Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 134.241.58.253 (talk) at 20:36, 16 May 2012 (→‎User:TenPoundHammer). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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


    User:E4024

    E4024 (talk · contribs) is an aggressive Turkish nationalist involved in edit-wars across multiple articles. In Cyprus [1] he is making unencyclopedic edits to the lede of the article [2] and edit warring over them [3] [4]. He has been making tendentious edits to that article for a while now [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] using inflammatory edit-summaries [11]. In Cyprus dispute he has been involved in a particularly nasty slow-edit-war since May 1st [12]. Again, edit-summaries are frequently hostile [13], mocking and attempting to intimidate other users. Talkpage posts are similarly disruptive, sometime purely inflammatory [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. He has already been warned [25] to cease and desist from this kind of behavior, to no avail. It is my distinct impression that this user is not here to help build a neutral encyclopedia. A strongly worded warning from an administrator that this kind of behavior is unacceptable seems to be in order at this point. Athenean (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure, that's why I posted here rather than WP:AE. But I don't think anyone would mind if it were stretched, particularly if it benefited the encyclopedia. Athenean (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that's probably the case. Alright, I'm off to get some sleep - I'm too tired now to think completely straight and don't want to be doing anything controversial half asleep. My initial reaction is to give notifications/sternly worded warnings to the main two edit warriors at Cyprus dispute, rapidly progressing to blocks/revert paroles/etc should this nonsense continue. I also note that Athenean is entirely correct in analyzing the frequent talkpage soapboxing of E4024, something that also needs to be addressed along with the edit warring. If anyone wants to act on this in the meantime please feel free. Otherwise I'll deal with it when I wake up. Best, Moreschi (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Have a good sleep Moreschi. May Greek gods protect you...--E4024 (talk) 06:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking over both the main- and the talkpage edits listed above, I don't find them particularly POV or inflammatory. Differentiating between Cyprus (the Island) and the Republic of Cyprus (which claims all of it, but only controls ~60%) seems to be a reasonable and encyclopedic thing to do. We describe the state as it is, not as it should be. The edit warring, on the other hand, is cause for concern. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Stephan Schulz. I also thank Athenean for bringing the issue here, because as a newcomer I would not know how to do it. Sorry, everyone, for taking your time... --E4024 (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I have been traditionally involved with discussions regarding Cyprus, but not this time (we have got some more complex discussions on Turkish Wikipedia currently :). As an outsider, I can say that E4024 has been involved in some obvious personal attacks, including an example above. However, the case is not that simple, at least in the case of the article of Cyprus dispute. E4024 is not just editing the stable version to push his POV, this is a two-sided dispute, between 23x2 and E4024. The dispute is over the first sentence, and 23x2 replaced the stable version with the current version. His source does not confirm anything about the Cyprus dispute (it does not even have the word "dispute" in it), but E4024's source doesn't either. Then E4024 reverted it and added his own reference, which started a slow-motion edit war between the two. 23x2 has gone as far as accusing one user of being E4024's puppet. I do not have any involvement in the case of the article of Cyprus, and I got involved in the "Cyprus dispute" without any particular intention :) In short, I think presenting the issue in the article of Cyprus dispute as completely consisting of POV-pushing by E4024 is incorrect, and I am not quite sure if Athenean has the right to call him an "aggressive Turkish nationalist". But certainly, he has violated WP:NPA and potentially 3RR (I don't know exactly). --Seksen (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for shedding light on the events. I wonder why you are not quite sure if Athenean has the right to call me "aggressive ... nationalist" while you have no doubts that I have been "involved in some obvious personal attacks". I am only trying to contribute to the articles that concern mainly Turks and Greeks, trying to make these texts less pro-Greek or -in other words- more objective. (BTW I am neither nationalist nor aggressive.)--E4024 (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @StephenSchultz: Not particularly POV or inflammatory you say? I forgot to include this [26]. Meanwhile, I note that E4024 is continuing with the trolling both here [27] and elsewhere [28]. This needs to stop. Athenean (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not want to personalise things but I cannot understand the negative attitude against my edits. In the article Cyprus the user Spartiatisspartiatis has made 5 reverts in only 3 hours today. Why does Athenean not complain about Spartiatispartiatis? (The names are just like this, I am not being ironic.) I understand I will have to be less passionate in talk pages, but seeing these kinds of discrimination causes one to rebel. I am sorry about that. I do try to contribute to the articles in an honest, objective manner and will continue to do so. Any neutral party can see that looking into "all" of my edits, not only those hand-picked by one party. BTW, Athenean, the gentleman's name is Stephan Schultz, not StephenSchultz. --E4024 (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the universal rule of irony, it's actually "Stephan Schulz" ("a" in the given name, no "t" in the family name). In particular, I have nothing in common with Sergeant Schultz, except maybe girth... ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is good to have here people with sense of humour like you, Mister Schulz. I wish we edited the same pages... :-) --E4024 (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO it is quite probable that he would quickly lose his sense of humour if you insisted on making the same kind of edits in the articles he frequents as you do in your current ones. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I have absolutely no opinion on Cyprus whatsoever, and, as far as I know, I've never edited the relevant pages (save perhaps in some drive-by vandalism patrolling). However, I do have experience with nationalist/ethnocentric edit-warring of my own, and E4024's comments are completely incompatible with our working processes. I've issued E4024 a final warning; while I'm not going to be watching the pages in question (I'm not even certain all of the pages that would require watching), if anyone encounters further bad behavior, they're welcome to report it to me or back to ANI. Continuing disruption would be grounds for a series of escalating blocks, until such time as E4024 agrees to edit civilly and neutrally. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:X Nilloc X continued disruptive editing

