Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:04, 10 January 2017 editSMcCandlish (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors201,689 editsm template fix← Previous edit Revision as of 10:06, 10 January 2017 edit undoCalton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users78,494 edits Response from DicklyonNext edit →
Line 863: Line 863:
--><p>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 ] fix the noncompliance later? If you submitted an article to '']'' 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.</p><!-- --><p>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 ] fix the noncompliance later? If you submitted an article to '']'' 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.</p><!--
--><p>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 ]. And now you're here trying to ] 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 ], the prescribed process for challenging RM closes. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 09:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)</p> --><p>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 ]. And now you're here trying to ] 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 ], the prescribed process for challenging RM closes. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 09:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)</p>

:::''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? --] | ] 10:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


== Editor making hoax articles and additions about an actress == == Editor making hoax articles and additions about an actress ==

Revision as of 10:06, 10 January 2017

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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. (archivessearch)

    Start a new discussion Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links


    User:Moxy

    Very worrying that this editor professes to "have fun seeing them deal with the problem again and again and again. In time theses editors will get burnt out or see the light." He's referring to infobox warring and enforcement, and the fact that many articles without an infobox become a target and often result in unpleasant conflict and people trying to force one. This is contrary to the principle of wikipedia and is disruptive. Nobody should be having "fun" in seeing disruption and editors burn out. Arb have ruled that infoboxes are not compulsory, and this attitude to a situation which is putting off some of our best editors from writing articles is a major site problem.

    Even after this he continues to make light of the time wasting aspects of infobox disputes...

    Proposal

    Given Moxy's confession, I propose that he is banned from being involved with infobox warring discussions for the benefit of the site. He has a long history of commenting in infobox discussions and inflaming situations, because he has "fun" doing it. It's not right and should be stopped. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

    SupportDr. Blofeld 16:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

    Support Also discouraging is the inference re: UK editors not being as well-educated as those in the US and Canada. We hope (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

    Comment The user's comments are confrontational regarding the infobox issue. He's gotten his wish re: comment about "burning out". "I have been confronting you over and over again on the fundamentals of why we are here ...this is a big thing." Exchange with an editor who left in September 2016. Again help desk questions wasting our time The user posts about a HelpDesk question from a day earlier he appears to not be involved in. The exchange is with a user who is semi-retired as of September 2016. The editor takes the tone that he's the voice of WP and we should all listen to him.
    I left at the same time and also over the infobox problem; have only recently started doing some limited editing--no new text content work-only maintenance of existing articles I've been involved with. If the infobox bullying is beginning again, I'll be glad to leave again. We hope (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

    Support -- What's more suspicious is the rather irritating IP which is currently itching away like an untreated case of thrush. I wouldn't be surprised if old Moxy and the troll are one of the same. Cassianto 17:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

    I don't think AT&T operates in Canada, where Moxy self-identifies as living. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    I live in Picton Ontario Canada and work at Ottawa University. This POV that all IP inquiries are invalid is a problem ...should not delete comments for this reason. ....will log out and edit with my ip and mac for all to see.--64.228.141.191 (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    I am just here to respond to Dianaa. AT&T does in fact not operate in Canada. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 01:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

    Comment: this seems related to a discussion on the talk of Stanley Kubrick. I find edits by other participants - including some edit summaries - more worrysome than Moxy's appeal to care about accessibility with the readers in mind. - I tried to ignore the discussion and so far succeeded. Happy new year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

    Support Definitely need to put an end to this. JAGUAR  17:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

    Sounds good. No problem, not commenting on these anymore. Very rare situation as i dont add or remove them. I apologize if I made anyone upset just hard to keep being insulted all the time. I believe in time the community will take care of the problem. As for my comment on burnouts this is simply through experience that I've seen.... not an effort on my part to make you upset.--Moxy (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    You regularly comment in infobox discussions, this would affect that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    Yes i have commented many times on about 5 bios. Mostly because readers inquiry at the help desks....but yes I will not reply to inquiries at the help desk or comment about them. I dont think i am in the wrong here.....just see that the POV on this will not change dispite the studies and readers requests. As you know I not involved in the edit wars you guys get into over this so that won't change. --Moxy (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    The concern isn't that you edit war or force infoboxes yourself. It's your conduct on talk pages and trolling which is problematic. Articles like Stanley Kubrick have become fodder for this sort of disruptive behaviour, it's like you're trying to bait us into conflict again. You even admit to enjoy seeing the same argument unfold again and again. Anybody here who likes to see time wasting discussions, rather than wanting to contribute to content and work with editors to build content should problably be banned entirely from the site.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    Yup your correct I do join in when I see it come up on certain pages....like many do. Do I belive I am the big problem editor involved in these talks all over.....not even close. Like most here I edit and join debates that I find interesting and are fun to debate. I belive accessibility should be our biggest concern. ....others not from my POV. My reputation here speaks for itself....dispite my dyslexic grammer problems on talks that some enjoy point out.--Moxy (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

    Comment I have opened a formal RfC on the talk page. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

    Support- It is absolutely outrageous that Moxy should revel in the "fun" of pestering other users about infoboxes "again and again and again" and gloat about editors getting burnt out and retiring over this issue (as has happened quite recently). Moxy says s/he will not participate in infobox discussions any more but should be formally restricted from doing so,in case Moxy finds the "fun" too tempting to stay away.Smeat75 (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

    You seem to have that all wrong.... I enjoy watching them squirm over and over again trying to defend a position of ignorances. I dont hound them ,,,just let them know when it comes up by our readers at the help desk etc...as I do with many many topics, I also try to explained to our readers and IP editors why they are being diminished or post simply deleted. But if all think I am the main problem by all means to what you will...but as we all know and have seen in the past ...we have editors causing much more problems during the debates. I wish all a good new year and hope our editors think of our readers and not simply side with there friends....stand on your own 2 feet. Just look see for yourself ...should we have bullies??-- Moxy (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

    Oppose, as I don't wish to see us zap editors who haven't been vandalizing articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

    • Oppose Unless every editor, pro and con, who has displayed obsessive behavior over the ongoing and deeply counterproductive infobox war is also topic banned. That being said, Moxy should definitely knock off the gloating. ] Let's discuss it 05:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

    Comment. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Using infoboxes in articles says "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." Most proponents and opponents of infoboxes have long made up their minds, so gaining consensus will be often impossible. In that case, which should quickly become clear from the discussion, the style set by the main contributor should prevail. Is there anywhere a statement saying "persisting in infobox wars is disruptive?" If not, where would be the right place to make such a statement? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

    Actually not true on my part, I was ignoring the conflict on the Kubrick talk page and I've been very careful not to personally attack anybody or get heated. I wouldn't have brought this up if it had just remained a dispute on Kubrick's talk page. I just thought Moxy's comment showed the real malicious intent behind infobox disputes which is wrong. It's only since another RFC has opened that I've simply questioned the legitimacy of the infobox and asked them why they think it's an essential feature.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    I don't know how the decision was made, but Gerda (and perhaps others?) has a two-comment limit on infobox discussions. Perhaps if we had a bit more of that for the more obsessive and WP:BLUDGEON-y commenters? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Topic BanTrouting for Moxy, block of significant length for Cassianto. I apologize folks, this is going to be a TLDR for some of you, and if so, I won't take exception to your skipping it. But I've been watching this ongoing battle over the infoboxes from a distance for years now and I don't think I can express my opinion of the whole affair (nor some of the specific conduct here) without some protracted discussion. I'm going to self-collapse most of this post so not as to needlessly length this thread for everyone scrolling through ANI right now. Read on at your own inclination.
    Extended content
    I appreciate that there is a lot of context for this particular dispute; I'm aware of it because, for years now, random bot-generated notices have brought me to one RfC after another where two groups of editors wage massive and invariably incivil brawls over the inclusion of infoboxes and the minutia of their format. Absolutely without exception one sees a large number of extremely familiar faces in each of these group melees and it became obvious to me some years ago that both sides were using certain WikiProjects as platforms to side-step canvassing restrictions by posting general "call to arms" notices in order to bring their entire side rushing in for each and every debate--even though each camp is aware that the other is staking out those same projects and will call in their own reinforcements in response, resulting in a massive deadlock, often surrounded by caustic language. Every iteration that I am summoned to leaves me more gobsmacked than the last at how thoroughly these editors continue to fail to act like the veteran editors they are--and frankly, failing to just act like adults on this topic period. It is probably en.Misplaced Pages's longest running content dispute, and without doubt the one that most ought to embarrass not just its participants, but indeed all of us, for our failure to put a stop to it (not withstanding numerous sanctions and a massive ArbCom case).

    Moxy and Cassianto are both without question amongst those familiar faces, but the problems with their conduct in this particular instance differ, and so I believe differing approaches are called for in response to said conduct. Moxy's comment was probably ill-considered, given the propensity towards hyperbolic interpretation that dominates this roving content war, but I can't say it is deserving of sanction. I was initially prepared to endorse a topic ban for Moxy based on the excerpted language presented by Dr. Blofield above, but once I followed the diff back and read the comment in its entirety, it was clear that there is some selective quoting going on here, whether intentional or not. Looking at Moxy's full comment, I think it's immediately clear that they were neither espousing plans to personally fatigue other editors nor encouraging others to do anything similar. In fact, the entire point of their comments were to calm a new IP editor and to tell them to not get too wound up over the topic. Further, Moxy seems to be suggesting that the reason he/she expects the anti-infobox camp to wear out over time is that they will clash time and again with new/IP editors who simply want infoboxes by and large--I kind of doubt that Moxy can prove that assertion, but it is incidental to the discussion here. Looking at the entirety of Moxy's comment, I have a hard time understanding how anyone can genuinely believe that Moxy was making a vow to engage in disruptive behaviour--except for the fact that both sides have been at this for so long that they are determined to see the worst in eachother and will seize on anything that looks like ammunition in this battle of wills.

    Cassianto's case is different. Even if Moxy had made an unambigous vow to bait and wear down his competition, Cassianto's "insufferable little prick" comment would still be completely unacceptable. It doesn't matter the context--that kind of profane language, when used in that massively hostile and vitriolic manner, is without exception a violation of WP:Civility. Nor does this seem to be an isolated case for this user; all too often, Cassianto appears to resort to this kind of expletive-filled and derogatory language in response to differences of opinion. I've personally witnessed very similar behaviour when responding to notices for disputes to which Cassianto is a party, and while I'd like to AGF and assume this is non-representative of his conduct on Misplaced Pages, his block log does not provide confidence for that assumption; in the past two and a half years, he has racked up a startling number of blocks, almost all of them for personal attacks, hostility, and unrelenting combativeness (the comments of the blocking admins here are worth taking note of). This is an unacceptable pattern of incivility, non-collegiality, and (frankly) a basic lack of the baseline social WP:Competence we expect out of a user on this project. Does anyone here, being an experienced member of this community, doubt that if a new or IP editor made the same "insufferable little prick" comment, they would have been blocked in no time flat? Because I think that block probably would have come in minutes. And I don't think this user ought to be given a pass because he has been contributing for longer; quite the contrary, Cassianto really ought to know better at this point. He also ought to know that it's not acceptable to denigrate entire nationalities and transform content discussions into "us vs. them" contests between the even-tempered English and clueless Americans: , . As someone with a foot in both cultures (and hell, just as someone who doesn't like bigoted "observations"), I find that ignorant, offensive, and also unacceptable for this project.

