Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:X Nilloc X continued disruptive editing

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

---

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

• Another drive by comment, bollocks. X is currently blocked, so continuing the behavior is obviously bullshit. will coment more when I sober up, but this is balls. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you'd better sober up first, because X is currently NOT blocked. They are currently edit warring the figure back in the article, hence I brought it here. His IP is blocked though, as he was edit warring with that earlier today. Please try again after your hangover.--Atlan (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
    • He is now blocked again. This should have happened about three hours ago, sorry for the slow action. If he continues edit warring after 1 week I recommend an indef block because he doesn't seem to understand WP:SYNTH. Shii (tock) 01:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
      • How is it in violation of WP:SYNTH? That would only be if I said that was absolutely how many had been killed. All I said on the page was that was the total reported on the page itself - I didn't cite anything for that, I just added up the total figures cited, if that makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.35.248 (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
        • The above IP is a new X Nilloc X sock continuing his edit war.[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
          • *coff* - Alison ^❤ 06:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Just to note, the editor in question has been evading the block on his/her account, so I've lengthened the block to 1 month. No prejudice against unblocking early if s/he agrees to stop edit-warring. Parsecboy (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
            • *coff* again. This is just one of a number of  Confirmed sockies. I've extended to indef now - Alison ^❤ 22:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

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

British Pakistanis

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

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" [2] and that "statistically Pakistanis carry out a disproportionate amount of sex attacks in the UK" [3] (neither of which can be properly sourced), I think incivility, banter, or whatever you wish to call it is the least of our problems with the article. It is utterly offensive that such 'contributors' should misuse Wikipedia to pursue an agenda which can only be motivated by political POV-pushing, Islamophobia, or outright racism. Can anyone indicate another article on Wikipedia that contains a 'Contemporary issues' section on 'Child sex abuse' sourced to cherry-picked material, far-right commentators, and the like? AnkhMorpork and Darkness Shines had, along with User:Shrike, tag-teamed to keep this material in the article, while refusing to explain why such a section is justified in this article alone - or why they consider it of such importance, given their apparent lack of other interest in the British Pakistani minority. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

others have noted the tag-teaming of shrike and ankhmorpork as well [4]. 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[5]. ankhmorpork and shrike must be banned for tag-teaming, disruptive editing, and pov-pushing.-- altetendekrabbe  14:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Statement by AnkhMorpork

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

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

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

(subsequent addition)

In my view, these sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is interesting that you choose to defend yourself from allegations of misrepresenting sources by misrepresenting evidence. Given the article you cited is an example of inter-communal violence and you had previously inserted into the lead a innacurate claim about the ethnic characteristics of the perpetrators [6], as well as your usual inflammatory rhetoric [7], 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[8], [9]. As you freely admit [10], 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" - [11]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[12][13] [14] 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."[15] 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. [16]. And then there is the issue of your cherry-picking half-quotations from The Times to support your assertions, where quoting the entire sentence would have shown what was going on: You took this statement on a specific problem in one part of the country: "Most of the victims are white and most of the convicted offenders are of Pakistani heritage, unlike other known models of child-sex offending in Britain, including child abuse initiated by online grooming, in which the vast majority of perpetrators are white", and cited it for an assertion that "child protection experts have identified a repeated pattern of sex offending...most of the convicted offenders are of Pakistani heritage...". Such gross misrepresentation of sources, whether on talk pages or in articles, is ample grounds to justify a topic ban, if not a block. You clearly have an agenda involving publicising a particular minority in a negative light, and as such are a net liability to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Diff: [17]. 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? [18]. Are you here to contribute to a neutral and informative encyclopaedia, or for some other purpose? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Civility

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

• AndyTheGrump's edit here [19], when he calls AnkhMorpork a liar and a bigot, is more than intemperate language. It is (should be...) completely unacceptable. AndyTheGrump should consider a voluntary break from the topic. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Rather than having another dispute about 'civility', why don't we actually address the real issue here, which is POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and using an article on an ethnic group as a forum for an attack on said group. Since AnkhMorpork has brought up The times as a source, can I suggest that people take a look at this diff [20] 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 [21], but obviously this needs checking by someone with access to the original. If it is correct, it seems self-evident that AnkhMorpork has grossly misrepresented the Times article in order to portray a regional problem as national, and restricted to the activities of one particular ethnic group, when it is nothing of the sort. Such misrepresentations are surely grounds for a topic ban, if not a block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)  Highlighted the crux point. --Ohiostandard 10:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See the revision history of the British Pakistanis article [22]. 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 [23] [24] [25]. This is an SPA to disrupt and troll, nothing more. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Take a look here too please

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

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

by the way, here is a racist who is supporting ankhmorpork [26][27]. 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed topic ban for AnkhMorpork

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

•  Comment: Considering the shed loads of drama and bad language over the last week, I agree that topic bans may be a reasonable next step, and others involved may want to reflect on if they are complicit in creating heat rather than light in these areas. I would be interested if AnkhMorpork could give a definition of the topics that have been most contentious, and if s/he were prepared to voluntarily suggest a topic scope to take a break from. AndyTheGrump's definition of a,b,c seems rather wide and may need a bit of interpretation to be implementable. --Fæ (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• Absolutely not - this stuff has been a big issue in the UK for the last couple of weeks; even Trevor Phillips has come out to say it's a race issue. To call someone a racist or bigot, which is the not-very-subtle underlying message here, when they seem to just be editing with the current zeitgeist is wrong. And no one should have to justify the articles they choose to edit. No one. Egg Centric 21:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

