Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive305

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Can someone talk to this user?[edit]

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[edit]

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  12:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Which I have done, by the way. Neil  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 (, 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)

[Section deleted per WP:VANISH - see logs for text][edit]


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[edit]


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 (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 (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)
Symbol comment vote.svg Clerk note: Done. Note that 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.


Devanampriya 17:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Devanampriya's response[edit]

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[edit]

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))"


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[edit]

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:

"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[edit]

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)


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 [citation needed] 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 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[edit]

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[edit]

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  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  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  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  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  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. DurovaCharge! 18:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Britney Spears' fifth studio album[edit]

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. EdokterTalk 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[edit]

Resolved: Already blocked. (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. Pigman 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. Pigman 20:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Public record PDFs[edit]

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 Statement.of.erik.d.prince.pdf, and I'm wondering if we could simply link to "" as an inline reference, as it's simply a transcript of the Congressional testimony? Originally, it was from on 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: 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 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 original copy. You can make this resolved. thanks again. • Lawrence Cohen 20:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Malformed AfDs created by User:Hinicome[edit]

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[edit]

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:

2) Denial of alternative scholarly sources:

3) Deletion of sources:

4) Abusive claims of consensus:

5) POV editing:

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:

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. DurovaCharge! 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 nth) 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 POV pushing and personal attacking[edit]

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.[edit]

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: 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 (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 (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 (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. (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 was CharlesMartel (talk · contribs) [18]. -Chunky Rice 23:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hugh Doherty[edit]

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!! 01:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please block this sockpuppet of banned editor Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 01:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. Acalamari 01:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of Images[edit]


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

Can an admin restore these images:

And, delete these:

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)



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. nattang 03:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Green tickY blocked - 3 days, if she does it again after block, I will be open to an extension and/or indef. nattang 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[edit]

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. 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. 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)" 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[edit]

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[edit]

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. 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. 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)


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[edit]

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 14:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Page move in the middle of an AFD is OK?[edit]

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 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, 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 07:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Propose indefinite block[edit]

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 Steeltalkstalk 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)


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. 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. 18:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, actually my account says New Jersey, which is blatantly wrong... 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 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 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? 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 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 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[edit]

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 co