Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

British Pakistanis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The discussion at Talk:British Pakistanis has become more than a little abusive even after I fully protected the article for 7 days. I would appreciate the eyes of my fellow admins in it. I have added a general warning to those involved who are making personal attacks as they seem unacceptable and extreme enough to me. Considering the approach recently taken with AndyTheGrump, who is also involved on this page in inflaming the discussion, I am aware that my views on what counts as abuse that breaches NPA might be more sensitive than that of other admins or the general community who may see this as 'banter'. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note. As indicated in a section below, AnkhMorpork has substantially edited comments after they have been responded to, with no indication of the time of the revision. This refusal to adhere to talk page guidelines may make following the time sequence of the thread difficult.AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Given that both User:AnkhMorpork and User:Darkness Shines have been misrepresenting sources, and citing Right-wing American supporters of the EDL and similar questionable sources to add material casting an entire ethnic minority in a bad light - specifically, making false claims that "Most UK girl child abusers are British Pakistanis" [1] and that "statistically Pakistanis carry out a disproportionate amount of sex attacks in the UK" [2] (neither of which can be properly sourced), I think incivility, banter, or whatever you wish to call it is the least of our problems with the article. It is utterly offensive that such 'contributors' should misuse Wikipedia to pursue an agenda which can only be motivated by political POV-pushing, Islamophobia, or outright racism. Can anyone indicate another article on Wikipedia that contains a 'Contemporary issues' section on 'Child sex abuse' sourced to cherry-picked material, far-right commentators, and the like? AnkhMorpork and Darkness Shines had, along with User:Shrike, tag-teamed to keep this material in the article, while refusing to explain why such a section is justified in this article alone - or why they consider it of such importance, given their apparent lack of other interest in the British Pakistani minority. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Others have noted the tag-teaming of shrike and ankhmorpork as well [3]. these two are wrecking havoc on articles about crimes committed by muslims. to quote user:div999, ankhmorpork's "Modus Operandi in such articles is to try to get the most inflammatory, sensationalist quotes and those that highlight the ethnicity/religion of the perpetrators inserted prominently into the articles. It is the kind of approach that I would expect in a right wing tabloid newspaper or a BNP pamphlet, but not suitable for the production of encyclopedic articles. This user already has two open dispute resolution cases over these issues with two entirely separate groups of editors." there are others who have come to even harsher conclusions[4]. ankhmorpork and shrike must be banned for tag-teaming, disruptive editing, and pov-pushing.-- altetendekrabbe  14:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by AnkhMorpork

I shall list the sources and allow people to judge for themselves whether this issue is discussed in relation to the British Pakistani community, and if it is based on dubious sourcing:

• The Sunday Guardian
• Rochdale News
• The Telegraph
• The Times(available here)
• The Telegraph
• BBC
• The National
• BBC
• AIM

Both a BBC documentary and a Channel 4 documentary have been made on this topic, and numerous sources of various political persuasions have also addressed this issue.

(subsequent addition)

In my view, these sources:

1. Are reliable
2. Discuss child sex grooming in connection with the ethnicity of the abusers
3. Were not misconstrued

• Andy states above that I have been using "Right-wing American supporters of the EDL and similar questionable sources"; this is patently an absurd claim.
• He also states above that I have been "making false claims that "Most UK girl child abusers are British Pakistanis" and cites this diff. In it, I am quoting to him the exact headline of this article after he requested sources; I would like a clarification of how this could possibly amount to a "false claim" or a misrepresentation of the source.

Altetendekrabbe was blocked for personal attacks directed at me. Since then he has continued in exactly the same vein, 1 2 and 3 and I request that his conduct is examined.
Ankh.Morpork 14:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest this discussion is held at Talk:British Pakistanis or Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#British_Pakistanis, there seems no point in repeating it on this noticeboard in a thread raised for the separate issue of evaluating the most appropriate administrator action for participants making blatant personal attacks. --Fæ (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Fæ, I too do not wish to stage a dispute discussion on this page. However, I have repeatedly been called a bigot and a racist for broaching this issue, and I wish to provide the sources used for my contributions.Ankh.Morpork 15:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you have suddenly taken such an interest in this particular issue? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as using the Sunday Guardian headline, Most UK girl child abusers are British Pakistanis, goes, note that, if anything, the content of the headlined article contradicts the claim made in the headline and none of the other sources given support it.     ←   ZScarpia   16:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

And I think it needs to be made clear that the 'Sunday Guardian' in question is a website apparently sited in India. Why we should consider this an appropriate source for events in Rochdale, I have no idea - and the blatantly-false headline suggests that we probably shouldn't consider it an appropriate source for anything at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you think stating the exact headline of this article amounted to a misrepresentation of this source?Ankh.Morpork 16:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that you went halfway round the world to find a source that fitted the POV you were trying to push. Look at the language used in the article "A horrifying trend is spreading like a virus through parts of Britain...", this should be setting alarm bells ringing that this is not the type of source that we should be using to construct encyclopedia articles. Unfortunately in articles relating to Arab/Muslim crimes this is just the type of sensationalist material you have a history of inserting into articles. Dlv999 (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This comes from a person that specially collated all Jewish attacks and suggested placing them in a special paragraph named 'Jewish attacks' and changing the existing paragraph structure to emphasise the racial identities. Ankh.Morpork 17:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting that you choose to defend yourself from allegations of misrepresenting sources by misrepresenting evidence. Given the article you cited is an example of inter-communal violence and you had previously inserted into the lead a innacurate claim about the ethnic characteristics of the perpetrators [5], as well as your usual inflammatory rhetoric [6], it seemed pertinent to document the events that clearly showed your insetions to be false. Also note that all my sources were high quality academic publications which cannot be said of your own additions[7], [8]. As you freely admit [9], you have a POV that you want to present in articles, the problem is that the way you go about it is to find sources that fit your POV and insert them into articles irrespective of quality or appropriateness, rather than trying to find the most appropriate sources for an article and then reflecting them in a balanced way. Dlv999 (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you make mention of the comment that I wrote to Zero, it is only fair to make note of his response: "I like the collegial attitude you bring to the editing task and hope you will continue" - [10]I shall happily address all the points that you mention if asked to, such as the so called inflammatory language which is a verbatim assessment of the Shaw report as was already pointed out to you, and my 'inaccurate claims' were sourced to three different sources including the BBC[11][12] [13] and supported by 4 other editors. However, to do so seems diversionary, and this only reinforces the impression that your contributions in this thread are based on previous I-P disagreements.Ankh.Morpork 18:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Zero's opinion of you is irrelevant, but as usual you have misrepresented evidence. His opinion of your editing after seeing your actions is quite different (and also note his description of the very sources that you have posted above) : "This edit war was created by and driven by AnkhMorpork, who decided that the "Israeli perspective" was not adequately represented. As illustration of AnkhMorpork's methodology, despite her/himself quoting extensively from the report of the official enquiry he/she repeatedly deletes (and continues to delete, even during this case) statements from that report which conflict with her/his preferred (and rather weak) tertiary sources."[14] You accuse me of diversion, as an poor attempt at Ad Hominem, but anyone can look back at the previous edits and see that I was discussing your use of the Sunday Guardian source, and you decided to drag in my edits to the Palestinian 1929 riots page. If it was just me, I would just grit my teeth and get on with it, but what I am seeing is there are three entirely different groups of editors that have all separately reached the same conclusions regarding your edits. Dlv999 (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

And I note that you have now contested my statement that the contested material "citing Right-wing American supporters of the EDL and similar questionable sources". This is a fact, it did. It cited Erick Stakelbeck, a right-wing US commentator who has not only openly asserted his support for the EDL, but done so in the most inflammatory language. [15]. And then there is the issue of your cherry-picking half-quotations from The Times to support your assertions, where quoting the entire sentence would have shown what was going on: You took this statement on a specific problem in one part of the country: "Most of the victims are white and most of the convicted offenders are of Pakistani heritage, unlike other known models of child-sex offending in Britain, including child abuse initiated by online grooming, in which the vast majority of perpetrators are white", and cited it for an assertion that "child protection experts have identified a repeated pattern of sex offending...most of the convicted offenders are of Pakistani heritage...". Such gross misrepresentation of sources, whether on talk pages or in articles, is ample grounds to justify a topic ban, if not a block. You clearly have an agenda involving publicising a particular minority in a negative light, and as such are a net liability to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you are happy copying and pasting your objections, I shall do likewise with my refutation.

In response to your request on the talk page for sources commentating on the incidence of British Pakistani child sex grooming offences, I cited this source. It draws a distinction between child sex grooming of which "most of the convicted offenders are of Pakistani heritage" and other child sex offenses "in which the vast majority of perpetrators are white." The Times refers to research at the UCL Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science, "which notes that victims are typically white girls aged 13 to 16 and that “most central offenders are Pakistani”". You appear to be conflating this distinction in an attempt to depict misconstruction of the source. Your claim that I did not cite on the talk page "other known models of child-sex offending in Britain, including child abuse initiated by online grooming, in which the vast majority of perpetrators are white" and this was a "blatant misrepresentation", when the topic at hand is appertaining specifically to child sex grooming, is invalid and relies on source misrepresentation of your own.

Moreover, this source was not used in any articles but was presented to you on the talk page in response to your request for evidence of linkage. This source clearly does discuss the issue of child grooming in relation to the British Pakistani community, and it was for that purpose that it was cited. This source was provided to show that the ethnic patterns were discussed, contrary to your protests otherwise.

Can you make your views clear; do you believe that this issue was not discussed in relation to the ethnicity of the abusers? Ankh.Morpork 17:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Diff: [16]. You cherry-picked the source to make generalised assertions it does not support. As for the Jill Dando Institute research, it again clearly refers to a particular region, and isn't making generalised statements about British Pakistanis. Again though, I'd like you to let us know why you consider this particular issue (and others involving ethnic-minority criminal activity) of such significance? Why do you edit almost exclusively on such topics? [17]. Are you here to contribute to a neutral and informative encyclopaedia, or for some other purpose? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You asked for a source that discussed the the child sex grooming in relation to British Pakistani's, I provided you with one and emphasised where this was discussed. You seem to be suggesting that I tried making an article based on those quotations alone, once again I repeat that I was demonstrating to you that this issue had been discussed in the context of ethnic incidence.Ankh.Morpork 18:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That is demonstrably untrue, as the talk page shows. You had earlier quoted the "Most UK girl child abusers are British Pakistanis" headline from a dubious source, and I asked for a reliable source that supported the claim - instead, you misleadingly cherry-picked half a sentence from The Times which actually said the exact opposite. Further falsifications aren't going to do you any good here - I suggest that you consider a voluntary topic ban from all articles relating to ethnicity, religion, and crime, before one is imposed on you - and judging from the comments above, I'd suggest that this topic ban should also specifically include all issues relating to Israel and Palestine, since you have made clear that you are hear to support one side of the dispute, rather than to contribute in the interests of the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is the source and here is the thread. I can only repeat that I was demonstrating to you that sources did discuss sex grooming in an ethnic context and I will allow people to decide for themselves whether my presentation of the source on the talk page was a falsification.

I will repeat something here that I have stated elsewhere, "I am quite frank in that that I have a POV and wish to accurately present it. However, I extend such honesty to my editing and am more than willing to countenance reasonable objections, as this page will testify." As WP:NPOVT states: "The first element in negotiating issues of bias with others is to recognize you have a point of view...". I suggest you read the reply to my statement which clearly dispels your allegation of bias.Ankh.Morpork 19:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I can see no point in continuing this repetitive nonsense. Please see the new section below: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban for AnkhMorpork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Civility

starts breathing in the schadenfreude tangible in the air Seriously, all disputants please refrain from intemperate language. Hasteur (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• AndyTheGrump's edit here [18], when he calls AnkhMorpork a liar and a bigot, is more than intemperate language. It is (should be...) completely unacceptable. AndyTheGrump should consider a voluntary break from the topic. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Rather than having another dispute about 'civility', why don't we actually address the real issue here, which is POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and using an article on an ethnic group as a forum for an attack on said group. Since AnkhMorpork has brought up The times as a source, can I suggest that people take a look at this diff [19] where He/she cites the article in question for "child protection experts have identified a repeated pattern of sex offending...most of the convicted offenders are of Pakistani heritage...". What is of course omitted is the material in ellipses. Although the Times is behind a paywall, it appears from a copy I found elsewhere that the last sentence actually reads "Most of the victims are white and most of the convicted offenders are of Pakistani heritage, unlike other known models of child-sex offending in Britain, including child abuse initiated by online grooming, in which the vast majority of perpetrators are white". The Times article also apparently states that:

The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre said in 2009 that networks of “white British, British Asians, and Kurdish asylum-seekers” had been “prominently identified” as internal sex traffickers of British girls. “Kurds are identified as being dominant in the North East of England, but Anglo-Asian groups appear to be in control in the Midlands. There are . . . suggestions that in London, West Indian (Caribbean) and Bangladeshi networks are similarly exploiting . . . females for sex.” With the exception of one case involving two white men in Blackburn, The Times has been unable to identify any court case in which two or more white British, Kurdish, African-Caribbean or Bangladeshi men have been convicted of child-sex offences linked to on-street grooming.

The source I found is here [20], but obviously this needs checking by someone with access to the original. If it is correct, it seems self-evident that AnkhMorpork has grossly misrepresented the Times article in order to portray a regional problem as national, and restricted to the activities of one particular ethnic group, when it is nothing of the sort. Such misrepresentations are surely grounds for a topic ban, if not a block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)  Highlighted the crux point. --Ohiostandard 10:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have no objection to Ohiostandard's highlighting here - this really is the most significant issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This might be a somwhat more reliable version of the source in question, apparently being a pdf of the for-printing version of the original article. It confirms the misrepresentation.--benjamil (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to your request for sources making a link between the paragraph on child sex grooming and the British Pakistani community, I cited this source. It draws a distinction between child sex grooming of which "most of the convicted offenders are of Pakistani heritage" and other child sex offenses "in which the vast majority of perpetrators are white." The Times refers to research at the UCL Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science, "which notes that victims are typically white girls aged 13 to 16 and that “most central offenders are Pakistani”". You appear to be conflating this distinction in an attempt to depict misconstruction of the source. Your claim that I did not cite on the talk page "other known models of child-sex offending in Britain, including child abuse initiated by online grooming, in which the vast majority of perpetrators are white" and this was a "blatant misrepresentation", when the topic at hand is appertaining specifically to child sex grooming, is invalid and relies on source misrepresentation of your own.

