Talk:Aylesbury child sex abuse ring

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Low-importance).

British crime (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles

Buckinghamshire (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire articles

Unexplained tagging[edit]

Uamaol has twice added tags to the article, without explaining why. It's reasonable to remove them, unless and until they give an explanation here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

done Uamaol (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I didn't think the tags were right, but I left them there while I asked Uamaol to explain what the problems were. He didn't reply, so I removed them. CurrentUK (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues[edit]

The manual of style makes it read more like a newspaper article, rather than one of an encyclopædia.
The article uses far too many quotation marks, especially when unnecessary.
There are way too many direct quotes, which makes the article sound story-like and/or from a newspaper.
Some information, such as ethnicities, background and specific actions, appear irrelevant/ out of the scope of the article.

Uamaol (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that you haven't justified the "close connection" tag - which should only be used if you have some evidence that an editor has a connection with the subject of the article (that is, the victims or the perpetrators). In any event it could be construed as WP:OUTING, which is not allowed. I suggest you withdraw that claim, while consideration is given to the others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Uamaol (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you made the claim in the first place? It's a serious accusation to make and I still don't know why you made it. CurrentUK (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to comment on this and it looks a lot like WP:TAGBOMBING. The article isn't all that bad (I've seen worse) and tagging should be kept to a minimum. If it is that bad, WP:SOFIXIT rather than adding tags.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If it wasn't WP:TAGBOMBING, why has Uamaol made the "close connection" claim and (so far) declined to explain the reasons for it? CurrentUK (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close connection claim has been withdrawn. I am still curious as to why you assumed it was you I was referring to. Uamaol (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're not curious -- you're evading the question in exactly the way I would expect. I repeat it: Can you explain why you made the claim in the first place? If you can't, there is an obvious conclusion to draw. CurrentUK (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a mind reader? Conclusions have already been drawn, civility is clearly not one of your traits. Also, can you please refrain from removing maintenance tags when work clearly has not been undertaken on an article. Uamaol (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you provide a more specific list of things about the article that are badly wrong. Ideally, edit the article rather than tagging or complaining about the actions of other editors, neither of which contribute significantly to article improvement.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"civility is clearly not one of your traits". Does your deep attachment to civility explain why the question I first asked on your talk-page on 11th January went completely unacknowledged there and is still waiting a reply anywhere else? Here it is again: Can you explain why you made the claim of "close connection"? One would expect someone as ethical as you to have no problem explaining his motives, so it's deeply puzzling that you've still not done so. (I say "his" because, as you note, I'm a mind-reader). CurrentUK (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does your deep attachment to this article give you the right to question every single edit to it? I refuse to answer your question due to you clear hostility with me on the subject as well as with you past lack of civility with correspondence with other editors. This is a talk page, not a forum. Do as you will. I'm done with this! Uamaol (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Oxford sex gang which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]