These days, I am seeing that the IP block list is partially covered with Kate McAuliffe usernames again, and these usernames are created by the Kate McAuliffe vandal. I found 5 Kate McAuliffe related usernames this week:

• User:Andrew Hartford has a crush on Kate McAuliffe
• User:Lord Zedd has a crush on Kate McAuliffe
• User:Andrew Hartford has a crush on Kate McAu!iffe
• User:Optimus Prime has a crush on Kate McAuliffe
• User:Optimus Prime has a crush on Kate Kate McAuliffe

Since I attend the same school as the Kate McAuliffe vandal, I would have to talk to him when I see him, but I don't know if this will work. This has been going on on Wikipedia since last year (months before I was new to Wikipedia). Yet I found more Kate McAuliffe usernames on Simple English Wikipedia as well. There needs to be a way to stop this sneaky socks parade. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 00:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ask the librarians to suspend his internet access from school AND have lunch time tutoring. And, have his parents monitor his internet access. Wikipedia should be blocked from this person's computer. Miranda 00:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully all his usernames are blocked and the good news is that I know that his original IP (User:67.81.102.11) is definitely indefinitely blocked. Is this the first time you've ever heard of the issue about the Kate McAuliffe related socks? If not, when was the first time you've heard of this issue? This person is really annoying since in addition to Wikipedia, he endlessly talks about Kate McAuliffe...anytime. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 00:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, you might want to tell the school principal as well about this incident and have someone on the Wikipedia press team to send an e-mail to the school to be aware of the situation. I have heard of him before on creation logs as well as WP:CHECK. Miranda 00:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the good news is that everyone at school knows about this situation. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 00:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I just yelled at the Kate McAuliffe vandal on the phone and threatened to report him to the school administration and he says that he will stop (I really hope so). Hopefully I don't see one piece of "McAuliffe" in the user creation log or IP block list. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 00:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm a bit late on this, but we do have a username blacklist. MER-C 10:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

User:64.142.90.34 is engaging in disruptive and tendentious editing on Alice Bailey.[1]

1. User:Kwork tried to link one editor to external links (unknown as to whether or not these links are really related to the editor). I warned him that this is not appropriate and he defended himself but didn't push it. Then, User:64.142.90.34 made personal attacks against another editor quoting heavily these external links (really escalated the discussion into a strong personal attack). [2][3]

2. User:64.142.90.34 continues to revert good faith efforts at neutralizing the Alice Bailey article, using known wiki words to avoid like "claims." Here's where I made the original change: [4] Here's where he reverts: [5] [6] Here are my efforts at trying to discuss the issue with him, to which he has never responded and just reverts: [7] [8]

3. This is a small issue but it shows User:64.142.90.34's pattern of disrespect for other editors. Despite repeated requests from multiple editors, both in the talk pages and on his personal talk page, he refuses to sign his name. Recently, he has agreed to at least date stamp his posts. But again, this shows a lack of willingness to work with other editors in a good faith manner. For example:

a. It would help if you would sign a name, any name, so I know which editor I am talking to. Kwork 22:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am the editor that does not sign a name. :-) ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.142.90.34 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 16 August 2007.

b. Also, would you please sign your talk page discussion? Sethie 03:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not necessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.142.90.34 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 16 August 2007.

And, on his talk page: [9] [10]

The above postings show a pattern of disruptive and tendentious editing that many editors have had to deal with (please see talk page for very strong POV pushes that are motivating edits). Again, the most serious recently is the wholesale link and pasting of external postings on the page, linking them to an editor.

Thanks for looking at this. Renee --Renee 01:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As a regular on the Bailey page I would confirm I think there is a problem, SqueakBox 01:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I did not know this page existed....although a message from me somehow got here. FYI, SqueakBox and Renee are both participants in this controversy, and their opinions are not neutral. An unintended result of semi-protecting the article is that the editor who does not have a user name got unintentionally blocked from editing, and I might be more fair if you could correct that. Kwork 14:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have put the "non-discussion forum" template at the top of the page, and asked people to stop throwing around their conspiracy theories about why people edit the way they do.

However the page is on the brink of going out of control any help would be greatly appreciated. Sethie 02:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Alice Bailey semiprotected for one week. Please discuss edits on the talkpage before editing, even non-affected editors. Also, please consider archiving the talkpage. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am grateful that you undertook the semi-protection of the Alice Bailey page as a way of cooling down the problem, and it is my hope that you will now have the dedication to plough through the history of the page and of the talk page associated with it and to make some determinations of fact. There have been calls for mediation, charges of meatpuppetry and cabalism, and charges of COI with respect to this page -- most made by a user named Kwork. I think Kwork is correct in his analysis of the situation, but to date there has been no help from Wiki admin types. Meanwhile, the charges against me, to which you responded by semi-protecting the page, were made by several of the people whose names had been mentioned by Kwork (Sethie, Renee, and Squeakbox). For the record, Kwork is unknown to me, and it is regretable that by challenging my participation, on the basis of my chosen anonymity and my "tendentiousness", the serious issues raised by Kwork against Sethie, James, Renee, and Squeakbox are again being tabled.

Interestingly, your semi-protection of the page was made while the page was displaying the ugly grammar problems that have been repeatedly introduced by the programmaticly reverting editor named Renee. Her signature mark is an incomplete sentence in the "Criticism" section of the page, specifically the pargraph that deals with the Lucis Trust's responses to charges that have been made by authors who cite evidence of racism and antisemitism in Bailey's writings. You can see it there now, and repeatedly in her history of revisions.

Also, with respect to my anonymity, this is an experiment on my part. I have previously edited under a user name and may do so again. I am in no way connected with the subject of the biography or her opponents. My other recent edits can be looked up; they involve occult and New Thought writers such as William Walker Atkinson, Charles Fillmore (Unity Church), L. W. de Laurence, Emma Curtis Hopkins, and Cheiro; stage, radio, and screen entertainers such as C. A. Alexander, Jean Hersholt, Macdonald Carey, Herb Jeffries, Robert Ripley, and Gaahl; and general interest topics such as toothpaste, the Sago Mine Disaster, Harbin Hot Springs, Hash House Harriers, and tasseography.

12:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking editing to the article for one week. I was hoping that could be done, but did not know how to request it. The situation is chaotic and spinning out of control. I had requested mediation because of Sethie's enforcing his views by edit war. Unfortunatly, I do not have the computer understanding necessary to get even such a request as that to work, and it was not listed. Since that request the situation has gotten more complex and difficult. There is an RfC (requested by Sethie), but Renee (while a nice person)is not neutral. Would it be possible to have someone from WikiBiography (more likely to be neutral) to participate in the RfC? I have no understanding how that request would be made, but I think it important. There is also a question involving meatpuppets. Thanks. Kwork 13:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Earlier tonight I blocked SallyForth123 (talk · contribs) for violating 3RR on Hurricane Dean. Shortly after the block, she resumed edit warring as 75.36.172.192 (confirmed by checkuser). After blocking that IP and resetting Sally's original block timer, she returned again to edit war under 76.221.184.143, also making similar changes and removing quotes from Hurricane Katrina here. I blocked that IP for a week and extended Sally's block to a week. Now she's back as 76.220.203.157. Hurricane Dean has since been semi-protected, but she may return to carry on her edit warring elsewhere (MO seems to be changing all present tense to past tense and removing quotes from articles despite the referencing and consensus to keep them in). Also, the Dean article is linked from the main page, which means it may not be semi-protected for long. Could someone help me resolve this issue (possibly with a rangeblock, although ISP is AT&T so may be difficult)? --Coredesat 02:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

She appears to be back again. Again, I need help dealing with this. --Coredesat 21:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Several more IPs. --Coredesat 21:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I usually don't worry too much about what a user has on their userpage, but I think this particular page might require some administrative action. It includes a message encouraging other users to upload copyright infringements and an infobox stating that he approves of vandalism, both of which are plainly inappropriate. As a separate issue, there's also a link to a photograph that might violate US laws on record-keeping of sexual materials, in that it depicts two young nude boys. I don't want to engage the user directly, since I don't have The Tools and thus can't take any administrative action if it becomes necessary. Would someone else please have a look at things and maybe see what they can do? Thanks. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think that communication is unlikely to be helpful, considering the following message at the bottom of the user's userpage: "Leave me a message on my talk page and I will read and respond as soon as I login." -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I slapped a speedy tag on it. Pure trolling, with few, if any, actual contributions to make this even borderline. Hopefully an admin unburdened by excessive bureaucracy will nuke it. --Calton | Talk 05:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong (talk · contribs) took care of it. If this sort if behavior continues, hit my talkpage and I'll handle the situation.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

How about the photo? Is any action necessary on that? I don't want another PublicgirlUK situation... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hiya! The image on my page was vandalism. Feel free to ban the IP as it wasn't me. But thanks for checking the history first before deleting my entire userpage. That was very cute of you Wikipedia :) I also did nothing wrong. Almost all of my edits are to my userpage and not to any Wikipedia articles themselves. Since when does what I write on my USERPAGE come into question, especially when it is mostly text with no potty language? I thought the point of User Pages was to allow people to express themselves with their own opinions and break NPOV. What's next, deleting people who support fascism? Holla! Paulie's World 20:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

At the present time, I'm pretty sure that actually deleting another person is a violation of WP:CIVIL, and fortunately the software has quite limited capability in that regard. The matter of the image isn't really related to you, since you weren't the initial uploader. Your userpage was deleted because it violated the section of WP:USER dealing with "material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute". If you'd like to recreate it without encouraging vandalism, copyright violation, and other things of that nature that are prohibited by policies/guidelines, I don't think anybody would have a problem with that. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I lobbied for a Soylent Green version of the software but no one would bite... —Wknight94 (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor, bored student-type vandalism by Ben chang93 (talk · contribs) appears to be due to the account being hacked per Template:Australia-school-stubby will hickman. Perhaps it should be blocked. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he stopped, don't think it's a hacked account, just a new account with which this kid is pretending to be one of his friends. I'm inclined just to watch for now, but if the vandalism starts up again, I think an indef is warranted -- Samir 07:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I would keep an eye on Scientology-related topics per this indef'd user's page before I reblanked it per WP:DENY. It seems to me he may be planning to use sockpuppets. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 07:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit War. Should this page not be protected? Banksareas 10:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of User:Aatomic1, who is currently blocked for a week for edit warring on that page. Kind regards. 217.44.10.252 10:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously a sock of a blocked user blocked for trying to insert lists of dead in numerous articles, dispite no consensus to do so being achieved on the talk pages of these articles. These lists add nothing of encyclopedic value to articles and are just memorials.--padraig 11:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This editor is now using a second sockpuppet [16] 217.44.10.252 12:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

While the sockpuppetry is obviously wrong (and I have blocked the sock indef) I don't see the problem with inserting lists of the dead into the articles. I looked randomly at a few other terrorism-related articles, and found plenty with such lists in. Some have, some haven't. This seems like a particularly pointless edit-war. ELIMINATORJR 13:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem per se, but the edits are a part of a far wider "unseen/underground war" between British and Irish editors that spans essentially every article relating to British-Irish politics/geography/hitory (or at least every article that both side knows are aware exists). Its intractable and insidious, and every minor edit is (and should) be seen in the context of that wider "propoganda war" - either as a provocation or as a movement within it. It always existed but is now getting out of hand and has reached the point where it is self-fuelling. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Banksareas was the first sock which is not blocked at present, he switched to GingerAstaire after three reverts. 217.44.10.252 13:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I realise the "policy" behind it. Personally, I don't believe that mere lists of those killed contravenes WP:NOT#MEMORIAL - they would if they went into any more detail than a mere list - so if we're going to remove lists of people killed in incidents (terrorism-related or whatever), then that has to extend everywhere and would involve the deletion of entire articles (i.e. List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre). I've blocked User:Banksareas as well, btw. ELIMINATORJR 13:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I semiprotected it (for seven days) a little while ago to deal with the influx of newly-minted socks. If it looks like further edit warring is going to go on, then I would suggest any admin feel free to change that to full protection. The article was fully protected for three days last week (by another admin); I hope that got the point across, but you never know. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth taking Aatomic1 and the socks to checkuser? My experience of the turf-war desctribed by Sony-youth tells me there are plenty of potential candidates for the sockpuppeter. Moreover, Aatomic1 is currently blocked for a week. If we are sure he is evading the block, it should be reset, if not extended. Rockpocket 01:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello administrators. I have a incident.

