Hello, Prof02/archive, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 07:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you're doing a fine job cleaning up the Erich Heller article, you think it could use some subheadings to break it up? I'd also suggest including an edit summary for your changes. This will make it easier for us to identify changes from one version to another without having to browse them manually. Regards --Hooperbloob 07:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not finished with composing this article; I will get to the subject headings, etc., as you suggest, once the body text is complete.I need to re-read some of his books for a proper assessment of his thought.-- Prof02

I also have to say that this is becoming an excellent article. However, it would be good if you could add references. Check WP:CITE for ways to do this. I personally prefer the meta:Cite/Cite.php system, which is easy to use and adds references directly in tags in the main text. Just look in the code for this footnote.<ref>The cite.php system makes it easy to add references in the relevant place in the text, but it will automatically display them in footnotes in a "Notes" section at the end, just like this.</ref><nowiki> Any chance you can find a photograph of Heller that can be used under a free license? Other illustrations? [[User:Uppland|u p p l a n d]] 08:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC) <nowiki>'''{{helpme}}'''

Please walk me slowly, in very very simple non-technical language, through all the steps I have to take in order to upload an image (as you have requested) to illustrate this article. -- Prof02 09:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC) 09:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

<references/>

Thank you very much indeed for teaching me the footnotes technique.As you see, I have already applied this knowledge in practice.Proliferation of references can however be tedious, not to say crude, detracting from an article's appeal rather than enhancing it; and I think the reader should be encouraged by an article that is truly interesting to do his own little bit of sleuthing at the subject rather than have everything served to him on a platter. -- Prof02 09:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

As regards your last question, I have now added a sentence about photographs to the last paragraph. -- Prof02 06:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way of inserting links WITHIN A SINGLE ARTICLE pointing to different sections thereof?For example, if the author of an article advises the general reader to skip a section of the article and go directly to the following section, can there be a active link at that point, rather than just indicating the section in question by its heading and leaving the reader to search for it on his own? -- Prof02 07:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes you can. For example User talk:Prof02#Oskar Seidlin will link to the section below. --Commander Keane 08:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please change the major heading of this page from 'Holthusen' to 'Hans Egon Holthusen' for me.I don't know how to do this. ---- Prof02 08:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Done! For future reference, you use the "move" button (to the right of the "history" button) to change page names. More at WP:MOVE.--Commander Keane 08:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. ---- Prof02 08:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Would someone kindly provide a redirect from 'Seidlin' to 'Oskar Seidlin': I don't know how to do that.Currently if you search for 'Seidlin' nothing happens. -- Prof02 12:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Info at Wikipedia:Redirect :-) --Commander Keane 12:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks again.

Can you help redirect 'Stefan Brockhoff' to this page (Oskar Seidlin)?(The reasons for this will be apparent from the article's text.)I'm sorry, but the procedure is too complex for me. -- Prof02 14:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Writing articles is the complex bit (I am always happy to do fiddly things like redirects etc). I commend you for all your hard work.--Commander Keane 14:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kindness and for your humbling honesty. -- Prof02 14:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I must ask you to UNDO the redirect from 'Stefan Brockhoff' to 'Oskar Seidlin'.Since I have now created a separate page for 'Richard Plant', who participates in the pseudonymous identity of 'Stefan Brockhoff', we need a separate page for 'Stefan Brockhoff' with referents ('See also... etc.') directing the reader BOTH to 'Oskar Seidlin' AND 'Richard Plant'.This however seems impossible to do with the redirect unilaterally in force from 'Stefan Brockhoff' to 'Oskar Seidlin'-- Prof02 08:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Prof02, I've made the change as you've requested. Please feel free to modify the text of the Disambiguation page (Stefan Brockhoff) as you see fit. (Hint: You can edit a redirect by clicking on the link after "Redirected from ...") Cheers, Tangotango 08:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. -- Prof02 08:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Could I trouble you once more?I would like to have two redirects to this page (Oskar Seidlin) -- from 'Koplowitz' and from 'Oskar Koplowitz'.Thank you in anticipation. -- Prof02 09:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Prof02, creating a redirect is easy. Simply follow the instructions for creating a new article, but instead of writing content, type #REDIRECT [[Page you want to redirect to]] and save it. I've made the redirect you requested. Cheers, Tangotango 09:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone kindly create a disambiguation page under the heading Seeler, which might include links to the pre-existing article on Uwe Seeler, and to the new article on Moriz Seller I have now created?Thank you. -- Prof02 08:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Done: Seeler.--Commander Keane 08:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to help further with this page, not originally written by me, but I need to be guided as to what exactly is needed. (If you can, please change the type style of the major heading of this page from roman to italic: I do not know how to do that.)-- Prof02 08:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the biggest flaw of the article as it is now is that it describes only the plot of the work and not why the work itself is important. If you need help with the style you can start here. If you are not sure of what you want to write maybe start a discussione in the talk page of the article. --J B

Do my improvements to the Tonio Kröger article satisfy you, or is more needed to be done? -- Prof02 07:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This goes on the talk page for "Tonio Kroger" not under "Wikipedians who Need Help" ForestH2

This is my attempt at a simple guide to uploading images:

1. First of all, click on "Upload file" down to the left.
2. Then, on the upload page, click on "browse". This will help you locate the image on your own computer through the box called "File upload" or "Choose file", depending on which web browser you use. When you find the file, click on it to get it in the "File name" field. Then click "Open".
3. The location of the file, ending with the actual file name (something like: C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\My Pictures\Erich_Heller.jpg) on your computer will now be visible in the "Source filename" field. In the "Destination filename" field will be the name of the file (possibly Erich_Heller.jpg or something else).

   You now have the chance to change the name of your image, by changing the name in the "Destination filename" field (but leave the "Source filename" alone). If your image is called something complicated or just random figures and letters, like 34562784cx.jpg, you can give it a more descriptive name. It is usually a good idea to give it a name which is descriptive, concise but not unnecessarily short. Filenames can be fairly long without a big problem. You may want to add more pictures later. You can call one Erich_Heller_portrait.jpg, and later add Erich_Heller_manuscript 1954.jpg etc. You may also consider adding, for instance, the name of the photographer or other data relevant for the provenance to the filename, as there is a greater chance this will be kept if somebody copies and re-uses the image.

4. Still on the upload page: In the Summary field, you should add everything necessary about the origin of the file and the license under which it may be used. The name of the photographer, the date of the photo and the location if it is in a library or archive location.

   For privacy reasons, you do not need to add address information or letters of permission from private individuals on the webpage. Instead, such information should be sent to the Wikimedia Foundation. They will then put it in their archive and add a numerical "ticket" or code to the image page. But this can be arranged after you have uploaded the image, if necessary.

5. Still on the upload page, and now you need to chose which license to use. This essentially depends on the wish of the copyrightholder. The GFDL license, under which all text in Wikipedia is licensed, is the preferred alternative. It allows the photograph to be re-used by anyone, including in commercial publications.
6. Finally, click on the "Upload file" button.
7. Wikipedia may now warn you that your image has to be renamed because there are spaces in the filename. This is OK. Filenames need to have underscores (__) in place of spaces. You can make sure they are there when you decide what the name of the image file should be, or you can just click OK at this point and Wikipedia will automatically replace all spaces with underscores. The upload will be complete.

If you do not fill out everything properly at point 4 and 5 before uploading the image, or if you make a typo, you can easily fix that afterwards by just editing the image page, just like you would edit any article page. The only thing you cannot change is the name of the image. To do that, the image has to be uploaded again under the new name.

If the image is released under a free license, you can also upload it to Wikimedia Commons. That is a separate wiki site for images and other media files. All Wikipedias in various languages can fetch their files from the Commons. Image uploading there is roughly similar, but you need to register a separate account to log in there. You may want to upload your image here first. It can always be moved at a later point. u p p l a n d 10:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now what?I have created this image page: how do you get the pic to the article? -- Prof02 12:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Just add [[Image:NameofImage.xxx|right|thumb|This is a caption.]] to the article. If you want it on the left, replace right with left. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: User:Prof02/Erich Heller. I hope you'll feel more comfortable working on it there, with nobody else editing it. Good luck! Bishonen | talk 16:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you very much. -- Prof02 09:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is still in your userspace: User:Prof02/Erich Heller. User:Harro5 only deleted the redirect left in the main article space after the page had been moved. Such redirects are created automatically at a page move. u p p l a n d 10:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professor, you must have been going via the now deleted redirect in some way, to reach your article. Please click instead on the direct link Uppland gives you there, User:Prof02/Erich Heller. That will take you straight to it. Would you like me to place Tups's direct link somewhere convenient for you? How about the top of this page? And/or your own userpage? It might be a good thing if I created your userpage in any case—it would turn your name blue instead of red in article histories, so it wouldn't make you look like a "newbie" any more!

P. S., Harro didn't do anything wrong, as redirects of a particular kind are supposed to be deleted. It's a little difficult to explain the rationale for it, and I realize it must have looked like wanton destruction to you. I hope you weren't too alarmed. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 11:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I apologize for the false alarm.But my heart did stop beating for a while.Isomehow expect the worst, and am thankful for the good people like the two of you to help me along. -- Prof02 11:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm so sorry it had you worried! The name you wrote on your userpage is now a direct link to the article. Bishonen | talk 13:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You really cannot have a redirect from the article space to your userspace. Please either move the article back to "Erich Heller", or nominate redirect for deletion under CSD R2. This is a clearcut policy. Thank you. Harro5 00:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harro5 is actually correct about this. There is a Wikipedia policy about keeping the article space – the actual encyclopedia – as far as possible separated from the "scaffolding" for building the encyclopedia: userspace, project space (those pages with names beginning with "Wikipedia:") and even individual talkpages of articles. One of the consequences of this policy is that we should not have redirects from article space to userspace. Removing the redirect actually makes it easier for you to go on working in peace on your article, as nobody will stumble on it by mistake by just following a link from another article. u p p l a n d 20:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the redirect. Bishonen | talk 16:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I've been given a bit of a briefing on this situation by Bishonen, and wanted to say that I fully support the creation of any good article, as long as it's done so correctly. That is being done now. To the user, thank you for contributing to our project and it is good to see from your edit history that you are branching out into different subject areas. I hope to see a version of Erich Heller moved into the article space soon. Harro5 22:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Merkur article requires disambiguation in view of the fact that there is now also an article (stub) on Merkur (journal).Would someone please do the needful. — Prof02 12:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Done, and I removed the help me, --Ali K 12:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. — Prof02 12:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that user subpages are not under any circumstances permitted to be filed directly in article categories. The article is not to appear directly in an article category until such time as the article is completed and moved into articlespace; in the meantime, the category links on it must remain commented out. It is not "interfering with your text"; it's the rules. Bearcat 00:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have, incidentally, made a point to read all Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and do not find in them support for the category-listing rule that you (seem to) invoke.I recognize that I may have easily overlooked a relevant provision, and I have therefore made a request (in the edit comment of 31 July 2006 on my Lauris Edmond article) for the chapter and verse in question: no such citation has however been forthcoming.

