Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive305

Can someone talk to this user?

JayKeaton has been causing me some grief over at Talk:Halo 3, accusing me and others of being Microsoft toadies, and me directly of working for Microsoft in an effort to remove criticism of the game. I've already risen to his baiting once before, and I'd rather stay out of it and keep cool, but could someone else talk to him? He appears to have had civility issues in the past. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Warned, for making comments like this one. Mr.Z-man 01:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I strive for complete NPOV in all articles and for popular articles a wide range of sources, from the positive to the negative. For the article in question, the positive side was well taken care of (even before the release of the game that the article is about), so weeding out the zealots who simply love the game from the people that want to improve the article is important. And "he" has a name, thank you. JayKeaton 01:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't what you said, it was how you said it. Name-calling may make you feel good, but temperate language will win more people to your side. Raymond Arritt 01:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I could have phrased what I said a little better, it is just a little frustrating dealing with some of the things people are saying there, the logic that goes behind a lot of the actions that go on in that article. Logic and reason seem to go out the window : ( JayKeaton 01:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't know the absence of logic and reasoning. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 02:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon ^_^ Now theres a subject I wouldn't touch with 30 foot Charizard, those pages must get so many deletions so often that the argument of server space and bandwidth would be moot; more server activity must go on in the talk pages, deletion history and stuff than actually goes into the articles themselves. JayKeaton 09:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

MDG Computers

An IP address belonging to MDG computers [1] is regularly editing the MDG article to remove information regarding criticisms of MDG. Is this allowed and, if not, what can be done about it? F Mita 12:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not, and as it is a static IP, we can block it for five years. Neil ム 12:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Which I have done, by the way. Neil ム 12:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We have had a lot of problems relating to MDG Computers's IP addresses editing their own article. If I remember correctly they have a small static IP range (66.207.102.144/29), it might be worth it to block their whole range for an extended time, but they have not edited the article since the last time I blocked the range. Mr.Z-man 17:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Parrottse

This appears to be a vandalism-only account with no positive edits whatsoever. It has a long history of childish nonsense edits and page blanking and it's on the loose again. --PMDrive1061 15:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Next time use WP:AIV to make reports for overt-vandalism. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User : Devanampriya

Devanampriya

• Devanampriya (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 170.251.249.66 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 207.229.183.131 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Code letter: E & G

I have reasons to believe User:Devanampriya in using anon. accounts to prevail in an edit-war in Maurya Empire and other related ancient India articles, and break the WP:3RR without being seen. After reverting all of his edits, anon 170.251.249.66 (talk · contribs) reverts each of them straight back to the edits of user Devanampriya. Plus his mannerisms and insults are identical, why else would an anon attack me with the exact same phrases in contrast to just pointing out my error whilst remaining civil?

Also anon 207.229.183.131 (talk · contribs) appears to be Devanampriya as he also uses the same mannerisms and uncivility in regards to his edit summaries. Also his edits are identical to those shown above. ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 18:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

 Clerk assistance requested: Please format page. --Deskana (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: Done. Note that 207.229.183.131 seems to have been found to be unrelated in a previous check. WjBscribe 02:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

 Confirmed. All the same. Not quite sure how they were unrelated in the past, but there you are. --Deskana (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Dear All,

I believe I need to clear up my good name on account of Giani's attempt to slander me.

• Any incivility that occurred was due to Giani's numerous attacks on users such as Vastu (see Indo Greek discussion)and myself. Simply because we disagreed with user PHG and attempted to negotiate with him, we were marked for attack. Vastu, you will note, refrained from response in spite of numerous provocations.
• I was not using or attempting to use sockpuppets to prevail in an edit war. I, like many of you, have other obligations and cannot always edit from my main computer. I sign on when possible. If you'll take a note at the edit history, the I believe the 3RR rule was not violated either through IP address or my SN. If it was, I sincerely apologize and I will do my best to make sure it does not happen again.
• Take a look at Giani G's contribs. He has been exclusively cyberstalking me ever since user PHG--who is under review for original research and tendentious editing--put him up to it. All of his edits recently have been kneekjerk reverts without even responding to my points. They simply accuse me of vandalism. From the moment I sign on, he is on my tail needlessly.
• Even his associate Aldux noted that at least one of my edits (see Porus page) had merit. And when I made corrections on the Alexander page (i.e the image of Alexander with his elephant cap) where it said "Alexander's Conquest of India", all I did was change it to "Alexander's conquests in India" which is more accurate (over 85-90% of India was untouched by him). Even though Giani changed it and drummed up some irrelevant reason, the other editors recognized the merit of my argument and retained it.
• He has repeatedly slandered me with accusations of Nationalism simply because I correct mistakes pertaining to India. So is it not natural for me to then respond and accuse him of eurocentrism?
• Giani's blatant accusations of vandalism have been attempts to cover up for his uncertain knowledge on many topics. He simply attempts to impose PHG's actions (which are under review above) and not legitimately respond to issues. This is counter to wikipedia's philosophy.

This of course calls into question Giani's motivations. He is clearly engaging in tendentious editing, much like PHG, and this I believe should be noted by the review board. Please let me know if you have any questions. Again, I apologize for any unintended missteps. If I can be of any assistance in this process, please let me know. My edits, as you will note from my accompanying comments, are meant to ensure the accuracy of these articles--I wish I could say the same for other editors.

Regards,

Devanampriya 17:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Devanampriya's response

This is rubbish, Devanampriya is well known for being caustic but I'll adress his points:

1.Any incivility that occurred was due to Giani's numerous attacks on users such as Vastu (see Indo Greek discussion)and myself. Simply because we disagreed with user PHG and attempted to negotiate with him, we were marked for attack. Vastu, you will note, refrained from response in spite of numerous provocations.

I made no uncivil claims against Vastu, I was merely pointing out Vastu's lack of credibility regarding the Indo Greek article and my comments can still be seen on the talk page on Vastu. It wasn't only me who called Vastu's credibility into question but other users as well. Do a control + F "giani" on the link : Talk:Indo-Greek_Kingdom#MAPS:_THE_RESURRECTION

2.I was not using or attempting to use sockpuppets to prevail in an edit war. I, like many of you, have other obligations and cannot always edit from my main computer. I sign on when possible. If you'll take a note at the edit history, the I believe the 3RR rule was not violated either through IP address or my SN. If it was, I sincerely apologize and I will do my best to make sure it does not happen again.

The evidence speaks for itself, two previous checks failed to prove that he was however the recent check I called for has and has confirmed past suspicions of Devanampriya's previous two years of wrong doing. Do check the comments regarding the check as it has been confirmed.

3.Take a look at Giani G's contribs. He has been exclusively cyberstalking me ever since user PHG--who is under review for original research and tendentious editing--put him up to it. All of his edits recently have been kneekjerk reverts without even responding to my points. They simply accuse me of vandalism. From the moment I sign on, he is on my tail needlessly.

That's irrelevant as I am undoing Devanampriya's destructive contributions to wikipedia.

4.Even his associate Aldux noted that at least one of my edits (see Porus page) had merit. And when I made corrections on the Alexander page (i.e the image of Alexander with his elephant cap) where it said "Alexander's Conquest of India", all I did was change it to "Alexander's conquests in India" which is more accurate (over 85-90% of India was untouched by him). Even though Giani changed it and drummed up some irrelevant reason, the other editors recognized the merit of my argument and retained it.

Aldux is not MY associate, whom ever Devanampriya disagrees gets lumped together as though we're all plotting in a conspiracy against him. as for India, when discussing ANCIENT India the Indus and the Hindu Kush is described as India hence my revertions in the same way modern day Afghanistan is no longer considered a part of India but Devanampriya doesn't seem to mind if Afghanistan isn't mentioned everytime India is discussed in these articles.

5.He has repeatedly slandered me with accusations of Nationalism simply because I correct mistakes pertaining to India. So is it not natural for me to then respond and accuse him of eurocentrism?

He removes SOURCED information because he is very xenophobic. These arn't mistakes as he likes to put it but are pieces of information relevant to the location and time within the article so do check MY contribution history to see what he removes. He calls all sorts of historians colonial even if they are writing about another civilisation eg he calls Tarn a British historian a colonialist even though he studies history regarding ancient Greeks in India. Do check the Talk:Indo-Greek_Kingdom as he slanders other respected historians of various nationalities with the same charge (as they do not support his view).

6.Giani's blatant accusations of vandalism have been attempts to cover up for his uncertain knowledge on many topics. He simply attempts to impose PHG's actions (which are under review above) and not legitimately respond to issues. This is counter to wikipedia's philosophy.

I admit my knowledge regarding the articles in question are not very high, however that is not to say that Devanampriya's knowledge is any superior which I think may even be worse as he demonstrates this with his poor editing skill, uncivility and lack of rhetoric.

If you require evidence of his hostility, do check his contribution history as he tends to fill his edit summaries with personal attacks. Also do not forget to check the the edit summaries of the sock puppets above as they are also full of personal attacks. If you require specific examples do message me and I'll provide them.

([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 13:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

Rebuttal to Giani G's note above

That's irrelevant as I am undoing Devanampriya's destructive contributions to wikipedia.

Undoing my destructive contributions? You admit that you have no knowledge on the topic, but have the temerity to call my contributions destructive? That makes no sense Giani g. You've just proven my point. Where is your evidence of my lack of knowledge? How are the edits destructive? You make knee jerk accusations of vandalism, but can't back it up because your "knowledge regarding the articles in question are not very high".

Let the admins note that giani g makes blanket accusations without any evidence. This is the reason why I stopped logging in, because he doesn't take the time to educate himself on the topic and simply deletes everything without thinking. Even Aldux, his own admin enabler recognized this here [[2]]. This is the problem, and this is why giani g is degrading wikipedia's accuracy.

He removes SOURCED information because he is very xenophobic.

Umm, the content that was removed was MISOURCED. Narain did not endorse the views that PHG was advocating. And Tarn is an established philhellenic writer by his own admission. Have you ever read Tarn? Why don't you start with that instead of talking about topics that you have no exposure to or remote command of.

Here is E. Seldeslachts, a EUROPEAN scholar on Tarn:

"The reconstruction of Tarn, fascinating as it is, is now largely outdated" (p.265). End of the Road for the Indo Greeks.

So you keep reinstated OBSOLETE material Giani. And you call my removal of this vandalism? Shame on you.

Where are your references giani g? Where are your legitimate contributions to the related pages? You never back anything up, just parrot PHG's lead. If any critique is made, you yell "Incivility".

as for India, when discussing ANCIENT India the Indus and the Hindu Kush is described as India hence my revertions in the same way modern day Afghanistan is no longer considered a part of India but Devanampriya doesn't seem to mind if Afghanistan isn't mentioned everytime India is discussed in these articles.

Umm, other than putting your complete lack of knowledge of India and relevant historiography on display, I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here. "India" referred to the whole subcontinent, hence herodotus' descriptions of indians with fine hair in the north and those with hair reminiscent of ethiopians in the south, etc, in his histories. So I don't know what your source for this is here, but PHG doesn't count as a reference. Why don't you focus on topics that you actually know about, and I'm hoping there's at least one.

I made no uncivil claims against Vastu, I was merely pointing out Vastu's lack of credibility regarding the Indo Greek article and my comments can still be seen on the talk page on Vastu. It wasn't only me who called Vastu's credibility into question but other users as well. Do a control + F "giani" on the link : Talk:Indo-Greek_Kingdom#MAPS:_THE_RESURRECTION

Exactly, you are attacking his credibility even though he knows more about the topic than you do (by your own admission above, you clearly are ignorant on the topic). And if that's not proof enough, this post certainly is:

"Hi PHG, could you please give me a list of sources (i.e. the books used) for your Indo-Greek map, as it stands I do think your map should remain though I would just like to see the sources for my self to make sure, the arguements used against it seem very weak with an ulterior motive (i.e. out of xenophobia and anti-European sentiment) Plus I don't think Narain should be considered as a reliable source in comparison with Tarn (Eurocentric? Oh come on, Europeans are generally apathetic towards each other), Busagali as he is Indian himself during an anti-colonial, xenophobic and patriotic era. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Giani g (talk • contribs) 21:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)." [[3]]

So let's see, you don't know what you are talking about but you comment. You ask PHG for sources so you can do his dirty work. You know nothing about Narain but attempt to discredit him. Then you make the most nonsensical claim about europeans. I think this speaks for itself.

BTW: this isn't uncivil?

"Vastu blatantly threw away his credibility when he revealed this map:

So I don't think we have to go over wether Vastu was right or not. I must say I prefer PHG's map to any other seen here so far. As for the unjust and pedantic criticism aimed at the article, well the article was peer reviewed and made featured status. I really don't see the bias or the POV in the article because it just doesn't exist, "aggrandize" my arse! I seriously would like quotes from the critics to be lifted out of the article if it's that bad. (Giani g 16:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC))"

[[4]]

You debase the quality of dialogue with your crude language and accusations. I suggest you wash your mouth with soap, or at least get some word-a-day toilet paper to enhance your poor vocabulary.

To the Admins:

As you can see, Giani G, by his own admission, has no knowledge on the topic. He simply reverts anything I contribute to without even digesting it. Even his own associate and supporter Aldux reprimanded him on one occasion because of the brazen and thoughtless hatred he bears towards me. If there is inaccurate, misourced, and obsolete content, it is incumbent upon editors to remove it. That it what I have sought to do. Giani g only interferes and harms the wikipedia system. Please take this into consideration and reprimand him for his immature behavior.

Best Regards,

Devanampriya 04:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Further evidence to show user Devanampriya's uncivil behaviour

Undoing my destructive contributions? You admit that you have no knowledge on the topic

Please I said no such thing. "I admit my knowledge regarding the articles in question are not very high, however that is not to say that Devanampriya's knowledge is any superior" That's nothing like saying I have no knowledge Now Devanampriya is reverting and pretty calling much calling me stupid in his summaries as seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_the_Great&diff=prev&oldid=161730699

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maurya_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=161730074

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Satavahana&diff=prev&oldid=161729417

"The reconstruction of Tarn, fascinating as it is, is now largely outdated" (p.265). End of the Road for the Indo Greeks."

Wow you're quote mining something you do not know about, check the Indo Greek talk page regarding this. Devanampriya has done this before, he cherry picks quotes to suit his agenda but forgets context is also very important.

So let's see, you don't know what you are talking about but you comment. You ask PHG for sources so you can do his dirty work. You know nothing about Narain but attempt to discredit him. Then you make the most nonsensical claim about europeans. I think this speaks for itself.

No I have to confirm his work is based on fact, I'm asking him for his sources so I can see for myself. Not sure why verifying information is a bad thing... I make a nonsensical claim about Europeans? What was it? Was it how Europeans don't like to be lumped together i.e. Germans, French, English being considered one homogenous lump as you seem to imply. I'm from the UK and I find your Eurocentric claims very silly as we don't hold hands with one another as you seem to imply

Where are your references giani g? Where are your legitimate contributions to the related pages? You never back anything up, just parrot PHG's lead. If any critique is made, you yell "Incivility".

Look at my contributions, look at the diffs, the information is sourced by credible people, the evidence speaks for itself.

I could critique the rest of his reply but I think he's done enough damage without me revealing anymore dirt ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 13:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

Conclusion on Giani G

Rebuttal of Giani G (unbolded)

Wow you're quote mining something you do not know about, check the Indo Greek talk page regarding this. Devanampriya has done this before, he cherry picks quotes to suit his agenda but forgets context is also very important.

Actually, cherrypicking is precisely the charged levelled by Elonka and myself about PHG (see above).

As for your claim about me, umm, I actually read the entirety of that document, have you? The discussion on the Indo greek page specifically notes that PHG was ignoring E.Seldeslachts’ premise in End of the Road for the Indo Greeks. Do you know what he even wrote about? Have you read it? The paper, “End of the Road for the Indo Greeks” supported the thesis that there simply is not enough information to make such specific claims about the Indo greeks based on an author’s interpretation of Indian mythological literature (i.e. the puranas). In short, you cannot confirm any greek rule on the gangetic plain. So how can you say I'm cherry picking when you don't even know what the article is about?

No I have to confirm his work is based on fact, I'm asking him for his sources so I can see for myself. Not sure why verifying information is a bad thing...

That’s the thing, you don’t verify information. You simply use phg as your reference and revert back to his changes as seen here [[5]]

I make a nonsensical claim about Europeans? What was it? Was it how Europeans don't like to be lumped together i.e. Germans, French, English being considered one homogenous lump as you seem to imply. I'm from the UK and I find your Eurocentric claims very silly as we don't hold hands with one another as you seem to imply

Umm, yeah, but europe has a history of eurocentrism and racism, as evidenced by your Lord Macauley’s minute on India. If you can’t recognize the colonial bias that even modern western scholars admit, you only prove my point. It is no secret that the british crafted a narrative of invasions in India so as to defend their rule of the subcontinent. Tarn himself discusses how he saw the british as modern day greeks on a civilizing mission—a.k.a—white man’s burden.

Look at my contributions, look at the diffs, the information is sourced by credible people, the evidence speaks for itself.

What contributions? There are no sources provided by you on the indo greek and india pages or any discussion pages? In fact, you were asking PHG for sources since you no nothing on the topic (See above). I don’t like accusing people of lying, but some times you just have to call the sky blue because it’s blue. The fact is Alexander did not conquer India, where is your source that states that he ever conquered the Entire Indian Subcontinent.

Note: Giani g cannot and does not provide any specific evidence to back up his content claims. This is the root of the problem. He just makes loose generalizations.

The problem is that Giani g covers his unfamiliarity with these topics by misrepresenting them and by trying to dig up “dirt” on me. He is not interested in scholarly debate because, unfortunately, he does not actual study any of these topics. He merely does PHG’s dirty work of attacking me. This is the reason for my drawing attention to his inability to cite sources.

Bottom line: Giani, if you want to talk about the facts, I am more than willing to, as I have repeatedly stated on your discussion page. But I am not interested in trading barbs with you since you are the cause of the very same incivility you decry.

Admins: if you have any more questions please let me know; otherwise, I believe sufficient evidence of Giani’s knee jerk reverting, irrational support of phg, unwillingness to read sources or reference material, and dismissal of honest debate has been presented. I do not make these claims to insult Giani g, but the very same discussion pages and articles that he points out are evidence of this. Please take a look at the links I provided on my second rejoinder to Giani as that essentially sums everything up. I consider this discussion complete.

