This user is a SPI clerk.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Vanjagenije

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
User talk:Vanjagenije/Signpost
User:Vanjagenije/Deletion log
User talk:Vanjagenije
Deletion log
Talk page

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you! Vanjagenije (talk)

Sockpuppet again[edit]

Hi: Remember this? He's back and with gruesome racist insults in his User talk. See user contributions too. Thanks in advance. --Fixertool (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Fixertool: I blocked him. He should be blocked anyway, regardless of sockpuppeting as he was only attacking other users. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Campus sexual assault[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Campus sexual assault. Legobot (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I am posting here because I guess it may be wrong to post on the page of a closed case? Howsoever, thank you for your care in the Douglas Cotton sockpuppet investigation.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration proposed decision posted[edit]

Hi Vanjagenije, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed relating to you in the ongoing Kevin Gorman arbitration case. Please review the remedy or finding of fact and feel free to comment at the proposed decision talk page. Thanks. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)



Could you please check the validity of a user named "Mintytingy" for the possibility that they may using multiple accounts?. Based on the nature of edits (contributions) they are engaged in and the intended edits that they keep intending to make despite me correcting them, I suspect it's a sockpoppet of a previously blocked user called "MaronitePride" and a recently blocked "MyNewAccountName".

I hope it would help make Wikipedia a much better place, Thanks, Joseph SakrJoeSakr1980 (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@JoeSakr1980: Do you have some evidence (WP:diffs) to show that those accounts are connected? Vanjagenije (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I don't, you could perhaps check the history of the "Lebanese nationality law" article, they seem to forcibly enforce the same edits. Check the revisions made by MyNewAcountName and the latest one by that new user. It's a just a bit less than identical. You could perhaps check the articles they're interested in based on the log/history. Interested in the middle east demography and the assyrians. Plus is it a coincidence that one's account went down and the other showed up? With them same views edits and interests? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeSakr1980 (talkcontribs) 18:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@JoeSakr1980: I opened a SPI here. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


The user we spoke on yesterday was confirmed as a sockpoppet. Well Thanks for your efforts and cooperation. I don't get why would he want to do this and break the rules on Wikipedia. The question is to how to prevent this from reoccuring? This user have created multiple accounts. Over 30-40 from what I have seen. Is there's a way to perhaps prevent it? and How to I report a sockpoppet user in the future if it ever happened again? Could you provide me with simplified instructions. That would be so helpful, Thanks again

Best regards, Joseph SakrJoeSakr1980 (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@JoeSakr1980: Well, simply speaking, there is no way to stop prevent him from creating new accounts. When an account is blocked, wp:autoblock is activated, and it prevents creating new accounts from the same IP address, but it expires after a while. So, we can just monitor his favorite articles and wait for him to appear again. In the future, you can report sockpuppetry, as explain at WP:SPI, in a box titled "How to open an investigation". Vanjagenije (talk) 10:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman closed[edit]

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

The following remedies have been enacted

4) For consistently poor judgment in undertaking administrative actions following a formal admonishment, Kevin Gorman is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship. Passed 13 to 2 at 17:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 18:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration_Requests_Case_Kevin_Gorman_closed

Sock puppets[edit]

My request on that page was primarily b/c I didn't know what I was doing or what I should be doing. However the issues on the article have been brought to others attention. And they are dealing with it. {{help-me}} template is a useful thing. If you want to just remove my request on that page it is fine by me. Thanks.Krj373 (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot requests#Bot to tag orphaned SPI pages[edit]