It should be noted that Wikipedia is above all governed, as a matter of stated principle, by consensus, which shapes the emerging framework of rules, and what that particular circumstance means in practice is that no individual user or administrator has the liberty to institute his/her own laws grounded solely in private feeling.

Then there are of course the countless, countless user subpages listed within Wikipedia categories (e.g. in the Category:Swansea two subpages have been posted since 22 March 2006, one of them being HoS v1) that do not seem to offend anyone but do serve as cases in point,^[1] so it is difficult to understand the reasons for the selective attentions meted out to some but not to others (my Lauris Edmond article has, by contrast, been in the userspace only since 8 July 2006).Such listings serve a useful role in bringing to notice articles which are substantive enough to provide valuable information to knowledge-seekers, without being complete enough for release.Other users (e.g. Caelifera) go so far as to cite their primary userpages (not subpages with articles in progress) in the subject-categories listings (Spirituality, in this case) without facing harassment (though such listings are against the guidelines as those stand at present). ^[2]

Your additional instruction addressed to me in the edit comments to my Lauris Edmond article (3 September 2006, 00:14), which reads: ‘also, don't duplicate categories such as :Category:New Zealand poets with :Category:Poets’, stands in conflict with published Wikipedia guidelines, or at the very least fails to be borne out by them (the relevant regulations are here).

A fourth point that must be made is that articles in userspace, again as a matter of principle, are not open to the editing by the general public, or by administrators, or by anyone other than the user, and if indeed the electronic platform isn't sufficiently foolproof (as it should be) to make those articles conform automatically to something so basic as the rules governing the listing of categories (which are activated by the system automatically across the portal), the presumption of good faith operative in the user mandates that any changes that need to be made to assure such conformity should in the first instance be done by way of request addressed to the user in charge of the page in question, and that any intervention by second hands, administrative or otherwise, be only resorted to in case of unreasonable obstinacy in the user to conform to stated and verifiable guidelines which are applied uniformly across the board.All other such interventions do indeed amount to interference with the userspace, if not to something even worse: unreasonable high-handedness (and it is particularly so in the case of someone who, partly through incompetence — as was the case with the Revision of 18 July 2006 (12:11 UTC) by Chicheley in my Lauris Edmond article — deletes whole swathes of text where a simple deactivation device applied to the categories segment would suffice to achieve the presumed objective). — Prof02 15:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Prof02:I appreciate your expertise with regard to Heller, but his article has been off the grid since May and I'm starting to think that you are overcooking the replacement version a bit.I took a course from Heller in the early 1970s and I still recall and admire The Artist’s Journey into the Interior, but, substantive thinker though he was, I doubt that he merits an article longer than Aristotle or Kant.Wikipedia is not a refereed journal.You also should bear in mind that in a wiki no one retains ownership of the articles.If you continue to invest months in this project, your heart will break when your put the article back on line and all sorts of editors start hammering away on it.C'mon, it really is time to wrap this one up and let go. - WikiPedant 07:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for advice on how to avoid a heart attack, but I usually accept counsel on the subject from cardiologists only.Your logic for the rest of what you say is that, because the article has a certain substance, which invests it with value in your eyes (and the eyes of Charles Matthews), it should therefore not enjoy the same privileges that the stubs lingering for ages in user subpages enjoy, and that an (imaginary) deadline should be imposed on its completion (such deadline that, for example, the article ‘HoS v1’, mentioned in a previous segment of this page, is free from — because it lacks a comparable value in your eyes).Consider the Heller article non-existent to yourself at present (because that is exactly what it is), and spare yourself current heart-grief and over-excitement: when and if the article will be released (I say ‘if’, for I am at liberty to delete it at any time should I choose to do so) will be my decision alone.And yes, upon release, you will have the liberty, only then, to hammer at it at will (trust me, I will be prepared, Oh, yes).I don’t want to break your heart, but brace yourself for a long haul: I am perhaps four years or so from completion. As to the comparison with Aristotle, actually this is relevant, because there are zillions of articles around on Aristotle (and Wikipedia has SIX separate articles on him, not just one divided into subsections, though cumulatively they make little difference to the available store of general knowledge), but when I started there was virtually nothing at all on Heller in English, a ‘substantive thinker’ though he was (as you yourself acknowledge) — which is the reason why I expended the effort in the first place (an effort for which I note you do not thank me but, on the contrary, seem to upbraid me, even if you do acknowledge my ‘expertise’).If you need suggestions on how valuably to employ your time, I may offer you, and your soul-mate, definite, specific proposals on how to improve Wikipedia with research such as mine (proposals which I myself have no time to execute).I mean it.In fact I will go even further, and invite you here and now to collaborate with me on the Heller article, by contributing a section, if only a small one, on The Artist’s Journey, if you really know it well (and can place it in the context of his overall scheme).Just say yes, and give me your e-mail contact.— Prof02 10:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I came across the above article when doing some redirect cleanup, and just want to add a few comments to the above. First of all, you're incorrect to say that the article is "non-existent" to others, all material on wikipedia is available under the GDFL, which equally applies to pages in userspace. Thus, any person is perfectly entitled to distribute/edit/create derivitive works of this article as it stands right now, so long as they also abide by the GDFL. Wrt your deletion comment, you can of course request deletion, but as it has been released under the GDFL, you could not insist on it - indeed if a derivitive work was made, deletion might be forbidden, due to the GDFL's requirement to retain contribution history.

You also mention that it may be four years before you are happy with the article being moved into mainspace. What happens if, in the meantime, someone else creates an article on the same person? Also, could you elaborate on what you mean by being "prepared"? As you know, no one "owns" any particular article, so any editor could choose to modify it, for example, rewording some of the prose, and you would have no more right to insist on one particular version than any other editor. After working on an article for some time, that can be a difficult thing to accept, especially if some of the almost inevitable changes that will occur are not to your liking. Regards, MartinRe 00:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comment on what you say, except to say that the harassment I have been receiving from Wikipedia insiders since the acquisition by my Heller article of a certain degree of substance and caliber that most contributions here lack (whether under the guise of patronizing advice being dispensed to me, or with quiet but bare-knuckle threats, etc.) has indeed been something I have not been prepared for.I am prepared now.As to legal implications, licenses, GDFL, etc., those are issues that concern me alone (and legal experts): I certainly can read myself, thank you very much.I am not a resourceless, clueless child in need of (condescending) guidance: and when I need it I will ask for it.The article in question should be NONEXISTENT in the same sense in which the previously cited article ‘HoS v1’, and thousands of other articles like it posted on this site, are nonexistent: you do not dispense any advice to their creators (holders of relevant subpages), discuss hypothetical future situations that might arise upon release (based upon absurd presumptions about their authors’ possible misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is all about), etc., etc., so please stop singling me out for your special attentions: I do not deserve them.Ignore me.Why people like yourself and others listed on this page feel themselves divinely called to volunteer something they have not been asked for is best known to themselves.You have a problem with the four years?I am sorry, but I cannot help you.I do hope however that the harassment stops before too long.That this is harassment and nothing else is best illustrated by the fact that my invitation to the previous contributor to this page to collaborate on the article (which might help speed up the process leading to its completion) has been left unanswered: there is no constructive engagement here, only harassment.

Another instance of what can be construed as harassment is illustrated by the history of my Lauris Edmond article posted on my user’s subpage.The article was begun on 8 July 2006 at 14:03 UTC (see history log).Three days later, on 11 July 2006 at 19:50 UTC another user initiated the same subject in the main article space: the text here initially presented Lauris Edmond as a living person.Subsequently, the subject’s date of death, together with related changes to the text, were incorporated into the text by being copied-and-pasted from my user subpage — without any acknowledgement of the fact.That particular information (and also the subject’s middle name) was at the time not available anywhere on the Internet.While I find such practice unethical I have accepted it as a feature of the territory I am treading on; and have kept my cool remarkably well.

I now see that more of the same has now been meted out to me, on 13 September 2006 at 03:33 UTC, by AmiDaniel, who single-handedly hijacked part of my user subpage on Heller with this edit summary: (moved User:Prof02/Erich Heller to Erich Heller: Article was userfied quite some time ago;), even as the article is clearly a work-in-progress with the last edit by the author within the previous 24 hours.The article has now been reverted to the user subpage.On AmiDaniel talk-page there is a record of a discussion of the proposal (initiated by Bishonen, on the grounds that he/she ‘had it with waiting for the prof to be ready to have it [the article] moved back, especially since he now declares he may need another four years of fiddling with it’) to falsify my authorship of the article: I just have no words.