    User:X Nilloc X is continuing the behavior he was blocked for recently right off his block. He is doing this both logged in and out (User:98.185.55.83, which is currently blocked). He continues to add a sum total of casualties from various different sources (WP:SYNTH) at List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan, despite obvious consensus against it on the talk page, on Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present), and at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Can someone please issue another block, as they will not get a clue. Note that the blocking admin stated very clearly that continuing would result in reblocking.--Atlan (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Greg L

    Content dispute. Take it back to article talk. AniMate 00:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User User:Greg L is, in my opinion, causing unnecessary disruption. He has begun overwriting all the discussion of his behaviour on his talk page diff (sorry I can't work out how to wikify that link) including the record of his recent ban and abusive language. I guess I can live with him reverted a whole lot of work I did in the weekend, apparently because he feels he is the champion of (User:GFHandel here and User:John_Vandenberg here (who didn't revert any of my changes) that have criticised me recently. I've set up a specific space for discussing criteria for inclusion on the List_of_computer-aided_design_editors at [[30]] which User:Greg L is just ignoring and launching against me. I'm on self enforced editing ban for a week so if anyone agrees with me I'd love to see my changes reinserted. I will try to engage him on the talk page but am not very hopeful. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That's quite a screed Greg has on his Talk page. I believe User:Bwilkins knows more about this as he blocked Greg on May 14 (which block notice Greg impermissibly removed from his Talk page), and has had discussions with Greg on Bwilkins's Talk page. I didn't look at anything you've done - I stopped after looking at Greg's recent history.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You can remove block notices, but not declined unblock requests while the block is still in place unless something has changed. As for the rest, I'd recommend filing an WP:RfC when you get back from your self-enforced hiatus. I'd also recommend ignoring Wikipedia for the duration of that hiatus and not asking others to edit for you. AniMate 22:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right; my memory of the policy/guideline was faulty. See WP:REMOVED.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And, Bbb23, I think you can do better than point to my “screed” and point out how I was recently blocked (for telling DuLithgow precisely what I think of him). Now I am obeying all the little-finger-out niceties of using wiki-pleasantries and am quite intent on sticking to the rules of Wikipedia and pure facts. This is purely an issue of editing against consensus; nothing more and nothing less. Notwithstanding that Cobalt is a $3000+ CAD program used by Scaled Composites to design a spacecraft, Lithgow got a wild hair about how it wasn’t sufficiently notable to merit an article on Wikipedia. As others have pointed out to him, he is simply wrong and he got reverted over there. Now he is turning Wikipedia into a battlefield and has expanded the battle to the list of CAD programs and has now come here to wikilawyer to get his way notwithstanding that no one is agreeing with his arguments. If you want to write that “Greg L is poopy and no one should believe him because he writes non-politically correct ‘screeds’,” do it on your own talk page please; stick to the issue here. Greg L (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But my Talk page is so boring, and you're so entertaining, even if you do use words like "poopy" (unlike some of your edit summaries where you more frankly call things "shit").--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And after DuLithgow gets out of my f**king face and I’m not so busy in real life that I blow up over unnecessary crap like he’s done, and after I get through with my pout, I’ll restore my pages. Greg L (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a particularly fine talk page screed, which everyone should read. The illustrations are very telling. -- Dianna (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. This editor is editwarring against consensus and is now wikilawyering. Another editor argued against his overly bold deletions of material here at Talk:List_of_computer-aided_design_editors#Complaints_over_unfair_removal. The editor who objected (User:GFHandel) is clearly correct and I agreed with him. The consensus is against what Lithgow is attempting to do there. Moreover, this activity on the list is all just part of his getting his way over deleting our Cobalt (CAD program) article, which I created. Lithgow has objected for months on the Cobalt article but the community doesn’t see things his way. Last week he started an AFD on that and got soundly shouted down by several other editors even without any of my help. Now he is active on the list deleting Cobalt from the list as well as other articles in an attempt to sweep up Cobalt with also-rans, and clearly doesn’t have a leg to stand on when he alleges that Cobalt is non-notable.
    GFHandel edits on a different time schedule. I suggest he be allowed to weigh in again over there. So far, this is 100% an issue of an editor (Lithgow) editing against consensus. If he wants to delete wholesale swaths of material that other editors toiled to create, he can make arguments on talk pages that gain traction with others; pure and simple. So far, his arguments are simply not supported by the facts. Greg L (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Greg was blocked for his actions regarding Cobalt (CAD program), which is entirely unrelated to any supposed conversations with postgraduate students and his actions at the linked page. This appears to be a content dispute. This doesn't belong here, even given the predictably short duration of his retirement. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Postdocs, not “postgraduate students”. I do my homework. That usually entails going to the highest sources I can find to get the real facts. Greg L (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't believe that Greg_L is "causing unnecessary disruption". 150 readers a day visit List of computer-aided design editors, so it is important to discuss the contents and format of the list there before making wholesale changes. Now that the edits by DuLithgow have been reverted, local editors can get back to discussing the content (and yes, this is now a content issue, so apologies for taking up time here). GFHandel ♬  23:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The section of this page Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_talk_page_blanking seems to be relevant to the way User:Greg L is removing peoples comments from his talk page. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    As admins already know, he's allowed to do so...so why bring it up yet again? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @duncan.lithgow: Please drop the matter. Leave Greg and the related articles alone for a month. If there is a pressing need for stuff to be deleted from List of computer-aided design editors, someone else will take up the challenge. Creating ten sections at Talk:List of computer-aided design editors with proposals to delete stuff and naming Greg is just point scoring and is not helpful for the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    British Pakistanis