User:Dutyterms was confirmed by administrator Voice-of-All, as a series of sockpuppets of User:Bason0. But Dutyterms has not been blocked yet. Can someone cope with it?

A related WP:RFCU is Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bason0#2nd request. Thanks. --Nightshadow28 11:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I blocked Dutyterms yesterday for 24h for 3RR. This hasn't expired yet, and per the checkuser I have extended it to indef. ELIMINATORJR 12:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, ELIMINATORJR. This incident finished. --Nightshadow28 13:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything that can be done to bring one user under control? AGENT 7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created a number of Salamis-related articles (in poor English, unreferenced - and difficult to reference because sources are mostly in Greek).

After warnings and a couple of blocks for removing cleanup and {{unreferenced}} tags, he/she - judging by identical edit patterns - has switched to working via variable IP sockpuppet addresses: continuing to add unsourced material, removing maintenance tags whenever they're put back, and refusing to communicate on the matter.

Articles concerned are:

• Aianteio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Aias Salamina F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ampelakia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Agios Georgios, Salamis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Batsi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dimitrios Mpogris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kaki Vigla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Memos Mpegnis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Paloukia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Salamis Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Selinia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

I asked for semiprotection, but they didn't think it was important enough. No response from Wikiproject Greece. This is very unhelpful: surely someone shouldn't be allowed to evade editorial checks in this way (as well as impeding the cleanup process). Gordonofcartoon 12:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, seems most of the Greek regulars are still on vacations. I'll try to contact the guy in Greek, sometimes that makes them more cooperative. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems I'm unsuccessful in getting this user's attention. I left him friendly welcome messages, in Greek, on both his account's and his latest IP's talk pages. He continued to edit showing no reaction whatsoever. I then gave him a symbolic attention-getting block of 10 minutes, just to have an opportunity of giving him an explicit link to his talk page that he would certainly see. No reaction. Don't know what to do with him. He's certainly a good-faith contributor, but totally uncommunicative. Seems he has never used a talkpage at all so far. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

He's certainly a good-faith contributor

I agree, to the extent that most of the material is probably basically accurate. But some of it is promotional crap and all of it unreferenced, and refusing to cooperate with the cleanup process looks deliberately perverse (as does going anon to escape censure). Gordonofcartoon 16:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Largekiwi keeps substituting correct information in the Colyton Grammar School article with rubbish. Please do something about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.156.8 (talk)

I left the user a warning and watchlisted the page. --Onorem♠Dil 14:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone who understands templating and coding take a look at Boston, Massachusetts. Its one of a hundred or so US place articles where a link to a picture of a penis was placed in the upper right corner. I can't figure out how this was added, and I really want to get rid of it. New England ^{Review Me!} 16:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Signsverse (talk · contribs). All gone now. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I never would've thought that was the template he changed. New England ^{Review Me!} 17:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Always remember to protect your high-risk templates, kids. Grandmasterka 18:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Tregoweth keeps moving and changing the List of Disney Channel Original Movies to a version he likes. He then abused his admin powers by protecting the page so that other users cannot change it back. His change and move was done without reaching consensus with other editors or even discussing the matter on the talk page. The page layout and name was decided on through consensus a while back, and though consensus can change, he has not even bothered to ask for other opinions or tried to obtain consensus even after being asked to by 2 users. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The protection of the article was wrong, but note that Tregoweth unprotected the article 5 hours before you made your ANI report. No harm, no foul. The rest is a content dispute. --barneca (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC) p.s. A little more discussion on the talk page (without using the phrase "puke" this time), and a little less mindless reverting from both sides, would be a good move too. --barneca (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Protecting the article was actually a mistake -- I intended to only protect it from moving (which is a *different* sort of mistake). As I have no real interest in the subject of the article, I'll withdraw from editing it. —tregoweth (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Banned user Grumpyrob (see RFCU) is now editing as User:Sparrowgrove, and has simply put the content removed from Plastic pressure piping systems and one other article he tried to start on piping systems into this new article. The socking is blatant, as this is the only article he has contributed to (as with all of Grumpyrob's other socks), and so he needs to be blocked and the article salted. I will file an RFCU to try to get any sleepers, but this is so obvious that the CU will be declined as obvious and unnecessary. MSJapan 17:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, I'm sure this is a dumb question, but humor the new kid on the block... why are we deleting this article? It seems to not be vandalism, is cited and referenced...? - Philippe | Talk 17:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just getting ready to ask the same thing. Sockpuppetry aside, what is the problem with the article itself? Plastic piping systems are very common, and this is useful information that is sourced. - Crockspot 17:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Also noticed there does not appear to be a deletion log on Plastic pressure piping systems. - Crockspot 17:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to check, but the one article (by Grumpyrob/socks) was created as a POV fork of another, and it has been repeatedly deleted. Back with the diffs/links in a few minutes. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the old dreaded and nasty PVC vs. ABS war. *shudders* - Crockspot 17:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The sources don't exist except for one. Pipestock doesn't sell a manual (I checked), the book by the prof is non-existent in his list of publications, one of the "books" cited is actually a PDF not by the person it is claimed to be by, and the one book that did exist is over 20 years old, so I can't imagine the material is current or accurate. Also, Plastic pressure pipe systems (sorry, wrong link before) is not the fork; Plastic piping systems is, and I'm going to need to hunt through my contribs to find the industrial piping one that was the same. MSJapan 17:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, see, these are salient details that are important to the story... :-) - Philippe | Talk 17:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) The previous article was Industrial plastic pipe systems, which was a POV fork of Plastic pressure pipe systems, and was deleted August 8. Here's the Checkuser case and the AfD for Industrial plastic pipe systems, which was speedily closed. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I deleted the article per WP:CSD#G5 because this is the exact same article that Grumpyrob (talk · contribs) keeps creating at different namespaces with socks. I'll salt if it returns. I also blocked the sock as Grumpyrob (talk · contribs) is indef'd and this is most certainly a puppet.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

user:Guivon is the latest incarnation of a very long line of sock puppets used by a permanently-banned individual. Besides breaking the rules by evading his countless blocks, he makes disruptive and counterproductive edits, posts insulting comments on talk pages, and deletes other editors' legitimate comments on his talk page (and on at least one article talk page). Yes, I know it's not technically against the rules to delete comments on your own talk page, but it shows blatant disrespect to other editors, as does his uncivil comments in talk pages and edit notes. An IP check came back with the result "very likely". See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Purger and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Velebit for some of his other accounts.Spylab 17:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. MastCell ^Talk 18:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What will they think of next?

The Herero language is spoken by perhaps 133,000 very poor people in Southern Africa. The Herero Wikipedia (http://hz.wikipedia.org) failed to ever gain traction and it was recently closed as being nothing more than a spam magnet.

Today, an established editor on en.wikipedia, Striker buzcu (talk · contribs · count), substantially revised our Herero language article to make it describe an unrelated, artificial language based on Turkish and English called "Wikiherero" (spoken by "50 to 100"). He added a number of internal wikilinks from en.wikipedia to articles on hz.wikipedia.^{[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]}

It turns out that in the last three days, hz:User:Turkiye created 15+ new articles on the supposedly defunct Herero Wikipedia about Turkish topics. Not being fluent in Turkish (or Wikiherero), I don't know what they said but it had something to do with Turkish soccer, not Herero culture or African fauna.

I reported the usurpation on meta, reverted the wikilink additions and restored the Herero language article. An hz.wikipedia admin has deleted the bogus pages on hz.wikipedia and blocked Turkiye

I leave it to admins here to figure out what, if anything, you might want to do about Striker buzcu. Stealing an entire wikipedia does not appear in our grid of standard warnings, so I was at a loss as to what to say on his talk page. (I settled for "very bad" but I hope I don't get hit with an {{uw-agf1}} warning myself since this was only his first hijacking.)

Cheers, --A. B. ^(talk) 19:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• At a glance, some of this may have spilled over to the official list on meta at m:List of Wikipedias. Further review from someone more familiar with the situation is probably needed. --W.marsh 20:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Good catch -- I reverted the meta vandalism.^[32]

--A. B. ^(talk) 20:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been through this before, but I've been away from WP for a long time so I'm a little hazy on how things like this should be handled.

Several IP addresses (63.215.29.115, 162.58.0.232, and maybe also 63.215.29.119) have been revert-warring and making generally unconstructive edits on Brandon Teena for some time now. I suspect at least these three IP's to be controlled by the same user, whom I suspect but can't prove to be former user Duke Patton. A primary goal of the anonymous editor(s) seems to be to insert a negative claim re: the subject against consensus of other editors. There has also been a good number of posts which border on or are outright personal attacks (Note, these were by .119, not .115 or .0.232; .119 has not to my knowledge attempted to revert war on the main article, but has been equally unconstructive in talk space and I strongly suspect, due to sharing the same local netblock, to probably be the same person as .115).

Here are two identical edits made by 63.215.29.115 and 162.58.0.232, reinserting the negative claim I referred to above: [33] [34]

Editor .115 has introduced what he claims are sources on the talk page, but these sources repeatedly turn out not to say what he claims they do. Regardless, he does not wait for consensus to develop before going ahead and reverting. It's clear to me that this editor has no respect for consensus.