The fact of the matter is that the article had originally, on March 24, 2006, been created in main article space by mistake, owing to the fact that as a new Wikipedia user at that time I had no experience in creating user subpages: once the mistake had been discovered the article was moved to user subpage to correct that mistake, at the suggestion of the administrator involved.It is not that the user had been given temporary ‘permission’, but that normal practice involving subpages has been explained to him — for which I don’t require any permission.— Prof02 07:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That was not what Bishonen's suggestion was about. It was about splitting the part of the edit history that came after the article was moved to your userspace from the edits that came before. Your main authorship is still quite clear from the history of both pages, as you can see. And if you would have waited four more years with putting this article back into the main article space, somebody else would have written an article on Heller by that time in any case. The English Wikipedia has grown from nothing to almst 1,4 million articles in the previous five years, and the number of new articles per day keep accelerating. u p p l a n d 11:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to stop you, Bishonen, AmiDaniel, Charles Matthews, or anyone else, from creating their own articles on Erich Heller (as has happened with the Lauris Edmond article, which was created in the main article space precisely BECAUSE the user in question saw my subpage on the subject).But there is something to stop anyone from COPYING my userpages (whether on Heller, or on Lauris Edmond), in whole or in part, or moving them within Wikipedia, without my consent or knowledge (and, in the case of the Lauris Edmond article, also without acknowledgement). — Prof02 11:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No, there isn't. You have released everything you have posted on Wikipedia, whether in article space or userspace, under the GFDL, as has been repeatedly pointed out. I'm sorry you think it condescending guidance to inform you of these matters. Bishonen | talk 11:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, there is.There is nothing under the GFDL that gives you, or Bishonen, or AmiDaniel, the right to move a Wikipedia userpage to the Wikipedia main article space without the relevant user’s consent.And there isn’t any other relevant Wikipedia guideline that would empower any of you, or other administrator, in this way.To think otherwise is not just condescending; it’s erroneous, and unwarranted by known policies.You do need to adhere to published guidelines and policies which apply to all comers here: you are not my host here in the sense that you can shapherd me along according to your private lights.— Prof02 11:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As for Lauris Edmond, the fact that that article did not originally have the death date rather indicates it being started independently from your article (and there is really very little similarity between the articles). User:Bart Versieck who later added the date of death, acknowledged your article as the source by linking to it. It has happened several times that I have had an idea for an article and come to Wikipedia just to discover that it had been started by somebody else just a few days earlier. With as many users as there are around here, such things are likely to happen. u p p l a n d 11:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is, I repeat, nothing under the GFDL that gives you, or Bishonen, or AmiDaniel, the right to move arbitrarily a Wikipedia userpage to the Wikipedia main article space without the relevant Wikipedia user’s consent.And there isn’t any other relevant Wikipedia guideline that would empower any of you, or other administrator, in this way (the relevant guidelines are here).To think otherwise is not just condescending; it’s erroneous, and unwarranted by known policies.You do need to adhere to published guidelines and policies which apply to all comers here: you are not my host here in the sense that you can shepherd me along according to your private lights.— Prof02 11:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your e-mail to me earlier today.I cannot comment on the substance of the article but I do have an opinion on the dialogue above.Firstly, no one editor owns an article, even if they are the only contributor.All unprotected articles are available to be editedby any user at any time. Secondly, articles are never finished on Wikipedia as research builds the knowledge base in perpetuity.Analysis of subjects A and B can lead to the synthesis of new subject C, with cross links and back links to A and B, ad infinitum. Articles cannot be witheld from publication as with a peer-reviewed journal, due to the open nature of Wikipedia.

Thirdly, the guideline (not policy) on Wikpedia userpages relevant to this dialogue is to be found here. It might be considered to be a breach of etiquette to move user subpages in the article space without due comment on the user's Talk page but it isn't a breach of policy. I have edited other user's pages occasionally, when the requirement arises. I do let them know when and why, which is usually no big deal. Regards, (aeropagitica) 20:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, you do not offer a comment on the dispute as requested (the relevant segment of the talkpage was carefully referenced in my request for comment addressed to you), which dispute is adumbrated in the section below, and which dispute is broader than might appear from the exchanges in the single section above, to which alone you restrict yourself.The issues which you bring up in your response have been previously noted and carefully considered by me below.The section below will now have also been expanded to bring to light other (editorial) aspects of the case.I would greatly appreciate it if you could answer point by point the issues raised below, specifically whether it is a violation of policy/guidelines/etiquette or any other standard to break up the text of an article and to falsify its history — which is the key issue here; and whether it does not strike you at all as odd that an article which you yourself have recognized as being incomplete and a stub (by placing a stub-template on it at 22.27 UTC on 18 September 2006) should have been moved through a subterfuge (i.e., without a visible record), just five days earlier, to Wikipedia’s main article space, in preference to a more complete version from which it was truncated — which has over 14,000 more words in it!And those outstanding 14,000 words haven’t just been left behind: they were deleted, and for some five hours, between 3.33 and 8.14 UTC on 13 September 2006, they were inaccessible online, before the deletion was reverted.

As for your observation that articles ‘cannot be withheld from publication as with a peer-reviewed journal, due to the open nature of Wikipedia’, I might point out that articles (and any other matter) in user subpages are of course never withheld from publication, as these user subpages are always published in exactly the same way in which the articles in the mainspace are, on account of the fact that they are always and instantly accessible to all Internet users, and can be easily retrieved at will by anybody at any time, including with the help of Wikipedia search engines.The question of withholding of publication does not therefore arise.What does arise is the question of the observance of Wikipedia’s official guidelines and policies (and not only of Wikipedia etiquette, whose observance might be ‘imagined’ by some to be voluntary, although it isn’t: Wikipedia etiquette provisions do in fact enjoy guideline status, not something less than that: see Wikipedia:Etiquette) — those Wikipedia guidelines and policies, specifically, that govern user subpages, and the provisions of the license discussed below.I understand the subject may be too hot of a potato for you to touch, but if you are afraid to rile other powers that be, say so, please.

(I might marginally observe, too, seeing that you choose this section to comment upon, that there is no such concept as ‘splitting history’, which is invoked here (there is a concept of splitting hairs — invoked to show the absurdity of the procedure): history of anything, too, when ‘split’, is no longer history, an integral record of an entity’s past, but a perversion of the idea: here it was resorted to in order to create a fictitious entity, an article which did not exist at the time of its recreation (13 September 2006), with falsified identity to make it appear as though it did, the price of which additionally included the falsification of the history of the article in my user space, which was made to appear as if it were created for the first time at 6:40 UTC on 12 May 2006, which again is factually untrue.)Please comment in detail again (this time in the right place).Regards,— Prof02 06:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC), with revisions by Prof02 06:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The present dispute concerns the (concerted) actions of two Wikipedia administrators, namely

User:AmiDaniel and User:Bishonen

relative to

(1) their moving of a historical portion of a user subpage to the article mainspace without the concerned user’s knowledge or consent;

(2) the falsification of the authorship of the article-in-progress included on that subpage as a result of their action;

(3) the documented awareness on their part of the consequences of their actions prior to the undertaking (which rules out the possibility of their having acted in good faith);

(4) the two users’ subsequent defiance to the challenges of the propriety of their actions vis-à-vis Wikipedia guidelines, and their blank refusal to engage in any debate on the matter.

User:Charles Matthews is a secondary party to the dispute (see below).

Other parties are also involved in varied (though lesser) degrees, through their having offered comment on, encouragement to, or agreement with the (then proposed) actions of the two principal actors named (and in one case also defending them ex post facto), and those tertiary parties, known at the present stage to be three in number, include User:Bunchofgrapes, User:Uppland, and User:WikiPedant.

Wikipedia guidelines mandate that in case of a dispute, the first step towards resolution should be to pause, in order to allow parties time to acquaint themselves with relevant Wikipedia guidelines, before proceeding to the next step, which is to invite comment on the issue that is the bone of contention (see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes).The first step having now been satisfied (there was a pause in the dispute of a week’s duration after the initiation of the dispute, as evident from the immediately preceding section of this talkpage), comment is hereby invited on the merits of the case, whose facts are briefly as follows.

The present user became a registered member of Wikipedia on 10 January 2006, and has since the end of March 2006 contributed a number of articles to Wikipedia, articles whose value one can begin to appraise by considering the fact that those articles, while dealing with people/concepts of fundamental importance to the intellectual history of the 20th century, present information not available anywhere else on the Internet, thereby making Wikipedia a unique source of knowledge and significant information.The user has now had over 4,500 edits to his name (cf. List of Wikipedians by number of edits where the user is accorded the 2391st place, overall, in mainspace editing with just six months of active involvement behind him), and has established a solid reputation here.^[3]

Among the articles contributed by the user are those on Oskar Seidlin (subsequently translated for the German Wikipedia), Moriz Seeler, Rudolf Ritsema, and other subjects, people who channelled the currents of 20th-century thought.

There is also among the articles contributed by the user the article on Erich Heller, a seminal thinker of the 20th century, on whom there had previously been no information on Internet or in any other (conventionally) published source in the English language.

The article in question, begun by the present writer on 24 March 2006 in the mainspace, was one of the very first composed by him for Wikipedia, when that user was a relative newcomer and unfamiliar with the practice of using user subpages for articles-in-progress.When that practice was explained to him, the article was moved, with the help of two administrators, to a user subpage newly created for the purpose with the help of those two administrators, on 19 May 2006 (at 16:47 UTC).

This action was in the nature of assuring conformity to normal Wikipedia practice, and in no way constituted a departure from the norm, by ‘special permission’ or anything of the sort.(User:Charles Matthews, writing at 7.58 UTC on 18 May 2006 on the article’s discussion page, himself counselled the author that there ‘is a perfectly good way for you to draft an article without edits from others, which is to make it a subpage of your user page (User:Prof02/Heller, for example). This is a recognised way. If you place an article in the name space others are entitled to edit it, just as much as you are.’The original text of his comment can be read here.)The practice of maintaining user subpages is not currently circumscribed in the Wikipedia guidelines by any time limit, and no promise was extracted from the user, in this particular case, on the timeframe concerning the delivery of the article to the mainspace, and there was no discussion, from any side, of any timeframe.

On 13 September 2006 (at 3:33 UTC) a Wikipedia administrator, User:AmiDaniel, unilaterally moved the user subpage in question to the mainspace (Erich Heller), while the article on Erich Heller in userspace was clearly a work-in-progress, with the last edit by the author within the previous 24 hours.This he did without notifying the user in charge of the subpage in question, and also by falsifying the article history in such a way that its new posting in the mainspace gave the impression that the author of the article last worked on the text in question on 11 May 2006, and has since abandoned it, which is patently untrue (and known to be untrue to AmiDaniel).Such an action falls within the category of hidden vandalism (see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism: the page is an official policy of the English Wikipedia).

AmiDaniel apparently did not act alone, as there was a post (entitled ‘Splitting article history’) on his userpage talk, from User:Bishonen, which read in full:

‘Hi, AmiDaniel, it's me, the Carrot deleter. :-/ Remember? This time I'm trying to figger how to divide a page history in two. The page is User:Prof02/Erich Heller. The prof has been allowed to keep this article, which he originally created in the mainspace, in his userspace ever since May, on the plea and intervention of highly respected User:Uppland. But I've had it with waiting for the prof to be ready to have it moved back, especially since he now declares he may need another four years of fiddling with it, without what he considers interference. So this is my problem:I want to move the last version edited by User:Charles Matthews on May 11, back to the mainspace, with all its history. And leave all the revisions after that in the professor's space. Then the prof can keep owning his version in his userspace forever more AFAIC. But... well, I can delete all the pre-May 11 revisions of his userpage, of course. And I can re-create them. But how can I re-create them *under a diffferent name*? The article in the mainspace should be called plain (Erich Heller, like it used to. (Last heard of, it was a redirect to userspace. Yeah, it's a mess...) Please advise. Or, I just had a better idea: you do it! ;-) Best wishes,Bishonen | talk 17:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC).’[reply]

This post was removed from the active record of the page in question (User_talk:AmiDaniel) just six days later, on 18 September 2006 (but is accessible in archival files).