    All of that said, and in fairness to Cassianto, the objectionable conduct here was not a product of the infobox wars per se, so I agree that Doc James' proposal was not well-advised (though I don't think Doc should have gotten the guff he did for wanting to restrain this behaviour in general). A TBAN would seem both excessive and poorly targeted to address the core issue here. I'd suggest instead a block, the length of which should be discussed by the community but which I propose should at the least be longer than any previous block Cassianto has received for personal attacks. The message needs to become louder for this user that they need to find a way to discuss content and policy disagreements (even long-standing and tense ones) without recourse to personal insults. Members of this community are not allowed to treat eachother in such a manner, no matter how worked up they get.
    Snow 18:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Oppose Moxy is a solid editor, and the usual anti-infobox group is ganging up on Moxy. We are never going to have an end to this issue, and bashing the people who support infoboxes (which are used on the majority of wikipedia articles) is not going to help the project. The useless ArbCom decision we all have to live with is that each and every single article has a stand-alone infobox discussion decided on a case by case basis, with civility and no personal attacks. This crap has to stop. Trout all around. Montanabw 00:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    I agree. Generally speaking, I've always felt that allowing every article's editors to decide the specifics of its content (within general guidelines) was the prudent course of action. But in this instance, I agree with you. These ceaseless, acrimonious clashes between basically the same two groups of deeply entrenched editors have got to stop, and because there are too many personalities involved here who have just completely lost perspective, it may be time to host a largescale community discussion at WP:CD or WP:VPP in order to amend the MoS accordingly. On that point, I should note that you've misremembered the ruling of the ArbCom case. It didn't specifically lay down any mandates regarding infoboxes--none that I can remember anyway. Rather the focus of that case was the policy now enshrined in WP:Advice pages; namely, you cannot use a WikiProject to create idiosyncratic rules regarding all articles you perceive to be within that Project's scope and then try to apply those rules as if they were policy that was binding on individual articles. Rather you always have to generate a WP:local consensus on a given article, and you can't argue "it must be done like X, because the editors at WikiProject Y think that is best." So yes, technically you have forge a consensus about what is the appropriate content call within policy for every infobox discussion, but it's not specific to infoboxes; it's true of any content dispute. The case also handed out numerous sanctions to partisans on both sides who showed an inability to back down. Unfortunately its muting effect on the overall frequency and tone of infobox disputes was extremely short-lived.
    However, none of that in any way prevents the community from applying the usual consensus process for widescale policy (that is to say WP:PROPOSAL) from forming new style and content guidelines which govern particular content. We do that constantly, and community consensus still trumps local consensus. So if the community is fed up enough with this nonsense, we absolutely can amend MoS with more concrete guidance regarding when infoboxes are (or are not) advised, mandated, or prohibited. And I daresay we're overdue to take the issue on and put an end to this years' long disruption and frequent pettiness. Snow 01:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment: I don't think that sanctioning Moxey for that comment is going to improve either the encyclopedia or the environment in which we find ourselves. The issue of whether an infobox improves an article is complex and not amenable to generalisations, so unfortunately it has to be worked out article by article. For that to happen without rancour and escalating ill-will, we need to find ways of toning down the rhetoric and trying harder to accommodate those whose views we disagree with. I've made a start at trying to explain as many issues on a subpage of my user space, in anticipation of ArbCom eventually asking the community to develop more detailed and nuanced guidance that the curt couple of sentences we have now. In this case, I'm sure if we asked Moxey to dispel the impression that s/he was having "fun" in seeing editors burn out, we'd quickly get an assurance that that is not the case. I think you'll find that Moxey has a debilitating condition that makes it difficult for him/her to accurately control a mouse, which makes collapsed infoboxes a problem for him/her and that's often what the comments relate to. It's useful for me when trying to find technical solutions to problems to have a reminder that not everybody has the same facility in interacting with the interface as the majority of us do. @Dr. Blofeld:: you've made your point and it's taken. We've had the predictable arguments, and I believe that Moxey is very likely to be more circumspect in future. I wish I could persuade my friend Cassianto not to be so heated in his exchanges, although I accept that he often finds himself frustrated. I guess we all do. Anyway, Blofeld, is there any chance that you could now call it a day and wrap up this thread? I doubt there's much more to be gained from continuing it. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

    I was ignoring the Kubrick dispute, I only brought this up when I saw Moxy's remark which just shows you the malicious intent when infobox discussions begin, people enjoy seeing Cassianto and others get annoyed. I can tell that there is a group of people who enjoy pulling the string on this, so it's a confession really. Moxy's comments were bang out of order, whether he has serious issues in RL or not. He is a frequent commentator on infobox disputes and such an attitude is deeply problematic for the site if proposals to add infobox are largely motivated by wanting to wind others up, so what else am I to think? I'm not prepared to see this happen time and time again and Moxy grinning sadistically behind his computer screen when it kicks off. Rexx, it's reached a point that I no longer want to contribute articles like Kubrick and Sinatra because I have to deal with all the nonsense and trolling that comes with writing the big articles. You may support infoboxes, but these disputes create a massive problem for editors and the stability for the site.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

    Oh, come off it, Dr. Blofeld. There was nothing in Moxy's comments that indicated malicious intent, let alone anything like a "confession"—nothing more than frustrated off-the-cuff smartassery, and it wasn't even during any of the discussions. It's especially eyeroll-inducing when you use stuff like this as your "evidence" . Just cool off and withdraw this before the mood swings further into WP:BOOMERANG territory. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    Yeah, I'm afraid I have to agree with Turkey on this one, Dr. Blofield. I've re-read the diff which you (selectively) quoted five times now, just to be certain, and I'm afraid that I feel that you are substantially misreading the substance of Moxy's comments, and drawing conclusions which are just not supported by any evidence. Let me be clear, that I absolutely assume that you are not doing this to consciously misrepresent Moxy. I think rather that you are just suffering from a serious case of confirmation bias with regard to your perspectives on someone on the other side of an issue on which you have been advocating on for a long time. Which, indeed is typical of all too many people on both sides of that particular debate--hence the fact that the rest of the community has had to take some radical steps in the past and is now considering doing so again. Nowhere in that diff does Moxy say that he is going to subvert process or troll anyone. He says that he expects that, because of the WP:Accessibility issues implicit in the infobox debate, that there will be an unending stream of new/IP editors who will continue to show up to argue with the anti-infobox crowd, and that those new editors may eventually wear down/soften the perspectives of some infobox skeptics. He doesn't say that he intends to take any actions to wear anyone down and he doesn't encourage anyone else to do so. In fact, he explicitly advises the IP he was addressing not to go overboard on the issue.
    At most, Moxy said he enjoys watching some other editors spin their wheels (and I rather expect from the context and exact wording that he was speaking idiomatically rather than expressing actual mustache-twirling glee). Is it counter-productive / inconsistent with the spirit of collegiality for Moxy to express a sense of amusement here, even in jest? Yeah, surely. Is it a violation of any policy/community standard or anything worth exhausting community attention over at ANI? It's clearly not even within miles of that. Again, I have to agree with others who have already commented here, I think you should drop the stick on this one before you release the substantial potential of a WP:BOOMERANG.Snow 19:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

    Topic ban User:Cassianto from discussions of infoboxes

    In the spirit of WP:BOLD, and hopefully providing an opportunity for a bit of a time-out: This sub-thread is completely irrelevant to the one that it stems from, and is merely raising the temperature all over again. Please start a separate one if the issue needs ANI resolution; however, note that this is very much approaching the WP:SNOW-line. (non-admin closure) O Fortuna! 19:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

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


    They do not appear to be contributing positively in this area. A couple of recent issues:

    1) Invicity per "I don't know if you're meaning to be an insufferable little prick, or if you're just drunk or on drugs. Whatever it is, I suggest you go and have a lay down somewhere and decide which one it is." on Jan 2nd 2017

    2) Closing discussions in which they are the primary person involved such as and

    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

    This thread is a classic tactic of someone trying to derail another thread by starting another. Yes, I did call the IP an "insufferable prick" as they were trolling and warring the Kubrick talk page and then socking everywhere else that I had been. Still, that's acceptable, isn't it. I see that Doc James didn't mention that in his post above. Funny that! And while we're here, and to mirror Doc James' well-oiled tactic, where is Doc James's admonishment for blocking SchroCat after SchroCat posted an innocent talk page message entitled "Coward" after the subject, Noel Coward. Further, what gives Doc James the right to alter my comments? Cassianto 07:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

    Oppose While I'm not condoning the tone or language used, it appears that Moxy's foibles are being swept under the rug with the opposition of a topic ban for him, yet one is suggested for Cass. Moxy has admitted that the opposing editors will burn out in time and that after stirring the pot, watching the mayhem is fun. He's also made inferences that UK editors are not as well educated as those from the US and Canada.

    To me this is a slur the same as saying that all people with dark skin are ignorant. Not understanding why it's OK for one person to engage in Civil POV pushing for fun and insult those not living in North America, but Cass' actions aren't acceptable, unless there's some favoritism being shown here. If one is wrong and should be topic banned, the same holds true for the other. We hope (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

    I go "in and out of retirement" because of people like you. I fail to see what benefits you bring to this project at all. Cassianto 10:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    So Moxy's actions and comments are perfectly acceptable because they aren't about where you live and are favoring infoboxes but pitchforks and torches are needed for Cassianto? If the ARB requests had worked, perhaps we wouldn't be discussing any of this at present. We hope (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    @We hope: I have not made any type of comment regarding Moxy's actions. My response is only regarding Cassianto based on Doc James' section which I noticed while monitoring my watchlist. I agree with you - if the Arb's had taken action, the discussion here would likely not be happening. -- Dane 03:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Oppose - I don't favor zapping editors out of discussions. No vandalism, no banishment. GoodDay (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Oppose one-sided, Moxy appears to be out to bait people, although it is hilarious that someone claiming to be "educated" would write something like Most likily becasuse there better educated, thus have a better ubderstanding of ... Pot, meet kettle. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Oppose Unless we are about to start zapping all the infobox warriors on both sides. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Oppose Per above, not impressed by the "Canadians stick up for Canadians" approach from Doc James either and refusal to accept that it is wrong for an editor to enjoy seeing conflict.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Oppose The way to stop Cassianto from boiling over is to stop baiting him. People unaware of the infobox background (which has been a running sore for years—see case) should not attempt quick fixes. The tactic used by pro-infobox people is drip-drip-drip with baiting. That should not be rewarded. Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    How would people unaware of the infobox background know not to jump in and add one in good faith? Whenever this happens it should be a simple "ahem, please see the history." Instead what we're getting is "sad and desperate" and "delusional bullshit" and being told to "fuck off." Mr Ernie (talk) added this comment at 09:52, 4 January 2017.
    They don't know, you're right, that's why I'm courteous to them when they first add an infobox. Diffs? The trouble comes when they don't like it and they then troll me and drama monger everywhere where they see fit. Believe me, I'm not at all liberal with my "fuck off"'s, and only use them when the occasion arises, and in particular, when they troll my talk page and then drag me here. I will not stand for angry IP's who sock their way about in order to get what they want, or people who refuse to come to a compromise based upon their own POV. The comments you quote above are steeped in background dressings; Mabbett has restrictions not add info boxes, and Ho has restrictions not to stir up trouble, so please do your research first. Oh, and Mr Ernie, please try and sign your comments. I know it's a bit embarrassing being attributed to them, but for someone who's been here for 10 years, you really should know better. Cassianto 16:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    I'm not embarrassed by what I write, and I don't appreciate that insinuation. It's quite sad to see an adult behave the way you do, but I can't say I'm surprised. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    And I don't appreciate the insinuation that I'm a child. But hey, thanks for the slice of irony there; victim-crying for something I've said while in the same sentence, patronising me with something you've said. Are you a Canuck too? I only ask because if you are, then congratulations, you've just been ironic! If I've learnt anything over the past 36 hours it's that the Canadians don't understand irony. And as for being sad! Well, what's even more sad is someone whose been here for 10 years and who's not even managed to complete 800 edits. Imagine being embarrassed 800 times? Cassianto 18:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Oppose This seems like a very odd thing to do during a discussion about a completely different editor. That said, Cassianto doesn't seem to be able to insert a filter between their brain and their keyboard, as evidenced above - but this proposal is just a piece of ill-timed provocation. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this 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: ,

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

    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! 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: 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! 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 Misplaced Pages. 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! 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! 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages will not understand who is correct in this situation: Russian Misplaced Pages or Ukranian Misplaced Pages.
      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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages to understand situation and misunderstanding between RUssian and Ukranian, as each other Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages? 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! 09:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

    Odd edit summary

    SeeTalk:Riemann hypothesis. In IPv6 editor used an obscene edit summary. This was on 20/12/2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.119.123 (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

    ANAL SEX is hardly going to cause a riot or need revdel etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    Some IP's can be a real pain in the arse, can't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    Very well put. But this one seems to be intentional about that. Andrewa (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    More to the point, this seems to be a deliberately inappropriate edit summary by a vandalism-only IP. It's not that it's offensive to some, rather it's that an edit summary of Donald Duck would be as meaningful (not), and the pattern is such that it's a good guess that the attempt at offense is deliberate, testing the limits. Their edits to date have all been reverted and included a block deletion of other editors' signed comments. If this persists action should be taken. Andrewa (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    Yeah, there's this as well, but all of that seems to have blown over. I never figured that the Riemann zeta function would lead someone to consider anal sex (in all caps!), but you know, the Lord moves in mysterious ways. At some point I suppose we could consider semi-protection, but let's hope the editor is finished. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    You have clearly never dated a kinky mathematician. Reimann's work always leads to paving the ole dirt road. Don't even get me started on what happens when you start doing Lorentz transformations... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    Reminds me of the joke about a constipated mathematician...RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    My, what a big delta your scalar field has... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    Did someone say Ream-Man hypothesis? Yuk, yuk! (On the odd chance any of you perverts haven't seen this: She became tensor and tensor...) EEng 21:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    This particular pervert had not seen that. So thanks :D MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    And for you computer scientists... EEng 06:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    I'm in trouble. EEng 05:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    I'll visit you in gaol... would you like me to bake a file into the cake, or would you prefer a dildo? Andrewa (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    😳 Um, I think I'll just take the opportunity for some quiet contemplation and self-improvement. Thanks for asking though. EEng 06:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    Specifically, not censored for "content". A random vulgar edit summary does not qualify as content. ←Baseball Bugs carrots23:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, very good point as was the more general one by BYK above. But I think the spirit of the policy is, we shouldn't revdel a contribution just because of a vulgar edit summary. The letter may not cover this but I don't think it needs to. We have better things to do, and to do so just risks feeding the trolls anyway. Andrewa (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    I believe you may have misunderstood NYB's comment above. I read it to say that he rev del'd the edt summary, not that he did anything to the edit itself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, I did misunderstand... I confess I didn't realise revdel was quite that surgical (having never used or requested it myself).
    And it's an excellent use of it. It seems to me to satisfy WP:CRD criterion #3 Purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project. This might even be a good example to list on that page. Andrewa (talk) 20:04, 6 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 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)

    Request for review of my admin action regarding Monique Alexander

    ACTION OK Per the discussion below, BD2412's actions are considered acceptable -- Samtar 10:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

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


    Pursuant to the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Pornography#‎2017 AVN Hall of Fame inductees, I restored Monique Alexander on the basis that the subject being inducted into the Hall of Fame for their field, combined with an unusually high level of previous coverage from outside their field, makes this a fairly obvious case. The title hasn't been salted, and the article could therefore be created anew based on the subject's current state of notability. I would have taken the same action if a request had been made at WP:RFU, as was contemplated in that discussion. An editor has objected to my undeletion of the page, and I would like to know if I have overstepped here. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

    In general, I tend to be fairly deletion, but I think this meets the criteria. I remember a film she starred in, Play Time, being shown on UK mainstream terrestrial Channel 5, although admittedly that was back in the days when the channel's philosophy was "football, films and f**king", although the latter was always tasteful(?) soft core Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Jimfbleak, Monique Alexander wasn't in that film. IMDB and other sources say the actress you remember was Monique Parent. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    This is an urgent ANI matter? Can't you just have asked a fellow admin for a second opinion? EEng 17:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    It's hard to do that without being accused of cherrypicking the fellow admin you ask. bd2412 T 17:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    This board is way, way to crowded with minor stuff. If the complainer wants to take it to some appeal, let them. EEng 17:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    Plus I think WP:AN would have been the better place. Sir Joseph 18:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    I think you're fine. WP:DRV is not appropriate for this process as no one is saying that discussion was improperly closed. This is a recreation of an article, informally asked for by Wikiuser20102011, who brought up new content and sources, potentially satisfying notability concerns. --NeilN 17:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    Of course this situation is covered by WP:DRVPURPOSE#3, and similar matters are routinely brought before DRV. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    • As a non-admin looking at this, I think the complaining editor's signature is the most improper thing going on (and that's borderline), while simultaneously providing a ready possible explanation for the complaints (once the arguments on the OP's talk page are taken into account: before that point we must presume the complaints are earnest). I'm not saying this was disputed over a grudge, mind. I'm just saying that's a possibility, considering the circumstances and arguments. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Nah, you're fine. You're absolutely right that any editor could have independently recreated the article with new information that brings the subject up to GNG, at which point it would likely be necessary to do a messy history merge; you just saved the trouble by restoring the history first. I suppose it might have been better to restore as a draft to let the editors add the relevant info and then resubmit as a new article, but that seems needlessly academic considering the editors making the request are not newbies. And bringing it here when your action was challenged is also the right thing to do (maybe AN is better but no matter, this board is not "too crowded" to deal with simple administrative matters). Ivanvector (/Edits) 18:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Articles created by proxy?

    I noticed that Margaretver and Inimfon made very similar edits to Inonotus obliquus, that their editing also over overlapped on the topic of Akwa Ibom State and that one of Inimfon's articles - Richard Zoumalan looks like the result of paid editing. I therefore asked Margaretver about socking and paid editing.

    Margaretver replied that these accounts were not socks but that articles they created were the result of submissions to a web site, and that "Most of the pages i've created are from my mails i receive per submission". So far as I can see the Margaretver account has only created one article, Akwa Ibom State Governor, so I'm not sure what the others (implied by "most of") are or which account created them.

    This seems problematic/irregular - could somebody take a look and suggest a course of action? Alexbrn (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

    @Alexbrn: Please when i meant "Most of" i meant edits and page(s) created. Recently i started a WikiProject and i believe during the process i have created pages,categories and templates. Margaretver (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Alexbrn: Here's the link for content submission and every now and then we do Sponsored Ads on Facebook and Instagram to help promote the page in some targeted regions a Margaretver (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    1. ^ http://www.premiumherald.com/submit-wikipedia-worthy-content/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
    "we do Sponsored Ads": who are "we", Margaretver? -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    The first edit cited above by Alexbrn is this one by Margaretver. In it, Margaretver provides for the preexisting assertion
    Though, according to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, "no clinical trials have been conducted to assess chaga's safety and efficacy for disease prevention or for the treatment of cancer, cardiovascular disease, or diabetes".
    an additional source, viz:
    {{Cite news|url=https://chichaga.com/chaga-mushrooms-a-cure-for-all-and-everything/|title=Are Chaga mushrooms a cure for all and everything?|date=2016-10-05|newspaper=CHI CHAGA|language=en-US|access-date=2017-01-05}}
    and as an edit summary for this, writes:
    added refs to medicinal research
    I must confess that I haven't read the page to which Margaretver links: it's prohibitively prolix and badly written. What do I mean? Well, its first sentence reads:
    Deviating for a moment to the Botanic fact that Mushrooms, in general, are developing higher contents and more complex healing substances than other medical plants.
    So it starts by "deviating", has no main clause, has a bizarre use of the progressive in its subordinate (and only) clause, and has the capitalization of a twelve-year-old.
    But a couple of reality checks. First, the string "Sloan" doesn't appear anywhere in the page; therefore, its reliability aside, this is not the source Margaretver presents it as.
    Secondly, this is not "medicinal research", it's merely a page from some website hawking fungus products -- and hawking them to the kind of people who'd bother to read a page wondering whether such-and-such was "a cure for all and everything". (Tip: We won't know that anything is so till we have the first set of 130-year-olds who can credibly attribute their avoidance of death to its ingestion.)
    I'm aware that I may seem "bitey" toward a new editor, but this is one who's already using HotCat and Twinkle and so I think we can expect competence. -- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Hoary: When i say "WE" am talking about the 2 people in my department assigned to expand or add contents submitted via that page, both Nigeria related and non Nigeria related. I sincerely had no bad intentions when adding the link, neither did it occur to me it was spam or might be spam. Since the link seemed to be referring to "Chaga Mushroom" as is the significance of the page i added the link. That was a big oversight on my part and i apologize. .... added at 00:28, 6 January 2017 by Margaretver
    So to clarify: there is a department (of a company, "Premium Herald"?) with two people who are taking content they receive from third parties and transferring it onto Misplaced Pages? Alexbrn (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Alexbrn: A department setup to add mostly Nigeria related contents which might may meet notability guideline. Margaretver (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

    Comment FFS, read the link. They ask for material to submit to wikipedia from anyone. They reject promotional material, spam, and unverifiable material. There is no paid editing. Internet.org just launched a free internet service in Nigeria with a partner. Misplaced Pages is one of the free websites to access. The official language of Nigeria is English. Consider where many of these people will come. This witch hunt needs to be dropped. What Margaretver and the premium herald are doing should be applauded. Are there issues? Certainly but they joined under 30 days ago. I am aware that so many of us take wikipedia and the internet for granted but in Nigeria, where in 2012 32% of the population had access to the internet and wikipedia, this has the potential to be a major educational tool as more people in Nigeria gain access to the internet. They want to create high quality articles with the utmost ethical standards set by wikipedia. So instead of tying a boulder to them and throwing them in the pond to see if they drown and prove they aren't a witch, help them out. They are here. They are willing to discuss. They wanna learn. They want to do right. While we represent American, United Kingdom, Australian, and New Zealand interests, we also represent the interests of the English speaking world. Nigeria is slowly joining us. This whole thing is bitey and it is piss poor form. CIR my ass. Hotcat isn't that complicated to figure out and it's also not hard to figure out that Margaretver has a target audience, Nigerians. They have been here for less then 30 days. Instead of banning them why not reach out and try to help them. Without the use of a robotic script. There's the tea house, adopt a user, and what else is there to assist a new user in acclimating to Misplaced Pages competently? We could do something crazy like give them the links and explain what they are. Any random admins that notice they opted for piss poor sourcing might offer to assist them with understanding sourcing standards. It's not as if they can't be banned later if attempting to actually help them proves fruitless. Actually attempting to help them first rally seems like the right thing to do.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

    TLDR Close this bullshit and help them or clearly point to where they can get help because they are not doing anything wrong and they are trying to do great and beneficial things.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

    So you're okay that (say) a banned user could use this to get stuff into Misplaced Pages? And you're okay that there is no mechanism to ensure the permissions to the content are known? Or that it's not paid content? And that in practice this has ended up with dodgy content? Alexbrn (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    More people need to start doing this in third world English speaking countries. I have no more reason to believe that they are being paid to edit wikipedia in a certain way than I do to believe you are being paid to edit in a certain way. Dodgy content? Yes, yes, there content looks almost as if they have been here for less than 30 days.. Oh wait they have been. They provided an unreliable source which is actually common to new editors. You ask those questions but I could apply most of them to you because they are unfounded and baseless. The world around you is spinning. Here are two articles for you Internet.org and Misplaced Pages Zero. Wikiedpia is actively trying to expand its access. Nigeria is one of it's target countries. This user and what they are trying to do is beneficial to that. In the end this user could be a detriment and it maybe necessary to ban them. Right now this isn't the case. Right now they deserve to be given an opportunity and every possible assistance to acclimate to wikipedia. Because in the end they could be a damn fine wikipedia editor and very beneficial to this project as people across Nigeria gain access to it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    Lots of high-horse waffle there; the aim is not to shut down the editors which is why I'm asking for input here. However it seems to me there are problems here with regard to the ToU. Alexbrn (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    There are a number of possible issues. They work for a online newspaper. The online newspaper takes requests to edit wikipedia. Do they receive payment for these edits? Do they make these edits during their work schedule and if they receive an hourly wage can this be counted as paid editing? Either of which as a yes would mean they need to make a declaration. Material submitted to them, what's the copyright status. If someone write the article or a portion of it and submits it what's the copyright status? There submission page should for example have some fine print that says something similar to By submitting content, you agree to the Terms of Use of wikipedia, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.. All properly linked so that the users can read what they are agreeing to. These are certainly things that should be looked into so that everything is above board. I'll see if I can find out about the paid part.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    I'm wondering how an article like Richard Zoumalan (which looks like a classic paid-for piece) came to be added to Misplaced Pages. By email submission? Alexbrn (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    I have no clue. I'm not sure if Inimfon is the other editor that is working with Margaretver. I do notice Margaretver action was to place a BLP tag on it. At a glance Richard seems to be a notable person. You note it's fluffy and I note that its short. The only detail I know for sure is an otherwise new editor created it. You have the same details. If he is the other individual working with Margaretver then it seems that they may benifit from some help acclimating to wikipedia.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

    Supersonic jet troll

    There has been a recent issue with an editor behind an IPv6 range making mass edits. This is what they're mainly doing, and their behavior has gotten many articles semi-protected in the process... As of recently, they're trolling an admin's talkpage, here and here.

    Unfortunately, 2600:1002::/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) would be the only possible rangeblock (see the last two IP's that I've listed above), which is very wide. If any admin feels comfortable performing that kind of block, then it may be need to be done in order to prevent further disruption. Thanks. 172.58.40.158 (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

    See the chart below, not the correct range...
    Actually, my rangecalc suggests that 2600:1002:b100:0:0:0:0:0/42 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) can (probably) handle it. -- The Voidwalker 01:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    @The Voidwalker: Just curious, but which calculator do you use to calculate that? I just said /32 because I know that typically IPv6 rangeblocks are either /32, /48, or /64, didn't know that there were others in between... 172.58.40.158 (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    The tool I use is built into a private interface. I'm not actually sure what the equivalent is. However, {{rangecalc}} seems to work similarly. -- The Voidwalker 02:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

    Just for the record, these are all of the IP addresses that I have found: 172.58.40.150 (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

    Total
    affected
    Affected
    addresses
    Given
    addresses
    Range Contribs
    4M /64 4M /64 14 2600:1002:b100::/42 contribs
    3M /64 2M /64 7 2600:1002:b100::/43 contribs
    1M /64 7 2600:1002:b120::/44 contribs
    2M /64 512K /64 3 2600:1002:b100::/45 contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b10f:13cd:8cf5:c936:d241:853d contribs
    512K /64 2 2600:1002:b110::/45 contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b11a:a4d2:1be:3ed1:1383:3ab2 contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b121:a8e2:d545:51c8:6f77:9202 contribs
    256K /64 3 2600:1002:b124::/46 contribs
    256K /64 2 2600:1002:b128::/46 contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b12e:a668:34e4:215e:c4ee:dec2 contribs
    320K /64 256K /64 2 2600:1002:b100::/46 contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b106:9b74:bd88:b71d:5f27:e326 contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b10f:13cd:8cf5:c936:d241:853d contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b112:da68:7926:54b2:c0bf:1a83 contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b117:b1ab:8d29:99c5:f988:289e contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b11a:a4d2:1be:3ed1:1383:3ab2 contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b121:a8e2:d545:51c8:6f77:9202 contribs
    65536 /64 2 2600:1002:b125::/48 contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b127:828d:78ae:2a6f:912d:deb4 contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b128:3b4a:50b9:ecc6:8a5b:4c5c contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b12a:b301:4014:afe9:8dbe:ef99 contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b12e:a668:34e4:215e:c4ee:dec2 contribs
    14 1 1 2600:1002:b101:4f20:9430:80d5:a478:41ee contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b102:cf0b:a46c:9266:9db3:126d contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b106:9b74:bd88:b71d:5f27:e326 contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b10f:13cd:8cf5:c936:d241:853d contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b112:da68:7926:54b2:c0bf:1a83 contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b117:b1ab:8d29:99c5:f988:289e contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b11a:a4d2:1be:3ed1:1383:3ab2 contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b121:a8e2:d545:51c8:6f77:9202 contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b125:4c24:9834:817:7ab6:a83f contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b125:e5d4:c0a5:89ad:a61:568f contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b127:828d:78ae:2a6f:912d:deb4 contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b128:3b4a:50b9:ecc6:8a5b:4c5c contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b12a:b301:4014:afe9:8dbe:ef99 contribs
    1 1 2600:1002:b12e:a668:34e4:215e:c4ee:dec2 contribs
    Given that it's a pretty wide range and the vandalism is so specialized, maybe an edit filter would be better? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    @NinjaRobotPirate: Yes, I believe an edit filter would be a much better way to solve the problem. Also, pinging Samtar and MusikAnimal, as they may be able to take a good look at this (and possibly create an edit filter). 2601:1C0:101:4626:159C:184A:6A69:7B89 (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    Working on this at Special:AbuseFilter/821MusikAnimal 23:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

    Sultan Aji Muhammad Sulaiman Airport

    An anonymous user removed the word "international" from the article. I have warned him to stop that but it seems he does not care. I need the admin to help in this issue before this leads to an edit war. Cheers. CWJakarta (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

    Both of the edit warriors are over at AN3 and the page is listed for SEMI protection. Boomerang incoming.--Adam in MO Talk 03:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    I've reverted to the stable version before the edit war and highly recommend that both editors discuss the matter on the article's talk page before making any further changes. However, I must emphasize to 202.67.39.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that you must explain why an official name is wrong instead of declaring it as such. —Farix (t | c) 14:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    Have requested page protection as the editor is now switching IPs to continue their edit war and refuse to discuss the matter on the talk page. —Farix (t | c) 16:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

    Multiple inappropriate non-admin closures by User:AKS.9955

    Several multiple-editor, longterm and ongoing discussions have been raised with User:AKS.9955 since OctoberJune 2016, despite that, he still continues to ignore Misplaced Pages:Non-admin_closure#Inappropriate_closures point #2.

    User:AKS.9955 just non-admin-closed controversial Kingsley C. Dassanaike AFTER having been warned about the consequences of his actions here, here, here, here, here and here. Years ago I had my rollback taken away, don't much miss it, but it sets me to thinking, can someone have non-admin closure rights taken away? If ever there was a candidate, User:AKS.9955 is the poster child. A trout will not make the message stick at this point.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

    • That would be a topic ban. The criticism to his response to the criticism at DRV followed by closing a relist that had no further comments makes me think this might be the way to go. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • AKS seems to be trying to declare Bronze Wolf winners automatically notable by fiat, and I do not agree with that at all. These AfDs have been largely dominated by scouting enthusiasts, and it's well known that Wikiprojects often try to drive notability requirements for their topic right down into the basement. Also have to say that I'm uneasy about OP contacting only the DRV participants who criticised the non-admin close. Reyk YO! 07:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    Reyk I contacted everyone involved in the DRV, what are you talking about? There's no "Scout-wing cabal" going on here, I'd rather put the issue to the test openly.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    Not so, you skipped Lankiveil for instance. Reyk YO! 09:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    There is already a DRV for that article.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you, we know that. This is an ANI to curtail the behavior.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    Not that often really. To be 'no consensus' means that there was no real winner in either votes or strength of argument. A lack of consensus is easy to spot. Its harder to judge a consensus when you have a stronger arguments on one side. As a no consensus and a keep at deletion discussions are the same result, its not a huge reason to overturn it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    RE Elisa Jordana - the strongest argument there was from Kaisa who voted keep based on her individual accomplishments, while being minor in themselves, scraping into notability. The difficulty with people who write *for* reliable sources is that they often dont have reliable sources who write *about* them.
    The second was *obviously* a keep. Being nominated anonymously via OTRS and filled with IP meatpuppets. Apart from Tiptoe, that AFD was entirely suspect. Even the nomination itself was filled with opinionated accusations of wikipedia editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

    Speaking to what I've been involved in:

    1. The user's closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Leslie R. Mitchell was inappropriate, not because the arguments for and against were particularly close, but because it was a protracted debate with very different rationales for keeping, and ones which have potential effects on other articles. It was therefore outside of the realm of uncontroversial closures required of an NAC.
    2. Their response when two experienced users questioned the close, which was to blank the conversation on their talk page was more so.
    3. Their response at DRV was more so, and showed either an inability or a complete unwillingness to consider the arguments made as anything other than a personal attack. For a touch of irony, their assertion that Timothyjosephwood is simply lying when he said that he discussed with me; no he did not., which actually is a personal attack, is at best a willful misrepresentation. There was no discussion...because they blanked the thread.
    4. Their decision to close nearly the same AfD with nearly the same rationale shows a complete and utter lack of judgement. They are completely involved that that point, even while their previous identical close was still open at DRV. They should not have closed that discussion even if it were 100 to 0 speedy keep. That they don't seem to understand that means they probably don't need to be closing discussions.

    Having said all that about the current situation, and without comment as to previous inappropriate closures (, , , ), I support a time limited topic ban from closing AfD discussions. Making mistakes and misinterpreting policy/guidelines is not a high crime. Editors do it all the time. That's what discussion is for. But a complete unwillingness to consider that you may have made a mistake, a preference to continue the same behavior even while under community review, and a willingness to drag the community through both DRV an ANI rather than quietly defer to an admin when issue is raised (even if you are right and even if only to avoid the appearance of impropriety), make the user's contributions a net negative for the project in this area at this time. They can come back after a while and demonstrate that they can do better. TimothyJosephWood 11:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

    The Leslie Mitchell AFD was never going to be closed other than keep. We have an article on the award they recieve and the keep voters cited ANYBIO. As the major oppose was 'getting that award doesnt make you notable' which is a *terrible* argument given there is no way you could AFD the wolf award, it is unsurprising it was a clear keep with both the number and quality of arguments on the keep side. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    Whether it is clear keep is irrelevant to the fact that a closing rationale of Winner of Bronze Wolf Award award, making him notable. has no basis whatsoever in policy. TimothyJosephWood 14:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    WP:ANYBIO section 1 is directly relevant to awards. He could have worded it 'Keep voters have stated subject has received a well known and significant award and oppose voters have failed to refute this' but at that point you are just quibbling over wording. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    And meeting ANYBIO 1 is meaningless if the individual in question does not also meet GNG, and the only significant coverage of them is passing mention of the award, which itself cannot be assumed to confer notability. TimothyJosephWood 15:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    And regardless making an inappropriate NAC is inappropriate even if the call was correct. Making an involved NAC is still involved even if the call was correct, which is the actual point of this thread, and not hair splitting over notability "criteria" which itself emphasizes that it does not confer notability. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    People who have been considered to satisfy the notability (ANYBIO) guideline for people are considered generally to pass GNG. As both are notability guidelines, neither takes priority, nor are people required to satisfy both guidelines. But I see now you have moved onto claming they were INVOLVED. On what basis were they INVOLVED? 16:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    See my original comment. TimothyJosephWood 16:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    Closing multiple AFD's in the same topic area does not make one 'involved'. Being 'involved' means having a conflict of interest, or strong feelings in the area. Merely acting in an administrative capacity (closing a discussion falls under this) previously is explicitly not 'involved'. Have they been involved in content disputes in the scouting area? Do they have a 'SCOUTS ARE AWESOME' template on their userpage? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    I disagree, especially when it was explicitly pointed out that his first close was problematic and immediately reopened and it should have been very obvious that the AfDs were related. Being involved doesn't mean AKS is involved with the Scouting movement, but rather he was "making a point" that the Bronze Wolf award is notable - something that the community has not agreed on. -- HighKing 17:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    This is indeed far from the first time, eg: this. Things do not seem to be improving. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

    There is a growing trend over the past 2 years for non-admins to close more AfDs. I can only assume this is because people who would have become admins 10 years ago can't now due to rising standards, so more of a blind eye is turned to NACs. A similar situation here resulted in a lot of discussion, but no agreement that the AfD closing itself was bad. Having said all that, if AKS is making too many bad closes, he doesn't clearly have the confidence of the community, and should stop it now before he gets a topic ban. Ritchie333 14:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