Devanampriya 01:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Devanampriya, since these were your IPs, why didn't you admit it at the previous two checks (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Devanampriya)? It's clear the undisclosed use of these IPs gave you an advantage in edit wars, regardless of whether you violated the 3RR with them. Since you've done this on multiple occasions, why should we trust your word that you will not use IPs abusively in the future? You run a strong chance of being blocked if you are caught editing via any username or IP other than Devanampriya (talk · contribs), for any reason. Also, please don't use edit summaries like this again. If you have evidence of misbehavior on Giani g's part, please present it, concisely. Both of you, no one particularly wants to read all of that up there. Even skimming it takes a while. Picaroon (t) 23:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Eugenics

User:EliasAlucard on Nazi Eugenics is here

• removing the 3 valid applications of the source O'Mathúna (2006), which I had inserted, 2 of them on EliasAlucard's requests
• instead inserting a primary source racist Hitler quote
• inserting a primary source Haeckel quote endorsing eugenics.

This is part of a series of repeated attempts of this user to push in to this and other articles a primary source quote from Hitler praising infanticide.

On discussion:Nazi Eugenics, the user is confronting me with insinuations:

• EliasAlucard: If you feel offended because we are citing Hitler, then seriously, that's your personal issue. I had neither on the talk-page nor in edit comments said that I would personally feel offended. Instead, I had said that readers could feel threatened or offended from a primary source Hitler quote.
• EliasAlucard: If you think Hitler was evil,(...) I had not said that I think Hitler was evil.
• EliasAlucard: As for the Nazi eugenics victims, you can mourn them all you like in real life. But don't take it out on Wikipedia. I had not proposed to mourn the eugenics victims on Wikipedia. Instead, I had explained that if nazi sources would be used, the victims of nazi eugenics would not, and never could, have an equal chance to present their point of view about nazi eugenics.

By misrepresenting what I had said, EliasAlucard avoids to answer to my objections, and insinuates that I would have no neutral point of view. This tactics makes a discussion impossible for me. Finally, EliasAlucard tells me "move on", which is not exactly inviting to participate in editing this article. This is part of an ongoing conflict with this user, see also my earlier complain at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive300#Nazism.

Also related is the conflict on Eugenics, where EliasAlucard has violated 3RR today:

At 18:27, 18:28, 18:38, 19:03 on 1 October 2007, they are inserting a paragraph which had been removed before, for example 20:16, 25 September 2007. I should add that a 3RR-warning had been sent by another user at 19:06, that is only after revert #4.

I propose to disable further edits by EliasAlucard on topics related to eugenics.--Schwalker 23:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Last time you brought this up, EconomicsGuy told you to move on because like he said, you're trying to make a federal case out of nothing.[6] Seriously, it seems like you are looking for trouble because this isn't actually a problem. Look, it's super obvious to me, you have NPOV issues with Eugenics related articles. Your secondary sources should not be used. You are misattributing these quotes. Hitler is the one we're citing, not some unknown guy who has published an article about it. Your anti-Hitler bias is obvious here. And your attempt to once again try to ban me from editing these articles, isn't going to work, because I have not done anything wrong. I am just following WP:CITE whereas you seem to have major issues with the fact that we are simply citing Hitler because of something he said. — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:09 02 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something here, insulting someone by accusing them of "anti-Hitler bias" is a little weird. Raymond Arritt 01:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're missing something here. That wasn't an insult. Schwalker refuses to cite Hitler directly in the article because he thinks Hitler is offensive. Therein lies the problem; Schwalker is not NPOV about this. Now I'm not saying you have to like Hitler, but if you're going to edit an article related to Hitler, you better be NPOV. — EliasAlucard|Talk 05:37 02 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit odd to have a gigantic {{cquote}} from Hitler about the Spartans in this article. The quote is very long and made visually arresting by its format. A casual reader could certainly get the impression that the article is endorsing or glorifying Hitler's opinion.

Now, whether this is a problem that requires administrator attention, I'm not sure...you might want to try an article RfC to get more outside input. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No one is endorsing anything. That quote is very relevant to the article's topic and it's properly sourced. Just because it's Hitler and he's considered the embodiment of evil, self-offended users like Schwalker have a problem with reading his thoughts on eugenics. — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:57 02 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an appropriate admin action here. An RfC, as suggested previously, is a much better idea. Natalie 13:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not involved with the issues on Nazi eugenics, but on an unrelated matter, User:EliasAlucard has made four reversions in 24 hours on Eugenics, in which he has repeatedly restored a section, the removal of which was supported by four editors by my count. The problem that I have with the section is that the source utterly fails to support the assertion being made, and the source is inappropriate for an article on eugenics. When I finally placed a template to that effect over the section, EliasAlucard promptly removed it without really addressing the concerns expressed on the talk page. --Proper tea is theft 16:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You are removing an entire section without justification. And no, it wasn't 3RR. And the section is not misinterpreted. The problem with these users is that they are so politically correct, they can't edit racist topics without bias. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:05 02 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Comments like that show why there's a problem. I suggest that an RfC should be made to settle the content issue. If uncivil comments continue then a user-RfC may also be warranted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The only problem here comes from User:Schwalker and User:Proper tea is theft. I wasn't being uncivil. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:27 02 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

EliasAlucard has been quite uncivil to a number of persons. Apart of this behavior, he repeatedly has tried to insert what started as a small sentence on Nazism (diff:

"Adolf Hitler considered Sparta to be the first National Socialist state, and praised its early eugenics treatment of deformed children"

When questioned about his source, he found out other sources (to his credit) but instead of citing the scholarly article which he had put in reference, he cited Hitler directly. When again contested, he made some more research and again found out other sources. All of this with one objective: stating that Hitler praised Sparta (I have no problem including this in Nazi eugenics where it is relevant, but find it anecdotical - see WP:UNDUE - on other articles, especially compared to compulsory sterilization, Action T4 and similar Nazi eugenic policies) &, a much more problematic stance, claiming Sparta was effectively following eugenic policies. This is an obvious anachronism supported by original research. I have yet to find a historian of Antiquity which would import in his field the 19th century concept of eugenics, related to scientific racism, Darwinism and Social Darwinism, etc., in other way than simply metaphorical or analogical. On such a serious topic, evidently a historian of Nazism is more reliable than the sort of OR Elias Alucard is trying to impose here, this in accordance with WP:PSTS. Tazmaniacs 22:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Academic source claiming that Spartans killing babies was eugenics--not "Nazi eugenics." Sorry, but you lose :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:00 03 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Apart of your very scholarly use of Google Books, I should point out that this link is censored in some countries (I presume because of negationism and hate speech legislation) and therefore I and other Wikipedians do not have access to it. In any cases, a WP:RS concerning this matter would be a renowned historian of Ancient Greece, not the first Google Book hit improved by your own personal interpretation. Do not mistake an analogy (as in "Sparta practiced a policy which might be compared to modern day eugenism) with an identity. Tazmaniacs 23:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, eugenics was practised in ancient Sparta. That is an indisputable fact of history. Period. This is not the place to discuss that. Move on. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:12 03 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all for commenting, and especially for the recommendations to seek "Requests for comments" --Schwalker 20:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research pushing

Please stop Jtrainor from POV pushing. He was warned by other users but keep pushing. [7] Necator 01:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Any diffs? Looks like it's still being discussed by the community. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 01:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is copy/past from [| Wikiquette alerts]
Right. And since he's participating in this discussion, he should have seen our comments. Just to be sure though, I'll leave a note on his page. If he keeps it up after being warned not to, take it to AN/I. --Bfigura (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Well... he keeps it up [98] Necator 01:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Necator 01:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you look into the matter, especially on the S-400 Triumf‎ page. Check edit history and talk page-- the one attempting to push POV is Necator. Jtrainor 00:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion re userpage User:Deeceevoice

Deeceevoice's userpage is subject to an Arbitration Committe ruling - see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Offensive_user_page_prohibition. This ruling states that any offensive page content should be removed. The above discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Userpage_deletion_review) bore this out, with the vast majority of contributors in agreement the content was unsuitable (although differences existed on whether deletion or editing was the best solution).

For whatever reason, El_C (talk · contribs) decided to protect the page on the version containing the deleted content (just after a heretofore uninvolved proxy IP had reverted to restore the content) and aggresively revert to ensure the offensive content remained, stating discussion must take place first, describing the removal of the disallowed content as "edit-warring". Considering a great big thread of discussion has already taken place, I would like to see the unnecessary protection removed, and the ArbCom ruling upheld, with the content being removed. Thoughts, please? Neil ム 14:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Note El_C has said he is "out" of the discussion (after, of course, getting another revert in - [8]) Neil ム 14:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, a wholly inaccurate accusation of wheel-warring is here, and an attempt to bait me into breaching 3RR and threatening to block me is here. Neil ム 14:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

El is citing Gordon's reverts on DCV's userpage (which were probably reversions of trollsocks and nothing more) and determining those actions to be in the capacity of an "Arbitration Committee member", which is nothing more than a red-herring argument. We do not have hierarchies on Wikipedia. El C fully protected the page when there was no need to protect it and then reverted Neil when he removed the soapboxing again. One of the reasons why I said the page should not have been restored. We have just opened the Pandora's box for ourselves here. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That content should be removed, it is basically advertising for charities and soap boxing. Even without the arbcom ruling this is not proper user page content. I don't know why El C would return such content. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

He has removed the soapboxing on his own accord now; with a misleading edit-summary once again. It is quite apparent from the discussion on the admin noticeboard that the comments were soapboxing and inflammatory. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing misleading about it, except for your comment. Next time, exercise patience. El_C 14:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, it seemed like an edit war so I protected the page, which Neil reverted, then unprotected. Even if it wasn't an edit war, he should have explained himself better rather than wheel war. As mentioned, I, the uninvolved admin, am withdrawing from this dispute. I reverted back to Neil's last version, without a misleading edit summary. I urge you all to not continue to edit war. Thanks. El_C 14:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please,stop pretending to be an uninvolved admin. You have been in dispute with Neil over issues before. If you are able to recall the "no comment" spree you went on, when anyone questioned you as to the rationale of your block on another account. The page was not to be blocked from editing, and assuming you made a mistake in good faith, Neil was removing soapboxing as per consensus on WP:ANI. Even after that you reverted Neil by using your administrative rollback tool, which is a blatant assumption of bad faith, when you should have brought up the matter on his talk page and discussed the issue with him. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I was discussing it, when he reverted. I asked him to wait & not revert the protected page, as we discussed it, but he did it again. El_C 14:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even notice Neil was involved in the edit war when I protected the page, so even by that somewhat odd rational, I still was an uninvolved admin upon protecting the page on the wrong version. It was he, as a participant in this edit war, who should not have reverted the protected page, nor later on, unprotect it. But whatever, had I known my protection would not stop these reverts, I would'nt have bothered. Now I'd like to be left alone as I simply do not have the energy for all this negativity. El_C 14:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The exchange of words you term "discussion" constituted more of "threats to block" and assumptions of bad faith. In case you feel you cannot "take all this negativity", in the future, remember to get acquainted with all the facts and details of an issue before contemplating anything as serious as an admin action. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This exchange you now call discussion amounts to distortion and badfaith. He simply refused to wait and talk it out, so I warned him he needs to do so and not continue to revert war. And you are too biased, as favouring him and disfavouring me. El_C 14:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

this is a wheel war over conflicting interpretations of whether DCV violated the arbcom ruling with her rant against Wikipedia. I have no opinion on whether the disputed content is "offensive" (it doesn't appear to attack anybody in particular), but the involved admins should have known better than to revert-war over this. After the second revert or so, this should have gone straight to this page for wider input. Fwiiw, I do think we are overly lenient with hosting anti-WP rants on user pages. People are free to criticize WP all they want off-wiki, and to report notable criticism to Criticism of Wikipedia, but why should we be interested in hosting attack pages in User: space? --dab (𒁳) 15:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

seeing that the rant in question did in fact attack one user in particular, I tend to agree that its removal was justified. --dab (𒁳) 15:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Attack pages should not be hosted, questioning if systematic bias is being engaged in should be permitted. I guess it is a matter of the degree the issue is brought. Also the name could have been redacted instead of everything removed. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Arguable. The relevant point is that wider input should have been requested instead of indulging in undignified revert-warring. I also see no reason for Neil to try smearing El_C considering that it needs two to wheel war. dab (𒁳) 15:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

*cough* It was El C reiterating and accusing Neil of wheel-warring and not the other way round. In any case, a simple undoing of an admin action does not constitute wheel-warring as per WP:WHEEL. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

He reverted a protected page, twice (a page which he reverted before it became protected); and after this, he unprotected. El_C 15:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Indeed. El_C is a veteran admin in excellent standing, and I do maintain he should be given the benefit of doubt. He did nothing wrong, and Neil's attack appears uncalled for. We should now establish which version of DCV's page has the seal of administrative approval in calm and detached discussion. dab (𒁳) 15:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    • What attack is this? And the discussion regarding which version has "administrative approval" already took place. Neil ム 15:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• The proper way to deal with this, if you feel some compulsion to "deal with this" at all, is to post on WP:AE. It should be obvious to pretty much anyone that this is not an issue that should be solved by bold action. The ArbCom decision talks of "offensive material"; it does not talk of anything else, and a simple observation of the edit history of that user page would show that this is a sufficiently contentious issue that anyone who is diving into it without discussion is begging for a fight, whether deliberately or ignorantly. There are much better and more important things to do with your time on Wikipedia than to launch into what will likely result in another destructive and unnecessary piece of drama. If it offends you that DCV is supporting Darfur and Katrina relief, you really need to find another hobby. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, Josh. For my part, although I continue to claim I was an uninvolved admin (i.e. uninvolved in the revert war), I self-reverted, and I wish to put this incident behind me. I just did not expect this to happen, I mean, it did not occur to me as even a remote possibility. El_C 15:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The page was not only about Darfur and Katrina, please Josh, take a careful look. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As Nick says, Jpgordon, note that the content removed from Deeceevoice's page was not the parts about supporting Darfur or Katrina relief. There ought not to have been any need to take this to WP:AE, as the apropos Arbcom decision already states Deeceevoice is prohibited from using her user page to publish offensive rants. Any administrator may delete any offensive material from her user page at any time.. Neil ム 15:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the post (mail) from a banned user. Whatever you feel about the rest of the page, posting long mails by banned users is just not done. Fram 15:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fair. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There remains no point left in "discussing" this matter out, since it appears that it is not going to be resolved amicably. Some of us are going to go to any lengths to condone and ignore threats of blocks and the agression displayed by one administrator against Neil, while labelling his good faith attempts to resolve the dispute as an "attack". El C has been involved in disputes with Neil in the past and deliberately jumped in to protect the page when it actually required no protection and completely ignoring the discussion that that taken place on the administrator's noticeboard. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I didn't even notice Neil was involved in the revert war (but so what?). I tried to stop this revert war by protecting the page. He shouldnt have continued the revert war on the protected page, nor afterwards removed this protction. El_C 15:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Without speaking to El C's motives, I don't think Nick has done anything wrong here. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What about my motives? I wouldn't have tried to stop the edit war had I known this would be the result. Water under the bridge. El_C 15:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

From your statement above this one, are you admitting that you acted without even trying to grasp what was happening and who were the participants? Since you protected the page, you have admitted two things: (1) That you saw it as an edit war (when it was not) and (2) you didn't see Neil removing content. You were either acting negligently, incompetently or you are just being evasive. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's start with a definition. Wikipedia:Edit war says "An edit war is when two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to a page." So how, exactly, is this "not", as you say, an edit war? It certainly looks like two or more contributors repeatedly reverting one another's edits to the page. Please clarify. Picaroon (t) 00:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems like Neil is the one making threats to block here. And it sure looks like an edit (and wheel) war to me. *Dan T.* 16:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have responded at Arbitration enforcement. Other than the mention of a specific user, which I have removed, I do not find anything in the rant that is deliberately offensive, and certainly nothing remotely similar to the (now deleted) content that was at issue in the Arbitration case. Whether the links to humanitarian campaigns is inappropriate user page content per the user page policy is not an Arbitration enforcement issue and should be dealt with via the normal route (i.e. discussion with the user first, followed by MfD). Thatcher131 17:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a userpage template to the page. That should be enough to forestall some random visitor mistaking it from an article. Durova^Charge! 18:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Britney Spears' fifth studio album

Call me a nitpicker, but I would like to protest what I see as the high handed behavior of two admins here, who have changed the title of this article from Britney Spears's fifth studio album to what it currently is, without any discussion and disregarding the discussion at the reference desk and on the talk page of more than one Spears article. When asked why they did it, they replied that it was grammatically incorrect in its previous state. This ignores the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which clearly states that even if a pronoun ends in an "s", it should have an apostrophe and another "s".

Obviously this is not an end of the world thing, but I bring it here because the article is move protected, so only administrators are allowed to change it. Given that, it seems unfair and arbitrary that two admins who do not regularly edit the article would change it, apparently unasked. Their stonewalling is also very frustrating. If an editor with no admin powers acted like that, they would get a civility warning at the very least. I would appreciate somebody looking into this. Jeffpw 16:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've protected the page fully in whatever version it was in when I got there, this gives everyone a couple of days to discuss this on the talk page. Regards, Mercury 17:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we get some unprotection here? There was no content dispute, only some move troubles. The admin who moved the page has since reverted himself after discussion on the talk page. Also, it's worth noting that the page was move protected some time ago (due to speculation about the actual title of the album), not by the administrator who today moved the article to the incorrect title. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 17:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Since there was no content dispute (just over the name), I've reduced protection level to move-protect only. — Edokter • Talk • 20:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The semi-protection was applied alongside the move protection a few days ago, following a request at RFPP specifically for semi-protection. I'm sure it would be appreciated if you undid your removal of it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to Cuisine of the Southern United States

Resolved

 – Already blocked.