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 [29] shows that he isn't exactly the model Wikipedian. He has a history of edit warring, personal attacks, and getting in POV wars. I can't be bothered to bring all the diffs, but if you take a look at his edit history in just the past 7 days you will see numerous personal attacks both on talk pages and in edit summaries (calling editors liars, telling them to fuck off, etc.) Clearly something needs to be done here because this is not the type of collaboration Wikipedia demands. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

P.S. On the subject of block logs: [30]. 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? [31] I note that this is sourced entirely to ynetnews.com - hardly appropriate to an article on a bird species. Are you going to pretend that this ludicrous bit of coatracking is anything more than the facile propaganda it appears to be? Perhaps we should consider a topic-ban or block for you too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Content vandalism

• User:201.19.98.94 has put false information into the Whatever Works article, (diff) as well as the Vicky Christina Barcelona article. He/she has made a number of edits to other articles (contribs) as well - these articles need checking for similar vandalism. I filed this report at WP:AIV, but that page isnt working properly, and WP:VPM but no response. Regards,-Stevertigo (t | c) 20:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• AIV report filed. Nobody Ent 21:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  The vandal has also edited, quite prolifically, as 201.19.149.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 201.19.158.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and possibly other IP addresses. There is a lot to be cleaned up still.  --Lambiam 23:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  It looks like this has been going on for almost a year: 201.19.99.47 · 201.19.99.65 · 201.19.99.82 · 201.19.99.99 · 201.19.141.128. And that may not yet be all.  --Lambiam 00:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  Update: It looks like the vandal has edited from maybe as many as 800 to 900 different IP addresses in the 201.19.*.* range for over a year, making several thousands of edits inserting false information. I've started to compile a list, but have to stop for now. Any suggestions on how to deal with this?  --Lambiam 03:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Good catch, but Oh man.... this looks automated, and dastardly sneaky because all the "content" looks reasonable--the added production companies are real production companies Wikilinked to real articles, the added actors are real with reasonable-sounding names, etc. I am not an admin but I'd bet an IP range block will be in order, and that'll help shut down the damage... until the vandal switches ISPs or moves. Then there's the cleanup. Zad68 03:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. They do all locate to Rio de Janeiro and some of the edits are like those of long time sock master Pé de Chinelo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Even if it isn't that blocked editor I know that I have come across one or two other examples of this low level vandalism recently (though I can't remember the IP range - apologies) - if it continues a rangeblock would be nice if possible and, perhaps, we should notify the filmproject to be on the lookout for this editing pattern. MarnetteD | Talk 03:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for chiming in and taking this vandal down. I caught this because I had just seen Whatever Works and checked the article. I found Diane Keaton listed in the cast when I didn't recall her being in the film. It would have seemed natural to have Diane Keaton in a Woody Allen film, wouldn't it? Have fun tracking down all the damage this guy has done. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Reported to WP:AIV, but no WP:SPI done for this or previous IP. Should one be done, to get a temporary range-block? JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked 201.19.0.0/16 for six months, hopefully he will find a new hobby, what a sad & pathetic individual. Definitely notify the film project, there is a huge amount to check. WilliamH (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Note Lambiam has posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, and created a working list of all possible vandalism at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Vandalism_by_201.19.*.*. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:59, 16 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^C 09:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • So as long as I use meat/sockpuppets the first time, I never have to worry about you nominating my article twice? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I would strongly oppose such bureaucratic wankery. Tarc (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Imposing such a restriction would be very unhelpful. Just because some editors may be considered to be re-nominating inappropriately does not mean that we should prevent anyone from doing so. Also, Wikipedia emphatically does not need yet more rules. The gradual instruction creep over the years has made Wikipedia more confusing and intimidating for new users, but has not improved the encyclopaedia significantly, if at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As with others, I do not see a problem this proposed red tape is intended to solve. Resolute 14:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• I think I would need to see a list of what new AFD's have come out since the RFC was completed - that way, I could see if indeed the behaviour that led to the RFC had changed. I'm not going digging myself - that's the job of whoever submits this report. Even still will it be blockable? (no) Would the community impose restrictions? (possibly) The OP really didn't ask for nor give specifics (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by TenPoundHammer about renominations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor with a habit of personal attacks while editing drunk

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) appears to be getting into the habit of editing while intoxicated and making personal attacks, as seen again here on this very board, a few threads above [32]. He did pretty much the same thing just a couple days ago, resulting in multiple unacceptable posts in several venues [33][34][35], and got warnings from at least two admins [36]. 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. Wikipedia 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))

There is a plain case for an equally long block of AndyTheGrump here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:46, 16 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 Wikipedia."

"This is POV-pushing bigotry, end of story. Shit like this doesn't belong in Wikipedia, 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^C 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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

Proposal

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) is community banned from posting when substantially intoxicated, by a standard that is to be decided by the community.

