Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody#Statement of the dispute

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 06:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

[edit]
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Over an extended period of time, A Nobody (talk · contribs) has disrupted a variety of areas of Wikipedia. Despite counseling from several users, he has failed to change his behavior or accept responsibility for his actions. Specific problems are outlined below, but A Nobody has edited tendentiously, adopted a battlefield mentality in deletion discussions, and hounded or harassed participants in those discussions and at AN/I.

Desired outcome

[edit]
This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

That A Nobody (talk · contribs) voluntarily stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground where editors are either allies or foes and that he recognize that serious substantive criticism exists regarding his methods and behavior. Further, when a significant number of folk tell him that a certain behavior is problematic and he needs to change it, he needs to take that on board and actually change his behavior.

Description

[edit]

A Nobody has edited Wikipedia under a number of identities since October 2006. In that time, he has been caught abusively sockpuppeting on two occasions, misusing sources, being uncivil to other users, hounding other users, and harassing users by maintaining lists of edits for the purpose of exacting revenge at a later date, and using discussion forums to make disruptive points about his views on matters.

A Nobody, as Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (talk · contribs), began editing with a focus on voting keep in AfD in October 2006; blocked by Durova for 6 weeks (Attempted vote fixing at AfD, gross violations of WP:POINT). He has been intent on confounding the deletion process ever since. He has used three socks and some occasional IPs in the process. Durova blocked the first two socks in April 2007, and indefed LGRdC. She granted a Good Faith unblock in July 2007 and offered him mentorship. LGRdC resumed his focus on confounding AfD. The mentorship ended circa September 2008 after an abuse of the Right to Vanish, which involved a claim of real-world, off-wiki harassment. LGRdC soon unvanished as Elisabeth Rogan and IPs and was soon blocked; Rogan focused on AfDs. As a part of the RTV, the LGRdC account was renamed twice (B988a4299d07c0f61fbc8378965438f0 (talk · contribs) and Renamed user 19 (talk · contribs)) and was allowed to unvanish after a third rename to User:A Nobody. A Nobody focuses on confounding AfD to this day.

Note A Nobody changed his name due to claims of real world stalking and harassment. Though it is not our business to judge the veracity of those claims we believe that noting past behavior using the old username is both necessary for clarity and is minimally damaging to A Nobody, as the majority of the mentions are diffs to extant pages where his signature already exists. The page has been {{NOINDEX}}'d and mentions have been kept to a minimum but I would urge folks to bring complaints about the name to the talk page rather than edit warring over them here.

Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit]
  • This statement from A Nobody, in reply to a post by Backslash Forwardslash, evinces at least half of the concerns; follow-up by Backslash Forwardslash.

Socking

[edit]

Incivility and refusal to accept when he is called on his behaviour

[edit]
A Nobody regularly removes warnings from his talk page without reply and often with misleading edit summaries.
  • removal of warnings from his talk page:
  • Childishly parroting comments of other users with the meaning deliberately inverted:

Lying

[edit]

Disruption/Point

[edit]

Disruption of AfD by merging during discussion or fait accompli

[edit]
Taking a cue from
Much discussion at WT:AFD#Merging during live AfD. No consensus that this is acceptable
current threads on User talk:A Nobody @ #Mergers of current AfDs again,see also #AfDs and sourcing, and #Merging articles during AfDs (oldid: [24])
Much the same occurred during:

Disruption of AfD by referring to other possible subjects for an article at the same title

[edit]

A Nobody has a habit of commenting at AfDs where an article looks likely to be deleted, and stating that because there is some other topic that could possibly exist at the same title, the existing article should not be deleted. In the past, he also did this late in deletion discussions and raised an immediate deletion review claiming that the scope of the AfD had been changed during the discussion, invalidating all previous !votes.

  • AfD/Vulcan Ventures
  • DRV:Commander Dante was listed for DRV. The article was originally about a Warhammer character, but because A-N had inserted one sentence about a real person who had gone by the name "Commander Dante", he felt the entire discussion should be overturned.

Assuming bad faith

[edit]

A Nobody assumes bad faith of anyone who does not share his views; of anyone who would delete anything other than a hoax, libel, or a copyvio. His is a worldview of Inclusionists vs Deletionists and of an endless battle with his opponents.

Bad faith and specious arguments at AfD
[edit]

There are many, many AfDs A Nobody has show bad faith in; #Incivility, above; the many characterizations of other editors as using "dishonest" arguments;

Bad faith at RfA
[edit]

There are a great many cases where A Nobody/LGRDdC opposed RfA candidates on purely inclusionist/bad faith grounds. These generally take the form of opposing a candidate because he !voted to delete an article, often over a year previous to the nomination, and A Nobody disagreed with the !vote.

  • RfA/Foxy Loxy 3 — April 2009. RfA successful; User:fl.
    Opposes a candidate because he supported another RfA. Maligned candidate for a "weak judgment of character" and for "not [being] persuaded by overwhelmingly convincing arguments" (A Nobody's arguments).
    see WT:RFA#A Nobody's oppose vote on Foxy Loxy's RFA.
  • RfA/Kww 2 — April 2009. RfA did not succeed.
    Opposes on ideological grounds pertaining to fictional characters and television episodes.
    Later adds question for candidate: Given your participation in the fiction related arbcom cases and threads, including the one in which you were nearly sanctioned, would you close AfDs for fictional characters and television episodes?
  • RfA/Thumperward 2 — March 2009. RfA did not succeed.
    Opposes, citing lists of AfDs up to a year old within 15 minutes of the RfA being posted, and before it had even been transcluded (#Keeping lists of "bad" acts).
  • Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Protonk — October 2008. RfA successful.
    Days after his 'unvanish' he's back to bad faith opposing opponents at RfA on ideological grounds re E&C.
    Asserts: His immediately jumping into AfDs is also somewhat unusual for a “new” user. — which LGRdC did quite early on.
  • Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Magioladitis 2 — October 2008. RfA successful.
    Seeks vow to never close discussions on television characters or episodes
  • RfA/Sgeureka — December 2008. RfA successful.
    Opposes as too biased with regards to content inclusion to trust with closing certain articles for deletion. Unless if the candidate pledges to not close any fiction related AfDs, which even I would do were I ever to run for adminship (really unlikely...), I cannot support.
  • RfA/Seraphim Whipp — March 2008. RfA successful; User:Seraphim.
    Opposed per weak arguments made in arbitration case (E&C 2), i.e. views not in accord with A Nobody's. Later acknowledged that his oppose was because of our disagreement over the value of episode and character articles. After much discussion of his oppose, he moved to weak oppose and later yet to neutral since she was nice to me and Seresin clarified.
  • RfA/Seresin — February 2008. RfA successful.
    Opposes per Not enough effort displayed to improve articles and too much effort to destroy them. Seems to make weak arguments in AfDs and in the Episode and Characters Case.
  • Two indications that non-support of his merge-during-AfD tactic will be a reason to oppose candidates at RfA (posts are to 'Positive' and 'Negatives' sections of his RfA Standards) — September 2009
  • RfA/Willking1979 2 — September 2009. RfA successful.
    Duly withdrew his support of a user at RFA because the candidate disagreed with A Nobody's policy proposal.

Harassment and Hounding

[edit]

A Nobody staunchly defends editors with whom he agrees and relentlessly seeks sanctions and restrictions on editors who do not share his views or who are critical of him. He attempts to have policies and procedures changed or removed to support his positions. Anyone at RfA who has ever offended him, even by !voting to delete an article over a year ago, faces a withering barrage of opposition and attempts to elicit pledges to recuse from E&C/Fiction related administration activities such as AfD closes.

Keeping lists of "bad" acts
[edit]

A Nobody seems to maintain extensive documentation of edits by his opponents which he employs regularly at RfA and AN/I.

Targeting critics for sanction
[edit]
  • ANI; two attempts to sanction Jack Merridew — April 2009
    two long threads that proved unactionable and contain a large amount of muckraking by A Nobody in an effort to extend Jack Merridew's unban sanctions and/or re-ban him
  • ANI#Proposal: Community ban of Sceptre — April 2009
    Revenge proposal to ban someone who proposed banning him
  • Filing a retaliatory WQA here — June 2008
    He even had to clean up the copy/paste job later — the retaliation was just the same report with names reversed.
Trying to delete or remove policies, guidelines, and essays which he opposes
[edit]

Sourcing

[edit]

A Nobody advances poor, unreliable, synthesized, or spurious sources in support of keeping articles, or asserts that a list of hits in a search for a subject's name somehow proves that sources exist for the subject, rather than selecting and pointing out the actual reliable sources.

  • Warning by Kung Fu Man re AfDs and sourcing — September 2009
  • AfD/Pete White — August 2009
    A Nobody: A typical invocation of WP:GHITS as a reason to keep. The source he did add discusses the character in about half of a single sentence; hardly "Significant coverage": means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
  • Salvation, Texas — July 2009
    Adds sources re different subjects to thwart deletion discussion; adds a third off-topic source.
  • Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom) — April 2009
    Glues together two unrelated sentence fragments from a Google Books copy of a mini-series review to concoct: Ron Wertheimer describes Virginia as "that plucky waitress...on her way to self-confidence."
  • Hélène Deschamps Adams — September 2009
    Uses a video game review as a source for an article on a historical figure.
  • Regularly throws raw Google/Amazon searches into AfDs as 'evidence' of verifiabiliy and notability.
    [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57]

Relevant discussion board threads

[edit]

Applicable policies and guidelines

[edit]
  1. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry
  2. Wikipedia:Civility
  3. Wikipedia:Etiquette
  4. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
  5. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
  6. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  7. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing
  8. Wikipedia:Gaming the system
  9. Wikipedia:Right to vanish
  10. Wikipedia:Harassment
  11. Wikipedia:Verifiability

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

[edit]
  1. LGRdC's first warning re AfD — 6 November 2006:
    Your recent "votes" on articles for deletion are rather unproductive. Since AfDs are not votes, but rather discussions, your comments are adding very little. Comment on the articles and participate in these discussions rather than copy and pasting your viewpoints on the encyclopedia's status from AfD to AfD. User:Either way, [59]
    endorsed:
    May I suggest that you please do not xerox your comments on the AfD discussions? You are not helping in the consensus building process. If you are willing to participate, then please analyse the articles and the reasons presented for deletion before stating your opinions. Otherwise your comments will just be deemed irrelevant. Thank you. User:Husond, [60]
    reply:
    I stand by my comments and votes. I only posted the keeps on ones that I thought should be kept. I can't bring it to myself to vote negative, because I know someone must have spent time writing an article. LGRdC, [61]
    a half-hour later, another warning (User:Simoes)
    LGRdC copy-pasted the prior reply
    Simoes:
    You seem to be doing the same thing to those who post on your talk page. This sort of behavior is not considered productive. Please stop now and reassess how you edit and deal with other editors. [62]
    Sandstein calls POINT:
    Let me please echo what the people above have said and note that in my opinion, your behaviour violates WP:POINT. Inserting copy-pasted unspecific "keep" votes into every AfD in sight, even in cases where the article very obviously merits deletion, is disruptive and detrimental to consensus-building. If you disagree with the deletion policy, the way to go about this is not to disrupt the process. If you do not desist, an administrator may block you for disruption.
    reply:
    Okay, enough already. Y'all are starting to beat a dead horse on this one. Telling someone something once is usually sufficient. All of the specific articles, I though should be kept and not every single "keep" post of mine was identical. Sure, many were, but there was some variation and after the first message on my talk page, I made all new "keep" messages more precise. Beating the same point to death after the message has been received is well . . . LRGDC, [63]
    Message has still not been received most of three years later.
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Japanese respected by the world — 12 July 2008, warning by Protonk
  3. User talk:A Nobody#Whither disengagement — 14 July 2008
    attempt to engage by Protonk
  4. User talk:A Nobody#AFD discussion — 21 July 2008, suggestion by Pagrashtak
  5. User talk:A Nobody#Please withdraw the Commander Dante DRV — Advice and request by Stifle, 15 August 2008
  6. User talk:A Nobody#AFD behavior — 26 August 2008, another suggestion from Pagrashtak
  7. User talk:A Nobody#Glad you're back — 5 September 2008
  8. Warned about his RfA comments by Stifle and Abd. No reply.
  9. Counseling and admonishment from DGG — 9 March 2009
  10. [64], [65], [66] — 13 July 2009 — Advice from Kww re unacceptable edit summaries
  11. Advice from MBisanz — 16 August 2009
  12. Advice from Stifle re JNN — 19 September 2009
    Pointy response is to cite Stifle's essay in a manner at odds with its meaning.

