Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive288

The Kate McAuliffe vandal is back

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)

Alice Bailey Board

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)

SallyForth123 evading 3RR block with dynamic IPs

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)

User:Paulie's World

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)

Hacked account being abused

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)

Be on the lookout for an open sock drawer

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)

Birmingham Pub Bombings

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)

Confirmed RFCU

Resolved

 – Account indefinitely blocked as an abusive sockpuppet by ELIMINATORJR. --Onorem♠Dil 13:58, 22 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)

Sockpuppet editing abuse

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)

Talk:Pubic hair

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Content dispute. Thatcher131 15:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We could use a little help over at Talk:Pubic hair and Pubic hair. DavidShankBone and I have been, frankly, edit warring over whether his photo belongs in the article (the deeper context here is that that article had another picture which he replaced some time ago in the face of mixed consensus, but now in the face of renewed mixed consensus as the result of an RFC he's decided that "mixed" means that his artistic product stays.)

The last straw, which I find infuriating, is that he's decided that my quoting another recent comment within the RFC section on the talk page, which doesn't support him, is impermissible, and is trying to remove or inappropriately refactor my quote out of the RFC section, even though I politely asked him to stop. I'm at 3 reverts, so I can't do anything about it. But I find such behavior extremely disruptive to the conversation, and am deeply upset. I think we could all do with some calm, neutral input on his (and, of course, my) behavior. Nandesuka 13:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Nandesuka Warrior d'Pubic hair, admin of all things

This hairy situation has a lot of kinks. Back in June in an effort to raise the quality of the anatomy articles with their collections of camera phone shots of chests and cocks, I asked a friend who is a professional model and quite chiseled if I could document his body for Wikipedia. Typically paid, he did it for free. He's on teeth, scrotum, erector spinae, et. al. He's also on pubic hair. He replaced a grainy, poorly lit, fuzzy image that had bizarre coloring. There was a discussion about it. What was decided was: 1. Consensus was not to use the previously existing photo; 2. my photo was better quality; 3. there were some side comments that because my friend shaved around his pubic area (as models do), perhaps a bush in natural state would be preferred. Enter Nandesuka two months later, who first removed my photo calling it spam, despite the consensus on the Talk page. He also edit warred over at glans penis - consensus went against my photo there, and I relented. User:The_Rambling_Man, however, had to speak to him about his edit warring. Did this stop him? No. He took the edit warring over to pubic hair. [17], [18], [19]. We began to talk about it on the Talk page: Great! Four people were involved 1. Nandesuka, who doesn't want my photo; 2. Geogre, who wants no photos; 3. David Shankbone, who wants his photo (and had consensus); 4. Nick Michael, who previously voted to include Shankbone's photo. Based on those four, User:Nandesuka declared "consensus reached"! and began removing the photo again. [20], [21], [22]. This time, User:Raul654 had a word with Nandesuka about his behavior after I raised it to his attention. That was yesterday. We have an RfC about whether to use my photo. One editor posted on the older discussion that he liked the previously replaced pube photo--completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Not according to Nandesuka, who moved it to the RfC discussion and then used it to--once again--edit war and remove the image, instead of letting the RfC take place. There's the situation. Instead of allowing the pubes to fall where they may with my photo, Nandesuka wants to straighten out the pubes unilaterally. This is the behavior of an admin? --David Shankbone 14:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This dispute gave me a(stupid)n idea: thus, I bring my latest edit to Chipmunk to review! El_C 14:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I also note the following: Nandesuka thought the original photo was poorly isolated, so I cropped it to compromise. That wasn't good enough. He said it is poorly lit, even though every pube is visibible, no bizarre shadows (except to cover the model's unit). Then, against all of his arguments, he removes my photo for the one that is even worse technically than mine. This is really about me; Nandesuka is obsessed with me and my pubic hair photo, obsessed I tell you! He is, in his words, "distracted" by it. But it's clearly the best pube photo we gots. --David Shankbone 14:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an editorial dispute. Unless an admin action is needed I don't see the point of coming here whenever somebody does not want you posting your photos. Try dispute resolution. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one who brought this up, it was the other editor (above). And if the admin issue needs to be fleshed out, it was a case or edit-warring while an RfC was in motion. We were working out the content dispute, as we did at glans penis, except one editor felt the need to continually take unilateral action and edit war. And that is an admin issue. It was just more convenient he brought it up first. --David Shankbone 14:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that Shankbone's summary above completely omitted my input per the RFC. I don't think his photos are high quality, I've had this issue with Shankbone on another article, and he doesn't seem able to be objective about his own photos or respectful of the RFC process. It's interesting that he omitted my objection on the RFC from his summary above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute that has become personal. If reflects poorly on all parties, but especially (as far as I am concerned) on the administrator involved. It is not specifically an admin dispute however, because it does not involve misuse of administrator tools. Thatcher131 15:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Colyton Grammar School

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)

Penis Vandalism

Resolved

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)

Page war

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)

Plastic piping systems needs to be deleted and salted

Resolved

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)

Sock puppet evading block and making disruptive edits

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet account blocked.

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)

Hijack an article .. then hijack an entire wikipedia for yourself?

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)

Request semi-protect for Brandon Teena

Resolved

 – Semi-protected.

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)

NPA

Resolved

 – The Evil Spartan 00:34, 23 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)

Large number of POV edit on Article 4th generation jet fighter by unregistered users

Resolved

 – Article semi-protected

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)

User:Hungrywolf

Resolved

 – Blocked earlier today

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)

Recently blocked user back as Kremm

Resolved

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)

Template:Country data Russia

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)

Spam Blacklist spamming

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)

Spies appear to be editing on Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Yesterday, I alerted AN/I of a BBC News article reporting that Wikipedia has determined that the Democratic Party in the United States has been attacking its opponents on Wikipedia. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm The CIA also has done the same thing.

Almost immediately, the AN/I warning was removed. I also placed a warning on 4 controversial articles (2 about Democratic Party members and 2 on Republican Party members). All except 1 was immediately removed. This suggests that there may be spies working for 3 of the 4 politicians.

One of the articles that have potential spies working for it is Barack Obama (warning was immediately removed from that talk page.) Ophrahwasontv was writing in that article.

It seems that spies have fooled an administrator into blocking an editor who was proven not to be a sock. See RFCU clearing Ophrahwasontv.

See [6] where it says Unlikely for Oprahwasontv Collaborating with spies, even if by mistake, is bad for wikipedia. Remember, wikipedia determined that there are spies working against us according to the news article. I am shocked by the spies on Wikipedia. Orginally, I thought that there would be little controversy about the article since Wikipedia, itself, determined that there is spying.

Ophrah should be unblocked as she was blocked because of spies campaigning against her. More importantly, any content dispute should be examined for content, not number of editors editing because that is subject to manipulation by spies.

I don't care about Ophrah so much but people who reported to AN/I (causing her block) fail the duck test. They (the spies who attacked Ophrah) appear like socks and they were NOT cleared by the checkuser. The article they edit contentiously had my Wikipedia warning and the warning was removed within seconds.

The duck test is "If you complain about the spies being socks" then you must be a sock (because once a sock did make such complaint). With that flawed duck test, the spies are invincible (everyone who complains about the spies will be blocked indefinitely).

I am not so concerned about Barack Obama or Ophrah. I am concerned about the spy issue on Wikipedia. Since Hillary Clinton's article talk page still has my warning, I don't think she has active spies on her article.Warningwarningwarning 23:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that there are editors pushing a POV for or against certain politicians, it would be best to name them and provide edit diffs. Otherwise we can't really do anything about it. --Hemlock Martinis 23:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This little tool, http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/, will identify IP edits on wikipedia coming from a specific organization. seems to be down quite a bit (sever load) and slow, however its amazing what it uncovers. Happy hunting--Hu12 23:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This user has been indefinitely blocked for disruption. They were blocked earlier for similar behavior on politician's WP articles, promised the blocking admin they would positively contribute, and then re-started this all as soon as the shortened 24 hr block expired.

I have indef blocked on the grounds that this is disruption and a single-purpose account. Georgewilliamherbert 23:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Warningwarningwarning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has just given himself away as being another sock of banned user Dereks1x. Oprahwasontv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was just blocked as another one of his 30 socks. See this and above here. I would suggest that bhwin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) also be blocked as per this: not as a sock of myself, Bobblehead, Jersyko et al, but as another SPA sock of Dereks1x, established, again, in a lame attempt to legitimize the bogus RFCU on us. Tvoz |talk 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Spies" editing Wikipedia? That's a fresh new twist on the cabal conspiracy theories... Grandmasterka 00:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually no it's not. I heard on the radio just the other day about how government officials in the US have been tampering with the Iranian pages... Timeshift 00:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and you don't have to just hear it on the radio, it is on the wikiscanner website, so you can see for yourself once it is back up. Not to say that the edits are bad, particularly from the CIA. Although it is a tad distressing this is how they are passing time. =) daveh4h 01:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not about whether there is factual evidence of those edits by the CIA, other agencies, companies, etc... That's now widely known, and has been for some days now. There was no emergency or emergent situation that justified trying to plaster large sections of the encyclopedia with warnings like this. Georgewilliamherbert 01:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If it weren't for the sockpuppet relation, I would say that indefinitely blocking this guy is a bit out of line. It is not unreasonable to imagine someone, not familiar with Wikipedia, hearing about this and trying to start discussion about it. I recall not too long ago a teacher being blocked because they posted a survey (about Wikipedia editing) to some user talk pages, without even getting a warning before the block. We shouldn't forget that many people will not know how we normally do things, and we shouldn't be quick to block like this. -- Ned Scott 00:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the deciding factor for me was that they promised to change behavior to get the first block length reduced, and then immediately turned around and started the behavior once the block expired.

I am much more tolerant of troublesome editors who just don't get it than I am of ones who appear to intentionally decieve admins. There are many explanations for not getting it; there's only one for such deception: it's an account for which WP:AGF has been shown to be a mistake.

Anything is possible, and if this turns out somehow bizarrely to have been a misjudgement on my part then so be it, it can be reversed. But this person had several chances and has done pretty much the clearly worst thing they could after each one, short of outright baldly attacking other editors here.

If you want to give them another chance, I won't stop you, but I suspect you'll be dissapointed. Georgewilliamherbert 00:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, a good point. Given that he said he would change his behavior, it would be at that point that we know he was aware of how we do things. -- Ned Scott 01:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You can submit your findings here as well. By the way, your thread title is misleading. I don't think a NYT editor can be described as a spy when editing wikipedia from h/er office. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A quick aside about the CIA editing wikipedia

Although cyberspace has no national boundaries, Wikipedia's servers are based in Florida, USA, and the domain name ".org" is a US registration. If my reading of Tom Clancy novels - and other sources of folklore - are correct isn't the CIA prohibited from operating within US territory? I don't suppose it matters much to the Foundation, but it may have implications for the Agency. LessHeard vanU 13:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK (and I too am a fan of Clancy) they can't carry out illegal actions on US soil, or operations such as surveillance or wiretaps. I don't see that this would stop them editing Wikipedia, which anyone is entitled to do. However, I'm not an expert. Walton^One 13:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

According to a CIA spokesperson, "the US Intelligence agency is editing Wikipedia pages in order to save Americans lives". Of course they are entitled to edit but i just find their reasons odd. Editors here are not entitled to defend anyone's interests. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if they put outside interests ahead of Wikipedia's interests, that's a conflict. There's nothing special about the CIA as far as we are concerned. I'm not aware of any law that says website operators must allow the CIA to review and modify content as they see fit. Somehow I don't think many Congress people will vote for CIA censorship of websites, given that we have the First Amendment and the Constitution. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes WP:COI but sneaky vandalism as well at Ahmadinejad's article. ;) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I can imagine a number of BLP violations that could put lives at risk. THF 14:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(Reply to Jehochman) So you're saying that our internal policy of neutrality is more important than saving lives? For the record, I'm not American, and I certainly don't endorse routine censorship of websites. However, it's established that the intelligence and security services of the free, Western world have a right and a duty to do what is necessary to protect citizens' lives. Wikipedia's policies are important to us, but they are not the most important thing in the world. Morally, we should not be fighting against the intelligence services (whether American, British or otherwise) who are daily risking their lives to protect citizens. The situation would be totally different if a dictatorship such as North Korea or Iran, or a terrorist group, was editing Wikipedia to advance their agenda - they should be stopped. But not the people whose mission is to defend the free world. My moral commitment to freedom and protection of lives trumps my commitment to Wikipedia policies any day, and I hope others feel the same. Walton^One 14:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/ you about it is important to know what comes first (saving lives) but i believe your analysis is totally biased. What about CIA covert operations all over the world? (i.e Project FUBELT and tens of others) Saving lives? What about lies and misleading info about Iraq WMD? How many people died because of that war? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As an aside to an aside, I don't think OhmyNews is a terribly reliable source of information. The article FayssalF references above has several highly questionable, unsourced claims. I could be wrong, but until I see something more trustworthy, I sort of doubt that's a direct quote by a "CIA spokesperson". And did Wikipeida really "hire" Virgil Griffith? --barneca (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It is on the BBC link above. And did Wikipeida really "hire" Virgil Griffith? Is this a conspiracy theory? So Wikipedia may only have recruited Virgil to trap the CIA. What about SONY, The Vatican, Al Jazeera, etc... editting? Is this a joke? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, not a joke. The OhmyNews link you provided says, specifically, that Wikipedia "hired" Virgil Griffith. I don't think that is true. I use that as evidence that this particular source is questionable. The BBC article does not quote the CIA spokesperson as saying "the US Intelligence agency is editing Wikipedia pages in order to save Americans lives". That appears to be a paraphrase made up by the OhmyNews reporter. --barneca (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe but that's irrelevant as Walton was implying that CIA people are editing to save people's lives. How? He was also implying that CIA can edit but not the Iranian govt! This is insane. The important thing here are wikipedia policies and not charity. We are not a law enforcement body. If CIA has to edit here then it should abide by Wikipedia rules. If you think otherwise than CIA editing Wikipedia would not have appeared in most mainstream media around the world. And please tell me how come CIA editing would save lives? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you think I have some agenda here. All I was pointing out is that I don't think a CIA spokesperson actually said the CIA is "editing Wikipedia pages in order to save Americans lives", and that the whole OhmyNews article should be taken with a giant grain of salt. Anything else you read into my comment is either confusing me with Walton, putting words in my mouth, or I suppose possibly my lack of clarity. That's why I called it an aside to an aside. I'll leave you and Walton to continue your discussion, and move on to other things. --barneca (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The news story may well be junk. As pointed out above, it's on a single website and isn't corroborated by published sources. And I, too, doubt the accuracy of the statement they ascribe to an unnamed "CIA spokesperson". In response to FayssalF's earlier comments, yes, my analysis is slightly biased. 99.9% of the time, I, like other Wikipedians, abide by WP:NPOV and Wikipedia's other core content policies while editing Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia is in the real world, and there are fundamental values which, for me, supersede Wikipedia's internal policies. This is not intended as a partisan rant; I don't endorse all the actions of the CIA, and, as I said, I'm not even American. But we have to trust the people whose job it is to defend freedom and democracy, even if they (like everyone else) sometimes make mistakes, or take morally questionable actions for the greater good. Walton^One 15:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? --John 15:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Which part of my statement does your query refer to? Walton^One 15:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? But we have to trust the people whose job it is to defend freedom and democracy. Do you have to trust people who lied about WMD? It was the CIA who were responsible of a death of almost a million people in this shitty war. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the CIA was pretty much on target about the intelligence leading up to the shitty war. Their reports were skeptical of claims that Iraq had a meaningful nuclear development program (or chemical weapons other than relics from before the first Gulf War), and generally agreed with the international inspection teams' failure to find any evidence of an active nuclear program.

The blame, in other words, goes higher in the administration, which ignored the CIA's skepticism and sought out competing intelligence that supported their desire for a case for war. The CIA has some very ugly dirt in its past, but as far as the Iraq war is concerned it seems to be pretty clean.

That doesn't excuse them for messing with Wikipedia to push an agenda, however. If they're making edits that go against the customary rules, they deserve the same reverts and locks any other agenda-pushing editor deserves. (And I agree that the "saving lives" argument is bogus; if something is public information it belongs here. If it's a "saving lives" sort of secret, it doesn't belong here because secrets are unverified, pretty much by definition.) -- Steve Schonberger 10:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Sorry I wasn't clear. Why do you believe we "have to trust" an intelligence agency, who, for all they may well be trying to "defend freedom and democracy", will also by definition be working according to their own priorities, one of which is probably not to improve this on-line encyclopedia? --John 15:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that the CIA's covert operations are not public knowledge, any alleged revelation of any alleged CIA operations are not possible to verify according to Wikipedia standards, and are thus inherently ineligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because a government agancy uses "saving lives" as an excuse doesn't mean its true. I am sure people at the agency see their core goal as saving american lives so they could say that everything they do is to save lives. We could also probably save lives by rewriting history and writing out all the reasons for strife. We should not blindly trust "the people whose job it is to defend freedom," or we lose the freedom we are trying to protect. I am sure the KGB and the North Korean intelligence services also claim[ed] to be saving lives and protecting freedom. If the CIA wants to edit wikipedia articles let them follow the same rules that we all follow. -- Diletante 15:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

To answer various points. In response to John, yes, of course the CIA and other government agencies are working according to their own priorities, and not to improve the encyclopedia. However, what I was saying is that the priorities of security and intelligence agencies - saving lives and protecting freedom - are more important than improving Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong. I value Wikipedia, I think it's a great project, and I've dedicated hours of my life to it. But we should remember that there are things in the real world which are more important than the accuracy and completeness of our encyclopedia; security and freedom are among them. As to Baseball Bugs' point, no one is aiming to reveal alleged CIA operations or include them in Wikipedia; that's not what this discussion is about. Walton^One 15:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, heavens. I am no fan of the new CIA, the political one, the one happy to undo the reforms of 1974, or any intelligence agency, but CIA editors are just editors. <shrug> It's possible that some wild-eyed editor writes, into an article, "Currently in a bunker at coordinates X by Y" and CIA editors know that that's actually a real position of troops, but the edit would be part of our usual process. If, on the other hand, they try to get Dick Cheney's house erased from photos on Wikipedia, that's another matter. They're just regular users, with regular rights, albeit with possibly specialized knowledge. Geogre 15:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of that, but not all. If the CIA, MI6, or another relevant agency privately contacted Wikipedia admins or the Foundation and asked to have a piece of sourced information removed from Wikipedia on the grounds of national security, then I hope we would do it. As a loyal British citizen, I can assure you that if MI5 or MI6 contacted me and asked me to make certain edits to Wikipedia, or use my administrative tools for a certain purpose, on the grounds of national security, then I would do as they requested. (Not that this would ever be likely - they'd more likely contact the Foundation directly.) Walton^One 15:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

And if there was an indication that you had done the latter, I would ask that you be desysopped. Hornplease 20:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

To put it another way, if a reliable, published source has some information about CIA operations, then it is eligible for inclusion. And if it's already published, then the "saving lives" argument goes down the drain. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not at all what I was saying. I was saying that if, in theory, the CIA were to ask us to remove something that was cited to a reliable published source (whether about CIA operations or any other topic) on the grounds of national security, then we should do so. Bear in mind that even if something has already been published, putting it on Wikipedia (a high traffic site) is likely to significantly increase its exposure. If the CIA, MI6, or another relevant agency asks us to change Wikipedia in the interests of national security, we shouldn't ask why, or quibble. We should do it straight away. Walton^One 16:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the odd point Walton. In Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it is not mentioned that you have to accept requests from CIA agents AND NOT from the Thai or Zambia's intelligence. It is about common sense and not about which agency contacted you. Would you deny Pakistani or Iranian intelligence services requests in case they'd contact you? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Woah, did something change while I was sleeping? We are still a free country, right? --Kbdank71 16:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree completely, If the CIA asks the foundation to do something we SHOULD quibble AND ask why. We should not do it straight away without talking to a lawyer and recieving a court-order. THat is what freedom is, bowing to the whims of three letter agencies destroys our freedom. In the US our FIRST right ennumarated is freedom of speech and the press. -- Diletante 16:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Since when is there any evidence that anyone who is actually from the CIA has asked Wikipedia to do anything? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just been asked by my CIA handler to archive this hypothetical discussion begun by a disruptive sockpuppet so that we can all get back to work saving lives building the encyclopedia. MastCell ^Talk 16:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes please because someone has just used this thread at wired.com in the form of a complaint! They even know who is an admin and who is not! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Forsooth! Ods bodkins! Sufferin' succotash! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)...Er, folks, it was just a lighthearted comment. As far as I am aware the FBI acts within US territory interest and the CIA outside - but a lot of Wikipedia is physically within the USA.

For one, I would be delighted if either or both agencies (and those of other Nations) were to openly contribute to WP - intelligence gathering is a lot more to do with sifting and analysing information from various legitimate sources than the cloak and dagger stuff; access to that kind of database would be incredible - but I am not so happy if some of the bastions of democracy (y'know - the goodies who would never lie or do anything bad, and are answerable to their mistakes) were to introduce bias into the encyclopedia. It is difficult enough trying to convince individuals that their beliefs or opinions are not legitimate grounds to alter pieces, I don't even want to try picking through the edits of professional purveyors of half truths.

As for the argument that defending democracy legitimises the use of non democratic methods is akin to the old joke of fucking for virginity. They are supposed to be working for us, not the other way round. LessHeard vanU 19:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

My comments here seem to have sparked a lot of controversy, so I'll clarify. All I was saying was that both individual Wikipedians, and Wikipedia as an organisation, have a duty to aid the lawful authorities of their respective countries. I stated earlier that if MI5 or the UK government were to ask me to perform certain edits or sysop actions to Wikipedia in the interests of national security, then I would do so; it's extremely unlikely that this would ever happen, however. I was just trying to make the point that my loyalty as a British citizen outweighs my loyalty to Wikipedia. Likewise, the Wikimedia Foundation is an American institution, and has a moral obligation to aid the authorities of the United States, if asked to do so on the grounds of national security. If the CIA or FBI were to ask the Foundation to make certain edits - including oversight removal of information - then the Foundation should just do it. They shouldn't quibble, ask questions, or throw the matter open to debate. There are values more important than Wikipedia's internal policies and guidelines, and loyalty to our respective countries is one of them. Walton^One 11:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if my comments have affected you Walton or been misinterpreted but Wikipedia is no battleground. We have editors from all over the world here and if everyone would execute the orders or at least requests of their respective intelligence agencies then it would be a total mess especially that not all agencies are working together (well at least and according to notable media venues most intelligences have worked in harmony against the widespread terrorist activities around the world). CIA and the Syrian intelligence (just to name one and not tens) have been working together in good and bad stuff. Please also have a look at this [Image:ExtRenditionMap.gif]. True or not true is not our problem as long as it is well sourced.

Please bear in mind that Wikipedia main activity is to document sourced events. It means information which was already been appearing at the news or at least somewhere where public has already been informed. In case there is something unsourced (most probably it would be controversial or maybe dangerous to human lives) then be assured that ANYONE can delete such garbage as we have policies giving us that right. So a scenario where an intelligence service would contact you is nonsense. In extreme cases, those people know whom to contact and surely would not contact you.

Again, everyone is allowed to edit unless WP:COI is affected or vandalism involved. In other words, Wikipedia already does its job which you think you could have done it in case someone contacts you. The problem is if those agencies come here to delete references to things they don't want people to read about, in most cases not involving people lives but any those organizations' reputation (i.e. "Black sites"). In that case, i assure you that Wikipedia comes first and not people lives as no people life would be in danger if someone removes something about "Black sites". Cheers. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI is a guideline. --Tbeatty 14:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe you failed to get my point. As i said, if people's live are in danger than, they would know whom to contact and surely would not contact you or me. If there's no people's life in danger than they would have to pay attention to WP:COI. What about Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation editing the same articles the CIA would edit and they'd get into an edit war? Who would try to mediate or block one or both of them if they persist w/o "trying to discuss"? You? Or would you edit war yourselves?. - FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that Conflict of Interest is more and more acceptable in the encyclopedia. And not just for US interests (though they compromise the integrity of the project too). PalestineRemembered 14:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest always has been, and always will be, impossible to prevent. There is no way to police who makes every edit and people with a direct interest in things often know/care the most about it. That's why we have a guideline rather than a policy about COIs. We discourage users from editing in areas where they have a conflict, but do not prevent it. We have neutrality and sourcing policies precisely to deal with COIs and other biases. Thus, COI is no more or less 'acceptable' than it has ever been... it exists. And we deal with it in the same way we always have.

