08:57 UTC (2006-04-11)

I've had a look at this, too. Just fifteen article edits in total, and from this edit, one of his earliest, it's clearly the sock of an experienced user. The fact of the spamming, and its nature, and the unproductive overall editing history, strongly support the block. --Tony Sidaway 15:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]