Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:42, 19 May 2012

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

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)

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

British Pakistanis

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

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

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

Sources

Given that both User:AnkhMorpork and User:Darkness Shines have been misrepresenting sources, and citing Right-wing American supporters of the EDL and similar questionable sources to add material casting an entire ethnic minority in a bad light - specifically, making false claims that "Most UK girl child abusers are British Pakistanis" and that "statistically Pakistanis carry out a disproportionate amount of sex attacks in the UK" (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 Misplaced Pages to pursue an agenda which can only be motivated by political POV-pushing, Islamophobia, or outright racism. Can anyone indicate another article on Misplaced Pages that contains a 'Contemporary issues' section on 'Child sex abuse' sourced to cherry-picked material, far-right commentators, and the like? AnkhMorpork and Darkness Shines had, along with User:Shrike, tag-teamed to keep this material in the article, while refusing to explain why such a section is justified in this article alone - or why they consider it of such importance, given their apparent lack of other interest in the British Pakistani minority. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Statement by AnkhMorpork

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

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

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

(subsequent addition)

In my view, these sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is interesting that you choose to defend yourself from allegations of misrepresenting sources by misrepresenting evidence. Given the article you cited is an example of inter-communal violence and you had previously inserted into the lead a innacurate claim about the ethnic characteristics of the perpetrators , as well as your usual inflammatory rhetoric , 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, . As you freely admit , you have a POV that you want to present in articles, the problem is that the way you go about it is to find sources that fit your POV and insert them into articles irrespective of quality or appropriateness, rather than trying to find the most appropriate sources for an article and then reflecting them in a balanced way. Dlv999 (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you make mention of the comment that I wrote to Zero, it is only fair to make note of his response: "I like the collegial attitude you bring to the editing task and hope you will continue" - 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 and supported by 4 other editors. However, to do so seems diversionary, and this only reinforces the impression that your contributions in this thread are based on previous I-P disagreements.Ankh.Morpork 18:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

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

And I note that you have now contested my statement that the contested material "citing Right-wing American supporters of the EDL and similar questionable sources". This is a fact, it did. It cited Erick Stakelbeck, a right-wing US commentator who has not only openly asserted his support for the EDL, but done so in the most inflammatory language. . 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 Misplaced Pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civility

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

• AndyTheGrump's edit here , 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 15:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Rather than having another dispute about 'civility', why don't we actually address the real issue here, which is POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and using an article on an ethnic group as a forum for an attack on said group. Since AnkhMorpork has brought up The times as a source, can I suggest that people take a look at this diff 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 , but obviously this needs checking by someone with access to the original. If it is correct, it seems self-evident that AnkhMorpork has grossly misrepresented the Times article in order to portray a regional problem as national, and restricted to the activities of one particular ethnic group, when it is nothing of the sort. Such misrepresentations are surely grounds for a topic ban, if not a block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)  Highlighted the crux point. --Ohiostandard 10:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nordichammer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take a look here too please

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

posting while intoxicated

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

Proposed topic ban for AnkhMorpork

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why? AndyTheGrump (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose: Quite aside from Brewcrewer's sensible and accurate remarks, and quite aside from that topic ban proposals ought to come from far cleaner hands than Andy's, let's get this straight: the grounds for this ban are that AnkhMorpork doesn't use the sources you want him to use, and that he won't "admit" to things to which you demand he admit? Since when are Misplaced Pages editors required to cite sources based on what end of the political spectrum those sources favor? Since when are they required to submit to pledges as to what (otherwise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article: Child sex trafficking study sparks exaggerated racial stereotyping

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed topic ban for AndyTheGrump

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propose closing this entire topic

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

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

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

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

Proposed topic ban on everything for everyone

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

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

• In the future, everyone will be topic-banned for fifteen minutes. Tom Harrison 21:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as I believe that the editors who agree with me and I are exempt from topic bans, always. Support for everyone else. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Finally, a reasonable proposal. Equazcion 21:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Dammit, there is way too much editing of articles around here. We should all cluster around the noticeboards instead, throwing insults and accusations at each other and requesting that we be banned from content. We are after all an outlet for our agressions, not here to build an encyclopedia, right? (Unfortunately, it does kinda look like that is what some of the editors here are wanting.) John Carter (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The topic ban only needs to be on all those whose delicate sensitivities are offended by the occasional harsh word used when presenting real home truths. A little more honest emotion from posters and little less middle American, sweet Christian hypocrisy, presented in a terribly nice way, would do Misplaced Pages a damn lot of good at times. We all feel emotional and have strong feelings on some topics. Perpetually suppressing that in that name of civil niceness is psychologically unhealthy. It means that people don't say what they are actually thinking. How can that be good? HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, piss off. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support except for users with precisely two 'e's, two 'g's, and two 'c's in their username Egg Centric 23:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Totally agree. Eequazccioggn 02:22, 29 Dec 2024 (UTC)
• Support Except for me of course. Trust me, I know what I'm doing. --Mirokado (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Mirokado. Except me, not him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: This appears to be the only proposal gaining any real traction in this discussion, which highlights (1) the sheer ridiculousness of all of the above, and (2) that everyone probably ought to stay away from AN/I for a while because it usually solves little and just ends up angering a lot of people. Therefore, I propose closing this entire thread, with the note that everyone is not allowed to edit topics about anything, broadly construed. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Topic Bans for Some, Mineature American Flags for others - It's the win win solution for everyone Hasteur (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Best answer so far. I actually read that in the Kang voice. Equazcion 00:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    • KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANG!! KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANG!!! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• A mighty whack from the Frozen Trout of Seafood Justice for all. Ravenswing 06:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support The only sensible solution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment proposer appears to have failed to use ANI-notice on all users. DuncanHill (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

User:TenPoundHammer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 • 18:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I think that part if the problem is that TPH has a different view of deletion to others. For example his belief that "ItsNotable" is an invalid argument in deletion debates, as well as his use of AFD to get articles on notable subjects cleaned up by others. I had a discussion with him recently where he took the view that someone being a "renowned sculptor" wasn't a credible assertion of importance. Perhaps the best solution here would be to topic ban TPH from the deletion process, with of course exemptions for G7 and U1. ϢereSpielChequers 07:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • That would be an overreaction. And "it's notable" sans evidence is indeed no argument at all, as evidenced by its inclusion at ATA. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • What Chris said ... and beyond that, calling someone a "renowned sculptor" isn't a credible assertion of importance. It is merely an assertion of importance. "Credible" would require evidence in the form of reliable sources quoting, well, credible authorities. Ravenswing 20:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Ditto Chris. Way too extreme. And "renowned sculptor" might get you out of CSD but not AFD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Editor with a habit of personal attacks while editing drunk