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

Signature forgery

Do we have a standard warning template (or penalty) for signature forgery? An anon editor (216.31.246.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) pretended to be ClueBot NG (talk · contribs) with this edit. He's now accusing me of WP:OWN. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

he did not sign as cluebot, but copied one of their messages...possibly not understanding templates. I have not looked at the own issue yet (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The IP was right about the August 2012 release date. Refs have been added to the List of Doctor Who DVD and Blu-ray releases. Caden ^cool 22:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw WOSlinker (talk · contribs) do that. The page has a long-term history of anons adding unsourced release dates. They usually either add a ref or simply give up after one revert though - this one didn't. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Amazon.com is very good about release dates and that is the source the IP was using before all the edit waring got out of hand. Also when you reported the IP to ANI you didnt let him or her know. It's good practice to let an editor you're reporting know :) Caden ^cool 22:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Not only is it good practice to notify the person, it's required. Nice to see the IP was blocked for edit warring while the admin didn't get so much as a warning for their 3 reverts. --Onorem♠Dil 22:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As long as you were there, you could have done so. Although xe's currently blocked, I still notified them.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Bbb23 there was nothing I could do because I'm not an admin and at least 3 editors were edit warring including RedRose and yes an admin was also involved but I couldnt do a single thing to stop it. I also do not understand why the IP was blocked when all of them were doing the same thing. I'm very sure the IP is new and didnt know the rules but the other two involved knew exactly what they were doing. Caden ^cool 23:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the underlying problem, just the ANI notice. Anyway, no need to apologize, it was Redrose64's responsibility in the first instance.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, the IP has been around long enough to know what "vandalism" is, which is any edit in which another user disagrees with. --MuZemike 23:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, some proper verb tense could go a long way. You can't say "Released in Region 1 August 2012" when it's not even August 2012, yet. --MuZemike 23:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is the BBC America Shop cite still in the article? The Amazon cite supports the August 2012 release date, but the BBC America cite doesn't support any particular date. Indeed, it acts like it's already released. Unless I'm missing something. Not that any of this is really relevant to ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the BWilkins block of the IP. If you look at the history on the article you will see that RedRose violated 3rr. Why didnt BWilkins handle RedRose in the same way he handled the IP? Caden ^cool 23:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice WP:AGF there. It's because I lost internet connection ... same reason I couldn't put a block notice on the IP's page. I'll assume someone else has taken care of it, because this connection is not any better (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Redrose did not violate 3RR, having reverted only 3x, whereas the IP reverted 4x.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Depends on which admin you get on which day. I've seen it argued (usually to the benefit of the veteran editor) that the adding of information the first time doesn't count, so the IP only reverted 3 times...unless I counted incorrectly. --Onorem♠Dil 23:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you counted absolutely right, but, either way, Redrose didn't revert more than 3x, and, technically, Bwilkins (the admin the IP got) was within their rights to block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand that, and have no problem with the block. (and far less problem with the rest since Bwilkins popped in to say he had connection problems right after making it.) I was just pointing out that sometimes the count works differently for some people. --Onorem♠Dil 00:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I, too, have seen the difference in counting. I suppose what bothered me slightly was your comment about veteran editors, although you carefully said only "I've seen it argued". What disturbs me about the block is the IP was warned after the last revert (third or fourth, depending on how you count) and then blocked with no more edits to the article. Given the counting issue and the timing of the warning, it would have probably been better not to block. My eyes are hurting a little from looking at all of this, so I hope I've got it right.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Not really a discussion for here, but I stand completely behind the 'veteran editor' portion of my comment...but that's not anything to do with this situation. --Onorem♠Dil 00:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Hospitaller2003

User:Hospitaller2003 is deleting without any explanation text in the article Order of Saint Michael of the Wing (history [37]). 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 [38], and was four times warned about removal of content without explanation [39], [40], [41] and [42].

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 [43]. But without success, he again removed infobox, iw, cats etc., again without any explanation [44].

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 [45], again without explanation. He was informed about this ANI [46], 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)

Qwertymany ‎

Resolved

 – Righteous Nobody Ent 02:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I blocked Qwertymany (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a vandalism-only account, but I would like a review, as one of his vandalisms was against my user page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC) ‎

If you want to inform Qwertymany about this thread, go ahead, but I don't think it's required. The thread is about me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Clear vandalism only account. I see no issue.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• I tend to agree. Only two edits, but the intent was pretty clear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Vandalizing an admin's user page in no way inoculates the vandal from being blocked by said admin. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    • No, but I would have done exactly what Cube lurker did, come here for review. That was the proper thing to do in case anyone might have questions as to if he was involved. IMHO, this is what every admin should do in this case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• Unequivocal blatant vandalism of the phallic variety. It's a clear vandalism-only account. WP:UNINVOLVED is important. But with something as straightforward as this to hunt down another administrator via a noticeboard to deal with it would be at the expense of common sense. I see no issue. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• Qwertymany is vandalism-only account all right. His intents were clear. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Remember the core question — would any reasonable admin do the same thing? We're all willing to block blatant vandals, whether or not they vandalise our own userpages. Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Amadscientist

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

---

• User:Amadscientist
• Talk:Occupy Wall Street#99 Percent Declaration
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupy_Wall_Street&curid=33121168&diff=492944145&oldid=492941064

In the history of the Occupy Wall Street article, Amadscientist has made reference to several of his own rather original rules. I apologize for bringing a content-related issue here, but I feel this is actually more of a behavioral/policy matter and needs to be nipped. Even when content issues are resolved with him (a rare occurrence), they keep cropping back up due to this tendency of his.

Yesterday, User:Becritical added a summary of another article to Occupy Wall Street. Amadscientist reverted, calling this a WP:MERGE, and saying proper attribution wasn't given. I reverted the removal saying this was not a merge but a summary. He reverted again, and on the talk page he eventually referenced a mediation we were involved in, so I let it go. He has since withdrawn from that mediation.

The possible addition of the summary was then brought up again on the talk page. I offered to address Amadscientist's attribution concerns by re-wording the summary, so it would no longer be a "copy/paste" from the other article (the original summary wasn't a copy/paste, though this is what Amadscientist claimed; some passages were the same though). He persisted with the WP:MERGE argument regardless. Since his arguments were not making sense, and he was the lone objector, I then re-inserted my own reworded summary. Amadscientist reverted it again citing WP:MERGE, saying proper attribution wasn't given, and on the talk page he said there are all manner of procedures and templates that need to be used first for a "merge" like this.

