Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive762

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

Noticeboard archives



Obvious to me, too. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 17:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

HELP..This men is harassing me in real life and also on wikipedia...Plz plz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defenseforchicken (talkcontribs) 17:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Obvious "we didn't land on the moon" sock is obvious. Nothing to see here. SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


Deepblue1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This is a follow-up to an issue that was raised here about a month ago. The advice given then was simply to take the issue to the article's talk page to try and reach a consensus, and the article was given temporary protection from IP edits. This user has, in the past 2 months, continued to instigate several needless content disputes on the article Not Your Kind of People, and has demonstrated a complete inability to compromise, abide by the rules of WP:Own, or even have a rational debate. When a consensus he doesn't like is reached on the article's talk page, he uses IP's to continue reverting to the version he does approve of, such as (,,, As mentioned, these actions previously resulted in the page being protected. His attitude is often uncivil and he seems completely incapable of any rational debate. At one point he insinuated that another user was a paid advocate for a website, simply because the user added a negative review. He has stated several times that he "will not allow" other users to make their contributions:

His tone when communicating with other users also leaves much to be desired [1], [2], and [3].

He and his IP's were involved in 2 different edit wars [I believe unpunished] in that article in the past 2 months and he shows no sign of stopping. Now that the protection has expired, he has again resorted to using anonymous IP's (,, to avoid any sanction. All IP's are from Romania (his location) and their only contributions to the site are to reinstate his previous version of the article. The chances of two other users from the same country making the exact same edit in less than 24 hours? I think permanent IP protection for the Not Your Kind of People article is necessary. If he wants to continually revert multiple other contributor's work on the article because he doesn't feel like abiding by WP:OWN, he should have to deal with the ramifications of warring with his own account, or even sockpuppeting - instead of playing this game month after month. Or perhaps an article block for the user altogether, if deemed appropriate? Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Semiprotected the page for a week to stop the apparent IP-socking while this is discussed, for a start. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Homeostasis07 is one of the most annoying persons I've ever seen in my life. Why I have a problem with this user? This user has an unhealthy obsession with this particular page. First of all he started to add a lot original research text of Not Your Kind of People page about a supposed Loudness War. He even added his own screenshot with waveforms from a song. His edits were rejected from the page. After a while he insisted to add a very bad review on 10 reviews panel by removing a 5 star review. He succeeded being helped by another user. And now he started to add even more negative content to this page by writing 2 more quotes from bad reviews and adding a waveforms snapshot. Not Your Kind of People is not his own page (WP:OWN) to add EVERYTHING he wants, right? By the way, he didn't reach consensus about his recent edits. If he saw that his edits were reverted why didn't he ask for consensus on Talk Page first? If I remove his non-constructive edits, I'm the bad guy in his opinion. I'm not a vandal because I don't want to see some of his edits here. It's my right to not like his non-constructive edits. I actually tried to keep the page as clean as possible. In my opinion his edits do more damage than help build a neutral wiki page. If there is someone that must be blocked, Homeostasis07 is the one. Deepblue1 (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
(More to come soon). Deepblue1 (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding the IPs: not all IPs posted by H07 are mine. I simply wasn't logged when I edited the page. Is that a problem?
  • H07 said: "At one point he insinuated that another user was a paid advocate for a website, simply because the user added a negative review." Not any negative review but exactly the SAME review over and over. The reviews panel from the right was already written and it was just fine then he came with that bad review. That made me to believe that he had some interests to push that review with any price. Why so insistent? And why ALWAYS negative reviews? (I admit I'm a Garbage fan) A question for H07: why are you so insistent to add your negative edits?
  • Regarding the strong language when I talked to him: he made me angry. A bit of context is needed. He used to write his opinions about the mastering of the album Not Your Kind of People on a board where I'm also member. I had some issues with him here. The admin banned him from that board for his behavior. He acted very uncivil with me and he wants respect? He's not what he seems, that's for sure.
  • H07 also said: "His tone when communicating with other users also leaves much to be desired". This is tendentious. Out of context.
  • In fact, I think I will also report this user to Wikipedia admins to block him for disruptive editing. He tried to add his suspicious edits and I reverted the page back to normal. That's all I've done with his disruptive edits. He was the vandal, not me. All I want from H07 is to stop sabotaging the page. Thanks. Deepblue1 (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
"Regarding the IPs: not all IPs posted by H07 are mine. I simply wasn't logged when I edited the page. Is that a problem?" When you're involved in an editing dispute, it's very much a problem. It gives the impression, rightly or wrongly, that you are editing as an IP to escape scruitiny and to dodge 3RR. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
His response only serves to illustrate perfectly the reasons why I made my original complaint. In all that mess, he has just admitted to using several different IP addresses to revert edits from different users. His excuse of simply not being logged in doesn't explain how his edits have appeared under 6 different IP's in the space of 3 months. Doesn't an IP only change once every 3 months, on average? He has clearly familiarized himself with enough of Wikipedia's rules in order to avoid sanction, but when it comes to assuming good faith, conversing politely or WP:OWN, those terms might as well not exist. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
My own IP address changes every time I break/re-establish my Wi-Fi link, geolocates 300-1,800 miles away, and is highly variable; the numbers are visibly different when the closest connection is unavailable, but such randomization is, in and of itself, not negative. Dru of Id (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Wrong Homeostasis07. I have a wireless connection. Also sometimes I use other computer, or my mobile phone or go to an internet cafe (it depends). Ever heard of dynamic IPs? Also your original complaint is quite ridiculous considering your disruptive editing. I guess you already know that page is not your property to add everything that crosses your mind. On your complaint you also added various facts/opinions unrelated to your real complaint (which is: I reverted your edits) to put me in a negative light. Not cool. In fact I blame myself for not complaining here before you. The only thing that I regret is the strong language used. I'd like to know the reason why you insist to add only negative elements to the page. Just because other users didn't undo your latest edits YET, that doesn't mean you're right. It's clear as the light of the day that your edits are biased. Write some positive text for a change. Deepblue1 (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • And finally: now that you opened this complaint how we should solve it? Deepblue1 (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
If I were an admin, and having read your interactions above alone, I think I know how I'd be tempted to solve it ... dangerouspanda 22:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
How? I'm curious. Deepblue1 (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Something else I think should mention at this point: Deepblue1 actually used one of these IP's ( to agree with himself on the article's talk page at one point. The IP used similar language (not swearing, but in their tone and general attitude) in their edit summaries, and also misused the word "destructively" in the same way Deepblue1 once did. So his excuse of simply not being logged in when sometimes editing goes out the window: this is a clear sign of sock-puppeting with IPs? Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

  • That IP is 100% NOT mine. I already mentioned before: not all IPs are mine. It was another user that happened to have the same opinion with me. According to IPLocation "IP address "" is located @ Greece Messinia Kalamáta". I don't live in Greece and never lived. Plus the style of language used by that user is not my style. So, H07, don't make statements as facts when you have 0 arguments. Thanks. Deepblue1 (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • To be clear: I don't know what you try to prove with this complaint H07. The reality is that you're angry that I reverted your edits. This is the #1 reason you wrote all that long complaint, lawyer-style. Not the swearing, not using "hidden" IPs [sic], not "he insinuated that another user was a paid advocate for a website" and whatever. But it's my right to revert your edits as I don't agree with them. I "peppered" also some of the reverts with some swearing hoping that you'll stop. It's your fault that you didn't ask at Talk Page for consensus for your edits. You already know that thing but you didn't do it. Right? I know that you want me to be blocked as a revenge. But if I'm blocked even for 24h I will ask also for your blocking. Because you deserve it. Deepblue1 (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
As far as your IPs are concerned, I've presented whatever evidence I could find and hopefully some sort of solution will be provided by an administrator here soon. Another user (Dru of Id) has already helpfully explained how a user can obtain an IP from "300-1,800 miles away." Your edits [whether through your own account or with your admitted IPs] are constantly disruptive. Instead of ever adding to an article, you delete other users work, citing hypocritical accusations of vandalism. In the simple case of adding a negative review, instead of deleting someone else's work up to 5 times with different IPs, it never even occurred to you simply add something of your own to balance it out? That's practically the Wiki definition of a disruptive editor. I can't recall anyone ever swearing at you, while your foul language is immediate to anyone who is ever "annoying" to you. And every little thing added to an article shouldn't and doesn't require consensus. You just have massive problems accepting that WP:OWN applies to you. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Instead of ever adding to an article, you delete other users work, citing hypocritical accusations of vandalism." I wrote some content on Wikipedia. I wrote even 90% of an article last year and I opened few pages. I didn't delete any kind of other users work, but the negative-biased ones. With your edits you made that album to appear in a more negative light than positive. That album is one of my favorites released this year so that's the reason why I defended it against exaggerated criticism. I don't consider my reverts as vandalism but some resets of the page in the previous state. It would be vandalism if I added text unrelated to the page. Or malicious text (like you did).
  • To be honest I'm sick of all this talk. I have more important things to do. From now I promise that will not revert your edits on Not Your Kind of People page. Hope that will end the issue. Deepblue1 (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I suspect you will still be free to edit the page when all this is done, and I have no problem with that. Any user should be free to add whatever constructive content they want to add to an article. You've always been free to add whatever relevant, positive content you wanted to. It's the constant, angrily-toned reverts from multiple IPs I've had a problem with. In order to ensure this stops now, I think it best the article be given an extended period of protection against IP edits. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Merger of "Metrication of British transport" into "Metrication in the United Kingdom"[edit]

Would an administrator please close this merger proposal (Discussion here) and (initialisation here). The proposer of this merger is User:Pother who is now banned. Other editors who partipated are myself (Oppose), user:Kahastok (Support) and User:Ornaith (Support, but now also banned). The discussion leading up to the banning is [4].