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

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 . He did pretty much the same thing just a couple days ago, resulting in multiple unacceptable posts in several venues , and got warnings from at least two admins . 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)

• Note - I'm inclined to think a block is needed for Darkness's own good, but I want a second opinion by someone who knows Darkness Shines. Personal attacks while admittedly drunk. Others around him have been less than civil at times but that isn't an excuse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  Already blocked by parsecboy. I suggest blocks of escalating lengths if this sort of behavior continues. --regentspark (comment) 20:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  Was about to post the same on both points. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks guys. Now's the time for me to get the beer out of the fridge in turn. Don't let me edit for the next few hours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  I don't care if he is or isn't drunk, that kind of behavior is completely unacceptable. Misplaced Pages is not therapy. Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  Can't he argue diminished capacity? Not that that wouldn't be true of many editors even when sober. Did anyone give him a wikipedia sobriety test? Just the section header of this topic made me laugh before I even read the content.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  "Your honor, I was too drunk to be able to judge if I was fit to drive, so you should acquit me of this DWI because it isn't my fault." ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  Andy accused him of being a bigot and also used vulgar language. Why wasn't he warned and blocked as well? On the face of it it looks like DS was goaded into an outburst. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Although someone else's incivility never excuses your own, the MF/civility arbcom case did highlight the goading aspect, and as you point out he has been extremely uncivil on his own. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(Unconstructive posting by IP editor removed; likely harassment sock. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC))

For such an accusation you at least need to provide difs as evidence. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy was in the difs above you fantastic faithful buttercup, now go have a nice day and freshen yourself, you fair speaker. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I asked for specific difs to be presented on this page so everyone was clear what accusations were being made. But I thank you for your comment, which one agains reminds me why I took the decision to refrain from any further interaction with you long ago. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"You are a liar, and a bigot, and unfit to contribute to Misplaced Pages."

"This is POV-pushing bigotry, end of story. Shit like this doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages, and the sooner we get rid of the sort of individuals who think it does, the better." (indirectly accusing Darkness here, as that's who he's referring to)

Those are just two examples. Silverseren 22:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• • (Hic)*...whadda you mean we caint can't ebit while having a lil' bit o' sauce. That would take hav the fun out of it. Nex, you be telling us we kan't use recreatt...rekreatshun...wreakre...Mexican agriculture.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Heck, I was just about to post something of the same. I have a hard time imagining why Darkness Shines should be blocked for his offensive comments, but Andy wasn't blocked for his offensive comments. Ravenswing 01:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Andy used very uncivil language, there's no question. I told him on his talk page to knock that off, and he accepted that advice. But Andy only said, in an unsophisticated and improperly blunt way, what a lot of us have been thinking. When an editor who's here mostly to champion Israel and the Jewish ethnicity tries to paint people from a nation that Israel considers an adversary, Pakistan, as paedophiles, he should expect to be called unpleasant names.

Let's be candid about this: If some Pakistani or Iranian had done what AnkhMorpork has done, heavily used one very partisan source and selectively pulled from others in an extremely skewed way, to falsely paint people of Jewish or Israeli extraction as perverts, that person would have been called worse names, and by a much wider swathe of editors. And he would have been topic-banned, almost immediately. We all know this. --OhioStandard (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please show the diffs were Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) championed "Jewish ethnicity"?.Even if the Andy was 100% right content wise it doesn't matter such language is not accepted as the language of Darkness Shines is not accepted too they should be both blocked and its strange that one only of them was blocked. --Shrike (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm having some difficulty understanding how one can express the concept of saying someone is telling lies without using the word 'lie' or 'liar', nor do I understand how one talks about racial prejudice without using the terms 'bigotry' or 'bigot'. Perhaps some form of euphemism is acceptable, such 'purveyor of terminological inexactitudes' or 'economical with the truth'? Is Misplaced Pages running under the rules of the House of Commons, whereby one is not allowed to exactitude of expression in favour of a faux-politeness? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, how's that for a bigotted, xenophobic attack on a national institution? —MistyMorn (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL is pretty clear "Comment on content, not on the contributor".--Shrike (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The definition of "lie" includes intent, which is unknowable. Editor has pattern of making false statements is preferred. Likewise, Editor's contributions show a pattern of anti-Muslim POV pushing is also preferred. Civility standards are notability vague and varied and unevenly enforced, so it is best to stay out of gray area behavior. Intemperate language is counterproductive because often shifts focus away questionable behavior being referred to onto the describer of the behavior.Nobody Ent 10:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This comment by Nobody Ent ( that paragon of non-hasty wisdom ) is one of the clearest and most concise arguments in favour of civility I've ever read. Even editors who see civility as disingenuous or cynical can't deny the truth and utility of his final sentence, at least. --OhioStandard (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't improve on Ent's statement so suffice it to say that he is 100% correct. It is counterproductive to ramp up the drama through carelessly throwing around accusations regarding someone's intent and has no place here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Having a pattern of telling untruths--even after correction--could merely be a coincidence and is no indication whatsoever of a person's intent. I look forward to you using this form of logic when a so-called vandalism-only or spamming account is brought to this board: after all, all those bad edits do not show intent--which is always unknowable, don't you know--and can't be used to label an editor. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Editors have called members of that Jewish sect who circumcises by biting off the baby's foreskin paedophiles on here without any trouble. Of course it's ridiculous to claim that all Pakistanis are paedophiles but as far as I can see no one has been doing that; what people have been doing is suggesting there is something wrong with a small part of the culture, AFAIK only in Britain, and frankly they would be right. They are only echoing the media in this.

