Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 29 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_WP:RECALL_a_policy?

(Initiated 19 days ago on 28 October 2024) Discussion has slowed for the last week. I think the consensus is pretty clear, but I'm involved. – Joe (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: discussion has been archived. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 98 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 58 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: just checking in here. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm still working on this, and I apologize for the delay. Because of my health problems, I only occasionally have days where I am fit to take on complex stuff like closures, and this particular one is testing me. I do have an outline of my findings in a document, but need to flesh it out and proof it against the discussion. I could finish this as soon as tomorrow, depending on how things go, but I can't promise anything. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 48 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 39 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 39 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:David Lammy#RfC: First sentence

(Initiated 32 days ago on 15 October 2024) Discussion has died down. The last vote was on 4 November. Khiikiat (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence#RfC on causes in the summary field

(Initiated 31 days ago on 16 October 2024) Legobot has just removed the RFC template and there's no new comments since November 7. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 13 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	19	19
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	2	6	8
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	6	42	48
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 304 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... may take a crack at this close, if no one objects. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 16 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed site ban for User:MaranoFan

MaranoFan, despite her efforts to promote Meghan Trainor-related articles to good and featured status, is a deeply problematic editor with a history of edit warring, personal attacks, pointiness (see disruptive/vengeful/bad-faith AfD nominations here, here), assumption of article ownership, assumption of bad faith, wrongly accusing others of vandalism, and possible sockpuppetry – among other issues. Disruptive editing throughout all areas of Wikipedia, but several instances with problematic non-free file uploading (and a refusal to stop such behavior when asked by other editors, including admins) led to a topic ban from file uploading (details listed and discussions linked at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions). On at least two occasions (1, 2), she attempted to recruit other editors to upload files on her behalf, even after I warned her against doing this the first time.

MaranoFan frequently takes script-enforced wikibreaks when frustrated with the project, most recently (and which ends the day her topic ban ends) with an unambiguous "fuck you" to the project, which I feel is the final straw. MaranoFan has had the rules explained to her on countless occasions and repeatedly falls back into the same patterns, unwilling to learn from her mistakes. And the latest "FU" message shows a complete lack of interest in collaborating with other editors. The diva behavior shouldn't be tolerated any longer. We've coddled her and let her throw tantrums long enough.

I therefore propose an indefinite site ban for MaranoFan.

I apologize for the relative lack of diffs; there's just so much wrong here that I don't even know where to begin in hunting down links. I will notify users I know have had dealings with her in the past to this discussion for further comment. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think its a bit premature for a full-on site ban. I agree there have been some problems, but I feel a less rash approach would be to give a final warning that these various problems are not okay, and start dealing out some heavy blocks if the problems are still occurring. Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment: Doesn't this belong on ANI not here? EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• WP:CBAN says that ban proposals may be discussed at AN and ANI, but are preferred here. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Meh. User is claiming to have retired and while this is almost certainly a case of LANCB we should at least allow the chance of a wikibreak and see if things are quieter afterwards. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• BOOMERANG against Chase and Winkelvi. It seems a block, interaction ban, or at minimum a warning is needed to stop the general disruption of Wikipedia on articles MaranoFan edits by these users and to stop hounding. For background, I added many of the related pages to my watchlist, after Marano filed at ANI regarding disruptive editing from Winkelvi [1] Since then, I've noticed Chase and Winkelvi have been engaging in battleground with User:MaranoFan. Examples include this ridiculous tagteam AfD of an article Marano recently created. An article that clearly meets GNG. [2].--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• I can't speak for Winkelvi, but I keep a close eye on articles MaranoFan edits because of her long history of disruptive behavior. Someone has to clean up after her messes. As for the AfD, I hope you know the article looked significantly different when it was nominated. My initial Google searches didn't turn up much other info. It wasn't targeted because MaranoFan created it – I've supported AfDs started by MF and agreed with them on some issues on occasion, as you would know if you weren't blatantly taking sides – it was targeted because it appeared to have been created solely for barely meeting a guideline about charting set forth by WP:MUSICBIO (which doesn't trump the GNG which did not appear to be met at the time). WP:HOUND mentions that tracking others' edits for collegial reasons is perfectly acceptable. Instead of trying to stick up for someone who blatantly disregards policies and guidelines and has a long and troublesome history of disruptive behavior, how about you focus on the real issue – a diva who consistently vanishes when under scrutiny, refuses to learn from her errors, and just told the entire community to fuck off? –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Chase, I have noticed you keep a close eye on pages Marano edits, and in my observation, you edit them in a disruptive battleground manner. I'm actually not the only one who's noticed you and Winkelvi aggressively revert MaranoFan [3] and chat about goal to get this user blocked on both of your talk pages [4],[5]. I really think WP would be a lot better off if you two disengaged with MaranoFan for a while. Marano's edits may not be perfect, but Marano seems here in good faith and they have contributed positively to multiple music related article, including starting new articles and working to bring article to GA status.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Yes, there's some truth to this as well. MaranoFan has notified me several times of Winkelvi making backhanded vague comments/complaints about Wikipedians on his user page, of which Marano has interpreted to be about her. I didn't take action, and instead instructed her to ignore them, as the comments were vague and petty, but it did seem that the comments were not in fact helpful, and likely intended for MaranoFan. I agree there are problems with some of MaranoFan's edits, but I think their approach has been a little...aggressive. Anyways, I don't think its a boomerang as in any sanctions or anything need to be made against them either, but I do wish all three would disengage so it doesn't escalate to that point. Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with everybody - Well, not quite: too soon for site ban, other sanctions may be in order (so no boomarang is justified), but mostly agree with Guy: let's wait and see if a break makes a difference. BMK (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• At the very least, MaranoFan's topic ban should be extended to three months after her return from her current wikibreak, since she's purposely blocking herself until the ban is over, meaning she's not learning anything. Pinging Guy for comment. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• In general I think it is bad form to start a site ban discussion when an editor is blocked, whether self-imposed or imposed by an admin, and is unaware of the discussion. And I think his/her FU, written as an edit summary to an edit on User:MaranoFan/vector.js, is not exactly on the Wikipedia Main Page. You would only see it if you were looking through his/her contributions or edits on a user subpage.

As for blocking him/herself until the topic ban is over, it's clear that they don't want to edit about other subjects. I don't see what that says about "learning". It could be smart to block oneself in order not to violate ones topic ban inadvertently while it is in effect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Not too smart to curse the community while doing so, however. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no rule that says that a person needs to keep editing somewhere else during their topic ban. This is exactly where I'm coming from in my stance. What you're saying isn't rooted in any sort of policy or guideline. Please disengage from all of this. Sergecross73 msg me 20:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No, but the "if I can't edit where I like then I'm not editing at all" mentality demonstrates the bigger issue of MaranoFan's attitude problem. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you can look at it either way, as giving the community the finger, or as "I don't trust myself not to violate this sanction, so I'm going to force myself not to do anything at all." Unfortunately, there's no mechanical way to prevent oneself from editing in violation of a topic ban. What's bad for MaranoFan is that if she or he had edited other articles during the TB, there would be, presumably, a track record of productivity, which would speak well for them and show they can be an asset to the encyclopedia. Now, we're gonna have nothing. BMK (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest that we await MaranoFan's return and see what happens, per Guy. Winkelvi is himself a problematic editor, as his block log only partially indicates due to the slack that has been cut him over his edit-warring. In fact very recently he edit warred over the "Maintained" template in an article, creating such a furor that it directly resulted in a deletion discussion that put the kibosh on that template. Coretheapple (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• Not going to pretend I have a good history with any of these editors (through a few AN3's and that {{Maintained}} I nomed for deletion, but I think it is much too soon for a site ban or even a topic ban extension. If MF is taking a break, that is even better, s/he will probably come back with a clear head and better judgment like we all do. And there's no point in trying to discuss this while the user is on break, no way to get all sides of the story. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 23:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• I really think that MaranoFan is more trouble than they're worth, and I think we're pretty much into net negative territory here. But I don't want someone banned because of a "fuck you", and I can't in all good conscience support a ban under these circumstances. Now, it is true that MaranoFan has a tendency to walk away and then return when the dust has settled. The Dutch, who are wonderful, bright, and beautiful people, call that ostrich policy (an article that needs lots of help. (Read more at this blog.) And that is obviously not a good thing, but I can't yet say "ban". What I would like is, if this user returns, that they get blocked if they return to the same disruptive behavior. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support immediate block if they return to the same behavior after they return in October (their "Retirement" is due to a script enforced block, set to expire in October); same thing if they come back before October. I agree with what has been pointed out above: it's not right to discuss a site ban without them being able to comment and offer a defense for themselves.