May I draw to attention that the earlier deletion proposal was made by user:Kahastok, with Pother and Ornaith supporting the deletion proposal.

Martinvl (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the evidence that they are both socks of DeFacto is contested. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
They were both blocked by the checkuser AGK after he reconsidered his CU results.--Atlan (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Would somebody please close the merge request? Martinvl (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Would somebody please close this merger request. I believe the request to be null and void as it was opened by a sockpuppet of a banned editor. I tried to close it , but somebody else has reopened it. Martinvl (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring: Is it time to start a new debate regarding Talk:Gdansk/Vote?[edit]

As this AN3 thread entails, there seems to be an issue regarding the vote, which was done 7 years ago. As consensus can change, it may be time to revisit the issue. Note: I'm completely uninvolved in this argument, merely visiting this as a bystander. Additional note: I know that this may not be the best forum to revisit the argument, but the underlying issue is still there, however. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 09:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Volunteer Marek, Illraute, Estlandia , as well as Piotrus - all editors that commented at the AN3 thread - are notified. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 09:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • While the Gdanzig vote is in some ways an oddity from today's point of view (a straight vote determining naming usage), I don't think the consensus on the naming of Gdanzig really has changed. The compromise is easily acceptable to most German and Polish editors. Before the content decision is revisited, I would like to see examples how it does not work. (I am happy to believe that editors exist who turn Wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEGROUND over this, but that is a conduct issue, not an issue with the ruling of the Gdanzig vote). —Kusma (t·c) 10:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Largely irrelevant is it not? Why would the vote on Gdanzig be binding anywhere else on Wikipedia? At best its a precedent for compromise. It certainly doesnt over-rule 3R and the other policies/guidelines. Trouts all round for edit-warring anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    There are various ArbCom rulings that contain binding decisions and exceptions to ordinary editing practices. The voting on conventions reminds me of Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll, which was encouraged in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways. I don't know if we had any recent large-scale debates of this type, but essentially you'd expect people to follow the result of a formal RfC. —Kusma (t·c) 11:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    The "modern" approach would probably be discretionary sanctions as imposed in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. It may be better to just block edit warriors instead of giving 3RR exceptions. Still, the question is what best keeps the peace in this German/Polish mess. —Kusma (t·c) 12:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Gdansk/Vote is from 2005 and it is not marked as being a policy page. It is not clear whether the section announcing that certain edits are exempt from WP:3RR can be viewed as policy. The main WP:Edit warring policy does not say anything about Gdansk. If a single editor were to embark on a project of undoing names consistent with the Gdansk vote, their edits would fall under WP:ARBEE. This might expose them to discretionary sanctions, which are well-established under current policy. If further disputes about Gdansk-related names were to arise, in my opinion it is better to take them to WP:Arbitration enforcement for review than to expect that a Gdansk exemption to 3RR would be accepted at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I think Ed has a point about that 3RR exemption. It may have been useful at the time, as a quick and dirty measure to aid rapid enforcement of the rules when they were new, but we should make clear that the exemption is now deprecated. By the way, there's an interesting parallel to another more recent case where a naming convention was buttressed with a tweak to the reverting rules: ARBMAC2. But here it's not 3RR that is being waived; there's a general 1RR for naming-related lameness edits, with edits that serve to restore an status quo unambiguously mandated by the community-endorsed naming rules being exempted from the 1RR, but not from 3RR. In the Macedonian case that's been fairly successful and is still working well, and it might work well for EE too, if it weren't for the fact that in many of the recent naming lameness cases where people have invoked Gdanzskxzigkc, editors on both sides were claiming the rule favoured their side. Fut.Perf. 14:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Gdanzig vote works relatively well, although I think it due to simple luck - the fact that that the two main revert warriors dancing around it and never creating any real content (Matthead (talk · contribs) and Space Cadet (talk · contribs)) got topic banned (from Poland and German shared history topics), and another editor associated with the area, MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs), actually got a hint after a series of blocks and also moved away from regular reverting; some others I can think of became simply inactive. Unfortunately, this could last only as long as it took for another similar and active user to (re?)appear; personally I think that IIIraute (talk · contribs) contributions to that area of Wikipedia add nothing but reverts, but knowing that it took several years for Matthead and SC to get their topic bans, I don't expect anything to change here till at least 2015 and 5th or 6th ANI discussion involving that user.
  • Now, regarding the Gdanzig vote itself... it was probably good for its time, as I think it stopped a number of edit wars, but even so, this could have been handled back then by some enforcement of the 3RR rule. 3RR rule exited back then, but we were just getting into the habit of enforcing it, as far as I can tell the 3RR noticeboard was created around the same time that Gdanzig vote was. Since then we have also developed a more general WP:NCGN. It should be enough, particularly considering that the Danzig vote was unfair from the start. Consider this: Germany has twice as much population as Poland, and there have always been more active German Wikipedians than Polish. I am pretty sure that the results of the vote were significantly affected by this, and as usual, I expect that the interest from general (non-Polish, non-German) community was not sufficient to outweigh the fact that majority of voters came from the two affected countries. I think the Gdanzig vote should be repeated, excluding editors from those two countries, or simply discarded; WP:NCGN is good enough for the rest of Wikipedia, why not for Polish-German topics? (Also, NCGN does not have the "revert exemption", which is hardly needed for such situations, 3RR has actually been enough to deal with the issue in all other situations).
  • So, to sum up, I suggest that we retire Gdanzig vote, and let our regular policies (NCGN and 3RR) deal with anything that creeps up. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It seems the simple solution is to conduct a new RFC on the talk page to decide if the old Vote is still binding. Monty845 14:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
"...the two main revert warriors dancing around it and never creating any real content (Matthead (talk · contribs) and Space Cadet (talk · contribs))..."
Hm, you really can't compare the user Space Cadet with Matthead. When in 2009 I developped a first interest in various Wikipedia articles, I admired Matthead's large detail knowledge in many articles. At that time he apparantly was one of Wikipedia's top contributors. (I don't would be always of the same opinion in the talks.) A quick look, which pages he had created, stops at the possible maximum of 100 articles. For Wikipedia it's a loss, that such able editors increasingly loose interest. (As a valuable contributor you should know it.) But as a former member of the EEML list - in this case you had been desysopped and blocked - you can hardly pretend to be a neutral party. According to M.s remarks, tactics to get him and others unliked editors blocked, were one of the topics of the EEML protocols.
Regarding the Gdansk vote: It was a reasonable compromise and stopped largely chaotic edit wars. But this is only possible, when it is followed.Henrig (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
If the intention is to keep the decision then I would agree, it may be good to have a separate discussion confirming each of the main points. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, generally speaking the Gdansikz vote is a sensible, albeit imperfect, compromise. And it works pretty well when people apply it in good faith with common sense. Problem is that sometimes they don't. This usually happens in two cases:
    1. Applying the vote over literally in situations where it's clearly not meant to apply. Here are some examples [5] [6] (it's not quite as bad as having "Gdańsk (Danzig) Lech Wałęsa Airport" but the gist is the same). And there's more like this. Here it's really just the mindlessness that annoys, though the "territory marking" can get irritating too.
    2. Using the vote as an excuse for edit warring and reverting, in particular the erroneous and self serving belief that the vote gives immunity from the 3RR rule. As Magog the Ogre has pointed out, the Vote is an agreement between editors, 3RR is policy.
Hence overall I think the vote should be treated as "suggestions" not some kind of absolute. Common sense should trump mindless applications of the vote. Standard naming policy should apply. And it shouldn't be used as an excuse or a pretext for generally disruptive edits and reverts.VolunteerMarek 17:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no actual opinion on the matter at issue & no intention of participating in any vote, but if we have a workable solution on anything involving ethnic conflict, or naming generally, it should not lightly be discarded. It is difficult enough to come to a workable conclusion about such issues once; having to do it repeatedly encourage attempts from one side or other to break consensus. The few naming disputes, the more time & energy for substantive contributions. The key to DR in general is getting it to stick. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I support the solution proposed by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Talk:Gdansk/Vote does not work. It never did. To claim that it did, simply because it has been around for so long, would be a misrepresentation of fact. Productive editors have been driven up the wall and permabanned because of it. That's how the rule was kept alive. It is still being used by problem users to piss off their own perceived and imagined enemies in totally unrelated matters, often against basic common sense.[7] Poeticbent talk 03:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Massive editions made by Diego Grez[edit]