    • There's also this recent NAC which he closed literally the next edit after being at DRV . Given, the article was short and it could be done from history so there wasn't really much difference, but closing an AfD as 'redirect' when no single person had !voted that way at AfD shows a lack of judgement in my mind. Especially given that this editor had just been at DRV, which should have been a hint that treading lightly with NACs would be a good idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    Yup, this fellow speedily redirected Hindoo. See my: post on his talk page. That ethnic slur page had been around for five years, in its current form. Another editor, without any previous discussion on its talk page, or on WT:INDIA, proposed taking it to AfD in an edit summary, part of a back a forth with another editor, and a bunch of clueless Wikipedians (who didn't understand what the page was about) all agreed that it should be redirected to Hindu. All this happened during that time of year between Christmas and New Year when we are all watching with the eyes of a hawk. How do I restore the valuable content that has disappeared? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    The consensus at that AfD was pretty clearly merge, and it was done here . My issue was that closing an AfD as "redirect" when the word was never mentioned in the discussion immediately after having another NAC taken to AfD shows bad judgement on this area of work. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    :) Thanks, I didn't get that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Yeah, the close wasn't quite appropriate, and the hasty redirecting performed by the closer left the dab at Hindoo (disambiguation) stranded. I did clean that up, but I really didn't want to bother with trouting that user (I'm having my fair share of drama these days with the Saraiki dialect RM, and I really don't want to have more). – Uanfala (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • TonyBallioni and Uanfala (talk), did anyone of you check the article Hindoo before it was merged (I mean the contents)?? It just had ONE LINE (Hindoo is an archaic spelling of Hindu, and one whose use today may be considered derogatory). That's not merge-worthy at ALL (as a matter of fact Wikimandia also recommended similar in the AfD article). This is the problem, people jump to crucify others without even looking into all aspects. Just because someone is not happy with an NAC, does not make the closer a bad "editor and person" automatically. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    AKS.9955, neither of us claimed you were a bad editor or person. Wikimandia's vote was Merge anything interesting with Hindu and leave redirect it was not simply "redirect". All the other editors !voted "merge" simply. I'm not trying to crucify you here. I'm just saying that a supervote that had no basis in the consensus right after getting taken to DRV on another NAC is probably not a good idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • TonyBallioni, lol. Perhaps you missed out on all the trouts, poster child and other adjectives I have been receiving. Anyway, that is not the point. I asked you, what was there to merge in the one line article?? Please thinks before you start accusing someone. I ask you to try and "merge" the contents. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    Uanfala did the merge here . Your opinion is a valid one, and I'm not disagreeing with it. You should have !voted it rather than closing it, since there was no one else arguing your view at the time. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    AKS.9955 If you really thought that Hindoo was a one line page, then you are merely showing your ignorance. The meat of the page was in the references. It was really an ethnic slur page, whose references spoke to the different forms in which (mostly) Indian-Americans experienced the slur in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. Please don't be arrogant, when you are that clueless. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    AKS.9955 and you don't see SIX LINES of notes below it, not to mention the references, or did you not care to notice them? You don't think I know what I created five years ago, after having made 20,000 edits on Misplaced Pages? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    AKS.9955 And because it had only one line, now matter how much valuable content it has in the references, you think there is nothing of value in that page, and nothing salvageable? Nothing, then, in your view, deserved to be included in the lead of the Hindu page, as it now has been (courtesy user:Uanfala) along with the references? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I never said a word about the value of the content. What you don't understand is that it was NOT ME who decided to "knock-off" the article; it was an AfD discussion; I just happened to CLOSE IT. Grow-up and get it right. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    AKS.9955 If you weren't implying it, then how does it matter whether it had one line or twenty? You are the one who got worked up about the one line (in capitals), insinuating that others did not notice it, including me, who authored it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment. I am a bit surprised by the hostility and canvassing being done against me. Well, to discuss if a award is notable or not (which effects 300+ articles); what is the right place - a AfD or open a discussion in the article talkpage? There are multiple AfDs open on this subject, what do you suggest to do - keep all the AfDs open? Discuss centrally and then apply the consensus to all the related articles. Anyway, looking at the merits of the AfD alone, the article was surviving the AfD - period. It does not matter if someone likes it or not. There is very clear consensus for the article to be kept. I am NOT trying to declare any award notable; the community (Kintetsubuffalo, Jkudlick, Evrik, Naraht, Narky Blert and Timothyjosephwood) in the AfD discussion said that the award is notable. Then there where others who gave different rational for keep. Apart from the nominator, only one user voted for weak delete; please don't tell me that for closing an AfD, this fact should not be considered (I am not saying that only votes were counted). I hope people understand that the AfD closure's job is NOT to give his own opinion on the AfD but to arrive to what the community had decided, and I did exactly that. If people wish to discuss the notability of a particular award; please take the discussion to the relevant talkpage of the article - as far as this AfD is concerned, it was a clear keep and hence I closed it accordingly and stood by it. I would now like to reply to all the points raised in this discussion by all users;
    1. I declared an award notable: I declared nothing notable. I merely closed and AfD based on consensus built by the community. User:Kintetsubuffalo, User:Egel, User:Evrik, User:Bduke, User:Naraht, User:Btphelps, User:Narky Blert, User:E.M.Gregory, User:Timothyjosephwood and User:Alansohn are the ones who said that the award is notable; NOT ME. I just went by what everyone said.
    2. Claim that I ignored point 2: As I said above, the community (User:Kintetsubuffalo, User:Egel, User:Evrik, User:Bduke, User:Naraht, User:Btphelps, User:Narky Blert, User:E.M.Gregory, User:Timothyjosephwood and User:Alansohn) had already decided towards a clear keep. Apart from the nominator, one user voted for weak delete. Everyone had given their reasons very explicitly and this AfD was not at all a close call and point 2 was not ignored.
    3. Zoroastrian Students' Association AfD: This AfD closure was non-controversial, was re-opened by Sysop Malcolmxl5 and subsequently the AfD was closed with no consensus. It appears that Kintetsubuffalo is deliberately posting only a part of the talkpage conversation and not the full conversation.
    4. Wayne Woodward AfD: As Davey2010 and Bonadea pointed out (something I had missed there), I had closed the AfD right after relisting it. There were no disagreements / warnings given (as Kintetsubuffalo dramatically puts it).
    5. This talk: was not a warning given (as Kintetsubuffalo dramatically puts it) and was just a discussion with NewYorkActuary.
    6. List of Australian middleweight boxing champions AfD: User:Papaursa did not agree with NAC, I stood by my decision. He said he will take it to DRV, he did not and the AfD maintained. Where is the problem with this?
    7. Leslie R. Mitchell AfD: Is the reason why we are having this discussion. This particular AfD is a very clear keep where no-one (apart from the nominator and another user) supported the AfD. More than 10 users opposed the AfD; where is the question of ambiguity??
    What really surprises me is the hostility, name calling, aggressive behavior and judgmental approach. Without even looking at the facts, people have started talking about my behavior (see )??? Does User:Kintetsubuffalo not understand any Misplaced Pages:Civility that he termed me as a poster child and I ask him to explain his comment? As I was writing this comment, someone posted a message for another NAC done by me. Well the matter has been answered by RegentsPark, but the point is what am I supposed to do for all the "disgruntled" people who refuse to understand and accept that AfD can go against their wishes?? Folks, this AfD had clear consensus towards keep, I performed the NAC and am standing-by my decision in performing the NAC. The matter is already in DRV, let the community decide there. As far as the AfD is concerned, the community decided VERY clearly towards a unanimous keep and hence I performed the NAC. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, let's not be too hasty, and end up losing a productive editor, his NAC actions were clearly in good faith, and I don't think anyone's disputing that. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    Re point 1, "Winner of Bronze Wolf Award award, making him notable" is AKS.9955's summary, which very clearly declares the award to be notable, even though this was quite a major point of contention during the discussion. It's not an appropriate statement for a NAC, considering the circumstances. If it is simply an innocent problem of language or communication, then it underlines the fact that maybe the editor shouldn't be closing contentious arguments. Sionk (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

    Just leaving this here:

    TimothyJosephWood 16:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

    • Timothyjosephwood posted some logs up. Proves my point exactly about smearing, being judgmental and giving selective information. What he does not explicitly state is the outcome. Following;
    1. Sweat Cosmetics DRV: Relisted with comment "Most contributors endorse the closure as such, because they don't consider the assessment of consensus to be in error, but they believe that more discussion would have been merited".
    2. List of Australian middleweight boxing champions DRV: The DRV closing comments were "Keep" closure endorsed".
    3. List of Australian Ambassadors to Venezuela DRV: This was relisted and finally closed with "no consensus". Another bureaucratic step. There were admins (like Lankiveil and RoySmith) who endorsed the close.
    4. Speedy (musician) DRV: False information given by Timothyjosephwood. Result was "Endorsed - I seriously don't see the consensus in Keeping it but arguing over it is pointless and beginning to be a waste of everyones time, Best thing I can do is take it on the chin and move on!"
    5. The Pioneer Trail (tour) DRV: Yes, the closure was overturned but it was because of copyright problems and had little to do with the closure. If you see the actual AfD discussion, you will notice that very experienced editors such as DGG, Shawn in Montreal, Kvng, Atlantic306 and Dane2007 voted very strongly for keep. So are we going to question there judgement now and call them names? As a matter of fact, no one voted for delete.
    6. October 4 AN thread about Martin Sekulić: Again false information. This thread was never closed and the related AfD was left untouched.
    7. Oooooooohhh... On the Video Tip DRV: Yup. Closing comments; "Vacate close and relist. The discussion in this review is as much a procedural review of the close as it is a re-arguing of the AfD, and I'm not sure there's any good way to tease those apart. So, I'm just going to back out the AfD close and let it run for another week. Hopefully that will result in a clear consensus one way or the other."
    Trust this clarifies. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    I think the problem is in part that even when you are right, you are right for the wrong reason. That is, your closure summary does not reflect the discussion. That certainly has been my experience of your NACs in the past and of your reaction to criticism of them. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Support 6month-1year topic ban - In short the editor seems to continue to close controversial AFDs, Ignores editors help and advice inregards to AFD closures and last but not least they also refuse to reopen any AFD they've closed thus forcing everyone to open a DRV- Not necessary a bad thing however reopening them is I guess a way of saying "Yes I may have been wrong and will allow it to be reclosed" if that makes sense,
    In short I believe they're closing way too many controversial AFDs and should probably take a step back for a while,
    I admit I made the mistake a year ago of closing early (linked above) however I've listened to people and have changed ... unfortunately the same cannot be said for this editor who as I said seems to ignore anyone and everyone. –Davey2010 17:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • If you honestly believe my comment was all because we've had our differences then you don't know me very well! - I don't hold grudges and the way I see things is "the past is the past", I've had many arguments with people who have been reported here and some I have vouched for and that's despite our differences so no this isn't anything to do with anger, vengeance nor our past. The AFD should speak for itself - It was controversial, Just because you wasn't reverted it doen't mean it wasn't uncontroversial - Some may of thought reverting your close would've been pointless I don't know - Only those who participated can answer that but from an outside view it was a controversial close. –Davey2010 18:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Davey2010, pardon me but I don't want to know you. And Yes, you are taking this as an opportunity to get back at me. Had you read what I have written above, I don't think you would have said what you said. By the way, you still need to explain why did you call that AfD closure "controversial". You said it, you explain. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Your choice, Read what I've just wrote - I don't hold pathetic grudges, Because it was related to OTRS so therefore I believe it was controversial for that reason and that reason alone I've read your comments however I still believe a short topic ban is warranted (BTW If this was a grudge then wouldn't I have suggested it indef ? ...., Anyway I have no wish to argue over this and I'm currently sourcing an article which is more productive than us arguing. –Davey2010 18:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment AKS.9955 has not even begun to accept any wrongdoing that he may have inappropriately closed AfDs. This is worrying. AKS.9955 is essentially saying that his closing of multiple articles is within the rules for NAC. Clearly - and you only have to see the comments here from editors who were all *involved* in the AfD's - he assumes a consensus too quickly and closes controversial AfDs and this is something that is not allowed under the rules of NACs. His judgement is being questioned, not the result. His defense of his actions above boils down to his belief that he reached the correct decision and he misses the fact that it is entirely beside the point whether an admin would reach the same conclusion or not. His subsequent conduct after his error was pointed out is the reason why the community has lost confidence in his ability to discern which AfDs can be reasonably closed by NAC. Also worrying, the longer-term pattern shows that he is not "learning" and in fact is pretty much unable to accept he erred. That is not good. I believe a (short) topic ban from NAC is appropriate to serve as provide him with a moment of pause to consider exactly the AfDs that fall under the remit of AfDs. I think a topic ban is appropriate, but I think it should be measured in weeks rather than months. A Topic Ban isn't meant to be a punishment, but rather an opportunity for AKS to have a rethink and figure out why the community lost confidence in him and then change that part of his conduct - and that is achievable (I believe) in a short period of time. If he doesn't learn, chances are he'll find himself back here again. -- HighKing 17:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • HighKing, actually what is worrying is a user like you, who nominates an article for AfD, refuses to accept the closure and wastes time of so many people in DRV / AN and does not stop in blaming other fellow editors just to get an article deleted. I have gone and re-opened AfDs if the reason was apt and also have agreed with other editors in the past about AfD closures; I seriously don't want to waste my time in digging them out; but if need be I can. This was a clear keep and I will stand by my decision. You have a clear bias on this topic, which is not my problem. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Wow, such spin and deflection! For the record, nowhere have I stated that I don't accept the result. Nowhere have I said it was a "wrong" result (even on that discussion you deleted from your Talk page) only that it was inappropriate for NAC. Nowhere have I "blamed other editors just to get an article deleted". I didn't open the DRV nor did I open this AN/I and ironically, both were opened by an editor that was looking for a "Keep" on the article. If you've gone and re-opened AfDs in the past, how many? And should that not have given you a clue (before we got to here) that perhaps you were doing something wrong? I reiterate - this is entirely about your inability to judge whether an AfD is appropriate for NAC or not. You are now compounding your poor judgement with inappropriate subsequent behaviour and personal comments. Your comment that you "stand by" your decision is very worrying. Perhaps Davey2010 is correct and your topic ban should be longer, not shorter. Editors who are unwilling to hold their hand up pretty quickly and acknowledge a mistake tend to learn slowly and need more time to learn. Endorse topic ban of 3 months. -- HighKing 18:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • HighKing, when did I say that you initiated the DRV / AN? I did not. I said you waste time of so many people in DRV / AN. Let's not forget that it was you who started this discussion; thereby the DRV / AN (which by the way is a clear keep). You should know that AfD is not a discussion forum; if you want to discuss the notability of the award; take it to the article talkpage (which impacts 300+ articles). That AfD (standalone) was a clear keep and I will maintain it such. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • This is getting ridiculous. The only person who has wasted so much time is you, who can't seem to understand which AfDs are suitable for NAC and which are not. Read the rules, they're pretty straight forward. And if you're not sure, if someone comes to your Talk Page and points out that you've made a mistake followed by another editor, both of whom are experienced editors with more experienced than you, take the hint and accept you've made a mistake. If you had done that right at the start, you wouldn't have wasted the time of so many other editors at the DRV and AN/I pages. I've better things to be doing with my time. My advice to you is to step away from the keyboard because you are not helping yourself and you're now fighting with everybody on this thread. I don't think we're all wrong.... -- HighKing 18:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Support warning only - I got pinged to this conversation per my participation in the Hindoo AfD. I would like to remind admins that we wouldn't need NAC if there were enough admins doing their jobs on maintenance tasks. Instead we have a huge backlog and have to rely on NAC, and now someone trying to be helpful is being brought to ANI. Мандичка 😜 18:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Support 6 month tban I support a six-month topic ban on AKS.9955 from doing non-admin closures. I would have been fine with a one month ban, but to me it seems that he needs some time to cool off. He's accusing other editors of acting in bad faith because they disagree with his actions, and I'm not sure that a shorter topic ban would allow him to distance himself from the emotions here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    I endorsed the close at DRV. I'm supporting the ban because of your closes after that and your actions fighting with people here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • What fighting TonyBallioni? Are you suggesting that I don't even defend myself on an AN???? For example, in case of Hindoo (that me and you were discussing), I just stated a fact that the article just had 16 words in mainspace; where was I wrong in that? I did not find it merge-worthy; someone else did and he did it. Whats the big fuss and why the remark about "fighting"? People have been accusing me for all sorts of stuff, I think I hold the right to reply, clarify and defend myself. Put yourself in my situation and think; what would you do if you are constantly being accused - first on DRV and then here. As a matter of fact, I never wanted to pick an argument (mentioned that on my talkpage), but then I am dragged into this. A simple DRV (without useless blames) would have solved the problem. There was no need to un-necessarily accuse anyone, had someone just opened the DRV without prejudice and vengeance. Look, I don't like wasting time here; like everyone else, I too like making positive contributions. Two days back I started Gandhi family article with the hope that I will spend few hours writing it today. And what did I do today for 4 hours???? Edit this AN. Thats not what I came to Misplaced Pages for. Anyway, I am actually sick and tiered of this AN discussion and would like to end this there. People can say whatever they wish to; I will only step in if I feel it is necessary. What a HUGE waste of time by an AfD nominator who refuses to accept the AfD discussion result. You have a good evening ahead. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I think this AfD, related to this DRV is pretty emblematic of the problem, how the user closed, how they were unresponsive, and how they continue to show their rationale even here. So I'll let this suffice rather than hashing through every past conflict they've had, and people can click through the links if they want.
    Two days before the close, it was pointed out that at the AfD that it was copyvio. After the close it was again pointed out that it was copyvio on the user's talk, they were asked to self revert, and they completely ignore this and are adamant that it was a snow close because look how many votes. Even here they want to defend the close in the same way emphasizing how many voted very strongly for keep, so surely we should be impressed. And surely it had nothing to do with the closure, since they missed the comment about copyvio, because after all, it didn't start with a bullet and a bold vote, which is apparently what they were counting anyway.
    So I have no sympathy for complains here about time wasting, from someone who apparently fairly consistently thinks it's a waste of time to read AfDs they are counting closing, and who could have avoided this and many other debacles if they had simply listened to others for two seconds. TimothyJosephWood 19:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I have hesitated about commenting here, partly because I am a largely inactive admin who has not closed a AfD for some time. Of course, I could not have closed the AfD in question, as I commented there. The real issue is not the keep closure, but the reason given. In several AfDs, the question whether receiving the Bronze Wolf Award makes a person notable has been strongly discussed. User:DGG started a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robbert Hartog as an instance where there was essentially nothing else claimed. This turned out to be not the case but it points to a serious attempt to answer the question whether the award makes a person notable. This NAC closure and the total failure of the User: AKS.9955 to understand the issue has totally confused the matter. The fact that he then closed a similar AfD even after his action was queried is a large worry. I support instructing him to not close AfDs for a period of at least 3 months and hope he gets to understand the process in that time. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    As I was pinged, making a comment . Everyone makes mistakes and I don't think there was anything that bad as a number of admin have said they would have closed the main AFD in contention as a keep, missing the copyvio one was a mistake. Perhaps if AKS was requested to only close noncontroversial AFD in line with NAC where there are no prolonged discussions and keep / merge/ redirect are obvious. As someone has said NACs are filling a gap left by admin inactivity apart from some very hardworking regulars so more admins closing is needed IMO. Atlantic306 (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Support XfD topic ban for either an indefinite or a finite duration. Thanks for starting this discussion - I was considering to do so myself. As an administrator who is regularly active at AfD and DRV, I have frequently noticed AKS.9955 making AfD closures and then reacting to challenges of them in a way that indicates a lack of the Misplaced Pages policy competence and social skills required to perform these functions. There is not a lack of admins willing to perform these functions, so banning AKS.9955 from them is a net benefit to the project because it avoids wasting the time of other volunteers with DRV discussions and discussions such as this one.  Sandstein  10:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Support XfD closure topic ban of two months or so. This is clearly someone does not know what he's doing, and will not listen to people who do. Reyk YO! 10:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    • User has apparently decided to retire from AfD per the header on their talk, but...have done so...even then...with such a flagrant misapplication of policy and principle that I think we're probably in safe territory to go ahead on a TBAN without worrying about the project too much: If people cannot be fair, appreciate my view-points, efforts, time, contributions (for maintenance), maintain WP:NPOV and are not free from WP:GEOBIAS, then I am not desperate to perform those tasks and waste my time. TimothyJosephWood 10:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, just noticed that. I'm still fine with a topic ban here. Not as a punitive measure but as a preventing further disruption measure. 3 months is a good minimum, though I would still support up to six. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    Same. I wouldn't support anything longer than six. But, I don't want to get in a situation where they decide to unretire in two weeks, and here we are again. I think they can be an asset, but they have to drop the attitude. There's a reason why there are at times two or three posts weekly here or on AN along the lines of "please review my admin action," and that's because that's the appropriate attitude to have when you make high-profile decisions that affect the community, even if you think you're right.
    I would point out though, that there is also the issue of the actual closes of the two boy scout award articles. I still think these should be at least reclosed, if not relisted for the sake of form, even if the decision is, and likely will be, the same. There seems to be an attitude at DRV that the issue should be decided here, as the "higher court", and so if it is not going to be decided here, the close should specify that they are delegating the decision to DRV. TimothyJosephWood 15:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    My view as I try to expressed at DRV was that the behavioral issue should be handled here and the issue of the close at DRV. That is still my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

    Arbitrary break

    • Opposed to ban, but support some kind of corrective instruction. I've been watching this evolve over an extended period of time, and it's finally come to a head. To be honest, I think the DRV that precipitated this is absurd; I don't see any possible way the AfD could have been closed other than it was, I think people are just using the NAC aspect of the close as a procedural excuse to overturn a decision that didn't go their way. On top of that, there is an undercurrent of nastiness in many of the comments both in the DRV and here which has no place in a communal project.
    All that being said, it's clear that there's been issues with AKS.9955's NAC activities. Over and over, people have raised objections to his closes, specifically that he's been overstepping the bounds of how far WP:NAC lets you wade into difficult situations. I personally don't think he's been overstepping the bounds. It's obvious, however, that the broader community does, and we live by community standards here. Once enough people have told you, I don't like what you're doing, it's time to back off a bit, whether you agree with them or not.
    There is also a combative tone in many of the interactions I see on AKS.9955's talk page regarding these AfDs. When somebody questions a close I've made, I bend over backwards to try to see it from their point of view. That doesn't mean I'm a pushover. More often than not, I'll hold my position, but I try to be as polite as possible about it. I try not to have any emotional investment in any close I make. If an objection to my close has any merit, I'm happy to revert my close and let somebody else come along and reclose it. If nothing else, it defuses the situation and keeps everybody happy. I'm not here to prove anything, I'm here to make my own small contribution to one of the most amazing information resources on the Internet today.
    Part of being an admin (and, performing NACs is effectively being an admin, whether you officially have a mop or not) is having a thick skin. People don't always agree on things, and you will often be put into the position of having to support one side or the other. Closing an AfD is a prime example of that. Don't get upset when people get upset at you. Be polite, listen to what they have to say, and try to see it from their point of view. Sometimes that means amending your closing statement. Sometimes it means vacating your close. Sometimes it means suggesting the person take it to DRV, but that really should be the last step in the process, not the first. And, yes, sometimes it means (tactfully!) telling somebody they're just wrong.
    You have to try really hard to be neutral, and be open to suggestions that you weren't as neutral as you would have liked to be. At one point in the DRV, AKS asks, Why cant I have my own opinion? The answer to that is, you can, but not when closing discussions. If you have any opinion at all about a subject, you either need to totally suppress it (not always easy to do), or just pass over the AfD close, and move on to something else. There's plenty of times I start to close an AfD and during the course of weighing the arguments, start to form my own opinion about the subject. When that happens, stop closing, and add your argument to the discussion.
    This has gotten more long-winded than I intended, so let me get to the real reason I'm getting involved: This edit where AKS blanked the entire discussion of his actions on his talk page. As I mentioned on the DRV, that's just wrong. Inexcusably wrong. The community process we use on Misplaced Pages is chaotic at times. And inefficient most of the time. And often frustrating. But, it's the process we use. It has served us well for 15 years. Part of that process is a culture of openness and public review of our actions. So, my recommendation is to censure AKS.9955 for blanking the discussion on his talk page, advise him to be more conservative in his future WP:NAC activities, be more open to constructive criticism, and in general be less combative in all of his interactions with his fellow editors.
    -- RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    Sigh. I just looked at AKS.9955's (since reverted by an admin) close of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kingsley C. Dassanayake. The closing statement says, Multiple users agree on this AfD discussion that subject passes BASIC and GNG, yet there is not a single place in the AfD text where the words BASIC or GNG appear in conjunction with a keep argument. Sorry, that doesn't fly. I've struck my opposition to a topic ban. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    I'm trying not do dominate this thread, at least any more than I already have, but I would point out that, as the person who opened the DRV, the original closure did in fact "go my way", at least as far as a keep versus a delete closure is concerned. So at least that much is not an accurate assessment of the situation. TimothyJosephWood 15:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    In which case, I'm totally confused why we're even here. You agreed with the end result, but not with the person who got us to that, ostensibly correct, end result? And because of that, we're arguing about banning somebody? Makes no sense to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    RoySmith: The multiple AfDs regarding recipients of this award are, in effect and mostly inadvertently, a way of stress testing whether the award is a good indicator of notability, probably leading up to an RfC on the issue using the AfDs (if mostly or all passing) as evidence to this effect. I'm not the architect or the chief proponent of this, but am keen enough to see that's where we're headed. Therefore, botched NACs interrupting this process, and worse, declaring that the award confers notability by fiat and contrary to consensus and policy, are disruptive on a scale that is much larger than an single article. TimothyJosephWood 18:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    @RoySmith: Edit conflict Whether he made the right decision when closing AFD discussions is not related to the question, should he have been making certain AFD closure decisions. He is not an admin, so he is restricted to straightforward, non-controversial decisions. Some people claim that some of the AFDs that he closed were ones that only an admin is permitted to close. In addition, there are cases when people claim that process he used to make the decision was poor, e.g. counting "delete" statements, or that the closure summary he wrote was a poor reflection of the key points in favour of the decision reached.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment: I am not part of this discussion, in good faith and concerns related to discussion closures, I agree with The answer to that is, you can, but not when closing discussions. If you have any opinion at all about a subject, you either need to totally suppress it (not always easy to do), or just pass over the AfD close, and move on to something else. There's plenty of times I start to close an AfD and during the course of weighing the arguments, start to form my own opinion about the subject. When that happens, stop closing, and add your argument to the discussion and some admin should raise concerns on WP:Merge, as we don't have strict rules of non admin closures in those discussions too. Thanks.Junosoon (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Support tban on NACs - as a frequent non-admin closer myself, many of these closes look worryingly inappropriate. Combatively sticking up for those inappropriate closes, and continuing to make them after being warned, is really inexcusable. So even though AKS has stated that he will not continue to perform NACs and such, I agree with Timothy that a tban is a good idea. @RoySmith: as to your addendum about "BASIC and GNG", the nominator does mention those as the main arguments for deletion, and as they are the most basic notability guidelines, it is not unreasonable that they would be met if the subject were demonstrated to pass a more specific guideline. But it is in any case not a very well phrased closing statement, which reads more like an argument than a summary. ansh666 02:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    • That he still thinks his close of the Pioneer Trail article was correct tells me that he should not be closing afds at all. —Cryptic 09:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, possibly. I nominated that for deletion, and I was nominator at the DRV, and I don't feel upset or annoyed in any way about this editor's actions. What he actually did was close a near-unanimous "keep" consensus as "keep". In the particular circumstances it was mistaken but hardly outrageous. He has the opinion that his close was correct and he's welcome to have that view. We're not a hive mind. What he hasn't done is argue about it by starting further discussions or processes ---- he doesn't agree with the consensus but he's accepted the outcome.

      I also participated in most of those deletion reviews and I oppose a topic ban at this stage. There's no pattern to these discussions he's closing ---- he's not cherry-picking a subject he's interested in. He's genuinely trying to help and he knows how to agree to differ. We can work with him. I could fault him for being slightly too inclusionist and not quite attentive enough to significant arguments that don't get much discussion during the debate, but I could fault a lot of sysops for the same things.

      I propose that we give this editor help support and direction rather than a topic ban, and I offer to provide it in the form of an informal mentorship if this is acceptable to him and to the community.—S Marshall T/C 10:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

    • His intransigence when approached, his poor decision-making in taking on inappropriate NACs, and his stated reliance on vote counts etc, together with sub-optimal close rationales, all suggest incompetence at this time. That he doesn't subsequently start discussions etc is because it isn't likely any AfD closer would then start a DRV. He's wasting a shed-load of other peoples' time and does not seem to have learned a thing regarding the error of his ways. An enforced break at least gives the community some guaranteed relief from this and gives him time to reflect. - Sitush (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Support minimum of six-month topic ban and require editor to demonstrate greatly improved competence before the ban is lifted. Reyk summed things up perfectly, above, and Sandstein's more detailed explanation is quite convincing. Editor's grasp of speedy deletion principles has also been demonstrably inadequate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Support minimum of six-month ban for the same reasons as listed above. Editor is incredibly combative when questioned on his closures and has overall been a very negative contributer.TBMNY (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment, I just want to endorse what User:RoySmith has said above. This user often gets the substance of the call correct, but often their communication leaves a fair bit to be desired. Although they're correct in that I endorsed their most recent close to show up at DRV, this was more down to my seeing it as a waste of time overturning a "keep" to a different kind of "keep". I'm not greatly encouraged by the fact that rather than listen to the criticisms being made here, they've decided to just turtle and go on the defensive. Lankiveil 10:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC).
    • Support ban These actions are always as a result of an editor refusing to listen to, and work with, the community. This editor's actions, particularly in this discussion, show that they must be forced to heed the community's advice.--Adam in MO Talk 03:34, 10 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" . "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 ).

    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 .

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

    This user has been warned repeatedly for personal attacks: , , , in particular most recently 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 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 , and again acting as victim when someone notices this behaviour . In particular, this user continues to make personal attacks over and over again ,,, most recently he got warned 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. RivertorchWATER 15:27, 6 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)
    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 Misplaced Pages:IPs are human too. 84.187.146.101 (talk) 21:50, 9 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)

    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 carrots02:46, 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)
    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 carrots04:22, 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)

    @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 , 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 . 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

    This subsection has degenerated into pointless bickering, by the OP in particular, but many others too, so no action taken. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

    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 carrots19:08, 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 carrots22:53, 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 carrots19:51, 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 carrots22:30, 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 carrots23:11, 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 carrots23:27, 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 ) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 and ?-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

    BANNED By unanimous consensus. King of 00:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

    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:

    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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, from 2014: Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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.. 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.. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.. We're past the point where we have to worry about crusading on Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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. John Nagle (talk) 20:18, 7 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

    User:Timmyshin

    User:Timmyshin is making hundreds of high speed edits (without a bot flag) in violation of the Misplaced Pages:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality guidelines. I politely informed them that they were violating the guidelines and asked them undo their edits. They said they were aware of the guidelines and had no indention of undoing their edits. I then politely asked them to stop making such edits. However, they are continuing to make such edits in violation of the guidelines. Specifically, they are using gender-based categories as diffusing categories rather than non-diffusing categories and also creating numerous such gender-based categories that should not exist, per the guidelines. Kaldari (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

    For anyone unfamiliar with why we have these guidelines, please do a search for "Categorygate". Kaldari (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    If "Categorygate" refers to this, then creating male writer categories and moving their articles out, which is what I've done today, reduces the controversy. Timmyshin (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    FYI: The user was warned by an admin and appears to have stopped. Kaldari (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    For your info, the thousands of articles in Category:Canadian short story writers, Category:Indian short story writers and the likes were moved several months ago by User:Bearcat, User:Roland zh and others from what I can see. I have discussed these categories before, have you talked with anybody before you moved every article out of Category:Belizean women short story writers and others and tagged them for deletion, Mr/s. Polite? Timmyshin (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    For the record, given that I was pinged I'm going to clarify that Timmyshin has misinterpreted what I and Roland did. In the case of Canadian and Indian short story writers, the parent categories have indeed been cleared of individual articles — but that's not because of the gender categories, it's because the short story writers have been diffused by century (i.e. Category:20th-century Canadian short story writers, Category:21st-century Indian short story writers, etc.) If somebody wants to create parallel by-century categories for Denmark, that would be permissible — but as of right now they don't exist yet, so Denmark can't be treated equivalently yet and the non-diffusingness of the gender categories still controls the parent until such time as Category:20th-century Danish short story writers and the like actually exist. Bearcat (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks, that makes sense. I can create Category:20th-century Danish short story writers and their equivalents, that's no problem at all. Timmyshin (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages: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

    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 Misplaced Pages 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)
    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 Misplaced Pages: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 ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ⱷ≼  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 ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ⱷ≼  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 ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ⱷ≼  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 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. 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 ] he is riding roughshod over the spirit and letter of Misplaced Pages 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 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 ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ⱷ≼  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 "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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: "Misplaced Pages 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 ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ⱷ≼  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)
    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 ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ⱷ≼  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: , ). 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 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 ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ⱷ≼  09:52, 10 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

    Narrow gauge

    One editor, Railfan123, told me that it's British to not bother with the hyphen when using "narrow gauge" as a hyphen, 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.

    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 ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ⱷ≼  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 ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ⱷ≼  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 ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ⱷ≼  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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
    @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?

    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 ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ⱷ≼  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):


    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)

    information Note: Hongseol1298 blocked indef by Widr -- Samtar 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:
    -- Samtar 17:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

    Range Information

    Here is the relevant IP Range information for interested administrators --Cameron11598 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 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 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 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 .

    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 Misplaced Pages. 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 . 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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/search/?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. Misplaced Pages 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 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 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
    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 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 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 06:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Cameron11598: @Jéské Couriano: Any suggestions on how to go forward? -- A Certain White Cat 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 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 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 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 [[User talk:SpidErxD|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 ] 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 17:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

    No mistake, Comrade! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir P. (talkcontribs)
    FYI this comment was left by EEng . 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 carrots18:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

    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)

    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

    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, .

    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 Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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" 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 ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ⱷ≼  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 Misplaced Pages: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)
    • 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 (), 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 Misplaced Pages: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 ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ⱷ≼  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 (やや) 04:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    Sounds reasonable to me, too.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ⱷ≼  07:38, 10 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. (, , , ) 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 (). 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)
    • 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 () and that I still lived with my mother (). Turkey only stopped with the personal attacks when I threatened to report him (), 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 (, , , ). 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 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)
    • I don't agree with John Carter that ArbCom is needed here. This is just another Misplaced Pages 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 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 ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ⱷ≼  07:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

    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 . Splitting the discussion serves only to confuse matters. Jbh 02:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

    I recently nominated a category tree for renaming in the first section of Misplaced Pages: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)

    • 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 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! 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 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 only 1 minute before closure). 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 (talkcontribs) 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)
    • 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)
    • 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 places" is correct English word order, and " 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. When I lodged my procedural objection 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 that you revert. Instead you chose to respond with a threat that sanctions will be requested immediately: a block, 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)

    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." . 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)

    JzG on The People's Cube

    I'm bringing this here because the user in question has the admin bit set.

    The kind of behavior I'm seeing JzG (talk · contribs) display over the past few days on The People's Cube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) would be merely regrettable coming from any other editor on the site, but seeing it come from an admin, someone who's behavior is supposed to be exemplary, their knowledge of policy extensive, their skill with Mediawiki refined... is flat out disheartening and has me questioning why I'm spending the time. At this point, I don't care whether this behavior is made in good faith in accordance with the rules, as much as I care about this level of carelessness when it comes to working on something that could wind up deleted based on the changes.