There is a huge difference between racism and criticising culture that happens to be adopted by members of an ethnic group, or indeed a small part of that culture, and frankly if you want my personal opinion we need less of the former but possibly more of the latter. Cultural relatvism is what is stopping us from saying that Saudi Arabia are shits for stopping women driving, Brazil is shits for allowing child sex abuse so long as it's "consensual", Russia are shits for extreme corruption, Nigeria are shits for a likewise reason, and Americans are shits for executing some of their black men and locking up most of the rest at one time or another. You can criticise every culture (yes I used countries here but so 'twas for simplicity) for something and also, I have to say, some cultures are "objectively" worse than others. Of course ultimately how you compare em is gonna be arbitary, but would you like to be a woman in a Wahhabist culture? You must judge an individual as an individual, but you should also judge a group as a group. Egg Centric 21:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

On the drunk thing

As someone who's been blocked, rightly, for drunken editing a year or so ago, I wonder how common this is amongst registered users? If it is common then I would be interested in contributing to a proper policy on this. Basically escalating blocks, but also the possibility of being reinstated on condition of getting help...

There is also the possibilty of introducing a userscript that stops people from editing between certain times and a block/ban could be made on that basis. Actually...

Egg Centric 21:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Surely, given the highly evolved language we should be using, we should be saying that editor in question is editing while 'tired and emotional'? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Drinking whilst editing might make for an interesting question on the annual survey. That would be more accurate than asking people to publicly self identify, as somehow I doubt that many who do so would admit it publicly. Without wanting to stereotype, I'd put money on my fellow Brits being less abstemious than those of you from across the pond. Though I'm sure there are exceptions in both directions. ϢereSpielChequers 17:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) is community banned from posting when substantially intoxicated, or appearing by his edits to be so, with the definition of "substantially" to be decided by the community. (Suggestion: roughly approximating to six pints of Guinness) .

• Support as proposer Egg Centric 21:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Please find something better to do with your time than making flippant comments on the drama board. Given that you were blocked not a week ago for ill-judged humour, ANI is probably not the best place to have another go at it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a joke. Seems fairly sensible that if a user's problems are caused by alcohol, it's best to cut that out rather than giving up on the user altogether. Having said that, your broader point is taken, toodles! Egg Centric 22:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as essentially unenforceable and unnecessary: if an editor's contributions are sub-standard or disruptive or uncivil, it matters little why that is the case, they should be dealt with because they're sub-standard, disruptive or uncivil. I've known people who can be totally coherent when stewed to the gills, and others who can't manage coherency even when they're cold stone sober. Why, in short, should we care about what's going on behind the screen, when we can act on the actual edits? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, BMK lays it out pretty clearly. Heiro 04:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose at least until Misplaced Pages has a USB Alcolizer interface. Blackmane (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per BMK. Not enforceable or helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose spectacularly ill-considered proposal - per BMK. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Hospitaller2003

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

User:Hospitaller2003 is deleting without any explanation text in the article Order of Saint Michael of the Wing (history ). He deleted infobox, inter-wiki, references and categories, and rest of the article was left without wlinks, all without any consensus or explanation.

He was welcomed , and was four times warned about removal of content without explanation , , and .

Because in only one edit summary he wrote "Removed defamatory information and misinformation intended to obfuscate the true. The legal cases were decided in Dom Duarte's favor in all instances and have been misrepresented in previous edits to say otherwise", I checked the article with references and NPOVed article . But without success, he again removed infobox, iw, cats etc., again without any explanation .

His version of the article looks terrible. This account is probably utilised only for one article, please see his edits.

It looks like short block is only way for communication with him.--Yopie (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• The level of reverts is only once or maybe twice a day, although he has been working on that article for some time. Isn't this really a case for WP:DRN? I agree that his revert decision to strip it down makes it look rather plain, which is odd since he seemed fine with the symbol back in 2011, and he ignored the info box for months until early this month. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• • He do it again , again without explanation. He was informed about this ANI , but in response he deleted again infobox, interwiki and categories in the article. What I can do against it? --Yopie (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I pointed you to WP:DRN, dispute resolution noticeboard. His actions are not "vandalism", even if they are unhelpful and somewhat ugly to the eye. ANI is only for "incidents" (The "I" part) that need immediate action, which isn't the case here. Yet. We really can't decide content issues here, it is out of the scope of this board and would be improper in this case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

'Jaguar/Sandbox/3' edits

Live discussion moved from archive 732.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This error exists in a large number of articles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 7) Errors like the ones pointed out here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is bigger than me

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

As with the above, your arguments here are lengthy but not very convincing. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've collapsed the big wall of text above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think a good executive summary of this case can be found in the declined unblock request. Basically, Brendon went to Ron Ritzman's user talk to question his keep closure of an AfD. At some point, Bwilkins joined in to try to prise Brendon away. Brendon's response was to flame him, and Bwilkins blocked. The rest of this seems to be a textbook case of civil POV pushing: repeatedly dodging straightforward questions of how a brand-new editor had such a good grasp of a barrel-load of convenient policy, not to mention wikicode: hiding behind WP:BITE despite such (the idea behind bite is to insulate new clueless editors, not editors who somehow know policy well from the get-go): claiming harrassment, bullying, hounding et cetera from admin X upon the very first interaction and declaring that this meant the editor was involved, yadda yadda. Were I the sort of editor who throws around accusations of socking lightly, I'd suggest that Brendon should know for his next account that civil POV pushing works best when one keeps it civil, and that there's little more valued in the civil POV pushing community than being able to point at one's clean block log. But of course I am not an editor who throws around accusations of socking lightly, and so I would like to welcome Brendon to our community, note that the behavior he has engaged in is typically described as the "civil POV pushing" pattern, and ask him nicely to consider the advice given him on his talk page as to how to proceed in his future editing on Misplaced Pages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Making sock accusations lightly is vastly preferable to making sock accusations via innuendo. Claiming not to make accusations of socking while concurrently actually doing so is simply dishonest. Of course WP:SPI would be the best route. The OP has agreed to move on (on their talk page). Nobody Ent 14:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a stick. I dropped it. I would also like to clarify,

I am not actually asking for any retribution against Bwilkins,

I just wanted others' feedback, so that I could learn how to navigate more freely and efficiently in this Wiki-world.

