Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Грищук ЮН

This editor has been endlessly adding unsourced material (mostly as bad machine translations from Russian) and WP:OR to all sorts of articles. They've had several warnings, including a level 4, but it keeps on coming. I could simply report this as vandalism, but something tells me that WP:ANI is the better place to fix this.

Here's one good example: in an article about a military ship, editor has added a long, rambling, unsourced, incomprehensible series of tangents on language, including an anecdote about a schoolboys' saying: [1], [2]

Here's another, in the same article about the ship, a long and unsourced analysis of a photo of one sailor: [3].

Have a browse through the edit history of Mignon desires her fatherland, and you'll find the editor tried again and again to add WP:OR, including a long poem in Russian about the editors' feelings on first seeing the painting (with machine translation to English alongside), endless unsourced tangential anecdotes, and so on. Editor seemed quite mystified that I and other editors kept removing it, and instead created their ideal presentation at User:Грищук ЮН/Draft, with all sorts of unsourced pet theories about Scheffer's real, hidden meaning in the painting.

User:HitroMilanese tried with admirable patience to explain to Грищук ЮН the problem of WP:OR at User talk:HitroMilanese#Jesus in a female guise and User talk:HitroMilanese#User:Грищук ЮН/Draft The friendly advice given there does not seem to be sinking in: Грищук ЮН still continually adds WP:OR to nearly every article they touch. Any advice on how to fix this problem would be welcome. Wikishovel (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wikishovel: That's as maybe (I've been there myself!) but to say ' I could simply report this as vandalism'; no, you couldn't. Have you read WP:V? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 23:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wikishovel: You have failed to inform the user under discussion as required so that they can particpate in this conversation about their edits. Please rectify at once, thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox:: no, I informed the editor immediately after posting here: [4] Wikishovel (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Well that's weird. I did look, of course, but somehow it didn't show at the time and the last edit in the history was from last month. Caching issue or database lag I guess. Never mind. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem. But can anybody help me with this? I and others have warned the editor to level 4, but no reply at their talk page, and no reply here. What can I do next? Wikishovel (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid the user needs to be blocked per WP:COMPETENCE. However, I would say the first block should be of short duration, since they clearly make some good edits. Any thoughts?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:- below, sorry, forgot to ping. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 19:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

As I hinted at above, I've been aware of this editor since March last year. In someways they're a perfect editor- no drama, over 8,000 mainspace contributions, clean block log, thirty articles created, and over 80% edit-summary usage. The elephant in the room, of course, is language. The articles aren't so bad- they just need a bit of tidying... like this. Having said all that, the 0.5% of his edits that are to user-talk are like this. The real problem is the inability to communicate on what is, of course the English Wikipedia. Their absence from this board is possibly explained by the fact that they either do not understand the notice or are not prepared to demonstrate their use of language her. Frankly, the editor needs- not so much a mentor- but a translator. And I'm not quite sure how that would be done even if we actually were able to find one! It would be desperately sad, though, to lose them as an editor; I just can't quite see how we can get around these flaws. It would be nice if we could though. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 19:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I can talk to them in Russian (assuming they speak Russian), but I am not prepared to do it on a regular basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I agree, and I think I said something of the sort- after all, if we get tied up like that, we are effectively halving our own output, and that's detrimental to the thing. Would it be possible perhaps for you to have a chat though? Explain, who you are, where they stand, how we can help but only if they help themselves, etc? You don't have to. But perhaps you could judge their attitude and general competency by the nature of their response. Would you be willling? This isn't an official proposal- as it's somewhat beyond your call of duty! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 19:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Left them a message; they state Russian is their mothertongue.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Good afternoon, Dear Sirs! I see, you are discussing about me. Can be difference in our understanding the situation about my articles in the following:

1. I do not see original recearch in my article SS Metallurg Anosov and you see the original research. The same situation was about my articles of Soviet Ships, as from beginning somebody wrote that that articles are original research and the sources from Interned seamen's talk is not a sourse in doubt. I mentioned, that in doubt Soviet official sources and not semen's talk. I show that and found out some other sorces to confirm, that the semen said correct and Wikipedia was agree, that the my Ship's articles are not otiginal recearch. In the article SS Metallurg Anosov part of information is clear my iformation, which was not printed anywhere before. If on you opinion it is original research, you can delete.
2. I limited to write in this article more to confirm, as this article about the ship and I had write minimum.
3. To explain, I have write other articles, but I also limited by permition, what possible to write and what better do not write. It is why I wrote allitle and not too much.
4. Any way, if you deleted the part of text, which on your opinion is original research, I will not back it and will not write interesting articles about the Soviet Union. I can show you plenty articles in Russian and Ukranian Wikipedia, where plenty misunderstanding due to each country understand this as per their interests. For example and it is also can be as confirmation (I intended to write this articles also):
   1. Приказ о депортации украинцев в 1944 году and Таємний наказ про депортацію українців - here the photo of document, where mentined General Zhukov and Colonel Fyodorov. Zhukov, Andropov (Andropov-Fyodorov) and Andropov's father in low Fyodorov worked together during Karelian war in 1930-s also. It could be separate articles to describe why Rossia Wikipwdia does not agree with Ulranian Wikipedia and why each side can say that other side has original research. Who correct in this situation. I can confirm by my experiance that both sides are correct partly, but I have to write about my life to explain. I am Ukranian and I was not deported from Ukraine due to was used another original way, then "Order about deportation of Ukranian in 1944". Seem my experiance and my life can not be used as confirmation for you and English Wikipedia will not understand who is correct in this situation: Russian Wikipedia or Ukranian Wikipedia.
   2. Паткуль, Иоганн Рейнгольд and Йоганн Рейнгольд фон Паткуль - the difference is my part in Ukranian WIkipedia, which I took from source Д.І.Яворницький "Історія запорозьких козаків", том 3, Коментарі Г.Я.Сергієнка - this book wrote Dmytro Yavornytsky during Tsar Russia and this book was printed only one time during Tsar Russia and after was prohibited due to Tsat and after Soviet Union was not agree to confirm his information as his book confirm some history moments about Ukrain (in this articles directly about Peter I and Mazepa, where the writer describe why Mazepa was against the Peter I. This bool by Dmytro Yavornytsky was printed again in Ukrain in 1990-s after the Soviet Union colapse.

As you see each country Wikipedia can describe articles of other Wikipedias as "original research" and own articles as "correct information and correct sources". In my articles I confirm my infromation (my life) by other sources and it is not original research. Any way, if it is not interesting I will stop to write more and seems nobody will write it for English Wikipedia to understand situation and misunderstanding between RUssian and Ukranian, as each other Wikipedia (Rissian, for example) can cry to you that my inforormation is original research. I t was already one time, one year or one and half year ago about. Also every Soviet source needs to be checked and passed original recearch also as too much wrong information Soviet sources have. The same today, - each country writes own understanding of situation. It is means that we can sea in the most articles original research, if we want understnd it as original research. Thanks. Грищук ЮН (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• There's probably a WP:CIR problem here, but can we find someone fluent in Russian who can explain kindly to this editor why he probably won't be able to help us here on the English Wikipedia? He's clearly working in good faith, and I'd hate for him to go away with nothing but a kick in the butt. EEng 07:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. That reply probably suffices. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 09:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Ymblanter:... Well; any thoughts? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  I already tried, at my talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  We are now continuing there, looks like the user has some valid points.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Fram/Sander.v.Ginkel follow-up

I know strictly speaking, this doesn't require an admin's attention, but I know a lot of people made comment on this discussion. For info, there's now this discussion to move things forward. I'll drop a note on Fram and Sander's talkpages too. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Sock stupidity redacted, removed content here if anyone really feels the need to read it. ‑ Iridescent 19:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the results of the SvG discussion was that " a list of Sander's existing problematic BLP articles should be made for reference for interested parties to recreate properly. Once created, one (1) week's notice should be given in a public enough manner so that editors and interested Wikiprojects (Cycling and Olympics were mentioned by name) can "adopt" articles to either correct during that week or userfy for longer-term correction. After said week, corrected articles should be removed from the list and the remaining uncorrected BLP articles should be deleted. " Such a list now exists (since a few days) at User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/BLP 0. Quite a few wikiprojects have been alerted about the situation. @Avraham:, I guess all this counts as the public notification and in a week these articles can be deleted? Fram (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Well yes and no. They will all be moved into draftspace with a 90 day timescale to check them. They'll either be a) moved back to mainspace if all OK or b) deleted. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Then you have six days left to move them to draftspace (the ones where anyone has indicated an actual interest to check them). In the three weeks or so since the original discussion was closed, very few articles have actually been corrected it seems (not even the ones where factual problems were already identified). Fram (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a bot request in operation to move them all. Hopefully approved soon. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 12:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

213.74.186.109 / Human like you

User 213.74.186.109 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) should be blocked for persistent personal attacks.

Latest personal attack: "harasser copied from somewhere else & an unrelated warning" [5]. "harasser" is a personal attack (and the statement "copied from somewhere else & an unrelated warning" is a lie - these were earlier warnings on his talk page [6]).

Background: This user repeatedly violated wikipedia rules, in particular this user seems to be engaged in long term POV pushing and soapboxing and repeatedly made personal attacks. Therefore I left warnings on his talk page. This user contacted other users and acted as if the warnings were not justified and he was a victim. Therefore I restored the warnings for discussion with an explanation why I thought they were justified [7].

User 213.74.186.109 has a history of personal attacks: "sockpuppet" [8], "vandalism by delusional user" [9], "supporters of anarchy and terror" [10], unjustified accusations of "vandalism" [11], "Where did this sock puppet come from? Are you good at yakking too?" [12], "mouthpiece of a terrorist" [13], "An evil intention hides behind your "civil" facade" [14]).

This user has been warned repeatedly for personal attacks: [15], [16], [17], in particular most recently [18] by user User:Editor abcdef.

Looking at the edit history it is very clear that since September 2016 this IP is operated by the same user (same topics, same edit pattern). 2003:77:4F1D:B929:CC3B:3956:435B:2E58 (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. It is particularly problematic that he constantly direct personal attacks against other users on talk pages and not a single action can be taken yet since he doesn't like people adding stuff to his talk pages. Any charges against the IP should instead be redirected to user:Human like you since for the past 2 days the latter is the account he uses to edit. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

User 213.74.186.109 just confirmed [19] that 213.74.186.109 and 'Human like you' are the same user. It seems that as user Human like you (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) he is playing the same game again. The same pattern of POV pushing, soapboxing [20], and again acting as victim when someone notices this behaviour [21]. In particular, this user continues to make personal attacks over and over again [22],[23],[24], most recently he got warned [25] by user User:EricEnfermero. 2003:77:4F1D:B929:CC3B:3956:435B:2E58 (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I endorse this complaint. I see an ongoing pattern of disruptive edits, including POV pushing, false allegations in edit summaries, and failure to respond to concerns raised on their talk page (except to namecall). I do also hear an obvious WP:QUACK. What I don't know is whether there's a larger context or longer history in play. IPs similar to the IP of the above complainant have engaged in some talk page back-and-forth with User:Human like you/the problem IP (e.g., see recent history at Talk:The New York Times, and have now posted to my talk page; they clearly know their way around the wiki. Regardless of that, I think a block of Human like you for persistent disruption is probably warranted at this time—failing that, a stern warning with an admin or two keeping an eye on things. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This user also posted at the Teahouse asking "how to get rid of a stalker". White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I also endorse this complaint. I have witnessed (and sometimes been targeted by) the disruptive POV editing and aggressive poisoning of talk page discussions by the reported User 213.74.186.109 (talk) aka Human like you (talk) over several months and articles, in particular Syrian Democratic Forces and Rojava (see talk pages and talk page archives of the articles). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

From a non-involved party, I can see several problematic issues occurring here on both sides. Starting with 2003:77:4F0C:9A16:B9F1:5AA8:B1A7:37E9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). IMO, this discussion that 2003:77 IP is referring to was closed way too hastily. Obviously the other IP should not have re-opened that discussion, but that is honestly no grounds for a talkpage warning. Instead of constantly posting template warnings on the other IP's talkpage, you need to try to tell them specifically what the problem is, and how they should go about resolving it. Just posting templates on their talkpage without any context is not appropriate, especially because their edits are not obvious vandalism.

@Aurato:: 1) Concerning IP 2003:77:4F0C:9A16:B9F1:5AA8:B1A7:37E9 you mentioned above: This was my first encounter with this user. First I thought it was vandalism (in the sense of making an article deliberately worse), because at that point I thought that nobody could reasonably believe what he added. However, now I think that he is so much influenced by Turkish propaganda that he actually believes it.

2) The reason for the talkpage warning was not only the reopening of the closed discussion but also the continued WP:SOAPBOXING.

3) This and all other issues have been explained to this user again and again by several users including me through talk page warnings, sometimes with further explanations, and edit summaries. But as IP 213.74.186.109 this user ignored these warnings, repeatedly "cleaned" his talk page and went on with the same problematic edit pattern. Because of these "cleanings" it is difficult to figure out what happend on this talk page. 84.187.146.101 (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Now moving on to 213.74.186.109 / Human like you. Aside from the personal attacks, harassment, and POV pushing, the fact that the user behind 213.74.186.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), obviously created Human like you (talk · contribs) in order to avoid scrutiny is very inappropriate. (Note: There is a difference between creating an account because you want to become a registered user, and creating an account to try to avoid being scrutinized). Also, the IP in question has had a 48 hour block for edit warring, which was (probably) due to the constant POV pushing. From what I can tell, their behavior has not improved much, if at all in regards to the reasons for that block. I'm not an admin, and I don't know whether or not a block should be put in place; that is up for an admin to decide. Anyhow, 2003:77 and 213.74.186.109 / Human like you, you two are in the middle of a content dispute. Instead of harassing each other on the article's talkpages, please work this out in a respectful manner. And 213.74.186.109, you really need to stop using inappropriate edit summaries. It does nobody any good at all, and you're only putting more gasoline into the fire...

In order for any legitimate administrative action to occur (or not, if they decide that there is no action needed), I will be pinging EdJohnston to help sort out this situation, because it seems like he has been involved with both of the editors here, and EdJohnston was the admin that placed the 48 hour block back in December. Aurato (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

As yet there is no reason to think the subject of this complaint is avoiding scrutiny. The IP, 213.74.186.109, has stated on his user talk that he created a registered account as User:Human like you. Since 1 January his registered account is the only one who has made any article edits. I suggest that the filer of this report, 2003:77:4F1D:B929:CC3B:3956:435B:2E58 (talk · contribs), should also create an account if they think they expect to remain active in complex disputes like the Syrian Civil War and want to get much sympathy from admins. Making an ANI complaint from a single-use IP could be viewed as another way of avoiding scrutiny for your edits. EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: Instead, the IP chooses to file a multi-faceted report at WP:ANEW. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

1) I didn't intent to allege in my report that it was a case of WP:Sock puppetry, but I think it is important that these are not mistakes of a beginner but continuation of long term problematic behaviour.

2) At the moment I'm the IP 2003:77:... (and in rare cases 84.187... ) and as such involved in discussions, e.g. at Talk:Rojava. Also, I don't want one of my first registered user edits to be filing an edit warring report. In the longer term, I hope at some point there will be a good moment to take a WP:WIKIBREAK, and maybe, afterwards, I will come back as registered user (so that the registered user edits do not mess up with the IP edits). In the meantime, I hope other users consider Wikipedia:IPs are human too. 84.187.146.101 (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

User Human like you (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) still tries to add soapboxing and the personal attacks he initially made as 213.74.186.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to Talk:The New York Times (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs), though this thread had been closed by another user on Dec 27. 2003:77:4F2E:5887:D61:7010:CD0E:EB22 (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

TBAN request

Made by

ATS

Affected party

Ronz

Topic

Grace VanderWaal and all related articles

Reason

WP:POINT

Evidence

Talk:Grace VanderWaal, particularly §§ "ELs again", "Having two Youtube sites is nothing worth noting" and "Vevo link"

Statement by ATS

User Ronz has been engaging in repeated, belligerent disruption at Grace VanderWaal and its talk page. In particular, the editor has continued to remove data (these are just the most recent examples; 758122056 claims in the edit summary a consensus in direct opposition to any actual consensus), dishonestly citing BLP, EL*, SOAP and REFSPAM (none of which applies) in order to instead enforce IDONTLIKEIT. (Invocation of BLP is particularly dishonest in light of BLPSOURCES and BLPREMOVE, the actual policies under which data is to be deleted.)

When called on his actions, Ronz invokes CHOICE and FOC (the equivalent of answering "Stop disrupting the article by deleting content!" with "You need to focus on content."), while berating anyone other than himself for failure to gain a consensus.

The user also has been properly upbraided for at least one outright lie.

Most recently, Ronz has played the victim card, complaining that he's entitled to explanations that already have been provided.

I believe it is necessary to invoke a mandatory TBAN to stop the disruption since the editor is refusing, and with trademark belligerence, to self-impose.

—ATS 🖖 talk 18:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• ATS is spamming external links in contradiction to WP:ELNO and WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Her youtube and vevo channels are linked from her official website and the additional links contain nothing extra. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The ELs include unique videos that are not easily linked off her official site (in fact, last I checked, they're not linked from gracevanderwaalofficial.com at all, and the site is down for the moment). Only in death is demonstrating a terrible lack of knowledge of what constitutes "spamming". —ATS 🖖 talk 19:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Telling Ronz to "Go FOC yourself" and, referring to him quite clearly, "fuck the vandal" is a pretty bad idea. It taints your edits.Doug Weller talk 19:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

That's all you read out of that, eh? Unfortunate. The user's activity—which is the purpose here—was monumentally frustrating to at least four other editors. That is the takeway. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You don't get to dictate the direction of the discussion. Once you post a complaint here, your own behavior also comes under scrutiny. As you've been here 10 years, you should already know that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Actual progress is being attempted with respect to the actual report and possible outcomes of the actual report. Contribute, or don't. —ATS 🖖 talk 03:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

They are not required to be linked directly. Her official youtube, vevo, twitter etc are already all linked from her website. WP:EL explicitly addresses this. Its certainly *not* down as I can access it and one of the youtube links takes you to the EXACT same page as the one linked from her official website. And I know they are because my PC is currently playing the same damn song in stereo. So no, no unique content. Linkspam. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It's working for me now, and it has changed. This does not address the user's actions. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

And Jesus Christ, the only reason the Vevo link you have put in as an external link is different to the Vevo link from her website is that you have put the external link to the 'videos' section of her channel instead of 'home' as her official website does. Claiming that is 'unique' content is duplicitious. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Someone needs to check the edit history—and, no, that someone is not Jesus Christ. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• In addition, the editor is denying any responsibility for his part in the "war". —ATS 🖖 talk 20:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with ATS. Ronz has been trolling, deleting useful information and otherwise vandalizing the Grace VanderWaal article since she began editing there. I fully support the proposed TBAN against Ronz. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• I noticed the fuss at Grace VanderWaal and have been trying to help but unfortunately Ronz has got under people's skin and we are seeing the tactical blunders mentioned above. For example, referring to Ronz as a vandal is an own-goal at ANI because WP:VAND and commonsense dictate that being misguided does not make one a vandal. Also, retorts merely cause third parties to assume Ronz must be on the right side. The fundamental issue concerns a couple of external links. It's easy to provide a sea of blue links showing how such links should be discouraged, but in this case Ronz has been quite needlessly harassing contributors over trivia. Consider the benefits that would arise from removing one external link, and balance that against all the ill-will caused as good editors have tried to develop this article. Ronz drops in every few days to post another condescending set of blue links while never engaging with the content issues that others try to raise concering why links should be retained. Ronz should be told to leave the article alone—there are plenty of puff pages needing attention (I noticed this and this yesterday). Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Ronz has repeatedly engaged in edit warring and editing against consensus. I support the proposed TBAN. Somambulant1 (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• commentI support Johnuniq's comments here. Ronz has been involved in four discussions on the talk page since October 29 and started 2 of them. I believe it was Einstein who offered doing the same thing and expecting different results is madness. We have multiple consensus making processes. In addition to a RFC we have WP:ELN. There's no real issue honestly in what he's done (trying to apply EL policy and/or guidelines) but how he has done it. I do not support a topic ban here. I think this can be simply solved by telling Ronz to stop this behavior. Ronz, not just in this article but in all articles, if you can't take an action that will lead to a consensus (such as an RFC) then drop the stick because you are beating a dead horse.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• I would have no argument with telling Ronz to stop this behavior as long as any consequences have teeth. His latest edits to the talk page indicate a continuing unwillingness to accept any responsibility for his own actions. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me try something crazy. @Ronz: It's reasonably time to stop this fight over EL. I would like to request something of you. I certainly feel that it's reasonable. It' in regards to the article at Grace VanderWaal. I would like to ask you stop all activity there in regards to external links unless that activity can be reasonably expected to end in a consensus (such as an RFC). Basically constructive actions. The request is that you no longer remove the links with out first gaining a consensus. You no longer open a discussion on the talk page about the external links (unless its an RFC). And if you do upon an RFC that you limit your discussion about the rfc to necessary comments to make your case. In short I would like to ask you to respect the current consensus or take action that would result in a broader consensus. This seems reasonable.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing crazy about it: I'm happy to avoid making any edits to the article related to this topic while we get this dispute resolved. 20:16, 6 January 2017

I hope that's enough. Maybe we can get others to agree to the same? 0RR on video and video-hosting links basically--Ronz (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry could you be more clear @Ronz:? Are you saying that you are going to open a neutral RFC to resolve this issue once and for all? Before they agree to a 0rr it might be best that they know what thy are agreeing to? An RFC and then you live with the results?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Demanding that one side of a content dispute stop trying to enforce guidelines because the editors who violate it also make useful contributions seems... incredibly weird. Though I do agree that Ronz would be better off just abandoning this article. Let the page accrue external links to its authors' content. Spend your efforts somewhere that doesn't generate so much angst over something so silly. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not a demand and it is a request, well on my part. And as far as enforcing the rules we are talking about a guideline. More than a few of them have held that this guideline doesn't apply. In the end this whole matter involves a content dispute.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. —ATS 🖖 talk 03:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that's great but back on the ranch... The details are not completely clear yet but Ronz would like to end this someway constructively. And he has asked one small thing. Until it concludes you add no more links. My understanding is the current links that you want stay in the article and you add no new ones until this matter is resolved in a consensus in some constructive and fruitful process (I assume an RFC).This doesn't sound unreasonable. What do you say?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Honestly—and this may come as a surprise—I don't care which ELs are there and which are not. I care about an honest effort to seek and find consensus, as opposed to a forced consensus-of-one wrapped in guideline-dressing. We specifically forbid "but I'm RIGHT", do we not? —ATS 🖖 talk 04:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

So you're just trying to "prove a point"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

At Grace VanderWaal, everyone is editing constructively except User:Ronz. S/he has, at every turn, made it more difficult for everyone else to develop the entire article and dominated the discussions on the talk page with repetitive demands, accusations and disruptions of numerous kinds. There are experienced editors working on the article, and we have resolved all disagreements and reached WP:CONSENSUS on all the issues. Only Ronz disagrees with the consensus. Ronz should be banned from the page so that we can get on with developing it. This subject, Grace VanderWaal, only came to national attention recently, and Ronz has stood in the way of our ability to develop it to follow the subject's fast-moving career because of Ronz's obsession with deleting ELs. The article has only 4 ELs. Ronz wants to delete 3 of those. Those 3 links have been discussed extensively at the Talk page, and the consensus is to keep them. Here is why: VanderWaal is notable mainly for three things: (1) her YouTube videos; (2) her new EP; and (3) her appearances (and win) on AGT. The three ELs that Ronz disagrees with are of key interest to any reader of this article. The first is a link to the subject's main YouTube channel. The second is a link to the "videos" page of her GraceVanderWaalVEVO channel that features her EP and the songs on the EP. The third links to the appearance on AGT that made the subject notable and famous and which has been viewed well over 100 million times on social media (both YouTube and Facebook). -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see that any of that matters. In the end you are personally arguing for a WP:CONLIMITED while he's arguing that specific policies and/or guidelines apply. The greater issue on part of @Ronz:, as I see it, is wp:stick. Without attempting to end this discussion constructively with some consensus making process they are beating a dead horse. After two months at this point this is simply disruptive especially considering how little the issue actually matters in the grand scheme of things. They should either drop it or move on to some constructive form of consensus making. In the event they fail to do either a tban should be considered. Above it seems that they have agreed to move on to some form of constructive consensus making process. As such there's no need to tban them. They seem to have asked one simple thing of you. That you add no more External links until this constructive consensus making process that they opt for is complete.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk)

• Administrative review is requested of Baseball Bugs' activity hereinabove (and below). Thank you. —ATS 🖖 talk 05:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I am rather sensitive to the issue of spamming, and your excessive linking looks like spam and promotion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: I had already started what could be used as the start of a dispute resolution activity. Personally, I was thinking WP:ELN, but if editors think an RfC is better, I'm for it. Do you think that it is a good start? Personally, it's not that we haven't worked on constructive consensus-making, but that editors do not respect the consensus when it doesn't go their way. I've certainly compromised, and even provided arguments for the material that I disagree about including. ATS says he doesn't care which links are in the article. I think Somambulant1 has been responsive to discussion. That leaves SSilvers. Will he respect new consensus? I hope so, but don't think his answer should sway us from trying to get this settled. (I'm unlikely to have much time to respond further today.) --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: ELN is not very accurate. An RFC will be more expedient. It's time to put this baby to bed. Honestly I'd rather you move on but if you must a RFC would be better.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• No editor who continues, especially through a "resolution" process, to assert that he alone is right and everyone else is wrong, and who starts and propagates an edit war on that basis, will ever be "on the right track". This was the genesis of the disruption, and the editor refuses to address it. —ATS 🖖 talk 18:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Looking through his edits to the article [26], it is clear that Ronz has been editing aggressively and uncollaboratively and, if I may say so, stubbornly, on it since late October. Even two editors who have at times criticized each other (ATS and Ssilvers) have still managed to edit constructively and collaboratively there [27]. So I would say unless the disruptive editing from Ronz has stopped, he should take a temporary break from the article (either voluntary or by community decision). While I'm at it though, I will reiterate what others have observed: ATS, your personal communication style and your reactivity lessen and in some cases completely torpedo whatever valid points you are trying to make. Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments, Softlavender, even as I would argue with "completely torpedo". That said, you understand quite clearly the frustration facing those of us—and, giving credit where due, to the lion's share of the work, by Ssilvers—who try to create and improve articles in good faith. Was that frustration good cause to call me a spammer? —ATS 🖖 talk 08:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring by Only in death at Grace VanderWaal

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

---

Belligerent misapplication of EL* in violation of consensus at article talk. There is no "spamming". —ATS 🖖 talk 19:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You will know when I am belligerent. You are spamming youtube links into an article that already has 4 youtube links in the refs (including at least one to her official channel). WP:ELMINOFFICIAL is also very clear. Do not external link more than one official website when they are already linked through an official website. This is basic SEO refspam. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We are spamming nothing. Unique content is unique content. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(ec)There's no consensus to keep those redundant youtube links. And saying stuff like "Go FOC yourself" doesn't serve your argument well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"Go FOC yourself" – He's telling someone to Focus On Content, right? "Go focus yourself on content" – what's wrong with that? EEng 19:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Glad someone got that ... —ATS 🖖 talk 20:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I got it immediately. It was a joke. Or at least a tiny sliver of one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

—ATS 🖖 talk 23:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Read only that, did you? Unfortunate ... —ATS 🖖 talk 19:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like it's you that needs to be topic-banned. You've been here a long time and should know better than to do the stuff you're doing on that page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Stunningly, horribly, tragically wrong. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Since when is a content dispute about external links a "tragedy"? And is not the case that you've been here for 10 years? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting how you missed the tragedy and got the joke ... —ATS 🖖 talk 23:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Calling a minor edit dispute a horrible tragedy is also a sliver of a joke. Don't give up the day job. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

One, two, three strikes, you're out. The tragedy is the shoot-the-reporter shitfest that this has become. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

In short, the joke's on you. Boomerangs happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No—boomerangs return on their own. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Oops, I commented on this in the thread above at virtually the same time. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Those links don't belong. Please don't edit war to restore them. --John (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• I notice this complaint about edit warring from an editor who is currently sitting right at 3RR (and is less than 2 hours from violating it) due to their insistence upon reverting at least two other editors. I notice that this editor has reverted 6 changes to the article in the past week (and seems to have an unusually high number of reverts overall for someone not engaged in bot-assisted anti-vandalism). I notice that this user has used edit summaries like (rvv), ‎(rv vandal) and ‎ (rv 100% bullshit edit: 67% because the vids are there, taken directly from the channel; 33% for blatant misuse of SOAP and BLP to cover IDONTLIKEIT) in response to good-faith edits. I notice that this editor made certain unqualified statements about the article subject's official website and what links it contains that were quickly proven false.