    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)[reply]

    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" [31] and that "statistically Pakistanis carry out a disproportionate amount of sex attacks in the UK" [32] (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)[reply]

    others have noted the tag-teaming of shrike and ankhmorpork as well [33]. 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[34]. ankhmorpork and shrike must be banned for tag-teaming, disruptive editing, and pov-pushing.-- altetendekrabbe  14:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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:

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Can you please explain why you have suddenly taken such an interest in this particular issue? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 [35], as well as your usual inflammatory rhetoric [36], 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[37], [38]. As you freely admit [39], 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)[reply]
    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" - [40]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[41][42] [43] 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)[reply]
    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."[44] 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)[reply]
    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. [45]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Diff: [46]. 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? [47]. Are you here to contribute to a neutral and informative encyclopaedia, or for some other purpose? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • AndyTheGrump's edit here [48], 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)[reply]


    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 [49] 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 [50], 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Horseshit. Calling another editor a bigot is a blatant personal attack.Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    See the revision history of the British Pakistanis article [51]. Shrike repeatedly reinserted the controversial material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Nordichammer

    INDEFINITELY BLOCKED
    troll only account blocked, let's move on Nobody Ent 10:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Template:CueNordichammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be blocked for these slurs and racist comments [52] [53] [54]. This is an SPA to disrupt and troll, nothing more. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    by the way, here is a racist who is supporting ankhmorpork [55][56]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Pity that they didn't carry out a CU on that editor, imho... Keristrasza (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    [57]. user shrike made a fool out of himself. just like you.-- altetendekrabbe  19:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    He continue to personally attack other users.When it will end?--Shrike (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Yes, you are totally Unbefuckinglievable. What do you think Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines are for? Decoration? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Just following the normal talk page convention would be best. Nobody Ent 16:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Please help. The John Austin (songwriter) page should not have been deleted.

    Not the right place. Editor directed to WP:DRV.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The following article should not have been deleted:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Austin_%28songwriter%29

    All of the information contained in the article "John Austin (songwriter)" is factual. John Austin meets the notability requirements, having worked with many artists of notability, and having released publicly documented works for over 20 years. Paste Magazine has written feature articles on John Austin, and JA's album "Busted at the Pearly Gates" received an honorable mention in Paste Magazine as one of the most important albums of 2002. Please contact Paste Magazine's editor-in-chief Josh Jackson to verify.

    Please restore the Wikipedia article "John Austin (songwriter)". Thank you.

    98.117.242.142 (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    As this was deleted after community discussion, your next step is deletion review. Please ensure that you use appropriate arguments to sustain why the deletion was not as per policy (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add that it's possible to have an admin copy the article into userspace for you if you'd like time to work on adding references to show notability before it's restored to Wikipedia space. Nobody Ent 18:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Austin_%28songwriter%29

    This article was deleted because the administrators overlooked 3rd party reliable sources that were better actually than the administrator's research seemed to show. Additional online references will be cited to support the notability of songwriter John Austin. Thank you. 98.117.242.142 (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Please go to deletion review. That is the appropriate place to ask for a review. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:67.134.35.66 vandalizing Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012