Yes, Chase and I keep an eye on MF because what they typically leave in their wake is disruption, unencyclopedic content, continual bending (and breaking) of policy as well as gaming the system. Some of you commenting about MaranoFan's behavior truly have no clue what s/he is like day to day, moment to moment. You never know what you're going to get from them. As indicated by his comments above, Drmies gets it. Even he has commented on the strange, Janis-like back and forth the editor in question exhibits: loves you one moment, thanks you for edits, leaves "Wiki-love" Kittens and Barnstars; hates you the next and is placing bogus/undeserved warning templates on your talk page or trying to get you blocked/banned through AN/I or AN/3. This individual edits to win scout badges to adorn their userspace, play games, score personal gotcha points, and loves to WP:POKE. S/he has harassed me in concert with two other editors in the past as well as vandalized my talk page repeatedly. S/he treats Wikipedia like a source of amusement and there's little to nothing memorable or productive about the edits they make. When s/he gets in to trouble or thinks a sanction/block is coming, poof! Suddenly gone for who knows how long. Personally, I don't think they will be able to stop editing their favorite articles and fully expect them to show up before the script enforced block is up as a sock account, whether it be a registered account or a number of IPs.

I guarantee you, with 99.999% certainty, nothing will change with this editor when they return, because they've made grandiose apologies and promises before and almost immediately go back to disrupting. Why? Because they simply want to have their way and do as they wish with everyone applauding them every time they edit. Their behavior is immature, irresponsible, and disruptive -- and it's extremely unlikely to change by October. They are here for affirmation and accolades as well as to turn encyclopedia articles into peacock fancruft for singers and actors they admire. That's it. It's a simple, classic case of WP:NOTHERE. No one with such an agenda can be expected to change into a productive editor unless the agenda changes. Therefore, if their agenda doesn't change and their behavior stays the same as of their return in October - immediate block. No more molly-coddling and enabling. It's the only solution, as far as I'm concerned.

One more thing: Those of you defending MaranoFan, I'd be interested to see some good reasons (beyond the GA status given to one article Marano Fan was involved with) why you think MaranoFan is a net positive to Wikipedia and how they improve the encyclopedia. I'd be interested to see what valid reasons there are that would allow us, as a community, to NOT be concerned about MFs editing/interaction abilities once they return. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Pure and simple, it's premature. Except for cases of vandalism-only accounts or entirely bad-faith editors, people are typically given more leeway before given a full ban. (Its rather ironic I'd have to tell you that, honestly, considering your block log is even longer.) You could argue that MaranoFan is not contributing in an encyclopedic-enough manner, or is having problems with people, but you can't reasonably conclude that she's here only to vandalize or cause trouble. Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Questions - Has MaranoFan done something disruptive lately? I ask because I thought I had added most of the target pages to my watch list after issues at Meghan Trainor pages popped up at ANI, and I haven't seen it. I know she has seemed frustrated with Winkelvi and Chase, who I stated above appear to be hounding her, and I've noticed them discussing getting her banned on their talk pages.[6],[7] I know there is an interaction tool to analyze hounding. It might be beneficial if an admin uses it track these three users edits, because my subjective observation might not be accurate, but I think there are concerns here that go beyond MaranoFan. In addition to a tagteam deletion request on Casey J [8], I've noticed Winkelvi has been engaging in what seems to me to be ridiculous edit wars on pages MaranoFan has been trying to get up to GA status. Such as adding awkward wording to Meghan Trainor's discography because "Trainor didn't release anything, those financing her did" [9]. I tried editing this back, because it didn't seem like an improvement, and because this awkward wording isn't used on featured list discographies such Madonna albums discography, Taylor Swift discography but Winkelvi just reverted again, and then MaranoFan asked me on my talk page [10] to please not bother reverting Winkelvi, because even though she apparently thought those edits were poor, she was afraid Winkelvi would make the article unstable, and mess up her GA nomination goal for that article, as was her concern on recent ANI against Winkelvi [[11], which Chase promptly closed. Also, what is MaranoFan topic banned from? I've seen her editing Meghan Trainor and various music articles yesterday. Is this that old topic ban regarding uploading non-free images? If so, Marano seems to get what is appropriate for uploads now, because she recently reverted me when I tried to add cover art to Casey J's bio [12]. I didn't know cover art wasn't appropriate for BLP's, and she recently reverted a new editor who added a pic from NYT of Casey J [13]. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Chase's proposal and support two-way interaction bans between MaranoFan and Winkelvi and MaranoFan and Chasewc91. What Winkelvi so cutely characterize as "keeping an eye on" another user is really Wiki hounding. MaranoFan creates an article on Casey J, then Chase nominates it for deletion 14 hours later [14] and it took Wink another 10 minutes to vote in favor of deletion [15] (it was kept by the way, with only those two favoring deletion). She makes a perfectly acceptable edit to Meghan Trainor [16], Winks swoops in 90 minutes later to revert it [17]. She nominates and brings an article up to Good Article status [18], Wink goes on a rant about Good Article status on his user page [19] in clear violation of WP:POLEMIC. MaranoFan nominates another article as a featured list candidate and lo and behold here come Wink and Chase to oppose it. A new user pops up on Chase's talkpage and within five minutes both file reports claiming the user is a sock of MaranoFan with little to no evidence [20] [21]. You can find more examples using these two reports showing interaction between MF and Wink and MF and Chase. Calidum T|C 03:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, doing so would fulfill your promise found in this [22], wouldn't it? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

And your point is? I tried to tell you two to leave her alone, but you decided to be flippant [23]. As I said then, her editing can be problematic but you two just made things worse by needling her. Calidum T|C 16:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

MaranoFan nominates another article as a featured list candidate and lo and behold here come Wink and Chase to oppose it. I think someone should check their facts. MaranoFan launched the FLC on May 2 and asked me more than once to leave a comment (see here). I abstained from leaving a proper !vote at the time, instead helping MaranoFan to address some concerns raised by other editors. It was not until very late into the FLC that I left an oppose !vote that was influenced by another user's !vote and was fully fleshed out with backing from the featured list criteria. Quit acting like it was some sort of witch hunt to get the FLC failed just because of the nominator. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

That's just one example of a pattern of harassment. The AFD I mentioned and history of reverts speak for themselves as do comments such as [24] where you admit to following another editor around because you find her "troublesome." And there is the aforementioned MaranoBan thread you started on Winkelvi's talk page. Did you think that would do anything but antogonize her? Calidum T|C 20:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not an example of harassment for the reasons stated in my previous comment. As for the "troublesome" comment, I don't see the problem. Maybe my approach has been too aggressive, I'll admit that, but in general it is not against policy to watch after editors who have a history of stirring up trouble, and many do this. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The very notion of a discography being a featured article is beyond stunning. Clearly MaranoFan is here to promote the interests of this particular performing artist, presumably as a loyal fan more than anything. I doubt very much that Ms. Trainor would endorse these kinds of antics going on over her aticle. To me that very fact illustrates how important it is to separate these editors (MF, Chase and WV) from this article and from each other. Coretheapple (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