Hi Vanjagenije, I'm interested in writing this bot if there is still a need for it. If so, would you be able to provide me with some other reference examples where the bot would be able to make some fixes? Cheers, FASTILY 01:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Fastily: Thanks, it is still needed, of course. I don't know how well are you familiar with the SPI pages. When a sockpuppet investigation case is filed, a page is created with the "Wikipedia:SPI/" prefix. At the same time, the page has to be tagged with a {{SPI case status}} template (usually with no parameter, but that is not important, example). Then we have a bot (Amalthea (bot)) that looks for those pages and adds them to the main list (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Cases/Overview). After the case is resolved, the page is archived and the {{SPI case status}} template is removed (example). The bot then removed the page from the list. But, sometimes an editor makes a mistake and created a SPI case page without adding the {{SPI case status}} template (example). The page is than not added to the list and gets lost. Now, excuse me, but I can't find more examples of such pages, because such pages are either (a) lost and I cant find them, or (b) fixed and I don't know where to look. Anyway, we need some kind of solution for that. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! I'll see if I can put something together over the next few days :) -FASTILY 07:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)



Thanks for your help at SPI. I have just gotten back from a looonnngg Wikibreak, and I saw this edit. It looked a little suspicious to me... do you think there's a connection? Thanks, GABHello! 20:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: I don't see there is anything to do about that. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for my paranoia regarding this -- it's been frustrating. GABHello! 21:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aaron j christopher 101/Archive[edit]

I was searching for other possible instances of this user's work and found User:Example44477787 blocked as "a sock puppet of Aaron Javiaes Christopher". I also stumbled upon Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ which is still open after a couple of months, and has Aaron Javiaes Christopher as the suspected sockpuppet. I though you'd like to know since you've been minding the main SPI archive for this investigation, as I assume these should be part of it. Thanks. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 00:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Uncle Milty: Thanks a lot. I'll sort it out. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet again[edit]

Hi Vanjagenije. You recently blocked this user, but he is here again with this ip. You can check the ip is blocked in spanish wikipedia because he is the same sockpuppet. Also check his contributions. Thanks. --Bleckter (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I blocked that IP. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss your decision to revert my contribution[edit]

I would like to discuss your opinion that my recent contribution should be reverted.

I have begun the conversation herefredgandt 00:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't redirect it anymore: ski jumping[edit]

You redirected 2015–16 FIS Ski Jumping Cup (FIS Cup) to 2015–16 FIS Ski Jumping World Cup (World Cup) and merged them as the same competition. You obviously don't know that much about ski jumping. It's not the same: FIS Cup is the lower competition and World Cup is another top level of competition. Please don't redirected it anymore.

Competitions in this season include when you can see the obvious difference: World Cup, Grand Prix, Continental Cup, FIS Cup, FIS Race, Alpen Cup. Thank you. Sportomanokin (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Exchangeable Drill Bit[edit]

This is actually entirely applicable for G13 (as have happened with all of the other tagged pages today), "applies to rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages that have not been edited in over six months (excluding bot edits). This criterion applies to all WikiProject Articles for creation drafts in project space and project talk space, as well as any userspace drafts and drafts in the Draft: namespace that are using the project's {{AFC submission}} template". SwisterTwister talk 20:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: As you probably noticed, the page was not tagged with the {{AFC submission}} template, nor was it in the Articles for Creation project space. So, the WP:G13 obviously does not apply. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, no. Having "Draft" would make it applicable, see "drafts in project space" (AfC projects) and "any userspace drafts and drafts in the Draft: namespace" (the AfCs is not explicitly important as it is still basically an AfC draft). Both RHaworth and Anthony Bradbury deleted this drafts earlier as such and G2 (tests) would also not apply as I've been told drafts are like sandbox areas, thus not actually tests-applicable. SwisterTwister talk 20:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@SwisterTwister: I don't understand you. Do you want to say that every draft in the WP:Draft namespace is an Article for Creation submission per se, even if not tagged as such? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Exactly, yes. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 20:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Les Bleues unofficial[edit]

Thank you for your response on the change name request for user "Les Bleues unofficial". Meanwhile I have created this new user (K.C. Ilsen), but can't seem to delete the previous one. Could you help with that, or perhaps advise what to do?