    IP blocked, admin actions in question were rolled back. Jaeurback has admitted he could've handled this better, and he can probably take the consensus shown here regarding what constitutes BLP exemption to 3RR home for future consideration. Equazcion (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Nothing major here, just adding silly garbage to paint Obama as a commie/socialist. See here for an example. Any chance we could get a semi protection for this page, or block this IP?JoelWhy (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked all three of you for WP:3RR. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:3RRNO - "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected until the day after election day. There has been some vandalism already, and the article is obviously going to attract a whole lot more, even with semi-protection. -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 20:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP violations are exempt from WP:3RR, and a facile attempt to compare Obama to Lenin, Stalin and Mao on the basis of a single-word slogan clearly comes under BLP. Those reverting this violation of policy should not have been blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This was a really stupid block. Jauerback should be admonished for this.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that this block was at best poorly thought out. We should not be blocking people for reverting obvious BLP violations. OohBunnies! Leave a message 20:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And JayJasper only made two reverts! Agree that the block of JoelWhy and JayJasper was completely incorrect (careless and stupid, really) and should be reversed immediately. Blocking first and asking questions later is very poor policy.--Loonymonkey (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a reason this went down the way it did. Words have meaning. The edits were labeled vandalism. The IP was warned for vandalism. It wasn't vandalism. It was POV. It may have been BLP. And it certainly hit 3RR+. If the IP had been correctly warned in the first place there's at least a chance that he could have gotten the point before blocks were needed, and the other two editors would have been standing on firmer ground.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but I don't care how it was labelled while it was being reverted - it was a BLP violation on a very highly watched page. It needed to be reverted, and they were doing the reverting. You can't say that two editors who were working within policy, with clean block records, deserve blocks just because a reversion or warning was labelled wrongly. OohBunnies! Leave a message 20:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think they deserved blocks. And the info did need reversion. But they (or at least the OP) did screw up the process. If you tell the IP he's vandalizing, he's going to (righly) say "I am not!" If you say, "that's not neutral, let's talk about it on the talk page", there's at least a chance he'll listen. Doing things right at least gives success a chance before it gets messy.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your point about communicating with the IP, but I think blocking them this way is rather worse. It makes it really difficult for editors to deal with BLP violations and the like if they can get blocked for it. OohBunnies! Leave a message 20:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree in general. The suggestion I was typing before I edit conflicted with the blocking admins was a 3rr block for the IP, and a wrist slap + education for the OP. The OP had the good of the encyclopedia as a goal, but I do think that many of these issues get escalated because people are in vandal fighting mode and fail to try to communicate to the real person behind the IP. (To be clear I'm talking about misguided IP's like this and not the true vandal vandals.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is a supposedly "semi-retired" administrator making nine blocks in one day?--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment here [58]. I recommend an unblock. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    JoelWhy should be unblocked as well. Sure, it might have been more accurate to label it a BLP violation right off the bat (rather than the generic "vandalism") but that warrants a note on the talk page, not a block. As someone who takes BLP policy very seriously, I hate to see a good editor punished for following that policy. It's also troubling that Jauerback decided to just block several experienced editors without bothering to look at the edits in question and then immediately went offline. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to see JoelWhy unblocked. They were following policy, even if they made a mistake. I think the admin that committed this drive-by blocking needs a bit of a talking to. OohBunnies! Leave a message 20:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've unblocked JoelWhy; this block lacked nuance. If editors are really supposed to stop reverting and discuss on the talk page the addition of the phrase "On April 30, 2012 the campaign announced that its slogan would be "Forward", which has been used by Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Vladimir Lenin in similar rallying situations", then we can pretty much give up on writing a serious encyclopedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, because that looks like a bit of a shot at me. I'm not talking about discussing the inclusion of such material. I do though think it's very important though to accurately tell the IP what it is he's doing wrong. It can even be through a template. There are many types for a reason. The vandalism one is great if someone's putting "penis" in the article. But the BLP one or NPOV one explain the policies that are actually being broken. It's not about entertaining the nonsense that he's trying to insert, it's about trying to make a legitimate try to stop the edit war before we're 6 deep in reversions.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't intended as a shot at you, CL. What you're saying about telling the IP exactly what he's doing wrong makes sense. It was a criticism of a 3RR block on Joel. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we all agree that it wasn't technically vandalism, it was POV pushing. However, in either case, the BLP exemptions of 3RR apply. So, was it wrong to label it vandalism? Technically, yes. But is that mistake worth a block? -Scottywong| prattle _ 21:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism is defined as edits that damage the encyclopedia. So it's perfectly reasonable to call ridiculous comparisons to dictators "vandalism". However, it's better to be specific and say "BLP violation". That way there's no doubt about the reason for the revert. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    In hindsight, I agree that protecting the article would have been the best course of action, however I still stand by my actions. Most of the points have already been made above, so there's no sense in rehashing them. Although, I do have to comment on the question about why a "semi-retired" admin that made nine blocks today... Really? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 23:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If you stand by your actions that suggests you should have your admin privileges revoked since you'd repeat the injustice in a similar circumstance. It's inconceivable that your wouldn't even apologize to the editors you blocked. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Jauerback, I believe I'm the only person in this thread who could possibly be (mistakenly) viewed as supportive of the block. If you're reading my complaint about JoelWhy's initial handling as siding with the block, please do not. Although I thought mistakes were made, in my opinion the blocks were heavy handed, and failed to recognize the totality of the situation.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The admin was totally in the wrong issuing blocks to the registered users. The IP was making a rapid series of BLP-violating edits, and the registered users were trying to protect wikipedia. The admin's proper course of action would have been to (1) semi the page, to fend off the IP; and (2) revert the Stalin nonsense if necessary. It's to be hoped he's learned something from this situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad to see others refer to the BLP exception of WP:3RRNO. See this discussion: [59]. I believe BLP applies to this article. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP applies anywhere on Wikipedia - article, talk page, whatever. Or at least, it is supposed to... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Poor edit summaries, too many reversions, slow to ask for help, 2/3 blocks poor, blocks fixed, all better. Perfection is not required (they let me edit, don't they?), only good faith. Let's all move on, shall we? Nobody Ent 01:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP assaulted the article 6 times in 24 minutes. Maybe time enough to post an RFPP, but that page has been unreliable for quick action (as is this one, frankly), and protecting a BLP is top priority. Much more unsettling is the admin's continued lack of understanding of the issue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't want to drag this out, but I'm inclined to agree about the unsettling aspect. I am not assuming bad faith of the blocking admin, nor do I think they should be desysopped, but this entire thread has been filled with people pointing out that the reverting was perfectly in line with WP:3RRNO and the BLP policy - which is an important policy. The fact that the only thing the admin has said is "I stand by my actions" is...just disheartening. A case of WP:IDHT? I dunno. I would feel a lot more comfortable if Jauerback at least recognised that the blocks were inappropriate. But I sense that's not coming, so maybe this should be closed. OohBunnies! Leave a message 02:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think at the very least it would be reassuring to see the blocking admin acknowledge that the block of JayJasper was unambiguously incorrect. JayJasper had only reverted twice, so WP:3RR clearly doesn't apply, BLP or not. Probably just a simple mistake, but it'd be nice to know that a somewhat inactive admin understands 3RR fully. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on the block of JoelWhy, simply because he had reverted more than 3 times. -Scottywong| gab _ 03:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, experienced editors who have contribute much to the project over the years work diligently to keep an IP editor's puerile "Obama iz a sekrit Marxist" crap out of an article, and they all get blocked for it? I made one revert myself in this affair before going off for the afternoon, guess I should feel lucky/blessed that I escaped this highly questionable form for collective punishment. This Jauerback does not appear to possess the ability to mediate difficult topic areas, and would serve the project best by staying far away from this one in the future. Tarc (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Tarc, it appears you were lucky indeed. You made one revert, which meant you were only one more revert away from being blocked for violation of 3RR. Or so it would seem. When I saw that "you are blocked for violating 3RR" after having made only two reverts - both of which were explained in the edit summary, the second giving a link to 3RR and urging the IP user to discuss the issue on the talk page rather than keep edit warring - I thought it had to be a joke or at least an honest mistake on the part of Jauerback. I must say it is disheartening to hear Jauerback say he "stands by" the action of blocking an editor clearly acting in good faith for 3RR infraction after only two reverts. And, for that matter, defending his block of JoelWhy, who was also clearly acting in good faith. Yes, he reverted more than 3 times, and perhaps could have used a better term than "vandalism", but it's clear that his intentions were to uphold the BLP policy and defend against blantant POV-pushing. In light of this, and that he is an established editor who has made valuable contributions to the project, shouldn't he (and I) at least have had warning before blocked? With all that said, the blocks were quickly revoked, so it could have been worse. I won't hold a grudge, but I will say to Jauerback, for future reference: could you please not make decisions like these so hastily? (as this seemed to have been), and do established editors - presumably acting in good faith - not deserve a fair warning before being blocked? Your consideration of this might well be of benefit to you and your fellow editors, as attested by the reaction to this incident.--JayJasper (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As this is the second time in less than a month (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive748#What are legitimate grounds for a precipitate block for edit warring.3F) that a very bad block has taken place it would be nice if admins investigating 3RR situations from now on would, at the very least, take the time to fully investigate what is going on before handing out blocks. Treating long time productive editors like dirt as they protect WikiP from IPs and SPA editors can only have a chilling effect on the community. Since making an apology seems so difficult to do it would be a good idea to prevent a situation where they should be issuing them. MarnetteD | Talk 03:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If more admins will as you put it "take the time to fully investigate what is going on before handing out blocks" as a result of this and similar incidents, then this entire brouhaha will have served a constructive purpose.--JayJasper (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also important to keep in mind that this is only liable to get worse, as the American presidential election approaches. In 2008, the candidates' articles (especially Palin) were constantly under siege from BLP-violators. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think what's been done now is the right course of action: protect the article until after the election, and unblock the two people who tried to stop non-neutral information from being added pbp 04:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless the blocked editors receive an apology and/or the administrator in question is admonished, I see no reason to revert BLP violations. I have no desire to deal with being blocked by a trigger happy admin and then have to deal with the autoblock if a sensible admin comes around.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reckless block with no thought of helping the encyclopedia Jauerback is clearly in the wrong, but there is no requirement that mistaken admins be beaten until they confess so this discussion could be closed soon as the blunders have been rectified. Nevertheless, Jauerback's comments suggest that the same blocks would be issued in similar cases in the future, so some more grilling may be warranted. My main objection to this sort of rule-bound response is that admins should be helping the encyclopedia: if you see some editors edit warring (particularly when the editor has requested help on ANI!), you need to have at least a quick look at the issue before blocking. The reverts might be exempt from 3RR, or in questionable cases, some thought is required. In this case, an IP was repeatedly adding unsupportable stupidity to a political article—not covered by WP:VAND. Nevertheless, the reverting editors were obviously trying to help the encyclopedia, although they should have requested help earlier (WP:RFPP). Blocking editors who are doing the right thing wrongly is stupid—it sends the message that articles should not be defended against attacks. Protect the article and leave a helpful message at each editor's talk (they must not do that again, and a link to where they should go for help). If that's too much trouble, do nothing and let someone else handle it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I resent the self-righteous tone of some posters here, calling for blood like politicians in a scandal. We're above that, guys. That said, I really want some assurance from Jauerback that he wouldn't do the same in the future. Because if he doesn't see that his actions were wrong, then that's a problem. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 04:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, after going over everything again, which is always so simple after the fact... I'll concede JayJasper did not break 3RR. I already stated that protecting the article would have been a better option, however that doesn't excuse the edit warring over content. That's the part everyone seems to be missing. It wasn't vandalism and it's questionable whether it was a BLP violation. Neither registered user was even consistent in their edit summaries on what they believed they were reverting. At one point both called it "vandalism", at another, both mentioned 3RR and taking it to the talk page or that it was against consensus. To me, that says "content dispute" all over it, not BLP and certainly not vandalism (from their point of view). In regards to BLP: Is it BLP? Are you sure? It's sourced content (whether it's RS is another issue for another board), but everyone keeps saying, "Oh noes! Barack Obama is being compared to Stalin. BLP! BLP!" If that's what happened, then I would agree, but IT DIDN'T. It was a content dispute over the use of a campaign slogan in comparison to Stalin, Mao, and Lenin in an article about Barack Obama's campaign... and it was sourced. If that's BLP, that's a stretch. Now if you want to argue BLP, please take that to the appropriate venue as it really doesn't belong here, but I had to use it to explain my actions. My goal was to stop the disruption, not add to the drama. Oh, for the record (not that it really matters), I initially found out about this issue through AIV. I only noticed it was brought here after that fact. Finally, if JayJasper says to me unequivocally that they would not have reverted further had the content been added again (before any blocks), I will AGF they are telling the truth and apologize. Outside of that, I won't participating further in this discussion as I doubt I will change any minds, anyway.Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • What a deeply disappointing response. If anyone notices Jauerback making any more stupid blocks like this, please ping me, or any other admin with a modicum of judgment, and I'll undo it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotta agree with Floquenbeam. Based on the above statement, Jauerback still does not believe he did anything wrong, does not see a contentious edit primary-sourced to an opinion/punditry site is a BLP problem, and has AGF backwards. Not endearing qualities for an admin. And I'm someone who normally supports admin blocks for edit-warring; it simply wasn't called for here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, one more reason to quit this ridiculous bureaucratic cult masquerading as something vaguely useful. Wikipedia has its priorities entirely backwards, and self-serving admins incapable of actually appreciating the efforts of those trying to stop articles on politicians turning into graffiti-covered shithouse walls are one of the more obvious symptoms... AndyTheGrump (talk)
    • As Andy says, the priorities are whacked out. If there were some "opinion" website likening Romney to Hitler, or likening the president to a monkey, I wonder if the admin would treat it any differently than he did with this? He either needs to take off his blinders or surrender his adminship. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate the quick unblock. For the record, had I been a bit more knowledgeable of certain Wiki policies, I likely could have avoided this entire situation. So, I definitely learned something here, which is good. And, I don't need Jaurback to apologize, I'm certainly not angry with him because of the block. That being said, I think he has displayed a real arrogance here that I find disturbing. I mean, the response to the block on JayJasper ("if JayJasper says to me unequivocally that they would not have reverted further had the content been added again (before any blocks), I will AGF they are telling the truth and apologize") is absolutely infuriating. I've long felt that one of the traits which distinguishes adults from children is an ability to admit ones mistakes. This rationalizing followed by the 'screw you guys, I'm going home' attitude demonstrates a real lack of maturity, IMO. And, if this same situation occurs with other editors on a less prominent page, I hate to think that he would be able to repeat this behavior with a fair bit of impunity.JoelWhy (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But none of the editors involved in the edit-war said anything about BLP. They were calling it vandalism. I suggest that the next time a dispute like this arises, editors should take the issue to WP:BLP/N. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What 'edit war'? The reverts were entirely in line with policy, and with the interests of Wikipedia. Ok, someone used the wrong word to describe an attempt to fill Wikipedia with moronic crap, but so what? Infantile... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, when I mentioned above that I could have avoided the entire situation, I mean that if I had indicated BLP in my reverts I think I could have prevented this entire situation. That is clearly my fault (and, a learning experience for me.) So, I'm not pretending I'm entirely blameless here.JoelWhy (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) AQFK when you defend Jauerback's block with that reasoninng, the more you damage that goal. There's definately a better way it could have been handled by JoelWhy. I've been vocal about that above. But using what could be a learning experience as justification for a poorly decided block is just going to elicit the reaction we see from ATG. The subjects need to be disconnected. How to better prevent edit wars with POV/BLP content is on one side, but totaly separate is button mashing blocks on good faith users without warning.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically enough, I actually was warned. After engaging in the edits, User: Morphh was kind enough to inform me of my mistake on my talk page, noting "I'd hate to see you sanctioned for multiple reverts of something you thought was vandalism." I thanked him on his talk page, stopped doing the reverts, but about 15 minutes I was blocked. So, clearly some editors understand how to take a common sense approach to resolve an issue...JoelWhy (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    NE gets on the soapbox

    (edit conflict × many)Big picture: what we have here are three editors trying to make Wikipedia better: JoelWhy and JayJasper by reverting bogus edits and requesting community help, and Jauerback by blocking edit warring editors. Mistakes were made. We have a "bright-line" 3rr rule that's stated unequivocally -- followed by a list of exceptions. Notably BLP, which states What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

    We are resource limited: sometimes sneaky vandalism persists for days or weeks in articles, and we have periodic notices here and at AN about backlogs on admin boards. Yes, the blocks were inappropriate, but it's illogical to simultaneously fret about both admin backlogs and admins not taking enough time before taking action, or previously inactive admins finding time to volunteer. It's illogical to be concerned with a shortage of admins and savage existing admins when they pooch things up. This concept that editors who screw must be badgered into mea culpas is childish. I read once -- when reading The Art of War was in vogue in business circles -- that it talks about always allowing an opponent a graceful exit. We've communicated fairly clearly to Jauerback our disappointment with this particular decision. What's important is not whether they engage in some junior "shaking hands" ritual but how they execute admin responsibilities in the future. Giving an editor time and space to mull things over is frequently more effective than repeated verbal pounding.

    A sample size of one is too small to seriously consider resignation demands. If you feel Jauerback's action makes them unworthy of a sysop, file an ArbCom case. Otherwise let's put the sticks down. Nobody Ent 13:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:EHP touches on this. Equazcion (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't change the fact that it's human nature. You might appreciate similar understanding the next time you fuck up. Equazcion (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I fuck up all the time, I also know how to say "My bad, I'll try not to do that again."--Cube lurker (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you? That's exceedingly easy to say now when you're not the one under the lamp. He conceded already that other courses of action would've been better. There's no need to continue demanding some specific answer that meets your standards. This is done. Equazcion (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too. Mistakes happen. But some people will only go so far in acknowledging mistakes. I am assuredly on the side that blocking the 2 registered accounts was a mistake. Perhaps we should have Obama/Romney related pages semi-protected until November 7th. Or maybe it's too soon for that. Let's also remember that Obama pages are under a 1RR(article probation), and technically editors can be blocked after 2 reverts. So if an anon IP makes edits that are clear violations of Wiki policies, one can go to the 3RR board and report it, then ask for page protection(if an editor deems the IP persistent enough to hop to other IPs). Jauerback should have looked more clearly at the situation and made a better call, but it's not worth an ArbCom case or a DeSysOp. I hope William, Bugs and everyone else continue to patrol the pages on their watch lists and revert BLP violations. Along with vandalism. I think this thread shows that if an Admin does make a mistake, the community(along with clear eyed Admins) will rectify it. I move for a close to this thread. Dave Dial (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Me, too, and this trait makes Wikipedia a better place. I also know that expecting others to have the same personality characteristics is another way of fucking up, and expecting that they do doesn't make Wikipedia a better place. Nobody Ent 14:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, I've got nothing more to say after this, but there's a learning experience all admins should heed. Jauerbeck could have ended this thread at 1/3rd it's length with a simple 'sorry'. And he would have lost far less respect than he has now.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    organise

    OP has graciously agreed to drop the request.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I think that the use of the word Organise should be changed to Organize, as it is more internationally acceptible. THX, Ax1om77 (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:ENGVAR. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the reply. However, does that harm or help my arguement? thx, Ax1om77 20:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) As Lothar points out, we have a policy already that addresses variations in spellings such as that between "Organize" and "Organise". Also, this noticeboard isn't here to decide content issues, but to address pressing issues that need administrative attention. If you feel that ENGVAR should be changed, you probably want to open a discussion at the Village pump. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 20:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. - If your proposal applies to a single article, be sure to read and understand ENGVAR, and then bring it up on the article's talk page. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 20:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much, i'll take my arguement there :) THX, Ax1om77 20:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No, please don't. That would be unwise. This is the many-versions-of-English Wikipedia, and that particular point has been argued a million times. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I won't. THX, Ax1om77 20:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Mass WP:BOOKSPAM / WP:REFSPAM by BoxingGoMan

    First reported here> Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Lineage_Unbroken
    Account

    BoxingGoMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Appears BoxingGoMan is mass reference spamming a book, and adding it to hundreds of article.

    Need Some eyes on this one, seems is also claiming discrimination and prejudiced against other users.--Hu12 (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The reference used is legitimately in range, as being the source of information added on, even if it is from one single source. No meaningful harm in any way whatsoever has ensued, except for harrassment from a user who was told to "stop", but declined to listen. Further fabrication from that very user is on that user's talk page, as well as not even being a member of WikiProject:Spam. Please check for yourself. Thank you. --BoxingGoMan (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your contributions to wikipedia consist entirely of adding links to this book and is considered WP:Spam. In particular it is WP:REFSPAM because the additions are just Mass spammed and don't appear to verify articles content. It has become apparent that your account and IP's are only being used for promotion in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising". It would appear the book is self published, which would make it also fail Wikipedia's core content policies:
    You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote "Lineage Unbroken" right? --Hu12 (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. I'll undo all the referenecs then that I added, but not the WikipediaBooks I created, that really is improvement. I appologise for any inconvenience, and ask that the user who disrespects me to leaves me alone and stays away. Otherwise, no problems! --BoxingGoMan (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It does appears you are the Author of Lineage Unbroken: The Complete Lineal Tracing of World Heavyweight Championship Boxing (Post-Marciano Era) 1956-2003. It also appears that you have solicited a couple of wikipedia users to purchase it, by asking them to "check out" your book, and posting your amazon affiliate link on their talk pages (here and Here). you have also breached WP:CIV by accusing another user, who in good faith tried to discuss your edits, of " discriminatory and prejudised biased info that directly attacks me", then continued the attack on the users page here.--Hu12 (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Content vandalism

    • Good catch, but Oh man.... this looks automated, and dastardly sneaky because all the "content" looks reasonable--the added production companies are real production companies Wikilinked to real articles, the added actors are real with reasonable-sounding names, etc. I am not an admin but I'd bet an IP range block will be in order, and that'll help shut down the damage... until the vandal switches ISPs or moves. Then there's the cleanup. Zad68 03:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh. They do all locate to Rio de Janeiro and some of the edits are like those of long time sock master Pé de Chinelo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Even if it isn't that blocked editor I know that I have come across one or two other examples of this low level vandalism recently (though I can't remember the IP range - apologies) - if it continues a rangeblock would be nice if possible and, perhaps, we should notify the filmproject to be on the lookout for this editing pattern. MarnetteD | Talk 03:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks everybody for chiming in and taking this vandal down. I caught this because I had just seen Whatever Works and checked the article. I found Diane Keaton listed in the cast when I didn't recall her being in the film. It would have seemed natural to have Diane Keaton in a Woody Allen film, wouldn't it? Have fun tracking down all the damage this guy has done. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    And now 201.19.84.189, another veloxzone.com.br] Vandalism-only IP, doing "sneaky vandalism". JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Reported to WP:AIV, but no WP:SPI done for this or previous IP. Should one be done, to get a temporary range-block? JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked 201.19.0.0/16 for six months, hopefully he will find a new hobby, what a sad & pathetic individual. Definitely notify the film project, there is a huge amount to check. WilliamH (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Who would like to do their good deed for the day?

    Please see [60] and the chap's talk page. Basically a Syrian good-faith user can't edit due to that bastard government's bastardly internet censorship. I understand that any admin can grant IP block exemption (if I'm incorrect please tell me) so I've brought it here as no one has noticed it where he put it after a few hours. Egg Centric 21:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually it looks like I have misread it as he needs it for proxy exemption which may need steward attention. I will keep this thread here in case I'm doubly wrong and an admin can sort this out, and post on the steward's board. Egg Centric 21:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I will go talk to the user soon after some food, and offer them IPBE per standard practice (after a CU, also standard practice). A global exemption is only needed for a global block. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Building a shrine?

    BLOCKED
    User blocked, page nuked. (non-admin closure) --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Resolved
     – User blocked indef by Tide Rolls, pages nuked by yours truly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User Plum90 (talk · contribs) has been tagging a large number of IP userpages as socks of a blocked user, with virtually no other edits. It's possible that the user only means to help, but it's probably more possible that Plum90 is connected to the blocked user and is attempting to build a shrine of some sort. I'd appreciate some input or differing points of view, please. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I very much doubt it's a shrine as such, at least not to a real vandal... he just seems to have tagged every IP that edited James Randi, pretty much indiscriminately. Which hardly makes him a good faith editor. I suppose since it doesn't really "matter" that he should be given a chance to explain himself before he gets blocked, but I don't think he's gonna be around for long...Egg Centric 21:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not just James Randi, various religion related articles, on second looks... (but seriously, look at the edit history of the Randi article - every IP at least on the first page has been tagged by this guy) Egg Centric 21:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For example - Christianity - he's gone back to 2010 from when it was not protected, and although he's missed a couple at the very end of IP editing before the protection, pretty much every IP as he goes down the list he's also started tagging. This is most peculiar. Egg Centric 22:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Did anyone consider asking Plum90 what they were up to before bringing it to ANI? Reyk YO! 22:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I considered it. I decided against it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't realize what that Caleb Murdock is up to. We have to stop him before he ruins Wikipedia.-Plum90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    Please explain to us what he is up to. You might also explain how he edits from all over the world. MarnetteD | Talk 23:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The first result on google seems to suggest that he is "up to" growing a considerable, but not remarkable (by wikipedia standards) neckbeard. Why is that a worry? Egg Centric 23:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ironic, since the sixth result on google shows him reviewing an electric razor on Amazon. Now that doesn't add up at all... Dybeck (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Murdock is very clever. He has learned how to log onto Wikipedia from any IP in the world (or almost). He is inserting false informaton from these IPs and doing a great deal of damage to the encyclopedia.-Plum90 (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide differences of how these IPs have done any of the things you are accusing them of. For any admins looking into this I made User:BullRangifer, who originated the original sockpuppet case, aware of this thread in hopes that they can shed some light on this. MarnetteD | Talk 23:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the notification. I'm sure this is much more interesting than it appears to me, since I've arrived after all the evidence has been destroyed. That's one thing that disturbs me. There is too much blanking of history in many venues. We can't learn what's happened, so we can't learn to recognize the vandals and socks when they reappear. Will someone at least give me some clue about what's been happening? Has he been using many IPs again? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Admittedly, a fair number of those edits are vandalism, but let's face it, most IP edits probably are, after all it's damn good fun vandalising, due to it increasing your virility and attractiveness to the fairer sex. But what about edits like this? Why is this devious Murdock fellow so interested in adding miscellanea trademarks by some obscure fellow with three valid looking references? Does he also control the entire internet? Egg Centric 23:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    80% of vandalism is by IPs, but only 20% of the edits by IPs are actually vandalism. The majority are good faith edits. [61] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the magic word for batch deleting all a user's page creations? Twinkle (or some other script I have installed) has d-batch, but that only works on a list of pages in a category or linked on a page, it isn't available on his contributions page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Nuke? - SudoGhost 00:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's the one. Thank you, SudoGhost. Pages nuked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to Tide Rolls for blocking this editor and I was about to ask if all their tagging should be reverted but Floquenbeam beat me to it so thanks to you as well. MarnetteD | Talk 23:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If this was like, a week ago, I'd be all like... awww, floquenbeam, can't we have any more fun with this troll. But given the last 48 hours, I'm all like, thanks for teaching that bugger a lesson flo, and if I was a lady I'd TOTALLY have your babies Egg Centric 00:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm honored (and slightly alarmed), but have to graciously decline. For now, anyway. It's not you, it's me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is fairly obvious to me that Plum90 (talk · contribs) is a sock of Caleb Murdock (talk · contribs). JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:TenPoundHammer

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    That's the term I was looking for. --MASEM (t) 05:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What Masem said. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What Drmies said. SummerPhD (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon me, but what (asketh EEng) said Drmies? EEng (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "What Masem said. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)"[reply]
    Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I need new glasses. EEng (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Are you saying he suffers from Premature Evaluation? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's some good advice on this at WP:TOOSOON. EEng (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. SilverserenC 09:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    Can you provide statistics for Afds since the RFC close? Nobody Ent 17:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    .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)[reply]
    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. SilverserenC 19:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. SilverserenC 19:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

        • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_May_1#User:Cla68

    Resolved

    Could an uninvolved admin close this DRV when they get a chance? Its been open for over two weeks now, and hasn't had any comments in several days. Its been open so long that it isn't even showing up on the recent discussions section. Apologies if this isn't the right place to bring this. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor with a habit of personal attacks while editing drunk

    Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) appears to be getting into the habit of editing while intoxicated and making personal attacks, as seen again here on this very board, a few threads above [62]. He did pretty much the same thing just a couple days ago, resulting in multiple unacceptable posts in several venues [63][64][65], and got warnings from at least two admins [66]. Seems at least a brief sobering-up block is in order, but probably also a longer-term one, since his attacks come in the context of a larger pattern of contentious and tendentious editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=492918308"