Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive175

User:Weirdoactor
Out of the blue, posted this comment on my Talk page. I considered it verging on a personal attack, if not a threat, and I replied with this, which was probably not the most diplomatic response, but I wanted to make it clear that his comment on my Talk page was worrisome. He removed the comment, calling it "admin harrassment". I reverted the removal. He responded on my Talk page with this. This is completely coming out of the blue, as I had no previous dealings with him except for suggesting he be civil in an AfD discussion. This threat should not be idly dismissed, but I have no intentions of continuing the discussion. I will, however, take action if there are further such threats issued against anyone else. The User's comments on Talk pages have been generally of such poor quality. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weird. My previous interaction with this user was completely acceptable and very pleasant, but that kind of conduct as listed by Zoe cannot really be tolerated. Final warnings needed per WP:NPA. Moreschi Deletion! 18:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah I really don't like the look of that - a little chat about civility is in order. --Charlesknight 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow... yeah, needs one final warning from someone not!Zoe and if the incivility continues, a 24h block is definitely in order. —bbatsell  ¿?  18:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have had some brief encouters with this editor and found him to be very reasonable and civil. This is out of character. I suggest attempt at clarification and discussion, not blocking, as the appropriate course of action. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This was the comment that I suggested he needed to be civil about. See also, ,  (and note the edit summary) , .  I stopped at that point.  User:Zoe|(talk) 18:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks much for posting all these diffs, it helps to know the situation background. I will attempt to obtain an understanding of what Weirdoactor's view of the situation is, as I can see no reason for his characterizing your comments as harassment, or any reason for his reactions at all. Hopefully it is just a case of him having a Very Bad Day and reading your posts wrong. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * His replies to you on his Talk page seem to be more in a similar vein. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur. Perhaps we should ask Durova, as the only admin he seems to have respect for, to take a look? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever. His attitude seems to be that the "deletionists" are out to destroy Wikipedia and he's here to protect it from the evil ones.  User:Zoe|(talk) 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I don't know about that, but his current attitude is certainly "any admin who politely informs me my incivility and hostile demeanor is unacceptable is harrassing me, and anyone who says s/he isn't is just protecting her/his friends and is a Bad Admin too!" which is hardly a helpful or rational attitude. I wouldn't have taken the trouble, except that I had interacted with this editor before, as I've mentioned, and seen nothing to indicate this kind of attitude - as Moreschi has also noted above. I'll post to Durova's talk page, up to her whether she wants to give it a go or not. I now withdraw any objection to any block deemed acceptable by any admin, my attempt to help this user resulted in insults and accusations. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(un-indenting) Hi! Please see my talk page for a short but sweet mea culpa. Also, Zoe?


 * I was referring to myself here in terms of a need for caffeine. Me. The sleepy editor. Hi!
 * Re: here; Jmabel had stated that he wouldn't be returning to the thread; it wasn't an attack on him in any way.

Just thought I'd clarify. If you have any more diffs of mine you'd like me to clarify, please do let me know. Ta. -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 20:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weirdoactor's rather... uh... weird, suffers from an juxtapositionally idiosyncratic sense of humour, just like some others; but my previous conversations with him have been harmless. Just be a little nice with those you don't know, they might misapprehend your intentions. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  08:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Madonna Vandalism
User 87.196.44.177 unexplainably removed the three first links of the Madonna criticism section.

Despite her undeniable fame, success , iconic and superstar status and groundbreaking career achievements , it is noticeable that since the beginning of her career, Madonna has been the target of constant criticism, being always far away from any possible type of unanimity. Reviews about her body of work have generally been mixed and many music critics have constantly put her artistry in doubt.

They wrote: Despite her success, it is noticeable that since the beginning of her career, Madonna has been the target of constant criticism, being always far away from any possible type of unanimity. Reviews about her body of work have generally been mixed and many music critics have constantly put her artistry in doubt.

They also completely removed GTBacchus' edit we all agreed on.

However, some critics do see Madonna as a talented vocalist and songwriter. Madonna also received good reviews for her "Love Don't Live Here Anymore," cover on which her performance was described as a "heartfelt vocal". Her vocals on Live To Tell were considered her best at the time by some, and the song's lyrics have been described as "poignant" : "A man call tell a thousand lies. I've learned my lesson well. Hope I live to tell the secret I have learned. 'Til then it will burn inside of me."

I gave them a warning. It's vandalism since they removed the three first links without any reason. They did not disagree on the content "Despite her success...", but on the links only...

Israell 07:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Need some help with watching over an article
is a confirmed sockpuppeteer of a number of different accounts used to edit Canadian political articles (see his request for checkuser here). I'm not knowledgeable in Canadian politics, but it does appear that he is removing sourced material that he perceives to be negative towards right-wing politicians. He previously used sockpuppets to attempt to influence an AfD, and now is using them to game WP:3RR on Erik Bornmann (maybe other articles, I'm not sure). I need some help reviewing all of this user's actions (you can see the full list of sockpuppets on the RFCU I linked above). Thanks, —bbatsell ¿?  03:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A request for page semi-protection concerning this was denied and deferred here. Carson 04:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have semi-protected the article (I have no idea why it needed to be deferred), and I have blocked all Rascalpatrol's sockpuppets, as they are single purpose throwaway accounts created solely for the purposes of disrupting articles (and the AFD on Erik Bornmann, which he tried to have deleted, see the thread further up the page). I have left  unblocked for now, but if he continues to use socks in a disruptive manner, I see no reason why he should not be blocked, also.  Proto ::  ►  09:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Jacob Peters socks to be blocked
This are a latest lot, described by Checkuser as "likely" at Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacob Peters. The ones to be blocked are:

has already been blocked, so it's just the first two that need to be done. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 12:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. I thought you were admin. :P &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  13:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not yet:) Moreschi Deletion! 13:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Someday Soon F♯, D♭ --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  13:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, quit with the flattery or I shall verily break you in pieces like a potter's vessel, for he is like a refiner's fire. Moreschi Deletion! 16:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That song was for Julia. Don't you like it? --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  13:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A temporary ban for 124.5.223.207, please
This user has been busy reverting the edits made by OrphanBot and reinserting unsafe images in to Wikipedia articles. Despite repeated warnings from me, this activity is still continuing. Please put a stop to it. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊  12:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 24h. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  13:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User PBurns3711 - vandalism and deletion
This user is consisently placing large amounts of POV, incorrect and inappropriate content in the League Against Cruel Sports article.

He has broken the 3RR several times and has now resorted to pasting a large amount of plagiarised and POV content on the page.

Help would be appreciated.

GWP 15:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced image uploading
Mexico123 seems to be constantly uploading unsourced images (and indeed seems to have virtually no other contributions besides inserting these images into articles). He was warned about this before and then blocked for a week when he continued. I found that he had continued, and gave him a stern warning, but he's continued. Time for a lengthier block, perhaps? David Mestel(Talk) 15:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

SPA User:Dhg247 vandalism
(a single-purpose account) recently wrote an essay in article space where the controversial Electric universe (concept) was recently deleted as a result of AfD. The account (as well as the article page) may be worth keeping an eye on for the near future for potential recreation, NPOV, or vandalism reasons. ju66l3r 07:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This comment was removed (accidentally?), likely as a result of an edit conflict improperly resolved by the above editor. I'm replacing it.  ju66l3r 07:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Electric universe (concept) page creation vandalism has stood for about 6 hours now with 2 db tags on it. It would be good to WP:DENY the creator (a single purpose account, likely sockpuppet) their attention for rallying the troops to recreate the original article that failed numerous policies and resulted in a deletion by AfD. Can someone help out here? Thanks. ju66l3r 11:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted the article page under 'A3. No content whatsoever', as the page consisted solely of a message to other editors, which I had moved to the talk page where it belonged. I left the talk page in place, however. -- Donald Albury 16:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For closure, I submitted the orphaned talk page for deletion and it was removed. Anyone watchlisting this article may want to keep track of it a bit longer.  ju66l3r 20:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

More Madonna Vandalism
The same user -87.196.44.177- now deleted Madonna's main picture... Please take action. They got a warning from me and two other user and went ahead and deleted Madonnas's picture. I gave them another warning.

Israell 10:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't the correct place to handle content disputes. Vandalism should be taken to WP:AIV, page protection requests to WP:RFPP, and disputes on content should follow WP:DR. --Farix (Talk) 19:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User harassing another user
Hi. is harassing about removing comments and warnings from 's talk page; 's replies are a little insulting. I would like it if an admin could step in and either give them a sharp warning, or block them for 24h per disruption. Yuser31415 18:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, but let me see if I can diffuse this a bit before someone gets blocked.--Isotope23 18:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism on article "North Korea"
Someone keeps inserting inappropriate words in the first sentence of the article on North Korea. Originally, I believe the term, "Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)" was used. The vandal first substituted " Democratic Brandon Republic of Korea," then, "Dmocratic Brandon Yang's Mother Republic of Korea," then "Brandon Yang's Papa's Stinker Republic of Korea." I tried to change it, but I am a novice at all this. It took me quite a while just to find this message box. Hope you can intervene. Pepperosa 18:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Pepperosa
 * All fixed, I think. Thank you for reporting this vandalism; happy editing! I have given you your formal welcome on your talk page. Cheers! Yuser31415 19:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Soapboxing from User:SiIenced Iucidity
User's contributions seem to show that he's going through everybody with a blockand giving a rant about the admin cabal. Might someone like to have a word with him, or give a block? -146.186.210.78 21:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * User also appears to have a 2nd account at User:Silent Lucidity or has vandalized that page with a redirect.--Isotope23 21:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Checking... that user does not appear to exist, so I tagged for speedy deletion (don't know if I'm supposed to do that, if it was a purposeful redirect). -146.186.210.78 21:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with this user. Thanks a lot for your help here! --Deskana (For Great Justice!)  21:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

To be blocked 206.224.254.17
User from ip adress 206.224.254.17 keeps vandalising pages. Found no useful edits. Should be blocked. → Aethralis 21:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just two edits since December 22nd. Just revert as needed. And in the future, IP vandalism reports should go to WP:AIV. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with Cplot edits
I happened to see one of Cplot's more recent edits before it was reverted. In it, the Cplot sock says that even though these edits are all being reverted, they are still worth making because they live on forever in the page histories and curious users look to see what has been reverted. I don't know whether that is right or not but I wonder if admins should begin the practice of deleting rather than merely reverting these edits. Newyorkbrad 03:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you want to delete the entire WP:ANI and restore it all each time minus one edit each time he does it, be my guest. So, basically, it's impractical.  Oversight would be an option though, however, I don't know if those with oversight permissions would consider this a proper use of their abilities.  That'd be up to them to decide I'd imagine.  Metros232 05:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The way the user interface is set up, edits to pages with huge histories like this are much easier to oversight than to delete. On less traveled pages, deletion might be an option. Thatcher131 05:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, until the better revision deletion system for admins is created (rather than the hack we're doing now), it's nearly impossible to delete a ceratin revision from a page with many edits. Mart inp23 14:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more of responding new edits where it's the top one in the history, not of going back through all the old ones. I thought deletion was easier under that circumstance, but please disregard this if I'm wrong. Newyorkbrad 15:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Could the restore deleted edits page have a button that checks all the boxes? That way you'd only have to unclick the all the ones you want deleted. -- Samuel Wantman 23:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but it works fine when using the shift key. Khoikhoi 06:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleting articles with large edit histories brings the servers to their knees. Remember what happened when AfD got deleted?  User:Zoe|(talk) 00:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, could someone explain this diff to me? -75.42.174.181 06:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like an innocent error resulting from an edit conflict. Clumsy, perhaps, but I don't see a reason to assume it was malevolent. Could re-insert or ask the acting editor for clarification. Luna Santin 06:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good explanation! (I wasn't presuming villainy.) Deletia follows. -75.42.174.181 06:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems absolutly strange that such an edit conflict somehow managed to slip by, as I thought I used thew '+' to add a new section - I'll experiment in one of the sandboxes (later) to see if I can reproduce it. --Sigma 7 08:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Cplot would then just gloat about the workload that he was imposing on administrators. In any event, except when a particular version is cited somewhere with real importance, such diffs probably have even less importance than, say, comments to LiveJournal.com or to Usenet. Arguably, it's better for the world if Cplot wastes his time here. ;-D. -SlamDiego 04:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If I had oversight, I'd use it to get rid of this obvious idiocy. I don't see a need to keep it around... Grand  master  ka  01:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please excuse my ignorance on this issue - I'm not well and so don't familiarise myself with sockpuppeteers. Is CPlot the one currently insisting on posting the "federal clowns" rubbish at such places as the village pump? Crimsone 00:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Bingo. I kinda wish it was possible to have a reasonable conversation with him because he occasionally makes a reasonable point about the potential for abuse of admin privileges.  But he's always posting these huge rants that get deleted because, well, they're huge rants. &mdash;Dgiest c 02:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's a shame in that respect (assuming you are correct, which I've no reason not to), though my experience of the web in general suggests that when people get ideas in their head to the point of writing long and persistant rants about them, there's just no reasoning with them. Thankfully, such severely entrenched people are reasonably uncommon. Crimsone 03:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ranks and hierarchies
One of the biggest problems with Esperanza was the leadership council, which made decisions that were binding on other people. I recently found Motto of the day which has a similar hierarchy. It has several sections that may only be edited by "overseers" (whatever that is) and appears to make decisions based on seniority of those "overseers". I think this is bad and unwiki. Thoughts, anyone?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite concerning. Dan Bryant is listed gone, and he's a frequent ANI-er, so I think let's wait for his opinions. – Chacor 10:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "My opinions", sounds like a mini-heirachy for this thread - just kidding :) I forgot all about this "project". Anyways, I'm strongly against that sort of heirachy, and combined with my inactivity regarding MOTD, I've speedily-resigned. As you can see, I "signed up" (or was it elected? I can't remember) during August, when I was a very new editor. Although MOTD is good, the current system of "overseers" isn't, and I don't have any brainwaves currently on how to fix it.
 * I think that there will be an overwhelming concensus here to remove the "overseers" per se, and replace it with a better system where everyone is equal (and no, none will be more equal than others. As I said, MOTD is a good concept, and it should be reformed instead of being dished into hell for being heirachal. Again, I'd just like to repeat I'm totally and utterly against this kind of, in my opinion, destructive structure which promotes the idea that some users' opinions are worth infinitely more than others - within reason it is appropriate, eg admins to trolls, but having it spelled out and definitive in such a black-and-white fashion is not the Wiki way. Wow, I still can't believe I joined that...I hope I'm forgiven for a lapse in judgement given it was so long ago *grovels* :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 11:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The hiearchy, in my opinion, should be removed immediately. Also, as I have seen in the past, MOTD has been going rather downhill. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  11:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never seen such bureaucracy for such a tiny concept, one I'd never even heard of before. Any small group of editors could do this if it's seen as important (I don't) with little coordination required. Grand  master  ka  11:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's pretty evident what the concensus here will be, so I'm going to go through and rid MOTD of this heirachy. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 11:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (responds to self) I believe I've got rid of every bit of hierarchal creep that was in MOTD, and I've left a note on the no-longer-"Overseer",-now-"Co-ordination" desk linking here. I also made it clear that everyone who wants to is invited to help co-ordinate the project from the desk, and I removed the veto voting scheme and promotion "rules" from the procedure text at the top of two of the pages. If you see anything else, feel free to remove it and replace it with a less rank-like system and/or description. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 11:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The "anything else" I saw was a "I am the senior overseer" userbox on User:Geo.plrd, which I've now replaced with User MOTD.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I didn't spot that - I didn't leave Motto of the day and subpages, actually. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 11:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Geo.plrd seems to be obsessed with creating hierarchal structures on Wikipedia (with himself as head, of course). It seems to be his sole reason for being here.  User:Zoe|(talk) 16:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There’s still Wikipedia:Motd/Template:Warnvote. —xyzzyn 11:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yuck. Tagged for speedy deletion. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 12:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Speaking of which, I do believe that this is blatantly excessive bureaucracy for something as simple as a daily tagline. Brazil, anyone?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess, all the date subpages of mottos now-used (eg all of 2006) can be killed. However, if you take out all those, there is barely any pages. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 13:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A handful of the date pages have talk pages; modulo those (and possibly page history, if motto pages were edited), they seem entirely redundant with the schedule archive. —xyzzyn 13:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Far out, it all got readded, and there is still the apparent group of users who have their names distinctly listed in the big yellow box at the top. I'm half-tempted to MfD the desk, just to get rid of it. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Geo.plrd took over after User:Go for it! moved on, i think. Geo does indeed have a long history of inventing hierarchies and pseudo-projects, and joining everything in sight.
 * They (MOTD) just asked again about putting the MOTD in the Community Portal. I still believe it to be very unsuitable. It might be acceptable if confined to userspace, though I'd be happy to see it MfD'd entirely. I prefer humour hidden like a treasure, and actually funny.. —Quiddity 08:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * i took over after Childzy left. i do edit articles G  e  o . 23:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * From memory, you have approx. 50 mainspace contribs out of 1,300 (something like 4%). Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk page mass posting
has posted to a lot of user talk pages soliciting input to Requests for comment/InShaneee. I am concerned the user seems to be trying to rustle up a lynch mob. Even assuming good faith, this was more inclined to escalate than resolve the dispute, so I'm rolling back the posts. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to disagree here, Guy. It's pretty common to contact users who have previously commented in an RfC (which is what was done here) if further action is being taken (he is preparing a request for arbitration). I won't revert you, but I wouldn't qualify it as "rustling up a lynch mob." —bbatsell ¿?  18:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just took a quick jaunt through your talk page and see that more fundamentally, he appears to be picking and choosing commenters, which is obviously canvassing, so I retract my above comment. —bbatsell  ¿?  18:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * yep - that's a no-no - trying to stack the deck. I think Guy was right to remove the soliciting. --Charlesknight 18:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering that I commented in the original RfC I'm not sure how much impact soliciting my opinion again is supposed to have. You have a point about the canvassing, but removing talk page threads that have already been replied to isn't very productive. --tjstrf talk 18:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to reinstate the conversational element. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

":::I have slowly contacted a 7 people over 2 days and had 5 replys, no one contacted has said don't post. As for canvasing how am i ment to build a case against an admin without talking to the people he has delt with. The RfC which came to nothing was a good place. to start. This is just an attempt to stop an arbitration against an admin and find having my talk deleted highly offencive and the rest civility rules don't allow me to even start on.Hypnosadist 18:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You posted text soliciting input in an RfC designed to get InShaneee stripped of the sysop bit. The text was the same on all Talk pages.  In both tone and target, it was unacceptable, as noted above.  Please do not do this again.  Guy (Help!) 18:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Rfc had stopped, i'm trying to get an arbitration on Inshaneee and his conduct. As a result of that i do want him stripped of his sysop powers, because of the way he uses them. This is not spam so what policy are you deleteing them under?Hypnosadist 18:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh look NuclearUmpf has just reverted Guys deleteion of my message, maybe he wanted to help stop Inshanee abuseing his powers as well.Hypnosadist 18:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't think your tone will help anything, Hypnosadist--please try being the one NOT running around calling editors "douches." However, I don't object to the message being put on my talk page, but am a little irritated that it was deleted without notice on my talk page.  Hypnosadist could have posted this on the InShaneee RfC, that he was moving on to arbitration, except that InShaneee archived his own RfC while it was still active, not giving Hypnosadist the opportunity to use that avenue.  KP Botany 18:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Could i make a request of guy to keep his accusations of which polices i am breaking together, preferably here. At the moment he is claiming i am breaking Canvassing but no vote or Afd or such is ongoing nor is my posting disruptive.Hypnosadist 19:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A third editor i contacted has reverted but was re-reverted and a message left by an admin says not to. This is getting beyond a joke now, is Guy really aloud to run blocking coverage to stop an arbitration about another admin.Hypnosadist 19:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:SPAM. May I recommend you stop for a second, assemble your own version of events for the RfAr, file the RfAr, then notify all parties (i.e., not just ones that you agree with) that an RfAr has been filed. That's generally how this is done. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿?  19:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "May I recommend you stop for a second, assemble your own version of events for the RfAr" thats what i'm doing! Bbatsell this case invovles probably 20-30 different people Inshaneee has had less that optimal interactions with, such as the 7 people i MASS mailed.Hypnosadist 19:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflict) I got one of the messages from Hypnosadist,, but there were more people involved in the RFC other than the seven of us. While I will not comment one way or another on this issue, I really think that the RFC went nowhere and no real solutions were brought up. I would suggest another firm RFC, out of InShaneee's control, so we can see what could happen. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, just found something. Before the messaging began, I found Administrators%27_noticeboard. This was composed by Hypnosadist. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Question, so simply giving a neutral notice and posting on the talk pages of all who had responded to the RfC, even those supporting InShaneee, and including InShaneee, would have been okay, or Hypnosadist would have had to wait until after posting an RfAr? I think it's an important distinction, particularly with the RfC closed prematurely, as it would have been a general venue to post a single notice rather than proceeding to post messages on individual talk pages.   I don't see that InShaneee controlled the RfC outside of archiving it during the holidays.  Thanks for the link, Bbatsell.  KP Botany 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hypnosadist also mentioned about the posting on the messages at Administrators%27_noticeboard, so that pretty much two, public places, that he mentioned he will contact people involved with the RFC about the impending RFAr. I won't get involved in the RFAr, but I wish for no sanctions to be placed on Hypnosadist for this, since he was going to have to do it anyways due to ArbCom procedures. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Response to KP Botany: essentially, yes. If Hypnosadist had contacted everybody who commented on InShaneee's RfC and noted that he was adding additional information to that RfC and inviting participants to consider it, that would have been fine.  The problem here was twofold: first, the apparent selection of only those likely to be anti; second, the tone of the message, which was essentially "let's all get together to get InShaneee desysopped".  Posting a single comment inviting participation, in neutral terms, to all existing participants in a process, is not usually viewed as problematic, although it may depend on the circumstances.  Guy (Help!) 20:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't contact everyone from the rfc and Inshaneee's talk page because i thought THAT would be spamming, oh the irony.Hypnosadist 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Does that mean if Hypnosadist had left messages on the talk pages of all those who commented on InShaneee's RfC, he would not be accused of spamming? Please explain this policy.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, Ahwaz, why did you delete my post? I'll assume it was by accident, which I've done before.  Ironic, but now you know how to do it in the future, and, as Zscout370 points out administrators had notice beforehand about what you intended to do, and the tone you would take, and no one bothered to stop you before you did it. So, it appears it's not a well-understood or well-known or well-respected or .... policy, and it's not like you did it on the sly. In general, though, being mellow about the situation will make it easier for everyone, potentially gain you more supporters and clearly deliniate between you and the person you are complaining about, not just on Wikipedia, but in all situations. So, in the future be neutral and invite everyone to the party, but, yes, oh the irony of it all. Thanks for the information, Guy. KP Botany 20:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware that I had deleted your post and wasn't aware that I had broken any policy. Are your remarks referring to me or Hypnosadist?--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 21:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As you'll see from Hypnosadist's Talk, I went there and told him that he had done wrong, and pointed out why, and did so in terms which assumed good faith (ignorance is a defence on Wikipedia). I went out of my way to assume that this was a one-off based on not knowing it's wrong.  Sadly Hypnosadist chose to bluster and escalate rather than ask for clarification.  "You can't do that!" tends not to work with the better-known and more active admins, because generally we are doing it precisely because we can - and usually should - do that. We are the rouge admin cabal and our anthem is "We Will Block You" but only if you persist after your errors have been pointed out.  Guy (Help!) 23:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is just a joke to you isn't it "We are the rouge admin cabal and our anthem is "We Will Block You" but only if you persist after your errors have been pointed out." This is pathetic!Hypnosadist 23:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I was happy to be contacted by Hypnosadist regarding this matter and was unhappy that his message to me was censored on my talk page by Guy, who refused to allow me to revert his deletion of the message to me.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A joke? No.  Using humour to attempt to defuse the situation.  You are taking this way too seriously.  Bu don't be fooled, WP:ROUGE has a very serious message.  So come down from the Reichstag and get a sense of perspective, eh?  Guy (Help!) 00:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Also, as I posted above, it's best to wait to leave notes on the RfC commenters pages until an RfAr has been filed. Otherwise it's like you're plotting to overthrow someone, which shouldn't be your intention. Your intention should be to tell your side of the story, let everyone else tell theirs as well, and then allow the ArbCom to come to the appropriate conclusion(s). —bbatsell ¿?  20:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to sum up, InShaneee gets given a clean slate after so many examples of uncivil and over-the-top actions that breach Wikipedia guidelines and he is let off the hook without so much as a warning. Hypnosadist, who was insulted by InShaneee, feels this doesn't adequately address his or others' concerns about this admin and wants to take it further, asking other editors suffering similar grievances to outline their complaints ahead of arbitration. In response, admins come down on him like a tonne of bricks for allegedly spamming users' talk pages (although those users have not complained). This is about admins covering each others' backs, not an even application of policy. This strengthens Hypnosadist's case for taking the problem to a higher level.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 22:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Except that the admin's are not coming down on him for spamming folks pages. If he had contacted ALL members of the RfC, then there would have been no repercussions. Instead, he selectively chooses those who would be the most sympathetic to his cause . That's not allowed. Please read the notes earlier in the case, and try to assume good faith of their legitimate issues. Comments like "This is about admins covering each others' backs" do nothing to help your cause. SirFozzie 23:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong Sir Fozzie i was accused of as the title suggests MASS posting and now you say i did not post enough when it turns out what i was doing was not spam. What happened was the charge against me was changed mid stream when it became obviouse that i was not guilty of any spamming.Hypnosadist 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ps as for my good faith how about "the user seems to be trying to rustle up a lynch mob" thats good faith i take it. Hypnosadist 23:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently you are seeing parts of this discussion and not others. Several folks (admin, and not-admin alike, including myself) have agreed that the mass discussion you were doing was ok in theory.. EXCEPT: A) you were only letting people know that already agreed with you, when to be fair, you are supposed to let all sides know that you are adding more information to the RfC, and inviting comment, and B)You did not do so in a neutral manner. SirFozzie 23:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, I have explained MULTIPLE times the correct procedure for the future, and have explained exactly what policies you did not follow. You were not blocked, you are not being attacked, you are not being hindered in any way. Please acknowledge this and move on. Thank you. —bbatsell</b> ¿?  23:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information Bbatsell i understand the correct proceedure, that from now i should go to arb com then tell inshaneee that i've done it then try to get the evidence for my case. I am being attacked as this tread is about how i'm wrong while i'm trying to get justice for how me and many other people have been treat by inshaneee. I've been hinderd by having my messages deleted on talk pages, i deliberately did not post loads of messages just so i would not be accused of spamming and then i am accused of doing that because of how few messages i posted. I am really having difficulty with this.Hypnosadist 00:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This thread is not about your attempts to get "justice". That's not the issue at hand here. There are other places for that. Like the RFC you have filed. You didn't follow WP proceedure in your canvassing. Period. Accept that and move on. No one is having a big black mark against their name. No one is getting blocked, banned, etcetera. The only thing you are doing is prejuducing people AGAINST your case, with your constant complaints about how you're being treated unfairly, despite SEVERAL people trying to explain what you did incorrectly so we can all move on. Now, PLEASE, take the advice you are given and move on. SirFozzie 00:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not filed an RfC ever! Given that you have that fact wrong could you relook at this case!Hypnosadist 00:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems to be the confusion "If Hypnosadist had contacted everybody who commented on InShaneee's RfC and noted that he was adding additional information to that RfC and inviting participants to consider it, that would have been fine". I'm not doing anything to do with an RfC, the one A Link with the past started died with nothing happening. Hypnosadist 00:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is because a RfC cannot hand out disciplinary measures. You need an arbitration to do that. BTW, I have reviewed the information. It makes things worse AGAINST you, not for you. You are actively soliciting those who agree with you to file a case against the admin (who even I agree has not been lily white in this whole issue). You are/were attempting "Trial by Ambush" here, (please don't attempt to tell me different, telling folks that you are messaging them only because they supported your case in the RFC as in [|here] . Just end this farce, Stop claiming you're being persecuted in here, and get on with the Arbitration (then let EVERYONE involved know, not just those on your side).
 * Actually Hypnosadist I did add the note that you had explained what you were going to do before you did it in two notes (as Zscout pointed out) and that folks/admins could have asked you not to before you did what you did, and I pointed out that you didn't try to hide it or anything. Still, this is, imo, the kind of thing that happens when people "in power" abuse it or are perceived to abuse it, it builds up bad feelings, the kind that don't readily go away.  That's why I also urge you to take a cool step back to deal with this.  KP Botany 01:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

At last my real crime is revealed "You are actively soliciting those who agree with you to file a case against the admin" yep thats a fair cop, i only told you that every time you asked.Hypnosadist 09:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hypnosadist asked InShaneee for an apology, and InShaneee apologized (and it wasn't a Hollywood "if I offended you" piece of doo-doo), and Hypnosadist accepted with a smile. KP Botany 02:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is now sprotected
I really didn't want to do it but I was struggling to keep up with reverting the vandalism, meaning that nobody else could get an edit in edgeways. Lets leave this long enough for the vandal to stop and then unsprotect. --Deskana (For Great Justice!)  21:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not long ago WP:DEFCON was set to the second-highest level of vandalism, suggesting a vandalbot or other similiar mass-vandalism tool was in action. Yuser31415 21:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Would anyone have a problem with adding the text, "in the interim, please feel free to contact an administrator directly" or words to that effect? --BigDT 21:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me...either that, or use the talk page...Guettarda 22:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added the text. I don't know that asking for messages to be posted on the talk page is a great idea, but I won't yell/scream too loudly if someone disagrees and changes it.  Really, though, you could contact any established user ... anyone can copy/paste your message here for you. --BigDT 22:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like Cplot has stashed accounts sitting around waiting to disrupt, since he was just able to vandalize this page again. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go new account patrolling sometime and bash anything that follows his username pattern with --Deskana  (For Great Justice!)  00:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Cplot just managed to hit it again, as User:AbsoluteXer0. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently this page is no longer sprotected? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct. It was unsprotected, and quite rightly so, as it seemed to remain so for some time without any problems. Strangely, the most recent rangeblock I placed seems to have shut him up. --Deskana (For Great Justice!)  00:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

190.57.108.203
has repeatedly added false information to the page Spider-Man: The New Animated Series and related articles based on data they once apparently once found on IMDb (inaccurate movie database, for the uninitiated). The user was warned several times, but persisted further. I reported them to the anti-vandalism area, but the issue was rebuffed as a "content dispute". The user was eventually blocked, but has since returned to further vandalize articles. I have come to realize the user is a spanish-speaker with little to no real grasp of english. Nevertheless, I've checked and found that their inaccurate additions have been reverted on the spanish Wikipedia as well. Because of all this, I am requesting an indifinite block. Not all of the user's contributions are vandalous of factually inaccurate, but this recent activity has shown that they refuse to learn and/or stop. Also, the IMDb data has long since been corrected on their site. Once is an accident, twice deserves fair warning and thrice is malicious. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * IP user actually didn't get blocked indefenitely unless ip user uses Open Proxy. Could you tell me why you made request this ip for indefinite block? Daniel5127 &lt;Talk&gt; 01:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Single Purpose account adding libel to living figure
Check out this single purpose account adding libel to various articles (yes I know the suicide bit is pure nonsense but the rest could be harmful). Needs to be blocked ASAP --Charlesknight 00:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I issued a WP:BLP warning. I love the spelling of "reminist" :)  User:Zoe|(talk) 00:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sock account used to stalk?
was recently created and has popped up on 's talk and user pages on my watchlist. In this edit the user claims to be someone who was vandalized by users who were possibly connected to The Showster in a RFCU about a month ago. Should this account be blocked as a sock used only to stalk? Metros232 00:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * the name doesnt help. WP:USER vio if anything. ~Crazytales (Talk) 01:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Now he's uploading images that relate to The Showster's area of interest, Image:NWO vs Wolfpac.JPG.—Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 01:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * About the user name, Mr. Socko is part of Mick Foley's whole persona. Yes, it has the double meaning in this instance, but I think the wrestling connotation is meant here.  Metros232 01:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked him per username Alex Bakharev 01:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

MORE sockpuppets
They never end. Again, these were listed at checkuser, which was inconclusive (maybe technical reasons again). Please have a look and block them if it's warranted.



Thank you. TheQuandry 03:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest User:JB196 Sock accounts
GaryGoingggg has gone back to standard User:JB196 behaviour, inserting links to articles JB196 has written [] as well as nominating wrestling articles for AfD, Articles for deletion/Rick Scaia‎. Note: The account is only a few days old, which is a strong indicator of trying to get around JB's ban.

See Long term abuse/JB196‎ for his full history.

Also user:Machodawg is inserting JB196 links in articles as well []

(Sorry, forgot to sign) SirFozzie 19:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a very obvious JB196 sock, and he's already threatening to evade any block that may be imposed. One Night In Hackney 19:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is comforting to know that you must stoop to the level of personally attacking new users and wrongly accusing new users of sockpuppeting because you dont want a verifiable source (which they added) to remain in a article. theres no threat on my part--and the only personal attacks have came from you.

GaryGoingggg 05:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the "verifiable source" is largely unverifiable original research carried out by JB196, a link to which has been inserted on a constant basis by JB196 and all his socks. The claim of a personal attack refers to me stating Common sense says that screenshots can easily be doctored or manipulated, so they are not reliable, which is clearly not a personal attack. The sooner this disruptive editor is blocked the better. One Night In Hackney 08:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. hopefully, someone can look at this ASAP SirFozzie 18:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

-1. I am not disruptive. -2. You are harassing me with these false sockpuppetting accusations and you are not assuming good faith. -and most importantly 3. The source is extremely verifiable and the day that Tommy Dreamer saying his opinion on a particular matter becomes not relevent or not verifiable in relation to Tommy Dreamer's opinion on said particular matter is the day that the world ends.

Stop harassing me.GaryGoingggg 19:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We do not have to assume good faith where there is a pattern otherwise. SirFozzie 20:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And that argument is an EXACT replica of another of your socks, Barber. BooyakaDell. So don't bother trying to convince us you're someone else. It won't work. Clearly you are a threat to Wikipedia and it's about time someone contacted your ISP and had you forcibly removed. You are not welcome here. 124.181.204.208 05:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

1. dont know who you ar 2. not gonna claim to be someone i'm notGaryGoingggg 06:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

User:129.7.35.194
User:129.7.35.194 has vandalized DDT (professional wrestling) and Facebuster, given personal attacks to me and just broke the three revert rule. He has atleast two previous blocks. Could he please be permanently blocked? ↪Lakes (Talk) 20:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies if this should have been in WP:AIV instead.↪Lakes (Talk) 20:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The reporter is a dumbass: even on top of the Facebuster page it states that if a move incorporates a headlock it isn't a Facebuster at all, but a DDT or Bulldog. The move is because one of the moves listed is really a DDT. I've been trying to repair HIS vandalist shit ever since making the correction to shitopedia's inaccuracy.
 * Wow, that's a good amount of rules broken in one post. Look at WP:NPA WP:CIVIL, amonst others. Honest question. if you don't like it here, why do you edit? SirFozzie 21:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

IP range 129.7.35.0/24 blocked for 1 week for block evasion. --Deskana (For Great Justice!)  21:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Downside, the university of houston has a /16 range and you only blocked the /24. Upside, they might actually respond to a complaint. Bonus: classes are not in session so that cuts down the suspects to emloyees, faculty and grad students. Thatcher131 21:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hard to imagine a university student acting like that. I guess it shows how some people act when they're relatively anonymous. --Deskana (For Great Justice!)  21:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You might ask Chris O. The business about reverting a "lying scientologist" strikes me as nonrandom and more than simple wrestling fandom. Thatcher131 21:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh, you're talking about people who think the highest goal of life is to go someplace where they can drink themselves blind everynight and then use getting a sunburn as a hangover cure. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 21:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And you're talking about me, Donald! Well, not the sunburn bit, but the drunk bit. I'm yet to actually do too much work on my degree though :-P --Deskana [[User talk:Deskana|
 * Been there, done that, although I couldn't afford to fly to Cancun or Cabo, but come to think of it, Cancun hadn't been developed when I was an undergrad. \sigh\
 * I warned a vandal to test2 or 3 (I can't remember which, it was quite a while ago) once and the IP was registered to M.I.T.. That was pretty funny, Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  22:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Guys he's at it again now as 72.178.235.28 and we are now nearing the tenth revert.... i have tried my best to comunicate with him and have even asked him to start a survey to judge oppion on the articles talk pages but he has just ignored me and continued.. please help stop him --- Paulley


 * I've semi-protected the articles, but, there is not a single reference in either article. I've dealt with this kind of crap at Goth Metal articles with Leyasu and Deathrocker and I'm not happy to see it here.  I have no way of knowing which description of some wrestling move is more accurate; both versions look like original research/personal observations and conclusions.  I suggest you find some kind of appropriate third-party source rather than arguing over what looks like personal opinion. Thatcher131 05:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

indef-blocked User:EccentricRichard evading indef-block again

 * (previous discussion)

(also known as and possibly other accounts) is continuing to edit as. — CharlotteWebb 05:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

NLP update - Some COI issues and reluctance of some editors to get along (and some positive points)
Hi all. Recent notifications concerning the NLP article have covered promotional obscuring of views (suppression of information ) and users of a known COI editing the article To be found under "Comaze" Under "NLP article specific examples of promotional obscuring of facts and relevant views". An admin has already civilly explained the situation to those above editors. Also Cleanup taskforce has asked for a serious cleanup of the article - including reducing redundancy and making the debate more concise and contained. Efforts to balance views emphasizing the concept seem to be getting ignored -

"It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to its best ability. This is because neutrality requires much more than simply citing verifiable sources or proving a point -- it requires using credible sources to accurately represent a broad range of views and a balanced overview."

Some editors have been persistently trying to suppress core information from the opening and these tend to be the ones reluctant to get along with those of a different view ,   , 

,,

There is still a misuse of argumentative words to avoid. There is no need at all for the argumentative or debate word "however" in the line yet they insist. . Their behaviour seems to me to be highly unconstructive considering the assessment of the CleanupTaskforce.

Editors have been ignoring efforts to make the article more concise (without obscuring views), by physically distancing the discussion on the article - and by removing it completely from discussion.

There is some evidence of editors with known COI making odd edits on other articles.

On the positive side - there are fewer edits per day (usually less than 40). A lot of the problem was caused by the plus 50 eds per day which has led to an oversized article. The CleanupTaskforce has given helpful instructions to make the article more concise and to clarify what NLP is about. I don't see any particular problem long term and I'm fairly sure editors will come round to the idea that editors of different views are supposed to try to get along. Once they properly discuss the suppression of information policy I'm sure a win-win can be achieved. Trolling - sockuppetry - and meatpuppetry don't seem to me to be an issue. I believe the main point is to encourage editors of various views to work together collaboratively and civilly in the long term. AlanBarnet 07:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * All other editors on the NLP page are in agreement     that  is either a sockpuppet of long-term abuser HeadleyDown or he is equally bad. At least two more independent users on his talk page have identified him as a sockpuppet also. However, even in his own right, this new user has exhausted all patience with his disinformation, distortion, and lies (much of which continues above). This is his third WP:AN/I notice about content disagreement. A block has been requested before. 58.178.142.37 07:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello user 58.178.142.37. The editors you mention all seem to be keen on obscuring key views or at the very least they are all reluctant to make clear concise statements of each view. I've provided edits and discussion recently and on multiple prior occasions and encouraged discussion concerning getting along and making sure that each view is concisely summarized to the best of each view. Rather than discussing or adjusting my edits - others have tried to either marginalize the discussion or in your case - delete my edits altogether without discussion on a regular basis - call me a troll with venom - and restore argumentative debate into the article. I believe that most would see your actions as unreasonable.  I havn't tried to cut away - reduce- or obscure any of the sourced NLP views. You and others seem to have obscured the views of science either by removing them from the lead - reduce them so they become obscure - add undue argument - or cover them with nonrelevant information. All the article needs is to present the subject of NLP with each view summarized so that it becomes clear to the reader. This can all be done without excess size and it can be done civilly. This is not a content disagreement. Its about COI - obscuring key views - getting along- and a simple enough NPOV solution. AlanBarnet 08:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your diffs above clearly show several other editors consistently reverting you. Can't you see that only incriminates yourself as the editor that pushed an edit-war? 58.179.166.57 01:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It has been asserted by others that AlanBarnett is HeadleyDown. I would not like to call that, since at least some of the motivation for the assertion seems to be that he is pushing the scientific mainstream view of NLP in that article.  Previously the article was under mediation; maybe it needs to be again.  My understanding is that HeadleyDown was less calm and less polite than AlanBarnett.  I have no personal knowledge of HeadleyDown, though.  There is abundant evidence of conflict of interest in the pro-NLP camp, and they definitely dominate editing of that article. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your view that editors are partly motivated out of their POV is unfounded and must necessarily be based on not having read the NLP talk page. Both User:Doc_pato and User:Fainites have been very extremely verbal in promoting the mainstream scientific view and nonetheless they both want AlanBarnet blocked . And quite frankly Guy, you are in personal conflict posting here as an admin; having previously labelled NLP pejoratively as a cultic , and with AlanBarnet saying he communicates with you privately  . There is no consistent evidence that there is either a pro-NLP or anti-NLP camp. In fact, the NLP talk page clearly shows there is much healthy debate, except on one issue where all agree: User:AlanBarnet is an abusive sockpuppet of HeadleyDown. Users have had two months to determine this. AlanBarnet is just as antagonistic and disruptive as HeadleyDown     and more and he has maliciously posted a users' personal information several times   . Woohookitty? Voice-of-all? Can we please have an admin that is qualified to recognise this sockpuppet? 58.179.166.57 01:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am convinced that AlanBarnett is HeadleyDown not because of the views he/she pushes), but from his/her well-documented pattern of behaviour (btw, personally I would tend to be more on the anti-NLP side). Jbhood 12:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi user 58.179.166.57. I am cooperatively posting notices on ANI to solve a problem. I never said I communicated with Guy privately - only that I am keen on cooperating with admin. There have been over 80 edits on the NLP article per day at times and with no sufficient discussion. There are editors on the article who seem to have a COI and you seem to be encouraging them to edit. I've reiterated admin suggestions and assessments and you call it harassment. You seem to be dismissing key NPOV points about keeping the article summarized and you've been regularly marginalizing key science views as can be seen in the links above. When I make reasonable suggestions towards making sure all relevant views are presented as best as the proponent of each view can - you delete the suggestion. When helpful editors restore the suggestion you delete again . You and others seem to be refusing to balance views and refusing to make succinct concise statements about each view. I am talking about getting along. If you would like to start civilly discussing the Suppression of Information policy on the NLP talkpage I'm sure admin would be happy that editors of different views are trying to get along. AlanBarnet 03:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Utter baloney! AlanBarnet, if you are so wonderful how do you explain six separate editors      thinking you are a manipulative sockpuppet and wanting you blocked? Coincidence? All editors are reverting you blindly now, quite obviously sick of your falsified article citations and talk page sugercoated baloney. Your own talk page confirms what I am saying. Clearly you should be blocked. 58.179.166.57 06:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi 58.179.166.57. Editors who have not shown a reluctance to presenting all views clearly seem to be reverting you (Editor MER-C at least). And rather than blind reversion - it seems to be a reversion based upon the need for collaborative and civil discussion. AlanBarnet 06:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again; Just to help get the ball rolling towards collaborative editing and discussion - I'd like to present this for discussion on the NLP talkpage. Rather than just delete such a large piece of unsourced argumentative commentary - it seems more constructive to see if there is anything of any value in it by discussing with other editors. Thanks AlanBarnet 06:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Guy. You are being naive. Just because AlanBarnet says he's presenting mainstream scientific views and preventing them being obscured by others doesn't make it true. AlanBarnet has done virtually none of the work in sourcing, verifying and citing the mainstream scientific views which now have a full clear section. I know because I did alot of it myself in collaboration with other editors, including Comaze, but almost never AlanBarnet. He has no real interest in ascertaining genuine views from genuine sources, whether they're pro or anti NLP. Neither is he remotely interested in helping shorten, improve or clarify anything else. Mostly what AlanBarnet does is revert to older inaccurate versions without bothering to clear up the mess created with references, citations etc, put inaccurate or highly selective quotes in the introduction (over and over again), put in grossly POV statements, unverified and unsourced and refuse to provide verified sources on request, and then clutter up the talk page insultingly accusing everybody else of doing these things. (note inadequate edit summary) If you believe any of that nonsense about wanting to collaborate or work constructively with others then you are the only one who does. Those of us who have had the pleasure of trying to work with him (and I tried very hard) know this protestation for what it is worth. Less than zilch. I also asked you some time ago that if you had any decent sources to back up your claim that it is a 'fact' NLP is a cult, to let us have them, because nearly all of the ones from the HeadleyDown/AlanBarnet camp, when somebody troubles to actually read the blasted things, don't support this. The only sources left are Protopriest Novopashin and you. In the circumstances I would support the request for somebody else from admin. Fainites 13:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

JzG/Guy. There is no pro-NLP camp. Firstly Fainites and 58.* tend to be on the side of skepticsm and scientific rigor. As far as I know they have no prior knowledge or personal experience in studying NLP. They are basing their edits on what is in the reputable / verifiable literature. It is a complex topic because there are so many different views with no black and white mainstream view. --Comaze 14:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Users Comaze and Fainites. Rather than repeatedly and dismissively delete the concise view of science from the lead section - you could discuss why you feel it does not quite capture the full view of science and we could go on with improving it . Also as yet - the Suppression of Information policy has not been discussed at all on the talk page. I presented it several times and my suggestion for civil discussion was met with dismissive deletion. So as a solution I present a concise lead again and I present the Suppression of Information policy on the talk page . Open for civil discussion. AlanBarnet 04:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Might I invite anybody reading this to go to the NLP article and read in particular the sections on Mental Health practice and Research Reviews and then state whether they think there is 'promotional obscuring of scientific views' as alleged (ad nauseam).Fainites 16:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure Fainites. This Information Suppression policy is helpful: . "It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to its best ability. This is because neutrality requires much more than simply citing verifiable sources or proving a point -- it requires using credible sources to accurately represent a broad range of views and a balanced overview.". As shown above - you (and Comaze and 58 and others) have removed clear succinct summaries of the critical view from the lead section. The whole article can easily be improved with reasonable following of that Suppression of Information link. AlanBarnet 01:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This message keeps getting posted to the NLP talkpage whenever I post the Information Suppression policy or whenever I suggest NPOV policies. If there is any disinformation or trolling (or any uncooperative action or comment) in the messages I post - I would be grateful if an admin could point it out here or on my talkpage. Thanks. AlanBarnet 02:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * User 58.179.166.57 keeps restoring argumentative WP words to avoid - even after the Cleanuptaskforce urging to remove undue debate. AlanBarnet 02:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikistress seems to be causing disparaging comments about others. . In order to calm the situation down I suggested a reduction in conflict and the wisdom of taking a break occasionally. AlanBarnet 03:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again. User 58.178.199.92 seems to think I'm sockpuppeting - trolling and wikilawyering, removes my discussion and states "we're still waiting for a block on AlanBarnet" . As far as I know Suppression of Information is on the NPOV tutorial and supports editing according to NPOV policy. 58.178.199.92 and others still seem to me to be strongly reluctant to deal with important parts of NPOV policy. In the light of assessments here and the present situation on the NLP talkpage - I'll just have to civilly continue to present the tutorial in order to solve problems with the article. AlanBarnet 07:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Guy. The only person about whom there is even a COI allegation is Comaze (from AlanBarnet only). Can one editor be a 'camp'? Who else precisely are you including in the 'they' of the 'pro-NLP camp' who supposedly dominate the article and about whom there is apparently abundant evidence? Do we get to see this 'abundant evidence'?Fainites 21:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. I presented this (below) and on the NLP talkpage in order to sort the NLP article out as per NPOV and neutral wording. I am adding it here so admin can get a chance to add suggestions and some editors seem reluctant to countenance the finer points of NPOV policy so it may well get deleted or dismissed from the talkpage:

Hi all. Further to outside/authority assessments from the ANI and Cleanuptaskforce: Again here is a back to basics solution: The NPOV tutorial:.


 * The suggestion from ANI is that there tends to be too much promotional obscuring of science views.


 * The Cleanup taskforce looks at this from the view that editors are putting criticism diffusively all over the place and then defending it as if it is some sort of debate – thus obscuring lots of views and never really getting round to saying what NLP is or does.


 * Writing what NLP is should be done in as neutral language as possible without adding any pro or con argument directly to it. Straight reporting of what NLP is and does on terms that a reader will understand – without promotional language – without confounding jargon – and without any unattributed promotional claims such as “Modeling' another person can effect belief and behavior changes to improve functioning” or defensive statements such as “Neuro-linguistic Programming is an eclectic field, and”…. Sentences should be written in neutral language with proper attributions of who says what (eg scientist (name date) says…. or NLP author (name date) says…..


 * Prioritize information according to the most reliable sources. Prioritizing will help reduce the overload and help editors in choosing what to include or exclude and to determine weight. We need to look at how the most reliable sources describe what NLP is and does - and what NLP proponents do with NLP specifically. The most concise and clear descriptions will make the article encyclopedic and accessible to the reader.


 * Regarding controversies: The NPOV solution is to summarize each view “as if by its proponents to their best ability” . This can be done throughout – or if it disturbs flow (which right now it seems to) – it can be confined into sections.


 * We can practically negotiate weight and neutrality using the evidence we have . Part of the reason for problems with the article is that too much evidence has been added to the article through exessive daily edits - when it should have just been placed in the talk page and properly discussed before summarizing each view “as if by its proponents to their best ability”.


 * There has been a problem with un-neutral language in the article at times (for example - argumentative howevers and nonsequiturs). Again – the NPOV tutorial and WP words to avoid are useful guides

So – feel free to discuss any of these points. Constructive suggestions are welcome. AlanBarnet 08:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * User 58.179.187.123 did remove the above NPOV tutorial suggestions from the NLP talkpage . I have restored it and reiterated the need for civil discussion. AlanBarnet 07:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal details posted on VP
Just caught a perfectly valid proposal at the village pump, but unfortunately the IP posted full address and contact details below it (here)... Crimsone 05:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you removed the personal details, which is a good thing, but isn't the name OK? &mdash;Dgiest c 05:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it probably would have been. I saw and removed it as one "block" - my mistake. I've just put it back. Still needs deletion/oversight though if somebody would be willing and able. Crimsone 06:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow that was quick! Fired out an email to the "overseers", and now it is gone :). If I'd known it would have been that quick, I wouldn't have mentioned it. Nice work guys :) Crimsone 06:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The Pope shits in the woods
Can an admin delete this redirect? It has to violate some policy.... The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 07:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --Aude (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Beat me to it, CSD R3. Viridae Talk 07:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * R3? One hell of a typo, then.... The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 07:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess this was already deleted. Daniel5127 &lt;Talk&gt; 07:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing this was a joke based on this uncyclopedia article. (Which interestingly enough is linked from the uncyclopedia Bear article, but not the Uncyclopedia Pope article.) --tjstrf talk 07:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Hari Ananth

 * Just a heads-up to admin, there are some shenanigans going on in here. The article in question is almost certainly a hoax, as none of the provided references cite him by name; but the perpetrator of this hoax is going to some lengths to have it kept, including deleting others' comments and racially attacking other editors.  I'd like someone to close this AfD as a delete before it gets out of hand. JuJube 06:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And now marked AfD for related article Ashwin Betrabet for speedy deletion. JuJube 06:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm a friendly admin. How may I be of assistance? Oh, right, this "Hari Aranth" nonsense. Yes, there's something to JuJube's complaint. First, though, a note on the specific complaints. The particular comment that was deleted was my own; I later restored it and I gave the perp a one-hour vacation from WP (no, not as a punishment; because he really was wasting an awful lot of time). The "racial attack" is not something I'd term a racial attack. Yes, it could be read that way if one were very earnest about these things; and no, it shouldn't have been written; but let's not aggrandize these matters. (Believe me, I have seen things on WP that I would call racial attacks. They're different.) Now for the larger matter of the AfD and the article on which there's an AfD. I'm pretty sure that either (i) this is a complete hoax, or (ii) this is a very insignificant but genuine actor around whom a hoax is being made. Either way, it seems speediable. I'd speedy it myself, but for the fear that somebody might say I did this out of spite, what with my user page having been vandalized by the original author, etc. So I'm holding off. Incidentally, I notice that this other contributor to the dodgy article has created another ho-hum Borat-related article, Ashwin Betrabet, which at this point looks as if it's complete rubbish but may for all I know be well-intentioned; shortage of time and energy prevents me from investigating. -- Hoary 06:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Article has been speedied by DVD R W. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Lame edit war
There's a lame edit war going on at WP:PI, with people asserting that yes, it's an essay, but no, it shouldn't use essay for some reason, and saying that yes, using essay was settled upon long ago, but no, it should now be removed for some reason. I don't quite get it either :) but maybe somebody else could look at it.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Argue it out on the talk page, not the main/essay/article page. Protected for a while. Viridae Talk 11:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Until we actually come together and have some sort of a large discussion on this and agree that process is important, it should be tagged as an essay. In the mean time, there are a significant number of people who don't think process is important; and don't forget the five pillars tell us that one of the five pillars of Wikipedia is "Wikipedia does not have firm rules", which seems to counter this claim that process is so important. -- Cyde Weys 14:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Right... and as I said at the discussion, the essay tag is really a courtesy to new editors that makes it clear this isn't a policy or guideline. It really should be on all the WP:SNOW-esque pages.--Isotope23 14:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Graffiti group
I just blocked three editors for one hour. They are User:Cooper owns you, User:Scottb999, and User:Portlock. They were group editing pages, including Nathan Sinclair that I deleted as an attack page, and Scott Bagley which will go down as a G1 or A7 in just a minute. Can someone review and see if a longer block should be given? GRBerry 14:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Continuous removal of maintenance tags on Police memorabilia collecting, attacks and threats here and here as well as vandalism of this twice. He has also been removing this image by editing project pages and other users comments on my talk page, stating that the image breaks this law which is does not. He has been rude and abusive on several occasions. Multiple warnings for vandalism and threatening, he needs blocking. SGGH 13:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

propose indefblock on User:Router
First brought up at Administrators%27_noticeboard, 's single purpose on Wikipedia appears to be "My purpose is to counter accounts like you who delete or minimize the minority view of articles." He has added sites like farmersinsurancesucks.com and fuckpaypal.net to Farmers Insurance and PayPal, and vigorously defends their removal on talk pages as "trying to remove information critical to the subject". This is patently untrue, as I've told him on Talk:Farmers Insurance and has told him on Talk:Paypal. As Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and his only contributions are these additions of foosucks.com, I propose an indefblock for tendentious editing...but am posting here first for comment.

I know that I don't have bias coming into the situation, as I only ran across the farmer's insurance article because of a vandalism report. Syrthiss 17:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, of course, but I've got a possible WP:COI regarding PayPal, being a past employee of their parent company. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the indefinite block. Contributions consist exclusively of adding "...sucks.com" links to articles, which is soapboxing, linkspam or both. Sandstein 18:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)\
 * Comment: I did not originally add the Allstates sucks or the Paypal Sucks external links. I was just re-adding them after I noticed they were deleted to keep the NPOV for External Links.  There needs to be a balance in external links articles and banning someone who tries to protect these is not the answer. Router 19:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be aware of the external links policy, particularly under links to be avoided, Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. Any site of the type foosucks.com is likely to be full of original research, unverifiable personal experiences, and highly tendentious point of view material.  If there is notable negative information about a company or organinzation that can be verified through reliable sources, then add it to the body of the article. Thatcher131 19:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the indefinite block. A warning or a short block (to give Router time to reflect on why this is not a good idea) for a first offence is appropriate.  An indefinite block at this stage would be draconian.  Proto ::  ►  19:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A job worth doing is worth doing right. He has already been warned not to include the links, and warned that I believe his actions are of a disruptive account.  He's now aware (since he posted above) that this is something that could warrant a block, and continued to replace the links (which have now been reverted again by other users).  A short block in my opinion is unlikely to have any positive effect. Syrthiss 19:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually his last post was here and he has not added the links since. If he keeps it up though I think a short block might be in order since at this point he has to realize this is against WP:EL and apparently against WP:CONSENSUS as well.--Isotope23 19:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * True. Syrthiss 19:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 'A short block is unlikely to have any positive effect' - we won't know until we try. Assume good etc etc. Proto ::  ►  19:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

An anon has been re-adding the ****sucks links back into PayPal today, and has been blocked for 24h. Syrthiss 15:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Indef ban of Ericsaindon2
Ericsaindon2 has been edit warring on the Anaheim Hills article since he arrived in April 2006. In September 2006, the ArbCom banned him for one year [], due to dishonesty, tendentious editing, sockpuppets, original research, and vandalism []. Since then Ericsaindon2 has had his block reset 13 times [].

Ericsaindon2 continues to edit under various IPs and sockpuppets. While it certainly isn't the daily edit war that occured during his prime, a look at the page history shows that we still continue to deal with his disruptions []. The bulk of the articles discussion page focuses on attempts by other editors to remove his original research []. This blocked editor shows no attempt to work within the quidelines of the encyclopedia. He is unrepentant and will continue to disrupt Wikipedia until his original research is included.

I'm here proposing an indefinite community ban of Ericsaindon2, and I'd appreciate a review by any administrators. He's more than exhausted the patience of those who have had to deal with him. AniMate 01:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This situation is regrettable, but I'm not sure what more administrators could do here. As you indicate, the one-year ban keeps being reset after each evasion, so unless he walks away for a year it will never expire and is effectively indefinite already. Other than watching the articles and reerting the edits, or maybe asking for a checkuser and seeing if there's a safe rangeblock, what else is there to do? Newyorkbrad 01:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we can certainly call our patience exhausted. I've extended the block to indefinite. Frankly I think it's ridiculous to extend any block more than three times before making it indefinite. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the block evasion, looking at the pages' recent history he seems to be only using one IP a day (rather than switching every edit, as some evaders do). If he continues in that way we can just block the IPs when they appear. If he does start rolling the IPs to continually evade blocking, but it's just Anaheim Hills he attacks, we can semi-protect the article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. I guess you should post your action to the log of blocks and bans in the arbitration case. Newyorkbrad 02:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your prompt action, Sam. I'm sure this will help resolving the situation. AniMate 02:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for preparing that, AniMate. I wish there were a better way of getting banned editors to stay away. -Will Beback · † · 05:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

On a related note
I wonder why we shouldn't do the same for User:Lir, who has now had his one-year ban reset across two full calendar years. I've been thinking about doing this for a while. Grand master  ka  06:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * God, how many trolls are we indulging in this way? As the last extension was a month ago I'm reluctant to extend it right now, but if he appears again, start a thread and I'll certainly extend it to indefinite if no-one else does. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we'll have done it across three calendar years. :-) Grand  master  ka  12:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * All Lir has to do is to stop trolling, vandalizing and making personal attacks. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Mike Mendoza
Yes, again. An anon is back adding the claim that the subject was a councillor - the subject himself has removed this information from the article (a while back when he was removing a variety of false or partially false information), and as there is not a single page that mentions the the councillor and the subject of the article (a radio host) as one, I believe this is definitely false.

This has all been gone through before, but still, every single time this anon appears and starts reverting, 3RR dictates that I need to ask someone else to revert as I may be the only regular user watching the article.

I'm honestly tempted to simply starting to block and revert given a) the anon's persistent refusal to follow Wikipedia policy, b) blatant non-sequitur arguments and refusal to address stuff like the subject denying it, c) the anon's recent appearance coinciding with that of a small sock farm adding the same stuff. As it is I'm merely very close to doing it. The hell is it with British radio biographies? --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Now watchlisted.--Docg 02:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The false information is currently still in the article - I'm not going to revert the anon again this round until someone else does, at least. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reverted it. JuJube 02:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it looks like the anon may be correct. He did give a source for the claim, and I've found another --Docg 02:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, different Mike Mendoza. Loads of articles on the councillor exist, like that one, as do articles on the radio DJ - but none that I've seen that mention both as the same person, none that would convince me that the subject is lying. Mendoza may sound like an odd name to non-Hispanics (it did to me) but it seems to actually be a common surname. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could take this to the talk page.--Docg 02:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Good luck. The website for the current council has pictures, I believe, but when I used archive.org to look for an older picture ("Mendoza" is no longer a councilor), I discovered the page of pictures - and, oddly, if I remember correctly, only that page - had been excluded via robots.txt. Or maybe I did something incorrectly. Comparative pictures or even middle names might help resolve this. John Broughton |  Talk 18:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

User removing license tags and replacing them with no license messages
has removed valid license information from the following images and has replaced them with  and other tags. Some these are :
 * – replaces {pd-us}} with
 * – replaces creative commons with
 * - replaces with
 * – replaces with
 * - replaces with
 * - replaces with

If the user disputes the license information, the correct procedure is to use the while keeping the current license information. However Srkris simply deletes the license.
 * - replaces with
 * - replaces with
 * - replaces with

This user is specifically targeting Tamil people and History of Tamil Nadu, two FAs I have edited, IMO to annoy me. I need some admin attention to address this disruptive behaviour. Thanks Parthi talk/contribs 10:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the images are on the Commons, so there is little to what many Admins can do here. With me being an admin on the Commons and here, I could try and help you out. However, I do not think Srkris is totally in the wrong here. One of the images you cited here, a map from 1909, was indeed from . But, if you notice at the bottom, they actually did not scan it and went and talked to the original scanners, Oxford University. We should need to go through OPU and find out what the license is on that scan, but if we cannot, we probably will have to delete it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 10:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, I dealt with some of the same photos before, but I really got to ask something: how come Image:Wallajah.jpg is considered the public domain while a scaling of the same thing is . This is not making sense at all. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 10:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The scaled down image was sent to me by V&A museum in reponse to my request for rights. I received the following email:

Dear Venu

Thank you for your request.

We would be happy for a thumbnail of the portrait of Muhammad Ali Khan to be viewed on Wikepedia on the basis that the image is:

1) no greater than 4.5cm in height or width 2) at no greater size than 72dpi 3) credited ©V&A Images

Please find the image attached which has been scaled down to this size.

If you are interested in continuing to pursue the use of V&A images on the Wikepedia site, please do contact us again.

With best wishes

Stephanie Fawcett V&A Images - Victoria and Albert Museum www.vandaimages.com tel: +44 207 942 2487

>>> "Venu Parthiban" 26/12/2006 20:19:43 >>> Dear Sir/Madam:

I am an editor of Wikipedia, a multilingual project to create a complete and accurate encyclopedia by open editing. We gather information from all types of sources, but the web sites of government bodies, institutes of higher learning, and other non-profit organizations are often particularly useful. The English-language version may be viewed on the Web at http://en.wikipedia.org/. As a unique and highly visible project, we freely and publicly release our work, that it may benefit mankind. To this end, we deeply respect copyright, and are careful to prevent any infringement.

We would like your permission to include resources created by your organization in our encyclopedia. Specifically, we are interested in copying the Photograph of the Portrait of Muhammad Ali Khan, Nawab of Arcot Dated 1781. Watercolour on ivory, accessible at http://www.vam.ac.uk/images/image/11781-popup.html. In order for us to do so, it would be necessary for you to license your work under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), which was designed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for free works. You can find the license text at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html.

If you licensed one or more of your documents under this license, you would retain full copyright. However, we would be licensed to distribute the material, as would future users of it. We would distribute your work free of charge. However, future commercial distribution could occur. This is because users of our encyclopedia are authorized by the GFDL to distribute it, or any part of it, for a fee.

The license does stipulate that any copy of the material, even if modified, must carry the same license. This guarantees that if licensed in this manner, no copy of your work could be made proprietary. That means that no one who distributes the work can ever restrict future distribution.

Please notify me if you are interested in licensing the portrait, or all of your copyrighted material, under the GFDL. I can be contacted by e-mail at parthi@ozemail.com.au,

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

- Parthi talk/contribs 10:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong. I'm not against examining the licenses. The correct procedure if one suspects the validity of the licese is to use the pd-dispued whicle keeping the existing license. This user simply removes the licese and replaces them with the no license tag. That is incorrect. His targetting the two artilces I've edited is in my opinion harrassment. - Parthi talk/contribs 10:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

is there something wrong with the section several sections above this one that covers the same issue? Morwen - Talk 10:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They may be related. But this is my complaint against this user's incessant harassment. - Parthi talk/contribs 10:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So what is for, then?  Morwen - Talk 10:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if we got the thumbnail to use, then we should delete the bigger sized photo (can you try to forward the copy of the email to WP:OTRS?). I am still awaiting about the map I discussed earlier, but if you really think this guy is out to get you, then I would suggest either mediation or a RFC to find out what is going on and seek some common ground. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 10:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of these images listed at the top are uploaded by various users. The only commonality is that they are all used in my articles. Only the one we are discussing above is mine. If there is a dispute then the disputed tag should be used and the appropriate uploader should be informed. I have no problems with the bigger image being deleted. It is not used anywhere. Thanks Parthi talk/contribs 11:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well we should be deleting the Thumbnail, the license as listed by that mail above is a license to use it on Wikipedia provided those conditions are met. A Wikipedia only license is totally inadequate, as indeed are any other "With Permission" licenses and fail Speedy criteria I3 --pgk 12:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Morwen and others, I have no axe to grind against anyone. User:Venu62 just seems to want to draw your attention and sympathy to his cries, so he starts the same issue again and again here. Coming to the issue, I said he cannot cite his personal emails as verifiable license here. I dont think I was wrong there. His reverts like this make little sense. He thinks he can revert whenever and whatever he feels like. He also gives me bogus warnings like,  & . He has a history of reverting copyvio tags, see  which still lies unresolved. He thinks just because he edits some articles where these images are linked, my tagging them amounts to harassing him. ­ Kris (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:71.201.181.10
Could someone have a look at User talk:71.201.181.10 for me as some warnings have been removed, and a threat of legal action left.

I'm not sure what is allowed with regards blanking user pages, I reverted the user page when it was blanked, and left a message stating that this shouldn't be done, and was considered to be vandalism, is this correct?

Thanks for your help 212.85.28.67 10:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The talk page has been protected. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  10:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, was I right that it is considered to be vandalism and to leave the message? Thanks again, 212.85.28.67 10:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not vandalism to remove warnings from one's talk page - this is a matter for hot debate every now-and-then. It is, however, frowned upon.
 * The content that the IP replaced it with is explicitly prohibited per WP:NLT. That's what justifies the protection. Generally, users who make legal threats on Wikipedia are blocked indefinitely (see WP:BLOCK); IP's are rarely blocked indefinitely, however, as they can be reassigned or shared. Cheers, and hope that helps, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 13:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Although as a general rule we have allowed users to remove warnings from their Talk pages, I don't think this should be applied to shared anon addresses, since other anons coming in should be allowed to see what warnings and/or blocks have been issued to that IP address in the past, so they might know if they receive warnings what has been going on. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Dduvjfa9 needs a block
I already posted at WP:AIV, but has spent his morning uploading a cover from Playboy and inserting it into a few articles (notably Teletubbies and Barney & Friends.  Account could probably use a block and all his image uploads should be reviewed and possibly deleted (I didn't look at the other images he uploaded but I suspect that they are more of the same.--Isotope23 15:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OhNoit'sJamie has already taken care of it. --  Merope  15:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, I just noticed that... The images he uploaded still could probably stand a review from someone who is at a location where a possible full page nudity display won't get them into trouble...--Isotope23 15:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and someone already got to that too. Good work.--Isotope23 15:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

User 216.73.54.2
This 216.73.54.2 constantly is vandalising pages and templates. He has been banned before, but looks like he hasn't learnt his lesson. I've reverted his edits from the damage he caused to Template:Professional Baseball. --Borgarde 16:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks from anonymous user
An anonymous user is making personal attacks in several Talk pages. See Talk:Salvador Allende, Talk:Left-wing politics, and Talk:New Left. Examples:. He is using IP addresses starting with 88.109, 88.110, or 88.111, but he is constantly changing IP address so blocking is hardly meaningful. Several of his IP addresses have been blocked though, e.g. User talk:88.110.152.110. He signs with Urgel Bogend sometimes. Vints 18:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Upset user, or immaturity
This user seems a bit upset over the Gundam deletion happening at Articles for deletion/RX-78 Gundam and Articles for deletion/AMX-104 R-Jarja. Normally I wouldn't care that he decided to conduct vote-stacking and personal attacking at the same time, but he also vandalized Doug Bell's page. Can someone tell this guy to get a grip? or at least not vandalize? -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 09:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've left a note for him. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  09:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Notifying the Wikiproject that some of their articles are AfD-ed is NOT votestacking, this should be done as common courtesy.... Kyaa the Catlord 10:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem with notifying the project in a neutral way, but this one had a personal attack and asked specifically to keep the articles, which are both things that shouldn't be done... Fram 10:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * IMHO, the person who nominated the article for deletion should have taken the step to notify the WP, which wasn't done. Yzak's understandably angry, since (again, imo) he feels that the Gundam articles are being singled out. He overreacted, fine, but calling him immature, calling for the disbandment of the Project, and revert warring on the Project page is taking it too far. Kyaa the Catlord 10:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe he did actually contact the Wikiproject, or one did.—Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 10:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the nominator of the OTHER AfD did. Not the one for the one that Yzak is going off over. Kyaa the Catlord 10:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain WikiProjects are responsible for their own votestacking. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly... WP:AGF, but given some of the behavior I've seen coming out of other Wikiprojects when articles their project are involved with get sent to AfD, I'm not so sure I'd be going out of my way to notify a Wikiproject during an AfD. Besides, I thought that was kind of the point of the project, to watch the articles.--Isotope23 16:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yzak notified the WikiProject of the AfD. My opinion, as I pointed out all in caps above, is that it would be neighborly and courteous to inform the WP's when you nominate an article with their tag on it. You don't have to be courteous, this is your own choice. Kyaa the Catlord 17:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to that opinion, but as I've stated above, AfD participation I've seen from other Wikiprojects would make me a bit leary about contacting them about an AfD... Reading through some of the AfDs linked above and the appearance of some mastodons at those discussions, I think bears out my opinion.--Isotope23 17:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone needs a bit of WP:AGF right now; or we'll have some pot, kettle, etc. Elaragirl is simply suggesting that the greater community look into the work of WP:GUNDAM and how they create articles that their area of expertise covers, which is exactly what the two AFDs are looking into.—Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 10:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that people should remember that a lot of the Gundam articles were created long before the Wikiproject was founded. Picking on the Project cause of articles that were created before it was created is low.... Kyaa the Catlord 10:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Very true, but it also up to WikiProjects to clean up existing articles as well as creating new ones.—Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 10:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we should delete WP: Fiction for having thousands of articles that violate WP:WAF first. Seriously, Wikipedia is not our job, we don't get paid to do this, we only have limitted amounts of time to spend cleaning up the mess. If you have clean up concerns, AfD is not the proper step. Kyaa the Catlord 10:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:FICTION is a guideline for articles, WP:GUNDAM is a group of people who want to work on Gundam articles. The articles are up for deletion because they are unsourced and full of unverifiable information with no assertion of importance within the metaseries.—Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 10:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever the literary wikiprojects are then. There are THOUSANDS of articles labelled for problems with WAF, compared to the few articles that WP:GUNDAM have really been involved with... Seriously, calling for the removal of the project is uncalled for and "attack"ish. Kyaa the Catlord 10:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It was uncalled for, yes.—Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 10:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

But perhaps editors like Elaragirl could tone down their comments on AfDs. It's not necessary to call the article "ridiculous", a "pile of nonsense", or to say that all the articles should be "burnt with fire". Faced with that sort of language, those who have obviously put in a lot of work on the articles might understandably get a little heated themselves. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A number of the Gundam project members are not helping their case by calling me a troll, reverting the removal of personal attacks under the edit summary 'RV Vandalism', and then threatening me with 3RR for removing them again (which is a total of 1R). Although now I've removed them again. Proto ::  ►
 * Just for clarity, I called your actions (joining into a revert war on the page) "borderline trollish". Your actions, not you. And if you do break 3RR, you should be reported for 3RR. That's common sense. Kyaa the Catlord 10:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am my actions - that's all we have to go on when relating to our fellow users here. And I would humbly suggest removing personal attacks is not a revert of the kind covered by 3RR.  Proto ::  ►  11:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, you're overreacting then. And perhaps gaming the system. Kicking someone when he's down is poor form, chap. Kyaa the Catlord 11:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, removing personal attacks is not protected behaviour from 3RR. See: . Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 11:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you say so. Reinserting them is, however, not protected behaviour in WP:NPA.  Proto ::  ►  11:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes yes, Yzak's being a naughty boy. Happy now? I thought we all agreed on that already. My problem was that you were encouraging and goading him, so I asked you to stop. Then again, maybe the Gundam kids have a point when they feel they're being harrassed and singled out by Wikipedia at large.... Kyaa the Catlord 11:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Total number of AFDs created since January 1: 1170. Total number of AFDs created since January 1 relating to Gundam: 2.   I don't see how this constitutes harrassment and singling out (nor even how the 'Gundam kids' could feel like they are being harrassed or singled out).  Proto ::  ►  13:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yawn. *last word*. Kyaa the Catlord 13:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of the WP:OWN violations by WikiProjects. Nobody has an obligation to notify any of the thousands of projects that one of the articles they have (or have not) slapped their templates on has been nominated for AfD. If they're really all that concerned with the articles they claim to be trying to improve, wouldn't at least one of the people involved in the project patrol all of the articles they are claiming ownership on at least once in a five day period? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sick and tired of people bitching when other people ask to be treated with courtesy and common sense. What happened here was that one of the members of the WikiProject DID check, then posted about it on the WikiProject and was accused of vote-stacking for his efforts! Personally, I'm sick and tired of people not reading articles they vote on in AfD, not reading discussions they take part of on noticeboards or talk pages and then making off-topic posts about how they're sick and tired of something.... Kyaa the Catlord 17:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, he was accused of attacking ("Some idiots", "keeping it out of the hands of this deletionist anti-Gundam cabal") and vandalizing an administrator's userpage. There's a pretty big difference between what you're saying happened and what actually happened.  Had he/she simply notified the Wikiproject, then we wouldn't be here.  —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b>  ¿?  17:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In case you missed it, I already agreed that what Yzak did was pretty damn stupid. But Zoe seems to have missed the fact that Elaragirl did exactly what she asks others to not do on her talk page, or get flamed, she whined after wikistalking Yzak. It wasn't the WP that escalated this case, it wasn't Yzak who fanned the flames on the WP discussion page.... The WP:Gundam, and those who are defending the page on AfD, for the most part have acted in a straight up manner. Kyaa the Catlord 17:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that you would rather attack me than to address my concerns without how WikiProjects continue to feel as if the guidelines and policies which are supposed to apply to the entire encyclopedia do not apply to them. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Victim card played! Well done. Kyaa the Catlord 18:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This hurts. The incivility and blatant votestacking involved in that post just staggers. I've seen few more blatant examples. Wikiproject votestacking is becoming a real concern. Plenty keep lists of their stuff that is up for deletion, and these are often abused. Moreschi Deletion! 17:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If AfD worked, votestacking wouldn't be any issue. AfD is not a vote, right? It is the weight of evidence and the arguments made that matter. So, regardless of the cries of "votestacking" being made, all that should matter is the discussion. The raw number of keeps vs. deletes made by sheep deletionist/inclusionists should have no bearing whatsoever.... unless of course, they can out-argue those who have a fetish for watching AfD. Kyaa the Catlord 17:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is when an AfD gets inundated with scores of WP:ILIKEIT and "Me too" !voters who think that it is avote and get upset that their numbers are the only criterion which should be considered. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And that's when the closing admin should use his or her brain and only consider those "votes" which contain arguments built off policy and guidelines. Refactoring away the mindless votes is a good place to start, then building off the arguments, the admin should use reason to make a decision. Informing people, perhaps experts, on the subject of the article in question of the AfD would help gather input from persons who KNOW about the article, rather than basing the decision off of those who merely scan or less the article before placing their two cents in. Kyaa the Catlord 18:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You ought to see the amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth at DRVs when we "use our brains and only consider arguments built off policy". Fortunately, not too many people have realised that DRV is an accident waiting to happen. And the trouble with "experts" only contributing in such areas is that the majority of "experts" in areas such as Gundam, Pokemon, Warcraft, etc, are 15 year old boys (generalising slightly), who will refuse to let the Evil Deletionist Nazi Admin Cabal crush and destroy their freedom of speech and Right To Cruft.  Proto ::  ►  18:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice stereotyping. This shows you know absolutely nothing about Gundam or anime fandom in Japan. This is precisely the type of bias I was pointing out all morning in the AfD, the sort of false belief that noone but 15 year old pimply geeks could possibly like anime, or that an anime such as Gundam could have an impact on the pop, and regular for that matter, culture of Japan. (Refactor: I don't intend this to slight or attack you, it is just my experience that the average person in the US does not have any clue what sort of impact anime, manga and its related materials have on Japan as a whole and judge Japan based on their US/Western European Culture-centric view of anime geeks.) Kyaa the Catlord 19:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I did say I was generalising and only the majority were of that ilk. Perhaps it would be better to apologise for any percieved stereotyping (sorry), and say that fans of Gundam, Pokemon, etc, are very fiercely devoted fans, and very often believe they and they alone know what is best for their topic, irrespective of Wikipedia policy.  Proto ::  ►  19:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey no worries, I'm a bit shell-shocked at this point. :P Its not every day you discover that, yes Victoria, there is a cabal. And well, I'm a grown-up who watches cartoons and is a bit bloody touchy about it. :P Kyaa the Catlord 19:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have seen his contributions. Also be aware that Yzak is a vandal-only account, so the next move he makes, you should report him to WP:AIV. --WTGDMan1986 (D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams) 17:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is very much not true, and unfounded accusations are neither helpful nor constructive. Yzak is upset and has a shaky grasp of WP:OWN and is being very incivil at times because of it, but is not a 'vandal only account'.  Proto ::  ►  18:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just looking through Yzak's contributions and I agree with Proto, this is an spurious statement. Yzak's actions here appear to have been done out of frustration, but incivility != vandalism. Since it was Yzak's actions that started this whole thread and he appears to have taken the advice SlimVirgin gave him, I think it's about time to let this one go.--Isotope23 19:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

While not retracting my criticism of Elaragirl, I must admit that the above exchange demonstrates pretty clearly that some, at least, of the Gundamn defenders don't need provocation to set off their incivility and unpleasantness. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, BACK UP. Kyaa, did you just accuse me of wikistalking? I see something that looks very much like vandalism. I warn the guy. I check his contribs, I see he's not a vandal only account, he's done some contributing, I try to find out why, I find a PERSONAL ATTACK on WP:GUNDAM, and I report that, then I go to vote on AfD's (one of which I voted on before this all began), and you call that WIKISTALKING? Apologize. Either that, or stop saying everyone else is not following AGF and "whining" about civility. I, for one, agree with Zoe. I'm sick of project owning articles. I'm really insulted by the fact that if I try to fix something I'm stalking, but if you dismiss everyone who isn't a huge Gundam fan by saying their vote on AfD is worthless because they only "scan" the article, you're being helpful? Somebody give this guy the Wikihalo, he's a model Wikipedian! -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, you follow the guy around and point out his mistakes. You form an agenda to attack him. Sounds like stalking to me. If the shoe fits... Kyaa the Catlord 23:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's time for the personal attacks to end, now, Kyaa. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Its time for you to review what is not a personal attack. "Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user." I have not personally attacked anyone. I have commented on their actions. Which I'll admit, I could be wrong about.... Kyaa the Catlord 23:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no futher comments to make to this person, other than to note that further personal attacks could result in a block. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of this user's comments, such as suggesting people are "misusing" AfD, accusing others of being ignorant and not qualified to comment, and (my favorite) placing his own actions in the best possible light while casting everyone else's in the worst possible light is truly ... something. Unlike some people, though, I won't call this person a troll or accuse him of trolling behavior like he has to Proto, I'll simply suggest that you are coming off as unreasonable, and that accusing people of wikistalking is low. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 23:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Goes for a cup of tea, anyone want some? Kyaa the Catlord 23:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that there's any point trying to reason with Kyaa the Catlord, I'm afraid. This section could grow indefinitely, with editors trying to explain how he's mistaken, that he's behaving unreasonably and uncivilly, etc., and it's just going to spark off more dreary snideness. I suggest that people don't feed the troll. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Get me some hot chocolate! And no, I haven't been lurking in this discussion waiting for a chance at tea... ^_^ JuJube 23:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Good man - ok, there are a lot of issues in here - I really think that everyone needs to step back and take a deep breath. This "gundam" issue has popped up on a number of boards and has gone beyond this individual editor and I'm seeing editors "digging" at each other (and I hold my hands up here as well) in a number of places. It's pretty silly to let it develop into a them/us issue - we are wikipedians first and foremost. Many of those articles predate the Gundam project and it is a big job to clean them all up. On the other hand, I would suggest that the Gundam project looks at it's to-do list - removes the expand for the moment and concentrate solely on merging/editing and even AFDing articles that don't need to exist (and let's be honest there are lots of those). I am going to join the wikiproject as a "lay" member (to try and reduce some of the concerns about WP:OWN) and hopefully a couple of other people who are not interested in Gundam but are interested in developing an encyclopedia could pitch in.

--Charlesknight 23:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A lengthyish list of personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and general incivilty by editors of this wikiproject has been made below at . Many of the comments made at the talk page of the project have been beyond the pale. Moreschi Deletion! 20:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi's POINT campaign of Gundam articles
In what I can only describe as an act of WP:POINTism with regard to the recent firestorms over the two current Gundam AfDs, has engaged in a mass PROD campaign of nearly every Gundam related article while taunting WP:GUNDAM that he will not inform them which articles are proded. --Farix (Talk) 22:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And this is a concern of admins how? Have you tried Dispute resolution? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed link ✎ Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 22:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Aren't WP:POINT issues suppose to brought to ANI? --Farix (Talk) 23:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

PRODs are easily contested. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are. But the reasoning behind this, the taunting of the WP, this should be investigated. Kyaa the Catlord 23:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This does, on its face, appear to me to be POINTish. I have notified Moreschi of this posting so that we can get that side of the story. —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b> ¿?  23:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * POINTish? No. Quite simply, these articles should be deleted. I stand by every one of those PROD nominations, nearly all of which were in fact valid speedy candidates as none of them actually asserted notability. To boot, all of them were unreferenced, and all of them were written from a non-real-world perspective. They failed WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FICT, and probably WP:OR as well in a large majority of cases.


 * My posting at Wikiproject Gundam was simply in the nature of courtesy mixed with humour: it seemed right that the Wikiproject be notified, and I thought that the quickest way for them to see which one were nominated was to check through my contribs.


 * Anyway, editors are of course perfectly free to remove these PROD tags, but I will simply put all of the articles I tagged together in a mass AFD. I was very fair about what I did and did not nominate: where an article contained an assertion of notability or even a mention of real life - because most of these articles did not, that bad - I left the article untouched. I resent any suggestion that I disrupted Wikipedia just to prove a point. All just part of deletion clean-up duties. Moreschi Deletion! 08:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite wanting to set precedent, mass AFD noms never work. I've already put up five of the articles you prodded up individually for AFD, whereas others I feel did assert an importance.—Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 09:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Taunting"? It seems to me Moreschi was merely making a wry comment on the mass incivility on display at the WP:GUNDAM talk page. Not a pretty sight and not something it would be wise to draw administrators' attention to, I would have thought. As for the mass deletion, that's simply consistency. Most of those articles have the same problems conforming to WP policy. They're all much of a muchness, as far as I can see, so why nominate one and not the others? --Folantin 11:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, some of the stuff on display there is not a pretty sight. If anyone wants an update, I've nommed a whole load more at WP:AFD and current consensus is either to delete outright or to get rid of the individual articles and merge them to a list elsewhere. Moreschi Deletion! 15:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nominations continuing...meanwhile, I've listed the evidence of double standards below at . Moreschi Deletion! 19:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and harassment by
This user has been maliciously (IMO) tagging images related to Tamil people and History of Tamil Nadu with copyvio tags without valid reason. See this. You will notice that he only targets images used in the above two articles. Image:Wallajah3.jpg is used with the full permission from V& A museum and the image was specifically provided to me by them, although should cover this image. I have the email as proof.

User:Srkris never follows the process in tagging images. As he has been advised before, if the image contains a valid license, ignoring WP:AGF is a pretty drastic step unless one has indisputable proof against it. In the case of Image:Wallajah3.jpg I can only classify his actions as malicious and disruptive. - Parthi talk/contribs 03:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My case is pretty simple - this user is repeatedly reverting no-license tags without proper reasons, see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. He says he wants to presume that the image is in PD, which I've said he cant. I have only tagged those images that dont have proper licensing information. ­ Kris (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not 'pretty simple'. All the images this user is tagging belong to the articles I've been editing. All the images he has been tagging had license and source information before he deleted them and replaced with the no-license tag. Look at the file histories. Thanks Parthi talk/contribs 04:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If I see a couple of poorly tagged images, I will hunt down through that user's history and see if there are more such instances. There is nothing more problematic than seeing obvious tv-screenshots tagged as pd-user, for instance. An email that you get does not qualify as a source; the museum has to send the permission to permissions AT wikimedia.org. You'll get the OTRS ticket number, which will then count as a valid source. Hbdragon88 05:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. This user has done a lot more reverts of copyvio tags. See examples at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive68 which is still unresolved. ­ Kris (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also see ­ Kris (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Help
I would like to request an Admins help. IP number User talk:66.90.137.157(Contributions) has been systematically editing the following articles for the last month or so: The Sword, Age of Winters, List of doom metal bands, Heavy metal music. The user is an apparant SPA that continually removes any reference to The Sword from the music articles and reverts the genre of the band away from the consensus, which is Doom Metal, to Hard Rock (which seems to be his and only his opinion) with no reason given, completely ignoring cited sources that state the genre is Doom Metal. Regardless of what myself or the other editors say on any of the articles talk pages, or the users talk page, they make no comments. If they were responding to attempts to communicate with them, I would have taken this to the mediation board, but since the user remains silent, I was unsure if this would even be effective, so I'm posting this request here. If an admin could either preside over this conflict, or point me in the direction of someone who can better help me, I'll be very thankful. The Kinslayer 14:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've noticed the latest edits of the sort you are describing are by Huseregrav.--Isotope23 15:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought so! He was the user who started the revert war and stopped after being warned by 2 people, then the IP started warring. I also suspect the account of User:Drtuttle of being a sock account of his too. Well, Guess that means I can take it to the Sock board now! Thanks! The Kinslayer 15:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * From looking at this it appears that Huseregrav and User:66.90.137.157 are basically a couple of single purpose accounts that only edit The Sword related articles and content with no real attempt at discussing changes. I'd say a sharp warning is in order.  Also, Articles for deletion/the sword could probably be deleted as an unecessary page (the actual AfD happened here.--Isotope23 15:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I reported Husregrav on the sock board, I can't really think of anything else I can do with regards to him really, since he refuses to respond to anyone. The Kinslayer 15:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If they are the same person then he or she did WP:SOCK on the AfD... Regardless I left them a reminder to use talk pages to discuss changes rather than edit war.--Isotope23 15:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I called him out as a sock puppet at the time, but I didn't have enough spare time to try and follow up on it at the time. That's now been remedied, it's too bad there's a huge backlog on the sock board, but at leats things are in motion. The Kinslayer 16:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate someone doing something meaningful to help in the meantime, as he's still reverting all the articles and frankly it's a pain in the arse having to fix the up to 3 times a day. The Kinslayer 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:V issue at Lindsay Lohan?
The question: does the University Park Gazette qualify as a reliable source within verifiability standards? (Further discussion here.) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 15:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's an issue of "undue weight" rather than verifiability. The issue is that a local paper published that a star dated someone local. Well, that may or may not be true, but we don't care. She's single, popular, and not in a monastic order, so presumably she dates people. Unless there is something unusual or very important about this particular date (are they engaged to each other? engaged to someone else? expecting a child together? jumping up and down on Oprah's couch?), it's not worth a sentence in her article. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that person's supposed to be a major sports star there, though his Wikipedia article smacks of hyperbole even after an NPOV purge, but... I appreciate the input&mdash;and I only care because it was on the edge of a WP:3RR issue... ;) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 16:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Even so - I'm sure she dates mostly reasonably rich and famous people, it's what famous people do. Unless there is something unusual about this one, it doesn't deserve mention. It's like her wearing clothes and eating food, we assume she does it. Now a fashion magazine may write an article about her wearing such-and-such an outfit, or a restaurant may proudly post a photograph of her eating there, but unless it's somehow notable, we don't care. If she left a husband or a monastic order to date this guy, yes, it would be notable. If he's just another out of dozens, so what? AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For the foreseeable future, I definitely agree. If, on the other hand, another editor is going to keep adding this data, I want to be absolutely sure that its removal is correct. Thanks again. :) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 16:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is any consolation, it appears the whole thing, including the William Foran article, is a big old WP:HOAX.--Isotope23 16:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a group of children (User:Keelerface, User:65.164.51.130, User:75.9.37.179, User:Rpritchie) participating in a coordinated hoax regarding "William Foran," who is a backup QB at Princeton. I am working through it now. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'd just noticed the similarity of those users/IP's and was going to post it here for review, but looks like you are already on the case.--Isotope23 16:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Bill Foran article has been deleted and salted. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, William Foran didn't actually get protected even though you were in the protection log. I reprotected it. Syrthiss 17:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Props to Hipocrite for sticking it out; once I confirmed that Foran exists, I abandoned that angle in favor of locating the supposed source which, as one might imagine, failed. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 18:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste vandalism
Musimax has continually moved the text of G4techTV Canada to G4techTV (Canada) by cutting and pasting it. I informed Musimax that this was improper (and explained why), and he/she did so again. I then advised Musimax that further instances would constitute vandalism, and he/she performed another C&P move. I then warned Musimax that if he/she did this again, I would report him/her and recommend a temporary block (which I won't place myself, given the fact that I've expressed an opinion regarding the correct page title). Musimax then performed another C&P move. As I was typing this, he/she did so yet again.

In addition to a temporary block, I recommend full protection for the G4techTV (Canada) redirect (pending the outcome of a possible move request, which I've repeatedly advised Musimax to list). &mdash;David Levy 18:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Protected the redirect, still wondering whether to block. Mart inp23 18:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I blocked for 24h. Even if cut and paste moving wasn't disruptive, he hit 3RR. Syrthiss 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * User has emailed me and I've told him he can be unblocked if he will refrain from cut and paste moves. Syrthiss 19:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * User is unblocked. Syrthiss 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much, Martinp23 & Syrthiss, for addressing this matter so promptly. :-)  &mdash;David Levy 20:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Cicero Dog breaching ban
User:Cicero Dog is breaching has permaban with the User:Der Hund Von Cicero sockpuppet. Please block. Computerjoe 's talk 20:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Got him probably just as you were typing this up. Metros232 20:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing others comments
User:Michaelsanders has repeatedly edited my comments, even after I have asked him not to do so:. A block or other admin action would be appreciated. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've warned him not to do it again. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

4.21.129.195, falsely attributed statements
4.21.129.195, currently blocked for a week, has sought unblocking and has been denied, and is now posting derogatory statements on his talk page that he then signs to make it appear that I wrote them. (See this old version, final statement on page: ) I respectfully ask that the block be extended for a longer duration, as I think this user is now becoming petty and malicious. (I posted this on the AIV page, but a bot automatically removed it.) 1995hoo 20:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a kibitzer here; Feel free to delete those statements. An IP talk page isn't really owned by anybody.  (And in fact a registered user doesn't really own his talk page.) --BenBurch 20:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Believe me, I delete them as I see them. 1995hoo 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4.21.129.195 is making trolling comments on his talk page. Is there any harm in simply sprotecting the page for the duration of the block?  1995hoo, I know how frustrating this can be, but you may just want to ignore him/her.  See WP:RBI. --BigDT 21:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't know anything about protecting a page.  I may just let it go and see what happens.....after all, what rational person would ever think someone would say "I have a small penis" about himself (well, other than Howard Stern)?  Thanks for the support. 1995hoo 21:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're very patient, 1995. I've semiprotected the page, he can't edit it anymore. Thanks for trying to safeguard Wikipedia. --Deskana (For Great Justice!)  21:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ivana Miličević semi-protect
Ivana Miličević has been semi-protected for over a month now. I think it would be appropriate to un-semiprotect it.--Isotope23 20:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, you can make this request on WP:RFP. --BigDT 21:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do... I never noticed there was an unprotection sub page. Of course I've noticed now it is called out in the banner at the top.  Ugh.  I need to get some sleep.--Isotope23 21:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)