Brgds, K.C. Ilsen (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

  • @K.C. Ilsen: User account cannot be deleted. You should continue using this new account, I'm going to re-block your previous account. You should have no problems, just don't create more accounts, please. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not creating a fake page, I'm trying to create a real page. Could you pls tell me how to create this page and how to delete the "Les Bleues unofficial" one. K.C. Ilsen (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

ok, sorry. I'm new to this and not really used to writing in code, so I hope I made the right changes now. One more question though. Can I change the page title? It now is "European Football: Women's Best Player of the Year", but it should become "Best Female Football Player Of The Year Award (Europe)". K.C. Ilsen (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@K.C. Ilsen: Article title can be changed by WP:Moving the page. While at the page, find a button that says "move" on the top of the page and move the article to a new title. Usually, moving is only possible after 4 days of editing, but I changed your status to "confirmed" so that you can move the page now. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Faster2010 block evasion[edit]

Hi. As you may know, Ninjo2 (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs) are Faster2010 (talk · contribs) evading his indefinite block. After you blocked him for seven days in the SPI back in December, he resumed his disruption on several articles and created implausible redirects ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). I discovered it after going through this user's contributions. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sjones23: I blocked him for logged-out editing. If you have some new evidence to connect him to Faster2010, stronger than that presented in October, feel free to open new WP:sockpuppet investigation. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I know, I just wanted to inform you about the situation and his contribution history should be looked at. Given their similarities in their actions and behaviour, I really did suspect that Faster2010 and Ninjo2 are connected, but I admit that it was inconclusive at the SPI. As for new evidence, I plan to document it to build a solid case on a future SPI if there are no objections. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

SPI Move[edit]

Sorry to bother you, I was just wondering if you could move the Get Tory Ailes out of here! SPI to the David Beals SPI, since one of the socks in the former SPI was a confirmed sock of the latter. Thanks, GABHello! 02:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: It look like you are right. I am going to merge those two cases. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. GABHello! 15:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC) block[edit]

You may want to consider blocking the other IP commented here :) — regards, Revi 16:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That was two days ago. There were no edits from that IP range since then. Why would I block now? Vanjagenije (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

SPI Question[edit]

First, thank you thank you thank you for all of the clerking you do at SPI. You're a star. On my watchlist I saw that you moved Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Promopersia to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turkspasha noting that Turkspasha was the older account. Promopersia was created April 10, 2015 and Turkspasha was created September 4, 2015, making Promopersia (the original named master) the oldest. Or am I missing something?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I wrote that I moved the case to the oldest confirmed account. Promopersia is stale, and cannot be confirmed. And, there was already Turkspasha SPI page, so they had to be merged anyway. If you are sure Promopersia is the master, we can move the (merged) case back. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Aha! That makes complete sense. Thank you, no further moves or changes needed :) --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


Regarding the Scibaby SPI, please see Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Scibaby, especially admins should absolutely avoid publicly discussing specific techniques and methods for detecting him. (Yes, the bolding is in the original.) I'd be glad to correspond about this offline but want to check first that you monitor your WP email. Thanks. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: Fell free to e-mail me. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Malformed SPI Requests[edit]

Hi Vanjagenije, I finished writing the script which looks for possibly malformed SPI pages. Here are the results: User:Fastily/Sandbox1. I think there are a few false-positives, but that just means that those pages need their caches purged. Let me know what you think. Regards, FASTILY 04:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Fastily: Wow! Impressive! I did not check all of them, but it looks OK. I didn't expect so many pages. What do you think we should be doing? Should the bot just list those cases on a page, or should he try to repair them by adding the {{SPI case status}} template? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) This needs human review -- of the three I spotchecked, only one should be "repaired" with an SPI Case template (and then archived normally since it's years old). A few need to be repaired by merging a subpage with the main case page then archiving normally. A few need to be redirected. There aren't hundreds of them. But each required a case-by-case human review. I can get on them if y'all want?  · Salvidrim! ·  14:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Salvidrim!: Yes, you can fix those pages, of course. The question is: how best to use the bot that detects such pages. Maybe a bot can add such pages to the main list with "unknown" status or similar? Most of them are years old, but when we fix them, we need a bot to detect new pages created without tag. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Adding to the table with "unknown" status will conflict with the bot already updating the list and the bots will end up warring with each other. This would be best IF this functionality can be integrated with the existing updating bot. Otherwise, something like a weekly report on WT:SPI/C sounds ideal to me.  · Salvidrim! ·  16:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Salvidrim!: A week may be too long. Some cases may be urgent. But, I agree that a periodical report would be useful. Pinging Fastily. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Don't exclude second level pages. Cases are sometimes created there (and/or on the talk page) when the main case page is protected or the filer is an IP, and unless we are pinged we may not find out about it right away. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cases/Overview is, of course, the exception, as is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Inputbox instructions for ad hoc requests (which IMO should be moved to another title and backlinks fixed anyways). What the about the WP:SPI/(name)/Report/### pages? These looks more like "additional evidence" than an actual report to archive, but I still think this content should be moved to the relevant case's archive page, otherwise nobody will ever know it even exists.  · Salvidrim! ·  23:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Salvidrim!: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Inputbox instructions for ad hoc requests has no backlinks as I can see, so it can just be deleted. I do not see any purpose of that page. As about those "/Report/1235419871" pages, it seams that they were generated by some bot (User:SPCUClerkbot, some kind of bot version of myself Face-smile.svg), but the bot has been inactive for more than 6 years. It seams that the bot was logging edits reminiscent of known sockpuppeteers to allow clerks to check them. But, those are all very old, so I think we can delete them. I can't find any evidence that they were actually used for anything. None of them were edited by anybody but the bot. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
For the "WP:SPI/(name)/Report/###" pages, I still think the CONTENT should be preserved -- that's very Wikipedian of me, I know. Maybe just C&P it into a collapse box at the top of the case's archive and delete the subpage?  · Salvidrim! ·  05:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I think a periodic report would be best, given how hard it can be for a bot to accurately fix broken SPI pages. I can have the bot run bi-weekly and post its findings to either an SPI subpage or on the clerk noticeboard, whichever is easier. I could add a rule to ignore second level pages, but if a newbie accidentally creates a subpage of an existing SPI page, then the bot would miss it; I'll let you make the final call though, do you still want me to do this? -FASTILY 01:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@Fastily: Yes, excellent. I agree. A periodical report at the clerks noticeboard d would be great. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good, just filed the BRFA here -FASTILY 04:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Fastily: I've always wondered how many cases would turn up in this state, but never had any way of finding them. Thank you very much for taking on this task! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 04:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem! Glad I could help :) -FASTILY 05:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi all, I've decided to list malformed pages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Malformed Cases Report for now. There's an ignore list here, which is good for listing courtesy blanked pages and/or administration/documentation pages -FASTILY 05:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Fastily: Thanks! @DoRD and Salvidrim!: I added a link to the {{SPI navigation}} template ("Malformed Cases"). Is that OK? Vanjagenije (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that seems like a sensible addition to the template. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Sounds great. I will have the bot add some header text with {{SPI navigation}} to the report page as well -FASTILY 10:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Fastily: And a link to the ignore list would be useful. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, I added the link on Template:SPI navigation. Also, would you mind semi-protecting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Malformed Cases Report/Ignore? It might be an attractive target for socks. -FASTILY 11:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

An editor you warned for socking[edit]

Hello, my friend. You warned for socking. I recognize this user. I remember a blocked editor claiming to be in England (userpage statement) but actually in India, having similar styles of editing, and, well, something else I cannot put my finger on. I just can't remember. Would you please let me know here or via email who this person's sock was? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: This is all I know: [[6]]. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
So odd. I searched and didn't see the SPI. My mistake, no doubt. I've been working at lightning speed since my ISP speed is back up. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