There are other discographies given Featured List status. Lorde discography for example. Calidum T|C 20:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment MaranoFan did file a fellacious edit-warring report against Winkelvi at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive280#User:Winkelvi reported by User:MaranoFan (Result: no action). I do actually think there is a competency issue here based on what I saw at the 3RR case, so perhaps some mentoring would be an option? I think there does need to be some oversight of MaranoFan's edits, but there is a better way of doing that than "wikistalking", no matter how well intentioned the interventions are. Betty Logan (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• In light of the facts raised subsequent to my earlier comment, especially by User:Calidum, I oppose a site ban for MaranoFan at this time and support a two way interaction bans between Marano and Winkelvi and Marano and Chase. This is in no way an endorsement of MaranoFan's conduct. That entire "Meghan Trainor" area is a pain the neck; twice I've gotten RfC notifications about protracted discussions there about whether that person should be a called a "singer-songwriter" or a "singer and songrwriter." People need to get a grip pertaining to that subject, and perhaps Arbcom will have to sort it all out one of these days. Coretheapple (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Core, you've been trying VERY hard to get me blocked and/or sanctioned in one way or the other since January. For whatever reason, you have a big hatred in regard to my very presence in Wikipedia. When situations such as this arrive, you appear and attempt to turn whatever the discussion is about in my direction and negatively so. I'm forced to wonder how long your grudges last. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I have not advocated a block for you here. But if you continue down this path, I think that you will find a WP:BOOMERANG headed your way. You've done a good job of getting yourself blocked without any help from me. Let's now add "chronic assumption of bad faith" to your edit-warring, battlefield conduct (that user-page posting denigrating GAs, clearly inspired by MaranoFan) and miscellaneous misconduct. Yes, it is possible that you may wind up getting sanctioned sooner rather than later. Entirely up to you. Coretheapple (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice job avoiding the subject that I actually brought up regarding you and your to be continued witch hunt against me, Core. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am aware that everyone is to blame for everything you do except you. That's well-established. For the record, I have had no interactions with you at all since this extravaganza a few months ago, am not involved in any of the articles you frequent, and otherwise avoid you like the plague. However, all of Wikipedia cannot have an interaction ban with you, because you are ubiquitous on the noticeboards and are constantly getting into scrapes because of your various escapades. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

In fact, thanks for reminding me about that ANI. Going back over it, I was reminded of this segment of the ANI discussion in which you, MaranoFan and another editor were blocked for 48 hours for edit warring at Meghan Trainor. In the course of that you promised to stay away from that and other articles in which you were involved, but then reneged and withdrew your promise. Perhaps what is needed here is an involuntary topic ban to keep you and MaranoFan out of that article so that un-warrior editors can improve it or just leave it alone. Coretheapple (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Something should have also reminded you that your claim of not interacting with me since that ANI is disingenuous and misleading at best, completely dishonest at worst. Or have you forgotten the template deletion discussion where you worked very hard to make it all about me when it really wasn't about me at all? (Daniel Case can verify, if he chooses). That, plus what you've provided above, has nicely provided evidence of your grudge against me and the witch hunt you resurrect at every possible opportunity. The blood-hungry sharks, once again, come out of the shadows to do what they do best. But, I digress -- this AN report isn't about me, it's about MF. No sense diverting away any further from the subject at hand. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Wrong again there, Wink. I was opposed to the existence of that Template long before your abuse led to its deletion. That is evident on the talk page of the template, now deleted. Anyway, thanks again, your villification noted. Meanwhile, don't you have an edit-warring report pending against you that you may want to attend to, brought by one of your numerous persecutors? Coretheapple (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Your behavior and Chase's behavior relative to the user in question is relevant to the discussion; as is similar behavior exhibitied towards others. You two launched a concerted effort to hound her and drive her off site and you have; now Chase wants to get his pound of flesh. It's funny that you claim we're bullying you when you're the biggest, baddest bully on the street. It's not so much fun when the rabbit's got the gun, is it? Calidum T|C 15:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, in addition to interaction bans between Chase & Marano and Winkelvi & Marano, I agree with Coretheapple, something needs to be done about the general disruption at Meghan Trainor articles. Apparently, there was a nuisance AfD filed on Meghan Trainor discography yesterday. [25]. Of course, it was promptly closed as a SNOW keep [26], but not before Marano made her exit, and given the timing of MaranoFan's self block with message "FUCK YOU WIKIPEDIA" [27] this nuisance AfD seems to be what pushed her over the edge. She was working to bring that article up to feature list status. Now, while I don't think Marano's "fuck you" edit summary was particularly mature or anything, I can kind of get her frustration, given the hounding she's endured and the needless disruption a group of editors has been creating at Meghan Trainor articles. See this ridiculous seeming RfC [28] which was apparently needed because Winkelvi would not accept a prior consensus of singer-songwriter as opposed to singer/songwriter. This all really needs to stop. It's not helping Wikipedia and it's apparently run a good faith editor off of WP. Not that MaranoFan was perfect or anything, but she has created numerous quality articles such as Dear Future Husband and Casey J. I agree with Coretheapple that this might all end up at ArbCom. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Neither I nor Winkelvi started or participated in that AfD, but nice try. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I think BoboMeowCat was bringing that up to explain MaranoFan's conduct, not as a jibe against either of you. However, your response does indicate how this has become a kind of personal quest for you and Winkelvi, that you both see that being pointed out as targeting you somehow. Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The comment supported sanctions on myself and Winkelvi and mentioned the AfD shortly after, implying that is a reason why the sanctions should be in place. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Chase, I didn't say it was you who brought the AfD, and I thought it was clear since I provided the diff, but since you objected, I decided to look at it closer. It's true that you and Wikelvi did not start or participate in that nuisance AfD, but the OP did mention both you and Winkelvi specifically saying "two other editors concurred with me (Winkelvi and Chasewc91)".[29] You were both pinged, so you knew about the AfD. It seems that given the timing, you also knew Marano's self block with "fuck you" edit summary was a reaction to this nuisance AfD, yet I get the impression you've been misleading the community here at wp:an to think her self-block was due to a reaction to her topic ban. She's been topic banned from uploading images for a month.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

How about we slow down with the bad-faith accusations? I'm not trying to mislead anybody. I'm sure that the ragequit was due to a variety of frustrations, the AfD included. But I do think the timing of the break expiration is more than coincidental. I did not suggest that the article be deleted and only hinted at the idea of it possibly being merged in the FLC, and I thought that Calvin999 nominating it for deletion was out of line. And for the record, by the time I saw the AfD, MaranoFan had already left. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• An interaction ban between Chase/Winkelvi and MaranoFan is something I strongly support as well. If the problems with MaranoFan are as bad as they say, then surely other uninvolved editors will pick up on it as well, and take care of it on their behalf. Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Wait until the script-enforced break ends. If behavior is still the same, then look into a ban. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban this proposal seems very vindictive to me. Mellowed Fillmore (talk)
• Neutral I need no convincing of MF's difficulties with civility, having personally caught a nice hot bit of the long-term fallout from the edit war on Talk:Meghan Trainor back in January that led ultimately to the deletion of the "maintained" template. Furthermore, I find her decision to make her self-blocks coterminous with her topic ban extremely troubling. That is, as she accurately said, a "fuck you". It is not in any way the action of someone who thinks they can reform—it screams that she knows she can't. Someone who really wanted to reform would not only heed the topic ban but find something else to edit about, something they aren't so emotionally invested in, where they might learn to collaborate better and be a net plus to the project. They wouldn't take a powder. I can confidently predict that these problems will recur when she returns.

  On the other hand ... it seems a little too early in this to resort to a community ban as she's only been blocked twice, and for a month at the longest. She should rather be given a choice that would allow her to demonstrate she can truly rehabilitate herself. If she is topic- or interaction-banned, she must continue to edit something somewhere else during that time. If she cannot accept that condition, or fails to fulfill it after having said she would, then she gets blocked indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it has much to do with thinking she can't reform. Marano's apparently been editing while topic banned from uploading images for a while. Given the timing, it appears the self-block with "fuck you" edit summary was actually in direct response to a nuisance AfD started on Meghan Trainor discography [30]. An article MaranoFan has been working to bring up to feature list status. That AfD was quickly closed as SNOW KEEP [31], but Marano checked out before seeing that. I agree "fuck you" isn't terribly mature, but it seems better to block yourself, when faced with disruption that is pushing you over the edge, than to stay and lash out, and that AfD was disruptive. There were no grounds to delete that list she's been working on. I think part of the problem with respect to the general disruption on Meghan Trainor articles is actually music snobbery against Meghan Trainor music, which Sergecross73 mentioned recently during RfC [32].--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't consider being banned from uploading images to be a "topic ban"—uploading is not editing, and doesn't require any interactive personal skills. I agree that there was no ground to delete that list, but that was something the community quickly came to consensus on, and I think we should have taken the nominator at his word rather than suggest that the AfD was part of some organized effort to push MF's buttons. Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocking herself to cool off seems reasonable, but the timing is shameful. A week? Fine. A month? Sure. 2-3 months? Why not. The remaining duration of her topic ban? –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I should add that blocking yourself this way is a little bit like having someone lock you in your house during the evening hours to keep you from going out and drinking too much again. That's just another stop on the inevitable road to standing up in the church basement and introducing yourself to a bunch of strangers over coffee; something similar but likely less pleasant seems bound to be the end of this. Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban (non admin) I have commented on many of the Meghan Trainor sections on AN/I. This is way premature, and a ban is already in place. MaranoFan taking a break from editing may not be a bad thing if they come back with the right attitude. I do support the IBAN between MaranoFan and Winkelvi and MaranoFan and Chase. I think it could solve a lot of problems going forward. AlbinoFerret 17:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm taking bets: will this thread still be ongoing when MaranoFan's topic ban runs out? Please see your nearest bookie for a piece of the action. BMK (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Considering Marano's edit restriction on uploading images, which isn't really a topic ban, ends in October, I'm gonna guess no :)--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The wording of "editing restriction" or "topic ban" doesn't really matter, but FWIW, the restriction was labeled a topic ban when it was imposed. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, whether you want to call it ban/edit restriction or whatever, I don't think Marano's self-enforced block had anything to do with it. Apparently, Title (EP), the article Marano brought to GA status was nominated for deletion around same time as snow keep AfD attempt on Meghan Trainor discography. I find these deletion attempts confusing because I don't think articles reviewed as GA status tend to fail GNG. [33],[34]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You don't think it has anything to do with it? The fact that she conveniently chose to end the break specifically on October 7, when her ban/restriction ends? Even if she had done that today, at least someone could say, "Oh, well that's exactly 5 months from now." She did it yesterday. The selection of the date was clearly intentional and I'm not sure why you're trying to act oblivious to that. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspect her choice of date to end it is related, but it seems Marano's self enforced block was a response to multiple AfD's, on articles she had brought to GA status, or was working on as such. That, along with the hounding described by multiple users above, appears to have triggered it. Not a month old restriction on uploading images.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why she picked the date. There is no difference between her editing for another five months with the topic ban in place and her deciding not to edit until after it expires. Unless you want her to edit so you can catch her violating the topic ban so she can receive the punishment you think she really deserves. That's just vindictive on your part. Calidum T|C 01:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Boomerang - Both Chase and Winkelvi are the definition of WP:HOUND and are the actual problematic editors here. They are forever involved in drama at ANI and in pathetic and tiresome disputes. They hounded me and Marano earlier in the year and I've retired as a result of this and their persistent, unnecessary and tiresome drama and chaos across Meghan Trainor-related articles. Have a look at their contributions (I dare you!), it's blatantly clear what their intentions have been with Marano. They had the exact same intentions with me earlier in the year. They filed bogus 3RR and sockpuppet investigation reports earlier in the year against me, excessively reverted and targeted my very constructive edits to Meghan articles to the extent that I couldn't take it anymore. These editors have not positively contributed or expanded Meghan-related articles whatsoever, and instead appear to be obsessed with derailing the articles and hounding their editors who disagree with their edits. These two editors make the pedia unbearable, it's no surprise Marano disappears so often - who wouldn't if they were subjected to such hounding? Chase and Winkelvi's edits on Wiki revolve solely around drama, edit wars, hounding. They don't add or expand articles, they only derail them. It's "veteran" hounds like these that will continue to cause drama at ANI time after time and chase away one promising new editor after the other. They are awful, awful editors and I honestly have no intention of returning to Wikipedia until they have disappeared because I have NO time or energy for them hounding me again. I think if an uninvolved admin or moderator, not friends with Winkelvi or Chase, actually kept a watch on their edits this year - they'd clearly see the hounding and drama they create and partake in. - Lips ^{are movin} 06:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Note See this SPI and that it was never investigated. [35]. Has Marano Fan found a way to evade their self imposed and script enforced block to comment here? Strange that an account suspected of being a MaranoFan sock, which has been abandoned for months, suddenly comes alive for this AN to comment. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Further noting in response to Serge's comments on the same below: For those who won't click on the link, and to be accurate, the SPI was never referred to as "bogus" (as Serge claimed). For whatever reason, the SPI clerk didn't feel a need to investigate. In light the sudden and out of nowhere posts by Lips Are Movin (one of the accounts Marano Fan joined in with for tag-team edit warring, vandalizing my userspace and harassing me a few months ago), it seems that the investigation should be re-opened. Highly suspicious, especially considering Marano Fan's script-enforced self block and is under suspicion with a current SPI. If one is going to be an apologist, it's a good idea to be accurate and concise without any hint of prejudice. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Honey, you can file as many sockpuppet investigations as you like, they will never work in your favor as they are bogus and one of your many childish tactics of WP:REVENGE. I have not once vandalized your userspace or have this "history of vandalism" you continously spread like propaganda, one of your many blatant lies. I have a right to comment here, and it is not suspicious by ANY means as you were the reason I retired after your persistent hounding of me and disruptions of the articles I edited. My views here are very relevant here. You need to get off your high horse, stop with your childish user talk page bickering and bogus reporting at admin boards, begin growing up and start owning up. - Lips ^{are movin} 18:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose too soon. SamuelDay1 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment The craziness at Meghan Trainor articles clearly goes beyond just MaranoFan. It appears MaranoFan has been recently hounded by 3 editors. See issues with Chase and Winkelvi documented by multiple users above with difs. The third editor, User:Calvin999, who has recently used the signatures ₳aron and Calvin999 is the one who recently filed those misguided seeming AfD's on Meghan Trainor discography(result was SNOW KEEP [36] and Title (EP)(It would seem strange for an article reviewed as GA status to fail GNG)[37], but the concerns go beyond that. When I asked Calvin999 whey they were using two different signatures during one deletion discussion, they denied it, even though it's 100% clear they were, and then they deleted the talk page comments of other users who confirmed they were using 2 different signatures, along with another talk page comment from Crisco 1492 that disagreed with Aaron/Calvin999[38]. This occurred on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Title (EP) I would urge admins and others to pleae keep an eye on articles Marano created or heavily edited. The general disruption to Meghan Trainor articles appears to go way beyond MaranoFan who is now on self enforced block.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • BoboMeowCat I don't know what the hell you're playing at, but whatever it is, it's needs to stop. I haven't "hounded" anyone. I opposed an FLC nomination, and then the nominator MaranoFan you are speaking of came to my talk page and "hounded" me about it. Aaron is my real life name, Calvin999 is my registered username. For more than 3 years, I piped it as User:Calvin999|Aaron, because I wanted people to call me my real name without having to change a load of my user pages in a name change. What is what with that? Only the other day did someone ask why I had "two name" (if you wanna phrase it like that), which another issue was up at ANI. I changed my signature yesterday back to my username, so when you asked me why I was using Aaron, and I said "I'm not", I was correct in saying so, because my signature does not say Aaron anymore, since yesterday. I think you will find that you, my friend, have actually got the wrong end of the stick, and you've got involved in something that you actually don't know anything about, which has been going on for several days. The reason why my signatures pre-yesterday say Aaron and my signatures post-last night say Calvin999 is because I removed Aaron from my signature.  — Calvin999 14:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• • • This is highly disturbing, and I can't AGF an edit conflict, as those edits were several hours apart. BoboMeowCat, the issue goes a bit further; the three editors you mention also disrupted the featured list nomination for the Trainor discography (here), such to the point that it was archived. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It is highly disturbing because apparently Calvin999 also deleted your "keep" vote on that AfD, which I have now restored [39]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, I've warned him. He's been pissy with me since I opposed his Ariana Grande songs FLC, and if he's disrupting the encyclopedia because of that... that is a serious, serious problem. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

IBAN proposal

So this doesn't get lost in the clutter, I formally propose a set of two-way interaction bans between MaranoFan (talk · contribs) and Chasewc91 (talk · contribs) and MaranoFan and Winkelvi (talk · contribs). (This would also ban them from discussing her between themselves, as they are wont to do [40] [41] [42] [43]) I make this request on the basis of evidence provided by myself and others above indicating a pattern of Wikihounding. Both users have also admitted they "keep an eye on" or "watch" her, but it's clear that it's gone past anything acceptable under our harassment policy. The relevant policy specifically includes frivolous complaints about another editor as an example of harassment; it's evident the above complaint by Chase is frivolous and vindictive in nature.

Here are some examples of problematic behavior: MaranoFan creates an article on Casey J, then Chase nominates it for deletion 14 hours later [44] and it took Wink another 10 minutes to vote in favor of deletion [45] (it was kept). MaranoFan makes a constructive edit on Meghan Trainor, which corrects a grammatical error [46], Winks swoops in 90 minutes later to revert it [47]. MF makes an edit to Meghan Trainor discography that makes it match other similar ones (like the featured Coldplay_discography#Extended_plays) [48] and Chase comes in to revert it a couple hours later [49]. MaranoFan nominates and brings an article up to Good Article status [50], Wink goes on a rant about Good Article status on his user page [51] in clear violation of WP:POLEMIC. (Both editors now want that article merged [52] [53] which is interesting given this comment made by WV in the above discussion [54]) A new user pops up on Chase's talkpage and within five minutes of each other both filed reports claiming the user is a sock of MaranoFan with little to no evidence [55] [56]. (A check user has determined they are unrelated [57]). And immediately after MF announced her latest "retirement" [58] Winkelvi decided to wax polemic once again [59] You can find more examples using these two reports showing interaction between MF and Wink and MF and Chase. Winkelvi has been blocked twice for edit warring with MaranoFan previously in January and March of this year.

I previously suggested the two users in question lay off MaranoFan but only got a flippant response back [60] Calidum T|C 01:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Calidum T|C 01:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

And you accuse Chasewc91 of being vindictive? The very wording and tone of the above proves your proposal is borne out of vindictiveness, plain and simple. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting how you added your comments and examples from above, as if they weren't countered and are gospel. Errors in your commentary on Chase and I have been countered -- in all fairness, if you want to have both sides to your "story" about us represented here, you would have included the responses as well. But, as this on your talk page shows (the section is titled "WinkelviBan" and was started by the person you are defending, MaranoFan) ... some of your comments there are the following: "if Thing 1 and Thing 2 decide to try something again at ANI". "Thing 1" and "Thing 2". How charming. And neutral as well as unbiased, right? (which one is which, by the way - am I Thing 1 or Thing 2?) You further wrote: "I'm prepared to provide some evidence that would show both sides of the story". Except you aren't showing both sides of the story, just your version of why MaranoFan is such a victim. What total horseshit. Nothing about how MF has been disruptive, only about how we allegedly drove him/her away. Again, total horseshit. No way MF will stay away until October. Whenever he/she visibly returns it will be to further disrupt and eff things up, more diva-behavior, and more headaches for the project. Enjoy. Oh, and just for the record, nothing on my User Page that you noted is about any specific editor. Or do you want to come back to my userspace and delete things there again, against policy? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) It should be noted that Calidum is making this appear as if it's purely a matter of personal dislike, while failing to take into account the numerous ways MaranoFan has been disrupting the project. I can acknowledge my mistakes in acting too aggressively, but I did not track MF's edits with bad intentions as many have implied in this thread. In any case, MaranoFan is gone for the next 5 months, so I'm not sure what immediate good this is doing for anyone. It should also be noted that MF's diva behavior – edit warring, slinging personal attacks, assuming very bad faith in response to others disagreeing with her – has exaggerated nearly every conflict she's been a part of, and has served as the root of nearly all the disruption that has been caused. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he is making it appear as such. MF is disruptive with or without us in the mix. Always has been, always will be, until the agenda he carries changes. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"But she did bad things too" isn't a defense. If her behavior was so blatantly wrong, other users would have picked up on it. What you two did did nothing but escalate the situation. As for this being moot while she has stepped away, her decision to do so did not stop you from filing this. Calidum T|C 02:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Other editors have picked up on it. Admins, too. Did you miss Drmies' comments regarding MF? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

And that's why almost everyone here has opposed the site ban for MF, because it's not needed right now. So the IBAN should not be imposed for the same reason. Common sense? And as for your twice-posted comment about the SPI having no evidence... how about you actually read? WV and I provided several examples of how the accounts could be linked. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Chase, you wrote above: I can acknowledge my mistakes in acting too aggressively. I honestly don't see this, because while this discussion has been going on, you and Winkelvi have been engaging in tagteam effort to get rid of Title (EP), which Marano brought to GA status[61]. I not only disagree with that suggestion for reasons I stated there, but I must say, the way you two still appear to be aggressively targeting articles Marano's brought to GA status or worked on as such, while getting feedback that it's time to disengage here, suggests lack of awareness on your part. Even if there is some good argument to merge those articles (and I don't think there is) why not let another editor deal with it? It looks vindictive on your part and suggests lack of awareness in your role in these problems and suggests lack of response to feedback that it's time to disengage. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oh for crying out fucking loud, does every fucking thing have to be a personal attack on MaranoFan? I'm sorry, but that comment is ridiculous. I feel that the articles overlap significantly and would benefit from a merging. It's not an attack on any editor, and at least unlike the AfD filed by Calvin999 it's seeking to keep the content albeit condensed greatly. It's not my fault that these two articles MaranoFan worked on are largely duplicated and borderline forked, and I cannot control Winkelvi's participation in the discussion; I do not know his motivations and cannot speak for them, but I do know that I have not contacted him about it in an effort to "tag team" the article as you are implying. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The current consensus on that AfD seems to be that they are not forked.[62]. That misguided seeming AfD, along with that other SNOW KEEP AfD by Calivin999, where he quoted "and two other editors concurred with me (Winkelvi and Chasewc91)" [63] clearly seem to be part of what pushed Marano over the edge. Personally, I consider myself fairly level headed editor, but if I were subjected to all this, I might be motivated to leave with a "fuck you" edit summary as well. Please disengage from all this. Edit something that doesn't involve "cleaning up" after Marano for awhile, because as others have pointed out it looks like hounding. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• What's more, MF is gone. If I were some sick wikisadist who just wanted to see MF get upset and throw tantrums (which isn't the case), why would I keep going after she has left and there's no reaction I could get? I clearly have real motivations for pursuing a merge and you are assuming the worst possible faith. Furthermore, who's to say that another editor would have raised the merging suggestion if I hadn't? The article has pleasantly existed for quite a few months now, and was recently promoted to GA, so I didn't feel that anyone would be suggesting this in the near future. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

100% correct. There is no collusion here. And, frankly,BoboMeowCat, I'm tired of your baseless accusations that are backed up by no evidence whatsoever. I do have a question for you, though: you keep referring to MF as a "she" - I've never seen MF refer to him/herself as a specific gender. How is it you know MF is a female? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

[64]. Calidum T|C 02:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

If poorly-based assumptions are going to be thrown around, I feel it's only fair that WV and I do so as well. The "Thing 1 and Thing 2" comment on your talk, Calidum, more than slightly suggests that MF is a buddy of yours and you're out for your own piece of flesh rather than maintaining the project. Irony that you're accusing us of the same. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, though I am pleased to see the word "wont" on ANI. Winkelvi and Chase are not the problem. Also, Bobo, Title was never at GA status, as SNUGGUMS's review makes clear. Please don't cast asparaguses: MaranoFan is more a hindrance than a help in GA review, quite unlike the other two. But that's beside the point. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• The reference is to Title (EP), not Title (Meghan Trainor album). –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Drimes, according to talk:Title (EP) it's a good article. I don't normally keep track of GA status etc, but I do also recall drama where Winkelvi made reference to Marano's accomplishment of bringing this article to GA status, in negative manner on his user page [65]. I'm not suggesting MaranoFan is perfect, just that Winkelvi and Chase are clearly part of the problem here and an IBAN would be of general benefit to WP. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, really? We are part of the problem? How do you explain this move by MF? [66]. Deleting an article I wrote for deletion on the basis of...what, exactly? Something they concocted? Or how about this? [67]; or this? [68] where MF refers to me as an unwelcoming "talk page vandal"? And what about all the times MF and two other editors worked in concert to harassment in my userspace and vandalize it over and over again? Or the countless times MF ended up at articles I edited to make ridiculous, pointy edits designed to get a reaction from me? Have you EVER seen Chase or me vandalize someone's user space? Or intentionally harass anyone? Or do any of the things MF has done out of the same amount of spite and immature disruption? Like Drmies already stated: MF is the problem, not Chase and not me. Please, before you talk again (without proof) of how terrible we are an how we have chased MF away -- look at the whole picture and see who truly comes up in the net-negative realm. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• That neither of you have dropped the stick even with the other party not participating speaks plenty to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem dropping the stick, Crisco 1492 when it's warranted. When being needlessly attacked by others with sticks, it's perfectly reasonable to defend oneself with a stick. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Per my comments in the section above. Sergecross73 msg me 03:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. MaranoFan is the problem, not a victim, and since they are no longer here (they've "Retired"), what would the point of an IBAN be except to be pointy? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Last comment: Because I have no interest in fighting any further with those here who only comment at these things to bring up old crap in the interest NAGF and reveling in the opportunity to spill blood, my participation in this thread is done. My Oppose in this section remains. Continuing in back and forth does no one any good. As far as my interaction with MF, I'm perfectly capable of imposing my own "ignore" tactic to mimic an IBAN, and will do so when MF returns. What would benefit everybody is something I suggested quite a while back: MF being mentored by a willing admin or extremely experienced, trusted editor. That way, MF can still be monitored (because it IS necessary in their case), have someone willing to deal with MF's choices as an editor, and their behavior is likely to be more community oriented in a positive manner as a result. I have no interest in seeing any editor fail. MF has been given plenty of leeway with their negative behavior and editing habits since they started here. If mentored, their chances are greater for succeeding. This way, they have the choice to do or die (as the saying goes). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You previously said you would stop editing articles related to Trainor after you and MF were blocked for battleground behavior in January [69]. That didn't happen, given all the examples provided above took place within the past few weeks, so why should we trust you now? Calidum T|C 03:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is totally inappropiate when the central party is unavailable. BMK (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a logical way to stop this continuous disruption and hounding. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support I feel this can stop the disruption that MaranoFan has been causing. Not I'm sure if the "retirement" was final, but if they do come back, I feel it can help. Some editors just will never work well with others, simple as that. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Drmies, Winkelvi, and my own previous comments. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - It seems to me that this is a much more effective way of minimizing disruption to the encyclopedia. I doubt Marano would disapprove of an IBAN with these two. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - If one editor can be protected from these wikihounds, that's already one small step in making the 'pedia a better place and great means of reducing the tiresome and lengthy drama and disruptions they cause. - Lips ^{are movin} 06:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Note See this SPI and that it was never investigated. [70]. Has Marano Fan found a way to evade their self imposed and script enforced block to comment here? Strange that an account suspected of being a MaranoFan sock, which has been abandoned for months, suddenly comes alive for this AN to comment. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    • To be clear, for those who don't bother to click on the link, it "wasn't investigated" because the SPI clerk deemed the evidence/case too weak. It wasn't investigated because it was thrown out altogether as bogus. Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
      • For those who won't click on the link, and to be accurate, the SPI was never referred to as "bogus". For whatever reason, the SPI clerk didn't feel a need to investigate. In light the sudden and out of nowhere posts by Lips Are Movin (one of the accounts Marano Fan joined in with for tag-team edit warring, vandalizing my userspace and harassing me a few months ago), it seems that the investigation should be re-opened. Highly suspicious, especially considering Marano Fan's script-enforced self block and is under suspicion with a current SPI. If you're going to be an apologist, Serge, please be sure to be accurate and concise without any hint of prejudice. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Bogus was not a direct quote from someone, that was my own interpretation of reading over the SPI case. Use whatever word you like, the SPI clerk didn't even find it worth looking into. A case is usually pretty bad if its not worth looking into at all. I would have thrown it out too. Is it really that mind-bending that there'd be two whole editors that both have the same fancrufty approach to writing about a subject that's currently on the top of the music charts? Shall we also open one up one anytime we come across two editors that want to glorify Nirvana or hate Nickelback? What's puzzling is how you'd keep referring to a rejected SPI case as some sort of reason for suspicion of sockpuppetry. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The following negates your poor assessment: [71]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah? Even what you linked to literally says " I don't find evidence solid enough to block for sockpuppetry on behaviour alone, ie, was what I was referring to earlier about it being a weak case. Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Your selectiveness makes your comments more dishonest than I thought possible. All of it, in context, is here:

"Actually, the evidence has me convinced that this is a situation where Mariogomez23 and MaranoFan are linked closesly (sock or meat), and since they are explicitly claiming to be unrelated, it would constitute a violation of WP:SCRUTINY, so I am endosing for a CU check." - User:Salvidrim!

"The accused appear to be  Unrelated to each other." - User:DoRd

"As it stands, it seems plausible (likely, even) that MaranoFan and Mariogomez are friends (RL or otherwise) and/or meatpuppets, as was (IMHO) the case with Lips. I don't find evidence solid enough to block for sockpuppetry on behaviour alone (at least not yet, considering how little there is to work with), and if it is a matter of a friend "recruiting" another, well, so far there are no bypassings of restrictions through Mariogomez, but in the future, if that account is used to bypass MF's (current or future) restrictions by proxy, then there is a case for blocking." - User:Salvidrim!

Note use of the word "appears", rather than, "definitely not". Note everything else that indicates another admin having reason for being suspicious. Not as cut and dried as you are claiming. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

And yet still, no action, because it's not conclusive. Which is all that matters in the context of your argument. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Also note that the SPI clerk of mine and Marano's case pointed out that we were in different timezones. I don't know why it is so hard for Winkelvi to accept that the "evidence" they insist they have isn't evidence at all and is in fact bogus. These reports they keep engaging in is a blatant means of tormenting editors and WP:REVENGE. - Lips ^{are movin} 19:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not sure a site ban is the right option, but I also don't think just letting her (apparently, thought she was a he) carry on is right, either. I think she is just very inexperienced and not fully aware of how Wikipedia operates. I'd be for imposing something whereby she must adhere all of her edits to Wikipedia's policies, rules, criterion and guidelines, and that perhaps some of us should be keeping an eye out on her to ensure that not only are her edits useful and constructive, but also not just for the sake of it, as is what has happened in promoting her fandom of Trainor. I think this is just a simple case of steering her in the right direction and (hopefully) it would work.  — Calvin999 07:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment regarding disruption and policy violation - For context, as was pointed out in section above, This user apparently disrupted the feature list nomination of Meghan Trainor discography to the point it was archived [72]. User:Calvin999 has also filed multiple misguided seeming AfD's on Trainor articles such as the SNOW KEEP deletion attempt of Meghan Trainor discography [73] and AfD on Title (EP) (it would seem strange for article reviewed as GA status to fail GNG) [74]. Most concernedly Aaron/Calvin999 deleted keep vote of Crisco and the comments of others on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Title (EP) [75]. This is an article MaranoFan brought to GA status. Given all this, Calvin999's comment of "some of us should be keeping an eye out on her" seems misguided, considering this "keeping an eye out" has apparently involved violation of policy. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I never deleted anything! Why is everyone making assumptions and assertions without even asking me what's happened! I don't even know myself!  — Calvin999 14:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The diff [76] shows you wrote "I'm not" using two signatures, but you are. The diff also shows you deleted comment that confirmed you were using two signature, comment that disagreed with you, and also a "keep" vote. If that was an accident, you seriously need to be more careful. Also, why would you write "I'm not" when that's not true? You are using two different signatures in that AfD, Aaron and Calvin999. It all seems strange.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat, It's not my fault that you can't work it out. It doesn't say two signatures, I don't know how you are fabricating this. It's the same signature, I just piped it with my real name for over 3 years so people knew me and called me by my real name. It said Aaron, but it always linked to my page, User:Calvin. I have never used and switched between two signatures. I don't have two accounts, I only have one, the one I am using right now and always have used. This week is the first time anyone has ever mentioned that I used my real name in my user name in over three years! I am not going to discuss this any further if you can't get it right. It's a complete waste of my time and everyone elses. I didn't delete anything, I never selected or highlighted anyones writings and delete them. I don't know what happened, so it's about time you dropped it. You don't know what you're talking about, evidently. You've created a mountain out of a molehill and assumed bad faith: Instead of approaching me in a civil manner on my talk to discuss, you have badmouthed and slated me publicly here on this noticeboard. You should be ashamed of how you have conducted yourself here and how you have addressed me. I have no interest in talking about this anymore. I unpiped my user link yesterday, so it's time you desist. (If you have worked it out by now, the reason there is two different names is because I changed it last night). There's your answer, now lets drop it, forget it, move on and make Wikipedia better. Thanks.  — Calvin999 17:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that when he says "2 signatures" and you say "No, I just unpiped the link", that you're both talking about the same thing, right? Regardless of how you define the move, there is a 100% difference in appearance between "Calvin999" and "Aaron". Bobo was just pointing out that, regardless or reason or intent, it was confusing that the unpiping of your signature gave it the look of being 2 separate people in the same discussion. No need to go off the deep end over it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Calvin999, as others have pointed out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Title (EP), if your deletion of that keep vote and deletion of comments [[77]] was accidental, it would seem better to just apologize and move on. Continued denial of the obvious doesn't seem to help, even if you do add in outrage toward those pointing it out.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

While refusing to acknowledge the obvious content of a diff may not be actionable, couple it with Calvin's going to another user's talk page and aggressively accusing them of acting in bad faith, and I think Calvin is pretty close to crossing the line. It's not unreasonable to take exception to someone removing dissenting comments and it is unreasonable to insist something didn't happen when it clearly did. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, absent everything else, I am profoundly uncomfortable with the idea of subjecting someone to an IBAN when they are absent from the project and unable to defend themselves. If User:MaranoFan comes back and the problems manifest once more, then we can talk about it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC).
• Oppose Not going to work since they work on same article and they are involved in content dispute than any other feuds. SamuelDay1 (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support Long overdue. The absence of MaranoFan from this discussion bothers me less than Lankiveil; this is not a topic ban (which is warranted, frankly for all of them) but a far less draconian remedy that he or she might actually want. Coretheapple (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - IBANs do not work well, are frequently violated and ignored, and frequently lead to baiting. They are justified only in extraordinary circumstances where TBANs are not practical. I would support an appropriate TBAN for all of the involved parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that a TBAN is preferable, and at the ANI in February he agreed upon a TBAN from all articles in which he was then in conflict, and there were many of them, but he later reneged. (See this archived discussion) I have to frankly say that after experiencing Winkelvi first-hand, and observing the astounding degree of protection/excuses/enabling his misconduct gets from administrator friends he has cultivated/sucked-up to, I do not relish the idea of unleashing him on other articles. Coretheapple (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

WV's promise to avoid certain areas was a made here [78] for those who are curious. Calidum T|C 19:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Under what grounds is a Trainor TBAN necessary for me? For the most part I've avoided the disruption and warring at those specific articles, only opposing the discography FLC on legitimate grounds (if anyone cared to read my comment there) and making what I felt was a good-faith merger proposal in response to an arguably bad-faith AfD. Please don't automatically group me in with everything Winkelvi and others have done. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well the main thing that concerns me about your specific conduct is that, without diffs, you've brought a premature ban case against an absent editor. Coretheapple (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• That aside, that warrants the topic ban you've suggested how, exactly? –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Some valid concerns were raised by Robert McClenon concerning the possible interaction ban. A voluntary interaction ban as proposed by Winkelvi above is totally unacceptable, as he can and has reneged on a similar promise in the past. Perhaps an interaction ban might work, or perhaps both kinds of bans. The idea is to stop the drama. But yes, there are behavioral concerns regarding the editor to whom you have hitched your wagon. Coretheapple (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• I do actually agree with you on this one, I don't think a topic ban is warranted. Yes, all the issues stem around Trainor related articles, but most of them stem less over her specifically, and more over the three of your obsessing over one another. I think the issue only occurs there because that's where MaranoFan is. I think that, if there was a topic ban on Trainor, MaranoFan would probably move over to Mariah Carey articles or something, then you'd all hound over her over there over Mariah Carey related articles. This is why I was supporting an interaction ban. Sergecross73 msg me 19:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support no matter how problematic MaranoFan's edits have been or how well-intentioned Winkelvi and Chase's edits are, it seems that they can't get involved in matters she's involved with as well without someone starting drama up. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

IBAN violation by Catflap08

NOTE: This thread has been copied to ANI as a more suitable location JZCL 07:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 (talk · contribs) and I were made subject to an IBAN a few weeks ago. Last week, Catflap08 showed up suddenly in a discussion I had initiated, and commented on some of my edits; I reported this, but it was borderline and there was no result.

A few weeks before the ban, I had removed some references from the Kokuchūkai article that didn't back up the statements that were sourced to them, and I also (a little before the IBAN) removed an inappropriate primary source and the claim that was referenced to it.[79][80] Catflap08 the other day manually reverted these edits. If suddenly showing up and commenting on an edit I made (he did that again too, BTW) is not a violation, then surely reverting my edits is? He also admitted both then and now on the talk page that the refs he re-added are unrelated to the article content, so please don't respond by saying that even though it does violate the IBAN it's a harmless improvement to the article.

Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs) reverted the edits as an IBAN violation that was also in violation of NOR and V, Catflap08 re-reverted, while copy-pasting text that I had previously removed and attaching a source I added to the article that (1) he clearly hasn't read and (2) doesn't back up the claim.

Could someone please tell him that he is not allowed revert my edits under the terms of the IBAN?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

He also stated on the talk page before the IBAN that he was aware of my edits and was opposed to them, meaning he waited until the IBAN was in place to revert me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

He has since copy-pasted the article (Including signed comments by me) into his userspace and started drafting further additions and subtractions to make the page look more like it did before I edited it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap is continuing to devote his on-wiki activity exclusively to undoing my work on the Kokuchukai article, including large chunks of text either not relevant to the subject or not directly supported by the sources. He has also altered a sourced statement to say something that the source doesn't say, apparently solely in order to fan the flames (the point is one he argued with me for months, ultimately leading to the IBAN). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC vs. DRN

This concerns the WP:DRN case at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Female genital mutilation.

There is an RfC at Talk:Female genital mutilation#RfC that, in my opinion, cannot possibly resolve the content dispute we are discussing at DRN, because it doesn't actually ask a question or give anyone a place to post support/oppose !votes. Nonetheless, it has become a distraction at DRN.[81][82][83][84][85][86][87]

I would like to ask an uninvolved administrator to look at the situation and decide whether [A] The RfC should proceed and [B] The DRN case should be closed because of the ongoing RfC. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

IMO, the RFC should be closed with a link to the (later-filed) DRN post. Two forums for the same dispute are confusing and, frankly, look a bit like forum-shopping. Miniapolis 21:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Concur with having moderated discussion proceed at WP:DRN. Support procedural closure of the RFC. The RFC cannot be closed by normal means anyway because it doesn't ask a question. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone is being extraordinarily dense and persistent. Frankly, DRN is superfluous: SV sums it up perfectly, this is a violation of WP:SYN and an attempt to crowbar a personal agenda into the article using sources substantially less reliable than those on which the rest of the article is based. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Multiple articles on the same subject

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

---

Recently looking at the contributions of User:Uemk I noticed that there were two articles on the same subject, University of Engineering and Management and University of Engineering & Management that were essentialy the same thing before being edited by other editors. Even without looking at the issues that both articles share, what should be done in this case? It appears the older article, University of Engineering & Management was created by the same person as User:Uemk on a different account back in 2011, as indicated by the similarity of their usernames (which also reveal a pretty obvious COI). Pishcal — ♣ 05:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• I just redirected the second article into the first and put a username warning on Uemk for their username (appears to be a group or promotional account). GregJackP Boomer! 10:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Schools and "presumed automatic notability"

Can anybody point me to a consensus that outright says schools have "presumed automatic notability", where it absolves creating editors from the need to assert notability, and grants these articles special status based on it? this AFD and village pump (policy). I am not looking to start a new discussion, just for somebody to fill me in where this "presumed automatic notability" that I am hearing so much about originates from (and how I can get some? lol). Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There are some links and such here that may be useful.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't even think about challenging it. Trust me on this: every single clipping from every single newspaper will be mined to prove that there is coverage in reliable independent sources. It is a complete waste of time to even try to delete an article on a school. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these articles are also where some of the most atrocious and damaging BLP violations occur.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I quote the WP:VP(p) page — This discussion is confusing "exempt from speedy deletion" as being the same as "automatically notable". Primary schools are most definitely not assumed to be notable, and we normally delete them or redirect them to relevant pages, e.g. for US schools, to the school district article. As far as speedy deletion is concerned, we consider schools important enough that they always should be given a chance, rather than being deleted without several days of waiting and/or discussion. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Even at AfD, high schools are generally presumed notable. Not all are, but most have so much coverage, it's like taking a US congressman to AfD--you've got to be aware that sources will almost certainly be there. Those sources are often local, but almost always massive. At least in the US (building the building, sports, alum coverage, etc.). Hobit (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It's more that some people will go out of their way to keep any article on a high school. This amuses me: the school I went to is over a thousand years old - half a millennium older than Eton - and is still considered minor in the real world. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm interesting in learning more about the school, But you don't have to disclose it if you don't want to. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: It's on his talk page. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a good place to start, although is more of a "what has happened in the past" rather than showing where discussions are.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just had my fingers burned at AfD because of SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It is farcical. Some of the subject-specific guidelines really do need to go. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

To flesh out Sitush's point: as was discussed on the India Project talkpage, there are roughly 1.5 million schools in India, including about 250,000 secondary schools. We can prove the existence of each of these schools for a particular year (which as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says is often enough for the article to be kept at AFD) because there is a government database of schools containing some basic raw stats. However for most of these schools, there is absolutely no independent media coverage (or even school websites) so they will fail to meet WP:GNG, WP:ORG etc... yet possibly survive both speedy deletions and AFD. At the project-page we were able to dissuade bot-creation of articles on all Indian schools, but nothing really prevents this under current standards used in the area. Abecedare (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty much been true at AFD that a high school is deemed notable - whether or not sources exist (ROUTINE or otherwise) for easily a decade now. One of Wikipedia's more idiotic inconsistencies, imnsho. Resolute 19:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Its because many such discussions have involved Western Highschools where it is easy to find reliable coverage. For instance in the US, pretty much every Highschool has easily generated enough coverage to make a plausible claim of notability, it just requires finding it. While AfD precedents are non-binding, they are informative. If someone is really convince a particular school has no coverage by reliable sources, WP:OUTCOMES doesn't prohibit nominating it for deletion. We just love talking about Highschool related stuff in local and regional newspapers in the US, thus creating notability. Monty₈₄₅ 19:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the editors with an interest in school related articles tend to assume that this also holds true for high schools in other countries, when it doesn't, and pile on in AfDs with keep votes. Nick-D (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

We should apply WP:BURDEN a little more often and rigorously. And we should of course discount passing mentions, which includes government lists, directories and so on that basically just verify existence. Most schools in the UK are no more notable than me, and I'm not notable despite numerous appearances in newspapers etc. Yes, there are stories about them but they tend to be trivial things: new headmaster, retiring teacher, a promo piece for good exam results etc: that sort of thing is better hosted on a schools directory website which, I am fairly sure, is what those parents consult who do not just accept word of mouth and the limitations of their catchment area. Or perhaps that is just the parents I know. - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• The big problem, as alluded to above, is that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is primarily based on cases involving Western schools in the United States, the UK and Australia where the population is smaller and less dense and self-interest is (and I'm from the last of those three countries) rampant. As Monty rightly points out, local coverage of local high schools is almost inevitable where a wealthier middle-class is available to support incredibly local press (my region has a population of about 1/2 a million and has multiple newspapers; a friend of mine in China said his "town" had a population of 20 million and just one local print newspaper. But there is a need for as many high schools in his town as in my entire country). Of course, as soon as you suggest that a high school in the US is notable (because of extensive local coverage) but a high school in China isn't (because there isn't enough coverage to even confirm the name) you get shouted down on the basis of institutional bias. Embrace the nonsense, is my suggestion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

So that is all a local notability - does a local notability really take precedent over a global notability? Anyone who has done a PhD will have some publications, even if it is only in a local (national) science journal. That means that anyone with a PhD is notable because references can be found. Many people going to a secondary school nowadays get articles in local newspapers because they .. made a homerun in the local baseball game, or were dancing in a local ballet performance. If having a local mention equals being notable, then everything is passing that bar. That combined with the problems with these articles (BLP-issues, plain spam/advertising/promotion, etc.) makes it maybe time for a dedicated RfC regarding notability of local schools where the level of notability should be set to a certain national/global standard, followed by implementation of that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that one of the factors in the "presumed automatic notability" is that Jimbo Wales once said this. Deor (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds right, Dirk Beetstra. - Sitush (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Since this is a topic, does my school Placer High School, even have enough notability? Granted, we have a few notable alumni like an Olympic Gold Medalist, I'm not sure... -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, WP:NOTINHERITED. - Sitush (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

User 86.172.67.139 edit warring on Aerotoxic Syndrome

User 86.172.67.139 has persistently been edit warring on Aerotoxic Syndrome, adding content that breaks WP:MEDRS, reverting against consensus, and not discussing on the talk page. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I have protected the page for two weeks and will watch-list for a while. Since the IP has no interests outside this topic, I did not feel it was necessary to also issue a block. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That will probably be sufficient for now. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

1. Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.

2. Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.

For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FCollect_and_others

Rape jihad article

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

---

I am a mostly uninvolved editor, and I am concerned about the Rape jihad article. Talk page discussion has not been constructive. My concerns are:

• Many of the sources in the article are highly unreliable and opinionated - for example Robert Spencer, National Review, The Christian Post and the Daily Beast
• The article, and many of its key contributors seem to be engaged in WP:POV pushing and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. See Talk:Rape jihad.
• One editor (User:Раціональне анархіст) has made several comments which seem Islamophobic and WP:POV such as 'Britain, Nigeria, et al, aren't "in the Islamic World" (well, at least not until they're conquered).' and '(The arguable clear intent of "rape jihad" is demographic conquest. Several hundred captured schoolgirls sold off to jihadi husbands have a thousand holy warrior babies, not a thousand babies brought up another way.) What I seek to avoid during any potential move to a new seemingly "neutral" name is the WP:WEASELWORDED WP:COATRACKING' on the talk page
• Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom by primarily Asian men has a section in the article despite no credible source linking the matter to Islamic fundamentalism or jihad. If White or Christian men were engaging in such horrendous crimes would we have an article linking that to White or Christian terrorism? The BBC source mentions rape jihad in this context 'The International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, based at King's College London, recently detailed how the English Defence League (EDL) had been attempting to link child sexual exploitation with Muslims.

"This 'rape jihad', as it has become known, is a significant concern for the EDL," says the centre's report, Neo-Nationalist Network.'

• The article does not approach the matter from a fair or neutral position
• The article was nominated for deletion on 24 February and result was delete

I want to ask Administrators what action can be taken on this matter? Should it be referred to arbitration? AusLondonder (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I just noted this after posting to ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎#Rape jihad article still needs attention. We should close one and centralize discussion at the other. (Oh No! They are going to kill my baby!! <smile>) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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

POV problems at Nazi gun control theory

Took a quick visit to this article after seeing it mentioned on the board, and the aroma is very ripe. It would appear that contemporary gun-control partisans has seized the opportunity to baldly rewrite history via preferential selection of questionable sourcing.

Unfortunately for them, not everyone with a vague recollection of World Wars-era history is dead yet.

For instance, it is not "counterfactual", let alone a "theory" at all, that on November 8, 1938, Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler (who would later implement the logistics of The Holocaust) decreed the confiscation of all weapons from Jews (with violators punished in a concentration camp for up to twenty years), and that the infamous Kristallnacht began the very next day.(*[88]) Neither is it a fantasy that numerous ghetto uprisings occurred under occupation during the War.

(* That's a link to a concise piece by Stephen Halbrook on his own site, a lawyer whom I am going to assume knows what he's talking about since he's won two cases before the US Supreme Court. There are literally hundreds of reliable, reputable sources regarding this, but I'm not about to get into a fight over there as long as it looks like the enemy controls the terrain.) Pax 09:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

A brigade of mops need to hit that thing for a complete re-write (and rename) with the attention of historical experts...or just AfD and salted. Pax 09:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)