I don't know what to do about this, and would appreciate input. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

From what I suspect, something doesn't look right here... Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This really is a WP:DRN issue, although this is not a merge, just an summary from a connected article. Pretty standard stuff here. He does seem to have invented a new rule or two counter to BRD. Consensus before bold edits? I agree this seems unnecessarily bureaucratic. He is at 3RR limit right now, leaving warning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We've been to DRN regarding similar issues, and to mediation (which again, he withdrew from). Short of ArbCom, which I'm desperately hoping to avoid, this seemed the only viable option. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add -though much could be added- except just to confirm that this kind of thing is standard business as usual for Amadscientist. B^e——C_ritical 00:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• The BRD issue convinced me of that. I think you may have to bump it up a notch to get any action. This isn't really an "incident" as much as it seems like a long term pattern of acting like an obstructionist. I'm not thinking there is much to do here, but I do feel your pain. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean Arbitration? B^e——C_ritical 01:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I mean whatever you want it to mean. RFC/U, Arbitration, you know the events better than I do, I'm sure you know the best step. I just know that ANI isn't it. At least not today. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks (; B^e——C_ritical 01:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Claimsfour

• User:Claimsfour has repeatedly removed content from article Rob Ford even after requests to discuss changes to article on talk page. Has been warned twice. Now, I think requires a temporary suspension of editing privileges. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute, page fully protected. The user in question has been active on the dispute resolution page within the last hour, so blocking him is not the answer. I've also removed rollback from Alaney2k (talk · contribs) due to him using it in an edit war; not the first time he has done that. WilliamH (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, much of what has been removed was unsourced or sloppily-sourced negative BLP material; I agree no block is in order. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 02:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Very Strange Activity Creating New Pages

Over the past hour I have found at least five account all have very generic usernames and all create Korean pages in the sandbox and then move them into main space, 북경 여행, 버킷리스트, 카린 로이트펠드, 伦道夫-梅肯学院. This page is English but it follows the same pattern same username that sounds like a bot, article created in a sandbox Jasmine pearl tea. Ridernyc (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted several of them. 14andrewp2 wrote the following at Talk:북경 여행:

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here)

Hi my name is Andrew Park

currently attending at Western Academy of Beijing grade 10 student

We have project called world of Wikipedia, which is about writing an article on Wikipedia

BUT, i have received message called speedy deletion.

I do not know why i have receive this message

Therefore, please don't delete this page please.

Regard

I'll delete the page momentarily (A10, it duplicates an existing article), but I'm going to explain to Andrew what's going on. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering if it was some kind of student project.Ridernyc (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've pointed Andrew to ko:wp and zh:wp, and I suggested names of some active users who are fluent in Korean and Chinese and gave directions on leaving talk page notes, in case he wants help here at en:wp. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

북경 여행 was re-created for the third time several hours after your last note him. Voceditenore (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Me-123567-Me

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

---

This user has attempted to limit discussions on AfD. Me-123567-Me has repeatedly objected to my nominations of political leaders for deletion. S/he has repeatedly claimed that all political leaders are inherently notable. (For example, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Percy (politician),Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen Durkee,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack MacDougall)The user made non-admin closures on three articles I nominated, before the discussion could conclude: Jim Hnatiuk, Jim Webb (Canada)‎, and Jean Blaquière. 117Avenue reverted these closures, noting that Me-123567-Me was an involved editor. Me-123567-Me then reverted the user's edits, labeling them as vandalism despite the fact that a valid reason had been given for them. Rather than getting involved in this edit war myself, I'm hoping that an admin can do something about it. West Eddy (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A couple of points: Policy regarding Non-admin closes in deletion venues instructs that they should only be re-opened by uninvolved admins, while this is inconsistent with the philosophy accepted everywhere else that the only thing restricted to admins are actions that require the toolset, the guidelines are quite clear about the restriction. Second, it may be a case of accidentally hitting the vandalism revert button in twinkle as opposed to the other revert options, and may not be a claim the edits were vandalism. Third, Me-123567-Me appears to have a good-faith misunderstanding of the concept of being uninvolved, and it should be clarified that you can be involved due to past disputes with the same editor, particularly when the uninvolved action your taking is in regards to a similar subject matter as the past involvement. Monty₈₄₅ 06:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Since there were 10 reverts of 117Avenue's edits that were labeled as vandalism, I would say that it was not accidental hitting of the vandalism button. Me does know where the good faith revert button is on the Twinkle interface. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Accidental was a bad choice of words on my part, what I mean is it may be a case of using the vandal revert button without considering the consequence of it labeling the disputed edits as vandalism. Monty₈₄₅ 06:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough comment. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Monty for the clarification. It seems I was mistaken, and for that I apologize to West Eddy. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A fine gesture on your part Me-123567-Me, I know you and West Eddy have had your differences in the past, but have typically been on amicable terms as of late, however I think the person you should be apologizing to is 117Avenue (talk · contribs), as he is the one you were accusing of vandalism. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point, I'll leave a note on his talk page. Me-123567-Me (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I also suggest avoiding closing any discussion where you have a history with the participants or subject matter, if for no other reason than to remove any doubt about your motivations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, now that we have that all taken care of, I think everyone should grab a drink and get back to work. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize to me, but thanks. West Eddy (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

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

'Jaguar/Sandbox/3' edits

Live discussion moved from archive 732.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This error exists in a large number of articles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 7) Errors like the ones pointed out here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is bigger than me