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

[edit]
  1. refusal to stop merging articles up for AfDs - 9 September 2009
  2. Refusal to accept responsibility — 16 August 2009
  3. Refusal to accept responsibility — April 2009
  4. User talk:John Vandenberg#distilled proposal — 3 August 2009
    A Nobody would not agree to John's proposals; sticking point was his desire to continue editing articles that were at AfD.
  5. oldid:User talk:SB Johnny#fyi re A Nobody Merridew, SB_Johnny (archived wo/reply: here)
    A Nobody declined mediation by SB Johnny after the two inconclusive AN/I threads re Jack Merridew-A Nobody
  6. User talk:A Nobody#The world of Warhammer: The offical encyclopedia — 12 July 2008
    Refusal to accept an RFC; What will be funny is if people are foolish enough to start and RfC that I will never read or abide by, because all the time they waste there will be time not spent trying to delete other people's work.
  7. The disputed behavior continues daily, as evidenced by the above.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

[edit]
  1. MBisanz talk 06:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ++Lar: t/c 06:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Protonk (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Certifying with caveats regarding 2006-2008 events, particularly regarding the opening request's use of the term "harassment". I fully trust that A Nobody was the target of grave offsite harassment; it conflates a serious matter to use the same terminology later in the same statement regarding onsite actions which (although annoying) were comparatively trivial. That said, his decision to start an undisclosed new account after vanishing for privacy reasons was not good judgment and distant observers could mistake that for a cynical attempt to game the system. Durova319 15:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Certifying dispute related to mergers of articles at AfD starting late August 2009 [67] [68]; verified related evidence back through April 2009 while preparing an RfC independently. Endorsing concerns related to behavior after rename October 2008. Flatscan (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

[edit]
  1. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC) The "Desired Outcome" is a bit vague though, just ban him.[reply]
  2. ...With some minor exception about the phrasing of talk-page warning removal. The misleading edit summaries in removal strike me more as a posturing defense mechanism from an editor who doesn't take criticism well. What's important is that he saw the warnings (which he's welcome to remove however and whenever he wants) but hasn't particularly heeded them. --EEMIV (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Indeed. AN is known for disruption at AfD, and has been under all his usernames, while carefully denying same. RTV is not the right to kill a username and come back under another. As I have said to him before, he needs to go away. That's what RTV means. → ROUX ₪ 15:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I had known of A Nobody before and knew him to be very pedantic with regards to AfD related opposes on RfA's, but I had never realized some of his actions have been more of a concern than a simple annoyance. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. A tendentious editor, without a doubt. His intransigence at AfDs and battlefield mentality actively hurt the project. AniMatedraw 01:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Though from a read of the talk page and some of the dissenting opinions below, it seems these battleground-type attitudes toward deletion are a fairly widespread problem. Mr.Z-man 03:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yilloslime TC 04:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Verbal chat 11:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I think A. Nobody is entitled to express his viewpoint, but I think his approach to using virtually every non-mainspace page to do so runs contrary to the spirt of WP:SOAP. Whether or not his edits are disruptive in the pejorative sense is a matter of opinion, but what benefit for him or for the Wikipedia project there is by continually soapboxing in this way is not clear. Perhaps the payoff for soapboxing is similar to "flaming"; the payoff is usually to get some attention of some kind, perhaps to avoid some sort of personal problem (as the protaganists in the game "Stop me if you can"). My own view is that A. Nobody is a bright person, but he needs to obtain benefit from his intelligence, perhaps by embarking on a course of further education so he can obtain long-term tangible benefit, not just immediate gratification, from his talents. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  pablohablo. 12:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I consider him to be a danger to the project and actively disruptive. Should be banned immediately from AFD simply because of the volume of problems and bad feelings he generates. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I was fed up with the disruption last year, but gave AN a chance when he returned from "vanishing". It is disappointing to see the same behavior continue, and I believe it needs to be stopped. Perhaps A Nobody can realize that if he spends less time badgering opponents he will have more time to rescue articles? Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. ThemFromSpace 15:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. More or less agree with the above summarization and characterization. The problem is that A's article philosophy negatively affects every aspect of his interaction onwiki. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. While probably not as bad as before the vanishing, his behaviour in recent months (certainly at AfD's) is more often than not not helpful and often actively annoying. Discussions like this one have been done over and over again, and his input doesn't help one bit in deciding whether to keep or delete the article. And when he does provide sources through Google, like here, they turn out to be incorrect, as in not about the subject. Just some examples, the rest of the summary is correct as well. Fram (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Spartaz Humbug! 15:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I also agree with the summarization and characterization but think the desired outcome is weak - when approached about his behavior time and again A Nobody has proven to be unreasonable; he refuses to listen or change. - Josette (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I've seen A Nobody back off from one or two of his limited stock of behaviors for a time after the behaviors have attracted overwhelmingly negative comment at ANI or elsewhere, but he has always returned to them later—sometimes in slightly more subtle form, often essentially unchanged. Deor (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I remember a few AfDs with him, and I reviewed some of the evidence. Keeping updated lists with diffs of very old grudges is particularly worrysome. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. This individual is someone I have seen and interacted with many times during AFD, where you might call me a deletionist, but the source of our dispute was his continuing refusal to argue based on standard wikipedia guidelines and rules, such as establishing notability through reliable sources. After some extremely confrontational behavior on both our parts, we agreed to work together a bit and build up some articles and put aside our bickering. I have not heard of any of A Nobody's activities for quite a long time until I read this page and I am disturbed that he may have returned to that well trod and pointless path of confrontation instead of cooperation. However, he may equally be not guilty, as I assume he would say about these charges of policy breach, so I think that the arbitration committee should look at this situation, not through the lens of deletionism or inclusionism, but on the behavior of the parties involved, which probably has gone beyond the boundaries of productive editing. Three years is quite long enough of this, and it is time to have some definitive words from Arbcom about this situation. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. With the caveat that I believe that A Nobody is acting in good faith (and I even actually like the guy, to a degree), but some of the things presented above, particularly this "merge/delete" tactic, are really not productive, really not helping the atmosphere at AfD, and certainly not in the best interests of the project. I'm also not sure that a few well publicised errors of judgement in the distant past are really relevant to what's going on right now, as well. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  24. While I too am not convinced he is acting in bad faith, many of his actions seem to be him trying to get his own way. Triplestop x3 23:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Jack Merridew 04:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Whether AN/LGRDC is acting in good faith, whatever right he has to express his views as forecfully as he likes, all this is trumped by the larger point that he is completely addicted teh dramaz of Wikipedia, and this cannot lead to any good, whether one agrees with him or not (I almost never do). His attempts to wean himself off teh dramaz have failed so he should simply be subjected to an outright and permanent ban and find something less destructive to do. I say arbcom this and put the effort above to good use. Eusebeus (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I don't doubt he is acting in good faith, but he still needs to be dealt with - Wikipedia is bigger than one person. Orderinchaos 06:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Amazed this behavior has continued for so long, and that virtually nothing has been done about it. Skinwalker (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Followup by Protonk

[edit]

I suspect that this RfC will generate three core criticisms and I would like to address them here before they crop up. First, it is inevitable that this RfC will be treated as a means to silence an inclusionist viewpoint rather than criticise conduct. Second, that this RfC represents old grudges or bad faith disputes. Third, that A Nobody has changed enough to obviate an RfC. I'll address these in turn.

  1. It cannot be denied that a number of people certifying this RfC could be labeled as 'deletionists' or certainly less inclusionist than A-N. However it does not follow that because we happen to disagree on content that all criticism is based in or motivated by that disagreement. This accusation occurs (I think) partially for tactical reasons--it is much easier to "ink the water" with Notability concerns then it is to actually defend unpleasant conduct. It also occurs because we are locked in a battleground mentality where any ground lost or gained has a result in article content. All I can say to this is that I have tried assiduously to steer this RfC away from inclusion/deletion and toward conduct. I hope to have written in to attract some views from across this spectrum about the underlying conduct--conduct which has basically been a part of this user's behavior for the better part of four years. If, at the end of this we can only say "look how the deletionists scheme" then we have failed as a community. We will have become unable to accept problems within our particular tribes. I will note that A Nobody and other inclusionists are willing to push for a topic ban on the other side, so it certainly can't be the case that they feel topic bans are beyond the pale.
  2. Some of the material presented in this RfC is old. We (that is, me and Lar and Matt) have attempted to show a pattern of behavior without misrepresenting the weight of past evidence--hence why most (if not all) diffs and threads include a date in plaintext. We want to show that the same sort of attacks and misrepresentation have been going on over the course of his career. There is suffcient recent evidence to justify signficant concern. Also note that we are unable to provide a complete reckoning of behavior for reasons of space. As it stands the dispute statement is 72kb long. In order to present a legible case we have to summarize, parse and omit.
  3. A Nobody has improved in my opinion. Among folks certifying this RfC or endorsing its merits I may be alone in thinking that he has improved. However, the improvement has been marginal and he has largely relapsed to 'pre-vanished' behaviors. Right before A-N vanished I wrote up an RfC about his conduct (Merger during AfD, attacks on other editors, retaliatory reports, etc.). Once he vanished I refused to certify it as it would have seemed ghoulish to do so in absentia while he was facing off-site harassment. When he returned I was tempted to do so again but I honestly thought he got better. He commented less in AfD. When he did he made clear and cogent arguments using sources. He moved toward rapprochement with some editors and generally softened his stance. Over time he returned to form. He went back to hassling editors over "JNN" (even when explicitly told that those editors wanted nothing to do with him and didn't want him replying), he went back to merging during AfDs, renaming articles under AfD, accusing opponents of bad faith, etc. I would like to think that some of the strong criticism from the community in summer of last year caused him to rethink his approach. In that case, the RfC isn't superfluous, it is necessary. It is part of community feedback in an environment where he cannot arbitrarily remove negative feedback.