Now as it seems, it won't be possible. Bam...Back to sock puppet argument again.  Brendon ishere 14:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"civil POV pushing" - I don't understand. Believe me, I don't. But that doesn't mean I'm not doing it unknowingly. I would like to refrain from "civil POV pushing". Please tell me how, Please.
New addition (at 15:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC))Does that apply to editors who work within a narrow range of topics (like me) but try their best to adhere to Misplaced Pages's core policies? Brendon ishere 14:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If what you're looking for here is feedback, let me share mine: You were upset about an AfD and flew off the handle, attacking people, assuming bad faith and stupidity, and generally refusing to interact in a collegial manner. Could a more explicit warning have been issued? Sure, I guess, though I like to think that Wikipedians are able to understand implication and don't always need to be hit over the head with a giant warning template. Is the real issue here still the fact that you don't seem to understand that your engagement style is not acceptable on Misplaced Pages? Yeah. So I would encourage you to take some time to read through WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:5P. Familiarize yourself with our conduct standards, and really give some thought to how you could have handled the whole matter, from AfD to talk to block to ANI, more appropriately - because if it happens again, you won't have the fallback of "I wasn't warned" that you have now. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Fluffernutter,

you wrote "how you could have handled the whole matter, from AfD to talk to block to ANI, more appropriately" - exactly that's what I'm asking. Please tell me how. I am sincerely confused. I don't if I was "battling" or "harassing" Ron Ritzman. Neither he nor anybody else warned me. I'm sorry, but I don't read minds.

@Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward)
If you think I'm a sock then file an WP:SPI.  Brendon ishere 15:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, this was sufficient warning as per Misplaced Pages's requirements. The "I was not warned" game is very very wearying (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

At this point, all that is required to allow this thread to end is for either Bwilkins or Brendon to allow the other to have the last word Nobody Ent 19:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Response

Now that I have actually been advised of this, here's what I see are his concerns:

• he does not feel he was being aggressive in his pursuit of reversal of his AFD
• he feels he was not warned before being blocked
• he feels that he was blocked for attacking me, making me "involved"
• he feels I'm "pro-block"
• he feels so angry at me, his comments above are loaded with massive personal attacks

I think I'm merely going to address the untruths in the above.

• I have over 1300 pages on my watchlist, including a number of admins. User:Ron Ritzman was approached by Brendon to reverse his close on an AFD. Ron patiently advised that there was no other way of closing it. Brendon continued to pester him, even though Ron had pointed out policy-related reasons to move on. Brendon continued, so I stepped in to provide what was a combination of guidance to go to DRV with his concerns, and a warning not to continue perstering Ron. Indeed, I already had read enough tone in the discussion that I determined that Brendon was escalating his action, phrasing, and aggressiveness.
• Warnings, as we know, do not need to be placed on the user's talkpage - and my stepping in on Ron's talkkpage was very clear and obvious to its intent as a warning. Indeed, Brendon already admits he read it as a "go away" message: it was. Warning was seen, received, and apparently has been read as per its intent.
• Brendon's response to my warning/guidance was extremely aggressive. I am not even aware that his message might have been considered to be an attack on me: he was not blocked for any such reason. I was obviously not WP:INVOLVED - I provided a very short 48hr block to protect the project for actions contrary to the project - the block log and message are very clear as to the reasoning.
• The top of my userpage shows my philosophy of Misplaced Pages: Everybody has something to add to Misplaced Pages: many just don't know it yet. Blocking is clearly not my preferred direction - my role is to mediate/guide and protect the project when necessary. The editor with the most blocks on this project has 36,766 blocks. I have 401, and hope to never reach the top 50 blocking admins. Seeing as most of those are vandals and spammers, that's not block-happy by any stretch of the imagination. Selective linking to a recent such case doesn't show that it's my "pattern". I even advised Ron Ritzman the reason behind the block, and suggested that he would be free to reduce the block length if he wished.
• You're right: like every single other administrator, some people who get blocked become pissed off and go attacking the admin who did it. This is probably the genesis of an essay I've been working on: User:Bwilkins/Essays/Shut_up_and_calm_down. A quick trip to Brendon's talkpage history shows I worked my ass off to get him unblocked - even offerring to do so myself if he simply followed WP:GAB. The two declined unblocks do give a great summary that I was not alone in determining a long pattern over such a short Wikicareer so far.

In short: I want this editor to succeed. I admire the passion. What I will admire more, however, will be what I hope is a true desire to work within community norms. A few specifics:

• When the deleting admin of an AFD says "there's no other way" - then continue following the deletion process and stop Wikihounding them about their judgement.
• When prompted to read a useful piece of policy (such as WP:GAB) then actually read it - and amend your actions accordingly.
• Stop the WP:BATTLE mentality on Misplaced Pages as a whole - because all-in-all, that's exactly what this ANI (and the continuing discussion on your talkpage) is. The horse is long dead. Claiming otherwise while continuing it is just - well - unbelievable really

Look, all in all, this is truly unfortunate that my first interactions with any editor are to have to warn them, and then block them to protect the project (usually it's a Welcome message - I've done hundreds of those). The sad thing is that every single administrator has had to do the exact same thing dozens (hundreds?) of times. It's unfortunate that the admins who addressed the unblock requests also saw a history of improper behaviour, and agreed that the project needed protection.

Now that you have dozens of admins watching you from this point forward, how you proceed in the future will determine your own success. I have been, and always will be here to assist and guide you, but will also be here to protect the project if needed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I would read the above response in full but let clarify that I didn't feel I was not warned before being blocked, it's because I wasn't formally warned. As for the perceived "personal attacks" I'm sorry.

But "pester"? What kind of a word is that?

Moving on, Ron Ritzman didn't say I was "badgering him" or "pestering" him or "harassing him". Maybe it would now seem as though I was "pestering" him, it didn't to me. Truly it didn't. And, I don't know how to do telepathy. I may comment as I read further into the comment of Bwilkins.  Brendon ishere 16:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"Everybody has something to add to Misplaced Pages: many just don't know it yet. Blocking is clearly not my preferred direction" - well, Bwilkins I am willing to believe you. But actions speak too.