I'd like to request that the article be temporarily semi-protected from edits by anonymous users. Cheers, Kasreyn 20:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. For reference, the alphabet-soup board dedicated to protection requests is WP:RFPP. MastCell ^Talk 21:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

New user RichSatan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reacted badly to my application of the {{w-graphical}} welcome template, thinking it was a reproach. Thereafter he continued to attack me on my talk page, despite the whole four npa warnings, calling me lovely names like faggot, shitbag, and telling me to go fuck a dog. I don't think a block would be forgiving, but will someone outside of the dispute please explain things gently to this guy? Thanks VanTucky ^(talk) 22:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I already blocked for 24 hours, after the user responded to my NPA warning with this. (It's amazing how much all caps edit summaries stand out in the recent changes page.) If this user shows some understanding of how their behavior was inappropriate, I don't mind if the block is lifted, but not before that. Natalie 22:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. 8 edits, 7 of which are talk page edits calling people every name in the book. I'm not sure you wouldn't have done better giving user an indefinite block; gets the point across much better if he ever decides to return. The Evil Spartan 00:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"Reacted badly" seems to be a bit of an understatement. :) Kuru ^talk 02:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

I was wonderin' if someone could have a look at the unregistered user edit numbers on the article 4th generation jet fighter.

Its definitely POV edit - all of it and its getting out of hand. The factual integrity of many sections of article - especially in relation to US F-22 vs Eurofighter and any subsection w/ even remote possiblity of Indian involvement - have all but collapsed. Some users are constantly pushing their on POV into large section of this article completely unchallenged.

Surely something must be done to stop such an interesting encyclopedic article to be ruined completely.

I have asked some other users, but don't know any admin guys. PLEASE HELP!! -- Ash sul 22:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is that way :) Will ^(talk) 22:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed :) I've semi-protected the page temporarily, in response to a 3RR report. ELIMINATORJR 22:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks dude EliminatorJR -- Ash sul 22:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone. This user continues to insert unencyclopedic content and links into the article Field Commander. He has mercilessly revert warred to include information about his gaming site (as a note, I found out about this via an RFC on him, which was soon deleted because it was not "properly certified"). In any case, this user's conduct is totally unhelpful; he continues to revert war, and has paid no attention to the RFC brought out on him for this clearly unencyclopedic content. I would appreciate if an administrator could please use some kiddy gloves on him, or perhaps be a little more assertive in warning him. The Evil Spartan 23:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I blocked him for 24 hours this morning. He'd exceeded 3RR in an edit-war, so I reverted and gave him a final warning about introducing his unencyclopedic material. He then proceeded to revert again, so I blocked him. I'm not sure about the behaviour of some of the other editors on the article, but I've talked to him by email and I think he gets the message now. ELIMINATORJR 00:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frater FiatLux (2nd) and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975 for evidence and determination. Kremm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is disrupting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (second nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) just like all the previous socks. IPSOS (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This template was recently vandalised by an anon, which caused some havoc, as the template is included in others, and it is hard for most users to detect it. It took me about 5 minutes to sort out everything to solve the "puzzle", but Warofdreams beat me. Now, my question. Are country-data high risk templates? Even if they are hard to find, is it worth protecting all such Country data templates to avoid future confusion? Have I blown this out of proportion (I'm joking a bit but I'm also a bit serious about the last question)? Maxim_(talk) 01:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I semi-protected Country data Russia, it is used in thousands of pages. As to others, a better place may be WT:PROTECT or Wikipedia talk:High-risk templates. If the others are used as much as Russia is, it may be worth discussion to semi-protect or full protect if there is no reason at all to make anything but minor changes. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll sprotect major/controversial countries (USA, Canada, Germany, France, UK, China, etc.), and that's all I think. Maxim_(talk) 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_CheckUser_information#Possible_sockpuppets_at_Talk:Spam_blacklist

After a checkuser investigation, the following users have been blocked on en:wp as socks of Wiki En Wiki (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), whose block has been extended to indefinite for multiple wiki spamming and attacking users, as well as persistent sockpuppetry. The underlying IP has been blocked as well.

• user:TrainForGain
• user:Guanchemilon
• user:Drivehave
• user:WikiableHome
• user:Responsible Responsibility
• user:Gold Rush Gold
• user:Keen Anthrop
• user:Antrhop Keen
• user:Political Beauty
• user:Gogggggle

During the investigation I discovered the following users already blocked:

• user:Wiki En Wiki (was extended to indef)
• user:Uiki En Uiki
• user:WikiWiki En
• user:Political Guru

As always I invite review of my actions. ++Lar: t/c 02:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't see anything wrong here. You know, if someone reasonable screams at you, I think its only then you have to worry about having screwed up. Otherwise, be bold and all that such. David Fuchs ^(talk) 02:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Block them without mercy, a quick look on his and the socks talk pages will reveal he doesn't care about being discovered, also add this IP address to the bunch User talk:70.45.48.178. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel harrassed by admin Tariqabjotu. He keeps blocking me whenever he gets the chance when I get into disputes on some articles. I don't break 3rr and I never instigate edit wars, but he keeps blocking me for "edit-warring". I'm looking for outside opinions on this before he gives me the "I'm just being a neutral admin" speech. I just noticed that he's edit-warring on the Israel article right now, so I don't understand the double-standard. Egyegy 02:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I fail to understand how his edits on Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at the moment constitute edit warring - they seem to be uncontroversial changes, and he is reverting no one. As to instigating edit wars and violations of the three revert rule, neither of these is a prerequisite for blocking for edit warring. If a user is disrupting Wikipedia via multiple reverts, uninvolved sysops may use their judgement with regards to blocking the user in question. Your recent edits on Arab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seem to fit that description, ie disruptive edit warring that doesn't seem to be violating the three-revert rule, as do your recent edits on Middle East. Tariqabjotu seems to have been correct in his block, "03:17, August 18, 2007 Tariqabjotu (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Egyegy (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 36 hours (revert-warring on Middle East and Arab, despite previous blocks)". I have don't have a good way of assessing whether he's completely uninvolved, but he certainly hasn't been involved in those two edit wars. In conclusion, I see no abuse. Picaroon (t) 02:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all he edits Middle East articles, so we know he is not "uninvolved" at all. Second of all, he was edit-warring on the Israel article. Take a closer look at his contributions and the talk page. He even admits that he was "battling" with the regular editors on the article [35]. His battling made everyone angry [36] [37] [38]. See he is not like an uninvoloved editor. His battling on the article was disruptive. For him to block me three times in a row without breaking 3rr not just shows bias but hypocrisy also. This is why I'm asking someone to take a neutral view of this. Egyegy 18:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The comment I left here is relevant too.[39] Egyegy 18:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The User user:Blaxthos has a continuing history of personal attacks against me since I first encountered him earlier this year resulting in an inability to have constructive dialogue. He creates a hostile environment making it difficult for anyone to work in good faith with him. The latest involving what I believe is an external link which violates WP:EL WP:RS and WP:UNDUE in the Fox_News_Channel_controversies article see talk Talk:Fox_News_Channel_controversies. Instead of providing reasoning why the link does not, he has again resorted to attacking me; working in concert with the user USER:Italiavivi. I have tried to work with the person, but they simply refuse to assume good faith. Arzel 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Blaxthos made two comments that I saw. He was angry but was replying to earlier comments you had made. It seems that you are having difficulty convincing the editors of your view. I would suggest everyone get back to commenting on the content -- not each other. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 16:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, this goes way back to my first encounter with him. He makes condensending remarks to everything I say. Instead of discussion the issue he continually questions my motives and I am tired of it. He seems to think that since he has been here longer and knows more policy words than the average person he can say whatever he wants. When I in turn researched up on various policies he assused me of Policy Shopping. Check out his essay, it was written in respone to me! Arzel 14:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just been accused of deliberately promoting illegal activity, when in fact all I'm doing is trying to prove that said illegal activity is significant and relevant.

This user is persisently edit warring and removing valid informatin despite reverts by four different editors, and he refuses to discuss his changes on the talk page. He's saved from 3RR violation only by the fact that I keep editing the page to try and make it more acceptable, so it's not going back to the exact same version every time. Now that it's turned to personal attacks I am angry and upset and I don't know what to do anymore.

Please advise. --Masamage ♫ 20:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, WP:3RR says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." (emphasis mine). --barneca (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the timing is just spaced out enough that it's not a violation. But that wasn't really my concern anyway; I'm more worried about the edit warring and total lack of good faith. (On another page, where he's fighting a similar fight, he smacked me with "There ARE rules here, face it."[40]. Incidentally, he refuses to cite any rule that illegalizes mentioning the existence of fansubs in a series' production history.) --Masamage ♫ 23:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Folken de Fanel should be warned about legal threats. Corvus cornix 23:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fansubs are against copyright laws in some countries. Maybe that's what Folken is referring to. Either way, I believe that Folken has been edit warring. bibliomaniac15 Prepare to be deleted! 23:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please issue him a proper warning regarding this behavior? I'm not comfortable warning people with whom I'm involved in a dispute. --Masamage ♫ 17:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The editor Italiavivi will not stop posting at my talk page. See the history. I warned him here, but he keeps posting. Please help.Ferrylodge 21:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As described above. I have kindly asked him to remove our entire dialogue per User:LessHeard vanU's advice. Italia^vivi 21:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

See above. I am posting at Talk:Fred Thompson.

Policy for user talk pages is not the same as policy for other talk pages.Ferrylodge 21:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have warned User:Italiavivi for violation of WP:NPA. If the warning is transgressed please take it to WP:AIV, or report it here. I'm clocking off. LessHeard vanU 22:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Harassment is not tolerated on wiki or even off-wiki if it relates to a wiki issue, see: WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks, Wikipedia:Harassment, and Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption. Rlevse 22:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the rights and wrongs of the conflict as such, but the userspace harassment is unacceptable in any case. Ferrylodge has made it repeatedly clear in his responses to Italiavivi that I's posts to his page are unwelcome and that he, F, feels harassed by them. Since Italiavivi hasn't been editing since EllenD asked him nicely to leave Ferrylodge alone, I guess now isn't the best time to bonk him with a stern formal warning. But if he comes back with more of the same, even one more post, that's what I will do. Ferrylodge, feel free to alert me in case I miss something. Bishonen | talk 08:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC).

Thanks.Ferrylodge 14:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with Bishonen, and commend her for her fairness, and for upholding the same principles regardless of whether they work in favour of or against a particular person. (I even forgive her for calling me Ellen!) And I admit that I haven't looked into the whole dispute, and haven't looked at Talk:Fred Thompson at all, but it's a simple courtesy not to continue to post at the talk page of someone who has removed your comments. As I suggested to Italiavivi last night, if he feels he needs to have the last word, he can write a rebuttal on his own talk page. ElinorD (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I listed this yesterday on AfD. It was delisted by Special:Contributions/Alex_Mae. I have relisted on today's AfD, for a full discussion. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Note, there is an OTRS ticket on this article. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The AFD was closed, and blanked for privacy reasons. Please do not reinstate it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope someone can help, because I simply do not know what action to follow. I am dealing with an Italian editor (Giovanni Giove) constantly reverting thoroughly discussed and referenced edits without a single logical argument to support him. These are the articles in question: Republic of Ragusa and Forth Crusade. In the Republic of Ragusa I have worked hard to represent both sides in the Slavic/Italian conflict, that rages here, by writing a nobleman's name in this fashion: Slavic/Italian. This person threatens to constantly undo my labour for no good reason (both are valid since the Republic of Ragusa was indisputably predominantly Slavic).