Therefore, I draw the conclusion that there is, somwhere in the vicinity a a certain sub-equatorial type of throwing stick fluttering around, looking for a face to run into. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Your blinders are showing ... —ATS 🖖 talk 20:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

When one man calls you a dog, ignore him. But when three (or more [28] [29] [30] [31]) men call you a dog, check yourself for fleas. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hilarious that it applies only here, not to the genesis of this whole thing. Your blinders have taken you over. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please review the first rule of holes. While it's not an actual Wikipedia policy, it might help forestall an escalation of this problem. I understand that this advice might be frustrating and unwelcome, but these additional links really are not unique content and really do fall afoul of our policies for external links. David in DC (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Because of recent, and likely fluid, changes to the subject's official presence, this point I have already conceded—and if I wasn't clear before, let me be so: I'm conceding this point. The issue is the behavior as noted above, to which others have been all too happy to apply a boomerang effect. If this is how we investigate things here, the project is fucked. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Only in Death, please stop edit warring. These links have been discussed extensively at the Talk page, and the consensus is to keep them. The subject is notable mainly for three things: (1) her appearance on AGT; (2) her YouTube videos; and (3) her new EP. Only in death keeps trying to delete three ELs that are of key interest to any reader of this article. The first links to the subject's main YouTube channel. The second links to the "videos" page of her YouTube channel that features her EP and the songs on the EP. The third links to the appearance on AGT that made the subject notable and famous and has been viewed well over 100 million times on social media (both YouTube and Facebook). It is also suspicious that this person began edit-warring in support of Ronz on the same day that this TBAN request was made. Their edit summaries have some of the same tics of grammar/usage. Is Only in death a sockpuppet of Ronz? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you actually read WP:ELNO, WP:ELOFFICIAL or WP:ELMINOFFICIAL? I suggest you do. You have linked to her youtube channel, her other vevo channel - both of which are linked through her official website, and a youtube video which is *already linked to* in Ref 21. So thats 3 extra links that all fall foul of the above. None of it is 'unique' content and at this point my opinion this is link/ref spamming is increasing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Absent any material in the article relying upon those ELs as a source, they literally add nothing to the encyclopedia. Which means they don't belong. Full stop. While the talk page certainly looks like Ronz is editing against consensus, it's very clear that he's been editing within policy, and refraining from incivility and personal attacks. On the other hand, that talk page is chock full of personal attacks and incivility towards Ronz, and the consensus there is to violate WP:ELNO with no rationale given. I'm all for ignoring policy in favor of consensus when there's a good reason for it, but the reason here boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. Which is a pretty crap reason if you ask me. If it was a good reason, I'd have written two-page book summaries and linked dozens of pieces of official and fan art to The Dresden Files. I think those articles are shamefully short. But I can't justify adding all that, so I don't. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(Addendum) I'd also like to point out that ATS's responses to every bit of criticism in this thread has been a mild personal attack. I'm a little surprised no-ones pointed this out before now, but there it is. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No surprise, this ... —ATS 🖖 talk 21:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Whats more interesting is that considering the length of time both you and Ssilvers have been here, you both do not actually know what vandalism is at all. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Referring to [32] and [33]?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yup - and the above accusations on this page. Now personally I'm quite happy to go to 3rr and stop when its blatantly 'We're going to spam youtube links' againt guidelines. Frankly given the above responses which show they have absolutely no ability to read and understand clear English, I guess its not surprising they also do not know the difference between vandalism and removing unencylopedic content. Also ATS, this is how you know I am belligerent - I stop actually trying to explain things to you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes it all seems aimed at escalating this needlessly tense situation. They have what at the most amounts to a local consensus and questionably so. If they wish to IAR or they think the guidelines and/or policies do not apply in this situation they should have no issue justifying it on the articles talk page and seeking a consensus thru RFC or related process. And if they wish to continue here they should simply be banned. It will allow them time to cool down a depersonalize this.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Frankly given the above responses which show they have absolutely no ability to read and understand clear English, I guess its not surprising they also do not know the difference between vandalism and removing unencylopedic content. Also ATS, this is how you know I am belligerent - I stop actually trying to explain things to you. And that's all that need be said about that. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Belligerent misapplication of EL* in violation of consensus at article talk. There is no "spamming". I'd go back to the comment that was a response to. But this tit for tat bores me. Good day.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment Pardon my French but this is all pure grade A USDA choice bullshit. This has been going on since October. It's time to stop. What I would suggest is that all of you external link warriors open an RFC and get a consensus. After the rfc closes go to WP:ANRFC and seek an official close from a neutral third party. In the event that they can not seek a consensus thru help from the greater wikipedia community ban each one of them. Ronz, ATS, and Ssilver for edit warring. This is a content dispute. Move it along.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

... this is all pure grade A USDA choice bullshit. That much is certain. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to your actions just as specifically as Ronz. I can't note that Ronz is a edit warrior without noting that you are as well. I can't see banning Ronz without banning you and I can't see entertaining your behavior when it only seems aimed at further escalating a needlessly tense situation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

If you say so. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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

There is a consensus at Grace Vanderwaal on every issue. Only Ronz disagreed with the consensus No further dispute resolution is warranted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to ban FoCuSandLeArN due to undisclosed paid editing

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

---

This has become slightly academic since FoCuSandLeArN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has retired today, but given that this user has racked up 70k edits, I think it is important that the community is aware. As I discussed at length on their talk page two weeks ago, I had noticed numerous examples where they'd written articles within days of users uploading photos on commons that were obviously PR shots. They disputed my allegation that they were paid to create them, but User:Doc_James has confirmed through off-wiki communications that at least one of those articles was indeed paid for. What first alerted me though was a major rewrite of Andrew N. Liveris, the CEO of Dow Chemical Company (also majorly rewritten) to which User:Earflaps had added a PR shot (Earflaps ANI for context). Due to extensive use of huggle and drafting articles in their sandbox, it's not easy to work out what they've edited, but I have collected various articles and diffs in User:Smartse/notes. Amongst them:

• Bill Koenigsberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) CEO of Horizon Media which is currently being drafted. An early version of the bio contained PR-copy that I am unable to find online.
• Securities and Exchange Commission v. Banc de Binary Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) an attempted POV-fork of Banc De Binary whose representatives are already banned and which User:Nagle described as having "some of the worst COI problems in Wikipedia history".
• Paul_Singer_(businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) rewrite removes His business practices have been described by detractors as having the characteristics of a vulture fund, a characterization which Singer rejects. As noted on the TP, they made repeated attempts to gain consensus to remove the use of "vulture" e.g.
• Alcoa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Rewrite removed any critical content in Environmental record. Article was previously edited by Mark at Alcoa (talk · contribs).
• Arconic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Company split from Alcoa.
• Kinross Gold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Major rewrite downplays financial losses and expands Corporate responsibility section.
• RadiumOne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Major expansion, article previously attracted COI: [34]
• Bog standard paid editing at CreditEase, Spur Corporation, Dual Universe, Ludovic Le Moan and Sigfox

This represents only a tiny fraction of their edits, but at least to me, I don't see any possibility other than them being a paid editor. Considering they'd been rumbled and I'd warned them that they'd be bought here, it's no surprise that they've retired. While it's purely ceremonial, I still think that we should ban them. It's going to take some fresh thinking to decide how to go about cleaning up. SmartSE (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment I agree the ban is justified. At this point the Wikipedia position is very clear. No ned to risk them coming out of retirement to make a dollar.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I've done some cleanup on Kinross Gold, and many BdB related topics. There's no doubt many of these including the gold mine company have been targeted for major PR wikiwashing. Doc James's discovery of an undeclared off-wiki commercial nexus comes as no surprise. Ceremonial or not, we have to send a clear signal that use of Wikipedia as a corporate PR vehicle is not tolerated. - Brianhe (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I didn't realize they'd actually tried a POV fork at Banc De Binary. For those who came in late, here's the previous Banc De Binary mess on Wikipedia, from 2014: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive844#Banc_de_Binary.2C_Round_2. There was an intense paid editing effort, including an offer of $10,000 to anyone who could "fix" their article on Wikipedia to omit details of their illegal operations in the US. (They lost in US court, and had to stop operating in the US, refund every US customer 100% of customer losses, and pay a sizable penalty.) Since 2014, it's gradually come out that Banc De Binary, and most of the binary options industry, is a large scale scam. There are multiple reliable sources for this.[35][36]. It's become politically embarrassing to Israel's government. Due to a loophole in Israeli law, it's legal to scam non-Israelis from inside Israel. Israel's securities regulator is trying to fix that, but as yet, it's still legal.[37]. There's also a big SEO effort to hide bad stories about binary options, involving a large number of dummy sites promoting binary option companies. What we see on Wikipedia is spillover from all this. John Nagle (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Note: based what appears to be pretty damning evidence here, I will revoke their autopatrolled and new page reviewer rights. BethNaught (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban, since an editor can "unretire" at any time. Miniapolis 23:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban for undisclosed paid editing. Personally I think any articles they have created which have not been significantly edited by another editor should be deleted as well. The only way we will ever get a hand on UPE is by making sure that their edits do not stick. In principle this is no different than how we handle edits by already blocked/banned editors but, since their entire history was in violation of the ToU, it should reach back. Edits in violation of the ToU are more damaging to the project than edits made in violation of a block/ban so should be treated at least as severely. Jbh^Talk 00:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I had rewritten the Kinross article a few years ago, and last year (or maybe earlier) found it had been effectively taken over by someone (not you Brianhe) who I thought might have a COI on the other end of the spectrum (i.e. wanting to make the company look bad, turning the article into a giant financial statement, and misrepresentation of sources). It is such a minimally followed article there wasn't much talk page discussion. I didn't have any issues with the rewrite (not to say it couldn't use more work). I won't be commenting one way or there other on a ban suggestion. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• I support the ban. And I personally agree that retrospective review and deletion of the articles is appropriate. I think the ToU fundamental policy within which enWP operates. There is a specific provision in the ToU that any WMF project may choose to vary the terms with respect to paid editing--for example, Commons has done so. As we have not, it's an implicit endorsement. And of course even without the ToU, this is covered by our general policy against disruptive editing. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Note that I have combed all of the articles involved (including the ones listed above) and it seems we're only encountering the ones in the past 4 months until the last final article contributions, hence it's not a large case here. SwisterTwister talk 02:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @SwisterTwister: I'm not sure what you mean - the dodgy photo uploads started in 2014 and as of yet, we haven't determined the scale of the problem. If there were many problems in the last 4 months, that's probably because that was the time period I looked at. SmartSE (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban and support deletion of all articles that are promotional and not worked on by others Based on both on WP evidence of promotional editing and off wiki evidence of undisclosed paid editing. Their stuff on microorganisms is okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban and the investigation should go further I have only been aware of FoCuSandLeArN's activities at the BdB article, but that's enough all by itself for a ban. That article has been the worst example on Wikipedia of a company inserting material that is harmful to our readers. They've been doing it for years now, e.g. the article was recreated by a sock of Morning277/Wiki-PR. I believe there's a connection with the OrangeMoody paid editing scandal as well. The firm has been banned from soliciting their victims in the US by the SEC *and* the CFTC. They are in the process of being regulated out-of-existence in Israel (where they are based but can't accept customers). Also there are many news articles coming out recently about how the whole binary options industry outside the US is a scam. A rough summary: these "brokers" run fixed online "slot machines" (60 or 30 second minimum time between trades) marketed as "investments". The odds are fixed by the "brokers" who are betting against their "customers" - victims - directly. They try to lock in their victims to make a large numbers of trades. If by some miracle a customer manages to make money, they simply refuse to give their money back. Published reports from reliable sources say that 80% of the customers lose money, but I think that's just being conservative (by about 20%). And finally the "broker" or their software provider have the ability to determine the output (win or lose) of the "slot machine". Average loss for each customer over the life of their trading - something like $20,000.

Sorry if I get a bit emotional about this - but allowing those folks to market their "services" on Wikipedia is just offensive. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Smallbones is right about that. Read this sixteen-part expose of the binary option industry in the Times of Israel.[38]. We're past the point where we have to worry about crusading on Wikipedia as being not NPOV; the mainstream press has done the crusading. There is negative mainstream press coverage from Israel, London, France, Canada, the US, and even Romania. Wikipedia keeps getting hit by the binary option industry because it's one of the few sites that outranks their many SEO-promoted fake news/review sites. Incidentally, it's an affiliate business; most of the industry, several hundred brands including Banc De Binary, are affiliate brands of SpotOption. So we need to watch for other brands as well. It just keeps getting worse; here's a new scam involving up-selling Banc de Binary customers to get them to put the rest of their net worth into affiliated scam operations.[39] John Nagle (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. The only reason an experienced editor with a huge editcount would make undisclosed paid edits is if they had been compromised. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Deletion of articles

Now that this user is banned, let us discuss what articles should be scrutinized, and deleted if necessary. 70k contributions is quite a lot to go through. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

While it may seem counterintuitive, I do not think that Banc De Binary should be deleted. With the civil suits by the CFTC and SEC there were enough facts reported that something like a neutral article could be written. More sources have just become available. Since the original revelations the BdB editors have been trying to get the article deleted. I don't think we should accommodate their wishes on this.

Rather we should look at articles that have not had other editors contributing to the articles.

Perhaps we could alert other editors to look at the articles edited by F&L Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at WP:COIN (permlink) and created an article survey list at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/FoCuSandLeArN. Suggest we mark up that list with the stuff that doesn't have substantial edits by others. - Brianhe (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Definitely keep Banc De Binary. They've achieved notability, and have lots of solid press coverage. Notability for doing bad things, but notability nonetheless. John Nagle (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that Brian. WP:LTA is probably a better place for it though, along with the Earflaps stuff. The non-automated edit tool lists non-automated contribs so will also come in handy (not working for me atm though). SmartSE (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• As I noted above, I have in fact combed all of the non-science articles and subsequently tagged all of the blatant advertisements for deletion, however not given the Commons photos since I'm not involved in that side. There is one last one, the Spur Corporation but it's because it needs a thorough history, one of which I may execute soon. Keep to mind also, 70k contributions are not all about advertising subjects, about 95% of his contribs were in fact for science subjects, and the majority as mentioned above were in fact the last 2-4 months. I managed to also include a few advertising that were from last spring. SwisterTwister talk 03:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Javed_Malik_and_Haider_Qureshi

Someone really need to see this discussion. its getting messy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.98.39.124 (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Page move ban

I hate to do this, but IMHO, it is time that Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned from moving pages. His moves of railway related articles are often controversial and challenged, yet he continues to move pages without discussion.

Evidence of this can be seen at

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_37#Recent article moves removing capitalisation of 'line'
• talk:Woodhead line#Page move
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Foo Line or Foo line?

and elsewhere. The most recent I'm aware of was this move of the Harz Narrow Gauge Railway article which was reverted 3 hours later. That article has been at its current title since April 2009, when it was moved from the German title to its English equivalent in accordance with WP:UE.

Therefore, I propose the following editing restriction:-

Dicklyon is permanently banned from moving any page. He may request page moves through WP:RM, allowing for discussion and consensus to be reached. Mjroots (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Dicklyon has been notified of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support The MOS:CAPS (and MOS:everything else) army have driven enough editors who were far more productive than them away from Wikipedia already; we could probably do with them giving it a rest. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

If I had any idea who or what you're referring to I would respond. This is ridiculous. Dicklyon (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support but it's not enough. The in-article changes are as much of a problem as the page moves. This needs to be broader.

This has particularly been a problem with automated search-and-replace changes, enforcing MOS changes onto the titles of cited books or external businesses. If MOS can be enforced automatically, then have a 'bot do it. If it can't be done so easily, then it needs care. Dicklyon just doesn't see this, he thinks all text strings must conform to some arbitrary MOS rule, no matter the context or consensus. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not what I think. If you have a complaint about what I do, make it explicit, as did you before and I promptly apologized for my mistake and fixed it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't give a damn what you think. What you think is clear, and it's so far from what a significant number of other editors think that we are now here at ANI, discussing whether or not to formally prohibit you from continuing to edit in the way that you think. This is no longer about what you think any more, it's a matter for other editors to decide. You might try to influence us that such changes were right, or that you're no longer going to cause a problem with them, but it's now out of your hands as to whether you'll still be permitted to make them. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I was pushing back on your assertion of what I think. I agree that what I think is not very relevant here, and can't be objectly discussed or evaluated, so why would you insert your opinion of what I think into this discussion? Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• And now you've found a new target, Talk:L1A1 self-loading rifle#Requested move 7 January 2017, to push this same agenda that a simplistic style guide always overrules all subjects, no matter what the context. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

So now I'm not allowed to express an opinion and share book evidence in a requested move discussion? What happend to WP:BRD? Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Express away. But if you're trying to make a case that you can express judgement over renames rather than a blind compulsion to impose one rule, over all others, then it's not really helping you. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see the problem here. At a glance, and as a person unacquainted with these matters, Dicklyon seems to want to bring capitalization of titles in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters, which says that capitals should be reserved for proper names. That seems unobjectionable to me. It's of course possible that this (like other MOS issues) can give rise to heated disputes in individual cases, but neither the request nor the links provided appear immediately indicative of any serious conduct problems concerning Dicklyon, let alone problems warranting a ban.  Sandstein  15:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Dicklyon doesn't seem to understand what a "Proper Noun Phrase" is, which is why the Bittern Line article was moved to Bittern line, despite it being heavily marketed as the Bittern Line by the TOC, Broads Authority and Tourist Information Board. There are many other examples of such moves, most of which have been challenged. Mjroots (talk)
• Support indef Dicklyon was unblocked under the standard offer with the condition that he did not return to carrying out controversial page moves. He has previously been prohibited from carrying out page moves. WP:ROPE... Keri (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  No, he was not prohibited from carrying out page moves, that restriction was from "large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves" (my emphasis). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  "...such as..." (my emphasis.) Keri (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  (EC) Agree here, the restriction was on controversial actions, not on mass page moves, that was just an example of a controversial action. Normally just moving a page to a hyphen-dehyphen would not be controversial, however Dicklyon knows perfectly well it is, has been told before not to do it without discussion, and I think this is the second report in as many weeks about Narrow Gauge hypenation? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Keri: - that is not the proposal on the table. Let's discuss the page move ban, and if enacted see how things go from there. Should it prove necessary, a CBAN discussion can be raised at some point in the future. I hope it won't come to that. Mjroots (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  I hear you, but the page move ban is effectively already in place. Dicklyon has ploughed on with controversial page moves regardless (see eg the comment below from Bradv). Keri (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, but he was *not* "prohibited from carrying out page moves". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  If you are referring - which your quote suggests - to the 3rd link in my comment, it is quite explicit: "I'm imposing a six-month ban on page moves except through WP:RM" (my emphasis) Keri (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Keri: You are correct, and I apologise for my mistake. In April 2015 he was indeed prohibited from page moves for a period of six months. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I went to Dicklyon's talk page to complain about an inappropriate page move, and saw this thread. Bradv 16:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: RM is the prescribed process for determining page names (a content dispute), and these moves mostly go the direction DickLyon proposes. Many of them are edge cases or grey areas, and the reason we have RM process, instead of people moving pages at whim and moving them back, is to have consensus discussions about what the page should be named, based on what policies, guidelines and evidence, and for a body of such discussions over time to make these areas less grey and less edgy, so debate about them ceases. The fact that some of the move proposals don't succeed doesn't somehow mean that DickLyon is being disruptive, it means that DickLyon is not infallible and that the process is working. What is really going on here is that WP is beset by a large number of overcapitalizers (especially for WP:SSF reasons) and people who don't understand the difference between hyphens and dashes. They are naturally, as an aggregate class, going to be irritated by someone who focuses on cleanup of excessive capitalization (against WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS) and incorrect use of horizontal line glyphs (under MOS:DASH), and who like to gang up on him at RM and, periodically, ANI – frequently making uncivil accusations about him in the process. Their own behavior needs to be examined. ANI is not a venue for circumventing RM or any other WP:PROCESS; we have those for a reason. The particular locus of this new dispute seems to be rail transit fans, who are a "particular" lot. But they cannot agree even amongst themselves; our transit and transport articles display a wide variety of conflicting styles, even with regard to the same transit system (e.g. Van Ness Station versus Fruitvale station in the San Francisco Bay Area), and the train fans, highway cataloguers, and other topical camps in the general category frequently contradict each other. With very few exceptions, these editors have no linguistic, professional copyediting, or other background in language and style matters, nor in philosophy (where the nature of what proper names really are is also debated at length), and incorrectly insist that everything they ever see capitalized for any reason in any kind of writing (e.g. signage) is a proper name, and/or that anything with any kind of label, designation, or categorization has a proper name, or both, and they are flat out incorrect. These RM discussion need to happen, with sufficient input and in sufficient number that an actual consensus emerges. Or hold a site-wide RfC on the matter at WP:VPPOL. ANI is not the venue for settling content disputes, and this is entirely a content dispute. This type of content dispute (cf. 2014 huge RfC about capitalization of common names of species, for example) can get heated, but most of the invective about it is hot air and it will dissipate once a consensus emerges one way or the other.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

FTR, Van Ness and Fruitvale are stations on different systems. I would have thought you of all people would know that. EEng 17:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

BART and Muni overlap through most of their downtown SF length, sharing stations (which are city property), and those of us who use them to commute do so as a unified system, with a unified pass, called Clipper. Which governmental body technically owns each station isn't relevant to the points I'm making. And I could have picked other examples, e.g. two Muni stations, or whatever. I just picked two I use every weekday.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

As a former BART consultant I can assure you BART and Muni are hardly a unified system, though it's good to know that the elusive goal of getting patrons to feel that way has been achieved, at least in your case. Your example amused me because I had a front-row seat for this precise station/Station interagency debate in the 90s. The four downtown SF stations are either joint BART/Muni property, or BART property partly leased to Muni -- can't remember which -- but certainly not "city" property. I'm only giving you a hard time because I know you have high standards so you'd want to be set straight. EEng 20:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough! Now I'm curious about those station/Station arguments, but that's for another page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support WP:RM#CM is clear: "The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. The move is potentially controversial if any of the following apply:" when point three applies: "Someone could reasonably disagree with the move." Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dicklyon's explanation below, which, if an accurate reflection of his page moves, seems reasonable. Paul August ☎ 20:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I challenged Dickylon's move of the British narrow gauge slate railways article. He doesn't appear to be interested in following Wikipedia's conventions, or even his own conventions. He is only interested in imposing his own specific interpretations of grammatical rules, no matter the context or the rationales involved.

A few examples. He first claimed that "narrow gauge" should be converted to "narrow-gauge" because Google n-gram search (a notably unreliable mechanism, per Wikipedia's own article) showed that the hyphenated version was the more common. Then when I demonstrated that the common usage in British railway articles was unhypenated, he dismissed that evidence because it was from the specialist press, citing WP:SSF. Okay, so I demonstrated that the usage in the general British press was "narrow gauge" and he dismissed that because newspapers "don't count". He's never explained why newspapers don't count, even though WP:SSF explicitly says they do. All this is at Talk:British narrow gauge railways. He won't accept any evidence that contradicts his personally held beliefs, even when his own guidelines disagree with him. This makes it impossible to have a rational debate with Dickylon. The only rules he wants to follow exist in his mind.

Much worse though, he started to move articles that contained the word "narrow gauge" to their hyphenated version. I politely asked him to revert he changes while the debate continued on Talk:British narrow gauge railways. My understanding is he should at least have waited for the debate to finish before imposing his own interpretation across Wikipedia. Instead he continued on his crusade, ignoring my objections and those of others. I asked him again to stop, pointing him to the debate he had already taken part in. Yet he continued moving pages.

Even when the debate on the talk page was completed and he had failed to generate consensus, he continued to move pages, including the very page under debate.

How is this okay? He is imposing his personal interpretation against consensus, and against guidelines. Far from following policies like [{WP:BRD]] he is riding roughshod over the spirit and letter of Wikipedia at every turn. It's hugely frustrating and a massive waste of time, energy and goodwill. Railfan23 (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you link where you say you challenged my move of the British narrow gauge slate railways article? I think you're mistaken there, along with much of the rest of what you say about me, like what I'm interested in (which is neither true nor relevant), or that I "first claimed that "narrow gauge" should be converted to "narrow-gauge" because Google n-gram search showed that the hyphenated version was the more common". I did not; the n-gram search was about evidence, not about a reason; if you see a place where I said something inappropriate, link it and let others see, too. And if these "narrow-gauge" moves are so bad, why have practically none of them been reverted? The narrow gauge slate railways this morning was the first, I think; and the other one this morning at Harz Narrow Gauge Railways, which I had not known about before this AN/I complaint, since I was sleeping. At the RM discussion, you were the only one opposed to the hyphen, with your silly Br/Am theory that I disproved; nobody backed you up on that pushback, because it made no sense. Bermicourt tried that later in a different context, but then resorted to a much more plausible rationale for the Harz, saying it's the official company name (even though the official company name is actually German and the article is about the lines, more than about the company, and even though it appears lowercase a lot in English-language books, but those are points I'll bring up if we do an RM later; for now, I've been reverted on that one, so next we discuss). So only two reverts out of all these horrible moves, and both while I slept this morning, is reason to ban me from page moving? Dicklyon (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

First, apologies, I got the detail wrong. I objected to your mass move of articles and only to your proposed move of British narrow gauge slate railways here. Your first justification of the hyphenated version in Talk:British narrow gauge slate railways was this one at which you explicitly cite the Google n-gram search. You gave no other justification for why the hyphenated version should be preferred. You may have intended that to be "evidence", not a "reason" - but a reasonable reading of what you wrote, is that you are saying the n-gram search is the justification for your proposed hyphenation.

It was only [later that you said] WP:SSF was the justification for changing "narrow gauge" to "narrow-gauge". Though of course you only apply the very small bit of that guideline that agrees with your personal opinion, and continue to ignore the rest. If you won't stand consistently behind the guideline, don't quote it at all.

I did not revert your page moves because I believe it is better to discuss instead of imposing my opinion. I asked you, twice, on your talk page to revert the moves. I thought that was more productive than just reverting you, and also believed I clearly expressed my wish for them to be reverted. Will you really only respect the outcome of a discussion if you have been reverted first? My objection was just as clear as reverting would have been, while being less disruptive and more respectful. You just continued on making changes over objections, while the debate was still running. Railfan23 (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This venting is off-base and misplaced. See MOS:HYPHEN: narrow-gauge is hyphenated when used as an adjective because compound adjectives are hyphenated (in WP's formal/academic register, anyway, even if some news-style publishers are dropping the practice; WP is not written in news style). As I said above, that's is just an attempt to re-litigate a content dispute in the wrong forum. Your disagreement (a factually incorrect one and WP:POLICY-contradicting one) against Dick_lyon is not an ANI matter, but an RM one. The move in question should certainly not be controverted by a reasonable person, since it comports with both our style guide and other major style guides and grammatical works; the objection is not reasonable. Next, you're welcome to use WP:RM#CM to contest an undiscussed move and open a full RM on it. That's the standardized process for this; ANI is not it. I have to wonder, when this is not done and people open bogus ANIs instead, if its because they suspect that a full RM will (as is typically the case) agree with the move that DL made. PS: I note that some of the "examples" of "disruptive moves" mentioned here were in fact already upheld by RMs; so people are trying to punish DL for successfully demonstrating consensus via the prescribed processes. That strikes me as WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:SYSTEMGAMING.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this is the wrong forum, but I did not bring this here, and it is appropriate for me to respond to Dicklyon's queries. Please don't imply otherwise.

You assert that no reasonable person could revert Dicklyon's moves. It is clearly not the case that all style guides agree with you, nor that the general usage agrees. WP:NOT#NEWS applies to content not style, so isn't relevant. MOS:HYPHEN includes suggestions on hyphenation, not incontrovertible rules. Your own guideline WP:SSF says "Wikipedia and its Manual of Style, article titles policy, and related guidance draw primarily upon reliable general-purpose, broad-scope sources for editing guidelines. These sources include the best-accepted style guides for formal writing – like the current editions of The Chicago Manual of Style ... as well as observation of what is most commonly done in reliable general-audience publications like newspapers and non-specialized magazines and websites". So this assertion that newspaper usage doesn't count is frightfully convenient, but not actually correct.

If there was an indisputable hyphenation rule, then Dicklyon's approach might be sound. But there isn't, and simply asserting that there is doesn't make it so. Given there are reasonable grounds to debate this, we should seek consensus instead of imposing one particular interpretation, especially while the debate is still going on. The real issue is not the merit of a hyphenation rule, but how Dicklyon interacts with other editors. Ignoring requests and on-going debates, constantly changing the goalposts, refusing to debate substantive arguments, ignoring the parts of rules that contradict his position while rigorously enforcing other parts. These are not in the spirit of Wikipedia and should be discussed. Railfan23 (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that there's an indisputable hyphenation rule. All guides talk about having to make choices. But generally, the choice is not that hard, as in this case, and your dispute of it was based on a bogus Br/Am claim, and later on a claim that the hyphen slows the reader down. It became clear that you don't understand hyphens. Nobody else supported you on either of those bogus theories, nor objected on any other basis, until Bermicourt much later and independently came up with the same bogus Br/Am theory (where is this coming from?). Go check some style and grammar books, then we can discuss more. Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Railfan23: Read what you cite. Direct quote from WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia is also not written in news style." That invalidates your entire line of reasoning, that you can rely on news style against MoS. And, yes, DL is correct that your attempt to make this out to be some kind of WP:ENGVAR matter was also faulty.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support The Manual of Style isn't something to blindly obey, it's a guideline. Using it as an excuse to unilaterally push through page moves that don't have any consensus, and refusing to accept that you may be wrong even when the specific things you've done wrong are pointed out to you, is evidence enough that this editor does not have (or does not use) the expertise required to perform page moves. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

See the many relevant RMs; I'm generally careful to stay with consensus when making moves. Dicklyon (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support Mainly because I was already watching the discussion Railfan talks about above, and its clear Dicklyon has no real interest in evidence that doesnt support his preferred version. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Come on, Only, there's no policy about what things I need to have a real interest in. If I did something wrong, say what; or at least say what evidence you think I've done the crime of not being interested in. Dicklyon (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe the term is 'moving the goalposts'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose—Largely per Sandstein, above. This is an abuse of the ANI forum by partisans: very sad to see. Mjroots, you write: "Dicklyon doesn't seem to understand what a 'Proper Noun Phrase' is" (I presume you didn't mean to capitalise it)—tell us, what exactly does it mean, and how is it different from a proper name? Tony (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Dicklyon may occasionally come across as overly pedantic but he is a constructive editor following our policies and guidelines and this is a gross overreaction to a disagreement over whether those policies and guidelines should be followed (on which Dicklyon is, as usual, on the correct side). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. After taking the standard offer, users really need to be on their best behavour from that point on. Yet barely a year later, here we are. I agree with Black Kite's impressions regarding the negative effect of the overly-pedantic MOS editors. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Black Kite had no actual complaint about me. But you, like him, think I should be banned for what some unspecified other group of editors has done in the past? Gee, thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Lenahan, you've made an overtly political statement. I do believe that this forum should minimise political content, just as it should try to distance itself from the personal. In my view, this is a problem with the whole thread. Dicklyon might simply be reminded of the need for care and consultation, and this matter should be thrown out so we can get on with more important things. Tony (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree if you wish, but I have as much right to speak as you do. In fact, if anything the general obnoxiousness and failure to get the point by Dicklyon and his cohorts in this very discussion has further convinced me that this is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with. I stand firmly behind every single word. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this right.
1. Anyone supporting Dicklyon is a "cohort" and their opinions can therefore be dismissed (however, the reverse is not true).
2. Your opposition's failure to concede is further proof that they are wrong and that "this is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with".
That is some of the most remarkable reasoning I've seen in awhile, even in MoS wars. Stand behind it all you like. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

All he did was repeat Black Kite's accusation (or "impressions") of unspecified past transgressions by unspecified editors, as "the negative effect of the overly-pedantic MOS editors". Nothing to refute, nothing to stand behind. I agree it's remarkable, the extent to which he wants to say nothing. We can get the point that he is somehow frustrated about wikignomes and the MOS. It happens. And Meryl Streep is way over-rated. Dicklyon (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

There must be a term for framing a debate in a way that makes it impossible to lose and therefore not a true debate. This is not the first time I've encountered that tactic; not too long ago a 50,000-edit editor stated that the best way to demonstrate my good faith was to agree with his viewpoint. It was bulletproof! Anybody know the term for that? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The claim that Dicklyon is doing mass page moves has no credible evidence. It appears he's prohibited from taking controversial actions, which is an absurd restriction, to too vague to be taken seriously. Under the circumstances, it might be best if he refrained from making controversial moves without an RfC or RM request, but making it a restriction is unjustified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  How are we defining "mass"? Dicklyon move log Keri (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  That's a cool tool I wasn't aware of; thanks for showing us. It shows 250 article moves (plus the corresponding talk pages) since Dec. 4, or about 7.5 per day, somewhat lower than my guess of average 10 per day over the last year. Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per SMcCandlish, Sandstein, David Eppstein, Tony1, et al. I see the target being calmly responsive to criticism, in the face of comments like "I don't give a damn what you think" from a 10-year editor. Such invective is never appropriate, I have seen it before from that side of this longstanding dispute, and it tells me a lot about the situation without spending days studying its history. I have enough exposure to Dicklyon's editing to know that he cares at least as much about process as many of his attackers here. Has the appearance of an ideological witch hunt.
  Look, it is not Dicklyon's fault that the community has failed to reach a clear consensus on the underlying issue; i.e., the role of MoS at en-wiki. He is doing what he feels is right in the absence of clear and unambiguous guidance, and we should not be scapegoating him for our own failure. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – Dicklyon is not a disruptive editor and cares deeply about the integrity of the encyclopedia. AN/I is the wrong venue for this MOS debate. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Not a disruptive editor? I'll just leave this here. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for linking that discussion. I'm still hoping to hear someone explain what those editors are smoking; no implication that's it's illegal, but certainly seems mind-bending. Dicklyon (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The simple fact is, that was your response when it was pointed out to you that something was a proper noun, and should therefore not be arbitrarily given lower case letters. It's an uncivil response because you're not willing to accept that you may be wrong. If you're not willing to defer to the opinions of people from a relevant Wikiproject, and instead you're slavishly (and in this case incorrectly) following the guidelines in the Manual of Style, then it calls into question that long list of page moves. Is anyone going to volunteer to check through every single one and make sure that a lack of core knowledge hasn't pushed through moves that have over-ridden the opinions of people who are better versed in the subject matter? Exemplo347 (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The point of my jest was that the linked web page there did not support the opinion that it was cited in support of. Opinions are fine, as far as they go, and I'm sure most of us have some; but decisions based on consideration of evidence are more useful in such discussions, which is why I was poking fun there. If I'm wrong, please do show me. Anyway, this RM discussion is pretty far off topic here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Seemed good-natured ribbing to me, and the point Dicklyon raised was correct. The "source" chosen does not in any way indicate that the phrase is a proper name.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Question: What percentage of Dicklyon's page moves turn out to be overturned? As far as I can tell only a very small percentage. If so then preventing him from doing moves would be a significant loss for the encyclopedia. Paul August ☎ 18:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. I estimate about 1% usually, but there have been a few clusters that might push that up a bit, such as the group of 7 Japanese railway lines that I downcased on 10 Dec. that all got reverted; leaving that alone until I get around to discussion. And the sneak-attack at Talk:2016 NFL Draft#Requested move 30 April 2016, a single-page RM at a new article, watched by very few and probably only be NFL fans, which was interpreted as overturning all the XXXX NFL draft article titles that had been stable since I had downcased them in 2014 (see why I did: [40], [41]). So maybe 2 or 3%. Or maybe I'm in denial and someone can show that it's higher than that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

That percentage would need to be compared with the percentage for the average editor (or the average editor with x+ edits/page moves maybe). It could just be that a large number were left alone because none cares. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the average editor has anything to do with it. We simply want to know whether his moves are a net plus, or a net minus, for the project. And that no one "cares" about a move would seem to constitute reasonable prima facie evidence that it was OK. Paul August ☎ 19:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, per SMcCandlish, Sandstein, Arthur Rubin, Tony1, et al. I've had limited interaction with Dick, but I've no doubt whatsoever that he is here to improve the encyclopedia, and is a net-positive to the project. This is draconian. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It's worse than draconian, which would be something like a lone "I am the law!" admin taking terribly harsh action against Lyon and anyone who agrees with him. What we have here is more like a cluster of villagers with torches and pitchforks trying to chase someone out of town and into the swamp because he talks different from them. (Fortunately, people along the road are objecting and stopping the mob.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Yeah, my "witch hunt" was the wrong metaphor; the word I was looking for is "lynching". And that's about as counter to Wikipedia's core principles as one can get. Thankfully, it's looking like the mob has lost this one, so the principles still have some life in them. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Why am I getting the impression that it's me vs Dicklyon here? I wasn't the only one who complained about his moving of articles over a period of several months. There were plenty of others. I think this discussion has now run for long enough, so it should be closed by an uninvolved admin. As I said elsewhere in this discussion, I did consider indeffing Dicklyon; but I thought it would be be better for all concerned to raise the issue here. Whatever happens now, I wish Dicklyon the best for the future and hope that he will continue to edit. Mjroots (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
        • I don't know why you're getting that impression, especially immediately following mention of villagers, mob, lynching, etc. If Dicklyon or any of his so-called cohorts repeatedly fails to observe Wikipedia process, let us know. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose I have read this whole page, including the below discussions. I am convinced that banning Dicklyon would be a miscarriage, and any sanction would be inappropriate. First, there is no evidence that Dicklyon has been disruptive either in the short term or the long term. In fact, the preponderance of evidence points to Dicklyon editing in accordance with guidelines and polices.

Second, it seems the complainant is overreacting by bringing this issue to ANI and by having considered a more draconian alternative (please see below) - and that the alternative was in any way reasonable. In light of this, I recommend this person take a wiki break due to WP:INVOLVED.

Third, assuming good faith, there is a small cluster of editors who are relying on sources that are specialist or ambiguous and therefore not sufficient for determining the correct letter case for the title and when it is used in the body of the article. It is clear from the discussions on this page, and the discussions that have been linked to, WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS and WP:SSM, along with related guidelines, are the appropriate references for article title conventions on Wikipedia.

Articles are supposed to be consistent across Wikipedia, and not edited according to a mish mash of rules by various groups of people across Wikipedia. This is because we are striving to become a premier or the premier reference work as an encyclopedia - so that is why we follow these conventions (please see: WP:NCCAPS). Dicklyon edits in agreement with these principles and guidelines - so we shouldn't even be here, at this ANI.---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Black Kite, Keri, Lugnuts, Railfan, Exemplo347, Only in death, and Starblind. He was unblocked on the condition that he make no controversial page moves, and these moves are controversial and have been objected to. And they are extensive: [42] Adding hypens and en-dashes makes searching more difficult; people have objected more than once but he doesn't seem to be getting the message. WP:RM#CM says "[A] move is potentially controversial if ... [s]omeone could reasonably disagree with the move." He also aggressively pursued Nyttend across multiple forums about his close of the RM for Steamboat Bill, Jr.: [43], [44], [45]. It's time to just put this disruption to rest. Softlavender (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I already discuss below how I reacted to the few moves that were challenged; if you think there are others where my reaction was inappropriate, can you point them out? And on the use of dashes between person names, are you saying that's controversial now? I thought that was settled in 2011. None of these have been challenged, which is why I was working on that while waiting for this railroad challenge to resolve. Dicklyon (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Response from Dicklyon

Quite a Saturday morning surprise here, after a long spell of routine work with relatively little pushback from editors of the affected pages. Yes, I move a lot of pages, largely for style and punctuation reasons. In the last 12 months I've probably moved nearly 3000 pages, that is, an average of nearly 10 per day, with bursts as high as 30 moves on a busy day. None of this is done "in mass" using tools; it's almost always done carefully, checking sources and history, though there have been exceptions where I made mistakes due to insufficient care.

The current complaint seems to be all about the railroads, where there was a cluster of British line articles where caps were widely applied to generic words, and compound "narrow gauge" when used as a modifier was lacking the hyphen that would help a reader parse it. I usually follow WP:BRD, doing a bold move, and discussing it if it gets reverted. But very few have been reverted.

Mistakes

Yes, I've made a few mistakes, like moving again after not noticing a revert in two cases that I'm aware of.

• Take a look at Talk:Woodhead line#Requested move 17 December 2016, where I confessed to that mistake and opened a discussion. The move passed, and generally reaffirmed the idea that "line" should be lowercase except in cases where sources support interpretation as a proper name, such as Midland Main Line and East Coast Main Line.
• On Bittern Line and Wherry Lines, I immediately apologized, self-reverted, and cleaned up all incoming links when Mjroots reverted one and gave good evidence that these are treated as proper names. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Foo Line or Foo line?
• In a couple of cases I got interrupted or forgot what I was doing, and didn't finish checking replacements via search-and-replace, and left some very wrong styling in the middle of book titles that I didn't intend to touch, as Andy Dingley pointed out on my talk page. I apologized of course, and make no excuse for such occasional lapses of care, but it's not the usual thing or worth a complaint at AN/I.

Downcasing line

I started a big multi-RM back in November on this: Talk:Chester–Manchester line#Requested move 2 November 2016. Closer Bradv concluded that "there appears to be a consensus to avoid capitalizing the word 'line'. This consensus matches the original proposal, so we can move them all as proposed." This was after a no-consensus close at Talk:Settle–Carlisle line that approved the en dash between place names but left the line case undecided. In all cases, my opinions, and subsequent moves, were aligned with the consensus, and with the guidelines of our MOS.

Reviewing my notifications for reverts, I found one more move reverted in the last month, at Wirral line. The reverter notified me, we had a quick discussion, he withdrew his objection, and I moved it again. That's successful WP:BRD in action. Then Redrose64 move protected it for move warring, which seems kind of silly after a peace treaty where everyone is happy.

Walking a fine Line

In the November discussion that Mjroots links at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_37#Recent_article_moves_removing_capitalisation_of_.27line.27, my "opponents" express opposing views: Rcsprinter123 says "we can't be looking at this on a case-by-case basis...", while Andy Dingley says "These need to be discussed and decided on a case by case basis." I'm generally somewhere in between. As Andy says, each one needs to researched and decided; but in the past it was done Rcsprinter123's or Mjroots's way, in which they were all made arbitrarily "consistent" by capitalizing. For most, sources don't support caps, so those are the ones I was moving. In almost all cases, the move I did was either not reverted or sustained after discussion, so I think that indicates that I've mostly researched things correctly. Where I haven't, I'm happy to be shown, and fix it. And any one that Andy thinks needs to be discussed, he can revert (but probably not in bulk as Nathan A RF and Rcsprinter123 did, which got them slapped around a bit there). Dicklyon (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Narrow gauge

One editor, Railfan123, told me that it's British to not bother with the hyphen when using "narrow gauge" as a modifier, as in Narrow-gauge railway. He didn't revert me. I showed him that he was wrong, that in books, the hyphen there is about equally more common in British English as in American English. Other editors supported that, both on my talk page and in an RM about something in which I said that if we going to move it, or not, we should fix the hyphen to help the reader parse it. Given the obvious support in sources and among editors, I went ahead and did a bunch of these, with almost no pushback. Another editor, Bermicourt, came later to my talk page with the same Br/Am theory, and I pointed him at the other discussion, and he agreed to disagree, ignoring the evidence.

A huge number of my edits (as opposed to moves) in this space were in articles that obviously never had the attention of anyone who understands typography or style, wikipedia's otherwise. Tons of spaced hyphens needed to fixed to unspaced or spaced dashes, or unspaced hyphens, depending on context. This took a lot of work. Similarly, the titles had been made by the same editors and never really looked at for style or otherwise in so many cases. I'll willing to be reverted and discuss when someone disagrees, but there were very few reverts or talk items in this area, and the ones there were were based on the made-up theory of Br/Am differences in hyphenation.

British narrow gauge slate railways

See Talk:British narrow gauge slate railways#Requested move 30 December 2016 where we talked about the hyphen extensively. The non-admin closer Bradv said "The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus to keep this where it is, as some of the railways listed are elsewhere in Britain, and it is felt that there isn't enough content to write separate similar articles for Cornwall, Scotland, and England. (non-admin closure)." This comment about British vs Welsh had no relationship to the other part of the discussion, which was not part of the proposal, to hyphen "narrow-gauge" in that context. Given the apparent consensus to do so, and given the closer's lack of any comment on that question (not to mention that this non-admin doesn't know the difference between no consensus and "consensus to keep this where it is"), I went ahead and did the less controversial hyphen move. This pissed him off and he reverted it, which is fine, then he came to my user page to threaten me about it, and now he's here. Was this reverted bold move really an actionable offense, or suitable for a non-admin to be threatening to have me blocked? Seems to me re-opening a more focused RM discussion there would be the right path now.

Recent RM discussions I opened

I've opened a number of move discussions when things got controversial. Please review recent ones and see that I'm generally trying to follow WP:BRD, and acting quite sensibly.

• Talk:Huddersfield Line#Requested move 6 January 2017 – currently open; classic case of specialists wanting over-capitalization; so we talk.
• Talk:Volcanic Explosivity Index#Requested move 4 January 2017 – currently open; similar deal.
• Talk:Woodhead line#Requested move 17 December 2016 – closed in favor of my proposal to use lowercase, after I had been reverted.

Few of my British line moves got reverted, and the discussions (e.g. at Woodhead line) reaffirmed that we follow WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS; so I kept at it. On 10 Dec. I also started moving Japanese lines when I noticed a similar cluster of over-capitalization there, but those 7 all got reverted, so I immediately stopped and left it alone; will start discussions there at some point, since sources support lowercase.

The complainer

Mjroots is the author of the ridiculous proposal at this edit to ignore one of our most longstanding guidelines about title capitalization, so should not be taken too seriously; he wrote there:

Proposals

1. That all railway line articles are housed at the title that has "... Line" in capital letters (Foo Line, Foo Branch Line, Foo Main Line etc).
2. That all such articles are moved protected at Admin level.

Respond below; please don't insert comments inside my comments. Dicklyon (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

My proposal is ridiculous? Maybe it is in Dicklyon's eyes. It it doesn't gain acceptance then I won't dwell on it. What I am trying to do it prevent further instances of arguing over page moves, both with that proposal and the one up for discussion here. Regulars here at ANI will appreciate that it is rare occurrence when I start a thread here. I try not to let it get so bad that such action is necessary. The impression I get from Dicklyon is that he is firmly in the WP:IDHT camp. So here we are with the page move ban under discussion. Mjroots (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I do hear loud and clear that you do not like me changing "Line" to "line" in any article titles, and that you'd prefer all such to be capitalized in titles, whether proper name or not. I just think that proposal, being contrary to WP:NCCAPS, is way off base. And when it got no traction in discussion, you surprised me with an AN/I complaint, which seems equally extreme. As for arguing over page moves, that's what we do routinely at WP:RM; we can do more of it or less of it, but cutting it off by ignoring longstanding titling policy and guidelines seems like a non-starter, doesn't it? Dicklyon (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Mjroots proposal is nonsensical. The first part ("my topic is magically special and so must be immune to WP's style guidelines") is why we have WP:CONLEVEL policy, otherwise every wikiproject and other clump of editors would declare their pet topics exempt from every guideline and policy. The second part is why m:The Wrong Version was one of the community's first essays; it wisely mocks the idea that administrative power should be used to lock articles in some supposedly correct form.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Is Mjroots an admin? It appears he prefers a BRP (bold–revert–protect) approach, per this admin action. Dicklyon (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm an admin, have been for 7 years. Perhaps you would have preferred that I indeffed you rather than starting this discussion? Believe me, I was close to doing it. As for the locking of the Harz Narrow Gauge Railways article at a title which it had been at since April 2009, if there is any admin who thinks that my action was heavy-handed, please feel free to remove the move protection from the article. Mjroots (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Mjroots. IMHO, admins should stick to resolving behavior issues. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: in part, this is a behaviour issue. Contrary to what Mandruss has claimed above, it is not a personal dispute between myself and Dicklyon. There are many other editors who have challenged his page moves over a number of months. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I appreciate the ping, as I would like to correct your mischaracterization of my words. I suspect you're referring my phrase "ideological witch hunt", and witch hunts are not personal disputes between two editors. I don't think I referred to you explicitly or otherwise. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: - I may have misinterpreted in the face of comments like "I don't give a damn what you think" from a 10-year editor as referring to myself. I don't think I've ever said that. I do give a damn about editors opinions. If I think they are wrong then I'll engage in reasoned argument without resorting to name-calling, incivility and the like - pretty sure I've managed that here. As I said above, there is a specific problem, and an attempt to find a solution to that problem, which we are discussing here. Mjroots (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Referenced comment is on this page, in this complaint. Ctrl+F is your friend. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, seen and understood. Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots:, your user page notes that one of your hobbies is railways. I think that's awesome, and sorry we collided on some minor style issues in that content area. However, per WP:INVOLVED, probably it would be best if you would refrain from using your admin powers in such cases, like you did to no useful effect on the Harz article; you can call for neutral admin help as well as any other editor can. And to characterize a single revert as move warring is prejudicial; please don't do that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, the premise of your complain here has your involvement build in: "His moves of railway related articles are often controversial and challenged" and is factually incorrect, since only a few of my moves of railway related articles have been challenged. Dicklyon (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Three comments: Mjroots should probably not be crowing about how he was going to indef an editor whom ANI respondents are increasingly defending against Mjroots's less excessive move-ban idea; I don't think it's Dicklyon who was lucky Mjroots did not take such a misguided action, which would have been challenged and questioned even more strongly. I agree that Mjroots seems not exactly administratively neutral about the topic, either. When more and more respondents are telling Mjroots that this is a content dispute not a behavior matter, and evidence (e.g. Dicklyon's actual RM success rate, and low rate of reverted moves) disprove the allegation of disruptive behavior, it's time for Mjroots to just retract; there's clearly not going to be a consensus for sanctions anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• No word in bold from me, but a word of caution: I think this discussion is at the wrong level. Yes, editors who are focused on the manual of style are often frustrating to deal with. Yes, they do all too frequently drive away people who're doing far more useful and productive work than they do. But I think it's important not to take out that frustration on Dicklyon personally. In my view the way to deal with capitalisation is to start a larger-scale discussion about it where we can vent all this obloquy and then get the WMF to come up with a software solution that accommodates the capitalisation preferences of the user on the client side without affecting the server side. (It'd be far more useful than the ill-thought-out rubbish they waste programmer time on at the moment.)—S Marshall T/C 23:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended comment by ClemRutter

Putting a break here, as this comment by CR is only partially on-topic, and necessitated a lengthy response; this side discussion shouldn't impede others' participation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Strong comment As I have never sought to be an admin, and rarely if ever touched a railway article I do not usually comment on admin pages. I also have respect for editors real lives and try not to follow up on poor behaviour over Diwali, Hannukah, the 12 days before Epiphany etc. I recognise and appreciate the efforts of the team SMcCandlish/DickLyon in trying to enforce consistency- but despair that they cannot accept when they are wrong. I am enfuriated when superior knowlege of redundant arcane wiki-procedure is used to stifle debate. Talk:Woodhead line#Requested move 17 December 2016 is not closed. The judgement that 5 for and 5 against is consensus cannot stand. Please examine the debate, and see the tactics that were used to enforce downcasting on the name of a line. The title was following MOS:GEOUNITS, end of story. The line was closed after Beeching cuts so it no longer exists, and is now mainly called the Longdendale trail, or the Woodhead Route.

I note that here, the debate appears to have been terminated by an interjection from one of the parties forcing the wrong level of indentation. I was not pinged to inform me that this debate was taking place, finding out in general conversation at the London Wikimeetup. I still do not understand why a fellow admin overrode Redroses edit-warring protection, or why someone slapped an inappropriate frightening looking template on my talk page.User talk:ClemRutter#Just FYI Please view- I have left it untouched as an exhibit.

After the team terminated the debate on Talk:Woodhead line#Requested move 17 December 2016, I opened a new section Talk:Woodhead line#Procedure and what we have learned There are two ways forward, one is sitting in the newspaper archives at Stockport Central Library for several days, or we can refer back to MOS:GEOUNITS and look for precedent and implication. MOS:GEOUNITS (is part of CAPs policy) and I cited Panama Canal for an example of a linear geographical feature, then there is the Kiel Canal, Suez Canal and of course the big ditch itself the Manchester Ship Canal. All these exist have good sources to verify the ultimate word is capitalised. Very little is now being written about modern UK lines, but we did start an article on the Ordsall chord : it had to be capitalised as we got it wrong. All contemporary sources show that it needed to be upcapped Ordsall Chord does follow MOS:GEOUNITS validating the the policy and the providing us with the precedent we need. Even so, if consensus hasn't been reached then right or wrong we revert the spelling to the one used as the article passes from stub to start.

At the point when 'consensus' was redefined to mean what ever it needed to mean- I was fairly convinced that I was a pawn in an edit war, and tonight I fully expect to have my words redefined and some other arcane trivial regulation to be thrown at me.

Can we also include Glossop Line in the list of over-enthusiastic downcapping.

The High Peak and Hope Valley Community Rail Partnership.

The Glossop Line is part of the High Peak and Hope Valley Community Rail Partnership (HP&HVCRP). The CRP was reconstituted in 2008 from a Rural

Transport Partnership that had been in existence for over 10 years.

Source:/www.gov.uk/government/uploads

We will find downcased examples, but above we see the modern government casing for the totality of the line. Also if you made a site visit you will find colloquial usage for the short chord from Dinting Junction to Glossop is often downcased, to distinguish it from the chord from Dinting Junction to Hadfield. Yes both exist, and a local still often get it wrong. It is a gross waste of time, to have to explain over and over again why downcasing is an error.presu

This page is not designed to discuss the a feature of British English, but to decide how to persuade a pair of editors from imposing their strong POVs, against policy and consensus. I am not admin so I cannot take part in that discussion- but I would welcome a solution that encourages them to keep up their efforts on working to improve WP, but prevents them from mistakenly editing the title of any article that is written on a UK subject, or has a Use British English tag. Regretfully, --ClemRutter (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I fully support what you've said - many of the people who have commented here in support of DickLyon are currently attempting to prevent the capitalisation of "Self Loading Rifle" even though it's the proper name and the WP:COMMONNAME of the British Army's former main service rifle. It's purely based on a misunderstanding of military nomenclature, there's no bad faith involved, but the general unwillingness to listen to people who are more well informed on the subject matter is part of a pattern with DickLyon - and yes, I'm still annoyed about him saying "What are you smoking?" and then saying it was just a joke when called up on his incivility. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been involved at L1A1 self-loading rifle, but I have now looked at it. It's an open RM and Dicklyon is participating in the RM process as he is supposed to do. He has not moved that article. If the consensus goes against him, I have no doubt he will defer to it. If it goes against you, I expect the same from you. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that I'm aware of that requires editors to "listen to people who are more well informed on the subject matter". So Dicklyon is conforming to process and you are inventing your own rules of Wikipedia decision-making. I submit that any disruption there is yours and anybody's who supports that sort of reasoning. It seems to me that a large part of this conflict results from editors whose voice volume far exceeds their knowledge of how Wikipedia works. And some all too quick to be highly offended about innocuous comments like "What are you smoking?". It is all becoming very clear. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

[Sorry this is long and detailed, but the mega-post it responds to covered a lot of ground.] @ClumRutter: You must not care much about the capitalization after all, since I just had to create that redirect to Longdendale Trail to fix your redlink. Anyway, If it's now "mainly called" that, then Woodhead line should be moved to that title, per WP:COMMONNAME policy, and the scope adjusted to focus on its modern use as other than a railway line, with the useless micro-stub of content at Longdendale Trail merged in. Why hasn't this been done? Could it because that would raise territorial hackles at a wikiproject that is unusually proprietary, and on a topic that is renowned for attracting obsessives' attention? Even if it's just a temporary oversight, aren't you just arguing heatedly but pointlessly about a moot matter and, worse, also helping push highly personalized drama-mongering about it at WP's kangaroo court, in a "case" explicitly intended to drive away another editor? (Note above that the admin who lodged this ANI said he did so in lieu of personally indefinitely blocking Dicklyon from WP entirely). So, pray tell, what is your justification for this, especially given that you decry style disputation as something that drives away editors? Is it okay to drive away editors as long as they're ones you personally find inconvenient?

"We will find downcased examples ... – That's the end of the matter right there, really. If RS are not consistent on the matter, do not use the Special Capitalization or other excessive stylization. This is a general rule found at MOS:CAPS, MOS:TM, and elsewhere, and the same basic principle can also be found in WP:COMMONNAME. You continued: "... but above we see the modern government casing" – So what? See WP:OFFICIALNAME. WP is not written in "Official UK Government Style". Governmental writing has a very strong tendency to capitalize virtually everything on which it focuses, even briefly (especially if there's anything governmental about that itself, e.g. a part of a transit system), and it does this explicitly as a form of emphasis, not because any linguists or any style manuals aside from the government's own would agree it made sense. First rule of MOS:CAPS: Do not capitalize as a form of emphasis.

Moving on, your belief that something is a proper noun does not make it one just because you keep repeating it in the face of evidence to contrary. Dicklyon (and I) have no trouble admitting when RMs do not go our way. We take that in stride and move on to other cleanup. Rather, it is insular camps like various transit-related projects who continue to fight article by article by article against the exact same types of moves even after RM precedent turns against them again and again. (See WP:TE.) When a proponent of one MOS segment (e.g. GEOUNITS at MOS:CAPS) is arguing against others who cite much more of MOS:CAPS (with support from MOS:TM and several others, including non-MoS guidelines like WP:NCCAPS), and that editor is then trying to make his opponents out to be "infuriating" and "despair"-inducing MoS obsessives, that person very badly needs to read WP:KETTLE and find something else to do here.

BTW, you are not interpreting GEOUNITS correctly, and I would know since I wrote most of it. Woodhead line is none of an: institution, organization, or other legal entity; nor city, county, country, or other political or geographical unit. It's a former strip of train track, that was the property of various entities of the first sort, and ran between and through entities of the latter sort. And this was already clearly explained, repeatedly, at the RM. So why are you playing WP:ICANTHEARYOU about it here?

The fact of the matter is that these routine MOS:CAPS cleanup moves are opposed by no one but tiny clusters of one-topic-focused editors who persist, sometimes for years, in trying to mimic styles they find in specialist publications or on "official" signage instead of writing in encyclopedic style for a broad audience. It is a style that minimizes capitalization (not just because MoS says so but because the off-WP mainstream style guides MoS is based on also do the same, thus mainstream, general-audience publications do so – a real-world, average-user expectation of how English works, across all dialects and formal registers). The misguided belief that wikiprojects can declare themselves exempt from site-wide guidelines and policies on a random-preference whim is where the MoS- and WP:AT-related disruption comes from in this and in a high percentage of other instances. It's time for that sort of "our topic is a unique snowflake, so no general rule can ever apply to it" special pleading to come to an end. It wastes a tremendous amount of editorial energy, for no good reason and with no good result. See also MOS:FAQ#SPECIALIZED.

No one would dare try this approach with any other guideline, and it needs to stop with this one. Can you imagine someone, with a straight face, trying to convince us that WP:FRINGE did not apply to feng shui because feng shui is just different and has its own standards? That WP:SAL applies to all lists except lists about cheese? That MOS:TM doesn't apply to heavy metal music because using all-caps, decorative fonts, and fake umlauts are "normal" in metal magazines? That WikiProject Anthropology's templates are immune to WP:TMP? Anyone notice that any time something like this comes up at ArbCom, the result is that wikiprojects are told, yet again, that WP:CONLEVEL policy really does pertain to them too and really is about their behavior (e.g. in WP:ARBINFOBOX, etc.)? Anyone notice that the last time a wikiproject decided guidelines didn't apply to them and they could make up their own rules and require other editors to comply, the RfC turned 40 to 15 against them (with almost all of the 15 being participants in that project, i.e. they got near-zero external support, plus did not even get much support from their own fellows in the same wikiproject)?

I have to wonder just what the hell it takes before it sinks in that WP has its own style manual, title policy, and naming conventions (and history of precedent in working out their interaction). How many chest-beating, territorial threat displays have to have cold water dumped on them before it is finally understood that even if you refuse to write to conform to WP's style, other editors are permitted to and will fix the noncompliance later? If you submitted an article to Nature or The New York Times, you would conform to their style guide, or an editor there would bring it into conformance before publication. WP is no different, other than we're volunteers here with no deadline, so the compliance often comes along later.

Actually, the article itself suggests why there's this fight-to-the-death push to capitalize in this case: "The Woodhead line has achieved a cult status with collectors of railway memorabilia." It's a fandom matter, i.e. yet another WP:SSF. And now you're here trying to WP:CANVASS people into re-litigating that just-closed RM at a new thread you opened immediately under it? Seriously? At ANI itself? If you think the closer erred, take it to WP:MR, the prescribed process for challenging RM closes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I have to wonder just what the hell it takes before it sinks in that WP has its own style manual, title policy, and naming conventions...

I have to wonder when it will sink in that the MOS is a guideline and not a religious doctrine and that people like you and Dicklyon aren't its High Priests and Defenders of the Faith? --Calton | Talk 10:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Editor making hoax articles and additions about an actress

Hongseol1298 originally created an article about Baek Shin Ji, an actress that does not exist. She was claimed to star in multiple TV shows, but all of them were in 2018 or later, and google turned up nothing. This user has made many socks, to put this false information into multiple articles. So far, here are the socks (some found by Chrissymad):

• Hongseol98
• 112.215.151.142
• 112.215.170.206
• 112.215.45.18
• 112.215.170.128
• 112.215.200.123
• 112.215.151.24
• 112.215.201.192
• 112.215.152.228

Can admins keep an eye out for edits relating to Korean actresses that don't exist? Thanks. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 Note: Hongseol1298 blocked indef by Widr -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 16:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I had to read that twice. Keeping an eye out for edits about non-existent actresses is necessary. However, keeping an eye out for non-existent actresses sounds like a sign of mental disorder. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Added a couple, will update with more shortly. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

From the deleted contribs, here's a couple more:

• 112.215.171.89
• 112.215.152.91

-- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 17:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Range Information

Here is the relevant IP Range information for interested administrators --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorted 10 IPv4 addresses:

112.215.45.18

112.215.151.24

112.215.151.142

112.215.152.91

112.215.152.228

112.215.170.128

112.215.170.206

112.215.171.89

112.215.200.123

112.215.201.192

Total affected	Affected addresses	Given addresses	Range	Contribs
64K	65536	10	112.215.0.0/16	contribs
32K	1	1	112.215.45.18	contribs
	32768	9	112.215.128.0/17	contribs
17K	1	1	112.215.45.18	contribs
	16384	7	112.215.128.0/18	contribs
	512	2	112.215.200.0/23	contribs
4611	1	1	112.215.45.18	contribs
	4096	4	112.215.144.0/20	contribs
	512	3	112.215.170.0/23	contribs
	1	1	112.215.200.123	contribs
	1	1	112.215.201.192	contribs
644	1	1	112.215.45.18	contribs
	256	2	112.215.151.0/24	contribs
	256	2	112.215.152.0/24	contribs
	128	2	112.215.170.128/25	contribs
	1	1	112.215.171.89	contribs
	1	1	112.215.200.123	contribs
	1	1	112.215.201.192	contribs
10	1	1	112.215.45.18	contribs
	1	1	112.215.151.24	contribs
	1	1	112.215.151.142	contribs
	1	1	112.215.152.91	contribs
	1	1	112.215.152.228	contribs
	1	1	112.215.170.128	contribs
	1	1	112.215.170.206	contribs
	1	1	112.215.171.89	contribs
	1	1	112.215.200.123	contribs
	1	1	112.215.201.192	contribs

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

From what I can see there doesn't appear to be an IP range that would be blockable for this particular vandal. I'm going to ping KrakatoaKatie, DeltaQuad to take a second look since they are more familiar with ranges but here is the info regardless. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You can't block any range there without hitting a crap ton of collateral. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Way too much there to rangeblock. Katie^talk 21:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like a job for the edit filter to me. -- The Anome (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I've created Special:AbuseFilter/822. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234

User:Sportsfan_1234 reverted my edits repeatedly without a valid reason at [46].

• Sportsfan 1234 claimed that I needed to "Wait for an engish source." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Figure_skating_at_the_2017_Asian_Winter_Games&type=revision&diff=756925140&oldid=756919398) even though non-English sources are allowed (WP:NONENG).
• when I restored the ref and asked "Which Wiki rule says that sources have to be in English?", Sportsfan 1234 reverted my edit again. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Figure_skating_at_the_2017_Asian_Winter_Games&type=revision&diff=757319650&oldid=757287621) This editor then replaced my reference (an official source from Japan) with a fansite.
• I restored the official source due to WP:NOENG and WP:RELIABLE, source should be "of equal quality".
• Sportsfan 1234 reverted my work a third time, saying "Who determines if its equal value? The website is of equal importance if anything. Start a talk page discussion please." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Figure_skating_at_the_2017_Asian_Winter_Games&type=revision&diff=757402380&oldid=757394650) No explanation as to how a fansite is of equal value to an official source.
• In fact, I had already started a discussion on Sportsfan 1234's talk page but they deleted it [47]
• Sportsfan 1234 claimed it was "extremely sloppy and lazy" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHergilei&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=757410827&oldid=757406227) that I didn't fill out a particular field in a citation, even though there's no obligation to fill all of them out.
• In the past couple of days, this person has nominated seven of my articles for deletion.

I feel this is harassment to keep targeting me like this, in such a persistent manner. There's been a lot of discussion about Gender bias on Wikipedia. Well, aggressive behaviour like this is one of the reasons why there are so few women editors here. Hergilei (talk)

I said wait for an English source because from my experience working with Thai ad Japanese sources, there usually is an English one that comes out shortly after. As for the source in question I did add it back [48]. I was unaware the English source I added is a 'fan site' but it does get the information across in the English language. As for this example [[49] you falsely put the wrong title (in English, versus the actual Thai title). To me that is sloppy and lazy. Please refer to the respective deletion threads for reasons why they are nominated. Please stop playing the victim here. You have gone ahead and added references to three of the articles nominated for deletiom (which to me shows they do not meet criteria to be on Wikipedia prior to the addition of these references). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't "falsely put the wrong title". I undid an edit because "Wait for a english source." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Asian_Winter_Games&type=revision&diff=755876534&oldid=755868580) was not a valid reason to revert Golf-ben10's edit. An English source may come along but it might not. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Since non-English sources are allowed (WP:NONENG), there's no reason to keep reverting when other people try to include them. Hergilei (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

And I didn't revert that edit. I removed it for being incorrectly formatted and I added a source in Thai (which by the way was properly formatted). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Funny business with some articles

While reviewing something else I noticed an interesting edit pattern. It seems like there exist at least two articles where many different accounts and IPs exclusively edit. It appears to be that these are throwaway accounts.

This alone is of course not the problem here but I will document several of these accounts and their odd edit pattern below. By no means is this exhaustive evidence.

Evalueserve (article marked with {{advert}}

1. Saran.kondapaturi (talk · contribs) - 6 edits on ~18:50, 8 July 2016
2. Iulia.rotaru (talk · contribs) - sporadic 22 edits between 21 July 2015 and 24 November 2016
3. Alexradavoi (talk · contribs) - single edit on 15 May 2015
4. 193.226.164.171 (talk · contribs) - 8 edits on 2 September 2015
5. Inkuku (talk · contribs) - sporadic 13 edits between 26 November 2010 and 26 August 2015 + two edits to Uslar
6. Ajitreddy (talk · contribs) - 1 edit on 9 March 2013 + two edits to Manik Sarkar
7. Fabian baeza (talk · contribs) - 1 edit on 28 August 2013
8. Anastasia moga (talk · contribs) - 2 edits on 6 November 2012 + 3 other edits relating to the article [50] [51] [52] which implies an employee is making these edits.
9. IAash275 (talk · contribs) - 9 edits on 17 March 2012
10. Madhesia (talk · contribs) - 1 edit on 16 July 2007 + 3 edits on own userpage (the one below) + this one edit [53] which is a strange post to say the least

User:Madhesia Userpage edited by a large number of ips and usernames for some reason. There is some overlap with Evalueserve.

1. Pradip Kumar maddhesiya (talk · contribs) - 2 edits on 23 September 2016 to User:Madhesia
2. 126.229.146.219 (talk · contribs) - 2 edits on 21 September 2015 to User:Madhesia
3. Akashforce (talk · contribs) - 1 edit on 16 March 2015 to User:Madhesia + several edits to User:117.192.24.57/sandbox earlier which was blanked by 203.200.48.18 (talk · contribs) whom edits a wide range of topics with few edits. 117.192.24.57 (talk · contribs) has no contribution EVER themselves despite having a sandbox.
4. Arvind.8405 (talk · contribs) - 3 edits on 9 January 2015 to User:Madhesia + 2 other edits to Kandu
5. 14.102.116.162 (talk · contribs) - 9 edits on 2 November 2014 to User:Madhesia as well as several topics including significant contribution to P. C. Alexander, Geevarghese Ivanios and Joshua Mar Ignathios
6. Madhesiyacontact (talk · contribs) - 16 edits between 16 and 25 January 2014 to User:Madhesia + one edit to User talk:Madhesia [54]
7. 122.161.122.65 (talk · contribs) - 7 edits on 8 November 2013 to User:Madhesia + one edit to Risotto
8. Madhesia (talk · contribs) - 3 edits between 16-24 July 2007 + 1 edit to Evalueserve (above) + 1 more (as previously discussed)

I suspect these are single purpose throwaway accounts either by a PR firm or employees of a certain company editing with severe COI. It feels like a poorly coordinated marketing attempt at a glance to me. What I find most strange is how most of these accounts exclusively edit one and only one article with one of them editing for years but making only few edits and only to one article. There needs to be further scrutiny IMHO before an action is taken.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with White Cat's Analysis. From my own review I concur most likely outcome is it is probably some sort of PR firm. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

My guess is that each of the different accounts represents an individual in the firm assigned to Evaluserve PR at some point, and the reason they keep switching so fast is because they keep getting reassigned. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: @Jéské Couriano: Any suggestions on how to go forward? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 05:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I would request a CU on the named accounts as soon as there's enough recent usernames for a comparison. (CUs generally won't out IPs barring severe, systemic abuse, which I'm not seeing here, and CU data is generally only kept for a few months as far as I am aware, so most of the above are too stale for CUs to check.) What should be done next depends on what the CU findings say. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree a CU is needed to look into these accounts and verify they are connected. Hopefully they'll be able to figure out the connection.--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the dates of activityAll the data would be stale at this point. Unfortunately it looks like we are a day late and a dollar short for a check user. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User:SpidErxD edit to Economy of Iran

There is a serious problem with this editor, He/she is disrupting this GA article or pretends not to see my remarks on his/her talk page like here: Possibly a trap by an agent?

Example: 1. He/she says he "only added links" (and updated numbers). This is patently a lie. Please read his talk page and interactions with other editors on his talk page for more insight.

Kind regards, 47.17.27.96 (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Please Admins look into this matter. 47.17.27.96 this ip address first reverted all my edit without giving reasons. then he reverted all edits after giving reasons. so i restored mistakenly removed paragraph on Economy of Iran and ask him to remove only mistakes not all my edits. But then again he reverted all edits although i have restored that paragraph. I think his original account is User:SSZ but he is using 47.17.27.96 ip address for putting warnings on my talk page. Please solve this issue. you can see [[55]] i just updated the article with latest IMF Oct 2016 report and CIA World Factbook values and removed old figures. SpidErxD (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Spider has reverted the article 4 times in the past day and is showing severe WP:OWNership of the article.74.70.146.1 (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Please admin look into this issue. Two ip addresses 74.70.146.1 and 47.17.27.96 reverting all my edits without valid reason. 2 days ago i spend 2 hours reading and researching about Economy of Iran and then i made 8-9 edits in which i mistakenly removed one paragraph. instead of fixing my one mistake 47.17.27.96 reverted all my edits. and put warnings on my talk page. I think both ip addresses belongs to User:SSZ. and he is using these ip addresses for putting warnings on my talk page and reverting my edits without valid reason. Please ask these 74.70.146.1 and 47.17.27.96 ip addresses to use their original accounts to put warnings and notice issues on wikipedia. Please admin look into this issue. SpidErxD (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Verify: Spider has reverted 4 times in hours without reaching any consensus on talk page. He says that I gave no reason while everything is explained in detail on his talk page (which he deleted) and then on the economy's article talk page here. He has been told by 2 editors (including me) to discuss his edits and not "edit war"; which is frowned upon. Please revert to this last stable version after verification. Thanks. 47.17.27.96 (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment-@SpidErxD:-I would like to request you to refrain from adding the 2016 data repetitively.Although clearly sourced, they are projected estimates.Also, I don't see any importance at all for the note he seems to be determined to add in the infobox.That you deviated from the long-standing consensus and choose to make some edits into the article which was subsequently reverted puts the onus on you to justify your edits on the talk page and gain consensus.As a side note, assuming somebody to be a vandal only because he reverts your edits and indulging in WP:EDITWAR is not a good approach towards a constructive discussion.I am not an admin.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 17:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

History deletion at Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia

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

---

Access to a lot of page history at Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia was recently removed. See [56]. It looks like a mistake. Requesting that an administrator look into it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No mistake, Comrade! {{unsigned|Vladimir P.}}

FYI this comment was left by EEng [57] [58]. Shouldn't ANI be free from trolling and false signatures? Go have your clownfest somewhere else. --Pudeo (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No more, certainly, than it should be free from stuffed-shirt kvetching. Sorry if you were actually fooled into thinking the President of the Russian Federation had posted here. EEng 06:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Then again, it would certainly be amusing if Putin started using ANI as his personal sounding board, the way Trump uses Twitter. (Wolf Blitzer: "But just what is this 'ANI'? We asked a panel of Wikipedia editors to explain..." <grunts and crashing noises as knot of editors wrestle one another to the floor in the background>) EEng 14:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks like it started with this entry in the page history: "20:55, 6 January 2017‎ (Username or IP removed)‎". --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It also looks like the reversion has been handled by an oversighter, so regular admins (eg myself) cannot see the original text. I would trust that if there was oversight, the removal was grossly inappropriate material. --MASEM (t) 03:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

"grossly inappropriate material" may be the case with the first entry that I mentioned above, but not with the 20 or 30 that followed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You can't redact a specific bit of text off of a page, just whole revisions. Every revision that contained whatever-it-was will have been removed, up until the one where offending passage was edited out. See Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Limitations and issues. —Cryptic 03:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The title should read alleged. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

That discussion happened a few weeks ago, and no real consensus was reached other than that lots of people dislike every title that has been suggested, including the current one. TimothyJosephWood 18:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Persistent vandalism on Ghaith Pharaon page

Persistent claims (3 times) that Ghaith Pharaon has died. Apparently various Hungarian blogs have claimed that Pharaon is dead (Pharaon seems to have become a club to beat Viktor Orbán with), but each edit is by a different IP editor, each one gives a different date, and none of them give a source. If he's dead, a simple link to a newspaper obituary is all that's necessary. If that's not available, it strongly suggests this is blog bilge. Comments on the talk page have not stopped this unsourced editing, and if it's going to be a different editor each time the claim is reinstated, I don't have the time to leave notes for all these people. I suggest a block to keep him/her/them off. Rgr09 (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think you are looking for WP:RFPP. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

84.208.144.64 and Kend94

Yesterday, 84.208.144.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added copyvio material to Moroccans in Belgium yesterday. I was just about to issue a warning on their talk page, when I saw the previous warnings about edit warring and adding incorrect information to articles that seemed familiar to me. They are familiar because yesterday, I warned Kend94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about adding unsourced information to some of the same articles that the IP has edited, and today, Kend94 was warned by Diannaa about adding copyvio material to Syrians in the United Kingdom yesterday. I suspect that these editors are the same person. Should I start an SPI, or can this be dealt with here on an individual basis for each account? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Kend94 has just added the same unsourced population estimate to Moroccans in Belgium that the IP added yesterday, and which I reverted. Looking at the history of that article, it seems certain that they are the same person. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This is pretty clearly a user editing as fixed IP when logged out and/or logging out to attempt to disassociate edits from the account. AGF I will warn them against the practice and IPSOCK the IP. SPI not necessary. Do you believe the combined behavior warrants more than just warnings for improperly sourced info, on the behavioral front other than identity? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that under WP:IPSOCK this is not necessarily policy violating if done accidentally or mistake (or even lazyness). Attempting to evade other policies such as 3RR, Edit Warring, making it look like more people support a position by posting via separate identities, etc. via IPSOCK is then a violation. I don't see clear evidence of those at this time but don't rule it out. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Georgewilliamherbert. I don't think the user is deliberately editing logged in and out - I think it's just carelessness on their part. I do think that if all of the warnings issued to the IP address had been issued to the account, then the user would have been blocked by now. We have several ignored warnings about adding unsourced content, plus two copyright violations. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I see the history but I take it for a user who's being slow to understand WP policies, not one fundamentally trying to break things. That said, another admin may see it in a different light and want to do something on review, which I would not object to. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You might be right, Georgewilliamherbert. It's just that I see a lot of final warnings at User talk:Kend94. Anyway, the user should now be aware of the issue, and has no more excuses for adding unsourced statistics or copyright material. I'm happy with that as an outcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Canvassing by Darkknight2149

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

---

Darkknight2149 and I have had a dispute over the articles Joker (comics) and Joker (character), over which he has opened an AfD for which he canvassed a large number sympathetic editors: DrRC, Favre1fan93, Darkwarriorblake, *Treker, AlexTheWhovian, Adamstom.97, Jack Sebastian, Atvica, SNUGGUMS, Rmaynardjr, TJH2018, Tenebrae, ZeEnergizer, Kailash29792, Emperor, Killer Moff, Argento Surfer, Jhenderson777, TriiipleThreat, [59].

What's particualarly conspicuous is how virtually none of the editors informed were those who have !voted against these sorts of proposals in the past, such as at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics#RfC: Proposed rewording for instructions for disambiguation (which overturned WP:COMICS' OWNership of fictional characters) and Talk:Wolverine (character)#Page move back discussion, again. This sort of behaviour by the WP:COMICS project is highly disruptive and has long been a source of controversy (see the page-move histories of Wolverine (character), for example). Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't canvass anyone. All of the messages I left were neutral. And a number of the people who I notified were ones who I had no idea what would say on the matter. In fact, one of the was Emperor, who actually supported creating Joker (character) (which I am against). And I notified all of the WikiProjects involved, not just WP:COMICS. I also informed you that I was starting a deletion discussion at Talk:Joker (comics) and you were tagged in the discussion.

I should also note that you trying to undermine me a number of times at Talk:Joker (comics) with false claims of WP:NOTHERE and other guidelines that I didn't break. Now that the deletion discussion is going against you, it figures you would file a false report. Should I mention all of the blatant unprovoked personal attacks you left me at Talk:Joker (comics)? DarkKnight2149 01:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

"What's particualarly conspicuous is how virtually none of the editors informed were those who have !voted against these sorts of proposals in the past" - A lot of them weren't even involved. And like I mentioned earlier, at least one of them (Emperor) actually supported the existence of Joker (character), which I proposed the deletion for. DarkKnight2149 01:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Emperor: I don't see anywhere that you and Darkknight2149 disagreed about the existence of the Joker (character) article—I only see you offering tips on how to improve the article as it was. Can you please enlighten us on Darkknight2149's comments? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I most certainly wasn't canvassed. If DarkKnight2149 on the other hand posted a message saying "please vote _____ here", then THAT would be canvassing. Simply informing someone of an ongoing discussion is not canvassing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It is most definitely canvassing when the recipients are chosen for their likelihood to vote the way the canvasser hopes. See: Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification: "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions"Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

"I don't see anywhere that you and Darkknight2149 disagreed about the existence of the Joker (character) article" - Further proof that you haven't even read the deletion discussion. Here, Emperor is quoted as speaking on behalf of the existence of Joker (character). You've got nothing here. And you're in no position to report me, given the personal attacks you left me at Talk:Joker (comics) that I graciously ignored. DarkKnight2149 01:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the issue here isn't that I canvassed, but rather that I left several detailed paragraphs regarding why I believe Joker (character) should be deleted and you have yet to provide a decent argument to the contrary? DarkKnight2149 01:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and add that, if an administrator would like, I am willing to do a breakdown of each and every editor that I notified of the discussion right here. DarkKnight2149 02:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

1. Will we get a breakdown of all the editors in the discussions I directed you to but that you "neglected" to inform?
2. Why were you informing individual editors in the first place, when leaving notices at the appropriate WikiProjects would have sufficed?
3. Is it because I was the one who reminded you that you had to notify those WikiProjects, and you wanted to make sure that doing so wouldn't affect your intended outcome?

Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

1. You mean the ones you already pinged?

2. I did notify all of the other WikiProjects. Your point there is mute. And there's no crime against informing others of a deletion discussion that have experience with these types of articles and when you need extra opinions, just as long as you don't canvass for specific opinions (which I wasn't). Some of the people I notified were already involved to begin with.

3. Of course not. Is it because you didn't like the (so far) results at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joker (character) that you accused me of canvassing? Because at least three of those editors that agree with me are ones that I didn't even notify. DarkKnight2149 02:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

1. That's right—the ones I pointed you to multiple times but that you specifically avoided pinging. Why did you choose the word "already", by the way? Very strange choice of wording in the context.
2. "I did notify all of the other WikiProjects"—I didn't say you didn't. You should have stopped there.
3. No, it's because it's obvious why you chose to ping the editors you did and avoid pinging all the other editors you knew were involved (since I'd already pointed you to them). We know now that the only reason you pinged Emperor is because you linked to one of his comments in your deletion proposal.

So—why did you specifically avoid all 18 editors you knew were involved (and that I had to ping)? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, now you have me really confused. At what point did you "point out" specific people for me to notify, let alone multiple times? When I notified the users, you hadn't pointed anyone out to me, which is why you acted surprised when you found out that I notified people of the discussion. Are we at the point where you're just making up fictional events now? DarkKnight2149 03:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

More WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

No, that's called you lying. You never pointed me to anyone. And if you did, provide the diff. Of course, you won't because you never did. DarkKnight2149 04:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You've been pointed enough times to the discussions. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

As I have commented on the Deletion of the article in question this is Just my 2 cents, after reading all of this. This ANI looks as an attempt at retaliation as the concensus so far at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joker (character) is to delete. Notifying others of a deletion of an article they may have an opinion on is not canvassing. I see nowhere DarkKnight2149 asked for anyone to give a specific opinion. WP:Boomerang comes to mind with this ANI. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• It seems canvassy to me, because the invitees were all predictably against anything that seemed to reduce the "power" or "control" of WikiProject Comics over "their" article, no matter what the actual reasoning might be, or what the readership is actually best served by, or what other WP:P&G matters might be at issue, such as WP:SUMMARY. It's noteworthy that (so far) all or nearly all of the respondents that Darkknight2149 brought into the AfD discussion are WP:JUSTAVOTEing reflexively, doing no analysis of either article or any actual keep/delete rationales. E.g., they are claiming falsely that the the articles are redundant, when even 30 seconds looking at their content completely disproves this assertion. I'm not psychic and thus don't know what D'k'2149's intent was, but the effect has been precisely what WP:CANVASS was written to curtail, and this result was entirely predictable from the invite pattern. So, this seems like a duck/spade matter to me. CANVASS, like everything else here, is interpreted per its spirit and intent, not legalistically and with an eye to loopholes. Neutral wording of notice, to a highly non-neutral invite list, is not some magical escape clause, sorry. This was clearly canvassing, and it should be addressed as such.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No, it wasn't canvassing. And your entire argument for why it was canvassing has to do with your own P.O.V. about the WikiProjects "owning" everything and not about my motive itself. In order for it to be canvassing, my intent has to be to go and specifically look for people that share my point of view or to post a invite that is biased enough to influence their point of view. My invites were neutral and they were all sent to people who have experience dealing with these types of articles or were already involved with the discussion before the deletion was proposed. And if you want to talk about predictability, it's funny that you're supporting Curly Turkey here after supporting his position at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joker (character). And as previously mentioned, there have so far been three different people who I never tagged or notified of the discussion that have supported the deletion as well, and that was almost from as soon as I posted it. Talk about those odds. DarkKnight2149 04:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • You've been caught with your pants down, so I guess your only option is to drown the discussion in verbiage to discourage others from examining the evidence. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, you're entirely wrong here DarkKnight, but for a different reason. You did /canvass/ that was the express intent, leaving messages on other's talk pages regarding a deletion discussion is canvassing. The greater issue is whether that canvassing was done to influence the outcome of the AfD. Canvassing is allowed, per WP:CANVASS; In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.
  Now, the rules regarding canvassing are in order; "Limited posting" is acceptable, message must be neutral, the audience should be non-partisan (or if partisan both sides invited), and the canvassing must be on-wiki. I don't know exactly what counts as "spam" posting, but, twenty notifications is an awful lot. You should only post notifications to users who might reasonably be inferred to be interested. Such as the creator and significant contributors to the article. Which you did not, only a couple of the people notified have had any interaction with the article whatsoever.
  For that matter, your spate of notifications seem a bit random, I can't tell what the connection most of the editors you've notified would have to the article, the subject, or the AfD. Though I will grant that you're postings were both neutral and transparent.
  That said, no I have to agree with DarkKnight, just the section "Cultural Impact" in Joker (character) which accounts for much (about 50/60%) of the actual prose in the article is a blatant replica of the same section in Joker (comics) placed into the article here under the guise of "expanding the article". Though I also recognize the argument that the merger should happen from "comic" to "character" is a logical one.
  As a non-admin I can only offer up recommendation, they are as follows; 1. Let the AfD play out as normal, 2. If deleted, merge the content into the article Joker (comics), and 3. start a discussion up on whether to retitle the article from "comics" to "character". I see at most 6-10k bytes of content that will actually be transferred from "character" to "comics", so it will have a barely noticeable impact on the article. I see no reason to justify a split unless a much, much, better article can be written that would justify a split from the main. Keep in mind that Joker (comics) is a GA article, so any merger would be best served if done in line with the requirements of a GA article. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I should re-phrase: I wasn't disruptively canvassing, as Curly Turkey is suggesting. And given his current disruptive attempts to influence the deletion discussion (see the diffs below), his uncivil behaviour at Talk:Joker (comics), and the fact that he has been blocked for harassment and personal attacks more than once ([60]), I'm beginning to think that Curly Turkey is either aware that my intentions weren't disruptive or he simply doesn't care.

But as I said earlier, I'm willing to provide a full breakdown of each editor that I notified of the discussion if an administrator wants me too. It would include my full reasoning as to why I notified who I did. Mark my words when I say that Darkknight2149 has nothing to hide. DarkKnight2149 05:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Darkknight2149: Re "it's funny that you're supporting Curly Turkey here after supporting his position at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joker (character)." There's nothing "funny" about it at all; this ANI request is mentioned prominently at the AFD, so of course I looked into the nature of the dispute and the actions that led to it, and the previous discussions behind those, since they may have bearing on the AfD or vice versa. I also have a history of involvement in the general topic (including editing of the comics MoS page and naming convention, making me kind of "expert witness" in an AfD that centers on its interpretation). But I also have a history of direct conflict with CurlyTurkey in the topic area. So, your insinuation of a conspiratorial WP:FACTION against you is laughable. (That said, I believe the disputatiousness between me and CT to have resolved itself, and I certainly hope it remains historical.) The fact of the matter is that I looked carefully at the facts in the AfD, and the facts in this related ANI, and remember the past history (about the Hulk and similar WP:PRIMARY and WP:DAB debates involving comics). I treat both the AfD and the ANI as case-by-case matters. In point of fact, I quite frequently oppose splits and propose merges when it comes to fiction-related articles. But this is not a case of fancruft leading to inapproprirate forks; it really is an "are we writing this for encyclopedia users or for comic collectors?" matter. And this ANI really is about whether the notices were appropriate or were canvassing, not about who does and doesn't like you (not something I'd even formulated on opinion about).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• I can't see how this is anything other than canvassing. There is no need to personally invite so many people and so far everyone who has been invited has given the same opinion. Darkknight how did you come up with this list of people to invite? I myself was pinged to the AFD by curly turkey because I commented on a 2014 RFC that I barely remember (but at least that is made clear in the AFD). The whole discussion there now is dubious and I pity the poor admin who attempts to close it. I suggest that everyone who was canvassed by personal invite or ping and has given an opinion at the AFD is tagged as such and if there is not a good explanation as to why Darknight decided to invite the above editors they should at least get a strong warning. AIRcorn (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• The message itself is not canvassing as it was neutral. However, I also do question why over a dozen users were notified about the RfD. Was it pure randomness or was there some reason? Normally, a user would notify the creator and contributors. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 07:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. It doesn't take long to work out where other editors sympathies lie in a topic area. Therefor no matter how neutral a message is, if you only bring an AFD to the attention of editors you think are going to !vote a certain way then it is defiantly canvassing. Doing this disrupts the whole concept of consensus, which is tenuous enough at AFD. To my mind it comes down to why they chose to send personal invites to this select group. Either way it looks very dodgy. AIRcorn (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• I just want to point out that despite the fact that I was notified by Darkknight2149 I had already decided my position and stated that I thought it was a useless copy of an already existing article. As a matter of fact I have had this article on my watchlist for a while now to see if it improved to something useful, but no, it's still and will probably continue to be a redundant copy. I'm not sure if the notification was posted on my talkpage before I had the time to save my edit on the deletion page but none the less I would not appreciate of my oppinion was invalidated just becuse of the message, (which I as far as I could tell was rather neutral even if I knew that he wanted it deleted.)★Trekker (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

That's the problem with Darknights decision to send out the notifications, it muddies the waters. AIRcorn (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand that but my reasoning for not wanting to keep the article is still as clear right now with our without the notification. I have not interacted very much with Darkknight during my time on wikipedia nor have I commented at all on the Joker articles as far as I can remember so I don't see how he could have known that I would be supportive of his position. I'm more of an inclusionist than a deletionist in general. I don't belive it is fair to me or any of the other editors to assume that we would be swayed by Darkknight notifying us.★Trekker (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing out of the ordinary with notifying people of a discussion. These things often take long to materialise and so inviting people who have experience dealing with these articles is fine. And saying that they all share my opinion is incorrect. Some of the people that are notified, such as Argento Surfer and Emperor, were already involved in the discussion (neither of which agree with me, by the way), some were on my watchlist, and some were frequent editors of the WikiProjects or at the Joker articles.

As for Curly Turkey's ridiculous "Why didn't you notify random people from the discussion I kept linking", not notifying the exact people that Curly Turkey wants me to notify is not "vote stacking". And to answer his question, I think this just about sums it up. DarkKnight2149 17:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

"Why didn't you notify random people"—is nothing like anything I've said. You've canvassed by mass-notifying people you knew would !vote for your POV. This is made worse by the fact that you knew a list of people who would be interested in the subject but avoided notifying any of them. You should've notifyied nobody by the WikiProjects and the main contributors to the article. Stop digging yourself this hole.

"There is nothing out of the ordinary with notifying people of a discussion."—I've already pointed you to vote stacking. Yes, there's a lot wrong with the way you notified people. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 19:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope. We've already established that a lot of the people that I notified are people who I had no idea would agree with me and have disagreed with me in the past. Some have disagreed with me on this issue. And yes, some of the people I notified were from the WikiProject and the edit histories of the Joker articles. You are just upset that the deletion discussion isn't going how you hoped. DarkKnight2149 19:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Leaving messages on ~20 different, selected editors' talk pages is definitely canvassing, whether or not the message is neutral. Announcements should only be left on neutral pages like WikiProjects. Why someone felt the need to notify ~20 editors individually is beyond me, but it's obvious canvassing and vote-stacking. Now that the damage is done, hopefully the closing admin can discount or depreciate the canvassed !votes. I recommend using the template {{notavote}} and tagging all of the canvassed !votes with {{subst:canvassed|username}}. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Second Softlavender's solution. Also confirming that the IP below is me. Don't ask. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me, too.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: @Softlavender: @Aircorn: Except I too have clashed with some of the editors that I have allegedly canvassed. And yes, some have disagreed with me, even BEFORE I notified them of the discussion. I have also offered to do a full breakdown of the users that I notified more than once now. There's simply no way it was "vote stacking". And in regards to what SMcCandlish said, this isn't my first rodeo either. I also have experience dealing with these situations. And as for the WP:COMICS argument, I notified all of the WikiProjects. If fact, some of the individual users that I notified were from WikiProject Television. There is no case here. DarkKnight2149 18:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: Meh. If we do it Softlavender's way, all it does is alert the closer to read the discussion and its history closely which is not a bad thing; it doesn't instruct the closer as to what arguments they have to weight in what way. There does seem to be a "case" here or so many people wouldn't be agreeing this was canvassing (or close enough for rock'n'roll). ANI tends not to go well for anyone who insists that everyone having an issue with what that person did is just wrong (BT;DT!). I see very low likelihood of any sanctions, but you should at least come away from this with the message that this sort of thing is widely considered canvassing. If I may suggest it, this is the sort of note I leave, in every project, guideline, etc., talk page that seems relevant, and often also at VPPOL (even CENT if the matter could affect a large number of articles), but never individual talk pages:

Example
RfC about [whatever] FYI  – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. Please see [[WT:Whatever page the discussion is at#Name of thread]], a request for comments on [whatever the topic is, WITHOUT ANY EDITORIALIZING about the topic, the participants, or anything at all]. ~~~~

And just leave it at that. I may also ping, at the discussion, in a comment clearly labelled as for pings, all previous respondents if this is round 2 or 3 or whatever of a drawn out debate (including closing admins of previous ones). No selectivity. This approach has only resulted in complaints twice that I can recall, and in both cases no one took them seriously other than the complainers. Hope that helps.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Dark Knight, it was canvassing. If you wanted to notify participants in previous discussions, all that is necessary is to post on the project or article talk pages where those discussions occurred. Softlavender (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Aside from a large portion of the users notified (and not even all of the them) happening to agree with me, what other real evidence do you have that it was vote stacking? How are all of these users connected? How was I supposed to just know what their opinion was before I notified them?

• I've clashed with some of these users in the past (such as Jack Sebastian and Adamstom.97).
• Not all of them were from WP:COMICS, so that erases that argument.
• Some were involved to begin with (such as Argento Surfer, DarkwarriorBlake, Emperor), and have disagreed with me on the topic that I allegedly canvassed.
• The notifications were certainly nuetral.
• I didn't even notify DangerousJXD and Comatmebro of the discussion, and they agreed with me almost as soon as the deletion discussion was published (and I have no history with the latter).
• I have already offered to do a breakdown of all the users that I notified more than once and am still willing to do so.

So really, explain to me how I was supposed to just know these people's opinions before they even left it. DarkKnight2149 18:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

No one has presented any evidence of previous issues with canvassing or any warnings about such issues so I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Darkknight that they did not message these editors with the express purpose of getting them to !vote a certain way. Saying that, the notified editors do appear to have been subjectively chosen by Darkknight, which should not be done even if you have noble intentions. I would actually be more comfortable with this situation if it was everyone that was involved in a previous related discussion.

I still think the !votes that come from notified editors should be tagged with {{Canvassed}} to aid the closer and keep everything transparent. It says "An editor has expressed a concern that user name has been canvassed to this discussion", which pretty much covers the situation and can be interpreted by the closer as the deem fit. The linking to the AFD from here will bring it to the attention of many uninvolved editors so hopefully it can still be fairly closed.

When advertising an XFD (or RFC, RFA etc) it is important to not just avoid canvassing, but to also avoid giving the appearance of canvasing. There are plenty of wikiprojects and noticeboards where these can be advertised (plus we have article alerts and del sorting) if there is a worry about a lack of numbers. Otherwise you are just inviting trouble. Hopefully Darkstar realises this now. AIRcorn (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Aircorn: In regards to that "subjectively chosen" remark, I have already stated multiptle times that I am willing to do a FULL BREAKDOWN of EVERYONE that I supposedly canvassed. No one has accepted the offer, so I'm probably going to do it anyway just to debunk these misplaced Canvassing claims. And leaving a note saying an editor expressed a canvassing concern is useless if these disruptive lies are going to stay up. DarkKnight2149 23:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Darkknight how did you come up with this list of people to invite? AIRcorn (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Also it is better to label individual !votes as then the closer knows which ones were notified to the discussion and which ones weren't. This is something the notes don't do. They can then decide how much weight to give them (which they should do anyway). AIRcorn (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Since people seem to be very forgetful in this discussion, I'm going to go ahead and repeat this post:

Aside from a large portion of the users notified (and not even all of the them) happening to agree with me, what other real evidence do you have that it was vote stacking? How are all of these users connected? How was I supposed to just know what their opinion was before I notified them?

• I've clashed with some of these users in the past (such as Jack Sebastian and Adamstom.97).
• Not all of them were from WP:COMICS, so that erases that argument.
• Some were involved to begin with (such as Argento Surfer, DarkwarriorBlake, Emperor), and have disagreed with me on the topic that I allegedly canvassed.
• The notifications were certainly nuetral.
• I didn't even notify DangerousJXD and Comatmebro of the discussion, and they agreed with me almost as soon as the deletion discussion was published (and I have no history with the latter).
• I have already offered to do a breakdown of all the users that I notified more than once and am still willing to do so.

So really, explain to me how I was supposed to just know these people's opinions before they even left it.

DarkKnight2149 18:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

No one has provided any evidence that I vote stacked, aside from "Well, most of them agreed with you". DarkKnight2149

It was clearly canvassing. If you wanted to notify participants in previous discussions, all that is necessary is to post on the project or article talk pages where those discussions occurred. Softlavender (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

You repeating "it was clearly canvassing" over and over is not getting any closer to providing proof, nor is ignoring the genuine points that I just made. DarkKnight2149 04:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"Darkknight how did you come up with this list of people to invite?" - Good question. I will do the breakdown of it tomorrow. Frankly, my anxiety regarding this entire situation right now is through the roof and it has been a long day. Hopefully the breakdown will be able to clear some of this up. DarkKnight2149 04:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrator action needed

WarMachineWildThing's comment about retaliation sounds about right. The user is now being disruptive by pushing his WP:CANVAS claim to the forefront of the deletion discussion, and is now making further unproven accusations against me. ([61], [62], [63], [64]) I'm not even going to bother trying to remove it or cause an edit war. DarkKnight2149 03:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the disruptive and unproven notes from the top of the discussion that were placed there to influence it. If Curly Turkey tries to edit war with this, I will inform this discussion. An unbiased administrator opinion would be nice right about now. DarkKnight2149 04:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep, Curly Turkey is not only putting up false unproven notes to influence the discussion, but he is now edit warring with them as well ([65]). Can an administrator please step in? DarkKnight2149 04:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to block anyone here. I guess it's too much to ask that you both just drop the accusations and go back to editing? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I tried to remove the two unproven accusations that were placed at the top of the deletion discussion by Curly Turkey to influence it, but he keeps re-adding it and now is threatening me with WP:3RR. DarkKnight2149 05:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Just stop screwing with other people's comments. Jesus. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Or you can remove the accusations from the top of discussion, as they are unproven and do not supersede the discussion. If you want those accusations up so badly, you can put them down with your actual comment instead of at the top of the discussion. They are not official notes, and you know damn well that you're just trying to influence the discussion... And it's disruptive. DarkKnight2149 05:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Darkknight, I suggest that you leave it alone. If we were to remove all "false" accusations, ANI would be full of reverts. Leave it to the admins. It's evidence and it should be examined by admins. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 06:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not evidence. It's Curly Turkey being disruptive by placing unproven claims as "notes" at the top of the discussion to try to influence it. He, again, knows what he is doing. Even when you go back to the personal attacks at Talk:Joker (comics), he's been disruptive from the start. DarkKnight2149 17:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The "notes" are certainly at least potentially problematic. If there is a pattern of dubious behavior from anyone involved here, maybe WP:ARBCOM might be the way to go. Otherwise, as someone who expressed an opinion on the AfD page based on seeing it mentioned in the thread here, maybe the best thing to do would be to let the discussion proceed without further interference until it closes. If there are any further disruptive or problematic edits there or elsewhere, that might be different, and, maybe, under those circumstances, ArbCom might be a better choice. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm willing to remove the notes, but Curly Turkey clearly isn't. DarkKnight2149 18:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course you're "willing" to remove the notes. What kind of ridiculous comment is this? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 19:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Notes you have yet to prove. If you want them up so badly, they can go with your comment. They don't supersede the discussion. DarkKnight2149 19:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: Everyone here who isn't either themselves one of the people you canvassed (i.e., regardless of whether they agree with you on the substance of the ANI, they have a bias against the idea that you were canvassing) or someone who only showed up here because they have a grudge against Curly Turkey (i.e., regardless of whether they sincerely believe you were canvassing, have a bias against acknowledging that you were canvassing) is in agreement that the notes belong. The only effect of removing the notes would be to potentially mislead the closer: leaving the notes doesn't force the closer to disregard everything said by the canvassed parties. 182.251.154.144 (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a very dubious claim. Do you want to put your money were your mouth is and prove that? Because the notes (especially the second one) are entirely unproven. The first one is at least justified in this discussion, but the second one is a lie posted with no evidence (a blatant violation of WP:No personal attacks: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.". And do you know who has already proven themselves to be biased in this discussion? I'm looking at you! ("someone is focusing too much on one thing and ignoring the bigger picture") DarkKnight2149 23:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If the notes are inappropriate, let someone uninvolved remove them. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• I was notified of the discussion by DK2149 with a neutral invitation, probably because I had recently been involved in the discussion at Talk:Joker (comics). I am unsure if he interpreted my comment as being in-line with his view or not, but I did not support the deletion nomination. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't. DarkKnight2149 19:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks from Curly Turkey

I should probably point out that Curly Turkey has been looking for ways to undermine me since the discussion started at Talk:Joker (comics). At first, he used multiple personal attacks, including implying that I am just a basement dwelling fanboy ([66]) and that I still lived with my mother ([67]). Turkey only stopped with the personal attacks when I threatened to report him ([68]), yet he still continued to try to invalidate my arguments with false claims of WP:NOTHERE, WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, that I was starting drama, and other baseless accusations. So it only makes sense that, as soon as he found out that I started a deletion discussion and notified other users, he would jump at the chance of filing a WP:CANVASS report. He also placed these unproven accusations as notes at the top of the deletion discussion to try and influence it ([69], [70], [71], [72]). What we have here is someone who wants the discussion to go his way. DarkKnight2149 20:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Like I said above, I think, maybe, ArbCom might be the way to go here. John Carter (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment User:Hijiri88 here. Can't log in on my iPad for whatever reason. I have had interactions with both the parties in this case, as well as several of the people who were notified of the AFD, so I'm not sure how neutral I can be, but I just wanted to point out that this is difficult to interpret as "implying that [someone is] just a basement dwelling fanboy" unless one is actively trying to do so. It reads to me the same as "take your head out of the ground" or "take your fingers out of your ears", and it would be extremely surprising to see the person who has himself written dozens of articles on comic books engage in old-fashioned offensive stereotyping of comic-book fanboys who still live with their parents in their 20s and 30s. This similarly says nothing about "living with one's mother". Furthermore, claiming that someone "stopped with the personal attacks" after one threatened to report him, and then going ahead and reporting him anyway a week later with old evidence of borderline personal attacks is not a good idea.

And yes, a neutral notification left on the talk pages of a dozen or more sympathetic users is definitely canvassing, as it is covered under both "spamming" and "votestacking". Claiming that just because the wording of the notification was neutral then it doesn't count as canvassing shows either a failure to understand our canvassing guideline or a deliberate attempt to pretend not to understand it.

182.251.140.111 (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• It should of course be noted that the rephrased versions of the comment here offered above, particularly "take your head out of the ground," are also fairly obvious personal attacks and at best dubiously acceptable. John Carter (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack by any stretch of the imagination to say that someone is focusing too much on one thing and ignoring the bigger picture, nor is that remotely similar to implying that someone is a sad-sack who lives in their parents' basement, which is clearly how DK was trying to present it. 182.251.140.111 (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, he was stating "take your head out of the ground", but in a manner that further implies that I am just basement dwelling fanboy. Curly Turkey's behaviour was unacceptable. DarkKnight2149 19:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

DK, you can't reach a private agreement with someone that if they cease their mildly inappropriate behaviour (it was uncivil, but you are stretching your interpretation to imply that Curly Turkey, a user whose contributions to Wikipedia are largely centered around comics, speculative fiction and Japanese culture, is stereotyping you as a "nerd" who still lives with his parents) you will not report them, only to come back a week later and bring up said (week-old) uncivil behaviour as revenge for their reporting your (ongoing) disruption on an AFD. That's not how it works. All sanctions on Wikipedia are meant to be preventative, so if anyone needs to be sanctioned here, it is you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't edit speculative fiction articles, Hijiri, so there goes your whole argument. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That would depend on how you define the term, I guess. I use it the way SF Debris does, to be essentially a catch-all for "science fiction, fantasy, and most horror that could reasonably be considered to fall under either of the other two genres". I think he only does that to get away with reviewing fantasy properties even though his moniker was originally supposed to be short for "Science Fiction Debris". I was referring to your work on articles like Little Nemo (1911 film), which admittedly would be more accurately described as an edit to an article on the history of animation and/or cinema (a topic that in reality is just as nerdy as comic books or Japanese culture, mind you). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

You play a hilarious straight man, Hijiri. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't agree with John Carter that ArbCom is needed here. This is just another Wikipedia squabble -- they come and go, and life goes on. Neither editor has covered themselves with glory. CurlyTurkey's personal aspersions are living up to his nickname, and DK's obvious widespread canvassing is in violation of a core guideline. Let's just move on. Tag the canvassed !votes (note that CT canvassed too [via ping] after DK did) on the AfD, let the AfD run its course, and then get back to doing other things on other articles. Softlavender (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this rises to ArbCom level either, by itself. However, this is part of a long-running pattern, involving additional WP:COMICS editors and other articles. If this sort of dispute turns ugly again, it might actually be time for WP:RFARB. I already expended considerably energy trying to mediate between various camps a year or two ago, when various levels of Hell were raised about the comics MoS and naming conventions, but I guess insufficient progress was made on that front. The content-related aspects of the issue can be discarded, with just the WP:CONLEVEL and other policy matters, plus behavioral ones, addressed as needed by ArbCom if it needs to "go there" at some point. This reminds me very strongly of the "infobox wars" and how steeped their were in OWN/VESTED sentiments by particular wikiprojects. I appears to me that one or two ArbCom decisions that have come down against wikiprojects' attempts to exert territorial authority over topics/categories, against other editors and against site-wide expectations, have been insufficient to get the point across, probably because the decisions were too narrow. They seem to have resulted in an interpretation along the lines, "that was about infoboxes and classical music, so it doesn't apply to my project when we're trying to control titles, primary topics, and scope in comics articles").  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying to bury anything here. Re-read that discussion. Those are blatant personal attacks. He also violated WP:GOODFAITH multiple times. Curly Turkey has been uncivil from the start and seems determined to undermine my part in the discussion in any way he can. The evidence is there. DarkKnight2149 18:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Uh, okay. Doesn't seem to relate to anything I said. Burying? Huh?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should take a look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks, shall we?:

What is considered to be a personal attack? "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." - Curly Turkey is seen doing this multiple times at Talk:Joker (comics). He tried to say that I am just a biased comic book fanboy, that I was simply trying to start drama, and (in a massive assumption of bad faith) falsely accused me of breaking multiple guidelines including WP:NOTHERE.

But he is not using your personal affiliations to do so. He is referring specifically to the Wikipedia activity with which he disagrees. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

"Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors." - He said that I was a basement dwelling fanboy and implied the same about the entirety of WP:COMICS.

Let's be clear, here: he didn't "say" that. He said something that you chose to interpret that way, in violation of AGF, and I am telling you that it simply makes no sense to interpret it that way since Curly Turkey (a user focused primarily on comics, speculative fiction and Japanese culture) is almost certainly just as offended by those stereotypes as you are. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." - These are extreme examples of these. At least for Note #1, he has a WP:ANI report. The second accusation is 100% baseless and was made up by Curley Turkey, who placed it at the top of the discussion to influence it. And he's refusing to let anyone remove it.

I'm sorry, but your actions on that very page appear to support Curly Turkey's second assertion, so saying that he didn't provide evidence in the same post is at the very least wikilawyering. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Why am I just mentioning this now? I'm trying to demonstrate that Curly Turkey has been trying to undermine my part in the discussion since the beginning. He isn't exactly a credible source for anything on this discussion, at this point. This especially goes for the fact that I am a Veteran Editor who has NEVER had a history of disruptive editing and is known for strictly following the guidelines. Curly Turkey, on the other hand, has been blocked for personal attacks and harrassment more than once already. As for Hijiri88's comment about "ignoring the bigger picture", you and SMcCandlish can take your petty biases elsewhere. You simply agreeing with his position in the discussion does not make it any less of a personal attack. And SMcCandlish's P.O.V. about WikiProjects "owning everything" holds no water in this discussion. DarkKnight2149 19:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate your not making accusations without evidence. I do have a bias, of sorts, in this matter. I experienced your disruption first-hand on Talk:Mr. Freeze, where you attempted to downplay the influence of the 1960s Fox TV series in favour of the (retroactively fabricated) story that DC Comics created the character and all the Fox TV show did was "rename and popularize him". (You ignored the fact that sources published by DC Comics and their affiliates are inherently biased and unreliable when it comes to this question, since DC and their parent company were involved in a decades-long rights dispute with Fox over that TV show; the former would of course want to deny that any character with the remotest connection to the pre-show comic books was in fact created for the TV show.) So yeah, I am biased in favour of Curly Turkey's assertion that you are downplaying the role non-comics culture has played in the development (and encyclopedic notability!) of these characters. The minor CIVIL-violations that you keep calling "personal attacks" were resolved a week before this ANI thread opened, and you are only bringing them up now (in direct violation of your own agreement with Curly Turkey that you would not try to report him if he stopped!) because you saw this ANI thread turning against you. No one here who isn't themselves biased agrees with you, so trying to claim that SMcCandlish and I only disagree with you because we are "biased" is not helpful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Um, CurlyTurkey is also a comics nerd. So am I. "Basement dwelling fanboy" is hilarious and is a self-caricaturizing comment about the inner nature of all geeks and how we can get. It's not like CT really believes you live in a basement (I live in a warehouse, which almost counts). While maybe we should be, us graphic novel nerds, a protected class, we're not; it's nothing like a race, gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, etc. Thicken your skin a little. Lots of us talk like this, and we usually do it with regard to groups of which we're members. Just today I made a "muh guns articles!" joke about territorial behavior in firearm articles (I'm an NRA member). Same thing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I've never been blocked for "harassment", DarkKnight. You've already buried that discussion. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: No, now you are just giving him an excuse. In the context of the discussion at Talk:Joker (comics), there was nothing ironic or self-deprecating about the remarks. It was obviously done in an attempt to undermine the arguments made by myself and apparently WP:COMICS as a whole. And Curly Turkey never said or even implied that all comic fans are basement dwellers, just myself and WP:COMICS. And you continue to completely miss the point. If I were simply trying to report the personal attacks, I would have reported them when he first made them. All of the evidence I have provided demonstrates Curly Turkey's disruptive attempts to undermine the opposition and have the discussion go in his favour.

@Curly Turkey: To quote, well, you - "You're not burying this one." Your block log says it all. You were unblocked "Per agreement to return to dialogue instead of confrontation", an agreement which you clearly haven't honoured. DarkKnight2149 23:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You've clearly lied and intend to stick with the dramah. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Now there is the massive assumption of bad faith you already gave at Talk:Joker (comics) ([73], [74])! Only now, you are doing it to undermine my arguments here, hence proving my points and shooting yourself in the foot. And need I remind you that you started this entire discussion? DarkKnight2149 23:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If you don't lie, you won't be accused of lying. You have the opportunity now to retract it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that bringing up someone else's unrelated block log out of the blue is extremely uncivil behaviour and makes me think that if DarkKnight doesn't retract it he might deserve a block himself lest he continue in such behaviour. People get blocked for all kinds of obscure technical reasons. I have been blocked for logging into a legitimate alternate account for a legitimate reason after taking a self-imposed ban on using it, and because someone with whom I was in an IBAN decided to stalk my edits and report me for something that almost no one now believes was a violation on my part, and have seen other users get blocked and immediately unblocked for reporting someone who was edit-warring with them. The specific block in question is from 10 months ago, and was withdrawn after only a few hours by the same admin, who had admitted that they were ignorant of the context in which they had block CT. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• I have valued CT's contributions for some time. This scenario seems to be driven by cumulative personal negativity. Is CT willing to apologise for the personal attacks and undertake to try to distance himself from the emotional baggage? I'm unfamiliar with the specific situations, but surely there have been provocations by the other parties. Tony (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps my frustrations with WP:COMICS came across as personal slights against DarkKnight. Sorry if that's the case. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Curly, I'm going to be perfectly honest. I wasn't going to retract anything and I had an entire response prepared explaining why bringing up the log wasn't "out of the blue". However, an apology (even if a somewhat indirect one) is a major step in an honourable direction. For that reason, I completely retract the specific statement regarding your block log.

But one thing I think you should understand is that nothing I have said is a lie. I genuinely feel that the reason all of this is happening is as an attempt to undermine my side of the discussion, going back to the comments made at Talk:Joker (comics) and your behaviour since. DarkKnight2149 04:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The lie I referred to was saying I was blocked for "harrassment more than once already"—you know full well I've never been blocked for such a thing. Disputing your points is not disruptive, nor is notifying potential !voters and the closer of your canvassing. My less-than-polite comments last week emerged from constant years-long frustration with WP:COMICS rewriting the rules to conform to their worldview at the expense of the greater community and the general reader. That behaviour needs to stop. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

BrownHairedGirl and categories

Since there is a near 0% chance this will be accepted at ArbCom, I'm reopening this thread after Jbhunley's good faith close. This can probably be resolved here before the ArbCom request is even archived. Jbhunley's closing statement is copied below for posterity. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Jbhunley's original closing statement: This is now the subject of a request for arbitration [75]. Splitting the discussion serves only to confuse matters. Jbh^Talk 02:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

I recently nominated a category tree for renaming in the first section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 8, and after it was closed in favor of renaming, I followed the closing administrator's instructions to have the categories renamed; I initially listed them at WP:CFDS because I wasn't 100% sure how to have them bot-renamed (there's nothing here precisely comparable to Commons:User:CommonsDelinker/commands) and knew that admins active there were familiar with doing this, although I specifically stated that this was a technical matter of enforcing the CFD and not subject to the normal provision permitting people to object. However, once I discovered how to do it, I listed them on the bot-move page, and the bot moved these categories. Despite this clear situation, BrownHairedGirl has rejected the whole situation, claiming that an objection she made to the listing at CFDS prohibits this situation from going forward, and she has now ordered the bot to begin recreating them: she is creating over one hundred categories that were deleted in accordance with a CFD. On top of all of this, we have a profoundly disingenuous situation: she accused me of violating WP:INVOLVED by listing them on the bot-move page (it's full-protected) despite the fact that I was merely following the closing admin's instructions. At the same time, she has first injected herself into the discussion and then taken precisely the type of action that she considers to have been a violation on my part. When you use admin tools to follow someone else's instructions carefully, you're not INVOLVED, but when you do it on your own initiative, you definitely are.

After warnings, we block people who create more than a few pages in defiance of an XFD; it's time to enforce the CFD decision with a block long enough to ensure that the pages be moved back to the CFD-chosen place. There's no place for someone who edit-wars to create more than a hundred pages after their deletion at XFD. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Nyttend: you forgot to notify her. Done [76]. Jbh^Talk 01:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, I was writing up something else and hadn't yet gotten to it. Given my warning that going ahead with this would result in a request for sanctions, and her statement that she was "taking the bait" (see the "rejected the whole situation" link), I was planning to do all the notifications as soon as I was done with my writeups. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear. I did hope that Nyttend would take a deep breath and recognise that they just might have acted unwisely, but it seems not.

This is not complicated:

A/ I dispute the right of a CFD closer to dictate the outcome of categories which were neither listed nor tagged in the CFD discussion, because editors will not have been warned of a possible change to such categories.

B/ Regardless of the merits of the closure, the closer's instruction[77] was tonominate the relevant sub-cats for speedy renaming. Note that word "nominate", because that does not grant Nyttend or anyone else the right to ignore all the long-standing procedures for CFD nominations.

Sadly, Nyttend did ignore nearly all of them. AS I pointed out on Nyttend's talk page:

1. They listed the categories at CFD/S, but did not validly nominate them for CFD/S, because they didn't tag them
2. Having listed (but not tagged) them, they simply ignored an objection at CFD/S, having somehow decided that they had a right to unilaterally overrule any objections -- despite there being no such exemption at CFD
3. Having ignored the objection, they then proceeded to implement the moves only 46 minutes after listing them, despite the clear instructions at WP:CFD/S that nominations must remain listed for 48 hours
4. And they did all of this in respect of a CFD nomination which they themselves had made, so you were certainly WP:INVOLVED

Regardless of what anyone thinks of the closer's decision, the closer did not instruct Nyttend to bypass CFD/S as they did.

I am also disappointed by the aggressively hostile and threatening response of Nyttend to my challenge to their actions. That does not not fit well with the civility required in WP:ADMINACCT. And the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT nature of Nyttend's post here is equally unimpressive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Just on principle, I'd suggest that anything here that involved 200 of anything (in this case, categories and moves) should be done belt and braces, to say the least; the level of care required has not, perhaps, been adequately exhibited in this case. If any other editor had done this and then complained at ANI, I think there would be murmurs of aboriginal tools, etc; I suggest the filer withdraw it ASAP- if the community allows that. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Trouts all 'round and move on. Nyttend's interpretation of the CfD result seems reasonable to me, even if the minutiae of the process wasn't followed exactly. BHG's attempt at "discussion" ("Are you going to revert promptly, or will I do it?") wasn't exactly aimed at getting to the bottom of things. Nyttend's response was, in part, needlessly inflammatory ("Yeah? Try it and I'll have your bit!" (this may not be a literal quote)), and BHG's response needlessly focused on the worst part, ignoring the offer to discuss informally or redo the CfD. I'd suggest to Nyttend that threatening to go after an admin's bit on the basis of a CfD that didn't really follow the process because you couldn't be bothered to tag all the pages is going someone overboard. And I'd suggest to BHG that any time the phrase "Nevertheless, I will take the bait" escapes your keyboard, you should probably think twice. Now let's have another, proper CfD that, you know, lists all the categories affected and tags the relevant pages. GoldenRing (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @GoldenRing: That sequencing omits my objection at CFD/S[78] and moving of the listing to the opposed section, which Nyttend simply ignored.
    Yes, I was terse in my reply, but since my politely-worded objection had not even been acknowledged, I saw no point in beating about the bush. If the moves were to be everted, it was best that it be done quickly before any further changes complicated matters, so I wanted to get straight to the point.
    I accept that "I'll take the bait" was probably not a helpful phrase, but I was thrown at the time by the extraordinary aggression of Nyttend's threatening response, and wanted to convey that I would not be intimidated. (Having recently been on the receiving end of domestic violence in which I was threatened with retribution for calling police, that sort of aggression and threatened victimisation cuts deep with me). Still, poor phrasing.
    There is a WP:ADMINACCT issue here, and I sincerely hope that Nyttend will be able to assure us that: a) as admin, they will in future at leaat reply to an objection from another admin before using their tools; b) their threatening hostility when challenged over this use of their admin tools is a totally out-of-character episode which will not be repeated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment (non-admin, active on CfD) If I had been Nyttend I would have said "I realize I was wrong and I'll never do it like this again" instead of filing this complaint against BrownHairedGirl. If I had been BrownHairedGirl I would have filed a complaint against Nyttend (after they clearly did not regret their behaviour in any way) but also I would not immediately have reverted Nyttend's page moves since it is very likely that the moves are in line with consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Marcocapelle: I think that the question of whether the moves are in line with consensus is as yet unanswered. The CFD discussion attracted only one !vote; it listed only 1 of the 222 categories affected; and it involved the tagging of only 5 affected categs (4 were added to the discussion[79] only 1 minute before closure[80]). That's not a good test of consensus, and nor was the fact of the categories being untagged at CFD/S and listed there for only 46 minutes rather than the 48 hour minimum.
    It takes only a minutes to use WP:AWB to generate a list of categories for a CFD discussion, and a few minutes more to tag them. If a nominator lacks the tools or skills to do that, the good folk at WP:BOTREQ will help with a smile. And doing it ensures that everyone potentially interested is properly notified, both through sight of the category pages and through the article alerts system.
    And yes, maybe I should have filed a complaint after Nyttend's hostile response ... but my immediate concern was to restore the status quo ante before any further changes complicated or impeded a reversion. The community can now decide how to handle the remaining 217 categories. I am tempted to ask Fayenatic london to reconsider their closure of the CFD, since I think it was too far-reaching and thereby ultra vires; but between this discussion and a still-open RFAR, I'd prefer to leave a decision on that step still later. I know that Fayenatic london acted in good faith in making a closure which they thought was in line with a undocumented consensus; I disagree, but I think it might be helpful to have a DRV to resolve that question, which underlies all of this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Has there been any documented disagreement regarding the actual merits of the renaming proposal so far? As far as I can see, BHG seems to have stated her objections purely on the procedural level (and she probably had a point on that level), but she hasn't said if and why she would actually prefer the old titles. To me, the new ones (as favoured by Nyttend) appear to be rather obvious and undisputable improvements, and I honestly struggle to think of any reason a competent speaker of English might see for preferring the old set. If BHG has some substantial argument in their favour, or at least provide some plausible grounds for thinking that other editors might have such reasons, then it would make sense to say, "hey, let's roll this back and wait for some more feedback". If not, her complaint should be thrown out as unproductive process-wonkery. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Fut.Perf.: See my reply above to Marcocapelle. My objection is not process-wonkery; it is about the failure to do the notifications which might have generated more views to be added to be a very poorly-attended CFD debate.
    The CFD was based on so little tagging of the affected categories (5 out of 222, or only 2%) that we simply don't know whether other views might have been added to the 1 !vote at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, your answer has again been purely on the process level. I'll ask you one more time, directly: do you, personally, actually have a reason to prefer the old titles, or can you at least think of such an argument? If you won't name such an argument here and now, I for one will consider the case closed. It's all very well to be an advocate for procedural fairness, but if there isn't at least a plausible expectation of a potential, legitimate content disagreement to be had, that is a waste of energy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I think you are missing the point. I can think of a number of situations where I have made a proposal I thought was a slam-dunk, as I could not envision any rational opposition, but upon presentation to a broad group of editors, learned that there were some objections that I hadn't considered. While I think the proposed wording is an improvement, and can't think why anyone would disagree, the main point is that the editors who might have an opinion on the subject were not notified. We have rules for notification and a 48 period for comment for a good reason - someone might come up with a coherent objection, and it doesn't hurt the project to ask and wait two days to be sure.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
        • That's exactly why I intervened. I have not even tried to form a view on the substantive merits. I just want to ensure that those who might want to take a substantive view get a chance to do so.
          And if I had taken any any substantive view, I would not have used my admin tools, because then I would have been WP:INVOLVED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 22:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment While I'm sure this does not yet belong at ArbCom, I'm not yet convinced it even belongs here. I don't pretend to have a full grasp on the process issues, but my review of the background suggests that Nyttend and BHG Have a disagreement about the exact protocol for making this change. It looks to me like a sensible change but sometimes t's need to be crossed and i's need to be dotted before changes are effected. I think these two ought to be asked to have a discussion, probably on a CFD talk page and only if that discussion fails to reach a consensus should it end up here.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Sphilbrick: The place where this discussion should have taken happened was at WP:CFD/S#Opposed_nominations. There is indeed a discussion there, in response to my objection, but sadly Nyttend chose to ignore it and instead to escalate to here and RFAR. I would happy for the substantive discussion to be continued at WP:CFD/S#Opposed_nominations ... but I do think that there is as a WP:ADMINACCT issue to be considered here in relation to Nyttend's conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment (as closer of original CFD): The original CFD listed 5 categories at the top of the relevant hierarchy. All five were tagged. Only one was listed in the usual format at the start of the CFD, but the other four tagged categories were mentioned in the nomination. I therefore believe it was acceptable for me to also list them in the usual format before closing the discussion. I am raising this minor point first in my own defence because BrownHairedGirl raised this at 18:36 above, in the paragraph raising the possibility of a DRV.

In my (5 years?) experience at CFD no-one takes exception to an WP:INVOLVED admin processing items that they have listed at CFDS themselves, but the categories must be tagged and must wait 48 hours, and should not be processed if there is any opposition. As Nyttend had not followed these steps, IMHO it was in order for BrownHairedGirl to use the bot to revert Nyttend's hasty processing. I note that BrownHairedGirl has extensive experience at CFD, whereas Nyttend's efforts have been mainly at Commons and elsewhere.

It seems to me that trouts will be sufficient sanction, and the case in question should play out at CFDS. – Fayenatic London 22:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we update WP:INVOLVED to formalize admins to be allowed processing items that they have listed at CFDS themselves? (I fully agree that this should be allowed if there is no opposition at all after 48 hours.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• I share Fayenatic london's experience that CFDS has for years accepted admins processing moves which they had requested provided that all procedural requirements were met. I am not aware of this having met any objections, so I support Marcocapelle's proposal to note this at WP:INVOLVED. Obviously, that should note the requirement for all procedures to have been followed, with no admin allowed to use discretion in their own favour. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Although I'm not very familiar with the ins and outs of CfD, I agree with the part of BHG's objection that said this should have had wider discussion and should be re-opened and re-listed citing all of the types of categories that will be affected, and given a wider airing. The CfD had only a single !vote, and in my mind probably should have at the very least been re-listed before closing. Also, I have to say, as an English major and professional editor, the old word order was correct English and the proposed new word order is not. That is, "populated [waterside] places" is correct English word order, and "[waterside] populated places" is not, or at the very least is much less so and is awkward. Also we have here two admins, one whose specialty is categories, and one who has made less than 0.9% of their edits in categories. I think the latter should have at least given the former respect and a valid hearing. Softlavender (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Section header for easy editing

• I've been offline most of the day. Among our basic principles are the concepts of not demanding rigid adherence to process, of obeying community consensus as determined at XFDs, and of not using administrative tools to win battles. Here we have a CFD that closes in favor of a set of actions including instructions to me to get some categories renamed, BHG objects because I don't rigidly obey a process that's meant for undiscussed moves (note that the result of opposition at CFDS is a CFD, which was already completed), I strongly reject her demands to go against the CFD consensus and remind her that she's free to start a new discussion about the subject, and she goes ahead anyway and uses administrative tools to win the battle by creating more than one hundred categories after their deletion in accordance with the CFD. It's well established that abuse of rights leads to those rights being removed: create a lot of pages in defiance of XFD after being warned and your editing rights get removed, use rollback in a simple dispute (just my example, not something that happened here) and you lose rollback, vandalise a template and template-editor gets removed (again, example), and use admin rights in defiance of XFD consensus and you lose admin rights. Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Nyttend, see the top of WP:CFD/S. In the first para it says that categories must be tagged with {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}} so that users of the categories are aware of the proposal and that a request may be processed 48 hours after it was listed if there are no objections. This delay allows other editors to review the request to ensure that it meets the criteria for speedy renaming or merging, and to raise objections to the proposed change.

You — and you alone — decided to ignore all that.

1. Nobody else told you to list the categories without tagging them; that was your unilateral decision. The CFD closer told you to nominate the relevant sub-cats for speedy renaming[81]. They did not tell you to skip the CFD/S requirement for tagging the categories, and had no authority to tell you to do so.
2. Nobody else told you to override any objections; that was your unilateral decision. The CFD closer told you to nominate the relevant sub-cats for speedy renaming[82]. They did not tell you to override CFD/S procedures in relation to objections, and had no authority to tell you to do so.
3. Nobody else told you to ignore the 48 hour delay rule; that was your unilateral decision. The CFD closer told you to nominate the relevant sub-cats for speedy renaming[83]. They did not tell you to cut the CFD/S requirement for a 48 hour delay down to 46 minutes, and had no authority to tell you to do so.
4. Nobody else told you to use your own admin tools to trigger the bots. The CFD closer told you to nominate the relevant sub-cats for speedy renaming[84]. They did not tell you to use your own admin tools to implement the nomination.

I am not WP:INVOLVED. I have no substantive view on these categories, and throughout this I have sought only to uphold procedures so that interested editors get a chance to comment on proposals. I objected because I believed that the closing admin had exceeded their discretion, and the rest of this saga has been about you exceeding that closing admin's instructions.

You, however, are WP:INVOLVED, because you used your tools against objections, in breach of process rules, in pursuit of a proposal which yourself had initiated.

Per WP:ADMINACCT, you are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. When I lodged my procedural objection[85] to your CFD/S nomination, I was unaware that you intended to use your own admin tools. But when you chose to use your tools, you then had a WP:ADMINACCT responsibility to respond promptly and civilly to a procedural objection.

Having used your admin tools, you then had a WP:ADMINACCT responsibility to respond promptly and civilly to my request[86] that you revert. Instead you chose to respond with a threat[87] that sanctions will be requested immediately: a block, [snipquote] and a desysop.

You have been an admin since November 2007, almost as long as me. Nine years is quite long enough for you have learnt WP:ADMINACCT. You have been an editor since 2006-08-08, which is quite long enough for you to learn to read and follow the instructions on a procedural page before using that procedure.

You have falsely accused me WP:WHEELWARing, a serious matter which involves reinstating the reversal of an admin action. In fact, I reversed an admin action per WP:RAAA. After your 9 years as an admin, it's time you took a few minutes to study the difference.

As others have pointed out, I have been a regular participant at CFD for over ten years, whereas you appear to be unfamiliar with the procedure. When an admin vastly-more experienced than you in a particular field lodges a procedural objection to your proposed course of action, it is common sense to at least try to discuss that objection before proceeding.

The status quo ante has now been restored. It's long past time for you to abandon your desire for vengeance aginst an admin who thwarted your desire to override long-standing procedures, and get back to the discussion at WP:CFD/S#Opposed_nominations. See you there. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Nyttend seems to be racking up quite a "threaten to go after people for not agreeing with me" record: [88] (summary: a clearly WP:INVOLVED close at RM, that threatened sanctions for using normal move processes in ways well supported by a long string of consensus decisions, just because he doesn't like the guideline in question – Nyttend was one of its most outspoken opponents at an RfC about it within the year, and had also agitated about the matter at the talk page of one of the RM participants). "I'm going to see you administratively punished" is not an appropriate approach for an admin to take about process not going the way they desire. I think this should be addressed sooner rather than later. It's not being addressed here now, and wasn't a few days ago, because these actions are being viewed in isolation. So: let's not view them in isolation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

The closer of the CFD, Fayenatic london, wrote the following a few hours ago at CFDS: "As for the categories nominated here, now that speedy renaming has been opposed (both on procedure by BrownHairedGirl and on merits by David Eppstein), they need to go to a full CFD. I suggest that this should present "Option A" and "Option B", either to approve the nomination, or to reverse the Dec 8 CFD." [89]. I propose that this be done forthwith, and a link to that discussion posted to this ANI. Softlavender (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. That's the standard CFD/S way of handling objections. Time to move on, and start fixing this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support GoldenRing (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Abstain from !voting on this as an ANI proposal, but I'm supportive of this resolution to the conflict. We shouldn't need an ANI thread and formal proposal to the broader community to tell us to conduct an opposed speedy rename as we always do. It's well outside the scope of ANI to interfere with how our deletion processes are run, even in the sense of affirming how they're run. This should just be closed as no administrative action merited. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - This should not have come this far. WP:IAR doesn't mean that processes and procedures can be ignored simply because they are in an editor's (or administrator's) way. For example, once an article has been PRODded, it cannot be PRODded again if the PROD is contested. Period. One also cannot simply delete/rename/move a series of articles/templates/categories/etc. simply because a few related articles were so deleted/renamed/moved at XfD or RM. Many trout are swimming in these waters. I recommend closing this and taking all affected categories through a full CfD. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 01:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I'm sensitive to BU Rob 13's argument above, but because an Arbitration request was, to some extent, dependent on there being an outcome to this ANI, I think a !vote is appropriate, even if it shouldn't be necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• This is the most obvious solution anyway, no need to vote for, per Rob13. The proposal implies however that no actions are being taken against BrownHairedGirl which I fully support. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: Until the procedure is in fact enacted, I feel it is necessary to !vote for it, because apparently(?) it has not yet been enacted due to Nyttend's accusations and/or threats. If someone would just go ahead and create the appropriate CfD as proposed by Fayenatic and reiterated above, and leave a link to it here, then we could all probably get back to doing whatever it is we do when we are not on the drama boards. Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced pages and possible sockpuppet, Kla Fla, Larry astroloid, Christian Orella

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

---

Dear Administrators,

User:Kla Fla has created 10 pages that have all been flagged as PROD as being unsourced or lacking notability or speedy delete nominated by User:Jennica or User:Graeme Bartlett or User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi or User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. I have warned him twice about creating unsourced material but there has been no reply. There is a second user with a very similar modus operandi User:Larry astroloid who has been doing almost identical editing.

As I am writing this I have just discovered a 3rd User:Christian Orellana who has edited on the same pages as the first 2 editors with an identical editing pattern. Larry astroloid created a page called Parrot Lifespan deleted by User:Mike Rosoft as being a duplicate and Christian Orella recreated page equally called Parrot Lifespan.

My original idea behind this ANI is to find a way of warning them about creating unsourced material but I now think that a sockpuppet investigation should be opened. Should I repost this request on the other noticeboard? Domdeparis (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping Domdeparis; The editor interaction analyst gives us this- not sure about Chistian Orella, but you'll probably have a shot with the other two at SPI. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi I'll see what the admins reply about reposting at SPI unless you think I'll have to do it any way. Domdeparis (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, please post a proper report at WP:SPI so that this can get the attention it deserves from people with experience at handling this kind of issue. There isn't already enough back-and-forth here to make the move to a different forum problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Ok I'll do that. Thanks Domdeparis (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits by user 55378008a

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

---

User 55378008a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is constantly making bad edits to articles, mainly by inserting inappropriate entries in See also sections, by their own admission usually to make some kind of personal point about their opinions regarding the article subject. Many editors have complained about this. In response to multiple careful and polite warnings on their talkpage (eg. [90], [91], [92]) we get incomprehensibe walls of text, meaningless extracts of editing guidelines, lessons about policies, suspicion of bad faith, etc... Upon this final warning for leaving yet more inappropriate WTF links ([93]) at Nicotiana rustica (a.o. to Austerity, Pseudoscience, Ersatz good, Bonded warehouse, Factory (trading post)) I am asked to "make a comment about how youre assuming good faith". I don't know what to do next but maybe this could use some administrative intervention. User notified on talk page. - DVdm (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Agree 100%. Some action needs to be taken IMO. This user has IMO demonstrated that they are averse to following even the most basic of editing guidelines. It ends up causing other editors a lot of work to clean up. I believe a quick review of their editing history, and the subsequent reverts by other editors will be self-explanatory. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 14:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Agree. I've been back through a couple of years of edits, cleaning up, and it's been like this all along. I only looked at ones which are currently the most recent so I strongly suspect I missed a lot of other dodgy edits. I think this user actually does understand the rules but deliberately flouts them because they find it amusing. They tick many of the boxes for WP:NOTHERE. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• How can this be anything but trolling? The user's name is the old calculator joke of writing BOOBLESS upside down. Blackmane (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

....an example even discussed at Calculator spelling. DMacks (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a fun username, no evidence of trolling intentions. I've seen funnier ones. - DVdm (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if trolling is the right word, but disruption definitely appears to be - apart from the nature of the edits, the edit summaries give the game away. IMHO this user both walks and quacks like a duck. Andyjsmith (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

15k worth of barely coherent rambling. TimothyJosephWood 15:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Im sorry if Im the only one that takes answering questions and addressing concerns seriously. If someone doesnt want a giant response, they can not make false accusations. Besides you had no time to read any of it that fast. 55378008a (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Hi everybody, thanks for taking the time to do this. Not quite sure what to say. I deny. No opinion. None, whatsoever. Maybe that'd be for the best, huh? I would say how this is going to go is Ill say far as I know I dont need to edit Wikipedia (I know its not a right, I know I said that already and I know not anyone can edit it, I know theres zero interest in expanding and improving, I know theres a lot of jealousy out there all that. Whats the judge say? "this isnt about right or wrong, its not about the law, its about survival." Wikipedia needs to keep their lights on. I need to not screw it up for them, or you, or us, or whatever. I do know for a fact I dont need to do stuff I dont need to be doing. As far as allegations, [by me][that] Im being trolled, this is mobbing, Im not understood, Im screwing up peoples opinions filling articles - all that I dont see what that has to do with anything), agree to a ban and then therell be consensus for a ban. So I dont know maybe a ban on (mainspace, is it?) editing articles? And let me ask people to add stuff on talk pages and mess with the sandboxes tied to the account for me, and see how that goes. Sorry about all the sentences with conjunctions here but Im just not going to flow otherwise, same with the lack of punctuation. I do have some questions and comments which I might be wasting my time to make/ask (as hopefully we can all agree has been the case so far? I admit I know its not 'truthipedia') but I dont think Im going to be able to stop myself. I always got ns in self control, very consistently. This (no, I know for a fact, theres no opinion about it) goes back to being poisoned, but long story and I know nobody wants to hear it. Im pretty sure, anyway and I probably shouldnt tell it even if somebody did. The whole denial thing about the poisoning goes back pretty far Im sure which is why were all here today, right? ok. Firstly, how were you going to get me blocked from editing without further warning yesterday after [this ] warning no block is it me if none of you are an administrator. Was that an empty threat? Because I fell for it. Again, not that I feel I need to do this. Im just as guilty of autopilot as anyone else involved in this thing. Well maybe not quite as much but anyway. Except I use my powers for good instead of evil. That thing where you all keep your posts to exactly 5 lines, that is commendable as all heck. I always got red Ps all over my papers too. You got me, Im jealous. Not like super craycray, Im going to hide in the bushes outside your house but, you know. I do wish I could do that [not try to address all concerns and just blow people off and then attack them when theyre dumb enough to think because Im uncommunicative that that means Im letting it slide]. 'Many' editors did not complain. Maybe 6 definitely under 10? Out of what at least 10,000 editors on wikipedia? But admittedly all of them however many there are goigles froze up on me again. 'Many' would be like 20 per cent. And for all I know, theyre all in the same family or jail cell or whatever (yes so in other countries inmates have phones all the time that means they can use the internet. In North Korea the young ladies al gore rescued had televisions in their rooms. Tell me if you need the citation. I know, in Iran they have the pool but that they have here now too in North Dakota or somewhere). I haven't been doing it constantly because Ive only been editing for a week or two, and didnt get a single complaint until 3 days ago. My edits all made 'usually to make some kind of personal point about their opinions regarding the article subject' neutral. They got in a tizzy over their biased stuff being balanced, and complaint frenzy. Again, doesnt matter. not the point. by their own admission usually to make some kind of personal point about their opinions regarding the article subject. I never admitted to that. I deny that thats what I was doing. suspicion of bad faith, etc I never suspected you of bad faith. And saying walls of text doesn't have much to do with the fact no one bothered to respond to me at any time about any concerns. None of those warnings were careful or polite, and none of them responded to my prompt 'pardon me what" responses, which were the careful and polite phrasing you are claiming for yourself and just as wrong about as you are saying admitted I admitted pushing a personal opinion. Thats ridiculous. If you cant read the writing on the walls of text, how do you know to complain about my edits. meaningless extracts of editing guidelines, Thought WP:VOLUNTEER was an explanatory supplement and the MOS was a guideline, or similar. Upon this final warning for leaving yet more inappropriate WTF links That wasnt the final warning I am asked to "make a comment about how youre assuming good faith". which you never did, just as you never responded to any of my concerns, possibly because you consider WP:CONSENSUS a meaningless guideline? I don't know what to do next I feel like youre going to have your boyfriend shoot me with the silver revolver there now but honestly, you could just make the comment. I'm not going to comment about water in gas so someone has to park inside. I've been back through a couple of years of edits, cleaning up, and it's been like this all along. Theres no way youve been through more than two years of edits, because I signed up in November 2015 (check my edit log) and I only started editing about a month ago, if that. Again, really sick (needlejab? was that sleeping gas? oh, guy with poisonous 'orange' beer too last June) and absolutely great reason not to edit wikipedia. The way I used to explain it in the 15 years I read wikipedia without editing, "not your bear, dont give him sugar" (tea party, mr bear, one lump or two? everyone know what Im talking about?) The flurry of 'halt! stop! or else!' comments only started 3 days ago. This is like a standard template you use to make a bunch of bogus accusations before you ban someone. You could just ask I would have agreed without all this crap. Is it me or is that just so stupid? You know? Just "hello, we dont like your edits, youre using the keyboard you could get hurt yourself, can we agree on a ban." I would have said yes. I make an edit that says 'stan is fred' and I get this screeching 'youre a failure' box with some text added that says I said "farb is goldwinkle." And Im like what? excuse me? and while Im waiting for a response, after an hour or too Im like whats this they must be really busy they act like it was the end of the world (I think some people have cabin fever here, and again chief with the silver revolver, nice picture by the way) and then now their house must be on fire or something or maybe it just got so exciting you had to take an hour or two off ok. So yeah obviously Im the problem here. Im glad youre smoking something a lot better than I can get, is all I can say. So Im like ok well obviously they could not care less and I make another edit still nothing another or two I get the same thing from somebody else (supposedly) about some other edit but exact same thing. So all that all over again 5 times, which is how you end up with your four examples up there. You missed one. So, again, you could just be like the princess is really impressionable, we dont think youre a good influence (again you got me again admitting, you know Im not trying to argue with you at all) you dont want her to find out Im editing wikipedia ok because god knows Im not on facebook all right. I dont want to screw up your princess for you either. Better someone else should do it, huh? Ok, good then. I mean, I have some issues but I didnt come to this planet just to cause problems, thats ridiculous. Not even for you. I think this user actually does understand the rules but deliberately flouts them because they find it amusing. Well, Im not going to accuse you of making false accusations because you have a conflict of interest. Im not deliberately flouting any rules. I think this is a standard template for railroading somebody. You could just ask you know its so sad. They tick many of the boxes for WP:NOTHERE. How can I tick a box I have no idea what it is. Are you the ones with the pink bed and the parents. Who put you up to this. You need to be honest with me so I can help you. You know the guy with the syringe was probably driving when he ran down the kid, right? Her car and she got three years plus? You dont know how he put her under? I know it wasnt her car supposedly. You were on the jury? Whatd she do to annoy you. How can this be anything but trolling? I agree what you are doing is almost certainly nothing but trolling. But Im sure that doesnt stop you from getting people blocked. You could have just asked, I would have agreed because I feel bad for your feelings and I dont want you to shoot me. Or try again, if you put those guys up to that. They didnt use that on- well nevermind. Hope it wasnt registered to you. Is it me or that kid have the guys name tag. (Stop at the same place as the shooting) Not sure if trolling is the right word, but disruption definitely appears to be - apart from the nature of the edits, the edit summaries give the game away. IMHO this user both walks and quacks like a duck. That may or may not be funny or clever, but there is no word for country hell that resembles a bird. For someone that claims to not have a personal interest in blocking edits to chemical castration, ku (poison) or contact agent, youre making "I should have needed a crook" type jokes here. Which brings me to my next point, every edit to wikipedia disrupts the way the article or whatever was before. Incidentally if you have to block me to keep her from talking to me, you have way bigger problems than wikipedia. But that you know hopefully will not become my issue. not that I could ever have anything against her. Or chief. Or the silver revolver in that polaroid. Who in the hell shoots anyone with a revolver thats ridiculous. Come on Ill say this again a real man stabs someone in the face with a rusty piece of metal. Oh you tried that already. Thats almost healed, by the way. Comes and goes. Pretty soon theyd be like 'what scar. no award." At least I still have the one from the axe (1994 on the back of the head) That still classified? What is the deal. All right theres more stuff here but Im having trouble remembering, so Ill just leave you with that. Thanks for all the attention, that was quite the experience, absolutely. Say hello to everybody for me. Was that peggy with the syringe? What is in that stuff. Whats with the gold foil blanket, and the purple jacket at the trailhead in the late 70s. Hows the wrist. Someday, shes going to get caught sticking that syringe into somebody, and theyre going to talk about AA in tents. Is that a ninja hanging off the side of the building? The assassin? The gold foil blanket go with the valley? Secret confessions of the heart time - its not just a fun username. The original party (of course, we didnt have calculators at parties, we had them at school, which youre probably not supposed to mention. You said 'calculator' first) trick or whatever that was involved dolly parton in a car wreck, which she just suffered in real life not too long ago, or in the last 15 years anyway whichever you prefer and I see nothing fun about that, not her, not anyone, and not after- again, whatever. Its a reference to the gynecomastia caused by chemical castration (some of you may recollect the article) which is definately not fun. Ive seen funnier names than yours too. No, wait, I havent. But I dont find your name all that funny. Erm, either. Im getting blocked because me name is not funny enough? Again, thats not a joke. I cant imagine why youd say Dolly Parton getting in a car accident is a joke, especially given theres a very good chance that was no coincidence. Thats just nasty Im sorry, if youre doing that on purpose. an example even discussed at Calculator spelling. what? no it isnt. If you're wrong about that, you could be wrong about all that other stuff too. Theres three or more of you, wikipedias in the real world, it doesnt matter if theres anything to the allegations or not. Id be an idiot not to accept a ban. So to recap someone going to go 'see? he agrees to a ban' and so thats whats going to happen. Except in the extremely rare chance someonell come along and say what a crock this really is and decline except we all know the shrill complaints so far which near as I can tell, I mean I could be wrong- so I cant even think at all so why should I be editing, right? Exactly. The complaints arent going to stop. So I think the 'reasons' are completely bogus but I know you dont want to attract attention to yourself and youre not supposed to use the keyboard at all, especially not to post on line so the reason is sound, even though the process could use a little polishing. That was just sad. You could just be like, look, this is a private e-dollhouse and we dont like how youre arranging the rooms. Theres always everything2.com if you absolutely *must*. Or even that was our family member and we dont want you posting about that, or if we say were still at war with Germany goddam it we want you to play along (for all I know, maybe you are. Hadnt ocurred to me. Armistice? - I know, Im a sucker). I can accept all those things. But that was just obnoxious, Im sorry folks. Its like pooping on someones porch because you dont want them to drive their car. You could just be like we dont want you to make any edits and not screw around and waste all this time with incredibly stupid excuses. No offense. (Unless two or more of you really are under 12 years old, in which case that was very commendable, youre away above your level and far advanced of what I was at your age, when all I could do was drool. Literally could not even turn on a television. Did you get hit by a car? Thanks for telling me. They do that to me literally all the time, by the way, at least junk bike season and Im not going to blame who causes that. Last one was Israel Keyes, if Im not mistaken. DNP 767? Guy was doing hit and runs all over town. But I see someone else has taken his place then) Feel free to let me know if you need more explanation. Its been real, its been fun, hasnt been real fun. "Its not like were stuck without fun," right? And again, sorry about these long a** posts. - 55378008a (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Intentionally trolling or not, whatever you call the above is enough, at least for me, to endorse a WP:CIR block if nothing else is more appropriate. TimothyJosephWood 15:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

[Wikipedia editors are a dying breed. The reason? Mobile | Andrew Brown | Opinion | The Guardian]

Intentionally trolling or not, whatever you call the above is enough, at least for me, to endorse a WP:CIR block if nothing else is more appropriate. TimothyJosephWood 15:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Its called what it says two lines above your post, a long post. If you like, you can call it an answer as well. - 55378008a (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

tea party, mr bear, one lump or two? everyone know what Im talking about? Seems more like a cry for help to me. TimothyJosephWood 15:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If I was blackmane I might say something about trolling. Thanks for the box; that looks great. Im pretty sure its not a cry for help. Not sure why someone would cry for help on wikipedia. Wait a minute is that a reference to dragging kids away from tea parties? Now that might be a cry for help, especially if the child snatcher is wearing a clown suit. - 55378008a (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, Ms. Koenig cried for help. Ah yes. Gotcha. Thatd be a clever reference, if thats what you intended. - 55378008a (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Wow. For ~630 edits, far too much talking and far too little real listening. Anybody care to make a proposal? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Never mind - indeffed. Ready to close. Next. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

That's enough of that. Blocked indefinitely. If they start to abuse the talk page, ping me and I'll revoke TPA. Katie^talk 16:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Activating a bot

We need an admin to activate a bot to revert a whole load of edits. Explanation here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#References_to_LinuxInsider_and_ECT_network_websites_removed_by_KnowledgeBattle. Please, can any one help. --Aspro (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done manually. It really wasn't that many edits, and many of them had already been reverted. Bradv 16:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Has this template been deprecated ?

I'm not sure what this editor is doing, I asked on their talk but no response and continues to edit. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

not according to the template page or Category:Deprecated templates from January 2017 Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Could it be a bot of some sort? Users only edits are inserting the media box with NAMM links and now replacing as external links with NAMM. After doing a bit of digging, looks like it's just plain ol' COI. This is the single edit that was not an insertion of NAMM into an article. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If you look at the user's talk page, someone told her that she shouldn't add those videos. It appears she is now removing all those videos from articles. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

In any case, seems like a single purpose account given what "they" said on the talk page I linked and all 1,173 of their edits are related to NAMM... Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If the user gets blocked (which looks certain) please nuke their 'tribs. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a good faith attempt to add material to Wikipedia, and the user is now undoing their mistake. Sam Walton (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, I think there's a bigger issue in a total failure to communicate, this has apparently been going on since 2015 and they haven't communicated with any other editors since that single talk entry in March 2016. Sharing is nice but it seems a bit like spam to me. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hm, agreed that lack of communication is an issue. Sam Walton (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Allisonhargis left this explaination on my talk. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Beatley and Cassianto

Cassianto (talk · contribs) appears to be WP:HOUNDING Beatley (talk · contribs), broadly reverting his/her constructive contributions across multiple articles:

1. [94]
2. [95]
3. [96]
4. [97]

There are more, just look at recent contribs. Add to that a seriously uncivil edit summary in response to @JamesBWatson: [98]. Note that this editor has been blocked more than 7 times for WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL issues. Toddst1 (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

With respect to the report at AIV, I'm going to decline it, in lieu of the discussion here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe David Eppstein and Nikkimaria could offer their views with regards to Beatley? Cassianto^Talk 20:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While the "fuck off" edit summary obviously isn't cool, it looks like Beatley is wandering around Wikipedia unilaterally adding infoboxes to articles without discussion, which isn't explicitly forbidden but is certainly frowned upon, particularly once objections have been raised. It's standard practice on Wikipedia when one spots an editor doing something problematic to check their contributions to see if they've been causing the same problem elsewhere and fix them if so, and doesn't remotely constitute "hounding". ‑ Iridescent 20:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Asking "Why is this infobox an improvement" is a poor rationale for reverting, unless the editor asking the question has WP:OWN issues. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Mlpearc, note User talk:Beatley#Templates (one of 47 posts on Beatley's talkpage of which by my count 40 are warnings). It's already been explained to him by multiple people why adding Wikidata templates without discussion is problematic unless the data in question has been verified (WP:INFOBOXREF states that information in an infobox without a citation has to be present in the article, and his infoboxes aren't complying with that), and why his edits are being reverted. ‑ Iridescent 20:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Iridescent Thanx for pointing that out. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to count warnings on Beatley's talkpage, please note that some (including valid BLP warnings) have been removed by Beatley, as is his right. Beatley seems to me to have a hair trigger for calling any disagreement with his edits "hounding"; one of the comments he removed was my explanation that, contrary to his accusations there, my reversions of his userboxes were not hounding, because I had only reverted changes that I had seen on my own watchlist. There's a bigger issue here, which is whether the "experimental" Wikidata-based infobox template that Beatley keeps adding should be used on Wikipedia at all; it doesn't meet our standards for reliable sourcing of BLPs, and many of Beatley's edits have had the effect of adding unsourced personal information (such as birthdays) to BLPs, when that information did not already appear in the text of the article and did not have a valid source even over on Wikidata. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The Wikidata-based infoboxes are certainly less-than-ideal and shouldn't be added willy-nilly to pre-existing articles. However, I'm most concerned with the removal of infoboxes added by Beatley to articles he created himself, such as Dušan Cekiḱ and Elias Plavev. If the desire of an article creator to omit an infobox is reason enough to leave one out, shouldn't the opposite also be true? clpo13_(talk) 20:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't delete them for the fun of it; have you actually seen my diffs below? Would you consider the boxes to be a help or hindrance? Cassianto^Talk 22:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, Beatley has been adding pointless Infoboxes and I'm not the only one who has been challenging them about this. This user is adding them on an industrial scale and although well within their rights to do so, there has to be a level of common sense applied:

1. this
2. this
3. this
4. this
5. this
6. this
7. this
8. this
9. this
10. this
11. this
12. this

And these I've found at random! I apologise for loosing my cool by swearing, I really do, but being templated, reverted, and then hauled to two drama boards with no discussion at any of the talk pages really pisses me off. Not to mention JamesBWatson's failure to warn the other editor. JamesBWatson has come across as completeley biased, alerted by his friend, Toddst1. Cassianto^Talk 20:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment Let's try this week old discussion for starters and today's missives. We hope (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• article talk

"editing warring about infoboxes is childish don't you think? aren't you increasing the likelihood infoboxes will be everywhere with the battleground behavior? User:Beatley|Beatley (User talk:Beatley|talk) 19:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)"

• user talk

"well, defending the status quo is charming, but it might get you run over. i like the anti-infobox anti-wikidata anti-WMF ideology; it just does not have much future. do not mass revert my edits and we will get along fine. do it and you will have a fight. User:Beatley|Beatley (User talk:Beatley#top|talk) 19:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)"

• Note also that Beatley appears to be importing garbled machine translations using WP:CXT (example, example, both from today), which isn't explicitly forbidden (he's over the 500 edit threshold) but is certainly a bright red flag. Maybe he is fluent in English and understands the source language well enough to be sure that the meaning has not been scrambled or distorted (the requirement to use CXT) in French, Hungarian, Polish, Macedonian, Spanish, and German, but it seems unlikely. ‑ Iridescent 20:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Making mass changes is bound to get somebody's attention. Suggest Beatley stop with the infobox creations & get a consensus for those creations. Let's talk this out :) GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'd also like to note that the majority of infoboxes I have left in situ. I've reverted the ones I consider to be WP:DIB. Cassianto^Talk 20:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Is this the sort of battleground behaviour expected of "the victim" here? Cassianto^Talk 22:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• A threat?, surely not. This editor is a victim right? Cassianto^Talk 22:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Beatley's contributions have been problematic. He's received repeated requests to slow down with adding Wikidata templates and to amend/source added info as needed, but he appears to believe that it is not necessary to provide sources for infobox data even if that data appears nowhere in the article. Some of his template additions have been completely empty, while others have had information that obviously contradicts the article text (eg. differing years of birth, without sourcing) or is obviously wrong (eg. saying a person was born at "geographic location"). He's removed polite explanations of why he is incorrect with claims of "hounding", and has in several case restored his reverted edits without addressing reasons for reversion, particularly with regards to sourcing. While he may be acting in good faith, I don't think he has the necessary understanding needed to use Wikidata-enabled templates appropriately. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Mass addition of infoboxes that only contain two lines is as disruptive as mass creation of redirects, if someone asks you to stop. And I say that as someone who generally prefers infoboxes, providing they perform a clear service of organizing and presenting sufficient pertinent information. Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• I have neither the time nor the inclination to look into the entire thing, but found a few things worth mentioning. I found this edit by Beatley unacceptable and gave them an "only warning" for personal attacks on their talk page. Cassianto may be a lot of things, but he's no troll, and the astonishing amount of bad faith carried in that term is blockable; I hope they won't repeat it. In that same diff you can see Cassianto use the same word, but (wisely) couched in a different phrase; Cassianto, please tone it down. Your use is more acceptable/less blockable, but still not OK. I'm not warning on your talk page since you likely don't wish to see my beautiful name there, but I hope this suffice. As for the recent edits, this revert by Cassianto is very understandable, and Beatley better stop edit warring.

  All of this is much less important than the larger matter. There is some agreement here over the status of Wikidata and what we can and cannot do with it; Beatley would do well to listen to Nikkimaria's sage advice or they will run into a block--that's pretty much a guarantee--for disruption, edit warring, adding unverified information, or [feel free to supply a few more reasons]. Importing unverified information in this way makes the infobox more important than the article and is not an improvement. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Block Beatley should have been blocked already, for edit warring and trolling.[99][100][101] 50.0.136.56 (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Topic ban Beatley from Wikidata infoboxes, and infoboxes that provide nothing more than birth/birthplace/death, alma mater, occupation. I don't really know how Wikidata infoboxes arose, but I don't like them. I would support a ban on Wikidata infoboxes sitewide (i.e, not just Beatley), or make a it guideline that if they are removed they should not be replaced. Softlavender (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, I have only reverted Beatley once and that was on Lady Rachel Workman MacRobert, an article I created, and the only article I have had any interaction with him/her on. Since then Beatley has accused me of article ownership; the same diff shows Beatley trying to intimidate(?) me with the Women in Green Project - and note that s/he did leave a comment on that Project talk page making the wildly inaccurate suggestion the article was close to GA based on his/her use of ORES. Eventually I left a brief comment on his/her talk page that ended up resulting in a rather bizarre "conversation" which included scathing comments from Beatley such as "why would i try to improve the article if you are camped on it? i'm surprised you have not admin locked it. go for it", "talk pages are a vast wasteland, given behavior such as yours", "ORES is more reliable than you", "do not mass revert my edits and we will get along fine. do it and you will have a fight" and "well, defending the status quo is charming, but it might get you run over". What is actually meant by "it might get you run over"? Perhaps someone could let me know if there are some kind of cultural differences I'm missing but where I come from getting run over means hitting someone or something with a car; so is s/he threatening me with physical harm? Yet despite this behaviour by Beatley, the OP in this thread, several admins and other commentators feel it is Cassianto's behaviour that is the problem? Really? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Meh, I assumed it was a metaphorical run over rather than a literal one. User reads like a non-native English speaker (or somewhere where it has diverged from the standard) so put it down to idiom. But from the above, most of the people here appear to agree that Beatley is in the wrong. I was expecting a lot more anti-Cassianto comments given it involves infoboxs (and Cassianto). I think its time for another RFC on the use of Wikidata however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

So I'd be safe to go outside now? ;-) I wasn't really suggesting that I was actually frightened/terrified or worried about my safety, more that I was trying to highlight it could plausibly be read that way and, when coupled with the other poor behaviour, is far worse and way more disruptive than Cassianto occasionally muttering what some seem to consider a "naughty word" yet the OP is seeking sanctions against Cass, whose talk page was being littered with warnings. I even asked one of the admins who was warning Cass to look at Beatley's behaviour but that was ignored. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thats a polite suggestion. An administrator warning is 'Dont do this or you will receive administrative action'. If you are talking about the template, well anyone can use templates. JamesBWatson was just suggesting Cassianto might catch more flies with sugar than vinegar. Last of a long line of people to do that (self included)... Its not worked yet but we can hope :D FYI though, a good rule of thumb is, if someone hasnt replied promptly, they are probably busy. Wait 24 hours. I have lost count of the number of people who expect a response within the hour. This is a volunteer project. Its not an urgent issue. (some) People have lives. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• I am not happy with the editing of either editor. However, I have blocked Beatley for persistent disruptive editing, specifically for persistent reverts on a number of articles, which all put together amount, as I see it, to parts of one big edit war in the circumstances. The block is just for 12 hours, as a warning really. I shall leave it for others to decide if any more actions are needed, for either or both of the editors in question. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Note I have been bold and removed the most recent post by Marvellous Spider-Man. Rough as this thread was yesterday, everyone who has posted in it today has in some way tried to resolve or diffuse the issue. Remarks such as that do neither. As my edit-summary says, it was neither helpful nor necessary. And on the subject of edit-summaries, if snide snarks do have to be made, could an honest edit-summary at least be left? The last thing that was, was a 'suggestion.' Thanks all, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed. MarvellousSpiderMan, Please read WP:SARCASM - it's a great humorous essay and gives excellent advice that should always be followed to the letter. Actual some content since I posted; So we're clear, my "sarcasm" post, is probably no more content-worthy then your own was. ANI is a forum for serious discussion not swipes at fellow editors. If you're going to comment, and you are allowed to do so, please make sure you have something worthwhile saying that isn't just an attack at someone else. This is not the first time you've been asked you to drop it today either for that matter. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Cortisol Talk page

Could an admin please take a look at the section "Psycho efects." on the Cortisol Talk page. There is some very unusual editing going on there. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Also see this edit from the same user - WikipediaUserBR. And similar stuff from 2-3 other editors on that page. 'Unusual' is an understatement! Ravensfire (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the two examples listed as being complete incoherent rants, and I've given WikipediaUserBR a warning for this in the idea of good faith. If they keep it up, I'm thinking a block for WP:NOTHERE may be needed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

e/c The problem at the Cortisol Talk page has been solved thanks to user:RickinBaltimore. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Large number of trivial edits by IP user

Over a period of months 76.21.37.205 (talk) has been making a large number of trivial edits, mainly in the form of removing whitespace between sentence which has not visual affect on the articles.[102][103][104][105][106] They have also been going around removing leading zeros without gaining a consensus.[107][108][109] While some may consider this a constructive edit, there is nothing on MOS:NUM that prohibit leading zeros and {{Episode list}} documentation allows for leading zeros. The editor has been informed by Cyberpower678 [110] and myself[111] to stop these trivial edits, however, the editor has completely ignored these comments. —Farix (t | c) 22:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I put a 1 week block on the IP to hopefully get his attention. I have no problem with with any admin lifting this if the IP user can actually be made to understand he has to talk to other editors when they challenge him, instead of just continuing on with the questionable edits. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate information being repeatedly being put back on Royal Rumble (2017)

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

---

For the past few days me (User:I Am Awesome 061796) and User:KC Roosters have been editing the Announced Royal Rumble match participants and keep debating on the status of a wrestler by the name of Goldberg to if he is a Raw superstar or an unassigned superstar with him claiming he is a Raw superstar and me as an unassigned superstar and I Have tried to show him where I got the information from which is the official WWE.com's roster page where if you go to it at http://www.wwe.com/superstars and scroll down to the tab that says current, which is just below the championships, and make the tab Raw superstars and look for Goldberg you cannot find him. He uses the Wikipedia's WWE Raw roster as his source for his side of the argument and when I tried to explain my reasons he ignores it and reverts it to his past edit. In my edits I even made a reference to the same website I have showed you both on the article and on his user talk page and he has deleted both without any explanation to his actions. So I was hoping that you can intervene and fix the problem whether you rule in my favor or his as long as the problem is solved, so can you please help this situation out?

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

User:Class.wrestling

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

---

I'd like to ask for a block for User:Class.wrestling. He is clearly engaged in edit warring even after both myself AND User:KC Roosters have repeatedly warned him over his disruptive editing on the article Royal Rumble (2017) Vjmlhds (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Digging a hole; [112]. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruption by Francis Schonken

I have been creating content on a long article Concerto transcriptions (Bach) for a while with perhaps 500 edits. It had an "in use" tag on it a few hours ago. Francis Schonken, who has been Tracking my edits for the last few months, was therefore aware that I was writing a huge amount of content there. I have been over the past 7 or 8 years one of the main contributors to articles on Bach's organ music; these pieces fall into that category. Francis Schonken has vandalised the article in the last few hours in an aggressive way. He did not give any warning. None at all. This was a very long article.

Could an administrator please restore the article that I was editing? I cannot even find the editing history.

It was a long article entitled Concerto transcriptions (Bach). Francis Schonken's editing on Bach-related articles was restricted before for tendentious editing on articles and their talk pages, mostly related to Bach's religious music. Those restrictions should probably be reinstated and strengthened. This editing might even warrant a block. Francis Schonken has shifted around a huge amount of content that I was creatinng. His aggressive actions show that he is not interested in helping the reader and indded is trying to stop me editing.

I cannot even find my editing history on the article on Concerto transcriptions (Bach) because of thr games he's been playing. He waits until the middle of the noght Europen time to make these disruotive edits. That is what is just happened. I will try to restore the article I was editing but would like help from an administrator. Perhpas the easiest wasy is to block his editing and then somehow restore the article. Mathsci (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: I have not even been allowed the time to proof-read this and then notify Francis Schonken. The peanut gallery has crowded in with their comments. Mathsci (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mathsci: You were required to notify Francis Schonken of this discussion per the instructions at the top of the page. I did it for you. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 05:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

You removed my comment and made a bunch of edits to this post, but, whatever. I believe the article you have been contributing to is located at Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord (Bach) which has a long history of your edits and has recently been moved from Concerto transcriptions (Bach) which is currently just a redirect accesible here. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Noting that the middle of the night European time is only an hour earlier for FS... O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 06:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) You also left {{in use}} in place for several days without actually working on the article. It was automatically removed as stale by JL-Bot yesterday. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 06:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: At this point, I believe the continuing conflict between FrancisSchonken and Mathsci, which boiled over in May 2016 and has merely accelerated since then ([113], [114], [115], [116], [117]), needs to go to ArbCom. It has lasted too long, and has still not improved despite a resultant 6-month 1RR editing restriction on Francis Schonken, who started right back on his apparent hounding of Mathsci when the 6 months ended. I'm not necessarily taking sides here; although I sense that Francis has normally been the aggressor, Mathsci has his own inopportune behaviors that exacerbate the situation. I would possibly normally in this sort of case recommend an IBAN, but I don't think that is going to work in this situation, since we have two classical-music knowledgeable editors whose contributions are usually good when they are not at each others' throats, and their editing paths may seemingly of necessity cross. I think at this point a good and thorough forensic analysis of who has done what, and why and how, needs to be done, in order to come up with solutions that work best for the encyclopedia. I would like to invite two neutral and experienced editors, Voceditenore and Johnuniq, to opine here, as they have seen some of this unfolding and have effectively opined about it here on ANI in the past. Softlavender (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I have restored Concerto transcriptions (Bach) myself having found out where it was put. There was no controversial content; I have been busy in Cambridge University Library reading reference sources on Vivaldi on the concertos transcribed. These volumes are not available on the web (they have detailed comments on hand written copies and transcriptions). The pattern of of HOUNDING is clear enough and has been described at WikiProject Classical Music (where Softlavender commented before). Francis Schonken made no comments there. He asked about a musical genre which is not current. In the past at WP:RSN he has been told not use primary sources, only secondary sources. His current editing looks like some kind of new stunt. Howeverem the article is restored. I will content adding content to it and the related summary content concerned on the 9 Vivaldi concertos Bach transcribed (the article L'estro Armonico). Mathsci (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Mathsci, you've actually just created a redirect loop Concerto transcriptions (Bach) -> Weimar concerto transcription (Bach) -> Concerto transcriptions (Bach). The article you want is Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord (Bach), you'll want to make the others redirect there. Though since you've asked admin assistance, and SL is recommending ARBCOM, I don't know how wise doing anything further to those pages would be. That is regardless of whether I am a member of the "Peanut gallery" or otherwise. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The article I have been writing is now at Concerto transcriptions for organ and harpsichord (Bach). I wanted it to be at the old title,

"Concerto transcriptions (Bach)". If User:Doug Weller or another administrator is around, could they please help? I am not quite sure what happened. I probably made a careless error somewhere. It is the main article on wikipedia discussing those transcriptions. I chose the short title. This is OK, but not as short and snappy as I would like. Francis Schonken's intention was to cause distress not to help the reader. Mathsci (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Note: This is a recent, related thread on WikiProject Classical Music which was mentioned in a post above: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Page_on_Bach.27s_unaccompanied_keyboard_concertos.3F. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Here is the discussion where Francis Schonken was advised by 5 editors not to use primary sources Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_215#Deletions_at_Six_Sonatas_for_Violin_and_Harpsichord,_BWV_1014–1019. He kept the thread running for three weeks in October. He ignored the advice. Mathsci (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• I have sorted out the redirects. Both point to the article currently being edited. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Although this issue seems to have been needlessly complicated. FS started the article at Weimar concerto transcription (Bach) on 15th December and the Concerto transcriptions for organ and harpsichord (Bach) on the 25th December. On the 31st december Mathsci redirected the Weimar article elsewhere as a POV Fork (It wasnt a fork by the standard definition at that point although arguably it is a 'fork' of content included at the latter article.) and it goes through a number of other redirects/moves before pointing at Concerto transcriptions. If the intended sole article location is to be 'Concerto transcriptions (Bach)' please start a formal move request, as at this point its just getting ridiculous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• I have this vivid recollection of Francis Schonken having been topic-banned or something like that for moving articles without discussion. I find a reprimand by Boing! said Zebedee in the talk page archive, here, and I'm sure there's more. As far as I'm concerned Francis Schonken should be barred from making any moves at all (or forking content, re-forking content, renaming articles). Drmies (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the content because I have not edited classical music. I will comment that I have seen both editors, User:Mathsci and User:Francis Schonken, pop up on these drama boards in the past. My most recent encounter was of disruption of the dispute resolution process by Mathsci. Francis Schonken filed a request for moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Mathsci deleted it. While dispute resolution is voluntary, and an editor may decline to take part, deleting the request is a violation of talk page guidelines. I restored but archived the filing, and advised that a Request for Comments would be in order. Francis Schonken then asked what to do because Mathsci had deleted the RFC, which is similarly a violation of talk page guidelines and is disruptive. I advised that RFCs should not be deleted. As I said, I am not familiar with the content dispute, and Francis Schonken may indeed be disruptive, but Mathsci's conduct was also disruptive. I would optimistically suggest that these editors could request formal mediation. Otherwise topic bans may be necessary, and neither editor is clean. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump "compromised" claims

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

---

The new article Donald Trump "compromised" claims needs to go. "Rules" prevent blanking but this story is so thin and such a blatant BLP vio, an admin should delete immediately. We don' break news or even worse, publish rumors of news with serious BLP concerns. Delete and salt. --DHeyward (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

While I agree that we need to be extremely careful with our phrasing and our sourcing on this issue, to say that there can't be an article on this topic is somewhat absurd, given that a vast array of impeccable reliable sources are reporting on the allegations, their veracity or lack thereof, and their impact on Trump's pending presidency. There are lots of unverified claims and BLP concerns related to the Podesta emails, but that didn't prevent us from writing an article about them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't let's have another Gamergate etc that ends up in semantics and quibbles about news sourcing. Apply WP:NOTNEWS and move on. When/if decent sources reflect on the historical record then we might cover it. - Sitush (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No, NBSB, reliable sources are not reporting on the articles premise. They are reporting what an unreliable source has said and most refuting it. Recently that's been called "fake news." Remember the Rolling Stone rape story? The mainstream media reported on Rolling Steam and it became a massive BLP problem when it fell apart. Let's not play that game. This has BLP implications and needs to go. --DHeyward (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, just ignore this article from Politico, this article from NPR, this article from the NYT, this article from CNN, etc. If you could cite the reliable sources that are, as you claim, "refuting," these allegations, that would be helpful, because we can and should add those refutations to the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

None of those sources are claiming Trump is compromised (the title of the article). They are reporting on Buzzfeed. It's garbage and you are smart enough to know that. --DHeyward (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Should have been speedied as a BLP-vio (WP:G10). No need for an AfD. A viral article does not get its own Wikipedia article. If there is ever enough coverage on the subject matter to merit a content fork from the base article, create something then and only then, but not now. By the way, for the latter reason, perhaps should not be salted. Softlavender (talk) 08:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• This definitely seems like a BLP violation. Even the main source publishing the story (Buzzfeed News) says their story is unsubstantiated and full of errors. If something more substantial appears, then it'd warrant its own article - it definitely wouldn't be a content fork - but this is highly speculative at the moment. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There are lots of articles about it at https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5n8z88/megathread_intelligence_report_claims_russia_has/ which makes it notable in it's own right. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Suggest speedy deleting. Respected sources like NYTimes and WaPo are calling them "unsubstantiated" and "unconfirmed" claims (see article afd for links). This is too borderline, even if the rumours are bring covered widely. EvergreenFir (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• As I commented in the AfD thread: I'm beginning to think that Wikipedia should have a global 3-day "cooling period" on using any sensationalist news stories as reliable sources in the domain of US politics. — JFG ^talk 10:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• As it stood it was only reporting the allegations, and not reflecting the real story that it is another bit of "fake news" (as reported in reliable sources). That was as bad as some of the Pizzagate stuff we had here and was a WP:G10 violation, and I have speedy deleted it as such. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Apparent legal threat

Laurianne380 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed content from Thierry Claveyrolat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with two edit summaries (machine translation)

• tout est faux. donc je retire avant d'entamer des poursuites judiciaires (everything is false. So I withdraw before commencing legal proceedings)
• Encore faux !!!!! JAMAIS il avait été question de prison. (Encore faux !!!!! NEVER it had been about prison.)

It would appear that Claveyrolat was involved in an auto accident, severely injured four people. Was arrested for drinking and committed suicide after finding out how badly one individual was injured. Similar content is on fr:Thierry Claveyrolat One source from Irish Independent

• "encore faux" means "still false". You forgot to translate that part, so adding it for anyone who doesn't understand. Patient Zero^talk 09:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That is what Google translate returned. Thanks for the clarification. Jim1138 (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem Jim1138. Patient Zero^talk 09:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• I have removed the info sourced to a french forum (not in any way reliable) and the quote. (Personally I am pretty sure including a quote as to a dead persons state of mind by a writer who admittedly had a big falling out with the subject is not really a good idea when the subject committed suicide). As it stands now its the basic facts. Should more/better sources be found, it can be expanded upon. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection need in my talk page

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

---

Hello, can I get a semi-protection on my talk page? I've been subject to constant harassment by an unregistered MAC address. I could reply to their attacks but I do not want to stoop to their level. Thank you. -Human like you (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

All I'm seeing in the history of your Talk page are standard warnings. Can you please point out which diffs constitute "constant harassment"? Exemplo347 (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There is none and the warnings were absolutely correct resulting in Human like you being warned at WP:AN3. They are just wasting our time here. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Admin eyes requested

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

---

Can an admin check this user's page and verify if this ok (I'm referring to my actions, as userpages cannot be made to look like articles, per WP:UP). He (I'm assuming ) is using his user page to host a Wikipedia article. I did leave him a note on his talk page about his user page, and left the userpage as-is as he appears to be fairly new. I'm requesting that his user page by double checked , just in case this article has been created before and I'm unaware of it. Thanks KoshVorlon} 15:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: You're spot on - I've deleted the article and blocked the user as a promotional account (with promotional edits to boot). Thank you for explaining why you CSD'd their user page - even though they've violated username policy they're still a new editor, and your actions have reduced the bite this experience may have given them. Thank you for bringing it to our attention -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 15:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Urgent request

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

---

Major vandalism has taken place at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Sports Please restore page. 109.155.83.19 (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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