User Diego Grez has recently made a massive (automatized?) intervention on articles, templates and categories regarding Chile's regions. I do not see why Aisén region should in every instance be named by its full name Aysén del General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo Region (the same is true for O'Higgins Region and other). As far as to my understanding Chilean usage for refering to its regions is commonly the short name of regions. Despite any possible disagreements on this would like to request that all of the abovementioned recent activity of Diego Grez regarding Chilean regions should be reverted until the question has been solved at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Chile. Chiton (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Chiton - ANI is an advanced step for incidents that are particularly bad or for which dispute resolution has already failed. For normal content disagreements, it is always required for you to attempt to resolve it with the other user(s) involved, on their talk pages or the article or topic talk pages.
You might be right on the usage / expansion there, but you need to talk to Diego Grez at least, and possibly others on the talk pages for the Regions of Chile article, and determine what the best course forwards is. If you are fair and diligent about that discussion and you feel a great wrong has occurred and it's not resolved, then it can come here.
You notified Diego, please follow up on that and discuss with him in more depth.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Without comment on the current report, it should be noted that Diego Grez [8], formerly MisterWiki [9], has a long and checkered history at AN/I, and was only released from the last of his editing restriction in January. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Re this - I am certainly aware of Diego / MW's history, it doesn't seem like we have an abuse incident here on first impression, just a failure (so far) to communicate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Diego Grez has been notified on this discussion and on the naming convention discussion. I don't see why we should wait to undo his massive edits, I can't see where he has proposed these changes and they are far to drastical and many to be regarded as trivial edits not requesting discussion first. Since he is appparently using some sort of autmatized method to edit these articles I will not manually revert all of these (which I otherwise would have done), and therefore I doing this request here. Chiton (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Chiton - Please, talk to him about it, and use the article / topic talk pages and/or his talk page. This is not the right place to bring it up unless you try discussing it in those arenas and he refused to discuss it constructively. It's not an incident now, it doesn't require administrator intervention. It just needs discussion. So please, it's your responsibility to discuss it, with him and others on those topical pages. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
If this is not the place which is the place to request a massive revertion? Note that I have already asked him to revert his massive edits. I really think he is messing up articles with overly long official names for regions. Chiton (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Little harm is done in reverting tomorrow, or next week, even if it looks a little ugly or is wrong today (and I don't have any stance on the problem, yet). If there's a problem, we expect and require you to talk to the other user about it. Coming here is a last resort, if and only if you went to talk to them and that failed (they would not respond or were abusive and ignored you), you went to talk to other editors on the article or topic talk pages and those discussions failed or nobody responded, etc.
Administrators aren't here to override users any time there is a content dispute of some sort. We're here for dealing with truly disruptive stuff, users abusing each other, etc. So far there is no evidence anything happened that administrators should intervene in "officially". Again - you asked him once, make more effort to talk to him. Try that for a while ( a few days ). I asked him on his talk page to please constructively and proactively engage with you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This will be my only comment here. First of all, I was simply bold by doing that really hard work (believe me) to move categories, move articles, replace instances of the real, and official names of the regions. Secondly, Chiton failed to talk to me before this "incident". I don't believe ANI is the correct instance to solve problems like this. It seems to me rather a content dispute, isn't it? And thirdly, and finally, I'll make the point as to why did I move the regions articles and categories. The official names of the regions I moved are "Arica y Parinacota", "Libertador General Bernardo O'Higgins", "La Araucanía", "Bío Bío" (as used in Government websites, more often than other spellings, including "Bio-Bío", "Biobío", "Bio Bio", "Bío-Bío", and so on.), "Aysén del General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo" (original title was "Aisén", which was anyway wrong, as "Aysén" is more popularly used in Chile - consider too the case of "Coihaique", which the municipal government itself does not use. Isn't that what is called in Spanish "arcaísmo" or something?), and "Magallanes y la Antártica Chilena". I wouldn't have done all of this if it wasn't necessary. Would you spend a whole afternoon clicking a button? I don't think you would. And if I did it, it was for the reasons I aforementioned. Want references or something? I can do that, but not right now. Diego Grez (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    • @DG: Just one question regarding a subject I know nothing about: Are there English-language common names for these regions? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, there aren't. However, the following links may seem interesting to you: English websites (and even journals) which make use of the regions names I have proposed.

That might be enough. Diego Grez (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to make certain that WP:COMMONNAME was not applicable in this instance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I know nothing about the names of the regions of Chile, but I can observe it's quite credible that in most contexts, a region might be referred to by a common shortening of its name rather than the full official name. After all, for example, the full name of Rhode Island in the United States is "the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations," but we wouldn't write in an article "Jones was born in 1973 in Rhode Island and Providence Plantations," or list Brown University in the category "colleges and universities in Rhode Island and Providence Plantations." I suspect that this may be a similar situation, where common sense and common usage govern whether in a given context the longer-form or shorter-form name ought to be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You are all invited to continue the discussion on the names of Chilean regions at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Chilean regions. However as the dispute last I would like to point out that Grez massive edits should be reverted until the dispute has been solved. -Chiton (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I have not used the username MisterWiki for years now. Thank you. Diego Grez (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


Ghajinidetails (talk · contribs)

I became involved with this user after he/she made several sweeping changes to cricketer articles which attracted the attention of the cricket Wikiproject. They were made without discussion and went against established consensus and were reverted when the user seemed unable to enter into discussion with us. His user talk page and WT:CRIC hold records of the discussion. I have since then been keeping an eye on the user's edits and noticed what appear to be at least two copyright violations: one at Chakravyuh where the plot section [10] appears to be lifted (with a couple of minor changes) from [11], and another at Anurita Jha where the content appeared to be lifted from [12]. The user has been blocked once already for 3RR. But I'm bringing it here now as the user refuses to engage, his activities have moved beyond the scope of WP:CRIC, and I fear I may be too involved as I've been following his edits for the last couple of days since he first came to light.

Thoughts? S.G.(GH) ping! 12:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - The material mentioned is certainly copyvio and wildly WP:PEACOCK-y - should probably get a rev-del for Chakravyuh to avoid easy-reverts. Nikthestoned 13:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Block proposal[edit]

I have seen some of the chaos caused by this user, who refuses to discuss and insists his way is right in every matter. I suggest an attention-grabbing block to prevent further disruption, which can become indef if the user doesn't pay attention. Proposal is one week. --Dweller (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Thirded. The user's talk page consists of a long list of warnings. The user has never made a response there. A week should be the minimum considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


This editor is a SPA and has been highly disruptive, he has been blocked for sock puppetry and edit warring on the Al-Ahbash article which he kept at a stup for six years. He has taken to logging out to edit war (as he previously did as one of his socks was an IP) thus continuing his old behavior. He has violated 3RR on the Abdullah al-Harari article by using this IP sock[13] I know the IP is his as he has used it to launch two extremely unpleasant personal attacks on me. This attack shows it is User:McKhan [14] as the style of writing is exactly the same. I reported him for socking again and he responded on my talk page with this attack [15] User:Beeblebrox has blocked the IP but not the User:McKhan account, which is still editwarring on the same articles he always edit wars on. I propose a full topic ban on this user on all articles related to Al-Ahbash broadly construed. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

  • So is this user going to get let off with "Get off my fucking back.. You God-damn little Indian RETARD"? Will no admins step in here? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


Drop the stick, and walk away. --Rschen7754 07:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

  • That's enough community.How much you are going to harass a innocent editor just like this? I am retired and never want to contribute to Wikipedia at all.Also, I have to write this from Web cafe as my range is blocked.
  • First of all, stop tagging all disruptions from my IP range which is between - and - as my sock-puppet.I am a university campus student, so was using a shared network.Many of users are clearly vandal and do such disruptions for time passing.I have no interest in editing with or without any account.So, please stop tagging them as my sock and block the range for at least one year.
  • Thanks a lot. (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
If you are blocked, then by definition you, as a person, may not edit Wikipedia anonymously either. Nobody is forcing you to click "save", yet if you do it, it's the act of a block evading sock. Simple plan: stop editing from anywhere so that other people who are not blocked may continue to enjoy editing. dangerouspanda 06:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
How about this: Click the little "X" on the top right-hand corner of your computer screen and be done with it? It's you against a whole bunch of us, and you will lose, plain and simple. --MuZemike 06:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Also your university should be ashamed in your conduct, and they should dismiss you as a result. --MuZemike 06:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Enough is Enough MuZemike. No single word about my personal life or anything personal attack. Block on Wikipedia is not end of life. I don't want to fight war with anyone over here.OK? What if I would criticize about your family? Remember that there's a live human being at the next end of computer screen, who has emotions and feelings. Such thing hurts a person lot and for your comment "Click the little "X" on the top right-hand corner of your computer screen and be done with it? It's you against a whole bunch of us, and you will lose, plain and simple." I have already retired from here, but It's thing, that you're just marking all disruptive edits as my socks, forced me to write here from web cafe. Lastly, you know what single thought struck in my mind ? Was my all donations of 250 $ worth such criticize ? (talk) 07:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Several anon edits to BLP that should probably be deleted[edit]

Would someone mind taking a look through Special:Contributions/ The edit to Irina Slutsky was already deleted, but I realized that there are several to Sandra Oh and maybe some others that are pretty offensive too. The IP hasn't edited since 2007 so it's not an ongoing problem. Thanks. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The most recent edit from this account was more than five years ago, and all of the edits have long been reverted. Why make an issue of this now? RolandR (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks like the Irina edit has been taken care of, but to answer RolandR's question- the history of that article has only recently been restored (it was deleted in 2007, then recreated a few days ago), so presumably the problematic IP edit didn't become generally visible until now. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
This. And only the Slutsky edit was reverted before I posted, User:Edgar181 just took care of Sandra Oh. There isn't a time limit on deleting revisions for BLPs that contain racist and grossly offensive comments. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


RogerThatOne72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User RogerThatOne72 has been attempting for a long period of time now to edit war promotional content about a certain spiritual teacher into the Kundalini Yoga article, including WP:FRINGE claims about the alleged health benefits of kundalini yoga (as taught by this spiritual teacher's school). Examples: [16][17][18][19][20] He has continued to do this for almost two years now in spite of the fact that there is clearly no consensus for these additions on the article talk page. Some suspicions have been voiced that RogerThatOne may at times have resorted to socking in pursuit of his goals, but I'm not sure the evidence is sufficient for that. Regardless, I think his conduct is problematic. Gatoclass (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

These edits of Affinity909 and the subsequent reliance upon them warrant close attention. These edits are also not encouraging. Ankh.Morpork 11:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

All of my edits have been consistently backed by references. I would counter that it is actually Gatoclass who has consistently and stubbornly refused to discuss changes in the talk pages or try to reach consensus on the edits despite numerous requests to do so over 2 years [21]. These **is** clear consensus on the matter in the Talk pages with at least 5 different sources backing the facts [[22]] (see: CactusWriter | needles 21:47, 10 February 2010, TRANSPORTERMAN 21:09, 2 February 2010, Morganfitzp (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC), Comment added by Ycartreel (talk • contribs) 21:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC), (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)levtar kaur201.230.249.233 (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC), in addition to Affinity909 and my own editorial contributions. - That actually makes 7 people). There is little refutation besides highly suspect and repetitive deletions by Gatoclass himself whose knowledge on the subject matter is ridiculously limited, bordering on ignorance. Meanwhile he has used his influence and knowledge of Wikipedia structures and policies to intimidate me several times with threats, and attempts to block me with acts such as this without once, ever trying to reach consensus. This is a shame to all editors of Wikipedia if it supports editors abusing their power. RogerThatOne72 (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  • RogerThatOne72 is a reincarnation of Fatehji who disappeared after this ANI report. See the SPI that has the CU findings (from CU talk page) on the two accounts. Given that the change in accounts happened right after the earlier ANI, it's clearly to avoid WP:SCRUTINY, and of course there's the returning to the same behavior part too. I'll enform EdJohnston on my way out. —SpacemanSpiff 17:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

More eyes on Maximus Inc please?[edit]

Could we get some more eyes on this article, please? I can't make heads or tails of what's going on, but there's a whole lot of content churning, reversion, and redlinked accounts popping up nonstop on my watchlist and I have a feeling something might need to be done about...something. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I left a message to the user, but this was only about their last edit (removing sourced content + edit warring). A careful analysis of the whole history is needed, and I am definitely not an expert.

User Fastballjohnd[edit]

Fastballjohnd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Note- This account also has two socks, Drjohndacquisto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Johnd34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), plus an IP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), which has been used for the same purpose as the main account. A sock puppet investigation[23], resulted in the indefinite blocking of Johnd34 and Drjohndacquisto and a two day block on Fastballjohnd.

Fastballjohnd has exclusively done edits involving former Major Leauge Baseball player John D'Acquisto. The editor has on more one occasion, here[24] most recently, claimed to be the retired athlete.

In the 1990's(after his playing career was over) John D'Acquisto had several run ins with the law. They are chronicled in the article with supporting references. Here[25], here[26], and here[]. Beginning in August 2008 Fastballjohnd began editing the John Acquisto article. Part of his edit[27] was the following

He was sentenced to prison in 1996 for trying to pass off a forged certificate of deposit and was also indicted on charges of defrauding investors of about $7 million and on 39 counts of wire fraud and money laundering. In that case it was found that D'Acquisto was not responsible for any of the charges in the 39-count indictment and out of the 39 counts 37 were dropped and two were taken with no additional time, for misrepresentation. It was later found that the people who perpetrated the civil lawsuit and criminal investigations as well as the convictions against John D'Acquisto were arrested and are still serving jail sentances in Europe. The consensus is that John D'Acquisto was set up and used to cover up a larger scheme by others; according to the court documents in his sentencing memorandum [1], he never stole any money or committed fraud.

That edit was reverted[28]. In January 2009, Fastballjohnd again edited the article [29] giving a version of events that noone has been able to verify. I, and I only became aware of these edits about a month ago, have tried verifying the claims of Fastballjohnd using Google News archive, High Beam Research(which thanks to WP I have a subscription), and Newspaper Archive. My searches have found nothing verifying fastballjohnd's edits.

From Jan 2009 to May 2012 other edits were done to the John D'Acquisto article. I won't run them all down, just the highlights.

  • [30] Feb 2009 claim that news article was incorrect
  • [31] edit by Drjohndaquisto account putting in liks to court documents.(link is dead)
  • [32] Johnd34 putting in link to google documents.(link is dead)
  • [33] Additional commentary added by IP account. This was reverted here.[34]
  • [35] IP blanks the part of the article referring to John D'Acquisto's legal problems. Then the IP edited in a new version.[36] Again this was reverted.[37]

It was shortly after that I got involved. Note I did make edits to the article before June 2012 but they were not involved in any way with Fastballjohnd's or his sock's edits concerning John D'Acquisto's legal problems. If you want to see them, click here[38] and here[39].

Then on June 16 2012 I became aware of information edited in by fastballjohnd and did edits here[40] and here[41]. I made one last edit here[42].

After becoming aware of Mr. D'Acquisto's edits, I brought the matter to the attention of the Baseball Project here[43] and asked[44] for WP administrator The Bushranger to advise us. Which he did[45] and he wrote As for his editing his own article, both the conflict of interest noticeboard and, given he's used three accounts, WP:SPI might be applicable.

So I took it to the COI board and got no response[46]. As I stated earlier, I instituted a sockpuppet investigation[47]. When I did each of these, I left messages[48][49] on Fastballjohnd's talk page to notify him.

On June 29th, Mr. D'Acquisto aka Fastballjohnd responded[50] on his talk page, I wrote back one day later[51].

