Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:07, 21 September 2009

Please comment on responses here and not on the RfC proper.

Comment on Outside view by MichaelQSchmidt

• Referent is Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/A_Nobody#Outside_view_by_MichaelQSchmidt

Come on. So his only flaw is that he is too focused on improving articles. Can we please not make this about inclusion and deletion? Please? WE have attempted to bring up serious concerns about behavior and in response we get some dodge about articles. Protonk (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. There's nothing wrong with being an inclusionist, or a deletionist, or a idontknowwhatiam-ist. Nor is there anything wrong with being passionate about rescuing articles or about making the case for what you truly believe, and the like. To think this RfC is about inclusion and deletion seriously misses the point. It's about behavior. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, behavior like supporting Jack's stalking and calling A nobody a troll. Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts/archive70#Implications_of_template_and_edit_summary_use If this RFC escalates to the next level Lar, I will strongly suggest that you lose your adminship for your partisan and abusive behavior. The level of abuse from Jack, which you have repeatedly condoned has never been present with A Nobody.

I find it pathetic that you three have to go back to 2007 to find any serious problems, this is Michaels main argument too. He never uses the word deletion or inclusion in his argument. This is the only use of inclusion at all: "We are being offered some negative diffs from over a 3-year period without without inclusion of the positive ones.""

Whereas you two did repeatedly use deletion in the opening section the three of you put together.

So if this isn't about inclusionism and deletionoism why do you three admins continue to REPEATEDLY bring up the words deletion? You can't have it both ways. You can't complain ad nauseum about how you dislike A Nobody's edit behavior against deletion in your huge attack section, then criticize Michael when he doesn't even bring up deletion. Ikip (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Back to 2007??? There are diffs from earlier this week that show the same problematic behavior. As for losing my adminship over pointing out that there are serious issues with A Nobody's behaviour, I'm recallable. As I have been since 2007. Nice try shooting the messenger, but no. ++Lar: t/c 23:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The impetus for this is disagreement over deletion/inclusion. I wouldn't be on the opposite side of an argument with him if it weren't for the inclusion/deletion spectrum. But there are plenty of people who undertake to save articles, correct errors in nominations, inform editors that don't treat the opposition with disdain. That don't engage in infelicitous arguments, that don't turn the deletion/inclusion spectrum into a battleground. Those are the issues. Protonk (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, A Nobody used socks last week? I didn't see that. Please point out where that happened? I do know over a month ago, you were supporting Jack in his personal attacks and stalking. You are not a messenger Lar, you are one of the central protagonists in this dispute allowing for the continued abuse of another editor. That is why, if this escalates, I will strongly encourage that you lose your adminship. Ikip (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes... let's look at behaviors. But from 3 years ago? Has A Nobody used a puppet today? Last week? Last month? Has the A Nobody account used a puppet at all? I would happily discuss recent behaviors, and be happy to scold A Nobody if he was totally to blame for any problems.... But if any one of us ever ever ever received a caution for a bit of pique or made an edit that others disgreed with... we would be well advised now to look at both sides of this discussion and keep our concerns rooted in the recent and not the distant past. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well, that's not germane to my comment. But yes. If the behavior hasn't changed, it is relevant to look at patterns. This isn't a fit of pique by the way. One compliment I will make about A Nobody is that he is almost always calm. He's also (in regards to FeydHuxtable's comment below) a very nice person. He's probably genuinely kind at heart. But he doesn't see his opponents as human beings. The instant someone reaches a strong disagreement with him he throws AGF out the window and ignores their comments and criticism. He will (I suspect) not condescend to respond to this RfC. That's a crucual problem, especially when paired with his actions at AfD/DRV. Protonk (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, talk about a personal attack: "But he doesn't see his opponents as human beings" this is going to be a very long month, from the minute I saw the large sections of non-evidence presented here, and I saw that Lar, who supports calling A Nobody troll was behind this, I knew this was going to be a huge WP:BATTLE. Protonk's comments just bear this out. Ikip (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly a personal attack. It's my assesment of his behavior. As I said below, he's a nice guy. He and I have corresponded publicly and privately on a number of issues. But once it was clear that I wasn't coming over to his side he just hardened. I stopped being a person and was just a "bad faith incivil deletionist". I also note your implied threat to escalate this. Protonk (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