Your edit at D47817 does not do you any credit. If you had left it with the comments, it would have been less of a mess. You now have december comments from Bahnfrend in the February section. Always better to leave alone, and even if you dont like it it is better to format separately. Now it appears really odd, so thanks for actually reviewing it, but by your removing my comments, it makes no sense. I would appreciate your re-doing that as two separate reports, and your being sufficiently mature to accept there was a delay and not messing up like tha. Thank you JarrahTree 23:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

reverting an attempt to try to make sense of the case seems somewhat over - reacting. There are two separate cases, December and February. Please re-instate the separating between the two in whatever way you see fit. You have not given an explanation or edit summary to adequately explain either the removal of my comments, or the difference. Thanks. JarrahTree 23:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@JarrahTree: Sorry, your comments were lost during the merge, and I reinstated them now. I don't see any mess, and I don't see any december comments [..] in the February section. Having two open investigations on the same user is not good practice, we merge them routinely. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
No need to apologise, I havent seen merges like that occur before, but then I dont do many of these

I would have thought that the nature of the two points of reporting were best kept separate for the following reasons:

  • December, we (Bahnfrend and self) deliberately went and deleted all of the edits by the suspected sock, as there was no short term clerical activity at all, and on past behaviour it would appear removal of material would discourage the sock
  • February, to the best of my knowledge we havent touched the edits of the current suspect

The separate reports - areas seemed best to have a clear distinction, imho JarrahTree 23:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • @JarrahTree: It is obvious that Tolleykog was added later. I deliberately copied his name below the December evidence, to make it clear that he was added later. That is how it should have been done at the beginning. Having two separate open investigations on the same user is not acceptable. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok at your end, that is the way you expect it, just accept also for the on the ground sock searchers, we dont see it that way, there are two separate events in time, and in the way we treated the issue. Keep up the good work! JarrahTree 23:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


Appears to have been quite busy on his user talk page - I do not recall seeing any editor with so many revdeled edits in such short order, to be sure. Does it actually set a record? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: Sorry, I'm not keeping such records. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AusGamers[edit]

Hello—wanted to ask about your "no consensus" closure of this. I thought it was clear that the keep votes were not based in policy. czar 00:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: Citing reliable sources is pretty much based on policy, and several such sources were cited. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The ones who provided the sources still weren't sold on its notability, and the ones that didn't add sources gave a non-answer and cited a listing of what is very clearly passing mentions... I don't see what would count as a single substantive argument to keep. czar 01:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: I don't see any serious refutation of those sources. I judge consensus on what was written in the discussion, not on what could have been written. Two users provided some sources (one of them was not sure that those sources are enough, I noticed that), and those sources were not effectively refuted by others. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
But if you're judging consensus based on what was written, @NinjaRobotPirate doubted that the sources he found were good, and I commented on the other sources. Not one editor said those sources were enough—that would be your inference. Sources presented in doubt do not become sigcov by virtue of having no following comment. If you still disagree, might I ask that you undo your close and see if another editor closes it the same? czar 01:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: Still, NinjaRobotPirate was not arguing to delete. That shows me that he still believed those source are somewhat enough. No one else explained that those sources have no significant coverage. No, I will not undo the closure just because you do not agree. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I saw it get relisted, but I was still noncommittal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Origin of the Bagratid dynasties[edit]

Hi there @Vanjagenije:. I have a concern regarding your no consensus closure of Articles for deletion/Origin of the Bagratid dynasties. It is of note that both of the "Keep" votes cast in favor of the article are based not on the article's current condition, bur rather on a hypothetical premise that at some point in the future, the article will be rewritten into something more acceptable or expanded. In other words, their "Keep" votes are very much conditional. So my question is, who is going to enforce this condition? None of the "Keep" voters have taken responsibility to revamp the page, as they claimed possible. In fact, one of the "Keep" voters asked the article's original author if it was possible to improve the article, but the original author has made no promises either.

