After the article was finally deleted (,_2016#Irregularities_during_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries.2C_2016), an editor (see next section) deleted both the original and the worked-on fraud articles from my user page. When I reverted his edits, he protected my page - locking me out of editing it at all.


Subsequent to all the discussion below, @Drmies deleted (irrevocably) my User Page - of which I now actually do not have control. I was then blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia essentially until I drop the issue of fraud or the extra-procedural tactics Editors have used to excise it from Wikipedia in entirety.

Thereafter, Ricky81682, who's an attorney who should frankly know better in Ontario, California, unnecessarily appended this false and damaging claim to my User Page.

If you actually are a law student, you clearly must have failed ConLaw if you're mad that a private website has rules about what it allows on its pages and thinks that's a first amendment issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Fine. I struck this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
This is a defamatory comment. I never alleged a constitutional issue. Saying that I did so in an attempt to cast shade on my legal knowledge is totally inappropriate. My concern all along was with Wikipedia editors' unwillingness or inability to follow their own rules. I will send this to the defamation email along with the previous issue. Michael Sheflin (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed what happened. And now I can see they banned you.... Wow it's so sad. I've been explaining to people how bad this site got, but this is so bad. I actually stopped reading wiki content (I havent come to wiki until this moment for the sole reason of responding to you) and got some of my family members to also stop using it since wikipedia has gone from being something good to something bureaucratic and very evil (lying, propaganda, etc, filled with angry lonely miserable people). Anyways I posted a comment on your blogspot thing. Kswikiaccount (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
You have one chance to remove the legal attacks or I'm reblocking you and removing talk page access. Being the equivalent of a sovereign citizen screaming that you know what the "rules" here are and ignoring everyone else is not helping your cause. I have no idea what "the defamation email" you're sending this to but you don't own your userpage regardless of how much you want to make up your own interpretation of our policies here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC) - "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." I have sent these to the email noted in that section. Please don't threaten me as a means to achieving your content-goals. I have made no legal threats of any kind. Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Maybe your issue is with the use of "defamatory," but as I am explaining - I have made no legal threats of any kind. I am merely concerned about the false and potentially damaging statements that have been consistently made about me - not just by you. Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Struck that comment. I suggest you move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: Template:Tlx.
I've blocked you to put a stop to this. Just drop it. I don't see any indication that you are here to actually work on the encyclopedia or more importantly care to actually listen to anyone else. If you want to return, show us that you've moved on and won't keep up this pointless drama. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Please Unprotect and then Stop Vandalizing My Talk Page

I was going to politely ask you to stop vandalizing my talk page, but it appears to be protected. As my page 1) formed a record of why I left Wikipedia, 2) formed a record of an overt violation of Wikipedia's spirit and procedures, and 3) preserved said railroading in an attempt to illegitimately squelch a minority viewpoint, it meets all relevant criteria for inclusion in a talk page and meets no relevant criteria for removal. Please explain yourself.

I'd really rather not have to appeal this matter to adjudication. And I really didn't think I'd have to start taking this to the media. Michael Sheflin (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I protected your user page only to the extent that IP editors can't edit it, because some IP editor put back the material I deleted. I am assuming in good faith that you were not that IP editor. Any logged-in editor (including yourself) should still be able to edit it. But, as I said in my AfD close, using your user page to keep copies of articles from mainspace is a violation of wikipedia policies, including WP:UP#COPIES and WP:FAKEARTICLE. Our goal is neither to endorse or squelch minority viewpoints. We are an encyclopedia, not an editorial page. I would suggest you read WP:HERE. If you believe I have acted incorrectly, by all means, please ask for a review of my actions. Oh, I see you already have. I will respond further on that page. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
That was me on my phone. I apologize for misunderstanding what you did. It locked me out of reverting the last two points of vandalism, so I thought your lockout was broader. I retained the article simply as part of a broader narrative of what I felt was - hopefully just through groupthink - the overt suppression of a minority viewpoint sourced reputably (and well). I want people to make up their own minds on that. I don't think the original article is great and I never cared as much about the info personally as about opening up that space on wikipedia. My understanding (from Wiki's page on User Pages) is that's actually a core purpose of user pages.
While "Userspace is also not a substitute for project space" - as I've noted... this isn't a project space, it's a record of an attempt to squelch a minority viewpoint... Additionally, user pages are expressly allowed as proto-collaborative pages that - if it "becomes widely used or linked in project space, or has functional use similar to a project page, [might be] consider[ed] [for a] mov[e] [] into project space or merging it with other similar pages already existing there." I accepted that the article would be deleted. Could you possibly articulate simply the legitimate reasons - in league with Wiki's policies for inclusion and deletion of an article - that allowed you to do so? I'm not challenging you, I've just never gotten a reasonable articulation of why the original section was excluded, why the page was targeted immediately, and now why it's been deleted. Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