User:AmiDaniel did actually more than User:Bishonen was asking in this post: he removed the user subpage altogether, so much so that only the article’s stub, dating to 11 May 2006 could be accessed (with falsified history of authorship) in the mainspace, and the user’s work in progress (in userspace) was actually completely deleted.This action of removing the user subpage altogether has now been reverted by the user.However, upon reversion, the article did not return to the user subpage complete with its history intact, but with a false history showing the article record to have begun on 12 May 2006 (6:40 UTC).This record falsely shows the first contributor to have been anonymous and not User:Prof02.

After perpetrating his deed, User:AmiDaniel recorded in the edit summaries of his talkpage this memo: ‘Splitting article history - Yup, not a problem. History merging/splitting/cleaning can be quite tedious and confusing, but for some reason I really enjoy it =D. Let me know of anything else I can)’ (04:08, 13 September 2006).Excuse me: ‘splitting history’, and ‘cleaning history’, are normal practices for User:AmiDaniel?Does either one not amount, prima facie, to falsification of corporate records?Is Wikipedia, on account of being a non-profit organization, subject to a different set of ordinary corporate standards than, say, Enron?Does the fact that Wikipedia deals in licensed intellectual property make it qualitatively different from a corporate entity dealing in, say, energy sources?

The present user contends that (1) Wikipedia guidelines have been violated by arbitrarily moving the user subpage to the mainspace without the user’s knowledge or consent.The action violates the principle, which should be well known to long-time members and administrators, that

• (1) user subpages are intended for ‘a work in progress, until it is ready to be released’ (see Wikipedia:User_page#What_about_user_subpages.3F) — a condition which the subpage satisfied as a work-in-progress, but which condition User:AmiDaniel and User:Bishonen violated by moving the page to the article mainspace before it was ready for release;
• (2) that user subpages which do contain offensive or otherwise inappropriate matter (which the subpage in question did not contain) be first nominated for deletion during an eight-day waiting period to allow for discussion on the subject, which discussion alone (rather than the unilateral decision by any user) would determine the propriety or otherwise of the proposed deletion (seeWikipedia:Subpages#How_to_delete_a_user_subpage) — which principle the actions of User:AmiDaniel and User:Bishonen violated by removing the relevant user subpage altogether without any waiting period (subpages can otherwise be speedily deleted, according to Wikipedia guidelines, only the relevant user’s ‘adding {{db-owner}} to the page’ (see WP:USERPAGE#How_do_I_delete_a_user_subpage.3F) — which was not the case here);
• (3) that ‘user page space accorded... [to the individual user] includes associated talk pages and subpages... on the principle that although you do not own it, your user space is “yours” (for project-related purposes)’ (see WP:3RR#Reverting_pages_in_your_user_space) — where the possessive pronoun yours (the operative term here), in default of ownership connotation, can only mean that ‘exclusive control’ is vested in the particular user over his/her user page and the attached subpage(s) (otherwise all users have common control over all the pages in the Wikipedia main article space) — this exclusive control having now been violated by the actions of User:AmiDaniel and User:Bishonen;
• (4) that ‘by convention… user page will usually not be edited by others’, where ‘edited’ cannot but include the action of ‘moving’ (i.e., de facto, of renaming the article) — an action by far more drastic than many a simple ‘edit’ (see Wikipedia:User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space) — a convention which the actions of User:AmiDaniel and User:Bishonen violated;
• (5) that the discussions preceding the actions of the two principal characters named, which involved the four secondary characters, amounted to a ‘straw poll’ on whether to take what were clearly seen as inappropriate steps, steps felt to be objectionable by the characters involved themselves, without any rational discussion on the propriety of the proposed measure(s) (see here), in violation of Wikipedia’s rule against such ‘voting’ practices (which rule is in place on account of the fact that such practices supplant the use of reason and give voice to baser instincts without the need for accountability: see WP:NOVOTE); and
• (6) that it is inappropriate to refuse to hold discussions either before or after any actions taken by any Wikipedia user where those actions are challenged (the official policy of Wikipedia states that the ‘first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page’: see First step: Talk to the other parties; moreover the golden rule: ‘Don't ignore questions’, and another: ‘Concede a point, when you have no response to it’, are both established Wikipedia guidelines: see Principles of Wikipedia etiquette).All of these principles have been disregarded by User:AmiDaniel and User:Bishonen.While User:AmiDaniel refused to answer three requests for engagement on the matter posted on his own talkpage (14 October 2006 (09:49 UTC), 24 October 2006 (06:26 UTC), and 1 November 2006 (07:03 UTC)), User:Bishonen actually indicated in two messages posted on the present page (3 October 2006 (09:24 UTC), recorded here, and 20 October 2006 (11:40 UTC), recorded here) intransigence and an unwillingness either to resolve the matter amicably or to submit the matter to mediation, thereby precluding Wikipedia’s dispute resolution process from taking its course (arbitration, which User:Bishonen argues in both messages, is largely contingent upon mediation’s (and other dispute-resolution steps’) having been attempted first; moreover, one of the secondary parties to the present dispute, User:Charles Matthews, is also an active member of the Arbitration Committee, and hence his capacity for objectivity in this case would have to be questioned, as his own status within Wikipedia may be affected by the outcome of the dispute).An official policy of Wikipedia states explicitly: ‘Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it.’(The same official policy indicates further that this may weaken your position in ‘later stages in dispute resolution’.)
• (7) that it is imperative for all Wikipedia users to maintain an ‘open and warmly welcoming’ environment that is not ‘insular’, an environment in which there should be no place for ‘wiki-anarchists’ who would follow their personal whimsy or antagonisms and thereby create ‘poisonous’ atmosphere here (see Wikipedia:Etiquette, a page with the status of Wikipedia guideline, which states explicitly: ‘Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here.’).

Experts consulted for this post point out the fact that the fair and equitable application of Wikipedia guidelines and policies is not merely a question of the goodwill of an administrator, but can instead be construed as a legal obligation.Articles are posted on the portal on the understanding that published guidelines of the portal will be followed: if they are later found to be flouted, any release of material in such circumstances may be construed as null and void under law, in that the GNU Free Documentation License may be deemed, in case of flagrant guideline violations, to have been acquired under false pretences, and therefore inoperative in law.

Furthermore, the present user contends that, even if GDFL stands in cases of guideline violations, falsification of article history for the purposes of release may constitute a violation of the GNU Free Documentation License provisions themselves, which state in part: ‘A GNU FDL work can quickly be encumbered because a new, different, title must be given and a list of previous titles must be kept. This could lead to the situation where there are a whole series of title pages, and dedications, in each and every copy of the book if it has a long lineage. These pages cannot ever be removed, at least not until the work enters the public domain after copyright expires’ (the emphasis on ever in the original, as posted on Wikipedia).Manufacturing of a different article history and the resultant deliberate falsification of the downloading date may constitute an infringement of the license in question, which would be an offence.

Wikipedia official policy recognizes the difficulties attending in such actions even when they are resorted to in non-controversial cases, stating in this regard: ‘Because of GFDL requirements, selective deletion should only be done in certain extreme circumstances. Situations where such a selective deletion might be warranted include copyright violations that occur only in certain revisions, or personally identifying information that has been deemed inappropriate by consensus’ (see Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Version_deletion).

It should be clearly realized by all those wishing to understand the nature of the current dispute that the actions of the two administrators, to wit, User:AmiDaniel and User:Bishonen, resulted in the falsification of the authorship of the article: the part truncated for the purpose of displaying it in the Wikipedia mainspace looks as if it were abandoned by the author in midstream on 11 May 2006; while the part presently in the userspace looks as if it had been created from scratch on 12 May 2006 by an anonymous hand (!).

Apart from the formal aspects of the dispute as outlined above — i.e., those involving the observance, or violation as the case may be, of Wikipedia guidelines and policies — there is also an editorial angle to the dispute, which hinges on a different set of Wikipedia’s guidelines and policies.The User:AmiDaniel-and-User:Bishonen duo’s decision to truncate the article posted in the userspace at a particular point in its past development — arbitrarily appropriating for the Wikipedia mainspace a version recorded as of 16:29 UTC on May 11, 2006 (rather than any other version) — reflects their desire to preserve the alterations to the article made on that date by User:Charles Matthews, which alterations have been reverted in the very next edit of the article, on 12 May 2006 (6:40 UTC).The reasons for the reversion, though not noted in the edit summary, have been retroactively explained to User:Charles Matthews on the article talkpage at 7:32 UTC on 18 May 2006 (and can be read here).

Briefly, it was pointed out to him that he deleted from the text of the article the statement of Heller’s view on the impropriety of the name of the Holocaust, which statement Charles Matthews mistakenly ascribed to the editorial opinion of the author of the article (a fact noted by his edit summary: ‘take out some editorial’).While the text of the article, which was at the time a work-in-progress (a simple look on its history page reveals that the author worked on it every day since its creation on March 24, 2006, with the author’s last edit just seven (7) hours prior to Charles Matthews’s interventions), and still is a work-in-progress (now suspended, in observance of Wikipedia guidelines), did not make it absolutely clear that the views’ cited were in fact Heller’s own and not an editorial opinion, such clarity could not have been expected from an incomplete work-in-progress, and it is understandable that a non-specialist could have been misled.It is not quite understandable why a non-specialist would have the assurance that he knows better and removed a segment of the text without querying the author for clarification, particularly in view of the fact of the sensitivity and importance of the subject at hand.(Wikipedia recognizes the importance of the issues surrounding the name of the Holocaust, by devoting a whole separate article to the subject: see Names of the Holocaust.Heller, for his part, was one of the foremost authorities in the world to comment on the subject, in view of the fact (1) that he was a moral philosopher who concerned himself with the precursors of Evil in general and of the Holocaust in particular; (2) that he was a member of the ethnic community most affected by the event; (3) that he did not simply write from the safe distance of England or America but had a close personal brush with the events in question, observing their development at first hand on the ground where they happened; (4) that he saw his own mother fall victim to those events; and (5) finally that he saw his younger brother return the survivor of a major extermination camp with his store of first-hand experiences on the ‘inside’ of the Holocaust.To brush aside the views on the name of the Holocaust of someone so uniquely qualified to offer intellectual comment on the subject is not simply unjustifiable; it is unpardonable — and can only be explained by the plea of ignorance.)User:Charles Matthews’s deletion violated Wikipedia injunction against deleting useful content: see Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes#Deleting useful content.

It was also pointed out to Charles Matthews at the same time that his other editorial interventions, such as replacing ‘smart quotes’ in the article (whose input requires reference to Wikipedia dialogue box of special sorts at the bottom of every edit page) with straight ‘typewriter’ strokes, amounted to something approaching straightforward vandalism (even if it was unintentional), a fact which rendered all his other editorial assistance deeply suspect.

These concrete, substantive points have never been answered by Charles Matthews, except that at 21.52 UTC on 18 May 2006 User:Bishonen chose, without any substantiation and apparently through sheer contrariness and misguided solidarity with a fellow-administrator, to characterize his copyedits as ‘excellent’.(Such categorizations as ‘excellent’, without any supportive evidence, violate Wikipedia’s NPOV policies.)User:Charles Matthews has never reconciled himself to finding his edits reverted on that occasion (most of them deletions, with a few substitutions — which cumulatively resulted in a shortening of the article by 236 words: there were no additions of any kind), never mind whether the reverting was justified and substantiated or not; and he seemed to continued, through proxies acting ostensibly impartially but in reality in a completely partisan way, to harass the author of the article, as is evidenced from the posting on this page by User:WikiPedant at 07:44 UTC on 10 September 2006 (see above), and on Bishonen’s talk page at 05:18 UTC on 12 September 2006.(User:WikiPedant had apparently never read the article he chose to comment upon, and seems to labour under the misapprehension that the present user was revising the work of others.When invited to collaborate in the article’s creation, on the strength of his declared experience of Heller as a teacher (and in the spirit of the collective effort that lies at the heart of Wikipedia), User:WikiPedant vouchsafed no reply.Evidently he had other objectives in visiting this page and taking interest in the article in question.Such behaviour is referred to in the Wikipedia article ‘What is a troll’, which falls within the category listing types of Wikipedia vandalism.)

User:Bishonen’s and User:AmiDaniel’s actions on 13 September 2006 were intended to railroad into Wikipedia Charles Matthews’s copyedits made four months earlier (on 11 May 2006, between 16:03 and 16:29 UTC) without having to argue their validity, which had previously been challenged.This is also a violation of Wikipedia’s guidelines and policies, and strikes at the very essence of what Wikipedia is all about.Wikipedia does not have an editor-in-chief, and administrators here do not serve as his substitutes: they have to argue editorial interventions when challenged, like any other user.User:Charles Matthews’s and User:Bishonen’s (and now User:AmiDaniel’s) idea of getting out of the difficulties posed by their efforts to establish ‘holy cows’ on Wikipedia — editors who cannot be challenged — was to impute to the author of the article the making of the claim to exclusive ‘ownership’ of the article, a claim which he had never made and which he had never contemplated.(The old canard concerning ‘the user’s wishes to enforce some sort of ownership’ is repeated, once again without a shred of corroborating evidence, on Charles Matthews’s talk page as late as 12 September 2006 (13:09 UTC).)The attempt was (and apparently persists, with remarkable pertinacity, to be) a red herring drawn across the track to confuse the issues at hand.The technique of turning the tables on the opponent in a dispute is used by some people, but it cannot be recognized here as a valid way of absolving the parties involved from the obligation to answer challenges and to substantiate their conduct by reference to Wikipedia guidelines (or at least to reason, as opposed to gut emotions and other motive forces of this type).Instead of presuming ignorance of what Wikipedia is all about in the author of the article, once patronizingly dismissed by User:Bishonen as a ‘helpless newbie’ (recorded here, but violative of Wikipedia guideline against biting newcomers), these administrators should consider whether their own actions do not perchance betray such ignorance in themselves.The decision, made by User:Bishonen and carried out by User:AmiDaniel on 13 September 2006, to carve out 6,244 words out of an article numbering 20,671 words, thereby leaving 14,427 words or 70% of the article in the userspace out, would itself call for more than a word or two of explanation under the most elementary of Wikipedia’s guidelines and policies — guidelines and policies to which all individuals concerned must adhere, whether they like it or not.As things stand, however, there is not even a single word of explanation of the action.

User:Charles Matthews, so far as is known, he has never specifically advocated the particular actions taken by Bishonen and AmiDaniel before the fact; he has however, to all intents and purposes, defended them in retrospect, as is evident from his posts on the present page (recorded here), thereby fully implicating himself in the cabal by suggesting that administrators do in fact have full authority to overlook Wikipedia guidelines, as those stand adopted on record, by performing actions violative of those guidelines — actions moreover which they do not have subsequently to explain to anyone.

The present user does not seek to be accorded greater rights and privileges than those which others here enjoy, but neither will he stand for having his rights abridged without explanation as a thank-you for his work here, work which has apparently come to be the object of envy of those who, though able to claim a longer association with Wikipedia, are incapable of work of a similar calibre and are evidently desirous to boost their egos ravaged by feelings of inferiority by compensating with strongarm tactics.For this does not help build Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and does not foster the broader goals of knowledge that Wikipedia has been founded to serve.Even among the non-professional members of this community the manners of scholars and gentlemen should always prevail in preference to strongarm thuggery (as a matter of internal policy and intrinsically desirous objective, as well as external constraint, as already noted). — Prof02, 19 September 2006; with further amendments, Prof02, 30 October 2006, 31 October 2006, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• →Since there has been no comment on the dispute recorded in the immediately preceding section since 19 September 2006 (despite three requests posted on WP:rfc pages (including on those dealing with administrator conduct) and one request delivered by e-mail), I wish to go on record with my opinion that the truncated article on Erich Heller in the mainspace should be rejoined to the mother lode in the user subpage from which it was severed on 13 September 2006, thereby allowing for the restoration of the integrity of the article’s history and authorship, and that the two administrators involved in the deed, namely User:AmiDaniel and User:Bishonen, should be removed.Wikipedia policies state that administrators ‘can be removed if they misuse their powers’ (see Administrator abuse), and there is documented precedent for administrator recall in consequence of their violating Wikipedia’s guidelines and policies (see Administrator abuse, CAT:AOR, and other relevant pages).The same measure should be applied now; the two administrators in question should refrain from acting in their official capacity with immediate effect, at least until the dispute is resolved one way or another.— Prof02 09:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• →I do not see any point in removing AmiDaniel or Bishonen's sysop. Please try to change the tone of your article. It looks unpublishable to me, although that is not a reason enough to reinstate it into userspace. On the other hand, you could have reminded another administrator to put the article back to mainspace. Please assume good faith while dealing with other editors. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say you do not see any point in removing the two administrators in question, but you do not say why, nor do you address any of the specific points brought up in the complaint against them above.This is a space for comments on the dispute.Comments on the tone of the article, etc., belong to the article discussion page, not here.— Prof02 08:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• →The language you employ is astonishing.Honestly, I have not seen so many uses of the passive voice or impersonal pronouns in a very long while, and I had thought such style had gone out of vogue before Thomas Babbington Macaulay.For my part, I turn away articles from the journal I work with when I see that kind of intentional opacity.Nevertheless, the issue involved is not an issue at all, except that, perhaps, you have chosen the wrong venue altogether.Wikipedia is a community editing project, and it is impossible to "falsify authorship," inasmuch as there is not credit given for any authorship.Additionally, it is impossible to have an article to oneself for perfecting -- that is what word processors on one's own computer are for.All words are edited.Furthermore, the two administrators took care to preserve editing history so as to give such credit as Wikipedia is capable of to you.However, even if they had not done so, if they had merely grabbed the article, you would have been the only person to continue to edit it and would be the only attributable expert on the topic.However, you betray another fundamental misunderstanding when you say that the article "was moved."The article was not moved.The article was copied.You had a version in user space, and you have a version in user space still.Nothing was taken away from you.You may continue to perfect the article in user space for the upcoming three years, exactly as you will, but meanwhile another version exists in the article space.This is important to prevent Wikipedia user space from being a "free web host" (one of the things Wikipedia is not, according to policy).Therefore, we can summarize this way: 1) nothing was taken, 2) a copy was presented in article space, 3) the administrators attempted to attribute the editing history appropriately, 4) they did not have to do this, 5) the writing style of this attempted arch-legal proceeding is obscuriantist, 6) you may not employ Wikipedia as an online text editor.That's about it.Geogre 02:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This production speaks for itself, and to the extent that it is a paint-the-dog-black-and-hang-him exercise does not merit a response.The points which you misunderstand are as follows: (1) Wikipedia does give credit for authorship (in edit histories), and not just because it chooses to but because it couldn’t do without it in the real world (which is its forum); (2) that this record of authorship could be tampered with by insiders with specialized technical knowledge I also did not know; (3) that it was, in fact, tampered with in this case is documented by evidence, and has not been contradicted by the perpetrators themselves (Bishonen indeed is quoted, above, as musing at one point: ‘I can delete all the pre-May 11 revisions of his userpage, of course. And I can re-create them. But how can I re-create them *under a different name*? ’); (4) the article was MOVED (by that I mean the MOVE button was employed by AmiDaniel on 13 September 2006 at 03:33 UTC, a fact recorded by himself in the edit summary) and subsequently truncated; (5) the remnant of the article's history now in the user space begins where the remnant of the history of the article now in the mainspace ends, making the more complete article in the user space look like it was originated by a foreign hand; (6) records which you claim are optional are in fact required by Wikipedia licensing provisions; (7) if you have not understood anything in the above outline of the dispute (as you clearly have not) perhaps you could point out the passages that presented the greatest challenge to your comprehension, so that they might be clarified.All in all, check the facts before you offer comments on them.Lastly, (8), with regard to your dictum that ‘Wikipedia… [is not] an online text editor’, you have obviously not read Wikipedia guidelines on user subpages (which are quoted for your convenience above); nor Bishonen’s own statement (recorded here) that ‘the user can go on editorializing in his userspace ad infinitum, at least as far as I'm concerned; I don't see what harm it does’ — that same Bishonen whom you are now defending and who awarded you a Nobel Prize for your brilliance on your userpage. — Prof02 09:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So, you are a person named "Prof02?"If you are not, then there is no "you" to edit nor to attribute credit to.You are, of course, correct that they should not have even attempted to provide any credit in the history during the article move, as that gave you the idea that you had some sort of ownership.Preservation of work can be done many ways, and not simply in history.Myself, I would have preferred simply to delete the article until you were "ready" and encouraged you to use your own word processor for anything that could not be edited.For, you see, user subpages, like all other parts of Wikipedia, can be edited, and if you were to look at the histories of articles kept in the can like that, you would see that they are.There is no hermetic seal on an article, even if there is one on your understanding of language and practice.Any figure who has no attestation in print (which you claim) nor web (as you claim) is a figure inappropriate for an encyclopedia.However, I recommend that you go to Arbitration, if you so desire, to see what remedies there might be.My suspicion is that there would be a history merge alone.Oh, but that has been done!Or, perhaps, we can assess the community's views on the aptness of this article for Wikipedia at all via AfD.The one thing that doesn't need a great deal of debate, though, is that you show a temperament so wholly unsuited for community editing and a cooperative encyclopedia as to make me wonder why you even began.Geogre 12:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous comment of 17 October 2006 (02:35 UTC) was demonstrated, by the evidence adduced above, to have been premised on erroneous assumptions, as concerns both the present dispute and Wikipedia as a whole, on every count.You do not add anything new here (except that the comment ‘Oh, but that has been done!’, otherwise unintelligible, seems to point to a further misconception).— Prof02 10:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• →
• →
• →

==Mediation or arbitration== Prof2, I and other volunteers here have been trying to shield you from the humiliation of encountering real Wikipedia policy, as distinct from the misapprehensions of it that you demonstrate above, but my special consideration for your new contributor status is all worn out. You're not that new any more. I can only advise you to take your issues to either mediation or (since I think it might be difficult to persuade the people who have already been parleying with you to also engage in formal mediation) directly to the Requests for arbitration page. Requests for arbitration is the appropriate venue for resolving serious conflicts between users after other means have been exhausted, as I believe they have in this case. Arbitration needs to be formally requestedon that page. Please follow the instructions carefully, and note especially the exhortations to keep the initial request brief. Also, please make the people you complain of aware of the fact that a request has been filed, by posting a notice on their talkpages. There's no need to do that with me, obviously, but I doubt that AmiDaniel or Charles Matthews are keeping abreast of your comments here. If you'd like some help with making the request, I suggest you put up the {{helpme}} template, that you've used before, and ask the person who shows up to deal with the formalities for you. Bishonen | talk 09:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

‘Misapprehensions’, and the like allegations, have to be pointed out in detail and substantiated in fact (the way I substantiate, above, my allegations against you); otherwise such allegations amount to ad personam invectives (rather like calling someone ‘stupid’), nothing more nothing less.Indeed, I would be glad to be instructed (learning is a life-long process) — but not patronizingly dismissed, which is what you are now doing in an effort to assert your alleged superiority.Similarly, phrases like ‘my special consideration... is worn out’, and your earlier ‘I’ve had it with waiting for the prof...’ (referenced here), and your urging for punishment (or vengeance?), for my alleged failure at what you call ‘mellowing-out’ (referenced here) — all of which you used to justify your actions as an administrator — are also indicative more of a schoolmistress’s attitude than that of a Wikipedia administrator.Such mentalities are inappropriate in a public forum like this.They are inappropriate because they speak, not with the voice of reason to which any rational person can relate, but with the voice of private quirkiness, which is relevant to one person alone.You do not have greater editorial rights here than others (to carry the day on such grounds), and I honestly hope that, if you think you do, you will be ultimately removed as administrator.This will be a good learning process for you: and I do not mean this spitefully.Clearly, you would be able to contribute as a non-admin in future, but not in your current capacity, for which something else is required. — Prof02 09:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a need for two people to certify their attempts to settle the dispute on which comment is invited the relevant page.Since both User:Bishonen and User:Uppland involved themselves in the process of dispute resolution on 13 September 2006 (unsuccessfully), as is evident hereinabove, it would be appreciated if both of you could certify the fact by signing on the page indicated to satisfy a formal requirement for the listing of the solicitation in question. — Prof02 10:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Bishonen’s comment posted among the edit summaries of this page on 8 October 2006 at 21:27 UTC, to wit:

(Please don't alter other users' posts. Incidentally, don't *silently* alter your own, either. Use </s><s>, not misleading deletions.)

it must be observed that edit summaries are for that purpose, the recording of edit summaries, not for conducting disputes or levelling (yet again unsubstantiated) allegations.This page is the appropriate forum to air any grievances, instead.As far as the substance of what you say is concerned, I have moved your comment of 3 October 2006 (09:24 UTC) from the bottom of the page to the segment dealing with the current dispute, which is its subject, and given it an appropriate heading to indicate the relevance.I do (exclusively) control such things on this page (thematic groupings, graphic appearance, etc.).I have not altered even a single comma within the body of your message.As far as my response to that post, I have expanded it with further instances of corroborating evidence, brought to my attention by others, to buttress what I had already said earlier.I also have the right to do that.

Your allegations, while unproven, betray a nervousness which is indicative of the seriousness with which you credit this dispute.Would it therefore not make sense, one wonders, to try to settle it at the present stage, on the basis of reason, rather than allowing it to snowball?You have not responded in any way whatever to any of the points brought up above, although you clearly have read them and closely monitor this page on a regular basis — this notwithstanding the fact that Wikipedia guidelines stipulate that the first step in dispute resolution should be consultations between the disputants themselves.Why do you not wish to follow these guidelines, or believe yourself above them?If this is not the case, and you are able to act with reason, why not answer the points, and if there is no answer, undo the damage?Would that be so terribly damaging to self-esteem, or on the contrary, would it not rather testify to the presence of moral fibre above what is visible at the present stage of affairs?— Prof02 08:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Pointer to information== You seem to be under the impression that you are conducting some type of proceedings here on your own page, where it is up to you to "call on" people. That's not how it's done. You have already been advised (by me, on October 3, here) how to take your issues to arbitration. I don't know why you ignored it. Bishonen | talk 11:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Note that I have called upon him to present his case, as well, and so has Charles Matthews.At present, we have a user draped in hyperbole, fustian, and bile who has no actions or interactions outside of a private world.Other than using community resources for a private purpose, there is nothing that the user is actually doing.Geogre 17:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue seems quite straightforward to me. The Erich Heller page was userfied in May, to allow User:Prof02 to work on it in peace. It was edited in the region of 1700 or 1800 times, before in September it was moved back to article space. A time period of around four months, and an adequate number of edits, in my view. Since ownership of articles is not recognised here, and anyone who looks below the edit box can read the caveat If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it, the way this has been handled strikes me as perfectly understanding of the author's wishes to do a good job, and quite sensitive enough. Charles Matthews 10:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the straightforward response, but it must be noted that it misses virtually all the points of the dispute as stated above, while introducing its own perspective.It may be that the idea of Wikipedia as a whole needs a finetuning if concerns like mine cannot be answered, or apparently even understood, by some of those involving themselves in the project.

Taking your response on its own terms, it must further be noted that (contrary to what you say or imply) the article was of course not moved ‘back’ in September to article space with the matter which the author added during the four months since May, but without it.The article was moved in September in a broken-up state, which reverted it in practice to the editing stage it was back in May.So why was the article ‘userfied’ (in your word) in May 2006 to begin with?(You say it was to ‘allow User:Prof02 to work on it in peace’.)What purpose did it serve?— Prof02 06:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I wrote on 19 May it is better to allow a draft to be completed; and then we can return to this in the not-too-distant future. There is nothing at all to prevent you copying your draft into the article, making the article an update. It is the work of a moment to do that. Charles Matthews 10:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sense from the tone of your last message a genuine willingness to resolve the present dispute, and wish to assure you of similar sentiments on my part.But to ‘resolve’ cannot simply mean to ‘disregard’ my complaints of malfeasance (violation of a whole slew of Wikipedia guidelines and policies, as well as the commands of basic decency) by some users exercising more technical control over Wikipedia features than others, who now try to corral you to their side (as if) by implication.You need to state clearly where you stand, whether you agree with their actions or not, as you are to some extent implicated in them yourself.Further, the misconduct should be corrected by those guilty of it, not only as a matter of principle (which it undoubtedly is), but also in view of the fact that impairing an article’s edit history in this case falsifies the authorship record.This may be a matter of no consequence to others, but it is of some value to me and is treated as sacrosanct by Wikipedia.Thirdly, rewarding (underhanded) abuse of authority on the part of some users here, by sweeping such abuse aside, invites a repeat performance for the future: I have always believed that a house must be swept clean whenever dirt is encountered — and am famous for such house-cleanings, which (although they may provoke much ire at the time) tend in the long run to be appreciated for the lasting betterment they bring.(Bishonen and AmiDaniel technically could have, after all, copied the article themselves on 13 September and pasted it in the main article space, but they chose not to do so, because they wanted to falsify its edit history, as their consultations — quoted above — plainly reveal, much as they reveal their awareness of the impropriety that would be involved in such copying.)Lastly, the article is quite simply not finished yet, and while I am not unreasonable or entrenched in a particular mode of behaviour, I would like to make my own decisions as to when to transfer it to the main article space (as the rules do allow me, vesting in me exclusive control over such things; I do not require anyone’s permission to do that (I am sorry to put it so bluntly, but not even your permission is required); I have equal rights here with others, and a denial of that equality would be tantamount to the arrogation of ownership of the article to the administrator(s) concerned, a situation that couldn’t be permitted to stand — for the same reasons, by the way, for which an assertion of such rights would be unwarranted on my part: it would strike at the heart of what Wikipedia is as an open forum). — Prof02 08:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's take this back to basics. I have always felt you have misunderstood the essentials of the system. Point 1: Wiki is indeed and in essence a system of permissions, and criticism does not attach simply to using those permissions, in good faith. Point 2: Where actions are easily reversible, as editing articles is, blame is far from an appropriate reaction. Differences on content are to be resolved by dialogue. Point 3: Since one cannot unsay in the way that one can revert an edit, vehement and adversarial language is very strongly deprecated. Point 4: Wikipedia is a dynamic site, and we have no concept of articles being finished.

Summing up, I don't do more than invite you to copy the Erich Heller article to the current page. If someone had done that on your behalf, there might be more to discuss, since the provenance indicated in the edit history could be misleading. I do not think the surrounding general implication that you have been badly treated is well founded. Charles Matthews 13:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Ad 1) Rights vested in the individual user by the policies adopted by the Wikipedia community cannot be subject, selectively, to a further ‘system of permissions’ (what system? you are right: I do not understand this) that decides whether those rights do indeed apply or not in individual cases.Oversight authority can only be legitimate if it is discharged to assure that the policies adopted are in fact implemented and not violated — in all cases across the board.And if this is done with unimpeachable integrity.For, in this connection, Wikipedia has outgrown any single person who could claim narrow prerogatives of ownership such as might allow complete freedom from outside constraints (which mandate such integrity, accountability, etc.), much the same way in which a ma-and-pa corner grocery outgrows the ma and pa when it gets listed on the bourse and becomes a global chain of food stores.Ma and pa may have never met any of the unfamiliar stockholders face to face, but that does not mean that they can simply continue as before, with the mindset of single-shop owners, treating the stockholders the same way in which they were previously dealing with their single-shop’s employees, without reference to broader frameworks.Wikipedia understands this well.

For the record, we are dealing here with the Wikipedia guidelines regulating user subpages, and its other guidelines pointed out above.

Your Points 2-4 are not relevant to the substance of the current dispute (whether they are or are not otherwise valid), except that they seem to imply that fairness to the user is contingent on whether he is liked — a premise which I would take exception to, and which seems a relapse to the corner-grocery mindset. Your invitation to update the text of the article in the mainspace, with its broken-up history, is just an invitation to validate the malfeasance I am complaining about with further actions of my own.— Prof02 07:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. Rights vested in the individual user by the policies is a conventional-sounding phrase, but the permissions to act are the basic stratum, and rights as such are pretty much conventions. When the actions of users create conflict, appeal to 'rights' is a poor substitute for a problem-solving approach. Administrators here are given broad discretion, just because handling conflicts requires a pro-active attitude. Dialogue should take place, and the assumption of good faith is fundamental to that. I think your comments up to this time show a kind of tangle. It is far from true that my points 2-4 are aimed in the direction you say.

I think you might accept that others involved have broad experience of how Wikipedia actually works, and are finding hard to get past some a priori reasoning you have come up with, with embedded serious misconceptions. If you are really wedded to assumptions of bad faith, whenever you come across others who have a different view, it is almost inevitable that the discussion will be scratchy, and ineffective in resolving the underlying issue. Charles Matthews 10:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that, while choosing to focus on semantics, you overlook the substance of my complaint: you seemed completely ignorant of the content of Section 15 of this page or the basic nature of the dispute when you posted your first comment here on 14 October.You are learning on the wing, while accusing me of a ‘tangle’ (how a tangle?).Instead of expatiating on the differences between rights and conventions now (we are, after all, dealing with the framework of engagement that a user can anticipate to encounter before posting articles of intellectual property here: whatever you want to call that framework — rights, conventions, or whatever — the point is that it must be predictable to the user, rather than unpredictable, and that it cannot smack of appropriation for private use), perhaps you could address the points of the dispute as outlined above, play by play, to the extent that you can understand that outline, and bring to my attention the points that are unclear to you.All the rest, with all due respect, is just fudging.My article did not create any conflict with anyone or anything; other users did (by violating guidelines with impunity): in this process I was completely shut out of any discussions (Bishonen actually memorialising her hope that I wouldn’t ‘even notice’ the malfeasance here).No, this will not do.Get proper counsel from an outside, impartial source, please.— Prof02 10:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no intellectual property here, outside the GFDL license. Words like violating and malfeasance are simply leading you well wide of the mark. There, in brief, is your tangle. Charles Matthews 12:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is no intellectual property here outside the GFDL license.If you are unaccustomed to the term ‘intellectual property’, or afraid of it per se, if it strikes terror in your heart or sounds to your ears like an imprecation within Wikipedia context or if you deem it too high-flying for Wikipedia, I cannot help you; but please do not impute to me views which I have never articulated and do not hold.For you are not scoring the rhetorical points at which you aim, but rather reduce the level of discourse to the point which I thought was beneath you — by involving yourself in a tangle of your own making.

The case is very simple.‘Violation’ and ‘malfeasance’ involve here the claim of the infringement of Wikipedia guidelines by (two) administrators who, as such (i.e. as administrators), are charged instead with the safeguarding of those very guidelines.Administrators, yourself included, do not, and cannot, play any role whatever within the Wikipedia scheme other than that of assuring that WP guidelines are implemented and not infringed by the users: there is no scope within the project, as it stands defined at present, for any other additional role that they might even potentially or hypothetically assume.Even their efforts at protecting the site from vandalism, etc., are only within their purview as guardians of (published) house rules (which, in this case, define vandalism for example in ways differing from those understood by the general public) — nothing, nothing, not an iota more than that.There is no mechanism here for ‘discretion’, ‘broad’ or otherwise, whereby they could obtain blanket license to violate those guidelines without accountability: the moment that such powers (to dispense with guidelines altogether) are vested in or arrogated by them, (1) they cease to be administrators and become ma-and-pa corner grocery’s owners, with the goods on the shelves their private property to dispose of as they see fit; and (2) Wikipedia ceases to be a community editing project and becomes the private fiefdom of a limited few.So no, I do not believe you understand that you do not operate here in a vacuum of your own making: I am Wikipedia every bit as much as you are, thank you very much.

You allege that I ‘have misunderstood the essentials of the system’, without specifying wherein that misunderstanding might have consisted.You do not have the right to make such unsubstantiated allegations in this forum; those are hits below the belt.You may say to me, ‘you have claimed xxx, which conflicts with stated policy xxx, and fails to take into consideration the fact that xxx, published here xxx’.The right to make generalized unsubstantiated allegations amounts to the license to launch personal attacks, a practice that again runs afoul of Wikipedia policies.You are now violating those policies yourself.I am not concerned with your tone (whether ‘polite’ or ‘vehement’ and how that impacts my liking or disliking you), but with the substance of what you are saying and how that impacts the project we are both involved in.

I wish to state that your own demeanour here has always struck me as approximating something of a Big Brother from Orwell, a position in part claimed by a kind of doublespeak.No one, not even the founder, holds here a monopoly on Truth (you might have called it ‘a system of permissions to hold opinions’): all views must be closely argued and fully substantiated, by everyone without exception.

Administrators found guilty of deliberately, with (malice or otherwise) aforethought, violating house rules, and subsequently showing remorseless, unreasonable, unreasoning, defiance to the challenges of such violations (on the strength that ‘I am an administrator and therefore I do not have to account for my actions to you’), must be removed as a matter of principle, and will be removed.There is no other remedy, as failure to clean the house would amount to allowing it to sink to the lowest common denominator determined by such administrators (and their unaccounted and perhaps unaccountable private reasons which propel them to certain actions).Enthusiasm for the project and other such factors cannot be sufficient qualification to make someone an administrator here: a certain integrity, a sense of ethics, and a modicum of objectivity (the ability, that is, to see beyond the tip of one’s nose), are also required.While the fulfilment of these requirements cannot obviously be easily determined beforehand, the discharge of one’s mission as an administrator can be appraised retroactively, and such appraisal should determine whether or not a user should continue in his/her supervisory capacity.You wish to protect the administrators accused of wrongdoing now (by failing to answer the facts of the case as requested, but drawing instead all kinds of red herrings out of the hat), from the desire to make your own position here unassailable for the future.You must not be allowed to succeed, in the interests of the project as a whole. — Prof02 09:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was turgid and content-free, I think, apart from the effort to compare me with Big Brother from Orwell. That is a personal attack, of a kind against which we have a tough policy. Don't bother calling on me for further discussions. Go ahead and take this through the dispute resolution process. I say it again, you have basic misunderstandings, but I have no idea who here could be troubled to give you any further tutorials. Charles Matthews 22:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have called upon you, not just for ‘discussions’ over coffee, but for a response to a dispute in which you are implicated on the wrong side (I told you here that the dispute is ‘involving inter alia your name’) — and hence in a case where a response from you is mandated by Wikipedia rules and not just left to the goodness of your heart.You have certainly not been called in in your capacity as a Big Brother, or anything of that sort, which I do not recognise, but which your persistent methodology of dismissing all references to Wikipedia rules (where those are found to be inconvenient to you), of refusing to stick to the point, of otherwise responding in peremptory tones suggestive of adjudicative processes (in which you have not been invited to participate as a presider) rather than just by explaining your own role in the malfeasance, of arrogating to yourself the position of one with whom the buck stops as far as Wikipedia affairs are concerned (you wrote above, on 14 October, that the ‘time period of around four months’, and ‘number of edits’ are both ‘adequate’ ‘in my view’, as if that view alone were the standard here rather than the previously adopted Wikipedia house-rules, whose violation I am complaining against), and of imputing false claims to me as a way of deflecting attention from yourself — all of these inescapably suggest a Big Brother mentality.

If there is here a small, unnamed, clandestine, but deeply entrenched clique of ‘permission-givers’ and ‘holders of monopoly on Truth’, then I assure you that most users of Wikipedia are unaware of it, and the beast must be brought to the full light of day — if necessary dragged there by the hair, kicking and screaming — so that we may all take a good look at it.This, too, may be the only tutorial you are in need of.

It is scandalous, and inane, that a contributor should be singled out for the sort of treatment I am given (which results in the suspension of all his work here) simply for the fact that one of his contributions should be regarded by some as TOO DESIRABLE for Wikipedia to allow Wikipedia house-rules to apply. — Prof02 08:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

On 2 November 2006 (06:10 UTC) the present user requested a deletion of the Erich Heller article stub now in Wikipedia main article space (wrenched from the user subpage and placed in the main article space on 13 September 2006 without his knowledge or consent) under the CSD G7 rule.At08:41 UTC on the same day (i.e. 2 hrs 31 min later) User:Bishonen reverted the {{db-author}} and {{db-blanked}} tags posted on the article, which requested its deletion under the G7 rule, without justifying the revert in any way whatever either in the relevant edit summary or on the article’s discussion page.

When the tags in question were reinstated by User:Prof02 at 09:34 UTC on 2 November 2006 on the grounds that the ‘G7 states: “provided the page’s only substantial content was added by its author”: this is the case; edits by others are insubstantial deletions (no additions of ANY kind) & some wikification)’ (as noted in the relevant edit summary), those were again reverted just 30 min later, at10:04 UTC, by User:Charles Matthews, who justified his action with a comment posted on the article’s discussion page partly on the grounds that he found User:Prof02’s conduct personally insulting to himself.He did not specify wherein such insults might have subsisted, or how such a development might have any effect on the applicability of Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

Administrator Luna Santin suggested on the article discussion page afterwards (3 November 2006, 09:08 UTC) that the deletion under G7 be submitted for discussion in the AfD process.To this User:Prof02 agreed, requesting the same administrator, Luna Santin, in a message posted on the relevant talk page at 10:16 UTC on 3 November 2006, to protect the article in full — until the dispute is resolved.Athough this did not happen, as soon as the said request was made, User:Charles Matthews, who has (together with User:Bishonen) been cyber-stalking User:Prof02's every move on Wikipedia, started vigorously editing the article in question (in several saves between 12:08 UTC and 12:40 UTC on 3 November 2006), in order to prejudice the outcome of the debate on its deletion under G7.

The debate on the deletion under G7, begun at 07:40 UTC on 4 November 2006, did not throw any light on the applicability of rule G7, as most respondents confined themselves to other considerations (notability of the subject, suitability of the article for Wikipedia, etc.).No one managed to disprove the applicability of the CSD G7 rule, and it should have properly overridden all other considerations.User:Charles Matthews admitted, in a remarkable access of frankness, that the whole matter at hand was not about Wikipedia policies at all but about his personal sense of injury (writing at 13:08 UTC on 8 November 2006, ‘But that’s entirely to do with editors not wanting to be abused’ — emphasis added).

User:Bishonen, for his or her part, changed tack and chipped in with the suggestion (posted on the discussion page at 00:31 UTC on 7 November 2006) that the deletion request should be granted after all, on the grounds that the article in question is written in ‘an unencyclopedic, reverential, circumlocutory mode’ and altogether unsuitable for Wikipedia.In a word, trash.The tangle of contradictions supplied by the two users, User:Charles Matthews and User:Bishonen, has thus come the full circle.(Why has an article that is a work-in-progress been wrenched, surreptitiously, from the user’s subpage in the first place if it is so unsuitable for Wikipedia, and why have the author’s subsequent requests for its re-merger and later deletion been so ferociously and repeatedly contested?It seems that the final answers to these questions may only be provided by clinical psychology.)

Clinical psychology, too, rather than Wikipedia’s policies, is more likely to explain why User:Bishonen in the same post on the discussion page suggested the deletion of another User:Prof02’s subpage, without stating the possible reasons for such action — as if afraid that too much ground might have been ceded if the request at hand were to be granted, and that therefore some extra hardship should be thrown in for good measure.This however only entail further violations of Wikipedia policies.User:Bishonen opined at the same time that the article should not be re-merged with the article in the user subpage from which it was truncated on 13 September 2006 (at User:Bishonen’s bidding), likewise without stating any rational grounds for such an injunction.A ‘nomination’ from User:Bishonen (oh yes) of User:Charles Matthews, who has previously been accused by at least two users of vandalism of the article in question due to incompetence of the subject, as a writer of a replacement article on Erich Heller for Wikipedia, puts User:Bishonen’s intentions vis-à-vis Wikipedia’s best interests in some doubt, adding to the tangle of contradictions discernible in the two administrators’ conduct.The present user is unable to see any rational explanation for such suggestions as those made by User:Bishonen and cited above, unless psychologically explainable spite be considered a rational explanation.

Cyber-stalking, threats, and harassment of User:Prof02 seem to continue, without any willingness from User:Charles Matthews and User:Bishonen to engage in a rational, cool, objective debate on issues.

I notice that the request-for-comment tag ({{request for comment}}) I prefixed to the preceding section of this talk page, under the heading ‘Conflict in need of resolution/request for comment’, is inactive: the tag is obviously wrong.Could a more savvy editor please choose the right template tag for this request and put in place of the wrong one (the subject of the article in dispute is philosophy, in case this is relevant)?Thank you in anticipation.— Prof02 05:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe there is an RfC template; you just list the page on WP:RfC yourself. - CheNuevara 05:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please create a ‘Chinese-Italian translators’ category for my Rudolf Ritsema article: I have been unsuccessful in the attempt. — Prof02 08:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Done (see Category:Chinese-Italian translators). In order to create a category you need to write something in the category page (better if you properly categorize the category itself :-) ). --J B 09:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. — Prof02 09:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to get back to you at this late date as I don't visit here much anymore; but I have no objection to your proposed renaming of the article. TOttenville8 12:25 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to begin AfD proceedings on the article. Multiple admins have declined your speedy request at this point, so please reconsider. Luna Santin 08:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for writing to me; I am also aware of the fact that the problem involves multiple administrators.One of them is of course you.Wikipedia discourages ‘voting’ as a method of solving disputes, and encourages discussion on matters of substance to it.Could I therefore ask you to explain your reasons for declining my G7 request?Much obliged.— Prof02 08:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I really think it should go to AfD -- you're more than welcome to say "I think it should be deleted under G7 because I wrote it and oh my god these admins are totally being butts and not letting me..." and so on, in your nomination. There is a case for speedy, and I'm kinda close to it, but this is also just close enough to the threshold of G7 that I'd like a few more people to look at it and help develop consensus. If that makes sense. Luna Santin 09:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need expert opinion on whether my AfD request under CSD G7, presented here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Erich_Heller, follows the prescribed AfD format.— Prof02 07:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The AfD discussion is running fine. Note that it is not a speedy deletion, it is a traditional deletion discussion (which is superior to a speedy in almost all respects). Wikipedia:Deletion policy should be able to answer any other questions your may have. All we can do now is allow the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Erich_Heller to run its course.--Commander Keane 11:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering a call from me once again.I remember your name very well from the previous occasions on which you have offered help.The thing of concern now is what you say about the process not being ‘speedy’: I take it you mean it in a non-technical sense, and not in the sense that the deletion criterion cannot be CSD G7, as I was led to believe by the administrator Luna Santin, above?— Prof02 14:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I see myself mentioned on this miserable excuse for a talkpage yet again, this time as a suitable subject for "clinical psychology". Of course I regret drawing your venom by trying to help you in the first place; I did it as a favor for a friend. The more fool me, but how was I to foresee the senseless malignity you would unleash on me? I have a question: would you actually spit in the face of someone like me, or Charles Matthews, if either of us was standing in front of you? If the answer is no, then are you one of those who've never realized that there are actual people behind the various usernames on the Internet? Do you take me for a mere constellation of ones and zeros, like your <cough> friend <cough> Gpanetta (all right, so there aren't always actual people behind the usernames), or why is it that you have no shame? Why do you spend your days pleasurably rolling invectives round your tongue, before you daintily pick a selection, to lob at well-meaning fellow humans?Do not speak my name again on this page or anywhere else. Do you understand me? I've had enough of hearing it in your foul mouth. Don't type my name again, even once, unless it's in a request for arbitration on the appropriate Wikipedia page for making such requests. With or without name, don't insult me or anyone else on this site again or you will find yourself subject to a long overdue block for personal attacks. Don't move this post. Don't change my heading. Don't say "Bishonen" again. It's indeed only a "username", but it's too good for the ugliness of this page.Bishonen | talk 10:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• I have to register my shock at your outburst.There is nothing on this page, or anywhere else, that can even remotely be construed as a personal attack by me on you, or on anyone else.I do question some of your actions, past and present, however, and the motives behind them.If the actions cannot be validated by you and by User:Charles Matthews on the grounds that derive their validity from Wikipedia policies, then what is their foundation?The difference between a private person and an editor here is that here your actions must be accountable to the house-rules, and cannot merely be grounded in your feelings, which now get the better of you.And I question your actions severely: I think you are at bottom a good person, really, and should not let my censoriousness provoke you to displays of anger.Answer on issues only: if there are points I do not understand, state what they are, how they are wrong, etc.: do not hide behind dismissive ‘I-am-not-in-the-business-of-giving-you-tutorials’, etc.: such tactics are insulting, not merely to me (which they are: have you considered that you have irrationally laid waste to six months of my life, which I have dedicated to this project?), but to the project as a whole.— Prof02 11:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• " psychologically explainable spite" is a personal attack. Cease your bizarre meanderings and pseudo-psychological critique or I will be happy to do what you so obviously want, which is to extend your block and protect this talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • No, no. That wasn't an outburst, it was an official block warning by a Wikipedia administrator, after six months of extreme forbearance, and it's a pity you chose to ignore it. I realize a block as such makes little practical difference to you, preferring as you do to squat in the twilight of this page in undisturbed possession of the notion that you're conducting a "dispute". (You have paid no heed to my information about the English Wikipedia's well-developed and rather simple channels of dispute resolution, I suppose because you have an inkling of the figure you would cut in the daylight of arbitration.) But having this page protected from editing might actually incommode you, so please listen carefully to what FloNight tells you. Your comments on my "feelings" and personal qualities are even less welcome than the appearance of my name on this page. Desist from both, or your block will be lengthened. Bishonen | talk 18:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You have been blocked from editing. You can still edit this page. Discontinue the personal attacks on it, or I will protect it from editing. Bishonen | talk 11:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Prof02, I reviewed Bishonen's block and I redid the block in my name to make it clear that I support it. This statement "Clinical psychology, too, rather than Wikipedia’s policies, is more likely to explain why User:Bishonen in the same post on the discussion page suggested the deletion of another User:Prof02’s subpage" is a personal attack. Your user talk page is full of statements that seem intent on agitating other users. If you agree to stop these highly uncivil insults, I will gladly shorten your block, okay. I need for you to let me know that you understand that your comments are out of line and agree to change your manner of communicating with other users. I will be watching your user talk page for a reply. Please make it a positive sign that you are ready to work collaboratively with other users. Take care, --FloNight 14:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prof02, as one of the first to encourage you in your efforts here its been sad to see all your good work thrown away. I would encourage you to hold your fire and give those of us here the benefit of the doubt, we don't want to lose your insight and contributions. I've yet to interpret any of the comments made to you as being personal in nature, most are entirely constructive - you've been lucky. A true personal attack on my page killed my enthusiasm & output for over a month before I ignored it.--Hooperbloob 17:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I remeber you warmly.Did the personal attack against you, in the case you mention, involve a body part of yours having been selected for scurrilous comment, as is the case above?Do you not realise that anything of that sort is a criminal matter in ordinary life (a person can go to jail in the United States for something like that)?I do question motives behind actions of Wikipedia administrators where I do not see official policies and guidelines supporting them; and I expect User:Bishonen’s answers: those can be given, I may be proven wrong, and the matter might end with an apology.There should be more questioning, not less, however, if problems like those you yourself had suffered are to be rectified systemically.There is a world of difference between, on the one hand, a personal attack, such as might involve a reference to the victim’s body, and, on the other hand, an attack on ABUSE of authority or an attack on the wrongfulness of an action.One thing that User:Bishonen and User:Charles Matthews simply have NO right to do is continuously to cyber-stalk me with intent to harass with unexplained reverts, etc., and when questioned refuse to engage.Interlocutors might be chosen at will when he or she opens the door of his or her house to someone knocking on it from outside: here such liberty does not exist, and questions from all quarters must be answered as a matter of official policy.Thank you for writing to me in what obviously are very difficult times.— Prof02 08:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)