In the Fourth Crusade article, a debate raged about the vulgar (as opposed to Latin, "Iadera") name of the city of Zadar, in 1202 (time of the Fourth crusade). References have been brought forth confirming the view that this was "Jadra" (pronounced Zadra) and not "Zara" (and that the name "Zara" actually evolved from "Zadra"). Giove found no references supporting his "Zara" version and was proven very mistaken in the argument on the talkpage, during wich he stated that Romans (even in the 5th century) are the same thing as Italians (classic Mussolini rhetoric). Lacking any logical argument, he started quoting 19th century history books that used the name "Zara" as default name for the city (not mentioning the local vulgar name in 1202), ignoring the fact that we are talking about the vulgar name at the beginning of the 13th century.

I appologise for the lengthy explanations, but bear in mind that we are talking about a person that uses the relative obscurity of these articles to promote a truly irredentist and revanchist point of view by placing misinformation on the world's most popular encyclopedia. i.e. he tries to show that Dalmatia, for some reason, should rightfully be in Italy (mostly based on his "Roman Empire = Italy" claims.) I hope someone can do something... DIREKTOR 02:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

From your explanation, this appears to be a classic problem for the Dispute resolution process. nadav (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

DIREKTOR didn't mention that Giovanni Giove is not paricipating in the discussions properly, consensus is not the object of his interest, he repeatedly continues to revert and "POVerize" the articles that he's concentrated on without concerning the talk page solutions or conclusions of other users built on regular sources or compromises among other users. There's no need to link these accidents since practically 99% of his contributions are of the same kind as I've described. The point is that this user is not participating in the Wiki community. Cheers. Zenanarh 13:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did not explain. Every other possible course of action has been exhausted, the man ignores conclusions reached in the talkpage, does not discuss in an argumentative way, and simply reverts everything other people include in the article, no matter how referenced or discussed. This is why I came here in the first place. DIREKTOR 16:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm posting this here because admin User:After Midnight said I should on his talk page.

I've been editing some articles on Wikipedia for awhile. It's a lot of fun and I'm always happy to contribute when I can. However, someone named User:Nascentatheist has really irritated me.

This user has recently vandalized my user page and marred my talk page with all sorts of accusations. It all started when I disagreed with him about a link on the Kearny High School (San Diego) article. See the talk page here [41]. After he started being really aggressive to me, I didn't say much because I didn't know what to do, but it has only gotten worse.

This user has attacked and belittled me and I just don't know what to do. He has said that I'm a worthless contributor . . . and he has hurt me deeply. Please see what has happened and help me. I'd like to continue contributing, but I don't know if I will unless this guy stops. --Creashin 02:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is around the corner, next door to your left. Miranda 02:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no vandalism of your user page. He has accused you of being a sockpuppet. That is not vandalism. You may, however, want to point the user to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets where they can get their accusations listened to and resolved one way or the other. --Tango 13:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit war over, moved to WP:IFD discussion --Haemo 04:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The above user seems to have gone ballistic about the nomination for deletion of some non-free images on a featured article. The user is deleting the reports from WP:IFD and deletion templates from the images with WP:STALK allegation. I tried to intervene on their talk page, but I got an accusation of stalking as well, even though I had never heard of this user or article until less than an hour ago. Could someone please intervene before this gets out of hand? It seems to be primarily a WP:OWN issue on the article and images. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's primarily a WP:BURO and WP:Use common sense issue. Image warrior has decided to target this Featured Article--which was vetted and passed via the FAC process just over two months ago. The user has nominated a series of historical images for deletion, all of which have complete and detailed fair use rationales and all of which support and are supported by the textual content of the article--just as they all did when they and the rest of the article's contents were vetted in FAC. I have no more gone "ballistic" in response to the user's actions than the user himself has in his insensible mission to eliminate valuable content from Wikipedia Featured Articles and waste the time and energy of those contributors who maintain their quality in the best spirit of the encyclopedia. The user seems to take particular exception to my use of the word "harass" to describe his actions and their effect. I refer him to the definition of this common term in Merriam-Webster's: "exhaust, fatigue; to annoy persistently; to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for...; to worry and impede by repeated raids." That strikes me as an exquisitely precise description of user's behavior.—DCGeist 03:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How has the user "targeted" this article? He has decided to put 3 images up for deletion with a perfectly reasonable rationale - "these images are not necessary to illustrate information in the article". That argument is a very reasonable one for deletion of a fair use image in any article, featured or not. Again, you might think these images are "valuable content" but obviously Videmus Omnia disagrees - it is an issue for the Wikipedia community to decide at IFD, not for you to decide unilaterally. I find it very strange that you accuse him of "stalking" and, now, "harassing" you, considering all he has done is nominate 3 images for deletion (with no previous history of ever being involved in a dispute with you) and respond to accusations that you have made against him, in addition to policies that you have violated (such as the one that prohibits users from unilaterally removing good faith nominations for deletion). ugen64 03:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Continuing to disrupt by blanking warnings [42], [43], [44]. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing items from the WP:IFD board, removing notices that they were up for deletion from their pages is not appropriate behavior. If this is as clear-cut a case as you believe it is, then they will be speedily kept. Accusing another editors of harassment and Wikistalking following a single editorial dispute with you is not civil nor does it assume good faith. It is also far from civil to accuse them of trying to "subvert" the quality of the article, calling them "image warriors", and claiming they're on a "insensible mission to eliminate valuable content" and "waste the time and energy of [other] contributors". You need to calm down and stop making personal attacks. --Haemo 04:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The deletion notices have been deleted from the image pages yet again <sigh>. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Just hold on — lets see if the situation can be defused without more edit warring --Haemo 04:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Even in light of these messages? [45] [46] Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think he will revert again for at least 24 hours (seeing as he so kindly reminded me that he already knew about the 3 revert rule), so for the moment I think the issue is over. ugen64 04:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

On the plus side, at least the edit war is over. --Haemo 04:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. I'm sure another dose of incivility will be headed my way from someone else tomorrow. :) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Golly. I guess this sure ain't the place to remind anyone of WP:BURO and WP:Use common sense. Would you all explode if I typed in WP:IAR? Oops. Sorry.—DCGeist 04:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Good faith content disagreements are not the place to ignore all rules — being the experienced editor you are, you should know that. --Haemo 04:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't have to wait - I got puerile and ludicrous immediately. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you sure did li'l buddy. Thanks for wasting my time with your peurile ludicrousness, or ludicrous peurility. As you'd put it, sigh-h-h-h.—DCGeist 04:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. --Haemo 04:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it great that I can be attacked and insulted right on the Administrator's Noticeboard, with no consequences for the attacker? 04:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Videmus Omnia (talk • contribs).

I have blocked the user for 24 hours for repeated incivility, trolling, removing notices from images against policy after multiple warnings, blanking IFD entries, etc. If anyone thinks this block was inappropriate, please let me know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the user's contribs my only concern is that the block may be too short. Raymond Arritt 13:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This indef blocked user has returned as the rather obvious sock account JagzthebestX (talk · contribs).--Atlan (talk) 04:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

While obviously that's not a great situation - he seems to be contributing in good faith, and frankly, while I'm hesitant to make judgment - a remark like this to an unblock request - "This is way too long to read" - seem kind of insane. While I'm obviously not the authority on this - I would at least give JagzthebestX one chance.--danielfolsom 04:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be a different matter. Indef-block means, well, indefinitely blocked, after all. x42bn6 Talk Mess 11:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Indef does mean indef unless properly lifted.. Blocked accordingly, advised to file an unblock req at main account or discuss with blocking admin. Deiz talk 12:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Kızıl Şaman (talk · contribs) no constructive edits all his edits are basically controversial or attacking editor editors like: [47], [48], [49] and one of his first edits [50] --Vonones 06:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

He does have a lot of vandal edits - however he also has only been given one warning - and he has made at least on constructive edit in this: [51]. I don't have authority on the matter, but I would say if he attacks one more person then he should be blocked - however we should give him one quick chance - because frankly the actions of some of the other editors haven't helped at all.--danielfolsom 06:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

He's mostly here to pick fights with other users, he contributes to Turkish Wikipedia.--Vonones 06:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

He has been warned; unless he continues to act incivilly, then no action should be taken. Neil ム 10:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Irqirq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Nochi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• This user, is quite obviously, by just looking at his edits, the same user as Nochi who got banned recently. Now he's trying to make the ancient Sumerians into Arabs and Muslims. Seriously, can we ban these trolls permanently, or are we going to have to deal with "everyone is Arab" articles forever here on Wikipedia? Now, he's trying to make an article about Sumerian people, and it's typical soapbox material. What are we going to do about this? I am tired of getting into revert wars with this revisionist troll. As can be seen by this article, it was started by Nochi,[52] and now he's back to continue where he left off. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:15 23 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
  • read the article again. I did not said that Sumerians where Arabs or Muslims. I said modern day "Arabs" like Kuwaitis and South Iraqis are the modern day Sumerians. You may search at Google to get proves, so I am Nochi just because he started this article? Irqirq 11:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • You even write like he does. No one claims that there exists any Sumerian people today. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:29 23 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
      • Looks like the 3RR bell is ringing for Irqirq (talk · contribs) at Sumerian people. Deiz talk 11:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Article redirected, protected. Deiz talk 11:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, great. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:50 23 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate articles Sigma Rho UPLB and Uplb Sigma Rho. The articles' content has previously been in two articles, resulting in an A7 speedy deletion as Uplb sigma rho, and an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigma rho with result of merge/redirect to University of the Philippines. Should the duplicate articles both be redirected to University of the Philippines per original AfD, tagged db-repost (strictly speaking doesn't fit the criteria as previous actions were not AfD-deleted), prod'ed (though not uncontroversial), reroll as db-bio, or something else? Michael Devore 12:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User Manishf1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) moved the Randomness article to Hackco56 and attempted to replace it with a blog link. The vandalism to the content was bot-reverted, but the page still needs to be moved back. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 16:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done Ok, Navou ^banter 16:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please block editing on the song commercial lyrics of this entry: Koogle Users have inserted rude lyrics into it, making a joke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DJLarryT (talk • contribs) 16:53, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

• Only one example of vandalism here. If it becomes a recurring problem, please report at WP:RFPP. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 17:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