Having said all that I still expect a response along those lines. I'm willing to discuss those criticisms and accusations on the talk page and I'm willing to move through a consensus process to have an agreeable outcome to this RfC. Thanks.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Protonk (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Stifle (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The length of this RfC/U is what it is because there is a serious pattern here, it goes back a ways in time, and it was needful to show the pattern and that it's still ongoing. For the record, I consider myself an inclusionist, just as I was when I first contributed here, although I think I've learned a fair bit about policy and how to be an effective contributor since then. Fundamentally, this RfC is about getting A Nobody to realize there is a serious problem with his behavior, to commit to change it, and then to actually change. (or, failing that, to realize that it's time for the community and A Nobody to part ways, but that is never my desired outcome, never) Rescuing articles is commendable work, and I'm all for it, as long it's done in a way that's not disruptive. Adding bogus sources, carrying out merges during the middle of the AFD, making spurious arguments, attacking other editors, and other disruptive tactics just are not acceptable. ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In endorsing this comment, I am also responding to Nathans comment above regarding the historical matters being brought up in this RfC; I do not see the historical evidence produced as anything other than examples of how A Nobody has exhibited the same issues as are being complained of him presently. The current problematic editing of A Nobody is systematic of their apparent inability to learn from previous instances of their being taken to account for same issues, and the lack of any apparent desire to do so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Parrotting comments above: old diffs are here as points of comparison. A Nobody, comfortable and welcomed back by the community, has reverted to his pre-RTV behavior. Frankly, if this RFC had been initiated a few months ago, I probably wouldn't have signed on, because it seemed A Nobody had focused his energies in a series of wikiprojects with which I'm not especially involved, and had reduced his participation in AfD. However, running across him more often now, I'm spotting many of the same problem behaviors from before. Were the old diffs sitting in isolation, this would be a spurious RFC; however, compared with more recent behavior, they instead offer a point of comparison. --EEMIV (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  pablohablo. 20:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. AniMatedraw 01:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. There is a serious and disturbing pattern of behavior here, and it needs to be presented. A Nobody has been given many chances to improve and has not consistently chosen to do so. Karanacs (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ThemFromSpace 15:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I strongly agree with point 3. He was on his best behavior for a while, but is now engaging in all his classic annoyances and disruptions. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Perhaps recasting the evidence in a chronological point would help those not familiar with the locus of the RfC, but I feel all the information needs to be here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. - Josette (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Deor (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Especially (2) and (3): A Nobody's approach and style during the intervals when he is heavily active at AfD have been remarkably consistent since at least early 2008. Flatscan (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Relapses in the the same behaviour after refusing to follow advice. You need old diffs to show that. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I have to agree with these points. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Jack Merridew 04:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Orderinchaos 06:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certifier view by Flatscan

[edit]

I certified the mergers during AfD concerns based on my direct requests ([69], [70]) to A Nobody starting August 2009. In addition to those requests, I started WT:Articles for deletion#Merging during live AfD.

A Nobody is intimately familiar with WP:Merge and delete, having referenced it in AfDs many times since April 2008.1 His interpretation that a merger immediately precludes a delete is oversimplified, but close enough in common practice. A Nobody has been scrupulous about writing proper edit summaries that conform to Help:Merging#Performing the merger, indicating familiarity with mergers in general.

A Nobody briefly discussed mergers during AfD with Jack Merridew and Moonriddengirl in March 20081 (scroll up to see more general discussion). I have read warnings and comments indicating that A Nobody had merged during AfD prior to 2009, but I have not seen specific links. Despite the ample feedback in April and August–September 2009, A Nobody merged during WP:Articles for deletion/Lamia (Vampire Folk lore).

Instead of merging during AfD, A Nobody may choose any of these options:

  1. Wait until the AfD is closed
  2. Rewrite content in his own words while merging
  3. Contribute new content and sources directly to the related articles2
1 Pages from 2008 found using a filtered WhatLinksHere.
2 Since additions to AfD'd article and related article are both fully contributed by A Nobody, there is actually no attribution dependency.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. As author. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Having voiced a similar preferred strategy toward the handling of new materials in the above example [71], I endorse. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Very limited endorse, as I feel this misses my contention that the merge and delete business is just an easily agreed upon example of a larger pattern. I'll have a more complete comment on the talk page later, but between April 2008 and September 2008 there was ample negative feedback from neutral parties about AN merging during deletion discussions. Protonk (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This is a cogent summary of the problems with A Nobody's merges during AfD, and offers a good alternative. Fences&Windows 16:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Terrific idea. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Endorse as far as it goes; this is a good way of dealing with the merge issue and might make a good starting point for a proposal.  pablohablo. 17:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this view has comments

View by Durova

[edit]

Few people can say they interacted with A Nobody for three years without getting embroiled in the inclusionist/deletionist debates. I've done everything from sitebanning him to collaborating on a featured content drive with him. Also mentored him for a while, then resigned when he created an undisclosed new account after exercising his right to vanish. It's a disappointment that he hasn't commented at this RfC yet; better late than never--here's hoping he leaves word.

As someone who doesn't take a strong inclusionism/deletionism stand but has waded through a lot of other long term disputes, for most of this year I've worried that this dispute would amalgamate and land at ArbCom's doorstep as a great big stinking mess. Their decisions this year have tended toward "a pox on both your houses" so it would serve the enlightened self-interest of both inclusionists and deletionists to approach this RfC as a venue to seek resolution rather than treat it as a political contest one tries to win.

A Nobody is an extreme inclusionist who has a quirky style. Sometimes his inclusionism gets ahead of his judgment. This trait is by no means unique to inclusionists. The following arbitration cases (regarding which A Nobody did valuable background research) cover a variety of policies, but basically they were about deletionists who let their wikiphilosophy get ahead of their judgment. One administrator was desysopped, an editor was sitebanned, and another administrator was both desysopped and sitebanned.

The policy violations of those cases are different from those of today. This year's dilemma is larger and more subtle. When this RfC began I hoped it would have a moderating effect. Joined the certifiers due to a previous pledge, yet the opening request is a bit overreaching--an ideological lens filters its viewpoint. Other editors who wear different ideological lenses have been tempted to disagree with its entire view. Repeating the hope that A Nobody will join the discussion here; even if the participation is brief it may help to depolarize this situation.

Project mission and scope are important issues. When Denis Diderot wrote his encyclopedia he wanted to include everything but the economics of book publishing imposed practical limits. Similar limits applied as long as encyclopedias were published on paper. Now we publish electronically and anyone can edit--that changes the fundamentals. In an enlightened setting new groundwork would be constructed through reasoned dialog. If our result comes from a strategy of last ideology standing, I doubt either the public or the project will be among the winners.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Durova320 21:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wow, who could disagree with this? Ikip (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, with some reservations noted on the talk page. Protonk (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "Quirky style" is pretty big understatement, but I agree with most of this, since really all it's saying is that everybody needs to get along better. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This RfC is pretty much over, but I agree with what you say. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. You should write these for a living! FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Can't argue with that. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I agree that the wider context of inclusionism vs. deletionism is important and needs resolving. Fences&Windows 00:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agree. McJEFF (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this view has comments

Response

[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Outside view by Ryan4314

[edit]
  • Check out how many times he starts an ANI thread, instigating some kind of drama/complaint about another user.
  • He ends his posts with provocative language (sincerely, regards, happy editing!) when debating with "bitter opponents", aiming to infuriate them whilst hiding under the veil of civility (I'm sure he'll claim ignorance of this), he has been advised about this.[72]
  • Does plan to become an admin, despite what he might say.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse. The Sincerely/happy editing etc. is part of his sig, I think. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse. The faux-civil sign-off is anything but sincere.  pablohablo. 12:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Endorse. A Nobody has the surface politeness, it's true, but fundamentally what the huge list of issues above shows is a basic inability, or unwillingness, to work with others, to cooperate, compromise, take feedback on board, in short, to edit collegially. ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Lar. → ROUX ₪ 15:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I endorse the first bullet, insofar as it a symptomatic of a tendency to request/demand changes in others without acknowledging or acting upon suggests in kind to him. Language like, "A Nobody, you're as much a part of the problem as X" has become more prominent. As for the other two: I think he intends for his template sign-off to be sincere, or at least hopes it will be. It might come off as smug, but I don't think it's a particularly big deal. As for the admin. support list, *shrug*, lots of people say they don't want to be admins but really do. Not a distinct problem for this user. If he's nominated for admin. status, we can address that then; it seems a tangential point now. --EEMIV (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yilloslime TC 04:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Moreso an endorsement of Lar's comments in regards to the above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yes, what Lar said. Deor (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. endorse first and third points. No comment on second. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Jack Merridew 04:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Skinwalker (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Kww

[edit]

I primarily endorse the above description. I have one objection: the desired outcome is inappropriate. A Nobody has abused the right to vanish, based on what appears to be just another example of the kind of drama that surrounds this editor: he claims that there is some outside risk to his safety, but he continues to edit despite his relationship to the old account being common knowledge. AGF goes only so far: if there was any credible risk, he would not be editing so prolifically in precisely the same manner he was prior to his faux vanishment.

The RTV specifically precludes returning. He came back through sock-puppeting, and then made the pledge to avoid areas he had previously had conflicts in. To me, this is a simple case: he is here under sufferance of the editing community. He was deceptive when he left, he was deceptive when he returned, he uses deceptive edit summaries and arguments. I'll assume good faith, though: if his safety is truly at risk, he should leave Wikipedia voluntarily. Should he fail to do so, the community should recognize that he has failed to live up to all previous agreements and that he does not have the apparent capability to do so. For his own safety, should he return after agreeing one more time to leave, the community's reaction should be to ban him.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. —Kww(talk) 12:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Majorly talk 14:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I endorse not because of A Nobody's tendentious actions with regard to his inclusionist bias (nothing wrong with that viewpoint, either) but because they are acting contrary to the major policies regarding consensual editing and assuming good faith. They evidence no desire to act differently. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In spades. He lied in order to come back. That's not acceptable. → ROUX ₪ 15:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Joe Chill (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I agree. Reluctantly, though. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Ironholds (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. - Josette (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I do not endorse everything cited as "evidence of disputed behavior" in this RFC, but I do endorse KWW's view that there has been abuse of RTV, sockpuppetry and deceptiveness and it is categorically unacceptable. --JayHenry (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I would have banned him after the latest sockpuppetry incident. This user has shown an utter disregard for many of Wikipedia's policies and should no longer be tolerated. Karanacs (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Deor (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Enric Naval (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Jack Merridew 04:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Skinwalker (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Fences and windows

[edit]

As is attested to by my comments included in the evidence above, I find A Nobody's editing enormously frustrating. As an out-and-out inclusionist they often argue to keep articles to the bitter end and against what I consider to be common sense. A Nobody's editing as part of the Article Rescue Squadron is one of the reasons I have left the ARS; I consider the rescue tag and project to be discredited and I no longer wish to be associated with it. I find their attempts to force keeping of articles using merges during AfD to be disruptive and potentially underhand, e.g. [73][74][75], and I wish they would stop. AfD shouldn't be a battleground; A Nobody is one of the editors who moves it in that direction.

