Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Information on the process[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Module:, Topic:, and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
  • Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion[edit]

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace
  • If you want to have your own personal userpage deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}}. If you wish your user talk page (or user talk page archives) to be deleted, this is the correct location to request that.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace
  • Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.
  • Take care not to bite newcomers - sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages
  • Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere.
  • Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages
  • It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
  • WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication.
  • Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion
  • Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
  • Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Administrator instructions[edit]

Administrator instructions for closing discussions can be found here.


Current discussions[edit]

Pages currently being considered are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

Purge server cache

April 27, 2015[edit]


User:Smisbahuddin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This looks like Tutorial content better suited to Wikibooks. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


User:RobertF777 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Long abandoned draft, editor's only edits Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

April 26, 2015[edit]

Draft:MD Rabbi Alam[edit]

Draft:MD Rabbi Alam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Been to AfD twice already at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MD Rabbi Alam (2nd nomination). Time to stop this until he is actually notable. Fiddle Faddle 20:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Bad Rats[edit]

Draft:Bad Rats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Originally placed this for Speedy deletion until G13 but was told it didn't fall under its criteria and was directed to here instead. It's been over six months since someone tried to make something out of this draft and I don't believe it's going to be touched up to become a real article anytime soon. GamerPro64 16:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:5 Arcade Gems[edit]

Draft:5 Arcade Gems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Originally placed this for Speedy deletion until G13 but was told it didn't fall under its criteria and was directed to here instead. It's been over six months since someone tried to make something out of this draft and I don't believe it's going to be touched up to become a real article anytime soon. GamerPro64 16:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


User:Amorcone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE about a star which the author has named "Emily" at a website that allows anyone to name a star. Corresponding article Emily (Star) PRODded as non-notable. JohnCD (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as copyvio of [1] and as hoax/self-promotion. Emily (Star) has since been speediy deleted. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

User:KRIPA OLD AGE HOME/sandbox[edit]

User:KRIPA OLD AGE HOME/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Promotional content, account name suggests a PR/Corporate account as opposed to an indvidual? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • The content does not really look promotional, but it does not appear to be an article either, rather a letter addressed to someone. It is not in English either. Perhaps we can point the writer to the Malayalam Wikipedia. Probably this can be deleted under U5 speedy delete criterion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Actress Lilimar Hernandez[edit]

User:Actress Lilimar Hernandez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Possible promotional content? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Dtalbott/bio notes[edit]

User:Dtalbott/bio notes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Seems to be, at least in part, a violation of WP:ATTACKPAGE. jps (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • weak keep seems to be more criticism than attack, but it is related to Wikipedia pages and so has some reason for keeping. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • strong keep There are no attacks (per nomination) on this page. When one considers the history between User:jps (nominator) and User:Dtalbott one can only conclude that this Mfd is itself an attack. To assume good faith would be to ignore both the on-site and the off-site interactions in the past between jps, Dtalbott and myself. For this page to be deleted would be to (again) have Wikipedia become the tool of zealots rather than the encyclopedia it aspires to become. As jps has for many years taken an adversarial stance toward Dtalbott and anything Dtalbott is associated with, it would be laughable, if it weren't so serious a violation of CoI, for this MfD to be successful. This page is in userspace and it violates nothing. Davesmith au (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


User:ENOCKAWIRA/WWT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

News content better suited to Wikinews Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • keep this is in a user subpage that is a sandbox. It is still quite recent and is potentially input to an article somewhere. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


User:Adah.ygammer/ygammer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

News content better suited to Wikinews. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


User:Mwasiti.rashid/WWF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This looks like news coverage better suited to Wikinews? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


User:Ciipedu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Possible promotional content/ username suggests corporate/PR account. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


User:Bigred6464 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Appears to be a policy statement relevant to a specfic institution as opposed to user/ faculty information page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Amazon shopping[edit]

User:Amazon shopping (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article duplicate? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

User:JD Caselaw/Constitutional Law (Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, Tushnet, Karlan)[edit]

User:JD Caselaw/Constitutional Law (Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, Tushnet, Karlan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Long-abandoned user subpage of long-retired editor (last active in 2011), which is a complete copy of the table of contents of a law school textbook. The header on the page expressly states it was created by a law school study group primarily to help with future exams. postdlf (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • It sounds partially to do with building up articles, but it is a bit of a copyright infringement, so I will vote delete Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

April 25, 2015[edit]

User:Chiros Sunrider/Hinckley[edit]

User:Chiros Sunrider/Hinckley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Foreign language fork of an existing article Gordon B. Hinckley last touched in 2009. NeilN talk to me 18:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


User:Kayina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:UP#COPIES. Text dump of a version of The Contender Asia. Whpq (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


User:Ewhitten510/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rejected article draft, Appears to be biblical commentary better suited to Wikibooks or Wikiversity... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:देवराज पौडेल/sandbox[edit]

User:देवराज पौडेल/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template test? User concerned in not in checkusers group. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:D. Larry Patterson/sandbox[edit]

User:D. Larry Patterson/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This looks like period source material better suited to Wikisource. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


User:Emistates/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This appears to be an obituray/press release, which if it's authorised and licensed would be better suited to Wikinews. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

--Valentin Fritzmann (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)====User:Valentin Fritzmann====

User:Valentin Fritzmann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Possible promotional/advertising content, on the basis of the language style used. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC) --Valentin Fritzmann (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Avant Bellwether/sandbox[edit]

User:Avant Bellwether/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Possibly an advert, Account name appears to be the business personality/company listed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:EA300/sandbox/Johnny and the Dead[edit]

User:EA300/sandbox/Johnny and the Dead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Book review, so out of scope. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


User:Svcnedu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Possible promotional content... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:EA300/sandbox/EA300 Group 1 Johnny and The Dead[edit]

User:EA300/sandbox/EA300 Group 1 Johnny and The Dead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This looks like a book review, and so may be out of scope. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


User: (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Possible promotional content/press release? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:STEPHEN S CHEN/sandbox[edit]

User:STEPHEN S CHEN/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Resume content ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


User:Bhonigbe/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This appears to be analysis material better suited to Wikiversity, It's also unsourced. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


User:Mysticalberto/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This appears to be journalistic material better suited to Wikinews. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


User:RCOakwood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This looks like an advert, and the user name doesn't inspire confidence. If it's a listing, there are better places. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


User:Airilian/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This looks like an article draft related to an Alternative therapy, which is submitted in it's current form would likely be rejected over sourcing concerns. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


User:Kryometric511/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rejected article draft, This appears to be obituary content better suited to Wikinews. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


User:HipHopNewsEC/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This looks like a press release. Also the contributor name doesn't inspire confidence. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


User:Nforystek/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article appears to be largely drafted by developer of titular software. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Michael Annotti/sandbox/Michael Annotti[edit]

User:Michael Annotti/sandbox/Michael Annotti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Possible promotional content? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Faith Picozzi[edit]

Draft:Faith Picozzi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe that this draft has reached the end of the road. I can see no hope of accepting even a very much reduced version of this material based both on a search for anything notable about this lady, and an analysis of existing references. The article has been drafted by the subject's self identified PR agent and is nothing more than a spamcruftisement.

Analysis of references:

  1. Primary source. Fail
  2. not about subject of article. Fail
  3. Blog. Not WP:RS Fail
  4. Interview. Primary source.Fail
  5. Interview. Primary source.Fail
  6. Load of trivia. Fail
  7. by her agency. Fail
  8. photoshoot. This is her work. And snapped by her b/f. Fail
  9. photoshoot. This is her work. And snapped by her b/f. Fail
  10. Trivial PR interview. Fail

This analysis was made of the references in the version at this permalink Fiddle Faddle 14:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Western Direct Insurance[edit]

Draft:Western Direct Insurance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft from an indefinitely blocked user, who's only contributions to Wikipedia were advertising/promotion. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


User:DiscoWiki/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

USerspace draft of article on topic Wikipedia already has article on. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


User:JB1001/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft for topic Wikipedia already has an article on. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:My electrical works vizag/sandbox[edit]

User:My electrical works vizag/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Advert? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:LordGorval/Exodus 1[edit]

User:LordGorval/Exodus 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is either source material more suited to Wikisource or WP:OR better suited to Wikiversity. WP:NOT webhost. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


User:CiaranChampionsTravel/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Promotional content? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Chiefbeatmaker/sandbox/Chief Beatmaker[edit]

User:Chiefbeatmaker/sandbox/Chief Beatmaker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Promotional content? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

April 24, 2015[edit]

Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard[edit]

Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Completely unused noticeboard with less than thirty watchers. I'm honestly not sure what this is for, and I'm not the only one judging by previous discussion. It's been in existence for about eleven months and has only five posts. There's no practical reason for this to exist. Kharkiv07Talk 18:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. I have been following this board since its creation. I understand its purpose, but it has a terrible name and never came close to being useful to the Wikipedia community. It's long past time to retire it. Andrew327 18:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The noticeboard was meant to be like BLPN, just for groups of people rather than individual people. Shame it didn't work out. Don't delete, add to Category:Inactive_project_pages instead as per long standing practice. (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The page is useful, and would be/will be more useful when we actually have more articles which relate to the topic than we do today. A lot of people have been afraid of creating articles on companies because of possible COI claims if they did. I hope in the next few months we can establish some good reference sources to establish notability of some groups and indicate some of the basic content pages on them should have. Maybe we could mark it as "inactive," but it was created as a way to make it easier to deal with a content area which was and is remarkably underdeveloped, and it should become more useful when the relevant content to which it relates is more widely developed. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Extant organizations are not living persons, and their articles are subject to WP:GNG like any other. Problems can be (and have been) handled at WP:RSN. Miniapolis 02:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant noticeboard, IMHO it looks like it was doomed from the start anyway, We could mark as "historical" or list it under some category but lets be honest It won't remembered in a year nor missed so I say Delete. –Davey2010Talk 15:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


User:Cbosa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Non-English duplicate of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism Interference 541 (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep The editor has removed the duplicate from his userpage. Bosstopher (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

April 23, 2015[edit]


User:KHlater/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A version of the eliminations from I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (UK series 10). There is nothing here to merge as all the info is already in the article. Whpq (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Blank if necessary, but no need to delete. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

April 22, 2015[edit]

User:Koral shah[edit]

User:Koral shah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Fake article, and likely hoax as well. Whpq (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

User:The X Factor s. 11 (2014)[edit]

User:The X Factor s. 11 (2014) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This appears to be an attempt at an article for The X Factor (UK series 11). There is nothing to merge, the material is stale, and the user name is rather misleading. Whpq (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

April 21, 2015[edit]


User:ConfidenceOwoha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE Whpq (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Rajeev Jain[edit]

Draft:Rajeev Jain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Someone claiming to be Rajeev Jain has requested that this draft be deleted. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Note the request was made on my talk page among other places. My talk page is currently awaiting admin assistance because of the request I left about it. I suspect this is a matter of pol;icy rather than whether the page is a good or a bad page, the more so since it is a draft. From the comments left on my talk page, parts of which I have blanked as a courtesy, the requestor appears to be genuine. I emphasise the word 'appears', since I am not about to email the address I blanked, nor call the numbers. Fiddle Faddle 19:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note The policy I had in the back of my mind is WP:BIODEL. The eventual closer of this discussion will wish to refer to it. Fiddle Faddle 17:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:CENSORED??? WEAK DELETE The page I think is created by an author who may be related with the subject, and the subject doesn't want the article to be retained maybe for some personal reasons between them ('cause as far as I can see, I don't find any hate speeches or anything against him)... I personally think as the subject itself doesn't wants an article in his name (he's also barely notable), as an etiquette, we should delete the draft and ask the author not to recreate it (but someone else can create when the subject becomes notable enough)... But what about the guidelines that come under 'Wikipedia is not censored'? If anyone gives a good explanation of the guidelines of why not to delete the article, I reserve the right to change my mind. Regards --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 07:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
NEUTRAL. The subject is notable and I'm confused... --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 14:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note that the draft has just been WP:BOMBARDed with references of some sort. There is an off Wikipedia agenda being pursued by someone. The thing is, we cannot tell by whom. Fiddle Faddle 13:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Timtrent:, take a look here (the last topic by Bhartendunatyaakademi). The references are added by the author and on a rough look, seems to be genuine... --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 13:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jaaron95: Both parties to this appear to be genuine. That is part of the issue. Which is why we need to know what needs to happen. I recall that we tend to accede to reasonable requests form the subjects of articles, but I do not know where I saw this. The great swathe of new references, though, are WP:BOMBARD/WP:CITEKILL and have no relationship to the actual discussion Fiddle Faddle 13:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Timtrent: I think this is because the author is new to Wiki. On seeing the word deletion on his article, he might have thought the article is going to be deleted for the previous reason why the draft was rejected. So, he did whatever he can, to save the article (Note:This does not apply if the author and the subject are related!). To be on the safer side, I've told the author what is currently going on... Hope he reads it! Regards--JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 13:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Apparently the main contributor to this draft has registered his user name only very recently and this is his/her almost singular contribution. He/she apparently has vested interest in this, and has edited almost nothing else. Yes there are some token contributions on other pages, but this seems to be his/her main contribution. Had he been a more experienced editor editing for some weeks or months in a variety of subjects even if concentrated on Indian cinema, we could trace him/her to a certain acceptable track record on Wikipedia articles. See: edits. I understand he/she has been informed of this discussion about his/her edits on this subject matter. If he/she does not articulate a good enough reason of why this article deserves to stay, like a convincing argument that the subject is very notable, I suggest the page is deleted. Having said that, I personally find the IMDb page of this artist quite impressive. I know on its own, IMDb doesn't mean much, but with all other references added, my impression is there is certainly some plausible ground for this artist's notability. A curious question also about the photograph. Is it legitimate use or copyright infringement. I see it has been taken from a Flickr and Facebook page of Mr. Jain. But is there a release for public use? werldwayd (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This seems to be a notable filmmaker. I'm guessing that the subject doesn't want a Wikipedia article not because of its current condition (which isn't too bad) but because once it exists, it's outside his control (notice that he refers editors to his own website for details about himself). He could be anticipating vandalism. As far as abiding by the subject's wishes, that is most often done when there is personal information involved, like birth dates or relationship information (such as children's names). If there are no BLP violations, I don't see the basis for complete deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 17:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:BIODEL allows us to delete BLPs at the request of the subject, and I think this is a suitable application. For a start it's a draft rather than an article and so we can afford to be more generous to the subject. Although the reference list looks superficially impressive most of the links turn out to be to blogs, forum posts, IMDB equivalents and other obviously unreliable sources, which absolutely should not be cited in a BLP anyway. I'm not convinced that the subject is actually notable from that reference list, let alone that they qualify as a public figure. Hut 8.5 18:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree WP:BIODEL applies here, since this is a draft. The (assumed) request by the subject, general state of the article and very poor sourcing (IMDb lists, unreliable websites in Kenya and blogs) make me think we're better served by a WP:TNT action here. Some of the edits by the creator also make me think they're not the best person to be creating this biography. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Since it is a Draft: article I am inclined to accede to the presumed request form the subject. WP:BIODEL is appropriate, and to my way of thinking, more so in this namespace than in the main namespace. It is the namespace that tips the balance for me. I would reach the opposite view were this not in the Draft: namespace. Deletion does not prevent re-creation at some future point, perhaps even at once. Were I to close this having reached a conclusion to delete I would think very carefully about the advice I would give to the creator with regard to standing away from the topic. I would also be aware of the presumed subject's request to delete the draft whichever outcome I assessed to be consensus when I closed the discussion, and would feel the need to handle that with sensitivity. Fiddle Faddle 18:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not a slam-dunk for inclusion, so we should err on the side of respecting the subject's clearly expressed wish not to have ana rticle. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • REFERENCE:  Rajeev Jain Draft Page
Hello Sir / Madam
As has been rightly pointed out by you, this is the first time I am attempting to put a page up for someone and am therefore not skilled appropriately.
While I have attempted to provide a brief about Mr. Rajeev Jain and added references and links as I thought appropriate, I appreciate that it may not be of the quality that you desire. I had wrongly assumed that as this was a draft, the editor would help me with the content. I stand corrected and would like to confirm that I am currently reading through various other articles to learn from them and will edit the document appropriately.
As a further point on Mr. Jain’s notability, I would like to share that the ’Times of India’ ( dated 14 April 2015 also cites Mr. Rajeev Jain as a cinematographer worthy of recognition along with Rajpal Yadav, Nawazuddin Siddiqui, Muneesh Sappel,  who are noteworthy actors / artists in Bollywood and Wikipedia citizens.
I spoke to Mr. Rajeev Jain earlier today and explained to him regarding my attempts. He shared his concern over some negative feedback that he received from some of his critics and was therefore not in favour of having a page on Wikipedia. He now understands my interest and supports me in my attempts. He has also assured me that he would write to you in a day or two to share a status update on his earlier communication to you to delete the article.
Looking forward to your support in the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhartendunatyaakademi (talkcontribs) 22:43, 25 April 2015‎
Notability usually requires significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. This isn't significant coverage, it only says that this person is a cinematographer and that he attended a certain institution. Hut 8.5 22:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I give up. I have had an email I cannot quote here, via Wikipedia email. What I know and can state is that it comes from the user id Rajeevjain, and that it says how this editor, who may or may not be the real person, now wants an article on Wikipedia. I confess to no longer caring about this draft. I am not about to email the gentleman, who may come here if he so wishes and make whatever case he chooses. I am not about to flip-flop on my opinion because the wind has changed, and, to be fair, have no idea whether the wind has changed or not.
The email also discusses the picture in the draft, a picture whose licencing I doubt and have thus offered for deletion as a purely technical matter without considering the outcome of this discussion here. Fiddle Faddle 18:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as a timesink which meets WP:BIODEL; the situation is bizarre and the subject doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE anyway. Miniapolis 22:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


User:Coastergeekperson04/WikiJeopardy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale draft for an non-notable "show" by a sockpuppet account. Whpq (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


User:Miss.popstar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Copy of the week 2 elimination from America's Got Talent (season 5). This is not a useful draft for anything as all of this information is in the article. Whpq (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


User:Caddyshack3838/ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

April 20, 2015[edit]

User:Arfin Rana Fan Page[edit]

User:Arfin Rana Fan Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Duplication of Draft:Arfin Rana created following move to draft space. Stale userspace draft. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Steampunk2/Vanessa Vaughn (author)[edit]

User:Steampunk2/Vanessa Vaughn (author) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. While there's sources, they don't look like WP:RS at the moment. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:JTBX/Cultural impact of Michael Jackson[edit]

User:JTBX/Cultural impact of Michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Author was minimally active a few months ago but it's been a long stale draft. It's been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts#New_articles_to_be_adopted for six months as well. Again, it's possibly a spin-off from Michael_Jackson#Legacy_and_influence if someone thinks it's worth doing. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


User:Axikal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Axikal/Lets Play Live[edit]

User:Axikal/Lets Play Live (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


User:Lovetoescape/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Promotional stale draft. Whpq (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Username implies the user is not here to improve Wikipedia, and hasn't edited in the 10 months since the creation of this draft. MER-C 08:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Lua/Modules (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page is broken, redundant to a namespace search, but also seems permanently broken. This tab essentially replicates the following search: Special:PrefixIndex/Module:. However, as seen throughout the course of this page's existence, when the page was first created, since the generic namespace search returns only 200 results at a time, the first 200 would be displayed, then the rest would not. Then, there was an attempt to break down the search into sections based on the alphabet; the problem that I saw with doing this is that the editor who does this has to estimate where they have to do more cutoffs to ensure that each individual search returns less than 200 results in order to display everything (which is always subject to change; also, if there ends up being more than 200 pages that starts with a letter, then it would be tedious to always display all results.) Finally, there was an attempt to turn the search into a Lua-based table, but the table does not seem functional, returning no results. At this point, I say even though this was a good faith attempt to display an accurate search, unless someone is willing to program a bot to update this page, that it's time to just delete this page while also possible adding a reference to Special:PrefixIndex/Module: somewhere for the search, and then remove the link to this nominated page from Template:WikiProject Lua/header. Steel1943 (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Also, if this page is deleted, the following will probably be eligible for speedy deletion criterion G8: Wikipedia:Lua/Modules/Overview, Wikipedia:Lua/Modules/Overview/Data, and Module:Module overview. Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, we have so many modules now that this kind of thing is not useful. Unless you categorise them by subject or purpose - but that's not what this page appears to be doing. It seems I had a bit of a hack at it a while ago; I don't remember why, or what I did exactly, but I wouldn't be sad at all if this was deleted. — This, that and the other (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Some of the Lua features I used to make this module (i.e. allowing scripts access to the built-in page showing the list of all Lua modules) were pretty much deemed too useful and removed. I didn't touch it after that... I felt like even if I could think up another way to do it, that would just mean more features gotten rid of. I'm not going to argue this one. Wnt (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Wnt: Just a thought; would you like Module:Module overview userfied in your user space in the event this deletion happens? I mean, I nominated this for deletion since it's currently not useful, but with the right tweaks (as you said), that could be subject to change. Steel1943 (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, you can move it to User:Wnt/Templates/Module overview if you want, but right now I don't actually have any ideas that could make it work again. Wnt (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The way it originally worked was to produce a list of all the modules minus all the other crap (/testcases, /data/SouthDakota, Sandbox/ or whatever) and with the option of further optimization. But there's no point to having an extra link to the pregenerated prefixindex page. Wnt (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • comment Being the last to contribute to the page, not long after modules were introduced, my changes were only a workaround to display all the modules then available. The methods used in the page can't possibly work in the longer term, as more and more modules are added. So the page as it now functions is not useful. As long as an alternative exists to list the modules available, the page should be deleted. Otherwise the page could be reworked to list between selected starting and ending points, to display with page breaks as necessary. Or something similar. Being able to list the modules available can be very useful at times. André437 (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

User:AndyKarst/Tally Ho Theatre[edit]

User:AndyKarst/Tally Ho Theatre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Other mention is at Tally-ho#Cinema_.2F_Film_theatre. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Just Between Us (disambiguation)[edit]

Just Between Us (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It seems a little unnecessary to have this disambiguation page, as the primary subject is the only item in the list that actually has an article. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NOTE: I didn't notify the creator because s/he hasn't edited since June 2013. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguation pages go to AfD just like articles; MfD is for pages in userspace, project space, portal space, and other such spaces. In any case, I would keep this, since the ambiguous titles are at least mentioned in the linked articles. bd2412 T 04:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Do they? I checked WP:MFD and WP:AFD to be sure, and neither mentioned disambig pages. If someone does want to procedurally close this and then relocate it there, I won't mind. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:IAR Keep I think WP:AFD is the correct venue, though it is not obvious from reading either of the WP:MFD or WP:AFD pages. Regardless, I think this dab should be kept, as it contains several links to other relevant articles. --Surturz (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Katrina Mukti D'Souza Kapoor[edit]

User:Katrina Mukti D'Souza Kapoor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sock trying to impersonate my user page to harass me. SPI investigation has been lodged here. Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

April 19, 2015[edit]


User:Martinicus/Template (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Editor hasn't edited since 2010 and this is even older, and now generating an error. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

April 18, 2015[edit]

April 17, 2015[edit]

User:Karlhard/draft/Urban Artist Soap[edit]

User:Karlhard/draft/Urban Artist Soap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Promotional WP:FAKEARTICLE in the userspace of someone who I have just blocked for spamming and violating the Terms of Use. MER-C 11:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Karlhard/draft/Tim White[edit]

User:Karlhard/draft/Tim White (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Promotional WP:FAKEARTICLE in the userspace of someone who I have just blocked for spamming and violating the Terms of Use. MER-C 11:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

April 16, 2015[edit]


User:NeuLex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Contains a significant amount of information that appears to be unrelated to Wikipedia. 80% of this user's edits are to this page, with none outside of it since 2013, so this may be a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. User was told about WP:UP multiple times on their talk page with no response. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Rick570/D Solomona[edit]

User:Rick570/D Solomona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT. Abandoned draft of living person. Mainspace article exists for him. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete or merge to mainspace article, if someone feels the extra bit of info here should be salvaged. Other than vandalism and reversion, content untouched since created in 2013. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Rick570/Michel Bouillot[edit]

User:Rick570/Michel Bouillot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT. This is an unattributed copy paste from French Wikipedia. This copy is long abandoned without any significant edits so no need for this copyright violation. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Rick570/Kathleen Mary Gertrude Todd[edit]

User:Rick570/Kathleen Mary Gertrude Todd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT. This userspace version of Kathleen Todd is an unattributed copy paste from Te Ara. Article exists in the mainspace so no need for this copyright violation. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

April 14, 2015[edit]

User:Bobamnertiopsis/Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club[edit]

User:Bobamnertiopsis/Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nearly 3 months since userfication without any edits. (Not counting removal of deleted images or WP:USERNOCAT changes) Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed_uses criteria 3 says: "Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia." is disallowed. ― Padenton|   15:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete I agree, I don't think this content will be receiving more coverage in WP:RSes anytime soon, I think this is a matter of vanity that this page still exists as a user page. And I guess that's not allowed, so yeah, I vote delete.--Shibbolethink ( ) 15:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment Actually, I have a couple interviews lined up with some WP:RSes really soon.--DrWho42 (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm not seeing any valid rationale for deletion here. As a Facebook group, they seem reasonably active - and more interested in progressing an encyclopedia than the indestructibly-articled Wikipediocracy are. Sourcing would be a problem with moving this to mainspace as is, but I see no reason at all to delete a user draft like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep This was a userspace page that eventually became an article that went through a protracted deletion discussion with the consensus that RSes may come into existence in the future and as such, it would not be unfair to keep it back in the userspace in anticipation of that possibility. BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 16:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment Indefinitely? I'm not sure anyone should agree to that.--Shibbolethink ( ) 17:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Bobamnertiopsis: As stated in WP:Subpages, subpages are not for the indefinite keeping of articles that have been deleted through consensus. The consensus was not that "RS's may come into existence in the future." That's just a comment by the closing admin, which is typical with any AfD based on WP:TOOSOON. There is no assumption that they will someday (though also that it won't). ― Padenton|   17:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ( ) 19:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The cited guideline refers to subpages of mainspace pages, not of user pages. There aren't really such stringent rules about what can exist as subpages in the user space. See WP:UP#SUB. Boomur [] 03:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    Comment But when I navigate to that page, it says: "You can have as many subpages as you want but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a free web host, please use subpages within reason. (See: Wikipedia:Subpages for more information.) When I then navigate to WIkipedia:subpages, I'm met with User:Padenton's original assertion: this use of a subpage is not allowed. If it was deleted as a mainpage by an admin with the tentative belief that notable sources would accrue in the future, and then they don't accrue in a reasonable timeline, then the subpage must be deleted. --Shibbolethink ( ) 03:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@Boomur:The guideline's mostly referring to subpages of user pages. Apparently, there are no subpages in the mainspace on en.wikipedia.― Padenton|   03:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Or there aren't really supposed to be on mainspace non-template articles.--Shibbolethink ( ) 03:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Reformat or Delete Non-RS WP:FAKEARTICLE. Much of the content would be fine for a userpage except that it looks like an article. --Surturz (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Reformat or Keep. As per Surturz, I'd support adding a noticeable disclaimer at the start of the subpage to show that it is not a legitimate Wikipedia article. Other than that, I don't agree that this nomination has much of a case going for it, what with subpage policy. Stamboliyski (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:FAKEARTICLE does say that people can't use userspace for indefinite hosting of articles or article-like pages, but three months is a bit short for supporting deletion on that basis. Abandoned rejected drafts at AfC get six months, for instance. It's not out of the question that this might be developed into a form suitable for mainspace, there were a number of people who made arguments at AfD that it's suitable now. I would support deletion if no improvements have been made six months after it was userfied. Hut 8.5 12:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

April 13, 2015[edit]


User:Aaabbb11 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The user page is very much like a personal blog that has many materials as described in WP:UP#GOALS; also it has divisive comments as in WP:UP#POLEMIC. STSC (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep. I don't see a serious issue with this page, certainly not to the point of warranting deletion. Most of the content seems related to the user's Wikipedia experience. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep user space of active user. --Surturz (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
We don't keep any user page just because of the user being active. STSC (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment Earlier on, I really didn't give two shits about this userpage (people are free to share what they think, given that it's done in reasonable amounts), but there is a line to be crossed. Just today he's made an edit to his user page which indirectly accuses me of being a useful idiot of the Communist Party of China. He doesn't directly imply any names, but given our earlier interactions (especially at Talk:China), it's clear to me that I'm within his bracket of unsubtle passive-aggressive nudging. Those who have directly worked with me on the enwiki project for some time would know that I'm a right-wing libertarian with some conservative leanings, and I don't really appreciate this kind of jab, especially when I'm being linked to a leftist movement by this editor. It doesn't matter if this page is kept or deleted, but I don't want to put up with this passive shit in the future, and feel that it's important that this page keeps in line with WP:POLEMIC. --benlisquareTCE 03:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Take it to WP:ANI, this isn't the correct venue for conflict resolution. --Surturz (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
And ANI isn't the place for small petty disputes either. This is a userpage content issue, which makes discussion at MfD only natural; ANI isn't the first go-to place, and should never be the first go-to place. Even the guidelines state not to take things to ANI if other avenues haven't been attempted yet, I think you misinterpret what ANI is for. --benlisquareTCE 03:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

April 12, 2015[edit]

User:Tgeairn/NPA diffs[edit]

User:Tgeairn/NPA diffs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive879#Question regarding user space page. On that page, it was indicated that WP:POLEMIC likely applies, and, considering that the "evidence" might go stale after about 14 days. It has now been 30 days, and the material is still there. On that basis, I believe that at this point the page very likely violates WP:POLEMIC, as indicated on the ANI page, and that on that basis there is no good reason for the page to remain. John Carter (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

April 10, 2015[edit]

User:Montanabw/Duck box[edit]

User:Montanabw/Duck box (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Violates WP:POLEMIC, specifically point 3, " laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems" Dennis Brown - 02:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep For the following reasons:
  1. Per WP:POLEMIC: "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner."
  2. I have done this in the past and the pages kept following AfD per previous attempts to remove similar pages here. I can as easily accumulate links and diffs offline, but it's easier to do it on-wiki due to ease of wikilinking.
  3. Per item #1 above, I might also point out that one of the users I am accumulating diffs for has an active SPI open trying to determine if they are the banned user User:ItsLassieTime, and two of the others were subjects of SPI concerns that they were socks of ItsLassieTime, who was a highly problematic editor with a penchant for copyvio, close paraphrasing and was a massive sock drawer where I was involved in the "bust" and the massive CCI cleanup that resulted. Specifically, this case (user currently blocked for other reasons); and this user (still under investigation). Further, the third individual is currently accumulating diffs and links about me here.
  4. I presume one of these three users has emailed you about this; I am aware of at least one of them is emailing admins in hopes of getting their block lifted.
    • That is my preliminary statement. Montanabw(talk) 02:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC).
  • Lists are allowed if you are preparing for an Arb case or AN/I case ("timely manner"), but medium or long term storage of lists has never been permitted. I don't think you are trying to be a jerk, and I'm not commenting on the merits, but the format is exactly what the policy excludes, making it inappropriate for onwiki storage. As I said on your talk page, stuff like this is best stored off-wiki. Dennis Brown - 08:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needed to be onwiki so that others can contribute. There is a continuing problem here re worries that ItsLassieTime has returned. There should be an on-wiki way of collecting info as suggested by SandyGeorgia that there should be a central place to keep evidence on ItsLassieTime. She said this after a recent SPI on ItsLassieTime was filed and dismissed for lack of behavioural evidence. Since then at least one other SPI was filed, the one by Diannaa closed and then requested to be reopened, against ItsLassieTime and is failing for the same reason. This is needed for community peace of mind and in the long run will save community time and angst. Others can contribute to this so it can be a community effort to collect that behavioural evidence on ItsLassieTime in one place. EChastain (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Its not a community effort EChastain, the list is under Montana's username. Can you provide any evidence that the users listed on the "duck page" have been made aware of it? How many SPIs have to be run before editors realize they are barking up the wrong tree? If you think ItsLassieTime has returned then please provide some concrete evidence through an SPI rather than supporting other editors who gather evidence behind the backs of other editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: I did not know this existed but have found it enlightening. An editor that is being tracked has interacted with me in a menacing way and I now leave them alone. Whatever is happening here, it is a useful gathering of information and should be left to exist. I trust that this gathering project will reap its intended consequences in due time. Fylbecatulous talk 13:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
amended to add after comment below: (diff:[2] that the editor I am referring to is TheGracefulSlick. I remain relieved that someone besides me is noticing and that Montanabw is maintaining their duck page on Wikipedia. Fylbecatulous talk 13:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep For reasons articulated by EChastain. Also, this sort of behavior (passive/aggressive superficially civil bullying) is one of the greatest deterrents to editor participation in Wikipedia. Preserving examples for others to see is important. Intothatdarkness 14:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep + Comment. If this request (or suggestion) came from a 3rd party, I'd rather see that on wiki. No reflection on Dennis; but rather, I make that statement as someone who was pointed to the "Duck" page by an editor in email. Also: IFF the "timely' part of this expires, I think a simple blanking of the page would suffice. I don't see anything more than a collection of diffs which actually happened - so I don't see a need to expunge things from our collective history. — Ched :  ?  14:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I really don't care if this is kept or deleted. As one of the subjects of this "investigation" I know I have nothing to hide, and Montanabw can keep all the diffs she wants. Here's my question though. If this is supposedly about trying to root out socks of ItsLassieTime, why aren't all the diffs being compared to that editor or proven socks? A lot of it is just examples of uncivil or POSSIBLE questionable behavior. And, there are five editors being brought in on this, not three, and everyone is being compared to each other. Really, is there a point to this? There is an SPI in progress, yet Montanabw has not publicly contributed one thing to it. Can anyone point to anything on this page that's actually leading to some kind of valid investigation? I know from the Duck Box that Montanabw suspects I'm a suspected sock of RationalObserver, who is currently blocked. Fine. Just like I told the blocking Admin (via email), I'd be fine with anyone doing an SPI and IP comparison. And, all of us have already been cleared of being associated with SeeSpotRun. So, nothing on this page is going anywhere. It's grasping at straws. Wet, soggy straws at that.Lynn Wysong (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment on User SheriWysong: Really? You need to be aware that you aren't coming into this with clean hands yourself, you are clearly accumulating diffs on me. And by they way, how DID you know about the SeeSpot Run SPI anyway? And how do you "know" you are a suspected sock of RO with no SPI filed? And you "told the blocking Admin" about "doing an SPI and IP comparison" when and where? RO edited logged out and geolocated to Las VegasCalifornia; you twice edited logged out and geolocated to twothree different places Las Vegas and two in Utah; well within the range of dynamic IPs of ISPs in the American west (as I discover by what Google ads pop up when I'm in a coffee shop- ). And how DO you know they compare IPs if you haven't been accused of socking in the past and you are a "new" user like you have sometimes claimed? Nice try, but I think, Wysong, that you just outed yourself as a user with a previous undisclosed account! Montanabw(talk) 00:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, I think I was just "outed" Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As a sockpuppet of Rationalobserver or ItsLassieTime? @Dennis Brown:: Wysong above pretty much demonstrates why I'm making the list. Montanabw(talk) 00:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • KeepDelete As a violation of this policy: wp:outing Please do not delete this page. It is evidence of ongoing harrasment. The editor provided the same and more evidence at the ANI. As I have stated here two or three times, this page is a bunch of random diffs not leading to any kind of real investigation. Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    • You are the person who edited while logged out. I have no interest in who you actually are in real life, and I am only pointing out that you and RO geolocated within a day's drive of each other. "if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. " And frankly, your comment there is very similar to what Rationalobserver said. And you are hiding your tracks. Montanabw(talk) 01:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Whatever Lynn Wysong (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I stand corrected, it was Wysong's first edits to the wild horse and burro Act article that geolocated to Las Vegas, I corrected my statement above. I can provide diffs, but best not to do so here, or now. Montanabw(talk) 06:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I must REALLY have had fun when I was there, 'cause I sure don't remember it. But no matter. Just like the page under discussion, your little investigation came up with no real evidence of sock puppetry. I ask again, If this is supposedly about trying to root out socks of ItsLassieTime, why aren't all the diffs being compared to that editor or proven socks? I see one diff that compares something I said to something one of ItsLassietime socks said, and one comparing my "editing style" with that of SeeSpotRun (an accused sock), who has already been shown to not be affiliated with the other three subjects of this page (me, RationalObserver, and The Graceful Slick). The rest of the stuff on me is just random crap, or lamely trying to connect me with RationalObserver. Lynn Wysong (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Dispute resolution evidence or filing drafts are best compiled on wiki user subpages, since all of the related diffs are on wiki. This complies totally with wiki policy and there is no reason for editors to be forced to compile such drafts off-wiki. This is a user subpage, not in plain site and not titled with an editor's name. There is no problem here. Softlavender (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, I see no polemic but a collaborative collection of diffs, stress on collaborative, and no polemic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
While I'm of the opinion that if Montana is going to frequently mention RO being sock she really needs to start proving it, generally I'm admittedly of the opinion that anybody can do whatever they want in their user space. I personally wouldn't go about finding diffs and making a page of them but I do think it is her choice not the community's. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
She has been trying to prove that RO is a sock for MONTHS now, its getting disruptive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment what are the diffs going to be used for? And When? Unless the "in a timely" manner wording is fulfilled I would vote delete here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    See below for the ANI where I posted this. "Timely" is vague; a sockpuppet account I am concerned about was first busted in 2009 but kept popping up as recently as 2012, and I suspect, here again in 2015. Montanabw(talk) 20:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Delete this appears to be an attempted outing on RO and it may be supported through this diff "RO edited, logged out and and geolocated to Las Vegas" and also their editing patterns appearing similar. I am very concerned that this is polemic and an attempt to reveal RO's phsyical location. Jaguar 16:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think honestly think she particularly cares where RO lives!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Quite true, Blofeld; I could not care less who either of them are or where they live; I only think we are dealing with two blocked/banned users who are sockpuppeting and wreaking a lot of havoc on wikipedia in various articles. And I strongly suspect they are the same user. Montanabw(talk) 20:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that you have no evidence and are pushing towards something that isn't there. I point to this SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheriWysong that was declined, just how far do you plan to go with this before you realize that there is no connection? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Ms. Wysong, you are claiming "outing", yet you clearly state on your own user page (here) where you're located. What exactly is being "outed"? — Ched :  ?  17:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe it is covered here: "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research" Lynn Wysong (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Let me be very clear, Wysong. I could not care less who you are. I only care if you are someone who has been previously blocked or banned now editing under a "sleeper" account, and I believee you are. You clearly are not a new user, you told me, in fact, that you were a "very experienced" user. So all I really care about is which sockpuppet you are. Montanabw(talk) 20:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
This discussion does not belong here. Please just find the diff where I supposedly said I was a "'very experienced' user" and post it at the SPI page. Lynn Wysong (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Hi, I do not know why my name is involved in this. If it is for any wrongdoing, I am completely unaware of it. I am not associated, nor have I ever been, involved in any issues of this nature, and I respectfully ask to not be involved in this one. ( TheGracefulSlick talk) April 11, 2015 14:33
I think you are a sock of ItsLassieTime, based on your musical interests and uploading of a copyrighted image of a blues singer from one of his albums, claiming it was your own private collection of photos. Also, you are claiming to be a teenager, just like one of the ILT socks did. But I also have not filed anything on you, as so far you aren't making other people's lives miserable as far as I know. Montanabw(talk) 20:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Wow, the Duck Box is going to get pretty big, with all the teenagers with an interest in music added to it. That's going to take a lot of bandwidth. Lynn Wysong (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, this is his only reasoning as to why I am involved in this. I guess I should start liking Justin Bieber or something to avoid scrutiny. TheGracefulSlick talk)
Oh, Man, Justin Beiber is just the bees knees! Lynn Wysong (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────For everyone who wants my additional evidence to date (beyond what's actually in the duck box), here it is: [3]. Obviously it is incomplete; I was working on it in the page at issue here. Please note that this was initiated by Rationalobserver, who emailed Hell in a Bucket. notification. Interesting: Why did RO complain she was outed when it is Wysong who complained about being outed here, using "I". I think this is pretty compelling evidence that these two are the same user. Montanabw(talk) 20:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, you might want to trot over to SPI and provide them all your awesome evidence. I just turned myself in. Hopefully a checkuser will be done soon, and this nonsense will be put behind us. Lynn Wysong (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The key word here is timely. If this collection isn't used to file a report at ANI or SPI after two or three weeks, it should be then deleted. The policy is quite clear on can't keep a collection like this indefinitely until you feel the time is right. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DHeyward/My Fan Club as a case where a similar page (which had much less information than yours) was deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    Liz, if you look at the Duck box, it is not an "enemies list." It takes more than 2-3 weeks to bust a sockpuppet. Sometimes you have to go back years. I have been through this rodeo before: here. ItsLassieTime was busted in 2009 (in part because one of her socks, Buttermilk1950, went after me), then she showed up again in 2010, 2011 and 2012. These above-named users here have not been verified as ILT socks based on investigations to date, which is why I am accumulating a pile of diffs, the behavioral evidence has to be VERY strong to get a SPI going these days, and while it is clear that both Wysong and RO are not new users, who they are is not clear. However, their style and pattern of editing, and penchant for attacking other users who disagree with them is remarkably similar (in my opinion, at least) and the circumstantial evidence linking them is interesting. I did not initiate this AfD, and Dennis only did because, apparently, someone else asked him to do so. Montanabw(talk) 22:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Liz, where exactly do you get the figure "two or three weeks"? Or even two or three weeks from now? Could you please show the written Wikipedia policy on that? Softlavender (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Certainly, WP:POLEMIC. Specifically, the policy states Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed. I thought it was generous to say two or three weeks was a time period that would be "imminent". This list definitely can't be maintained, on-wiki, for months or years. Liz Read! Talk! 15:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
In other words, it doesn't say "two or three weeks". No specific time frames are given in the source you quote, so your opinions are simply your opinions/preferences on that. The page, slowly added to, has existed for less than two months, and has been added to regularly. Investigations, especially concerning a prior user who has been very difficult, sometimes take time. There is no sign Mont intended this page to sit around idle for a long period; she added to it regularly right up until it was nominated. Softlavender (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep This is just evidence gathering. Specific issue reoccurs, and this type of memory is, sadly, needed. EChastain makes a good argument. Ceoil (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment My issue, this article may be evidence gathering, but the "evidence", especially pertaining to me, is not actual evidence. Me being a teenager who likes old music should not make me associated, which is why others should agree at least I should be removed from the list. TheGracefulSlick (talk)
  • Keep - circumstantial evidence is absolutely evidence that can be used in the context of an SPI, especially in deciding if there is enough circumstantial evidence to support the conduct of checkuser analysis. I'm not big on the whole nothing to hide/nothing to fear doctrine but there is a pattern of disruption and while it might not be nice to be linked to it, the answer is to prove your innocence and feel vindicated, not to have the investigation nixed and thereafter be the subject of ongoing suspicion. That said, the best place for all of this is probably SPI itself where it can be assessed the then archived. That way it is part of the enduring record of the case in question and you can refer back to it later if more evidence presents itself, even if this phase gets closed without action. Personally, if I were the subject I would prefer it in this format which could be deleted in a few months if it amounts to nothing. SPI investigation records are deleted far less often. Stlwart111 07:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Montanabw states above that TheGracefulSlick "is not making other people's lives miserable as far as I know". In my *keep comment above (diff:[4] the user who has interacted with me on musical articles in a menacing way is TheGracefulSlick. Some of their refusal to cooperate and edit correctly is located in my archived user talk pages; others occurred on other's user talk pages. I do not have the emotional energy to gather diffs beyond that, but I am encouraged that there might be an end to this behaviour at some point. I did not name the user in my earlier comment, since I did not believe they were aware of this conversation. However, I shall now add to my comment above that this is the editor I am referring to. They still refuse to work on issues with the musician and songs articles they are creating and remove issue tags instead. Fylbecatulous talk 13:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:POLEMIC Evidence gathering is one thing but there is such a thing as innocence until proven guilty. You want to gather evidence? Then do it off Wikipedia, this isn't a place to post lists behind editor's backs who have no chance to defend themselves, its common sense. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Can we also add this one? User:Montanabw/ANI sandbox, another list of possible socks that goes back to 2013 and was edited this year to mention Anthonyhcole. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:POLEMIC "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." Keep this list offline - it is unnecessarily dispruptive on-wiki. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Disregard Fylbecatulous's comment as it has painfully outdated info. The issues he/she had is from at least two months ago, in which time I have apologized, and greatly improved on my interaction with users and editing. I am a solitary user, not by choice, but when I do work with users, it is a positive experience. I mainly work with Ghmyrtle, some examples of our cooperation stem from the Dorothy Moskowitz and The White Ship (song) articles. Did we have disagreements, of course, but in the end we worked it out as a team to better the articles, so to say those statements Fylbecatulous makes still relate to me, is pure fantasy. Now let us get back to the real issue of this duckbox please. TheGracefulSlick (talk)
  • Delete. Personally I've had no problematic exchanges with TheGracefulSlick - we've disagreed on occasion, but without any acrimony, and I've no reason to think that TGS is anyone other than who they claim on their page to be - that is, a new and enthusiastic (and apparently youngish) editor who wishes to improve articles to a good standard but makes occasional mistakes, like any newbie, both in content and in behaviour. If Montanabw wants a proper investigation, they should propose that one be launched, rather than making allegations on a page like the one discussed here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
PS: It's worth noting that googling the real name set out on TGS's user page will lead to a social media profile of a real person who - surprise, surprise - seems to match exactly the age and interests of TGS. The principle of WP:AGF, so far as I know, applies to hidden pages like this one as much as to any other pages. Montanabw owes TheGracefulSlick an apology. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per POLEMIC. I see no reason why such a list can't be kept offline until the time presents itself to use it properly. KonveyorBelt 19:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dennis and others above, but also because this type of page is just plain mean-spirited. There is a subset of editors who are the self-appointed Wikipedia police, and who assume hilt until an editor can prove themselves innocent (see the related ANI). Want to gather evidence for your private investigations? Commit it to a Word document. --Drmargi (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - with the caveat that Montanabw needs to use this information in some kind of formal complaint 'very, very soon or she will be in violation of "use in a timely manner". If, for instance, this page was to be kept and then brought to MFD again in a week, I'd most probably be voting to delete it. I would suggest that if Montanabw is not prepared to file something very soon, she move the data off-Wiki, where she can hold on to it until she's ready to use it. BMK (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • See below, converted to "Support for LTA move" BMK (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • BMK, "The first "evidence" that was put in the Duck Box about the The Graceful Slick was February 23, almost seven weeks ago" or 2.5 months, it is already very past the point of "a timely manner". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I would agree if the list was basically static, but becaise she's been adding to it consistently, I think a little more leeway is needed in the interpretation of what "a timely manner" means. (That's why a specific time period is not specified, because each instance should be evaluated on its particular merits, not in a "one size fits all" manner.) I would still urge Montanabw to use the data very, very soon. BMK (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep "Timely manner" refers to a time period adjacent to a case or cases when information may be needed, and does not refer to a specified time. This is an ongoing concern so I see no need to remove this page.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC))
  • You say that until I bet someone makes a sock page with your name on it behind your back, editors that are on this list have no way of knowing that they are being targeted for investigation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't speak for Littleolive oil, but if someone wants to put my name on a page where they're trying to prove I'm a sockpuppet, they're welcome to, since I don't sock, and therefore cannot be hurt by it. Please note that what Montanabw is doing is not an "investigation" per se, it's the gathering of possible evidence for a possible investigation, and she is under no obligation to inform the subject about it. (In fact, unless something has changed recently, I don't believe the filer of an actual SPI is obligated to inform the presumed sock, since it is sometimes best not to let the sock and the puppetmaster know what's going on.) In any case, I believe that the subject of Montanabw's supposed evidence (I say "supposed" because I haven't evaluated it) already knows of the existence of the page, and, indeed, registered a !vote here, so I can't see what significance your comment has. BMK (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
It screams of WP:ASPERSIONS, "If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums." By putting editors on a list they are already accused. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
"With evidence", that's what Montanabw is gathering - it doesn't come from Santa Claus in a gift-wrapped package, you know, you have to go out and get it. BMK (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
What happens when the person is wrong with the evidence they gather, does it amount to WP:HARASSMENT? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
No, of course not. It amounts to evidence that was found to be incorrect. The evidence is not posted publicly until the filing. If it doesn't hold water, it is dropped. There'no harassment involved at all. Softlavender (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe in a perfect world, but here on Wikipedia the evidence is used in discussions to get the editor to admit to socking BEFORE an SPI is even filed. Rumors swirl around about said editors being possible socks that results in the topic being brought up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
(1) Compilations of evidence are not public until filed. (2) Problem editors abusing alternate accounts do not admit to doing so, even if confronted. That's why the elaborate and carefully controlled and very technical sophisticated process of SPI exists. (3) SPI requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt before an SPI clerk will even approve the use of CheckUser, and this evidence must be carefully compiled (on non-public user subpages) before filing. Softlavender (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Last I checked, user-pages were very much in the public view. As for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that is true but evidence gathered on user-pages is shared among users which causes a bad editing environment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Nope, this is a user subpage, not linked anywhere on her user or talk pages. The only way to have found it would be to go into Mont's edit history, scrolled to the very bottom, clicked on "Subpages", and rummaged through all 50 of her user subpages. Or to have been scrutinizing every one of her dozens of daily edits and happen to notice a random edit to that page and investigated the page. Softlavender (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I also want to add that there is such a thing as guilty by the public, because these user-pages are public editors can and do look at other editors differently. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Nope, this is a user subpage, not linked anywhere on her user or talk pages. The only way to have found it would be to go into Mont's edit history, scrolled to the very bottom, clicked on "Subpages", and rummaged through all 50 of her user subpages. Or to have been scrutinizing every one of her dozens of daily edits and happen to notice a random edit to that page and investigated the page. Softlavender (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Or by googling it [5] which is very much in the public view. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The only way to find it prior to two days ago was what I said. The only reason it is now viewable publicly is because someone brought it to MfD, so it is posted there (here). And the only way they could have found it to bring to MfD was to go into Mont's edit history, scrolled to the very bottom, clicked on "Subpages", and rummaged through all 50 of her user subpages. Or to have been scrutinizing every one of her dozens of daily edits and happen to notice a random edit to that page and investigated the page. Softlavender (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You are right about that, but what about my concern regarding sharing of information by editors? Sometimes the content may be hidden but it makes the editor involved suspicious when the same editor accuses them again and again for being a sock. It doesn't take much effort to find user sub-pages that connect the dots once you feel you are being harassed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
No idea what you are talking about. What is under discussion in this MfD is a completely non-public and heretofore unknown user subpage used to compile evidence. I've said this over and over and over and over. Any other dreamed-up scenarios have nothing whatsoever to do with this. And this is not the place to discuss them. This entire MfD has long been growing ridiculously long and way way way off-topic. Softlavender (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
What is under discussion is the issues regarding this duck list, I asked about editors sharing with other editors the information on the list rather than having it be just one editor's investigation? The information isn't unknowns and is accessed by other editors through links or by talk. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep "Timely manner" means what? Do socks stop creating socks after a couple weeks? Since there are people out there who have been socking for years the answer is no. MarnetteD|Talk 22:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Are editors innocent until proven guilty? Would you want an ongoing investigation to go on about you without your knowledge? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You're making a category error. Wikipedia is not the Anglo-Saxon legal system or any other kind of legal system, it's a project on a private website to build an encyclopedia. If there are editors who are disrupting that goal, then they should be dealt with. They have no particular legal rights here, because this is a private website where the WP:Terms of use and all en:Wikipedia policies are the controlling factors. If the policies, as interpreted by the community, say that Montanbw can do what she's doing, then she can do what she's doing, and argumemts which call on external factors are irrelevant. Neither you nor I have any "right" to edit here, we participate at the pleasure of the WMF and the en.Wiki community, not because of natural law, the Magna Carta, the U.S. Constitution, or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. BMK (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This isn't about any legal system, this is about doing the right thing. If you have the evidence then accuse the editor as being a sock, if you don't then well im sorry but everyone here doesn't need to be constantly reminded that these editors could be socks every time they step out of line. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Your comment was very much about a legal system. You didn't use the words, but the legal rights of the accused is what you wewre talking about, and what I'm telling you is that an "accused" editor here has no rights to be tols they're under suspicion, except where en.Wiki policy says that they must be informed. That's not the case here, so your comment isn't appropriate.
    As for socking, it's one of the factors which is most harmful to this site, and needs to be dealt with in a much more rigorous and serious manner than it currently is -- which is another topic altogether.
    You say "If you have the evidence then accuse the editor as being a sock," but evidence isn't a static thing, it doesn't exist all at one moment, it can accumulate over time, which is why we have the "timely manner" clause. With socks, especially, the evidence often shows up by way of patterns of behavior, which can be difficult to see at one moment, but much more obvious over the course of time. If you'veever had occasion to track down a sock, you'd know this for a fact. There's rarely an "Aha!" moment, there are suspicions, which become stronger and then gradually start to take a more coherent shape, and all of this can take time, which is what the rules allow Montanabw to have -- not all the time in the world, but enough time to gather together what she needs and use it. BMK (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • BMK the efforts are thanks here on Wikipedia but at some point there has to be a cutoff. I agree with Miniapolis below the effect of all of this has a chilling effect on the editors. Who wants to edit where so many people suspect their fellow editors of such and such? I have no problem here if someone wants to gather evidence offline. What I should have been saying is that these user sock pages do more harm than good here on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, it is detrimental to other users. My working has been hindered as a result of this discussion. Although I believe this needed to be done, the time could have went to something more useful.TheGracefulSlick (talk)
  • Comment I am glad some users have not lost their common sense, believing this needs to be deleted. I would also urge that the info be used soon, in the day or two even, although I do not know what kind of case could be brought about, especially on me. If the main argument is music interests and age, I think the discussion would be quite laughable. I just thought that this sock hunting is not bringing up anything relevant. Montanabw is a very capable editor, and it is a shame that this had to be brought about. I feel I can continue editing however, which was my main concern, as it appeared Montanabw was tracking me for some time. These users have reassurred me that if there is a case she wants to fantasize, I have trustable users to come to my aid, if need be. TheGracefulSlick (User talk:TheGracefulSlick)
  • Keep Users are permitted to create purposeful evidence pages to substantiate claims to be put forward in legitimate forums. WP:POLEMIC is meant to prevent such pages that serve no purpose other than to attack someone, and as such, the caveat exists that evidence pages are not allowed to just sit around and serve no purpose. If created, they have to actually be used. However this page is not that old and it's not stagnant so there's absolutely no legitimate reason to prohibit an established editor in good standing from having something in their userspace that is ultimately allowed. Swarm we ♥ our hive 22:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as violating points two and three of WP:POLEMIC. Although Montanabw's intentions are good, there is no current evidence that ILT (or their stable of socks) is back and such a page—with its vague accusations—has a chilling effect on the rest of us. Miniapolis 23:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - we need more transparency not less. It's laudable that Montana is willing to do this and take the heat. It's sad that "the community" would rather support a person who to date has created over 108 confirmed accounts and perhaps hundreds of articles that need to be scrubbed. Instead of discussing the merits or demerits, it would be nice if we could all work together, cull through the accounts and get a long term abuse page written. If we had that, then it wouldn't be on a single person to do something like this. Victoria (tk) 23:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    • See below. Changing to support for LTA page. Victoria (tk) 23:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    So you are suggesting that anyone who votes delete here is in support of ILT? Even though you have provided zero evidence that they are back, and about 2 SPI cases have gone by involving RO that both turned out negative? Sock puppetry is a problem I think we all can understand that but unless some hard evidence is provided then it is all hysteria. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    I apologize if AI sounded harsh here but it really sounds like the way you are wording it that you blame the community on Wikipedia for supporting sock puppets. If so, that isn't fair to a-lot of editors here who do get the sock accounts banned. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
May I note that some of those that said "keep" have had an extended relation with Montanabw, so they are more likely to defend her. Just saying. Perhaps we can get other users who do not know her as well, if at all. TheGracefulSlick (talk)
If you mean uninvolved editors then yes, I have seen them comment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Well it seems when an editor who has no relation to Montanabw expresses their opinion, it is to delete the page. That is why I think we need more users to weigh in who do not have had little past relations with her, to keep it as unbiased as possible because some of the users clearly side with her based on partnerships or things along that line. I just find it worrisome that I was being checked on for weeks on end without being aware of it, and somehow people are siding with her, even with the little "evidence" she has gathered. TheGracefulSlick (talk)
  • Um, exactly where do you get clairvoyance which allows you tell who has a past relationship with Montanabw and who is "uninvolved". Would you care to post a scorecard so we can all share in your knowledge? BMK (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • If this page is going to be used as part of an SPI or something similar, it should be kept; Montana says she's going to use it for something, so I'd say keep for now. OTOH, if it's still sitting here after several weeks and hasn't been used for anything, it should be deleted. That said, after compiling my own evidence page I don't agree with Montana's conclusions, and I've convinced at least Vanjagenije that Rationalobserver and SheriWysong are unrelated, so the SPI on those two has been closed and I doubt pursuing further charges against them will be successful. (Can't say I'm all that involved with Montana, FWIW.) ekips39 (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete The page obviously violates POLEMIC and the only question is whether it will be used in a timely way. The page has only been sporadically edited since its creation about six weeks ago, which suggests to me that time is not of the essence in collecting or using the diffs. Better to delete this now and for Montanabw to keep the info off-wiki so that she can continue to collect diffs at her leisure. Ca2james (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC) Update: I would be equally happy with Move to LTA per Laser brain per those arguments below. There aren't the same kinds of time constraints at LTA. Ca2james (talk)
  • Keep. I said I'd take a closer look at this situation over a month ago and have done nothing. I'm pleased to see someone is looking, and to see this page. A number of concerned editors whose life here is being made very difficult by one pain in the ass are informally, and in an uncoordinated way, investigating.
It is time for a concise and comprehensive case to be made. But where? This is what (and just about the only kind of thing) RfC/U was good for but RfC/U has been banned. A user subpage would be as good a place as any now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ca2James obviously had enough thought to look into that crucial point. As for me, I am through with this blatant breaking of rules that some users will let slide. I see I am still a part of the list, but with the "evidence" on me, I know my stay here is secured. Hopefully some good comes out of this, and the rules are taken more into account next time. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

Are you a sock of Rational Observer? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This was the problem I thought might occur. Users looking into more than there getting. So my answer is no, I'm afraid your efforts will need to go into something more constructive as I do not know who that user is. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

Thanks for clearing that up. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Personally I see no issues with evidence gathering on a subpage nor do I see any issues with this page. –Davey2010Talk 02:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • COMMENT/SUGGESTION: One of the Five Pillars of WP is Civilty and the Golden Rule of that Pillar is Assume Good Faith ... if we have come to a place in history where it is O.K. for an editor to be publicly "listed" as a suspected wrongdoer -- but not officially charged via due process -- then I think one of our Pillars is in danger of crumbling to the ground.
It seems to me that TheGracefulSlick has clearly expressed her concerns about this so called duck page (why is it called that?) haunting her for an indefinite amount of time, a-la the Sword of Damocles. TGS either is or she is not a sockpuppet and frankly I don't really care. If she is a sockpuppet then do an SPI and ban her and good riddance. If she is not a sockpuppet then a potentially good editor is being harassed, bitten, and at risk of walking away. And that I do care about!
I am sick of seeing new and potentially good editors chased away from WP. Editor retention is at an all-time-low and THAT is more dangerous than all the sock puppets in all the aggregated history of WP combined. To reference the great T.S. Eliot the Shadow Falls on WP and we are at risk of becoming a "cactus land" as we seem to have no shortage of editors willing to destroy content and users. It would be a shame if a lack of contributors who are willing to BUILD the encyclopedia caused Wikipedia to "end with a whimper", making us all into [Hollow Men].
My suggestion is (in the event that the duck page is kept after this discussion) that TGS be extremely BOLD and file an SPI on herself using the duck page (at minimum) as evidence. As far as I know, there is no rule against filing an SPI on yourself as long as you are meticulous about following procedure. I think she should try and make as hard a case against herself as possible and then let the evidence prove the truth of any sock-puppetry "not yet" accusations. Despite comments to the contrary editors at WP are presumed innocent until proven guilty, unless we are willing to abandon WP:AGF completely.
In her SPI request, she should also request that if the outcome of the SPI clears her name then User:Montanabw should be "topic-banned" on listing, discussing, or changing her edits as there is obviously animosity between them ... with an official reminder to ALL editors who have commented on this matter about harassment and beating a dead horse to prevent any continuation of this matter once it has been decided.
In short, let the official WP policies and due process procedures resolve this matter NOW rather than later, and let the decision have some TEETH so that the administration of justice at WP can be honestly said to be both FAIR and FINAL. Then let us all get back to work BUILDING an encyclopedia. (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
By the way, TheGracefulSlick can confirm whether or not they are female, if they wish - but their user page suggests they are not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear IP, nothing was public about this duck page until it got nominated for deletion a day and a half ago. No one was or is being haunted, harassed, bitten, or chased away. Softlavender (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Quietly keeping a Duck Box is one thing, if it's actually done in a manner that could lead to an investigation. But, if it's just a bunch of random diffs and links being used to justify (in the editor's mind) behavior like this, it is definitely leading to editors being "haunted, harassed, bitten, or chased away." Lynn Wysong (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Not what is under discussion. What is under discussion is the specific non-public page of diffs, a page which no one knew existed until a day and a half ago, when someone snooped it out and brought it to MfD. Softlavender (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, maybe you didn't know it existed, anyway.Lynn Wysong (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't plan to file a case against myself, sorry to say. The point is this duck page will not be used against me, probably no one, and if it is the accusations will be so laughable, that a case would drop dead as soon as it began. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

Comment So let's see. We've had four SPIs. They have come to the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence that;

Basically, there is nothing in the Duck Box that does not constitute beating a dead horse Lynn Wysong (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Im waiting for the sock case that tries to link Jimbo to RationalObserver. The fact that she had to put up with back to back SPI's despite there being no evidence really says a-lot - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It's the shotgun approach. "Let's just keeping throwing out accusations until something sticks." Mob behavior at its finest.Lynn Wysong (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Per a comment above: I have indeed had my name on lists in sand boxes. I know just how it feels. In my mind I'd sooner have that information on WIKI where I know it is being complied than off wiki and hidden. Does Montana have a right to compile this evidence? I think so. Whether that is the best way to proceed is not my business. I do have a WP relationship with Montana as I do with many other editors. That fact does not make it hard for me to see this in an unbiased way and as a matter of fact since I have engaged both Montana and Sheri Wysong I do have view that may be clearer than the view of someone who is coming to this issue now.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC))
My question to you would be how would you feel if it wasn't Montana's list but someone else's and the information on the hidden list was being shared with other editors? Any wrong move you make or disagreement you have winds up making you suspected of being a sock. The result, is that you are looked at upon suspicion without knowing what you did wrong. Oh and they don't stop even after you are cleared in an SPI for socking. Referring to RO her name is Still on this duck list even after she was cleared in two separate SPI cases for socking. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
That would be four SPIs in which RationalObserver has been cleared. The last one by default. If SeeSpotRun was a sock of ItsLassieTime, and a CU check showed that SeeSpotRun had no sleeper accounts, that means that I (SheriWysong), RationalObserver, and TheGracefulSlick AREN'T socks of ItsLassieTime. Pretty cut and dried. Lynn Wysong (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Like I said, I've been on such lists. They can't be hidden and public at the same time. If they are on WP they are public and that's where I like them to be where I know what's going on. I've worked with Sheri and Montana; I stand by my cmts and my concerns. If Montana is prepping a case of some kind she has a right to use a sandbox. And again, i don't care myself one way or the other.. Whether Montana decides to remove the sandbox or not is not my business. Editors, like Montana has, act based on their experience. My opinion, once the WP guide has been established, is not pertinent.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC))
The list wasn't public and it wasn't shared with other editors (unless via email or telegraphy). You can confirm that with "what links here". There's no harm in being suspected of anything: you either or innocent or you are not. If you are innocent, who cares? If you are not, you need to be brought to the proper venue, with compiled evidence. Softlavender (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The experience does not really stand for much in this case. Whether Montana is trying to relive some past glory of catching a sock that we have zero verification (in the diffs) of existing or whatever, this page has zero purpose. This info needs to be used very, otherwise, it must be thrown out. And with the dismal amount of "evidence" gathered, no investigation will possibly be initiated. This is my last comment regarding the issue as the article in question was made in sheer foolishness. Any more discussion can be made on my talk page. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Important update: User:SeeSpot Run has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpullet of ItsLassieTime. See [6] and [7]. I had this user in the duck box, though, interestingly, they never posted here. 'Nuff said. Montanabw(talk) 16:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

And so in proving you were right about one of the four people you were "investigating", you proved that you were wrong about the other three of us. Also, is a "sock pullet" a duck or a chicken? Lynn Wysong (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. And I note that the admin stated "in a case of this kind there are very good reasons for not informing the sockpuppeteer." Softlavender (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I know I said I would stay out of this but User:Montanabw's statement about the caught sock puppet is irrelevant, unless she brings evidence stating her duckbox actually contributed to the investigation. Just because she coincidently had a suspected sock puppet on her duckbox, does not mean it actually would have ever aided in any investigation. Again, I see this as a random hunt for puppets to obtain past glory when she should be using her, may I say it, amazing skills on articles. TheGracefulSlick (talk)
  • Keep but recommend moving out of userspace to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime. This doesn't meet the criterion being cited for WP:POLEMIC because it is being kept for a "very good reason", which is that this person has been causing problems for years and their behavior needs to be tracked and documented. It would be better kept in project space for visibility and more association with the problem/less association with the people tracking the problem. --Laser brain (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to LTA per Laser brain. I had the same idea. If the idea is to have a record of evidence for a long-term problem user that many people can contribute, LTA exists for that purpose. Moving it out of the user space depersonalizes it, and removed the appearance of a personal vendetta. --Jayron32 19:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't considered that idea - but I do support it. Per Laser Brain and Jayron32. (User:Ched not at home. (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC))
  • Support LTA for ItsLassieTime: I would be very happy to have a page like that. It looks like Wikipedia:Long-term abuse explains how they want one set up. I noticed that Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mattisse is a good example of format (the chart is handy) for a user who isn't your usual hoaxer or single-issue sockpuppet. I would be willing to lead or assist in its creation and at such time as it is "live," I would be glad to delete the duck box. Montanabw(talk) 22:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I would consider moving to a publicly accessible/editable page as an LTA as a reasonable compromise. It would no longer be under virtually a single person's control, and would instead fall under the guidance and expectations for SPI related pages. Dennis Brown - 22:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, and I am converting my "week keep" above into Support move to LTA BMK (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support creating an LTA page, per Laser brain's suggestion. Andy, I copied the code from the Mattisse LTA and started to create a table for an ILT LTA but it's only about 30 percent finished. Before going out yesterday I stuffed it in my sandbox. Feel free to copy that out or to edit there until the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime page is created. Thirty percent of that many accts and edits is at least a start. Victoria (tk) 23:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Swarm. The user is simply compiling some evidence, something that is allowed, and by doing it in an easy fashion they can refer to it when issues arise or reports are submitted. Also, who cares? It's a small list, tucked away in someones userspace, that very few people will ever come across. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the LTA page. stricken, see below -- 21:27, 15 April ItsLassieTime appears to be/have been someone who genuinely wants to help, and the arguments for keeping her out seem to boil down to "she had problems six years ago and she'll never change so we need to keep her out for ever". I do not see anyone presenting real evidence that she is using multiple accounts now and still writing closely paraphrased articles and being obnoxious -- it's all "this person is ILT so she must be blocked". I don't see why it's more important to create an LTA page than to prove the page is necessary; I believe that blocks should not be punishment for evading a block, because that alone does not damage anything. ekips39 (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @Ekips39: ILT did a LOT of damage: They found over 100 sock accounts, and a sweep of only 18 of those accounts resulted in over 700 articles that got placed into a Copyright investigation that has yet (four or five years later) to be closed. I personally reviewed a couple dozen or so, and found things like entire articles from elsewhere copied and pasted into Wikipedia and presented as original work (most of those wound up deleted). Other damage was more subtle, inaccurate citation or close paraphrasing that was enough to evade the dup detector; VERY time-consuming to review and fix! Furthermore, ILT had a penchant for viciously attacking anyone and everyone who strongly disagreed with her, which ultimately, was a big part of why this user was blocked. It was a real toxic combination of poor content and bad behavior. Montanabw(talk) 07:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I felt kind of bad for SeeSpotRun. I don't know if he/she was (recently) behaving in a way to warrant investigation, but I have to think that a substantial part of the reason for the SPI was to try to catch others (such as me) in a sweep. So, whereas I'm glad that the CU was done (even though it seemed to have been a fishing expedition) and trying to connect SeeSpotRun (and thereby ItsLassietime; I think the evidence was pretty compelling they were one and the same) with any other current users was unfruitful, I'm not sure that exposing and blocking SeeSpotRun was the wisest course of action. Look at all the angst on this page of people worrying "when and where ILT is going to show up again". Well, if you know where he/she has shown up, and you can keep and eye on him/her, that can resolve a lot of the speculation and maybe the sock hunters can go back to editing rather than divert everyone's energy and attention such as here.
And, speaking of "sock hunters", I have real concerns of an LTA page where you have potentially dozens of people, whipped into mass hysteria, a la The Crucible, trying to prove someone is a sock. I have little doubt that if you compare thousands of diffs between ANY two editors, you arewill find dozens that seem to provide evidence they are socks. And, to top that off, there seems to be an opinion that these investigations should take place without the suspected sock knowing about it. I can see that if all that is going to be done is a quiet CU. Yeah, if there are suspicions, and they can easily be put to rest, just do the CU and move on. But to try to prove a sock on behavioral evidence and not invite them to participate and defend themselves by providing refuting evidence is just plain wrong. Lynn Wysong (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
So, here's what I suggest. If a suspected sock is added to an LTA page, one of the rules is that they must be notified immediately, and that, as others add evidence, they can refute it with their own in many cases likely nipping the "investigation" in the bud. And i. If people have to be accountable for their accusations, they might be a little more judicious about them. Because my sad experience and observations is that when particular editors come into conflict with others, they try to resolve that conflict by eliminating their antagonist with sock accusations. That pathological practice should be thoroughly discouraged. Lynn Wysong (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
There are at times, and often good reasons to not inform the sock-master. (See: WP:BEANS). The bottom line is this: If an account is editing in proper ways, not disrupting the project, not edit warring over things, not arguing with others not violating WP:RS or copyvio issues etc.; then, it's likely they will never be noticed or recognized as the sock-master who caused the problems to begin with. In other words: Don't . Just IMO. signed: user:Ched (not at home) (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
That is probably good advice (to not "begin a conflict with another user) for someone who is TRULY a sock. For everyone else though, conflict is a normal part of the process. It usually only turns sour if it's with someone who cries wolf (or sock) at the drop of a hat Lynn Wysong (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
People looking for conflict usually find it. People looking for collaboration are usually more welcomed, and run into fewer problems while editing. But perhaps that is a discussion for a different venue. signed: Ched (not at home) (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this is entirely inappropriate. Lynn Wysong (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Socks who quietly make high quality edits and act in a collaborative fashion are not going to be hunted down. I'm quite sure I have worked with people who have exercised right to vanish and came back under different user names; that's perfectly understandable. But when some people keep coming back to the same types of articles with multiple undisclosed accounts and the same poor attitude and a penchant for POV-pushing, then that's a problem for everyone. LassieTime socks hit articles on my watchlist with four different accounts, all inserting poor quality material, then tried to drag me to ANI on multiple occasions. It's not the multiple accounts, it's the behavior the comes with them. Montanabw(talk) 07:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Montana: Yes, ILT made a big mess (though I hadn't realised quite how bad it was -- copying entire pages? wow), and considering how big it was and how much of what she said was intended to deceive, there's something to be said for denying her a second chance. However, I believe that people can change, even people like ILT, and that we should prove that she hasn't changed and is still making a mess before we label her a long-term abuser who needs dealt with now. I haven't seen that kind of proof. SeeSpot Run was blocked not due to copyright concerns or being a major nuisance, but due to sharing a handful of otherwise innocent traits with ILT -- and that's the only recent ILT sock that's been found and blocked. Sure there are suspicions that other people are also ILT socks, but to create an LTA page while those suspicions haven't been confirmed seems like putting the cart before the horse. Besides, this isn't someone who is a pure nuisance and of no benefit whatsoever, this is someone who has brought several articles to GA status, which means we should be at least a tiny bit more receptive to the idea that she could improve.
Ched: That's how it's supposed to work, yes, but all too often I see exchanges that were supposed to be collaborative turn into food fights; who's to blame for that? It's not clear, and the answer you get depends largely on who you ask, I expect. I suspect Lynn is right that sock accusations are sometimes used to silence opponents. I can't say whether anyone is doing that here and I'm quite sure most such people do it unconsciously, but it's impossible to keep people from bending the rules to suit their personal likes and dislikes. It's how we work. I wouldn't be surprised to catch myself doing the same. ekips39 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ekips39:I'm all for second, third and maybe even tenth chances. But with 108 socks, I think we've clearly reached a limit. And actually, SeeSpot WAS quite a nuisance on a couple of articles; people don't hit my radar unless they are a nuisance, and most can be educated and become much better editors. But some, and SeeSpot was one, do not listen to anyone, ignore good advice, and the big red flag for me is when I hit a talk page with a helpful comment and either am immediately deleted or attacked, or see that the user already has gobs of warning templates on their page. Bringing an article to GA that contains inaccurate material, improperly cited material, OR, SYNTH, and close paraphrasing that just looks good, well, then there is GAR and so on. But that's a lot of work for the rest of us that takes away from solid content contributions. Montanabw(talk) 07:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
SeeSpot still hasn't been firmly concluded to link to ILT though, suspected is not the same as confirmed. I understand why you are determined to get this person with 108 socks but 2+ years is a long time so I still have doubts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Victoria and Montana, thanks for your comments (even though you removed yours, Victoria, it was still helpful). If SeeSpot Run was continuing the copyright problems and obnoxiousness, this suggests that she hasn't learned a thing in all these years and we do indeed need an LTA page. I don't value editor retention over fixing copyright problems; I just wanted to know that ILT was still causing damage, and you've confirmed that. I'm also surprised that Victoria considers me representative of general opinion, because what I see is that most people here agree with her, and my lack of memory of these events is due to my having only been a serious editor for a few months, so I'm not surprised that I wasn't familiar with all the details.
Knowledgekid87, not only is it currently impossible to link someone to ILT via checkuser, but only Vanjagenije disagreed that Spot was a sock, and after seeing how she wrote I also think she's a sock. ekips39 (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
A sock of who? Is anyone here a certified expert in what to look for when someone types? I haven't heard of someone's typing abilities being as unique as handwriting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
A sock of ItsLassieTime (I thought that was clear from the context, but apparently not). I don't have a degree in writing analysis or anything (and I doubt anyone else here does either), but through observation I've learned a good deal about different styles of typed writing, and one person's set of traits are usually unique to them or at least a good indicator of who they are. Obviously these traits can be intentionally changed, but in most cases they stay the same. ekips39 (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
So there is no way that a person can have similar typing traits and not be a sock? Im just thinking of how many people edit Wikipedia daily here and it just bothers me a bit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say that; I said that one person's traits are usually unique. Someone can have similar traits and not be the same person, but it's rare for two people to share an entire set of traits. However, it is somewhat common to share some traits but not others. ekips39 (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. It's how the caught the Unabomber in the real world; his brother recognized the writing style. Montanabw(talk) 06:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ILT long-term abuse page, per Laser brain's suggestion. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Slim Virgin: You mean Keep rather than support surely?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    Support for the LTA page is not the same as support for keeping the "duck box". ekips39 (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC) PS -- correct ping: SlimVirgin, not Slim Virgin. ekips39 (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I shake my head & wonder: if one is collecting this material, why not keep it on one's own hard drive? (Thanks to the magic of web browsers, one can cut-&-paste URLs to text files located on a locally mounted filesystem.) This is not the first time I've seen a subpage ignite a controversy, & I doubt it will be the last. (And I'm making this suggestion not to make Montanabw the bad guy -- I have no reason to think badly of her. But I bet she'd rather apply the time spent on this debate doing something more productive.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Llywrch, keeping URLs on-wiki is clearly allowed by the guidelines. It avoids the problem of having a file misplaced on the hard drive due to forgetting what I named them or where I put them - or having a file on a different computer - here all subpages are easy to find. But yes, while I'd rather work on content, I also spent hours and hours of my life I will never get back cleaning up the mess ILT made of a couple dozen articles in the areas where I edit; plus dealing with the dramas she caused (her various socks dragged me to ANI at least twice because I called her out on content problems) Montanabw(talk) 06:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Not that I'm recommending you take it off-wiki, but setting up a wiki on your home computer and putting files on there could make them easier to find. I have one of those and it's moderately useful. ekips39 (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Montana, I'm not saying that you're breaking any rule keeping URLs on-wiki. I'm saying one (& I'm intentionally being as general as possible; I'm not singling you out) should not do so, any more than one should not feed the trolls. If you really want to debate a troll, by all means go ahead & do it; just be warned that in the end you'll accomplish very little, if anything, & people might not sympathize with you over wasting so much time. And if you want to save URLs online, there are a lot of websites that provide free web hosting like Blogger or Tumblr, just be sure to use an account name that has nothing to do with Wikipedia to preserve your privacy; & don't be afraid to have fun with it. ("There's this Tumblr feed that is a collection of all of these edits I made to Wikipedia, & so-&-so is behind it to do all sorts of meanl stuff to me" -- "So tell us what led you to look at a website named to see if there was anything about you there?") -- llywrch (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
        • It's all OK, I realize there is a general discussion about the issue, but I have a number of reasons it is helpful to occasionally keep links on-wiki. If the policy on this changes, then I will change with the policy. This particular drama is linked to a particular user who obviously is not a new user and who obviously has a past or concurrent account and felt it important to stalk my edits and then complain about it. Montanabw(talk) 19:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Close? This discussion has been up for almost 2 weeks now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there consensus? to move the relevant contents of the Duck box (with some formatting edits) to a LTA page for ItsLassieTime, along the lines of what Victoriaearle created? I'm willing to begin that process, (and blank the Duck box when it's done) but not if there will be a bunch of opposition. Montanabw(talk) 03:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • And I'd support a close as no consensus on the general "POLEMIC" issue overall. The general concept was raised (by Knowledgekid87) at the Village Pump and went nowhere there, so given that I will be blanking this particular page after the LTA material is fixed up, it seems the way to ratchet down the drama. Montanabw(talk) 03:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I would say, just put up what Victoriaearle did on the LTA page but that the duck box must be removed within 30 days, whether or not the LTA page is "finished". This shouldn't be an open ended deal. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Wysong, please reread WP:AGF. We have to go through a process to create a LTA page and it requires approval by others. I have been very, very patient with you and your behavior here on this page has already included tag-teaming, personal attacks and now giving orders. It's best if you chill out and allow the community to reach consensus. Montanabw(talk) 03:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of WP:AGF, its kind of hard to be chill when someone has you on a suspected sock list don't you think? I feel that you owe each editor who is on this list of yours an apology when they end up being cleared because of this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
First off, **I** have not filed an SPI (yet) on any of these people - others have. (I haven't even weighed in on some of them) And Wysong has also been accumulating diffs on me long before this drama emerged (and she still is). So no, I see no reason to apologize to people whose behavior reminded me of a very damaging sockpuppet account. Wysong has a previous account, it's obvious: she stated, "I am not a new user" and it looks like a "sleeper"-type account- created in 2010 with two edits and then ignored until last fall when she instantly knew how to edit articles. I just took another look at Wikipedia:Clean start. In pertinent part, it reads: "A genuine clean start is not considered improper. However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in harassment or a negative reputation in the first place...the editor will probably be recognized ... Changing accounts to avoid the consequences of past bad behaviors is usually seen as evading scrutiny..." So, we have a solution: Create a LTA page on ItsLassieTime so everyone's evidence can be gathered at a central location. I'll blank the Duck Box once I have moved the ILT links in there, just to close this drama, not because I think there was a violation of POLEMIC on my part. Montanabw(talk) 04:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Siigghhh. Somehow, it always ends up with personal attacks and uncivil accusations. I will make a quick defense, then go back to the discussion we're supposed to be having. Here is where I explain my "sleeper" account. I have had no other accounts-the concept of clean start does not apply. Now, as far as the LTA page, I assume it, like all articles, is a work in progress, so I'm having a hard time understanding why it can't be created now, with the start it has. Thirty days is plenty of time to move whatever links that are worth keeping from the duck box to the LTA page, since, in reality, as I have said all along, there's nothing there that hasn't been shown to be baseless. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Have you come across the Wikipedia adage WP:SOFIXIT? If you want a LTA page for ILT within 30 days, then surely you should be willing to create it yourself? Thanks to the transparent nature of the wiki, you have exactly the same access to all of the information that anyone else here has, so why not go ahead and turn Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/ItsLassieTime into a blue link. --RexxS (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't want it, or I should say I don't care if it gets done. I just think that if that is going to be the compromise, there should be some time frame for implementation. Doesn't look to me like it takes any special permission, just 30 seconds of time to copy over what Victoria started. I'm not here to build LTA pages. I just want to be allowed to edit without constant accusations and personal attacks. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, since it only took an underscore, I went ahead and turned it blue. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
No it doesn't need an underscore: no internal link on Wikipedia needs one. You also need to learn not to refactor other people's comments in a discussion, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime. --RexxS (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe I was invited to "turn Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime into a blue link." But you're right, it was not necessary to add the underscore-probably all I had to do was refresh the page. My deepest apologies. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I forgot you titled that heading "Lambchop." Interesting, as User:Lambchop is also a blocked sockpuppet account. Also, ILT had a penchant for user names based on children's television programs of the 50s and 60s, and Lambchop was a children's TV character. I am now thinking of the adage, "when in a hole, best to stop digging." Montanabw(talk) 19:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Lambchop was an actual sock puppet. Just a bit of irony. But, feel free to initiate an SPI, if you think there's more to it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
As you noticed already, I opened the LTA page, which took far more than 30 seconds to create. Have much more to add from the Duck box, but I want to wait until the LTA is approved before investing more time. Montanabw(talk) 01:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, hope it's all you dream of it being. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Fought the good fight Lynn, but I think it's time to end the drama and move on. I don't like being accused for little reason, but I guess that is what it has come to. Just do what I did, get back to improving on subjects you enjoy. I trust Montanabw or anyone else will not just blatantly misinterpret anymore info they see, and will start targeting the right users. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 22:49, 22 April 2015

April 8, 2015[edit]

User:AmritasyaPutra/getting trolled[edit]

User:AmritasyaPutra/getting trolled (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is effectively a grudge list of statements that AmritasyaPutra took offense to by people that have been in conflicts with them. The notion that it is meant to be "humorous" is clearly disingenuous. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Ah, somebody came across this page, I see. Since I am the star (villain?) of it I'd rather not vote, as AP is likely to scream COI, but if the page genuinely were humorous, it would not be chock-full of diffs from the two editors this guy has had the most disputes with. Edit summaries like "endless nonsense" and "from the looney toons" (whatever those might be) are hardly helping his case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a user page. It is tagged as humour. It is a collection of direct quotes from talk pages. Some links are even stale. There is no commentary on any contributor, it is what they have said on talk pages. Yes, it is limited to few users including the nominator, the collection itself is small too. This is a nomination after nominator's altercation with me here. This is several months old and there has been no concern raised on the talk page. --AmritasyaPutraT 05:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:POLEMIC says: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed" Nowhere does the policy say that if you tag it with the humour tag you get a free pass to store "laundry list of wrongs, a collation of diffs and criticisms related to problems". So the question is: are you going to use these diffs for anything or not? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
That's hilarious, that really is. Do you think placing a "humor" tag on the top of a page allows you to post whatever you like? D'you really believe the page went unnoticed, when you linked it from your user-page? The users you describe as trolls, ie myself and Kautilya, have been aware of this for months; we just didn't rise to the bait. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Those are remarks I found amusing. Anyone can read "This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Please do not take it seriously." right on top of the page prominently in bold. They are links to article talk page section and not isolated diffs. I collect from what I come across, I do not scourge the Wikipedia for examples. I was not involved in all of them. Neither is there any comment from my side, nor the title or content has any commentary on any editor from me. There are 11 links to discussion and 4 editors and in 4 of them I am no way connected/involved and 3 of the links have even become stale. None of them is a highlight of personal attack by you or maunus or anyone else. It is definitely not "Very divisive or offensive material" as WP:POLEMIC conveys. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete- this is very clearly a list of perceived slights, and slapping a template on the top saying "Hur hur hur I'm just joking around" to protect it, is not going to work. Reyk YO! 06:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I consider them out-of-the-discussion remarks and hence the title 'trolling', I do not see them as insults towards me(in discussions I participated in), or any other editor, I am open to you/others striking out the one which is considered insulting to any editor. There is little I can do if there is no feedback/suggestion/comment, you will find me cooperative. Like I said above: There are 11 links to discussion and 4 editors and in 4 of them I am no way connected/involved and 3 of the links have even become stale. --AmritasyaPutraT 08:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
It is not in this page nor linked as a diff. It is on an article talk page discussion. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is only in userspace. Similar drafts are also in userspaces elsewhere like here and nobody complains of it. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note the owner of this page has copied the content over to another userpage, where it continues to be called "trolling." It lacks the humor tag now, but has a rather meaningless message from the creator. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note AP has also removed the mfd notice, contrary to the instructions on said notice. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep As one of the people that has had long exasperating debates of very low quality with the owner of this page, I think this infantile effort to let off some steam doesn't hurt any one. Let it be. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

March 21, 2015[edit]

User:Afil/Ligia Filotti[edit]

User:Afil/Ligia Filotti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article was deleted at AfD in 2011, and no work has been done on it since then. - Biruitorul Talk 23:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I don't see where Afil was notified. If subject of this draft received awards from Dept of State or some independent RS are found about the art career to establish notability, this article may make it to mainspace and stay. The writing, layout and photos are good. I have a couple of old drafts I'm working on but off-line (going to Smithsonian Archives next week) doing research with no apparent activity on Wikipedia. I'll give Afil benefit of the doubt and a chance to comment before expressing an opinion on keep or delete. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 04:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Objection There is no reason to delete the page. The proposal of Biruitorul is only the result of a personal dispute between me and him and is simply based on different political views. I consider that opponents to oppressive political regimes (in this case the communist regime) should qualify for articles. Biruitorul does not. I simply consider that personal views of some wikipedians should not be imposed on others. Due to his aggressive attitudes I have given up contributing to Wikipedia after having tens of thousands of contributions (Wikipedia statistics can be checked). I tried to cut all discussions with him to avoid further confrontation, hoping that this would avoid more clashes. In this care I moved the page from an article of wikipedia to one of sections to accomodate his views. If this is not acceptable, I want all articles I have contributed to Wikipedia to be deleted. I want nothing to do with an organization in which one user can impose his views on the entire community.Afil (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Afil's reply is replete with non-sequiturs. No, I don't consider that "opponents to oppressive political regimes" do not deserve articles on Wikipedia. After all, it was not that long ago that I authored an article on Victor Rădulescu-Pogoneanu, perhaps one of the purest examples one can find of a principled opponent of Romania's communist regime. However, I also believe, in line with WP:BASIC, that an encyclopedically notable individual must be the subject of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" - something which this text plainly does not meet, as was overwhelmingly determined by the consensus to delete the article from the mainspace as a result of this discussion. Four years have passed in which notability could have been demonstrated, but it hasn't happened, and there's no sign it will. Userspace is a place for articles to be improved, not kept as a way of circumventing deletion. I have nothing at all against Afil, but really now, either show notability or let's get rid of this. - Biruitorul Talk 19:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is nothing to do with political views, but the article was deleted at AfD four years ago, and per WP:FAKEARTICLE: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content." JohnCD (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep The entire discussion is only the result of a personal dispute between me an Biruitorul. As it is a dispute, the matter should be discussed in the forum for arbitrating disputes, which I have requested. For the time being, accusing me of not improving an article while I am waiting for an accessible climate for further contributing to wikipedia is incorrect. I still consider that Biruitorul is personally motivated. Information about all the anticommunist student movements in Romania in 1956 are extremely scarce. That does not mean they did not happen. The same is valid for the Tiannamen Square movements in China and others. Communist regimes were obviously trying to suppress these information as much as possbile. It is absurd to compare the number of sources you have for events in free countries and in oppressive regimes. That is what Biruitorul does not understand. The problem is not that Biruitorul authored an article on an opponent. The problem is how many articles does english language wikipedia have on the various anticommunist movements in Romania. I am not talking about the politicians who opposed the instauration of communism in Romania, like Victor Rădulescu Pogoneanu. I am talking about the various groups who tried to induce some kind of change, like the students who fought in 1956, 1959 and 1969, like the armed groups in the mountains or various resistance movements in Romanian factories in the 1980s such as the Brașov movement. If very little has been written about them, does it mean they never occurred? Does is mean that they are not important? As the entire press in communist countries was controlled by the party, does it mean that because the communist regime tried not to make them public that they are nor notable? All the objections of Biruitorul are due to a fundamental nonunderstanding of what any dictatorial oppressive regime is and therefore not understanding the importance of resistance movements. Requesting "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" for what happened behind the Iron Curtain is simply a pretext for not accepting any information of what happened. It is just a pretext for a political coverup of what happened. And those movements are notable not because there were hundreds of articles written about them, but because they occured. What JohnCD seems to ignore, is that the article was deleted as a consequence of a previous personal attack of Biruitorul. To prove that Biruitorul is very personal in his assessment, you just have to look at other similar articles for which he had no objection and for which he requested no deletion. Therefore I definitely request an arbitration regarding the entire dispute between Biruitorul and me. As indicated before, I have given up contributing to Wikipedia because of the bulling of Biruitorul, just to avoid further confruntations. But this continues and therefore should be investigated in its entirety, mot just the proposal of deleting this article. Afil (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

  • The WP:Verifiability policy is absolutely fundamental to Wikipedia. If you think it should be abandoned in regard to anti-communist resistance movements because reliable sources are so few, you can propose that at WP:Village pump (policy), but in my view you have no chance. Unless and until that policy is changed, it still applies, whether you like it or not.
  • The article was not deleted "as a consequence of a previous personal attack of Biruitorul"; it was deleted as the result of the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Ligia Filotti. Biruitorul was not even the nominator: as well as the two of you, six users took part in the discussion, and yours was the only voice for keeping the article. The result can be challenged with the closing administrator, user Mandsford (talk), or at WP:deletion review, if you think the close did not properly reflect the discussion, or if you have new information, but not if you simply disagree with it.
  • If you have a particular disagreement with Biruitorul, see WP:Dispute resolution for what you should do.
  • But in the mean time, "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host... deleted content". JohnCD (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Let us not confuse the issues. The discussion with Biruitorul was concentrated on the issue of notability, not verifiability. The issue I was raising was that notability is determined by the importance of the facts, not by the number of references to a particular fact or person. Just to give you an example, Wikipedia has a long article on Natali Holloway, a young girl who went to Aruba on a vacation and disappeared after partying with some friends. It is a tragic event but that does not mean that Natali Holloway has accomplished anything notable in her life, which would justify her being mentioned in an encyclopedia, even if, when all this occurred, many articles were written on the issue. The number of articles in itself is not a measure of notability. In the case of the student movements in Romania in 1956, as long as there are references which make the information verifiable, the articles should be published as notability is determined by the importance of the action. And this is not related to any particular person. It is simply a dispute on the attitude of Romanians towards the communist regime, and specifically if the anticommunist movements of 1956 took place only in Poland and Hungary, or if they also took place in Romania. I therefore object on the issue of notability because it implies a certain incorrect historic view of Wikipedia, which is not acceptable according to Wikipedia rules.
The article has references which are verifiable. It is difficult to understand why this article is worse than for instance the articles on Alexandru Dincă or Mihai Rădulescu.
I have attempted to solve my dispute with Biruitorul, but the arbitration system does not work. The question is if it is acceptable for somebody to be bullied indefinitely without anybody taking any action. This is the main issue. Raising the issue of the article is just a pretext to hide this.
I am tired of all these useless discussions, which do not seem to have an end. I am simply asking a question. Do the people who take part in this discussion accept me as a contributor to Wikipedia? I don't necessarily want to be a contributor, but if I am not accepted, I do not want any of my contributions to be used by Wikipedia. Afil (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
It is not up to the contributors to this discussion, or anyone else, to decide whether to "accept" you. The question is for you to decide: whether you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, which means accepting its rules and standards. If you do not wish to, that is up to you, but you cannot now withdraw your contributions: just above the "Save page" button you used to make them, it says "By clicking the 'Save page' button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution". JohnCD (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I don;t see the potential for an article, especially as there is none on the Romanian WP., just a redlink in ro:Mișcările studențești din București din 1956. I cannot tell if an article was every written there, or whether one was deleted. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Having failed the AfD, WP:NOTWEBHOST is the rationale now. She sounds like a fascinating woman, but there's just no verifiable claim to notability. --Tgeairn (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Closed discussions[edit]

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.