Fastballjohnd edited the John D'Acquisto article again[52] making claims again which I reverted because they can't be verified. I asked The Bushranger for advice again asking if I should come to ANI, The Bushranger replied[53] that he thought it had risen to that level. So I brought it here today....William 14:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

As this user has not yet been notified, I have done so. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 14:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Now that I've done that, I want to weigh in. On the one hand, you have a whole bunch of COI edits. On the other hand, he is sourcing them; by the same principle that allows us to take sources under a paywall, we should be taking these. I guess the problem is that the COI makes it harder to just WP:AGF and take his word for it. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 14:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
My apologies. I did mean to notify him but forgot. In his last edit he claims a 1999 San Diego Union Tribune article would back up what he's say. The SDTU archives are behind a pay wall and I'd be willing to put up the small amount of cash to peek at the articles but the words I used for the search don't give me much confidence that I'll find anything verifying what D'Acquisto is saying. Plus If he was exonerated, this would have made news outside the SD area. His pleading guilty made the news wires....William 15:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
His sources are always broken links or like here[54] inaccessible. Their inaccessibility I pointed out[55] to him but got no reply. He instead changed his tune to it being reported in the newspaper. It's very hard to AGF considering the COI plus broken links and shifting edits....William 16:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedy[edit]

I propose that all other accounts being used by Fastballjohnd be indef blocked if they haven't already, that Fastballjohnd be formally restricted to a single account (no legit alternates), and that they be banned (not just discouraged) from making edits to articles in which they have a conflict of interest. Fastballjohnd is still permitted, of course, to make edits to talk pages of articles in which they have a COI, as long as those edits do not violate WP:BLP or any other relevant policy or guideline (such as WP:TPO or WP:CIVIL). - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is this here, and not at WP:COIN? (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
It was brought to COIN and I mentioned that up above. Nothing happened....William 10:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Note also that the POV-pushing socking puts it a bit beyond the usual COIN case. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Just found another of his socks but it is stale. Compare this edit by Jddsc3434 with this edit by which has been Fastballjohnd's persistent IP since last September.
Isn't this thread a bit premature though? He has only made three edits since the SPI case ended...two as his account and one as the IP over several days. Shouldn't he be allowed a bit of rope? A CU advised to refile an SPI if the IP continued to edit. If it were me, I'd overlook the one IP edit and be patient.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Fastballjohn is in denial. He says[56] that is his only account. That was after the sockpuppet investigation. He has a clear COI and he thinks the rules don't apply to him. Not doing anything now is just postponing the matter IMHO....William 17:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I would have to agree with Berean Hunter here, there have only been a couple of edits and no indication as of yet that he is not complying with WP:SOCK. He is claiming sources, and WP:V clearly says contentious facts must be verifiable not easily verified. Since the edits appear to be in good faith, and COI editing is clearly not prohibited by policy, action here would be premature. Dennis Brown - © (WER) 15:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Before anything is done, we might have another sock sighting.[57]. I'm going to bring it up at SPI....William 14:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

gaming of my 1-rr restriction by user ankhmorpork[edit]

user ankhmorpork has a long history of tag-teaming against me, hounding me and follow my edits. this behavior has been confirmed by administrators and other editors [58].

i have been baited into edit warring several times due to this tag-teaming. last time i felt into this trap and got blocked, i made the decision to abide by the 1-rr restriction and to use administrative venues when i was harassed and hounded [59], rather than getting into a fight,

originally, after a dispute on the british-pakistani page, ankhmorpork started to follow my edits and started edit warring on the dhimmi-page, together with user shrike. i have the diffs to prove this. after a warning by an administrator [60] concerning ankhmorpork's tag-teaming things calmed down. however, he is now edit warring and hounding me again. the only reason for this is the fact that i have today edited on this page, [61], a page created by ankh (see the discussion on about its neutrality on the talk page). he has at least followed me to 3 pages i have edited today.

one of them is the dhimmi-page. he is now trying to edit war content into the dhimmi-page which has been removed by other editors before [62] before. i reverted him and told him that the burden is on *him* not others, as his edits has been rejected before. instead of discussing he reverted back the content, knowing very well that i'm under a 1-rr restriction. could someone please revert ankhmorpork as he is blatantly edit warring and adding content without any consensus. content that has been removed by other longstanding editors. could someone please block him for this continuous hounding? shrike should be warned as well. -- altetendekrabbe  13:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Typical misuse of sources by Ankhmorpork. s/he is using a source which discusses the way "classical Islamic law" had discriminated against both Muslim women and dhimmis - but conveniently ignores the former, in spite of the fact that much of the surrounding text relates to discrimination against women. s/he uses the source to justify a claim that dhimmis "would also face humiliating and discriminatory distinctions" when the source actually says that the degree that such "discriminatory distinctions" were legitimate was a matter of dispute amongst Islamic Jurists - and ignores entirely the fact that the same source also points out that such discriminatory practices were unevenly applied. The book cannot be cited for categorical assertions that dhimmis 'would' face anything - and if it were to be cited for the fact that they 'might', should also point out that so might Muslim women. In any case, this is a total red herring. There is nothing remotely unusual in any system of "classical law" discriminating against women (as seen from the modern, Western 'perspective'), and likewise nothing unusual in legal discrimination on the grounds of religion either. To make out that this was somehow a significant feature of "classical Islamic law" is a highly dubious proposition, and certainly doesn't belong in the lede, particularly when the body of the text (which the lede is supposed to summarise) makes clear that the situation was much more complex, and that dhimmis were sometimes at a legal advantage under systems of "classical Islamic law" - and indeed sometimes had their own legal systems, with Islamic courts constrained from interference. The proposed edit to the lede is nothing more than spin, intended (as with much of ankhmorpork's 'contributions') to portray Muslims in as negative a way as possible, through selective (mis)reading of sources. That Ankhmorpork is still permitted to misuse Wikipedia to push such an agenda is a disgrace to the entire community. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

::: Your use of AN/I to attempt to resolve a dispute is in direct contravention of one of your two editing restrictions. I hope this results in a block for yourself. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I completely misread your restriction. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A notification of this would have been preferred. Altetendekrabbe has accused various editors of tag-teaming, a common denominator among them being that they do not share his view. Among them are myself, Estlandia, Frotz, Shrike and others. This is often cited when explaining his frequent disruptive editing.

Addressing his concern that I have been following him today to various pages,

  • In response to a talk page discussion at Talk:Rochdale sex trafficking gang and altetendekrabbe's content removal, I added content based on the Times source as requested. I explained this on the talk page. This article was on my watchlist seeing as I created it. Note: Altetendekrabbe had made mass deletions to this page before against consensus.
  • At Dhimmi, a page I have made a number of edits and introduced various sources, I explained on the talk page why a source was inaccurately presented. I then amended the article according to the source. I was immediately reverted by Altetendekrabbe who stated I was 'edit warring' and that the issue had been discussed, despite me starting a thread to discuss this source. I asked him to direct me to the pertinent discussion or explain his grounds for removal. He declined.
  • Altedendenkrabbe broke his 1rr restriction today. This was pointed out to him by Shrike who advised him to self-revert which he did. This is a cynical attempt to cover up his continued disruptive editing.

I have not reverted any of his edits but improved the sourcing in one article and sought to accurately reflect the source in another, something I discussed on the talk page. His claims of edit-warring or hounding are not correct and are frequently employed when facing a content disagreement. Here are a sample of comments he has said about me in the past, 12[63].

Andy - I have no idea what you are talking about. The source and material based upon it was already in the lead and was not under dispute. What I did was alter it slightly per the source Please take a look at the edit in question before accusing me of misusing a source that various editors have agreed should be included. If you object to its inclusion, please address your concerns to the relevant talk page.