"Stop the WP:BATTLE mentality on Misplaced Pages as a whole" -  agreed

"When prompted to read a useful piece of policy (such as WP:GAB) then actually read it - and amend your actions accordingly" -  agreed. This is what I should have gotten instead of a "BLOCK". Thank you, Bwilkins.  Brendon ishere 17:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Clear veteran user now trolling for a block

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

Brendon is clearly a veteran user who came back to Misplaced Pages to cause problems on the recent Muhammad images RfC. Now that it is over he is trolling to be blocked. Can we just get it over with already? Why must the community put up with this any longer?Griswaldo (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear to me. If you have evidence, please file spi Nobody Ent 22:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If I knew how to quantify odors I would file an SPI. I give him another month before he has left on his own or gotten himself blocked. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

There's power in good faith Nobody Ent 02:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This is called provocation. Is this not offensive to repeatedly and consistently (1, 2 and 3) accuse a well-meaning editor of sock-puppetry, based on disagreements? This is really painful to see people who are so imbued with hatred. Really painful as a human.  Brendon ishere 07:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about the socking, but looking at this editor's behaviour here in this thread, in connection with his performance at Talk:Islam and domestic violence and his previous activities at the Mohammad images fracas, I do believe his overall pattern of activities here is a mixture of tendentious editing, filibustering and trolling. I'm prepared to block for a longish period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages wants us to be bold, am I wrong? I made changes in good-faith. I am presently in middle of a discussion both in User talk:Amatulic and Talk:Islam and domestic violence (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs). I don't see how your accusation fits me.

And, quite frankly, I'm mildly offended by your choice of words. "Filibustering", "trolling" - must you have spoken in these terms? Besides, I don't know if this conversation is made to use up time so that a vote cannot be taken and a law cannot be passed. So filibustering would be yet another breach of Good-faith.

Does nobody see this how I'm getting harassed?  Brendon ishere 08:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Mmm, I wouldn't say "harassed". More like... "tough love". Doc talk 08:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that it's suspicious, but I don't have the time for an SPI - can somebody do the honours so that we can sort this, once and for all, either way please? GiantSnowman 08:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

If we have so far not seen any concrete proposal of whose sock he might be, I doubt such proposals and evidence will magically materialize just because somebody lists it at SPI. My suggestion is to leave the socking aspect aside and concentrate on the disruptive conduct of this account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Issuing decrees like this should be a thing to be avoided by most. No one should have to take any editor's "word" for it, having to approach them on their user talkpage before making a change to an article. Doc talk 08:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What "decree"? Decree is an exaggerated description of that. It was simply a request.  Brendon ishere 09:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No one needs to consult with you, or any other editor, on anyone's user talk page before making any edit to any article. To request that they do smacks of what we call... meh. The article talk page is there for those sorts of discussions. This is a small lesson for you. There's a few more to learn, of course. Doc talk 09:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

"concentrate on the disruptive conduct of this account." -  let's do it but I request you to do it with a goal to improve the conduct of my account (which I am sure, you will) and not to expunge the account altogether.

"No one needs to consult with you, or any other editor," -  Agreed. I am sorry it seemed so fair to me at that time. I know now, it might not have been appropriate. Nevertheless, wikipedia is, at end of the day, a collaborative process. I don't it's a major crime to request other editors, in good-faith, to discuss with me if they think my additions are inappropriate.

I don't understand why people are not commenting on the censorious accusations (e.g. "filibustering", "trolling") that are being witlessly hurled at me?  Brendon ishere 09:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "censorious"? You haven't looked into your own history of making "censorious" comments carefully enough to appreciate that this request is laughable. What, do you want reprimands? Doc talk 09:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever man, Whatever. You people want to provoke me with your gratuitous comments, far from actually trying to help me. You don't judge other editors with same yardstick. You think one crime justifies another. I don't agree. If I'm wrong that doesn't necessitate the repetition of the same wrong thing again and again. User:Griswaldo, User:Doc9871, User:Bwilkins are seemingly more interested in denigrating me and vilifying me instead of guiding me in the right direction. What the hell do you want me to say???? This ridicule is not going to help wikipedia, or is it? You don't seem to be inclined towards turning me into a collaborator at all. The same old derogatory comments repeated ad nauseam, how are they helping me? They are not helping.  Brendon ishere 12:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion on my talk-page (only if anybody is interested) instead of taking up space here. I don't want to seem like a "filibuster".  Brendon ishere 09:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to move it to your talkpage - things I post there get magically removed, no matter how helpful they are.

First, requiring (not "asking") people to advise you if they disagree is ownership. We have a bold, revert, discuss (on the article talkpage) process to help find WP:CONSENSUS.

Second, when people who are uninvolved overall use terms like "filibuster", etc., it might be a good idea to look at your behaviour so far - indeed, the original ANI filing obtained a wide range of comments that could help you move forward - as did the two declined unblock requests. You said you wanted to learn - have you yet? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You are all being trolled.Griswaldo (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's never a bad idea to reinforce these things. Maybe, just maybe, it will prevent at least one editor from becoming a troll in the first place. Then it's worth it. Or, so they say. Doc talk 10:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The OP is either a new editor or a previous editor deliberating disrupting Misplaced Pages. In either case, all that is required is to stop responding, let them have last word, and let the bot archive the discussion.

• If they are a new, continued argument is contrary to WP:BITE and WP:EHP.
• If they are the latter, continued discussion is contary to WP:DNFT.Nobody Ent 11:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

@Griswaldo,

"You are all being trolled." - can you prove your statement? I firmly disapprove of your choice of words. If you can't produce concrete proof of what you are claiming (I'm a troll or SOCK or whatever), then I suggest you refrain from using such words.

If you have something to say about me, then I suggest we take this argument off ANI. This is not the right place to continue this argument further.  Brendon ishere 12:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep. This looks like trolling. It may be sincere POV pushing. The prescription is the same. But I don't care for summary justice. I'd like to see a case put together, with diffs, before anybody gets blocked. If he's still here when I've got some time, I'll do it and post it here. Please feel free to do it for me if you want to. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

OMG! Pardon me but I think you're baiting me.

Disruptive, agenda-driven or disturbed editors may egg you on in the subtlest of ways, may come at you as a victim, as someone who cares or someone who's hurt. They may mix in inaccurate information or misquote you to compel you to respond. They may manipulate the civility policy as a weapon.

In content disputes, a common baiting strategy involves badgering the opposition—while carefully remaining superficially civil—until someone lashes out. They then complain to an administrator. Time-pressed administrators may look only at specific edits without delving into the background that led up to the incident, resulting in a warning or block for the targeted editor. Most discouraging of all, this tactic is nearly risk-free. There rarely are negative consequences for those who use it, in part because a pattern of ongoing provocation can't easily be explained following the usual "diffs please" request. Sometimes these are after one particular individual and sometimes they're just after anyone who will take the bait.