Help... my user page has been vandalized and protected by an overzealous editor

I carefully read the policies for inclusion or exclusion of content on a user page. After deciding that I was well within my rights within the spirit and letter of said procedures and policies, I copied an article that I felt was being deleted in an attempt to overtly squelch a minority viewpoint - along with all relevant debates on that suppression - into my User page. I then started to build upon the removed article (while retaining the original as a comparison (for what collaborative editing could have produced if good faith were employed, essentially)) in hopes it could become a collaborative space in line with that stated element of User pages. And also to 1) preserve why I've left Wikipedia, 2) preserve a copy of the purportedly violative content to show the violation of Wiki's spirit and policies (in order to suppress said minority viewpoint); and 3) preserve the illegitimacy of the removal of the page in question and the incommensurability and disingenuous of the debates surrounding their removal.

Now an editor has removed that material. When I reverted it, he removed it again under the guise of disruptive editing and protected the page. This is totally outrageous and I am embarrassed to have to argue for control over my own user page - or even an explanation for what incorrect interpretation of policies/procedures would justify such an undue intrusion. Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Er, no. Content deleted per a deletion discussion should not be copied and pasted into userspace. Userspace is not a magic shield that can protect you from the community's decision. That is really not how it works. And as clearly stated at WP:UP#COPIES and WP:FAKEARTICLE user pages should not be permanent long term storage of things that look like articles. In any case, your user page was semi-protected to stop disruptive edits from an IP. You should still be able to edit it. I really think you need to drop the stick here and move on. That article that you copied into your userspace was not appropriate for Wikipedia. It was a POVFORK and FRINGE material and belongs nowhere. Move on. --Majora (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
As I noted here ( that is not a correct reading of the policies on User Pages - unless there is a page/info to which I have not yet been privy. I can start to quote more about how I meet criteria for what can go in User Pages, but it might be easier for you to just summarize the violation concisely. Elsewhere that'd be called the first step toward de minimus due process. Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh and per the giant notice on the edit window and the notice at the top of this page you must notify people you decide to bring here. I have done that for you since you failed to do so. --Majora (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Msheflin states above that the IP edits were really done by himself. Given that, the reason for the protection no longer exists, I have removed the protection. That being said, it is still inappropriate to keep copies of deleted articles in your userspace, for the reasons I stated in my AfD close, and again on my talk page, and as reiterated by User talk:Majora above. Please do not replace the deleted material. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I understand, and I understand how it might seem that I am trying to skirt the deletion. I assure you that's not the case. I also apologize for misunderstanding that he only locked out IP edits. And I apologize for my misunderstanding of how to use this board. I think you misunderstand the purpose of my user space. It was not to magically retain the article. The retention was merely as an example of what had been removed - I think - without cause. That's why I also retained the debates over removal, to demonstrate that the original consensus for exclusion (from an article) lacked any "legitimate concern" and then to show that the deletion discussion similarly lacked reference to the article itself and was simply blowback from the majority viewpoint. The 'disruptive' edit was clearly me on my cellphone reverting the vandalism, but again I apologize for this confusion. I will not be dropping the stick. I will instead be taking this to media sources. It's offensive to call this fringe. And I'll point out that my user page appeared to contain the only reference to the Guccifer leak on wikipedia, I think pretty clear evidence of a majoritarian sanitization effort. I truly hope I'm wrong on that. Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:Ping I see you have once again restored the deleted material. So there is no further misunderstanding, let me be quite clear. Do NOT restore it again. If you do, you will be blocked from any further editing. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm very confused... And now glad I opened this. On what grounds will I be blocked from further editing of my user page? Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Specifically, putting back that material would violate the three revert rule. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Very concise! I'll copy and paste it back in so as to not violate that rule. Or are you saying that you get a consensus say in what's include on my user page? Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, you might find it informative that "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR ... 2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines." So if you block me from editing my user page for a 3RR violation, we'll have a real issue... though it might support my original point about victimization. Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
What part of "do not include that content on your page" are you missing? This is approaching WP:NOTHERE territory and I wonder if the whole userpage is worthy of a WP:MFD deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand illogic used to impose hierarchy... What part of the internet revolution did you miss? Also... per disingenuous attempts to get me to shut up - you might note that "[b]ecause Wikipedia is a community as well as an encyclopedia, the community tolerates a reasonable degree of non-encyclopedic content. Examples include certain humor pages, userboxes, and a wide range of user page designs." However, User Pages may be problematic if they "include social network pages and promotional material in user-space, negative pages about other users, 'laundry lists' of complaints, cliques and self-selecting or 'restricted membership' user-created bodies, and non-project material likely to prove overly disruptive or divisive." How is non-project material on my user page likely to prove overly disruptive/divisive? Or do you see other conditions in there that would exclude said content? Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you have missed an important concept here. You stated above, I apologize for my misunderstanding of how to use this board. And, that's the problem. This is not a board. This is a serious project to build an encyclopedia. It's not a board, or a blog, or a social network, or a chat room, or a free web hosting service, or an outlet for political statements. Everything that happens and exists here, including user pages, is explicitly to support the goal of writing an encyclopedia. It's not your userpage, in the sense that you have some sort of ownership of it, or any rights to it. It is a tool which is intended to help build the encyclopedia. And that means there are policies about what's appropriate and not appropriate to do with it. Two specific policies that you were violating are described at WP:UP#COPIES and WP:FAKEARTICLE. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have. I was apologizing to Majora for incorrectly using the Administrators' noticeboard... A serious encyclopedia would not have squelched this viewpoint. And as I quoted above, your attempt to fit those policies here is totally inappropriate and disingenuous. Quote from those pages what I am violating. But be careful, because the quotes you'll need actually touch upon affirmative rights to use User Pages as proto-article collaborations, and I will thus be responding with that quote. So your goal here is to outthink Wiki's policies knowing what my response will be. Your move, sir. Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually you can just look at my petition for protection, which notes the explicit Wikipedia policies protecting the content on my User Page that you have disregarded. I assume you just weren't aware of them, so have a look through this ( Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
And you have been pointed to the policies which apply here - WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:UP#COPIES, and WP:IAR. As I told you on RFPP, bothering by the book doesn't help on Wikipedia. To me, you're coming across as someone who's ragequitting because a consensus decision went against them and thus you are trying to cite specific policies to support your cause while at the same time outright disregarding the other policies that contraindicate what you're doing. Also, please bear in mind that we have policies with regards to minority/fringe viewpoints: WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE cover these, and both essentially mean "They should be proportionately covered only insofar as reliable sources have covered them". —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I can seem to you anything you like. Quote what I'm violating from those articles... None of the undue or fringe aspects apply to my user page. Also why would these: . "Provided other users can quickly and easily find the pages they need, users may, within reason, freely organize their user pages as they choose." I accepted consensus excluded this info from the original Primaries article; I accepted the consensus deletion. I still feel those were illegitimate and my talk page was my attempt to record the process in hopes of returning to his issue later. Those are expressly protected by the spirit and letter of wiki policies. Full disclosure, by the way, I back all of this stuff up:
Moreover, WP:Fringe "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." This is my user page not an article. WP:Undue "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace". Neither apply to my talk page. I have also cited to the affirmative rights wiki grants me in this regard. This isn't just explicit, it also violates the collaborative, good-faith assuming environment wikipedia is supposed to embody. Michael Sheflin (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I have deleted the user's user page, which violates WEBHOST and also attacks other Wikipedia users. Msheflin, you are seriously risking a block here for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Your comment that I attacked other users is likely defamatory. It also, I assume, encompasses the transcripts of discussions. That is explicitly protected in User Pages; and it inherently attacks no one. If that is the justification for your removal, you may revert my page. If you intend to push that spurious and malicious line of thinking I may have to consider more litigious options. Michael Sheflin (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
At this point you will want to read WP:NLT as you have walked right up to that line and might have crossed over it. MarnetteD|Talk 21:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm a law student. That is not a legal threat. But accusing someone of attacking others - where false and malicious as here - is on the line of per se defamation. Do you guys read the stuff you cite to... "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." ( Michael Sheflin (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
This editor has - yet again - restored the link that has been removed more than once. Clearly they are WP:NOTGETTINGIT. MarnetteD|Talk 21:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes. I didn't understand that I couldn't post a link on my talk page; this discussion has entirely concerned my User Page. Are you unfamiliar with your duty to assume good faith? Michael Sheflin (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


Indefinite semi-protection: @RoySmith has been vandalizing and has now threatened to indefinitely restrict me from editing my own User Page. This is based on a misunderstanding of my talk page's goal (see: ; and

Wikipedia explicitly authorizes the use of user pages to be used for: "Notes related to your Wikipedia work and activities," "Work in progress or material that you may come back to in future," "Matters that are long enough, or active enough, to allocate them a page of their own," "Personal writings suitable within the Wikipedia community," "Experimentation," and "A small and proportionate amount of suitable unrelated material." (

When I reverted Roy's vandalism, he threatened "Do NOT restore it again. If you do, you will be blocked from any further editing." This is totally outrageous, and it is based on a disingenuous reading of Wiki's policies. Moreover, when I asked what rules I was violating, he puzzlingly stated, "Specifically, putting back that material would violate the three revert rule." He has not responded to my explanation that User Pages are exempt from 3RR restrictions. This is totally outrageous and is the continuation of an attempt to squelch a minority view on the 2016 Primary Elections - which my user page attempted to preserve a record of (those attempts to misuse Wiki policies to suppress that viewpoint).

At this point, I need to humbly request protection to control my own User Page. Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. I don't think you understand what "indefinite semi-protection" means; that would prevent IPs editing the page, but would have no effect on established editors, and it looks like the only IP to have edited the page recently is yourself. ‑ Iridescent 20:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for clarifying this. I actually forgot to select a level of protection - I copied this from the last post prior. May I simply edit this to request full protection or should I repost the request? Again... I'm very sorry... my procedural understanding is limited. Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
You have already opened a discussion on WP:AN, please don't forum shop. Just like your userpages, this board isn't a soapbox. Whether or not you change your request to be about full protection, it'll be declined. Please focus instead on the WP:AN discussion. Bishonen | talk 20:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC).
Template:Ec There is no possibility that I or any other admin is going to full-protect your userpage just because you're engaged in an argument about what can be kept on it. (Aside from anything else, not wishing to state the obvious but full-protection would still allow RoySmith to edit it, but would prevent you from doing so, which I presume is not what you want.) ‑ Iridescent 20:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not forum shopping. I don't understand the institutional structure to achieve the remedy I'm seeking... I suspect that'd be true of most random editors. I'll also note my request for protection is due to the explicit violation of wiki policies. "Provided other users can quickly and easily find the pages they need, users may, within reason, freely organize their user pages as they choose." Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC) And thank you for the clarification about the level of protection... I guess I was under the mistaken impression Wikipedia stood by its policies on neutrality. Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Note that bothering by the book generally does not work here, especially since the spirit, not the letter, of the rules are generally followed. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
And the spirit also prevents squelching and suppressing the minority viewpoint. But end of the day, no reasonable concern has been given for allowing an editor to threaten me into altering the content of my User Page - nor was any given for the removal of content from my talk page. What I'm getting from this is that a) there's no remedy; b) shut up, go away, your viewpoint is irrelevant. This is on the heels of a very long and (in my opinion disingenuous spirit-of-wiki-violating) attempt to remove all question of irregularities in the Dem Primaries from the article, then from its own page, then from my talk page. That's not the goal of a serious encyclopedia. That's an infotech hitjob. Michael Sheflin (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)