An edit war which at times approaches but never quite exceeds 3RR has been rumbling along at Newington College (a school in Sydney, Australia) for some time between a group of red-linked editors with, from what I can tell, ExtraDry (talk · contribs) on one side, and Archifile (talk · contribs), Tallum (talk · contribs), Mitchplusone (talk · contribs) and Castlemate (talk · contribs) on the other. There's a variety of issues, but I think long-term non-assumption of bad faith is a problem here on both sides (eg this AfD from June and this one from August where ExtraDry in each case attempted to delete an article written by one of the others). Checking history of user talk pages also suggests all manner of fun, with ExtraDry being accused of being User:DXRAW (a non-banned former user) and the others accused of being sockpuppets of each other. All in all, a bit of a nasty situation, all centred around one article. I've brought this up here as I think someone other than the usual run of local editors (some of whom have tried to resolve the situation already by talking to the parties concerned) may be required to resolve this. FTR I am uninvolved with (and rather unconcerned with) the article and its subject, but the amount of wasted time on WP:AUS caused by these AfDs and the random bouts of edit warring between a small number of users is becoming disruptive. Orderinchaos 17:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Three more sockpuppets of the banned user Runcorn, 204.155.226.2, 195.26.60.87, and 86.153.140.112, have just been blocked. They were identified by these following edits: [53][54][55] as these edits were extremely similar to this edit made by a confirmed Runcorn sockpuppet. 204.155.226.2 was blocked by Yamla, and I blocked 195.26.60.87 and 86.153.140.112. I thought that, given Runcorn's history and previous status, it would be worth mentioning this here. Acalamari 18:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ive started a bot to move images to commons please see User:Betacommand/Commons β^_command 13:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If that bot moves any of the free images I uploaded, I will block it. I don't want them on Commons, where I can't keep an eye on them and have them on my watchlist. Are you going to bother to ask users first if they want their images moved, or do you know best? Neil ム 16:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

wtf? read the wording of the GFDL. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

He said he'd block, not sue for copyright infringement. There are a lot of things that are legal to do in the US that will still get you blocked on WP. --W.marsh 18:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You can put the images on your watchlist on commons and be notified of updates on it via email. --Flominator 06:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

One do not make threats about blocking the bot. Two if they are free images they should be on commons. Three please see WP:OWN. Four if you want to civilly discuss this then please do but threats are not a good thing. β^_command 17:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I hurt the bot's feelings. Why should they be on Commons? Please point me in the direction of the relevant policy that says this is the case. This is civil - please ask users before moving their images, as a courtesy, if nothing else. I would imagine many many users would not be happy, particularly if they hold the same opinion of Commons I do. Neil ム 17:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What have you got against commons? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec - note I was refactoring my response and got conflicted). I don't like Commons because it takes away local control, and allows people to merrily upload pictures of their meat and two veg and vandalise Wikipedia with them. I also don't like it because I wouldn't be able to watchlist my images. Neil ム 17:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Commons has a watchlist feature just like en Wikipedia. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

But I don't want to have two jump between two accounts. Sigh. Neil ム 17:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok please see WP:OWN as soon as you uploaded those images under a free license they no longer belong to you. so if wikipedians think they should be on commons then that is where they will go. as for not being able to watch images, do you have e-mail? commons e-mails you when pages on your watchlist change β^_command 17:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I will delete them and reupload them under a suitable tag. Is there a tag I can apply to ensure they don't move to Commons? Neil ム 17:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

why not just use the commons e-mail tool? β^_command 17:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Why should I have to? Neil ム 17:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe you're missing the point that they're not your images. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Neil, only if they are fair use. Otherwise, free images can (and preferably will) go to Commons. And once they are uploaded, they not yours. Majorly (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't true. You own images you license under GFDL, you just have to let other people use them. But you still own them. Quite frankly, Neil is also well within his administrative priviledge to block Betacommandbot for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Moving images to commons is disruptive. WilyD 19:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

WilyD I think you need to go read our policies again, in no way is moving images to commons disruptive. it been happening for many years now. and our free images should be posted on commons. any such block was out of the question. as for uploading images if they are free we can copy them to commons regardless of what you say. If you want to keep a local copy is a completely separate issue. β^_command 15:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Uploading images to commons is not disruptive, but deleting them off en.wikipedia is counter to our goal of building a free encyclopaedia, as is noming them just because they've ben moved. Obviously all the images I've uploaded your free to use in any way that's compatible with their licenses (and most of my images are public domain, so there's not even any issue there), but that doesn't mean you're entitled to impair Wikipedia for reasons unrelated to our goal of creating a free encyclopaedia. WilyD 17:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think suggesting I would block the bot was one thing I should not have done. Neil ム 20:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense that they would be added to Commons, what doesn't make sense is that they would then be deleted from the English Wikipedia, an act which helps Commons not at all and only makes our life more difficult. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is with Commons rather than the bot which is unhelpful but legit[edit]

I share Neil's sentiment but I must add Neil has no means on doing anything to have it his way. By uploading the images to Wikipedia under Commons-compatible license he has no way of preventing them being uploaded to commons. That said, this brings us back to the most serious problem of commons, its being subject to flukes. Suppose the editor uploads a free image to WP. Then, someone moves it to commons. Soon enough the WP copy gets deleted. Then, after the new attack of Commons' wannabe copyright lawyers (wanna a couple of names? can give you ten!) the image gets deleted from commons because the commons' view on a particular copyright rule changes again. Wikipedia image is gone by now. Result: article looses an image.

How can it happen? Many scenarios. Only user-created images uploaded under GFDL or cc-by-sa are reasonably safe forever. PD? No. Rules change. One day commons may move to allowing only world-wide PD images. Are you sure there is no country where the life of copyright is 300 years since the death of the author? Or that there cannot be in 5 years? Copyright laws do change retroactively sometimes.

Next: suppose the PD image is sourced to a web-site. In three years the site goes down. Some freak from the "copyright patrol" (wanna name? I can give you ten!) tags it as "source invalid", in ten days image is gone. Image's author who would have a better chance noticing the event on-wiki has no idea with what is going on on commons. Result is the same. Article looses image.

The problem is not the bot. The problem is with Commons. Neil, I share your sentiment. Unfortunately, there is nothing you can do. You can beg Betacommand and his friends to not move your image but this would be asking for a favor and I doubt it would work. --Irpen 17:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Neil, while you may hold the copyright on the images, they have been licensed in such a way that we can copy them any way we want. What is more, Wikipedia has never made any sort of promise to you that it will host your images. If you want them to stay on Wikipedia, you best bet is to ask nicely, because you are not in a position to demand. Blocking the bot for such an action would be a highly inappropriate use of your admin tools. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Massive edit conflict ... what they all said, with a few additions, the most important one being about the ability to restore deleted images. If the Commons policy is in some way different from the EN policy, we admins can restore an EN deleted image, drop us a note. Or, well, I hate to even mention this, but if someone deletes an image for ... other inappropriate reasons ..., we can restore it as well. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

He's already deleting them. I am disappointed that an Admin would be this unaware of the terms of the GFDL, and would take such action. Of course, any particularly good photos can be undeleted, since the GFDL license can't be revoked. Thatcher131 17:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Does GFDL require that attribution must remain? Neil ム 17:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thatcher131 17:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Then please explain where my attribution has gone from [56] and [57]. Then tell me again why Commons respects GFDL. Neil ム 17:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that image wasnt copied from wikipedia, if you want I can show you a few examples of my move to commons. I copy the upload history, page history, and the page text. making the transwiki'ing of images 100% GDFL compliant and covering all the bases and ensuring all users get credit for their work. β^_command 17:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds great, Bc. Please do point to an example. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Neil, I suspect the problem was that you didn't explicitly give attribution in the image text, you just put GFDL-self, and assumed the self-part would be obvious. Betacommand, can you make sure the bot notes any GFDL attribution when moving an image to Commons? This includes giving the user name of the uploader when using GFDL-self. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently commons user c:User:Billy1125 uploaded them without properly attributing them. You could ask on commons for them to be deleted or you could provide the proper information. Although I have not examined BCBot's code (and wouldn't know what to look for if I did) I suspect that the Bot will properly attribute all images, since failing to do so would raise yet another shitstorm. Allowing your images to be moved by the bot (or moving them yourself) would be the best way to guarantee proper attribution. Thatcher131 17:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

see my comment above. β^_command 17:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Massive edit conflict. Thatcher, You are right about the "yes" above but not fully right that GFDL cannot be revoked. Technically it can be revoked but it won't affect the derivative work where the image is already used or prevent taking a copy from the source where the originally GFDL image is copied. But one can prevent the image from being copied from the original place he uploaded it to by revoking GFDL. This is a technicality that affects little though. However, this has little to do with the problem of commons that make editors resent having their images move there. But, again, there is nothing one can do. True enough. --Irpen 17:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Neil (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) appears to be using his admin-bit to delete his GFDL images in protest under the "user request" CSD criteria. This seems disruptive, petty, and poor conduct to boot. It's terribly disappointing, and sets a poor precedent. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If I were an admin, I would gladly follow his example. It's for nothing that I uploaded some of the images to Wikipedia rather than to Commons. Take Prokudin-Gorsky images, dating from before 1915. Some of them were modernized and colored by myself, and I could reasonably expect that my name as the uploader will be shown. Not at all. These pictures have long ago been moved to Commons and now may be seen on websites all over the world, without proper attribution of the original uploader or person responsible for their restoration. Can anybody name the person responsible for the restoration of Image:Sochi edited.jpg? Only I can. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

He stopped at 13:31, August 17, 2007 Neil (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Lincolnblack.jpg". Thank goodness. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the few of them that were used in articles and not yet "commonized". The rest are only used in Neil's gallery and in one talk archive. Миша13 18:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

He just deleted another: "11:13, 17 August 2007 Neil (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Dryskislope1.jpg" (GFDL revoked. See my talk page.)" Petty. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, Chairboy, but name-calling is not helpful. I have used my revoked any GFDL licensing associated with those images, until I can find a satisfactory license. Please see the note on my talk page regarding this. Neil ム 18:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not calling you a name, I'm ascribing the motivation of "pettiness" to your actions. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is a good time to start doing something about the commons' problems as outlined above? We should at least try. --Irpen 17:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

C'mon, you know that AN/I has no dominion over commons. The question is whether Betacommand's bot obeys all requirements (attribution, etc.) - it does. Some users may be concerned over images deleted at commons, but it's easy enough to keep track of all transwikied files, the bot could even be modified to include a "Images transferred by such-and-such" cat in the process. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, my higher priority than moving images is checking that things other people copied to commons was done properly. Just yesterday I found one of my photos had been copied there almost a year ago without attribution by someone who obviously didn't know it was necessary. In that time no one had figured out that a whole set of photos had been improperly copied from en.wiki to the very same image names. How hard would that be to check? — Laura Scudder ☎ 14:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Improper speedy deletions of the images should be reverted. The images should only be deleted if they've gone through a deletion review process. Neil, just because you uploaded the images doesn't mean you can delete them whenever you want to. Corvus cornix 18:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Would those images not be eligible for a speedy G7 deletion? Or does that not apply to images (and if so, why not? WP:SPEEDY says that "General [speedy deletion]criteria...apply to all namespaces."). --ElKevbo 18:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As Neil has resumed his image deletion spree, now claiming to have revoked the GFDL from his images, and seems to have no intention of stopping, I have blocked him for 24 hours. I regret that this is necessary, but he is using his admin tools to disrupt the project on a potentially massive scale. --Krimpet 18:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocking an admin doesn't prevent him or her from using admin tools. Mike R 18:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit much for even a mop wielding mouse without a law degree. User talk:Mikegodwin#Time for the WP's official copyright lawyer to weigh in. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Both Neils' deletions and blocking him are wrong solutions of a serious problem whose real solution is long overdue. --Irpen 18:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocking Neil is absurd and it's only going to make this conflict worse. If he isn't unblocked very soon, I'm going to review his unblock request. Sarah 18:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Krimpet unblocked Neil after off-line discussion in which Neil agreed to stop deleting and talk it out. Mike Godwin hasn't yet weighed in, but I suspect will probably be the definitive voice here. More news available at a very reasonable price ...  :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict w/above)I apologize if my block was on the hasty side =/ -- I only resorted to a block as I was concerned that he intended to continue deleting images. After discussing it with him in private, he has promised to me that he will pursue his concerns in the proper forums, and I have unblocked him. --Krimpet 19:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, commons is a problem but this is even a bigger problem that plagues the Wikipedia. Please never ever "block on the hasty side"!. --Irpen 19:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• One potential problem with commons that I haven't seen raised is the reason why commons was created: to a be a common repository of images that could be used across a range of projects. In other words, all the different language Wikipedias, and other projects as well, I believe, can use the same image that is on Commons. This is a feature, and often a desirable one. The "usage" tool on Commons exists to allow people to track how their images (where 'their' refers to them as the photographer) are being used. However, there will always be people who don't want to do things this way, and would prefer to limit their images to just one location. I wonder if there is a way to have a licence that does this: "free, but only use here"? Or is that against everything that the free content movement stands for? One of my free pictures was picked up and used in the French Wikipedia, which I was very pleased about, but I'm less certain what my reaction would be if I saw a picture I took being used in an article that was written in a language I didn't understand ((eg. Japanese). I would want to be sure they were not misusing the picture, but maybe this points at the real problem. A photographer releasing free pictures must, at some point, trust the re-users of the content to use the free pictures responsibly. Carcharoth 19:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is free! You need to understand what this means. Anyone can reuse your photo for any reason they like provided the follow the GFDL. There is nothing to stop somone bypassing commons and copying and pasting your image to another language wikipedia. There is nothing to stop soming copying and pasting your image to another internet site, even one you heartily disaprove of. If you licence under a free licence users are free to do whatever they want with the image as long as they follow the licence instructions. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Krimpet... I agree with Irpen, please think and discuss before you block. Now you seem to be apologizing to WP:ANI for a hasty block — what's that about? How about a word of regret to Neil, in his actual block log? You do realize it was previously squeaky clean, but will now forever more be displaying your claim that he used admin tools disruptively ? Followed only by your rather ungracious unblock message? Think about it. Please. Bishonen | talk 19:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC).

Bish, Krimpet has apologised and I have accepted. I don't think it's productive going after her at this juncture. Neil ム 20:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see widespread condemnation of his actions. As entertaining as jumping up and down on him after he's unblocked might seem, he performed a block he felt was correct, and unblocked it when Neil agreed to stop his spree and help work out a solution to this mess. If you still have a problem w/ Krimpet, do something about it other than sniping at an 'easy target'. While you're at it, do you disagree with the assertion that Neil was disrupting the project to make a point? 1. This conversation is evidence enough that he caused disruption, and 2. He's doing this to make a point about Commons, which he has a self-described irrational dislike of. Before you try and start a pile-up, consider the context please. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I won't comment other than to point out deleting 4 images is not a spree in any sense of the word. Neil ム 20:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's not jump up and down on either Krimpet, or Neil, they've made peace. We can talk about the issues, try to reach agreement ourselves, wait for Mike Godwin to be the Voice From On High, or both, but recriminations can only make things worse, not better. Let's aim for better. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm w/ AnonEMouse on this. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocking was a bad move. Images can be undeleted after discussion, there was no emergency here. Neil, as far as I can tell the problem with your images on commons is that a user uploaded images he did not own and used a false license. It's not as though this problem is unique to commons. There as here, no one knows about the problem until they are informed. I have a commons user ID and would be happy to fix the info if you wish. Or you could ask a commons admin to delete them and then transwiki them properly. In fact, the best way to preserve your attribution would be to let BCBot do your images. Thatcher131 20:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Could someone please explain, or point to an explanation, of the problems with Commons. I agree with some of the descriptions of these problems, and have stated some above. I'd like to also respond to two points above:
  • (a) Theresa Knott said: "Wikipedia is free!" Yes, I know that. But images are different from text. Text can be mercilessly edited. Images can be edited too, but there are restrictions on that. This might boil down to creative control. Many photographers contributing free content have no problem with their pictures being redistributed, but do have problems with their pictures being altered: (a) cropping; (b) cleaning; (c) colour levels; (d) other photoshopping stuff. Ditto for inappropriate use (eg. misleading captions), and failure to credit the photographer. Could someone explain to me which CC licence (the 'some rights reserved' stuff) is best for addressing these concerns, as opposed to the GFDL (was that license ever even intended to be used for photographs?).
  • (b) Christopher Parham said: "It makes perfect sense that they would be added to Commons, what doesn't make sense is that they would then be deleted from the English Wikipedia, an act which helps Commons not at all and only makes our life more difficult." - could he or someone explain this in more detail? Or point somewhere where this is clearly explained?
• Thanks. Carcharoth 20:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • • What gives you the idea that images are different than text? Images can be mercilessly edited according to both the GFDL and the CC by SA. The fact that we choose not to on the whole doesn't mean the licence stops us. If photographers have a problem with their images being photoshopped then they must not upload them to wikipedia. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the loss of control in moveing an image to commons and deleteing it from en. Commons is a seperate project with different priorities and lower levels of anti-vandle skills.Geni 20:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

When an image is deleted from here, editors can no longer include it on their English Wikipedia watchlist and administrators can no longer protect it. Changes to the image obviously affect our product but aren't in our recent changes list, aren't in our administrative logs. If we find recent changes, watchlists, protection, etc. to be useful features, why are we systematically destroying them in regard to free images? Deleting the image also introduces confusion about what is the proper place to discuss the image with regard to its inclusion in this encyclopedia: at the commons talk page or at the talk page of the deleted image page here? Commons isn't helped in any way by deleting the image from Wikipedia, so the effort we put into deleting images that have been moved to Commons is pretty counterproductive. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You cannot "revoke" GFDL. From the license itself "Such a notice grants a world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration, to use that work under the conditions stated herein". "unlimited in duration". Thats the whole point of GFDL, and it is why people on Wikipedia do not get to control their contributions. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be true if GFDL were a contract; it is a licence, and can be revoked as long as the contributor remains the sole contributor. Neil ム 21:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Extreamly doubtful. Once you have released something under the GFDL people can continue to use it under the GFDL as long as they can get of hold of a copy.Geni 21:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There no such concept as a "contributor" in GFDL. When you upload an image you own as GFDL, you're giving the Wikimedia Foundation a irrevocable license to use the image for any purpose. And very time someone's browser downloads this image, this person gets a irrevocable license to use the image for any purpose. That said, if you delete this image from Wikipedia, I can, for instance, re-upload it under a different name, as long as I credit you as the author and tag it as gfdl. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Now you're all talking about the trees instead of the forest, but let me just point out something really obvious. I write, "Flannery O'Connor's stories always have a theological content, and she said that her sole theme was grace." Now, it gets edited. Fine. It turns into, "Flannery O'Connor ate boogers and liked a girl called grace." That's no longer my contribution. I.e. no one would credit the last statement to me. No one would say that it was my contribution. In fact, it's so obvious as to hardly need saying. However what is going on with the editing of a photograph is that the edits make it no longer the same photograph. I.e. it is no longer "My pet bird" but "Editor Bobo's picture of a bird." Because photographs are single objects rather than documents, because they "mean" all at once rather than in sequence, there is no way to change it "a little" and have it be "mostly the same." The moment you edit it, it's not the same thing at all. Therefore, any edit of a photograph is, in a sense, a brand new photograph that requires separate licensure. The original contributor basically allowed others to use the photograph, including using it as the basis of a new artwork created by editing, but the edited object is not the original. I would be miffed if someone said, "Geogre said Flannery O'Connor was a lesbian," and I'd be miffed if the photo of my pet bird suddenly had a pirate under its claws. It isn't that people can't edit -- the license allows that -- but then the result of any editing is no longer covered by the original donation/license. Geogre 21:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I believe you're more or less mistaken. I can only change your Flannery O'Connor's statements in my Flannery O'Connor statement because you licensed your Flannery O'Connor under GFDL. My newly created Flannery O'Connor is a derivative work from your original work, and we are co-authors. And per GFDL, I have the obligation to credit you and me, and the obligation to license my derived Flannery O'Connor's statement under GFDL (the viral copyleft thing). If I fail to credit you or to license the derivative work as GFDL, I'm violating your copyrights.

This is in no way different with images. When I draw a pirate on your bird's picture, I'm using my gfdl-granted right to create a derivative work. Again, we (you and me) are the authors of the derivative work. If I refuse to license this derivative work as GFDL, I'm also refusing my GFDL-granted right to use the image. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There are other laws which would see people get into a lot of trouble for inappropriately photoshopping GFDL pictures, such as those of a living person. That and basic ethics. This is why I, on principle, don't upload pictures of people under the GFDL. A more restrictive licence, yes, but not one that allows alteration of the original image. The equivalent here is changing a picture of Flannery O'Connor to "show" that Flannery O'Connor "is a lesbian". By the way, thanks to Geogre for using this example: Flannery O'Connor is a nice story, if a somewhat sad one. Anyway, the point is that images are different from text. Collaborative editing on a piece of text is very different to collaborative editing on an image. Try it some time. Carcharoth 22:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is why GFDL is not a very good license for pictures. See also the "moral rights" story in the Signpost this week, regarding the CC 3.0 license: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-08-13/CC 3.0. Carcharoth 22:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand that Wikipedia's policies does not allow you to upload images of living people under any license that would prevent modification? --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do understand that. When I said "I, on principle, don't upload pictures of [living] people under the GFDL.", that translates to "I, on principle, don't upload pictures of [living] people". You seemed to have interpreted it the other way, as meaning "I upload them under a different license", which is not what I meant. Another way to put this is: I'm not going to take a picture of someone and then say to them "is it OK if I upload this picture to the internet under a license that allows anyone to do what they want with it?" I wouldn't give someone permission to upload a GFDL picture of myself, so I don't presume to ask other people that question. It's an ethical stance, based partly on personality rights: "the right of every individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness, or some other identifying aspect of identity". Essentially, there are other ways to bar commercial use of content, over and above the GFDL. Essentially, the GFDL does not operate in a vacuum. You have to consider other laws. If modication of a GFDL image leads to fraud, defamation, libel or slander, then the copyright status of the image becomes irrelevant. Do you understand that? Carcharoth 23:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• And from that Signpost story: "Moral rights, as defined by most legal systems, include the right to "the integrity of the work", barring the work from alteration, distortion or mutilation." - that is the sort of clause I would be happy with. If someone can confirm to me that this new CC 3.0 license is better in that respect than the GFDL, I will upload any future pictures I take to Commons and allow free distribution, but not "alteration, distortion or mutilation". Or am I misunderstanding all this (quite possibly!). Any advice would be appreciated (and sorry for posting this here - where would be a better place to continue the discussion?). Carcharoth 23:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • On reflection, I think my position is better stated as "you are welcome to take a copy of the picture and modify it, but please remove me from the list of authors, I only want to be associated with the picture I took, not the modifed form you produce". But then that runs into the situations of people only cleaning or slightly cropping an image - I'd still want to be credited as the major author of the photograph. It is more the, "I'm going to take a copy of your picture, run it through a shredder, invert the colours, throw a can of paint over it, doodle on it, and then call it art" cases, that would lead me to say "well, I'd prefer it if you don't associate me with that". Does that make any sense? Carcharoth 23:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Christopher Parham's point above was a good one: deleting images that have been copied to Commons causes more problems than it solves, particularly with images whose copyright has expired. Since the English Wikipedia requires only that these images be public domain in the United States, while Commons requires that they also be public domain in the source country, the transwikiing process is full of traps for the unwary. Many images tagged {{PD-US}}, and at least some that are tagged {{PD-Art}} and {{PD-art-life-70}}, do not meet Commons's licensing requirements and are likely to be deleted there when someone finally notices them, but many people who transwiki images are unaware of this.