    I'll try to keep this as far away from the actual content dispute as I can, because that's not the real issue here. Issue 1 excepted; as it touches on what appears to be a complete misunderstanding of "independent".

    • Inaccurate edit summaries:
      • : Characterizing an unrelated print book author as "not an independent source" to justify blanking an entire paragraph.
      • : Falsely claiming that a third party source said something they did not (source quoted by me , full source )
      • : This is what they said when blanking a paragraph.
      • : Deleting a print article with an edit summary of removing blogs, because, you know, blogs
      • : Summary of "moving" when in actuality a paragraph is being blanked. Not restored at any later time.
    • Personal attacks:
      • : In which I am accused of being a "POV Editor" after asking "if the snarky edit messages were really necessary."
      • : In which my editing history is brought up apropos of nothing.
    • Incivility in edit summaries:
      • : This was not a flattering mention at all. Odd that whoever inserted this didn't think to note that Tyson is pretty clearly contemptuous of the site.
      • : What, so you onlty want to include sources with your own misleading interpretation? Nope. That's not how it works.
      • : My word, actual commentary about the site. A rare thing indeed. Most "sources" are just namechecks.
      • : This is a valid source for the cube. See the difference?
    • Failure to understand policy:
      • : Self published sources about themselves are allowable, per WP:SELFPUB, and no reasonable doubt about authenticity was articulated in the edit summary or any related talkpage.
    • Other disruptive editing during AfD:
      • ,: Breaking citation URLs to replace them with less detailed versions than the originals.
      • : Deleting citation URLs in general, which have to be fixed by a bot
      • : Insertion of unencyclopedic language like "purported".


    If my behavior here has been inappropriate, then please let me know and apply appropriate troutage.

    Otherwise, I'd like to ask JzG to step away until such time as he agrees to turn off the snark, assume good faith, slow down and exercise more care in his edits (especially on contentious, in-danger articles), and finally to write civil edit messages that are accurate reflections of the actions taken.

    Karunamon 03:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

    Diff 1: Neither source is independent. One is the TCP, the other, the book, is intimately related to the author of the image whose copyright was being violated. Diff 2: The edit you link here doesn't remotely lack your description. I lost interest in the complaint after that. Have you tried talking to Jzg about any of these concerns? Someguy1221 (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    Bah, I got 2 confused with something else. Deleted it. The diffid's started to blend togeteher a bit as I was writing this. Anyways. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "intimately related to the author of the image." Also, this what you just gave me is more detail that I've gotten out of JzG despite my requests on the AfD for more detail. I'm unsure how I'm supposed to go about tapping someone on the shoulder who has the power to block me, for this kind of behavior, absent a third opinion, which is kinda what i'm asking for here. Karunamon 04:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    JzG does not have the power to block you. As an involved administrator on this issue, he would find himself rapidly flogged with a large fish and potentially desysopped if he did. And I'm sorry, I have to strike my remark on diff 1 - I had somehow misread a description of the book as having been written by Alberto Korda. My bad. Ok, in that case I'm not sure what JzG is on about there. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

    Not a single one of the edit summaries you declare to be "incivil" is actually incivil. Sometimes snarky, perhaps, and on-point, but snark has never been prohibited on the encyclopedia. For instance, the Tyson one is spot-on — whoever wrote the section used a source to name-check Neil deGrasse Tyson without noting that Tyson was harshly critical of the site's content. This could lead to readers being misled to believe that Tyson somehow endorsed or supported the site. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

    • i just reviewed all those diffs. Guy was following WP policies and guidelines and removing a bunch of self-serving, self-cited (or affiliate-cited) stuff from the article. Given this transparently tendentious posting, a boomerang is well in order here. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    I think you made a mistake in diff 4 as what you linked to doesn't say what you claimed it said. Did you mean to link to . It does look like one of the sources removed is not a blog. However all the other ones seemed to have been. And notably the part which was removed contained two references, the second one was a blog. I would guess the first reference was missed which is unfortunate but doesn't in itself seem to be an error worth of sanction. Especially since there seem to be justification to keep that text anyway. Without the blog, there's no secondary source mentioning this re-print so it doesn't seem significant enough to mention. Nil Einne (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    That would be correct. Again, no deception intended, my error, going through 18 different diffs and linking to each of them in one post is an error-prone process. However, my issue is with the pattern. Breaking stuff willy-nilly, repeatedly, to be cleaned up by bots or others. Were this an RfA, I'd be bringing those examples of carelessness up (nevermind the snarking at people.. which apparently I just learned is completely okay per Jytdog above. So much for WP:ESDONTS?) as a reason to oppose. I especially take great issue with edit summaries that are patently false. When you "move" something, you don't erase a paragraph and do nothing else. You don't erase print articles as an example of deleting blogs. Slow the heck down and think about what you're doing. Karunamon 06:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I'd encourage uninvolved administrators to examine the OP's behaviour on the associated AfD discussion to put this into context. Maybe I'm still annoyed at being called deceptive & told I'm acting in bad faith by the OP, who knows, but the OP was warned that blogs and other self-created sources carried no weight. Starting this discussion to protest their removal is a very transparent act. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
      • For the benefit of anyone reading, they are referring to this , wherein I posted a reworked version of the article with different sources and asked for feedback on them. Exemplo then replied, dumping each one with summaries like "passing mention". This would be fine and dandy, if somehow they hadn't accomplished this feat of evaluation in about 27 minutes (or spending <1:17 per source, some of which were rather lengthy). I called shenanigans, saying "I find it very hard to believe you evaluated 21 sources in 27 minutes". This was based on the timestamps of the comments - my "RFC" was posted at 1/5 00:59, Exemplo's reply was posted at 1:26, with a followup "Before anyone suggests I didn't go through each one of these sources independently..." at 1:44 by Exemplo. This is a statement I still stand by. Karunamon 01:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    • The OP returned in December from what is effectively a ten year hiatus, and has expended most of his efforts in recent days trying to keep a right wing fake news website, repeatedly reinserting self-sourced material, inserting references with non-neutral summaries of incidents, then removing them when they are checked and turn out to be less than flattering, and so on. This is classic alt-right sleeper sock behaviour. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Right, that is a flat out lie. I've spent more time and effort and edits on stuff like disambiguations, RC patrolling, and such than I have this one article (and in fact was active for a a week before this even went up for deletion and their "call for help" went up.). I have made a combined 78 edits to the article, the talk page, the AfD page, and a userspace draft I took in an attempt to rework the article. My first day "back" was December 24th (same link) while the article wasn't listed for deletion until January 2nd, a full week later. I have made 222 edits (232 if you count today as I write this) since that date, which means that this article and related pages have accounted for ~35% of my editing since that date. Hardly "most of my efforts". And speaking of lies, I'd like to ask him to link to the diffs where I "removed references that are checked and turned out to be less than flattering", because that was someone else. I thanked JzG for his efforts in finding that article and did not remove it even once. We did have two reverts each on how to describe that article, but it was never removed. I dislike being slandered as a "sleeper sock", and would suggest that JzG put up this accusation on a case on SPI or shut up. I believe that any such review would find that I have only ever edited from two other IPs, none of the edits there related to anything political. I also control no other accounts. Karunamon 18:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    Um, no, it's an interpretation of the facts. You may disagree, and it may even be wrong, but it is plainly supportable, as anybody who reviews your edit history will see. You edited a fair bit up to fall 2006, then made a couple of dozen edits over a period of more than a decade, then returned to activity on December 22, 2016. From Jan 4, your primary focus was The People's Cube. This may be entirely innocent, but it's a pattern that has been seen before in alt-right sleeper socks during the worst of GamerGate (and continuing to the present). Guy (Help!) 23:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    It is a completely false interpretation that fails AGF. I notice how you said nothing about your unsupported accusations that I was removing refs from the article, either. My "primary focus" has been RC patrolling and dab pages to a lesser extent, which an evaluation of my edit history will prove. I expect you to either substantiate, or retract these accusations. Karunamon 23:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Just to note - The People's Cube is currently at AfD (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The People's Cube) and the AfD itself is a mess of tendentious editing, going so far that it to be protected to deal with troublesome unregistered editors. The root cause of the trouble appears to be an attempted marshalling of the forces via the Twitter page of The People's Cube. There's also few old usernames that I've not seen for a while appearing in the AfD to Keep the article, right enough. I don't know if they're alt-right sleepers or just old timers who happened to have the page on their watchlists (page info currently says 24 watchers, so not implausible). I don't see any issues with Guy's editing or edit summaries - he had far sharper fangs a few years ago... Nick (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    Yeah, I had PTSD. It's a bastard. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

    Karunamon, you are a crazy man for trying to bring this up at ANI. Are you seriously trying to report an admin part of the core clique with dozens of Wikifriends? That's not how Misplaced Pages works. You will just be BOOMERANG'ed. --Pudeo (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

    Not in the least bit helpful. So what help-help-I'm-being-oppressed axe have you come here to grind?--Calton | Talk 01:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    Dude, don't make comments like this. I opened this case because the facts are on my side and I fully expect them to be found in my favor. I don't share this belief that there is a "core clique" that ignores hard evidence when it's brought to them. Karunamon 01:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    In case nobody noticed, the article, and hence the links posted by the OP, are now gone. ←Baseball Bugs carrots01:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    Admins have the ability to see deleted revisions, IIRC. Karunamon 01:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

    More at ALEC

    Chiming in here, I don't know what kind of bug is up his butt but Guy has been difficult to deal with on other articles as well lately and I think he deserves a trout. He stormed into American Legislative Exchange Council and re-reverted me ignoring BRD, responding to my good faith, substantive edit summary with unconstructive comments such as the dismissive "Not liking a source does not make it unreliable". Then after I start talk page discussions with more constructive arguments his response is, "I get it: you odn't like liberal sources." (Which is laughable, by the way.) He is also knowingly editing against longstanding consensus and forcing me to take him to RSN to enforce that consensus. I haven't reviewed Karunamon's allegations but like them I think that while this conduct might not be sanctionable, Guy could edit less disruptively and set a better example for less experienced editors. (And just to be clear, I think Guy does lots of great work and I frequently agree with him.)--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

    Because it has the exact same problem: self-sourced uncritical material. That gets a pass when the subject is uncontroversial, but when it's a group that attracts the kind of controversy ALEC attracts, much more robust sourcing is required.
    Your best solution is: bring better sources. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    I have to agree with Guy that self-sourced material is among the least acceptable types here, in those few cases where it is acceptable. This is particularly true when the subject matter is in some way controversial. As per the consensus discussed above, concensus can change, particularly if the alleged earlier consensus was either from a limited number of individuals or perhaps some with the same sorts of opinions or under what are now changed circumstances. Much as I regret it when people have to engage in such editing, it is, in fact, probably one of the most necessary kinds of editing we need, particularly on articles that don't get a lot of attention. John Carter (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    We're talking about conduct here, not content. Ironically, Guy's comment above might be the most constructive content comment he's made on the subject. The problem, however, is that at article talk his comments have been extremely light on the "convincing" part and a bit too heavy on the "dismissing" part. Arguments like "I don't like the consensus, so I'm just going to say it doesn't apply to the disputed content" isn't constructive. In fact it's disruptive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    DrFleischman, in general, when you're using quotation marks, you should only quote the user directly. I can't find any evidence of that exact quote coming from Guy, which makes that an attempt at paraphrasing his statement. I don't think it's an accurate summary of what he said. My interpretation of what he was saying is that the content used from the watchdog group does not seem to violate WP:RS in this context. The right thing to do in such a case is to build consensus or seek WP:3O for the disputed usage; if you're already doing that over at RSN, then good. Despite your contention to the contrary, it really does look like a content dispute and not an issue with the user's conduct. AlexEng 02:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

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

    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)

    Disruptive edits by user 55378008a

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