Generally, an article must meet Wikipedia standards as of present, not some imaginary future. If this was a relatively new article or a Wikipedia:Stub, giving it additional time to grow would be reasonable, but that is not the case. This page has been around in its current condition for a decade and there is no guarantee if, when and by whom it will be brought in compliance with the rules of notability and sourcing.--Damianmx (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Damianmx: If I was to vote, I would certainly vote "delete". But, the discussion, as it stood is clearly "no consensus". One of the main concerns was the notability of the subject (i.e. lack of references). In the nomination, you wrote that "it was unreferenced and written as a narrative with no clear sourcing" and that "the article [...] still lacks sourcing for essential points contained herein, some of which have remained unsourced for years". I have to notice that notability is not something that depends on the current state of the article. Subject is notable or not regardless of how the article looks like now. WP:SURMOUNTABLE is clear that articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet (and this is exactly what you are asking for). Vanjagenije (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Why would you have voted delete, Vanjagenije? Is it simply an issue of sources? The subject seemed to me to have an obvious automatic notability, given that the dynasty and its branches unquestionably existed, and that articles exist on those branches. So I never bothered looking for sources to justify my keep argument (though I would expect that and any source that detailed the dynasty in detail would have a mention of its origin). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Sock investigation[edit]

Hello! I think this needs your immediate attention as the user keeps on creating new accounts and continous to disruptively edit. Thanks! (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: Account mdte[edit]

You have flagged my account for two instances that are unwarranted. I am new to Wikipedia and only tried to change my user name mdte to my actual name Michael K Dane. I did all of the work in Sandbox and abandoned the effort when I discovered that I was unable to do it. Unfortunately, I could find no way of deleting the Sandbox file that I tried to amend. I would ideally like to be known as Michael K Dane, but if that is not possible, I would appreciate your help in removing the conflict and let me remain as mdte.

As for the image from the Tehran Journal, please be advised that the newspaper was published by Americans ex-pats in Tehran prior to the Iranian Revolution of 1978. The publication ceased to exist following the revolution and the publisher was disbanded therefore no entity holds a copyright for this material and it is considered to be in the public domain. The picture provides vital context and information that enriches the article on the Iranian National Ballet and as a former member of the Iranian National Ballet company (and depicted in the photo), I thought this information was important to share.

I have contacted the only known archive which may hold reproduction rights to this material from the Teheran Journal. I will let you know how they respond. In the meantime I have included the link to the archive.[7]

If you have any further concerns, please contact me.

Thank You,

mdte Michael K Dane (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You created two different user accounts: Mdte and Michael K Dane. You have also edited the user page of another user named Michael Dane. Wikipedia does not allow using multiple user accounts (except in some rare cases). You have to choose one account you want to use and stop using the other immediately. You can use this Michael K Dane account, but then stop using the other. You cannot rename your user account by yourself, you can request it to be renamed at WP:CHUS. Also, you cannot delete any page (including your sandbox) on your own, but you can request it to be deleted by placing this tag: {{db-user}} on the page. Regarding the image, as I know, the copyright is owned by the author of the photo, regardless of whether the publishing company exists or not. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA[edit]

Human lightning rod not to scale Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Block review of User:Semanti Paul[edit]

Hey, could you please expound as to why you think Semanti Paul (talk · contribs) (created in June of 2015) is a sockpuppet of WikiBriefed (talk · contribs) (which was created in October of 2015)? I, personally, don't think that this is in any way convincing evidence of sockpuppetry, nor even direct meatpuppetry between the two accounts. Furthermore, at UTRS, a CheckUser, DeltaQuad (t · c · b · p · d · m · r), stated that a connection "is  Unlikely to the accounts listed in the archive on the SPI"; which furthers my doubt that Semanti Paul was used as a sockpuppet. But, I may be missing something that you're seeing as I imagine you have more experience dealing with this area. At any rate, any information you can provide regarding this block would be helpful for the requested review. Thanks in advance! Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee: Checkuser Mike V said that Semanti Paul is  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) to WikiBriefed (see here). Besides that, they were both promoting (BOI) as the only source to be used for Bollywood movies articles. You can read more about WikiBriefed's promotion of BOI here, caracteristic examples: [8][9][10]. Examples of Semanti Paul promoting BOI: [11][12][13][14][15]. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Mike V:, @DeltaQuad:, @Drmies:: Since you CUs have de facto authority on SPIs, I'd highly appreciate if you three could state what you think should be done on this particular unblock request/if you think there's enough evidence (behavioral and otherwise) to keep the block in place. Thanks in advance! Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Coffee, "possilikely" etc. are way outside of my comfort zone. In case of doubt I ping a real CU: Bbb23. And if I want high-brow conversation and balm for the soul with my CU chat, I ping Ponyo. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The technical data had some similarities, but wasn't super strong. That was one of the reasons I wanted a behavioral analysis, just to be sure. I'm willing to chalk up the behavioral similarities to a coincidence. We can give the user the benefit of the doubt and keep an eye out if we're still concerned. Mike VTalk 23:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
So when I looked at things, I compared 3 accounts. Semanti Paul, WikiBriefed and Ambeinghari. When I'm looking for socks of each other, unless it's a static IP, i'm looking for a few things. 1) IP range/ISP overlap 2) Geolocation overlap and 3) UA overlap. There was no IP range overlap. Usually even if they try hard, they will mess up somewhere along the line and cross onto the same range if they are the same person. Furthermore, all three accounts use different ISPs. And it's not just a handful of edits im comparing, it's quite a few. I'm not a fan of the geolocation in the country that all three are in, but each account also geolocates to different cities far enough apart in this country. Lastly, IF they were using the same computer and just proxying (instead of going to a different location and using a different computer) the useragents would show cross over. WikiBriefed is using a lower version number than Semanti Paul of the same software. So that is also scratched out. There is also a similiar mismatch between all three accounts to each other. So right now, the only thing technically connecting them right now, is a country with crappy geolocation. I did not check behavior at all, but with this technical result, I'd be expecting just short of a WP:DUCK level to keep a block active. Barring that, I don't see enough to conclude these are sockpuppets, and then would say an unblock would be most appropriate. @Mike V: given my level of detail here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I saw a UA overlap and a close geolocation when I saw the mid-September data. With that being said, I have no objections to an unblock. Mike VTalk 01:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I saw an actual UA match between Ambeinghari and WikiBriefed, but it's a common UA. The check of Semanti Paul was done by Mike. However, what I took from that muddled case was similar to Mike's: a behavioral analysis was needed; the technical data was insufficient to block.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
UAs do match, but the timeline of their UAs don't. That was my point. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you all for your extremely helpful input. Given the data here, I'm going to go ahead and accept the unblock request on the basis that the account was not used as a sockpuppet (even if the user was adding some of the same unhelpful content). We'll definitely keep a close eye on the account for any disruptive editing in the future... and I'll ensure to notify the user that they are on a short leash as far as promoting "BOI" in our articles here. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks y'all. I'm not quitting my day job. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Stefan Dušan[edit]

Apologies for my stubbornness, but the references is quoted twice, although the word "racism" isn't exactly written, it still proves it. But i will not bother you with this. --Albanian Historian (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Albanian Historian: You are not allowed to use sources to prove something that is not explicitly written in the sources. That is called WP:Original research, and is not allowed. The concept of "racism" did not even exist in the 14th century. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

So what would you call Tsar Dusans methods of ruling towards Catholics in the 12th century? It is racism, although its not used specifically. --Albanian Historian (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Albanian Historian: What would I call it is irrelevant. What would you call it is also irrelevant. What is relevant is how reliable sources call it. That is how Wikipedia works: we cite reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank You and I want to delete the mdte page that I created[edit]

Thank You for your help. I want to delete the mdte page that I created so that I can only use the Michael K Dane page in future.

I followed your instructions and placed the code sequence you suggested, for deletion of my page, on the mdte page. I am not sure where to place it though. I don't want to keep logging into that name to try to delete it because I'm not supposed to use it.

Can you help me delete it and make sure I have no other page but Michael K Dane?

Thank You,

Michael K Dane Mdte (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mdte: I'm not sure what exact page you want to delete? If you want to deleted your user account, I already explained you that it is not possible, the software simply doesn't allow that. And, if you want to use the Michael K Dane account, you should simply use that account and stop using the Mdte account. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


Hello Vanjagenije, I noticed this IP reverted you [16], maybe it is a SP of Fangusu, maybe not? Cheers, Horseless Headman (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC).

@Horseless Headman: Thanks. I blocked the IP. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)