Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive691

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Is this a legal threat?[edit]

Resolved: Complainant indefinitely blocked due to legal threats. –MuZemike 06:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Extended content

In Talk:Frank Dux, a new editor, claiming to be Frank Dux, posted a semi-rant that included "Directing people to and repeating the slander and libel of me is unlawful." He then tries to allege that I am an "agent" of some organization that is involved in a plot involving "managed misperception of me, demonstrative of ACTUAL MALICE".[1]. (Note that this article has a history of socking by Dux supporters.) Not sure if this has crossed the line into WP:NLT yet or if it's just heading that way. Perhaps some uninvolved admin might like to opine. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I admit that I'm confused. I can't tell if he's trying to threaten you, or if he's referring to material in the article about a previous case where he sued someone for defamation. I really can't tell. -- Atama 00:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Sounds kind of like both, but he's not very clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • So he returns: "you are acting in tandem intent on tortously interfering with my business opportunity by preventing correct information from being posted." "I am the person you are seemingly defaming and oppressing". "It is a starting point to detrermine why you possibly bare me actual malice". [3]. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Dux has also posted on BLPN: "I request to prevent me from being further damaged Escape Orbit & Niteshift36 identities to be disclosed so that I may hold them legally accountable. I insist given they be banned from editing my page as they act with actual malice towards me. If the situation is not corrected and these individuals are NOT prevented from inflicting further emotional distress and defamation of my character I can only conclude you endorse and ratify their tortuous, unlawful acts that may include trade libel since this page is being cited and used to compare me to my business competitors who go unscathed and not forced to endure unfair treatment and defamation I am experiencing."--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Well that removes all doubt about whether or not he is making a legal threat.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked him for issuing a legal threat. --Jayron32 04:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  • A user talk page consisting of a welcome notice, and 3 hours later an indef notice. How quickly things can go downhill. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Well Bugs, when your very first contribution is to come in, start making threats and allegations that people you haven't even bothered to speak to are working in concert with some mystery organization....well, yeah, it starts downhill. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

Since I'm in the area, The REAL Dux has requested an unblock of his indefinite block for making a legal threat. CycloneGU (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure he gets it, but I'll leave him a message. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
This doesn't sound like a legal threat to me. It could certainly become one, however. I believe he should be unblocked, but an admin should keep an eye on him.--76.106.233.222 (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Mega nomination of Pokémon articles at AfD[edit]

(Non-administrator comment) User has agreed to withdraw from the issue. No incident left outstanding here. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 19:02, 29 April 2011 (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.

I always feel like posting here is like pulling a fire alarm, but I'm not sure where else to post something that will get multiple admins' attention. Tyw7 (talk · contribs) created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gotta delete em all! as a sort of mass nomination of articles on Pokémon species. Instead of actually following WP:AFDHOWTO, Tyw7 simply transcluded Template:Pokemon directory. The title of the AfD discussion in and of itself shows that this editor has some sort of vendetta against these articles. There is no way such a massive nomination of articles will result in a productive discussion. Can I get some admin eyes on it as to an appropriate disposition? I had been considering posting a "speedy close" !vote, but I wonder if a G6 deletion with instructions to nominate specific articles individually is in order. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I speedy closed it, since there was essentially no way to know which specific articles were being discussed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
That is because there are too many "non" essential pokemon articles there. It would be tedious to open a nomination of EVERY article... --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
You can WP:BUNDLE, and using a tool such as WP:TWINKLE could speed it up...GiantSnowman 18:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Using IE9... Reopned request with a list of "non essential" pokemon at bottom --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
And reclosed. "All including but not limited to" is not a valid list either.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
A bundle nomination of this scale will easily lead to chaos and confusion. Each article is of a different quality and may or may not meet notability criteria; they need to be evaluated individually. Plus I still don't see a valid deletion rationale here beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
How's this? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gotta delete em all! (2nd Nomination) --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Still wrong because you missed a bunch of steps. It will not end in these articles being deleted. They exist because they are notable in real life, not in the series. You are nominating articles that have plenty of sources, and strongly show notability. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Using the phrase "including but not limited to" in an AfD will not dismiss any concerns about exactly how many articles are up for nomination. GiantSnowman 18:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Again, the deletion rationale amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and frankly, the inclusion of File:Size of English Wikipedia broken down.png tells me that this is a pointy nomination. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Final warning: these nominations are disruptive and invalid. If you can't follow proper deletion procedure and can't be bothered to actually post a valid deletion rationale that is actually tailored to particular articles, then you have no business starting an AFD. postdlf (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Clearly disruptive and intentionally so, I'd suggest a preventative block if he tries a third time. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 18:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) again! Because there is a tons of Pokemon which I think are not important but I would like to nominate a little at a time so as to find our what you think first. Also, we have a seperate Pokemon wiki already! So are we up to posting individual Pokemon articles for deletion? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
a. This is not a pointy nomination b. I think those Pokemon articles are certainly not encyclopedic. c. We already have a Pokemon wiki (bulpepedia) --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It is POINTy – repeatedly posting unacceptable deletion pages with iffy titles is disruptive. And who is this 'we' with a Pokemon wiki? Does it have any formal link with Wikipedia? ╟─TreasuryTagwithout portfolio─╢ 18:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
You'll have to provide a better deletion rationale than WP:IDONTLIKEIT...GiantSnowman 18:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
...or WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
You have clearly been told here that these articles exist for a reason (established notability, for example) and your nominations are highly disruptive and based solely on your own opinion rather than policy. That there exists a non-Wikimedia Foundation wiki for Pokémon is irrelevant. I wouldn't suggest you nominate them for deletion again. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 18:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Let's start off at Espeon and Umbreon. Couldn't they be merged with Eevee as they are in the same evolutionary lines. Hitmonlee and Hitmonchan also have no notability within the series. Same applies to Girafarig and almost half of the other articles. Whatever I give up! Let it be! --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, good, you've agreed to let it be? We accept. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
If you would listen to anything I have said, you would know why these are notable. Sources have commented on them. Being "rare" or having "notability within the series" means nothing. Glad you have given up. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

On a side note: how ARE Pokemon notability counted if not notability within series? That's the ruler I've been using. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:N. -- Atama 18:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I suppose that was a bit terse. This might be better... If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. -- Atama 18:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes but all Pokemon and its in game object is covered by tons of articles. Do we really need to "Catch/Keep em all"? Also please come over to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pokémon#Pokemon_articles where we (I) am trying to work out Pokemon notability --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:00, 29 April 2011 (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.

Ladies and gentlemen, I do believe I have royally screwed up.[edit]

So earlier today, I performed...a cut and paste move of a section on April_25–28,_2011_tornado_outbreak to List of tornadoes in the April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak. At the time, I had forgotten why this was not a good thing, until User: Carlossuarez46 kindly reminded me on my talk page and asked me to revert my blunder. Tragically, I was at school at the time, and by the time he posted that on my talk page I was no longer on Wikipedia. He doesn't appear to be here at the moment to respond to my questions, so I'm taking it to the next best place: here! Obviously an administrator is going to have to perform a history merge, which is the main reason I am posting here (I'll be glad to help, by the way, if requested). I would also like to know what I should do, in the future, when I deem moving only a section of an article to a different article necessary. Thank you in advance Inferno, Lord of Penguins 21:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

History merge isn't needed. See WP:SPLIT. -Atmoz (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
(ec)History merge isn't appropriate, the articles werent merged. -- ۩ Mask 23:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's all good in the hood. GiantSnowman 23:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Righty-o then. Thanks to all of you. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 00:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Just one more thing. A split does require the editor to post the {{copied}} template on the talk pages of both the old and new articles. Additionally, an edit summary must be made identifying the copying of that text. This is a requirement of our Copyright Policy -- it provides proper attribution to the contributing editors whose text has been copied. In this case, I've gone ahead and posted the talk page templates as well as made the null edit summaries to both articles for you. It's something to keep in mind for te next time. CactusWriter (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
For future reference, the relevant guideline is WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Requests for oversight: General[edit]

It's obviously unhelpful for such requests to appear here; however, over-reaction doesn't help either. Here's what I think should happen:

  1. An admin should assess whether the links provided (if any) justify RevDel, and apply it to the linked edits, including any other contribs by the involved editor and report to Oversight if necessary.
  2. The admin should notify the reporting editor that the issue has been dealt with.
  3. The admin should then hat/hab the report here, note that it's been dealt with, and quietly close the issue.

Hengist Pod (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "over-reaction", but sensitive requests should never be posted here. Period. —DoRD (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior of IP user 195.28.75.114 (AKA User:Bizovne)[edit]

Usually I don't resort to reporting users (or preceded by someone else :P), even heavy nationalists, but this time I feel like I have to make an exception. The reason for that is the fact that this IP user User:195.28.75.114 is getting out of control. First he began with reference removals on the Maurice Benyovszky article:[4] [5] Then after getting on the verge of being reported for 3RR he backed off for about a month (with only 2 additional reverts in the meanwhile). Then he came back and began "chattering with" (read: annoying) me first on Wladthemlat's talk page, then on my talk page. I've decided to ask your assistance after he posted his reply today and then another one. These last two replies of his were almost pure anti-Hungarian hate speech with the obvious intention of offending me and any other Hungarian editor who stumbles upon it (and speaks Czech/Slovak). Since the user's comments are exclusively in Slovak, I'd like to ask for the assistance of an admin who can understand Czech or Slovak to confirm this, as I don't have the willpower nor the time to translate the whole text. Let me give you a few samples of his views though:
"Hungarian is a retarded, disparate and ugly language - it sounds like a dog's bark. Whereas euphonious Slovak is a gem within Slavic languages. [...] Hungarians don't have anyone, they don't belong to ANY group of nations, strayed tribe of Asians, which is already extinct - the only thing that has remained is their dirty language. You aren't Hungarian either - you're only magyarized." etc. I'm sorry but I just simply don't feel like proceeding to translate the rest, because I already feel like splitting my desk in half. After his last comment I didn't feel like replying either.

To make it worse, the editor has also engaged in an edit war with User:Nmate over content in Brezno article which he desired to vandalize (i.e. he replaced a link to King Béla IV of Hungary to King Belo..., which broke it): [6]. On the top of it he has even demonstrated the typical extremist nationalist attitude of like-minded people by making the comment "this is english wikipedia not hungarian". This is akin to the arrogant nationalist phrases in the likes of "you're not in Hungary and hence you're NOT ALLOWED to do this or that" (e.g. speak Hungarian in public, use Hungarian signs or speak Hungarian NEAR a Slovak nationalist, because it's offensive to his/her ear etc.) commonly uttered by Slovaks which hate Hungarians.

Considering all the facts above I doubt that this user would engage in ANY polite, peaceful and objective edit. His edit log seems to support this suspicion as well, since essentially ALL of his edits are either nationalistic POV pushing, removal of Hungarian names/terms and disregarding anyone who begs to differ. His notes on my talk page (discussed above) show that trying to have a calm discussion with him would be pretty much pointless. Please take this into consideration as well.

As for the sanction itself, banning this IP address might inconvenience the whole village of Nový Ruskov, because the IP seems to be shared by all subscribers of the local ISP. However considering the facts above, it's likely that letting this user be without any sanctions would do more harm than good. -- CoolKoon (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional information: While reviewing the edit log of User:Bizovne and comparing it to this IP account's edit history, I found just far too many similarities between the two. Actually it seems more like one account complements the other (while one of them is active, the other one's "dormant" and vice versa). I was about to start an SPI against the two, when I found that another SPI has been started by User:Hobartimus a month ago: [7]. Unfortunately User:DeltaQuad didn't take any actions back then stating that it's just a logged out IP, which doesn't necessitate CU action. However by now it's pretty apparent that Bizovne is simply abusing his IP account for making outrageous (and really offensive) personal attacks (see above) and letting Bizovne be for another month has just made the situation worse. Sure, User:HelloAnnyong's two-week block DID help a bit, but Bizovne has obviously started right where he has left off when his IP account was blocked. There's also this interesting fact that even though Bizovne's edits were just as POV, pushy and authoritarian in their nature as those of his IP account (albeit with much more finesse), he has managed to make his IP account look like the "naughty boy who has done bad things", while kept his registered account clean. Therefore if the SPI confirms that Bizovne=195.28.75.114, sanctioning both account might be necessary. CoolKoon (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The behaviour of the IP address is atrocious, I have warned it to stop the name calling and follow our civility rules. If you are concerned about the similarity of edits of User:Bizovne and that IP account, I would recommend you to start new SPI and mention the old one there. - Darwinek (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I actually put in the comment below that that I was reviewing and HelloAnnyong made the block as part of the case. And if an IP ever becomes more disruptive, please reopen a case. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
uhm, I actually already did open another SPI, but it was refused on the grounds that it's not permitted to link IPs to accounts. I've also mentioned the old SPI there as well. So was I supposed to reopen the old case instead?
On the other hand it might not be necessary after all, since Bizovne has confirmed HIMSELF that he indeed IS behind the IP: Bizovne (talk) 21:99, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.28.75.114 (talk)
I shall therefore thank Bizovne himself for helping me resolve this dilemma. Thanks, Bizovne. CoolKoon (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I've blocked the IP for a month and the master for two days. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

User:PandP2go[edit]

This has proved to be a single purpose account created solely to try to get Pearl and the Puppets deleted (or to get 'PandP 2 go' if you like). The AFD for this article has been disrupted with edits such as this and this for which they were warned to stop, and this was followed by this edit to my user page. I suspect I may have been safe to block this user myself, as there's nothing but disruption coming from them, but at the risk of being accused of blocking when involved, could someone else do the honours please. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Agree with Michig's analysis, and that a block is proper here.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Judging by the unblock rationales, this incarnation may be confused over which account they were using. some edits suggest a familiarity with Wikipedia. pablo 12:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparent hacking[edit]

The Nailsea article now contains an obscene image. Malleus Fatuorum 03:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know why I can't just roll back the article history. Malleus Fatuorum 03:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I undid Jaguar's edit [8], but I can't figure out how that image got in there. It's very strange.--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted myself. Jaguar had nothing to do with this.--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Now when I look back at the older version [9]. The image doesn't appear anymore???--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at Kettering. I keep seeing porn on there in Opera, but not Internet Explorer. It shows a man's shaved testicles and a circumcised penis. Betty Logan (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a vandalized template [10] It's been reverted. 76.244.155.165 (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, for future reference, things like this are usually template vandalism. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
All template namespace should be semi-protected by default. There's no reason a brand new editor would have a legit edit for something technical like that.--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Have you forgotten the "anyone can edit" mantra? Malleus Fatuorum 03:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
And only brand-new editors are vandals? Hunter, the history sheds light on any permanent protection debate. It was protected, despite never having been vandalized before, and then unprotected apparently following discussion at ANI (I remember a big ho-hum). It's protected now, but calling for all templates to be protected is probably not going to find general consensus. BTW, copulating dogs? it must be spring! Drmies (talk) 03:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
What percentage of changes to templates by new editors are constructive? My guess is less than 1% but I am open to being proved wrong. --RaptorHunter (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
That's an unfashionable question, so hush. Malleus Fatuorum 04:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a testable hypothesis, not an unfathomable question. Protonk (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Its template vandalism. It happens, though far less than it did before the edit filter was turned on. Many templates are fully protected and many more are semiprotected. There is no real good reason to protect EVERY template out there as hundreds of good edits per week are made by anonymous editors to innocuous templates. If you see this in the future, click "related changes" and look for changes to templates. Protonk (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
There should be some sort of standard. For example if any template is on over a hundred pages, it get's automatically semi-protected or something.--RaptorHunter (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, that particular template is now fully and indefinitely protected. Considering its straightforward function, frequent use, and the improbability of it ever needing to be edited at all, I think this is good. I can't remember recently having a good reason to want to edit a template, protected or otherwise, but templates such as [11] should not be protected by default. 76.244.155.165 (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Your example template is only transcluded 8 times [12]. The template that was vandalised here was transcluded 13,594 times!!! [13] It's amazing this thing was ever unprotected.--RaptorHunter (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Maybe. You could propose one. Or you could find an admin willing to protect those templates and start protecting them. I think most templates over 200 transclusions are indefinitely protected and many others are tracked under an edit filter. Protonk (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if the "Meepsheep" inserted by the vandal is referring to the one posting dox of teenage girls on the ED.ch site. (By the way, someone should really see if that's illegal.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, which is a double-edged sword; that means while people are free to edit it, people are also free to vandalize or outright abuse it. –MuZemike 06:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, they are free to try - they are not allowed to by consensus... LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Consensus doesn't stop them. The first few times, anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, Wikipedia does not have jurisdiction over the entire internet. Count Iblis (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

New round of attacks[edit]

Resolved: User blocked, SPI case closed. lifebaka++ 18:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

User: Phoenix2923 had an issue with personal attacks on me discussed here before [14]. Now he has returned to contribute nothing but personal attacks. First he started out mild: "Niteshift you are one seriously ignorant individual lol" [15], then "People like you shouldn't even be editing this page or this discussion section. This article could use some editors with common sense at the very least. You, my friend, lack that to a horrific degree." [16]. An uninvolved editor warned him about his attacks [17]. Phoenix eventually builds himself up to adding physical threats to the mix: "I stand by my convictions that you are the undisputed world heavyweight douche bag of the internet. Say what you will fuck face, I tire of these conversations with your fake military persona. Mr. High-and-Mighty Mr. Niteshift, you can go fuck yourself. Go ahead and report me because my words hurt your widdle feewings. You wouldn't be such a smart ass to my face. Hide behind your computer monitor and be a smart ass little faggot. If you have the balls, and still serve I Corp, meet me sometime. I'm never too far away."[18]. Then added another attack and threat while this was being entered. "Somebody too incompetent to be stationed anywhere else. Yes I do know quite a bit about the military and I would absolutely love to demonstrate that knowledge with you first-hand. I wasn't in some pussy CID unit friend." [19] User notified here: [20] Niteshift36 (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The only edit I see to Phoenix2923's User page is the notification of this discussion...no warnings regarding personal attacks or uncivil behavior, not even in the page history. I have taken the liberty of posting a {{uw-npa4}} on his Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
While there are no template warnings, I have asked him twice to cut it out and been ignored. Also, while not as bad, Niteshift36 hasn't been entirely civil in response to Phoenix2923. Monty845 17:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I freely admit I haven't been as civil as possible. Nor do I think I need to be all smiles and sweetness every time he decides to revert to form. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I stand corrected...apparently Firefox 4.0 is having issues rendering popups. Next time I'll know to actually look at the Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Aww poor little Niteshift, runnin to go tattle again. HAHAHA, you worthless piece of shit. Phoenix2923 (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess that sort of sums everything up, doesn't it?--Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
This particular nugget earned a no-brainer 72-hour block. I haven't the present time to delve further into this dispute, so I have no problem with any other admin adjusting the block as necessary. — Scientizzle 17:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
After further gross incivility, talk page access has been revoked for Phoenix2923 for the duration of the block. — Scientizzle 18:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes Phoenix, I reported your repeated violations. What should I do? Thump my chest and randomly challange people to fights? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • There is no need for a new template. The first diff I posted here is the previous ANI discussion where the editor was made fully aware of the NPA policies etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, if someone uninvolved could either refactor or hat the insults at Talk:Frank_Dux#Website_Confusion. Monty845 17:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

He should've been indefinitely blocked IMO. –MuZemike 18:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Be my guest... — Scientizzle 18:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Looking at Phoenix2923's contributions, and the similarities with The REAL Dux, I wonder if they are the same person? Particularly with the repeated questions about "who Niteshift36 is" and what organizations he belongs to, etc. Something fishy is going on here. They might also be reincarnations of someone else who used to contribute to that article talk page, though I don't have much familiarity with its history. -- Atama 19:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I suspect that as well. Note that Phoenix didn't re-appear until the RealDux account got blocked, then, moments after Phoenix got blocked the Dux account started toning down their unblock requests. I strongly suspect both are actually socks of another blocked user, but I hate the tedious SPI process. Might decide to do it anyway.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The REAL Dux retracted his legal threat, and so I felt an obligation to honor the unblock request. However, I believe I will pursue the SPI report. I wasn't going to bother if both accounts were indefinitely blocked. -- Atama 22:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Sockpuppet investigation filed here. -- Atama 00:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Blocked indef for continued attacks ([21], [22]). Clearly not an asset to the project.  Sandstein  19:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Dux continues to talk in pseudo-legalese and continues to talk about being "defamed". In short, he's not backing off from his attempts to intimidate via legal threats. The fact he's also likely a sock is another story. In any case, he needs to be shut down for good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Repeated Additions Of Bad Citations sex symbol[edit]

201.52.233.97 had been notified by numerous editors that the additions to sex symbol requires citations, or that the citations s/he added where not sufficient quality.

Sandra021075 has the same editing pattern. As s/he may be the user behind 201.52.233.97, she has received these messages as s/he was editing as 201.52.233.97 as the last edit before Sandra021075's first edit (it was even on sex symbol, and currently, it is the only article she has edited; on top of that, it is the only page).Curb Chain (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking and I see no discussion about the quality of Sandra021075's references. Where is it? --NeilN talk to me 00:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about Sandra021075 as I only got involved several days ago, but 201.52.233.97's edits were all reverted by myself and other editors, stating very clearly both in the edit summary, the page's talk page, and the IP's talk page, that we consider these sources insufficient. Multiple attempts at discussion were made, by multiple editors. I see not an iota of discussion from the IP's direction. Again, this is saying nothing as to the relation with Sandra021075. --Muhandes (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Dr._Blofeld[edit]

Hi,

Whilst seemingly a established editor of WP. I'm a little concerned about a mass of new pages that he is creating. I saw most of them on Special:NewPages. I don't feel they deserve CSD but it looks to me like it's just a copy and paste of the entire village list of the Kunar Province!

Is it really necessary for WP to include every entire village of a province/county or country -if said village(s) are not necessarily notable?

Thanks,

•martyx• tkctgy 13:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You are supposed to notify editors if you start a discussion involving them. I have done this for you now. Fram (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Think I may have gotten there just before you. Thanks for your attentiveness to this Fram. MarnetteD | Talk 13:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld is in general an extremely prolific and useful editor. However, regularly he creates sub-standard articles in large batches, where a simple list of redlinks would have been more useful. E.g. at the end of March, he created most of the articles in Category:Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Carmarthen & Dinefwr. These all consisted of unsourced, identical articles like Corsydd a Rwyth Cilyblaidd. I tagged them all as unsourced, but in fact they would have been better as redirects to a central list until something could be said about them (and a source was provided as well). In cases like this, redlinks or redirects are more useful than loads of bluelinks without useful content. Fram (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
This probably has been discussed before, and I would agree with the original poster (Martyx) on villages, but not at all on towns, townships, etc. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In regards to notability see Dara-I-Pech and one I picked at random Baladay. Check out the settlements on a google map, look notable settlements to me which exist. Image of Baladay here. Might not have much on the web about it but that doesn't mean it isn't a notable. I trust I'll have better luck with some of the other places. But isn't there something wrong that sources only write about a place if a US troop was killed there or launched an attack there? They are certainly notable to the Afghan people living in them and in the districts. I think wikipedia should be striving to see the world evenly, the problem is abundance of sources about such places...♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

AnomieBot has the coordinates downloaded to be added asap, otherwise I wouldn't have started them. Some of the articles started are district capitals and I'd imagine particularly for Helmand and Kandahar province the articles have relevance with the US military... Verified human settlements are usually notable, we have tiny hamlets in the UK and US which are full length. Generally i don't mass create geography articles as I used to anymore and generally prefer to create them start class more slowly and using a wide range of sources if I can find them but given that Anomie has been waiting for me to start these because he especially downloaded the coordinates then it would be a shame not to create them. A lot of the villages will be mentioned in USAID sources or US gov and even in google books. Some may not as of yet, but that's an uneven Internet development thing, not that they are not notable. I'd estimate that there are hundreds of thousands of people in total living in the villages I've started today. It is more of a priority to expand the articles like I did with Samangan Province and improve the districts I agree but its all part of the building process.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

My apologies I didn't notify Dr. Blofeld. I agree with Fram and HXL49's comments.
This is not meant as a personal attack on you. After viewing your contribs it's very clear you are excellent editor! I'm not saying each village with has no purpose on wp just that unless there is a particular [historical] reason they should just be listed on Kunar Province. I guess this is much the same reason me or you are not listed personally on Wikipedia because although we are important in our own right - we aren't of a high enough importance to be included. •martyx• tkctgy 13:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand. Would I like to edit every article to GA quality each time, sure? But I also see these occasional mass stub creations as planting seeds in areas of the project and in fitting with our long term goals on wikipedia. There's only so much patience and time you have to edit each article as fully as I'd like.. I try to attain a certain standard of quality nowadays but I am also acutely aware of the real world content that is missing enmass so given I haven't the time to edit every article I occasionally inject a few to be worked on as an ongoing process. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think (but I may be wrong) that the suggestion is not necessarily or primarily that these places don't deserve articles, but that such an automated, info-less creation is not the way to do this. One can also wonder how accurate this creation is, when the second one I checked, `Eyn ol Majar, is in the source given only written as `Eynol Majar (without the space), and the third, Halqeh Kowl, has three different locations in your source with that spelling, and three as Halqa Kol as well. Fram (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Blofeld on this one. With a war on, these places need something here, sparse as it may be. We're still lacking towns in Libya, and some of them were only written once a battle starts there. We should be more proactive when it comes to locations.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
If his info was correct, generally reliable, and the articles had a bit more info, I would agree with you. As it stands, I don't. Fram (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


Looking further: you created Darreh-ye Pich as a village, but everything I found (not much) suggests it is a district.[23][24]. If your information is not reliable, you shouldn't be creating these articles. Fram (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Darreh-ye Pich is likely the vilage capital of the district of the same name Fram, i'll look into it. Look, I know mass creation is NOT the best way to create articles which is why I rarely do so anymore in this way. At least it would be better to use this source to add a bit about those which are mentioned within it. But Anomie has downloaded these coordinates in good faith for these articles listed in our missing encyclopedia articles to be started and the sheer amount missing is pretty serious. One could argue that wikipedia does not have to cover Afghan villages but based on editing experience f other similar size Asian villages and indeed African villages as Kintetsubuffalo points out they are almost always notable. The immediate problem my Afghan stubs have created is that quite a few of them currently have nothing online so are rendered useless. I definitely think the best way is to work on them one by one like Gwebin etc and finding scraps of info to build a half decent articles. But the amount of subjects missing on places in Asia and Africa is extreme and I think wikipedia should at least be trying to work towards covering them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Further searching shows that you also created Dara-I-Pech in the same batch run, and that you changed Dara-I-Pech District to claim that it was governed from Dara-I-Pech, instead of from Manugay. I have no idea if the latter is indeed true (I haven't found any evidence for it yet, and some suggesting that the earlier text was correct), but it surely means that you created two articles for the same (presumed) place. Fram (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Manugay IS Dara I Pech. And I only created one article but simply moved it to match the district and expanded it. Look can we be a little less belligerent here Fram and assume good faith?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Assume good faith? Where is your evidence from reliable sources that Mano Gai is Dara-I-Pech? The only reliable source I have found so far doesn't support this, and gives Mano Gai as the district capital[25]. Which was in the Dara-I-Pech District article before you changed it to match your newly created Dara-I-Pech article. Fram (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
To be more precise: you used a source that stated "Wata Pur District togather with Manogay District are also known as Pech District" to claim that the town of Mano Gai is the same as the hypothetical but unverifiable town of Dara-I-Pech, when all your source does is state that the Pech (or Dara-i-Pech) district is an entity which also contains Manogay district... Please be a lot more careful before you scramble to correct your errors, as you seem to be making things only worse. Fram (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This says districts of Mano Gai (Pech) . We have proof that Mano Gai is another name for Pech District. See this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As a side note/throw-away comment, WP:KITTENS appears to be relevant to the situation. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a late question, but Martyx, did you think to just talk to Dr. Blofeld before starting a report here? What you said before: "This is not meant as a personal attack on you. After viewing your contribs it's very clear you are excellent editor! I'm not saying each village with has no purpose on wp just that unless there is a particular [historical] reason they should just be listed on Kunar Province. I guess this is much the same reason me or you are not listed personally on Wikipedia because although we are important in our own right - we aren't of a high enough importance to be included." That was very cordial, well-worded, and would have been a nice way to open a discussion with the editor before opening up the door to ANI drama. I don't mean to be critical here, rather this is just a suggestion for the next time that you run into a similar situation with another editor. -- Atama 15:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

According to Geonames Mano Gai lies about 10 km east of Dara I Pech even if the district is a dual name of both, BUT that river section contains some spread out settlements which may often be seen as part of each other I guess. This tends to happen a lot in Afghanistan with districts and capitals which makes editing very difficult. For instance Samangan is also known as Aibak. Aibak is more a suburb of it. Its difficult to know exactly what the situation is, all we really have are US miiltary or aid articles. But these places are notable, I'm sure of that. And it doesn't take a suicide bomber or nasty attack to make them so.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've shown that Baladay and Walakan, two I picked at random are notable. I think it is necessary to have stubs started especially given that there is a war going on in the country with US troops. I will continue creating them until they are all started, I see no reason why I should be stopped from doing this. 3/4 of the batch are done already. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Asqalan, Afghanistan another one easily expanded. Right I'm resuming on these, they are certainly worth having articles for.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Where on WP is it stated that newly-created articles should not be stubs? As long as the notability is established, the length is not crucial. That's the concept of Wikipedia. Dr. Blofeld should be appreciated and thanked for his efforts instead of seeing his work and contribution belittled on ANI. ShahidTalk2me 19:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
How about this: Martyx asked a valid question but in the wrong place. This is not a matter (obviously) for administrator's intervention, and I will assume that they posted it here because they thought it was an important enough issue but are perhaps not yet experienced enough to know that ANI is for very specific kinds of issues. It is certainly not the place for a de facto review of Dr. Blofeld's edits. Shall we move on? Dr. Blofeld, De Hulk and Bangert (North Holland) are still redlinks, to say nothing of Eurometaal and Risdam. Get to it or I'll have you blocked for sloth, with thanks to User:Bongomatic. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola.svg
You have been blocked for sloth.

All started. Now get expanding, otherwise I'll block you too!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What is being underestimated here is the value of these stubs. Alishang, Siah Chub Kalay etc. These are certainly encyclopedic and if one can find info in old gazeteers and in history books it makes it quite exciting I think.. Virtually everyone I started earlier I've looked at so far can be expanded... Once they are created with proper infrastructure it becomes so much easier to edit them and build on what was started. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


There is more than one valid way of working here. Some people prefer to create only high quality articles, even though they may do very few of them. Some prefer to create many verifiable articles of clear notability even though they may not be of initially high quality. As this is a communal project, I think every individual person is fully entitled to do whichever they prefer, and the thing to do about people who prefer otherwise than oneself is to let them work their way, while you work yours. The only choice which is not productive is to argue about how to do it, rather than going ahead in the way that one finds suitable. . In creating material, there is similarly no consensus on whether it is better to do it as a list, or as small individual articles; I could give good arguments for either, and the conclusion I draw is that both are suitable. The only thing not suitable is trying to tell people who do it one way that they should do it another. Someone who does not like to work on Dr. Blofeld's system has two good choices: to add themselves to the articles (which includes correcting errors), or to work on others they way they prefer to work. Nobody is expected to work error-free--that's why this is a cooperative project. The alternative is to work on an editorially-directed project, but that wouldn't be Wikipedia. If anyone wishes to direct other people how to work, they should start a project of their own, or join an existing one and rise to a position of authority. There's nothing wrong with such a wish, but Wikipedia is to the place to realize it. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with DGG here, but would like to add the observation that our diversity of approach in creating articles helps improve the quality of Wikipedia content. The evil Doctor's approach, creating geographic stubs scattered hither & yon, actually encourages creating certain articles which may never otherwise be written. I can furnish one example of this: the other day I was working on improving Modjo River from a stub; without having that need, I would not have discovered that it is considered one of the two most polluted rivers in Ethiopia -- a very significant fact! (Actually, the source claims it is one of the two most polluted in the world, but until I find that it caught on fire -- as one notoriously polluted river did -- I'm not going to push the claim that far.) And if these stubs are never improved ... well, one of the features of Wikipedia is that articles that aren't important will never be read, & if no one improves them, they must not be that important. -- llywrch (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
After reading the comments above I realise I acted too hastily in reporting the problem to ANI. I should have discussed it with Dr. Blofeld before this. I also realise that I acted with POV. Just because I feel it may be unacceptable to create a large quantity of stubs doesn't mean that's everyone elses view. I feel I've learnt more today about wiki policy than I have done in the last 4 years as a member! •martyx• tkctgy 02:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: ban on creating articles solely based on www.geographic.org[edit]

While I agree that all real populated places deserve an article (or a redirect to a larger populated place if nothing more can be said than the name and location), and that we are lacking articles on many places, even truly notable ones, for large parts of the world, I stringly disagree with the method these are created. It is clear that a list is taken from www.geographic.org, but that site is equally clearly not a reliable source to base articles on. I have given some examples at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dara-I-Pech, I can provide many more if needed. A list of populated places from this website needs thorough checking before it can be used to create articles with.

I propose that weno longer allow the mass creation of articles based on this website, so that we don't have to clean up the mess this creates afterwards. It is better that we have no information on some places for a while, than to create clearly incorrect information as a stopgap. Fram (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"we don't have to clean up the mess this creates afterwards". LOL, it is usually me who expands the stubs I create and builds them with reliable sources as I've illustrated many times yesterday. I have a very good experience with geonames and almost always identify a real settlement on a google map.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It can't be too hard to identify one, when in the case of e.g. Qasem Kheyl your source let's you choose from four different locations[26][27][28][29], but Google returns not a single reliable source on them... Fram (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll agree with you its a tricky subject, especially because of differences in transliteraitons and indeed if multiple settlements exist on the same name which can get confusing. Qasem Khel turns up loads of hits in google books but they require serious reaearch to identify which is which. One it seems has geological significance... From what I gather it is indeed this Logar Province location according to Annales de la Société géologique du Nord: Volume 97. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The only one I could verify was in Parwan province, not in Logar, so...[30] I couldn't verify your source. At least, this means that there are two different villages (and a tribe) with this name (in another transliteration), so the article should need to be moved, disambiguated, ... The actual benefit of having such articles, where so much research is needed to verify whether it exists and how it should really be named, escapes me. 13:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yesterday, you rushed to "correct" Dara-I-Pech when I pointed out the problems with it, only to have to revert many of your incorrect changes, ending with redirecting it to the district. Now, you again rush to "correct" Qasem Khel, adding info from other sources. Again, there is no evidence that the info you added is actually about this village in Logar province (assuming it exists), and not about e.g. the village in Parwan province. I have removed the info accordingly. Please don't jump to conclusions when a source seems at fierst glance to be perhaps about the subject you created an article on, but check and doublecheck that what you present is correct. Fram (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

SO this is more an attack on my editing then? This is the way it seems to me and I'm pretty sure other people are getting that impression from you. Information I found in google books talks about the geological formations in Logar and it being southeast of Kabul which is exactly where this village is. ANd no you are wrong, my changes to Dara-I-Pech were not incorrect. Rather the sources don't specifically discuss it as a village which was the problem, even if it plainly obvious a settlement exists at that loocation on google maps. The information was correct and and has since been added to the district article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You added [31] as a source for the Qasem Khel article about a location that should be in Logar. The source you added mentions "Fossiliferous Permian sequences also were described at [...] Qasim Khel [...] in the eastern part of the country". Both Logar province (where you place this village) and Parwan province (where we are certain that there is a village with this name) are in the east of the country, so there is no reason you can be reasonably sure that this source is about the village where you used it. The second source you used is about a "Qasim Khel Thrust", without evidence that this is named after this village, the other one, the tribe, or something different (it looks at first glance to be in Pakistan, not Afghanistan). The fourth source given is not verifiable by me, so no comment on that one.
As for Dara-I-Pech, you stated that it was the district capital and that it was the same as Mano Gai, and then you stated that it wa not the capital, and that it was not the same as Mano Gai, but was some 10 miles away from it. At least one of those was obviously incorrect... Fram (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose ban, per everyone's got their own way of editing, resolved above.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with "everyone's got their own way of editing", this is stopping someone creating clearly incorrect articles, based on an unreliable source, and in violation of the bot policy: "The community has decided that any large-scale automated or semi-automated article creation task must be approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval." This is clearly "semi-automated article creation", with rates of 5 pages per minute, created with the identical text of "Infobox settlement |name ={{subst:PAGENAME}} |other_name = |native_name = |settlement_type =Village |image_skyline" Fram (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A "Ban" would be extreme given that the vast majority of listed entries are valid in my experience. However to advise individuals to refrain from mass generations without proper research I'd agree with. But I and others should be feel free to create whatever they want if it sourced,♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Again you are wrong about any articles being clearly incorrect. Show me one single article which as yet have been proved to be incorrect which was created from geonames? Where is your proof that Dara I Pech village does NOT exist, given that the coordinates point to a major settlement on google maps which is plainly obvious.. Are you basing your view because the internet has no coverage of an Afghan village? Shock horror that, certainly not eveidence of its not existing. You can't prove a bloody thing. As for "semi-automated article creation", that really is not semi automated creation. Should you be especially difficult and claim formally that it is then entering the page title requires little extra work to evade that "policy". Now please let me get on with something useful, this is completely the wrong place to make such a proposal.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't stop you doing anything useful, I am talking about the incorrect things you do. Your page creation is mindless, very fast and extremely repetitive (with the exact same code used for the body of all these articles). Not really what one would call "manual"... The burden of evidence is not on people trying to prove that something doesn't exist, the burden is on you to prove that it does exist. How should I try to prove without a doubt that Molla Vali-ye Valeh doesn't exist or is normally known as something different? For most of these articles, there isn't enough info to actually identify the potential matching reality. As for the location of this proposal: topic bans and the like are usually proposed here, and since there was already a thread on these edits, and you continued making them, it was only logical to continue the discussion here. Fram (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

One more, as an example: your most recent edits were to Zabrak, Afghanistan, adding some info based on the same source. However, the basic info you give is incorrect: Zabrak is not in Jowzjan Province, but in Sar-e Pol Province, in the Balkhab District.[32] But wait, you also created Balkhab, which you locate in Jowzjan a well, instead of in its own district... Of course, it could be, just like with all the other examples, that there is also a Zabrak in the other province, and a Balkhab in the other province, and so on. Fine, convince me, show some actual evidence for these two villages being in that province. Fram (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Bullying and stalking? That's extremely sad don't you think? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to be helpful then google search OCHA Afghanistan Settlements Index and you'll find a decent list of settlements and state district capital or whatever which I've added to Balkhab. But it is far from being a complete index... From what I gather Sar e Pol was created out of Jowzjan province which accounts for the overlap. The provinces adjoin each other.

A sentence from this book from 1987 says something like we walked in the village of Balkhab in Jowzjan Province. So clearly it was in that province but is no longer in that province..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a perfect solution to this: Dr. B will create whatever articles for which he has basic data from a reliable source, and anyone who thinks they can improve the articles can do so--keeping in mind that in many cases there will be some ambiguous data and that the way to handle it is not to try to do the research to figure it out, but simply report the ambiguity and the sources. There's always going to be such ambiguity about at least some of the content in most Wikipedia articles, but we don't stop writing because we might make an error. Very few things can be "proved beyond a doubt", which is why we simply rely on the sources, not on trying to determine the truth. The responsibility of someone adding material is to provide a reliable source, not prove the source correct, or to " actually identify the potential matching reality", which in most cases -- including this topic-- would clearly be Original research. And I think Dr. B does well to use standardized text for standardizable topics--it helps comparison and understanding. Not every article requires or would even benefit from carefully tailored writing. The way he is working is the best way of covering the many neglected areas, as anything else is too slow to be helpful. There are two aspects where Wikipedia does shamefully: our poor attention to updating and verifying on important articles, and our sub-minimal coverage of areas subject to cultural bias. Fixing them take different approaches. If a ban is needed, it should be a bilateral ban against continued interaction between him and Fram here, or anywhere else other than on article talk pages. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying, in good faith, to figure out just what this proposal to ban use of geographic.org is supposed to accomplish. Looking at the website, it's clear that it is little more than a lot of data scraped from other websites & wrapped with a bunch of ads -- so at face value there's nothing objectionable to Fram's proposal. After all, the evil Dr. Blofeld can then simply go to where geographic.org took its data & use that -- the Geographical Name Server. And while I don't find the GNS to be a reliable source unless it is verified by another independent source, banning all use of the GNS will hurt more than it will help. (I often use it to determine the latitude & longitude for locations in the articles I write.) And if Fram simply is acting as a proxy for 007 in his decades-long fight against the evil Doctor -- well, doing that isn't going to fly. The best solution would be for Fram, & anyone who doesn't like the results of Dr. Blofeld's article creations is to help him find better sources. Official census results would be a good alternative to the GNS -- but where would one find the most recent official census results for, say, Afghanistan? Solving problems like that would be better for everyone & Wikipedia in the long run, as well as making everyone involved happier & more likely to keep contributing. -- llywrch (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

and the method Fram reports to be using, near the top of this section, of searching Google, is not all that likely to reveal good sources in this field. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I intend to also cover Iran (which is extremely poorly covered given its size) and using old gazeteers I can at least find a mention of the settlements in. The best way is to peruse google maps find a clearly notable settlement by size and start it with a source or two and some basic facts if google books picks up hits. In regards to Afghanistan I've requested that (google search OCHA Afghanistan Settlements Index) PDF is downloaded to wikipedia and all the settlements are organized by district and province. I can then enter them into the nav boxes by province and give it some organization. After all the majority are lacking district location as the old databases only say province and even those might be out of date now. This seems an up to date UN source which will prove very useful as a guide. But Thai tambons (sub districts) I've concentrating on right now as I have data from the 2005 census and looking on goole maps they are usually the major villages in rural Thailand which is also very poorly covered on wikipedia... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there can be any doubt that Dr. Blofeld is acting in good faith, so the question then becomes whether these semi-automatically-generated (but manually inserted) articles benefit or degrade Wikipedia's coverage of obscure places.
The GNS, which is the ultimate source of many of these geographic database sites, is itself far from free from errors, but, as a publication of the relevant U.S. federal government geographic agency, is the nearest thing to a reliable source that exists for many of these places. Nevertheless, I believe that these articles are a net benefit, even if they include the occasional error, as the amount of good information they add greatly outweighs the addition of errors, which can easily be corrected later.
Even before creating them, I can see that Dr. Blofeld makes good-faith efforts to manually cross-check these articles for nonsensical or duplicate data, so these are not mere data dumps. Once inserted, these articles (occasional errors and all) are visible to the entire Wikipedia editor community, and can start to be enhanced with more information and vetted for errors, both by human editors interested in these topics, and by geodata-driven bot-based scans. Once established, these legitimate stub articles can become the basis for good articles.
For many places in the world, Dr. Blofeld's articles are invaluable for kick-starting the article-writing process -- even the wrong entries will drive human beings to correct them, thus increasing the quality of the information available in the public domain.
Based on all of these considerations, I conclude, and believe, that these edits should be allowed to go on.
I think the biggest problem here is that Dr. Blofeld does not have enough assistance in this thankless task. Instead of berating him, we should be considering how we could help or augment his efforts. -- The Anome (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I have to firmly disagree here. Is Blofeld acting in good faith? Certainly. Does he do more harm than good? Certainly. Automatically generated sub-stubs about specks on maps are a really bad idea, and I would favor a robotic deletion engine to remove all of these things. People complain all the time about people not following WP:BEFORE on deletions, and there's an equivalent responsibility to do the basics before creation: find enough information about the topic in multiple reliable sources to be able to create more than a stub. If you can't create more than a stub, then don't create anything at all. I firmly disagree with the concept that every geographic place name in the world warrants a standalone article: most places don't need more than a redirect into a list of settlements in the region. All of this geographic information could reasonably be placed in larger, well organized lists, with these independent articles being created only after there is a reason to do so.—Kww(talk) 16:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Does he do more harm than good? Certainly. LOL. Yeah because referenced stubs on villages in Asia which can be expanded are SOO extremely harmful to wikipedia as a resource and far more damaging than disguised libel attacks in BLPs, discreet vandalism and articles genuinely containing false information and POV. I can't take anybody seriously who thinks I do more harm than good in building wikipedia.. Its only harmful to those people who can never be bothered to build upon what I start and sit around moaning and never develop articles and think wikipedia is complete... . ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

They do harm by being a widespread example of incorrectly built articles, and making new editors believe that creating sub-stubs like this is an acceptable method of editing and presenting information. Building so many bad articles so quickly isn't anything to be proud of, and certainly doesn't provide you with some kind of high ground to insult others. I never said that your efforts were more harmful than libel, vandalism, or falsehoods, so I don't know why those points even get brought up.—Kww(talk) 19:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The only person doing the insulting here is you. Who said anybody was proud them? I rarely create "sub stubs" anymore and if I do its usually for a damn good reason, because people are working on them or I have a bot ready and am prepared to work on them myself at a later date. But do you honestly think that the "thou must not create any article under 10kb" approach is really in keeping with the spirit of wikipedia? DId not virtually all the FAs and GAs we currentlt have not start as stubs? There is nothing wrong with stubs which contain a few lines with basic facts and some reliable sources, those are constructive and its what I mostly achieve. Its the one liners generated enmasse without any facts which none of us like myself included but are only usually done when attempting to venture into a vastly uncovered topic with a LOT of red links which makes the task too daunting to do one by one. I am not content for that amount of subjects to be missing... As for little specs on maps. Most of them are clearly visible solid villages and are certainly not "little specs" to the people who live there or the soldiers who have had friends killed there. Please try to see the world properly and the true goals of wikipedia that all geo articles are attempting to start to piece together a fuller coverage of our world. If the articles exist at least they stand a chance of being added to and build up gradually. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

IP handing out random barnstars[edit]

Barnstar campaign and other forms of appreciation are not, other than exceptional cases, problematic or disruptive or actionable. This was not the droid you were looking for. We can go about our business. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2011 (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.

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

IP has been handing out hundreds of "Modest barnstar" awards, apparently at random, including to at least one blocked user with no contributions. Not sure if it's actually a problem, but it's really not very constructive. Thoughts? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Is somebody a little jealous they haven't got one...? ;) GiantSnowman 19:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oh, and user notified BTW. GiantSnowman 20:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Well obviously the ip should be blocked for failing to fill out the proper barnstar requisition form 28-B. If we allow anyone to give out barnstars they wouldn't be meaningful!--RaptorHunter (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
If the barnstars are to have any meaning, its probably wrong. However, the guidelines on when to hand out a barnstar are pretty liberal. I suppose you could request a change in who is allowed to give barnstars maybe. Beyond that, though it seems a tad excessive, its not really uncivil or disruptive. -- Avanu (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Curses, GiantSnowman has me sussed :-) But yeah, I guess there's no wrong being done - it just seemed rather bizarre, and I was wondering if there might be something mischievous afoot, what with barnstars being given to known baddies. Anyway, I'll go back to sleep (Oh, and thanks for doing the notification - I completely forgot) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, a registered account shows a similar pattern of contributions. It would seem to be a campaign conducted in good faith, but I imagine it won't be long before it tweaks some noses. Skomorokh 21:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It reminds me of the chap MrMan12321 (talk · contribs) who was handing out "manly man" awards that included File:PalmercarpenterA.jpg in March. Regretfully I was not considered manly enough for said award --Diannaa (Talk) 21:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I came across this earlier today also. As many of you have said there isn't anything wrong with this. One of the weird things is that some of them are being presented to editors who don't edit very often. IMO it does devalue barnstars a bit since they don't seem to be for any specific editing. The only thing that would be a problem is if they were doing these edits just to get autoconfirmed but I can find no evidence of that at this time. Ah well this on top of the wedding is just too much drama for one day :-) MarnetteD | Talk 21:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
You got married? Congrats :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that was me. I was giving out barnstars but didn't realize I wasn't logged in. Why is this a problem again? Barnstars are a form of wikilove, and apparently most of the people who I gave barnstars to were definitely deserving of some recognition. Some mistakes were made (not checking the block list, apparently) but I hope I didn't case any harm. Mike Restivo (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

In his last edits, he is taking editors in alphabetical order from A-Z, then starts from A again. Maybe he is going down lists of members of wikiprojects, or something? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed I wasn't logged in, then when I did I got back to the start of the page. My browser has a problem with cookies? Anyway, it was Friday afternoon, I was trying to avoid as much of my real work as possible... :-) Mike Restivo (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Replying to my own post - sorry I can't get the hang of whether I should interject in between where other people have commented? Anyway, looking at this more closely, I see that there are many other forms of wikilove, like cookies and smiley faces. I'll try to use these instead next time, and also make sure that I'm not inadvertently feeding the trolls and vandals. It makes sense that a barnstar should be recognition for specific acts, whereas there are other ways of awarding random acts of kindness. Best regards, all. I am not very active in the WP community but I love it and hopefully I'm not causing too many problems. 17:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Restivo (talkcontribs) (forgot to sign before...sorry!) 17:55, 30 April 2011 (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.
I don't want anyone to quit my Modest Barnstar. 4 contributions this month (now 5) has been a hard work. Please respect it ;)--Ssola (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Is saying "Google" outing?[edit]

“Google "Samual Antoine Moser." Yep, that's the guy I'm being harassed by.” was just posted by Ian.thomson 14:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC) at ANI. Why has Ian.thomson not been blocked for “outing” Samual Antoine Moser? I was blocked for saying “Google” someone, and Farawayman was blocked for questioning my block.

Let me guess. Ian.thomson has more edits than I did at the time? Or did his “Google” have a different inflection than mine? Or possibly someone “A.G.F”.ed Ian, unlike me?

Still johndearhart@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.131.158 (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe because the guy had already outed himself here on WP. Heiro 04:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not outing if a user reveals what their name is, as Samual did, if you read the discussion you're referring to up above. Did the person you were referring to reveal their name on Wikipedia? SilverserenC 04:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
It was an admin's USER NAME, which they sign to every post. I have no idea if it is their real name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.131.158 (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Here is the link: [33] IP has a point.Cptnono (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't care about Ian, I want my past block, and history, reviewed. I believe I am the subject of admin abuse. I'l be blocked any second now, it always happens.Thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.131.158 (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
If you want your block reviewed, log into the account you were blocked under, and ask for a review using the unblock template as described in the block notice. You aren't going to get anyone to say your block was incorrect based solely on some oblique references to it. If we cannot directly review your block and all of your editing history, there is nothing at all we can do for you. Don't ask "was my block appropriate" if we cannot view the blocked account itself! --Jayron32 05:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't log in, I am always blocked. If either Wm5200 or the pluton's talk was visible, you could see for yourself, but the same admin I refered to disappeared them both. I don't know wiki, I've been asking for help for months, but since I'm blocked and using "socks", every plea gets deleted. I'm not really important, but I feel that the abuse is, and it keeps getting covered up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.131.158 (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I see a history of some disgusting personal attacks by the Wm5200 account, which seems to be quite a different thing than "I inocently asked someone to google an account name". This edit right here: [34] is pretty awful, and I see a long history of hounding a specific user over a long period of time. I see a return of that hounding under The Pluton as well. If you were to return to Wikipedia, I would expect a) An agreement to a full interaction ban with Gwen Gale; that is you are not to talk about her, or directly confront her, or edit any article she does, or interact with her in any way and b) An agreement to a full topic ban on all issues related to Adolf Hitler, broadly construed. You should also read WP:STANDARDOFFER, which says, roughly, honor your initial block for an extended period of time. --Jayron32 05:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Were the history of disgusting personal attacks before or after the outrageous accusations of "outing", possibly used as an excuse by the admin. I have repeatedly confessed to anything after.
I also had an almost complete memory failure in mid January, know nothing about Hitler, and have little interest in any more editing. I've been pretty disillusioned, on both sides. As for dealing with a specific admin, I have not said, written, or even thought (as much as possible) about them since Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 1:44 AM, nor do I ever intend to. That admin has no credibility to me, and I won't address them again, under any conditions. I will gladly discuss this in what detail I can, but would prefer for someone to email me with advice. I believe many posts are compromised by an "admin culture" which I am outside. Thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.131.158 (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Wait a minute, I shouldn't have to stay away from Hitler, I improved the article, in spite of the admin. Someone else should recluse themself, as I suggested long ago. And how is the involved admin personally disappearing my talk not a conflict of interest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.131.158 (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
It's late, busy day tomorrow. Maybe others might take some time to think about my position while I'm gone. And thank you all for talking with me this long. Also, I don't mean to be "socking", I'm at home, and have no idea why I'm not blocked. Thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.131.158 (talk) 06:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • This is just another attempt by some curiously motivated persons (or person under various guises) to try and legitimise their harassment of Gwen Gale, via reference to their real life identity. That identity can easily be found - and knowing it gives some indication what the motivation might be, which I feel is sufficiently disturbing of itself - but the case is that Gwen Gale's identity within WP is her own affair and is not an issue in respect of her work here. Volunteers to this project may choose to acknowledge their real life identity or not - and Gwen Gale chooses not to. End of. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
    • No it is not. It is only me, and always has been, I have signed my real name many times, John D. Earhart, johndearhart@gmail. I keep trying to explain my motivation, noone will listen. I do not want to harhass an admin, I want to hold them accountable to their peers. Any time someone says "you have a point, we'll look into it" I will be glad to only address direct questions. I have been begging for months for someone to address me privately. The admin leaving, although giving me great personal satisfaction, has never been my goal, I was only interested in one article. Have you read the discussion at "Death of Adolf Hitler"??? Am I the only person who has questioned that admin's work on that specific article??? Would this all have been avoided if the admin had either acknowledged either of my (PURE GOLD) sources? Not even buy, simply acknowledge? Has the article not been greatly improved by real editors using my sources? Should that admin have reclused themselves? Was personally disappearing Wm5200's talk paqe NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST for the involved admin.???
    • Once again, I believe I am the victim of admin abuse. I don't really care about being unblocked, I am trying to address a system problem. I admit to harhassing the admin, but if an honest, uninvolved, objective admin ever acknowledged my issue, I wouldn't have to. Civil disobediance. Protest. Guerrilla warfare. Revolution. I am not very important. Neither were the Watergate burglers, it was the cover-up which brought down Richard Nixon. Do you condemn Woodward and Bernstein? No, I don't really compare myself with them, I am one of the nameless poor who have gone to jail for protesting injustice. If you want to think of me as a petty burgler, fine. But please don't miss the big picture.
    • I am still John D. Earhart, A.K.A. johndearhart@gmail, always have been, and I am proud of my moral commitment to Wikipedia. Are you??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.131.158 (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
      • When you find yourself saying stuff like "... noone will listen" and "Any time someone says "you have a point, we'll look into it"" perhaps you should actually accept the problem is with you not others. Lots have people have expressed and opinion contrary to yours, from that perspective it's you who is not listening. Lots of people have expressed and opinion contrary to yours, yet you aren't saying "You have a point, I'll look into it". If of course you want to convince yourself that there is some great conspiracy against you (and you can get past occam's razor), then really why are you staying around, surely that great big conspiracy should tell you this isn't a "nice" place for you to be and you'd be better committing your energies elsewhere? --82.7.44.178 (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
        • 178, I like you. I believe you may have listened. I would like to talk back to you, but right now I have to cut "Grandma's " grass. Can I do today, then think and ask?
        • I don't know what the problem with email is. Is it morally wrong to go private? I see others leaving email notice posts. Are you possibly afraid of me having your address (seems reasonable to me)? If so, could we set up some blind drop deal? I have a couple of other accounts, but it's probably you who would need one, right?
        • This looks good to me, you guys haven't blocked me, and I seem to be getting answers I may understand. Thank you all so much!
        • I believe that I'm finally John D. Earhart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.131.158 (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
          • My comment was a passing observation and not intended to open a broader dialog, there is no point in endless debate and discussion. Things come to an end, sometimes you win sometimes you lose, sometimes you have your understanding affirmed, othertimes you have to reevaluate it. My point really was you need to accept people have listened and simply not agreed (for whatever reason), you've repeated yourself and they still don't agree. So within the context of the society's "rules" you are wrong, you either have to accept that or decide this isn't the correct place to be since you can't work within that society's norms. Either way you need to move on, merely repeating yourself is not going to change things, you are just beating the proverbial dead horse. As I said no point in endless debate so I don't intend to engage with this further. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for failing to get the point[edit]

I think we've given Wm5200/99.18.131.158 ample opportunity to make their case here. Several uninvolved people have reviewed the case, and determined that Wm5200's behavior was problematic and the block was fully justified. I have blocked the 99.18.131.158 IP address for block evasion and referred them to the unblock mailing list AND the arbcom/BASC mailing list. As always, my blocks are open to review and overturning, since I always assume I am in the wrong. --Jayron32 20:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk Page Abuse by blocked user 92.21.240.212[edit]

User is posting some biographies on his talk page [1] Bentogoa (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk page privileges revoked. Thanks for reverting the disruption. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Need closure of deletion review, copyvio investigation[edit]

We need an uninvolved admin to close Wikipedia:Deletion review#Last-minute rescue. After some contentious back-and-forth, I discovered that the deleted article, which was deleted as OR and then userfied at User:George Serdechny/Last-minute rescue, was rife with copyvios: full blocks of text lifted nearly verbatim from multiple sources. Its creator, George Serdechny (talk · contribs), has copped to it by basically explaining that he did it intentionally to make a WP:POINT,[35] and removed a huge portion of text, claiming that it's now resolved.[36]

Well, it isn't. From User:George Serdechny/Last-minute rescue#Competent opinion: "the rescue that comes 'in the nick of time', the stock and trade of sensational melodrama..."; "the last-minute rescue (or the last-second rescue), and an escape scenario, in which the hero has to escape from a seemingly impossible situation...".

And worse, it seems like this is his normal editing method, rather than just disruption out of resentment towards the AFD. From his article, Evil Russian: "Reagan was the most vehemently anti-Russian President America had seen"; "between 1942 and 1945, the Soviet Union gradually underwent a makeover on American cinema screens..."; "The Mob tries to extort protection money from the father, and their evil Russian karate expert breaks Dad's leg...". From Arab terrorist: "From 1977 to 1993, the only Arab terrorism..."; "...the movie’s response to film terrorism is to deconstruct the Hollywood image..."

So we need someone to close the deletion review, the full deletion of the userfied page, a full investigation of all of his contributions for copyright infringement, and some decision as to how to deal with the editor from here. postdlf (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing some of postdif's revelations, I made the request last night to close the deletion review as a copyvio situation, as well as a temporary block (though based on his behaviour, I suggest a longer block) against the user in order to give a chance for us to check the rest of his contributions. Since the page in his userspace holds many copyvio situations, we need to eliminate the page entirely if only to remove all of the copyvios that are saved in the history.
It should also be noted that this editor has posted abusively on at least one user's talk page (see this diff.). He went so far as to referring to editors in the debate as "stupid" and suggested that actions against his article would be a blemish on the administrator's record. I posted a reply to the message later (after postdif's post there) pointing the admin. in question to the copyvio evidence and will notify that admin. now of this AN/I request. CycloneGU (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, the things I get into after commenting in an AFD. This user has been persistent in his refusal or inability to understand that original research, in Wikipedia's sense of the term, includes novel synthesis. The connections he claims between cited sources are rarely fully realized in those sources, and have at times been provably false. But more importantly for ANI's purposes, those cited sources appear to be frequently -- if not universally -- copyright violations. The entire "Hollywood Support" section from his version of National Council of American-Soviet Friendship was lifted from page 253 of his source. The entirety of National Council on Soviet Relations was lifted from this here. When he broke Jorj X. McKie back out from a redirect, adding cited passages, every passage he cited is a copyright violation of the cited source. I reverted that article to a redirect, but have stopped short of trying to restore non-offending versions at this time, as use of revdel is probably called for in many of these circumstances. Serpent's Choice (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • In terms of the copyright issues, I've done a spot-check of his contribs and confirmed that at least three of his articles are unusable in current form. Given issues noted here, this is sufficient to warrant a WP:CCI: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20110429. This one is relatively brief. Please help. :) Some of our CCIs are over a year old, and we could really stand to whittle them down. Since I've opened this CCI, I suppose somebody else had better address the deletion review. As to what to do, in terms of copyright: I don't see a history of copyright text warnings. He has been informed now. If he continues copying content, then we will have to block. Hopefully, this won't be necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Looking at an earlier version of his talk page, he's had loads of problems over non-free images. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, he has that; but this seems to be his first brush with text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • After looking through the archives of his talk page, and looking at many other articles that he created, it seems that this is not a new problem at all. Despite claiming that this recent bout of copyvio was in order to make a point with his current debates, this is not true at all. He's been creating pages that are just blatant copyvio for ages now. Just for a few examples, the page he created of Chris Adams (character) was almost lifted entirely from this source. The page on Calvera (character) was lifted from this source. This seems to be a regular pattern with this user. He'll create poorly written articles, and the moment they are proposed for deletion, he'll immediately respond by adding in copyvio material directly copies from books. This is a rather serious problem, as the user was a rather prolific editor, and has been creating pages like this for over a year.Rorshacma (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
And as another example, the page he created on Institute for Information, Telecommunication and Media Law was copy/pasted from the institutes own webpage here. As I said, it seems that this is nothing new with this user, and everything he has ever contributed needs to be reviewed.Rorshacma (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Careful on that one, their is an OTRS permission on the talk page, I'm not convinced it covers the text used (as it's apparently a permission from somewhere else, though there is a connection) --82.7.44.178 (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough on that that one, then. I did notice that on the talk pages for some of the other articles' talk pages, the issue of copyvio was mentioned before, with instructions given to the user in question that direct quotes or summaries of other works were permitted with citation. Unfortunately, the user neither indicates that the passages in question are quotes, nor rewords them, so they still just stand as copyvio.Rorshacma (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • This is absolutely not the editor's first involvement with copyright problems with text. I've been trying to check for and clean up this editor's copyright violations and novel synthesis for most of the day. Dropping over to the Russian Wikipedia (via Google Translate) to try to locate one of the sources cited, I discovered that identical edits (accounting for translation) had been made to a large number of their articles. The user there, ru:Участник:Георгий Сердечный, is unquestionably the same person as the en-editor under discussion. Both the en-user and the ru-user formerly used the same name; the en-user for some time requested that communication with him from here instead be done there. On ru, this editor has a long history of warnings for copyright violation and has been blocked several times (aside: the Russian Wikipedia gives out very short blocks, it seems), including a block on 5 September 2010 explicitly for (again, via Google Translate) "systematic infringement of copyright". From parsing through the talk page, I believe that the block on 28 June 2010 was also for copyright violations, although that's not precisely stated in the block log. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, that puts a different tenor on things. Coupled with his statement at the deletion review that his copyright infringements were deliberate, there's no real room to presume lack of familiarity with copyright. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
None whatsoever from me. I'd have done it myself already, but I wanted to leave the information for review. CycloneGU (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The 28 June is this diff where the blocking admin says it's for copyright infringment and from what I can make out (automated translation) basically incivility/troll like responses to that. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Also seems to have faced problems on commons, apparently loading up images via his own Flickr account. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be wise for us to have him banned from Wikipedia entirely, even moving to an ArbCom case if it boils down to it. He is very contentious, makes up his own rules and refuses to abide by the rules, and is copying whatever he wants in here when told something isn't good enough, thinking he will get away with it. CycloneGU (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) He's really behaved the same across all venues, hasn't he? Copyright infringements every where he goes, and troll-like responses to serious deletion discussions, by calling those cite valid complaints liars, responding with irrelevancies, etc. I see no option here but an indef block. He knows what he's doing; he's just trying to get away with it. postdlf (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Indef blocked[edit]

I've blocked him. I've found copied content now in every article I've examined to which he has made substantial edits that have used English language sources. I see no reason to doubt that the bulk of his contributions have been pasted or directly translated. As he has been blocked on the Russian Wikipedia for copyright problems and has nevertheless continued this behavior there and here, WP:AGFC no longer applies, and I don't see any choice but to block him for the protection of the project. This kind of disruption can cause serious damage and waste considerable community resources in later cleaning up.

Indef block is, of course, not necessarily permanent. It is simply open-ended. We need some plausible reason to believe that he is going to stop the behavior and comply with our policies. Until we have this, I don't think we can permit him to continue placing content on Wikipedia.

I always welcome review. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sound block. Reading back there are obvious issues with this editor; explaining them and rationalising them is not the job of the volunteer editors, but for the editor concerned. They can start by trying to convince a reviewing admin that they should be unblocked, and if successful take it from there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Well said. We still have his Wikipedia:Deletion review#Last-minute rescue to close, and his userfied version to delete at User:George Serdechny/Last-minute rescue; apart from the completely flawed intro, it is and was all copyrighted content. postdlf (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to blank the appropriate page in his userspace and request speedy deletion of it. If there are other pages in his userspace containing copyrighted content, they must be rooted out as well. CycloneGU (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
The only other two subpages of his are User:George Serdechny/In the High Attention Area 2 and User:George Serdechny/Bernardo O'Reilly. postdlf (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Do they also feature copyright material? I'll speedy those as well if they do with a similar message (linking here) to the one in the first. CycloneGU (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Odds are, but it's not really worth finding out: they've been listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:George Serdechny/In the High Attention Area 2 + Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:George Serdechny/Bernardo O'Reilly. postdlf (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Abusive language[edit]

Would an admin have a quick word with User talk:91.10.40.1 in respect of the abusive language in this edit which they twice restored despite a warning. If you check on the trigger for this it was an error by the editor concerned, who quickly self-reverted. From the comment on the IPs talk page s/he obviously thinks such language is appropriate. Not a major issue, but a quick warning now might prevent worse in the future. --Snowded TALK 12:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've backed up your comment with a reminder of NPA and wikiquette, but your comment seemed appropriate, the comment has been reverted and hasn't yet been re-(re-re-)introduced. It's really down to the owner of the talk page to pick a response, but hey ho. The IP just likes to talk back, that's all. This can probably be marked resolved. S.G.(GH) ping! 13:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks --Snowded TALK 14:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I realise I'll get the usual civility flak for this, but I gotta ask: who is that edit abusing, or how is it a personal attack? "Fucking" is not a version of "Go fuck yourself". It's a reinforcing... hmm... uh... adverb, maybe? Which I have frequently seen many an admin use on this site, without incurring any complaints, without being taken to ANI, and without being threatened with a ban. Bishonen | talk 14:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC).
Sorry for the revert. I accidentally hit the rollback when I was clicking onto something else on my Watchlist. All the fault of my jumpy laptop! Sorry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, for f**k sake Jeanne, try and get it right next time! Anyone find my language abusive? I would hope everyone would and that is very similar to the ip's language. Carson101 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
"Abusive" and "offensive" are not the same thing... GiantSnowman 15:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The phrase "fucking AGF" is ambiguous as to whether the word "fucking" is used simply as an adjective or as an attack on the editor who supposedly didn't assume good faith. It doesn't help that the phrase is cryptic and ungrammatical. At the same time, the situation can easily be avoided by not using the word. In most other "working" environments, it wouldn't be tolerated. Still, from the little I've seen of these discussions, particularly on ANI, they never go anywhere as you have the civility (a dirty word I think for some) folk on one side and the non-censorship-freewheeling-it's-just-a-word folk on the other. The two groups, of course, never agree on the linguistic proprieties, and the argument devolves into a parsing exercise to see if the words constitute a personal attack. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm on the c******y side.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It's clearly not an adjective, as it is modifying no noun or pronoun. It's just an idiomatic use of English, where a present participle (or possibly a gerund) is interjected into an injunction as a form of emphasis. In most working environments that I've come across the word is in common use. Try a Fire station or an Army barracks, a teacher's staffroom or even the shop-floor of an engineering company. Frankly I'm more offended by the coy pretence that people don't commonly use the word "fucking" than I am by anything else in this thread. --RexxS (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
When people use the word "clearly", it usually means it's not all that clear. In my view, the phrase "assuming good faith" in this context acts like a noun, and fucking describes the noun. However, no matter what part of speech you think it is, I agree with you that it is being used for emphasis. You apparently work in different environments than I do. Nor do I see any coyness here. I certainly agree that use of the word "fucking" is common - that doesn't make it civil, though, or more important, constructive at Wikipedia. Usually, it's simply a form of self-indulgent venting. I also think it's easier to use in the virtual world than in the brick-and-mortar world. Finally, in this (italics used for emphasis) particular use, I think it's a hybrid of emphasis and a snipe at the editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, I really did think that when an editor posted a section heading titled "Fucking AGF" that it could only be read as "Fucking Assume Good Faith". As you should now be able to clearly see, 'Assume' is the second person imperative of the verb 'to assume' and 'Good Faith' is the object of that transitive verb (the object being made up of the adjective 'Good' qualifying the noun 'Faith'). That leaves 'Fucking', which simply can't be an adjective here for lack of a noun to qualify, nor for that matter an adverb (as may be inferred from its position preceding the verb – a position that my colleague Bish favours), since the adverb formed from an adjectival 'fucking' would be 'fuckingly' – i.e. in a 'fucking manner'. I have to conclude that this particular use of 'Fucking' can only be a noun, and therefore the gerund of the verb 'to fuck' – completely lacking in any semantic function and wholly interjected as emphasis. On that latter point we clearly agree. While I would respect your point that even if treat 'fucking' as an interjection, it does not make 'fucking' civil, I would have counter that it does not make 'fucking' incivil either. Nor for that matter does 'fucking' have any bearing on the constructiveness of the request to 'Assume Good faith', IMFHO – and I'm afraid that I can't agree that it makes the word 'fucking' abusive as the OP complains. I have worked in a very large number of environments and have yet to find one where the word 'fuck' or 'fucking' was entirely absent, given sufficient observational time. At one extreme I remember being amused by an RAF serviceman, whose job was fire-fighting, and who managed to use either 'fuck' or 'fucking' every other word, but was otherwise quite intelligible, and not at all abusive. I can only suggest that editors who have problems with hearing inconsequential profanities really need to get out into the real world more. --RexxS (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
If the IP wants to be a dick? he/she will quickly be treated like a dick. Kindess don't feed the bulldog. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Procedure when dealing with falsification of sources?[edit]

Resolved: No admin intervention actually asked for/required. GiantSnowman 00:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I discovered that one editor falsified a quote from a source.This is not a misinterpretation of quote-but a clear falsification-a key part of the sentence was changed in quote presented in the wiki article. What is the proper procedure and possible intervention regarding such activity? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, step 1 is to say what was falsified. If, for example, it is a translation, then the situation may be quite different from one where the source is in English. Given your tendency to edit on articles that are ethnically charged, I don't think anybody should take anything for granted. Looie496 (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The text that was falsified was in English and is an English publication. It is not a translation. Where there cases like this before?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Which article does this concern? Which source? And which editor? These details may help... GiantSnowman 23:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I see now what I have done. This is intervention board where action is taken. I was more interested in general rules regarding such things.I apologize. You may close the thread, I will seek my answers elsewhere.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
If you're looking for help for a general question, maybe try Wikipedia:Help desk. Regards, GiantSnowman 00:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks I will. Please close this thread.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Misconduct at "Ark of the Covenant"[edit]

I just looked in on this article and wanted to alert the Administrators to the behaviour of Steven J. Anderson and Hrafn. See:

and especially

The diffs you will need are from 25 April 2011 to 28 April 2011.

What they said to an expert on the subject is outrageous. I have posted a subst:ANI-notice to each of them. I just realized you can't be everywhere, but you at least deserve a "heads-up". I won't be back. --71.214.251.150 (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

An anonymous self-professed expert on the subject made some disparaging remarks about Wikipedia and made some claims about facts without proper use of reliable sources. Earlier some people made some claims based upon sources known to be fringe. The editors you complained about explained Wikipedia policies to them. How is that a problem? At worst they were somewhat uncivil to people who were also uncivil, which is a wash. DreamGuy (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
As I pointed out on the talk page, this belongs at WP:LAME. What we have here is an editor who's been obsessing for weeks about the precise location of the rings on the side of the Ark and wants to edit a picture caption to point out that they're in the wrong place. Yes, you read that right. He claimed he was leaving in a fit of pique a few days ago (Paraphrased reason: Now I know why Wikipedia is not an acceptable source for University and High School work; other users won't accept my original research). But, no such luck, since then he's been editing from his IP and a couple of single-edit socks he's created for the purpose of talking to himself at the talk page and claiming special authority. I doubt that he's actually done anything blockable, but the other editors are starting to get a little sick of this shit. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
The 'expert' has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of User:Michael Paul Heart by another Administrator. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Ooh, his face is gonna get melted off. HalfShadow 21:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
The archive of Talk:Tahash has, I believe, a similar situation with MPH and User:Hermitstudy. This is an odd account, without a doubt. The Interior (Talk) 01:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • But I think it necessary to point out that in response to his argument, unacceptable language was used by an experienced admin, "Oh, and I don't really give a damn about the self-serving maunderings of somebody so monumentally clueless that they think WorldNet Daily is in the same universe as a WP:RS -- 'you lost' it years ago." Regardless of the merits, it is not wise to return insult for insult. It rather tends to make the two parties appear indistinguishable. A person who does have superior knowledge should rely on it. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually DGG, it isn't wasn't "necessary to point [this] out" at all, as the point you are making is based upon a fallacious premise. I am not an admin, experienced or otherwise. Per WP:SPADE, I stand by my description. It was made in response to MPH's comment on article talk: "Your argument has no intelligence. You lose", which in turn linked to a self-serving and tendentious 'leaving message' on his user talk -- a message rendered all the more ludicrous by MPH immediately thereafter returning to article talk as a WP:SOCK. I see no reason to take such blatant self-scripted WP:WIKIDRAMA seriously. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#Edit_request_from_67.78.85.67.2C_12_April_2011 edit discussion for consensus[edit]

Hi, it seems that discussion for Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#Edit_request_from_67.78.85.67.2C_12_April_2011 is not going anywhere, not because of consensus, but because of no consensus is claimed, in spite of 3 different users saying so. The reasons are given and are finally replies are a new question: Extending Biographies of living people to organisations? ... , I think you have answered your own question! ... For other organisations, go to the respective page/talk page... and so on; In spite of giving reasons. So I would like to know where are the ironclad rules for first line of an organization? Where is the rule that usual principles can not be extended to first line of an organization?.असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 20:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have put up the question over here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 21:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Do I make my case here? Yes Michael?Talk 05:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem with User:Davide41[edit]

This editor is becoming a real problem on the article Giulio Clovio and the talk page Talk:Giulio Clovio. Working with this editor is close to impossible. He does not respond to any discussion. He is relentless in his POV pushing. He claims this artist is an Italian artist while the literature is quite clear in that he was of Croatian descent. He was born in modern day Croatia and later moved to Italy here he did most of his work. (For the record: I am neither Italian nor Croatian; I could not care less which way this goes besides the obvious point that I think the information should be factual.)

I have mentioned the following on the talk page: For a modern reference to Clovio being referred to as Croatian: "Ante Split also notes that a contemporary, Bernardo Guidoni, called him “Giulio Clovio from Croatia” (a Crovatia) and his gravestone labeled him also as being from Croatia, Julio Clovis de Croatia." from ‘’John Van Antwerp Fine, When ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans, University of Michigan Press, 2006’’ [4]. <snip> He was a Croatian born painter, who moved to Italy and spent most of his professional career in Italy. Because of where he did his work he is often referred to as an Italian painter.

Davide41 in the meantime has violated several guidelines/rules:

The edit warring got so bad that the page was protected [46]. More people were involved in the edit warring, but Davide41 is a main problem.

  • WP:Concensus It has become clear that several editors did not agree with him, but he keeps going. (see talk page Talk:Giulio Clovio.)
  • WP:CIVIL He makes condescending comments and just calls any disagreement with him offensive. He makes silly remarks like " Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum " [47] . Must admit I pointed out h