His problem is not that he is an inclusionist, but the way he goes about acting as one. It's fine to want to keep articles, but he constantly badgers experienced users with the same links over and over again, uses underhanded tactics to force articles to be kept in AfDs (such as merging a single sentence to another article, claiming that it cannot be deleted, or the Salvation, Texas mess where he added details from three unrelated subjects, and after all was said and done, the original content was removed), doesn't accept the fact that other people have different feeling about how to manage content on this site (he'll reply over and over with the same exact comment), and then there's the whole thing with his original username. TTN (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sure your own behavior has nothing to do with these arguments you two have: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, and, like Lar and Protunk say, this is not really about deletion or inclusionism. Ikip (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh, this has nothing to do with my behavior. Just recently, I proposed to merge an article, and after three other people agreed with it, I went ahead with it. He was the only one who disagreed, but he still reverted it and used the argument that the merge comments should not be taken seriously just because they do not subscribe to his particular viewpoints. Even after three other users, who have all taken part in getting fiction related FAs and FLs promoted, added their comments, he is still just reiterating the same exact comment over and over without fail. I would think such people would probably have a much better idea than him about how to manage such content. He just needs to be able to understand that his perfect vision for this site is not the common viewpoint. TTN (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Again. I'm prepared to assume that your views on content are not totalizing w/ respect to your behavior. Are you prepared to grant me the same courtesy? Protonk (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Your answer is this: how many times do you accuse A Nobody of lying, bad faith, disruption, harassment, and hounding and just above you state the absurd claim that A Nobody "doesn't see his opponents as human beings." Now you are asking for courtesy? If I were to call you a liar, who disrupts, hounds and harasses other editors, and "doesn't see his opponents as human beings" how would you feel Protonk? Ikip (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I would damn well expect that you justify it with evidence. Protonk (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 

Focus on the core of the defense, Ikip: Protonk and the others have made accusations and supplied evidence. Reading over it (and having experienced a part of it), I would say that A Nobody certainly lies, certainly disrupts, certainly hounds, and certainly harasses. I think that to state that "he doesn't see his opponents as human beings" is psychobabble, and won't defend that part. The first four are pretty concrete: if you believe them to be false, refute them. Trying to impeach the accusers is a waste of time. The case should stand or fall on the evidence.—Kww(talk) 23:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

More to the point. If you want to start an RfC on me, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Protonk is not protected from editing. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Lar is not protected from editing. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/MBisanz is not protected from editing. If you think that we are acting in some fashion where organized community feedback is required then feel free to start that process. But I have limited patience with a strategy that just impeaches the integrity of the RfC authors rather than focusing on the claims. Protonk (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The beauty Protonk, is that you have already have created the RFC, "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." so all those other red link RFC's are unnecessary. I am sorry Protonk but you don't have a monopoly on "impeach the integrity" on other editors. You in fact stated yourself that you helped create this RFC with Lar and Mbis. I personally feel that you and Kww: "certainly disrupts, certainly hounds, and certainly harasses" by calling this RFC and some of the claims that you make and support. If you don't want such accusations thrown at you, then don't make such slurs in the first place. We can't forget Jack in all this. Lars support of personal attacks needs to be addressed, as does the stalking and continued harassment by Jack Merridew, who just two days ago got a final warning from an admin to leave A Nobody alone. Ikip (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. But if your defense is just focused on pointing out how me, Misbainz and Lar are not bringing this in bad faith, then assert that and move along. It doesn't actually speak to the evidence. Protonk (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd be interested in knowing how I've disrupted, hounded, or harassed. And, as always, I will remind the world that my reaction to the AN/JM dispute was to suggest blocking them both and throwing away the key. I can't defend Jack Merridew's actions any more than I can defend A Nobody's.—Kww(talk) 01:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with people being an inclusionist. I just have a problem with how someone handles their discussions with other editors about it. My problem is that his bad behavior has continued over three years. He may have gotten a little better, but he's still been doing the same things recently (not counting the sockpuppets). I'm surprised that all those blocks and all those warnings didn't help. I don't like the comment that A Nobody is usually uncivil towards editors that is mean towards him. I have seen that other editors are uncivil toward him because of his ultra inclusionism, but I have noticed more often that A Nobody usually assumes that people are uncivil when their comments aren't uncivil. Joe Chill (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

But he doesn't see his opponents as human beings , Protonk, is almost ridiculous unfair, to the point where I see clear demonstration of what I will just o call frustration over the problem. But such a line of discussion perpetuates the problem, because one can hardly expect that anyone addressed in such terms will improve conduct in response to it. What you may perhaps mean is that he sees the importance of the position he is defending as justifying a considerable degree of carelessness in human relations and lack of tact. He is not the only person involved in the subject who has shown that tendency. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that the "opponents as human beings" comment comes from Protonk, not Ikip. Nathan 00:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

yes, I just fixed it. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll retract that comment if it is a problem. Note that the comment is my opinion and isn't noted in the RfC itself. Protonk (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I won't retract it. I don't think he sees people who criticize him as anything other than 2 dimensional assailants. This was one of my core complaints about him from the moment we clashed. DGG and Ikip misread this as a personal attack where it is a characterization of my views. Protonk (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• To the original point, MQS (if he doesn't mind the username abbreviation) says that raising issues from the distant past is inappropriate in this RFC. It isn't; it is a way of demonstrating that the behaviour patterns are continuous over a long time period. For every diff from last year there is one from the last few months. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Outside view by FeydHuxtable

• Referent is Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/A_Nobody#Outside view by FeydHuxtable

We should check to see if MBisanz's account is compromised? Is that a serious request? No, MBisanz's account isn't compromised, nor is mine, nor is Protonk's .... you can write any of us and check, if you like. But that sort of rhetoric makes me chuckle. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Lar, don't cut off your options yet, maybe the compromised argument is what you can use when I bring up Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts/archive70#Implications of_template_and_edit_summary_use, where you actively support Jack calling A Nobody a troll, while condemning A Nobody for the same behavior. 23:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

And Durova is compromised as well? Protonk (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I make no compromises. ;) Durova 23:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I doubt many would have a problem with Durovas contribution. She clearly has a history with the user , but her comments were moderate and she didnt make accusations that are easily demonstrable as false. Actually I do have a problem with her, she doesnt appear to be an arbriter. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My general comment is this. Sure, A-N is a nice guy. He's a kind soul. Iff you are on his side. If you aren't he is relentless about assigning malign intent, deflecting criticism and engaging in acts of reprisal. I don't want him to go away. I just want him to accept that the criticism of him by people who he doesn't agree with has some basis in reality. I want him to understand that we are all better off if we refuse to treat deletion as a battlefield. And I want other folks to understand that this RfC has been a long time coming. People have been attempting to get this across to him for 3 years. 3 years. Look at his first edits to AfD. Look at his more recent edits to AfD. Message has not been received. This is a natural point along the DR continuum and I think we should rest upon it for a while. Protonk (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's the main point: his misbehaviour is not three years old, it's three years long.—Kww(talk) 23:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Protonk you forgot to add that he "doesn't see his opponents as human beings" Your off handed compliments about A Nobody sound incredibly hallow Protonk when you look at all of the things you three admins have accused A Nobody of, "incivility", "Harassment_and_Hounding", "Lying" I am working on a response to show how empty this long RFC is. It is clear you three have an axe to grind against A Nobody, which I will clearly demonstrate. As FeydHuxtable wrote: "Yes he has faults like all of us, but certainty not to the extent that's implied by this highly flawed RFA." 23:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

ikip, the signal to noise ratio on your comments is increasing. I think he has made grave errors and has persisted in those errors even in the presence of good faith feedback. Yes a lot of criticism has been in bad faith. Yes he has been trolled on WP by a number of editors. and Yes he is a genuinely kind soul. If I met him on the street or at a conference I'm sure we would get along famously. but those three things do not exempt him from the community. His actions make discussions more polarized and bitter. His actions not just anyone else's. Not "a plague on both your houses". His actions. Statements he needs to take responsibility for. All I am asking is that we can offer this feedback and have it addressed on the merits. Protonk (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• My identity is incredibly well documented and can be extensively mapped at places such as and (note: I am sitting in the chair pictured in the last link typing on the Logitech keyboard pictured in it at this very moment) MBisanz 23:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Matt, I think I know you well from the NYC chapter, and I was amazed to see you join in this. Obviously, the "compromised" remark was not intended literally, but as one of the things we say when someone takes a stand very different from their usual position. I know you are relatively much more deletionist than I , and I have no quarrel with some of your criticism here, and I recognize that A nobody has a much more annoying style than you and me, but I did not think you would join in an attack on a editor that goes back as far as it does to material that is not directly relevant to current problems. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh, because he thinks there are problems that merit community comment? Why isn't that an option? Honestly. Protonk (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

DGG: calling this an attack on A Nobody misses the point, and does you a disservice. It's a recounting of problematic behavior that the certifying editors want acknowledged, and then stopped (or at least just stopped). That's what an RfC is, and that's what this RfC is. If you want to see attacks, you might want to review some of the edits here from those attacking the certifiers of the RfC. ++Lar: t/c 01:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

DGG is absolutely right. This RFC paints ANobody in an unfairly negative light. The evidence has been grossly misrepresented, as has been demonstrated by editors like Ikip, myself and dream focus with some level of agreement even from an arbiter. There no question that this RfC is an attack. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

All I'm going to say is that I do not appreciate one bit of being called a "deletionist" on the RFC page, let alone trying to be pigeonholed and compartmentalized into nice little convenient packages for people on the opposite side to razz on. There's a reason why I have "precisionist" on my user page as well as WP:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD; I do not identify myself on either end of the mainspace-philosophy spectrum. I have defended plenty of articles that would have otherwise been deleted, alongside those which I thought should've went. I do not make broad judgments of articles, nor do I try to engage in the petty politics that some of these users here engage endlessly in, which IMO is making me sick to the stomach. If I wanted that crap, I'd go engage in bitter political debates with people outside of Misplaced Pages. This doesn't have to be brought here.

My goal is trying to be reasonable with everybody I try to come across, regardless of their wiki-beliefs. I may be critical at times, but there is always respect. At the end of the day, if I've helped make the encyclopedia better in quality than it was in my view the previous day, then I know I did something good. I always appreciate those who assist me in making the encyclopedia better by the day, regardless of who they are.

What I don't like is this endless "butter-side-up" vs. "butter-side-down" shooting war going on. You know who gets caught right in the middle? People like us who don't want to take any side, the innocent Wikipedians who go around every day simply trying to improve some articles, clear up a backlog, or settle some small dispute. It's like a tug-of-war with you being the rope, getting dismembered from both ends. I just hope that it doesn't have to get to the point where the dichotomy gets so great that I have to leave the project just so that those who stay finally get their egos stroked because they've created an exact (or even moreso) microcosm of the crap that we have to deal with in real life.

This will be the only thing I will say in this RFC/U or as far as this RFC/U is concerned, because frankly, I don't want to hear it anymore. MuZemike 03:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

MuZemike, FeydHuxtable calls you a mild deletionist and you freak out? Please, you are calling a Nobody a liar, that he harrasses other users, that he is disruptive, you are also outing him.

You have no place to claim the moral high ground for several reasons. The editor that you are working hand in hand with admin Lar, supported Jack calling A Nobody a troll, and supported Jack's stalking.

Did you honestly expect that editors would take these slurs with gratitude? That A Nobody and editors who appreciate his work would say, thanks MuZemike for calling me a liar etc.

Don't cry that you are just an innocent victim "innocent Wikipedians who go around every day simply trying to improve some articles" when you instigated this RFC. Ikip (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

MuZemike , i used the word "arguably" as i hadnt seen enough of you to be sure if you were a deletionist. Sorry to bring you into this. That said I treat "deletionist" as a descriptive word about ones stance on inclusion - its not neccessarily a negative. No doubt many or most deletionists are of good character and sincerly believe they're improving the product.FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• There's possibly things we could say to A Nobody that might result in him taking a more relaxed attitude to RfA. For example, that the existence of articles on trivial fan related subjects will have a side effect of depriving fan sites of traffic, which may even cause their members to fall below the critical mass needed for a lively community, and so in a way it can be for the greater good for certain nice articles to be deleted. But Im not sure Id want to approach him like that until this RfC has been withdrawn or refactored. Its just too heavily biased. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Bias?

Considering I presented critical evidence on A Man in Black and started the thread to extend the block on Everyme, two well known opponents of A Nobody, I am a bit surprised to see all the assumption that I am part of some ideological war to eliminate inclusionists. MBisanz 23:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If MBisanz is actually out to eliminate inclusionists, I'm in trouble. :) This isn't about inclusionism. It isn't about other editors. It isn't about battles. It's about a sustained pattern of behavior that people have been telling A Nobody about for years. I wish it hadn't had to come to this, but he's been in WP:ICANTHEARYOU mode all this time... it's time for the behavior to stop. ++Lar: t/c 00:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Likewise I received a barnstar for warning an editor that their behavior at AfD hazarded a topic ban. Protonk (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"This isn't about inclusionism....assumption that I am part of some ideological war to eliminate inclusionists."

Then why do you three mentioned deletion so many times in your RFC against A Nobody, as I document above?

Michael's comments make no mention of this deletion/inclusism argument, and yet Protonk and Lar derides Micheal about this. So far the people who mention deletion/inclusionism almost exclusively are you three admins, making ridiculous claims like MBisanz does: "I am part of some ideological war to eliminate inclusionists".

I am sure that you 3 didn't plan for this to be about Lar supporting Jack Merridew's personal attacks against A Nobody: Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts/archive70#Implications. I am sure you 3 didn't plan this to be about Jack Merridew's continued stalking and harassment of A Nobody, which Lar supported. But it will become the central issue. 01:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I eschew the labels "inclusionist" and "deletionist" as perhaps doing more harm to a discussion than good... as such labels often act to divide rather that unite editors in common purpose. I am worried though, and with no aspersion intended to MBisanz and his fine work within the project, that RFCs too often concentrate on the negative and forget the positive. Anyone care to supply the diffs showing the good A Nobody has done? The articles he has actually saved? The barnstars he has received? The respect from many editors that he has earned? I believe the RFC discussion could benefit from a balance that also grants that among the perceived bad, there is much good he has done. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to provide that in a summary and if you offered a factual and balanced presentation of the good things he has done I would endorse it. I think that A-N has done many good things for wikipedia. As I pointed out in my summary, he has improved. But the problems presented in the RfC should be addressed. If there is a problem with an editor it is not sufficient to say "but s/he does good things too". What we are hoping to do is convince A-N that the 'bad' (for lack of a better word, please bear with me) things presented in this RfC should be addressed and that after addressing them we will all be better off. We wouldn't be here if A-N didn't rebuff criticism of his actions (See here and here in the RfC for evidence). Protonk (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Aw gee.... now I have a homework assignment. I'll see what I can do... but there are 44 thousand edits to go through, and I do have real-world responsibilities. I ask for patience and any assistance anyone might offer. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've got all the time in the world. I'm actually putting together a real homework assignment atm. My first suggestion is to look at his userpage. He keeps links to resued/good/etc. articles there. Protonk (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

From Shakesphere's Julius Caesar, "The evil that men do lives after them ; The good is oft interred with their bones." Time to seek the good. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sincere advice: be sure that what you put together as evidence of "good" is widely recognized as such. Rescuing an article about Mother Teresa is one thing, rescuing an article about the third guardsman from the right in the Portuguese edition of a video game is another. One of the complaints about A Nobody is that he rescues articles that Misplaced Pages would have been better off without.—Kww(talk) 03:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said in my summary, the RfC is a list of grievances along with some indication that those grievances have been ignored. We don't intend to tar and feather him. I don't want to run him off the project. I want him to understand that some of his behaviors are inappropriate and that he ought to change them. As such, the good works he does are laudable but unrelated. If we were talking about running him off or shutting him out then the balance would be vital. Protonk (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The place for an evenhanded review of a person's edits, citing both areas of positive contribution and negatives they can address is at editor review. A Nobody had an editor review at Misplaced Pages:Editor review/A Nobody and failed to take the constructive remarks from even charitable people such as DGG ("I've found you perhaps the most frustrating editor I work with. Not even my strongest wikiopponents on particular issues give me as many problems.") into account, hence the need to move to a dispute resolution forum such as WP:RFC which is expressly for discussing specific users who have violated Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. There is no question that A Nobody has done things that improved the encyclopedia, the issue is that he has done other things that make his behavior unacceptable and require detailed community scrutiny to determine the subsequent steps to be taken. MBisanz 04:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Outside view by Nathan

Just to reiterate a point: it's apparent to me that the reason the editors that created this RFC included three-year-old material is not to unbalance the RFC, or to punish A Nobody for past sins. It's because the essential nature of his behaviour has not changed in three years. If people want to point at something and say "that's three years old", be specific: I'm sure that a quick trawl through A Nobody's contributions will reveal a close parallel that is much more recent. This problem is not three years old, it's three years long.—Kww(talk) 00:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The three years old stuff includes sockpuppetry and controversy over RtV. Can you explain how that pattern of behavior is ongoing? Nathan 00:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's also about WP:CIVIL. Joe Chill (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

He continues the obviously exaggerated story of the personal danger he is in to this day. If you have ever referred to him by his old name, he will not acknowledge messages on his talk page. He has a banner on his talk page advising people that have referred to him by his old username that will not listen to them until they apologize and make amends. That is directly linked to his abuse of the right to vanish. It is being used as pretext to support his refusal to accept negative feedback from any source.

It is also linked to the fact that there really is no need to go through an elaborate conflict resolution procedure with him. He was blocked. In the course of getting out from that block, he made a pledge to avoid his traditional area of conflict. The old evidence lays out his old areas of conflict. The new evidence shows that he is repeating all of his old behaviour, with only minor twists. It really should be as simple as "pledge broken = block restored".—Kww(talk) 00:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) @Kww: Exactly. Why do I get the feeling that if we'd kept this short, and only gave a few examples drawn from the past few weeks or so, we'd be hearing "those are just isolated incidents" from certain staunch defenders, who apparently will tolerate any behavior from A Nobody while attacking those who were concerned enough to raise the issue under any pretext they can come up with?

They're not isolated incidents. It's a pattern of behavior that's three years long. When A Nobody got renamed the last time, a condition of the rename he committed to was to discontinue the problematic behaviors that caused ruckus before. Well, as far as I know, there haven't been any creditable allegations of socking recently. That's an improvement over the past, yes. But the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior hasn't stopped, which is an issue. There was a lull, but it started up again. So here we are. The behavior is disruptive enough in some cases to warrant blocking, and I have no doubt that after much drama they'd be sustained. But I'd rather see A Nobody take the feedback on board and be a more collegial editor than get blocked. ++Lar: t/c 00:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As for RTV: RTV means vanishing. It doesn't mean that you get to come back under a new identity, actively reference your own old ID but insist that no one else can do so. A Nobody routinely refers to things he said that are signed with his old ID, which is an open acknowledgement of his old identity. But he chastises others for referring to his old identity. You can't have it both ways. ++Lar: t/c 00:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are characterising me with that comment, but I don't think its at all fair if so - I wouldn't describe myself as a "staunch defender" of A Nobody by any stretch of the imagination, and in fact I have not dismissed the evidence of recent misconduct. And as for RTV, I think most of us can think of quite a few examples of people who have used RTV and then returned without any penalty at all. Nathan 00:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not, you know that, former coachee. :) We may disagree but we can do so civilly and with good faith. ++Lar: t/c 01:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Just checking, since this section is technically a comment on my outside view ;-) Nathan 01:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

