Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive534

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

Noticeboard archives


Hipocrite removing and distorting Talk page discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop[edit]

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

Perhaps this should be left to the clerks, but I'm putting up a notice here. Hipocrite made some fairly outrageous proposed decisions at the Workshop for this arbitration, and apparently decided to remove them. But he removed the whole proposal section, including comment by others. So I reverted. He then altered his prior edits, removing his name from the proposal section, etc. I have not warned him, because I'm sure it wouldn't be useful, it's up to the rest of the community what to do about this, I'm done with it now. --Abd (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Just report it to the clerk assigned to the case. It's their job to take care of this kind of stuff. Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Hipocrite removed the text, on the face because he wasn't getting support, but then filed an AE request over the same dead horse: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Viridae. Okay, I'll ping the clerk. --Abd (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 Done See here. Ronnotel (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Ronnotel. I pinged Talk for both clerks. --Abd (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I asked for comment on the associated talk page about this. Nothing administratively urgent to do here Fritzpoll (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Dealt with. See workshop talkpage if interested (and arbitration clerks' noticeboard if excessively interested). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I see no reason to bring this here other than to waste valuable time. It's well-established that the community aren't going to do much over this sort of thing at arbitration - arbitrator delegates exist for a reason. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks, NCMV. I have never been a party to an arbitration before and never had to face or possibly deal with what's been encountered, so I'm learning. What you say makes sense; after all, most RfArs are being watched by quite a few editors with buttons, plus the clerks, etc. --Abd (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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

File: vs. Image:[edit]

Resolved: The image namespace is deprecated, nothing to see here. BJTalk 22:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What's up with replacing Image: with File: everywhere? Doesn't everyone know that redirects should not be replaced just to replace them, as edits are very costly, and redirects are not? I happen to like calling images images, it helps to understand what they are, vs. calling them a file, which says nothing. Whoever is going around changing them needs to stop, such as User:MauritsBot. Please leave them as they are - if they say file, leave them as file, if they say image leave them as image. (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What incident are you reporting, and what admin action are you requesting? ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 15:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It is very annoying.[1] Shut it off until it gets fixed. (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not doing anything wrong. It is not changing Image: to File: exclusively, but doing that as part of numerous other fixes, including fixing interwiki links. Resolute 16:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Adding or fixing an interwiki link is fine, but changing image to file is not, nor is changing WP to Wikipedia. For example, changing WP:RM to Wikipedia:RM is silly. Both are still redirects. Any other bot doing that needs to be stopped as well. Click here. (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The bot page says it is running ""[2] from the tool server, which contains the comment ATTENTION: You can run this script as a stand-alone for testing purposes. However, the changes are that are made are only minor, and other users might get angry if you fill the version histories and watchlists with such irrelevant changes.[3]. Unclear if running that code from a 'bot is a good idea. --John Nagle (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The IP has also notified me, but I never run that script (except for testing purposes); just when it's making another change it also makes those trivial and almost useless minor changes, but they make the code look a little cleaner ;). Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 17:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I would amend Nagle's comment to "It is clear that running that code from a 'bot is a really bad idea." (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're so angry about here. The image to file namespace change happened months ago, because we needed a namespace that made sense for sounds and movies also and nobody wanted three multimedia namespaces. As for the WP thing, WP: has always been a shortcut for the Wikipedia namespace. At least as long as I've been here, WP:foo has always pointed to Wikipedia:foo, which was actually the name on the top of the page. So no change there either. Oren0 (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not angry, I am annoyed. Using Image: is more descriptive for images and should be encouraged; instead of some bot coming along and ignorantly switching them from Image to File. I have no problem with some of the "irrelevant changes", such as removing extra whitespace, but for example, at the end of sentences, some editors strongly prefer to use two spaces, others normally use one space, and I certainly would not want a bot coming along and changing any page with that change. The point that the script should not be used stand-alone to make an "irrelevant change" is secondary to the fact that I am arguing that the bot is making annoying changes, not irrelevent changes. If it could be edited to take out the WP to Wikipedia line and the Image to File line it is likely that I would not complain, although seeing those things I would want to scrutinize the rest of the bag of tricks it had to make sure that they also were not only irrelevent but annoying in any way. I also would not have complained about the WP to Wikipedia change if the bot had actually checked to see if the target was a redirect and not made the edit if it was. As I said changing WP:RS to Wikipedia:RS is totally pointless, as both are redirects to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and in fact, WP:Reliable sources doesn't even get redirected, it gets mapped to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, making changing WP to Wikipedia less than useless. (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Amandajm, User:Davidx5, castles, and the FBI[edit]

User:Davidx5 has left the follwong threat on talk:Castle:

Reading back on racist, Amandajm - I've come to realize that in addition to his muslim name, he veritably hates white people. He deletes info about european history even if such info is based upon accurate inferences. Why he does this should be the subject of debate. My theory is that he's jealous of white culture and history being that he's muslim. Also, it's important to note that muslims of his poor ilk who exhibit such hatred additionally exude homosexual frustrations. This is well documented in psychiatric circles. Why a dirty, white-hating muslim should possess the reponsibility of writing an article on a culture and history not his own is WAY beyond me. If he wants to write about muslim history, he should. But, he shouldn't be given the chance to write about something he obviously knows nothing about and DOES NOT pertain to him. This guy IS NOT european. Honestly, he doesn't deserve to be on wiki at all. 'Stay on your side of the fence', is a motto I always quote.

An example of his ignorance shines through on the Castle article. He states that it was the romans who were the ones responsible for starting european castles. A little bit of research into the matter reveals that it was indeed the Goths (not the romans) who were the true architects and precursors to what we now see as european castles. I added this historical TRUTH into the article. Of course, he invariably deleted it because being the muslim that he is, he can't stand the truth.
To that, yesterday I followed up by sending emails to Homeland Security and the FBI Counter-terrorism Division for investigation into who he is and what his motives are. (No, I've not gone off the deep end). I received an automatic response email from the FBI stating that they will look into the matter, and will definitley be following up. Racist muslims of this type are tricky and can pose a risk to the US. Also, I sent an email to wiki complaining about this enemy of europeans and americans. I got an email back from wiki stating that he will be reviewed - thank god! His place in wiki - and in the US - shouldn't be secure.

We're really sick and tired of this "man". Davidx5 (talk) 6:05 pm, Today (UTC+1)

User:Amandajm hasn't edited since 1 May so probably doesn't know about this yet, and this is situation is ludicrous. The information Davidx is referring to was unreferenced and he is misrepresenting the situation. For example, I have recently been adding references to the article; so far it's only on the etymology, but Creighton and Higham are authoritive sources and to claim otherwise is displaying an ignorance of the sources. Also, it the changes I have made say the word castle has Roman origins, I have not made any changes indicating that the Romans invented castles themselves, indicating that Davidx is deliberately and maliciously misrepresenting the situation.

I also think Davidx is using because of this edit and User: because of the similarity in editing pattern with The discussion on the castle talk page shows that the IPs had been introducing incorrect information, such as labelling Italian castles as Spanish. Once references began to be removed from the article, the IP exhausted our reserves of good faith.

I think this issue requires attention, I would take action myself, however as an involved admin I would probably be accused of being racist or some other absurdity. Nev1 (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef for this edit. His block log shows he has had plenty of chances already. Nakon 17:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Could we confirm that Davidx has sent an e-mail to wikimedia (or whatever he meant by wiki)? Nev1 (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
E-mail was sent to OTRS claiming that Amandajm "refuses to admit certain historical truths" and that "this is considered racist"; we were "urge(d) to ban him". This is not a reason to ban Amandajm, and that action has not been taken. Nakon 18:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the screed in the section above his block notice; it's nothing but a bunch of harsh personal attacks. I noted that the full text is in the page's history. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 19:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Database Error[edit]

Ok, I got no clue where to report this, but I figure I'll tell you guys, Special:Log, giving off a Database error. Rgoodermote  20:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've passed the info along to the #wikimedia-tech IRC channel. Nakon 20:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Rgoodermote  20:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

DougTechs topic ban[edit]

under discussion @ Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Proposed topic-ban of Dougstech from !voting or commenting in RfA. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Because trying to avoid swine flu and financial ruin doesn't keep us busy enough... :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
LOL Swine flu I can avoid with handwashing and wearing a mask around the coughing/sneezing/madding crowd. Other things are harder to get away from. ;) Dlohcierekim 21:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Beware of anyone who offers you a hog and a kiss. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Levineps splitting articles[edit]


I have just blocked Levineps (talk · contribs) for a week for splitting articles without consulting their talk pages. It appears he has been doing this for a while. He caught my attention when he split the last two sections from Harvey Milk (an FA) into a Legacy of Harvey Milk article that had no lead and no coherence and was subsequently deleted after an AfD process.

After several other complaints on his talk page, and a warning by User:Avruch and User:Rodhullandemu, I threatened to block him if he did it again.

Slow on the uptake, I was contacted about the fact that he split every NFL article and created Logos and uniforms of...

A peek at this user's talk page makes it clear he has been approached about this before. Any suggestions for mentoring or someone else to explain why this is a bad idea?

Is there a quicker way to revert all these Logos of articles rather than merge discussions and AfDs for all? --Moni3 (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I would just redirect them. Protonk (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No offense, Moni, but it's surprising that an administrator since 2006 would not realize that immediate redirection was an option. Any merger or split can be performed without discussion (subject to reversion). And why would an AfD debate be initiated in tandem with a merger discussion?

    I believe that this block was warranted, but I strongly suggest that you review the relevant procedures before engaging in further administrative intervention in this area. —David Levy 16:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week? Seems rather excessive considering it's the user's first block. Levineps (talk · contribs) has requested an unblock on his talk page. --auburnpilot talk 05:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to recommend granting it or shortening the block. Seems a touch BITEy to me, unless there is something else going on. Protonk (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
There's no indication in the unblock request that he intends to change his behavior. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
If he's doing copy and paste from one article to a new one, is he attributing the old article to maintain the GFDL? Dougweller (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Reviewing this split out and the creation of Legacy of Harvey Milk, no, he's not doing attribution and causing GFDL problems too. Great. And I've denied his request, in part since he doesn't really seem to care. The issue to me is more creating work for others for no good reason than anything else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

A week isn't an excessive block in my opinion, given the number of prior warnings and advice he's received and the level of disruptions his splits have caused. Nathan T (formerly Avruch) 16:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the user's attitude, I'm inclined to agree. —David Levy 16:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The user's attitude doesn't seem confrontational, and he says that he regrets his actions. If he'll agree to an explicit limitation on splitting articles without every discussion step taken care of first, I'd support unblocking immediately. GlassCobra 07:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This users' disregard for heeding warnings before and during the block makes the block length appropriate in my opinion. He was told numerous times in very specific and detailed language on how to properly present an unblock request. He simply did not listen and therefore I've changed the block to prevent talk page use to stop abuse of the unblock process. Nja247 09:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing and probably socking as well by User: [edit]

User: is blatantly canvassing support in order to influence the outcome of a CFD discussion. They have left over 100 user talk messages in an attempt to stack votes, I think the CFD should probably be prematurely closed as a sort of "mistrial". The fact that these are the only edits made by this user also strongly suggests that this ip is a sock. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I believe I have identified the sock/puppeteer relationship and have filed a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saguamundi, but I would still like an uninvolved admin to take a look at the CFD. There hasn't been much action since the canvassing, but it hasn't been very long yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Blocked the IP for 31 hrs. I don't think the CFD has been affected yet, but any closing admin needs to review the situation as it develops. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The CfD in question is: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 1#Category:Anti-Armenianism. And I agree that the CfD doesn't yet seem affected. — Becksguy (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I closed the CfD. There's no point in keeping it open when extensive campaigning has taken place, especially since we can just close it without prejudice to a future nomination being made. As for the user, is a sockpuppet investigation even necessary? In the canvassing statement, the anon IP says, "Will you support my arguement for the deletion of the Category:Anti-Armenianism that I put forward on May 1, 2009?" To me it's fairly clearly User:Saguamundi; the only real question to me is whether User:Saguamundi meant to be logged out when the canvassing took place. It could be an "innocent" mistake of not being logged in, though the canvassing would still have been inappropriate. The IP didn't vote in the discussion in an attempt to "votestack". Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Potential revert war (User[edit]

There is an issue with (talk). over the page VIA FP9ARM. They insist on having one particular photo as the main photo on the page, no matter what other photo is added to the page he reverts it. They initially changed the image for an almost exact same shot as an earlier one that I had added when I created the page. When (talk) reverted it with the note that changing the photo was pointless as it was the same angle, etc. However it was reverted back. To stop a potentential revert war I added a totally different photo but this was not good enough for User who still continues to revert it. I have asked User to not get into a revert war (I know them in person and they thought they were helping me by reverting the image). I am however totally flabbergasted by the continued insistance by User that one particular photo is to be used for the main shot.

Also it was brought to my attention by User that User wrote something not pleasent on the talk page of User The comment in question is:

Uh, whoopie ladi freakin' dah? Maybe you need to relook at your comments first before flinging accusations.

Not sure what he means at the beginning but I agree it doesn't look pleasant.

I would appreciate some involvment in this issue. Thankyou Jsp3970 (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the thread on WP trains has the situation covered. One thing that I find appalling is that Talk:VIA FP9ARM is completely empty despite all of this supposed negotiation over pictures. Here's a rule to live by on WP: except for vandalism, if you revert someone and they revert you back, always discuss it on talk. If you believe that the user has not been civil enough, take it to WP:WQA. There's nothing here that requires admin attention. Oren0 (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
May not be "resolved"; User:Jsp3970 seems to be throwing a hissy fit, removing "his" images from articles, "reasserting copyright" over said images, and placing Ffd templates on the images description pages. His actions were followed by similar actions from IP user: (IP edits were reverted by me, and user was reported to AIV).
Question, is his reassertion of copyright even possible, given that he previously released the images under GFDL-with-disclaimers and cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0 licenses? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It sure isn't possible. He released these images and there's no undoing that. I have rolled back the removals. Oren0 (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
JSP3970 appears to be quite insistent on his position, as he has reverted all the reversions. Looks like another potential edit war. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Unless Wikipedia gives me restitution for the copyright to the photos thereby buying the copryight, which they didn't, the copyright remains with me for a duration of 50, 75, or 100 years after my death. Therefore I have everyright to reclaim the copyright. All I want is for the photos to be deleted so that I can leave Wikipedia as I want nothing more to do with it. But no one here seems to understand that I just want to leave with my photos, there are only 8 of them after all. Jsp3970 (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Jsp3970 has the copyright to the pictures. What Wikipedia has is an irrevocable license to use the image. The image allows Wikipedia and downstream users free use of the image with no compensation required to JSP3970. —C.Fred (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's the relevant text from the CC 2.5 legal code: "Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above" (emphasis added). —C.Fred (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Persistent POV-pushing on Europe[edit]

Over the past two and a half weeks Npovshark (talk · contribs) has continued (slow) edit warring and POV pushing on Europe. They are currently disputing the neutrality of the current edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica and National Geographic. Having initially strongly objected on the talk page to the mention of any countries with predominantly Muslim populations, they have challenged the use of the term transcontinental country. Their edits have been reverted by several editors. They have spammed the talk page with unsourced claims and have refused to take their worries to WikiProject Geography for clarification. Europe has been an anodyne and neutral article for a long time; it is one of the 200 most read articles on WP. There is no need for this kind of tendentious and unsourced editing on such a major article. Mathsci (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(noindent) The above remarks were edited by Npovshark. I have restored what I wrote. His remarks are below. Since he says everything is a lie I will later add diffs. However, it should be clear from the manner in which he treats the contributions of other editors, that something is badly wrong. Mathsci (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(noindent) Again Npovshark is displacing my comments. I have a collected a set of diffs from the talk page of Europe. It shows his failure to recognize secondary sources and his use of the talk page as a forum to soapbox his own views, without sources. What I do not understand about this editor is that, even after two scholarly sources had been added to the main article that carefully explained why the Urals and their watershed had become used as the Eastern boundary of Europe since 1730, he refused to accept this. I will not comment on the diffs, although at one stage he does accidentally slip into german (dafür instead of therefore). I don't see any need to pick examples from the main article, since almost all his proposed changes were reverted by five or six different editors. These included a complete rewrite of the lede, the separation of trancontinental countries into a new list, the removal of the principal map, the rewording of text from newly added content which contradicted the sources, etc. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] (slips into German) [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] Mathsci (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

First off, I don't understand what Mathsci's problem is. The way the user phrases things above, it sounds like I deleted his comments or tried to hide them or something. I get the feeling this is the impression he wants to give. This should be your first clue that this user has an axe to grind, and a personal vendetta against me. I would like to note that HE refactored his text, leaving one of my responses floating out in the middle of nowhere, so I was forced to delete it and move it to "NPOVshark'S edits are making this section unreadable" - a bit ironic I know. Anyway, what I did originally was reply line by line to Mathsci's text above, but this is something Mathsci has no right to complain about, since I undid it and refactored his text. I note that on three occasions, including the section "NPOVshark'S edits are..." he has pointed out how I have supposedly "distorted" his text. Yet another bogus claim. I don't have the time or patience to collect every single edit Mathsci has made that has issues (!?!), but I will address some of his bogus claims, listed above, for my own sake:
Over the past two and a half weeks Npovshark (talk · contribs) has continued (slow) edit warring and POV pushing on Europe. They are currently disputing the neutrality of the current edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica and National Geographic.
This is a lie. The current debate began over how to phrase the surtitle, and he thinks two sources - Nat. Geographic and Encycl. Britannica - have primacy over all others, including World Book Encyclopedia, the world's best-selling Encyclopedia. You yourself have made a number of edits over the last two weeks, and because of your constant position (you also once called Europe a "myth"), I too could say you are "pov-pushing". We have reverted back and forth, so this must mean you too are "edit-warring". Smoke and mirrors from Mathsci. --Npovshark (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Having initially strongly objected on the talk page to the mention of any countries with predominantly Muslim populations, they have challenged the use of the term transcontinental country.
This is also a lie. This user is bringing up a very old discussion which I already commented to him about, so now I have reason to believe that Mathsci is purposely misrepresenting his case here, for what reason I fail to understand. You know full well, Mathsci, that my intentions were not what you wrote here; you cannot claim ignorance because I spoke to you about this at length. If you are going to try to address POV-pushing, then find a factual argument to use against me rather than going on a crusade of dishonesty. Reading the talk page shows that my concern is what the logic was for making the border where it is. Is it religious? Well then it is odd that the Muslim countries are mentioned. If it isn't religious, then why are Iran and Iraq not covered? Only since then has the history of Europe, as a "thing" defined by Russian sources as limited by the Caucasus and Ural Mountains appeared in the article. My challenge to transcontinental is that, in calling these countries either European or Asian, some reliable sources are not calling them transcontinental. Sadly, Mathsci apparently has no interest in resolving this dispute by working towards a consensus, and so he is trying to find out ways to attack me and discourage me from working on the project. He has used intimidation as a tactic on several occasions already.--Npovshark (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Their edits have been reverted by several editors.
Red herring. Last time I checked, it was legal to edit Wikipedia. --Npovshark (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
They have spammed the talk page with unsourced claims
I already admitted that my "thinking out loud" first post was a bad way to begin work on this serious topic, but again, you are avoiding the issue, which is your view of the surtitle and mine. I am not brining up your behavior on the talk page, or boastful I'm a wonderful editor and you're not statments. I don't care what you said or did thirty days ago. Let's resolve the issue, which is the surtitle. What is your problem?--Npovshark (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
and have refused to take their worries to WikiProject Geography for clarification. Europe has been an anodyne and neutral article for a long time; it is one of the 200 most read articles on WP. There is no need for this kind of tendentious and unsourced editing on such a major article.
Yet another misrepresentation. I have refused nothing. Again you exaggerate to create an argument where there is none, all part of your wild sensationalist crusade.--Npovshark (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Mathsci wishes to ignore the views of World Book Encyclopedia, the CIA and several news agencies. He has falsely accused me of breaking the 3RR. He has also failed to stay civil, to assume good faith, and to comment on content rather than contributors. Simply looking at my talk page makes this very clear. [36] Ah, and one other thing: it was Mathsci's idea to mention that there is a disparity of source opinions - that this version of Europe isn't the only popular one - only in the footnotes. We have tried various versions of the surtitle, but I note that in each one, Mathsci has apparently rejected mentioning that World Book has a different opinion from the Encyclopedia Britannica version. I find this also very odd behavior. --Npovshark (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
As an uninvolved administrator, I have reviewed the situation and I conclude that Npovshark is advocating a fringe position, trying to give it undue weight, violating NPOV by trying to promote it as the default viewpoint, and is clearly a single purpose account.
I have left a final warning on their talk page. Continuing to edit war on article contents is grounds for blocking. Discussion to change consensus on talk pages is fine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
How in the name of anything have you come to your conclusion? What is your logic behind "advocating a fringe position" when I mention World Book Encyclopedia, the CIA,, Asia news and other sites? Isn't "giving undue weight" what Mathsci is doing, which is to essentially ignore these sources? --Npovshark (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I've just had my first significant interaction with that user (npovshark) today, it was not very positive. While I would like to see more evidence, my first impression is that George is right. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Since Npovshark has tried to defend his edits (now reverted by a fifth editor), I should mention that in his most recent edit to Europe he gave as a source CIA (sic) Presumably he meant the CIA World Fact Book. This source does not discuss the geographical delineation of the boundaries of Europe, indeed its map of Europe excludes part of the Ukraine. It's hard not to see this kind of careless editing as deliberate. For the list of countries, two recognized sources were mentioned by me - namely the CIA World Fact Book and the BBC - which classified transcontinental Eurasian countries differently (CIA in Asia, BBC in Europe, including Armenia and Cyprus). Again Npovshark has misrepresented this edit: both sources were mentioned by me without any further interpretation. Npovshark has not sought consensus on the talk page: he raises the questionable points he wants to push, fails to elicit any response within 24 hours and then interprets this as agreement. Mathsci (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I have restored my comments above to the form prior to Npovshark's edits on them. He has a thing or two to learn. Mathsci (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Why did you write "(sic)"? Is this a joke to you? Let me interrupt you and point out that the CIA is behind the CIA World Fact Book, so obviously their version of Europe is the version that the CIA uses.--Npovshark (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
You missed the point. The point is what you assume is a common opinion regarding what others depict as Europe is not common at all. The CIA uses a different version, World Book Encyclopedia uses a different version, uses a different version (UNESCO), Asia news uses a different version...and this is exactly what your sources, Encyclopedia Britannica and National Geographic do. They give one interpretation of countries within, and do not say where the borders are. You make me so angry, accusing me of caring only if sources say country x is in "Europe" or not; accusing me of not providing the source that says exactly where the border for Europe is. I have, in fact, ASKED YOU FOR THE SOURCE THAT SAYS PRECISELY WHERE THE LINE BETWEEN EUROPE AND ASIA IS DRAWN and I am still waiting. Do not steal my ideas and try to use them against me here.--Npovshark (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Mathsci, why have you not mentioned the exhaustive list I have found which includes World Book Encyclopedia? You are lying here and exaggerating (which I have called you out on several times before...if I need to pull up these examples, I will). So you run to the Admin rather than answer my questions on talk...I asked for sources, they never came. And my comments on talk are over one week only. I'm sorry, but your BS about me giving you 24 hours...I have no respect for that. That happened one time: I waited, noted that 24 hours had passed and reverted your edits which I had addressed on talk. Having received no response from you, I figured you had no response to give...this was mostly because it was one day after a very heavy debate on talk, and I figured it would be important in your mind to respond, given your interest. And now, funny how you try to use that against me. Wow, you are really quite a spectacle, I must say.
As for Piotr, you remove mention of Poland bombing Silesia, which means the statement of "these were the first few bombings of the war" is no longer accurate. Then, you add that the purpose of bombing Wielun was not to test bombing but to "simply" test bombing. Then, you added an unsourced and actually untrue statement about Germany "leading the bombing" early on, although the facts suggest otherwise and Britain attacked many many sites in Germany before Germany opened up the air war over Britain. This is a FACT. Scroll down further in the article and you can read the summary of attacks, month by month. Also, your edits, buried deeeeeeeeeep in the article history, have totally messed up the text, and I refuse to sort through them. Sorry Piotr, I will not stand for your blantant POV-pushing and then listen to you accuse me of "pov pushing". Every edit you have added, all unsourced, pertains to how a Polish nationalist would like to look back and see the war.--Npovshark (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Very interesting that Npovshark is calling Piotr a "Polish nationalist. Isn't that a serious personal attack? I ignore most of what Npovshark writes now. He obviously has no idea how to source articles. Never a mention of academic geography books or for that matter the Times Atlas of the World. Just what he apparently knows as "FACT". Mathsci(talk) 18:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't call him a Polish nationalist. In fact, I did exactly what you just did on my talk page: [37]
and I quote:
Mathsci: "your persistent slow edit-warring on Europe over the last two weeks combined with these kind of statements could easily be misunderstood as the POV-pushing of an editor with sympathies on far right, eg from Stormfront (website)"
I ignore most of what Npovshark writes now. This was fairly obvious from your "inability" to address my concerns on the Europe talk page. You ignore everything you don't want to hear, including the fact that World book encyclopedia, for the 13 thousandth time, does not agree with you.--Npovshark (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Never a mention of academic geography books or for that matter the Times Atlas of the World. Just what he apparently knows as "FACT".
I'm sorry, did you forget my exhaustive list of references which seem to avoid your cookie-cutter classification of the world?

Here it is - again:
  • World Book - these regions are not included in Europe: [38]
  • CIA - these regions are not included in Europe: - [39]
  • - these regions are not included in Europe: [40]
  • Asia's own opinion: [41]
  • Central Asia and Caucasus Institute - you can't "integrate" into something you are already a part of: [42]

Other sources often use the grouping Caucasus and ignore the term "Europe":

  • Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia - "the Caucasus" is used, no reference to region as Europe or Asia: [43][44][45]


  • Terminology "Central Asia and the Caucasus" (no mention of Europe): [48],[49], [50], [51]

to a similar extent...

  • References suggesting "crossroads" between Asia and Europe, but no definite use of "Europe" or "Asia": [52][53][54][55]

(I'm noticing that the grouping "Eastern Europe and Central Asia" is a very common grouping for newspapers, organizations, etc.)

  • "Caspian Sea nations"/Caspia (no mention of these nations in Europe): [56][57]
  • Putting Georgia in "Southwestern Asia": [63][64]
  • Mentioning the Caucasus as a Region (but not as Europe or Asia): [65]
  • Eastern Europe map that does not mention of Kazakhstan, Georgia, Azerbaijan, etc.) [81] Similar - Europe according to the CIA:[82]
  • Russian News Service uses phrase CIS (not Asian nor European): [83], uses term (Central Asia) for Kazakhstan [84]
  • Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia in "Middle East":[85][86]
  • Georgia - "Western Asian", "Middle East":[87], [88]
  • Middle East times - on Georgia: (called "European" because it serves political objectives): [89]

Conceding Georgia as being in the Caucasus leads to the equally hypocritical parallel of Armenia's occupation of the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, which for 18 years has been tacitly approved in Washington because of much muscle flexing by the Armenian-American lobby. If, on the other hand, Georgia is considered to be squarely part of Europe, then Putin will be seen as spearheading yet another Prague '68, Hungary '56, or Sudetenland '38 -- just as American neocons are now calling it in their effort to get key European allies to buy into their rhetoric. Sarko l'Américain already has. Yet what might a loyal NATO ally like Turkey, whose territory is all to the west of Georgia, have to say about this -- especially when told by many that they are not sufficiently "Western" to qualify for EU membership? Isn't there a better place for Georgia -- in neither Europe nor Asia? From now on, why not think of the Black Sea as the Russian Caribbean, and let Georgia be renamed the Cuba of the Caucasus? Turn it into a fully fledged U.S.-allied junior NATO member and give it a few rusty missiles pointed north. U.S. military advisors are conveniently already in residence there.

  • Odd interpretation of Europe (to Siberia and beyond): [90]
  • Central Eurasia and the Caucasus: [91]

(filed under Asian news: [94]) (filed under "middle east"): [95] (as "far east asia":[96][97]

  • Cyprus: (not filed under European news, but "World")[98]

Europe and Eurasia:

  • CSIS (center for strategic international studies) uses "Russia and Eurasia" as a grouping, no mention of Europe or Asia:[99]
  • Georgia: (listed as "World" when the issue deals with Georgia, "Europe" when the subject is Europe's response to Georgia:)[100][101]Georgia as "Southwestern Asia":[102]
  • Istanbul: ("straddling Europe and Asia"): [103]

So as we can see, these definitions are not set in stone and it is important that we do not play favorites to certain views (ex: why the EU and BBC's opinion and not the CIA, World Book or typical "of-the-region" publication's opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npovshark (talkcontribs) 20:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC) --Npovshark (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, it's geology and not geography that tells you where the border between Europe and Asia is - but you knew that. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Please note the recent edit warring of npovshark (ANI/3RR report), and I think I don't have to mention that his consistent personal attacks and violations of good faith are another issue of concern. Perhaps Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions for battleground creation in topics involving Eastern Europe would be relevant? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, good plan Piotrus! Then you can continue to make the grossly POV edits you've made to Strategic Bombing of World War II without restraint - and yes, I mean those edits which I addressed after you, of all people, reported me. Now I know my tone here has been really sarcastic, but really, if you want me to respect you, either of you, you are going about it the entirely wrong way: fabrications, hypocrisy, and a lack of interest in neutrality, for example. --Npovshark (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Note to the adminstrator: Piotrus has again added the false, unsourced sentence that Early in the war, Germany led the bombing, in particular, with The Blitz campaign against the United Kingdom, which I have spoken of on his talk page, on the administrator discussion page and in the edit summary (at least two times). Unfortunately, to write such a thing goes against the facts which, fortunately, appear later in the article. His other edit removes mention of Poland bombing Silesia as the war began, which means a paragraph about "the first few bombings of the war" is no longer complete. Thankfully, he has not reverted to a version where he changed this town was bombed as target practice to this town was bombed simply as target practice, which smells awfully POV-ish. This appears to be POV-motivated editing in general, which...ironically, I have been accused of. I encourage the administration to follow Piotrus' link, given above, in which I have explained why Piotrus' edits were detrimental to the article. Nevertheless, he has restored several of them minutes ago.--Npovshark (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Piotrus and GWH. Npovshark is making trouble on various articles because of his extreme views on the eastern borders of Europe. He is evasive on talk pages. His attempts to push his POV on an article like Europe is misplaced; his accusations that other neutral editors are pushing a contrary POV (presumably because he does not agree with their edits) is exceedingly disruptive. From his editing history so far he does not seem interested in adding significant sourced content to this encyclopedia; he is however creating difficult editing conditions on normally tranquil talk pages of uncontroversial articles. Mathsci (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Because we all know how "extreme" World Book encyclopedia is. Typical. Say your view is mainstream, others are "extreme", that my edits are POV, others are neutral. Yawwwwnnn. Well, the actual content of Piotrus' edit is explained above, apparently Mathsci thinks these edits are neutral. As for that article, Mathsci, every edit I made has a source. Every edit Piotrus just made has not a single source. "Tranquil talk pages?" So now it is wrong, in Mathsci's view, to not only make changes to the text if it is wrong, but to also talk about it on talk. --Npovshark (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I have made no comment whatsoever on World Book Encyclopedia. How do you have access to it in Germany? This edit, like most of your edits to Strategic bombing in World War II, was unsourced. What you wrote has been reverted: you changed "Germany led the bombing" to "Britain led the bombing". No citations. Normally this would be called nationalistic POV-pushing. Mathsci (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Npovshark's edits are making this section unreadable[edit]

Npovshark seems to be freely moving around my text and removing introductory phrases. He started by adding comments between the lines of the inital report. I have added a series of diffs from the talk page of Europe which give a fair idea of his behaviour there. The history page of the article with the edit summaries tells its own story [105]. Mathsci (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop blaming me for everything that is wrong in your life, including your inability to follow the text. Yes, I responded to you line by line, but you complained and I put it back exactly as it was. So now what is wrong with you? And by the way, you still haven't answered me about World Book, and why we should overlook their considerations instead of Encycl. Britannica. I am not saying either should be overlooked, only that the surtitle should make it possible for the reader to understand that neither version is actually inaccurate. I think you simply have a bone to pick with me. I really don't understand what your problem is.--Npovshark (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you removed the first sentence of my second comment when you displaced it. Why on earth did you do that? (I assume that this German IP, (talk · contribs), is Npovshark.) Mathsci (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Please refactor, "Stop blaming me for everything that is wrong in your life, including your inability to follow the text." That is an uncivil personal attack. Mathsci (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
No, just an observation. Seriously, please leave me alone and stop creating hysteria on this page. --Npovshark (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, interesting. I just reread the convo and it appears that Your edits are what has made it unreadible, and as it is, I am responding to myself. You have removed the following:
Since he says everything is a lie I might later add diffs; what I say has been supported by 2 admins and by the multiple editors that have reverted practically all his edits to Europe. However, it should be clear from the manner in which he treats the contributions of other editors, that something is badly wrong. Mathsci (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Again, you lie. Before you said that my complaints about the article got you to see some things that were missing and incorrect. I've fixed so much that was wrong on this article and helped plan the definition section. I have every right to make a liar look like a liar, and why you are willing to go to such lengths here but not discuss my objections on talk (which have been there for nearly a week now) really blows my mind.--Npovshark (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
...and changed your text to sound more credible. Mathsci, just give up. Nobody cares that you have a bone to grind. And since I have your attention (maybe?) take a look at this image:
They call it Europe. Now do your edits make it possible for the reader to understand that this version is supported by THE best selling Encyclopedia in the world? NO. Now will you please STOP ignoring that and wasting your time on this noticeboard instead of helping me come up with a surtitle that is fair to both versions? --Npovshark (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(noindent) Npovshark it is you that broke up the initial report. You have also claimed that all your namespace edits are sourced when this is evidently not the case. Here for example is a diff where you have inserted material without a source. The two nearby citations (NG and A.J.P. Taylor) were put there 1 1/2 years ago by User:Hemlock Martinis and me respectively. For some reason you also decided to complain that antiquity and Ancient Greece were different things here: you obviously hadn't bothered to look in the source. This kind of uninformed criticism is extremely unhelpful and disruptive. I have no idea why you have gone out of your way to misrepresent and attack neutral editors. As far as sources go, there are many definitive places to look, eg Times Atlas of the World or for that matter the Larousse Encyclopedia, etc, etc. The administrator User:Husond explained to you about the Urals being generally taken as part of the Eastern boundary of Europe, something that you seem to have a problem accepting this evening. This is carefully explained in the namespace article using the following sources:

  • Lewis, Martin W.; Wigen, Kären (1997), The myth of continents: a critique of metageography, University of California Press, ISBN 0520207432
  • Jordan-Bychkov, Terry G.; Jordan, Bella Bychkova (2001), The European culture area: a systematic geography, Rowman & Littlefield, ISBN 0742516288

Mathsci (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said that about the Urals, in fact I never said anything about the Urals. Still, World Book does not include Kazakhstan in Europe and throws it into the Asia category. As for the Caucasus, do the above sources say where in the Caucasus the line is drawn? Is it just as the mountain begins, halfway through the mountain chain or to the end of the mountain? That is the whole point, and why sources can say "to the Caucasus" and still exclude Georgia and Azerbaijan as many do. Well, you missed it. And then you attack me again. And lie again. This time, now I'm "attacking neutral editors". Who decided they were neutral? Who decided it was an attack? This will be my last post on this page. You win. I cannot tolerate you anymore. At the moment, I regret that I have, for the last 6 years, been adding any material to this website or fixed any errors. I want the world to know that Wikipedia is not reliable for anything, and I wish to God that it was the last possible result in Google and nobody ever used it. Have a miserable life editing Wikipedia.--Npovshark (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
In Npovshark's proposed list of so-called "sources" he continues to challenge transcontinental countries. He still challenges the boundaries of the prinicpal map because of this. He writes above, quite inaccurately "Only since then has the history of Europe, as a "thing" defined by Russian sources as limited by the Caucasus and Ural Mountains appeared in the article. My challenge to transcontinental is that, in calling these countries either European or Asian, some reliable sources are not calling them transcontinental." What makes Npovshark's position completely untenable is that there have been detailed articles on wikipedia about Transcontinental country, continent, etc, where the material that I added from my two sources is already discussed in greater depth, and has been for years, including the Swedish cartographer and geographer Philip Johan von Strahlenberg's proposal to use the Urals and Caucasus mountains as natural eastern boundaries. Some atlases do draw the boundary and have explanations (eg the Times Atlas of the World), some text books explain the boundary in detail. But this is still missing the point. Npovshark also made tendentious edits to Strategic bombing during World War II, whitewashing the Nazis, the inclusion of a Nazi map; and now for over almost three weeks he has persistently tried to declassify transcontinental countries in Europe, starting with his anti-Muslim rant on the talk page. The changes he wished to make to Europe have been reversed by multiple editors. He has continued a game of sometimes polite arguing without ever consulting or citing a source (eg antiquity vs Ancient Greece). As above, rather than consulting secondary sources about transcontinental country, he seems to be presenting an argument himself based on his interpretation of primary sources. His changing of the phrase about who started the bombing typifies his style: he seems to believe he knows what's true and by hook-or-by-crook, perhaps by sheer persistence, will get it into the article, source be damned. Npovshark has only been editing for a short time under this username, yet he now writes that he has been adding material for 6 years. Did he edit anonymously before or have a former account that can no longer be used? Mathsci (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


Following the personal attacks made by NPOVshark, editwarring, and violations of policies (such as refactoring others comments) - made on this page - I would support a preventative and educational block. A topic ban from Europe related editing might also be in order. Verbal chat 08:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. This editor needs to learn how to edit properly. This recent diff has him challenging the data of the distinguished historian Richard Overy, from a published book, simply because he cannot find an online version of it on the web (I could partially check the dates on Mathsci (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Problems?[edit]

Is something going on with wiki, i can edit this and any talk pages fine. However, on articles the option doesn't even come up for me to edit them? Help Please. OgiBear (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably you're trying to edit a protected article. Looie496 (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of rollback[edit]

Resolved: No actual misuse of 'rollback'. Nja247 21:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, earlier today I tagged an article for deletion via PROD with an anonymous IP address. My edit was reverted [106] as vandalism. This is unacceptable abuse of the rollback function and amounts to bullying of anon users. This user needs to be banned. Thank you, Myownusername (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that one mislabeled revert should result in blocking the editor. Please try discussing it with the editor on his talk page. Nakon 19:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I see you haven't taken the time to alert IH of this thread. I've done so.— dαlus Contribs 19:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
For transparency reasons, I did so on IRC.— dαlus Contribs 19:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Essentially I saw it as vandalism/trolling in that the reason for the prod goes directly against the content of the article (it has multiple sources, all of which are sufficient) and I am suspicious of any new user that finds AfD and PROD in his first edits, which rather kicks the good faith chair out from under someone in my mind. Ironholds (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It looks like a legitimate prod reason to me. When you remove a prod you need an edit summary explaining why you disagree. Rollback does not provide that, so it is not appropriate for removing prods(imo). Chillum 19:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see it was not rollback but Twinkle, still the same logic applies. I have a rollback (AGF) button that asks for a summary, I think it is part of Twinkle. That would be a better choice. Chillum 19:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a legitimate prod to me, as well. Definitely not vandalism. -- Darth Mike (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Totally legit prod. I'm not convinced that this article as it is now would survive an AfD, and to take a prod with a well-written reason and to revert it as vandalism with no reason is inappropriate IMO. If this was rollback, it'd be a bigger problem. Oren0 (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Also agree that this looks like a legitimate PROD; however, Ironholds made a mistake in that he rolled back when he should have simply contested the PROD. It is of course any editor's privilege to contest a PROD, in which case is then the original editor's prerogative to take the article to AFD. However, this is an extremely minor mistake and clearly is not grounds for disciplinary action of any kind, much less banning. GlassCobra 06:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It appears that Ironholds has made a mistake. It happens, but one mistake is no grounds on which to start questioning the good faith of an editor let alone start turning it into an inquest on whether they should retain huggle/twinkle. A prod can be replaced in certain circumstances, and per WP:IAR, I think this is a case where the prod remover might replace the template as "removed in error" and we can then all move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest that everyone read what Tothwolf (talk · contribs) wrote on the AFD for Mibbit in this comment. Killiondude (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest we close this and move on. Yes he misidentified a legit tagging as vandalism, which isn't good, but things happen. Importantly however is it wasn't done via the actual rollback Wiki software feature as implied in the initial report. Lesson learnt, case closed. Cheers, Nja247 09:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I still consider the {{prod}} that / Myownusername placed on the article to be an act of vandalism/disruption. These diffs [107] [108] only served to reinforce my original thoughts on this. Tothwolf (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Potential legal threat made against me[edit]

Resolved: User has apologized and the images have been reinstated. Oren0 (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If someone could please review this diff. I'm involved, so I can't perform any actions myself. In a nutshell, this user uploaded a bunch of images and licensed them for use on WP. This user has since attempted to "reclaim copyright" because he is unhappy about the way the images are being used. Oren0 (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That diff alone doesn't contain any kind of legal threat, imo. Saying that it is a criminal offence is (as well as being wrong) not the same as saying he's planning to inform the police of your activities. Ironholds (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
There was no legal threat made against you, I was very careful in the wording in that aspect. My comment was meant to point out that it is illegal for someone else to change the license on my work. This is to do with moral rights of copyrighted work, there is even a page on Wiki regarding that Moral rights (copyright law) with a section pertaining to Canada. As far as I know I did not agree to sign over the moral rights to my work when I uploaded the image. If I am wrong, and someone can provide evidence concerning my moral rights, then I will apologize and personally revert each image to where it was when I removed them. But until then I truly do believe that I have the right to reassert the copyright to my images. Jsp3970 (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This was covered in another thread. You did, when you tagged the images as under a Creative Commons license, grant rights for the image to be freely used and copied. Yes, you retained moral rights such as attribution. However, the grant to use the images on Wikipedia is irrevocable. —C.Fred (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou C.Fred. Since I am obviously wrong in my reassertion then I apologize to all concerned. Further as I stated above I will now go and revert my reversions and return the pages to what they were. Jsp3970 (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
User C.Fred beat me to returning the images. Jsp3970 (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Please that although the licensing of contributions under the GFDL is irrevocable, there is precedent for allowing deletion of images at the uploader's request if a reasonable reason is given for the request. I don't know whether the uploader still would like to pursue that here, nor whether he has an appropriate reason to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Related discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Issues with VIA FP9ARM picture article - Need a third party resolution. It looks like Jsp3970 has "burned out". --NE2 12:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Also: User_talk:Oren0#Reclaiming_copyright. Given what transpired, I do believe I might've uncovered some (possible) sockpuppetry shenanigans. (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Throwaway entry creator accounts. Or something.[edit]


Don't know what to make of it: a whole slew of (mostly) SPAs have been creating new pages with edit summaries that end with "(Nonsense movies?)". Some of the entries are dubious, but none look like out-and-out vandalism. It's just... weird. A sampling of the user names that have come up in the unpatrolled new page log:

9Nak (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

And, erm, I just discovered the tagging function. In the software. What does the tagging. To include things like "(Nonsense movies?)" Move along, move along, nothing to see here except me missing the obvious. 9Nak (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Look like AGF attempts to create articles to me, they have nothing apparently in common beyond that tag. Some qualify for speedy deletion, however. Rodhullandemu 15:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Speedied one, prodded another, AfDd a third. This one looks as though it might be OK (though it is currently an unreferenced BLP and needs sources), and my knowledge doesn't stretch to working out whether this one is notable, redundant or anything else - needs someone who's familiar with the subject. Black Kite 15:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Added one source to the Oberski article. It exists in a number of other wikis and appears to be notable. Black Kite 15:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, look at WP:AF and Special:AbuseFilter/129 to see why is the tag there. —Admiral Norton (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

An obvious measure to reduce confusion would be to link the "tag" back to the filter which appends it. Was this change announced anywhere (other than the extremely vague note at WP:VPT)? It doesn't seem to be covered on WP:AF, unless I missed it. Expect more confusion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
See the "link that tag" discussion on the AF talk page; fully agree that a simple link would de-confuse simpletons like me. 9Nak (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The ability to "tag" edits actually existed in the abuse filter from the start (i.e. 6 weeks ago, or whatever its been); however, at the time the tags didn't do anything all. Hence adding a tag had no consequence. This may have led to some sloppy assignments and poorly thought out tags which should perhaps be looked at again. Incidentally, the appearance of tags can be modified at: Special:Tags. As far as I know there isn't currently a way to add "AF:" in front of them automatically, but one could modify the display codes for each one individually. Dragons flight (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, DougsTech, and indefinite block[edit]

Resolved: No moar drama, pl0x. //roux   19:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Xeno has indefinitely blocked DougsTech from editing WP. To my knowledge, there was no discussion or concensus to block DougsTech. I think the WP community should look into this issue. AdjustShift (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

(Duplicate report)

Xeno has indefinitely blocked DougsTech on the grounds that "you no longer appear to be interested in building the encyclopedia; having not edited the mainspace in nearly a month"[109] and that he has caused "disruption in our internal processes". This comes after a proposal to topic ban DougsTech from RFA was soundly rejected. I feel that this is an end-run around community consensus, has been performed without - indeed ignoring - consensus, and should be overturned. Skinwalker (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read the WT:RFA discussion until after, having not noticed the short note here about it (shouldn't topic ban discussions be held in a central location?), but I've made a short comment there regarding the block. –xeno talk 16:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
There was a notice, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#DougTechs_topic_ban posted just a few sections above this - at the time of writing - and it was noted on Doug's talkpage, which I would have presumed you would have read. What, may I ask, was the trigger for the block? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
He's clearly turned into a single-purpose account solely trolling RfA. I 100% agree with what Xeno's done here, though doubtless others do not. ~ mazca t|c 17:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Kurt Weber was also indefinitely blocked by Nick for disrupting the RFA process.[110] What happened? The indef block was overturned, and Kurt continued to vote at RFAs. Smashing an indef block is not a solution. AdjustShift (talk) 17:02, 3 May
I won't oppose the block, but it indicates that our community is still in diapers when it comes to dealing with troublesome users. I look forward to the day when we can handle such situations more effectively. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
What policy has DT violated to warrant a block? Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC) 2009 (UTC)
Exhausting the community's patience. That's all it takes, it turns out. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Exhausting Xeno's patience. Apparently he/she feels that he is the arbiter of community wisdom. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
That's what we find out now. If he hasn't really exhausted the community's patience, then someone will unblock him. If no one is willing, then he truly has run out. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Bear in mind that I participated in and supported a topic ban of DT. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
He's a SPA, that's why. Enough of his trolling. Majorly talk 17:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Characterizing someone's contribution as "trolling" is (a) never necessary, and (b) generally a bad idea. Since we can indef block him without saying, why say it? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
(to AdjustShift) Kurt was an active contributor to the encyclopedia. –xeno talk 17:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment (my first-btw): I suppose it could be overturned. . .just need to find an admin willing to re-enable the disruption. The indef block doesn't appear to result in a loss for wikipedia. . . R. Baley (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
DT has not violated any policy to warrant an indef block. Majorly, DT also fights vandalism. Oh boy! This will turn into another long long meaningless discussion. AdjustShift (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Exhausting the community's patience counts. You don't have to violate a policy, you just have to make yourself unwelcome. It's always been that way. Remember, this isn't court. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You might want to check Xeno's comment on User talk:DougsTech as well. The account has not edited mainspace since April 7ish, and most of the last 500 edits are actually minor edits that violate AWB's rules of use anyway (eg no significent edits, the edits were only "minor cleanup/reformatting"). See AWB's Rules at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules_of_use number 3. —— nixeagleemail me 17:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Indefinite block and oppose any form of undoing until DT makes a response on his talk and xeno agrees to lift the block Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, Doug is not worth edit warring over - but any admin reviewing any unblock appeal should find evidence of the no consensus to topic ban and will likely accept the appeal.LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
    As I said, I'm not interested in the topic ban. Template opposes are silly, people arguing over them moreseo (they probably help more candidates than they hurt). However, if the users are doing nothing but pasting opposes and not contributing, they should be viewed as single-purpose accounts and dealt with as such. If the user is willing to use his account more productively, I've no objection to unblocking. –xeno talk 17:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


This will probably go on both WT:RFA and here, but I'll try and funnel discussion here. I have unblocked Doug. Xeno made a bad choice (but not a malicious one) to block without reading through the discussion. While I can't say that those who oppose a ban have any better points than those who do, there's no policy violations going on here, it's strictly based on conduct, and from the discussion it's clear that there was no clear support for such a proposal. We don't make hasty blocks and then decide to leave them in violation of agreements to the contrary. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Here we go. Let's start a block/unblock war! DougsTech was clearly causing disruption and not making any encyclopedic contributions, which could be considered as a valid reason to WP:BLOCK him. Timmeh! 17:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
That's essentially my stance - in fact one can look at it separately from the topic ban discussion. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:BAN#Community_ban, the unblock is legit, it simply implies that he has not exhausted everyone's patience yet. —— nixeagleemail me 17:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The day we learn, as a community, how to avoid being disrupted by something as harmless as what DougsTech has been doing, will be a great day for Wikipedia. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

  • We had a long and meaningless discussion at WT:RFA [111], and now it seems we heading for another one. I support the unblocking of DT. I don't agree with DT's method, but smashing an indef block is not a solution. AdjustShift (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
As I said, my block had nothing to do with a topic ban. I didn't realize discussions at WT:RFA dictated our actions with respect to preventing disruption to the enyclopedia. However, I won't wheel war over this, and I don't blame David Fuchs for trying to avoid a shitstorm at ANI over this. –xeno talk 17:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin recall[edit]

I would recommend that Xeno puts himself up for admin recall. Indef blocking this user is 100% inappropriate, especially without a community discussion. The "disruption" is one of perspective, with as many frivolous, if not more, "votes" being casted in the opposite direction. As such, Xeno has taken it upon himself to attack many of our core principles at Wikipedia. This proves that he cannot be trusted. I am thoroughly disgusted that he would even think about doing such a thing. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose there's any chance of archiving this without any more drama, is there? (And for what it's worth, I opposed topic banning DougsTech - ignoring him is much easier). Black Kite 17:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Xeno knew 100% that what he was doing was wrong and against how we operate. Such actions are unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely not. What Xeno did was completely appropriate, seeing as DougsTech was causing disruption (everyone agreed that there was disruption) and has not contributed to the encyclopedia at all over the past month, becoming a single purpose account. He offered to unblock DougsTech if he simply claimed he'd start contributing to the encyclopedia. Xeno was behaving appropriately in my opinion. Timmeh! 17:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Completely appropriate? You cannot indef block someone without a good reason. There was none. The fact that people wouldn't even support a -topic- ban is proof enough that there was no support for this. Do you even know what the blocking policy says? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Please stay civil, Ottava. It says, "some types of user accounts are considered disruptive and may be blocked without warning, usually indefinitely". DougsTech could be considered one of these accounts. Timmeh! 17:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to see me being incivil, just ask. However, having Doug be deemed not a big enough problem to warrant a -topic ban- is evidence enough that no, he cannot be deemed an account that could be indef blocked. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, for Ottava, this is immaculate behavior ;-) But seriously, I see nothing in his comments above that are uncivil. Saying that an indef block that is ongoing while a topic ban was ongoing is not incivil. In fact, IMO, Xeno should have unblocked DT when he realized that there was an ongoing discussion. I will trust him when he says that he was unaware of the discussion, but when he became aware of it, it should have self-reverted as it was apparent that the action was not fully supported by the community.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that a topic ban would've been inappropriate - it would set a precedent that contributors can be disenfranchised of their opinions. However, in my review of the user's recent activity, I felt he could no longer be considered a 'contributor'. I had hoped this would change and would've been willing to unblock the user had he issued an unblock template confirming the same, but as you can see, it never came to that. I'm not in the category, but I am up for Administrator review at User talk:Xeno/review. best, –xeno talk 17:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
    If, as you say, that you were going to unblock, or were willing to, then your original block was simply to make a point. You do know that such things are inappropriate, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
    Blocking to prevention disruption to the enyclopedia is entirely appropriate. You may have the last word. –xeno talk 17:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Bullshit. Don't be a fool, Ottava Rima. This is horseshit. good on any admin who throws out someone that disruptive to the RfA process. We cannot disenfranchise someone from the single area of voting, so the only recourse is to block them from the project. Given that RfA disruption was the only thing going, it's no loss to the project. It's not like this guy was consistent, as has been amply demonstrated, and he wasn't providing any substantive reasoning behind those votes, so it's hard to take them credibly. I'm with Xeno - had DT provided any sort of serious reply in an Unblock Template, then his block could be considered. It's not POINT to use a block as the last recourse to provoke discussion, it's done often here. ThuranX (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
ThuranX, all you do is sit at ANI and cause problems. You fill the place with hate, and you, like many in this thread supporting Xeno, just use ANI to cause problems. If anyone should be removed, its not Doug. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • An idea truly worth its weight in pixels. Which is about par for the course. R. Baley (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It's an indefinite block to stop disruption. It isn't an unreasonable thing to consider him as being disruptive, and an indefinite block is just that - indefinite. As ThuranX points out, we do block if nothing else works in order to provoke discussion. DougsTech can get it lifted simply be agreeing to stop his disruption. There's no need for drama here and there should be no question of recalling Xeno. Dougweller (talk)
The community has already determined that he isn't "disruptive" enough for a topic ban, so yes, it is unreasonable. That is clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What a surprise another voluminous cry of foul from Ottava Rima regarding admin behavior. Seriously, this drama shit has to stop. I suggest somebody archive these discussions promptly. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Issues all around[edit]

I see trouble from several sources, not just DougsTech and the block:

  1. Community ban discussion on RfA talk page. Wrong place.
  2. Nobody paid attention to DougsTech. The assumption at the talk page is that he was just venting about the process, not voting. But here[112] he says he takes the time to consider each vote, he just doesn't bother explaining it each time. That changs things considerably.
  3. Indignant cries of foul by DougsTech supporters. DougsTech has a right to protest on RfA nomination votes, they say, and people who disagree are part of a censorship cabal. But accusing people of WP:IDONTLIKEIT when they explain their reasons in detail is an WP:AGF violation.
  4. Wheel warring - see above. Xeno's block is questionable given opposition to a ban, but a simple mistake of not noticing the forum. Once it happened David Fuchs should not have unblocked without some discussion. That makes a messy process even worse.
  5. Claim that a block / ban requires consensus. Whereas a community ban requires consensus, admins can deal directly with behavior they consider disruptive. Opposing administrative action by invoking demands for consensus is a process obstruction.
  6. Claims that there is no policy basis for complaint. Of course there are policies and guidelines at play here -- WP:SOAP, WP:POINT, WP:DISRUPT, to name a few. Some simply disagree that they were violated.
  7. Bad sportsmanship. RfA is harsh. DougsTech's voting method is obviously less than ideal, but there's an impasse over what to do. Messy RfA leads to an even messier discussion on the RfA talk page, full of alarmist language, hyperbole, incivility, and battlefield mentality, and editors insulting each other. Bad form. Far from calming this as they should, administrators fan it. Thoughtful editors who value calm and sanity get chased away. Not a good way to resolve RfA issues. It makes one wonder whether those watching that page are the right ones to be choosing administrators.

- Wikidemon (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, wheelwarring doesn't occur until the 3rd action. I don't fault DavidFuchs here, he simply had a different read of the situation. Good points on the other issues. –xeno talk 18:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Point two changes nothing. I have considered my reasoning for this statement carefully, I assure you, but I don't have to demonstrate it. ThuranX (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Where do we go from here? I've created a template that might solve any misconceptions regarding DougsTech's votes. If DT can use them, it's a cheerful alternative to any further drama.

{{subst|User:Wikidemon/sandbox/dougstemplate}} - ~~~~
- produces -
Oppose Too many administrators currently. see here - Wikidemon (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thread recall[edit]

I would recommend that this AN/I thread put her or his self up for thread recall—that is, allow the community to remove the thread from our collective consciousness. Talking about frivolous nonsense that only serves to waste everyone's time while actually being more disruptive than the disruption it was supposed to address is 100% inappropriate, especially when it happens in the context of a community-wide discussion. This thread has taken it upon his or herself to attack many of our core principles at Wikipedia, particularly the one about writing an encyclopedia or something. This proves that the thread cannot be trusted. I am thoroughly disgusted that this thread (and this one) even willed her of his self into existence. Shame! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha. Sold! ThuranX (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem submitting the thread to recall. I had no wish to generate additional needless kb's. =) –xeno talk 18:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
And another thread will pop up sooner or later that will take up way too much unnecessary time and space. What have all these threads accomplished? Absolutely nothing, except too much drama and disruption. At least there would not have been any more disruption if DougsTech remained blocked. Now, we have him not contributing constructively at all while still able to pursue his single goal on Wikipedia: to cause disruption and heated arguments amongst the community. Timmeh! 18:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Thread recall is a useless process, and promises thereof are made ad captandum vulgaris. Threads are free to ignore recall requests, or to renege on previously made recall pledges. I cannot support any thread that commits itself to such a broken process. Skinwalker (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose this thread. Wikipedia has too many threads already. Seriously, I can follow the arguments but I don't get the anxiety. The opposes believe that it's important to speak up whenever there's a possibility that people are being silenced for having unpopular opinions, and that's right, and the supporters feel that it's important to speak up whenever someone appears to be causing only harm to Wikipedia, and that's right too. So we took it to WP:AN, which was the right thing to do, and there was a majority but not consensus for taking some action, and those numbers are reflected at the recent WT:RFA discussion and here, which means that if Dougstech's behavior continues, it will wind up at ArbCom soon, especially given NewYorkBrad's summary at WT:RFA. Nothing is going terribly wrong; there's always a lot of discussion about cases that fall in the cracks between the established positions, and it will eventually get sorted. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 19:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Request to block sockpuppet[edit]

Please could someone block Bryan Villacis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who is a sockpuppet of Historian19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Before anyone says SPI, an identically named account has been blocked by a checkuser on Commons, and this account has been using an image uploaded by that account. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Killed it ... might need a hand reverting his edits, though. Blueboy96 19:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Escarbot misbehaving[edit]

Can someone temporarily block this bot until the operator can fix it? It's messing with the interwikilinks and adding them to the template itself without any <noinclude> instead of its documentation page.[113] --Farix (Talk) 20:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. bibliomaniac15 20:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Buddhism and Hinduism[edit]

Resolved: User causing most obvious disruption has been given a final warning and will be actively monitored. Nja247 09:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This article has long had WP:BATTLEGROUND problems. Tonight User:Satyashodak reverted the article to an unknown earlier date, removing a significant number of sourced contributions by User:Mitsube and others. There was some reversion by Mitsube and Satyashodak. I reverted once and asked Satyashodak to reconsider here , and opened a section about reversions on the Talk:Buddhism and Hinduism page. There was some more reversion- 3rr may have been broken. Some personal attacks have been made. The immediate issue is a revert war over the content that was removed. The larger issue is that the article is a wreck- it's a battleground that draws a lot of attention from partisans from both sides, including the use of some fringe-y sources, a lot of OR, and a lot of reversions of good faith edits. I'm not sure what the larger action needs to be, but the article has eaten up a lot of editor time without producing a lot of improvement. --Clay Collier (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a 3RR vio, and the personal attacks came from the same person. More detail on this at the edit warring noticeboard report: [114]. Mitsube (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

As explained here, I have removed the dispute tag he's throwing out there. You need to have an active dispute, which he hasn't done (and a dispute that there should be a dispute tag doesn't count). I've also warned him here that he posts another comment about "Buddhist chauvinists", I've giving him a week off. He's been warned enough on his talk page to stop with the battleground nonsense and he needs to learn people are serious about it. If he cannot or will not explain his concerns in particular details, we move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Satya has a sock YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


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

Resolved: I am watching both editors, and will take any action required. Kevin (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) has been uncivil and making personal attacks in edits at Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei:

  • 01:19, 7 April 2009: "2 IP users came and fucked it all up and demanded everyone specify every little problem that is wrong"
  • 21:29, 6 April 2009: "I had to deal with some idiot IP address who wouldn't stop deleting/moving around and fucking up the article with fluff and irrelevant facts, ultimately forcing myself to leave. "
  • 22:28, 6 April 2009: "I make one edit, it's reverted, replaced with b.s and/or fluff, then dozens of more edits make it impossible to insert the original sentence save from reverting back to my (or whoever else) version."

I have done my best to ignore this, but now Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) has further followed my edits to Freedom House. He had not edited the article in two years and then showed up to revert my edits:

This concerns me because as he acknowledged it could be considered "hounding". I edit a very small subset of articles. I edit this article, and he then suddenly show up on the page reverting my edits, specifically after I asked him not to and while there is a mediation ongoing at Mohamed ElBaradei in which he and I are both involved.-- (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Ok. We're currently in the process of mediation at [115]/ User:Kevin instructed us to forgo previous disputes because all of us engaged in hostile discussions (diff can be posted if requested). It was literally part of the mediation, we all had to agree previous discussions would not be brought up. In regards to Freedom House, the IPer (who's IP changes frequently, he has about 5) was upset over my edits at [116]. He accused me of "hounding" here [117]. I said I wasn't "hounding" him. I have edited freedom house in the past and considered it a coincidence. But then I checked my history and found out I did click on the IP's address, I was about to leave a message on his talk but clicking on an IP takes you straight to contributions. The IP was incredibly upset over my edits at Freedom House. I provided a thorough rationale here, and here. The IP didn't dispute the content, just my "hounding." I didn't even add material to the article. All I did was remove a few uncited paragraphs, re-organized the article, and put all the criticisms into one section. Almost 2/3 of the article with the exception of the lead is simply criticism. IP kept on changing the section title so he could remove the criticism tag, here: tile and tag added. remove 1, remove 2, 4. Notice the rationale, "I thought you would agree to leave my edits alone. 5, 6. I repeatedly told the IP (remember, almost all the IPs in the history are the same user) that changing the section does not change the content, then I directed him to the criticism policy. His only response was, "you promised to recluse from editing." I did, outside of my original edits. And if you haven't noticed, the above dispute over "attacks" is nearly a month old. Could this be considered a disruption of the mediation process at Mohamed ElBaradei or an attempt to remove other editors at Freedom House? For brief background: The IPs edits (over a month of editing) at ME was removed and reverted to an early state for serious BLP violations by an administrator. The IP continued with BLP violations and I warned him that I would take it up with the noticeboard. He was extremely unresponsive, and accused me of POV-pushing (among other things) several times. Fortunately we agreed to several rounds of mediation, but this report is quite confusing. Anyways, I'll ask Kevin to chime in and see what he thinks of this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Part of the point of my mediating your dispute at Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei is to get you both editing collaboratively. Reports such as this where you both continue the dispute in other venues are extremely unhelpful in achieving that goal. If mediation is to continue, you will both need to agree to disengage at Freedom House for a while, and to avoid dragging up past history. Kevin (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

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