Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Loomspicker again

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

---

• I moved this from AN. Pass a Method talk 01:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've raised this issue here before, but the user in question oh-so-conveniently went inactive for a few days while the thread was open. To sum up, User:Loomspicker is a single-purpose account devoted to pretending Islamophobia doesn't exist by scrubbing the word from Wikipedia, and in the service of this crusade, has engaged in a number of prohibited behaviors. In addition to the evidence detailed here, which includes the introduction of factual inaccuracy, blanking sourced material, and adding scare quotes, he has more recently continued to misrepresent sources ([1] [2] [3]), remove sourced material ([4]), delink pages in an apparent attempt to orphan them so they can be deleted ([5] [6] [7]), and otherwise edit in a disruptive and POV manner. Please deal with this even if the user goes inactive in order to avoid scrutiny. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Should I take this to ANI instead? Either way, I don't want this to be archived without being addressed simply because the user stopped editing right when the thread opened. That's what happened last time, and obviously he simply resumed the disruptive behavior as soon as it seemed like no one was looking anymore. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

More of an ANI thing IMO, but since it's here, I'll reply here. (Nowadays apparently you're supposed to use some accursed template to move a thread to ANI, and I can't away with it.) It would be easier to take stock of the situation if you provided a link to where you raised the issue before, Roscelese. If they repeatedly go inactive when they're under scrutiny, and not at other times, then that's significant, but I'd like to see for myself. Bishonen | talk 15:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC).

...It's already linked in my first post? But here is the link again. link –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, yes, this sort of thing should be over at WP:ANI, since it's an "incident", so to speak, regarding another user. As far as I (non-admin) know, WP:AN is more for general announcements and requests, while WP:ANI deals more with user behavior. Ansh666 03:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support block or topic ban rom Islam for Loomspicker. I have been going through this editors contributions and he is clearly anti-Muslim, goes around articles related to Muslims and puts derogotary information about them as well as other unsavoury edits. Pass a Method talk 15:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I share Roscelese's and Pass a Method's concerns, which I also had after seeing this edit which removed five sources. The fact that these same types of edits are occurring across multiple articles is troubling. I'm not sure if a block is required, but a topic ban should definitely be put on the table for discussion.- MrX 19:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

That edit was about what should be included in the article, not necessarily vandalism. Our talk page discussion on the issue clearly shows that. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I never said it was vandalism, only that it seems to be part of a pattern of erasing the concept of Islamaphobia from Wikipedia by Loomspicker. - MrX 00:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Very weak support based on review of edits over the past few days. Some seem to be done with the agenda of removing any sense of "racism" from Islamophobia pages and to cast Islam in a bad light. But based on the evidence presented by Roscelese, the user does seem to have an agenda and is barely here to build an encyclopedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't think Loomspicker was explicitly notified of this discussion on their talk page, so I have done so. I would like to hear from them before deciding whether or not to support a topic ban. - MrX 01:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note: I've reverted Pass a Method's close of this discussion, as an involved user. The complaint is not withdrawn. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban?

I propose a topic ban for Loomspicker from all Islam-related articles.Pass a Method talk 22:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support; user's bias is preventing him from editing productively, on balance. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I understand the concern of this user having an agenda, and a topic ban is not an extreme solution. One thing I'd want to hear from the user before making a call either way is what their assessment of Wikipedia's relevant rules and norms regarding his/her editing are. Has the user commented anywhere on the accusation that s/he is advocating with a specific agenda in mind (that is, as opposed to building an encyclopedia)? It is possible to have opinionated editors still make valuable edits to issues they care about—as long as they understand how Wikipedia is supposed to be edited. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

*This user seems to only vandalize articles about Islamophobia and makes no constructive edits, so it would seem that a general block would be better than a topic ban if this user continues to engage in this sort of behavior.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)(strike as sockpuppet edit) Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - After considerable thought I've reached the conclusion that topic banning this user as proposed would be best for the project. The most convincing reasons are that almost all of Loomspicker's article edits seem be oriented around casting Muslims in a negative light ([8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]), removing sources and sourced content for specious reasons ([17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]), and especially removing the words Islamophobic and Islamophobia from many articles ([26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43]). Loomspicker claims that blogs shouldn't be used as sources but then does exactly that when it suits his POV. He even downgraded two project classes for the Islamophobia article. Policies and guidelines that are violated in these diffs: WP:POV, WP:LR, WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:NEWSBLOG, and WP:TEND. It is evident that Loomspicker's purpose here is not to build an encyclopedia collaboratively, but rather is to single-handedly alter Islam-related articles to his particular POV, even if it means damaging the articles. - MrX 14:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for reviewing my edits, but you've not shown anything wrong with them, only that they are focused on a particular topic. This site is WP:NOTCENSORED, disagreeing with something doesn't make it 'disruptive'. You have not shown any damage I have done to articles, beyond the odd minor mistake. The blog source I removed from was from a small Dissent (magazine), the one I added is a blog of nationally circulated newspaper. The content was also completely different, the source I added referred to gave a primary sources of its information, whilst the one I removed was an opinion of protest group. Clearly completely different cases. I also downgraded the Islamophobia article, as it is clearly not B class "article is mostly complete and without major problem". It is very unstable, often undergoing major edits and reorganisation. I stand by all my edits, and believe they are all done inline with appropriate policies. I welcome you to provide me invidivual edits that show otherwise.--Loomspicker (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• I can also say my most significant edits have both been given support from other users, here and here.--Loomspicker (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. As MrX has amply demonstrated above, Loomspicker is a single-purpose account with an objective incompatible with those of Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support I've been concerned about this editor for some time and MrX's hard work adds sufficient evidence to merit a topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban including any form of the word "Islamophobia" in any article. Loomspicker is not here to build the encyclopedia. Rather, the user insists (against a great deal of scholarship) that the word "Islamophobia" cannot be applied to anyone or anything because it is an irrational label. This editor's constant edit warring at Islamophobic incidents is an outstanding example of NOTHERE. Also, these two edits together show the attempt to shut down the word Islamophobia on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• You seem to have misread that, it says Islamophobic people are irrational, as it says in the main article.--Loomspicker (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose seems like an attempt to bar an opponent from editing certain articles. The user concerned has ZERO blocks in his/her blocklog, unlike his/her opponents. So the question, which side is being disruptive here, needs to be treated seriously first. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Estlandia, what have I ever been blocked for? I agree that MoonMetropolis has now been blocked as a sock. MrX has 33000 edits and a clean block record. Jprg1966 has over 16,000 edits and a clean block record. Binkersternet has had a clean block record for 2 years and at 103,000 edits almost as many as me. Rosclese has also been blocked in the past as has Andy. But everyone here has vastly more edits than Loomspicker's 381 edits - he hasn't had a fraction of the chances to be blocked. And of course you've been blocked in the past, but not for a long time. And yes, it's an attempt to bar an editor from editing certain articles - that's what a topic ban does. Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Loomspicker

Of the edits linked above, the material was removed as the sources did not back up the claims, in accordance with WP:BURDEN. And they still haven't been provided. Which policies do my edits not comply with? "Pass a Method" and "Roscelese" respond to my edits with reverts, reports and attacks, instead of wishing to discuss the content itself. For example, Pass reverted my edit on this page which has an on-going discussion, yet doesn't contribute to the discussion. Roscelese reverted me three times on this article yet ignores the message I left on their talk page. I did think maybe it was my approach was wrong, but the block logs suggest this is how they normally respond to edits they disagree with. I did ask for sources or a compromise, but I don't hold out much hope of getting either.--Loomspicker (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Needless to say, this claim - that removing sourced material, adding claims that are verifiably false, otherwise misrepresenting sources, adding scare-quotes, etc. is simply removing unsourced material - is unconvincing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Odd infobox edits by User:Therequiembellishere

I had rather hoped this would not all reach this stage, but I'm at the point where I don't think this can continue without the scrutiny of other editors. A year ago, I noticed User:Therequiembellishere had removed an office order from an American politician's infobox. In the grand scheme of things, nothing important. However, he yielded no explanation when asked, and I then began to notice a talk page, littered with years of complaints against infobox edits that go against established consensus, including the removal of office orders. When no response was forthcoming, I said his edits were against consensus, and that I would put back in orders when I saw they had been removed. Unfortunately, this has now devolved into months of repairing the changes, and despite numerous entreaties that we just simply talk (dated 31 December, 24 March, 29 September), I have never received a word of response. Finally, after seeing another warning left on his talk page by another user about his infobox edits in general, I left one more request. However, the fact he edited thereafter, but more importantly my fear that higher scrutiny is unavoidable at this stage, I have decided to raise this now.

My concern is thus; infobox edits are not the most glamorous topic, but I have become increasingly convinced that, for whatever reason, Therequiembellishere has engaged in a years-long campaign to reformat infoboxes to his own desired format, even when such format goes against established consensus. My own specific concern is over his strange fixation with removing office orders, but from what others users have said on his talk page, he seems to like removing all sorts of other things, though I declare myself no particular expert witness on that aspect - his edits are mostly labelled as 'Formatting infobox/succession boxes'.

To be frank, one way or another, I would like this to end. I didn't join Wikipedia to police other editors. To be honest, I don't mind if I end up getting judged to be wrong - though I don't think I am - but whatever else, I think some community judgement on the validity of Therequiembellishere's edits is long overdue. Redverton (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide some diffs of the contentious edits and maybe some link to where consensus was established? I do agree that the lack of communication is an issue. John Reaves 17:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any centralised discussion where consensus was reached. On the matter of office orders, my awareness of a consensus has come through localised discussions I've seen, and through being told by other editors that such a consensus existed. I know that hardly sounds definitive, but more pertinently we do have a standardised infobox format, such as the example at Template:Infobox officeholder. There, we can see the standard format includes an order field, as well as other filled-in fields that Therequiembellishere has removed over countless articles, examples of which I provide at the end. At first, I thought of this as a content dispute. Indeed, in my entreaty of 29 September, I suggested we hold an RFC (again, no response). However, I began to see his edits as, to be frank, disruptive, when I concluded that years of infobox edits against the standard format and - as you noted - doing the silent treatment when often questioned about the changes by other editors, meant this evolved from a content dispute to something much more disruptive. Whilst I still welcome an RFC or some kind of a centralised discussion - whether over office orders or infobox formats in general - I think his editing behaviour has become an entirely separate discussion.

I've picked some of his most recent edits. They show him removing the 'order' field, and removing the order itself. I've also tried to pick edits that highlight some of the other concerns editors have raised, such as when he removes filled-in fields like professions and places of residence. To be honest, these are not some of his most pronounced changes - whenever an editor like me questions him about his edits, he noticeably scales down the kind of changes he makes (even without responding to those queries), but then seems to pick up again after a short while after the attention has passed. When I intervene over his office orders removals, he does let them stay in for awhile, but then inevitably goes back to trying again. [44] [45] [46] [47], [48]. Redverton (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If I may opinion, I think all that's needed atm is a community warning that he edit infoboxes according to the standard format. If he wants the standard format to change, he should pursue consensus before editing so. If, however, he does persist in editing without seeking a change beforehand to the standard format, some kind of topic ban on editing infoboxes might have to be considered, but hopefully it won't reach that stage. Redverton (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh to clarify, since Therequiem hasn't yet responded here, I did leave a note on his talk page the day I started this up. Redverton (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Sopher99

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

---

This user had been notorious for his edit-warrings and other bad behaviour in articles related to the Syrian civil war, but I think this time he had gone too far. He had deleted with no reason other user section on the talk page of the Battle of Aleppo detailed map, as can be seen here.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Sopher99 believes the IP editor he reverted is notorious sockmaster User:Deonis 2012; I don't know what evidence he has for that belief. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Right. The blind are reporting the blind: neither of them follow any kind of proper procedure. If Sopher thinks HCPUNXKID is a sock, they should file an SPI (strikes me as very unlikely, since KID started three years before Deonis did, but hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I hear). HCPUNXKID, in turn, has no business reporting to ANI after one single revert. And we're done, Drmies (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems that you had not understanded most of it, Sopher99 believes that the IP user who added the section is a sockmaster, not me. Better read things carefully before stating anything about it, dont you think so?.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, pal--I only do English grammar to connect English words. What are you doing at ANI? Sopher removed a comment thinking it was a sock, it was restored. Anything here requiring admin intervention? Or do you want an admin to go to Sopher's talk page and say WRONG WRONG WRONG? You can do that yourself, and all you have to do is copy and paste. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

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

User:AfricaTanz

I am seeking help with User:AfricaTanz for soapboxing, loading articles with content only tangentially pertinent to them (and then in a prescriptive, agenda-laden way), and for refusing categorically to engage with anyone who tries to speak with him.

He has persisted in using articles on LGBT rights in a set of at least thirteen African nations as a forum for soapboxing. The user has dropped large blocks of identical text into these articles, almost entirely addressing international agreements that often don't even mention the country in question at all, with the implication being that each country in question is supposed to be abiding by these agreements. This intent is made manifest by such section headings as "Ghana's obligations under international law and treaties".

Over time (this has now been going on for over a year), several of us have removed this content and attempted numerous times to reason with AfricaTanz. I suggested, for example, that the material could go in one place and that each of the articles could make reference to it to the extent it could be given relevance to each country. His response has been to ban us from his Talk page, to refuse to respond to any of the points we make, and to attack us in edit summaries.

The issue went to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_53#LGBT_rights dispute resolution and AfricaTanz declined to participate in any way. At the time, User:TransporterMan suggested we could go to Rfc/U or here. Since AfricaTanz declines to participate and won't listen to anybody, and since Rfc/U has no enforcement power, I didn't see any value in seeking help there. Therefore, I've come here.

Most of the pertinent facts and links to related discussions are at the DR Noticeboard archive linked above. Recent activities can be seen in the histories of LGBT rights in Senegal and LGBT rights in Ghana (example diffs: [49] and [50]).

I see that User:AfricaTanz, who until the last time I looked had an "on vacation" notice that ended earlier this month, now has one that started yesterday and ends in May. Yet he's editing today. For what it's worth. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history for LGBT rights in Ghana, it seems that AfricaTanz is edit-warring to include this material. I'd suggest this, together with the contributors apparent refusal to discuss the matter in the past, may well be grounds for a block, at least until AfricaTanz agrees to participate in discussions over the issue. Engaging appropriately in discussions over disputed material is a necessary part of being a Wikipedia contributor, and AfricaTanz needs to show willing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The material AfricaTanz is reinserting into LGBT rights in Ghana and other articles was already the subject of an RFC at Talk:LGBT rights under international law#Duplicated text on countries' obligations under international law. The consensus was that the material is original research, a novel synthesis, and/or not directly relevant to country-specific articles. To date all attempts to engage AfricaTanz in discussion about this material have been unsuccessful: messages posted on his user talk page are immediately removed, sometimes followed by a statement that the poster is now "banned" from his page, and discussions on project or article talk pages are likewise either ignored or boycotted. I'm at a loss as to what else can be done to get this user to start editing collaboratively rather than combatively. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue may be a little more complex. Back in August 2013, AfricaTanz was removing lots of stuff like this: [51] - which had previously been edit-warred into many articles by a (dynamic) IP editor. What's going on here? bobrayner (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The IP accounts almost certainly are User:AfricaTanz, before he created an account. The accounts got blocked for the same sort of edit warring (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive199#User:70.253.75.84 reported by User:Jenova20 (Result: 1 week)), and IIRC the pages also got semi-protected. This forced whoever was operating the IP accounts to create a named account, and they've continued ever since. The removals in question were apparently precipitated by the RFC; almost immediately after the RFC page got accidentally deleted he started reposting the material. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up! I agree that the material should go... bobrayner (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of duplication, here are the search results for AfricaTanz on admin noticeboards. Two ANIs and two AN3 reports. Blocked once for a week as an IP in November 2012 and then once for 48 hours in June 2013 as a registered account. A complaint about AfricaTanz's edits on LGBT rights was filed at DRN in November 2012 but he chose not to respond. In my opinion we're getting close to an indef block if the editor has no intention of joining in discussions. Communication isn't negotiable. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just removed some problematic content from many of the LGBT-rigts-in-Africa articles. These articles often seem to have other problems - IE. lengthy quotes from legislation and standardised exerpts from country-by-country reposts on human rights &c - which would probably need to be fixed, but we can deal with that later. Now is not the time for scope creep. bobrayner (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

So what's the remedy here? I just had another read through all the old links posted upthread, which contain reports of the same behaviour posted by many other users. Despite all these reports, the attempts at personal engagement, an RFC, and several blocks, there's been no change in AfricaTanz's behaviour. I'm led to believe that his editing privileges should be suspended until he demonstrates an understanding of why his behaviour has been disruptive, and agrees to start communicating and working collaboratively. Are we agreed? —Psychonaut (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That's my feeling. (I'm realizing I wasn't explicit in my intro about the remedy I was seeking, but that was it.) I feel quite confident in what appears to the mutual consensus that has developed among a greater group here and elsewhere that AfricaTanz makes a lot of questionable contributions, that we have been correct in challenging and reverting them, that he has subjected us to bouts of incivility, and that we are frustrated by our failure thus far to prevent repetition of this cycle or get any cooperation from AfricaTanz in our attempts to do so. I believe that through a variety of channels we've more than amply justified an indefinite block at least until AfricaTanz joins us for constructive discussions leading to a mutually satisfactory understanding of the parameters. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(crickets) —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Has AfricaTanz done any worthwhile editing in other areas? If so, and if AfricaTanz can start communicating (obviously they've used their talkpage for other stuff in the past), I would suggest a topic ban first. I realise we've all got our pitchforks and torches ready, but if there's potential for productive work on other topics, I'd like to offer that chance. Of course, if they don't even comment, or if a topic ban were broken, go directly to Jail and do not pass Go. bobrayner (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Polemical use of sandboxes by thewolfchild

thewolfchild (talk · contribs) appears to be using his/her sandbox histories as places to store WP:UP#POLEMIC information regarding folks s/he is holding a grudge against. The chronicling followed by blanking is far too consistent to be anything other than a sneaky way around WP:UP#POLEMIC. Users and discussions chronicled:

• BilCat (talk · contribs) [52]
• Nick Thorne (talk · contribs) [53], [54], [55]
• Toddst1 (talk · contribs) [56], [57]

This is not the first time this has been a problem with this editor: This user has previously been blocked for maintaining similar, more obviously polemical lists after this discussion on ANI.

I think that at the bare minimum, these sandbox pages should be deleted or the many polemical edits subject to revision deletion.

There was a proposal to indefinitely block thewolfchild on ANI last month put forth by EatsShootsAndLeaves (talk · contribs) and Rklawton (talk · contribs) as thewolfchild was previously "unblocked with the understanding that any such repeat of CIVIL and BATTLE would mean an indef block immediately with no chance of unblock" and appeared once again to be violating those standards. The motion was archived without achieving consensus. Toddst1 (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Couple of items of disruptive I noted, it seems the old problems never went away:

Talk:Aircraft carrier [58] (and yes, we all know bill and nick hate this and are completely opposed. thanks anyway) Don't think that was needed or helped really given the previous irritations with this editor. See also [59] removing content where there is clearly no consensus to do so in Talk:Aircraft carrier and then wikilawyering over WP:BRD [60]

[61] Requested not to post at User talk:BilCat [62] when that user had already indicated they were disengaging. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the most recent status of the sandbox before it was blanked [63], it appears he was drafting a complaint to be filed somewhere. I am inclined to let it slide given the relatively conciliatory message he left BilCat after blanking the page. Whether his overall behavior was worthy of an indef block is not something I looked into, but I don't think this user was trying to publicly shame the above editors by using his sandbox in that way. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A "concilliatory" message posted directly after he was specifically asked not to...sometimes you cool things off by not posting. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

As the victim of long-term harassment by banned trolls, including in the past week on my talk page, I expect users to stay off my page when requested, as I have done multiple times with this user, including today. I understand that he was upset when I referred to him "The Child", in reference to both his user name and his childish behavior at Talk:Aircraft carrier, but there are forums such as this one that he can use to address that. I am sorry that I allowed the whole situation to escalate the way it did, and I understand that the name calling is inappropriate, and I had previously said that I would not do it again, and I did not. However, TWC changed my comments to remove it, and that is also inappropriatewhich I had reverted. Please note that he has asked others to "Stay off my talk page", even today, apparently for this neutral note.

I am still extremely upset at his baiting of Nick and me at Talk:Aircraft carrier, as WCM reported above, in which his comments had the effect of marginalizing any response Nick or I could have made. This was completely uncalled for on his part, as this was a brand new discussion that he started, and I have yet to receive the apology that I asked for here. That said, I should have walked away from the later discussions when they got contentious again rather than continue to respond to him, which escalated the feud. I let my own stubborness keep me in the conversation after I should have walked away, as I feared him taking a lack of response as permission to continue his edits as he saw fit.