Moreover, this source was not used in any articles but was presented to you on the talk page in response to your request for evidence of linkage. This source clearly does discuss the issue of child grooming in relation to the British Pakistani community, and it was for that purpose that it was cited. You can use your crayons and colour away at the source; the fact remains that this source was provided to show that the ethnic patterns were discussed, contrary to your protests otherwise.Ankh.Morpork 16:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Calling the editor a liar and bigot is a couple of steps past incivility. You can't really expect him to keep working with you, and you can't reasonably use deliberate abuse to drive someone away from the topic. Why not let it sit for a few days and come back to it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

er, i suggest you take a look at the mess ankhmorpork created on the british pakistani talk page. it's evident that he is a disruptive editor, as confirmed by other fellow editors.-- altetendekrabbe  16:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)-- altetendekrabbe  16:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• There are mechanisms to deal with disruption. Verbal abuse isn't one of them. If AndyTheGrump isn't willing to take a voluntary break from the page, or at least agree not to impugn to stop impugning people's motives (especially with something as inflammatory as "bigot") I'd support an enforced break from the topic. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The word "bigot" is not problematic if, in fact, the target IS a bigot. Forcing Andy to say the same thing in more words is no solution at all. The issue is not the use of one particular word. It's whether that word is justified in this particular case. Too many here think that being nice and avoiding certain words will make more more serious problems go away. HiLo48 (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Horseshit. Calling another editor a bigot is a blatant personal attack.Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You just ignored half my post. I say again "Forcing Andy to say the same thing in more words is no solution at all." HiLo48 (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

He made those edits under duress? If not, then no response would have been better then the uncivil, personal attack.Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. I have interacted with Andy in the past and know that he truthfully speaks his mind; the insult are as a consequence to the perceived injustice. It is for that reason that I have presented sources, and will continue to so if necessary, that substantiate this linkage and dispel his claims of bigotry. It bothers me more that he thinks I'm a bigot than he actually called me one.Ankh.Morpork 17:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be acceptable to say that specific edits appear to represent a bigoted point of view, or that a pattern of edits is promoting a biased viewpoint, but jumping around saying other editors are racist will always be inflammatory and be judged a likely personal attack unless the contributor in question explains that this is their personal motivation. --Fæ (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

On reviewing the diffs, I think AndyTheGrump's comments (here) are not acceptable. The best way to resolve this is for him to strike the offensive parts of those comments. We can all then assume good faith and move forward on the larger issues presented here. --regentspark (comment) 17:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think it is important to address the underlying issue here which in my view is User Ankmorpork's disruptive POV editing across a number of articles related to crimes that happened to be committed by Muslims or Arabs (e.g. Rochdale sex trafficking gang, 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings, 1929 Palestine riots). I think it would be a mistake only to sanction editors who have reacted to Ank's behavior without taking in to account that behavior. The result of such action would only be to enable AnkMorpork to carry on behaving as he is behaving which in practice means a total breakdown of normal editing process in these articles and constant administrative and dispute resolution filings. Dlv999 (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Just to give a little background User:Dlv999 and User:AnkhMorpork don't see eye to eye in I/P conflict so this is main reason for his post only recently User:Dlv999 was blocked for edit warring.--Shrike (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User:Tom harrison if some users feel that there are issues of WP:TE then there a relevant venues to deal with that.Violation of WP:NPA is not acceptable and there are no excuse for that.--Shrike (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, can you give us a list of who else that is involved in this dispute is also involved in disputes regarding I/P? And perhaps explain why those who otherwise seem largely to concentrate on that issue have suddenly taken an interest in sex crimes in Rochdale? As far as I'm aware neither Hamas nor the Israeli state have made any claims to the territory, and as such it would seem a rather off-topic subject to express an interest in unless one felt motivated by concerns other than contributing to a reliable and informative online encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you feel that sex crimes in Rochdale is not encyclopedic topic?I myself didn't made any edits to this article.--Shrike (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

See the revision history of the British Pakistanis article [21]. Shrike repeatedly reinserted the controversial material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Shrike I beg you to assume good faith unless you have some evidence that my involvement here is malicious in which case you should present it. As you know my (24h) block for edit warring was because I was unaware that an article pertained to the IP conflict, so I don't see how it is relevant to this discussion or to what I have said about User Ankh. The reason I have commented is because I see a common pattern emerging between an article I am involved with (1929 Palestine riots) two other articles that are currently at dispute resolution (the article discussed here and 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings) and the related Rochdale sex trafficking gang article. AnkhMorpork with your vigorous support is involved in all these articles and in all of them the normal editing process has broken down. Now you can throw mud at me and everyone else, but there are three entirely distinct groups of editors you and Ank are disputing and there comes a point were it becomes unrealistic to blame everyone else for the problems and not look at your own behavior. Dlv999 (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Nordichammer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Nordichammer - This sensitive issue is being inflamed by this vile user. Please see this. Ankh.Morpork 09:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Some kind of disruptive user that want to make WP:POINT that should be blocked could someone do a CU?--Shrike (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:CueNordichammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be blocked for these slurs and racist comments [22] [23] [24]. This is an SPA to disrupt and troll, nothing more. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I subsequently saw this comment and I request a CU, as there are reasonable grounds to suspect that somebody is deliberately aspersing my character.Ankh.Morpork 09:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I've indefed Nordichammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for now. Sock or not, his edits are unacceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

In light of this and this which seek to portray me as a racist by guilt through association, I request a CU on this user.Ankh.Morpork 09:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Take a look here too please

Admins involved in this matter might do well to take a good look at Rochdale sex trafficking gang and its Talk page. Thanks Roger (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And it might be worth asking why the article claims to be citing The Times, while actually citing another source entirely: http://www.sunday-guardian.com, a website specialising in Indian topics and as such hardly the most obvious source, which makes a claim in a headline that "Most UK girl child abusers are British Pakistanis", while providing no evidence to support this (unsurprisingly, because no such evidence exists, since it is untrue). And why the article has to repeatedly refer to the faith and ethnicity of the individuals involved. It seems evident that this has been constructed as an attack piece on an ethnic minority, rather than as an encyclopaedic article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

by the way, here is a racist who is supporting ankhmorpork [25][26]. i wonder why? the discussion on british pakistani page and on the dispute resolution page makes it clear that ankhmorpork is a disruptive editor. he uses dubious sources, adds badges of shame, and is disengenuous about what is written in the sources.-- altetendekrabbe  19:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

In light of continued references 12 to this drive-by racist (who happened to conveniently bundle together all the key words of AnkhMorpork, Paki and BNP) which seek to portray me as a racist by guilt through association , I repeat my request for a CU on this user.Ankh.Morpork 20:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Pity that they didn't carry out a CU on that editor, imho... Keristrasza (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

[27]. user shrike made a fool out of himself. just like you.-- altetendekrabbe  19:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"made a fool out of himself. just like you..." I presume that this is some form of insult you are aiming at me? Keristrasza (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

@Ankh It was already made and come out negative but the evidence I think is pretty damning.--Shrike (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

He continue to personally attack other users.When it will end?--Shrike (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• User:Altetendekrabbe got blocked by User:Bwilkins for personal attacks, he/she made. I think this must be an example for everyone involved in this issue and both the sides should move to WP:DRN for a peaceful discussion to sort things out. --SMS ^Talk 20:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, Smsarmad: The emotionality is unfortunate, but two editors stand accused of having skewed their selections from the available sources to try to falsely colour an entire ethnic group as having paedophilic tendencies. The Wikipedia community has a compelling interest in determining whether that accusation is true. This belongs right where it is. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Responding to Roger's initial post, I totally agree, Ankh is involved in some serious (bordering on racist IMHO) POV pushing on the aforementione"d article, one of the sources (can't find it for the moment) clearly refutes the "only British Pakistanis groom white girls" by stating that in 95% of cases the people are white, I would support a topic ban and also suggest that the username, cleverly disguised as wackiness, is in fact provocative and inflammatory (more pork!) And, being a grump too, i don't give a shit about calling out out-and-out bigots, sick of seeing WP being abused by so-called "neutral" editors. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If that was his intention with regards to his username, I don't think it worked. If anything, his opponents seem to have delighted in taking "pork" from his username and using it in a derogatory way against him [28]. 92.2.91.151 (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The user ID is evidently taken from a place name in the Discworld novels. --OhioStandard (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork is substantially editing his comments after they have been responded to

With complete disregard to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines AnkhMorpork is now substantially editing his comments after they have been responded to, making the entire thread impossible to understand in its correct order. At this point, I will once again ask that his behaviour be looked into, and that he be instructed to follow proper procedures, or cease editing on such matters entirely. It is impossible to engage in any constructive dialogue with such behaviour going on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You just approved the highlighting of material that I allegedly misconstrued, and now you are griping that I am editing my comments? Unbefuckinglievable. I wish to centralise my complaints, is there a way I can do this without incurring your ire? Ankh.Morpork 15:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are totally Unbefuckinglievable. What do you think Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines are for? Decoration? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I shall repeat myself: You were perfectly satisfied to highlight material to emphasise a point you were making after my response, yet you object to when I do the same thing. Oh and the "You are an idiot. Yes I know you are an idiot" routine is quite childish don't you think?Ankh.Morpork 15:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't highlight the material - someone else did, and then added a dated signature to indicate when it was done. I added a note to make clear that I din't object to this - also signed and dated. Your edits have no datestamp, making it impossible without endless looking back and forth through diffs to determine what you wrote when. Now, do you agree that talk page guidelines are applicable to you, or not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I added additional points to my initial defense and restructured my response to your accusations of misrepresentation. I shall clearly demarcate which point were subsequently added. That cool with you?Ankh.Morpork 16:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

What would be 'cool' would be to add new material in the appropriate place, so people can see what you are now saying. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you previously stated "LOL!" complete with the capitalised letters and the accompanying exclamation mark, I thought you would appreciate this usage of the vernacular. Ankh.Morpork 16:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Just following the normal talk page convention would be best. Nobody Ent 16:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Note. Despite the assurance by AnkhMorpork that he/she would "clearly demarcate which point were subsequently added", nothing whatsoever has done about this. (see for example this addition to a posting originally made at 14:57 15 May, and the diff dated 15:03 16 May [29]). This refusal to follow talk page guidelines makes the entire discussion impossible for those unaware of the insertions to follow. I shall add a note at the beginning of this thread pointing the problem out, to at least draw attention to the problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

posting while intoxicated

• Well as Andy still has neither the courage nor the integrity to retract his bollocks that I a ma racist bigot, fuck you andy you are a wanker, you smear a person you do not know because they disagree with you? What a fucking prick. Yes still on the beer, fucking block away, after all, why should one be annoyed over being called a bigot. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I have blocked Darkness Shines for one week for these attacks (and comments made elsewhere). Alcohol or not, there's no excuse for this kind of behavior. Parsecboy (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for AnkhMorpork

Given AnkhMorpork's continuing refusal to acknowledge that sources have been misrepresented, and further questionable sources cited (e.g. a right-wing US commentator who openly supports the activities of the far-right English Defence League, an India-based website which adds lurid and inflametory headlines to articles that don't actually back them up etc, etc...) in order to link an entire ethnic minority with claims of child sexual abuse and paedophilia, with utter disregard to WP:UNDUE, or indeed basic standards of human decency, I would now suggest that it is time to consider a topic ban. Given that AnkhMorpork has largely confined edits to adding negative material regarding muslims, while making an overt pro-Israel stance abundantly clear, and given that AnkhMorpork seems to have no interest in ensuring balanced and appropriate coverage in these contexts, such a topic ban should at minimum include any involvement in (a) articles relating to any ethic group, (b) articles relating to any religious group, (c) crime-related articles, and (d) any articles relating to Israel or Palestine, all broadly construed. Wikipedia doesn't need such blatant POV-pushing in such sensitive areas (or indeed anywhere, but it is particularly egregious here), and such disruptive and frankly obnoxious behaviour needs to be stopped. It may of course be suggested that a topic ban of this scope will effectively rule out all AnkhMorpork's interests, and ammounts to a de-facto block - in which case, it might be simpler to block him/her entirely instead. This would at least avoid the otherwise inevitable disputes about the scope of a topic ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment: Considering the shed loads of drama and bad language over the last week, I agree that topic bans may be a reasonable next step, and others involved may want to reflect on if they are complicit in creating heat rather than light in these areas. I would be interested if AnkhMorpork could give a definition of the topics that have been most contentious, and if s/he were prepared to voluntarily suggest a topic scope to take a break from. AndyTheGrump's definition of a,b,c seems rather wide and may need a bit of interpretation to be implementable. --Fæ (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• Absolutely not - this stuff has been a big issue in the UK for the last couple of weeks; even Trevor Phillips has come out to say it's a race issue. To call someone a racist or bigot, which is the not-very-subtle underlying message here, when they seem to just be editing with the current zeitgeist is wrong. And no one should have to justify the articles they choose to edit. No one. Egg Centric 21:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a diversion, better taken up on the article talk page. However I feel I have a moral obligation to point out here that to be Pakistani is to have a nationality, not a race. Even to say there is a cultural phenomenon at work would be to ignore the diversity of culture in Pakistan. Please take this up on the article talk page if you want to pursue your viewpoint. As for the well respected Trevor Phillips, I would like to hear or read the quote for myself before making any assumptions about what he meant. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Well it would more likely be about a specific culture amongst certain pakistani immigrants in north west england, to be perfectly pedantic but I'm not inclined to worry too much about precision language. Anyhoo, see [30] [31] [32] (selection of different biases in sources) and related stories. Egg Centric 11:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Approve The most serious issue here is the misrepresentation of the Times source (above). In addition, during the edit war on British Pakistanis, AnkhMorpork was so concerned with upholding the section on the Rochdale case that he failed to notice and thereby defended the inclusion of very questionable sources, obviously reverting in a knee-jerk fashion.edit history poor source 1 poor source 2 The inclusion of the Rochdale case as a "related topic" in the "Series on British Pakistanis box",[33] in my opinion displays very low insight into WP:BALANCE. In connection with this edit war, he posted a request for sockpuppet investigation against the other edit warring party that was found baseless.AnkhMorpork (Shrike - other case) I've also looked through some of AnkhMorpork's involvement in other edit warring, and in my opinion he frequently resorts to punitive administrative venues in a fairly aggressive manner, in both cases and in the sockpuppet case with support from Shrike.[34] [35] Also, while apparently on a STiki vandalism fighting tour, he found the time to drop by a large revert[36] on an article he had previously never edited, where one of the main parties to the British pakistanis conflict was engaged.[37] To me this seems like highly disruptive behaviour beyond the incivility which has otherwise been prolific in this edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamil (talk • contribs) 23:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC) --benjamil (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see how AnkhMorpork can justify describing [38] as reverting 'vandalism'. The evidence is mounting up... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

He apparently already explained that it was by accident. I'm still assessing this entire section/incident, but I don't think one can reasonably expect editors to be entirely accident free. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course not - one looks at a pattern of behaviour, rather than a single incident. And the pattern is clear... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

no, it was not an accident. in the first edit ankmorpork used the charge of vandalism [39]. he then posts a bugos warning on my talk page, [40]. the warning is subsequently removed by another user [41] who also warns ankmorpork not to misuse blocking templates [42]. ankmorpork now makes a 2. revert under another pre-text [43]. when i revert him for the last time, shrike comes out of nowhere and continues ankmorpork's edit war [44]. a clear violation of wp:brd, and wp:point. classic example of tag-teaming. another issue: i just got several death threats from ip-warriors on my talk page. it's clear that there are right-wing racists out there who want to silence me. wonder why? could someone please delete those entries from page history, and ban those ip-accounts indefinitely? update: here's another one [45]. note his name...specifically targeting me and muslims.-- altetendekrabbe  06:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not the first time the editor has mislabeled good faith edits as vandalism [46] Dlv999 (talk) 08:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Failing ofWP:AGF is not good for Wikipedia editor. He is new user and he explained that it was accidental [47].--Shrike (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, have you ever considered whether acting as an attorney for sockpuppets[48] and disruptive users [49] you happen to share a POV with, and agitating on Admin boards and talk pages [50] for sanctions against editors who react to your proteges is constructive to the project? As for assumptions of good faith at the time I bent over backwards to assume good faith and asked Ankh to explain to the user he had accused of vandalism that it was a mistake [51]. Ankh agreed to do so, but then never bothered, instead he decided to file an AE case against the editor in question - so in this matter I have a very good reason not to AGF. There comes a time when a pattern of edits occurs and it is no longer tenable to assume good faith that each individual edit would require. Dlv999 (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop with you red herring fallacies.And explain why do you fail to assume WP:AGF.The null edit that contained the explanation was right after the edit you brought[52].--Shrike (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Enough with the double standards. Your statement regarding AGF is patently contradicted by your own actions right here. If you genuinely believed that a failure to assume good faith was not good, you would have dealt with your own assumption of bad faith by striking your entirely baseless statement about Dlv999's motives and your disingenuous statement about edit warring made at 17:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC) that resulted in Dlv999 writing "I beg you to assume good faith unless you have some evidence that my involvement here is malicious". Talk is cheap and double standards are unacceptable. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You say my statement wasn't true they do see eye to eye in I/P conflict? I didn't say anything about DLV motives just a bit of information for editors to consider anyhow its red herring.The explanation of mistaken edit summary was followed right after so its very strange that DLV999 didn't see it and didn't mention it.--Shrike (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I asked Ankh to explain to the person he had accused that the accusation of vandalism was a mistake [53], he agreed to do so [54], but then never did, instead he brought an AE case against the editor. Also since the incident Ankh has done the same thing again as others have described. Dlv999 (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

He explained this in the edit summary that I brought earlier."See subsequent edit summary where I provide explanation, as initial explanation was accidental".You must have missed.--Shrike (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That diff occurred before mine and Ank's conversation, and it was actually what prompted me to bring up the issue with him, his subsequent reneging on our agreement and seeing other users cite other examples of false accusations of vandalism added to the general pattern of editing is enough in my mind. Also while your statements about me certainly are red herrings as you admit, your own activities are quite central to this discussion and deserve to be discussed. It is clear in my mind that the disruption Ankh has managed to cause in these articles would never have been possible without your support and involvement, so it is perfectly reasonable to question you on these matters. Dlv999 (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - user has a clear agenda and is better off sticking with more suitable topics. GiantSnowman 10:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - counterproductive. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Why? AndyTheGrump (talk)

Because you're the one who should be topic-banned, if anyone must be. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Then explain why in the section below - and it might help if you were to explain which topic it is you want me banned from. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