As to the whole 'CIA/MI5 over-ride' discussion... anything which can be properly sourced is widely available already. If Wikipedia is giving something vastly wider coverage than it had previously then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia to begin with. So, if Wikipedia reported Geraldo's infamous 'troop movements moment' that isn't putting anyone at risk because the info was already widely distributed... if a soldier in the field posted the same thing such that it was available on Wikipedia and nowhere else it couldn't be sourced and should be removed. Ditto Wikipedia reporting on 'Valerie Plame' vs a NOC outed only on an obscure website and not picked up by the mainstream media. Wikipedia collects and retains information about things which have already been found notable by the rest of the world. Any information which is 'secret' doesn't belong here. Anything else which we might be asked to remove would be more on the order of altering the historical record to hide facts that are otherwise commonly available... and thus I'd be very much against it. --CBD 12:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is all getting very silly. Did you know that Wikipedia has contained CIA-generated content for years -- Wikipedia:Status of the porting of the CIA World Factbook. And did you know that we'd probably accept material from other intelligence agencies if they released it under a free license. (So if they can afford to lose all that copyright revenue on secret documents, they've managed to infiltrate Wikipedia.) Beyond that, as long as they don't violate the usual rules & guidelines (e.g. WP:COI), anyone can edit Wikipedia. -- llywrch 21:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the most recent edit by the CIA, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lightsaber_combat&diff=prev&oldid=148067857 , go read it yourself. PROOF OF A CONSPIRACY!!! Calibas 02:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I'm a spy, and I've got a userbox to prove it! IPSOS (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'm more upset that the CIA is wasting my taxes in order to perform minor punctuation edits on Star Wars articles. Girolamo Savonarola 07:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abuse by user:Tariqabjotu

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)

user:Blaxthos

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)

Accusation of bias and illegal activity

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)

Eden Tate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Note to 198: Grind your axe elsewhere. Closed to prevent arguments. Will ^(talk) 18:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My block of Eden Tate (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of the banned vandal, Internodeuser (talk · contribs) aka Zordrac (talk · contribs) aka 123.2.168.215 (talk · contribs), was questioned by Everyking (talk · contribs). I bring it up here for discussion if necessary. Posted by Everyking to my discussion page:

You have blocked Eden Tate as a sock. Can you please explain your evidence for this? It doesn't look like you've posted it anywhere.

My response, on my discussion page. "Have you been following the discussion on unblock-en-l? If you have not, it will take you some time; some of the emails are almost 5000 words long. Eden Tate is not mentioned there specifically but the whole Zordrac/Internodeuser/Blissyu2 issue has been raised. This is a banned vandal who is known to use sockpuppets and to be "less than truthful" about the use of said sockpuppets. The timelines fit as do the styles of the edit summaries and the edits themselves. Zordrac has also taken an interest in this particular article, mentioning it in email to me and in messages to unblock-en-l. And note for the record that the Nelly Furtado article now includes in the introduction paragraph information about Portuguese citizenship, though now in such a way as it does not violate WP:MOSBIO, so I am most definitely not blocking this user because he disagreed with me." --Yamla 21:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So, basically, you assume that every editor that edits in a way that does not conform with your interpretation of a style guideline is a sockpuppet of a banned user? The propriety of this block is certainly questionable. 198.203.175.175 16:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea how you came to this conclusion based on what I wrote above. --Yamla 16:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let me put it another way: if we completely disregard any circumstantial evidence you feel you may have from unblock-en-l and focus on what we have from transparent on-wiki sources, it would appear that you have assumed sockpuppetry and blocked a user with whom you were in a content dispute. 198.203.175.175 17:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If you completely disregard all circumstantial evidence from unblock-en-l and from this editor's contribution log and edit summaries then yes, it may appear that way. Of course, the fact that I did not block Jester7777 or Opinoso would provide some evidence that this had nothing to do with a content dispute, as would the fact that the article on Nelly Furtado now includes the Portuguese citizenship information (well cited and clearly in accord with WP:MOSBIO). Anyway, either Eden Tate has been functioning as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Zordrac/Internodeuser/Blissyu2, in which case the block was entirely appropriate, or the user is completely unrelated, in which case the block was not. I have asked Eden Tate to send an email to unblock-en-l if he or she wishes to be unblocked. It may be that I am mistaken. Certainly I have been mistaken in the past. I think it unlikely in this case, it seems to be a fairly straight forward case of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry and ban evasion. --Yamla 18:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Space Harassment

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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Jessop relisted

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)

Incessant unsourced reverting and editing on Dalmatia-related articles

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)

Help With Out of Control User

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)

DCGeist (talk · contribs) and User:Videmus Omnia

Resolved

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)

Block evasion by User:Jagzthebest

Resolved

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

Resolved

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)

User:Irqirq

Resolved

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)

User:Siazon persistent, response inconsistent

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)

Randomness / Hackco56

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)

Koogle

Resolved

 – reverted, doesn't require protecting at the moment

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)

Newington College and edit warring

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)

More Runcorn sockpuppets

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)

BetacommandBot and commons

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

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

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

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?

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)

Muntuwandi Still Reverting

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)

User_talk space inquiry, accusation of 'harassment'

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)

User:SallyForth123 evading block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SallyForth123. SallyForth123 has already been warned about circumventing the block here one day ago. Sancho 21:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason I posted this here is for input as to how long to extend SallyForth123's block for. Sancho 21:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A week looks reasonable to me. If she continues, I'd probably go up to a month and then move to indefinite (but not infinite). Lift it if she agrees not to engage in any further block evasion or edit warring. --Yamla 22:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I concur with Yamla. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Need help

The user is switching IPs as we block them. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SallyForth123 for the list so far. How can we deal with this more effectively? Sancho 01:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Are there particular articles she targets? If so, I would say semi protection is the best bet. Otherwise, keep blocking the IPs (short blocks, I'd say) and restarting the original block. Natalie 06:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

She had previously edit warred on Hurricane Dean (2007), Template:HurricaneWarning, and Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles, constantly reverting in the name of WP:NOT#NEWS despite the fact that it was a current event - this led me to post twice on this noticeboard earlier. She apparently also had some disputes on articles related to STS-118 and removed quotes from Hurricane Katrina. Some of these articles have been semiprotected already. I'm not entirely sure of the history of the STS-118 disputes. --Coredesat 11:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I put all of those on my watchlist. I guess the new IPs weren't happening so quickly that we couldn't just block them as they come. (I was using 48 hours... too long?) Sancho 13:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