— WP:BAIT

Is this what's going on? For any further comments kindly visit my talk page. Brendon ishere 14:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Baiting you? For what purpose? It is actually you who's "come at us as a victim, as someone who cares or someone who's hurt". In fact, that was the whole point of this thread you started. --Atlan (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat and block/ban evasion by 78.148.101.209

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abuse of Admin Rights

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

This editor Floquenbeam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has abused his admin rights and has attempted to bribe me () to not post an WP:AN. I will admit at this stage that I did have a rough time at WP:ANI a few months back where the administrator was a bit upset that I kept on including myself into ANI conflicts, but that has largely subsided for now, but this is just unacceptable and to me this looks like wanting to extend the conflict. The fact that I have brang an WP:AN discussion about a ban doesn't give one to act this way. Khvalamde :   Argue, Scream, Chat, Yell or Shout   04:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see abuse of admin rights here, especially for a good admin like Floquenbeam. This does not need desysopping or any admin actions; it is nothing more than Floquenbeam's expression of frustration - nothing more than that. Certainly not something for the drama board.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, I made the required notification.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

"attempted to bribe me". Don't be ridiculous. Attempted to use a little irony to persuade you to stop wasting everyone's time, more like. Get a life... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It is good to know that at least some wikipedians can't be bought for 5 dollars. Maybe if he upped it to 10 and threw in some S&H Green Stamps. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→

• There's no way any thinking individual would look at that comment and take it seriously, unless they were looking for propaganda to get those who oppose them in trouble. Non-issue. Flo was just facetiously emphasizing the point that you're too quick to jump to ban proposals, illustrating just how annoying it is and how much he'd like you to stop (as if that should need to be explained). Equazcion 04:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Its best not to let frustration give those your disagreeing with additional ammo, which is the problem with comments like that. That said, the idea that anyone could take that statement to be a serious offer to abuse admin rights strains the limits of AGF, and it is clearly not such an offer. I would suggest a {{trout}} to Khvalamde for bringing it here, but I fear it would not be appreciated for what it is. Monty₈₄₅ 06:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to say this: It is my experience that some people...a large segment of people, in fact...simply do not "get" sarcasm. I don't know if it's cultural or genetic or what, but it is really just beyond them. And don't try to explain it to these people...it won't do any good...just walk away. Quinn 19:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Self-confessed sock

I have to go offline. Please check . I've verified and blocked the listed open proxies, but not the accounts. If a checkuser is around, that might be most efficient. Materialscientist (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I've done the checkusering needed and blocked all the accounts listed. Courcelles 15:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot. Materialscientist (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Anon IP(s) vandalizing

(Moved from WT:AN, thanks – Kosm1fent 15:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)) I don't know if this is the correct spot (if not, apologies and please redirect me to the proper place), but i was told to report this at WP:ANI,

This anon IP (IPs, two so far that i know), keep removing stuff from the infoboxes of soccer players without one word, in spite of the fact they have been duly and repeatedly warned: we have 176.92.133.175 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/176.92.133.175, talkpage and warnings here http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:176.92.133.175), some diffs here (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rodrigo_Jos%C3%A9_Lima_dos_Santos&diff=prev&oldid=490945358) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Manoel_de_Oliveira_da_Silva_J%C3%BAnior&diff=next&oldid=488683277).

Then we have ourselves 176.92.29.172 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/176.92.29.172, talkpage here http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:176.92.29.172), diffs her (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Manoel_de_Oliveira_da_Silva_J%C3%BAnior&diff=492819693&oldid=492283143, please note as it also the Manoel de Oliveira da Silva Júnior article, where he was reverted previously and warned in the other address).

Even though i have not found any disruptive diffs in the third case, this IP also must be them (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/176.92.120.99), all edit from Greece, even though only two are located in the same city (Attica).

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible death threats

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

I am reporting two diffs from user 71.72.151.150 that may constitute death threats. They are directed towards user Berean Hunter, who warned 71.72.151.150 for vandalism about a year ago, which culminated in a block. These diffs are attempts to communicate with other users that Berean Hunter has apparently interacted with. After seeing the second one on RC patrol on 14 May, I reverted both with a UW4 warning (for a serious, 'improperly placed joke'). Minutes later, he told me he had made no such jokes , which I interpreted as goading. Since he has now told me this again , four days later, I am bringing the issue here. I did not initially see the content of those diffs as dangerously credible in light of the user's apparently friendly reconciliation with Berean Hunter , the way they were written, and the user's good faith edits. Please let me know if I should have originally attended to this issue differently. NTox · talk 16:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP seems to be fairly static (edited same article today as was edited some time ago, for example). As such, the 2 physical threats of violence can be readily attributed to the same person. The fact that they claim the threats are not a joke, they are therefore more credible as threats. I have blocked and e-mailed the emergency@ address (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that I made such an impression. Ah well, can't please everybody. I wonder who this really is? Thank you NTox for catching this and thank you Bwilkins for your help.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

edit warring (User:Alexander Pastukh)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luke 19 Verse 27

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

• Can we ban someone for putting his "lulz" above the goal of contributing to the encyclopaedia?
• Or for putting a desire to slur a minority he dislikes above that goal?

The first photo and caption were certainly intended by this advocate for Israel to convey the implication that Palestinians confuse little girls and adult women for the purpose of sexuality and marriage: See collapsed section above. And the addition of what Luke called "Tire crafts" to the "Palestinian handicrafts" section of the article was either vandalistic buffoonery, or an attempt to suggest that Palestinians strip cars as a hobby, or both.

It was just days ago, at 10:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC), that Kim Dent-Brown blocked Luke after seeing this similarly bizarre edit and assuming diminished capacity or a compromised account. Kim explains the problem to Luke here, and in this subsequent section, where she asks him to "stick to the task" and he replies by saying it was good advice, but adds "Hopefully in the future you will enjoy more of my contributions and wit."

When these most recent distractions from the purpose of the project are taken into consideration with previous junk on his talk, like this,

I find myself drawn to fat girls, with big breasts. I think it has to do with gravity, but I'm no physicist. I once wanted to bang a physicist, but I only got one D out of the deal. I feel really happy for your Zionist conquest. Hopefully you put your goy seed in her Greater Israel (between the two legs). Then, when he grows up in a free country, after suckin' Mamma Tel Aviverrific Shag's milk-n-honies, he can teach me what "Mazaltov" means... But about the bitches. I don't know much about Polish girls. Are they fat?