Ankh.Morpork 14:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Is that supposed to make sense? If the material was 'not under dispute' before you 'alter[ed] it slightly' then clearly there is a dispute if people disagree with your 'alteration' - and your 'alteration' is clearly misrepresentation and spin, per the usual habits of you and the Islamophobic tag-teamers that conveniently follow you around. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Look at the edit in question. You are clearly barking up the wrong tree seeing as the the source had long been introduced and included in the article and my edit was simply amending a couple of words exactly as source stated. Ankh.Morpork 15:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
excuse me but you're missing the point. your edit was reverted by other editors weeks ago, [64]. you didn't bother to discuss at all. you are now, forcefully trying to add the *exactly* the same content back. i reverted you as you have *absolutely no consensus*, and the burden is on you. instead you reverted me, knowing very well i cannot revert you back due to my self-imposed restriction. you are gaming the system, you are hounding me. regarding the so-called breach of my 1-restriction: i self-reverted![65] i forgot i was under restriction. ok? oh yes, once more: you have *consensus* and the burden is on you.-- altetendekrabbe  15:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Bollocks. I asked you twice to direct me to the relevant discussion so that I could participate as I could not see it anywhere and you instead ignored this and decided to take this to ANI. I still don't see where the issue on how to present this has been discussed. Ankh.Morpork 15:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
when i reverted you, you should have stopped and discussed. instead, you reverted me, when you don't have consensus, and the burden is on you. you made exactly the same addition weeks ago...and they were thrown out..u were asked to participate in the discussion then but you didn't.-- altetendekrabbe  15:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Not true. I did discuss it, I first started a thread directly related to my edit, a thread you have still not participated in discussing your objections. You were twice asked to show where this had been previously discussed and to explain your objections. You refused.Ankh.Morpork 15:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
you reverted the content back in without any consensus. consensus is not reached in 10 minutes. you took advantage of my restriction. you cannot revert back in disputed content under the cover of "i started a thread on the talk page"...-- altetendekrabbe  15:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Meanwhile, Ankhmorpork is at it again, on the Rochdale sex trafficking gang article, citing The Times for an assertion that "A report conducted by The Times found that most convicted offenders of child sex grooming in the North and the Midlands have involved British Pakistanis, with the victims mainly being white girls". [66] Not only is this a gross misrepresentation of what the source says, but Ankhmorpork knows full well from previous discussions of this source that it is. Still, who cares about the truth, or what the sources actually say, if you are out to spew vile propaganda... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
yes, several editors are disgusted by his behavior [67].-- altetendekrabbe  15:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
And while we are at it, this edit [68] by Ankhmorpork looks a clear copyright violation: a copy-and-paste job from the source cite, with only trivial rewording. Then again, it is entirely unclear why the speculative opinions of an ex-MP on the possible relevance of arranged marriage to the issue (or more accurately a cherry-picked sample of some of her opinions) even belongs in the article at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Why are you referencing an edit from over two months ago and yet you have the temerity to tell other editors to stay on topic? Here is the source, how was this a "copy and paste" edit? Why are you discussing a topic previously discussed at ANI, which prompted this sanctimonious retirement, only to resurface and make exactly the same accusations. Ankh.Morpork 15:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
because you are part of the topic. your edit warring, your gaming of the system, your tag-teaming and your misrepresentation of sources.-- altetendekrabbe  16:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Yup: Telegraph: "Ann Cryer, the former MP for Keighley, who first came across the issue nearly a decade ago, believes the practice of arranged marriages may also have a bearing on the issue. This, she says, is because such marriages often involve the arrival in Britain of young, uneducated young men suddenly transplanted from remote villages in Pakistan. While the age of consent is the same in Pakistan as it is in Britain, girls can be marry [sic] in the former as soon as they reach puberty".
Ankhmorpork:"Ann Cryer, the former MP for Keighley, posited that the practice of arranged marriages, involving the arrival of young, uneducated men from villages in Pakistan, might have a bearing on this issue. Although the age of consent is the same in Pakistan and Britain, girls can be married in Pakistan on reaching puberty".
How is that not a copyright violation, or at minimum a violation of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing: "Close paraphrasing without in-text attribution may constitute plagiarism, and when extensive (with or without in-text attribution) may also violate Wikipedia's copyright policy, which forbids Wikipedia contributors from copying material directly from other sources". As for when the edit was made, so what - it is yot another example of your cherry-picking of sources for the purposes of spin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

For info, the original statement and source were introduced by User:Pudeo, to replace a much worse reference and as a compromise. That was in the best of faith, but I am not sure that the source is ideal for the article, so have opened a thread on RSN. Note all of us who are trying to ensure NPOV and policy-compliant editing are being subjected to incivility and accusations. For examplbye ants by User:Whatdafuq - a sock puppet investigation remains open, and attention to the offensive username seems to be waiting on that. The whole spat seems to have started in May, when an editor with just 13 edits brought in a lot of material sourced to the fringe author Rodney Stark. Altetendekrabbe reasonably reverted, and Ankh-Morpork reverted back, with an accusation of vandalism, no less. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ankh Morpork did say soon afterwards that the vandalism accusation was in error, I missed that, sorry. I don't want to misrepresent anyone. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Comment I'm not going to squeeze this point, but he actually did it twice, making the apology a little harder to believe.[69][70]

And yet you conveniently omit this edit made soon after. If you have a complaint, present it fairly and don't ignore an obvious acknowledgment of this error. Ankh.Morpork 20:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Acknowledged, I've stricken it. Please accept an apology. benjamil talk/edits 21:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
yes, but he continued with his edit war...-- altetendekrabbe  16:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
here is another (!) discussion that exposes ankh's misrepresentation of sources, his tag-teaming, his blind reverts [71].-- altetendekrabbe  16:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all why no one was notified of this discussion is clear violation of the policy by User:Altetendekrabbe.

user:AndyTheGrump trying to revive some topic that was closed by admin long time ago, his edits uncostrctuve to say the least and have nothing to do with the topic at hand.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please try to write in at least an approximation of the English language. That makes no sense whatsoever. 17:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
It read to me like "AndyTheGrump is trying to revive some topic that was closed by an admin a long time ago, his edits are unconstructive to say the least and have nothing to do with the topic at hand". Not the best grammar in the world, but not incomprehensible (not intended to take a position on the issue, just to clarify it). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal of topic ban for user Altetendekrabbe[edit]

Altetendekrabbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for edit war multiple times and was described by an uninvolved admin as "edit warrior who may not be able to control himself"[72] Only today he broke 1RR [73],[74] though he reverted after I informed him. He clearly tries to test the limits of his restriction and game it and right now he is using AN/I to circumvent his restrictions User:AnkhMorpork is not under any restriction and restored sourced information after discussing it on the talk page but Altetendekrabbe didn't provide any meaningful explanation to his edits.

user:Altetendekrabbe was already blocked several times for constant personal attacks. He has attacked other users as "minions" [[75]] and constantly poisons the article talk page atmosphere with baseless personal accusations [76],[77],[78],[79].Though he removed most of his posts it’s very hard to edit with him in collegial way and try to improve the article. Because of the above I propose to ban user:Altetendekrabbe from all Islam related topics broadly construed

  • Support-As proposer--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment You pointed out his violation of 1RR and then he self-reverted. What is the issue here? Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The issue that he trying to WP:GAME the restriction either via testing it and hoping no one will notice or via WP:AN/I like now --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
shrike, you are now lying. you know that i know that you are constantly monitoring me..."testing"... "hoping no one will notice" foot.-- altetendekrabbe  17:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for providing another clear example of you personal attacks [80]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This user have made 20 edits at all suddenly returned today with perfect knowledge of wiki markup and welcomed himself.Very strange--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC) amended my comment
Does that supposedly make me incapable of reading? Tagging me as an SPA make very little sense dangerouspanda 17:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. A ridiculous proposal from an involved user, clearly intended to distract us from the issue here - the POV-pushing behaviour of Ankhmorpork and the rest of the tag-team, of which Shrike is clearly one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
yes... shrike is *extremely* disruptive and destructive. he has no limits whatsoever.-- altetendekrabbe  17:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for Altetendekrabbe, Support for User:Shrike. Shrike has been playing games on this and related topics (I believe he already got topic banned from Israel/Palestine topic, which is why he switched to picking on Muslims in non-directly-related-to-Israel articles) and his activity has long pasted the "disruptive" threshold and is very quickly reaching the "exhausted people's patience" level. He dodged a few boomerangs, but one of them is going to come back and get him eventually, and the sooner that happens the less trouble and disruption.VolunteerMarek 17:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not topic banned all my editions based on scholary sources you tag teaming User:Altetendekrabbe to WP:CENSOR information--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Please write in English. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
He has never been banned or blocked regarding his disputes with altetendekrabbe and always makes extensive use of the talk page. On the contrary, you have. Ankh.Morpork 18:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
He was topic banned from IP [81] I just couldn't remember whether it was permanent or if it expired.VolunteerMarek 20:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Would you care to provide evidence for this supposed 'pro-Islam agenda'? None has been offered in this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Have a look at these 123 for starters. Ankh.Morpork 18:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
interesting. the fact that i asked people to replace "muslim" with "jewish", in order to make people understand the racism involved in some edits, somehow make me pro-islam? the first diff is a good one, do you want me to list up edits from the british-pakistani page where you maligned a whole racial group?-- altetendekrabbe  18:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
user iamthemuffinman is clearly tag-teaming with ankhmorpork and shrike here. iamthemuffinman joined wikipedia yesterday, [82]. still, he is so eager to get me banned that he didn't even took the time to read what my restrictions really are [83]. and he knows wikipedia very well, even striking out comments a day after joining [84]. this is extremely strange.-- altetendekrabbe  18:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:DUCK, chances are the brand spankin' new SPA User:Iamthemuffinman is SOMEBODY's sock.VolunteerMarek 18:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I doubt it is a sock, more likely a meatpuppet. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I love that, if anyone sides against you they are "tag teaming" and Meat/sockpuppets. Someone with your attitude shouldn't be editing wikipedia, hence why I decided to support. Your reaction to my post has only made my position more solid. For the record I have never dealt with Shrike or AnkhMorpork in the past. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I oppose sanctions against Altetendekrabbe or Shrike. -- Frotz(talk) 22:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Altetendekrabbe is capable of intelligent discussion, but does not take opposing opinions very well. Notice that he's not including me in this tag-team cabal anymore. Shrike merely got in Altetendekrabbe's way. -- Frotz(talk) 18:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
shrike has been tag-teaming with ankhmorpork ever since the british-pakistani dispute. you and i have our differences, and i endorsed your version on the dhimmitude-page. now, who has been altering that version ever since? -- altetendekrabbe  18:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This is bullshit. I have never edited this article before so I have no idea what you are suggesting. Ankh.Morpork 19:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Ankhmorpork has never reverted in this article at all but you and Volunteer Marek did and removed sourced information --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
er, what? i was speaking of you shrike. you have constantly tried to destroy any consensus on the dhimmitude-page.-- altetendekrabbe  18:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for Altetendekrabbe, Support for User:Shrike. During the last two months there have been 6 filings at AN about Altetendekrabbe, this one included. User:Shrike has filed 2 cases [85] (unsubstantiated) [86] and argued in 1 more (not counting the current) [87] for sanctions against him, while being just as disruptive himself, but far less apt when it comes to use of WP:RS. (As a side note, Ankhmorpork's count is 2 filings [88] [89] and 1 count of arguing this instance included) There are major interaction issues here, and the guilt is definitely not all, or even mostly, on Altendekrabbe's hands - all but one of his blocks have seen the involvement of either of these users. NB! The updates at the user page of User:EatShootsAndLeaves give a good explanation of the edit history vs. knowledge of WP markup and policies. benjamil talk/edits 18:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Then he should disclose his account to vote in the ANI--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
All cases were substantiated the admins already had the suspicions and did the CU.So if the admin have the sucspicions then I have every right to have one.You just vote because you don't agree me as I not violated anything.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
All cases were probably substantiated, but there was edit warring going on in all of them. It takes two to tango. Frankly, I'm appalled that it took so long as this [90] for that to be acknowledged. And I still cant get my head around what happened here [91][92]. I'm not voting because I dislike your POV. I've worked perfectly well with people with a similar POV. I'm voting because I've been watching several of the articles where you've been interacting with Altetendekrabbe and because I've seen a modus operandi of which I strongly disapprove.benjamil talk/edits 19:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't take part in this edit war , I have never was blocked for edit warring and if takes two to tango why you vote only against me?Its not clear what I have violated in Islam related articles and why should I banned from it--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Someone else made the point a lot clearer than I did [93], so I'll strike the diffs. For instance, these edits sum it up quite nicely.misrepresentation 1 at Dhimmitudemisrepresentation 2a at Dhimmitudemisrepresentation 2b at Dhimmitude coatrack at Dhimmi in view of [94] and [95] It's clear that either you're unable to read the talk page and try to understand what other editors are objecting to, particularly the complexities of interpretation, or you're deliberately working against consensus. As an alternative to a topic ban, I think enforcement of FuturePerfect's suggestion of discussing all edits before making them would be reasonable.benjamil talk/edits 20:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
you didn't get blocked because you *tag-team* and get away with it.-- altetendekrabbe  19:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for Altetendekrabbe, Support for User:Shrike Per Andy and Marek. Sædontalk 21:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for Altetendekrabbe (and just to be clear, and to fit the format of how other users are doing it, Oppose topic ban for Shrike) - a lot of people here are distracting from the main topic, by simply saying they oppose it for Alt, who, to quote an admin, is an "edit warrior who may not be able to control himsel," but they support it for Shrike. The issue isn't that Alt made a "good-faith edit" and mistakenly violated 1RR, but self-reverted. Alt is under restrictions, which you can view on his user page, which include not violating WP:1RR, and engaging in dispute resolution, and it is expected that he hold himself to higher standards and be more careful. This was part of an unblock condition, if I am correct. Shrike does not have these restrictions, because he has not warranted them, and it seems that the people commenting here "oppose for Alt, support for Shrike" aren't actually listing reasons for this, which calls into question whether they have pre-existing biases or have gotten into previous conflicts with these editors before. It's welcoming that Alt did self-revert, but it's questionable what his motives were in violating 1RR in the first place when he knows that's a specific restriction against him, and he is not allowed to violate it. And instead of trying to cooperate here and explain himself, he's just going about hurling insults at editors, and it's even worse on talk pages. I haven't personally engaged in such discussions with Alt on talk pages, as I'm too intimidated by the behavior and assaults there. I know about his actions since Ankh's page is on my watchlist (I commented on his page once, and since then it's been on my watchlist), and I noticed there was a dispute about the article dhimmi or dhimittude there, so I checked it out. Alt has a history of being blocked for these types of reasons, and it's regrettable that he still continues this behavior, rather than try to cooperate in a friendly and kind way to help benefit all of Wikipedia. I have no doubt that this post in which I expressed my sincere opinion will be attacked and assaulted as well... --Activism1234 21:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
^^^ Another very recent account.VolunteerMarek 01:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Your comment is very insulting. Since March 2012, I have had over 976 edits. Why that would disqualify me, I can't answer... Please try to refrain from these personal attacks on me, so we can have a lively and friendly discussion that results in appropriate enforcements. Thanks!--Activism1234 22:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
If you and your cohorts are so confident that people are using sock/meatpuppets, run a checkuser, otherwise, you need to stop with the accusations as they remain baseless and are bordering on personal attacks. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment Iamthemuffin, you're a newish account and until recently was editing under an IP and nearly got into some hot water here. ANI regulars are always suspicious of "young" accounts (not editor age-wise, but tenure-wise) that pop up suddenly and throw themselves into a contested discussion. Too many times the suspicions are warranted hence the long standing near-tradition of questioning new contributors here. WP:AGF only goes so far and the distance it goes here is a hell of a lot shorter than anywhere else on wikipedia. Blackmane (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Reply I'm sure they are, but unless they can find any proof to their claims regarding myself, I fully expect the accusation to be withdrawn without delay. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that you take that to their talk page. Otherwise that'll just derail this discussion. Blackmane (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Note WP:BOOMERANG, this seems to bean opportunistic proposal and the proposer clearly has unclean hands. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is just an attempt to deflect attention from the "Typical misuse of sources by Ankhmorpork" (as explained in detail above by Andy)—if someone from your side is in trouble, create a smokescreen to drown the discussion. Why has there been no attention to Andy's comments at "14:36, 23 July" and "15:16, 23 July" and "16:03, 23 July" above? Sure, it's a content dispute, but it appears that normal dispute resolution is entirely unsuitable for an issue like this where severe distortion of sources to enhance a POV appear to have occurred. Johnuniq (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • BOOMERANG on shrike, this reeks of vengeancemongering.Lihaas (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for Altetendekrabbe and oppose for user Shrike. Altetendekrabbe is a repeat offendor, and what is Shrike supposed to have done? Crystalfile (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
This user, Crystalfile, that is, has registered a total of 15 edits since her/his first, at June 7. How interesting. benjamil talk/edits 13:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for Altetendekrabbe, Support for Shrike. GiantSnowman 14:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • support for A and maybe shrike needs a talking to and an editor? i would be happy to have him submit to me, offline, what he wants to present, i will edit into usable english.... Soosim (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Indifferent re Altenkrabbe sanction, Oppose any sanction re Shrike. Alt self-reverted at Shrike's insistence, i.e. Shrike made a constructive contribution to the content of the article on Alt's behalf. At the same time, Alt's 1RR violation prior to Shrike's notification arguably exceeded the bounds of good faith, so Shrike's proposal is certainly reasonable under the circumstances.—Biosketch (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for Altetendekrabbe, Support for Shrike. Altetendekrabbe is a good faith editor who sometimes makes errors of judgment. I see no grounds for a topic ban for him. If Shrike is acting in good faith, then his proposal of a topic ban for Altetendekrabbe seems incomprehensible. The principle of WP:BOOMERANG seems just and fair.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose both. Though really I should be supporting both, since both of you seem to be way too involved in this topic area. SilverserenC 22:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for Altetendekrabbe; he's a good editor and simply banning opposing editors from the topic area to get past content disputes is not the way to go (even if they editwar - if a user editwars he's blocked for that and then there's escalation). I would however support a topic ban for Shrike, who has not only started this section as harassment along with many other filings per benjamil but also proven his incapability to edit in the topic area in harmony, per WP:BOOMERANG. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Does Shrike have sufficient competence in the English language to be a worthwhile contributor?[edit]

Per this diff, [96], it appears doubtful. Regardless of content disputes, an editor lacking the necessary language skills to recognise such poor material should probably not to be involved in such controversial topics - or arguably, in any direct input into article space at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You're taking one diff in which he made two grammatical mistakes and going crazy over it? People make mistakes in grammar all the time; feel free to correct any mistakes you find. As far as I'm aware, there is no rule against making good-faith edits that comply with all the policies but have a grammatical error... --Activism1234 21:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm not 'taking one diff' - I'm giving it as an example of a wider problem. See Shrike's comments in this thread for further examples of incomprehensible postings. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I can understand everything he says. You are right, users should do everything they should in order to make their edits top-notch, and grammar plays a large part in this. But those who aren't fluent speakers in English but understand the language and can edit Wikipedia, and who have been part of the community for a long time as well, should not be discriminated against, especially for that reason. --Activism1234 00:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I think this case is a bit extreme and beyond simple mistakes. This is an editor who is unable to write a sentence in an article without making several basic grammatical errors. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say that Shrike is conversational but not fluent based on what I've read in this thread. If it is the case that he consistently adds incorrect language to articles then that would be a problem, but unless that's happening there's not much to discuss. IOW we wouldn't sanction based on this unless it was demonstrated to happen on a regular enough basis. Sædontalk 00:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I went through some of his article space diffs. His additions are to a poor standard: [97][98][99][100]. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
And note that the first one is apparently quoting "Israel government" [sic], but gives no source. Clearly, edits like this have no place in controversial articles. And excluding someone from editing because they lack fluency in English isn't really a 'sanction' as I see it - merely a way of ensuring that article content quality doesn't suffer. Note that any problem in writing fluently is more or less certain to be paralleled by a difficulty in understanding English-language sources - at least to the level of detail that we'd expect for a contributor writing on controversial topics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, as far as this one goes, I've seen users with much worse English language skills contribute positively to Wikipedia. In fact, I've helped a number of those. However, the two key differences between those users and Shrike are that 1) They weren't editing highly controversial topics or at the very least were not engaged in what could be called POV pushing; they stuck to simple direct, factual, edits, and 2) they weren't engaged in this gaming and WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT that Shrike does a lot of. I know this is a bit of dancing on the AGF boundary but sometimes I honestly have trouble telling whether Shrike just is not communicating/understanding views expressed in English very well, or if s/he's being purposefully obtuse and obstinate since it serves their purpose to ignore other people's comments (see also [101]). So while the lack of English proficiency is a complicating factors, it's not really the underlying issue here.VolunteerMarek 01:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

off-topic suggestion[edit]

Regardless of this case, can I suggest that the general 1RR restriction that applies in the Israel-Palestine domain (see Wikipedia:ARBPIA) be extended to all the sorts of articles that the same edit-warriors frequent? I'm not sure of the best definition, but anything related to relationships between Muslims and Jews (such as Dhimmi) should definitely be included. Zerotalk 15:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You could suggest it - but not here. This is outside the remit of this noticeboard. Can we please stay on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Interesting proposal, but as Andy said above, not the place for it. I'm sure this proposal can get a lively discussion in the appropriate forum. --Activism1234 21:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving forwards[edit]

This is getting us absolutely nowhere, generating more heat than light. Please remember that, if we are to find a resolution here, we need to work together and not treat Wikipedia as a battleground. That will mean compromise, and will probably mean that most editors will not get exactly what they want. However, if we continue like this, we get nowhere. I would encourage all involved to stop and take a step back at the moment; the initial discussion has just made matters worse, and the topic ban section is too full of accusations from involved users for any admin to judge consensus at. It seems to me that we have a complex interaction issue here, which has gone on for some time, between a number of editors. Until we resolve that, the content dispute (which a completely separate issue) will remain unsolved). While maintaining good faith and without making any accusations, perhaps we could talk about how this interaction issue might be resolved. It would be good if we could leave the past behind us and focus on developing a better relationship now. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 21:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions how editors that share similar interests can avoid the appearance of hounding? I am all ears. Ankh.Morpork 09:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, as one of the AE admins these are all names I'm familiar with, and I don't see a typical ANI thread resolving what's going on here. There are a lot of very deep-seated issues that require both some subject knowledge and a very good understanding of the machinations of the ARBPIA topic area. What it really would need is an AE-type setup of comments and responses, with a couple admins willing to read over everything and a section for some uninvolved non-admin comments, but unless someone really wants to set that up an attempt to restart will probably end up being an all-out brawl like before. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A simple question for Ankhmorpork[edit]

With this edit [102] you added the following paragraph to the Rochdale sex trafficking gang article:

"A report conducted by The Times found that most convicted offenders of child sex grooming in the North and the Midlands have involved British Pakistanis, with the victims being white girls. Of the 56 offendors convicted since 1997 for crimes involving the on-street grooming of girls aged 11 to 16, 3 were white, 53 were Asian of which 50 were Muslim and most were from the British Pakistani community".

Do you contend that this paragraph (particularly the first sentence) is supported by the source cited: []? (note that this article is behind a paywall - I have seen the source however, and I'm sure that others in this discussion will have seen it too).

This is a simple enough question, and it should be possible for Ankhmorpork to answer with little more than a straight yes or no - I await his reply. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a copy of the source for anyone who cares to judge for themselves. This very source has been the subject of a previous ANI, in which this was lengthily discussed, and like previously, you have not deigned to explicate your criticisms on the talk page. Ankh.Morpork 14:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
You have not answered the question. Is the first paragraph of your edit supported by the source or not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Here is the bit from the source "Most of the victims are white and most of the convicted offenders are of Pakistani heritage," I would say that supports the first line. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
If you are claiming that the paragraph in question is supported by the source cited, I have to question your competence as an editor - see the discussion below.
Meanwhile, I am still waiting for Ankhmorpork to answer the question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Andy, you asked "particularly the first sentence" was supported by the source, obviously it is. I am done commenting here. A question was asked and was responded to with your usual personal attacks. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
If you think that, once again, I would question your competence as an editor (hardly a 'personal attack' given that you have clearly failed to comprehend what the source actually says) - though evidently this would be best pursued elsewhere.
Meanwhile, I am still waiting for Ankhmorpork to answer the question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
You like calling other users' competence into question, don't you? It goes hand in hand with your baseless accusations and personal attacks. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I happen to agree with Darkness Shines. If we're talking about the first sentence that Ankhmorpork wrote, and we're using this source, then it appears to accurately fit the source, which states "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 second part of the sentence compares one type to the first part. What exactly is the issue? The wording "child sex grooming" as opposed to "sexual exploitation?" It appears the wording was taken from "involving groups of older men who groom and abuse vulnerable girls aged 11 to 16 after befriending them on the street."
Either way, it seems like a typical dispute between two editors that is best to be resolved between the two editors, or on a talk page, or in a third party opinion forum. As I said, I agree with Darkness Shines and the edit is close to what the source says, so I recommend that any issues be taken up at the talk page or with Ankh, rather than try to cause a distraction, inflame, and spread a battleground mentality in a discussion concerning a user, not Ankh, who was reported by another user, not Ankh. Thanks. --Activism1234 22:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Utter nonsense. The Times article doesn't state that "most convicted offenders of child sex grooming in the North and the Midlands have involved British Pakistanis". It says that in relation to a particular type of child sex grooming, in some towns and cities in the Midlands and north of England, "most of the convicted offenders are of Pakistani heritage". It says absolutely nothing about the proportion of child sex offenders in general which are of Pakistani heritage, but instead explicitly points out that in other forms of 'grooming' "the vast majority of perpetrators are white". This had already been discussed repeatedly. And in case you hadn't noticed, the initial complaint here did relate to the behaviour of Ankhmorpork and his followers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
And for the record, I am still waiting for Ankhmorpork to answer the question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Off-Topic: I asked Ankhmorpork the question[edit]

Clearly it is. What you have quoted is word for word what is written in the article Ankhmorpork linked to. You clearly have a vested interest in this matter and are conducting yourself in an almost obscurist and intentionally antagonistic manner. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Liar. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Muffinman - copying word for word, eh? WP:COPYVIO then. Andy - please remain civil. GiantSnowman 16:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
If it copied word for word, it would include the phrase "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". It would also make clear that it is referring to a particular type of child sexual exploitation carried out by a men from such backgrounds in some towns and cities of the midlands and northern England. The source categorically does not support an assertion that "most convicted offenders of child sex grooming in the North and the Midlands have involved British Pakistanis" (even allowing for the appalling grammar), and it is an outright lie to claim that it does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump is clearly right insofar as Akhmorpork's edit changes the meaning of the source from a statement about one specific sub-type of child grooming into a statement about child grooming in general. This constitutes a pretty severe distortion, as it makes the proportion of Asian/Pakistani offenders among the entirety of criminals appear larger than the source actually says it is. I would chalk this up to a mere mistake, if it hadn't been for the fact that this exact passage was already discussed a couple of weeks ago, and the same mistake was pointed out back then, so at this point this is no longer so easily excusable. Fut.Perf. 17:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Precicesly: this was discussed repeatedly - and Ankhmorpork was one of the most involved in these discussions. This is why I am asking for clarification from Ankhmorpork on whether he thinks his edit reflects the source. If it was an error, he should say so, if he doesn't consider it to be an error - or refuses to actually explain the discrepancy - it only seems reasonable, in the light of previous events, to see it as intentional misrepresentation of material in a highly-controversial topic area. Taken in conjunction with other actions which clearly indicate a battleground mentality, and an unwillingness to work within Wikipedia policy and guidelines, it is difficult to see why Ankhmorpork should be allowed to continue to edit in areas where he clearly has a close emotional envolvement.