She also was using an actual account when the IPs weren't active: Mineo3 (talk · contribs). It is now blocked. There have been several warnings left at the IP talk pages prior to their blocking and at SallyForth123's talk page, including a warning about extending the original block to an indefinite block. SallyForth123's block will last about six more days as it stands now. Sancho 14:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(UI)I can give history on the STS-118 issues. As one of the major contributors during the mission, she questioned my removal of "drama" words, stating that the press said them, so we should use them. (Specifically, a very anti-NASA reporter over-dramatized the tile issue, and refused to listen to what the managers said, and used phrases like "NASA is very concerned" (untrue, if you listened at the conferences) and twisted their words with relation to the importance.) The reason the tile was looked at so extensively, never had to do with safety of the vehicle, it had to do with processing times once the orbiter was back on the ground. She basically accused me of trying to push a "NASA" POV, when what I originally said was that if it was not stated by NASA during the conferences, it was speculation on the part of the media, whose goal is to dramatize issues like this, ultimately to raise circulation numbers. There are a vast number of reliable, neutral news sites, and I listed them for her, stating that I obviously was not NASA-centric as I added a balance of the NASA press releases, and of other sites, such as CBS News, CNN, AP, Space.com, Nasa Space Flight, and a variety of other references (she was using Yahoo and other such sites). But the whole time, the discussion was not heated, was not contentious other than her basically not agreeing that up-to-the date revisions should happen (same issue she had with the Hurricane Dean article) and her adamant refusal of allowing any "present tense" words into any article. Others participated in the discussion, and agreed that we would use past tense. However, I also don't think it is necessary, or always helpful in every situation, such as her edits to the Hurricane Katrina article, turning statements like "The hurricane is expected to cause (number of dollars in damages)" into "was expected to cause", especially since those figures are still being revised today, so using present tense is acceptable. She has some very rigid, absolute rules that she believes Wikipedia should follow without question (and I'm not saying they are all incorrect, some of them are valid, such as having no "naked" URLs inside an article) and while she did seem to compromise, and did not engage in edit wars on the STS-118 article, it did tend to be disruptive when she'd revert all the tenses, especially when it was something that was ongoing, like the analysis of the tile damage. But none of the contributors reverted her edits or argued about the validity of her concerns, we merely requested that she not blindly believe the media, when she doesn't know as much as NASA does. With all technical articles, the main source should be coming from someone familiar with the subject, and clearly, the best source for that in this case, was NASA. Now, all that being said (I'm sorry this is so long) she also had some other problems with the way it was written, but again, discussion took place, and agreement was reached by everyone. And I'd say that the article did not suffer for her contributions. However, I happened upon this report, and it really surprised me at first; she seemed to me, to be so adamant that every single tiny letter of Wikipedia policy be followed, I thought it strange that she'd go and blatantly abuse the system in this way. I'm not really all that surprised, I guess, because looking at this addition to her user page, would indicate that she didn't really think too highly of Wikipedia. (Link seems to be dead, but it was a breakdown of the most-viewed pages, showing mostly pornography-related articles at the top.) At the time I saw that, I wondered if this might go sour somehow... So, there you have the "Verbose Ariel" version, again I'm sorry it is so long, but at least this provides a fuller picture. ^Ariel♥Gold 14:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not WikiNews. Why are we reporting current news events in the present tense in Wikipedia articles? How can we report current events, when we're not doing original research, but can only report from reliable sources, and this requires that events have already occurred?

ArielGold, what is your reference for the "very anti-NASA reporter?" Or is this simply your opinion of the reporter?

The only edits I've seen by SallyForth are careful copy edits of English tenses throughout articles to make them more readable on a very precise level, and meticulous technical copy editing. Now, she's banned for a month because she got irritated, highly and rightly, imo, for trying to follow the guidelines and not allow original research and news reporting in a Wikipedia article, and on ArielGold's say-so that a reporter she wants to use is "very anti-NASA?" Or is ArielGold's opinion about the reporter about something else other than SallyForth's ban, like just trying to paint SallyForth in a bad light while everyone else is already banning her left and right and piling on her? She'd have to be not human to not get irritated at this treatment.

I urge an administrator or administrators to reconsider and rethink this situation--not quickly or immediately, but evaluate what is going on and rethink it. SallyForth is a relatively new Wikipedia editor according to her contributions history, she's correct that this isn't Wiki news, and that these events, if they are taken from reliable sources can only be reported in the past tense. That another editors knows, somehow, that a reporter SallyForth wants to use is anti-NASA (you can quote your source for this, I suppose) is not any part of any reason for banning her. It must be incredibly frustrating to edit something to make it better and be attacked and banned for a month for it. Going sour? It tastes like bile. KP Botany 01:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside whatever issues are between ArielGold and SallyForth, SallyForth evaded her original 24-hour block repeatedly, in full knowledge that block evasion was not allowed. The block was even reset before it was lengthened, and the original length was not excessive. Natalie 04:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As noted, I only came to give background to what the STS-118 issues were, which as I summarized, amounted to nothing. Sally's opinions were heard, and agreement by all was reached. KP Botany, I'm apologize if I'm wrong, but it appears that you are seeing my statements as a contributing factor with relation to her block, when they have nothing to do with it. I personally agreed with Sally on most of her issues, and as stated, I thought many of her views on Wikipedia were valid. There were no "issues" between us that were not resolved by discussing them, as is evident by the talk pages. There were other members of WikiProject Space that participated and helped with the decisions. All that has nothing to do with the issue that is being discussed here, and the only reason I brought it here was simply to give background on someone that I honestly thought above such things as Sockpuppetry, and to give credit to her valid edits, and her willingness to engage in dialog as she did with the folks on STS-118. I'm afraid you have probably mis-read, and misunderstood my statements in relation to this issue, and in context to the actual discussions. I reiterate: I had no issues with Sally that were not resolved through discussion, and I personally thought she was thoughtful, and although I didn't agree with her about everything, I believed her to be a good editor. ^Ariel♥Gold 05:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thoughtful? So, everyone agreed with you that the reporter SallyForth was quoting was "very anti-NASA?" That's correct? And you provided that as evidence of SallyForth's thoughtfulness, her inclusion of a quote from a reporter that all the other space editors agree is "very anti-NASA?" Then I would like a source for this lack of credibility the reporter displays. KP Botany 05:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If MrDarcy was here, SallyForth would get a fair hearing, that did not include waiting until she had no possibility of replying, escalating accusations about her--then bashing her for something that's appropriate to a discussion page on an article, namely the credibility of a source, not an accusation against another editor. There is nothing about attacking another editor's sources, without references (although I assume you will provide me with them, and the diffs where it was discussed) to what is wrong with the sources, that is about supporting the editor, particularly when that editor has no recourse to respond to the accusations. So, simply post the discussion, and link to the reporter, so I can see first where all of you agreed this reporter is anti-NASA, and second the proof of this reporter's viewpoint that requires that SallyForth be kicked while she's down for having the audacity to quote from him.

This ban is too long, too fast, and grossly inappropriate for the initial offense, for a new editor, there is no assumption of good faith, no attempt to work with the editor, and, not even just biting, it's lining up the noobie and taking turns shooting her--a noobie having the audacity to care about standards. Again, if MrDarcy were he, he would have calmed SallyForth, resolved the sock puppet issue, and treated every one with diplomacy, in addition to being nice. As long as SallyForth cannot defend her actions, please don't attack her here. KP Botany 05:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please. As the opener of this discussion, I was just looking for input as to how to deal technically (as in what type of block etc.) with a quickly changing IP sockpuppet. I'm ending this as archived to encourage this discussion to move elsewhere. Sancho 06:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attack site

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The possible attacks have been removed, as are the 'edit this' links. Whether having such links is ethical is another question for another venue. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael Moore doesn't like me. (I won't include a link to his attack site.) I was wondering why I was getting so much vandalism of my user page. THF 13:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If you really are involved in defending pharma corporations, you should not be editing the article on Sicko perhaps as a COI. As for your userpage, can an admin please semi protect it. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am complying with WP:COI. My edits have all been discussed on the talk page, and, for the last couple of weeks, have consisted solely of non-controversial reverts of vandalism and WP:OR. My userpage is semi-protected. THF 13:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What admin intervention are you seeking? --SevenOfDiamonds 13:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. What's standard procedure for delinking attack sites? [60] THF 14:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

SiCKO is protected too. I've contacted Moore to see if he will remove the "edit" links to the article and userpage as they really just feed disruption. I'd like to wait a reasonable amount of time and see what his response is before proceeding with the other options here. I'm not so sure just mentioning an individuals name, what they did, and their wikipedia edits is an attack (presuming of course it is true information)... an edit link however really can't be seen as anything other than an invitation to disrupt.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not really sure where the "attack" is here. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You might first check Special pages/External to see what links there are and what they are used to source. Some of the links are legitimate references supporting material about Moore and his work. Others claim to be reprints of news sources. In these cases we should verfy and cite the underlying work instead of Moore's re-print. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• We can't delink Moore's website from his articles simply because he highlights who one of his detractors are. There is no policy that supports this, and although I agree the links are invitations to disruption, they don't fall under any definition of 'attack site' --David Shankbone 14:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ooooh, we damn well can delink. We damn well can. Noroton 22:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what the attack site policy is (and haven't seen anyone cite to it yet), and ask only that it be applied neutrally. If it doesn't apply to an outside site deliberately causing disruption to wikipedia by encouraging harassment of an editor and vandalism, then it doesn't apply. Whatever the policy is, is. What did we do when an outside site attacked SlimVirgin? (I honestly don't know.) THF 14:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That does not seem to be the case, he also links to the sicko article. Is he attempting to have that page vandalized as well? I understand your upset considering the situation, but no attack is being made. I am not sure why you would edit the article considering the possible COI issues. I know you are not violating them, but with so many articles that could use assistance why that one? As far as I recall the SlimVirgin information appeared on Slashdot first, however they were not blocked as a site. Most likely because they are a news posting site, not news site. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Because, when I was making the edits, there was not a conflict of interest: I work in legal policy, and the article is about a movie about health-care. (I've since written an article about the movie, and have another one in the hopper; since the article has been published, I've stopped making substantive edits to the main page, since that does create an arguable COI.)