... well, then I don't see that this person is an asset here. What does everyone else think? Does this person's presence support the goal of producing an encyclopaedia, or interfere with it for his own amusement? --OhioStandard (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

PS: Neither Zero or Malik Shabazz could block Luke for this, btw, since they're both involved editors in the topic area. --Ohiostandard

Regarding lulz - obviously if lulz and improving the encyclopedia conflict, then anyone who chooses lulz has to re-evaluate their priorities or go. However, lulz and improving the encyclopedia are usually orthogonal and furthermore if an editor has a choice of making one of two edits, both of which improve the encyclopedia, one marginally less but with more lulz, I won't fault them for choosing that option. This is a hobby and it has to be fun.

Regarding sluring a minority - to be frank it doesn't matter whether it's improving the encyclopedia or not, that just can't be permitted. Assuming, of course, that minority and slur are fairly defined.

There are the answers to your questions. Now what we have here is a user that, to me, looks quite difficult to understand, the above edits can be taken in various ways, and consequently for me at least to decide what is fair I would want them to comment here. Egg Centric 17:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I think OhioStandard (an upstanding editor) is confused about some Muslim marriage customs. Women are betrothed to someone, often times years before the actual marriage. It wouldn't be strange for Muslim to be betrothed throughout her high school, or even middle school years. If a young girl has an intended, or if the girl's mother wants the community to approach her for marriage negotiations, she will often don the hijab and be concidered a woman. If a woman has started wearing hijab by age (14-20 maybe), she will often switch from a colorful one to a more drab hijab when she is betrothed or would like to be.

OhioStandard, I think you have made an excellent presentation, and you are my better in Misplaced Pages editting. But honestly, this is a cultural misunderstanding. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

All anyone needs to evaluate the suggestion of "a cultural misunderstanding" is to look at point #4 in the collapsed presentation, above. -- Ohiostandard 18:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting username choice as well. GiantSnowman 17:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• This doesn't need to be a long ANI conversation. I was about to block indef; this is unacceptable. But I see FP@S is kinder than me and just blocked for a week. Easy enough to upgrade to permanent if it ever happens again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, wikipedia. Almost always depressing in this topic area. Luke is a racist (or so ably pretending to be one for "lulz" that he is indistinguishable from one). His comments about the "meaning" of a hijab on a little girl are nonsense (I'm fairly expert in the Muslim world writ large). He's here to disparage the great, evil Muslim monolith (the faith is in fact quite heterogeneous). He's pretty up front about it (Luke 19.27 says "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.").Bali ultimate (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• (ec) Hopefully this block sends the right message. I don't think this user is here to only screw around, but screwing around in article space is indefensible. --Laser brain (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Floquenbeam (or others): if you feel a longer block or indef is in order, feel free to lengthen; no objection from my side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I almost never second guess like this, and don't do so lightly. But since FP@S graciously invited me to, I'm upping this block to indef. After a review of this user's edit history (I was previously familiar, having seen Kim Dent Brown's block a few days ago), I believe Bali ultimate is spot on (except maybe "bigot" instead of "racist"), and I simply can't imagine this leopard changing his spots in a week. There are lots of websites out there where he would be welcome, this is not one of them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• There has been a recent AN/I thread which got nowhere. Since then there has been my block (to my surprise, the first that Luke has received) after which I listed some of the problematic edits on Luke's talkpage. My opinion would be that Luke does make occasional competent and constructive edits, but that these are far outweighed by those which are for teh lulz and seem to me to be calculated to see how far he can go before being blocked. Luke and Iloveandrea seem to be competing to see how much they can get away with - see this edit from Iloveandrea on Luke's talk page. (Subsequently self-reverted at my request, otherwise I'd have blocked him too.) Overall I'd have liked to wait to gather just a little more data on Luke's editing, but seeing as we are here I support the block and the extension to indef. Kim Dent-Brown 18:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The edit you reference, as well as other talk page correspondence and shared interests (albeit declared to be on opposite sides of some issues) lead me to suspect that User:Luke_19_Verse_27 and User:Iloveandrea are WP:SOCKS playing a game. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

(can't believe i'm "helping"). I agree with Joe. The Andrea account is more than likely controlled by "Luke" or is a pal of his and they're both trolling for fun.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

After having watched Lukes talk page from a previous encounter I suspect that that may indeed be the case. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I didn't say so earlier, because the fact that "Luke" was editing via a different access point at his university than previously makes it difficult to prove, but I suppose it's all right now: Sean Hoyland's suggestion that this was another one of the drawer full of Lutrinae socks seems to me to have been spot on, for reasons it's probably best not to disclose publicly. He'll certainly be back; I'd guess he's probably created a new account already. It occurred to me, also, that Iloveandrea and "Luke" were probably good-hand/bad-hand accounts. What gives me pause is that Iloveandrea really has made quite a substantial number of edits that oppoose the current policies of the Israeli government. --OhioStandard (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The two of them have acknowledged being on the opposite side of this issue whilst chatting on their talk pages. I think it is part of the fun - "bad hand" - "bad hand" accounts, separated by a supposed intractable difference on I/P. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I have run a check and the two accounts are technically unrelated. I believe this thread can be closed now... Cheers. Salvio 19:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, Salvio. May I also just ask whether the "Luke" account can be appropriately logged for future reference to our prolific sockmaster friend, Lutrinae? That's the way the "regulars" in the I/P topic area all refer to him, as Lutrinae, and a "fresher" one of his socks would be convenient to maintain the "unbroken thread" back to Lutrinae, so to speak. Per Sean's comments, and other evidence, he seemed to be getting on the net via a Hilo campus access point, however, as opposed to his former access via a router at the main Univ. of Hawaii campus. --OhioStandard (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. Unfortunately, I could not compare Luke to Lutrinae, because the latter (along with all their socks) is stale. I'm sorry. Salvio 19:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I support indef block but would want a "super-consensus" for it actually to be given, for reasons of natural justice (not really fair to be given a week then find out you're on permanent timeout, although I appreciate this isn't a justice system) so long as it really is indefinite rather than infinite. If user could be clearer about what he's saying, and it turns out he's actually trying to say something different to what he is saying, then it could be removed, but inflammatory statements about "Muslim marriage customs" that clearly only apply to a minority and appear to be directed at the majority, plus many similar offences, are not acceptable. And yeah the username itself is suspiciously trolly and/or religious nutty (nothing wrong with being a religious nut in principle but it does mean one is about as likely to listen to reason as a troll is). Egg Centric 18:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Super consensus? This is clear and blatant trolling, and the user is treating Misplaced Pages like a dialysis machine, they're taking the piss out of us. The edits do not show a user who wants to contribute to the project, but he here for the "lulz". There are enough sites to go to "for the lulz", this isn't one of them. Sorry to come off harsh, but fairness doesn't apply when you are constantly acting like a troll. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, and that is why there will easily be a "super consensus" in this case. It's the criteria I would always want if a block were being extended without any further "acts". All I'm saying is if consensus was tight to establish, and somehow my !vote were the decider, I wouldn't want the block extended in those circumstances. Does that make sense? Egg Centric 18:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, and given evidence shown, as well as my comments above, Strong Support for indefinite block. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support checkuser and if Andrea linked to Luke support ban of both accounts. I have notified Andrea about this discussion. For clarity I don't have a view on whether Andrea is linked to Luke one way or the other (except of course defaulting to AGF, etc). Egg Centric 18:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Give another chance!! Wow, indefinite? I mean, surely that is unbelievably harsh. Couldn't there at least be some middle ground? I am not 100% sure what constitutes middle ground, like a week-long ban or something, but to go straight from a 12-hour block up to indefinite for one dodgy caption edit is pretty harsh. I like the guy's sense of humour, but suppose you don't? There is no obligation not to write gibberish on people's talk pages. If they object, and you persist, sure that is an offence, but I've not seen L19V27 do that. Maybe I've missed an occasion, I've not gone systematically through his edit history, but from I've seen he hasn't done that. If one reacts the right way, i.e. one does not adopt po-faced displeasure at his talk-page antics, there's no reason you can't have a laugh with him. Look at how I started my interaction with the guy: he and another 'pro'-Israel editor left a hasbara bomb on my talk page in response to something I have on my user page; I deleted what they wrote, and posted a bomb back. No big deal, we had a bit of back and forth and settled into a calm, relaxed contempt for each other. Disagreement doesn't have to be nasty.