If we stopped deleting images after they have been transwikied, then Commons could make its own decisions about them without their being lost from Wikipedia articles. —Celithemis 00:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know why anyone hasn't pointed this out, but a huge problem with moving images to Commons with a bot is that all the time people upload images under "GFDL" or "PD" that aren't, and are found on Google Image Search or the like. These usually get deleted after a time, but odds are the bot will just mindlessly copy them over, aggravating the Commons folk and vastly increasing the damage. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 04:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • to address Dark Shikari's issues I will not automatically transwiki images to commons just because {{commons ok}} is on the image. I only allow certain users to tag images to be transwikied users who use the commons ok and are not approved just get ignored. Users who tag images to be moved to commons are noted on the commons image when its moved. If I get a complaint from commons I will remove said user from the list and ask questions later. β^_command 05:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Not a lawyer, but I think that people are getting hung up on the difference between licensing an image and hosting an image. I think that it's GFDL for good once it's been released as such, but that doesn't mean that we have some moral obligation to keep the image here for people to see and copy. The free/unfree status of the image is not dependant upon its presence in any particular location, so it'd be just as free after it was deleted here as it was before - it'd just be less easily accessable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"No Commons" template[edit]

I feel that Commons has thoroughly discredited itself on many levels, so that many wikipedians are reluctant to have anything to do with it. Is it possible for them to upload their images under GFDL, specifying that they prohibit the image from being used on one particular website (and that particular website will be Commons)? If this solution is legally possible, I will create Template:GFDL noCommons and reupload some of my pictures under this license. Your opinions are welcome. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla, such a template is not legally possible, and is ludicrous besides. By releasing your image under the GFDL, you are giving blanket permission for it to be used by anyone who abides by the terms of the license agreement, which Commons most certainly does. This is a necessary requirement for something to be free. If a work cannot be freely redistributed it isn't free at all, and we wouldn't accept it on the site. We do not allow users to upload their images with restrictive requirements. No "by permission only" and certainly no restrictions on where the image can be used. --Cyde Weys 14:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you want that level of control over your intellectual property, then don't set it free with a free license. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think this could be legally possible. GFDL and such restriction seems to be incompatible. Perhaps the only way to avoid an image to be transferred to Commons would be to tag it with a licence that is compatible here on Wikipedia but not compatible on Commons. But an important point is that this argument is made of two rather separate points. One is that an image is copied to Commons and the other is that is delete from Wikipedia. Since the main part of the problem is the second one (since a person who has upload an image here under GFDL was ok that the image was copied anywhere and in modified version too, I can no see that the main problem could be the copy to Commons). So preventing the copy to Commons would not solve the actually problem, but it would just a way to stop this procedure. By the way even preventing a new image to be copied to Commons, would not prevent that an old image could be copied to Commons (and this even if the image was delete).

One more point that I would like to note is that if an image is delete and that is not what the community wants, the image should be restored. Now here there is the difference that it is automatically believed that an image once upload to Commons could be (safely) delete from wikipedia and does not to be restore on wikipedia. Now the short way to solve out the problem that an image is delete is to undelete it, and add a note of the reason of that, putting a note that the image is not delete again for it have been uploaded to Commons. But on the other hands it should be investigated the reason why an image should be delete (for instance having it on more than one place use disk space - i am actually not sure on this), and it would be a good idea to discuss the problem arose with this discussion among the involved communities (including not only the English Wikipedia and Commons, but possibly other projects too and surely involving developers - since the reasons for commons to exists are first of all of technical reason).

All of this actually rise me one more question. Would be interesting a feature that allow to include on a page a specific version of an image? This would avoid the problem that a page is vandalized by change an image that it include. (a similar result would be get by forbidding to uplad an image with the same name, but this is a way that I like less). -- AnyFile 14:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no license a Wikipedian is allowed to upload under that is incompatible with Commons. You must choose a free license when uploading an image, either (certain) Creative Commons, GFDL, public domain, or something like it. We do not allow users to upload their own work under more restrictive fair use clauses. --Cyde Weys 14:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:AN#Crafting a response to attempted GFDL revocations; it is very relevant to this discussion. --Cyde Weys 15:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to second the position that you may not license an image to be used on Wikipedia under conditions that do not allow it to be copied to Commons. There are legitimate issues on Commons with miscopying information when things get moved, deletion policy, and such, which should be corrected or otherwise dealt with—but not by using a restrictive license as a tool to exclude content from it. (I don't think there's anything wrong with keeping a local copy of images that get copied to Commons, if people feel strongly about it.) Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 16:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this true? Image:Outersolarsystem objectpositions labels comp.pngthis image I've assigned various licenses, some of which are appropriate for commons, one of which is not. Somehow, I don't trust commons not to delete it. I can at least keep an eye on it here. I'm tempted to remove the "candidate for commons" tag on it. WilyD 15:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

CSD I8 is not sacrosanct. It can be rewritten or removed, if that's what the collective wisdom suggests. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is a real risk of an image we would consider acceptable being deleted on commons or replaced with a significantly different image, then I8 should be modified. I8 assumes that the existence of a commons image makes it pointless to have a local copy. A different risk of deletion or change at commons invalidates that assumption. I say this as a matter of logic, while holding no opinion on the actual risk level. GRBerry 03:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is pehaps worth noting at this point that CSD I8 says that images may not be deleted under it if the image description page contains an objection to moving them to Commons. So, while you may not actually stop anyone from copying your free image to Commons — provided they do so according to the license you've chosen, in particular preserving attribution where required — simply writing "I do not want this image to be moved to Commons." on the image description page is enough to prevent it from being deleted from Wikipedia. (And yes, there probably should be a template to that effect, if there isn't already.) Personally, I think doing so is silly and counterproductive, but if you want redundant copies of your images to be kept on enwiki, you can have it that way. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The project has NEVER been wikipedia only. If you don't want your image to be copied to any website in the world then don't release it under a free license. We don't want non free material. Secretlondon 14:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm slightly amazed that someone can get to be an administrator and yet still not understand free content.. Secretlondon 14:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Preventing a move to Commons is legally impossible, obviously. But how about we change WP:CSD#I8 to say "The image cannot be deleted if the original uploader objects for any reason"? --- RockMFR 19:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Frankly, no. That only encourages WP:OWNership and petty WP:POINT responses like the above by Neil. I echo Secretlondon's amazement, and believe Neil should have his adminship revoked. >Radiant< 12:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  As per my message on your talk page, Radiant, either file an RFC or stop making such comments. I am not asking for the image to be Wikipedia only - I have no objection whatsoever to it being copied to Commons or anywhere else. All am I asking is that a local copy be retained. I am not sure how that should lead to my adminship being revoked. Neil ム 17:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  How is this statement supportable, in light of your attempt to rescind the GFDL licensing of your images? You were clearly disrupting the project to make a point about Commons. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  For which I was blocked while discussions took place, and when I agreed to no longer attempt to revoke anything, I was unblocked with a polite apology. Yes, I did attempt to revoke GFDL. I was convinced not to, for the good of the project, and will not do attempt to do so again. Can we let it go yet? Neil ム 21:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Something perhaps not pointed out so far[edit]

Guys, I see this, and all the legal wrangling in this thread is not what worries me in the slightest. What worries me is several problems with bad image uploads that newbie users seem to have. I do constant image patrol and see these all the time:

1. Faux licenses. There are dozens of images per day which are uploaded under a clearly false pd license (e.g., screencaps). A bot that blindly copies them to commons will be abetting this problem.
2. WP:NOT#MYSPACE problems. I also see a ridiculous amount of image uploads which are just "me and my boyfriend johnie!" with no other contributions. Why move these to commons.
3. Commons already has a huge backlog. You think ours is bad. There's is months - this will exacerbate the problem. This is not just a philosophical problem. Uploading ridiculous amounts of pd images means fewer eyes to spot errors, and fewer admins to hit the delete button. This will greatly compound problem images.
4. Notifying users of images up for deletion is no longer possible.

Please think of all this before wholesale approving this bot. The Evil Spartan 20:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I am the bot operator in this case and I agree with the points that you have stated. the automatic transwiki doesnt just happen because {{Commons ok}} is on the image. I only accept images tagged from approved users. (users who know what they are doing and have been added to my list) such users should understand and be able judge images that are ok for commons. all my bot does is allow users to easily move appropriate images to commons. those users are logged on the uploaded commons page. If I get a user who abuses the process and a commons admin brings this to my attention I will revoke access no questions asked and said user might be blocked under our WP:DISRUPT policy. such abuse is not welcome and I hope users who are trusted with access to the tool have enough respect and intelligence not to screw things up. β^_command 21:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If indeed the bot is run in such a way, this would alleviate a good many of my concerns. I just think that we should be sure there is a pair of eyes that see an image before it is transfered. The Evil Spartan 00:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Evil Spartan, that is how I operate the bot. β^_command 19:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've uploaded many images under the GFDL. Someone could legally re-upload them all with "This image sucks!!!" written over them. And yet I don't think anyone would say we have to provide hosting for that, even if it is legal, so arguments purely along the lines of "We have to allow it because it's legal" are naive here. My point is that maybe we should look beyond what's legal and think about what's best for the project. If someone is contributing images and really wants a local copy to remain, we don't have to let that happen... but would it kill us to do so? Deleting the local copy when all it apparently accomplishes is annoying the uploader, and possibly making them not want to ever contribute anything again, seems like the actual WP:POINT being made here here. --W.marsh 01:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just say, then, that the uploader has no authority to prevent anyone moving a free image to Commons (and indeed voluntarily relinquished such authority the moment (s)he chose to license the image under a free license), but that a local copy will be retained if the uploader so requests? I personally don't see the point, the accounts are still as free at Commons as they ever were and come complete with a watchlist, but I've never had anyone object to an image move to Commons. For those few who do, we'll move it but keep a local copy too. What would be wrong with that? Whether anyone likes it or not, Commons is a sister project devoted to free images, and free images in the end belong there just as much as dictionary definitions belong on Wiktionary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, then, to create a template that amounts to Template:Keep copy here which contains text for users and is recognized like a reverse robots.txt by bots ... it says 'go ahead and copy, but just copy and nothing more'. Or ... one could parameterize Template:Commons ok with 'leavecopy' and values 'y' or 'n'. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What Seraphimblade said... There shouldn't be any issue with copying GFDL images over to Commons, but there isn't any reason to delete the Wikipedia copy or relink articles to the Common copy if the original uploader wishes. As long as the local copies aren't being deleted after they are moved, I'm fine with the bot.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Post-SUL I imagine we'll move all suitably-licensed context to Commons. So... this thread is a tad moot.

James F. (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-deletion NowCommons tags coming?[edit]

As per the discussion above and changes to several policy pages, the images copied to commons now may or may not be deleted from local Wikipedias.

Do we now have a template that says that the image has a copy in commons but the uploader requests a local copy to be kept? And another template stating that if the image is copied to commons the uploader requests a local copy kept? Host of reasons above. As of now, both NowCommons and NowCommonsThis-templates are classified as "deletion tags" among other cats. Anyone making the update on them or new tags? Thanks, --Irpen 04:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are the latest, can someone please do something permanent! He won't even use edit summaries [58] --Phral 09:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about your stories but it is clear that it is an edit warring. Just a note for everyone, please discuss your issues at the talk page. There has been no discussion since August 13. If not i'd be obliged to protect the article at the wrong version of course. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

To butt in for a moment. I too have problems with Phral with reverting MY edits and his racist views. (This is not an attack, he is proud of that). See his response to my comment on his talk page. The link above was a legitimate good faith revert, because what was there before was inaccurate. Carol Channing is not Mulatto. Also, trying to bait me on my talk page. I can provide many more, but will not clutter this page. FYI. - Jeeny ^Talk 08:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not racist, just a realist. And I was genuinely interested into what is motivating Jeeny to delete so much information and try cover so many things up, much like Muntuwandi does. --Phral 08:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. Block them all for a week. This is multiple archived threads being reopened for no good reason, after numerous warnings and participation from all involved persons in the aforementioned, afore-archived AN/I threads. The Edit warring is being done in full awareness that AN/I regulars know what's up, and should be dealt with in a swift, strong way at this point. No one can say, "oh y'know, i had NO idea... " ThuranX 04:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge (talk · contribs) is part of a dispute at Talk:Fred Thompson concerning whether or not to include the age difference between Sen. Thompson and his wife, Jeri Kehn. In the process of this dispute, Ferrylodge took exception to my referring to incorrect statements about the article's revision history as "lies," in addition to my portrayal of his all-caps bolded comments as "screaming." After responding to me once on his User_talk page, I attempting to clarify why certain text formats are taken as "shouting" or "screaming" to him; he is now deleting my comments and accusing me of "harassment." He is not removing my initial comment, only my attempt to clarify to him. Is there anything that can be done of such misrepresenting comments in User_talk space? If he is not going to allow me to clarify my remarks to him, I would appreciate if he would remove my comments altogether instead of only leaving the first half. Italia^vivi 21:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Lesson learned; do not use the terms "lies" or "screaming" when referring to another contributors edits, follow the guidelines at WP:CIVIL. I will politely request that Ferrylodge remove all (or allow you to) of your comments at the talkpage. LessHeard vanU 21:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Italia^vivi 21:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I sure wouldn't refrain from referring to all caps typing as shouting (it's mentioned at all caps for a reason). We have italics and bold for when emphasis is needed. All caps is just obnoxious. Circeus 21:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I just had the rather unpleasant experience of wading though the recent talkpage history at Talk:Fred Thompson. I now have a rather different view of the situation, and will be commenting there. LessHeard vanU 21:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Before this closes, didn't we have a big deal with Ferrylodge regarding civility before, in his dealings with User:Bishonen and User:KillerChihuahua? If I'm correct, which I'm pretty sure I am, these civility issues are well to the point of necessitating a preventative block. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester, please be careful here. If you are suggesting a preventive block against me, be aware of the following. The user Italiavivi received three separate warnings from administrators yesterday, for his conduct toward me. Both LessHeard vanU and Tango warned him here, and ElinorD warned him here. While I understand your zeal here, it is misdirected.Ferrylodge 14:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't followed any of the Talk:Fred Thompson history. However, I recall that Ferrylodge was blocked for continuing to post on KillerChihuahua's page after she had made it known that his posts were unwelcome, and after he had been warned. I think it would be sending a terrible message if administrators upheld that block and then to allow Italiavivi to keep posting on his page and reverting him when he removes the message. Incidentally, unless I've miscounted, Italiavivi posted the same message five times last night, including four reverts. That's completely unacceptable. People shouldn't ever alter someone else's signed comments (e.g. changing "your harassment" to "your alleged harassment" in a heading), but they do have the right to remove the post altogether, if it's on their own talk page. I know it's frowned upon, but it's not forbidden; and edit warring to keep an unwanted message on someone else's page is forbidden.

Swatjester, unless there's evidence of some very inappropriate behaviour from Ferrylodge at Talk:Fred Thompson, I don't see that his previous block for pestering KillerChihuahua is relevant, except as evidence that we must equally scrupulously respect his right not to have people pestering him. ElinorD (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with ElinorD. MastCell ^Talk 15:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Elinor. A brief correction though: KillerChihuahua never made it known to me that my posts were unwelcome at her talk page, prior to when Bishonen blocked me.[59] Bishonen had warned me, whereas KillerChihuahua did not. But all of that is ancient history, I hope.Ferrylodge 15:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD is quite correct; insomuch as Ferrylodge's actions taken previously might serve as an example, they apply against those harassing other users on their page, not against any other actions Ferrylodge may or may not make. That said, Ferrylodge is opening the same can of worms which ate up half of AN/I and a particularly silly Rfc he opened against Bishonen; Ferrylodge, you cannot remake history by annoyingly repeating your rewrite of it. This has been explained to you ad nauseum. It was not even ancient history until you made the same claims again here in this thread; you tried on the "victim hat" not a week ago on Talk:Abortion. Your attempt to re-open this and simultaniously claim you're trying to put it behind you are disruptive and serve no purpose, unles your purpose is to convice others you are congenitally dense and/or wish nothing more than to cause trouble. If that is not your purpose, I suggest you cease this tendentious behavior. In other words, you are fooling no one. Give it a rest already. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, you're right, that incident is ancient history. So let's drop it. Quit while you're ahead. MastCell ^Talk 16:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

KC's assertion above that I am "congenitally dense" is not ancient history, nor is it civil, nor is it atypical. See the conduct to which she refers (without linking) last week at the abortion article, which is not ancient history either. I protest KC's continuing incivility, and would appreciate if some administrator would please call her on it for once. Thank you. I did not start the incivility in this thread ( "congenitally dense"), nor am I the one who brought up what happened a week ago at the abortion article, and this is the only response that I intend to make to either one (in this section of the thread). Respectfully.Ferrylodge 16:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Come on. You got what you came here for, and then you can't resist using this thread to get the Last Word about a dispute which has already gone all the way to RfC 2 months ago? And then you're shocked that KillerChihuahua's not happy about it? I'll say this again: quit while you're ahead. MastCell ^Talk 16:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Errr, for the record, I was the one who brought up the RFC. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You asked a question. Ferrylodge took that and ran with it, attempting (yet again) to dredge this up and somehow arrive at a different conclusion other than that which overwhelming consensus reached the last time. A question is not an issue; continuing to disrupt the project in an attempt to get TLW, as MastCell points out, is the problem with Ferrylodge's posts on this. As the applicability of the issue, which was your question, had already been answered by ElinorD, Ferrylodge's attempt to turn this thread into Yet Another Battle about his harassment block might actually be construed as continuing the harassment, especially as he demanded I be rebuked and has continued to miscast my actions and statements, by casting my advice and observations as "assertions" which I did not in fact make. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Movieguy999 has been removing sourced stuff from the reaction sections of TPM, AOTC and ROTS. He has now put in weasel words tag and has restored the discussions placed on the TPM article at the AOTC and ROTS talk pages. Greg Jones II 18:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please translate from acronymese? AOTC is a former phone company where I'm from. Orderinchaos 18:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the Clones Greg Jones II 18:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Also The Phantom Menace and Revenge of the Sith. Basically, the Star Wars prequal trilogy. - TexasAndroid 19:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are not grounds for ANI, but the fact that the user is arguing against consensus and has pretty much refused to discuss his changes is. He has been removing cited information on the grounds of his own incorrect original research. The Filmaker 23:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http://www.t"

That's the message I got trying to revert this edit.

I'm guessing that www.t isn't supposed to be on that list, and it could cause quite a few problems.

I'm sure there's a more appropriate place to report this, but I knew it would get attention here fairly quickly. --Onorem♠Dil 18:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still getting it. --Vonones 18:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

OK...yeah, I still am too. Does admin rollback ignore the blacklist? --Onorem♠Dil 18:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I had a problem with that too. It is fixed now. ---CWY2190^TC 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is causing an issue whilst adding co-ordinates to infoboxes, specifically on Daimler Halt railway station. There's no link in that section, so I don't understand what is going on. Fingerpuppet 18:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed with this edit GDonato (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I had same problem doing an rvv on Mitt Romney. Eleland 18:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The spam filter prevented me from putting internal link brackets around volcano in an article about a volcano! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the protocol for dealing with people who create hoaxes and little else? User:Vlado herceg created the pretty obvious hoax Peter Gouda after he had made a few earlier contributions of questionable merit. According to his talk page, he also created a vanity articel. 68.39.174.238 19:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that they tend to get blocked, perhaps indefinitely if they've made no substantive contributions. At least I hope so, because that's what I just did. Raymond Arritt 19:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I speedy deleted the article, and would have blocked the user if you hadn't got to it first. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I know this has been talked about before (I believe on ANI), but I thought I should bring it to admin attention that Chasingemy (talk · contribs), an admitted MTV employee, has been adding quite a few MTV spam links again into both music article and article talk spaces. She has been approached by other editors about COI and EL issues but has yet to change any of her actions. I'm not sure what the appropriate course of action should be here, but talking to her doesn't quite seem to be working... Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The user appears to have stopped adding links directly to articles, which is a step forward. I have requested that the user also identify themselves as an MTV employee when promoting bands on article talk pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)