By the "conflict of interest" definition you seek to apply, everybody in Wikipedia has a conflict of interest. Moore criticized a client of my former employer? That's a conflict of interest? Can we stop with the bogus and off-topic COI claims, please? The only thing one accomplishes with such an expansive view of COI is driving away editors who have actual knowledge of subjects. THF 20:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You write articles in line with what your employer most likely believes about its clients and against a movie they most likely do not. I did not say you had a COI issue, just that there was obviously a possible one that you should have considered. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, if the site is simply alleging that an individual works (or has worked) for a company and has edited a particular article, I don't really classify that as an "attack site" at least for purposes of something that Wikipedia would need to deal with; it's the same as a newspaper website publishing an article asserting that a particular Wikipedia editor is a CIA operative. The userpage edit links are disruptive though and if the webmaster won't remove them voluntarily I think then it would be appropriate to discuss a response.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, however you will probably have a hard time getting in touch with Michael Moore himself, if he does in fact edit that page directly. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I emailed him... we will see if he responds.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Well, we have some precedent with the Stephen Colbert stuff, and we didn't de-link him. I don't really see an "attack" on you; it is essentially "just the facts" right? --David Shankbone 15:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The attack is on wikipedia not just THF, just like the Colbert stuff. And just like the Colbert stuff the foundation should be taking legal action to defend wikipedia and wikipedians, no other company would put up with the damage that these call to arms cause. PS it also is a violation of WP:Canvas and i think THF is possibly violating COI because of his working for the American Enterprise Institute which is bought and paid for by big pharma and big oil. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What, exactly, would legal action resemble? "We are suing Michael Moore because he provided links on his website to edit Wikipedia." And can you please quote from the page where he summons his followers to disrupt; yes, quotes. --David Shankbone 16:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A link to editing a userpage is inherently disruptive. But a lawsuit would be a silly mistake, as I am sure Mike Godwin is aware. THF 16:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your reasoning Hypnosadist is that Wikimedia Foundation isn't a company that THF, you, or I work for; they don't have any reason to defend us. We are volunteers. Beyond that it's probably a good idea to just chill out for a bit rather than ratchet up the rhetoric here. We have a stopgap in place with page protection to interrupt the disruption from those links. Let's wait and see if there is a response from Mr. Moore before proceeding.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"they don't have any reason to defend us" Other than common decency they have to defend me as i'm a european citizen, even as a volenteer i'm protected by employment legislation and that does apply to every editor from the 27 country EU. But i'm much more concerned with the effect these attacks have on wikipedia. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation has no obligations under European law; as a non-profit organization registered in the United States, in the state of Florida, it has to obey US and Florida law. Furthermore, you are not an official volunteer; there is no formal relationship. Nobody is directing your participation here, except inasmuch as the site has conduct rules. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well said.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Separately, the semi-protect isn't working, as a brand-new user was able to vandalize my userpage. THF 14:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:DENY them the honours. Block them without warning as a vandal-only account. (What I'm doing). Maxim_(talk) 14:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The semi-protect is probably working. That account was created nearly 7 19 months ago. (fixed after seeing post below. Coma account maybe...) --Onorem♠Dil 14:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC)That user was registered in 2006, but made its first edit today. I've gone ahead and full-protected your page. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• The links on Moore's webpage aren't very helpful, but I think they're less serious than the Colbert-related vandalism. Colbert was explicitly encouraging people to vandalize a page in a particular way, while Moore's encouragement is implicit (at best). I certainly don't think it's reasonable to call it an "attack site", at least not until he takes a more active role in things. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Apply policies. Blocking vandals and protecting pages or articles so vandals won't hijack wikipedia. As for the Michael Moore doesn't like me i should say that you don't like him as well and that's why you are here THF. That's called COI. So please keep your page semi-protected and go on editing according to policies. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've edited over 2500 different pages, so I'm hardly a WP:SPA. Please retract your uncivil personal attack. (And I do like Michael Moore. He's very entertaining and good at what he does, and I've been following his work since I was in college. I don't agree with his public-policy prescriptions, but that's a different issue.) I'm not asking for any special treatment or change of policies. I'm asking for whatever policies apply to this situation be applied. THF 17:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

may i ask you about which "uncivil personal attack" you are referring to? or maybe you think i referred to you as a vandal! You are not and that's why i talked about COI when it came to you in this particular incident. Isotope is doing what should be done. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

...and they have been. The pages have been protected. I went beyond that and asked the individual to take down the edit links as a courtesy. If they don't, we can leave the article/userpage semi-protected. If the situation changes at that website, we can then discuss how to proceed. At this point though I think it has been appropriately dealt with from an administrative standpoint.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You might be taking that comment more aggressively than it was intended, THF. I think he meant "here on ANI, discussing this particular situation", rather than "here on Wikipedia, editing articles". Nobody's saying that you don't have lots of good contributions on other subjects. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, I apologize for my misunderstanding the ambiguous statement. THF 20:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• They are updating the page on www.MichaelMoore.com with play-by-play action. --David Shankbone 19:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, must be nice to be a bored webmaster.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Michael Moore or his webmaster has the power to decide whether THF has a conflict of interest here. If being a lawyer for big pharma is by itself enough of a COI to prohibit editing of an article about a movie about medical care, then THF is about #105 against the wall. Let me get my list ready... Thatcher131 19:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression part of the drama with the CIA editing articles, is they were countries the US is unfriendly with. The COI being they conduct operations etc involving them. THF does not work at a company that represents pharma corps, but he actually defends them himself. I guess drawing the line would be, are you a janitor at the CIA, or a person in charge of psychological warfare/department chief etc. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The theory that a pharma hired my former law firm in 2004 because they hoped that years later I would have a different job and edit a Wikipedia article about a movie about healthcare in 2007 seems implausible. Are we really going to vet every editor's former employer's clients? That's a way to ensure that Wikipedia is edited only by the perennially unemployed and friendless. THF 20:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My deepest apologies, I was under the impression you still worked at the company that dealt with the firm. Your "user page" from the company is still up, perhaps leading to the misunderstanding. Your continued work writing articles on the subject etc. Again my apologies. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

They have his picture and his real name on the main page of the website, as well as hotlinks directly to edit pages on wikipedia. If that does not qualify the website as an attack site, what exactly does? - Crockspot 20:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

THF's identity is known, its not an outing. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly didn't know it until I read it on that website. - Crockspot 20:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

But no reason to aide and abet off wiki sites that are attacking one of our contributors.--MONGO 20:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you quote the attack. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Who said he was "abetting" off wiki sites that are attacking an editor? Really, there's not much Wikipedia can do besides ask them to stop... David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are other things we could do David, I'm just not so sure that we should do them. I'd really rather we just sit tight and wait a bit to see what, if any, response I receive from Mr. Moore or his designated email screener(s).--Isotope23 ^talk 20:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you made the correct decision and in a timely manner, the page protection should neutralize any threat of vandalism. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say he was, did I? I said that we shouldn't condone it.--MONGO 20:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

MONGO and myself are involved in another dispute, which is why the tangent was used. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice guess, but incorrect, again.--MONGO 20:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stay on topic, you do not have to attack me everywhere you see my posts. I will not be replying to your further in this thread, if you want to have a conversation, please use my talk page. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

To both of you guys. You got your ArbCom case so please don't bring your disputes over here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? He claims I am not staying on topic, yet he brings up his arbcom case? I was responding to all here, not him in particular...maybe I didn't originally indent it right.--MONGO 20:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is a clear violation of WP:NPA#External links, a core policy of Wikipedia. The link to mm.com should be removed from that article for as long as that personal attack remains on the site. - Crockspot 20:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely, and that was my point, expressed less directly than you have.--MONGO 20:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, all links to mm websites should be removed from all of Wikipedia until that attack and call for disruption is removed. Asking nicely is going to fail. Having some leverage to convince him to remove it will meet with more success. - Crockspot 21:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• I disagree. All appropriate measures have been taken, and I seriously doubt this statement of fact that is on Moore's site will be a lasting aspect of it. But it's not an attack, and it does not incite anyone to riot. Additionally, THF's identity is pretty well-known; just because not every editor didn't know it doesn't mean it wasn't virtually common knowledge before. There's no attack on the Moore site. Just a "revelation". Unfortunately for THF, it was one he invited upon himself, and both his supporters (I include myself as one now, though I often don't agree with him) and his detractors have advised him to change to a more anonymous name. --David Shankbone 21:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The site links directly to "edit" pages here on wikipedia, and is intended to cause disruption of wikipedia and harassment of a wikipedian. Have you bothered to read WP:NPA#External links? Tell me exactly how it is not in violation. - Crockspot 21:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree...websites calling on others and doing direct links to the editing window of articles here for their convience is an open invitation to create problems.--MONGO 21:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That's an interpretation and not one that warrants a sweeping removal of content from multiple multiple articles.--David Shankbone 21:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I just removed one...are there more?--MONGO 21:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with the disagreement, though I'm not sure we should remove all the links at the moment. I believe that the site's comments and links constitute an attack. Even if the attack isn't due to outing because identity was already well known, it's still an attack (links to "edit this article" to his USERPAGE???...). Georgewilliamherbert 21:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically speaking, anybody IS allowed to edit anybody else's userpage (as per WP:USER#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space). And it's entirely possible that they don't know about talk pages, and are operating under the impression that leaving a message on someone's user page is the right way to communicate with them. It wouldn't be the craziest mistaken idea people have about us... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Links can be put back when the attack is removed. At this point, his organization has no incentive to remove the attack. Maybe they will have second thought if we actually enforce our core policies. - Crockspot 21:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how it violates policy in an actionable way, though. THF has mentioned his identity] here before, so the site isn't "outing" anything that wasn't already in the record. Similarly, THF is a lawyer who represented Merck in the manner Moore states; his take on the situation Moore describes is even one of the external links in our article on Rofecoxib. Moore isn't making any negative statements about Frank, or encouraging people to take any specific action (he's saying "you can edit", not "edit it to say X")... it's maybe not very nice, but he's not crossing the line. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove Michael Moore's web links from his pages, so please do not take unilateral action. --David Shankbone 21:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is not required to enforce core policies. Kudos to MONGO for being the only one with a pair of stones to be bold and do it. - Crockspot 21:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And vice versa, perhaps, but no reason to facilitate harassment of our contributors.--MONGO 21:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I emailed them and asked them to take off the edit links and just put links to the pages to visit. •smedleyΔbutler• 21:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Despite COIs on either side, labeling or removing attack sites, and attacks on Wikipedia; this shouldn't be fueled and garnered with so much attention at this point. If according to DavidShankBone his detractors have "advised" him to treat the matter more anonymously then allow Mr. Moore to do so or show that he unwilling to handle this matter civilly. According to the discussion Wikipedia has done all the appropriate measures to handle this issue. It is up to Moore to step up or keep that somewhat snide piece up on his website. I do not see what else is within the power of this community to do to handle this issue further.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is pretty obviously just an outgrowth now of Mongo v SevenofDiamonds, Crock and Bmedley and the whole crew, et al. Either way this doesn't really require admin attention. David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that follows, unless you're trying to make it one. RxS 21:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you referring to? David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed at how little support Wikipedia and it's editors give it's contributors when singled out for abuse by external sites/people. We should present a united front against any website that invites it's users to "edit" the user page of an editor they view as a political foe. Wikipedia is not a battleground, right? RxS 21:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

THF has not really been singled out for abuse per se. Moore's tactic is none too nice, but offering a link to a page anyone can edit is not an attack. The only possible thing that could "disparage" THF is the line [redacted per WP:HARASS] And in any case, Wikipedia isn't the battleground here, its more Moore's site. David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

While the assumption of good faith is paramount, I have to question motives. Would you feel this way if it was Rush Limbaugh's site instead? Take a moment to ask yourself some tough questions about why you're ok with this inducement to harass. If you do, and are satisfied with the answers, then I'll take your word for it, but please take that moment. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Per Se???? How much more clearer does it have to be? That "per se" makes my point very clearly. It's a pretty commited political web site which has singled out an editor they have a political difference with. How can anyone not see that abuse will be (and already has) a natural result? As far as a battleground, the link is an invitation to bring the battle into Wikipedia. We should make it crystal clear that we are against that, and make a clear stand that we need (and support) our editors more then we need a link to a web site. RxS 22:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

To Chairboy, yes, I am sure of my motives. I dislike Moore as much as Limbaugh; they're both distortionists and propaganda-spreading white guys. That said, regardless, this is not the place for this issue. WP:ANI is for admin attention. This issue requires no such action that only admins can take. Edit warring should be taken to dispute resolution. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Would this site fit under the policy of outing THF? Here at Wikipedia he uses an alias, with this external site it says who he is, even with a picture. http://www.michaelmoore.com/ I think outing an editor like this is wrong according to policy and should be deleted. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Movieguy999

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)

Spam filter issue

Resolved

"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)

A hoaxing user

Resolved

 – Deleted and blocked

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)

MTV spam links

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)

Michael Moore

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Discussion is over, all possible results achieved. Talk about this somewhere else. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User:MONGO is taking unilateral steps to remove Moore's website from Wikipedia. Can somebody either 1. protect the Michael Moore page; and/or 2. Have a word on disruptive editing with MONGO? --David Shankbone 21:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• He is editing in compliance with WP:NPA#External links, which by the way, is exempt from 3RR. - Crockspot 21:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• So is reverting vandalism, and considering that most people above don't support removing the links, this would be considered vandalism. Which is also block-able. --David Shankbone 21:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In no way can this be compared to vandalism. ElinorD (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

David, I would not recommend you getting into a revert war over this. Just because no one else has the guts to do it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. - Crockspot 21:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't refer to your edit as vandalism...odd that my efforts to keep one of our contributors from being linked to an off-wiki harassment page would be consider vandalism--MONGO 21:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Until there is some consensus to remove Moore's website from Wikipedia, I definitely think it qualifies as vandalism to remove it. Right now, most people agree that appropriate measures have been taken, and only a handful of Moore haters want the website removed. --David Shankbone 21:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus to keep it...are you openly defending that website's efforts to harass one of our contributors?--MONGO 21:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Mongo. Sorry but if a website is asking its viewers to "edit" a user's page because of his real life identity, its an attack site. New England ^{Review Me!} 21:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned this up above, but maybe they don't know about user talk pages, and think that editing a user page is how you communicate with somebody? I know I've seen people leave messages on userpages before. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Um... why is this under debate? It is really not a grey area. Sites which tell people to go harass someone should not be linked. Period. No relevant extenuating circumstances possible. -Amarkov moo! 21:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. If Moore and his followers want to use Wikipedia as a pulpit to attack editors they disagree with, we have a responsibility to try and prevent it. Resolute 21:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's necessarily what's going on, though. It doesn't say "THF is a jerk, go give him a hard time", and there are good-faith reasons why he might have added the links (as an illustration of how easy it is to edit Wikipedia, for example, or a mistaken attempt to provide a point of contact for talking with THF, etc.). If people are giving THF a hard time, it's because they decided to do it themselves (and we absolutely need to make sure that they face appropriate consequences for their actions - blocking, page protection, etc.). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In the topic about this matter someone did mention the concerns of committing such a mass removal. I do not believe this helps this issue and as much as policy should be followed, this is one of those unique circumstances were WP:IAR may step in. Unfortunately to keep the links or to remove them turns out to be a double-edged sword either way. Its a pickle...don't get me wrong though, the page's snide bulletin is none-too-nice.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That is the first time I have ever seen that tactic (at Moore's website)...namely, that there are links right on a webpage which when clicked go directly to the editing window of certain pages. I hope this is uncommon and/or isn't picked up by other websites as it would make for a lot more work for a lot of people keeping junk and other stuff out of linked to articles. Have you ever seen that before? Is this some new or different approach?--MONGO 21:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • This is wrong! There is no attack. •smedleyΔbutler• 21:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, congrats gents, this entire fiasco has made michael moore's front page. You should be proud. First off: It's not an attack site. The site has links to edit THF's page. Nothing wrong with that. It even says that THF has edited Sicko XX many times. Assuming that's true. Where's the attack? David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • I emailed them again with my advise. •smedleyΔbutler• 21:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• It technically does not say "Go harass THF!", true. But that is so strongly implied that it might as well be said. -Amarkov moo! 21:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

So if I made a page on Wikipedia that said "Look at Amarkov! Editing Wikipedia admin related pages! Here's how to edit his page", it would be an attack page? I'm tempted to create it, take it to MfD and see what they say. David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Or as a better example, what if it were Mike Godwin? He's fairly prominent off-wiki (like THF), he's edited articles about things connected to him (like THF), and he's connected his name with his editing on-wiki (like THF). Would it be an attack there, if some third party linked to Mike Godwin and his user page? This is a very slippery slope... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not the linking of his userpage by itself. It's the linking, along with prominent attention drawn to his editing about things where he is said to have a COI, on a site that self-evidently supports those things. -Amarkov moo! 22:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Mike has edited his own article. It's hard to get more COI than that, no? (Note: I'm not suggesting that Mike's edits to his own article were improper.) -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I just don't want to lose sight of the difference between something like this and an overt attack site, like when P-J was accusing editors of being pedophiles last week. Blurring the lines would set a bad precedent. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• The Moore haters brought the whole situation far more attention than it would have received if they had just let it ride out. Based upon this edit I think it's designed to have Michael Moore pay them some attention. Look at me! Look at me! I hate you too! --David Shankbone 22:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And look who made that comment, throwing out that hate speech! •smedleyΔbutler• 22:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Isnt calling MM a 'POS' a BLP? Who will remove that BLP NPA? •smedleyΔbutler• 22:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That was exactly my thought. And now Michael Moore pages on Wikipedia are lighting up like strobes. smb 22:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

David, I am not a Moore hater. I had never heard of him prior to seeing this discussion here at AN/I, and haven't looked at his article in sufficient depth to know who he is. But there are a few points to consider here. One is that his website, as it currently stands, is definitely an attack on one of our contributors. Incidentally, while it may be true that THF's identity is already known, there are people on Wikipedia who didn't know it until this happened and who know it now. And WP:HARASS specifically says that it's harassment to publicise the personal details (legal name, workplace, etc.) of an editor who is trying to be anonymous, and that this also applies in the case of editors who requested a namechange but whose old signatures can still be found in page histories. If fifty people knew it, that is not an excuse to raise the number to a hundred, or even to fifty-one. He changed his name, and removed some personal information from his userspace, therefore we treat his anonymity with as much respect as if he's a completely new, unknown editor, even if we privately think his attempts at anonymity are futile.

Secondly, it's true that in general, an article about a person should have a link to his site, if he has a site. But it's not absolutely super-urgently essential. Just as an article about a living person should ideally have a photo, but when there's no free one, we don't use one at all, even though it would improve the article, because there are other considerations. There are many areas of Wikipedia in more urgent need of attention than the fact that Michael Moore's article currently lacks a link to his website. Try recent changes patrol, for example. Keeping the link out, when we can do so without serious harm to the encyclopaedia, sends a message that we don't condone the contents of the front page of his site. Perhaps that might influence him to change it; perhaps not.

Thirdly, you have recently been in dispute with THF — quite a serious dispute, if I'm not mistaken. Why must it be you who decides that it's so terribly, terribly essential for the encyclopaedia that a link to a website that harasses him has to be in an article that you presumably have little or no interest in, since you've never edited it before, so that you revert someone twice when he removes it? I can assure you that MONGO would do the same for you if you were being harassed — and so would I. It's not urgent to have a link to that site right now this minute. If we suddenly discovered that the image had been invalidly claimed as a freely-licensed one, we'd take that out too. We remain calm, and we don't condone harassment. ElinorD (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no edit warring, disruption, or anything wrong with removing the links. Moore's front page is stalking (a form of harassment) THF's edits. Read WP:NPA#External links. Will ^(talk) 22:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Um... yes, there is edit warring and disruption. -Amarkov moo! 22:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And the edit warring, disruption, etc. is being done mostly by Wikipedia editors. This does not require special admin attention, only dispute resolution. And to Bmedley: its that kind of attitude which shows this is as much about Crockspot and Mongo and internal wiki political motivations as Michael Moore. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not feed the trolls

Jeepers creepers, could you people try just a little harder to make this place suck? You haven't quite sucked all the joy out of being an admin but you're close. In no particular order,

1. Removing michaelmoore.com as an external link from Michael Moore seems especially ridiculous. There is a difference between having a discussion in projectspace about THF and citing mm.com ("See, mm.com thinks THF has a conflict") and linking to a famous person's official web site on his article.
2. But, this is undeniably an attack directed at THF. Suggesting otherwise is obtuse or deliberately disingenuous.
3. Therefore the best response would have been to ignore the whole damn drama from the very beginning. Have you all forgotten about "Revert, block, ignore", "Do not feed the trolls" and WP:DENY? The sensible response would have been to protect THF's user and talk pages and then shut the fuck up. Moore feeds on this kind of crap. You think it was an accident that he went to Cuba before getting his travel papers in order? Do you think he cares who he runs over in his quest for media attention?

You fell for it. You took the bait. Congratulations. Thatcher131 22:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A little blunter than the paragraph I had typed up, but yes - exactly. THF's userpage has been semi-protected. I'm sure a lot of us have it watchlisted and will revert and block vandals if they appear. Michaelmoore.com probably shouldn't be linked from many places besides the Michael Moore article, but removing from that article smacks of silliness and of leveraging this incident. Worst of all, as the below thread indicates, we managed to create a shitstorm before actually giving the rational approach advocated initially by Isotope23 a chance to work. Which it appears to have done. MastCell ^Talk 22:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher...your comments only make the matter worse. In fact, me thinks some of it should be adjusted to keep from violating BLP. This has zero to do with Mr. Moore, and everything to do with not facilitating efforts by off wiki sites to denigrate this project by allowing direct links to edit pages. I can't speak for the person who that website seems to have a beef with, but as far as I am concerned, if that website is going to be used to harass our contributors, then we shouldn't be linking to it...if it was just Mr. Moore's opinions about Wikipedia, then fine, but that is not the case here.--MONGO 22:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's done now, please let it die. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

notice

• • • • • NOTICE: They took my advise and removed the links. Mongo, please put all the links to mm.com back up. •smedleyΔbutler• 22:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, that's a good thing, anyway. I'd still leave protection up on both for a while, though. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
            • I've added the link back into the Micheal Moore page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(redent) Well, I'll be deleting it. I've deleted about eight others from "External links" sections. Once the attack is removed from Moore's Web site, I'll restore links myself. I've also made a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to protect the Moore page. Noroton 22:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Is THF's real name common knowledge here. Has he presented it himself? Just curious as that is one of the things on the page that bothers me the most. Arkon 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree to having my real name on Wikipedia, even if it is common knowledge by virtue of the fact of people like Bmedley spamming it every time I make an edit he disagrees with. THF 00:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.