This said, A Nobody and other inclusionists serve as a counter-balance to the strident deletionists who dominate AfD. A Nobody's crusade against weak and parroted arguments for deletion may be repetitive but it is also largely correct. I grow tired of seeing "NN" without explanation or qualification, particularly when it has been demonstrated that reliable sources have indeed covered the topic or when an acceptable merge target has been identified. "Per nom" is extremely weak as it treats AfD as a vote. "Cruft" is indeed a word, but it is pejorative and arguably uncivil; a perfectly acceptable alternative exists, namely "unnecessary detail". Raising WP:BEFORE is very valid; some deletion nominators and !voters appear unable - surely not unwilling? - to find reliable sources that others can find with ease. Some of those !voting for deletion must learn to frame their arguments better, although badgering from A Nobody is more likely to further entrench them than persuade them of the error of their ways.

Criticisms of A Nobody's use of old diffs to discredit an editor seem misplaced, especially as this RfC is constructed out of some very old diffs. We all have memories and Wikipedia archives almost everything, so if editors like DoctorFluffy don't want old comments used against them they shouldn't make those kinds of comments. An uncompromising statement of intent to delete as many articles as possible deserves criticism. Any editor is entitled to criticise the statements and conduct of other editors, so long as they stay on the right side of WP:CIVIL and WP:HOUND.

I have no experience of or comment on A Nobody's editing while under previous usernames.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. This won't make me popular, but I have to agree. I have long thought that the major source of frustration with A Nobody has been his passionate and persistent inclusionism. He's made serious mistakes, with his handling of the RtV and his use of sockpuppets chief among them, but according to the evidence above those mistakes remain long in the past. Not all of his actions are well thought out; the merges during a discussion, and particularly use of the {{copied}} template, are worrisome and A Nobody should take the criticism on board and leave these activities behind. On the other hand, we should not even entertain the possibility of banning someone for making arguments against deletion (the core of the extensive evidence above); not all of these arguments are equally well thought out, but many times I've seen him produce sources that sway the debate. And the rest of the time, when his keep rationales have little merit, he can be safely ignored. Nathan T 15:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dont totally share this view, but have to fully respect it. Was just comming to your talk page Fences to say I was sorry to see you leave the ARS, when i saw the link to this RFC. Your post here confirms you're worthy to bear the name of one of the inspirational Naomi Kleins works! FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I've tried to work with him for some time, and In my opinion, he has been improving. His problematic editing is entirely or almost entirely on the general topic of popular culture, an area where there has been concentrated and repeated attacks from a few editors. But I have beenoften unable to persuade him that some articles are hopeless, that excess is best met by taking a strong but not extreme position, and the trying to have the last word is counterproductive. The situation can be best met by dealing with the disruption caused by the extreme fiction minimalists, which will help encourage more reasonable editors to join the discussions, and perhaps induce A nobody to work in the other areas where he has strong academic competence. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree with paras 2 and 3. No real comment on ARS as I was not too involved. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree with paragraphs 2 and 3, no comment on paragraph 1, as I am torn right now. Ikip (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Endorse this. I respect AN's positive contributions, and he clearly loves Wikipedia. However, part of that is accepting that there are valid competing visions for the encyclopedia. The fait accompli mergers at AfD are IMO distasteful, and are a tactic best abandoned. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Important points all.  Skomorokh  07:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Nathan

[edit]

Following up on my post above:

  1. I agree with the desired outcome of this RfC, insofar as it relates to criticism of A Nobody's style of arguing with people at AfD (commenting on his perception of their expertise or his other views on their participation and its value, etc.) and his behavior with respect to merges and the copied template. I think he should accept criticism of that behavior as valid, and reform.
  2. I believe that his persistence in arguing keep at nearly every opportunity, and particularly his habit of opposing people at RfA for their comments at AfD, is the core source of the frustration that many people in the community have with A Nobody. Having unpopular opinions and sticking to them is not something we ought to sanction people for here.
  3. It's my view that the construction of the wall of evidence above is intended to do more than ensure the adoption of the desired outcome; very little of the activity from years ago in any way relates to the current stated concern, and a pattern of behavior related to socking or RtV isn't even asserted let alone evidenced. Take the initial statement and remove the bits about RtV, socking, RfA comments, using Google hits (etc.) in arguments, and anything else extraneous to what I see as the real problem (habit of criticising people directly, disruptive effect of merges, appearance of trying to game the process by way of a template) -- that would be something I could endorse, and it might even have a chance at convincing A Nobody to make substantial changes in his approach to Wikipedia.
  4. If someone posts a new version of the initial statement, focusing more specifically on recent objectionable conduct, then please let me know and I will come back here to endorse it.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Apparently I should endorse my own view! I'll take this space to note that I don't consider myself an inclusionist, and if anything I vote to delete far more often than keep. I don't think anyone is trying to run A Nobody out in order to shore up the power of the deletionist cabal. I have nothing but complete respect for Protonk, Lar and MBisanz. I agree that the recent behavior noted should be addressed. I don't think, though, that including the history of other problematic conduct (which has not continued, and does not contribute to a pattern in my opinion) was necessary or helpful, particularly if the idea here is to get A Nobody to voluntarily reform. Nathan T 18:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse point 1. As far as the rest goes, the socking and RtV stuff is not evidenced because the main concern is the user's conduct; then and now.  pablohablo. 20:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse point 2 & 3. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Endorse generally. The discussion of the earlier material is not relevant here--these aspects of his behavior were in the past. There's no point in having an RfC to deal with the user's former behavior--how can that possibly be reformed? We need to deal with present behavior. I hope the material was introduced here from general frustration, not with the intend of overbalancing and prejudicing discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Endorse - I agree the excessive use of old material undermines the effectiveness of this page as working towards dispute resolution and improving behaviour, to working towards sanctions. The way in which behavours are worded, such as describing his behaviour as "confounding" AfD, also unfortunately undermines the neutrality of elements of the RfC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this view has comments

Outside view by EEMIV

[edit]

First, I'm not sure how "outside" this is, in that I've had direct confrontations with A Nobody about most of these issues; I'm "outside" only insofar as I'm not one of the initiators of this RfC. Anyhow:

Hounding
  • Imperial Andermani Navy and Astromech droid - No follow-up edits to improve either article or discussion at AfD. And, frankly, considering of alllll the fiction/arts AfDs going on when he added these two, and considering neither of these was listed at the fiction-related AfDs page, I kind of get the impression he was "hounding" me/other editors who clearly disagree with him who put things up for deletion with the ARS spam.
AfD badgering (+ requests to halt it, i.e. non-response)
  • One and [[76]] requests from three editors for A Nobody to stop "badgering" dissenting voices at an AfD. Varies between tone of "I'm doing what other people doing; if you didn't warn them, too, then you're just attacking me" and "I'm challenging other people; we're here to engage each other" - doesn't acknowledge numerous previous requests (mostly under old user name) not to respond to all/many dissenters at AfD. Was second only to nominator in number of edits to AfD discussion.
  • [77] - quite a while later, again with the badgering of delete !voters, the most edits to the discussion.
  • [78] - Unnecessary boilerplate "JNN not a reason to delete" of TTN, to whom he's offered up such insight many times before
  • [79] - He's badgered numerous responders, but this particular diff illustrates part of one of his frustrating tactics: the assertion that a differing opinion is dishonest, and I think a core problem with this editor.
"Contingent" acquiesence to simple warnings and requests, and other straw men

A Nobody has a tendency to deflect criticisms and requests with responses such as, "I'll do this only if you request someone else do it, too." For example:

Attacks on editors
  • Attributes a quote ("never") that doesn't appear in the cited diff. Also offers an inaccurate (or, at least, incomplete) paraphrase of the editor's intent/idea.
  • The above diff plus this one shows A Nobody criticizing an editor (based on previous contributions/articulation of beliefs) rather than on relevant topic at hand (in this case, whether WP:ARS should be archived/deleted).

All of this said, though, it's important also to recognize that for all the frustrations, A Nobody really has done some admirable work salvaging articles up for AfD that, after his contributions make clear, really shouldn't be deleted. He's also remarkably cordial to the vast majority of users. I'll also add that recently, he has shown a willingness to disengage with an editor with whom he often conflicts.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --EEMIV (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not sure I'm on board with the characterisation of the ARS activity, but otherwise I agree with this. Nathan T 19:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree w/ the summary at the end as well, in connection to my third point above (and my first, somewhat). Protonk (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Stifle (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ThemFromSpace 15:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The distorted "paraphrasing" of Doctorfluffy's opinions (the first "attacks on editors" diff) is an excellent example of the problem. Mr.Z-man 18:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Endorse, especially per Mr.Z-man. AN's misleading ad hominem in 2009 is linking DocFluffy's comments from 2007. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this view has comments

Outside view by User:Ikip

[edit]
Caveat, I often extensively rework what I write. So any endorsements are of that period only.

Personal attacks and admin abuses by Lar and Protonk

[edit]
Lar supports Jack Merridew calling A Nobody a troll and Merridew's stalking

Lar vigorously supported the repeated personal attacks and stalking of Jack Merridew against A Nobody.

In this Wikiquette alert I explain how Jack stalked A Nobody to an AFD, and called A Nobody a troll. I removed the troll reference, and Admin Lar restored this personal attack. In this Wikiquette I show that Lar feels it is perfectly okay for Jack to call A Nobody a troll, but A Nobody cannot call anyone a troll.

Lar criticizes A Nobody for calling an editor a troll.
  • Lar: Have to agree with Jack here... AN is starting to look like the source of the problem to me. Complete failure to constructively engage, blows off advice given by others, characterizing it as trolling, repeats behaviours warned about, and so forth. Time to impose the proposal made on John's page and then enforce it, because it's pretty tiresome. 03:49, 14 August 2009 [81]
  • Lar: (ec) Ikip: They may be "facts" but they're irrelevant. Who did what first is playground talk. This constant beating Jack about the head with charges of stalking, harassment, "he started it", etc, while characterizing good faith comments by others as "trolling" is disruptive. 14:30, 14 August 2009 [82]
Jack Merridew's attack
  • User:Jack Merridew posts on a AFD, m:DFTT which is "Not feeding the trolls". 02:32, 14 August 2009 [83]
  • As per WP:NPA, "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." I remove the comment. 21:07, 15 August 2009 [84]
  • User:Ikip places a warning on User:Jack Merridew's page. 21:17, 15 August 2009 [85]
  • Admin User:Lar then restores the troll link. 01:37, 16 August 2009 [86]
  • Admin User:Lar then places a warning on Ikip's talk page: "This edit: [87] was unacceptable. You may comment on it if you disagree, but do not remove the remarks of others from discussion pages." 01:39, 16 August 2009 [88]
  • Admin Lar threatens Ikip with a block: "Your removal of my administrative warning is within policy, (it means you've read and understood it) but as an admin, I will post warnings and communications when, and where, I find necessary. If you remove the comments of others again (on pages other than your own, as you did at that MfD I was warning you about), you may find yourself blocked for disruption." 01:54, 16 August 2009 [89]
  • User:Ikip post a wikiquette posting 02:19, 16 August 2009 [90]
  • Lar explains his position. 03:24, 16 August 2009 [91]
Block warnings and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents postings against Jack Merridew for stalking and harassment
  1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive530#Wikistalking_and_harassment_by_User:Jack_Merridew
  2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jack Merridew-A Nobody
  3. Warning by mentor and arbcom Casliber:
    "Please leave you know who alone, and leave off allusions to you know what. WP is a big place." 24 March 2009 [92]
  4. First warning to Jack Merridew by admin Fram:
    "Jack Merridew, stop commenting on A Nobody, just leave him completely and utterly alone. There are more than enough editors around who will comment on him or his actions when he goes too far. But you are definitely not the one to be doing this. Drop the comments, drop the attitude, or risk a lengthy block for disruption. A Nobody needs a thicker skin, but there's no need for you to put needles in it anyway." 27 April 2009 [93]
  5. Final warning to Jack Merridew by admin Fram:
    "How about you don't ever comment on A Nobody again or get indefinitely blocked again? With your past, you have absolutely zero authority to suggest that someone else is "extremely disruptive" and "primarily responsible for creating the polarized I/D schism". You have been warned before to stay away from A Nobody. Consider this a last warning." 18 September 2009 [94]
Protonk states that A Nobody doesn't see his opponents as human beings

In the first section on the talk page Protonk and Lar criticize Michael for "inclusion and deletion" arguments in his section.[95][96] when Michael actually made none. Protonk then states that A Nobody: "doesn't see his opponents as human beings" [97]

  1. User:DGG in response to Prontonk's personal attack: "...such a line...perpetuates the problem, because one can hardly expect that anyone addressed in such terms will improve conduct in response to it."[98]
  2. Protonk states he will retract the personal attack[99]
  3. Protonk changes his mind refusing to retract personal attack [100]

Evidence presented by Lar, Protonk, MBisanz

[edit]
Section
Incivility and refusal to accept when he is called on his behaviour
Personal attacks and incivility by the parties
A Nobody Lar, Protonk, MBisanz personal attacks.
"This is downright ludicrous and so I absolutely will not humor ridiculousness." [101]

False statement in the evidence section which Lar and Protonk have refused to change: "Calling other users ludicrous."

  1. Lar to A Nobody, defending Jack Merridew's stalking A Nobody:
    "You need to get a thicker skin, take the "kick me" sign off your back, and the chip off your shoulder, and grow up." (twice) 21:04, 29 July 2009 [102] 20:52, 29 July 2009 [103]
  2. Lar aggressively supporting Jack Merridew calling A Nobody a troll. Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive70#Implications_of_template_and_edit_summary_use
  3. Protonk: I DONT FUCKING CARE ANYMORE. get off my talk page. don't talk to me anymore. I don't want to have anything to do with you. 19:10, 7 August 2008.[104]
  4. Protonk: ...don't assume that we are buds or that I have a shred of respect left for you. Because you've lost it.[105]
  5. Protonk: I'm sorry that you can't move past things and that you mistake disagreement and frustration for hypocrisy. I really do pity you. 00:29, 13 April 2009.
  6. Protonk accusing A Nobody of "borderline trolling"[106]
In this very RFC
  1. Saying that A Nobody is "Childishly parroting" above.
  2. Protonk: [A Nobody] "doesn't see his opponents as human beings"[107]
  3. Kww: "I would say that A Nobody certainly lies, certainly disrupts, certainly hounds, and certainly harasses."[108]
  4. Cameron Scott: "I consider [A Nobody] to be a danger to the project"[109]


As an example, one section of this RFC is critically evaluated
RFC statment by Lar, Protonk and Mb Comment
:* WT:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation#Should WP:N be made Policy? — 12 February 2009

Calling other users ludicrous.

Actual quote: "This is downright ludicrous and so I absolutely will not humor ridiculousness." [110] The evidence section states: "Calling other users ludicrous." Which is false. As mentioned in this section, Protonk and Kww have made much larger personal attacks against A Nobody in this very RFC.
A Nobody regularly removes warnings from his talk page without reply and often with misleading edit summaries. WP:TPO "On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred."
examples
  • removal of warnings from his talk page:

User talk:A Nobody#AFD trolling — 9 August 2009

Removes warning by Josette re "It seems you are giving people a hard time at various AFDs, by disparaging their input and reasoning. Per nom or whatever reason they choose to give is justifiable. Please stop."

User talk:A Nobody#attention-seeking — 13 July 2009

Removes warning by Jack Merridew re "You should not make such attention-seeking posts — you'll get it..."

re A-N's post: anyone who has ever referred to me as something other than my username or by some insulting play on my username is not welcome here, barring they apologized and made good faith amends.

User talk:A Nobody#Declaring your talk page "off-limits" to some is childish behaviour — 13 July 2009

Removes Warning by Kww re "No one has the right to declare their talk page off-limits to classes of editors..." see diff

User talk:A Nobody (added note on top of talk page) — 13 July 2009

Removes warning by Kww re "Your edit summaries are unacceptable"; note misleading edit summary

Another bad faith and misleading comment.
A Nobody actually made a note to his talk page, quote: "For example, anyone who has ever referred to me as something other than my username or by some insulting play on my username is not welcome here, barring they apologized and made good faith amends." See edit diff
examples
 WP:TPO "On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred."
* Childishly parroting comments of other users with the meaning deliberately inverted: Another personal attack on A Nobody: "Childishly parroting"
examples
 No rule violations here.
User talk:Casliber — March 2009

retitled Merridew's section heading, pointing it back at him; restored w/comment: "I just noticed that you'd inverted the section heading here; That's profoundly disruptive."

see: User talk:Casliber/Archive 23#Disruption by A Nobody at Editor review/A Nobody

Jack Merridew is an editor who just got his final warning from another admin to "How about you don't ever comment on A Nobody again or get indefinitely blocked again?" two days ago [111]

Jack Merridew is the same editor that admin Lar vigorously supported calling A Nobody a troll, and threatened to block me if I removed Jack Merridew's personal attacks again. Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive70#Implications of_template_and_edit_summary_use Lar has also defended Jack Merridew stalking of A Nobody.

This is another case of double standards, because Lar vigorously fought to change the name of the above Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, Wikipedia_talk:Wikiquette_alerts#Naming_conventions on sections (edit diffs if necessary)

Why is it okay for Lar to change the name but not A Nobody, along the same vein, why is it okay for Lar to defend Jack calling A Nobody a troll but A Nobody cannot call others trolls?

examples

WT:FICT#In a nutshell — January 2009 — archive

    • Response to Pagrashtak stating That's not helpful re a comment by A Nobody is to reply:
      Well, I of course agree with you that having notability guidelines are not helpful... A Nobody
      You know very well that isn't what I meant. Your attitude and the coy manner in which you "misinterpret" things as you just did above is what is not helpful. Pagrashtak
    • AfD/Cheshire Cat in popular culture (2nd) — June 2008
      You are being exceedingly confrontational, bordering on incivil. Doctorfluffy @LGRdC
      I agree that Protonk is being exceedingly confrontational, bordering on incivil. LGRdC @Doctorfluffy, two minutes later.
      As you already know, my comment was directed at you. I respectfully suggest you to step away from the computer and take a moment to consider whether copy-pasting others' comments and intentionally taking them out of context is truly helping Wikipedia. Doctorfluffy @LGRdC
    • Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts — June 2008
 No rule violations here.

In the AFD Protonk does state that A Nobody is: "borderline trolling"[112]

response to a WQA filed against him was to hijack the initial post and reverse the names, removing the entire complaint re himself. oldid: [113] vs oldid: [114]

edit warring over the title with the one word summary “fixed”

As I explained above Admin Lar also edit warred with me over the names on Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts. Wikipedia_talk:Wikiquette_alerts#Naming_conventions on sections Did Lar write this section?
examples

he even has to patch up the copy/paste job

followup & [115] by Seraphim:

Blimey Le Grand...still doing that copying thing? Really? *Sigh* & you *must* stop repeating people's comments back at them.

WQA concerns, from July 2008. The closest thing I can see to personal attacks is the "borderline trolling" statement by Protonk.[117]
Section
Lying
  1. This edit diff to me makes no sense.[118]
  2. RE: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats edit, saying you plan to do something and then changing your mind later is not lying. It is extreme bad faith to claim that. This should be struck.
  3. A Nobody leaves, using his right to vanish, then he allegedly returns as Elisabeth Rogan. This all took place over a year ago, in September 2008.
No rules broken sections

I strongly encourage these three editors to remove these sections, as there is no rules broken, and they just confuse the situation.

Section
Disruption/Point

No rules broken, majority of section is A Nobody arguing in AfDs.

Section Disruption of AfD by merging during discussion or fait accompli

"WT:AFD#Merging during live AfD. No consensus that this is acceptable" There was no consensus that this was unacceptable either. There was spirited argument about this there.

Since there was no clear consensus about this, no rules were broken.

Section Disruption of AfD by referring to other possible subjects for an article at the same title

No rules broken. These 3 editors are referring to WP:OTHERSTUFF and placing a disruption tag on it. Has anyone ever been blocked for making such an argument?

Section
Bad faith at RfA/Assuming bad faith

No rules broken. Abusive accusations of bad faith are simply MBisanz disagreeing with A Nobody's conclusions.

Section Harassment and Hounding

No rules broken.

Section Keeping lists of "bad" acts

No rules broken. The irony and hypocrisy in these claims is that these three editors seem to have kept an extensive list about A Nobody, as evidenced by this RFC.

Section Targeting critics for sanction

No rules broken. The irony and hypocrisy in these claims is that these three editors created this RFC, which can be considered "unactionable and contain a large amount of muckraking"

Section Trying to delete or remove policies, guidelines, and essays which he opposes

No rules broken. Bringing up how an editor works within the wikipedia framework of changing guidelines under a section "Harassment and Hounding" is "Disruptive behaviour and horrendous assumptions of bad faith".

Section Sourcing

No rules broken.

Section Relevant discussion board threads

No rules broken.

Section Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

In his edit diff, MBisanz wrote: "Jack Merridew has violated edit warring, civility, hounding policies." MBisanz would you support a RFC against Jack Merridew?

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. While recognising that the instigators had the good of our encyclopedia in mind, there certainly were serious flaw in the evidence layed out here. Ikips boldness in taking the lead to ensure the subject was fairly defended was most admireable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strongly endorse this entire section. Was holding off as it did not appear Ikip was finished writing. While there are some issues that A Nobody ought to be more receptive to criticism on, one must also keep in mind that what he has dealt with is far worse than what he has himself done. McJEFF (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by MichaelQSchmidt

[edit]

It was missed being mentioned up above that when he was a child he spent months dirtying his diapers, often spit up his food, and when 4 he pulled someone's hair (sorry.. a bit or irony). Point here being that I find the dredging up up conversations and behaviors from over a year ago to be a bit of a distraction. We are being offered some negative diffs from over a 3-year period without without inclusion of the positive ones. So lets look at recent history and not that of the distant past. In considering the proffered diffs from the past few months, and not using ancient history to modify current perceptions, it can be seen that:

  • Yes, A Nobody is seen as far too tenacious in his work to save articles.
  • Yes, A Nobody is seen to be very focused in his efforts to preserve.
  • Yes, A Nobody is seen to have too narrow a focus in an encyclopedia with over 3 million artilces.
  • Yes, A Nobody is seen to sometimes ruffle the feathers of other editors in his dedication to improving the project.
  • Yes, A Nobody is seen to show impatience with others when he feels (rightly or wrongly) that he is being mocked.
  • Yes, A Nobody is seen to often write lengthy TLDR tomes in responses when a few short sentences might do.
  • Yes, A Nobody is seen to be persistant at AfDs in attempts to elicit actual involvement in discussions from editors who are not otherwise inclined to expand their own terse or per-nom comments.
  • Yes, A Nobody is seen to himself be quick to respond in kind when he feels others have belittled him or his efforts.
  • Yes, it is seen that certain other editors have themselves been incivil to A Nobody, and he does not well tolerate perceived rudeness.
  • Yes, it is see that A Nobody and certain editors seem to push each other's buttons... repeatedly.
  • Yes, many of the diffs provided above (and no, not all), are from editors with whom A Nobody had had disagreements, and with respects, many of those editors are themselves not perfect angels.

My conclusions.... It can be seen from A Nobody's edit history that he has indeed made some quite valuable contributions to the expansion and improvement to the project with over 44 thousand live edits... over 12 thousand of them in article space alone. Though it can be seen that A Nobody is himself occasionally frustrated by others, it is also seen that it takes two to tango... so it would seen that ALL involved be cautioned toward more civility and patience, as there is plenty of blame to go around. A Nobody has created far more good will among editors than bad. He has been far more encouraging and helpful to others than he has not. The simple question is, has the project been improved by the expansion, sourcing, and preservation of the articles as worked on by A Nobody, or has it not. I believe it has. In any community one is allowed to disagree with one's neighbors. However, a cautionary word toward tolerance should go out to all involved... as this IS a community and we are here together.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs)
  2. Ikip (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Once again, I couldn't say it better than Michael. A Nobody has had to endure a hell of a lot of uncivil attacks, such as being repeatedly called a troll, which would have gotten a lot of editors banned if it was against a more powerful editor. I have been actively working with him to stop reacting to this clear baiting, with some really positive results. For example, he no longer reacts to a certain editors stalking and calling him a troll, he lets other editors take care of it.[reply]
  3. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fences&Windows 01:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC) With caveats. This view misses some of what concerns editors about A Nobody, but is a good summary of how some of their editing can be annoying without being disruptive per se.[reply]
  5. Dream Focus Well said. He has had to deal with a lot of nonsense, but overall, seems to have handled it quite well. Dream Focus 02:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -Cube lurker (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sounds about right. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yeah. I didn't even have to get down to "Signs his comments with sarcastic 'Regards'" to see what this is all about. A Nobody has gone ruffled the feathers of the Deletionist ownership of the AfD. Well good. There's a very good reason most of us avoid AfD's like the plague, and wind up with our enthusiasm for the project far less than it was, if not actually quitting Wikipedia for a time after spending some time around the AfDs. It is just that: The AfD is the realm of the Deletionists. More power to anyone shaking up that status quo. Happy editing! Dekkappai (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I am completely unconvinced that this user has done anything to warrant being subjected to an RfC. Everyking (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Very well said. Tolerance of inevitable, even desirable, disagreements by all sides is essential.John Z (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. -- Banjeboi 21:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this view has comments

Outside view by FeydHuxtable

[edit]

The subject of this RfA appears to be an editor of rare generosity of spirit. He devotes huge amounts of time and energy to defending the work of other editors, and trying to make our environment more friendly and welcoming to newcomers. Yes he has faults like all of us, but certaintly not to the extent thats implied by this highly flawed RFA. Its claimned that : "Anyone at RfA who has ever offended him, even by !voting to delete an article over a year ago, faces a withering barrage of opposition and attempts to elicit pledges to recuse from E&C/Fiction related administration activities such as AfD closes." Which is clearly untrue, at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MuZemike for example A Nobody voted support for the (arguably) moderate deletionist MuZemike, someone he's clearly had heated disagreements with in the past. Additionally I remember A Nobody supporting in a good percentage of the RfAs I've been involved at, and yet cant recall ever seeing him oppose apart from two exceptions.

Mbisanz claims this diff Advice from MBisanz as his recent attempt to resolve the dispute with the user. I can see how the dif might seek to demonstrates Mat's familiarity with how Wikipedia works, but not in any way how its a sincere attempt to communicate with A Nobody, let alone to pursue dispute resolution? There's likely many more flaws here, but Ive only checked a fraction of the diffs. Theres seems to be some pride expressed here in the tactical wisdom of focusing on conduct rather than the philosophical differences between inclusionists and deletionsists. Okay, lets consider the conduct of deletionists. Even some of the ones I respect like Biroutel used to badger practically ever single keep vote back in the days when I used to try to rescue international relations articles. From a thread on ARS Ive recently seen that a talented young writer I encountered at AfD has been indef banned. Before this occurred he was followed by deletionsists onto virtually every article he was interested in , where he was hassled and has had his edits revereted and until he felt persecuted and started filing unwise sock reports, had an RFC called against him, was told he had mental health problems and was then banned. Considering how some deletionists conduct themselves A Nobodys sins pale into nothingness.

I suggest this highly flawed and over long RFC be speedily closed as a waste of time. Im also not sure whether we're dealing with the real Mbisanz here. He'd previously seemed a highly trustworthy and decent user. Even if he did want to attack A Nobody, why would he file such a feeble and manipulative RFC? It may be worth confirming that the account hasn't been compromised. PS Id probably rather no one endorses this except me, hopefully no one would be unwise enough to anyway. :-)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. FeydHuxtable (with apologies for how I labelled MuZemike ) (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. alas, I think some of the criticism here may be correct, though I do not think I would have worded it this way. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree. Having to constantly deal with being attacked by certain people, its a wonder he hasn't snapped back more often. Dream Focus 03:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There are significant elements of truth here. I agree on the overly long nature of the RfC actually undermines the possibility of this being a collaborative one and moves it to more an adversarial role, which is disappointing. I also am unconvinced of the diff as an effective note to dispute resolution. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ikip (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC) I don't understand Mbisanz either in all this, I believe I just !voted for him on a recent election. I saw him as really mild mannered and someone who I could work with.[reply]
  6. --Cube lurker (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Everyking (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. -- Banjeboi 21:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Thank you. McJEFF (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this view has comments

Outside view by Dream Focus

[edit]

A lot of different things seemed to be piled up together, some totally out of context.

Bringing up every little thing someone did for the past few years to use against them here, and then criticizing him for searching a user's homepage and finding something he wrote when he first came here, seems kind of hypocritical to me. Some try to save as many articles as they can which they believe worth saving, while others try to delete as many articles as they can which they don't want on Wikipedia. Those who are against him, are mainly names I see in AFD constantly trying to delete things. I am curious about the opinions of those who don't normally participate in AFDs.
  • A Nobody focuses on confounding AfD to this day.
A fair number of AFD he participates in, end with the article being kept, and normally fairly well improved. He confounds the attempts of some to mass delete articles without valid reason.
  • That A Nobody (talk · contribs) voluntarily stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground where editors are either allies or foes and that he recognize that serious substantive criticism exists regarding his methods and behavior. Further, when a significant number of folk tell him that a certain behavior is problematic and he needs to change it, he needs to take that on board and actually change his behavior.
There is no serious substantive criticism that exist, it mostly just whining by those upset when they don't get their way. There is no significant number of folk telling him his behavior is problematic, just a small number of people who are frustrated when articles they try to delete get saved. As to the criticism by others that some argue to the bitter end in AFD, that is rather ridiculous. If you made your reason for deletion properly, and your case was valid and not just you stating it was fancruft and you hated it, then the closing administrator would look at it, and not be swayed by anything else. It takes two to argue/discuss things, otherwise it'd just be one guy talking to himself. If you disagree with someone's point in the AFD, then you should discuss it, that what AFD is for.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Dream Focus 02:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ikip (talk) 08:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. well said. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. mostly just whining by those upset when they don't get their way.... just a small number of people who are frustrated when articles they try to delete get saved. Pretty much all that needs to be said about this RfC, really. McJEFF (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Backslash Forwardslash

[edit]

My queries to A Nobody are at the top of this page, so I feel I ought to comment.
I don't dispute A Nobody is genuinely trying to help Wikipedia by retaining material, however his actions make him look increasingly paranoid. Not everyone is out there trying to delete every article, yet his inability to understand and consider other peoples views on deletion have resulted in him portraying a very worrying character. His lack of response here does not reaffirm the view that everyone is out to get him; it just vindicates those who say he has a battleground mentality.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  pablohablo. 08:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --otherlleft 11:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)endorse with qualifications - I don't think there's any basis for the statement that A-N's lack of response here "just vindicates those who say he has a battleground mentality;" it can just as easily be interpreted as the opposite. Based on the evidence presented here thus far, it's clear that the editors bringing this RfC could easily be characterized as engaging in pretty much the same types of recent behavior, all of which suggests that the four editors involved are taking things far too personally and should seriously consider a nice, long wikibreak. Each of them is acting like a petulant child looking to enrage his siblings while not breaking their parents' rules themselves.[reply]
  5. Joe Chill (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I assume good faith in that A Nobody is trying to help the encyclopedia - my concern is that his behavior is actually harming it. Karanacs (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mr.Z-man 18:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. MBisanz talk 18:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ...except the last sentence: yes, I've seen his numerous comments about never responding to a "bad-faith" (i.e. how he'd see this) RFC, but I nevertheless hold out hope that he's really just taking his time before responding. --EEMIV (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yilloslime TC 18:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Endorse, but "paranoid" and "vindicates" may be a touch strong. Flatscan (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. "Paranoia" is exactly the right word, A-N, Ikip and Dream Focus do believe there is a conspiracy against them and to delete Wikipedia, despite exhibiting similiar behaviour themselves: communicating off-wiki, starting an inclusionist rally-point (ARS) tag etc. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Deor (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I'm getting a bit tired of editors getting lots of people pissed off against them due to their behaviour, and then claiming that there is a cabal against them. Enric Naval (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. No personal experience with him except for reading a couple of AfDs, but I do agree with the statements made and that he is somewhat disruptive, though not maliciously so. However, I do fear that he is somewhat paranoid about his opponents. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Orderinchaos 06:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Peregrine Fisher

[edit]

While AN has done some stuff that is not helpful, this seems to be a bit of a witch hunt, (mostly) splitting down the old partisan lines.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. It's my view, so I support it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I wasn't going to get involved in this partisan dramafest pissing contest, but yeah. There are plenty of moderates weighing in, but you've got your rogues gallery of the usual suspects on the predictable sides. Nothing to accomplish here - if you guys want to "get" each other, I suggest ArbCom. BOZ (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Unfortunately, the tone of the opening statement has overtones of this, which is a shame. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Disappointing to see this standard of behaviour from the instigators of this request..  Skomorokh  07:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Cube lurker (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ikip (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Rfc#Request_comment_on_users: "A user-conduct RfC is for discussing specific users who have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines". This RFC is a violation of the guidelines for user RFCs. This enormous wall of "evidence" posted here shows A Nobody following all policies and guidelines. The complaints include Deleting comments on your talk page and arguing WP:OTHERSTUFF in AFDs, all which are allowed in policy. At the same time co-creator of this RFC Lar vigourously supports Jack Merridew calling A Nobody a troll,[121] and Protonk personally attacks A Nobody with [A Nobody] "doesn't see his opponents as human beings"[122][reply]
  7. Im increasingly sure it wasnt intended by any of the instigators, but yes this is exactly how the RFC came across. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Indeed. The main focus seems to be upon AN's postings in forums such as this where, I would agree, he tends to talk too much. But this RfC, which is already a rambling 179K and counting, hardly sets a good example. Oh, and I find there's a 140K talk page too. And no doubt there's plenty of spinoffs elsewhere too. This all seems almost entirely unrelated to the business of building the encyclopedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -- Banjeboi 21:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. A Nobody has his flaws as an editor, but this is, as was said, nothing but a witch hunt. McJEFF (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Agreed. This is just another witch hunt, they popping up all too often around here. Dream Focus 00:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by somewhat non-impartial Casliber

[edit]
Straightforward proposal

I don't think this RfC will change the inherently adversarial and often emotional nature of AfD. I could cite problematic behaviour by deletion-voters but it would lead us further away from rather than towards any sort of resolution, and alot of it is subjective anyway. What might be of benefit is to look at ways to more aggressively defuse or annull conflict where it arises. Right now, what I would propose is more of wiki-etiquette which is present more at WP:RFA and probably should be more evident at WP:AN and arbitration pages. Namely, more proactive removal of ad hominem posts and comments of comments where it is obvious that two editors are beginning to really get on each others' nerves and get the last word in. I'd expand the category a little and suggest that any subsequent post where an editor merely repeats a claim and adds no new information, as a retort or comment to the opposition, be more proactively removed. I have advised A Nobody of this before but editors of both sides (probably me included :)) have been guilty of this.

Users who endorse this etiquette proposal (more proactive removal):

  1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this view has comments

More radical proposal

An alternative might be to tighten posting rules. An editor may only make one post per AfD. They may edit or update their own post as new information arises, article is improved or if persuaded by another editor, but they may not reply or comment on any other editor's posts.

Users who endorse this proposal (One segment/AfD rule):

  1. Radical I know, but worth a trial (????) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think this is definitely worth a try. I would recommend, however, that this be expanded to encourage editors to only comment on the content of the article and not on any other editor participating in the discussion. Karanacs (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I would totally be behind this (it is the same approach I take with RFA noms). MBisanz talk 14:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/A Nobody § Comment on various proposals from Casliber
  4. Id also be totally be behind this (though not for RfA) FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This would be an interesting solution, and might well serve to cut down on the back and forth bickering that makes AfD's so unpleasant. McJEFF (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by HiDrNick

[edit]

A Nobody, for his many faults, is still a net positive on Wikipeida. Everyone here needs to just cool their jets. A Nobody, please focus your efforts on content creation and improvement, and try not to demonize those who also seek to improve the encyclopedia by editing it: they are not your mortal enemies. You promised once to avoid the contentions areas that you wound up in so much trouble for editing before; why not do just that?

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HiDrNick (talk • contribs)
  2. Generally. That's the point of the RfC. I'm not advocating a ban. The main RfC summary doesn't advocate a ban. I want to avoid thinking about editors as net-positive or net-negative (a misnomer we get from RfA), but I maintain that he is a good person who just needs to accept criticism. Protonk (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nice concise summary and request. MBisanz talk 17:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Hope this gets a pile on. Just to add ANobody is still entitled to hold his head up high. Any problematic conduct is in part the result of them having passionate feelings about saving others work at AfD which can be a hostile environment. Such environments can cause entire populations to behave poorly – anyone who can honestly claim otherwise knows very little of history or of life. But yeah, now that some of the instigators of this RFC seem to recognise that the subject is essentially a good person, it would be great if Anobody commits to rationing himself to limited participation in the contentious areas, and when he do not to use frustrating tactics like merging during a live AfD. The extra time could be used for work hes great at like content building, research, welcoming and helping out new users. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Protonk. Kudos to HiDrNick for the last two sentences; brilliant.  pablohablo. 19:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Amen. Best thing I've read on here, although I'll fully admit I have a bad case of TLDR. :) If this had been AN's approach from the start, an RfC like this wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The same should apply to his detractors, however, as it takes two sides to have a battleground. BOZ (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Fences&Windows 23:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Happy to endorse this. None of the three primary authors of this believe that A Nobody is a bad person. Now, or ever. Perhaps we brought too much evidence to the table, or worked too hard to show that there's a long term pattern of behavior that's concerning, but really, we just want that behavior to stop. Based on how things went before, we saw a lighter, shorter RfC as likely to allow for wriggle. Aside from a few fringe view folk who refuse to admit what most everyone sees plainly and who lash out at the initiators, my take is that just about everyone here sees there is a problem of some sort that A Nobody needs to correct. That's a start. ++Lar: t/c 01:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Endorse, with the minor detail that the boundaries of those contentious areas are sometimes subject to dispute – hopefully in good-faith and resolvable through collegial discussion. Flatscan (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Endorse, and if he decides to go back to the contentious areas then a topic ban will help him avoid them. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Endorse to some extent, and I'm glad to see that Lar and I can endorse the same viewpoint, at least in general terms. But I certainly think a topic ban would be counterproductive to Wikipedia --he should edit more broadly, but he should not cease to contribute to properly sourcing articles in the popular culture fields, and defending them when needed. When he does it right, it can make very good articles. I wonder, even, if some of the opposition is because he is more effective than certain people may think desirable from their POV. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Endorse continued content creation and improvement (for which AN has demonstrated a talent), and avoiding tendentious article behaviors and project-space topics in which AN has a history of polite-faced disruption. I'd support a topic ban here since AN also has a history of returning to old behaviors. Simply accepting criticism would be a reasonable starting point if a topic ban is to be avoided. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. This strikes the right tone for me. AN is a valued wikipedian, but aspects of his editing practices have caused a number of editors to have legitimate concerns. While the magnitude of his "sins" is a bit overblown here, AN could, if he wished, diffuse all of this by editing a bit more transparently. Paradoxically, if he did so he would be even more effective at accomplishing his aims. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Endorse. AN's contributions are valuable. And yes... let's address the battleground mentality fostered by the AfD processes. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. My interactions with AN are always positive, but I can see that his interactions with some editors in not constructive. - `Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I've had many positive interactions with him; and generally find him a friendly and worthwhile editor. If he could dial back the specific contentious behaviour that parts of this RfC do detail, then I'd be very happy. ~ mazca talk 15:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. On the inclusionist-deletionist scale, A Nobody cetainly qualifies to be on far off on the inclusionist side, which is a fair distance from where I stand. His language is often overly strong. Still, efforts to save and rescue material are commendable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Endorse the outside view, although explicitly not all the previous comments. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Endorse.John Z (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Finally, something here I can agree with. Thoug, like Stifle I don't agree with all of the above endorsements. Hobit (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Deor

[edit]

I've already expressed some of my thoughts about A Nobody's tactics at the bottom of this page and in several (quickly removed) postings on AN's talk page, but I'd like to emphasize here that I view most of his activity on WP as just that—tactics, rather than good-faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia. I don't really believe that he fails to recognize that the work and university course adduced here deal with BtVS as an example of a popular-culture artifact in which various cultural topics are reflected, not with references to BtVS in other works of popular culture; or that scientific articles that contain the words "static molecular analysis" have nothing to do with the concept of "molecular static" in the TV show Charmed; or that edits such as these are not useful expansions of an article dealing with a location in a series of comic books. I've often seen others remark on AN's sincerity; to my mind he's extraordinarily insincere, thinking that he can get his way through obfuscation, mindless repetition, and manipulation (with the assistance of his band of cronies) of his WP "image". That his tactics are deployed in the service of so-called inclusionism makes no difference whatever to me; they would be just as repellent, and just as destructive to the integrity of the encyclopedia and to the discourse surrounding its articles and policies, if they were used in an attempt to advance any other cause or POV. I tend to agree with Kww above that the desired outcome here is off-target, as AN has never shown any sincere intention of altering his behavior or any real ability to contribute to WP in any way other than the ways at issue here. I don't know what a suitable outcome would be, but more of the same is not it.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Deor (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As Deor says, it's the tactics, not the content. I'm not quite sure I'll sign up with language like "band of cronies", but the rest seems relatively on target.—Kww(talk) 02:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree completely. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ThemFromSpace 02:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --EEMIV (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Endorse. I just see too many occassions where AN seems to be playing dumb or deaf so he can keep behaving in the same way. That is just not acceptable in collaborative projects where one is causing problems. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. While this view speculates excessively on AN's motivations, I'm afraid this corresponds 100% with my beliefs. My good faith burned out on this editor. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. - Josette (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Joe Chill (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Jack Merridew 04:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by S Marshall

[edit]
Long discussion, hatted by the author for usability reasons

This is the first RFC where I've felt I've understood the issues and the participants well enough to give an "outside view".

I'll admit my own bias: I quite like A Nobody. I mean, I recognise that he's a SPA whose function is to retain content that's nominated for deletion, but I've always found him pleasant and well-mannered towards me, so I'm disposed to be friendly to him. I've attempted to overcome this bias in writing what follows, but I should acknowledge its presence.

A Nobody's alleged conduct issues cannot be considered without also considering the wider context of tendentious editing at AfD. Let's be very clear that A Nobody is not the only AfD-related SPA on Wikipedia. Far from it.

In fact, there's a recognisable group of editors whose edits mostly consist of "keep" !votes. This group overlaps with, but is not entirely contiguous with, the Article Rescue Squadron. I could name these editors, but I think it would be inappropriate to do so. I propose we call this the KSPAG (for "Keep" SPA group) and I would like to distinguish it from the ARS, since there are undoubtedly good-faith editors in the ARS who genuinely search for sources and consider what they find before !voting.

There is also a recognisable group of editors whose edits mostly consist of "delete" !votes. This group is not organised in the same way as the ARS, but it nevertheless has a membership, and I could name those people too. Again, it would be inappropriate to do so. I propose we call this the DSPAG (for "delete" SPA group), and I would like to distinguish it from Wikiproject Deletion, since there are undoubtedly good-faith editors in Wikiproject Deletion who genuinely search for sources and consider what they find before !voting.

Which came first? The chicken or the egg? It doesn't matter. The fact is that each of these groups of editors necessitates, and perhaps even justifies, the existence of the other. They've formed a kind of vicious circle of mutual opposition and it periodically comes to a head (most recently at the Article Incubation wossname, but before that it was X-Y relations).

There is a pattern of tendentious editing at AfD on both sides that needs to be addressed and A Nobody's case should not be considered in isolation.

I also want to say that though A Nobody is a SPA, he is a "good faith" SPA in the sense that he genuinely believes that retaining content that's nominated for deletion is in the encyclopaedia's best interests. In my opinion it would not be possible to channel A Nobody's energies into any other aspect of the project.

Finally, I think the nominating group of editors here are also nominating in good faith. They genuinely believe his edits are damaging to the project. But I think that if they did not clash with A Nobody at AfD so often, the other matters they raise would be overlooked.

The perfect answer would be for everyone involved just to grow up. But with AfD in its current format, the day this happens, I'll be off hitting the slopes with my good old buddy Satan.

I move we suspend this RFC for the moment, since it's about A Nobody, and consider the broader question of systemic problems at AfD first.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S Marshall (talk • contribs)
  2. AN's issues aren't all caused by the AfD environment, but a lot of them are. AfD is probably unfixable, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree right up to the last line, which of course, may mean that I don't agree at all. Still, while I would not advocate suspending the RfC, your summary is accurate, and the discussion needs to occur. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Very accurate encapsulation of the issues at AfD, and this would certainly be a great time to end the RFC. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I suppose I'm one of the AFD regulars referred to here - I see my role as being like a public defender or devil's advocate. Anyway, I just wanted to agree that AFD is a fairly broken process and reforming it would be the most productive direction this RfC could take. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Misleading edit summaries and inappropriate merges during AfD aren't caused by anyone by A Nobody themselves, but otherwise this is a good perspective. Fences&Windows 22:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Endorse. Let's suspend and address the root cause; problems with the AfD proceses. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Endorse wholeheartedly. I think that A Nobody's edits are clearly being made in good faith, it just so happens that some of his behaviours are becoming disruptive. If he can curb these behaviours (and he has before), he'll be a significant net positive to the project once more. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  9. This is generally a very perceptive view, I think. I agree that this ongoing battle between hardcore "keep" and "delete" advocates does exist, and even in the context of that ongoing conflict I find A Nobody one of the more reasonable and sensible of the participants. I do not think this RfC is likely to achieve a great deal - there are valid concerns with AN's editing, but most need to be viewed in a wider context in which he is generally one of the more agreeable editors. He's clearly operating in good faith and many problems are indirectly caused by the situation rather than himself. ~ mazca talk 15:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Endorse. I think the battleground issues are the main source of the problem. But that said, one can try to operate politely to all comers. And some do quite well (on both sides). AN generally does, but sometimes reacts poorly. So do I. We both need to work on it... Hobit (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal by Abductive

[edit]
  • I have watched Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/A Nobody's behavior evolve for years. There has been change, and given that the community allowed A Nobody to return, I feel that revisiting that series of events won't lead to any improvement in Wikipedia. We all know that some people will vote a certain way in every AfD, and will hector people in AfD discussions, and these views can be discounted or listened to as the case may be.
  • The only things that concern me now is A Nobody's new trend of misuse of sources which leads to articles that are based on false premises and contain errors, and his use of this new weird tactic of merging text to and from articles to "prevent" their deletion under the GDFL. If these behaviors alone could be stopped, I would be pleased.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Abductive (reasoning) 18:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There's a good chance you will have what you want as Anobody has suggested he wont be editing for a good while. When he returns his friends will quite likely have a sympathetic word about the merge tactic, as many of us agree its best not used. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mostly-endorse. It's still worrisome what these tactics say about AN: He is not engaging in a sincere and competent attempt to improve Wikipedia, as long as he is misusing sources. That said, the focus on what's currently happening is more useful than a focus on things past. I suggest liberal use of blocking, if/when he comes back, if the misuse of sources continues. Friday (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Very limited endorsement. I'd be a fool to say that people don't sort along their opinions. But I really take issue with the claim of novelty here. If AN just started to present sources inaccurately or merge during AfDs or what-not very recently, there would be no grounds for an RfC. The pattern is the problem. Protonk (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Limited endorsement. I'm principally concerned with the effects AN has in mainspace, and I agree that if the two problems you mention were addressed, much of the damage he causes to articles would be prevented; however, I also view the shoveling of unrelated material into AfD'd articles and the use of misleading edit summaries as mainspace problems. It also has to be said that he's backed off from these behaviors before when they've been brought to wider attention, only to return to them when he thought he could get away with it. Even if this process could extract some agreement from AN to cease doing these things (which seems unlikely), I'd want the agreement to specify sanctions that would result from further relapses. Deor (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Necessary but not sufficient. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by pablomismo

[edit]

To categorise this RFC as being all about "inclusionism" v "deletionism" is misleading and divisive. It's about A Nobody's editing.

While he is capable of editing collaboratively, A Nobody does not respond well to any criticism of his editing. None of us can afford to ignore advice or criticism; it's an important part of working in this project.

The deceptive edit summaries are worrying. His intent may not be to conceal what he is doing, but it that is the way it comes across.

Merging (and moving and redirecting) articles are not strictly forbidden during an AfD, but the wholesale merging of many articles at AfD is disruptive.

I do not think that this RFC/U should be closed early, and I don't accept that it is the 'culture' of Wikipedia, specifically AfD, that has caused A Nobody's behaviour. The culture is largely formed by the participants, who are all responsible for their own contributions.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1.  pablohablo. 20:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Deor (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yilloslime TC 20:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --EEMIV (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As a statement of purpose, this is correct. As a statement of fact, it is somewhat indeterminate. We can have any number of explanations for why inclusionists and deletionists (per se, not lobbing bombs, just offering a quick characterization) have lined up the way they have. Maybe this is a partisan witch hunt. Maybe AN's defenders are motivated by solidarity. Maybe deletionists are more willing to see AN's faults than their own (and vice versa). But I think we need to look past that. Nothing good will come of this if we just dig in. If people genuinely believe the RfC is wholly without merit, say so (if you haven't already) and say why. But if you feel it has some merit, however clouded by politics, then give us your summary. Help us come to some positive outcome. Protonk (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Endorse all points. Flatscan (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. As a comment on the "culture" aspect, I will point out that I participate in numerous AFDs, primarily over music articles, and don't encounter the animosity I see discussed here.—Kww(talk) 03:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Certainly. One can be inclusionist or deletionist without winding people up. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. ThemFromSpace 22:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Jack Merridew 04:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this view has comments

Outside view by Dylan620

[edit]

Apologies if this is a bit out-of-form — I've never participated at an RfC before. In any event, AN has his faults (as the evidence for the RfC indicates), but he is generally a splendid editor; in addition to his 2 GA's and 13 DYK's, AN has saved hundreds of articles from being deleted. In general, I believe that a user's net effect on Wikipedia is a balance between how much he pisses off other users and how much he helps out. Sure, he's stepped on some toes, but AN is easily a highly productive editor in general. We have several magnificent content contributors whose decorum are far worse than that of AN IMO (take Giano, for example).

In conclusion, I would disagree with banning AN from the site, but I do see how a re-instatement of his mentorship could help.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)help us! 21:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. People can always choose to ignore the replies at AfD. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wholeheartedly. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Endorse... and caution temperance. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Endorse. McJEFF (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. editor maybe new to RFC, but he has made one of the best statments on this page. Ikip (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Black Kite

[edit]

It is unfortunate that AN hasn't commented here - it is even more unfortunate that he has started editing again by restarting the practice that was criticised before - spamming Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 3, badgering Support voters for providing little rationale whilst ignoring Oppose voters who do the same thing.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Black Kite 19:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Indeed, his participation there has been rather a perfect microcosm of the overall problem, from his use of "IAR" as a response to a reiteration of how the current fiction / notability guidelines came about to his badgering based on ideology. Indeed, his participation there in the first place. strident as it is, plainly contradicts his frequent assertion that it is he who is the persecuted party who just wants to be left alone to edit in peace. If any parties who have not previously come across this RfC were to examine only one piece of evidence, that RfA is the perfect one. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This view has comments.

Comment by Beeblebrox

[edit]

(note that while I have argued with A Nobody on occasion, I have also given him a barnstar. It is not my intention to take a side in this matter but rather to put an end to it since no one else seems willing to do so)

  • It has become abundantly clear that this process is not moving forward.
  • Without a dialogue with the subject, there is very little that can be accomplished in an user RFC proceeding.
  • The two "sides" in this matter have mostly put themselves in solid intractable positions and do not seem to be preparing to change their stances anytime soon.
  • Much of this RFC has wandered far off topic from discussing one particular user's behavior, and it is harmful to the project to allow a battleground situation to continue here.
  • While valid concerns have been raised pertaining both to A Nobody and others, there is little to no consensus on a remedy to any of these issues.
  • Given all of the above points, it seems clear that this RFC is not serving the best interests of Wikipedia and should be closed.
  • If the those who brought this matter to RFC wish to pursue this further, they will have to make their case to the Arbitration Committee.

Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(The above summary represents my opinions of what has transpired thusfar and is not endorsed by the participants Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Key issues raised

[edit]
  • Many users feel that A Nobody abused the right to vanish because he did not in fact vanish forever, but re-appeared under a new username.
  • After returning from "vanishing" A Nobody engaged in similar behavior and editing patterns to his pre-vanishing identity and has on occasion acknowledged the old identity while becoming exceptionally defensive if it is mentioned by other users.
  • Many users feel that A Nobody has learned from his past and is not behaving in a manner extreme enough to warrant sanctions, but rather that his behavior is a somewhat necessary result of heavy participation in AFD and article rescue activities.
  • Some users felt that A Nobody is/was being unfairly targeted for his outspoken views.
  • There is evidence from A Nobody's previous account(s) that there is a long term pattern of disputed behavior stretching back more than three years, however a substantial number of users question the validity of continuing to examine older contributions.
  • There is general agreement that A Nobody is motivated by a sincere desire to improve Wikipedia, but a substantial number of users question how he goes about accomplishing that goal.
  • There is some concern that this process in and of itself is intended as a tactical maneuver in an "inclusionist -vs- deletionist" power struggle, although it is worth noting that one of the filing parties self-identifies as an inclusionist.
  • A minority of users felt that a discussion of reform of AFD is more appropriate than discussing A Nobody's actions.
  • Despite numerous requests for participation, A Nobody has steadfastly avoided commenting here or acknowledging he is even aware of this RFC, although he has engaged in editing, including some rather lengthy comments at RFA, while this process was underway.
  • The desired outcome stated at the top of this RFC has not and will not be achieved through the RFC process due to lack of participation by A Nobody.


  • This list is a summary of what has transpired here and is not intended to endorse any particular position but rather to encapsulate the core points raised both here and on the talk page without moving away from the main topic and purpose of this RFC, which is the discussion of A Nobody's editing on Wikipedia. I have attempted to extract the salient points from what has been an extremely long conversation about this user, but it is possible nonetheless that some smaller points have been missed. Despite this possibility I will be closing this RFC shortly in the interest of concluding this process in a timely fashion and avoiding further escalation of debate on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Summary

[edit]

This RfC/U is closed by motion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.