I'd like to propose an interaction ban between myself and TWC, should he be allowed to contiue editing on WP. I have respected his desire that I stay off his talk page, and I fully expect him to stay off of mine, except in the case of notices he is required to leave, not including "warnings", such as this one. I would like TWC to be excluded from editing Aircraft carrier, and participating in discussions at Talk:Aircraft carrier, directly or indirectly. Nick and I have both been long-term editors on that page, but I will refrain from editing there if that is imposed on me by the community. However, Nick is an old carrier pilot, and I think restricting his access to those page would be too punitive.

I'd also highly recommend that TWC seek wiki-mentorship. He has continued to show a lack of respect for the talk and user pages of others, as discussed here and here. Even though he has now promised not to do this again, I find it extremely troubling that he felt he needed to edit others' user pages in the first place. He doesn't seem to respect limits on his interactions with others, while at the same time making demands on us when we "offend" him in any way, including refactoring our comments.[64]

Thanks for your consideration. - BilCat (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

For those that haven't followed the links, I had a very similar problem with TWC last month which Bbb23 (talk · contribs) brought to ANI as Ongoing harassment of administrator by editor after I had asked for help. We're seeing more than one repeat problem with TWC. Toddst1 (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

And which this harassment has continued.[65] - BilCat (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment (Non-administrator comment) He certainly knows that the list violates WP: POLEMIC, otherwise he wouldn't be trying to hide it in the page history. Admiral Caius (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite block

• Support indefinite block. In the previous ANI thread last month, I supported an indefinite block of TWC. His subsequent behavior is essentially along the same lines as the behavior that justified the block then. Again, he refactors other editors' talk pages for what he perceives as slurs (calling him a "child"). This discussion on The Bushranger's talk page sums it up nicely. He internalizes everything, he lets it fester, he does pretty much what he pleases to remedy the alleged horrible wrongs done to him, and he keeps track and/or plans his revenge (?) in his sandbox. Why he wasn't blocked in October eludes me, but apparently no administrator (who looked at it) felt there was a consensus for the block (not that one is required by policy).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

This wasn't using his nickname, it was calling him a child. Would you like to be called a child? I think his reaction was quite understandable. And no, a block is not justified here. Jonathunder (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't like it when waitresses call me "honey" at coffeeshops, but I don't think I'd mind someone saying I'm younger - even much younger - than I am. :-) But that's not the point. Let's assume it wasn't nice for x to call TWC a child on x's talk page. That doesn't give TWC the right to remove it, to label it a personal attack (which even in real life, let alone Wikipedia, it is not), and to warn the editor not to engage in personal attacks. In any event, that's just one factor among many in support of the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree, Bbb23 - "The Child" was an intentional slur. BilCat even admits to it above.--v/r - TP 21:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course, it was intentional. I never said it wasn't. In fact I said it "wasn't nice". The correct thing for TWC would have been to ignore it. Removing it and issuing a warning is ... [you pick the adjective].--Bbb23 (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Sadly, support TWC reminds me of someone I know who has a serious addiction: when that friend is off the drug, they're a nice person - would bend over backwards for you, and can contribute to society. One taste of the devil's-tool-of-choice, and they're unmanageable, and I wouldn't let them in the same room as a divorce attorney (as much as I dislike divorce attorney's, I wouldn't wish my stoned friend upon them). Now, I'm not saying twc would bend over backwards for anyone (nor am I saying they're a druggie), but they continue to have zero fricking clue about this project. They continually accuse others of personal attacks where none have ever existed; they continue to pull bullshit moves that annoy and are also against policy, and they simply cannot get along nicely with others; period. Maybe this is an age thing - put an indef block, but insist that WP:OFFER be 1 year out...any appeals within one year will be automagically declined, so just lock their talkpage for a year. This individual has been a timesink on ANI and elsewhere for too long ES&L 00:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support with reluctance, with the caveat about being involved in the issue. After looking into the past behavior of this editor it's clear attempts to help them become a productive contributior simply aren't being listened to. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose As a completely uninvolved editor who has not interacted with almost everyone in this dispute I don't see anything coming close to sanctionable. The only incident that is recent is in response to Bilcat calling TWF as "the child". As far as I'm concerned such a statement is calling him a child and flies afoul of WP:NPA, and as such TWF is within guidelines at WP: TPG to edit the comment to remove the personal attack. What's more, his warning to Bilcat is in line with having received a Personal Attack and as such the claims of WP:IDHT by Bushranger regarding the talk page discussion just don't seem to fly. And finally the only diff by Toddst1 which is recent appears to be more of an intended noticeboard filing that TWF dropped. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "his warning to Bilcat is in line with having received a Personal Attack" - except he didn't receive any personal attack, and my IDHT mention had nothing to do with the talk page discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And therein is where I disagree. I am constituting that Bilcat's re-writing of TWF's username as "The Child" as a personal attack against his character. And I'm not seeing any Diff's which correspond to WP:IDHT as such I can't support that assertion. In order for me to support an indef block I would first have to see a recent incident that is sanctionable on it's own merits coupled with a history that is related to what the person is being sanctioned for. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You oppose without knowledge of this editor's history? Toddst1 (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I oppose because you haven't put forth any recent activity that merit's sanctions. I put forth two criteria to support a indef block, the first criteria the recent activity is why we block, the second criteria the history determines how long. Without any recent activity you're just digging up old issues. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think what you're seeing is a bunch of supports so far saying in effect the same thing: "In the context of all the previous bullshit, these recent issues are viewed in a different light and we're tired of it. The project would be better with out thewolfchild." It's not that the stuff with BilCat, Derekbridges or the sandboxes on its own would merit such a response, rather, for those who have followed the issue, these are all repeats of previous problems. Toddst1 (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I see five diffs from you, 3 of which are older than the last ANI, one which is a link to the archive of the last ANI, and one which is about the recent personal attack. I am dismissing the 3 older ones because they are old, I see nothing wrong with linking the location of an ANI discussion, and finally it was a personal attack. There goes the original filing. If you're tired of bullshit, I recommend two things. One, stop looking for it. And two, stop throwing it. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed you have a total of 160 edits, 75% to talk. While everyone is welcome to comment at ANI, it definitely explains your context. Toddst1 (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You know it's usually a sign of a weak argument when they have to resort to commenting on the person and not what they say. I believe such arguments are called Ad Hominem. --Kyohyi (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Usually, but not always. Also, note that the edit where TWC re-factored BillCat's post occurred on my talk page from which TWC has be specifically requested to stay off here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kyohyi, I wouldn't put too much stock in thewolfchild's seeming offense at being called "the child". If you look back through his lengthy history of arguments you can see that he has a long history of misusing the usernames of those who oppose him. In the last AN/I I pointed out that he had created a pun from User:Nick Thorne's name in a talkpage table calling him a prick (Get it? thorn - prick? Very droll.) Another clear example can be seen here (User:Calton's name was shortened to Cal and kept that way despite Calton's objections) It's an older example, but it's quite typical of thewolfchild's style. As far as recent examples of actionable offenses go, I direct your attention to the discussion at Talk:Amber Heard. Please keep in mind that this is a user who has been unblocked from an indef block on the condition that "any further violation of our policies/guidelines WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:BATTLEGROUND will likely result in a new indefinite block that cannot be appealed." -Thibbs (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

First for Nick, my argument had nothing to do with if he took offense, my argument that it was a personal attack. If he has engaged in personal attacks, then appropriate actions should be taken towards him, my point was that he was attacked, and his response was within policy and guidelines. Now regards to Thibbs's comment, TWF's first comment under the section of Uncle. The last sentence was uncivil and unneeded, coupled with the unblock requirement I will strike my oppose. However I will note that he had a valid argument prior to his use of uncivil rhetoric and I would rather see him take up mentorship to drop that tendency then an indef block. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Along with Bbb23, ESL and several others, I supported an indefinite block of TWC in the previous ANI thread last month. His subsequent behavior is essentially along the same lines as the behavior that justified the block then. So, in the context of all the previous bullshit, these recent issues called out above are viewed in a different light and at this point the project would be better with out thewolfchild. The release of the previous indefinite block came with a civility and WP:BATTLE parole. Since then, TWC has repeated numerous behaviors that have gotten him blocked previously and repeatly gets into petty harassment of other editors which clearly violates WP:BATTLE. It's time for this to stop. Toddst1 (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It is time for this to stop, and I think that's within your control. Kyohyi has it right. Jonathunder (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block per Bbb23 and ESL. Bedrieger (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support with the appropriate caveat that I have obviously been an involved editor. I note that TWC has also edited my talk page recently, despite being specifically requested to stay off it here. This editor's behaviour has been beyond the pale for far too long. I find myself reluctant to visit articles about one of my main areas of interest because of his contiued POV pushing and inability or unwillingness to understand that other editors not agreeing with him is not non-collegiate behavior and is also not a personal attack. I believe we do the project a disservice if we allow him to continue along his merry way. TWC consumes enormous amounts of talk page time and that, in and of itself, is highly disruptive. I agree with BB2 & ESL, the sanctions need to be of sufficiently long term as to send the message that disrupting the project is not tolerated. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment thewolfchild is quite clearly still engaged in the same old pattern of uncivil battleground behavior. As has been mentioned earlier, this current AN/I thread is the third complaint against thewolfchild for exactly the same thing. I am saddened to see that as few as 2 weeks after the last AN/I he got involved in a major fracas with User:Flyer22 and User:Kww at Talk:Amber Heard. Both of these users (neither of whom was involved in the prior AN/I) in fact commented in that engagement that thewolfchild was acting with exceptional combativeness. Did this cause even momentary self-reflection in thewolfchild? The talk page thread speaks for itself. I'm having difficulties squaring this behavior and the general administrative disinclination toward intervening with the warning from User:Amatulic (the admin who removed thewolfchild's indef block for aggressive editing) that "any further violation of our policies/guidelines WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:BATTLEGROUND will likely result in a new indefinite block that cannot be appealed." Were these just empty words? I understand that CIVIL is one of Wikipedia's weakest policies when it comes to editors who are capable of positive content creation, and I recognize that determining whether someone is a BATTLEGROUNDer requires rather an in-depth review of the editor's history of interactions with his peers, so I'd recommend that when this proposal fails someone should file an RfC/U. Thewolfchild is a habitual wikiwarrior and is very open about his belief that the indef block he received last year for being overly aggressive was invalid. An actual examination of his conduct at wikipedia at any point since he started editing here is enough to turn one's stomach. -Thibbs (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - All I've seen from Thewolfchild is some blatantly disruptive behaviour. Abusive remarks/comments, downright false warning templates, generic tedentious editing, etc, etc. A previous indef, and a history of these such things, means that keeping them here is a huge net negative. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. I'd completely forgotten this bit of childish hypocrisy on thewolfchild's part until the message system pinged me today. Yes, I've been lurking and reading, but being reminded of the pure and utter hyopcrisy of his current whine prompts me to add my two cents. --Calton | Talk 08:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Has the offer of a WP:MENTOR been tried yet? I'm not going to comment on the proposal for sanctions, other than to say it is apparent that patience is running out on TWC. A WP:MENTOR may well be the last chance for him. I think its encouraging that User:BilCat who appears to have borne the brunt of the problematic behaviour suggested this as a means of resolving matters and as such would suggest its tried before an indefinite block. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block per Bbb23 and ESL. Continued violations of WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF demonstrate that we cannot waste any more time on this individual's actions. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support less drama, more collegiality, more editing. Rklawton (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest on Lee Roy Parnell

(Cross posted from WP:COIN) Luvwomercy (talk · contribs) has been making copyvio edits to Lee Roy Parnell, including the removal of any description of him as a "country" artist. This edit in particular, in which the edit summary is "Edited Intro paragraph at artist's request - does not want to be described here as a country artist", suggests that the user is in cahoots with Parnell, as is the fact that their user name is based off one of his songs. Most of their additions have been pure copyvio straight from his site, further suggesting a high COI. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

So, an artist has absolutely no say about information that's posted on Wikipedia? Yes, I WORK for him if that's "in cahoots". He simply doesn't want to be described as SOLELY a country artist. His bio, - posted under his direction, with his permission - mentions ALL of his works.

I didn't realize that this would be so difficult. He simply wants the page more up to date, with complete information. I don't update Wikipedia for a living and it's been a huge pain in the ass, to say the least. If a page can be published about someone, why should they have no say in what's posted there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luvwomercy (talk • contribs) 19:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question, read WP:NOTADVOCATE, #5. Wikipedia is made up of information published elsewhere and is not a platform for self definition. I realize you probably weren't aware of some of these nuances, but perhaps you could use the talk page to suggest changes as our conflict of interest guidelines suggest rather than editing the article directly.

See Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) for a general overview of ways Parnell can get problems fixed (as well as an email address). You can also mention specific problems on Talk: Lee Roy Parnell if you want specific mistakes corrected.

The email address is info-en-q@wikimedia.org. The first thing he'll likely be asked to do is to privately establish his identity. Toddst1 (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Lee Roy Parnell is not known for being a country artist? BS!! I've got a CD of his downstairs ... pretty darned country. And no, the artist themself really has no say ... reliable sources ... like, um, Billboard's country charts ... certainly do. If he's made charts in another format, prove it! If not, he's still better know for country ES&L 00:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

CD? OR! EEng (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

SPA now deleting/altering talk-page comments

The SPA account user:lightbreather, is now deleting and modifying comments on the AWB talk page. This SPA has been tendentiously editing the AWB page, almost exclusively, for many months now. Repeatedly arguing over a single word on the page "cosmetic". Although it dodged trouble itself, it was heavily involved in this edit war with a partner who was suspended. Almost immediately after that suspension, the SPA account attempted to bring several other editors here to ANI, an act which boomeranged as you can see here. The SPA was warned very sternly and (and quite unanymously by the editors here) to leave the AWB page alone for a while. The SPA left for 2 weeks and then returned and picked up where it left off. I have a low tolerance for WP:CRUSH behavior, and when the SPA removed and edited my talk page comments, I demanded that the editor return them to their previous states, as did other editors. When the editor refused, I left the AWB article completely, which is my response to such altercations. I have not returned, nor do I intend to. To date my comments remain erased/altered. My request: 1. I want my comments returned. 2. I would like an impartial group to review the actions of this SPA and determine if the slap on the wrist it received in ANI last time was effective. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) For those unfamiliar with this situation, AWB in this case refers to Federal Assault Weapons Ban and not the AutoWikiBrowser. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• The first thing I do when I review POV issues, is I try to determine what someone's POV is. I can't determine an obvious POV for Lightbreather, perhaps you can point to some of their POV edits? Their removing your talk page comments can and should be reverted, though.--v/r - TP 22:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

IMHO Lightbreathe went wiki-wild a few months ago, including knitting in a POV swing. And I locked horns with them back then. I recently suggested a fresh start and they agreed, and so far they appear to be doing that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Beg most humbly to disagree. Lightbreather's troubles here at ANI were only 28 days ago. She took a Hiatus and then picked up exactly where she left off about a week ago. This was when she began altering and deleting talkpage conversations. The "fresh start" was proposed only yesterday, and already at least two editors question her sincerity. As one editor said: "Apparently the "fresh start" we are to have is to pretend that four months of discussion on this already settled matter no longer exists, so that we can flog it just a little bit more (translation: endlessly). No. This rises to a new level of disruption - not the immediate, crazy-making disruption of editor Saltyboatr a month ago, but instead disruption festering like a cancer. Here we are - four months later - talking about the word cosmetic, with the insistence that a settled matter isn't settled, because one editor says it's not settled. " Finally, the altared/deleted conversations have yet to be reverted by this SPA. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Sue, lightbreather is the proverbial "bad penny" that constantly undermines the hard work of others and previously arrived at consensus. That user is screaming for a topic ban.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Also agree with Sue, I don't edit the AWB page but I've been watching it from the sidelines for the last couple months and Lightbreather has done nothing but stall progress with tendentious edits. The deleted comments should be restored, and the editor should probably be topic banned. ROG5728 (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd oppose a topic ban without some serious evidence. I see it too often that editors pile on here saying a particular user is disruptive and want a topic ban w/o evidence and the truth of the matter is that the user simply has a different POV than the crowd. Not flowing with the crowd is not a crime on Wikipedia. Disruption is though. So please provide evidence of actual disruption and not anecdotal evidence that equates to "she makes me mad." 'Stalling progress' is not disruptive, imho, if progress is going in the wrong direction. Since that is a subjective measure, I tend to just say that stalling progress is not admissible. If you have an RFC and they are editing in violation of it, that's one thing. But using a talk page to address an issue, even tendentiously, is not disruptive by itself.--v/r - TP 02:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleting or altering other editors' talk page comments without a good reason is clearly disruptive, and the user's editing behavior in general hasn't been much better. ROG5728 (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that this happened months ago, am I wrong?--v/r - TP 02:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I have shut down my computer for the evening and am making this brief reply by phone. Will answer any and all questions tomorrow. If others will give DIFFS I will drop everything I'm working on to respond to each. Lightbreather (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Sue, I don't see it either, and I went back 100 edits in that talk page. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Here are a few examples:

• 20:12, 1 November 2013
• 20:17, 1 November 2013
• 20:19, 1 November 2013

Hamitr (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You're hurting your own case. Calling another editor a vandal without diffs is a personal attack. Lightbreather has every right to redact Sue's comments. Good faith edits, whether they break stuff or remove sources or anything, are never vandalism. What you've just uncovered is Sue's bad behavior and you may have just opened up Sue to a WP:BOOMERANG.--v/r - TP 14:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it was inappropriate for editor suerangell to repeatedly refer to editor lightbreather as a vandal. And indeed, editor lightbreather had "every right" to redact sue's comments. And as with every right, comes responsibility. As WP:TPO says, "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection.". Part of the responsibility means dealing with the fallout that may follow. This is part of that fallout. As I pointed out below, editor lightbreather linked back to the comments in response to the ensuing discussion. I contend that if the comments were so damaging they required excision, then its rather, well, silly to link right back to them. It's damnably rare that removing another editors comments will be met with quiet accedence (with the exception of actual vandalism, spam, or off-topic chit chat). Anastrophe (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I understood you correctly. Are you saying that when Editor A makes a bad comment about Editor B, and Editor B removes that, that if Editor B links to it in an administrative discussion as evidence about Editor A's misconduct, that Editor B must not find it that bad? That doesn't make sense at all. You'd essentially be saying that editors are not allowed to provide diffs of misconduct because the action of providing the diffs means that it wasn't really that bad.--v/r - TP 16:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I was referring to editor Lightbreather linking back to the comments in the ensuing discussion on the article talk page. Anastrophe (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

while I think lightbreather may have a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU the behavior in general has been an improvement over the past. I am not aware of any talk page removals, but I haven't been watching the diffs super closely. Its very frustrating and verging on WP:DE to still be dealing with the word "cosmetic" which is really well sourced (although there is always room for possible improvement as our current discussion indicates) - but absent some evidentiary diffs, I do not think the disruption extends to requiring administrative action at this time.Gaijin42 (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

On October 3 ago Lightbreather asked at the Teahouse for a mentor, and I told her I would be happy to be her mentor. Lightbreather is not an "it". SueRangell knows that Lightbreather is a she and a grandmother. Lightbreather has asked on multiple occasions not to be referred to by negative acronyms such as SPA. That seems to me a very reasonable request.

I know that a difficult consensus was reached on a controversial use of the word cosmetic, but I would suggest that the editors reaching consensus do not represent the full array of opinions on the complex question of an assault weapons ban. For example, if you read an interview with Diane Feinstein (Daily News, 13 April 2013)

They claimed the bans were based merely on cosmetic features even though every law enforcement officer who testified on the bill agreed that these features are not cosmetic, but instead add directly to the lethality of the weapons.

and then looked up the federal assault weapon ban on Wikipedia, you would see that the very first sentence of the section immediately following the lead paragraph reads:

Within the context of this law, the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic firearms that possess certain cosmetic features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic.

You might think that Wikipedia was being less that even-handed. Given the number of times that paragraph is cut and pasted onto conservative blogs, some may even think Wikipedia supports a particular position. (They never credit Wikipedia however.)

I suggested that the word be moved out of the first sentence of the section and introduced lower down in the section with more explanation. See Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban#Comment on "cosmetic". It's a judgment, not a description, and doesn’t belong in an opening sentence like that. It should be introduced with a discussion of all the ways it is used. I would like to see the section changed because I think its un-encyclopedic to write the article that way. Lightbreather would like to see it change because it is really is controversial to present the topic that way, no matter how many quotes one can find. It’s a topic she cares very deeply about. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"car[ing] very deeply about" a topic isn't a rationale. Are we to understand that this editor cares more than other editors? Therefore this editor's concerns carry more weight? No. In fact, the only reason this issue of cosmetic is an issue is because one editor is driving it and creating a controversy about it where none exists (in terms of reliable sources, which is what we build the encyclopedia on). This has been discussed endlessly on the talk page, and so I have to ask directly (since I've suggested tangentially before) - have you, editor StarryGrandma, read all of the archived discussion of the last four months? If not, I suggest that you are being manipulated by the editor in question. It is, in fact, a settled matter - here, nine years later - that the features banned by the bill were cosmetic. You've been enlisted to carry forward this editor's torch - the seeds of doubt have been sewn sufficiently that you're now arguing in this editor's stead. There was no difficulty in consensus on the talk page - it was overwhelming. Unless we count "civil" but relentless forced discussion to be the difficulty, in which case yes, it was difficult, dealing with a single editor who will not WP:HEAR. I've been accused of being uncivil, and sometimes I do dance around the margins, but largely I am just extremely blunt, and that's what I've presented above. You are being manipulated. I've made "pro-control" edits and "pro-rights" edits in numerous articles on wikipedia. What matters to me are the reliable sources, always. The sources are what speak. The sources are the 'law'. The sources are what separate wikipedia from just another blog. We have the sources, they are clear. We also have a law that expired nine years ago, and nothing about the law or the commentary written about it before during or after has changed, nor has the perception of its effectiveness or lack thereof changed. "I don't see that the article overall has problems with point of view. The positioning of some information may be awkward and lead to undue emphasis on it.". Those were your words. Has your opinion changed, after discussion with the editor in question? Have you discussed the article with any other editors besides the editor in question? Anastrophe (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

This also needs to be addressed: "Lightbreather is not an "it". SueRangell knows that Lightbreather is a she and a grandmother.". I cannot speak for editor SueRangell, but I can speak from experience that the editor in question complains bitterly any time an editor addresses "it" in personal terms, whether it be "she" or "you" or "her" or simply an unembellished first person "Lightbreather". I cannot speak for other editors, but I am forced to refer to the editor in question either in the third person or indirectly, as I am weary of being scolded for speaking colloquially. It is also important to bear in mind that wikipedia is entirely anonymous. An editor may present themselves in any manner they choose - or choose not to present themselves at all. We have no way of verifying who editors are in reality - nor should it make any difference whatsoever who they are. Perhaps I'm a grandfather - and I also care very deeply about these issues. Is the fact (or so I choose to lead you to believe) that I am male, a grandfather, and care deeply about these issues actually relevant to the construction of this encyclopedia? No. Who we are is irrelevant to the construction of this encyclopedia. The quality of our writing (and not the CV behind it) and the quality of the sources are what matter. Period. Anastrophe (talk) 06:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the substantive issue at hand. The editor in question removed the comments with the summary "Removing harmful posts per WP:TPO, WP:WIAPA accusations about and criticisms of". The argument that the comments were so harmful that they demanded excision falls apart when the editor in question links back to them in the ensuing discussion of same. Removal of other editor's comments is generally considered a foul act in and of itself, unless we're talking about blathering discussion that belongs elsewhere (such as belong on the countless chat forums around the web) or simple spam or vandalism. Since nothing is ever truly deleted anywhere on wikipedia, it's an act that rarely accomplishes more than seeding unnecessary aggravation, and fostering discussion that has nothing to do with the article - thus, deleting talk page comments is an act that's destined to cause more harm than the comments that were deleted. As to the other issues, as far as I'm concerned there's no such thing as a "fresh start" while we're in the midst, again, of "discussing" whether the word cosmetic is reliably sourced (it is), is NPOV (it is), is appropriate (it is), is appropriate at the beginning of the section (it is), whether cosmetic really means cosmetic (yes it does, to both pro-rights and pro-control factions, per the sources), whether the pro-control sources use cosmetic to really, really, no seriously really mean, you know, cosmetic for absolutely certain and for sure? (they do). An absurd amount of 'ink' has been spilt "discussing" this on the talk page - but as I said before, here we are, again, four months later, going into the finer details of all of the above. The intent seems to be to just wear down other editors until one by one they exit in disgust. I'm about at that point. I opposed the previous ANI calling for sanctions, and I generally don't even participate in these things. I'm now wavering, for the reasons above. I simply do not see this situation improving, and I for one will drink hemlock if I find myself arguing about the word cosmetic in 2014. Anastrophe (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If lightbreather doesn't want to be considered an SPA, they should edit different articles so that that description is no longer accurate. If one hasn't noticed, we ALL care deeply about this topic, so that is really a moot point. However, (content dispute digression) the "cosmetic" side has numerous reliable sources, and the "not cosmetic" side has a few self published advocacy groups statements. Certainly a content dispute is not an issue for ANI, but Lightbreather's constant refusal to abide consensus, and work collaboratively instead of taking every disagreement as a personal attack is disruption, and that certainly may be a matter for this board. If she thinks the local consensus is not sufficient, she should start an RFC, except there was ALREADY an RFC on this exact topic, and she is trying to overturn its consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban/Archive_2#RfC:_Is_inclusion_of_the_word_.22cosmetic.22_in_the_Criteria_section_appropriate.3F

Here is the RFC Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban/Archive_2#RfC:_Is_inclusion_of_the_word_.22cosmetic.22_in_the_Criteria_section_appropriate.3F, on this exact issue, 3 months ago, where Lightbreather was making the exact same arguments they are making now, and from that time they have provided no additional sources to defend their point of view, no novel arguments, just rehashing the same issue into the ground. Or the discussion from 2004 (prior to Lightbreather?) [Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban/Archive_1] Or this one from 10 months ago which included lightbreather [Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban/Archive_2] or this one from last month, ultimately resulting in the topic ban of SaltyBoatr.[Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban/Archive_5#Proposal:_section_dedicated_to_the_issue_of_.27cosmetic.27] or one of the OTHER many discussions we have had on THIS EXACT TOPIC for the past year and longer? WP:ICANTHEARYOU Gaijin42 (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The way I read it Lightbreather is no longer seeking to remove the cosmetic characterization, and instead wants to add a sentence that it is disputed by some. The sourcing for the latter is basically picking three instance where someone has made that assertion, and two of the three I'd consider "F" grade as sources. So they're not secondary, and they're not even primary for the statement. Normally I'd complain wp:or/wp:synth, but to me it's a "sky is blue' statement that some people object to the term and personally I don't get tough on sourcing for sky-is-blue statements. So then it is a quesiton of wp:weight/wp:undue under wp:npov. I'm on the fence on that one. More to come. North8000 (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Correcting my error/omission, Lightbreather IS seeking to also dial back the cosmetic characterization. So my "scope of the statement" analysis was wrong. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with your characterization on both fronts. It definitely is a WP:WEIGHT issue we have 10-20 (with Im sure more to be found if we are forced to spend the time) quality sources all discussing the cosmetic angle, from all different POVs, different fields of study, primary, secondary, tertiary, academic, political, media, etc vs self avowed anti-gun groups saying "we disagree".

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Either way, that's a content issue and not a conduct issue. Which means it doesn't belong on ANI. As far as the conduct issues above, I believe that Lightbreather acted appropriately and it is Sue Rangell who behaved inappropriately for repeatedly calling this user a vandal. Sue's comment were appropriately redacted. So I think this thread can be closed unless someone wants to discuss Sue's behavior further.--v/r - TP 16:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess the relevance of my post is that in recent days Lightbreather "backed off" a notch on the "cosmetic" issue. Based on past history I think that folks do not trust her, that she might start another sophisticated relentless POV shifting push. But the last few days have been an offered and accepted "fresh start" during which time she has not violated norms. And so the concerns expressed by others should be acknowledged as legitimate and founded, but that the possibilities are good that a truly fresh start has happened and she should be given a chance while we all go into a "wait and see" mode. And possibly Lightbreather should de-intensify their involvement at the article a bit and have some editing fun at some unrelated less controversial articles.North8000 (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Reflecting the correction of my error, possible Lightbreather has recently still gone to the edge of norms. North8000 (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It makes me nervous to reply here, but I'm afraid that silence might be interpreted as proof of guilt. If my reply is too short, perhaps some will think it curt or snarky. If I make it too long it may seem overly argumentative. This is my life on the Wikipedia assault weapons ban talk page.

That said, I see zero DIFFs from Sue_Rangell, North8000, Mike_Searson, ROG5728, Anastrophe, and Gaijin42. Sue did provide the link to the discussion I started on ANI about possible ownership issues. (That discussion includes one of my attempts to end the SPA accusations, which I am asking again, now, to stop.) Editor Hamitr provided the links to when I deleted Sue's accusations about intentional vandalism and misinformation. I already presented my defense of those here.

There are so many generalizations and exaggerations about me above that I would like to address, but I will simply close by saying that I have not tried to remove "cosmetic" from the criteria section since that discussion was closed over two months ago. My recent effort - in response to a discussion started by another editor, not me - has been to restore a single, sourced sentence that not all agree with use of the term. It was added to the article via BRD on Sept. 27, but was lost in a rollback. We were "this close" to restoring it when this ANI came up. (The sources - the Violence Policy Center (VPC), the then-president of the International Assoc. of Chiefs of Police, and a PBS NewHour interview with the NRA's Wayne LaPierre and a Seattle police chief - may be biased, but they are reliable and verifiable.)

Again, if anyone has DIFFs, I will drop what I'm doing and respond, but I hope we can just go back to improving the article and discussing content, not ME. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You repeatedly ask to stop being called SPA, but it is not an insult. You edit only on one topic (and really only on one article) that is the very definition of WP:SPA Single Purpose Account. Since you are calling me out for not providing evidence, basically EVERY edit you have made on this topic since the RFC is a WP:HEARing issue. You fail to correctly interpret what WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT means. All of the items you just posted are from self published primary sources. We do not doubt that those people said what they said, but that holds very little weight compared to the 20 or so newspaper, books, and academic articles. So yes, some people disagree. Some people also think the world is flat, but we don't talk about their opinions in the Globe article. If we had an entire section dedicated to the cosmetic issue, we could give that minority viewpoint a sentence, but we don't. We have one sentence saying that the features are described as cosmetic. The self published primary sources do not get equal weight to that. (Yes I proposed such a sentence in the article talk, but upon further reflection it runs too far afoul of WP:UNDUE. Adding that entire section will lead down a nasty path of WP:POV as it would really have to be a "peoples opinions about the law" section. There is a consensus. You don't like it. Learn to deal with that. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Calling someone a WP:SPA is a personal attack when the title is used as a pejorative. Calling me a 'guy' could be a personal attack in the right context. ie. If I were editing an article on feminist issues and someone say "Well, of course he'd say that, he's a guy". That'd be a personal attack. It matters on the intentions on the person using it and not on the specific definition itself. Is it a fact that he's a SPA, it could be. Does that mean consistently pointing it out is acceptable? No. Especially if it's used as an ad hominem (argument about a person's traits, instead of their central point).--v/r - TP 01:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

BLP violation in upcoming DYK

Can someone who knows how DYK works please remove the Murder of Ayakannu Marithamuthu DYK from the list of upcoming DYKs as a matter of urgency. It is asserting as a fact matters which have never been determined in court, and the persons accused of carrying out the alleged murder have never been convicted - a clear violation of WP:BLP policy. Please note in particular that the article makes clear that Marithamuthu's body has never been found, and the claim that he was cut up and cooked into a curry (the DYK hook) is nothing more than an allegation, albeit one supposedly made by one of the suspects. Frankly, I'm appalled that a flagrant BLP violation like this should ever have been proposed as a DYK. Do people not even read articles before proposing them? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the article was nominated by its author. @Bonkers The Clown:: any comments to offer us here? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Obviously the BLP violations in the article need addressing, though I've removed the worst of them (I don't have access to all the sources, so can't check it completely). For now though, I'm more concerned about us not posting a BLP violation on the main page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You mean this Bonkers the clown???? ES&L 00:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There is only one. Though I suspect that we may well conclude after this that one is one too many... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I missed the unblock. Conditions are laid out here, User_talk:Bonkers_The_Clown/Archive_5#Blocked. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this article would directly breach the unblock conditions - but that is rather beside the point. Bonkers has not only grossly violated WP:BLP policy, but gone on to nominate the policy-violating article for inclusion on the front page, in a highly sensationalist manner. It strikes me that this is exactly the same sort of behaviour that led to the previous block. It seems to me that Bonkers simply cannot be trusted to contribute - s/he is evidently more concerned with tabloid sensationalism and controversy than with contributing objective and encyclopaedic content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Bonkers has changed his MO in an attempt to prolong his Wiki-career; previously trolling, now breaching BLP. Sigh. If I had more time I'd take this to ANI with a suggestion for an indef. GiantSnowman 14:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, this is ANI :) :) After observing Bonkers for quite some time at DYK, and interacting with him a few times, my theory is that he is not at all a child at play on Wikipedia (as I've seen others say), but that he does this sort of thing intentionally to highlight the systemic problems at DYK. Why is no one commenting on that aspect? Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Ayakannu Marithamuthu Why was this hook approved? (Quid pro quo reviewing, and absolutely no sense of what is a reliable source or of our BLP policy at DYK.) This happens all the time: on the talk page at DYK still is an example I put up only a few days ago. Why do admins routinely pass hooks like this to the main page? (No accountability at any level of DYK). And why has User:Mindmatrix, who passed this hook, not been notified of this issue so he can improve his reviewing? (Oh gee, lookie there, I went over to see if he had been notified, and found a brilliant example of the problems with quid pro quo reviewing: an editor saying, I passed yours, will you pass mine?) My hunch has always been that Bonkers does this outrageous stuff to call attention to how deficient the DYK process is, and something needs to be done about that, because this is not an isolated incident. Faulty sourcing, faulty medical hooks, and BLP vios have long been occurring at DYK. Yea Bonkers for pointing out how bad that process is and why it should be removed from the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: d'oh! - I'm an idiot. Was looking at the thread at BLPN at the same time and got them mixed up. GiantSnowman 18:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Mea culpa for failing to notice the BLP issue. I'm usually more thorough that this when I review DYK nominations. Regarding the comment on my talk page requesting that I promote a hook, I haven't accepted. Frankly, I'd prefer that the set of DYK article writers and nominators be entirely distinct from the set of reviewers, but that's not likely to happen, and wouldn't necessarily fix the problem anyway. Mindmatrix 15:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yea Bonkers for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Because if your assertion is true that's exactly what it is. Nice to know that violating policy is not just OK it wins praise when it's tilting at someone's favorite windmill. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, you got me there. But to the pointy point ... can we not do something about the underlying problem? It was not my intent to praise Bonkers (I had to clean up quite a few of his DYKs), and I'm sorry I did that. But I still think the bigger problem should be addressed, and I think his numerous DYK noms that have been pushed up the line for a very long time now served a purpose, which DYK regulars aren't hearing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries; I might have overreacted a bit myself, trying to reset my sleep cycle can make me cranky. I do agree that there needs to be some poking with sharp sticks in some directions, the catch is that (even if there is recalcitrance) it needs to be done in a way that doesn't drive people away from the discussion, that is the tricky part. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

BLP enforcers save the day! Three cheers for them, hip hip hooray. I spent so much time trying to find the names of these suspects, but my efforts are in vain. The Straits Times, the most reliable newspaper in Singapore, explicitly lists the names of the suspects. But Wikipedia can't because of fabulous policy. I apologise for trying to enhance the article and flesh out more details for our ardent readers, when by doing so I upset the living people who have yet to be convicted. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Given the facetious nature of the above remark (and this post [66] at Wikipedia talk:Did you know), and the complete failure of Bonkers to address the issue of the gross violations of WP:BLP policy in the Murder of Ayakannu Marithamuthu article, I formally propose that Bonkers be indefinitely blocked from editing. Contributors may also find the title of Bonkers' latest article indicative of why we can do without such behaviour: [67]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The Jimmy Kimmel "Kids' Table" incident has garnered immense media attention and thus I felt that it was wise to split the content to a separate article per its merits. I contributed little content to the split article. Perhaps you should read more than just the title, my myopic friend. It is aptly titled. I took clue from ¿Por qué no te callas?. Would you stop attacking my integrity, hm? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if you're paying very close attention to sumbuddy, or happened to see ¿Por qué no te callas? in "On this day" on the mainpage this week. Anyway, are you suggesting that the phrase We should kill everyone in China is going to spawn t-shirt sales and ringtones (enduring), and become a political/cultural slogan that outlasts the incident?

And while you are defending the BLP, could you please explain using a food blog as a source? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Just because I don't do it now doesn't mean I will never do it. In fact the names have already been removed and the violations have been largely rectified. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

So you admit you violated BLP? You're a nuisance who seems to enjoy creating controversial articles. I don't know why we don't simply indef you and save ourselves a whole heap of trouble/effort in trying to "rectify" your many, many mistakes. GiantSnowman 12:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand BLP, but took into consideration how high-profile the Curry Murder case was, as well as the fact that reliable newspapers had explicitly listed the suspects' names. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK review

It seems to me that there is an additional issue here - the DYK proposal was reviewed [68] by another contributor, User:Mindmatrix, who seems to have entirely missed the BLP implications of asserting allegations as fact - in particular, asserting as fact the very allegation that formed the basis for the hook. I'm reluctant to drag Mindmatrix over the coals for this, as frankly I don't see this lack of attention to detail as unusual regarding DYK's, and I think the error is symptomatic of the whole DYK process, which seems more concerned with competition between contributors, and with filling the main page with random questionable factoids than with actually providing our readers with encyclopaedic information. Having said this, Mindmatrix should probably at least explain how the obvious WP:BLP issues with the hook came to be missed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

(after ec) Oops, see my similar post in the section above--- we edit conflicted. The problem is not Mindmatrix-- the problem is the process (which by the way, although I've been saying for years they should notify reviewers when faulty hooks are promoted up the line, and asking they get a template for doing so-- they won't). Also see my post above for the problem with quid pro quo reviewing-- you pass mine, I'll pass yours, and a big problem with the reward culture in things like WP:WIKICUP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I should be held responsible. I missed the issue in my review, which is surprising since it was a blatantly obvious violation. Mindmatrix 15:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgement, Mindmatrix (and good on you), but yours is not a typical DYKer reaction to these sorts of issues. So, something still needs to be done about the wider problem. Based on your appropriate response here, it doesn't look like you are likely to continue to be a part of that problem, but it has been a problem for at least the six years I've been following, and when pointed out, very few react as you have. There is no accountability at DYK, quid pro quo reviewing needs to stop, and if DYK then can't handle the volume, they need to find a way to slow down the process so that they can. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Back-scratching reviews are generally one of the only effective ways to get DYKs reviewed at all. But I think Sandy is right, the over-assumption of good faith is more harmful at DYK than elsewhere where the main page is concerned.--v/r - TP 16:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is different from other mainpage highlights in having a take-all-comers atmosphere. There is no requirement as things are currently done that a hook be entertaining or interesting, or that an article be high-quality, interesting, or well-written. DYKs are passed by ticking a set of quite loose boxes - does the hook have a cite? is the article long enough? does the hook use an asterisk? - and generally it would be frowned on for a reviewer to impose a quality requirement on either article or hook. As a result, the process is more along the lines of "tick these boxes; if boxes ticked, DYK automatically passes" (which is probably why it's felt that uninformed reviewers are good enough; if you don't have to do anything but check prose length and check for a [1] next to the hook sentence, you don't need to be all that familiar with DYK or even Wikipedia policy to do the review).

If, on the other hand, there was a requirement, even a vague one, that DYK hooks be, well, something that "hooks" readers, or if DYK allowed reviewers to use their discretion in accepting and rejecting DYKs for article or hook quality, I suspect we'd have both far less trouble with an overwhelming traffic flow into the DYK review queue, and far fewer passed-by-rote DYK that turn out to be problematic. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. The DYK "rules" are at WP:WIADYK. See No. 4, Within policy; DYKs have to conform to core policies. Those are rarely checked, many quid pro quo reviewers don't even know core policies (including one freshly minted admin who recently put a BLP vio on the DYK mainpage), and in the instances when I have checked them, I've been attacked by various and sundry DYK 'regulars'. I do not know where the notion that DYKs don't have to conform to core policies comes from: it is clearly stated in the rules. DYK instituted quid pro quo reviewing because it could not keep up with the volume there. So, reduce the volume already, by removing the notion that any new or newly expanded article is automatically entitled to a mainpage appearance, and do something to encourage compliance and accountability. Many of Wikipedia's serial copyvio offenders and serial misunderstanders of reliable sources have been fed by this process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not disagreeing with that, Sandy. Actually, I think you and I are mostly agreeing as far as raising the DYK bar. My point is that there's a vast gulf between "skates past the line of policy" and "this is a well-done, interesting article that should appear on the main page," and as long as reviewers and creators have the impression that if you can eke out "this meets the most basic level of policy and box ticking" then an article is entitled to a DYK appearance, we can do very little about low-quality articles or hooks getting passed, because reviewers are led to believe they have little choice but to pass every article. That's not to say that, say, copyvio issues, which are covered by the current guidelines, are not also being let slip right now; it's just to say that raising the whole bar and removing the sense of articles being entitled to DYK appearances might improve both policy compliance and article/hook quality. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec) In my opinion, one of the major problems with DYK is that some reviewers don't seem to bother inspecting the supplied sources or assessing their quality. Many reviews appear to be one-sentence approvals that give no indication the reviewer has done a careful inspection of the material. Despite always carefully checking the sources (and sometimes searching for other sources), I've still missed the occasional obvious flaw, with this case being an unfortunate example. Even attentive reviewers make mistakes, which is why DYK should implement a more rigorous review process. Aside: I don't object to the quid pro quo requirement, but I do object to the circular quid pro quo reviews that it seems to have engendered for some DYK article authors and nominators. Mindmatrix 18:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The QPQ requirement is corrupt. The problems with backscratching are magnified by the unlimited entitlement of article creators to dyks. Although there are some high quality dyks from prolific editors, there are other prolific authors that care more about their quantum output than the qualitative aspect. We've tried many-a-time to lay down the requirement in a checklist form, but there's no specificity when it comes to adherence to policies. What's more, the process seems to have slipped back to the one-sentence review that allows specific problem areas to go unmentioned, but just saying "hook is too long" or "not enough bytes" or "good to go". We ought to consider placing a limit on the number of dyks allowed per editor (per month?), and those dyks that are reviewed need to be done stringently and with a much lower tolerance for AGF. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with SandyGeorgia's comments. And yes, the QPQ was a desperate measure to drum up the number of reviewers that succeeded only in producing worthless reviews—now used to self-justify the system. Time to get rid of it. In fact, two years ago was the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to some of the opinions expressed above, this is not an example of the DYK process failing but of the process working. There are four steps involved in moving a nomination to the main page, the first is approval on the nominations page, the second is promotion to Prep, the third promotion to the Queue, and the fourth, promotion to the main page itself. In this case, the problem was identified at the second step. Failure of the DYK process only occurs when a defective article or hook actually makes it to the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

By "actually mak[ing] it to the mainpage", you mean, like this BLP impugning a scientist based on primary sources did?

And perhaps you meant to say this is an example of the BLP noticeboard working, since that is what brought GrumpyAndy in? Or did you mean to refer to the number of times that User:Nikkimaria and User:BlueMoonset have had to remove copyvios and other violations that have made it to the mainpage (or through the review process)? Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Attention urgently needed-Attack on No Gun Ri Massacre

Things grow worse. The WP community has responded disappointingly slowly to an appeal for help in fending off an attack on the well-established, authoritative and important article about the U.S. Army’s killing of refugees at No Gun Ri in 1950. An earlier appeal bore a link to a bill of particulars about the depredations by one "WeldNeck," a U.S. Army partisan who has made an incredible 79 edits deleting crucial facts and stuffing the article with untruths and irrelevant smokescreens in order to whitewash the events. But NOW a username-less attacker from the U.S. Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, a “contributor” who has been repeatedly and repeatedly cited for vandalism and recklessness at many pages, has begun hacking away at the facts of the No Gun Ri Massacre. Surely some speedy action can be taken to protect this article and deal with these obvious POV intervenors. Who will help? Thank you. Charles J. Hanley 22:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Editors making changes that Cjhanley doesnt agree with does not constitute an emergency. And I agree, my edits were incredible. WeldNeck (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Cjhanley, who arguably has a COI with respect to this article, has been forum-shopping this issue in multiple places. I see nothing "urgent" here. The IP's edits have been removed. There hasn't even been enough of them to warrant page protection, although considering the IP's history, a block might be warranted. As for WeldNeck, if Cjhanley thinks this is something more than a content dispute, then he needs to provide far more evidence of misconduct than he has.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Well, I don't know about that, WeldNeck--"An explanation to why the refugee column was strafed was never confirmed by investigators" isn't very good English. In fact, it's bad English. I also see POV and MOS violations in your November edits, so I wouldn't pound my own chest too hard. The IP's edits are clearly indicative of POV editing (though, Cjhanely, you would do well to head this off at the pass by supplying a reference), and I'll leave an additional note on their talk page before I peruse the rest of their edits.

  Cjhanley, your problems with WeldNeck can't easily be dealt with in this forum; WP:DR or WP:3O might be better suited, and talk page discussion of course. Now, that talk page is kind of fun, if you don't feel inclined to actually read it. Accusations of POV, socking, etc abound, and there doesn't seem to be a critical mass of uninvolved editors that can help the thing along. Anyway, I think I've done about as much as I can do as an administrator. The IP hasn't done enough damage to warrant a block or semi-protection, so until then there's nothing to do. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Pounding my chest ... ha ha ... I am being sarcastic. I agree my English sucks at times. Need to work on that. WeldNeck (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I get paid handsomely to mess with people's writing. I'm sure we can come to some agreement. Bbb made a good point about Cjhanley's forum shopping--really, what this article needs is more uninvolved editors who can study the sources and perhaps smooth the waters. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Drmies. You’re correct, of course, that additional objective – and perceptive – editors are needed, neither victims’ representatives nor U.S. military reps. And, for the record, please understand that the facts of the No Gun Ri Massacre have been under attack for more than a decade from institutions and members of the U.S. military. That’s what’s happening in this case, as would be clear to anyone studying the serious damage WeldNeck has been doing, including his reverts of efforts to correct that damage, and Tuesday’s outrageous attack from the U.S. Army’s Fort Huachuca.

But where are those editors? When they don’t materialize, and when a contributor like WeldNeck repeatedly flouts the “good faith” principles of WP, shouldn’t the WP hierarchy step in, familiarize itself with what’s going on and take some action? After all, this is not some bio of an obscure Victorian architect or feature on a subspecies of warblers. This is a big deal, a major 20th-century war crime, and the WP article on it is being openly transformed into a falsehood-packed apologia for the crime (as well as a bloated, increasingly incoherent mess as WeldNeck dumps irrelevant and often false material into it). I appreciate your suggestion about trying other avenues for help but, frankly, it’s getting tiresome being sent from pillar to post by admins (from Edit Warring to ANI to NPOV and back again). At this point, even a caution to WeldNeck to “play nice” and accept facts and falsehoods for what they are when they’re incontrovertibly presented to him would be welcome. Thanks again. (By the way, you noted in your comment above a need for a particular bit of sourcing; that fact is, indeed, sourced higher in the article, or at least was before WeldNeck began wreaking his havoc. But the reference can be repeated.) Charles J. Hanley 16:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

• Repeating that reference is a good idea. Where to find those editors? Perhaps in the Wikipedia MILHIST project. An IP attack like the one you signaled, I'm not so worried about that--I've seen that in the Fort Benning related articles and it's nothing we can't handle. But you and WeldNeck, if you two were slightly less antagonistic toward each other (I'm not saying anything about who's right and wrong here) you could probably work it out. Maybe. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiEditor2563 and Colonization of Mars

I have been discussing WikiEditor2563 (talk · contribs)'s recent edits of Colonization of Mars at his talk page. WikiEditor2563 has removed sources and introduced a bunch of opinions and original research, as well as introducing the same exact opening paragraph several times (this being the latest example). This is a content dispute that could be worked out on talk pages, but on WikiEditor2563's talk page he has called me and the other editors trying to work with him 'Wikipedia Gestapo',(diff) 'morons', and a 'minion' of Robert Zubrin (who is apparently a Mars exploration advocate). He also accused me of being "hustled by NASA and the science writers" for daring to suggest that he include sources in his edits. (Here, wow).

This editors has been previously warned about edit warring and personal attacks, by me and Andyjsmith (talk · contribs), as well as other editors for his unrelated edits to Résumé. WikiEditor2563 has blanked those warnings here and here, and has explained on his talk that he doesn't consider them valid. I could play revert-tag with him, but he's made it clear that he is '1000% confident in his edits' and will just keep putting his content back without any meaningful discussion. After being insulted like that I figured this might warrant administrator involvement. If this would be better filed at WP:AN/EW I apologize, but the personal attacks seemed more troubling. Grayfell (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Not that this necesssarily will keep WikiEditor2563 from receiving sanctions, but it seems s/he is quite new to editing. They have only 72 edits to their name so far. Has the critical importance of civility in dispute resolution been expressed to him/her, and the distinction between commenting on content instead of contributors? [I have offered full explanations of my content or changes to comment, more recently due to the "learning curve" for all this. I do not comment on contributors.] WikiEditor2563 (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC) This helps shape the context of their remarks and what the way forward should be. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 06:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I have made the point about civility on the editor's talk page, where s/he was also given a lvl 3 edit-warring warning template by someone else. It looks like others have also brought it up at Talk:Résumé, where the editors has ignored requests to remove or strike out personal attacks ("Wikipedia gestapo" again). I have not brought up the content/contributors distinction. Grayfell (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

(e.c.) ::Grayfell stressed the importance of civility on WikiEditor2563's talk page yesterday (and did so eloquently). I'm commenting here because I watch Resume and was dismayed at the user's attempts[69][70][71] to edit-war OR content into the article and doubly dismayed at his or her refusal to listen to what more experienced users have said on the talk page of that article. Three of us—Bonadea, Barek, and I—have said variations on the same thing: that the content violates basic content policies, and we've explained it adequately and provided links. For our pains, we've been called arrogant and illiterate and have been shouted at[72] and termed "morons" and "dogs out of a cage"[73]. Even my gentle, non-template caution[74] about edit warring was removed[75]. I don't really see at this point what else we can do in the way of explanations. If the user seemed the slightest bit open to becoming acquainted with Wikipedia policies—both content and behavioral—I'd be all for cutting further slack, but I'm not seeing any openness at all. Rivertorch (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that this editor is "new to editing". He's been messing around with the Mars article for most of the year and has been involved in huge discussions about the error of his ways, but to no avail. Incidentally, when reading his talk page pay close attention to the history - the page has been heavily redacted and that has confused the discussion threads. I'm not too concerned about the insults as such but rather what they imply. What I see, with all the warring and the shouting, is someone with a sense of ownership and absolutely no interest in working collaboratively. I've reached the stage of not trusting any of his edits even when they seem to be factual because he simply won't provide sources - he believes that his unsupported opinion is sufficient. This is an untrustworthy and disputatious editor who has no place on Wikipedia. andy (talk) 08:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Wow, just looking at this users edits shows me that he is lacking a massive amount of clue. I have some serious doubts that mentorship would do anything to change that. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that he lacks clue. There needs to be a change of attitude, because right now it's a very BATTLEGROUND mentality. But he deserves to at least hear how he can contribute positively, though, IMHO. If he still refuses to get the point, then we can talk about whether he is HERE for constructive purposes or not. A polite articulation of his expectations as an editor and how he specifically can contribute may defuse some tension ... or not, but it's worth seeing, I think. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

IMHO he's had it abundantly explained to him how he can contribute positively, particularly by Grayfell. His response is "I am an expert", "Sourced, informed, what's the difference" and "Advice given by an expert, quite frankly, is better than a non-expert adding some random tidbit of information completely out of context". He's also not as much of an expert as he thinks - see, for example, how he shouts on his talk page that Mars has microgravity, which must be a bit of a surprise to NASA. Personally, I'd like to see a consensus here for one final final warning - from an admin who's not been involved with the warring - and then a very long block after even the slightest transgression. andy (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Update - even while this discussion (to which he has been invited) is going on he's still warring. He's just made the same old edits again, and been reverted again. I've given him a final warning for disruption. andy (talk)

I'm hoping the last edit he made on the talk page is a step in the right direction. If it's not, I don't know how we'll be able to get around blocking him for a while. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

[Andy, Mars has less gravity than Earth, being 1/3 that of Earth. The term for this is "microgravity." Your disagreement with this alone PROVES you don't have a CLUE. It is absolutely FOOLISH for you claim that Mars doesn't have microgravity, and to think THIS would support a claim to ban me, for God's sake. Your ignorance is shocking. Saying something is “sourced” is not a defense to post random data about Mars that has nothing to do with a colony per se, or to make edits that are terribly worded and therefore misleading Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it's relevant or untouchable or belongs on any particular wiki page. Sourced material is not protected from scrutiny. There is a far greater case against YOU being banned than me.]WikiEditor2563 (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this neatly sums up the problem. Here we see aggression (red ink, for goodness sake!), incivility and claims of superior knowledge. It's worth noting that the definition of microgravity is easily determined by googling "microgravity definition" where one finds, for example, that "it doesn’t refer to a low level of gravity", something that this editor has clearly not bothered to do. What are we to do with an editor who refuses to check his facts and and adopts and aggressively defends a position in this way? andy (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, the red ink was probably used to make sure his comment was delineated from the comment he was inserting into. I'll ask him not to do this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've just blocked this editor indefinitely. Rationale is here: [76]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Abusive IP Editor is back

• 200.104.245.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727#Abusive IP Edits: IP 190.46.108.141 (and noting that the same guy generated two additional reports). Suspected to be IP socking by User:Yourname. Has been IP hopping for years now, eventually he is blocked for WP:CIVIL and then a few days later is back on a new IP. Example User talk:200.104.120.204.

90% of his edits are not a problem, the abusive edit summaries are abrasive fucking morons who copy and paste in text instead of writing their own really piss me off. Trouble is if you disagree with him over the most minor point he gets abusive. Has recently returned to Ian Gow [77],[78] with same obsessive removal of details about his death from 2 years ago [79]. Templated for 3rr and notified of this ANI thread. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Tricky. I agree that the edit summaries are over the top, way over. But their edit on Ian Gow is correct (you're wrong, WCM) and they haven't broken 3R. I hate these kinds of situations. On the one hand they're correct that IPs often get shafted, on the other they're just inviting it, setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy. Some admins block for this kind of incivility; I don't, but I don't have any other options. Hey, IP editor, take it easy and tone it down. It's always better to not piss people off, and if you really want to vent, why not do it at work instead of here? Your work might actually be appreciated in this joint. Drmies (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

They will break 3RR, they always do. Sorry why do you say I'm wrong, the consensus in talk is to include a reference to the car that was destroyed in the bombing? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

[80] As per previous behaviour, they broke 3RR with no attempt to discuss and no attempt to follow WP:BRD. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

They were warned and they broke it. True. However, I don't see consensus on the talk page, though there is a little bit of banter, and a comment on how the make of the car said something about the subject's lifestyle (it doesn't, only by unverified inference--if such a note needs to be made, it needs to be made in an explicit and well-verified manner). But that's beside the point, I suppose. The IP is simply not very good at making a case. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem has been the discussion with the guy is spread over multiple IP talk pages, hence it is difficult to convey an accurate picture going into diffs over the last two years. Every time he hops to a new IP, its like the clock is reset. Were this a named account, he would have been indefinitely blocked for edit warring and multiple violations of WP:CIVIL long ago. On the content issue, I was swayed by Isabella's comment that the modest nature of the car and his home conveyed some measure of the man, which as an argument is something they have never responded to. Instead they've simply labelled everyone who disagress as "moron". I don't suppose I'm unique in finding it difficult to have a meaningful discussion with someone whose main riposte is you're a "dopey fucking cunt" for disagreeing with them? If this is what you suggest is failing to make a case, we violently agree but should we await their 4th revert every time? Wee Curry Monster talk 00:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Ban evasion by Mikemikev

Mikemikev (talk · contribs) is editing from a Korean ip 27.1.214.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as he usually does, showering me with abuse and reverting my edits at different pages.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

So stop lying. 27.1.214.45 (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The relevant SPI, for anyone interested. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. Maunus, feel free to file the paperwork if you think it needs to be filed. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Not much need for SPI, it is not as if he tries to hide it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe 211.119.109.68 is him as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. Dougweller just beat me to it and semi-protected the talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Battleground and PA originating from Crusades

Can we get some additional eyes at User talk:Joanakestlar and Talk:Crusades, please? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you have the sources for that? Apparently you need them for every thing! Oh no. I'm typing without a source! LOL Joanakestlar (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for edit warring and disruption. John Reaves 19:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive edit warring and personal attacks at Crusades

User:Joanakestlar has repeatedly added unsourced, POV content to the Crusades article. The additions have been removed, and the user has been asked to discuss the dispute on the talk page. The user has reverted the removal of content several times in the last couple of weeks, including three times in the past hour or so ([81], [82], [83]). {Whoops, make that four times in an hour and a half: [84].} The user has responded on the talk page with attacks on other editors and defiance of WP guidelines. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice style. Well denounced... Joanakestlar (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to be related to Stalwart111, Oddbodz, Stephan Schulz , or DeCausa, would you? Like, for instance, IP related? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanakestlar (talk • contribs) 19:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

This user's on the 5th revert. Can someone block this pest quick? DeCausa (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Protected. I would have been inclined to block Joanakestlar, but this personal attack by DeCausa makes it obvious that we've got misbehavior on both sides. Nyttend (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring: Ravi Zacharias

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

---

Ravi Zacharias Long-standing (and hard-fought) consensus language on this page acknowledges that this theologians views about the 2nd law of thermodynamics and its relationship to creationism are not shared by many (any?) members of the scientific community. On editor insists on removing that language, and is already at or over the 3RR rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanakestlar (talk • contribs) 19:39, 11/13/2013 (UTC)

EWN is that way. KonveyorBelt 19:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked, and edits rolled back. No need to tolerate such nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Sluffs blocked

I just blocked Sluffs (talk · contribs) indefinitely for this edit, especially the last statement which indicates a battleground approach to the project after being blocked three previous times, the last time for a month with a firm warning for a much longer block for the same issues, which included personal attacks and threats. He's clearly not here to constructively build the encyclopedia and there is no point in keeping an editor like him around in the project. Thanks Secret ^account 20:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. After reviewing their edits, that looks like a good call to me. -- The Anome (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Advert

Dominikcrank (talk · contribs) has popped up and is advertizing himself as a master forger. It has been so long since I dealt with this sort of thing that I have forgotten which noticeboard is best taking care of it. Please feel free to move it to the correct one with thanks. 20:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indef and deleted Secret ^account 20:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Secret, thanks for the quick action in this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 20:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Bey

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

---

I am asking for a semi-protection of the article Bey where an anon IP is not only deleting sourced content, he is also adding POV material to the text. The anon IP should use the talkpage first instead of changing the text. --Lysozym (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Try here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Lysozym (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Arbor to SJ is removing "Football Program" information from "Northeastern Oklahoma A&M College"

Arbor to SJ is not responding to talks. They only delete them. I have requested clarification and they delete the request. Arbor to SJ claims the information is a copyright violation. This is incorrect. I have created this information on my own. I have absolutely no clue on how to deal with a user like this. requesting Arbor to SJ be blocked from editing "Northeastern Oklahoma A&M College". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammerb (talk • contribs) 05:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I've reported both of you to ANEW for edit warring. Each of you have 10 reverts. GregJackP Boomer! 06:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at AtoSJ's talk page, but I did re-revert Hammerb's addition again and left him a note on edit warring and a strong message about the suitability of the content he is adding. (A complete game by game breakdown of the school's entire football history, back to the 1910's.) Due to the detail, I can't really see how it could not be a copyvio, although I have no idea the source. John from Idegon (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the diffs, but remember that a revision of a copyvio doesn't count as a revert for the purpose of determining 3RR or EW. In may, in fact, not be a copyvio, but it could be a good faith belief. As is often the case, some communication would help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Rangeblock may be required

There are a few IP's from a massive range (possibly 75.0.0.0/10) are disrupting a few pages on Christianity. I've listed them below, currently a 75.51.168.0/22 rangeblock would do the job however they may just be able to jump outside it.

• 75.51.171.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 75.51.169.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 75.51.169.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 75.51.170.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 75.51.170.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Currently every edit they make is from a different IP (which is why I haven't notified them), so it'd be good to do something. It is a reasonably large number of articles to semi so I'd suggest a rangeblock would be worth trying first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• You are right, it is a huge block. I would be disinclined to do such a large block because of all the others who would be caught up in it. Wackamole? JodyB _talk 12:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• I also reverted these IPs using Huggle. Thet are making a large-scale trouble. These are some of the diffs: [85][86][87][88][89][90][91]. Faizan 12:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Also, a /16 is the largest we can do and that would take out +65,000 addresses. JodyB _talk 12:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • User:JodyB what about a short term (6 or so hours to see if that works) of the /22 range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Done. I probably just shutdown the world banking system but I did the /22 for 6 hours. Let's see. JodyB _talk 12:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks, hopefully that'll do it. My watchlist just increased in size if not. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Another IP caught, 166.216.226.92, diff here. Faizan 12:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Hopefully that's a coincidence. FYI, the specifics of my block at "75.51.168.0/22" for 6 hours. Your review or comment is always welcomed. JodyB _talk 13:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

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

This cannot be a coincidence. We need another range block. Faizan 13:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Did a /24 for 6 hours. I have to run out, back soon. Revert me as needed. JodyB _talk 13:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• 166.216.226.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Thanks, another one caught here. I hope that does not happen again. Faizan 13:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)