This is longer than what people want to read

Brendon111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Request Read full, don't leave a word, or if you lack the time or willingness, please don't read at all. I am sorry, I'm running low on patience right now. However, if you read it all and contribute in this discussion with a sensible response, your efforts will be highly appreciated. I was told to let it go. Hence, I am not clinging on to any stick. Having said that, it would not be okay if I didn't bring attention to what's going on. This is a large issue that transcends my own obduracy or deafness. Pardon me if you think I don't hear well, perhaps this time, it's because there is nothing to hear, or what is being proffered to me in the garb of explanation is either actually a sordid attempt to validate contemptible actions or too untenable/unintelligible. I think, this time it was not me who needed to hear more. And, I must try. After all, I had over 30 hours to think about it. All of us know Wikipedia doesn't have concrete rules, so the enforcement of those rules are subjective. Yet most, if not all of us, would agree that blocking is absolutely the last resort when no other approach proves to be working, am I right? That makes for enormous opportunity for sysops to both improve or vitiate the project with their helpfulness or excessive imperiousness respectively. Myself I am, generally speaking, quite a polite but straightforward guy. I like being amiable. I go out of my way to resolve pungent, acrimonious disputes. That's how I'm biologically designed. I don't like politics nor hypocrisy. I detest those words and I think these words are pretty much alike. I don't think behaving like sheep gets us anywhere. Thus, I don't connive at abominable actions, especially if it originates from a person vested with privileges which average people count on. The main picture I was, on an administrator's talk page, discussing an issue about a recent AfD result (I know I was persistent because I didn't understand the exact protocol, but did he clearly indicate that I was harassing him?). Far from getting upset and warning me, that administrator explained his limits and expressed his semi-agreement saying "Brendon, you said that There are plenty of articles on wikipedia that probably should not exist and that was why AfD is still in business and you are right." To me it didn't look like I was "harassing" him or displaying a battle ground mentality there. I thought I was well within my limits as an editor. Firstly, if I weren't, he would tell me so. The absence of "warnings" inherently carries a meaning (that's the reason why they are called "warnings", I don't mean obscure or equivocal statements, by "warnings"). Ask yourselves (I have a fairly good idea of what some might say) Saying "your inane gibberish is not helping" using these words in response to a comment that says others and me were just being "silly" and making "overwrought claims" and that we were only evincing "more silliness", should that response get you blocked (and only you?), that too without any warnings? Yes, my response could - some may say, should - have been avoided, but does that merit no prior warnings? If that doesn't merit even a warning how come it gets a newcomer blocked and eventually his talk-page locked? (Isn't it exactly what biting new-editors means? Forget new or old, it's just flat-out biting) We know that block is preventive, not punitive, so wouldn't that block without any prior warning, be a deplorable insult of WP:AGF? It necessitates presumption that any number of well-explained warnings would prove to be insufficient in preventing one person from doing what he was doing wrong. I was improvidently and contemptuously blocked for 48 hours with no warnings (not even a level 1 warning about harassment or battleground mentality) with allegations that either are exaggerated or arguable at best. Even if these allegations are true (which I don't think they are) the question still stands, why was I not formally cautioned? That gives away his predisposition towards impeding me. Just digging up relatively old and already dropped issues, to fill in the logical inconsistencies and thereafter taking away every means of communication basing on shoddy and poxy pretext, is that how an administrator should do his job? If so, then I don't think he deserves the privileges in the first place. Just imagine, what if the cops in your town started behaving this way? How far would you go? My point is, had I been properly informed of the risks or warned, I would not have been facing a block at all. No amount of sophistry should be adequate to clout your judgement about this. My POV (perhaps an open secret) Bwilkins didn't like my retort to him (now, that was strident but with reason, and I didn't know at the time that it's going to bring me a revengeful or retributive block with no prior warnings). He wanted me to obsequiously accept his domination. Bwilkins came and started ordering me to essentially "get lost" from Ron's talk page or worse. His intrusive and highly domineering comment triggered a harsh reply from me too. I hope one could get what it feels to be talked to that way. The problem gets amplified due to the fact that an administrator can easily provoke or harass an editor without outright violating WP:Civility. I agree, my choice of words might have been avoidably harsh; so was his, don't you think? Administrators should lead by example. And the idea that I was conveying wasn't so unreasonable. It said, Bwilkins, I'm with an administrator so I don't need you to bully me out of here with your ridiculous approach. I don't think anybody believes that one editor should be blocked by an involved administrator for asking to be left alone. But again, where were those warnings? If I was blocked due to my impolite reply to Bwilkins, why did he not warn me first, stating that in my talk-page? He couldn't admit that himself since that would prove his involvement and, in turn, conflict of interest. I sense there is a tacit agreement among most administrators here that no matter how despicably or censoriously or immorally one abuses the privileges that he has been entrusted with, others will just acquiesce. This whole ethos bounces off my head. But I can't parse my observation in any other conclusion. Yes, I'm assuming in bad-faith. I concede I am no saint. But I submit to you, after what I've undergone lately, it's hard for me to conclude differently. I'm just a human being and I can only appeal to humanity and nothing more. Suppose an editor is domineering Firstly, editors can't afford to be domineering, in anyway except for logically. Secondly, although I don't hear anybody complain against my domineering behavior, if an editor like me tries to "domineer over" anybody, (s)he could be taken to WP:WQA warned then after sufficient warnings, blocked. Suppose an administrator behaves domineeringly When an administrator behaves domineeringly or rather despotically, it's others who are blocked, sometimes even without warnings. So it would be better if we — at least for the time being — could focus on something else than my nebulous dominance (for which I have just been blocked for over 30 hrs and lost my talk page access and all this without any warning). An administrator's domineering nature should be dealt with more stringently (since they have the right tools for exhibiting their dominance massively) than dominance of an editor. Because otherwise, how should I defend myself against administrator who are imbued with egoism and whose goal is to just block away the editors he disagrees with or doesn't like (there are quite a few in this wikipedia), as opposed to turning them into productive collaborators? How do we preclude prejudicial treatment to editors who edit controversial/religious articles? So, is Wikipedia telling editors like me that we can be harassed/blocked at anytime if an administrator decides to put us through this by virtue of our disagreement? You administrators have a bigger job (of restraining and guiding each other) than you and I might admit, since Wikipedia project is really at the mercy of administrators' actions. Conclusion Repressive, bullish, pro-block administrators like Bwilkins are a shame, a disgrace to other well-meaning Wikipedia administrators and a liability to Wikipedia itself. If any editor is reading this and thinking well, I am not Brendon. Think again! It could have been any of us. There is no shortage of topsy-turvy excuses. Lastly I don't want to listen to anything, anything Bwilkins has to say, as he is just an abrasive and inconsiderate person whose behavior is obnoxious (Wikimedia essay defines such a person as "dick"). Furthermore, "being right about an issue does not mean you're not being a dick! Dicks can be right — but they're still dicks. If there's something in what they say that is worth hearing, it goes unheard, because no one likes listening to dicks. It doesn't matter how right they are. [....] Respect others, even when you disagree. Sometimes the best weapon is to disarm your opponent by disarming yourself (via civil and constructive behavior), transforming an opponent into a collaborator. [...] Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is generally a dick-move — especially if true. It upsets the other person and reduces the chance that they'll listen to what you say." But like I said I don't want to have any sort of communication with that fellow named Bwilkins. Thank you (only if you have read it all). Keep a close eye on the actions of administrators like Bwilkins (talk · contribs), those who like to harass people with their undue bossiness and place punitive blocks based on their intolerance of things they disagree with (i.e. to threaten or subdue editors), at times. It's not about Me or Bwilkins, none of us is one of a kind. Don't connive at these events; they are increasing (mine is not an isolated case). These are deleterious to the project as a whole. Again, one may figure out a way to ridicule me or my pov. But is this how we are going to improve wikipedia? By impetuously blocking/denigrating the ones we don't like? I may be blocked in the future for some arbitrary reason, but I would at least leave Wikipedia with my head held high. Best regards,  Brendon ishere 12:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

As with the above, your arguments here[47] are lengthy but not very convincing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia? 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia: Everybody has something to add to Wikipedia: 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: 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 Wikipedia 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

Brendon is clearly a veteran user who came back to Wikipedia 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)

Vandalism experiment

On the EN wiki mailing list an editor has admitted to running a vandalisn experiment in mainspace involving using IPs to remove 100 random external links. I've requested that they stop and revert any outstanding vandalisms. As this would appear to be a longstanding editor I've brought the matter here. As I'm not 100% certain as to which editor is linked to that mailing list poster I will inform them of this thread by email.ϢereSpielChequers 12:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Good call. What is the process supposed to be if some enthusiastic tinkerer wants to run an "official" experiment? As we have seen some very large non-reversible "tests" such as the tens of thousands of pages changed in the SharedIPArchiveBot experiment, it would be handy to make the distinction clear. --Fæ (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, strange experiment. Given the huge number of inappropriate external links we have, I really wonder: wouldn't a random removal of a hundred links catch so many bad links objectively worthy of removal that the net effect of the "vandalism" might be more benefit than harm? If the experiment is meant to measure how good the community is at reverting vandalism, I can't see how they can do that without having a measure for these random beneficial hits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Fae, The last vandalism experiment that I recall involved a certain banned user who obtained a list of unwatched pages and vandalised some of them. As I remember the community was unimpressed. The ridiculous thing is that we have heaps of vandalism available if anyone wants to study it. All you need do is take a random batch of edits from a year ago, check which were good and which were vandalism then track through to see which have been resolved. Providing you fix any not yet resolved I can't see anyone objecting. ϢereSpielChequers 13:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The last one I remember was committed by an admin. Arbcom had no issue with letting them keep the bit. Gotta love consistency.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that you're referring to this. If so, you'll see that the admin in question no longer has the bit. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That was the case I was thinking of, and the admin wasn't the one doing vandalism, he "merely" supplied the list of unwatched articles without getting appropriate reassurances as to what the list would be used for. But I don't know if CubeLurker is thinking of that one. ϢereSpielChequers 13:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I was thinking Nabla[48]. Nabla voluntarily gave up the bit for other reasons unrelated, but that's neither here nor there.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It is possible to liaise with WMF to get research made "official". I would suggest, though, that the damage from this example, especially if it were reverted after a period, would be fairly negligible (assuming that it actually exists). While I would not advocate allowing "deliberate vandalism to measure the response" experiments, a sense of realism suggests that this is not one we need to get over-excited about. Rich Farmbrough, 16:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

We have a user access level called researcher. It is too narrow in scope to encompass this incident, but it could be defined a little broader. We could, at the risk of making yet another rule, consider requesting than anyone planning to do research, other than what might be viewed as acceptable editing, apply for the user access bit, along with a research plan, filed with the WMF.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The researcher userright gives trusted researchers access to deleted revisions - this is necessary because some research projects don't make sense without that access. But I'd see that as more applicable to someone researching page creation and deletion than someone researching vandalism. Otherwise research projects are supposed to come to us at the Research committee, and I'd resign from that before agreeing to research that deliberately vandalised Wikipedia. ϢereSpielChequers 19:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Anon threatens suicide.

[Actual edit has been suppressed] here. Serious or not I thought I'd bring it here. --OfTheGreen (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This is being handled per WP:VIOLENCE. Hipocrite (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --OfTheGreen (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I have suppressed the original edits as they disclose personal information. The matter is being handled as a Wikiemergency via emergency at wikimedia.org. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for handling this. Good to see it being taken seriously on my first time being involved with such an incident. --OfTheGreen (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This does re-raise the half-hearted instruction at WP:SUICIDE to "block the suicidal". We should really bounce that to WMF to get professional advice on. I share the concerns expressed on the talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 16:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

Sorry, where's that discussion? Egg Centric 16:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Responding_to_threats_of_harm#Block_user.2C_lock_pages - I thought there was another mention of the same thing, but I can't find that. Rich Farmbrough, 19:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

Frivolous AfD nominations

Me-123567-Me is making disruptive AfD nominations without a valid rationale. List of University of Toronto people was nominated without a valid rationale, and was speedily kept. I would assume good faith, except the nominator has made similar disruptive nominations in the past with similar results and was warned about making frivolous AfD nomintions. (See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of University of Manitoba alumni, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of University of British Columbia alumni) West Eddy (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've issued a warning. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears there is an ongoing dispute between User:West Eddy and User:Me-123567-Me. The older AfDs are a year ago, the one being complained of was closed a few days ago, and had a rationale. (It was invalid, in the sense that the AfD speedy kept, but it raised a valid point.) The AfD is not one of many or even several recent AfDs. This posting seems to be an attempt to continue the dispute by other means. Rich Farmbrough, 16:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

Yeah, that's what it looked like - but the newest AfD was clearly pointy, after Me-123567-Me had those two older ones closed with a very clear explanation that articles don't get deleted just because some of their content is unsourced. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It can of course be both. I took one entry out of the list, and there are three more redlinks that shouldn't be there without sources - at least two should definitely have articles. It is also a reasonably common that people repeat behaviour simply because that's how they roll. Funnily enough I responded to the last incident, which I had completely forgotten. I don't fault the warning. Rich Farmbrough, 19:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

Personal attacks and incivility

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

---

A perfectly civil discussion is being continuously disrupted by the completely unprovoked aggressive behavior of Justice and Arbitration (talk · contribs). The discussion was between me and another user when Justice and Arbitration arrived, and started posting offensive personal comments and requests that I leave the discussion.

• "you are a very diligent user here on Wikipedia, yet for some reason you often play the amnesia game"
• "give it a rest already and focus your energy on writing something more useful", next
• "you're making stuff up",
• "you are dangerously starting to get close to a troll"

After that I requested that the user please discuss properly, and posted a link to WP:TROLL so as to point out to the user that he is being insulting. In his next (and latest) post the user replied

• "you seem more and more like a troll, whether you realize it or not"
• "please, stop embarssing yourself. I suggest we delete this whole topic for your own sake"

I believe I do not deserve this kind of unprovoked abuse. But its not so much the general condescending tone and offensive personal comments. The most worrying thing for me is the user's insistence on his blatant WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. To the point that he believes users that point out it is OR should be berated in the above manner ("its so embarrassing for you"). The author simply must be supporting his claim, and those who request direct support are making a fool of themselves. If nothing else, I believe the user should sternly be pointed to WP:NPA, WP:V, and WP:OR. -- Director (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to be a little more thick-skinned. The diffs you've posted above, while somewhat impolite, are really not over-the-line civility violations or personal attacks. Calling someone a troll, while insulting, is not "against the rules" in and of itself a blockworthy offense. I haven't looked into the OR complaints (and probably won't), but if you think J&A is inserting OR, then just clearly explain why it's OR, quoting policy where necessary, and let the rest of the community decide if you're right. If no one else is participating in the conversation, then try WP:3O or WP:DR. This complaint probably belongs at WP:WQA rather than here, as there is no issue which requires administrator attention. J&A should be encouraged to be more polite, but that's about it. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 14:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Its the whole attitude of the user. WP:OR has been pointed out to him several times. He either understands the policy and is purposely having me on, or he's simply refusing to look it up and does not care anyway. The very suggestion that the conclusions he drew from his links are not legitimate sources provokes things like "please stop embarssing yourself, I suggest we delete this whole topic for your own sake". Not only is he posting OR, and insisting on said OR, he's condescendingly mocking and insulting others ("troll") when the fact is pointed out to him. Its insufferable, frankly. And these are the Balkans articles - if there's anyone there at all, the "community" usually consists of POV-pushers one way or the other. -- Director (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Calling someone a troll most definitely is against the rules

Per policy, "as a matter of … effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done. The usual exception to this principle is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process.
— English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

It is also true the rules are not enforced consistently

Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. These violations of the community's standards of conduct are unevenly, and often ineffectively, enforced. (1,2)
— English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

Nobody Ent 15:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so you're saying that anytime anyone uses the word "troll" to describe another editor, I can insta-block them without discussion? -Scottywong| spout _ 15:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, perhaps I should block you right now for these uncivil edit summaries: 1 2 -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 15:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You could, or you could show discretion and give a warning before blocking. Hasteur (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• SW, come on... Now your comments look like trolling... (ie: Trolling is a violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces and is often done to inflame or invite conflict. It necessarily involves a value judgment made by one user about the value of another's contribution. per WP:TROLL) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• I certainly hope you're not calling me a troll. Let's see, where's that block button again... ;) -Scottywong| chat _ 16:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Scotty, there are levels in between "do nothing" and "block them". When I see incivility like this, I leave a strong but polite message on their talk page. Often, they get a little more polite. Occassionally, they get more belligerent, which of course makes blocking justifiable. The reluctance of admins to simply leave hand written guidance on potentially troublesome users escapes me. The tone of these comments isn't block worthy (yet) but it is clearly worth putting the editor, Justice and Arbitration on notice that their behavior is not acceptable and may be cause for action if it were to continue or escalate. I will go and leave a message now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

So you egg people on so that they react badly to block them. Got it. Now I understand your comment to another editor about "stepping it up" yesterday.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, you let people know that their actions are unacceptable with the intent of either beginning a dialog or getting them to reevaluate their actions. You give them every chance to comply with civility expectations with the goal of ending the problem with no further action. If they choose to get belligerent, they are responsible for their own actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Amadscientist, Dennis's response reflects a difference between his style and mine. Although I accept that we have to assume good faith generally, my threshold for assuming good faith is lower than Dennis's. I was preparing to respond to your "egg people on" comment as utter nonsense, but Dennis beat me to it with his more tactful response. Your describing Dennis's attempts to give users another chance as baiting is twisted and unwarranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

To quote DGG - "I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience." Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• All I'm saying is that there needs to be some kind of threshold for people dealing with their own minor disputes before bringing them to the drama board to tattle. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Direktor is wrong to be insulted by J&A's comments, I'm just saying that he could have done more to resolve this situation himself before escalating it here. And I gave some suggestions as to how he could have done that (and still can do that). The more we coddle editors with very minor disputes, the more we encourage minor disputes to be brought to this board. People should be able to be called a "troll" and not have it ruin their day. ANI should not be step 1 in the minor dispute resolution process. -Scottywong| chatter _ 16:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Some people are exceptional authors but terrible at disputes. Me, I'm a mediocre author but reasonably competent at dealing with disputes and dialing back the drama. You, well you write neat gadgets and probably have some other fine qualities ;) It takes all kinds. If someone is upset at being called a troll many times (not just once), I would rather they did come here, as I will be happy to review it and leave a strongly worded message. Or they can leave a request on my talk page for the same. It is an "incident", after all (why this board exists), and I would rather they let someone uninvolved leave that message than to get mad and ramp up the drama on the talk page. SW, the key is to find a solution that lowers the intensity of the situation, not one that ramps it up. Sometimes that means coming here to let someone else do a little heavy lifting for them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you on some points, but I definitely disagree that bringing an issue to ANI is an effective method of lowering the intensity of a situation. -Scottywong| speak _ 16:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The statement I was responding to was Calling someone a troll, while insulting, is not "against the rules". This is not equivalent to the statement "Minor disputes should be brought to ANI." Existing civility policy encourages editors to first "consider if anything needs to be done." (Emphasis mine). NPA encourages editors not to respond at all. ANI is low on the list of preferred responses. That said, telling an editor a personal attack isn't is not helpful, as it is both incorrect and puts the OP on the defensive. There is value is simply telling an editor the truth: yes, that was a personal attack but it wasn't sufficiently egregious that anyone is going to do anything about it. (The rest of SW's initial post was pretty much spot on). Nobody Ent 16:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've made a minor correction to my original response. -Scottywong| babble _ 16:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please see the conversation on the bottom of my talk page, which may clear up some concerns and explain my reasoning a little better. Like I said, sometimes a polite but firm note from an outsider is what is needed to get things pointed in the right direction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• I've also left a note on Direktor's page directing him to DRN. Hopefully we are done here. Yes, I do things differently. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Its shame that WP:NPA is not enforced properly through Wikipedia.Of course there some special circumstances in every case but at least warning should be given when editor does comment on fellow editor.--Shrike (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a shame that it's rarely enforced against administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 19:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't take an administrator to issue a warning. If you feel that NPA is not being properly enforced because too few warnings are given, then feel free to give the warnings yourself. -Scottywong| gab _ 20:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yоu right but sometimes warning are not enough and blocks are needed.--Shrike (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, I did the same thing as a non-admin as I do an admin with the personal noes. The bit didn't change the fact that sometimes people just need a polite wake up call. And yes, you and I agree on your point MF, believe it or not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Issuing a warning isn't enforcement Scottywong. Malleus Fatuorum 21:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If enforcement is inadequate, and warnings don't constitute enforcement, then what you're saying is that admins need to block people more often (and apparently without warning) for civility violations. Should I block J&A for referring to someone as a troll? Please tell me how I can bring the level of civility enforcement to a level that you would be happy with. You might also want to consider that lowering the bar for civility blocks could very likely put yourself directly in the crosshairs. -Scottywong| prattle _ 21:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Incivil edit sum

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

---

No comment. Please see this incivil edit summary--Penom (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Аs he did comment actually on content I don't see a big problem here but I agree the problem of incivility is real in Wikipedia and not properly enforced.--Shrike (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't see anything particularly uncivil and I've notified the editor as you were required to do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't need admins taking action because someone used the word "rubbish" in an edit summary.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, this kind of edit summeries is offensive for the other editor. Rubish is actualy refers to what I said. You should understand that I expect to edit in a civil atmospher. This kind of behavor is not acceptable even in real worldPenom (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's also an area of spirited debate, and that also has to be expected. It would be nice is he spoke nicer, but it's far short of the standard where some sort of action needs to be enforced.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

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