As I say in the section below, I oppose a topic ban for you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose—it appears that the proposal is based on a "shoot and ask questions later" mentality. Some people seem not to like the topic area that AnkhMorpork chose to edit, and the specific edits he made in that topic area. However, aside from not liking the edits, no has pointed out an actionable problem. As stated above by others, AnkhMorpork doesn't need to justify the articles he chooses to edit, nor does he need to justify his personal opinions, whether they are explicit or implicit. Please focus on the edits and not the editor, and assume good faith. If there is a problem with the edits themselves that is actionable, then I would like to see more evidence. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That is untrue. AnkhMorpork has misrepresented sources, and exhibits an editing pattern entirely incompatible with the objectives of Wikipedia. AnkhMorpork misuses anti-vandalism tools in support of his POV, and engages in other battleground behaviour. And AnkhMorpork has consistently refused to acknowledge that far-right commentators and similar inflammatory sources are inappropriate for material concerning an ethnic minority. And yes, I am focussing on the edits here - what else is there to focus on? As for assuming good faith, why should I? WP:AGF isn't a licence for endless bad-faith editing. This is a serious issue, and it cannot be in Wikipedia's interests to allow 'good faith' to ride roughshod over objective and honest content. This attempt to smear an entire ethnic minority on the basis of cherry-picked sources is a disgrace to Wikipeda, and needs to be dealt with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. ANI is too often used as an arena where ideological opponents try to get each other banned. The issues here are fairly standard disputes about reliability of sources, undue weight, etc. The rest (an accidental vandalism revert, modifying a comment here) is just hype intended to rile up the crowd. Work out your content issues at the article talk page, or through mediation. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

are you out of your mind? ankmorpork linked an entire ethnic minority with child sexual abuse and paedophilia..."ideological opponents" my foot. i suggest you read through the dispute before making judgments.-- altetendekrabbe  18:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Quite aside from Brewcrewer's sensible and accurate remarks, and quite aside from that topic ban proposals ought to come from far cleaner hands than Andy's, let's get this straight: the grounds for this ban are that AnkhMorpork doesn't use the sources you want him to use, and that he won't "admit" to things to which you demand he admit? Since when are Wikipedia editors required to cite sources based on what end of the political spectrum those sources favor? Since when are they required to submit to pledges as to what (otherwise [[WP:IRS|reliable) sources they are not allowed to refer? This is bullshit, plain and simple. If you think his sources are biased towards one side or another, introduce sources to satisfy WP:UNDUE Ravenswing 20:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the grounds are, as I tried to state shortly above close to a full match on all the criteria for WP:DIS

• Tendentious:Y I/P, inflating Jewish death toll tabloidizing antisemitism tabloidizing Rochdale1 undue I/P at Clare Short large, pointy criticism tendentiously limiting scope and again removing sourced quote sensationalising human shields using primary source
• Cannot satisfy [[WP:V], i.e. cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sourcesY misrep1 misrep2 misrep3 unencyc1 and while [55] is not his, but Darkness Shines' he let it remain for his subsequent edits revert1.
• Engages in disruptive site tagging. N
• Does not engage in consensus building. See below.Y Has at least twice been a main protagonist in a dispute resolution process 1 2.
• Rejects or ignores community input. Y It is sad that there was only edit summary communication at first. AnkhMorpork, however, disregarded what input there was, and in stead of discussing, escalated by expanding content that had already been judged unfitting by another editor: First edit on British pakistanis[56], 2nd3rd. As the 2nd and 3rd in themselves are more aggressive than a 3RR, Shrike steps in for the 4th. AnkhMorpork takes the 5th. This is the first point where any other editor opens a talk, and he is quite clear that there is no consensus for this text. AnkhMorpork responds with a snide remark. As the talk goes on (first part here), the edit war goes on. The issue of WP:BALANCE, which AnkhMorpork to date has not responded to was introduced (although not with explicit reference to the policy) in the second response of editor Henrik.Karlstrom at 17:02 May 9. Even before this, at 15:18, AnkhMorpork had filed a sockpuppet investigation for all of his opponents, enlisting the support of Shrike a mere 18 minutes later. A little later, Henrik.karlstrom reiterates and expands on his objections in a very civil manner. Shortly thereafter, the storm of incivility apparently began, as the talkpage history is deleted. For the entire duration of the conversation on the topic he has not, as far as I have seen, commented on the issues relating to WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE.
• Campaign to drive away productive contributors. Y Several instances of mislabeling non-vandalous edits as vandalism. 1 2 3 Several instances of instigation or participation in quite aggressive attempts to ban users with whom he disagreed 1 2 3

Now, I may change my mind on this if I see some real arguments, but the easy dismissal in this string of opposes is disheartening. Best regards, --benjamil (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you expect no one was actually going to click on your links? Or did you just not proof read at all? I know I said on your talk page that I was going to look at all of them but I've stopped for now because the only edits I've seen that are not a content dispute and could be construed as worrying are tabloidizing Rochdale1 and [57], meanwhile you have so called links as misrep2, I/P, inflating Jewish death toll and unencyc1 (and I'm not even including there the pure content disputes, which would be most other links up to the point I stopped reading). Now, I will admit you have given me some links that make me pause and think a bit, so I will give you another hearing. Instead of chucking as much mud as possible, please come up with the five worst (for want of a better word) diffs and I will take a look. Thanks, Egg Centric 00:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry. I have misunderstood the term tendentious, taking it in its common meaning. I now recognise that the Wikipedia standard is somewhat higher, and have stricken out some of the text accordingly. I apologise for having misunderstood. However, I will not have time to follow up the rest of your request until tonight at the earliest.--benjamil (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what possible sources I should cite to counter a POV-pushing bit of coatracking? The 'paedophilia' issue should never have been included in the article in the first place. This was an attempt to smear an entire ethnic minority, based on the criminal behaviour of a few individuals in a specific part of the country. If Wikipedia is going to tolerate such grossly offensive behaviour, it can do so without me. And a final thought for anyone based in the U.K. involved in such behaviour - there is legislation concerning incitement to ethnic or racial hatred which may be of relevance, and should possibly be taken into consideration before making such 'contributions'. Now, read that as a legal threat rather than an observation if you like, I don't really care. AnkhMorpork and his clique of IP followers are POV-pushing bigots, exploiting the weaknesses of Wikipedia to promote their repulsive agenda, and I have no wish to continue contributing to a project that not only enables this, but attracts the sort of Wikilawyering amateur bureaucrats that seem to dominate this notice board, with their endless facile repetitions of 'AGF' and 'NPA' and all the other excuses to avoid dealing with the real issue, Find yourself another sucker with more time than sense. I'm outta here. Now pat yourselves on the back for improving 'civility' on Wikipedia talk pages by ignoring the utter lack of basic human civility in article space. Moronic ... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No it wasn't. I expect what happened is he saw something called The Sunday Guardian and assumed it was the Sunday edition of the Guardian, then used the headline without really checking things through properly. The rest is in people's heads, most hysterically (and hilariously) the claim that his username was bigotted because... "more pork"... NOW having said that, the article probably is attracting some bigots but that doesn't make Ankh one. P.S. You didn't actually need to update your user page, the previous one would have done Egg Centric 22:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Brewcrewer. He essentially hit the nail on the head; many AN/Is I have participated in are exactly that: attempting to enlist community support or admin support for one ideology over another, WP:GAMING the system using rules on WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, etc. in an attempt to achieve consensus to abrogate those rules in some part of Wikipedia (several interminable, oft-repeating ones pop up here that I'm a regular participant/observer in that fit the description). Standard drama. Move on. Sanction the guy who is cussing other users left and right above. Aside from some intemperate or poorly-worded remarks (and a escalating sort of defense/offense edit war in which no party is innocent), this is not AN/I material. Note, that I did not do full discovery/look at every single thing that's been linked; I made a thoroughly cursory search, and will change my mind on targeted evidence, not throw-what-you-can-and-see-what-sticks. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 20:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Nothing actionable here. Seems to be a pretty blatant attempt by one editor to gain advantage over another. If anyone deserves to be sanctioned its AndyTheGrump for wasting everyone's time.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. John Chrysostom is right to demand evidence. Here's some: AnkhMorpork and friends appear to have knowingly excluded crucial information to paint British Pakistanis as paedophiles. They knew, for example, that the same researchers politicians used to whip up their summer of the shark for political gain had repudiated the attempt as bogus:

Article: Child sex trafficking study sparks exaggerated racial stereotyping

Authors of the first independent academic analysis looking at "on-street grooming" ... said they were concerned that data from a small, geographically concentrated, sample of cases had been "generalised to an entire crime type".

The authors ... said they were surprised their research, confined to just two police operations in the north and Midlands, which found perpetrators were predominantly but not exclusively from the British Pakistani community, had been cited in support of the claims that such offences were widespread.  Read the source emphasis added

The preceding is from Great Britain's Guardian newspaper, not India's wholly unrelated , new, once-a-week, "we don't like Pakistan" paper that AnkhMorpork and friends used with its spectacular tabloid treatment and its "most UK girl child abusers are British Pakistanis" headline along with its lurid narrative. He and his friends were aware the researchers had disavowed any such generalisaton of their work. So why would do they still intend to use news articles making that generalisation from this research to portray an entire ethnicity as perverts? --OhioStandard (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Late edit; please note timestamp. I've struck some of the preceding, in response to a question, below. I think this is the first time I've made so blatant an error on-wiki, but I can't support the claim that Ankh et. al. had seen the source I quoted from, above. ( I think they should have taken the time to find this caution not to generalise, given the importance and inflamatory nature of the topic, but that's not the same thing at all, of course. ) Ankh had discussed the research from The UCL Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science previously with Andy, and had faulted Andy for asserting to have found a source from the (British) Guardian that he, Ankh, said he'd actually given to Andy. I conflated the two things in recollection; was quite sure, but I was wrong. Sorry for that Ankh, et. al.

What I'm wondering at this point, though, is whether, now that the they know this, they still intend to push the disavowed generalisation into the British Pakistanis article? --OhioStandard (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you not see the irony here? You are saying his "friends" were twisting sources to, in effect damn the whole - guilt by association as it were. And yet you're doing exactly the same thing, trying to get Ankh banned because of his "friends" (without providing the slightest bit of credible evidence that they are his "friends" - the chances of a 20 year old London-based student pratchett fan having "friends" like that is essentially nil, btw). This discussion is supposed to be about Ankh. I have no doubt at all that given the media coverage of the last couple of weeks that there are going to be racist POV-pushers around this topic. But where has he done anything approaching such, except for the one misrepresentation of that particular article, which while careless was not completely incomprehensible given the headline? Egg Centric 23:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Easy there, tiger. By "his friends" I specifically meant the editors who had tried to push the slur into our British Pakistanis article. I haven't stepped through the edit history, but used the inclusive term since I know there were at least three editors involved in the attempt. --OhioStandard (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that "He and his friends were aware the researchers had disavowed any such generalisaton of their work"? Or is that just an assumption? Also, everyone keeps bringing up the Sunday Guardian while ignoring the elephant in the room that is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children and Families [58], the Equality and Human Rights Commission [59], The Ramadhan Foundation [60], Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk [61], Conservative co-chair Sayeeda Warsi [62] etc. And the Guardian report you link to is not only over a year old, but fails to saywho is misinterpreting the data and where they are misreporting it. For what it's worth, I don't believe this subject should be in the British Pakistani article. The data is poorly recorded, inconsistent and incomplete, besides which the actions of a tiny number of an ethnic minority cannot and should not be used to paint broad strokes of the community as a whole. But I also think there are too many people here creating a great sound-and-fury, yelling all kinds of accusations, throwing toys out of the pram, and acting like drama-whores. The stealthy and not-so-stealthy incivility going on here, and the whole atmosphere of witch-hunting, does more harm to the project than some easily reverted POV pushing. Time to close this and take it to the article's talk page or Rfc. GwenChan 23:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Gwen's suggestion that this is "a witch hunt" is unwarranted. She knows how much evidence, and of what high quality is needed to suggest that even a single person is a paedophile, I'm sure? Well, how very much more should be required to suggest the same thing of an entire ethnic group, and how much more responsibly should that evidence be researched and sifted? In brief, racial slurs are a kind of BLP violation that affects many, many more people, although each one's injury is less immediately emphatic. Btw, the name-calling she's seen here probably isn't going to be improved by calling those who take this more seriously than she does "drama whores". Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You completely ignore my question, ignore the reliable sources, and attempt to ramp up the drama even more with emotional appeals. As I said, I don't believe it belongs in the article, but I also don't see that this requires a topic ban. And yes, I take it seriously, but WP:NCR... Heat =/= light. GwenChan 08:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Actually, I don't care enough about it to start getting dragged into this miasma. I'm no longer interested in this discussion. GwenChan 08:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC) And lastly, my apologies, I see looking back that you struck the assumptive section. GwenChan 09:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I understand you didn't mean literal friends, and neither did I. What I meant is it's extremely unlikely that a 20 year old student who reads terry pratchet is a bigot (it's possible they may have immature bell curve like views, I suppose, but that's wandering way off topic). Consequently whatever the other users are up to, there's no reason to tar him with the same brush. If you want to start proposing a topic ban for these other users I am happy enough to look at the evidence; indeed I don't understand why they weren't gone after in the first place. Egg Centric 00:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Because, as self-righteous as it probably sounds, I'm not willing to be the one to have to look my kid or wife or father in the eyes and know that I stood by and did nothing; that I just watched when I saw people slur an easy-target ethnic group as child molesters with shoddy evidence on one of the most widely accessed informational sites in the world. --OhioStandard (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for AndyTheGrump

After reading this thread and looking at the relevant diffs, I was baffled to see this proposal by AndyTheGrump to topic ban AnkhMorpork. Nothing that happened here supports topic banning him, especially from Israel/Palestine which has nothing to do with this dispute. After some further investigation, it seems clear to me that AndyTheGrump himself suffers from a POV issue and it makes his motivation to try to get Ankh topic banned seem very suspicious. Just one quick look at his block log [63] shows that he isn't exactly the model Wikipedian. He has a history of edit warring, personal attacks, and getting in POV wars. I can't be bothered to bring all the diffs, but if you take a look at his edit history in just the past 7 days you will see numerous personal attacks both on talk pages and in edit summaries (calling editors liars, telling them to fuck off, etc.) Clearly something needs to be done here because this is not the type of collaboration Wikipedia demands. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

agree, being uncivil and reporting others for the same is the cancer killing wp. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify who you are referring to? I have suggested that AnkhMorpork be topic-banned for POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and other behaviour incompatible with the objectives of an encyclopaedia, seemingly pursued with the objective of painting an entire ethnoreligious group in a negative light. I have said nothing about 'incivility', and it would clearly by hypocritical if I had. My call for a topic ban on AnkhMorpork has nothing to do with how Wikipedia contributors interact with each other - it is instead about how Wikipedia interacts with the readers of its articles, who might expect that articles on ethnic minorities in Britain aren't written by people seemingly only otherwise concerned with events connected with issues in another part of the world entirely, with a clear objective to include as much negative material as possible. AnkhMorpork's contribution history makes this objective entirely clear, and frankly, I see no reason to be particularly 'civil' about this. Yes, I should have moderated my language, and it would undoubtedly made this whole business simpler if I had, but there is a bigger issue at stake here - the credibility of Wikipedia. Are we going to allow articles on ethnic groups to be skewed by 'racial profiling', cherry-picked negativity, and material sourced to supporters of neo-Fascists, publishers of lurid headlines that aren't supported by the subsequent article, and the like? I could not with any degree of integrity continue to involve myself in a project that engaged in such behaviour. If Wikipedia cannot prevent such overt POV-pushing, we may as well hand it over to the paid 'editors' out to boost their clients, the snake-oil salesmen and magic-teapot promoters, and the shape-shifting-lizard conspiracy theorists as well - indeed, this might actually be the best course of action, in that it would at least make clear the complete lack of integrity of the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It is somewhat curious that a contributor such as this IP, who seems to focus on the Israel/Palestine issue (where I have had little input), would chose to get involved in what ought to be, by any reasonable standard, an entirely unrelated issue. Or are the questionable goings-on in Rochdale actually of significance to the Israel-Palestine conflict? And if not, what exactly attracted this IP to WP:AN/I? If one is going to discuss 'collaboration', it seems only reasonable to ask who is collaborating with whom, and why? Yes, I have suggested that AnkhMorpork is unfit to edit articles where he/she is clearly incapable of acting in accordance with the stated objectives of Wikipedia. I have to ask why this particular IP chooses to imply that there is anything 'suspicious' about this? I may have made hasty and ill-judged comments - indeed, I'm sure I have - but how does this translate to anything 'suspicious'? If this IP has suspicions, I'd be interested to learn what they are, and what they are based on - and how exactly Wikipedia should be expected to respond to such 'suspicions'. Or is this just a vague mud-slinging exercise, to distract everyone from the obvious misbehaviour of AnkhMorpork? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. On the subject of block logs: [64]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

And furthermore, it might be worth asking why the IP wishes to topic-ban me from an area where I have made few edits? This seems a rather peculiar course of action... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, AndyTheGrump raises a good point. A topic ban isn't sufficient to deal with this uncollaborative and uncivil editing behaviour. I think a block of escalating length is appropriate. He has been warned multiple times on his talk page by administrators, blocked several times, and yet he still continues with rude personal attacks. Clearly the message has not been received. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you called for me to be topic banned from a subject I've hardly contributed to? Can you please explain why yet another single-purpose pro-Israli contributor decides that me objecting (albeit in a less-than-civil manner) to attempts to portray an entire British ethnic minority as paedophiles is suddenly of concern. And while you are about it, can you explain why you recently chose to add material about the Turkish authorities having allegedly "turned over a dead European Bee-eater for inspection by the security services on suspicion of being an Israeli spy" to our article on the said species of bird? [65] I note that this is sourced entirely to ynetnews.com - hardly appropriate to an article on a bird species. Are you going to pretend that this ludicrous bit of coatracking is anything more than the facile propaganda it appears to be? Perhaps we should consider a topic-ban or block for you too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you also confirm that you are complying with WP:SCRUTINY ? You are making statements about an editor's editing history. I believe the editor's entire history is available for analysis. Is yours ? For example, if an editor retired an account and continued to edit as an IP, it splits their editing history allowing them to avoid scrutiny. Obviously it would be unethical to make statements about someone's editing history without fully disclosing one's own so please confirm that you are complying with WP:SCRUTINY. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/174.113.154.168/Archive might be seen as relevant here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course not - blatant WP:POINTy nonsense. Egg Centric 21:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - excessive. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose—silly. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. AndytheGrump has been pretty rude (nothing new [66]), but I don't think the circumstances call for a topic ban. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. He's a fucking grump, but his user name says as much. This strikes me as "propose sanctions/retaliate". St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 20:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Same reasoning as John. a13ean (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The main problem here seems to be that Andy has said something which needed to said but in an inappropriate way. Once again, one suspects that if he hadn't said something, nothing might have been said. Andy does not have the wiki-rules of civility on his side. But from what he has said above, he certainly seem to have the wiki-principles of fairness and independence on his side. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per User:Martinevans123 above. Andy makes serious editorial grumps in his own fractious style. Personally, I'd rather take his epithets in my stride (and check through what I've just written for signs of codswallop) than be softsoaped to slow death. —MistyMorn (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• oppose mere retaliation proposal without substance. When you fish for grumpiness that is what you'll get - civil-baiting should reflect on the baiter not the baitee.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. While civility is something I support and try to practice, this would be a clear case of shooting the messenger. When an editor provides clear and compelling evidence of another editor deliberately misrepresentating sources in order to violate core content policies, the result should be immediate, vigorous sanction of the other editor, not attacks on the first editor because he didn't "play nice". While Andy should have tempered some of his remarks, he appears to have been acting in the best of faith to defend the wiki from the worst kind of abuse. If, heaven forbid, I ever go rogue and start intentionally inserting misleading content inflammatory to minority groups in article space, I sincerely hope that someone will call me on it—and I hereby give notice that they need not worry about civility when they do. Rivertorch (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

My sentiments entirely. —MistyMorn (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Martinevans123. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 06:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for lack of massive evidence: A topic ban requires extensive evidence of disruptive behavior, or WP:TAGTEAM collusion, rather than several editors thinking WP:IDONTLIKEIT. By now there should have been massive evidence, not merely citing that an editor had been blocked for a few times during 2 years. Disagreement is not disruption. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Propose closing this entire topic

I considered doing it unilaterally but think as a non-admin I would probably be overstepping my "authority". Anyhow this is going nowhere, it's wasting a lot of time, shall we get rid?

• Support as nominator Egg Centric 17:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - and propose that Egg Centric be told to stay off AN/I, given this sort of time-wasting nonsense: [67]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Pot, kettle... Egg Centric 18:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban on everything for everyone

• Support as nom, oppose for the drahmaz. GiantSnowman 20:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

But seriously, this is getting out of hand now guys, and it's not doing anyone any good. GiantSnowman 20:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• In the future, everyone will be topic-banned for fifteen minutes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as I believe that the editors who agree with me and I are exempt from topic bans, always. Support for everyone else. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Finally, a reasonable proposal. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Dammit, there is way too much editing of articles around here. We should all cluster around the noticeboards instead, throwing insults and accusations at each other and requesting that we be banned from content. We are after all an outlet for our agressions, not here to build an encyclopedia, right? (Unfortunately, it does kinda look like that is what some of the editors here are wanting.) John Carter (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The topic ban only needs to be on all those whose delicate sensitivities are offended by the occasional harsh word used when presenting real home truths. A little more honest emotion from posters and little less middle American, sweet Christian hypocrisy, presented in a terribly nice way, would do Wikipedia a damn lot of good at times. We all feel emotional and have strong feelings on some topics. Perpetually suppressing that in that name of civil niceness is psychologically unhealthy. It means that people don't say what they are actually thinking. How can that be good? HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, piss off. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support except for users with precisely two 'e's, two 'g's, and two 'c's in their username Egg Centric 23:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Totally agree. Eequazccioggn ^(talk) 18:38, 12 Aug 2024 (UTC)
• Support Except for me of course. Trust me, I know what I'm doing. --Mirokado (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Mirokado. Except me, not him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: This appears to be the only proposal gaining any real traction in this discussion, which highlights (1) the sheer ridiculousness of all of the above, and (2) that everyone probably ought to stay away from AN/I for a while because it usually solves little and just ends up angering a lot of people. Therefore, I propose closing this entire thread, with the note that everyone is not allowed to edit topics about anything, broadly construed. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Topic Bans for Some, Mineature American Flags for others - It's the win win solution for everyone Hasteur (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Best answer so far. I actually read that in the Kang voice. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    • KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANG!! KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANG!!! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• A mighty whack from the Frozen Trout of Seafood Justice for all. Ravenswing 06:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support The only sensible solution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment proposer appears to have failed to use ANI-notice on all users. DuncanHill (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:TenPoundHammer

I've been reading through a few of the recent Webcomic AfD's including a few in the archives, and just about every single AfD that TenPoundHammer has started (and there are many among the recent ones) claims that there are either no good sources included in the articles, or such sources if they exist are always spurious, trivial, and/or non-notable. Some articles have been nominated for deletion multiple times by TenPoundHammer, and every single one of the current AfD's in discussion has been started by TenPoundHammer. I have to question this user's motives in regards what appears to be both a one-man crusade on (and an incredible assumption of bad faith towards) webcomics and webcomic-related articles. At a minimum, TenPoundHammer should not be allowed to repeatedly nominate webcomic articles for deletion. Veled (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The question to ask is, how many of the AFDs that TPH opens are closed as "keep". If most of them are, there may be a call for a user RFC to ask him to stop nominating these. But if TPH's record generally follow through on his recommendations for deletion, then there's no action. As long as he's not doing in massive bunches that are impossible to work though (I know there's a term that ArbCom used for this on an somewhat related case), there's no issue here. Either way, this is not an ANI matter. --MASEM (t) 03:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That's usually referred to as fait accompli. Regarding a RfC, WP:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer was closed about a week ago. Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That's the term I was looking for. --MASEM (t) 05:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

What Masem said. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

What Drmies said. SummerPhD (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me, but what (asketh EEng) said Drmies? EEng (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"What Masem said. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)"

Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess I need new glasses. EEng (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

TPH has recently been at RFC/U over just this issue. He denied there was a problem, abused other editors for suggesting that there was, then grudgingly accepted that he would be more careful in the future.

Evidently an empty promise. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"Evidently" implies evidence. Do you have evidence that TPH didn't conduct due diligence before these AfDs? The RfC was a predictable pile-on whose partipants could have been divined well in advance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Do not attack other editors at that RFC by, like TPH, assuming their motives and with your "could have been divined well in advance" comment implying that their comments were literally prejudicial in being pre-judged before any consideration of the evidence presented at that RFC.

At the RFC AfDs, we had the list of Viz characters, where these 50+ articles were listed for deletion at more than one a minute. As that is generally agreed to be faster than humanly possible with any sort of research or consideration of the article issues, these were either AfDs based on no research, or they were based on the assumption that "there are no notable Viz characters" and then working through the entire category on that basis.

With these Webcomics AfDs, we see a nomination for each one that is a variant of "It has been at AfD before, I didn't like it then and I don't see any changes". The corollary to that is of course that is has passed AfD once and if nothing has changed, one might expect it to pass again. I see nothing on any of these AfDs that TPH has followed his grudging promise to look harder in the future. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it axiomatic yet that any time an editor's actions are referred to as a "crusade" that the action is at very worst borderline and in actual fact a very useful bit of hard work in most cases? Doubly so where said crusade involves AfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree, not an ANI issue. I have to confess that I like Hammer, even if he is a bit quicker to go to AFD than I am. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 08:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying he suffers from Premature Evaluation? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think there's some good advice on this at WP:TOOSOON. EEng (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Had a read through the AFDs in that link and TPH does make sense that the webcomics fail GNG. I see no bad faith in nominating those articles. Blackmane (talk) 09:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless of the case here specifically, we really should start a discussion in Village Pump Policy to see getting it added to Afd rules that users are not allowed to nominate articles for AfD twice in a row. There's too much possibility for gaming the system this way to try and get an article deleted on the off-chance of getting a bad turnout at a subsequent AfD. Silverseren^C 09:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • So as long as I use meat/sockpuppets the first time, I never have to worry about you nominating my article twice? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I would strongly oppose such bureaucratic wankery. Tarc (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Imposing such a restriction would be very unhelpful. Just because some editors may be considered to be re-nominating inappropriately does not mean that we should prevent anyone from doing so. Also, Wikipedia emphatically does not need yet more rules. The gradual instruction creep over the years has made Wikipedia more confusing and intimidating for new users, but has not improved the encyclopaedia significantly, if at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As with others, I do not see a problem this proposed red tape is intended to solve. Resolute 14:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• I think I would need to see a list of what new AFD's have come out since the RFC was completed - that way, I could see if indeed the behaviour that led to the RFC had changed. I'm not going digging myself - that's the job of whoever submits this report. Even still will it be blockable? (no) Would the community impose restrictions? (possibly) The OP really didn't ask for nor give specifics (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Although thinking about this a little more...I would be amenable to the idea of requiring a repeat nomination to specifically address something tangible that has changed since the last nomination that could potentially result in a consensus change. If such a thing were ever adopted though, it should apply equally to repeat DRV filings. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Just because I was curious, I added a quick option to my AfD vote counting tool which allows you to only look at AfD's that a particular user nominated. In TPH's case, for the last 250 AfD's that he nominated, 28 haven't closed yet (or were unparseable by the tool), so that leaves us with a total of 222 AfD's. Here's how those 222 ended up:
  • 78 were deleted or redirected (35%)
  • 98 were kept (44%), 21 of which were speedy keeps
  • 19 were merged/transwiki'd/userfied (9%)
  • 27 had no consensus (12%)
  • The 250 AfD's span over a period of 291 days, which averages out to about 0.86 AfD's per day.
  • TPH has nominated a total of 2,369 pages, and has edited a total of 10,907 unique AfD pages.

In my opinion, a 1 in 3 success rate is quite low for someone who is nominating articles so frequently, and has been nominating articles for so long. You'd think that by now he'd have a better sense of what will end up being deleted and what won't. Whether or not this is actionable, I have no idea, but my hope is that TPH sees these stats and considers being more careful with future nominations. -Scottywong| prattle _ 17:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide statistics for Afds since the RFC close? Nobody Ent 17:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the RfC closed 8 days ago? In that case, very few (if any) of the AfD's he's nominated since then will have closed yet. -Scottywong| spout _ 17:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

.86 AfD's per day is not disruptive. It's not like he's nominating unquestionable keeps. AfD is for "discussion," so discuss. Are you worried that he is trying to slip one by you, or that he might change people's minds about the articles he nominates? Hipocrite (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

One would presume that the speedy keeps are "unquestionable keeps". I mean, that's a rather high number of speedy keeps, which should otherwise be extremely rare, unless one is a new user nominating random things. And I should also note that most of the Keep decisions, as I was involved in a number of those AfDs, were also "unquestionable", just not speedyable. Silverseren^C 19:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

SW, I'm genuinely curious, and not arguing with your concerns or logic, but what would qualify as a "good enough ratio" for votes or noms in AFDs? I can see where his looks low, but where is the line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable"? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I would think, at the very least, the number of Deletes/Redirects should be higher than the Keeps. If the keeps are higher out of 250 AfDs, you're doing something really wrong. Silverseren^C 19:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd argue that's a +50% success rate when you count no consensus and the merge/redirect/userification stats. The only number of concern is the number of speedy keeps which is 10% of his noms in that survey, but without knowing why speedy keeps were called , its hard to question if that's a problem. And as noted, the rate is far from faite accompli levels. Since the RFC seemed to close with no real consensus on TPH's actions outside of people wishing BEFORE was more enforcable, I see nothing that still requires admin action. --MASEM (t) 17:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I could draw a bright line between acceptable and unacceptable, but for a user that has nominated thousands of articles, I don't think it's unreasonable to question him when 2 out of 3 nominations are not ending up as deletes (especially when you consider that 2 out of 3 of all AfD's close as delete or redirect). As a comparison, while I haven't nominated anywhere near as many articles for deletion as TPH, 60% of my nominations have ended up being deleted or redirected, and that includes my nominations from 3+ years ago, when I had no idea what the hell I was doing. TPH's stats above are only from recent AfD's, and his success rate is half of mine. I'm not saying that any action needs to be taken because of it, but I think he could take these stats to heart and maybe put an extra minute or two into considering whether the AfD he's about to start actually has a shot. -Scottywong| verbalize _ 17:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't really have a dog in this fight but after seeing it I was a bit curious. I glanced at a few of the ones that were kept and quite a few were kept on the grounds of lack of conesnsus to delete. Conversely, several of the ones that were deleted had no votes at all and appeared to be deleted merely on the grounds the AFD wasn't contested. That might be worthy of some review IMO. Kumioko (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

So you'd be ok with his nominations if he tossed in a thousand easy deletes by watching new-pages and not CSDing anything? Why is nominating difficult articles for discussion a problem, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, many of them aren't "difficult", they're just plainly obvious keeps that an experienced editor should be able to recognize, like 1 2 3 4. Try actually doing some research before posting kneejerk reactions. -Scottywong| speak _ 18:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That answered my question in part, that 2/3 of all noms are deleted, and that is a worth while minimum goal for anyone. Again, I wasn't doubting your logic, I just was looking at stats with nothing to measure them against. I know that last time I checked my long term states on votes, I was in the 80% range with the outcomes, and not sure if the overall ratio was that high or higher, but I guess not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• It is not that some of his deletions result in a keep; some of mine result in a keep also, and so will those of anyone who nominates other than sure things. The problem is that some of them are utterly unreasonable. It's not the frequency of mistakes alone, but the nature of some of the mistakes. When you nominate as he does, it's almost like nominating all articles that appear to be without many sources--some will surely be deleted, and perhaps even most, but some nominations will be patently absurd. To the extent anyone nominates articles that need serious debate but are then kept, that's commendable work in calling difficult problems to attention; to the extent anyone nominates articles that get Snow or Speedy kept, it's an error. In a novice, excusable error; in an experienced editor at AfD, carelessness; in one of the most experienced editors at AfD who has made many such errors and told about them in no uncertain terms, recklessness and disregard for the community. There's lots of junk that has to go, and they will go the more effectively if the nominator does some thinking. Things are erratic enough at AfD without deliberately adding to it. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I admit that while I've made a bunch of AfD nominations in my day, I'm a good long ways over 50%, and that's because I try to get a sense of whether a nomination will likely pass. I've certainly gritted my teeth and let a bunch of obvious clunkers go past, simply because of my certitude that the fanboy POV-pushers would flock in droves to tender WELIKEIT/ITSUSEFUL votes. There's no need to clog process with doomed AfDs. Ravenswing 18:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This is premature evaluation; it's inappropriate to collect stats from before the RFC. This thread should be tabled and an interval of say at least 30 days or 300 Afds after the RFC allowed to pass before evaluating TPH post RFC contributions. Nobody Ent 18:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well, if we go by the end of the RfC (May 8), most of those haven't closed yet, but of those, HALF of them are webcomics articles under discussion (as per my complaint). However, since the start of the RfC (March 7), when TPH was theoretically put on notice, we still have a heap of keeps, including a bunch of speedy keeps all at once. Veled (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to express my discomfort with the casual use of the term "success" above. To my way of thinking, if TPH (or I, or DGG, or anybody else) proposes an article as an Article for Discussion, and as a result the article is improved and the discussion is properly closed as "Keep", that is a success for Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that an AFD that otherwise improves an article because of newly-discovered sources is a "success", but I think we're taking the more statistics-based approach of a success in trying to identify if TPH's AFD noms are false positives or the like, and in no way should be taken to mean "Hey,great, we got rid of an article, let's celebrate!" success. --MASEM (t) 00:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This is where wp:before is so important. If an editor makes a goodfath attempt to source an article and draws a blank, then an AFD that results in the article being sourced is good result. When an AFD closes as keep after sources were easily found, then there can be a feeling that the nominator has wasted a lot of other people's time, probably annoyed the editors of that article and that it would have been much better if they'd sourced the article instead of AFDing it. ϢereSpielChequers 07:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by TenPoundHammer about renominations

I just want to say, 99% of time time, if I renominate something for AFD that I've nominated before, it's because the last AFD a.) was closed as "no consensus", or b.) kept due entirely to invalid arguments such as WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Then I'm certain you're waiting a long time (such as months) before re-nominating, and re-verifying any new information that has come to light since before doing so. Otherwise, WP:IDONTLIKEIT regarding the decision is not a valid reasoning, OR hoping that you'll get a different esult a week later is also not a valid reasoning. Closes of No Consensus means go away for awhile. Both of the reasonings you provide above mean you're second-guessing the Admin who closed them - don't. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, not respective of TPH, I always find it annoying when someone resubmits on AFD on the heels of it being closed as no consesnsus. I wouldn't even oppose adding something to a policy somewhere that an X month wait is suggested before renominating.

    @Nobody Ent, the problem is the RFC directly relates to this discussion and activity. I personally have never had a problem with TPH and I think we have a good report but I think that this discussion has some merit. I'm not saying that TPH is a vandal, a bad guy or even in the wrong in anyway. What I do suggest is that they slow down on the AFD's a wee bit and perhaps give them a little more scrutiny before submitting them. Its not going to hurt the pedia if we have a non notable cartoon article for a little while. Kumioko (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

    • Like I said, I like Hammer, but will be the first to admit his WP:BEFORE efforts could use some work. I've said on a couple of occasions over the years that he needs to slow down a bit with AFDs, but again, that isn't an issue for ANI and was already covered at the RfC. I'm thinking we really don't have anything better to do at ANI today, so we are just dragging this out. Like a slow news day. Not sure what more use can come of it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)That suggestion would be appropriate on the users's talk page -- I'm not seeing any post RFC discussion there discussing TPHs contributions since then. Nobody Ent 18:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Honestly, I've been distracted and didn't notice he had an RFC. I'm fairly sure that I have left that on his talk page and elsewhere a very long time ago, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Bwilikins, you could have checked. (It's ironic that we're discussing effort put into checking things by TenPoundHammer.)
    • Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire (AfD discussion) — renominated by TenPoundHammer after a two and a half year gap (with someone else nominating in the meantime)
    • The Whiteboard (AfD discussion) — renominated by TenPoundHammer after a three year gap (first AFD nomination was by someone else, a further two and a half years before the second)
    • 1/0 (AfD discussion) — renominated by TenPoundHammer after a one year gap (and a rapid second nomination that TenPoundHammer xyrself closed after 2 hours)
  • Uncle G (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• Dominic Deegan I renominated since the first two both closed as "no consensus", and as pointed out above, the last AFD was quite a ways back — there's been plenty of time for more sources to come, but none have. Whiteboard also had both a no-consensus close and a significant enough gap. With 1/0, the first AFD was "no consensus", and I probably forgot about the first AFD by the time I made the second one. Still, that second nomination was a mistake from years ago, and I can't think of any time in recent memory that I've accidentally renominated something so soon. Either way, in all of the AFDs listed above, I've shown my work in regards to finding sources. And I find it absurd that someone has proposed a separate notability guideline for webcomics, since some "fly under the radar" and never get mainstream attention. Tell me why anything should get exemption from WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure TPH but as I read it I think Uncle G is speaking in support of your AFD's.Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• My own take on the OP's complaint, by the bye (as opposed to TPH at AfD generally)? There does seem to be an all-too-common sequence of reasoning at work:

  ::* Editor happens across a non-notable article in a subject field, and files an AfD.

  ::* Editor pokes around a bit, and finds a bunch of debris in said field. After the "Holy crap!", editor grimly buckles down to AfD work.

  ::* Fans - who aren't often experienced editors themselves - leap up and down in protest, with "OMG vendetta!" "OMG bad faith!" or similar lines leaping from the pen.

  (I note, for what it's worth, that the OP has exactly twenty articlespace edits over the last five years.) Ravenswing 19:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  • • I concur; I've seen it happen to editors earnestly trying to cleanse the Augean stables - but by the same token, the same pattern appears when somebody decides that a topic is not "worthy" of Wikipedia, and goes on a crusade/jihad to purify us of said unworthy topic. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• The nominator is also the author of the Last Res0rt article and is clearly out to get me just because I dared to AFD his precious article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn't sweat it their motivations, it's meaningless. We all have areas we need improvement (CSD was pointed out as mine, if you remember). I still send articles to you as I respect your opinions. Yes, slowing down a little and working on WP:BEFORE would help you avoid all this discussion and that alone makes it worthwhile. Your nom/delete ratio isn't up to the standards that you are fully capable of. Again, you already know this. Boing! is helping me with CSD. I'm helping YRC with communications. Asking someone with a better ratio for assistance isn't about a weakness, it is about strength of character. If I can be given the admin bit while at the same time they suggest and I accept mentoring, maybe you could consider someone strong at AFD to help you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think that part if the problem is that TPH has a different view of deletion to others. For example his belief that "ItsNotable" is an invalid argument in deletion debates, as well as his use of AFD to get articles on notable subjects cleaned up by others. I had a discussion with him recently where he took the view that someone being a "renowned sculptor" wasn't a credible assertion of importance. Perhaps the best solution here would be to topic ban TPH from the deletion process, with of course exemptions for G7 and U1. ϢereSpielChequers 07:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • That would be an overreaction. And "it's notable" sans evidence is indeed no argument at all, as evidenced by its inclusion at ATA. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • What Chris said ... and beyond that, calling someone a "renowned sculptor" isn't a credible assertion of importance. It is merely an assertion of importance. "Credible" would require evidence in the form of reliable sources quoting, well, credible authorities. Ravenswing 20:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    • On that logic lack of a reliable source would be a speedy deletion criteria. That would be a big policy change, I'm not necessarily against such a change provided we change the article creation process to promote it in a minimally bitey way. But it isn't current policy and I doubt if it will become so. ϢereSpielChequers 20:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Ditto Chris. Way too extreme. And "renowned sculptor" might get you out of CSD but not AFD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    • That's rather my point. If TPH had Googled the chap and either referenced the article or taken it to AFD then I'd have no concern. But that isn't his modus operandi, he tried to get it speedied A7 despite it having a credible, albeit unsourced, assertion of importance. I rather suspect that TPH is trying to broaden CSD to include "Would probably be deleted at AFD", and the reason why that isn't a CSD criteria is the inevitable disruption from the times when such articles turn out to be on notable subjects. ϢereSpielChequers 20:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I said it might get you out of CSD, I didn't say it was a shoe in, by the way. But banning Hammer from the deletion process? I don't see that getting much support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Somebody needs to close this thing. We all have our opinions where the delete/keep line should be drawn. Mr. Hammer draws it more stringently than many, which is why he doesn't have a higher success rate at AfD on his nominations than what he does. But he is not disruptive. He would certainly be advised to take a simple google search a bit more seriously — tagging articles for sources when he runs into big web footprints rather than being quite so fired up to drag things to AfD. That said, most of his challenges may be plausibly argued — he's not coming at things from a completely wacky perspective, in other words. There was just an RFC on Mr. Hammer, which resulted in no action (correctly), and now he's being dragged through the mud again here. Shut it down already... Nothing to see here. Carrite (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

'Jaguar/Sandbox/3' edits

Live discussion moved from archive 732.

Before departing, retired User:Jaguar created many articles with malformed ledes and infoboxes, (as seen in a search for the diagnostic string "Jaguar/Sandbox/3" and this fix), presumably with a malformed script or bot. Over 100 (but under 250) exist. Those articles, and other, more recent examples without the aforesaid malformations, also include the text "(Chinese: ?)" as shown, including the question mark. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I fixed forty, and there are 82 left to do. --Dianna (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I fixed forty-eight, and can't find any more in mainspace. Rich Farmbrough, 20:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich. I did 34 more this morning, so it looks like the problem is resolved. --Dianna (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I must apologise for my actions that I have done a couple of months ago. I'm afraid that I don't use Wikipedia anymore and I only will return for emergencies such as this one. By the way I didn't use a script or bot, I used to create articles manually. Anyway, thanks a lot for your help! Jaguar (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at many of the stubs that User:Jaguar created after this discussion, and many of the ones I looked at have multiple issues such as: reference urls's that don't point anywhere, malformed reference url's, reference url's that point to a website as oppossed to pointing to the page inside the website that talks about the subject, internal links that are wrong, reference titles that are wrong.

Also I don't know if the (Chinese: ?) thing is an issue or not, but they all have this.

In my opinion, there is no point in replacing a red link with a stub that doesn't say more than the title and contain things that are wrong. Let alone doing this 10,000 times. Azylber (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of articles where there is still a problem, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, please could get me an example so I can look at it and hopefully fix it? I've checked many of my new articles and references work just fine. Thanks, Jaguar (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

An example? Let's go to List of township-level divisions of Heilongjiang and start from the very top: the Tongcheng Subdistrict link in Acheng District. It takes us to the page that reads, in its entirety: "Saiqi (Chinese: ?) is a township-level division situated in Ningde, Fujian, China". So is it Saiqi or Tongcheng, is it in Ningde or in Acheng (part of Harbin Prefecture), is the province Fujian or Heilongjiang? A few more items look "OK" (as in, "no useful info, but no absolutely misleading info either"), but then in the 3rd line we have Daling Township whose article has a link to the List of township-level divisions of Hainan in its "See also" section. Obviously I am not going to inspect more than a few stubs - I usually run into them when I need to do something useful - but a good round of quality control seems to be in order here, before more stubs are to be created. Again, I am not against the creation of a large number of township articles per se, but I'd like them to be generated at least at the minimal information level that one can see at zh.wiki. Over there, they had a a bot create them all, and the bot was doing it based on some kind of CSV file with quite a bit of basic information, such the correct county assignment (with the appropriate county-wide category), the list of villages within the township, geographic coordinates, and even the national identification number (zh:中华人民共和国行政区划代码 - something that each township apparently has). -- Vmenkov (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your concerns. I will do my best to address them later on in the week as I am busy for the next few days. I would like to point out that I simply start these stubs so that any user with the knowledge of that area of China can expand them and contribute to them. There has been a mass creation of red links and naturally red links cannot sit there forever, so I took up the task of making those red links blue. It's a feat that improves the encyclopedia, adding some base articles, as of all, we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to finish it. Many thanks Jaguar (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the first thing I'm going to say is: I'm going to list lots of errors here that affect thousands of articles, so I hope nobody takes this personally, ok? I'm just concerned about the quality of the encyclopedia. Please don't take this personally.

For example, look at this stub: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinsha_Subdistrict

Here are some of the errors present in this stub, which are also present in hundreds of other stubs Jaguar created:

• 1) URL references that are wrong. For the stub we're looking at, the URL for the reference is http://www.xzqh.org/html/gu/ which does not exist and as far as I know never existed.

This error exists in a large number of articles. Does this break the policy on creating lots of unreferenced stubs?

• 2) Internal links that are wrong. For example, in that same article, look at the link that says "township-level division". Instead of taking you to the list of township-level divisions of Guangdong province, it takes you to the list of township-level divisions of Fujian province.

This error exists in a large number of articles.

• 3) Cite titles that are wrong. For example, in that same article, the reference given (which by the way, takes you to a page that doesn't exist) also has the wrong title. It says "福建省", which means Fujian province, when it should say Guangdong province.

So again, introducing information that is wrong. This error exists in a huge number of articles, ranging from March to right now, for example this one created yesterday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanfang_Subdistrict

• 4) The article says "(Chinese: ?)", which I don't know if it's against the policies or not, but some people have complained. In my opinion, a stub that says nothing more than the title doesn't say much. If you could at leave give us the Chinese name, you're adding something that's not on the title.

• 5) No interwiki to the Chinese wikipedia, even though the article exists in the Chinese wikipedia.

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%87%91%E7%A0%82%E8%A1%97%E9%81%93

• 6) He was told about some of these errors in December at WP:AN and numerous times since February on his talk page and he didn't fix them. Instead, he chose to go on to create thousands more stubs, with the same errors.

• 7) Errors like the ones pointed out here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jaguar#Jiangwan where he mentions a province and calls it a city, a county and calls it a district and so on. He blames these ones on errors that exist in other pages, but obviously when you create a new article you have to verify what you're writing, right?

• 8) He was asked on numerous ocasions by numerous users to slow down and check the errors in his existing stubs before creating thousands of new ones. I think it's important to listen to that advice.

I think I'm probably missing a few other errors in some batches that I haven't reviewed, but this should be enough to show what the situation is.

Whether or not creating thousands of stubs is a good idea or not has been debated many times and I don't want to enter that discussion, but I think a one line stub that contains errors is definitely a minus and not a plus, because it's misleading and also because it takes longer to fix it than to do it right at creation.

Finally, if you look at the notice at the top of Jaguar's talk page, it says that if you report these issues he will give you one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_%28gesture%29 I think this is not constructive.

Again, I hope nobody takes this personally. Azylber (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's OK don't worry! I didn't take any of that personally. Can I point out to you that there are actually fewer mistakes than you think:

• 1) These URLS are broke because the Chinese website went down at the time and that is entirely not my fault. I will find a new link and will correct them using AWB if you want.
• 2) Yes, those are plainly my mistakes that I have made when creating these articles and I knew that I have done them. I fixed a lot of links in the past when I had found out that I had made typos in User:Jaguar/Sandbox/3. A few more might exist, but not as much as you think! :)
• 3) Again, a typo. Like above I speedily corrected some of them when I found out that I had forgot to copy and paste in extra words.
• 4) That is there for a reason. The question mark is fine! If I were to look up every single one of those Chinese symbols it would take me half a century to start these articles!
• 5) I will add a interwiki soon.
• 6) That's misleading. I did fix any articles I found problems with in December, before I retired.
• 7) I just follow the lists on what I'm creating on. If there is a province, I put it in the article expecting if it is correct. I had no idea that they could be anything else like prefecture-level cities and so on!
• 8) I didn't create thousands more, I've stopped right now.
• 9) I've removed that from my talk page.

I will be busy for a few days, which means that I can't correct them just yet. I've just left school for the final time today and said my goodbyes to everyone, so I'll be busy at the moment. I can say that I feel guilty about all this. Please don't look at me like I'm selfish or not considering Wikipedia. I will do anything to put myself in ANI's good books, but I can't today. Thanks, Jaguar (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you did create a very large quantity of articles containing errors after you were told on numerous occasions. So please don't say you didn't know.

I'm glad that you have at least removed the "fuck you" gesture at the top of your talk page threatening anyone who reported these issues. Azylber (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It was intended to be a joke and not taken seriously. Please, I'm getting the impression that you're trying to get me into trouble. Jaguar (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Like I said 3 times, this is not personal. I'm not trying to get you into trouble, I'm concerned with what you're doing, despite having been told many times by many people.Azylber (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Good, perhaps we should continue at Jaguar's talk page? We can resolve this fairly easily I'm sure, there are a few more wrinkles that need smoothing out. Assistance from someone with strong Chinese reading skills might be an advantage. Rich Farmbrough, 16:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

I'm not sure that continuing in his talk page is enough. Many have told him about these things for months, and what he's done is make up excuses, leave all the errors there, and create thousands more stubs with the same errors.

I think perhaps some policy could come out of all this, because all this mess will take a lot of work to fix.Azylber (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• WP:MASSCREATION? --92.6.200.56 (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Azylber, I am listening to all your concerns and I am taking in the comments. I am not ignoring them or making up excuses. There would be no need to go off creating new policies on stubs because there is already enough! If I'm creating stubs for a good cause and if they have at least one suitable reference, then there should be no problem. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to finish it. Jaguar (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm more interested in fixing up issues than worrying about policy. If Jaguar is keen to do as much of that as he can (and I understand that motivation) then his talk page seems a good place to coordinate resolution. Rich Farmbrough, 19:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

Do you have any idea of the scale of the issues—is it as big as this, or this? I clicked on the "Jinsha Subdistrict" example above; the amount of pages Jaguar created in the following minute alone is eleven. That's a new one every 5.4 seconds. I have no idea if that was a particularly slow minute. The single reference on each is a googletranslate link. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting here a little late to the party apparently, since we have timestamps from 2011 up there... perhaps some formatting considerations (and a descriptive title) would be called for in future notices.

Anyway, I'm one of the editors that suggested jaguar slow down. He indicated on the talk page he's made over 10,000 of these stub-type pages... and the creation rate is astounding. I'm not doubting that copy-pasted into chrome and did it that way, but whether we wikilawyer over what semi-automated means or not, the Bot guidelines are very clear for large semi-automated article creations, and this is a textbook version of that. We have policies on hand. Let's please use them.

Massive stub creations in batch (and i mean massive) are not helpful, and they create way more work to our editors than they provide knowledge to our users. I don't think jaguar means ill in any of this, but it needs to be clear that there's no glory in making hundreds of pages generated out of a table.

What I would like to see is a consensus that this sort of mass creation, particularly when it's so full of errors (that thankfully people have caught... I shudder to think how many we don't catch), needs to be limited in the least, and that the BAG guidelines are followed, in Jaguar's case specifically, but also more generally. Shadowjams (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Shadowjams, I agree with everything you say, it's exactly my same opinion.

What I would like to know is who is going to fix all this mess. Thousands of articles without references (a URL that points nowhere or that points to the wrong place is not a valid reference), with internal links pointing to the division list for the wrong provinces, with cite titles that are wrong, without the interwiki link etc etc. It will take a very long time to fix all this, much longer than it took Jaguar to mass-create all these stubs. Are we going to spend the time it would take to fix all this? Is it worth it? We could simply mass-delete them. Or, we could leave them there, trashing the quality of wikipedia.

It's also worrying to think of how many we don't catch.

I also want to know what is going to be done to prevent other people doing this in the future.

Azylber (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well for systematic problems, like the ? in infoboxes, I can help Rich do those with AWB if he wants (because rich is under a bit of a restriction on that I think), but Rich has been very helpful in offering advice about fixing those. If Rich wants to contact me about some of those things I can run I'd be happy to. I have a high level of experience with regular expressions.

My bigger concern is accuracy related. I don't know anything about the subject of those articles, and I certainly can't dig deeply through those lists. But, if there's stuff that just needs a hammer to do in order to fix it, let me know on my talk page. Shadowjams (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I was involved in a similar situation about a year ago, though on a much smaller scale; an editor was attempting to provide similar information about localities in India (though in aggregate articles rather than individual ones), and they were similarly unsourced or undersourced. One of the ANI reports can be viewed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive696#User Maheshkumaryadav creating a slew of poor articles. The end decision was to delete most of the articles he had made. The most relevant Afd is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of villages in Haryana. The argument I made there, and would probably make here, is that these articles, if unsourced, are actually harmful, and not a part of the incremental step of building the encyclopedia. If we know that a reasonable number of them are wrong, and have no reason to believe that they rest are correct, then it's actually more work for an editor who wants to make these articles to edit these than it is to start from scratch. That's because first they have to look into the existing article, and get confused (wait, is this about a different village with the same name?); then they may have to backtrack to the list articles and fix those. I haven't researched the details above, but if this is a regular, wide-ranging problem, mass-deletion is actually probably a better fix than anything else, unless there is currently another editor who has an accurate almanac who is willing to commit to fixing them relatively shortly. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Mass deletion is not the answer. That is the most upsetting thing I've ever heard. That would mean hours of my work would be gone, all for nothing. Listen, I can fix most of those issues. Rich Farmborough is doing the right thing by making a list of solutions and I will use those solution! I would also like to point out that the whole issue everyone has made here is not as serious as you think. Everyone in this ANI discussion has just pointed out every single bad detail of my Wikipedia career, to be honest. Also, the number of Chinese townships I created is actually not 10,000. It's probably around 8,200+. 10,000 is the total number of articles I've created. And to be honest I know that it sounds a lot, but in truth it isn't. Other uses have created much more the 10,000. Say Dr. Blofeld has created 80,000!

Please don't take this discussion too far. I am going to do everything I can to fix these issues. I expect every single article to be kept as they are each notable enough for its existence - it's a Chinese town somewhere in the world! Jaguar (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The difference between Dr. Blofeld's stubs and your stubs is that yours are full of errors and therefore do more damage than good.

And let me remind you that this discussion wouldn't be taking place if you hadn't ignored the warnings that many people gave you for months on your talk page and welcomed us all with a fuck off gesture that you have removed now that this came to light.

If you're going to sit down and fix your 10,000 full of errors stubs then it's fine. Otherwise they should be mass deleted because like several people pointed out, they do more damage than good. And it doesn't matter how much work you put into it, what matters is Wikipedia. If you chose to continue working for hours making more stubs with errors after you were told many times, that is only your fault.

I think you should stop making all these excuses and start fixing. Azylber (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Better yet, someone revoke their autopatrolled rights. Blackmane (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

(←) You say there's "no need to go off creating new policies on stubs because there is already enough", but it doesn't appear you've taken notice of the existing ones. You had Autopatrolled status revoked in late August for creating dozens of unreferenced stubs [68], then asked for it back 3 weeks later "I have mass created over 200 articles and each and every one of them has a suitable reference". If you've mass created 10k, that's 9,800 since last September; 90% of them on Chinese townships. You say you'd been authorised to do the mass creations, as is required, yet when asked for a link to the discussion you gave a link of you re-asking the admin for autopatrol. That isn't soliciting community input nor a proposal of any sort.

Your userpage has an ANI comment linked [69] where you say you created over 100 pages in six minutes. Faster than one every 3.6 seconds. It's directly above: "To do list: 1. Create every township in China, 2. Get to #10 on List of Wikipedians by articles created".
A current WP:BON discussion has highly experienced admins & members of the Bot Approvals Group (see WP:MEATBOT) saying even the simplest bot shouldn't exceed 1 edit every three seconds because sometimes bad edits are made and it can take some time to fix/check. And that's talking about approved bots doing a minor activity.

Problems with the substubs containing temp sandbox titles were raised in late November [70]; you continued creating en masse, the last one six days later - Hongxing Township, placing retired shortly afterwards. [71] [72] You unretired in the new year with the first edit summary "Nobody's gonna push me about", adding "I have returned - but only for a limited time. This time no crackpots at ANI [shortly after changed to nobody] are going to push me about, I'm gonna get this job done once and for all." Your very first edit outside userspace was to resume mass creating with Chengbei Subdistrict, Beijing—which still contains "ENTERHERE". Two in that same minute, fourteen in the following minute continuing that day, and the next and so on, into the several thousands.

The downplaying the issue as "not as serious as you think" (How can you know?) or pledge to do everything you "can to fix these issues" (Suddenly learn to read Chinese?) is what's troubling. Despite you saying [73] this morning "There are no more errors. That's the last of them.", the Chengbei article alone shows this is untrue. The rate at which they're made means mistakes, yet inability to understand the foreign-language source hoping on gtranslate of an Asian language seems the fundamental problem as Azylber and Vmenkov showed above. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed Jaguar's autopatrolled (again). That is the bare minimum that is required here given what evidence suggests is an ongoing inability to trust that his stubs meet the bare minimum requirements for content level and correctness. That doesn't mean this should be closed quite yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Would anybody else like to point out anything bad about my Wikipedia career? How about taking this matter that didn't start off so serious much higher? I'm going to fix these myself since this situation can't get any worse. To be honest I think everyone's jealous that I can contribute to Wikipedia by expanding knowledge and not sticking around ANI all day bullying people into self pity. Jaguar (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No one is trying to crucify you. You were creating hundreds of stubs that had errors. You have the view that creating hundreds of error-filled stubs and then leaving it to others to clean them up and expand them is not a problem. Consensus here disagreed with you and an admin removed your autopatrolled rights. Other editors are merely telling you to slow down and focus a bit more on quality rather than quantity. Chillllls (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That IP definitely was. I just don't like it when I try my best to solve issues but I'm being accused of "ignoring them" and "making up excuses" which is not true. I don't appreciate Azylber highlighting the words "fuck off" in bold which is trying to make it look like that I'm being uncivil, but I have never been uncivil around here. I am fixing some of the problems now. I estimate that around the 8,000 Chinese townships I created, only 30% or a little more have errors in them. Do people have the joy of running me down? Jaguar (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No, people are not taking joy in "running [you] down." Think about this for a second: you estimate that 30% of 8,000 stubs have errors. Looking at it from another perspective, that's twenty-four-hundred errors that you've inserted into the encyclopedia. You're creating these stubs at roughly the same rate as a bot, and a bot with a 30% error rate would never ever be approved. You should realize that there are editors on this page who have said nothing about your civility but have a problem with your stubs. No one is calling for you to be blocked, so please stop playing the victim and fix your contribs. Chillllls (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That IP was not. Your talkpage includes comments from two users experienced in high-volume page creation, one of whom mass created the politican stubs highlighted above as AlbertHerring then four days after the bulk AfD closed renamed to Ser Amantio di Nicolao (not all he does & he's done a lot for the site), and Dr. Blofeld - who wrote he's also counseled you in email.

It pushes credibility imo, that they wouldn't be aware of the policy. It became policy not long after that incident. At worse, it can be argued the editor(s) knew or could reasonably be expected to know that you hadn't proposed it, perhaps considering policies don't have to be followed and/or it's better to ask forgiveness than permission, yet didn't bring it up to you in passive encouragement to avoid following policy. The reasons it mandates tasks must be approved are twofold: to help ensure projects that ought to go ahead go well and to ensure editors are not demoralised. You wrote above "Mass deletion is not the answer. That is the most upsetting thing I've ever heard". Had it been proposed help could've been given. Instead a result has been to make an editor, and a young editor at that, feel like crap. This is exactly why DGG said what he did in the community discussion linked from the policy. People are not taking joy in this at all. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

How do you know so much about me!? And I guess I would have felt like more crap if the '10,000' of my articles got deleted. Jaguar (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry none of us here know anything personal about you. I was going by your upset comments above. Nobody here wants to make you feel crap, or crappier. I wrote young because you use the {{busyweekdays}} school template on your page. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, Jaguar has a "this user is a teenager" userbox. Quite frankly Jaguar, you've created an enormous workload on others now. All of your articles need to be checked for errors. Even if by yours reckoning 30% of your articles have errors, it makes no difference to the fact that someone is going to have to go through all of them to work out which ones have problems. In fact, I just sampled the last 29 stubs you edited and every single one used the same link as a reference, to the wrong page. All of them link to the Anhui province page except you created 29 stubs about township level divisions in Beijing. Honestly, I see some serious competence issues here. If you can't be bother to check your reference then you shouldn't be creating articles. I propose that Jaguar be banned from creating any more articles until they've sorted out the mess they've created. Blackmane (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Since I've been mentioned: we have a great need to properly advise new editors, more carefully and consistently than we do, but even if we always did it properly, it can only work with those editors willing to listen to advice. When they do not listen to advice, the next step is enough of a warning that they realize. And then if they finally learn, mistakes at the beginning will in fact be forgiven. Creating mass articles is dangerous. It can be done right: a few very experienced and skillful and careful editors have done excellent jobs of it in both geography and biology and to a certain extent in biography also. But some pretty good editors in each of those fields have also gotten overconfident and let things go too quick to control, and have shown sometimes they did not realise all the potential problems. WP is a live & very visible database, and testing any automated process on a live database is dangerous. The way to do mass anything is to start slow and small, increase the numbers and speed gradually, test the output yourself at every stage, and pay attention to the results and the comments. And then decrease the speed if problems develop. New editors especially need to do this: the number of things that can go wrong with an article here is beyond what anyone can possibly realise at first. The difficult of fixing them, especially when there are few qualified experts except yourself because of language or subject, is very considerable. You cannot expect the people who have to do the work not to resent it. When you start again, and I suggest you wait a while before that, please go very slowly. I'd suggest 5 or 10 articles a day at most. I'be been here five years, and I never would even try to make articles any faster than 5 a day. I might write a great macro process, but i would fell obliged to check everything I did, and that cannot be done quickly. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I could not agree more with what DGG has said. He and I have differed on views about notability, but I think one consistent theme is an emphasis on accuracy. The above is excellent advice. People have been talking to Jaguar about this for a while now, and I don't think he's getting the picture yet. As I said before, I don't have any belief Jaguar's acting with any mal intention, however I think there's a serious problem with some of these stub creations by their sheer volume alone. I don't have much to add I haven't already said, but I think Jaguar needs to understand that this is a serious issue. Shadowjams (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am a very young editor. I fear that if I ever revealed my real age people would be surprised at me. I can assure all of you that there are not as many errors in my articles as you might suspect; I will correct all the ones I can find soon. I too could not agree more with what DGG has said. I will of course take that advice and use it; firstly, instead of going through some of my articles and correcting them, I could rewrite them using User:Jaguar/Sandbox/3, just filling in all the appropriate details. Once I have corrected my errors and redeemed myself at ANI, I will start slowly creating the Chinese articles, doing at least 10 a day at the most. I am over halfway through creating every Chinese township in the world. I will correct them - I've got to do it since it's all my fault really.

By the way there would be no need to ban me from creating articles, I'm not exactly an evil vandal who can't be trusted. Jaguar (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You're not a vandal and we can all see your efforts to try to put things right. By the way Jaguar, in all the talkpage/email comments to you did Dr. Blofeld mention the mass creation policy that's been talked about? --92.6.200.56 (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No, we did not mention any mass creation policies or not that I can remember of anyway. How come you ask? Jaguar (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Curiosity. It's interesting to know more background sometimes. It would be good if Dr. Blofeld could come to this section, he might be able to help. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I endorse the creating of articles about Chinese townships, infact I started and encouraged the creation of the lists by province. I believe China geographically and in terms of population is the most sparsely covered country on the planet on wikipedia and I believe we should have articles on all of the townships in the long term. However, I too have frequently spotted errors in Jaguar's stubs and if you check his talk page history you'll see I contacted him numerous times. The concerning thing is that the ones already created were not corrected after I spotted them. Technically I really think these articles would be better started with a carefully planned bot and given a trial run to look for errors. It als would be good if they could be started with a population figure. I believe there is also a website which lists subdivisions and postcode etc. I think in the long term we'd be better off having a bot create them. The problem of course is few people are expanding them but I believe we should be covering them. But its finding the most efficient way to start them.. When I started stubs in the past I always double checked to see there were no errors and if I did spot errors I'd contact Rich or Ser Amantio to AWB correct them and sort out any mistakes. I think the most productive thing out of this would be to organize a bot to fix all errors. Some of the dead ref links with the wrong code could simply be fixed with a bot after finding what province is what, you just run a bot through the whole province fixing the ref link.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, thank you very much. You're right, it's apparent from the page history you've spoken to him more than once about errors in his stubs. One thing I wondered about, Jaguar said you hadn't talked about wp:masscreation policy. How come? --92.6.200.56 (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Because he's not a bot. They are generated manually. And I have no problem with mass stubbing provided they are accurate without errors and with a fact or two. but as I say in regards to Chinese townships i think a bot should be used.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's an example of this. The policy's about mass page creation and the page says whether they're human‑generated manually or not is irrelevant. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

How bad is this?

How many articles are we talking about, in total (ballpark figure)? And approximately how many of them have serious problems (like where they say they're in one province, but they're linked to from a totally different Province article)? Anyone have an estimate? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, I estimate that around the 8,200 Chinese townships I created, I say around 25% or 30% might have mistakes. It's not that bad to be honest. I could overwrite all the errors I can find. Jaguar (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I recently made 600+ beetle stub article, and every single one has MOS and Category errors. I fixed 'em all — 4 hours work. (account renamed – tomtomn00) Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 11:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It's good you fix up after yourself, TAP. That situation's probably a little different since they're all English-language though. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Your estimated error rate makes me think we should rather delete them all and start over. Mass-creation with a more than 1% error rate just screams "nuke from orbit". Wrong info that isn't easily visible as such is worse than obvious vandalism IMHO. Also, in the substubs that do not even give the township's names in characters (making it hard to research and expand them), essentially nothing is lost by deletion. —Kusma (t·c) 12:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be counterproductive to delete them. Override them, maybe, if somebody can sort out a bot and finish off the rest.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, just imagine deleting 8,000 Chinese townships! I see no point - Like Dr. Blofeld has said, China is one of the most sparsely internet-covered nations on this planet, and having every Chinese township on Wikipedia has a huge potential of becoming a major article one day. China is the most populous nation, so it even has a bigger potential. These need to be kept. Jaguar (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The end (which is a long way off) does not justify the means (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopædia. If we can't be sure that something is accurate, it shouldn't be in article-space. I realise that rote editing and mass-creation of geographical stubs is very important to some people, but I would prioritise quality over quantity. bobrayner (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The only alternative to mass-deletion at 25% error I see is to topic-ban the creator so that they would not be able to create anything until the existing errors have been fixed.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

He's not presently creating any. Also, with the best will in the world it's still unclear if he'd be able to fix or even detect all problems due to the language barrier. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, the language barrier is not the problem (or our biggest concern anyway). The issues are the errors in the articles (simple broken links and links that take you to different places etc). And Ymblanter, please, just assuming that this is an ANI discussion concerning me doesn't mean I'm a criminal who needs to be banned! Jaguar (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not assume you are a criminal, it is just that 25% is way over the top, especially given the absolute numbers. The material is just not credible, and has to be either immediately corrected or mass-deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The only option is to correct the ones that need correcting. As of all, it's a Chinese town somewhere in the world. I have seen some of them expand since after a few days I have created them. Trouble is, China is a big place and nobody might have travelled that far. Jaguar (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat and block/ban evasion by 78.148.101.209

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

This is quite obviously Grace Saunders (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and this violates WP:NLT. Requesting a block of this IP (which appears to be dynamic), and a full community ban of Grace Saunders.

Place !votes for the ban below.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. - Zhou Yu (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Merely a formality at this point, but clearly this user isn't suited for this or any other online community. AniMate 00:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support as a matter of procedure. No chance it will ever be unblocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment – I would support unblocking Grace' User:45g account if Grace agrees not to bother or harass User:Snaisybelle onwiki. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - As nom. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Merged a duplicate request.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support, 'nuff said. →Bmusician 06:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

edit warring (User:Alexander Pastukh)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(the format in 3RR is ill-suited for what I am trying to do, sorry)

I suspect that there is an edit war going on in each of these articles:

Battle of Stalingrad
Battle of Kursk
Operation Barbarossa
Siege of Leningrad
Battle of Moscow

In these articles users are reverting each others edits, they seem to follow the 3RR.

User:Alexander Pastukh is one party in these wars, and he has already been warned & told to solve the disputes on talk pages, in the articles listed above he has reverted edits by other users without explaining reason for his actions on talk page(s) (user's contributions.)
Ape89 (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the 3RR noticeboard is perfectly setup for this exact report. However, regardless of the lack of diff's, and the previous warnings given, I have blocked for 48 hrs for edit-warring across a range of articles (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring at World War II

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There seems to be a rather significant edit war at the above article. Thought everyone here should know. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It's actually BruceGrubb (talk · contribs) defying consensus by insisting on inclusion of a fringe view that somehow World Wars I and II were really all just one war; vs. several users who keep telling him to keep it on the talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be quite what he's saying - he's adding material that WWII started in 1931. Because of your comment, though, I've notified him of this discussion. As an aside, I hate articles that are that bloated - takes forever to do anything with them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact, if you READ Talk:World_War_II#World_War_1_.26_2_were_one_continuous_war_theory. I stated and I quote "While there are a handful of people that say WW2 and WW1 were effectively the same war they are a very small minority and so a name change fails under WP:Weight and WP:fringe." However I also pointed that the claims this theory was OR were wrong as there are sources (both then and now) that state this.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Why_We_Fight_series_reliable_source_for_views_of_US_1942-1945.3F was closed by one of the involved editors (who doesn't appear to be an administrator) with only THREE HOURS of discussion. As I noted before the editor in question rearchived is "per WP:DUCK this looks to me like Wikipedia:Gaming the system"

Here are the references to the supposed fringe material:

• "While some historians argue that the war started on 18 September 1931 when Japan occupied Manchuria..." (Cheng, Chu-chueh (2010) The Margin Without Centre: Kazuo Ishiguro Peter Lang Page 116) which references Wernar Ghuhl's (2007) Imperial Japan's World War Two Transaction Publishers (the "Publisher of Record in International Social Science")

• "Few are aware of, or fully appreciate, Imperial Japan's even more vast and equally merciless aggression in Asia, which began with the 1931 invasion of Manchuria. This act was very likely the true beginning of World War II and the global upheaval that followed." (...) "The true story of this WWII (1931-1945) theater of war is that Japan invaded Asian countries representing one-third of the human race. This Great Asian-Pacific Crescent of Pain consisted of many hundreds of millions of people from Japan to Korea, China/Manchuria throughout Southeast Asia, the Pacific, and Indian Ocean islands." (http://www.japanww2.com/chapter1.htm Wernar Ghuhl's (2007) Imperial Japan's World War Two "Chapter 1")

• "Some historians have said that World War II began on the windswept plains of Manchuria, in the war between Japan and China." Peterson, Barbara Bennett (2006) Franklin Delano Roosevelt, preserver of spirit and hope Nova Science Publishers ISBN-13: 978-1604564969

• "You think World War II began in 1933, by Hitler's seizing power, but the Chinese people shall insist that World War II began on Sept. 18, 1931 by Japan's invasion of Manchuria." (letter to the editor LIFE - Sep 21, 1942 - Page 6--backed by Prelude to War which was made by the United states Government

• The United State Holocaust Memorial Museum's World War II: Timeline start with September 18, 1931 though it notes July 7, 1937 as when WWII started in the Pacific.

• "He knew the story well, because it had been he who transmitted the orders for the Japanese troops to march that snowy September 18, 1931, which is actually the date when World War II started." Lee, Clark (1943) They Call It Pacific

• "World War II began along a stretch of railroad track near the northeastern Chinese city of Mukden (now Shenyang). There, on Sept. 18, 1931,..." (Polmar, Norman; Thomas B. Allen (1991) World War II: America at war, 1941-1945 ISBN-13: 978-0394585307)

How can you look at all of this and say it is fringe for the views of 1942-1945? If anything we have an example of editors trying to Wikipedia:Gaming the system to POV the WWII article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect to John, I'm not sure why this was brought to ANI, and even if John simply wanted to alert other editors to the problem to have more eyes on the article (something that is done, for example, at WP:BLPN for BLP articles), I don't see why the content dispute needs to be aired here. It can remain on the article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Basically, it was done out of mildly exasperated stupidity on my part. I have the edit warring noticeboard on my watchlist, but when I looked to find it in the template at the top of this page I didn't see where it was listed initially. So, while I knew, somewhere, that the noticeboard existed, I couldn't find it and placed the comment in the one place I could find. I was, unfortunately, a bit rushed this morning, and I see where it is now, in the bottom section, where I didn't see it earlier. I sowwy. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:DIREKTOR is threatening an edit war at WikiProject Yugoslavia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:DIREKTOR is refusing to take into consideration any of the proposals I have made for addressing possible POV at WikiProject Yugoslavia over the issue of use of the flag of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) that bears the communist red star over it. I suggested a plain tricolour, DIREKTOR rejected it claiming it was "royalist" or associated with the Serb-dominated Serbia and Montenegro and thus was "offensive" to Yugoslavs because of the absence of a red star. The I proposed having both the historic plain tricolour of 1918 to 1943 alongside the flag of the SFRY and asked DIREKTOR for sources to show evidence that the plain tricolour was offensive. DIREKTOR's response to this was aggressive and in complete violation of WP:DISRUPT. DIREKTOR clearly declared his intention to edit war on this topic, regardless of what other people like me and others may think, saying: "I will revert any additions of the plain tricolour", here is the diff: [74]. DIREKTOR's first sentence in response to my compromise and request for evidence by her/him was to respond in an insulting manner, implying that he/she was rolling on the floor laughing, saying: "Apologies R-41, I'm too busy rolling on the floor to respond in detail." See diff: [75]--R-41 (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

And then as to my request for sources said: "Suffices to say I need no source for what the plain tricolor was used, and as such it is no more acceptable than the red star flag", see diff: [76]. DIREKTOR is refusing to present any evidence to demonstrate her/his claim - particularly for 1918 to 1943, because he/she claims that he/she cannot be questioned about this because it is merely a "fact" - that in her/his view every Yugoslav who flew a plain tricolour flag from 1918 to 1943 was a monarchist or a Serb hegemonist. Furthermore DIREKTOR has a clear POV against Yugoslav people who were royalists - viewing them in a negative manner. DIREKTOR is also in violation of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing for her/his condescending attitude towards historic Yugoslav royalists.--R-41 (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

So, you have a content dispute (see WP:DR) and you're somehow upset that they're rolling on the floor whilst laughing? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue is a threat to edit war, and general disruptive behaviour, I am not upset that they are "rolling on the floor" laughing - I am showing that because that was DIREKTOR's response to my request for evidence for her/his claim that the plain Yugoslav tricolour is "offensive". This is disruptive behaviour. The principal problem I am addressing here, is this edit: "I will revert any additions of the plain tricolour" [77] - that is a threat of edit-warring. I have proposed compromises to address her/his concerns and he/she refuses to consider them - refusing to have the plain tricolour on the WikiProject title page even if it is included alongside the SFRY tricolour with the red star. I don't think Dispute Resolution will work if a user is committed to revert any inclusion of something that they oppose.--R-41 (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Bwilkins. Yup, one of the better jokes I've heard on Wikipedia :D. Though Producer was in error regarding the author of his proposed new Yugoslav flag. I heard it was Betsi Rosich, he said it was Tomislav Jefersonovich. -- Director (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

@R-41, You want to change a flag on a barnstar because of political connotations, and propose to do this be replacing it with another flag? Director responded that "the plain tricolor unfortunately also carries political connotations", which is pretty much your argument, and then you ask Director to "provide evidence that others find the plain tricolour flag offensive"? How did his "carries political connotations" become "others find the plain tricolour flag offensive", while your "assumption of political affiliation" remain a perfectly good argument? Please provide evidence that the flag with a star is...offensive. Don't actually, a flag is a flag, and all flags have connotations to somebody. CMD (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I must've explained to the man about twenty times that WikiProject Yugslavia is about the historical country, and that it uses the last flag of the country - since it was the last flag, and was used for the longest period. I myself oppose the proposition of using a much older flag, that was less used, simply because R-41 finds the current one personally offensive. Little does he know (actually he does I told him) that the older, pre-WWII version was also a flag of an authoritarian dictatorship, and was also the flag used by Slobodan Milošević during the recent wars. I.e. for much of the Yugoslav population, it was very recently the flag of an enemy state for about half a decade. But I need a source for that, I'm sorry. I can't find my copy of of Offensiveness of Flags: How to Insult Balkans Ethnic Groups Using Just Your Imagination. -- Director (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If you look at what I compromised on, my second proposal was to have an option of the barnstars, the SFRY barnstar and a plain Yugoslav tricolour barnstar for those who didn't want one with the SFRY flag - that offers a choice for people. I proposed having both the SFRY flag and the plain tricolour flag on the template, the article on Yugoslavia in Polish Wikipedia shows both the plain tricolour and the SFRY tricolour in a template there, it is neutral and represents the entire history of Yugoslavia. Again, I posted this as a request and asked for others opinions. The issue is that DIREKTOR said that he/she has threatened to edit war regardless of what others think, this statement by DIREKTOR is the evidence "I will revert any additions of the plain tricolour". DIREKTOR's last statement is again showing her/his POV against the Kingdom of Yugoslavia - DIREKTOR doesn't even account that there may be patriotic Yugoslavs from 1918 to 1943 who may have used the plain tricolour flag without being supporters of "authoritarian dictatorship" or Serb supremacism. And here is her/his aggressive behaviour with "Offensiveness of Flags: How to Insult Balkans Ethnic Groups Using Just Your Imagination" - obviously this doesn't exist and this is an aggressive attack against me - assuming bad faith. And 'here is the use of the plain Yugoslav tricolour flag by the communist Yugoslav Partisans on their badges - so they did not find the plain tricolour "offensive" and this proves that the plain tricolour is not a royalist symbol as DIREKTOR claims - [78]. But again, back to the topic of threats of edit war, DIREKTOR has threatened edit war on this topic, I have presented evidence that shows this.--R-41 (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there are patriotic Yugoslavs from 1943-1991 who didn't support Serb supremacism or a communist dictatorship. Again, I don't see how your argument isn't one sided. Director is reverting by previous consensus, something in the spirit of WP:BRD. Unless you intend to edit war in your flag, then this whole thing is really a non-issue. CMD (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis. Incredibly enough, I'm not reverting anything :), and I haven't. This is more like a "future edit war" that's being reported here.

@R-41. Your proposals are opposed and you do not have consensus. In fact, you have no support whatsoever. Your allegations of my having "threatened to edit-war" are, in my opinion, plain nonsense. I assure you that I fully intend to revert any non-consensus changes you may attempt to push, but I have no intention to edit-war over it. If your intention is to try and force your changes through, and have envisioned some kind of cataclysmic edit-war, that's your imagination and I can't answer for it. I don't know what else to add. -- Director (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So we're here arguing over the appearance of a barnstar? Even if we accept your reason for being here (threat to edit-war), unless there's a pattern of misconduct, just take care of it if and when it happens, i.e., warn him and report him. No need to be here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I offered the proposal that two options of the barnstar be available for users to request to allow choice for users - thus they will always have the option to choose the SFRY flag barnstar but also a plain tricolour barnstar for those who may not want it. DIREKTOR is threatening an edit war, because I am asking for a review of the existing consensus and am asking for views of multiple users on my proposal. DIREKTOR is refusing to wait to hear what others say and is threatening to revert any inclusion of the plain tricolour flag based on the false allegation that the plain tricolour flag is a symbol royalist authoritarian dictatorship and a Serb supremacist symbol, essentially that it is a taboo symbol. But I have disproved this, by showing its use as a symbol by the Yugoslav Partisans - the very communist organization that formed the SFRY and later adopted the tricolour with the red star, the plain horizontal blue-white red tricolour flag symbol can be seen here on these Partisan badges [79]. The issue is that DIREKTOR is refusing to here opinions of people who do not agree with her/him, and is threatening edit war based on her/his views.--R-41 (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

And so? Even assuming everything you say is 100% accurate (and I seriously doubt that to be the case), your complaints about content and your speculation about future edit wars have no place at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What?! DIREKTOR has clearly stated intention to edit war "I will revert any additions of the plain tricolour", here is the diff: [80]. This is not "speculation", this is evidence of an openly declared threat to edit war. I thought that Wikipedia users were supposed to be responsible in reporting disruptive behaviour. I would like to hear what another administrator thinks about this, because merely ignoring this threat seems to be to be irresponsible to efforts to avoid disruption of the Wikipedia Project. Please remember that the issue is about an open threat of edit war that I have reported as being in violation of WP:DISRUPT.--R-41 (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The statement is what it is. Your interpretation of it as a threat is just that, your interpretation (I note that Direktor disputes it above). Either way, it hasn't happened. So let it go and move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Please note that DIREKTOR is already involved in similar revert wars with other users: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:DIREKTOR_reported_by_User:WhiteWriter_.28Result:_.29 He also have a long history of blocks because of revert warring: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ADIREKTOR In another words, this user is quite capable of fulfilling his revert war threats. PANONIAN 17:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. In the context of a barnstar dispute, you bring up Direktor's history and a recent report that includes 5 diffs, the first three of which are well out of the 24-hour 3RR period? Not to mention that you have your own anti-Direktor opinions in that report.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I just don't see this as an issue requiring Administrator Intervention. I suggest closing this ANI section and gaining consensus here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Yugoslavia#Flag and barnstar issue: a non-SFRY version of the barnstar should be available as well, a plain map of Yugoslavia. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The main problem here is general behavior of user DIREKTOR - this user simply refuse to cooperate with other users and he trying to push his own POV by all possible means, no matter that he usually do not have sources that can support his POV. This diff is a very good example of that kind of behavior - DIREKTOR stated there that he need no source for his claim because he explained this numerous times. That is the main problem with this user - when other user asking him to provide sources for his claims, he trying to "defeat" his opponents rhetorically by numerous repeated "explanations" of why he is right and others are wrong (note that others usually have sources behind them, while DIREKTOR often have no other sources instead his rhetorical "explanation"). Cooperation with this user is simply not possible if somebody wants to follow Wikipedia rules and to edit Wikipedia in accordance with sources. The second problem is that DIREKTOR is very aggressive user and that he will revert anybody with whom he does not agree, no matter of the sources - this user have a single goal: to push his personal POV by all possible means. PANONIAN 17:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

PANONIAN, you were just topic banned under WP:ARBMAC, and pursuing blocks on two noticeboards against the main editor you were in conflict with could, and probably should, be considered a violation of your editing restrictions. AniMate 18:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

How so? I am not aware that my topic ban is including discussions in ANI board. I am not discussing topic from which I was banned, but behavioral pattern of other user in other unrelated pages. This is exactly the problem - it is obvious that admins here are unable to understand the problem and that they do not want to take any action against disruptive user about whose behavior several users complained. PANONIAN 18:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

In another words, AniMate, you say that I should be sanctioned just because of comments that I posted here, while DIREKTOR is free to revert, insult and intimidate others as much as he wants without any sanctions. PANONIAN 18:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

"discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia" (WP:TBAN).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I am banned from topic named "Serbian history 20 years ago", not from topic named "User:DIREKTOR". So, how is this related? PANONIAN 18:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You are banned from any discussions related to your topic. You certainly don't have to have a specific ban for a particular user. That said, I confess I don't understand the qualification of your ban, which actually is "indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions on Serbian history that took place more than 20 years ago" (leaving off the linked thread).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It seems clear to me that the discussion is about a content dispute regarding the flag, which is "a discussions on Serbian history that took place more than 20 years ago per". Per Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Final_decision#2012, you should not participate JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

But my point is - I am not discussing topic from which I was banned (and I really do not care about flag dispute that DIREKTOR had with other user). I had many disputes with User:DIREKTOR in many topic areas, which are not related to English-language Wikipedia only. So, I am only discussing behavioral pattern of user DIREKTOR and my personal problem with this user is much larger than the scope of my topic ban. PANONIAN 18:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I accept that is your view. As an outside observer, I think you are, regrettably, outside the limits imposed on you. I'd recommend letting others have this discussion, and keep your powder dry (avoid a WP:BLOCK) for future, and surely more meaningful issues. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Here's a link to PANONIAN being topic banned. Right above he admits he doesn't care about the incident that was reported here. He tries to qualify it, but clearly he is continuing the behavior that lead to the topic ban. Look at the discussion and you'll see part of the problem with PANONIAN was that he was trying to get users editing articles about Serbian history that he disagreed with blocked by any means necessary including DIREKTOR. He may not be editing the articles any more but he is still trying to get the same editors blocked by any means necessary. His edits here are clearly related to the conflicts that got him blocked and it is my view that this is a violation of his topic ban. AniMate 18:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine - let just block me, I am always guilty, right? (not to mention that I neither opened this thread, neither it was opened against me, but I now see that sanctions against me would be the most likely outcome). After this, I lost the last drop of faith in administrators in English Wikipedia. Do what ever you want. PANONIAN 19:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I'd block you if I could, not just to enforce the topic ban but for your absurd and self-serving interpetation of the ban. But despite your invitation, I can't.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, such OWNERSHIP: User_talk:JoeSperrazza#What are you doing on the WikiProject Yugoslavia talk page?. I'd suggest not raising content issues at ANI if you don't want outside opinions. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

disgusting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is it acceptable for users to broadcast another users ip details and place of work? Privacy should be respected but here users Bjmullan and Murry1975 have gone too far [81]. This is absolutely disgusting. Also suspicious that Bjmullan went on a 2 year sabbatical between their 1st and 2nd edits and their 3rd edit was to create a new Wikipedia page.a very ambitious edit, unless they had been editing under another account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.199.195 (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I love IP editors, and support their right to edit whilst not logged in or without creating an account. However, I do not see a discussion of IPs used to edit (including WHOIS information) to be per se WP:OUTING, let alone actionable by administrator intervention. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding, it is common practice to add such templates as SharedIP and the somewhat friendlier ISP test to IP's talk pages, and that is not WP:OUTING. To say nothing of the fact that such information if available by easy to use links on the bottom of IP talk pages. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Which blocked editor are you? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

He's Factocop and there is an outstanding SPI waiting on him. As for outing, the only person who did that was Factocop himself here. Bjmullan (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You have to understand that Bjmullan seems to link every IP involved with NI related pages to be factocop. I do believe a user's privacy should be respected and that they should not be threatened by the prospect of getting into trouble at work by another user. That to me is completely unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.199.195 (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No - then whomever using the IP address(es) should use a registered account.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

no point. I have seen users with accounts also accused by Bjmullan as being factocop. It's pretty obvious that Bjmullan has held another account. Where did he go for 2 years? Creating a completely new page with their 3rd edit is super ambitious even if there is a template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.199.195 (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe creating a new article might be difficult for you but most of us find it easy. If you want to accuse me of something I suggest you take it to the appropriate page. For the record here, I have never edited under any other name or using an open IP. Bjmullan (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be difficult for any user, especially a novice. Where did you disappear to for 2 years? Did you edit under an IP? I think it also uncivil to tell me to "fu€k 0ff" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.199.195 (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup, evading a valid block and wasting the Wikipedia community's time sure is (as per the section heading) "disgusting". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

re: disgusting

Please can a competent admin re-open the above topic as there appears to be a misjustice. There is no proof of socking so why close the issue? User:Bjmullan has failed to declare a previous account, has abused Wikipedia.policy and abusive.language. aswell as outing a user and their IP address details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.250 (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not outing if the information is available at the bottom of the page with one click. You don't want your IP or who its registered to known, register an account. And calling the closing admin incompetent is a WP:NPA violation and bound to bring WP:BOOMERANGs if you keep it up. Heiro 22:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly - if you use an IP, then you can be tracked via it. GiantSnowman 23:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Failing to declare a previous account isn't a breach of policy. If it was wp:CLEANSTART would be totally out of order. You've alleged that Bjmullan is a returning editor, and he has denied that. I'd suggest that you either come up with something with evidence of misbehaviour, or you stop making those allegations. ϢereSpielChequers 23:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

so a returning sock can simply open a new account and make a clean start? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.250 (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If one is not blocked or banned. If so, one is socking to avoid a block and will be most likely blocked for that as well. A cleanstart is just that, not a means to evade sanctions. Heiro 09:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protection on an AFD?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I noticed a protection on this deletion discussion. While I will not name names, I am very concerned for other anonymous IP contributors to these discussions. The person responsible for protecting the discussion blocked the lastest contributor without any evidence to suggest linking to another account. I am very surprised a trusted user would act this way. The fact that he can't stand IP users is one thing, but to block them without is another thing. I therefore am asking for input on this person's behaviour. UsedBeen20 (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please see Special:Contributions/107.16.78.114 for more info. UsedBeen20 (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Truly challenging: admins can't do a thing unless you a) name names, and b) advise the party that you're complaining about. Of course, you also need to show that you have tried to resolve the issue directly with that person first as well. I see none of this - just a drive-by (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I find the source of this complaint much, much more interesting than the target. CU? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Already filed.[82] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there any chance they're related to the subject of the article, or even the subject himself? Do we know his views on having a BLP on wikipedia? I'm thinking out aloud because I know that could never be answered "yes" here anyway (could be answered no though!) Egg Centric 01:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that reality TV show contestants are generally not notable. Second, I already was checked, so a CU (IP lookup) won't link me to the suspecious IP address. I only posted because MM's recent behaviour is a bit amateurish for someone who can look up IP addresses. UsedBeen20 (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

UsedBeen20 (talk · contribs) HasBeen blocked. -220 of ^Borg 01:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC) struckout my comment.- 220 of ^Borg 01:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Returning sock of a BANNED editor???

• Chaosnamegoofie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Patrolling Admin/Checkuser, please see this edit for further details. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 01:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• User(s) blocked. Reaper Eternal tied up all the loose ends. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Administrator John repeatedly forcing preferred versions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

John (talk · contribs), an administrator, has been in a slow edit war at Adam Yauch for some time now regarding a category. John repeatedly asserts that the category Category: American Jews cannot be used because according to BLPCAT the person has to self identify. The problem is that he complained to the BLP Noticeboard and was basically told that BLPCAT doesn't apply for various reasons (mainly because none of Yauch's living relatives are adversely affected by us putting him in that category). John continues to stick his fingers in his ears over this issue, and has been in a slow edit war at this and a couple other pages regarding this category. He also claimed in his most recent summary that my addition of the category was unsourced, however multiple sources have been provided on the talk page over and over again. Whenever one of his arguments is satisfied by sources or by him being told BLPCAT does not apply, he keeps engaging in circular logic by once again going back to the other claim (either BLPCAT or referencing) to gridlock the discussion. He is also implying that people who want to include this category are anti-semites/racists as he keeps inappropriately referencing yellow badge and single drop rule. John is engaging in policy wonkery and continually using his discredited arguments to force his preferred versions. I believe this behavior, from an administrator no less, should be reviewed and dealt with. Night Ranger (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wouldn't this be better served at WP:BLPN? It isn't an "incident" (ie: ANI) as much as a content dispute with BLP implications. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

John already posted there some time ago. He was told BLPCAT did not apply and the discussion there died out. He is playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and continues to invoke BLPCAT. The content dispute is not at issue, the issue is his behavior, which is unbecoming an administrator. Night Ranger (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we get some diffs of both the edit warring and the usage of inappropriate terms on his part? A link to the BLPN discussion would be nice too. Silverseren^C 05:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Apparently Yauch was a practicing Buddhist. Calling him an American Buddhist might be acceptable. Labeling him a Jew sounds like an agenda. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

However, some sources say otherwise, such as this Jewish Week article. Not to mention Forbes. Mayhaps he is ethnically Jewish, but religiously Buddhist? Silverseren^C 05:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Standard practice here is not to label someone's ethnic group unless he's notable for being in that ethnic group. Woody Allen qualifies, for example. Yauch? Doesn't look like it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Except the Beastie Boys were known for being Jewish kids. Hot Stop 05:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing a number of sources discussing how the Beastie Boys as a whole were known for being Jewish and it was one of the early reasons why they became noticed by the public. Silverseren^C 05:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources would be good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Like this Jewish Chronicle article? Good enough? I mean, "The Beastie Boys paved the way for today’s Jewish hip hoppers who don’t have to come from the ghetto to be ‘for real’" and "they put Jews at the forefront of the genre in its early days" is clear enough. Silverseren^C 06:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Or this Forbes one "They were three white Jewish kids from Brooklyn"? There are more in Yauch's article too. Hot Stop 06:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Then John had best explain his actions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It is curious, though, that the Rolling Stone obit didn't say a word about it.[83] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times says something about it in passing, well into the article,[84] so it doesn't sound as if their being considered Jewish was any big deal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This discussion would seem to belong at the RFC or elsewhere in the article talk page not here. But as I understand it, as with nearly every single dispute of this sort I've seen in recent times, the dispute is whether to label him 'X (American) Jews' or 'X (American) people of Jewish descent', so it's more complicated then simply whether there are sourced that label him Jewish in some fashion. Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I see from the talk page and the BLPN discussion. More specifically, it seems to be about what Category:American Jews encompasses, since the American Jews article includes both religion and ethnicity and Yauch is clearly ethnically Jewish, but not religiously Jewish (he's Buddhist). Therein lies the confusion. Of course, if said category applies to both, then the Jewish descent cat is pretty redundant in its use here (though there are certainly people of Jewish descent who would not be categorized as religiously or ethnically Jewish), so it gets even more complicated there. Judaism discussions always end up being a mess. *sighs* Silverseren^C 09:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

As with Silver seren, I would say some diffs would be helpful. There seems to be an ongoing RFC on the content dispute and I only see two edits to the article from John, nearly 2 weeks apart so I'm not seeing anything needing administrative attention. Even if there was some poor behaviour on the part of John (I'm not commenting one way or the other), the level would suggest at most a RFC/U. Nil Einne (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• The relevant archived BLPN discussion: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive152#Adam_Yauch. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing where he may have abused the admin tools. I see complaints against him as an editor but unless tool abuse may be shown there is no need to review his actions here on this board. This looks like a content dispute.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 11:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Leslie Daigle

I'm sick of this. Bunch of editors who don't have a clue are screwing around with a BLP of a politician, and admin intervention is required. If I weren't invoooooolved, I'd block one of them, warn another, revert the article to Bbb23's version, and lock it. But that's just me. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have just reverted a third time. There is broad agreement from some seasoned editors that the "fair" version from the "unbiased editors" is a BLP violation. Those "unbiased editors", you won't be surprised to hear, are SPAs with more fire than knowledge of our guidelines. In the meantime the article has been nominated at AfD. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've full protected for 10 days because of the ongoing edit warring and likely BLP issues. If another administrator or two would like to sort out whether there are clear BLP violations by one or more editors, they should feel free to do so, and then lift protection at any point when there seems to be some progress on keeping this article on the "good" side of the BLP policy. If a CU is needed for any possible socks, feel free to ping me. Risker (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • That may not be necessary as the article could very well be deleted by then. pbp 13:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC) The guy who AfDed it

Attack account

• Anderson Cooper Exposer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Already reported to AIV. The only reason I brought it here is that it also smells a lot like someone's sock.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked and locked, but I don't have local CU. MBisanz ^talk 04:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually non-SUL, but thanks.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's also oversighted, so no log entries. I've been told that this is User:Mr. Kruzkin.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Community ban for JIM ME BOY

• JIM ME BOY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Anderson Cooper Exposer is a sock of this guy. I'm surprised there's no community ban yet.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Extreme vandalism and poor behavior on an article

Resolved

 – Blocked for several obvious reasons. Doc talk 06:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I know that some of this is stuff that should be reported on the vandalism board, but it looks like the vandalism and bad behavior is so widespread that I thought it should be mentioned here.

I noticed this via the AfD for RINJ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RINJ), where user CRINJ (talk · contribs) was posting and stating that they would give out personal information of members of RINJ in order to harass the group members. They have also been vandalizing the article for RINJ. This is so not kosher in so many ways. While I have no opinion about the group (just found out about the group five minutes ago, actually), it doesn't matter what they've done or not done. Vandalism and harassment is not condoned here on Wikipedia, nor are we a place to recruit people. I'd just like an admin to keep an eye on the article, if possible.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Notified. CRINJ should be blocked on username, and the BLP violations at the AfD.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Instantly blockworthy for this piece of garbage. Doc talk 06:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked by Gfoley4.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing soapboxing and battleground mentality here in article space. Heiro 06:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Username appears to be promotional as well. -.- AndrewN ^talk 06:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Anil99seo

• Anil99seo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zylog Systems Limited (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have warned Anil99seo at least twice about the clear conflict of interests they have regarding Zylog Systems Limited, a company in which they are employed (per their own user page). The editor is a WP:SPA and the edits made are very much to glorify the company, against WP:NPOV. In addition, external links which I keep removing (mostly per WP:ELNO #19) are re-introduced with no discussion or explanation. The editor will not discuss their edits or conflict. Some intervention is required to make the editor at least discuss the matter. --Muhandes (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Prophet of Hell

Resolved

 – Sent back where he came from. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

From the very first interaction, extreme hostility and incivility ([85]). He's been warned and blocked for this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality just a few weeks ago ([86]), but apparently didn't learn anyhting. Constantine ✍ 06:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

And he continues, this time in German ([87]). Constantine ✍ 07:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Indef-blocked. I would have looked past the edit-warring and the personal attacks, and the fact that he did all that immediately after coming back from the last block should not be held against him, but getting all the "ß" and "ss" and the commas wrong when writing German is really unforgivable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Krod Mandoon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Krod Mandoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole

This account appears to be yet another sockpuppet of the "de facto" banned user Echigo mole/A.K.Nole. That user has previously disrupted the same arbcom page this year with the sockpuppets William Hickey, The Wozbongulator and Reginald Fortune. Since their editing has now become even more disruptive and the response at the SPI page has been slow, please can an administrator block this account? It was created in 2009: their second and subsequent edits have only been trolling on arbitration pages since yesterday. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid we cannot do much, given that the community doesn't want him banned; perhaps it's better that you perhaps talk to the user and see what happens. --MuZemike 07:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Who said the community doesn't want him banned? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Courcelles blocked him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) No community ban has ever been suggested. Courcelles has just indefinitely blocked him as a sockpuppet of Echigo mole: many thanks, Courcelles. Mathsci (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is a ban discussion right now on AN, but some of us have been saying it's unnecessary because the de facto ban already is a valid ban anyway. Don't listen to MuZemike, he's just WP:POINT-trolling. Don't know why he does that, but he's been doing it on a couple of sock/ban issues during the last months. MuZemike, cut it out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll stop once the community collectively gets serious about their bans and whether or not they want to enforce them. --MuZemike 07:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Look, I'm with you on the need to enforce bans, but your WP:POINT violations are disruptive. Please stop it, or the next time you disrupt a discussion in this way I'll have to block you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I suppose there goes my effort to nominate WP:BATTLE for deletion, since that is all Wikipedia is. And if you don't believe me, look at a lot of the stuff that I have to read through every day. --MuZemike 08:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no beef with either of you. You're both volunteer administrators and do your job perfectly well. The irritation comes from the puppetmasters who waste everbody's time. Echigo mole is a prime example. Mathsci (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I honestly have to ask: where the hell are the clerks? The requests for amendment page seems to be completely unclerked at the moment; we have obvious sockpuppets repeatedly posting and topic-banned editors repeatedly posting. I've already asked the clerks to intervene but I've not had any response, nor any action from the clerks. Are they all on holiday or something? Prioryman (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Nirzhorshovon

• Nirzhorshovon (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

Just wanted to put this new user on others' radar. They seem to be confused about editing. - jc37 10:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Currently got an issue with this user causing vandalism on Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors--Mjs1991 (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hard to call it vandalism, as it simply appears to be not understanding Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Requesting ban on user User:Sandy94kumar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user User:Sandy94kumar has made several commits to such pages as Yamuna Nagar, List of people from Haryana that don't comply to wiki's guidelines. The user has continuously tried to advertise a local business operation through a series of edits on these pages. In fact, the user has been warned of this couple of times in consecutive months on user's talk page, though the behavior still continues. So, i request a ban on the user so prevent further vandalism. Mittgaurav (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Due to his occasional editing pattern and clear WP:SPAM, I've given a 1-month block - hopefully they will talk (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you BWilkins. Mittgaurav (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Snakehands

Could someone take a look at the edits of Snakehands (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and determine what action is needed for this editor? Apart from approximately four edits this year, every single other one has been to edit war over changing a section title on Diane Abbott to non-neutral and quite probably BLP ones. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The user has already been blocked by Dennis Brown for 24 hours for violation of WP:BLP. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 13:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked Edits like this [88] and [89] make me think they don't understand what "neutral" means, and they seem to have a clear agenda that is inconsistent with the goals of building an encyclopedia. The fact that they have added the term "racist remarks" as a header multiple times tells me they don't understand our policies. This is clearly a BLP violation, and flagrant enough that I have blocked them for 24 hours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

can somebody please remove a unfair template from the userpage

there is a template about reverting everything at user "c h a o s n a m e" user page (the one with a information symbol) it is unfair to the user as no other banned user page has that, so am asking can somebody please remove it