  Another thing: if you are introducing a one-sided tone and imbalance to an I/P article, he'll certainly let you know about it. If I'm more honest than my opposition to L19V27's views on I/P prompts me to be, I've actually benefited from his inexplicit, though admittedly provocative, displeasure about the way certain articles to do with Israel are one-sidedly edited. For example, after having L19V27 challenge some edits I made to Binyamin Netanyahu's article, I actually sat back and thought about the nature of my edits there and consequently decided) to redo a section on Netanyahu.

  The nice thing about Misplaced Pages is that it doesn't, or at least its stated intent is not to, have its articles establish 'the truth' on contentious topics. I find most people, myself included, are content if their sources find their way into the article, even if the article does not reflect their point of view. If each person's favoured sources are present in the footnotes, anyone who goes to the article can read them and reach their own decision. On polarising topics, the article shouldn't spell out what a reader must conclude, but rather minimally describe the different points of view, attach the sources, and leave a reader to peruse and reach their own conclusion.

  I've actually taken L19V27's message to heart on recent edits to Ilan Pappé's article: rather than worrying about weighting the amount of praise/criticism quoted in the article, I just chopped it all out, listed the names of prominent admirers/critics, and sourced to where the praise/criticism can be read. Nice and simple.

  Summing up, L19V27's talk page edits can be quirky, I admit the caption was naughty (despite the plausible deniability), but I don't find his editing disruptive enough to warrant going from a 12-hour block to an indefinite ban. I respect his editing style enough to ask him to run through my planned rehash of Netanyahu's article—doesn't that say something? There are far worse 'pro'-Israel editors out there and, though it pains me to say it, there are unquestionably hyperactive pro-Palestinian editors like me about too. If you want me to give an example of an editor whom, unlike L19V27, I've actually seen sabotage articles, I'd offer a person I've recently encountered called Soosim. I was generous, for Soosim rightly complained about some of the sourcing, but he also went through deleting even RS material etc. on Ilan Pappé's article with a very definite agenda. It was that sabotage that prompted me to look at the article myself, including making all the cites RS. I'll also note that L19V27 had no problem with the alterations I made to the article.

  I was, and am, so tempted to simply clap my hands with joy that another 'pro'-Israel editor has been perma-banned, but that is not the way. If we have no one who is eagerly 'pro'-Israel, how do we stop dedicated and eager editors like me from the other side from spoiling articles in opposite direction? I'm not saying people shouldn't be perma-banned, I'm close to being so myself, but L19V27 is not an active saboteur, at least on the admittedly very partial view of his editing that I have seen. The number of genuine neutrals who edit on I/P seem to perform a small fraction of the editing on the topic, give the guy another chance. Yes, you can check me against him for socking etc., but I think you'll be able to satisfy yourselves pretty quickly that we are very different people. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Right-wing socialism

Very recently survived an AfD.

Huge amounts have been repeatedly excised since (amounting to well over 95% of the total verbiage of the article). And including removal of brand-new content from such horrid sources as Cornell University Press and Harvard University Press, etc. (see edit summaries therein).

This post is not about any individual editor or complaint thereon, but a request for uninvolved admin notice. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've protected the article for a week--the wrong version, no doubt. Good luck talking it over. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Total car crash of an article.. Secretlondon (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible socking

Could an admin take a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arthur Kemp (3rd nomination)? There are lots of single purpose accounts !voting "delete" here. I have no idea about the history of the article, so I don't know if any of these are indeed socks — even if most of their !votes have the same wording. Ten Pound Hammer • 19:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I noted five in a row -- any admin is, or course, free to see WP:False consensus showing dicta of ArbCom. IOW, those !votes may be fully ignored. Collect (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The quacking is gigantic, but having checked them, meatpuppetry is a more likely explanation. WilliamH (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI header discussion

A discussion is taking place at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader#Autocollapse regarding whether to collapse the noticeboard nav box at the very top of ANI by default, or leave it showing in full, as it is currently. Please reply there (not here, this is just a notice). Equazcion 23:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Fae

Moved to WP:AN#User:Fae.—cyberpower _Online 02:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Block confirmed socks

Please block Lili5488 (talk · contribs) and Daria Feitosa (talk · contribs), because they are confirmed socks in a sockpuppet investigation. Thanks. Francisco (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards