Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Spartaz (talk | contribs) at 22:53, 13 May 2015 (→Proposed topic ban from philosophy for Brews ohare: closing, indef block just a hair short of consensus for site ban.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages: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 you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, 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)

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages 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.

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

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

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 36 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

(Initiated 34 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

This could really use some attention—it's been over a month. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Beeblebrox. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  05:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 103 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 82 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

would like to see what close is. seems like it was option 1 in general, possibly 1/2 for IP area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 73 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Australia#RFC: Should the article state that Indigenous Australians were victims of genocide?

(Initiated 72 days ago on 8 November 2024), RFC expired weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 57 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi)#RfC on the Inclusion of Guard Actions and Court Findings on Motivations

(Initiated 32 days ago on 17 December 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice and the last comment was a few days ago. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPath 22:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Estado Novo (Portugal)#RFC Should the Estado Novo be considered fascist?

(Initiated 11 days ago on 8 January 2025) RfC opened last month, and was re-opened last week, but hasn't received further discussion. Outcome clear and unlikely to change if it were to run the full 30 days. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 00:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Does this need a close? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I would have just closed it myself, but I don't exactly feel comfortable doing so since I've responded and have a bias about how it should close. Not opposed to just letting it expire, though. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 23:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it should just be left to expire. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Closing the discussion. The outcome is obvious and you can let it lie unclosed.—S Marshall T/C 00:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for reasons given above. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  04:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 18#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 30 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Category:Misplaced Pages oversighters

(Initiated 30 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Disambig-Class Star Trek pages

(Initiated 18 days ago on 31 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Xplicit. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  16:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Category-Class 20th Century Studios pages of NA-importance

(Initiated 18 days ago on 1 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Xplicit. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  16:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Redundant WPANIMATION categories

(Initiated 12 days ago on 6 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 116 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 82 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 73 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 22 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Selected Ambient Works Volume II#Proposed merge of Stone in Focus into Selected Ambient Works Volume II

(Initiated 12 days ago on 6 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; proposal is blocking GA closure czar 11:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal to supersede consensus #50

(Initiated 8 days ago on 10 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; its degenerated into silly sniping and has clearly run its course. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Proposed site ban for User:MaranoFan

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

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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. .--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 and chat about goal to get this user blocked on both of your talk pages ,. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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., 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 , 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" . 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 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 , 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 . 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 . --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 and it took Wink another 10 minutes to vote in favor of deletion (it was kept by the way, with only those two favoring deletion). She makes a perfectly acceptable edit to Meghan Trainor , Winks swoops in 90 minutes later to revert it . She nominates and brings an article up to Good Article status , Wink goes on a rant about Good Article status on his user page 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 . 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 , 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 . 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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. . Of course, it was promptly closed as a SNOW keep , but not before Marano made her exit, and given the timing of MaranoFan's self block with message "FUCK YOU WIKIPEDIA" 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)". 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 . An article MaranoFan has been working to bring up to feature list status. That AfD was quickly closed as SNOW KEEP , 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 .--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. ,--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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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 06:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Note See this SPI and that it was never investigated. . 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 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 and Title (EP)(It would seem strange for an article reviewed as GA status to fail GNG), 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. This occurred on Misplaced Pages: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 --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)

Proposed IBans between Chasewc91/Winkelvi and MaranoFan

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 ) 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 and it took Wink another 10 minutes to vote in favor of deletion (it was kept). MaranoFan makes a constructive edit on Meghan Trainor, which corrects a grammatical error , Winks swoops in 90 minutes later to revert it . MF makes an edit to Meghan Trainor discography that makes it match other similar ones (like the featured Coldplay_discography#Extended_plays) and Chase comes in to revert it a couple hours later . MaranoFan nominates and brings an article up to Good Article status , Wink goes on a rant about Good Article status on his user page in clear violation of WP:POLEMIC, a policy he has run afoul of before (Both editors now want that article merged which is interesting given this comment made by WV in the above discussion ) 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 . (A check user has determined they are unrelated ). And immediately after MF announced her latest "retirement" Winkelvi decided to wax polemic once again 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 Calidum T|C 01:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Additional comment: Others below have questioned whether it is appropriate to discuss this with one party absent. In my opinion, MaranoFan fan would not object to an IBAN between herself and the other two users. She has complained about them harassing her for months to no avail. Regardless, she can appeal the decision if and when she returns. Calidum T|C 23:53, 12 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)

It doesn't have to identify an editor by name for it to violate WP:POLEMIC. You should know this since an admin (Drmies) another passage from your page that didn't mention others by name. And it's interesting that immediately after restoring the rant directed at MF I tried to remove you found an RM I filed and opposed it Calidum T|C 16:51, 10 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)

Drmies handled the situation correctly without resorting to harassment. Note that other admins including Only (talk · contribs) have found all three of you to be disruptive and suggested you should all be blocked for "persistent bickering and edit warring" after WV and Chase petitioned them to sanction MF . (Note that this was almost immediately after WV's second block for edit warring with MF and others expired ). Calidum T|C 23:42, 12 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. 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.. 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)" 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)

. 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 . 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? . Deleting an article I wrote for deletion on the basis of...what, exactly? Something they concocted? Or how about this? ; or this? 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 . 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 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 06:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Note See this SPI and that it was never investigated. . 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: . -- 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 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 Misplaced Pages operates. I'd be for imposing something whereby she must adhere all of her edits to Misplaced Pages'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 . User:Calvin999 has also filed multiple misguided seeming AfD's on Trainor articles such as the SNOW KEEP deletion attempt of Meghan Trainor discography and AfD on Title (EP) (it would seem strange for article reviewed as GA status to fail GNG) . Most concernedly Aaron/Calvin999 deleted keep vote of Crisco and the comments of others on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Title (EP) . 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Title (EP), if your deletion of that keep vote and deletion of comments ] 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 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 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)

• My bet is on Taylor Swift, considering past behavior. Calidum T|C 18:57, 13 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)
• Comment If I understand the circumstances correctly, MaranoFan had not been blocked from editing, but is self-blocked. If this is the case, then MaranoFan can, at any time they want to, comment on any aspect of this discussion simply by editing logged-out, and identifying the IP as MaranoFan (some sort of proof would be needed, of course). I do not believe that this would violate WP:SOCK or WP:Block evasion, because no administrative block is involved and the IP is identifying itself. If all this is true, it might be worthwhile for someone who MaranoFan trusts to send them an e-mail letting them know of the existence of this discussion, in case they don't know, and in case they want to express an opinion about the bans being considered. BMK (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

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 20:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There are some links and such here that may be useful.--Jezebel's Ponyo 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)

@JzG: if that is what we have to light a fire and prevent them stagnating (like it was at the time of AFD nom ) or being padded with unencyclopedic content (The inability to find a german teacher is not encyclopedic ). I re-reviewed the AFD and changed my vote. I fear though that it takes an AFD to get these articles anywhere near encyclopedic. An exemption from A7, and the significant amount of effort to list something at AFD makes it really simple to create stub articles with very little effort. This was my one of my primary concerns. Chrislk02 13:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these articles are also where some of the most atrocious and damaging BLP violations occur.--Jezebel's Ponyo 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 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 Misplaced Pages'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★lwart 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 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)

@Deor: - heh, so if I would have come in as a newbie and write an article about myself (I've been in local newspapers when I was young), and about my primary school (has been mentioned in local news - I think it recently burned down), and the local supermarket (which IIRC changed a couple of times of owner, and hence was featured in the local news), then all would be fine .. I wonder what would happen if I would try now ... --Dirk Beetstra 03:37, 11 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)

• I think part of the problem is that Misplaced Pages has moved to much higher standards in terms of source requirements in the last 5-10 years and so this outcome is no longer as clear. Of course, those of us that think that notability!=important but instead notability==reliable sources (even local) would consider that a bad thing... Hobit (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The thing that frustrated me was a lack of common sense. The first WP:RS added to the article, and I quote, focused on "...the school had difficulty finding qualified German teachers, so the possibility that the school would have to cancel its German classes ... () with the argument for WP:GNG based on the WP:RS coverage. If every recorded faculty related issue/shortage was actually notable, we have a problem in our definition of notability. Chrislk02 13:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, notability is about coverage. Just because you or I consider it to be a minor issue isn't relevant to WP:N. I realize Misplaced Pages is going away from that (see my webpage for a bit of prose about this), but our guidelines, as written, don't ask editors to identify "important" just "coverage". And that's no mistake, it was exactly the original goal of WP:N. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hobit: I agree, but the school wars were bruising and as usual with Misplaced Pages there was an imbalance of motivation: those motivated to include them were much more committed to the cause than those of us who were more concerned with WP:NOTDIR. I think revisiting it will only cause the same problem again. At least pruning schoolcruft from articles gives a source teachable moments - the editor responsible for adding the cruft might actually learn something about good editing practice. Guy (Help!) 13:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, while I'm of the opinion we should have these articles, I agree there often can be some pruning and learning that can (and needs) to happen here. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Here's the problem that no one seems to want to recognize: the elephant in the room. There is no policy, and never has been, and never will be, which says "Every school of high-school level or higher can have an article at Misplaced Pages and it can never be deleted". You will never see a policy worded that way, you will never see anything CLOSE to that, nor will you see any policy which says that high school articles are exempt from any Misplaced Pages policy or guideline explicitly. However, you'll never actually get one deleted. Ever. You can certainly try. You can certainly claim (rightly so, maybe even) that schools are not exempt from the normal standards of articles, and you will even be correct in every one of your arguments, and perfectly sound with regards to policy and everything else. And that all doesn't mean shit. School articles don't get deleted. That's a statement of fact based on almost a decade of deletion discussions and mounds of evidence. Don't look for reasons, you'll give yourself an aneurysm. Just come to accept it as a fact of existence, which lacks any real policy-based backing, but exists nonetheless, and move on. You'll be much happier for it. --Jayron32 19:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well said, and I will add that similar arguments can be made about other aspects of Wiki-reality as well. It's the difference between things as they should be and things as they are. BMK (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Exactly what I was inferring above, but put far more eloquently. Resolute 22:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• There needs to be an RFC on schools to document and base in the guidelines the longstanding community consensus at AfD: that secondary schools are presumed notable and that all but the most exceptional primary schools are presumed non-notable. I've explained the valid rationale for this widely accepted tradition numerous times and am getting tired of it. We don't need to waste volunteer time investigating and fighting over whether this or that school is notable or not — the deletionists need to give a little and the inclusionists need to give a little and we need to accept the way that things have been (per OUTCOMES) is the way that things are. We already auto-keep populated places, rivers, mountains, highways, and professional athletes, etc. — it is not shocking or a departure to auto-keep high schools. Carrite (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, but populated places is another crock of crap, isn't it? Define a populated place. Even the street upon which I live, comprising around 30 nondescript Victorian houses right at the bottom end of the "property ladder", and one of around maybe 10,000 streets in the town, could be called a "populated place". I could get the sources now: loads of trivial newspaper mentions - a burglary here, some traffic problems there, a planning application, my neighbour arrested yet again. I could probably do the same for at least half of the individual houses on the street, not one of which holds any real interest at all except perhaps to its present and former occupants. In other words, just like many schools, villages in India and so on. Who can stop me doing this? Why do we delete local heroes because their significant/non-passing mention coverage etc is only local but local schools are kept even though the same often applies? OUTCOMES ended up as it is because of the work of what amounts to an on-wiki pressure group, not because it makes any sense or is "right". At some point, we're going to have to revisit this because we simply cannot handle what we have, let alone what is to come (such as the 1.5 million Indian schools referred to above). - Sitush (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban from philosophy for Brews ohare

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

Brews ohare (talk · contribs)

This user has a history of tendentious editing related to Speed of Light Arbitration. He is topic banned from physics.

Previous ANI case

Personal attacks and intransigence at OR notice Board

Conclusion

I think what is needed is a broader community ban from subjects related to philosophy. The issue here are that brews insists that his own original research should be included in Misplaced Pages and, when called on it, has responded with what either is an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or a comeback that seems to miss the point entirely. This has resulted generally in a degradation of the content of some articles and a new garden of original research that we will need to go through and prune/cut down entirely.

Respectfully,

jps (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing like the length of his posts on Talk Pages :-) A simple review of his edit summaries on the talk page of Free Will shows multiple examples of incivility together with a refusal to accept that no other editors agree with him on his approach. An issue here is that we have exactly the same behaviour as we had on Physics. So we extend the ban to Philosophy the problem will simply move onto Psychology or some other domain. I'm be more inclined to remove the topic ban from Physics but place him under a universal 1rr restriction (broadly construed), a ban on creating new articles unless he has support from other editors, an acknowledgement that he will abide by policy on synthesis and finally that if he does not get support on the talk page he will simply stop. Otherwise I think the only solution will end up being a long term block. If Brews would accept those restrictions then he could do good work, including the detailed stuff he used to do on Physics articles with drawings and the like.----Snowded 16:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment by brews ohare:

The majority of contributors to this request have had no engagement with me (as far as I recall) and are simply piling on.

Blackburne has opposed my contributions to WP for almost a decade, flagging my articles with quotation banners and dragging me to ANI for trivial matters, and has had no engagement over philosophy at all. This proposed ban is just another chance to dump on me.

Snowded has battled with me over numerous philosophy articles, routinely filing deletion requests on articles I author (all have failed so far), and exhibits a tendency to be judge and jury over their content. When I try to counter his unexplained assertions of WP:OR and WP:SYN by requesting explicit identification of what is wrong, he consistently refuses to engage and even to discuss what sources say, saying that such an exercise is just a tit-for-tat in which he counters what he calls my "cherry-picked" sources with some of his own, and so it is just a waste of his time. I call such a comparison of sourced opinion a sensible search for a balanced presentation (as opposed to Snowded's personal unsourced opinions). Extended attempts by myself to engage Snowded in discussion of sources has led simply to abusive commentary and threats of ANI.

In Damian's extended analysis above, he touts his expertise as antidote to thought. My attempt to present an innocuous set of definitions has precipitated this proposed ban as preferable to just engaging in a simple discussion - are the definitions correct or not? There is no argument really, as they are what the sources say they are. Damian's "expert" analysis of this issue above is anything but.

In my opinion, I try too hard with Snowded and Damian, and if presenting sources is impossible, I should just leave them the article and let it end up wherever. That is too bad, IMO, as it would be desirable to have sensible Talk page interactions aimed at presenting sourced opinion. But clearly that is just not always possible.

I do not think a ban is the best answer to this issue. Instead, I propose self-censorship, limiting my responses to Snowded and Damian to "Goodbye".

Brews ohare (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: In view of the response to this proposed ban, I deem it probable that my continued participation in contributing new philosophy articles and in clarifying and extending old ones will be firmly resisted. I propose to withdraw from future participation, whether via personal decision or a formal topic ban. Considering that no-one else has contributed a new philosophy article for a decade, I anticipate the Philosophy Project will regain its quietude. Brews ohare (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I have never referred to myself as an 'expert', nor has jps above, so please retract those remarks. Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC

The phrase Q.E.D comes to mind, Explaining OR and SYNTH To Brews, as other editors have noted, results in a straight refusal by him to listen. His method of stringing together quotes is the only form of engagement he understands and will accept. So if you refuse to join him in synthesis you get the sort of accusations you see above. ----Snowded 20:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC))

Snowded, to time and again fault contributions as violating WP:OR or WP:SYN with no intention of saying what is the violation, and to repeatedly suggest that it is a violation of WP:SYN to contribute material impeccably stating exactly what WP:SECONDARY sources say using extended verbatim quotes, quotes that make clear that the quoted author has said exactly what it is claimed they have said, is argumentative and does not assist the construction of a balanced presentation of sources. Besides making claims of policy violations that you will not back up, you refuse to address the purpose of contributions you revert, instead reinserting defective text with obvious problems you won't consider, even when sources point them out. Rather than being helpful, this passive aggressive resistance interferes with article improvement. Brews ohare (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban or site ban whichever (if either) receives a consensus. I think Snowded is correct that Brews ohare's behavior would juts continue to move on from topic to topic as topi bans follow in his wake, but I disagree that a 1RR restriction or ban on creating new pages is sufficient. This stuff has been going on for years, and I would prefer that it be stopped with more finality and fewer half-measures. BMK (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm easy, if a 1-year ban is what the people want, I could go for that, too. It just needs to stop somwhow, in some way. BMK (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Site ban I started editing here eight years ago and he was already nototious for his long-winded endless arguments back then. He simply isn't able to admit if he is wrong, or to stop beating a dead horse. More topic bans will just move the problem elsewhere, as demonstrated by this very thread. He can't stop causing problems in philosophy now, the answer is not another tban as previous tbans failed to curb disruption. We're not babysitters, or therapists. If he can't stop himself, which seems obvious at this point, the community needs to stop him. Enough was enough, this is way overdue. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• Reluctant support 1Y ban Site ban I'm not a great fan of site bans as they are notoriously tricky to reverse. But progress in some of the philosophy articles is a real problem and some of us need a breathing space. Peter Damian (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Changing, as I hadn't realized the problem was so long-standing, and so extensive. Looking at his comments here, it is clear he still fails to grasp the rudiments of WP:SYN. Peter Damian (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I would not judge any content issues. However, let's take a look at the editing history here. It is immediately obvious that the page was extensively developed by Brews, but he was followed by several people who never edited this page before, but appear in this ANI report and previously in WP:AE complaints about Brews. It might be fine if these users started fixing serious problems in the page. But instead, they started removing quotations and making other minor changes (which distracted editing by Brews) and ended up by nominating this article for deletion much later . This looks to me as WP:hounding of Brews by several other participants. Saying that, Brews should not be involved in prolonged disputes about any specific page and quickly switch to editing other subjects, because his previous problems were related mostly to WP:TE on his part. My very best wishes (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he should do that. If he was willing and able to show such self control we wouldn't be having this conversation. Eight years of similar conflicts suggest thius is unlikeley to change. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, WP:TE is still a problem. This is the reason I can not argue too much. My very best wishes (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The alleged "hounding" consisted of numerous editors noticing the resulting page was atrocious, and removing pointless quote farms, OR, and so on. The editor is hopelessly incompetent, and responds with endless edit-wars and talk page screeds. Choor monster (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a fair summary. I was asked to help with the Free will article when I returned to Misplaced Pages, and to make an independent judgment on Brews' work. I had very little contact with him before that. I investigated his edits for accuracy and after an extended discussion with him (see the 'show' box above) came to the conclusion that he is enthusiastic but hopelessly incompetent. See Dunning-Kruger effect Peter Damian (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I never edited this subject before, but that summary is not fair. If it were fair, then other editors would have to fix the "atrocious" problems, whatever they might be (rather than edit war to remove a couple of references - see edit history ) or nominate this page for deletion already in 2013. This page does appear to be "deletable" to me. My very best wishes (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support 1Y ban I´m also a bit perplexed when I see on Talk:Free will that Brews ohare writes that "Your link doesn't work for Safari". Well, I use Safari, and the link in question (this) works perfectly for me. Huldra (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• Huh? I thought he'd been sitebanned some years ago? Is Brews ohare the professional mathematician that got sitebanned some time back (i.e. he's been unbanned), or am I thinking of someone else? Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

See his block log below, and WP:ARBSL#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 22:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• support topic ban. He is a hard working and diligent editor, but one that is unable to recognise the limits of his abilities. And so he repeatedly gets in trouble editing topics he has not enough understanding of. First physics, then mathematics, now philosophy. I think the hope was that imposing the physics ban would encourage him to find less technical topics to edit which were more suited to his abilities. Instead he has chosen to focus on philosophy, which if anything is even more specialised and which he has far more difficulty with. An indefinite topic ban would I think deal with this, while not preventing him from contributing to non-technical topics which he might be more suited to.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 22:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as a first step, but IMHO a site ban is the only long-term solution. Apart from the topics mentiioned above, I have seen Brews inject his unique perspective into negative feedback and The Selfish Gene. The cases I have seen involved a nonstandard approach to the topic with a lot of unhelpful baggage. The talk pages have been soul destroying, which is why I let him have his way at The Selfish Gene. Johnuniq (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

If so, he should be also topic banned from Biology? Unfortunately, I too do not like his changes on this page. Here is older version of the page . Here is new version created by Brews . Here are his changes . Without debating his specific changes I disagree about, the page became less readable and understandable. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You make some good points. There’s also Idée fixe (psychology), like Subject–object problem a collection of random quotes that barely qualifies as an article, but from psychology. Negative feedback is more engineering and control systems. The Selfish Gene is genetics. Certainly any ban should also include such topics, otherwise the behaviour will just reoccur there and in similar articles. Perhaps a topic ban could be crafted to cover all technical/academic topics. This is still quite a narrow restriction as there are far more articles on music and art, on geographic locations and features, on companies and individuals that need attention, or even need creating.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 14:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I noticed this thread because of interactions with User:Brews ohare at the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Subject–object problem. Here are my reflections on this short interaction and the comments raised at this inquest:

• Failure to grasp WP:OR/WP:SYN. The article Subject-object problem, as I see it, is an essay advancing idiosyncratic views that are based on a synthesis of sources not directly relevant to the subject (if indeed there is a subject at all). Comments made at the AfD make me believe rather strongly that Brews does not actually see a problem promoting original research. Indeed, he seems unaware that this is original research at all. Coming here, I see that this style of editing to advance idiosyncratic views actually appears to be Brews' modus operandi on a great many articles, including those referred to just above by Johnuniq, as well as those linked by jps concerning Free will and related philosophy articles.
• Competency issues. Johnblackburne has pointed out competency issues with the subject's edits to technical content on Misplaced Pages. Others have echoed those concerns regarding philosophy articles. There appears to be a consensus that Brews fails to recognize the limits of his competency to edit content on Misplaced Pages.
• WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics and WP:TE. I just have visited the histories of the articles negative feedback and The Selfish Gene linked immediately above by Johnuniq. I observe that Brews added quite a lot of content there. When other editors objected, he reverted them. In both cases, reversion was accompanied by walls of text on the discussion page. Both Johnuniq and Dicklyon (the latter at Talk:Negative feedback) have declared their exasperation at dealing with this style of editing. User:Binksternet summarizes this approach as: "wear down the opposition with continual pointless arguments, another old trick." This summary echoes concerns of jps, Peter Damian, and Snowded. It also parallels my own brief experience at AfD, in which Brews enjoins me to enumerate each and every piece of WP:SYN in the article Subject-object problem, despite the clear fact that the entire article is WP:SYN.
• This behavior is not new. Indeed, the Arbcom case page refers to precisely the kinds of tendentious discussions that are described herein. In 2010, Brews was topic banned for one year from editing physics articles. In 2012, he was then indefinitely topic banned (Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Motions). The problems highlighted in this inquest fall squarely under the first motion "1. From the statements, it is more probable than not that User:Brews ohare is unable to work cooperatively and effectively with others within the topic and is thus repeating the behaviour which resulted in his now expired sanctions. The earlier episodes were very disruptive and were a great drain on the community's patience and resources." Brews has been blocked for violation of the bright line editing restrictions on physics on seven different occasions (). One expects, in general, to see some reform after such extensive Arbcom remedies. But the evidence presented in this inquest appears to indicate strongly that Brews has not reformed to the community's satisfaction.

--Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent summary and it shows that the problem is not going to go away by simply adding Philosophy to Physics. I suggested earlier a general set of restrictions on all editing in return for (i) allowing him back on Physics articles and (ii) a formal acknowledgement of restrictions on the way he edits with an understanding that this is a last chance. I think the only alternative to something like that is a site ban as topic bans will simply move the problem around. ----Snowded 17:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree, excellent summary, and makes me think a site ban is the only alternative. I hadn't realized the problems extended beyond physics into mathematics and biology. Brews himself has also reverted the archived talk page of subject object problem, and what an abomination. user:snowded deserves some distinguished service award or sainthood for putting up with that. A week of it was all I could take. Well done. Peter Damian (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban at least. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban. From Brew's latest comment there is no chance he will ever accept that what he is doing is synthesis and I wouldn't wish on other subject areas what we had had to put up with on philosophy. I tried to offer a life line in my two contributions above but that has in effect been refused ----Snowded 05:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment / Support something Without mentioning specific policy issues, I'd like to make some more qualitative comments on my interactions with Brews. The conflict at Free will began between Brews and I, before Snowded got involved. I had previously had some history of interaction with both Brews and Snowded at Metaphilosophy, and was if anything closer to Brews' "side" in that conflict, though more in a mediating capacity than anything else. But my interactions with Brews at Free will quickly became an arduous chore that has dragged on for years, and I'm now very grateful for Snowded's and more recently Peter Damian's interventions there. The conflict at Free will, combined with some personal stuff leaving me less prepared to deal with it than I might have been in years past, is what's driven me to all but stop editing the encyclopedia. A more-mentally-resourced me from a few years ago would probably try to say something in Brews' defense here as he clearly means well and clearly has some talents that could be useful to the encyclopedia if focused correctly, so I feel a little bad for saying so; but I've been called extraordinarily patient by multiple other editors here on WP, so if even I am at my wits' end, and in light of so many other editors seeming to be as well, it seems likely that there is something or another problematic about Brews' behavior. I don't feel up to analyzing specific policy violations at the moment but at the very least I will echo other editors' comments regarding Brews' competency with philosophy; much of my discourse with him on Talk:Free will before I burnt out was trying to help educate him about the context of the sources he was appealing to and misinterpreting, and the usual meanings of words he seemed to misunderstand, and yes some rudimentary bits of logic even, and try as I might it just never seemed to get through. It makes me sad but something does probably need to be done about it, I just don't know what specifically. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Pfhorrest: I am disheartened by your comments here. Your remarks along with those of others here lead me to believe the basic goal of WP to present sourced material on philosophy in a balanced manner cannot be achieved by a discussion of sources on article Talk pages as envisioned in WP policiy WP:SECONDARY supplemented by WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS. You view our exchanges (as does Damian) as between an expert (you two) versus an incompetent (me) to be solved by education (you) or belligerence (Damian). A more useful approach is to view talk-page exchanges as one of presenting sourced opinion. When presented with sources that conflict, a discussion of proper weighting of opposing sources is a dispassionate process, unlike an insistence upon editor viewpoints based upon an editor's personal assumption of their own expertise, however well-founded that self-evaluation. Obviously WP is set up for all to contribute. If it were designed for expert contributions, it would adopt the organization of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and use invited articles. On WP the 'expert' demonstrates their competence by using their knowledge of sources to present those sources in a balanced manner, not by pulling rank. I have engaged in other areas of WP (geology and circuits, for instance) where exactly this helpful use of expertise has happened. I have no problem with an expert's presentation of sources (in contrast with personal opinion). However, those contributing to this ban proposal are opposed to the format of my contributions based upon sources, to the extent of attacking format only, and do not address content. In my opinion, the extended nature of my talk page interactions can be traced back not to an intransigent disposition, and not to my incompetence, but to my repeated effort to place discussion in the context of sources, not opinions and proselytizing. Brews ohare (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Site ban - In reading over the history over nearly a decade, it doesn't appear that the editor has learned anything, and his or her responses here indicate that he or she still doesn't seem to understand the policy on original research. Normally I would favor a warning or a topic ban, but those have already been tried and have failed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This unsubstantiated remark is unbalanced, insulting and unprovoked. I have contributed hundreds of articles and figures to WP without issue. Brews ohare (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Topic ban from all topics. Or site ban. Clearly not able to learn. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Apparentky, Only In Death, you do not think my explanation to Pfhorrest above of the ideal WP process is accurate, or do not believe I try to follow it. Which? Brews ohare (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No I think you should not be allowed to edit any article anywhere without a minder (subject matter expert) vetting every single edit. Since the prospect of anyone agreeing to that is about the same as the prospect of me being voted King of the Earth, a full site ban is really the only choice left. If I genuinely thought a 'one revert PER WEEK' restriction would work I would have suggested it. But again, anyone who has taken a short look at your history knows that is not going to fix anything. At this point anyone who votes for a topic ban needs to take a closer look at your history because all that will do is foist you off on another unsuspecting topic area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Only in Death: I asked a question. You did not answer clearly. Does your 'no' mean you disagree with my outline to Pfhorrest of how a contribution can be crafted even when sources disagree, or does your 'no' mean you don't think I follow this process. Or maybe you mean 'no' to both? Brews ohare (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what was unclear about 'You should not be editing without a keeper'. Otherwise I am not interested in being sucked into a pointless discussion with you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I have explained what was unclear, and your answer (paraphrased) is: To be clear would "suck me into" an explanation I don't care to provide. That indicates a careful and concerned thought process, eh? Brews ohare (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. In my admittedly limited knowledge I have found Brews ohare articulate and predisposed to engaging in extended dialogue with editors he might not agree with. He does this in a civil and reasoned manner. These are qualities in an editor which I value highly at this project. We should not be silencing people who we might disagree with over certain points. Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this is valid point. I also disagree with people who tell that Brews is an incompetent contributor. He is certainly competent in the area of Physics, Math and engineering, as clear from pages he created (around 40) and contributed to (a lot). I think the initial period of his editing in the project (several years ago) was just fine, however his interests and expertise are mostly related to Physics, so he was left with little to do after receiving the topic ban in Physics. My very best wishes (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I will fully agree that Brews is one of the most civil editors I've encountered, but unfortunately, there's still matters of not listening and beating a dead horse on a variety of topics. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has an interest in not pushing misinformation. Brews ohare makes good use of the article Talk page to persuasively engage with other editors to try to improve the encyclopedia. Brews ohare always seems to restate the position of the editor he is disagreeing with before presenting his case. This is what I had in mind when I mentioned civility, not mere avoidance of abrasiveness. The project benefits when one editor makes other editors think. The consequence of being an editor representing a minority viewpoint should not be banishment. Bus stop (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This only works in theory. But in practice, only two things matter: (a) if an editor X actually improves the content, and (b) if he can collaborate (or at least not create constant conflicts) with others. Speaking about (a), Brews did improve pages on Physics in the past, however looking at his recent edits in Biology (old version versus new version created by Brews - the diff), I must tell that he did not improve much. Quite the opposite. Speaking about (b), this entire ANI thread shows that he somehow angered a significant number of long-term contributors who are not POV-pushing SPA by any account, even after having similar conflicts before. Unfortunately, this may be a reason for a site ban for the good of the project, no matter how we both do not like it. My very best wishes (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that Brews is very civil, and in the past I was very much of the opinion that "talk things to death" was the right and proper way to resolve a conflict with a person who is open to reason. That's why I was willing to engage with Brews at Free will for years on end. But despite the superficial reasonability and civility there has been something difficult to identify that has prevented any notable progress by that method; and it's becoming clear, both from comments from other editor and my own experience now that I no longer have the time and energy to engage at such length as that, that it's unreasonable to expect other editors to engage at such length. I don't know what the right general solution is to such intractable but reasoned and civil debates, but it's becoming clear that there is some kind of a problem, even if it's hard to identify what it is exactly.

Regarding Brews' competence, he does seem to have more general knowledge than I would expect a random Joe off the street to have, but with regards to philosophy at least there has always seemed to be something subtly lacking that contributes greatly to the intractability of arguments. He does appeal to sources and that is great, much better than just pushing his own unsubstantiated opinion, but then when I look at the source he is appealing to, at the exact words in the source he is citing, I do not usually see the source saying something supporting what he wants to add to the article. I can often imagine, if I put in effort to follow how Brews' could get from the source to what he wants to support with it, a way that someone could misunderstand the source to mean something that might support what he wants to add to the article, but that interpretation is never one that would have just occurred to me just reading the source myself. At that point, where do we go with the appeal-to-sources approach Brews keeps insisting is the solution to everything? If he reads a source and comes away with one understanding of it, and others with experience and expertise in that field read the same source and come away with a completely different understanding, should that not count for something? How else can such differences in interpretation possibly be resolved? --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from philosophy at least. I haven't looked at most philosophy articles for a while, and Brews was the reason I stopped looking. He was adding material that bore little or no resemblance to anything you'd find in academic philosophy. I'm sorry to write so frankly about it, Brews, but it really was a problem. Sarah (SV) 18:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. AFAIK, Brews hasn't been rude or been causing vandalism, thus he shouldn't be site-banned. However, I hope he'll accept a topic-ban from the area-in-question, for his own sake. Furthermore, when any editor sees that he/she is in a minority-of-one in any discussion? it's best to eventually walk away from that discussion & stop trying to add/remove the edits that have caused such opposition. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Site ban. A quick reading shows little change from patterns that have persisted over many years and sucked up a lot of everyone's time. - Dank (push to talk) 18:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for sure. This pattern of writing articles by snatching up little bits out of disparate sources like a magpie building a nest is unacceptable. Defending it with inexhaustible torrents of words on talk pages isn't any better. You can't have a balanced discussion about what the sources say if the participants in that discussion can't be trusted to actually understand and interpret what they're reading. I'm very hesitant to support a site ban for someone who, for all his faults, is polite and has done some good work (far) in the past, but I started to fear for my sanity when I saw he'd made incursions into biology. No thanks, we get enough long-winded original synthesis of cherry-picked and half-understood sources already. I think what Brews really needs is a blog. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban or strict 0RR restriction. If the past is prologue, then just as what happened with his previous physics topic ban, a new topic ban will only result in Brews finding the next family of articles that interests him and the process will repeat. My guess is that the original topic ban by ArbCom was imposed in the hopes that his tendentious editing behavior was somehow connected to his technical expertise, and that editing outside of his topical comfort zone might deter such behavior. As noted by multiple editors above, that has not been the case. I am reluctant to suggest a site ban, but only see one other alternative. The only other viable alternative IMO is a strict 0RR restriction, which hopefully would better address the behavioral issue and force him to learn how to collaborate constructively rather than adversarially with other editors. Under such a restriction, Brews would not be able to reintroduce material removed by another editor without explicit consensus. Hopefully this will lead Brews to engage in other dispute resolution avenues besides ""wear down the opposition with continual pointless arguments", and other editors will be able to disengage from discussions with Brews on the talk page without worrying about him assuming an implied consensus from their silence. --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Assuming an implied consensus from their silence? That is almost humorous. The nature of debate and consensus includes the problem of understanding the meaning of a non-response to an argument. That is not a problem that can be laid at the door of any editor. Bus stop (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

FyzixFighter: I remember you from long ago. You may remember that during the 'physics ban' days I pointed out as you do now that the issue is not the subject matter. In fact, as I pointed out then, Administratiors explicitly exclude content from ArbCom considerations, which is a wise decision because they cannot tell the difference between math, physics, and philosophy. However, they imposed a physics ban anyway, and proceeded to misapply it time and again. The real issue, as I pointed out at the time, is that I continued to believe that reason would prevail on Talk pages and that disagreements should be resolved by arriving at a clear statement of what sources say. However, that is not the case, and instead discussion of sources is replaced by assertions that I am tendentious, violating policy, and so forth, and no attempt made to consider sources. After all, establishing recognition of one's personally outstanding gifts is what WP really is about, it seems. I suggested that I be curtailed to 3 attempts to make a point on a talk page, but for some reason no-one was happy with that proposal. Maybe they were embarrassed at actually having sources to contend with instead of assertions of their own. Who knows? Anyway, I am totally disgusted with the reaction of many of those assembled here (there are some exceptions of course), and have withdrawn completely from philosophy as requested. Brews ohare (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"which is a wise decision because they cannot tell the difference between math, physics, and philosophy. However, they imposed a physics ban anyway, and proceeded to misapply it time and again." Comments like this are why people are tired of dealing with you. Firstly the almost universal opinion is that everyone apart from yourself can tell the difference, which is part of the reason you were banned. Secondly it was not 'mis-applied'. It was quite reasonably and fairly applied. That you *CONTINUE TO FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THIS* is why you should be completely site banned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This remark shows you have not examined the history of Admin actions to enforce this ban which demonstrate exactly this issue. You are inclined to such blistering remarks with no foundation. Brews ohare (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban or site ban or any sort of ban that will end the endless disruption. Regardless of the level of disagreement with his ideas, a ban seems to be the only thing that will cause Brews to give up. Looie496 (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, Looie, although I have an almost inexhaustible patience with those who refuse to consider sources, and continually evade direct answers to simple questions by resorting to threats and insults, my ultimate disgust has proved as great a motivator in my withdrawal as a ban. Brews ohare (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Additional comment. Brews comment by comment 'rebuttal' of anyone who has said anything here is all to familiar to those of us who have experience of editing any page he is interested in. He resolutely refuses to see that he has done anything other than the right thing no matter how much evidence is presented, or how many editors explain things to him. This intransigence has gone on for years and will carry on wherever he edits. So I think a minimum is a topic ban and a universal 0RR restriction. I suspect that the only real solution is a site ban and a readmission on application showing some evidence of a willingness to change in say a years time. ----Snowded 16:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

104.35.41.35 SPA ?

I do get the impression, this IP user solely exists to mess up infoboxes of ancient chronology articles : User contributions of 104.35.41.35. There are too many edits for me to review and clean up. I had already posted this on User:Dougweller's talk page, but a bot removed it before he could respond. Could someone please have a look? ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Which articles in particular have I made unencyclopedic edits in? Or have all my edits been unecyclopedic? I can revert the changes that I have made where they are unencyclopedic. 104.35.41.35 (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This edit , for example, is simply incorrect. Do you know what B.C.E. means? I reverted it. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes. In the past User:Dougweller has informed me on my talk page to neither use BCE nor BC in a BP article, and that I should read WP:ERA. When I first added the infobox for the Oldowan article I was not aware about using BP only. I will make sure to use BP from now on and change all the dates of prehistory-related articles where I used BCE when I should have used BP. 104.35.41.35 (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
      • And yet you just edited the same article to restore an edit you agreed was incorrect? JoeSperrazza (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Hello there. I am the same person as 104.35.41.35 (talk). I have logged into my account. I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was the person who created the archaeological culture infobox for the article of Oldowan here nearly two months ago, back in 24 March 2015. Before then the Oldowan did not have that infobox. At the time that I created the infobox, I used BC in the infobox for an article that never uses BC. A few hours later I logged off my account and I changed the BC to B.C.E here . A few days later on 8 April 2015 (UTC) User:Dougweller informed me on my talk page here to neither use BCE nor BC in a BP article with no calendar dates and that I should take a look at WP:ERA. WP:ERA suggests the following here : "BP: In scientific and academic contexts, BP (before present) is often used. This is calibrated from January 1, 1950, not from the date of publication, though the latter introduces an insignificant error when the date is distant or an approximation (18,000 BP). BP years are given as 18,000 BP or spelled out as 18,000 years before present. BCE and CE or BC and AD are written in upper case, unspaced, without periods" The Oldowan article does not use calendar dates, and neither uses BC nor BCE. So it seemed inappropriate to use B.C.E., which was something that I had myself added to the infobox, which was an infobox that I had myself added to the article. I am not sure I understand the problem here, as I am simply correcting mistakes that I had myself made weeks earlier. However, you have reverted my edits so that the infobox of the Oldowan article uses B.C.E. instead of BP, which is something that User:Dougweller had advised me against. The Oldowan article itself only uses "million years ago" or "mya" such as in "2.6 million years ago up until 1.7 million years ago" and "2.6 mya". I will make sure to not use B.C.E. for articles regarding cultures and industries of prehistory (any time before roughly the year 3500 BCE) in the future, and I will now use BP, or years before present, or mya as necessary for the article. SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
        • And BP should only be used when sources give dates on BP, never as a substitute for BC/BCE. I'm wondering about competence here. PatHadley and Kanguole have left messages on this IP's talk page, perhaps they have something to do. Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• All of your edits are WP:OR and WP:SYN. You mix up archaeological, cultural, political chronologies. You add predecessor and successor links to infoboxes that do not reflect the actual temporal sequence. You substitute names of cultural periods as you please. I have started to look through your edits, but I just gave up. ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Persistent bad faith and personal attacks

@Earl King Jr.: has made persistent personal attacks against me and other users editing the Zeitgeist (film series) and Peter Joseph articles, accusing them of bias and being single purpose accounts. He seems to jump the gun, assuming anyone with a different opinion has been sent from the Zeitgeist project.

While the work of Earl King Jr. is generally good, and sometimes single purpose accounts have been involved, his attitude to other editors creates a hostile, non constructive, environment. It may be because he lacks the knowledge of how to check a users history when determining whether to use good faith. His actions are consistent with someone who thinks they own the page.

Examples of personal attacks, accusing me of bias and being a single purpose account-

• ref 1

• ref 2

• ref 3

Removal of an editor's comment, without specifying reason, on talk page:

• ref 4

Previous cases that may be related:

• ref 5

• ref 6

• ref 7

I'm not sure of the best way to proceed? Trying to engage Earl King Jr. has either resulted in more attacks, or simply being ignored.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• According to other editors the article is being flooded with people from Zeitgeist that have been called to edit Misplaced Pages also there are several Facebook site calls to edit involving many Facebook Zeitgeist supporters so apparently hundreds of people see these pleas to come and edit and join in and that makes for difficult times in maintaining neutral tone and keeping the adverting down. There are a lot of meat and sock accounts and many people on that page make their first edit and continue to edit pro their group. I think longer term page protection is in order for the article and talk page. Not sure what is going on with Jon but often they edit with the Zeitgeist factions that have flooded the article. That is my speculation. Bad faith edits? That is not fair. Personal attacks? No. Just trying to keep neutral presentation and promotion advert aspect out of the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It should of course be noted that regardless of the problems with meatpuppetry etc with TZM-related content, Earl King Jr's repeated descriptions of Jonpatterns as a single-purpose account are demonstrably false. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. For comparison: AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Request Page Name Change

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=G_Media

G Media has changed to Aiir.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihelpr (talk • contribs) 14:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done. ansh666 18:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.radioink.com/article.asp?id=2922147&spid=24698
2. https://media.info/radio/news/radio-web-company-g-media-becomes-aiir

Needs more salt...

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

Rape jihad was deleted and salted, but it appears that Rape Jihad (note capitalization) is unprotected. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

User talk:Paulkutty, see also history--Musamies (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It was deleted per CSD#U2, which is not applicable, by Lankiveil. As this is a user talk, wouldn't blanking (+ warning) be preferable to deletion without a note to the user? Was there a problem with the history that I'm not seeing that would make blanking and/or RevDel'ing not appropriate? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe just moving it to the user's actual (user/talk) page? –xeno 13:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Need help deleting a user subpage

The page User:Epicgenius/RTRC.js needs deleting per criterion U1. Epic Genius (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done. For future reference, {{db-u1}} would've worked fine (doesn't display properly but does add to the category. –xeno 20:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not add {{db-u1}} because it would have messed with the JavaScript of the page. Epic Genius (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

Anonymous user is consistently adding non-notable publications list information, to James R. Wait and Asım Orhan Barut articles. User has been banned from tr.wiki with same reason. --Eldarion (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

On the brink of collapse

Lately, especially in the last days, it feels like we're on Titanic after already hitting the iceberg and taking in water, but before starting to sink. Everywhere we look, there are backlogs building up. I just had a look at WP:SPI where there are open cases stretching back to April. WP:ANV looks good right now, but I've frequently seen a 10-hour backlog during which vandals manage a lot of damage. At WP:ANI, more and more discussions are never closed. I'd say an unclosed report is always a bit of a failure; many are not good but could be still be closed. We've come to a situation where backlogs are now feeding themselves. For instance, the lack of a attention to a user's unblock request led to a rant on WP:ANI . (The request was perhaps unfounded, but then it could have been turned down). Despite the pointy cabal accusations, the subsequent discussion showed that many users (and admins) have noted this same problem. Same thing today, again a post on WP:ANI about the lack of attention . In fairness, it was dealt with rather quickly, but it was such an obvious case it could have been quicker. These are just a few examples, but I see more and more such examples and, worryingly enough, more and more good, serious users as well as admins commenting on it , , , . I'm not saying there's one single case that is very serious (I haven't seen it) and I certainly have launched no unaddressed report myself that would require immediate admin intention. But the general picture is beginning to look worrying. Admins do a fantastic job here, an unpaid and voluntary job and the usual "thanks" is abuse and insults and accusations. The last thing I intend is to accuse any admin, and I don't think any other established user do either. Notwithstanding that admins do all they can, though, if this situation continues, Misplaced Pages will be in problem. The whole structure is reliant on vandals, socks, conflicts and disruptive users being addressed quickly. The more time it takes, the more damage is done which in turns require more time to sort out, and which can push serious users away, and we're quickly entering a downward spiral. Not calling for any quick fix, nor for admin attention to any specific issue, but for a good discussion about what we can all do.Jeppiz (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Your links are helpful, thanks. The two most recent discussions I'm aware of are WP:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_120#Proposed_user_right:_Vandal_fighter and WP:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_119#Last chance for a while. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, those discussions are very relevant. I agree with the premise. Given the current situation, I think extending some responsibilities to established users in rather straightforward matters would free up some time for admins to focus on the more complex issues.Jeppiz (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• While we can certainly use more admins, I disagree with some of what your pointing to. To start with AIV, it is rare for a blatant case of vandalism, were the vandal was fully warned, (4 escalating warnings followed by another act of vandalism) to not result in a quick block. If there is a report there more than 60 minutes old, it is almost always a more ambiguous case. For example, I'm very cautious about blocking genre warriors reported to AIV, because my own understanding of Genre sucks; not in a position to make a judgement either way, genre warrior reports pile up, and may not be actioned for a few hours, creating an appearance that AIV has a long backlog, when it only sort of does. As for reports on AN/I not being closed, until a year or two ago, reports at AN/I were not regularly closed unless it was a specific proposal that needed a consensus determination. Not every thread on AN/I needs to have a definitive outcome, sometimes they just fizzle out and the issue doesn't arise again. There are real backlogs, but its typically not critical time sensitive things like active vandalism, but things like RM, where another month is annoying, but wont be the end of the world. Monty₈₄₅ 19:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I would probably describe it more as "on the decline" than "on the brink of collapse". I don't really have any "big picture" solutions for you though. I've just been trying to do my part, ie I've recently learned and started contributing to CSD for the first time in these last few months. Sergecross73 msg me 19:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• There are a few things that could be done. The most logical (and, unfortunately, the most unlikely) would be to tighten registration procedures to ban IP editing and require some sort of significant registration process to edit. This would reduce vandalism by an enormous percentage, lightening workload. Second would be an unbundling of tools to enlarge the anti-vandalism force. Third would be an expansion of the pool of administrators through an easing of the RFA process. We approved a record low 22 new admins in 2014 and are on a pace to set a new record low in 2015. Desysopping of inactive administrators will once again top the 50 mark. There are less than 600 administrators with 30 or more edits in the last 2 months, which is a very loose definition of "active." The question is: how many are really needed? Carrite (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks Monty, well argued disagreement is always the best thing. Support is nice, badly argued disagreement annoying, but well argued disagreement is both nice and instructive. I agree that I've only rarely see AIV with a big backlog, though those rare occasions are all recent. I agree it's not the my main concern. About AN/I, I would argue that closure is always a good thing. Quite a large number of unclosed cases tend to come back sooner rather than later. I'm not saying that does not happen with closed cases, but if a case has been closed and comes back without any major development, it's a very easy close by just referring to the old one. Even though closing cases take some time, I'd posit it may be a time saver in the long run. And Sergecross73, of course "on the decline" is a more accurate description than on the brink of collapse, pardon my somewhat dramatical exaggeration. But ideally, we would not want decline either, right? Carrite, I think you nail it, thanks for those very relevant (and slightly worrying) statistics. With an already low number of active admins, and an actual decline in the number of admins both in 2014 and (on current trends) in 2015, it's little wonder the situation is becoming more difficult. While I agree with Sergecross73 about decline rather than collapse, it's not rare than a slow decline rapidly becomes a large decline when a critical point is reached. The harder it gets to edit and admin, the less admins and good users are likely to stay, making it still harder to edit and admin, and downwards we go.Jeppiz (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyone up for a rangeblock?

I have just blocked Good Tamarous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the repeated addition of unsourced material (much of it outright lies) as well as WP:CIR issues. The problem is, the block is based on not just his logged-in contribs, but his other contribs made while logged out, which are obviously the same person. It looks as though the account was used mostly to create pages and the IPs would then be usewd to edit them. The big tell is the edit sumarries, have a look and I'm sure you'll see what I mean. (see history of Machar Kounyuk United FC and the now-deleted and salted Clement K. Sylvester) Any chance the range can be blocked? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• It's fairly narrow, so I blocked 199.190.46.0/25 anon.only and with ACB for a month. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• An edit conflict after all that work. :-( I was going to make it a month too, but actually it seems highly unlikely anybody else would be using that tiny range to edit Misplaced Pages, Beeblebrox. You could make the block longer if you want. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC).

Thanks to both of you. Even after all this time I still have no clue about rangeblocks. Hopefully this will be the end of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

See, this is why I had kids. My son has made me a mommytool that gives a range when I feed IPs into it. It enables me to look incredibly brilliant without having to understand a word of the whole range thing. Bishonen | talk 19:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC).

Useful reading....and this although I still try to claim ignorance about the latter. Huh? IPv6...what the hell is that?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I always get to the part where it says that if you should be really careful and if you aren't sure just ask soemone else and I think maybe I'll just skip right to the ask someone else part. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm still impressed at myself for implementing at least one succesful IPv6 rangeblock, though I clearly just followed explicit directions on how to and wouldn't be able to tell you how it really works. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Do we delete RfAs?

Regarding this - I ask the question here, because I figure that Admins, as a group, are likely to know the answer: Do we actually ever delete RfAs? I've seen them courtesy blanked, but deleted? BMK (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, an admin may want to take a look at the contribution list of DL9C, who made the nomination above, and offer him or her some counseling. It's a pretty strange list for an editor who came on board on April 3. BMK (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

If a troll starts an RfA for someone else and the target doesn't want it whatsoever, then sure, delete it. G3 may apply. Example: Misplaced Pages:Requests for bureaucratship/Salvidrim. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Was the RFA submitted by the subject, or by someone else for the subject? The discussion, which is going to Keep, is to keep it as evidence against the subject. If it was submitted by someone else, e.g., maliciously, then that should be mentioned in the MFD, and a malicious RFA should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It was submitted by the subject. BMK (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Outside of explicit vandalism or other problematic content (BLPvio, NPA, NLT, copyvio, etc.), failed RfAs started by the nominee should be kept (IMO), no matter how misguided the editor was. Courtesy blanking of old silly RfAs could be considered on a case-by-case basis for "reformed" users. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog