User talk:Roboticrecluse

March 2018
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Family Force 5, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. ''the number of small edits you're making is making it hard to edit the article. Much of it is unsourced and bows to recentism.'' Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Family Force 5, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Please stop continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Family Force 5, without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Not appropriate to remove citation needed without supplying references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The move was not appropriate as they are not yet known by that name. If you want a move, open a move discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

This is the last time I'm going to explain this. WP:COMMONNAME is the overarching principle. Read it. Understand it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to address a few other points from the comments you left on my talk page:
 * If you can find where they are using that name, please provide a source so I can see that they are still using a past name to talk about themselves.
 * I provided seven on the subject's talk page. There's also this thing we have called "google". You can type anything into it and see what pops up. When I search for "Family Force 5", with the quotes, it tells me that there are "About 412,000 results" and "FF5" is Final Fantasy V, and your paid social media accounts. I see you've been working SEO well. Is Wikipedia an extension of that for you?
 * I'm not sure who appointed you thee wikipedia police, but perhaps you should only be policing articles where you have extensive knowledge about the topic of the article.
 * Every editor is responsible to correct problems on the project that they encounter. I have sufficient knowledge of COMMONNAME, so I'm helping to enforce that. I also have good knowledge of move discussions, so I've taken care of that for you. It's also considered rude to suggest what other editors should or should not be doing. One last comment.
 * When a group changes their name, the title of their article should be changed immediately, so people do not get confused.
 * After you read COMMONNAME, is there anything in that statement you'd like to change? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The following is a direct quote from COMMONNAME: "However, common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article has a name change, it is reasonable to consider the usage following the change in reliable, English language sources." To answer your question, no there is NOTHING in my statement above that I would like to change. I gave accurate information and followed wikipedia guidelines. Also, if you search Google for FF5, the duo's website is the fourth listing that shows up on the first page. And there are undoubtedly websites that give information about the duo's previous name. Obviously not everyone can update their information immedately. The point still stands that the article is using an incorrect name. Here is a link from iTunes that is more recent than the one you used on the talk page that is for the duo's newest music. There is no mention of a previous group name here. https://itunes.apple.com/ca/album/el-compadre/1348200752 Brocklovesgreys (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)brocklovesgreys

Correct contested move process
I have listed the page correctly for a move discussion. If you elect to move the article again before the closing date, you will likely have to deal with an admin and not me. Cheers. Feel free to improve the article, but do not market the band as you have been doing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
I'd like to carry the discussion about the sockpuppet investigation (SPI) here, rather than on the Family Force 5 talk page. If you don't agree, feel free to move the rest of the content here to the other talk page.

An editor pointed to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and there's a lot more explained there. SPIs are conducted by specially sanctioned admins. There are two types of SPIs. The first uses evidence. The second uses IP information and often geo-location. In the latter, if two accounts use exactly the same IP address, they are considered socks. An editor can use multiple accounts, as long as there isn't a great deal of interaction, and definitely no vote stacking (which is what the problem was on the talk). That's how this instance was proven. When they compared your IP to the two involved there, you apparently did not overlap. How do we prove that a post is not sock puppetry is obviously the inverse.

The page was protected so new editors and anons can't vote stack. That was done because of this proven case, and that this was the target. I also suspect I know who the sock is, but I won't offer any proof on that discussion. It was one of two editors and since I have no way of running an SPI, I wanted to make sure it was not you, but it was a very tenuous assumption so was hesitant to open an SPI. The editor who did was clearly more convinced that there was something wrong, and that editor's suspicions were proven correct.

In Wikipedia terms, deception is considered a bad thing. Vote stacking and sockpuppetry are deception. That's why these actions were done. I agree that it's not fair that new editors can't discuss this, but admins go based on policy (that was mentioned in the ANI complaint). YOU and the other new editors were not using policy to discuss and it was distracting. I kept trying to point back to policy, but I was ignored and comments pointing to or relying on the the band's wants were becoming the focus.

I am not trying to win an argument, which is what, "perhaps it would satisfy Walter", seems to imply. I'm trying to make points, based on policy, as to why the article should not be moved. If it moves, I won't take it personally. I will learn from the points that were made as to why the move should have been made. In short, I am not satisfied with blocks. It makes me sad. I'm not happy that editors are so competitive about things like this that they have deceive others into accepting their discussion points. Ultimately, I just want a discussion on the subject, not an argument. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I agree. I promise you I would never use sockpuppetry to further an agenda on Wikipedia. I know that is against policy. Maybe one of the other users is being deceptive, but I have no connection with those users and can't control what they do. Brocklovesgreys (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)brocklovesgreys