168.216.112.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Rather minor matter of vandalism to Cuisine of the Southern United States but the vandal was given a last warning and vandalized again. It doesn't appear to be ongoing at the moment. Pig^man 16:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked by another admin. You may get an even faster response by reporting straightforward vandalism to WP:AIV. MastCell ^Talk 16:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It didn't feel urgent but you're right, my bad. Pig^man 20:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Public record PDFs

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask. On Erik Prince, there is a public record PDF of Prince's statements here. As this is a public record of Congressional testimony and not copyrightable, is this PDF something we can or should upload here for linking/records? Just curious as to how this should be handled for sources of Congressional records and the like. • Lawrence Cohen 16:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This may be better suited for Wikisource? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Per their help page, I think Wikisource doesn't want PDF's, only wiki-markup or ASCII text. --barneca (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There is always Commons. You can easily upload PDF files there. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 17:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Would that one be alright for that? • Lawrence Cohen 17:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's in the public domain as a work of the US government there shouldn't be any problems with that. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 17:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Follow up... Pleasantville uploaded the PDF to , and I'm wondering if we could simply link to "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/50/Statement.of.erik.d.prince.pdf" as an inline reference, as it's simply a transcript of the Congressional testimony? Originally, it was from http://www.iraqslogger.com/downloads/statement.of.erik.d.prince.pdf on Iraqslogger.com. My thinking was that it's a Congressional testimony, so it's fine for a direct source where Erik Prince speaks about himself. That is what the source is for. But it seemed off to hold it at a non-neutral website. Are we getting into original research here? Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 18:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A further remark: Iraqslogger.com could be considered a professionally published source. It is a site owned by the company Praedict Intelligence, whose CEO is Easton Jordan, a former CNN exec. The president is Robert Young Pelton, a wellknown author. The document in question is in the public domain, since it was submitted to congress as part of testimony. My impression is that the main issue is whether WP hosts pdfs. --Pleasantville 18:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for a transcript of the hearing. I didn't find it right away, but it might be there if you dig around. I don't know if that testimony would be in the Congressional Record, but you could check around there too. In any case, I think it would be better to cite the source and give a link to it than it would be to copy the source materials to Wikipedia. As an aside, this is probably more of a matter for Wikipedia:Village pump than for AN/I, but I personally don't mind. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't find it anywhere else on the web but enwiki might not be the right place to upload it. Commons has over 9000 pdf files, there would be no problem with uploading it over there. That said, I do agree with you and I see no problem with just linking directly to Iraqslogger.com instead. The document itself is clearly authentic, there are no reliability issues here. If they move it you can always just keep a copy of it and upload it to Commons as a last resort. It may appear on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in a few days. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 19:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help everyone; I found the oversight.house.gov original copy. You can make this resolved. thanks again. • Lawrence Cohen 20:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Malformed AfDs created by User:Hinicome

Resolved

 – I have deleted all of the AfD articles that the editor has created. Other editors have left various warnings on his Talk page. Another admin has blocked the account for 72 hours. -- Gogo Dodo 20:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Hinicome, on board since Monday and well under 100 edits, has started a whole series of Articles for Deletion that are clearly malformed, and whose justification seems to be unreflective of Wikipedia policy. While in general, this would be an excellent example of why new users should not be able to create AfDs, the specific disruption caused here should be addressed promptly. Alansohn 18:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

To be precise, it appears that Hinicome, after creating a large number of Philippines-related articles, many of which were speedy deleted and one of which was sent to AfD by User:Shalom [9], decided to revenge himself upon Shalom by attempting to AfD many of the articles created by the latter. As Alansohn noted, the AfDs created by Hinicome are all ill-formed and need cleaning up. Choess 19:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Editorial and procedural abuses by User:Elonka

Resolved

 – Referred to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

For the record, I dislike the kind of litigations we are seeing on these pages, but now that several reputable contributors have come forward to clean my case, I have to put forward my own worries about User:Elonka’s editorial and procedural abuses. I shouldn’t have a lot of misgivings about doing that, after all the accusations she has thrown at me, but I would like to remain cool and factual, as this is a rather sad subject. I suspect Elonka’s escalating of the dispute and throwing me up here on ANI initially was essentially the result of an overarching desire to prevail at whatever cost.

I am not asking for disciplinary actions or whatever, a reprimand at most, but I only hope that these elements, if acknowledged by other contributors, will help our friend Elonka maintain restraint in her future editorial work and refrain from virulent accusations of fellow Wikipedians. I am a reputable Wikipedian, a father and a business manager, and take great pride in bringing more knowledge about various subjects, especially related to International cultural interaction.

I wish this discussion will contribute to a more ethical behavior on her part, especially in light of her ambitions to become an Administrator sometime in the future.

Here is only a small sampling of the things I have witnessed during my interactions with her:

Editorial abuses:
1) Corruption of sources:

• Repeated corruption of the actual meaning of a quote with reverts, due to personal opinions taking precedence over reputable source (See: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#The banner of the Il-Khan)
• Major corruption and misquote of the historian Tyerman to advance own point (See: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2#Checking sources: Tyerman, God's War)
• Using a quote to claim something totally different, to justify personal POV (See: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Misquotes)

2) Denial of alternative scholarly sources:

• Repeated watering down and denial of reputable scholarly sources describing an alliance, in favour of her own point of view. If anything, various versions should be balanced in an NPOV manner. (See: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#The alliance of Bohemond VI with the Mongols)

3) Deletion of sources:

• Deletion and corruption of sources during the editorial process (See: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2#Original research and deletion of sources, Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2#Original research and deletion of sources (continued))

4) Abusive claims of consensus:

• Repeated use of unreferenced "however, most historians think that…", particularly after properly referenced material to the contrary (See: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Unreferenced "however, most historians think that…")
• Claims that a 3 editor vs 1 editor discussion is a consensus and a justification to endless reverts, in favor of a POV version (See: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#NPOV violations)

5) POV editing:

• Mischaracterization of disliked sources as being unique and individual (See: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Mischaracterizations), and systematical contradiction by unreferenced "however, most historians think that…".
• Edit warring to impose a single POV in an introduction sentence (See: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction sentence)

6) Non-recognition of editorial mistakes:

• Elonka has been making some obvious basic historical mistakes (saying that Antioch was part of Armenia, or that the Principality of Antioch was not a Frankish state) but never seems to want to acknowledge such factual errors (we all make errors, all the time, the point is simply to have the honesty to recognize them).

7) Unsourced claims:

• Edit war for a claim that Bohemond VI’s alliance with the Mongols was only in 1259, although her claim remains totally unsourced and is only based on her original research thoughts (See: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Date of Bohemond's alliance with the Mongols)

Procedural abuses:
It seems Elonka also generally resorts to intimidation and litigation abuse during her editorial disputes (a point also made by several contributors on this page). I am not an expert of litigations on Wikipedia, but I do feel I have been unduly harassed and slandered throughout this process. Just a few examples:

• 1) Constantly being branded POV-pusher, when actually I am the one proponing balanced views between various reputable scholarly sources (I am an inclusionist, but Elonka generally wants a given point of view, hers, to prevail).
• 2) Being harassed and reverted for not following “consensus”, when all Elonka had was a discussion between 3 editors to 1 editor (me).
• 3) Denying the opinions of reputable historians by using the above “consensus” argument.
• 4) Repeated threats of bringing me in front of such instances as this one (ANI).
• 5) Threats of challenging my numerous FAs (articles in many ways already reviewed and approved by numerous reputable Wikipedia contributors).
• 6) Association with a sockpupetter/blanker/offenser (User:Devanampriya), and coaching of this quite questionable contributor to try to find material against me ( [10], [11], [12]). I believe we all have our detractors (Elonka included :): it is not a reason to coach disputable contributors in such a serious case as this one.

Again, I only wish this discussion will contribute to a more ethical behavior on her part, especially in light of her ambitions to become an Administrator sometime in the future. My best regards to all. PHG 18:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

PHG, I see that in an effort to resolve this editorial dispute with you, Elonka has filed a Request for mediation with the Mediation Committee. Instead of pursuing that conciliatory route towards resolving the matter, you have chosen instead to post here. May I ask why? WjBscribe 18:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi WJBscribe. This is not content issue (which will be solved through Mediation indeed), but a user behaviourial issue, which I think is relevant to this page. Best regards PHG 19:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that any other issues would be resolved by the content issues being sorted. In any event, I note there is already an ANI subpage dedicated to the issues between you and User:Elonka (split off from the earlier excessively long thread) - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/PHG and Elonka. Would posting there not have been more appropriate? What exactly is it you want an administrator to do? WjBscribe 19:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly; we're not the editing police here. Admins don't swoop in and chide people for bad behavior; when they do, they're acting as regular editors, not admins. You specifically explain here that you don't want any action taken against her. Then why bring this up? There's nothing that requires admin powers here, and you're just airing more grievances in a public forum which isn't the place for it. File a request for comment or something; but don't do this here. --Haemo 19:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's a content issue, then mediation, otherwise Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration. I regret that Elonka posted the first thread here, and now I regret you posting a second one. This issue isn't a matter for ANI. Nobody is about to block Elonka for simply posting, nor should anybody consider blocking you. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I am a father and a failed MENSA candidate, and I am getting very, very, very tired of this matter. There is not going to be any definitive admin action taken (since admins usually work to a consensus) so there is little point is pursuing the matter here. Can we move on? LessHeard vanU 20:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had been hoping that something definitive could be done about the sourcing issue. I now regret that suggestion. Mediation or arbitration, please. Durova^Charge! 20:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"I regret that Elonka posted the first thread here, and now I regret you posting a second one. This issue isn't a matter for ANI." Personally, I can only say that these are among the sanest words yet said regarding the affair. Both of you, leave the ANI in peace and deal with what is so obviously a content dispute with the means meant for a content dispute.--Aldux 00:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious edits at Eastman Chemical Company

I was asked by OhanaUnited to provide a third opinion on the recent activity at Eastman Chemical Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). What I saw makes me really worried. There are a couple of users adding copy-paste copyvios straight off Eastman's website and other web locations [13][14], one removing sourced negative statements [15], and another adding what smells like advertising [16]. This has all gone on in the last couple of months. Ohana suspects either sockpuppetry or just a group of interested individuals, but I'm not too sure. They could just be very interested and just not up to speed on WP:COPYRIGHT, but, this may sound silly, this also reminds me of these recent corporate PR shenanigans. There are six users involved in this, Heather.necole (talk · contribs), Jennilyn (talk · contribs), Mbmcmillan (talk · contribs), Mlamb1 (talk · contribs), Moltencat (talk · contribs), and Webguruintn (talk · contribs). See also User talk:CaptainVindaloo#Request for help and User talk:OhanaUnited#re: Request for help. Thanks! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take this to WP:COIN. ANI archives cases after a few days. A situation like this will probably need several weeks of investigation and follow up. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 21:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Block review of User:Louie33

I first noticed Louie33 (talk · contribs) via a 3RR report regarding the article USS Liberty incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I originally gave a 24 hour block, but changed to indef when I saw the user page and the talk page of Louie33. He e-mailed me a few days ago asking to unblock. I'd like a second (or third or n^th) opinion on this. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This didn't even need to come to ANI. People on a crusade need their arse brushed out of Wikipedia so hard and fast we should be able to fry eggs and bacon on it. Moreschi ^Talk 20:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, credential verification seems to be proving a little tricky here. I have found the name of a son of the Philip Armstrong II who died aboard the Liberty, but his name is Philip Armstrong III. I have also found a naval-related Commander Timothy Armstrong (now retired), but the connection seems...hmmm. Can someone else sniff around google as well? Something here seems just a little odd. Moreschi ^Talk 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The bias on his Talk page speaks for itself. He needs to retract that and announce that he will abide by NPOV before he's unblocked. Corvus cornix 21:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Blatant trolling. Fully endorse the block. Newyorkbrad 21:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Anon user 209.188.62.12 POV pushing and personal attacking

This anon user has started doing mass alterations to the USS Liberty Incident article without providing any sources, while editing existing sourced material and inadvertantly breaking wikilinks. He has also, using his edit summaries, launched into personal attacks on me. While I don't necessarily feel it is vandalism (I believe they are simply a misguided newbie) intervention would be appreciated.Narson 21:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to investigate this further now, but I'm guessing this is related to the above section. Mr.Z-man 21:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm on the verge of blocking the IP for being a sockpuppet. However, I think I'll just watchlist the page and watch for more insertion of unsourced material. -- Haemo 21:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm being bullied for contributing and editing.

Resolved

 – Content dispute

I want to request an adminstrator to keep him off this page if that is possiable.I looked at his talk page and apraently he has edited others article and made them mad to.I'm an experanced editor and reformater on wikipedia,I had a sn before.Aparently Eliyak thinks he owns the solomon article.According to his user page he is a jew,so I'm led to beleive he is only trying to make the article good.However,the other day,under my number: 72.148.169.67 as you can see in the history of that article,I took alota time to reformat this article.The article is to overly structered and needs to be compacted to a more readable and practicle form.I was busy in my own personal life and took the time to fix it.I also added facts to it,which he also deleted.I had spent a good hour editing it and reformating it but the next day i look at it it ws the exact same as the day before.This makes me think he is using VandalProof.He claims I made some sorta vandalism by typing baaa,which I didn't type,Even if i did you can't erase facts in an article for one typo word.He wrote me,then I wrote back,here it is in order:

Him: Thank you for experimenting with the page Solomon on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Eliyak T·C 18:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Me: The Solomon article was broken up into too many sections.I reformated the article to where it was more eaisly readable.I did not remove any facts.YOU,HOWEVER, DID REMOVE MY FACTS I ADDED THEREFORE YOU ARE THE VANDAL.King Solomon died of syphilis,that's beleived to be a fact.My friends and I will keep the solomon page proper,I was not sandboxing with it!I'm an experanced contributer,I had a sn on this site before.If I have to get an administrator to calm you down I WILL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.169.67 (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Me: Don't talk to me or touch my work! Maybe it was a typo.I didn't add baa tho.Even so you have no right to erase facts from the encyolpedia for a typo.Why don't you fix the typo?I will be having your account reviewed by an adminstrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.169.67 (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Him: I'm not sure how adding "baana!!!" to the Solomon article was an improvement. It is possible that that edit was made by someone other than yourself, since this is the talk page for an IP address which may be registered to more than one individual. If you wish, you can create an account to avoid receiving messages which were not intended for you. --Eliyak T·C 19:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Me: Don't talk to me or touch my work! Maybe it was a typo.I didn't add baa tho.Even so you have no right to erase facts from the encyolpedia for a typo.Why don't you fix the typo?I will be having your account reviewed by an adminstrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.169.67 (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please keep him off this page,he is bullying people around and keeping this article from being updated!!!

Well, if you edit articles with that kind of spelling, I can't blame people for mistaking some edits for vandalism. Besides, you can't simply request people to be banned from articles because they annoy you. Try to cooperate.--Atlan (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. You keep adding that he died of syphilis without a source. They disagree, and remove it. That's not an admin issue; discuss it on the talk page, not here. --Haemo 23:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A look at the history of Solomon suggests that 72.148... has indeed done some revamping of the article which doesn't look too bad. 72.148... also undid a good vandalism revert to put the aforementioned "baana!" back into the article, and has been inserting a comment regarding Solomon dying of syphilis that isn't sourced, which has been removed a couple of times. Non-admin suggestion: Eliyak (talk · contribs) might have been a bit quick on the draw with the warning. 72.148.169.67 (talk · contribs) needs to read WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL and WP:COOL. Other than that... this probably doesn't need admin attention. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If in doubt, just think "WWSD" :) ---- WebHamster 23:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So we split the article in two to see who loves it more? Natalie 00:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Eliyak (talk · contribs) only had one revert [17] and it was of this questionable edit. The editor who reverted the bulk of 72.148.169.67 was CharlesMartel (talk · contribs) [18]. -Chunky Rice 23:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hugh Doherty

Hi! Can someone take a look and check out the speedydelete for non-notability on this three-line unsourced article. I am not sure if it is correct or if it should just be merged without the speedydelete. Thanks!! 216.194.3.122 01:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please block this sockpuppet of banned editor [email protected]. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Acalamari 01:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of Images

Resolved

Images deleted. FURG provided. Thank you Riana. Miranda 03:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin restore these images:

• SGRHO
• DST
• KAPsi
• OmegaPsiPhi

And, delete these:

• Omega Psi Phi
• Sigma Gamma Rho
• Kappa Alpha Psi
• Delta Sigma Theta

I will provide FURG guidelines, ASAP. Just please restore these images, because I did not know that an admin was deleting them randomly...or not so randomly. Miranda 03:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoudahmdee

Resolved

Could someone give Mahmoudahmdeee (talk · contribs) a block for vandalism? I'm being ignored over at AIV. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 03:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm looking into it. nat^tang 03:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Y blocked - 3 days, if she does it again after block, I will be open to an extension and/or indef. nat^tang 03:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Danke. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 03:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Repeated comment removal on requested move by User:Rex Germanus

User:Rex Germanus has repeatedly [19] (removing anonymous. A: Not allowed to vote B Dutch wikipedia is not a source, nor does it list him as Johann, but Johan) [20] (you are an anonymous IP. You are not allowed to vote.) removed my comments on a requested moved on the article Talk:Johann van Beethoven. The third time he moved the comment to a section titled "False vote by anonymous" [21]. He insists that Requested Moves are a vote, and that new or anonymous users are not allowed to "vote" (as far as I am aware requested moves are not a vote, I tried to tell him so, but he denies/ignores this). I am at a loss on what to do, as I honestly can longer assume good faith here and, to be honest, feel harassed and personally attacked by this behaviour. 84.145.195.64 17:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've informed Rex of this post. Anyway, you are right. The point of talk pages is to discuss, and anon's are not excluded from this. When you consider that IPs are actually less anonymous than accounts, the whole argument is frivolous. Someguy1221 17:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(non-admin), I have added a message to rex's talk page informing him that he is incorrect. I find it strange that such a long term editor is unaware of such a core-policy--Jac16888 17:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I never said the anonymous IP wasn't entitled to discuss. They're not entitled to vote. Which is what this anonymous IP kept doing. Rex 17:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you completely remove my comments for the first two times? Also, again, this is not a vote. 84.145.195.64 17:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

They're allowed to !vote, too. Someguy1221 17:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

They're allowed to "!vote"? What the hell does that mean?Rex 17:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A perfect opportunity to employ the new shortcut WP:!VOTE. Joe 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a mere reference to the fact that admins are free to ignore vote counts when deciding the outcome of a discussion. It's the arguments that are important, not their origin. Everyone (short of banned users, of course) is free to engage in discussion. Everyone is free to cast their vote, and admins are free to ignore as many unsubstantiated votes as they want. Someguy1221 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Someguy is, of course, correct, but even were Rex's pronouncements accurate, they would nevertheless tend gratuitously toward the uncivil and acollegial. Although I cannot imagine that this behavior, though less-than-ideal, should merit anything more than, for instance, Someguy's friendly corrective—there doesn't appear to have been any significant disruption, and it doesn't seem that a block would prevent any future disruption—I suppose it should be noted that the community have, in the past, looked with disfavor on Rex's occasional incivility and that, in view of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz, the community have, from time to time, undertaken to block Rex for that incivility. I don't expect that anyone should think a block to be in order here (even in view of what some might perceive as a pattern of disruptive incivility), and I surely don't suggest that any broader community discussion should follow, but I raise the issue only in order that those who have in the past suggested that the community consider further action (e.g., a ban, which I would of course oppose) might note anything else that might be relevant. Joe 17:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And still you keep taunting and insulting me, Rex "Ow, I'm shaking. A Vote, wether concerning a pagemove-poll or arbcom elections is a vote. IPs cant make them. Well... they can obviously, they're not valid. Rex 17:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)" 84.145.195.64 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have warned Rex. If he persists with removal of comments from talk pages, he will be blocked again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rex, anons can vote. But the closing admins often discard their votes - the more reason not to get stressed over that.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That might be why I'm confused right now. Nevertheless this whole - tiring- ordeal has inspired me to take some action against this.Rex 18:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Why the heck are we relegating anons to second-class status anyway? Why not just let anons attempt to make suggestions and arguments like everyone else? — Rickyrab | Talk 01:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The real problem is that we as a community seem unable to make up our minds as to whether these things are votes or not. —Random832 12:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

1RR violations

The two reversion of the IP's comments are also in violation of his 1R parole again. Is he limited to one revert per page per week or one revert per page per day? At least here are the other examples I could find of two reverts per page per day within the last seven days. Edit, revert 1, revert 2; edit, revert 1, revert 2; edit, revert 1, revert 2. Sciurinæ 17:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am entitled to 1 revert per article per week. Which I monitor closely.Rex 18:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, after having checked your 'more than 1 reverts', I advise you to take a closer look. Edits only qualify as reverts when they're (near) identical. Clearly, not the case. Since when is adding a dozen references a revert? Rex 18:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm..... you are cutting it pretty close. One can argue that you are breaching your 1RR parole with these edits, so I would advise you to thread carefully. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

tread carefully. Gtrevize 19:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Two reverts within 24h also means overstepping 1 revert per article per week. Also, there are clearly two reverts (in whole) in case one, while in case two and three you did not only revert but change other parts as well, meaning it is still a revert, or the whole revert parole would make little sense. Here's the link to the parole and another shortcoming becomes obvious: you were to explain your content reversions on the talk page. Sciurinæ 18:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rex Germanus moves name of Picasso painting to make his point about Potsdamer Platz

Rex Germanus is so eager to delete anything German sounding from Wikipedia that he did not hesitate to move the Picasso painting Dora Maar au Chat to Dora Maar with cat to Dora Maar with Cat in order to prove his WP:POINT at Talk:Potsdamer Platz, his desired move to Potsdam Square. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The first one is a French title by a Spanish painter. What does it have to do with German? --Golbez 21:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

sigh, it is Rex' obsession that no titles on en-wiki should contain German elements like Platz. He now apparently started extending his campaign to French just so people cannot say "but, there are also French titles, why not German". This is a textbook case of drawn-out WP:POINT. dab (𒁳) 22:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. Not only he breached the spirit of his parole, he is also disrupting WP with unnecessary moves. One more incident and the user will be blocked for one month (last block was of one month, reduced to 12 days after discussion in this board. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Like I said many times before ... I do not specifically target German. German contributors are just 1000 times more likely to use German titles because they either think English hasn't got the proper word, or because they don't know the words. Also, I only speak English, Dutch, German, and a bit of French so the range I'm able to translate or know whats being meant is limited. The cat painting, was not WP:POINT the IP presented it to me, I found numerous references to the English name and c'est ca. Rex 07:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I stumbled over the move without seeing the discussion here. I have blocked Rex for 24 days, doubling his previous 12-day block, since I believe in the educative virtues of the exponential of base 2. If this goes against the plans of the admins here, do feel free to adapt it to your liking.

I'd like to stress that the block is not only for the blatant WP:POINT, but also to honour the whole career of this contributor. The number of calls for a more civil language, more civil behaviour, more constructive actions, etc on his talk page speaks for itself. I believe that people should be here to serve Wikipedia rather than utilise it; from my observations, this user either wants to use WP for a personal crusade, or is so deeply deluded that he mistakes his chronically disturbing edits for constructive behaviour. In both cases, I find his contributions to be more of an annoyance than an asset. The signal/noise ratio is just too small.

Of course, should my block be based on incomplete observations, or should this block happen in an inconvenient timing for a rehabilitation attempt, do feel free to adapt it. Rama 09:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I support this block. This user comes over as a right time-waster. --Folantin 10:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Having been involved in this discussion, i support this block too, especially after seeing this racist comment about the entire German nationality [22], aimed directly at another user, although Matthead did not help the situation by being uncivil, and by starting an AFD on one of Rex's articles in the middle of an incident.--Jac16888 11:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm the response you quote was a reaction on Matthead (the guy who listed this thread) calling Rex explicitly a racist. I do not seeing Rex comment - "Germans are not a race" being a racist remark; but more as a response on being called a racist. I think Matthead is out there to get Rex, and he seems to be clever in trolling Rex into uncivil behaviour (the deletion suggestion of a harmless article (Lodewijk van Beethoven) and the aggressive response on who-ever dared to comment for keep seems to be merely anact to "get even with Rex, and get him banned". Indeed after calling Rex a racist he came running here to get Rex blocked on losing civility. To be honest, if I look what happened here I agree Rex went too far; but he was provoked by Matthead, who did not even was reprimanded. I would suggest the blocking admin(s) to investigate User:Mattheads behaviour in this case, and block him too; for the same length as Rex. Arnoutf 12:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, the "Perhaps him passing through his Dutch musical genes despite continous adding of German peasant blood is enough of a performance to be mentioned." comment Rex made earlier is also highly inappropriate. That said, it takes two to tango, and both Rex and Matthead showed little reluctance to join the dance; though Rex really seemed to go the extra mile here. 84.145.229.133 12:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Although perhaps the first part of the comment is understandable, but the second part "2 I would be very much offended to be compared to such low lifes" in regard to germans, is undeniably racist. However, i do agree that Matthead should be investigated too, since he seems to have only being trying to inflame the situation.--Jac16888 13:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments #1 and #2 both refer to allegedly being called a racist. Comment #2 means that Rex considers racists "low lifes". No racism there IMO. Avb 00:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Rex's block history I sadly can only support the block. Despite numerous blocks for 3RR, WP:POINT, incivility and even an ArbCom case he regularly falls back into his old rut; Rex has made a good deal of good contributions, but he seems to be unable to let go of some old, bad habits, and I'm at a loss how we could get the message across to him in any other way, as all other means of normal discussions and even ArbCom invocation failed to do that. 84.145.229.133 12:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why he hasn't been banned for good. His admitted anti 'german(ophone)'s and his 'nationalism scale' are both clear indicators that he operates from a POV mindset. A look at his block log shows he's not going to change his ridiculous agenda-driven behaviors. His Dutch genetics are better comment above indicates that he doesn't act against German titles out of genuine concern for the project, but because he's a flat out bigot. Throw him out, lock the door behind him. Why do we keep coddling trolls and jerks? This whole problem of '4 warnings in propmt time' 'steadily escalating blocks and if one's missed we must start over' and all this stuff, it's bullshit. Throw out persistent, unchanging, unchangable trolls, vandals, and POV warriors when it's clear they won't change. a dozen blocks in increasing time lengths and he keeps being a bigoted troll warrior. Throw him off. ThuranX 13:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Warnings are important because sometimes Wikipedia's banhammer is misfired and the whole idea is to get users to turn away from the bad behavior. That being said, editors like this one SHOULD be handed a ban, as he did NOT turn away from bad behavior or cooled down even though he was warned. But how would we have known that had we not warned before blocking? — Rickyrab | Talk 01:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ThuranX. Whenever I've seen this editor at work it's almost always been in the middle of a tremendous ruckus, usually over some hair-splitting point. He's clearly got a bee in his bonnet against the Germans and he's here to push his POV. Time to show him the door. --Folantin 14:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User is now demanding an unblock, based on the fact that an uninvolved admin did the blocking. No doubt, if an involved admin had blocked, he'd be complaining then too. ThuranX 14:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Rex history is far from clean, and he tends to be anti German. When he is not involved in German articles his contributions are usually useful and relevant. Also note thatr Mattheads record is far from clean; and I think him listing Rex here (after first calling him racist) is an attempt to eliminate an opponent of his point of view through a nasty way.

In this light I think an indefinite block of Rex would be too strong, but I would not object a topic ban for Rex on Germany / German naming related topics. Arnoutf 16:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've declined the unblock request. Will someone please tell me again why we allow this editor to go anywhere near anything German-related? Moreschi ^Talk 16:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, that's easy. some editors and admins insist that no matter how obvious or egregious the editor's actions are, a full set of warnings must be issued in a timely fashion, according to the bureaucracy, and any interruption in their issuance requires that those seeking to 'unduly persecute' the editor must start again at step one. Matthead and Rex ought obth to suffer long blocks, if not permanent bans, but this won't happen, because we're 'better than they are', and must show it daily by enduring their crap, ensurign that if four timely, escalating warnings aren't issued in the requisite 24 hour period, then we must start over at step one. This means any editor can simply insist that they get warned up to and including step three, leave for 24 hours, then begin again. infinitely. They get those of us seeking to improve the project wrapped up in bureaucracy while they push bigoted agendas. ThuranX 16:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Rex was warned for this behaviour before this incident. There's not many warnings that are more clear than an RfAr. Also, there were enough warnings on his talk page as well about the current incident, even though Rex may have missed them because they weren't accompanied by a correctly coloured box and a pretty icon. I don't think the argument that he wasn't warned has any value here. Eugène van der Pijll 17:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless I think Matthead should be heavily punished as well. His behaviour in Lodewijk van Beethoven nomination is abject for much the reasons outlined by several editors in that discussion. The message of this cannot be that you can troll someone into a long block and get away free yourself. Arnoutf 17:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I thorroughly agree. ThuranX 17:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, blocks/bans are intended to prevent/end disruption, not to punish editors. Avb 00:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you know, I might be aware of that, and all the warnings and prior discussions about Rex and his behaviors serve as good grounds for stopping Rex from his continuing pattern of behaviors. ThuranX 01:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Topic-ban

I've proposed a topic-ban at Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. Moreschi ^Talk 19:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the topic is the issue. If Rex Germanus can't revert war on German subjects, he'll just do it on Dutch ones. The fact that he's already been through at least one arbitration case, is on 1RR, and is still being disruptive, as well as the lengthy block log, suggests he is unwilling to abide by our policies. I propose blocking him indefinitely, and unblocking him if and only if he promises to respect Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and refrain from disruptive activity. Maybe move your topic ban proposal here so as not to split the discussion. Picaroon (t) 19:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The more discussion we have here, the better.--Ea453 07:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Community-ban proposed

As Rex Germanus has continued to show incivility and unwillingness to understand that this behavior is not acceptable on Wikipedia I proposed a Community ban on Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard 84.145.241.203 14:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Page move in the middle of an AFD is OK?

I am just wondering if changing the article name in the middle of an ongoing AFD is allowable? For some reason, I thought is was not. It has certainly confused me! --Mattisse 16:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I am requesting an admin to end the AFD on Psychiatric abuse which was moved in the middle of the AFD to Abuse of the mentally impaired without any notice on the article's talk page or the AFD page. I believe the whole AFD discussion is hopelessly confusing now and misleading. --Mattisse 17:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As a wise man once said, "You must chill!" I just moved it back to its original title. It was a mistake for User:Jennylen to move it in the midst of an AfD, because it generates confusion. But like most things on Wikipedia, it's easily undone with a mouse click or two. There's no reason to end the AfD early (well, except that it's an ugly mess). MastCell ^Talk 17:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I am confused enough as it is! --Mattisse 17:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the only time I have ever moved an article during an AFD, and the only time I would ever recommend doing it, would be to correct trivial aspects of the title (spelling or MOS issues) that would not need discussion anyway. Someguy1221 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

In the past I've also done this once or twice if the emerging consensus on the AfD page has been strongly in favor of "keep but rename" (perhaps with some "delete or rename" thrown in). Of course, the important thing is to note any such actions prominently on the AfD page, preferably both at the top (for new participants) and at the end of the discussion so far (for the benefit of the closing admin). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've moved an article during an AfD, but only when clearly not a problem. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Society for Cryobiology. WP:AfD doesn't provide guidance on this, but the AfD template says: "For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion." And that page has advice at: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion: "You must not rename the article unless you make sure the page still links to the discussion page." etc. It should be made clearer that this only applies to non-controversial page moves. Any controversial page moves should be discussed at the AfD, or wait until after the AfD closes and then be raised at WP:RM. Carcharoth 03:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the part you quoted from Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, as it seems to refer to an issue with an old implementation of the {{afd}} template which didn't handle page moves as well. With the modern implementation, moving a page while it's on AfD shouldn't break any links. I've left a note similar to my comment above in its place. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the move during the AFD did break a link until MastCell fixed it. I was caught in the middle of the move and did not know what was going on. I clicked the template on the article page and it did not go to the AFD discussion. --Mattisse 21:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is most curious, since I can't reproduce the problem you describe. I just tried copying the AfD notice from Psychiatric abuse to my sandbox to simulate a move, and all the links still point to exactly the right place. The only way I can see that this could happen was if the {{AfDM}} tag was somehow missing the page parameter, but that doesn't seem to have been the case here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, MastCell "fixed" it. I do not know what that entailed. --Mattisse 13:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:EffK

User:EffK has just come off a one year block due to an Arbcom decision, and is running around repeating his assertions that only he knows what is true. At least he hasn't edited any articles yet, but it's a good idea to keep an eye on him. Corvus cornix 23:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I, EffK was verified by User:Bengalski, and all my own verifications. You are being conned, I am sorry to tell you, about what is or is not true. I don't all the same appreciate your attitude, and consider it against the smooth functioning and policies of WP. I suggest you learn them, and benefit from my existence here in revealing your real world truths. That Wikipedia policies are not enforced is my certain experience, and that admins are human, also. EffK 19:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

His only non-user talk edit today seems to be this, which reads like that autogenerated screed text... I forget the website it's on, but there's a site that let's you put in a few nouns and select a 'point' and length, and it autogenerates the argumentative letter using lots of 3 cent words and hyperbole. If so, then he's trolling from the get-go. If not, then he's REALLLLY off in his own world, and he'll no doubt set off all the alarms and warnings, resulting in another long block soon enough. ThuranX 01:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

18 month block, actually. I fail to understand how policies allow for my entry as referenced to become an 'incident'. I see here an incident in the making, one contrary to WP policy. The ad hominem reappears instantly ('running around', 'at least', keep an eye on', 'autogenerated', '3 cent words', 'hyperbole', 'in his own world', 'trolling', 'block soon enough', 'he'll do himself in soon enough'....). The argument I actually made is that the plethora of articles relating to the verifications I effected, which when and if I am invited I can substantiate, have all either suffered from my blocking, or returned to a parlous un-historical state because of my punishment. How this can be sign of some new ill-will by me against the project beats me. I remind both these users that the project is supposed at this time to defend me rather than attack me. I state that my interest remains the good of the project, by constituting historical fact upon historical articles. I repeat that the good of society is a legally recognised concept, and that therefore verifiability, NPOV and AGF extend beyond the confines of even Wikipedia. I suggest users address the actual issues, as stated by me in good faith. EffK 10:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Using language such as "effected", "plethora", "parlous" makes one wonder just how serious you are, and how seriously you want to be taken. Corvus cornix 15:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is too minor to warrant attention, other than to say that it reminds me of attacks made long ago. I was pleased to see Cc did not quite join with Thuranx' open personal attacks. My advice is- dont. EffK 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack? Where? You're admitting to writing every word of that yourself? Sure reads like trolling. ThuranX 04:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Admins, regarding this you might also be interested in this query. PS. I believe he wrote the Village Pump posting entirely by himself. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Admins, EffK is already beginning to spam my talk page, kicking things off with a personal attack (whether I get paid for contributing to WP - a question harking back to one of the things he got banned for) - I at first let that slide because he was just returning, but as he has not ceased spamming overly long messages on my talk page all revolving around his pet conspiracy theories and insinuations against me I wanted to bring this to your attention. Cheers, Str1977 ^(talk) 22:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I wrote to the man as he had taken it upon himself to enter here, he replied, I replied saying if he didnt reply I'd take that as a wish that I not, but he replied. So that's roughly the situation. I also told him I would remove the entire to my page. At no time was I told not to write to him there....so, what does that tell you? EffK 22:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

He is free to post on my talk page when he has something to say as long as he can put it concisely. He is not free to spam my talk page even though there is nothing to say. He is not free to shower me with accusations and his conspiracy theories. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

At this point, EffK is now hitting my talk page demanding that I apologize for what he percieves to be a personal attack here. By so doing, he's making a point of going after those commenting on this AN/I thread, and should additionally be warned there. His comment above that Corvus Cornix "didn't quite join" my "open personal attacks" is another example of less than stellar behavior towards editors commenting here. It's probably not a personal attack, by it is a snide comment. This brings to three the number of editors getting backlash for this AN/I thread: Str1977, mysel,f and Corvus Cornix. ThuranX 11:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Claimed Defamation and criminalisation of EffK in WP

The thread started because I spoke against distorted Wikipedia articles at Village Pump. I can and will soon now prove the distortions, in a list, at my discussion page, for those doubters (or in case I am beheaded again). I believe the seriousness of my above charge now, and others' recently, justifies my expanding this thread as of now, to its real subject, as it is stated. i admit it is unusual, and sub-divide it because I believe the seriousness warrants the maximum attention of admins here on this WP page.

As a previous and wide-ranging bulk-contributor I tell those who do not know me that it is I alone in Wikipedia who entered the real essential story of Hitler's seizure of power, and that this remains, but skewed and partial, throughout many articles. Under one username I can prove a 50+% ratio of actual edits to textual verification. I doubt anyone here can claim such a benign record. Due to this effort, which is embarrassing to 'a powerful and popular outside agency', I find myself now (even here) subject to incivil punishment on an intolerable scale, and simply for pointing out that Wkipedia articles are skewed, and more skewed for my banishment and inability to repair them. As a genuine 3rd party attempted and failed to over-turn the apparent assumptions of the original Arbcom conviction of me, I find the constant incivility more cruel punishment just following after verifiable injustice and 18 months extended ban punishment. Since I find myself in a reality of open-season shoot-on-sight, and am banned for life from entire sections of Wikipedia, and subject to un-informed admin will wherever I might contribute, I may as well think of taking this higher. My identity now, as all that I have openly chosen, has been turned by Arbcom's inadmission of verifability, into a criminality. This is a measurable loss to my goodness of faith and intentions. I shall perhaps have to seek justice and adherence to the Wikipedia policies, wherever- as I do not know, and if I cannot find redress for the (technical term)loss of currency to me and the defamation of me within WP, I may really have to seek it in the real world. I suggest that admins etc of good will immediately step in and pay heed to the 3rd party verifications of me in the original situation, and assist me in seeking redress inside Wikipedia against my un-just criminalisation. Advice is welcome in the matter of how to seek a complete overturning of the un-just conviction by Arbcom. I see no sense in beating about the bush here with admins about lesser events such as open anti-policy incivility, charged spamming, poor composition, and any nonsense anyone chooses to fling. Any admins advice for that complete redress would be welcome. I cannot see a sense of social justice within Wkipedia when I believe 3rd party evidence justified me almost absolutely. Original research I entered was confined to one article, wrongly deleted against a vote to keep and presented in an NPOV manner( The Great Scandal); when my soap-boxing was admissable under 'explanation' guidelines; when my supposed personal attacks were admissable under AGF policy; when my obsessive focus ranged over dozens of inter-related articles of history (whilst editors can spend years upon Ebionites alone); whilst no example in mainspace of a POV editing by me was proveable; and whilst it remains the case that my supposed personal 'conspiracy-theory' was in fact NPOV presentation of mainstream verifiability proven by the 3rd party after I had myself repeatedly verified it. All else was provocation against the un-welcome verification, ad hominem attack, straw man diversion, and dishonest cabal anti AGF attack, or anti-verifability article censoring. Thankyou though,to those who have made this necessary. If the Wikipedia Foundation is frightened of annoying a certain faith, it should be seen to be the case, as this lies at the root of the criminalisation of an innocent editor of good modern social will. I should repeat that by virtue of the historical facts that the case of 'EffK' involves a subject and reality that far out-weighs that of Wikipedia itself. EffK 19:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a legal threat, to me. Corvus cornix 20:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You people should know why you are really banning me, and if you found EffK hard to follow, your consciences probably won't follow this, but I believe I should bring it to your attention as proof of my good intentions, that are entirely Wikipedian. I note also that my request for advice only finds a more subtle abuse. Is there no one here with a free conscience? it may be un-usual prectice to enter the follwoing, but I find that Wikipedia is subject to unusual practice.

EffK rapid report of Wikipedia problems in modern /IIIReich history

Weimar constitution needs with State of Emergency to take account of an expansion to Reichstag Fire Decree that explains that President Hindenburg when signing the latter either forgot to ask for the separate and thereto always presented relevant habeas corpus protective document or that it was not presented for his signing. It is a question of history as to whether this came about through his mental incapacity. Wikipedia pretends that the Reichstag fire decree gave legal force to a one party state, at Rule by decree saying the Nazis were able to constitutionally suppress or imprison opposition. Together with statement at Weimar Constitution(technically remained in force throughout the III Reich) and State of Emergency (wasn't suspended..simply suspended) there is nowhere the verified remembrance of the sole constitutional guarantees; this came in a letter from Hindenburg of c 27 march, sent to the various Reichstag party leaders, and is referred to by the first greatest historian, Sir John Wheeler-Bennett as a letter of most sardonic hypocrisy, and in effect saying that Paul von Hindenburg relied on a promise to him by Hitler that he would respect the Constitution.

This letter returns us to the nub of the history, as this letter was both a substitute for the written guarantee demanded by Heinrich Bruning as his minimum requirement for allowing the dictatorship by vote at the Enabling Act and a traducing of that demand by Ludwig Kaas. The most sardonic hypocrisy lay in what Shirer called was it the cruellest contradiction, as the provisions of the Enabling Act claimed to protect the Institutions of the Reichstag precisely at the moment at which it had been illegally (verified) undermined (by arrests and murders of Deputies). How Wikipedia articles can be aligned with that which is known about the rolling opportunistic conspiracy (Nuremberg) should be a matter for precise discussion, however the continued WP situation is to adopt the clean but contradictory route of assuming, against all historians and Nuremberg, that as at KPD (Communist Party of Germany) they were already banned by the Nazi regime or as at NSDAP or as at Gleichschaltung not including Communist delegates as their party had already been banned by that time[Enabling Act].

The 'removal' of the entire KPD/ 26 SPD is in Enabling Act that first the Government removed the Communist party by arresting its Deputies and under the Reichstag Fire Decree the Communists were declared dormant.. whereas at the Reichstag Fire Decree there is no mention of dormant, but claim that they were arrested on the basis of that Decree. Elsewhere the KPD leader Ernst Thalmann however was arrested by the Gestapo on 3rd March 1933 although the Gestapo did not exist for another month, and at KPD it is stated The Enabling Act which legally gave Hitler dictatorial control and that the KPD were banned by the nazi regime.

The confusion is multiple and wide ranging in Wikipedia, despite Effk verifications having been earlier provided , this confusion reigns on, centreing around an apparent need to see that the Communists were banned ( Alan Bullock verified that they never were0 or that the empowerment of Hitler was 'legal'. Effk was always startled by the presentation of Hitleriam as achieving power through legal means, at Holocaust it was pretended before EffK, that the Nazis had risen to power after a general election success. And to this day, after nearly 4 years since the first Effk corrections, Wikipedia still is unable to preserve any un-contradictory view, for as regards the essential Enabling Act, at its passage Heinrich Bruning says he yielded to party disciplie, at Hitler that he remained noticeably silent , at NSDAP that certain guarantees were given to Ludwig Kaas, at Ludwig Kaas there is no clarity, at Nazi Germany the Act was passed, at Hitler that Bruning agreed to maintain Party discipline as silent, at Enabling Act itself that the KPD could not vote..since it had been banned by that time and that certain guarantees to Ludwig Kaas were oral.

Here we return to the Constitutionality and the legality problems of Hitler empowerment. One confusion (and that is not to repeat that this results from intentional skewing despite and against Effk multiple verifications) resolves around the actual guarantees which bought the Monsignor Ludwig Kaas chaired Centre Party Germany and another being the failed Bruning demand for a Constitutional guarantee direct and signed from Hitler. In this useful confusion, that is this one that minimises the verifable historical questioning of and accusation against Ludwig Kaas as extremely close devotee and (verifiably) 'mouthpiece' for Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli later Pope Pius XII and Hitler's Pope, does so by elision of actual and presumably signed guarantees achieved at a Working Committe chaired by both Kitler and Kaas between either 17 or 20 march and 22 march 1933 ( with the final empowerment of Dictatorship on 23 march) into an elision with the bruning guarantees, which are only achieved by the very top Hindenburg letter of most sardonci hypocrisy. This confusion is actively dishonest ( as the winner in the Effk arbcom case knows and allows it still to reign in Wikipedia), as the Working Committee guarantees were not the final persuasion of the catholic centre party to empower Hitler, but a formal separate precursor to the final guarantee, the written Constitutional guarantee that Hitler promised, and yet which despite agreement Ludwig Kaas failed to adhere to. the result is that NPOV presentation should but fails to present the true course of events on the fateful day, of why bruning remained silent, because he was tricked into doing so either by Kaas' cowardice, gullibility or connivance with Hitler. The absence of NPOV reports of connexion to the verifiable papal policy to see in Hitler a saviour of Germany and christendom, that end with open and scholarly historical accusation of secret Kaas collusion throughout the Nuremberg defined Common Plan or Conspiracy to seize power, are what drive Effk to consider that Wikipedia needs correcting. The realities surrounding the rigging of the reichstag in un-constitutional means, verified, and the contrary presentation that the Communist Deputies were legally banned are the cause of all dispute. All knowledge concerning suborning of president hindenburg through tax and land scandals, despite verification from the Nuremberg Tribunals, is proscribed here, and the hitler article itself jhas the temerity to say that Adolf Hitler gained power during Germany's period of crisis after WWI [using] propaganda and charismatic oratoryAt the linked Weimar Republic we see Hitler's promised guarantee to Kaas' and thereby Kaas persuaded.... All the above articles combine to present what is, because it has all been counter-verified, a massive lie. The constitutionality, the guarantees , the arrests, the voting, the decrees, the previous Weimar history- all were 'counter' verified, and none was properly allowed wikipedia presentation, for the simple reason that the historical NPOV suggestion that there was a stitch up, a conspiracy, trickery, betrayal, would lead to an embarrassment of Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, and his actual legal masters, to whom he could not have said Niet! The explanation as to why he could not, and what the history means to his masters, is the real reason —Preceding unsigned comment added by EffK (talk • contribs) 07:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Propose indefinite block

I propose to block EffK indefinitely. I regret having to make this suggestion, but the history of the arbitration case (see, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/EffK) and the user's relapse into obsessional diatribes on the same subjects as previously, immediately after coming off the ban, strongly suggest to me that Wikipedia is not a suitable forum for EffK to be posting his opinions. I am well known as being slow to suggest blocking as a solution to most issues, but indef is really the inevitable ultimate result here, and I see no meaningful possibility of a change in the user's behavior or his making useful contributions in the future. Newyorkbrad 20:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't agree with the resetting ban on the original case (his talk page should have been protected way before October 2006), but that's beside the point. I feel that he's violating WP:NLT at this point, so a long duration block would be necessary here. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fully support. His messages on my talk also read like some sort of threat, reserving the right to take all that's said here 'elsewhere'... whatever that means, it doesn't sound friendly. ThuranX 21:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved non-admin comment: Effective communication with EffK is apparently... difficult. The signal-to-noise ratio certainly seems to be phenomenal. Maybe this is a smart troll who likes the sound of his own voice (metaphorically); maybe it's us who are wrong. I don't know. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This last comment may show someone with a sense of broad-mindedness, but I see this floating on a tide of incomprehension to indefinite ban, and terminal defamation, only later adjustable in real world justice .Do as you will, the original injustice is simply compounded and WP remains skewed for the exact reasons I always justified. I better tell you which first should have been corrected, or you all just think I do this for Effk. Weimar Constitution, State of Emergency, Power by Decree, Hitler, Weimar, Communist party, Bruning, Hindenburg, Clerical fascism/ Fascism and the RCC, Alois Hudal, Nazism and religion, Causes of WWII, NSDAP, Enabling Act, Nazi germany, Gleichshaltung, History of Germany, Ernst Thalmann, SDP, KPD, RCC's links with Political authorrity, Nazism and religion, hitler and the church, Ludwig kaas. All others I ever listed at my pages ( the which are on hard disk and re-presentable as evidentiary to the real world). The noise ratio was always conditioned by the enormity of the historically NPOV accusation against the Holy See, not little pseudonymous EFFK, for the exact reasons I always recognised. The world will remain a more benighted poorer place given your proposal here., and certainly Wikipedia will not be recognizant of the real scholarship regarding why our forefathers fought. My failure again beneath a torrent of intellectual abuse is purely symptomatic of a century long distortion of all USA media, as I verified from your better journalists and commentators. The inability of Jimmy Wales to police or maintain his vaunted principles and policies and control low-grade kangaroo court justice makes of his project an equal failure. The Nuremberg Tribunals abjured us not to forget, but all here are solely concerned with the length of the necessary rebuttals interfereing with the blog-like length of general comments. I warned the founder of serious repercussions, I still do, and these preceding comments are in majority so far but the low-grade and un-accountable anti-Wikipedia-principles in action. No one here is concerned with the verifiability as the 3rd party provided, all appear chasing each other to compound the obvious wrong, and a real world action remains as Jimmy Wales was forewarned, the sole likely arbiter in this case. None of you are assisting Jimmy Wales' project, but rather opening it up to full ridicule. Personally I should be very glad to leave this mental iniquity, and only re-entered to see whether intellectual honesty and policy justice was obtainable, by way of correcting articles as they should be corrected. EffK 22:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Another uninvolved Admin comment: what SheffieldSteel said. My eyes glazed over trying to read that slab of text, & I had to read his ArbCom case to figure out just what he urgently wants to tell us -- beyond the fact he feels his ban was unfair & he is not allowed to tell his side of the story. Sorry EffK, but I think this proves that an indef ban is called for. -- llywrch 22:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User indef blocked, based on his previous history, behaviour in the last few days, this discussion, and (especially) the repeated legal threats. Scrutiny, discussion, and reasoned overturn or shortening of block as always welcome. Fram 08:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Support block. Given that he is 3 days removed from an indef and he appears to have returned simply to stir the pot and complain about the unfairness of his original block, I don't see much value in him editing here. Teh Internets is a big place full of forums & blogs where EffK can register his feeling about the unfairness of it all in whatever verbosity he chooses to use.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Aishwarya10.jpg

Some admins keep on reverting the cc-by-nc-3.0 tag someone put on Image:Aishwarya10.jpg. I tried to readd it yesterday. The site clearly states cc-by-nc, and people keep using popups to undo the adding of the tag (there's a policy against that, right?). No one's even bothering to discuss, and this is clearly the wrong tag. 71.58.97.225 18:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what the tag currently says. You, and I presume your alternate accounts, keep adding a 2.0 tags, which tags it for speedy deletion. --Haemo 18:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Hindu-Bear came along and added the tag (I am not that person; that should seem obvious as my account relates to Pennsylvania; I am, however, the second person who added the tag). However, you're missing the point; actually, it says cc-by, but the site says cc-by-nc, which brings up the speedy deletion notices. 71.58.97.225 18:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, actually my account says New Jersey, which is blatantly wrong... 71.58.97.225 18:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but apparently someone contacted them and they agreed to a 3.0 released. OTRS has the emails. --Haemo 18:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The site does say cc-by-nc, but they confirmed by email to wikipedia that they released it to us under cc-by-3.0. They also confirmed that they know that means we can release it to everyone else as cc-by-3.0. User:Riana was the person who handled this, I think. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm editing from India, what if the email stuff is false? How can we verify that Bollywoodblog.com released all rights to their site? This is very unusual and hard to believe. If they wanted to do that, they would have changed the license tag on their website, which makes it easy. I think someone found this sneaky way to upload images from their site and using the OTRS stuff as a way for people not to botter checking details of the licenses. Some of the images on Bollywoodblog.com may not belong to that site, they may belong to certain individuals that own the copyrights. This is the big reason why a site cannot allow all their images to be used here in Wiki.--Hindu-Boar 08:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The OTRS stuff is almost certainly valid. However, you're right about them not owning the copyrights; that's complete rubbish. How do we know that bollywoodblog was the one's who took the photo in the first place? 64.178.96.168 17:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Trust me people this has been confirmed by the Director of Caledonian Publishing who I and adminstratirs such as User:Riana have emailed personally and received official confirmation of use under 3.0. I have legal clearance that bollywood blog exclusively owns all of the images published on its site as they employ a large team of photographers in Mumbai. A very strange editor we have encoutered here indeed ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, what a fuss. The site very clearly gives us permission under cc-by-3.0 via the e-mail correspondence. I imagine they have not updated their sitenotice to reflect this. I have contact them about this 3 days previously, but have not received a response yet. Once it is received, let's hope they respond soon.

"How can we verify that Bollywoodblog.com released all rights to their site?" The OTRS correspondence. And they have not released all rights - please read up on CC-by-3.0, they continue to own copyright and will receive attribution.

"Some of the images on Bollywoodblog.com may not belong to that site, they may belong to certain individuals that own the copyrights." Please, please, use your judgement when uploading pics from the blog - if it's a really professional looking shot, chances are the blog hasn't created it, but some agency somewhere. Although, at the end of the day, that isn't directly our outlook - we're using their images under cc-by-3.0 but the blog is violating copyright in the first place. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Chrisjnelson block by Durova

I was directed here by Durova, an administrator, after a 24-hour block of Chrisjnelson in indirect violation of editing restrictions put forth in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson. This incident occurred Sunday, September 30, on 2007 New England Patriots season. Initially it was a content dispute over the wording of a heading on the article. As a participant in the content dispute, I created a section on the talk page to discuss the differences in opinion between me, ChrisJNelson, and Ksy92003.

Now, it should be said that Ksy92003 and ChrisJNelson have a long history of conflict dating back to around the time of the ChrisJNelson/Jmfangio incident and ruling. I won't get into any of it here, as it has taken place over a period of two months, perhaps, and on multiple talk pages and other discussions. However, one thing I do think is relevant is that Ksy92003, after ChrisJNelson's topic ban/1RR/etc. punishment, Ksy92003 asked ChrisJNelson if he could "monitor (his) contributions, just to see if (he is) following the ban or not." The first actualization of that that, if you will, came from Ksy92003 here. It is clear Ksy92003 is aware of the restrictions imposed on ChrisJNelson and isn't afraid to let it be known if they are broken.

With that in mind, the discussion at 2007 New England Patriots season began as it should. The users involved (me, ChrisJNelson, and Ksy92003) expressed our opinions on the situation. And it just so happened that ChrisJNelson happened to agree with my viewpoint, despite not doing so during the initial edit dispute. In other words, he changed his mind. Without making too much of an assumption, based on Ksy92003's past comments and actions regarding ChrisJNelson's "probation," as well as from other incidents between the two users, it's safe to assume Ksy92003 knew that ChrisJNelson was on thinner ice than he was and also knew what has provoked ChrisJNelson in the past. After three posts of opinion on the content dispute on Talk:2007 New England Patriots season, Ksy92003 decided that this personal attack of sorts on ChrisJNelson was necessary in his next posting: "You are completely untrustworthy because you always lie" Ksy92003 Revision as of 21:37, 30 September 2007. What happened after that consisted of ChrisJNelson defending himself against this attack, yet in a rather uncivil manner delving back into the disputes Ksy92003 has had with ChrisJNelson in the past.

Later, Bjewiki, who also knows ChrisJNelson well, reported ChrisJNelson's incivility in regards to his "probation" on Durova's talk page. Despite referring Bjewiki elsewhere for his/her complaint, and without investigating the rest of the discussion, Durova gave ChrisJNelson a 24-hour block. When I asked why, providing diffs, Ksy92003 wasn't also reprimanded for instigating the incident with a personal attack, Durova told me only the diffs provided by Bjewiki were looked at, and despite the fact that ChrisJNelson was blocked, no action would be taken against Ksy92003 and I should defer any other comments here (ANI).

That is all I have to say. Consider this a condemnation of Ksy92003's personal attack that has gone without repercussions, as well as an "open, informal" complaint against Durova. Pats1 ^T/C 20:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record. If you look at [23], in my comment, I emphasized that I wasn’t trying to make a personal attack when I said that Chris seems to be a liar. I said “that's simply what you appear to be,” meaning that based on past experiences, it’s hard for Chris to be trusted. It would be too hard to find the diffs, as Chris’ talk page has been edited so many times in the past couple months, and it would be an incredibly long process trying to find the diffs, but Durova (talk · contribs) can verify what I’m about to say. I will try to provide whatever relevant diffs I may find.

A couple months ago, there was an RfC between Jmfangio (talk · contribs) and Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs). To avoid an enormous punishment, Chris made a pledge that there were only two football-related articles that he would edit: 2007 Miami Dolphins season, and the 32 NFL Team roster templates. Shortly after Chris made that pledge, he violated it nearly immediately by editing other articles ([24][25][26][27][28]) Durova said that Chris never intended on keeping that pledge, ergo the “liar” comment I made. In this diff [29] you can see where Durova says that Chris never intended to keep his pledge.

Additionally, you can see on that same version of his talk page a comment I left him in which he used the word “Nazi” in an edit in which he was reverting an edit I made. I, as well as Durova, Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs), and even Jmfangio, were offended by his choice of words and felt that it was directed at me. He declared that it was just a senseless joke not directed towards anybody. However, about three or four days ago, Chris e-mailed me and said that he did intentionally call me a “Nazi.”

He has lied, it has been proven, and he has admitted that. If that isn’t evidence that he is a "liar" then I don’t know what is. As far as why I used that word in my edit, it was because Chris originally reverted Pats1 on 2007 New England Patriots season in an edit in which he agreed with me. As soon as the discussion actually begins, Chris all of a sudden flip-flops to the other side. I didn’t see anything convincing with Pats1’s comment which would change Chris’ mind so easily, and therefore, I simply stated that it was hard for me to trust him because he has recently lied, been proven to lie, and has admitted to it. I don’t see what’s wrong with making a statement based on my observations and his admissions. Ksy92003(talk) 21:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ksy92003, my arbitration evidence does demonstrate that Chris made and repeated a voluntary pledge while he was violating it. So while your statement might be technically correct, please bear in mind that Chris has also been trying to turn over a new leaf. The other principal named party in that arbitration case was the reincarnation of a community banned editor and Chris was also getting targeted by another disruptive editor - a sneaky vandal who has since been banned. It doesn't bring out anybody's good side to repeat their worst moments in front of a group of people. It would impress me if you struck through those comments as a gesture of good faith. Durova^Charge! 05:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you were fully prepared to have the uncertain testimony of this individual on a discussion page, when you expected that it supported your position. It then appears that you only felt it necessary to consider the editors previous record when you realised that their position was different to that which you had... That is, at the very least, an inconsistent consideration.

Further, your failure to see the persuasiveness of the opponents argument, which is of course the reason for the initial dispute, is no grounds to deprecate anothers decision. LessHeard vanU 22:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The ArbComm ruling made no restrictions on which articles ChrisJNelson could edit, only how many reverts he could make. Sasha Callahan 22:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your first statement isn’t how I viewed the situation. I would’ve been curious if he had agreed with Pats, and then switched to my side. But I don’t care about it. I eventually dropped out of that discussion and conceded because I didn’t want to have any more to do with it. Since Chris and I have had our disputes in the past, and since Pats1 and Chris have been talking on AIM every now and then (something that Chris admitted to) I was curious and believed that perhaps the reason why he had changed was because he has a great relationship with Pats1 and a horrible one with me, and would’ve wanted to side with Pats1 just because he didn’t want to side with me due to our conflicts. That’s why I made that comment: because I couldn’t believe Chris, and I wanted to know why he changed his opinion so swiftly.

And even with that said, the comment I don’t feel was inappropriate. As I’ve already detailed earlier in this section, in that edit which I referred to Chris as a “liar,” I have backed that up with evidence as to why I felt that he is a liar and why it was hard for me to believe why his opinion was changed. I said in that edit that I didn’t mean it as a personal attack and that to me, he appears to be a liar. I wasn’t attacking him. I was saying what his character appeared to be to me. I honestly don’t understand what is the problem with making a comment based on my observations, my experiences, and things that Chris has admitted to. Ksy92003(talk) 22:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This [30] and this [31] may be construed as personal attacks (the first against Nelson and the second against both Pats1 and Nelson). Am I a meatpuppet too? Sasha Callahan 22:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

First: how would that be an attack on Pats1?

And second: how would those be personal attacks? Is it a personal attack to say that disputes that I've been in with a certain user has halted my editing on Wikipedia? I haven't edited nearly as much as I have in the past because of these disputes. Not sure how that's a personal attack. Ksy92003(talk) 22:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I entered the same diff twice. I've fixed it, but in the second one you accused Pats1 and Nelson of being Meatpuppets [32]. Sasha Callahan 22:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hehe I didn't even notice that they were the same. I noticed that they were eerily similar, but not 100% equal.

Anyway, I don't believe accusing users of being meatpuppets is a personal attack. If I accused Jmfangio (talk · contribs) of being a sockpuppet of Tecmobowl (talk · contribs), would that be a personal attack? Ksy92003(talk) 22:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To me, without backing up your accusations, it may be a personal attack (a minor one at that). Sasha Callahan 22:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry isn't even an official policy, partly because it's not something that can be checked. As I've said, Pats1 and Chris have had an existing relationship as they quite frequently converse on AIM, and they always side with each other; I've never seen them disagree. Do I know if they are meatpuppets? No. Can I somehow find out if they are? No. I don't see how this is a personal attack.

I have no opinion on the dispute, but this particular point merits a definite reply. This would make half of Wikipedia "meatpuppets" - the amount of IRC, gchat, AIM, MSN and email correspondence which goes on between people in the process of forming a working community probably exceeds the activity on the actual encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 15:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, look at that comment. "Maybe it's because you and Chris are very good buddies and always side with each other and you want to defend him by making false accusations towards me, or at least that's what it seems like to me." I said "maybe." I said "what it seems like to me." I never accused them of being meatpuppets, only raised the suggestion. Ksy92003(talk) 22:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's do get something straight here, though. I never "recruited" Chris for Wikipedia. Chris never recruited me for Wikipedia. I know Chris from about 4 years back on a different site. And believe me, we were the opposite of "meatpuppets" back then. Insert "Pats1" for "jmfangio" and you'll get my point. It just so happened that our interests crossed a few years down the line (March of this year) and that's the way it is. But Chris would have been probably the last person I'd recruit to help push an agenda on Wikipedia when I first started editing. Pats1 ^T/C 23:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And I believe that. Once again: I never made any accusation. All I did was raise the possibility that you two were pushing the same agenda. And knowing the way that Chris has always behaved towards me, since you say that you didn't get along with Chris originally, then it makes a lot of sense how you didn't get along with him at first. Not surprising, giving Chris' behavior towards me and others, like Jmfangio.

But one more time: I never said that you two were meatpuppets. I only suggested the possibility. Ksy92003(talk) 23:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, the block I placed on Chrisjnelson was for incivility. That fell within the scope of the ArbCom ruling and was blockable anyway (really, what else can anyone expect for a post that speculates about another editor's pubic hair?) Considering his prior block history and arbitration sanctions, 24 hours was pretty mild. I implemented that without prejudice regarding any claims about behavior by other parties at that dispute. A related quarrel had bled onto my userpage for several days until I threatened to delete the thread and no substantiating evidence had been provided about another editor at the time when I acted on the diffs regarding Chris's behavior, referred the quarrel elsewhere, and announced that I was ready to wash my hands of the matter. Other sysops may wish to act upon the evidence subsequently provided. Durova^Charge! 04:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey that pubic hair bit was actually a pearl of wisdom. He'd do well to remember that. I never deserved that block anyway, but oh well. (I was told I should strike through this. Consider is stricken.)►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A "pearl of wisdom"? You said something to the effect of "being a mature adult isn't just having pubes" or something like that. This is an insult on my maturity both behaviorally and... well, you know. That is just completely rude and quite insulting. Who even thinks about insulting somebody by talking about somebody else's pubic hair? That's just completely inappropriate.

And seriously, what do you mean when you say "that pubic hair bit was actually a pearl of wisdom?" Ksy92003(talk) 05:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Chris, if your intention in coming to this thread was to invalidate my assertion that you're trying to turn over a new leaf, that post succeeded admirably. Ksy92003 struck through a statement as a gesture of good faith. Please earn back some goodwill, Chris, by doing likewise. Durova^Charge! 07:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My intention was to tell it like it is. "Keep it real" as they say. I didn't deserve to be blocked and, considering this wasn't the first time I was unfairly blocked by you, I have very little respect for you as an admin. But sure, I'll strike through anything you want. Seems kind of pointless, but whatever floats your boat.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of editors keep it real without violating WP:CIVIL. In the immediate aftermath of the arbitration sanction you've been cut some slack. Expect that the post above and others like it will be presented as diffs if you continue to cross the line. The hammer can come down swift and hard while you're thumbing your nose from the anvil. Durova^Charge! 23:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable user page

Hello, is User:Egyegy/Conflict acceptable? Typical quote:

"Watch out for the Arab nationalist trolls and racists on Wikipedia."

I just stumbled across it and it is a bit hostile in tone. Just wanted to get some admin eyes on it. Thank you. • Lawrence Cohen 06:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to hearing opinions from others if it's fair and not selective. I've seen pages from other members with a lot more, and it's actually hostile. I created a page for myself where I can vent on the problems that I had here, or that members who come from similar backgrounds as me have on Wikipedia. Egyegy 07:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Egyegy, it appears that Lawrence has a point there. That is an attack page and uses acidulous language against another ethnic group of users and will create an even more hostile environment on Wikipedia. Please review what Wikipedia is not (not a soapbox) and request deletion of the page. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that sort of page shouldn't exist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

These subpages are unacceptable on Wikipedia. If you feel that other members has more unacceptable pages, feel free to list them here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and the page has been deleted. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 08:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DarkFalls. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for starters.... SQL^{(Query Me!)} 08:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I re-phrased my page to answer the first concern before seeing this. You said you wanted to see other pages, here is one [33]. The other thing is that no one seemed to wanna listen to my legitimate complaint about the admin who keeps blocking me, so that's also why I needed to express my side.... Egyegy 09:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The page still has racism. "Two notorious gangs in this department are some of the afrocentrics and Arab nationalists..." Please keep your views on this elsewhere. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 09:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This page has no use/reason to be on Wikipedia. It's nothing but racism on a soapbox forum. Jmlk17 09:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop throwing baseless accusations about a situation you obviously don't understand. It's a fact that there are afrocentrics and Arab nationalists who cause these troubles on the articles. Amazing you have nothing to say about this [34] but coming down on me for bringing attention to it and all the hostility it's caused for me and others. And I have a right to defend myself against biased and abusive blocks by someone with a questionable history. Egyegy 00:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Question - does WP even have a policy on racism? I see so much of it in Israel/Palestine Talk (and the use of sources who say outrageous things such as "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands") that I've assumed we couldn't do anything unless the racism was aimed at individuals. (Please feel free to turn this into a new section or tell me to put it somewhere else). PR^talk 18:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Egyegy's edit patterns are clearly consistent with that of an Egyptian nationalist. He's been warned numerous times for personal attacks, pov-pushing Egyptian articles with other Egyptians, refusing to discuss and be civil with non-Egyptians, etc.. He has literally followed me merely in an effort to undermine me at Egyptian topics merely because I don't push a view consistent with Arab/Egyptian politics. His harassment of User:Jeeny speaks volumes[35], not to mention his edit wars at all articles Egyptian, including Race of Ancient Egyptians, Egyptian people, Fayum mummy portraits, St. Maurice, etc. It is apparent to me why this said admin keeps "blocking him", as he has been reported for everything from wikistalking to pov-pushing and is close to arbitration.Taharqa 15:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

English College Dubai

Resolved

 – rvv'd back two revisions ➔ REDVEЯS was here 08:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This article has obviously been vandalised and requires cleanup.82.110.109.210 08:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral admin requested for sockpuppetry report

I'd like another administrator to look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mightyms and decide whether to reset the block, warn, or do nothing. I was involved in the unfortunate discourse that led to the block, so I'm recusing myself.--chaser - t 08:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reset the block and extended it to 48 hours due to block evasion. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

repeat offender

Resolved

this user is a repeat offender who never listens to warnings. [[36]] Realist2 11:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No need to worry this has now been resolved. Realist2 11:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

racism and homophobia

Resolved

Also this user finds racism and homophobia acceptable. Words like negro and faggot (this user is so stupid he/she spells it figet) are not acceptable.[[37]]Realist2 11:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please report this to the appropriate message board, Administrator intervention against vandalism in future. For now I have given them a final warning --Ben^chat 11:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, at the same time I have reviewed the contribtions and blocked for 24 hours ;-). --Stephan Schulz 11:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

yes i noticed well done, its a sufficient block, please notice my above report on the repeat offender check that user out as well he is a different user. sorry if this has caused confusion, they are two different people. Realist2 11:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this is an IP address, not a logged-in user. The IP address is used by a Norwegian ISP for DSL, i.e. it is very likely not a static address. Various people can use it over time, which is why we do not block such addresses for long periods. --Stephan Schulz 12:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

sure thingRealist2 12:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Krantiparisa

Resolved

 – Spam-only account blocked.

Looks like this guy may be a spammer. His one "good" edit is about some company in India with a taxobox and a bunch of "stay tuned" comments under the chapter headings. All his other edits are A3 rephrasings of the names of the principals. Lots of warnings from lots of users, but he continues on his merry way ignoring all attempts to contact him. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 15:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Obvious spam-only account. I've indefinitely blocked it. His contribs have all fit under speedy-deletion criteria, so I've taken care of this as well. MastCell ^Talk 16:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User wishing unblock/etc?

See this. What's the norm for dealing with it? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is Tweety21, and is related to Yamla's request above. Banned users may not post to RFAR, they must email ArbCom. If Tweety21 wants to withdraw the complaint that resulted in the ban, she should do so on her own talk page, and then ask for unblock. But it seems there are other issues here, and a pending checkuser request. Yamla and Tweety21 need to get with a third party, maybe via unblock-L, to evaluate Tweety's behavior and whether unblocking is a good idea. Thatcher131 17:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad mediation and unilateral edits by Omegatron (talk · contribs)

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

Page protected

The Mahmoud Ahmadinejad article, especially the lead, has been a difficult one, prone to edit wars and controversy. Currently, under the auspices of the chair of the mediation committee, user:Daniel (3rd separate mediator, I should add), we are finally engaging in some meaningful and appropriate dialog at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. However, over the last day, Omegatron (talk · contribs) has been making substantial and substantive edits to the article, seemingly unilaterally changing a number of things including edits that strike directly at the heart of this mediation. Despite being informed of the mediation, his edits, and requested to join the mediation process, the user continues to make unilateral edits.

Furthermore, and more importantly, the accusations of WP:BLP issued were so severe, that a huge list of sources needed to be compiled. These were combined into a few reference numbers. Omegtron has declared interest in paring down those sources.

For those of us involved in editing this article for around two years now, and who are cognizant of the many discussions that required, nay demanded, the long list of edits and various other compromises, it is very difficult to see someone without that background come in and make sweeping changed against consensus, compromise, and mediation that has gone on for the better part of two years.

Furthermore, looking at the users contributions, it seems that there is a significant amount of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH being applied.

Can the article be returned to the structure under mediation, the references returned, and the aforementioned user enjoined from making such unilateral, non-consensus-based, source-removing edits while mediation is undergoing?

I believe it is not proper for me to do anything more than ask here, as I am deeply involved in the mediation process.

Thank you, -- Avi 04:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

My edits speak for themselves. I have done nothing but clean up formatting and add a few neutral bits. — Omegatron 23:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Was it an accident that you made controversial edits like this (adding "though the exact translation is disputed" to the lead) to a protected page? - Merzbow 22:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice it was protected (and don't know why it would be), but even so, what's controversial about that edit? — Omegatron 23:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I made that edit to meet concerns on the talk page (Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#transcripts and this). See Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Anti-Israel_statements, Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_map.22_translation for background. The topic itself is certainly controversial, but pointing out the fact that it's controversial in an article is just normal editing. — Omegatron 23:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are the "substantial and substantive" edits I have "unilaterally" made to this article (the only edits I have ever made to this article, besides routine cleanup and formatting):

1. add "statement that was interpreted as" so as not to imply that the translation is undisputed
2. clarify who made the hostage claims
3. expand quotes about nuclear ambitions
4. add quote about Russia and US bombs being useless
5. expand homosexuals quote
6. change "that was interpreted' into "widely translated as" to emphasize the literal translation of the idiom
7. reword for neutrality, including Avi's concern(?) about the person being criticized and not just the statement, Sefringle's concern about making light of the "anti-Jew" quote, etc.

Judge for yourself. Avi seems to think that no edits can be made to the article while it is undergoing mediation, but I don't think this has any precedent. That mediation case has been ongoing since May(?), and we're certainly not going to lock down the whole article for months while we wait for them to make decisions.

From my perspective, my edits have been completely neutral and verifiable. (I haven't formed any real opinions on the guy, so it would be hard for me to edit in a biased manner. I'm just trying to fill out the incomplete parts of the article with things as I learn them.) If you disagree, by all means discuss it with me on the talk page and we'll try to work it out, like any other article. — Omegatron 00:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article protection was because a number of users were engaged in adding/removing parts of the lead in a repetative nature, and Riana protected the page because there wasn't much discussion going on parallel to it. The mediation has nothing to do with the protection (and the article isn't going to be "lock[ed] down for months while we wait for them to make decisions"), however the material under dispute is the same in both places. From a personal perspective, I invite you to join the discussion on the mediation page to try and reach a compromise - you seem to be very proactive in suggesting solutions, which is fantastic. Cheers, Daniel 00:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made some comments on the mediation page, but I don't think there should be a prohibition against changing the article's intro in the meantime. It can always be updated when the mediation discussion comes to a decision on something better. In the meantime, it's not quite neutral. — Omegatron 23:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Kimbell2.* (and variants)

Over the last few days, a number of accounts with the same user name format were created. So far I can see:

• User:Kimbell4.MichaelL
• User:Kimbell2.emelyh
• User:Kimbell4Zoobia
• User:Kimbell2.gina
• User:Kimbell2.JoelL
• User:Kimbell2.JiannaG
• User:Kimbell2.CobyA
• User:Kimbell2.deysia
• User:Kimbell2.AnmolS
• User:Kimbell4.katherinec
• User:Kimbell2.chelseas
• User:Kimbell2.YancyM
• User:Kimbell2. anaa
• User:Kimbell2.KathyG
• User:Kimbell2.geraldc‎
• User:Kimbell2.shanellen‎

A few of these were posted to WP:AIV, but I'm not convinced these are either vandalism or sockpuppets. The standardized user names may indicate a school project. Has anybody heard about this?

I think we should hold off on puppetry blocks until at least we get a checkuser done and perhaps call the school to confirm if this is a project or not. Caknuck 13:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a high school class to me. One says "Crowded in the hallways of Brentwood High" on his or her user page. --Pleasantville 14:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would a checkuser be necessary? They're clearly related and not trying to hide the fact. Folks going to this level of transparency shouldn't be blocked unless any main space nonsense starts occuring. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a teacher named Kimbell at Brentwood High in Brentwood, NY: See http://www.ratemyteachers.com/schools/new_york/brentwood/brentwood_high_school/ms__kimbell --Pleasantville 15:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There are several reasons for the checkuser:

1. Some of the editors have been violating policies (albeit, not in an evidently malicious way) such as using userspace as chatrooms & creating vanity articles. If this is a school project, we should contact the teacher responsible to make sure that the aim of the project is within the scope of the project and to make sure that they make the students aware of Wikipedia policies.
2. If we take a proactive approach here, then other editors will be aware of the circumstances. If I'm correct in thinking that these are high school students, then it's not unreasonable to expect some level of juvenile vandalism. If we make other admins aware of the circumstances, then there's less chance of blocks that may hamper their project. (For instance, if an admin blocked the users reported to AIV with account creation blocked, then some students may be locked out of their assignment.)
3. It's not inconceivable that some of the students already have accounts, and may be using both to edit from home and/or school. Confirming intent will make it clear whether or not it's allowable instances of using multiple accounts.

I've filed a checkuser request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/User:Kimbell2.shanellen. Caknuck 15:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

To figure out the intent of these accounts, you could try to ask them on their talk pages. Checkuser seems like total overkill. Kusma (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I found the phone number for the school. I'll leave a message for the teacher this afternoon. According to ratemyteacher.com & the Web site for the school, Ms. Kimbell is an English teacher. I certainly hope this isn't a creative writing project or anything of that ilk. Caknuck 16:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(To the tune of Monty Python's "Spam song") "BITE bite bite bite Bite bite bite bite BITEY BITE, bitey bite bite." Heaven forbid someone actually welcome these kids and politely point them to a few relevant rules and guidelines. Thatcher131 16:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was trying to preemptively avoid the biting. I started this thread to try to avoid unnecessary blocks & deletions, not to attempt to incriminate people. If this is an exercise in collaborative, factual writing, then WP may just be the best place to get real experience. Also, isn't contacting the teacher responsible for the project the best way to welcome them and to establish a rapport with them? Caknuck 18:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Do I get points for doing just that while you were posting this? Basically, this does look like a school project from a quick look, but nobody had communicated with any of the above users except for one speedy-deletion notice for an article that looked to be a misplaced attempt to create a userpage. Two of their userpages were deleted by Merope (talk · contribs) for G2 and G3, without comment on the talk pages. I welcomed all of those listed, so hopefully they'll have some links to investigate. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the G3 I deleted called a student "the biggest crackhead", and I pretty much zap anything attack-page-y like that quickly. The other one was probably a bad call; I deleted it because I was trying to sort out the mess of edits by all of these accounts and got a little overzealous. -- Merope 17:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I figured it was personal information or something and they were good and proper deletions, was just surprised there were no messages left with regards to them. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I make mistakes! I should probably be de-sysopped. -- Merope 17:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, let me get my torch and pitchfork. Anyone got an angry mob handy? (No criticism of the deletions or the mistake was intended, you're a great admin!) Tony Fox (arf!) 19:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, I do the same as Merope. I'm used to CAT:CSD where the speedy tagger has already informed the user. I figure the user can see the deletion reason and I try to link to the proper section of WP:CSD for further reading but I know it's not reasonable to expect all users to figure that out. I'm smelling a good idea for a new bot! —Wknight94 (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there's more accounts out there. I only listed those I found in the User creation log, but it only went back to yesterday afternoon. Some of the accounts posted to AIV were created on 10/2, so there's probably dozens of others dating back at least that far. (I neglected to mention this in my reasoning for the checkuser request.) Caknuck 18:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Per this, there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 37. --barneca (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In a row? hbdragon88 19:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Saladdays violating article probation of Arbitration Committee

→WP:AE#User:Saladdays violating article probation of Arbitration Committee — madman bum and angel 19:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

206.167.65.125 vandalism block?

This person has been adding things into articles like Simpsons jpgs and "ennnnnnhhhhhhhh".

If this isn't the correct forum, please refer me -- I'm still learning my way around here. Thanks. Orbicular 19:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You can use Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism if the user has been warned (escalating up to the final warning) and persists in vandalizing after a final warning. Since the user isn't currently vandalizing, there probably isn't much point in blocking that IP address right now. Thanks for keeping an eye out for vandals, though, and if you see continued abuse from that address (or any other), remember to give them warnings (from the list at WP:UTM) and then use WP:AIV to report vandalism. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible spamming (non-urgent request for action)

Hi - I'm not sure if a) this requires admin action and b) em quite what the problem is - AnonGuy (talk · contribs) is the account of the owner of live simpley which going from memory has been AFD'd at least twice. His userpage just consists of various links to his business and he adds more over time - the straight forward explaination he gives for this is that it's an experiment and that nofollow means that he gets no benfit. My knowledge of nofollow is limited so I am unable to assess this claim. --Fredrick day 20:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure it violates the userpage policy. You may start warning at any time. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 20:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. The user page hasn't been edited in almost a year. He's got one link to his own website. That's perfectly acceptable. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

sorry I meant the talkpage - check the history he edits it on a fairly regular basis (including today under one of his IP addresses) to add more and more links to the same page - it currently has 19 links to his site --Fredrick day 22:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

While those few links might be pushing it, we have many worse problems. I recommend leaving this user talk page alone because he's not causing real trouble. We can always use more help at WP:COIN investigating COI cases.- Jehochman ^Talk 22:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User: 82.13.189.143

Resolved

User: 82.13.189.143 has vandalised several pages this evening, and this anonymous IP editor continues to do so despite having received several warnings not to. I wondered whether somebody could intervene to put a stop to this. Below is a link to their contributions:

User: 82.13.189.143 contributions

Cheers

Paul20070 20:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User has already been reported. Please report users to WP:AIV next time. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 20:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Range block advice

This is my first range block, as far as I can recall, so I want to make sure I'm doing it correctly.

1. This started with 4 or 5 RR on Water fuel cell from 84.110.219.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).
2. When blocked, the editing continued from 84.110.221.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).
3. When that was blocked, the editing (and a questionable comment on my talk page) continued from 84.110.211.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).
4. vandalism of my talk page continued from 89.1.35.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which I don't think is even the same ISP.

I've blocked 84.110.208.0/20. Semiprotecting Water fuel cell might have been adequate, but he still probably would have vandalized the talk page. Semiprotecting my talk page is not a real option. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I notice you didn't block account creation so don't be surprised to see logged-in socks resume. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A range block with account creation blocks should (I believe), only be used with open proxies. I've semi-protected the article, also, as blocking 89. is questionable without some idea of the range. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Skateremorocker lied about having an article mediated, to avoid changes being made to it

Resolved

 – dispute resolution beginning

On the talk page for The Classic Crime, we where having a discussion about the bands genre. I had a source that said they were Christian rock, and Skateremorocker left this message on my talk page regarding it:

"Ok Frist of all we have already been over this while you left Wikipedia Myself and other members that discused The Classic Crime have already found out that they are not christian band by looking cite were the band its selfs say it is not a christian band and how other cite have said that one of the few bands on tooth and nail that are not christian. And also we have found cite saying about the band being Emo. Iam sorry but we have already been over thiis"[38]

I saw no consensus of this on the talk page for The Classic Crime, and brought this up.[39] He then replied:

"We uesd our on page like you did for Anberlin to disusce there Genre.Iam not sure if the page is still up or not but myself and four other people have gone over this thank you."[40]

The Anberlin thing he is reffering to is Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Anberlin, where an admin helped us come to the conclusion that the Christian rock genre, should be listed on the page, per sources, but also that it should be mentioned that the band did not consider themselves this genre.

So he's telling me not to make these changes to the article because a request for mediation already determined it was unnecessary, but when I did a search for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Classic Crime, the only thing that came up was a request that I had just filed, because I wanted an admin to re-look at this. No other request for mediation for this article existed. It appears that he lied to me in hopes to convince me not to make changes to the page. Hoponpop69 22:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you want us to do? It's not clear to me that he's saying there was mediation; rather that users discussed it in a mediation-fashion. This isn't the Wikipedia complaints department, and I am getting really, really tired of seeing this same dispute on this page over and over again. Can you fellows not just disengage and move to other parts of the encyclopedia? The continual complaints over this incredibly trivial issue boggle my mind. --Haemo 22:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also note that you failed to inform them of your post here. --Haemo 23:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that he can't show any evidence that such a mediation existed should be a red flag, if such a thing took place it would be in his edit history, and he could find it for me. He says it took place while I was away from wikipedia, which would mean it happend in late June/July (when I temporarily quit editing). Look at his posts from this time period[41], no where does he discuss the bands genre on someones talk page. The only discussion he had about this subject was the one on the bands talk page, for which there was no consensus among users that the band was not a Christian rock band. Furthermore this discussion, he assured me, was not the one in question:

"We uesd our on page like you did for Anberlin to disusce there Genre.Iam not sure if the page is still up or not but myself and four other people have gone over this thank you."[42]

Have I made it clear enough that he is not being truthful?

Posting here would not be neccesary if wikipedia wasn't such a buerocracy. After I filed the request for mediation, my request was denied, and I was told to take it to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. After filing a request for help from them, they have done absolutely nothing.

You have to understand that the person I'm dealing with does not seem to be an educated, rational editor. As evidence of his posts that I've quoted above, he has a very poor grasp of the english language. He can not understand the rules about Wikipedia:Citing sources, as evidence by the report I filed the other day shows him deleting sources and citation requests, for numerous articles, on numerous occasions. After I filed that, I was told essentially to work it out with him, but as I'm saying now, he does not seem to be rational, and it is incredibly hard to work with him. This is why I am trying to get outside help, but whenever I request some, it gets shot down or ignored. Hoponpop69 23:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason you haven't got any help from the Mediation Cabal is because your case is one day old and still hasn't been listed. I'd be happy to mediate your dispute, if you're so inclined. I understand your frustration, but you'll have to just be patient. Don't worry; there's no hurry! --Haemo 23:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have you mediate this dispute, thank you. Also I just edited my above post to include evidence that he did not have a discussion while I was away for which a consensus was reached on the bands genre. Hoponpop69 23:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well, here's the deal — fill out Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-03 The Classic Crime with the relevant information, and notify the other parties about where the page so they can participate in the process. --Haemo 23:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay I will. Did you look at th evidence I added?Hoponpop69 23:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Since Haemo is mediating the dispute, the need for any admin action is, for now, over. I'm marking this as resolved and assume y'all will continue to discuss it at the appropriate venue. Good luck! Natalie 00:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:87.11.16.15

87.11.16.15 (talk · contribs) claims that two editors on the English Wikipedia are major vandals and sock puppeteers on the Italian Wikipedia, and labeled their User pages as such. I reverted, since these were this IP's first two edits here and they provided no evidence. They provided links on the Italian Wikipedia to prove their claims, but as I don't read Italian, I don't know how valid those claims are. I suggested they come here, but they declined. I am reporting this, not backing up this IP's claims. Corvus cornix 22:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "When in Rome..." springs to mind; What an editor may or may not do (or is accused of doing) on another wiki is of no relevance to another. LessHeard vanU 23:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks one of those editors was blocked here for vandalism but his account was compromised and later unblocked after an email request. Other than that, they both seem to be decent, fairly inactive editors here. (Note that I cannot read Italian either and did not check it:wiki). Mr.Z-man 23:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of referenced material

I have asked here and on WP:Village Pump three times whether there is a policy for users who delete referenced material. I didn't get an answer, except, post a particular example of an editor doing this.

Here is an example. I am not trying to get this editor in trouble, I just started editing this page a couple of days ago and have no beef against him/her at all. I simply am interested in knowing the policy on edits like this. I really fear there is no policy, that is why these kinds of destructive edits are so common.

Here are the edits:

• Removed two referenced paragraphs
• Referenced sentence removed

If this editor didn't (incorrectly) put copyvio as the reason, and left the reason for the removal of this material, would this still be okay?

Thanks. Travb (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute which should ideally be resolved on the article talk page. It is not about references - ideally everything should be referenced. What it might be (and the relvant policies):

• It may be about removing material which gives undue weight to particular incidents in the company's history in the context of the overall article.
• It may be the text is a copyright violation, though it is easy enough to reword text instead of deleting it.
• It may be someone who doesn't like criticism of the company and has a point of view problem.
• Or it may be simple vandalism.

It depends on the context, which is why you haven't been getting a straight answer anywhere. An editor who removes slabs of meterial from an article should generally explain why. If you can't get them to discuss it on the article talk page and there seem no other editors particularly interested either way, a request for comment on the article might help. Euryalus 00:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As I just said to another editor elsewhere, not every true fact needs to be in every article. It's a matter of editorial judgement. For example, an 11 paragraph article about a politician should probably not have 10 paragraphs about a minor scandal that ocurred when he was editor of the college newspaper 20 years ago, even if it is completely referenced. Here, the issue seems to be just how much negative information to include. Ideally you and other interested editors will discuss it on the talk page and try to reach some consensus; failing that, head over to 3rd opinion, RFC, and ultimately mediation. Thatcher131 00:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The onus should always be on the person who adds material to justify it and not the other way around. Much sourced amterial fails our notability policy, SqueakBox 00:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments all. Travb (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

forgot to summarize page edit

Resolved

I can't find a better page to post thsi under, so I'm sorry if this is the wrong venue.

I updated the Judson University Page today, as I am student there and enjoy correct information, but I forgot to summarize what I edited. Basically what I did was edit the entry under the Benjamin P. Browne Library building section, and add some stuff to and edit the Harm A. Weber Academic Center section. I hope that this does not get deleted! AbbytheP 23:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC) AbbytheP 10/4/07

An edit summary is not compulsory, as long as your edit did not involve any vandalism, or the adding of unsourced, inflammatory or untrue material, then there is no reason why it should be reverted.--Jac16888(non-admin) 23:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

All true ... but if you want to get into the good habit of using an edit summary all the time, you can go to the "My preferences" page and click on the box that automatically prompts for a summary if the user forgets to input one. Newyorkbrad 02:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Anywho, thanks for reporting it, actions like this show the hallmarks of a great, concerned contributor. Happy editing! (marked as resolved) --Ben^chat 05:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppets...

User talk:24.208.224.153 and User talk:Koopa turtle are clearly sockpuppets of Nintendude, who has been blocked indefinitely. When I check for existing puppets, this page, which is archived and says not to modify, but doesn't really give instructions for where else I should report this. Evidence of the sockpuppetry can be seen in the type of stealth vandalism (in the form of unsourced edits) such as this and this, racist edits to subjects like NIG and Nigg, and common subjects like highways and cities in Michigan, video games, "Lists about songs...", models of American cars, and the word "poop." Torc2 00:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Bavarian taco

Is it possible to protect talk pages from being created? If so, can someone please do so to Talk:Bavarian taco - the article itself has been protected against creation, but anon IPs keep recreating the talk page with the same content that was put in the article. Thanks, Blair - Speak to me 03:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done and  Note: that the protection will be temporary. Mercury 03:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Blair - Speak to me 03:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User recreated deleted content after release from block

Cazzaman, after being blocked for creating hoax pages (see here) is at it again. I can't see the deleted contribs to prove it's a hoax, however, the pages are mentioned on his talk page. (And this is very suspicious... looks like a copy/paste from the article page rather than the edit page). --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

PS, I'd normally go to AIV with this, but given the lack of warnings, and the non-straightforward vandalism, I thought I'd bring it here. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted all the hoax articles. If he makes another, I think he should be indefinitely blocked. As an aside, could anyone who speaks Italian help with the appropriateness of the username -- Samir 04:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I speak Spanish (the two languages are very similar) and believe it to mean something along the lines of "sucks"man - there isn't a direct translation. Babelfish backs this up translating cazza to "it hauls". But it's not too derogatory. --Ben^chat 05:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Cazzo" is dick in Italian. I've never heard a feminine form.--chaser - t 06:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Boricuaeddie / lots of bots.

Resolved

both user and bots indef blocked --slakr^\ talk / 11:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI, User:Boricuaeddie is currently creating lots of suspicious-looking bots. --slakr^\ talk / 11:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

... and it now appears they're vandalizing random rfas. --slakr^\ talk / 11:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

All blocked. Kusma (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is very curious. I don't think I've ever had dealings with Boricuaeddie (now renamed User:Agüeybaná, according to this), but he appears to have been a productive editor in the past. Could these bots possibly be the result of a compromised account?

More relevant to many editors who have been renamed: is it possible for someone to usurp the prior name for malicious purposes? If so, perhaps protection of former account names is in order.

Thanks. --Kyoko 13:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, people should recreate former accounts after being renamed if there is a danger of impersonation. WjBscribe 13:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see this notice regarding what happened with the name yesterday. A vandal somehow re-created the name, and should be blocked now, but if someone could get that name back to Aguey I'm sure he'd appreciate it. ^Ariel♥Gold 13:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I sort of agree, but that should really be achieved by technical means. I don't see the reason why should we allow old accounts to be reused; that could only lead to ugly impersonation incident. Similar thing already happened to another user I know (I can't sort out the logs at the moment to demonstrate it). Bugzilla, anyone? Duja► 14:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That part, I don't understand either. Nor can I explain how the vandal is even able to create accounts, when the Boricuaeddie account was blocked on the 2nd. I'm sure someone with more insight into the inner workings can figure it out, but it seems quite odd to me, lol. ^Ariel♥Gold 14:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused. I was User:Pedro1999a and that now just redirects to existing name. So I assume no-one could usurp that account, and indeed my older one which was (more worringly) my RL name? I'm probably being thick here..... Pedro :  Chat  14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You assume wrongly. Now there is User:Pedro1999a, and I consider the feature a serious security breach. Now I'm in possesion of your old identity—you're pwned :-). Of course, as a matter of courtesy, I'll block it forever. Duja► 14:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) was not blocked with account creation disabled. I've corrected this. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 14:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL Omigosh Duja, that's pretty funny (in a scary, how could that be, kind of way). Definitely something that should be looked into, I'd think. And I'd suggest that anyone who renamed go and create their old account again (or have an admin do it) to avoid this sort of thing. Poor Agüeybaná :( I hope nobody thinks he was doing this. (And ahhhh that makes sense SQL. Still the bottom line is the names are there for the taking, scary) ^Ariel♥Gold 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think it was him, but, I figured either his old account was compromised, or, he was being impersonated... Shot him an e-mail this morning to let him know :) ArielGold brings up a good point, that even I didn't think of until recently... If you're renamed... you need to create your old account again! :) (And, if you can't, we're always happy to help at WP:ACC...) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 14:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense for that to be part of the procedure for the renaming, so the admin does it immediately after renaming your account?  — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 15:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I hope that's what is decided, as this is pretty disturbing. I mean, a vandal creating the account is easily dealt with like this one was, but imagine if an innocent user ends up with someone's "released" username out of coincidence, and does a lot of editing under the name, and people think it is the other person not realizing they've renamed? I mean, it seems like it should definitely be addressed in some way, either through tech modifications ("locking" the account name after re-naming/moving) or by adding in that step as part of the renaming process, to create the old username again. ^Ariel♥Gold 15:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Don't forget admins can't rename accounts, that requires a bureaucrat - who I suspect will say they already have enough to do without having to recreate accounts as well. I must say I am surprised users haven't been doing this themselves - but I guess what seems obvious to me as someone involved in organising the rename pages may not be obvious to everyone. I've added a note at WP:CHU advising people to recreate accounts [43]. WjBscribe 15:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent thing to add, WJBscribe, thanks. I hope that will help for future folks. And yes, bureaucrats are the ones to rename users, so perhaps they would not want to deal with re-creation, I'm sure they have tons of things to do. At least this way, the information is out there until (if) it is fixed. I'd have to say though, that the average user who was renamed, probably would not even consider this as something that happened during the re-naming, since the userpage and talk pages redirect. It makes it appear that the username is still in existence. ^Ariel♥Gold 15:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This might prove interesting and/or relevant... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 16:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and modified WJBscribe's note further, to stress that even though redirects are created in the renaming process, the old account can be taken: 1. I had assumed that simply having the redirects would prevent impersonation, but this incident has taught me otherwise. --Kyoko 18:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooooookkkkkkkk...... Weird. Just for the record, this was not done by me. Also, I don't entirely agree with the recreation of previous usernames. Part of why I changed my name was so that others could enjoy my previous one. Unfortunately, it didn't work out as expected :-) Thank you all for your help. --Agüeybaná 21:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Attempted to address this issue at the Village Pump here. ~Eliz81^(C) 17:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

American Family Association

Hello all. Further to comments by WAVY 10 FAN [44] on the AFA talkpage. I am notifying admins here on the problems that have been occurring there just to keep you informed. Its my belief that some form of admin presence may help the article move along.

Context: There has been a long category dispute on the article. I believe the homophobia category circumvents NPOV policy and is just an accusation so it is inappropriate. I’m all for lists. The other current editors there Cheeser1, Orpheus, and Christopher Mann McKay disagree. Christopher Mann McKay altered the categorization recommendations during this dispute [45]. I believe it changed the meaning of the consensus based recommendation[46].

I believe the article does not fairly represent all significant views. I did add AFA views, albeit erroneously using non-reliable sources. I was corrected on this matter via Wikiquette notification. One of the Wikiquette notifiers (Cheeser1) decided to join the dispute.

I then added reliable information to improve the article [47] with a view to improving the background section of the article.

I also added what I believe to be a reasonable compromise to help the article keep a breadth of viewpoints [48], which was rapidly reverted by Cheeser1 [49].

Since then a lot has happened, including myself taking a break from editing the article. I believe I have been cooperative with all suggestions. Consistent with what has happened over the past few months, I believe relevant and reliably sourced views are being either suppressed or deleted.

Editors tend to delete or revert material rather than try to adjust or seek clarification, and they also seem to use talkspace more as a wall of shame rather than a way to seek consensus e.g. [50].Hal Cross 05:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am currently in the process of discussing with the other editors, and have taken editor disputes to editor pages rather than disrupt the article talkpage, though there still seems to me to be a strong tendency to personalize matters on the talkpage[51][52][53][54][55]. I did my best to reply by explaining my comments were the fifth comments I ever made on Wikipedia [56][57]. The discussion seems to involve bringing up old history and not moving forward.

Anyway, if you feel some sort of admin presence would be useful for helping the article along, I would be happy to hear suggestions. Hal Cross 05:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

To summarize what I believe is going on here: Hal Cross does not understand the BRD process. He reverts a revert, for example, claiming that the revert was bold, and thus that he's entitled to revert it. He also makes up his own compromise and immediately adds it to the article (isn't a compromise supposed to be something that people come up with together?). He repeatedly adds material from unreliable sources. And he claims that we're not allowed to call the AFA "homophobic" or "anti-gay" because it's an accusation (when it is, in fact, a well documented characterization of the group). --Cheeser1 05:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that I have made mistakes in the recent past. But I do understand the rule as is evident in my self corrections[58]. I have not recently been repeatedly adding anything to the article. I am just back from a break from editing the article. The category dispute centers around the consensus based WP recommendations that I mentioned above[59]. My own view on the AFA is that of someone who did not hear of the AFA until I visited Wikipedia and saw what I felt to be the rather narrow state of the article. I understand that a people who do not like anti-porn activists may not appreciate the AFA, and that includes WP editors. There are other relevant views though. Hal Cross 06:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Break? You stopped editing the article for like a day and a half, but you continued to actively argue for your edits on the talk page. I don't see how that constitutes a break. --Cheeser1 06:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1. You advised me to stop editing the article for a while and I decided cooperative behavior was the way forward. It gave me time for finding more reliable source. I continued discussion on the talkpage because you also asked me to come to consensus. I still haven't seen explicit replies from you on that matter. Hal Cross 07:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross has been slowing the pace of editing down for months now at American Family Association. He has brought a previous AN/I ([60]) which was ignored (presumably for being groundless). He engages in wikilawyering and ownership. When someone disagrees with him, he either accepts the parts of what they say that agree with him and ignores the rest or casts aspersions on the motives of the editor who disagrees with him. The amount of time and effort wasted dealing with his incessant attempts to nitpick every tiny word is unbelievable, and this AN/I post is more of the same. Orpheus 06:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more edits which I feel are more “wall of shame” rather than efforts to seek clarification, article improvement, discussion improvement, or consensus [61][62].

Also, I believe I have been discussing with consensus in mind. I feel there has been a lack of clear response towards consensus from other editors[63][64], and emphasizing fault seems to be the preference. I know that articles are helped along by criticizing each other’s edits[65], but the present situation doesn’t seem to be consistent with Wikiquette at all. I will be happy for any admin advice, presence, mentorship, or anything else that will help Wikipedia process on the AFA article. Hal Cross 06:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are seeking mentorship or guidance, please note that I have repeatedly referred you to the adoption program. If you think people are here to make a "wall of shame" then I'd suggest you assume good faith and listen to what we're telling you. We're explaining to you why your edits are making it hard to constructively edit the article together. This is a good-faith effort to help you edit constructively, to help you understand and abide by policy, and to help us make progress on the article (instead of constantly going over the same ground). --Cheeser1 06:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am notifying administrators here because of WAVY 10 FAN's suggestions. I believe administrator scrutiny and assessment will help. Hal Cross 06:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Orpheus. I believe there is a resistance to moving forward with improving the comprehensiveness of information in the article. It seems to be more about maintaining a narrow set of views, rather than encyclopedic inclusion. I know administrator influence will be more likely to help ensure a more NPOV compliant article in terms of allowing all relevant views. Hal Cross 06:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, the only POV issue you've raised is that we use terms like "homophobic" and "anti-gay." You've said they are "accusations" - and thus they are non-neutral. Actually, they are verifiable characterizations of this group - they oppose the gay-rights movement at every turn. Are we not allowed to call Hitler a Nazi because it's an accusation? --Cheeser1 06:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1, sorry to seem repetitive, but I refer you again to the categorization recommendations that were altered (and I believe obscured) by Christopher Mann McKay [66] and the information given by administrator Sam Sam [67]Hal Cross 06:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks." Hal Cross, you are using ANI for the wrong reasons again and your comments will likly be ignored by admins again. Please stop missusing ANI. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 06:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

CMMK, I believe I am being cooperative in terms of notifications and other editor's input [68]. If I am in the wrong place to make this notification, then I apologize to administrators. If there are better venues for notification, then advice from administrators would be helpful. Hal Cross 07:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC). PS, It seems to me that administrator presence on the AFA article would count as administrator intervention. I believe the need for that intervention should be determined via admin input somehow. Hal Cross 07:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Users have suggested you get "advice from administrators" from admin coaching, adopt a user, or request for comment. You are using ANI for the wrong reasons twice. Most admins don’t waist their time trying to solve content disputes unless through mediation or other formal dispute reason processes, so these posts are useless. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 07:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well we've tried RFCs and so on. Considering the situation I don't feel its going to work. This is more about some sort of intervention, presence, or advice for allowing better WP process on the article. Content is incidental. And when taking into account your accusations of deceitful editing, and your accusations of lying[69], admin intervention may help to prevent personal attacks and so on[70]. Hal Cross 07:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There's never been an RFC on this subject, so how can we have tried it? Orpheus 07:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. We have had help from others outside, such as Wavy 10 FAN, and his presence has been helpful. The Wikiquette alert brought Cheeser1 in, but that seems to have resulted in a strong decline in Wikiquette. Alternative admin presence would be helpful, just as Wavy 10 FAN has stated[71] So in cooperation with CMMK's subsequent comment on process and presentation to ANI, [72], I am presenting the information here. Hal Cross 08:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but this is an easy call. Follow the steps outlined in dispute resolution. There is nothing here that requires admin intervention. File an RFC to start, or go to the mediation cabal. This isn't the appropriate venue for solving a content dispute. AniMate 08:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've filed an RFC at the article's talk page. Hopefully that will get more eyes on the article so that clear consensus can be built. AniMate 08:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful response, AniMate. Regards Hal Cross 08:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

New vandal sockpuppet master

User:309dursley has made such articles as Beijing Penis Festival 2008 through 2019, WP:AIV can suck my willy, and LOL i have an orange new messages bar where he posted he's going to keep making accounts once they get blocked. Can I get some help deleting his garbage? Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

He's also User:Saltysnails. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Both have been blocked by other administrators. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Roitr - new IPs

• 79.179.183.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 79.179.150.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

See Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr. Same editing pattern, same IP hostmask. Request block. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

overwriting your own images with watermarked versions

can somebody try and talk to Motorrad-67 (talk · contribs)? he is insisting on exactly that: overwriting his previously released unmarked images with inferior watermarked versions. --dab (𒁳) 16:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have let the user know of the relevant image policy, Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 16:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Elvis has left the building. // Liftarn

I tried to reason with him, but he apparently doesn't understand, or want to understand. I'm deleting the watermarked images, leaving the clean versions uploaded on Commons. FCYTravis 18:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No one reasoned with him or ever discussed what they were doing to his images BEFORE doing anything to or with them. You have his permission to delete all of his "watermarked" images from Wikipedia so that they are not available on Wikipedia anywhere. Motorrad-67 18:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving images to Commons is a standard, uncontroversial procedure, as it makes the images freely available across the entire Wikispace. I thank you for your previous contributions, and I am sorry that you no longer wish to contribute under our guidelines. FCYTravis 19:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Now he's reverting valid warnings and personally attacking people. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Its probably best to just leave well enough alone; he's obviously upset at the moment and the warnings won't disappear from the history. Might be a good time to de-escalate. Shell ^babelfish 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. He will be happy now when all his photos (listed below) are deleted from Wikipedia. ^{Motorrad-67 20:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)}

He isn't attacking anyone who doesn't richly deserve it. Motorrad-67 20:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

{{speedy delete|Subjected to repeated past interference without my consultation}}

Please delete all of the images I have contributed to Wiki. Here is the list: Motorrad-67 20:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Bevel-gear.jpg
• Image:629.jpg|S&W Model 629
• Image:Octabarn.jpg|Octagonal barn
• Image:Barn-and-box.jpg|Octagonal barn and mailbox
• Image:Dual-saddles.jpg|Dual saddles
• Image:Dual-saddle.jpg|Dual saddle
• Image:Craven-panniers.jpg
• Image:Topcase.jpg
• Image:Weiss-800.jpg|Weiss
• Image:Scarlett-800.jpg|Scarlett
• Image:Iowa-800.jpg
• Image:Lucille-800.jpg
• Image:R32-percival.jpg|R32-percival
• Image:R68-700.jpg|R68-700
• Image:R68-opposed-cylinders.jpg
• Image:R68-vcover.jpg
• Image:Golden-arrows.jpg
• Image:Pace739.jpg|Pace trailer
• Image:Pace500.jpg|Pace trailer interior
• Image:Bogey-wheels.jpg
• Image:Cardinal-singing.jpg|Singing Cardinal
• Image:Pyrr-seedblock.jpg|Male Pyrrhuloxia
• Image:Pyrr-juvenile.jpg|Female Pyrrhuloxia
• Image:Cf-card.jpg|Compact flash card
• Image:R68-sidecar.jpg|R68 with sidecar
• Image:R32-front.jpg
• Image:Heated-handgrips.jpg|Heated handgrips
• Image:Cows-500.jpg|Cows
• Image:Feet-forward.jpg|helmetless Harley
• Image:Guzzidrive.jpg
• Image:Astronaut-in-space.jpg

The images in question have been freely licensed and accepted into the Wikimedia Commons. One may not revoke the granting of a free license. FCYTravis 20:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to make clear the policy does not state that watermarked images are not permitted. Perhaps Wikipedia should attempt to work with photographers to continue to receive the quality images they have been. This is now the second instance in about 1 weeks time. The policy states images ideally should not be watermarked. However I do not see why letting him add a small identifying watermark would hurt the project anymore then losing yet another talented contributor. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If the policy isn't clear that we don't accept watermarked images, it should be clarified. Photographers can require that they be attributed by using either GFDL or a CC-BY license. We don't put credits on pictures in articles, however, either in text or via watermarks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The policy does not state it, I am not sure if people are misreading it, or if its wrong and needs clarifying. However its current incarnation says watermarks are allowed, however not optimal. Just to add perhaps the admin who dealt with the last situation would be better suited to handle this as they made a nice resolution with the photographer in question and resolved everything in an amicable fashion. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Watermarks are not allowed, apart from rare exceptions; the policy was just written poorly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit confused, the policy pages determine what is allowed. If you are from WP:OFFICE, please let me know as you would be better aware. However if you are not, the policy page is what determines what is allowed, not your reading, or mine for that matter, of it. Since the page does not, and most likely has never, stated they are not permitted. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What a shock! WORK WITH PHOTOGRAPHERS???? Seven, what is wrong with you? Why ever would any of you want to do that????? Motorrad-67 20:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of "working with" anyone. If you require visible photo credit to be stamped on your images, then this is probably not the right project for you to contribute to. Professional printed reference works do not stamp names on photos - instead, they have a photo credit reference section. Why do you expect Wikipedia to be any different? FCYTravis 20:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the policy page in question does not say its not permitted, I am not sure what the issue is. Is it possible to have someone from the "office" or however it is referenced, chime in? --SevenOfDiamonds 20:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't need the "office" here. The user in question provided freely-licensed, un-stamped images to Wikipedia. He later attempted to replace these images with stamped versions. We are not obligated to accept these new, lower-quality uploads as replacements for the original photos, because the original free license is still valid. The original versions have all been placed in the Wikimedia Commons. If Motorrad-67 chooses to cease contributing over this matter, that is regrettable, and it is his right. However, he does not have the right to decide what freely-licensed material we use. FCYTravis 20:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct he does not own the encyclopedia, he cannot unilaterally decide that we must use those. However we can choose to keep a contributing photographer over a small technical issue, or choose to push them away. Some assets are not so easily replaceable. For comparison the Wikipedia community can choose to cast you out for no reason what so ever, however treating contributing people in this manner, only does a disservice to ourselves. As Wikipedia leaks contributing users, I wonder at what point the curve begins to slope. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you consider placing unsightly credit boxes on photos to be "a small technical issue?" Images with credits Photoshopped into them are inherently of lower quality than those without. The box detracts from the image and damages its free-content reusability. Individual Wikipedia editors cannot expect to have publicly-visible personal credit for their contributions stamped into the text of each page they edit, so why would we treat the contributions of individual photographers any differently? FCYTravis 21:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well hopefully people find a meaningful way to contribute above, however I tried to hopefully find a middle ground or resolution, however the policy page has changed since I last looked and that worries me greatly. This conversation based on policy is pointless if policy is changed at the drop of a hat. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy on Wikipedia is descriptive of current practice. In practice, we don't accept free images with watermarks; that's why the policy needed to be changed to correctly match our practice. We can discuss the policy its talk page here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Checking the history of the policy page, it turns out that until today it did say images may not have watermarks, until this edit: [73] — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Seven sez, "However we can choose to keep a contributing photographer over a small technical issue, or choose to push them away." Seven is an unusually sensitive and perceptive man. I have been "pushed away" for sure. Thank you, Seven. All this could have been avoided had someone like Seven simply chose to communicate with me before going hog wild on my photos. Motorrad-67 20:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of being constructive here, let me suggest the following. Motorrad-67 21:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy for transferring photographs to Commons

• Before doing anything to initiate a transfer, the photographer must be contacted to discuss the potential transfer. No transfer will ever be made without prior communication with the photographer.

• The person wishing to execute a transfer (transferrer) must ascertain the photographer's opinion about making the transfer. If the photographer does not understand the meaning of the transfer or the nature of the Commons, the transferrer must explain this to him or her.

• If the photographer agrees to the transfer, the transfer may be made.

• If the photographer does not agree to the transfer, discussion must continue to ascertain the reason(s) for the disagreement in an attempt to implement reasonable and mutually acceptable procedures to secure agreement.

• If no agreement can be made, the photographer will be provided the option to have his or her photograph(s) deleted completely from Wikipedia. If the photographer does not agree to deletion and does not agree to the transfer after reasonable efforts are made to secure his or her agreement, the transferrer may transfer the photographs 14 days after the initial contact with the photographer was made.

This is not a formum for discussing policy changes. The right place for your proposal is Wikipedia talk:Image use policy, where it is also under discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Obtain permission to transfer? Are you serious? The whole point of the GFDL and other libre-type liscenses is the right of the work to be used by anyone, so long as they pass those rights (and author history) on to other users. You released them under a free liscense, for the benefit of humanity. Be proud. And no, those proposed points run completely counter to the spirit of the 'pedia. -Parappathebagel 14:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, a thousand times no. Perhaps you should have read the disclaimer before you hit the "upload" button. It says clearly, "By submitting content, you agree to release your contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License." Once you hit the "upload" or "save page" button, you lose your rights to the content, and is now free to be used as according to the license. You do not have the right to retract the license, period. --71.141.117.207 02:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not! You are in no way losing your rights to the content by releasing it under the GFDL. Please stop repeating this falsehood, as it will only scare people away from contributing free content. All copyright on images released on the GFDL is retained. No, you are not losing rights, you are simply granting additional, nonrevocable rights on that image to the rest of humanity. One of those rights happens to be that the image can be reused, republished, and modified under the terms of the license agreement, which would include uploading the images to Commons (or any other compliant website) at any time, without notification or added permission beyond the original release under the GFDL. --198.200.171.235 15:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, "losing your rights" may have been the wrong phrase, but the issue still stands: we in no way need to notify the photographer when his/her images are to be moved to Commons, as the image has been released under the GFDL, and for all purposes on Wikipedia, we operate within the allowances and confines of the GFDL unless there are other circumstances preventing such. Of course, I do not dismiss notification of photographer as a courtesy. --71.141.117.207 23:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Reguarding getting permission before copying: Do you realize that wikipedia is mirrored all over the place? This happens without specific permission, but it does happen with your prior consent. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)