An example of that would be me. Several editors know about it, but the difference is that I was never blocked on the account and only left because of incivility and harrassment including from admins. Joe Chill (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I honestly cannot. I know people who have had an attempt to get a WP:CLEANSTART unravel, but not an RTV. I believe Joe Chill is a case of WP:CLEANSTART, not WP:RTV. If he is guilty of an WP:RTV violation, he should be blocked pending a community discussion allowing him to return.—Kww(talk) 01:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I support RTV. I support CLEANSTART. But you have to actually vanish and put the old account behind you. Which you have done AFAIK (I don't even know who you (Joe Chill) were, nor care). But A Nobody hasn't. He openly links to his old account's comments and acknowledges them as his own but chastises others who mention it. That's not fair dealing. ++Lar: t/c 01:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The biggest difference is that under CLEANSTART, you don't reference your past, but edit under a new account. Under RTV, you actually go away, never to return, in any form, at any time, under any circumstance. You go away for life, and never edit again. I was elated to to see him vanish, and gravely disappointed to see people tolerating his return to editing. I'm even more disappointed to see that even having violated the conditions of his return that some aren't willing to consider it to be a problem.—Kww(talk) 01:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I hate to admit it, but this drama is entertaining. Joe Chill (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The RTV misuse/abuse is annoying, but it's also a dead horse. Is it just oddly weird he kneejerks so much at the mention of the old ID? I suppose -- after all, it carries a lot of baggage, whether in Misplaced Pages world and/or the real world. But, really, it was thoroughly hashed over at ANI and I don't think makes for worthwhile fodder in this discussion. The RTV stuff, after all, isn't behavior per se; it was an incident. Everyone rolled their eyes, but ultimately a wide consensus allowed him to come back. Of course, that consensus also mentioned the possibility of RFC at several points -- but, even then, it was in reference to problematic behavior, not RTV itself. Anyway, point being, regardless of whether a process was carried out in a manner that irked a lot of folks, it's a done deal. I ascribe his touchiness about the old ID to a quirk -- and perhaps genuine concern about stalking, in which case he just makes really bad decisions about advertising his identity and he can deal with the consequences. But, an event so old probably isn't the best focus or component for this exchange. I think the merits of this RFC stand fine even if he hadn't RTVed; assume it's the same user name, and look at the persistent pattern. Although pre-/post-RTV is a common frame of reference, the event itself is so muddled in "huh?"s and "I don't know if I believe him"s and "For sure this was an issue"s that it's more a point of mucking-the-water. Anyway, stream-of-consciousness over; time for sorbet. --EEMIV (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree w/ EEMIV. The RTV thing isn't too important. It plays a role in the RfC insofar as it marks the watershed of past bad behavior, but the purpose of this RfC is not to rap his knuckles about that issue. That's why I didn't sign Kww's summary. Protonk (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Not too surprisingly, that disagreement is why I didn't sign the original summary. The purpose of this shouldn't be to try to extract another promise to be a good boy in the future, because it is apparent that such promises aren't kept.—Kww(talk) 01:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Right to vanish

Protonk writes: "The RTV thing isn't too important. It plays a role in the RfC insofar as it marks the watershed of past bad behavior, but the purpose of this RfC is not to rap his knuckles about that issue."

And yet it is brought up in the main first section Protonk helped create. If it is not important, delete the section, along with these sections:

Ikip (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• There might be nuance in the position of your opponents. I think that what he did during the RTV was wrong and I think it trivialized RTV for everyone else. but it isn't a central element of the RfC and unlike Kww I don't feel his abuse of RTV rises to the level where the community need demand a year later that he be banned. Not at all. Look at the 'aims' of the RfC, please. Protonk (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This section seems to be mistitled with some conflation with the next one. Ikip can you please reorganize this to be a bit more comprehensible? It would be appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 02:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING

Per this policy:

"Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted one's own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages oneself. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Misplaced Pages. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Misplaced Pages permanently."

Please remove A Nobody's old user name material from this RFC immediately. Ikip (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Why we chose not to is explained in the RfC. I'm prepared to have a discussion about this, but the cat is out of the proverbial bag. Protonk (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • All that's needed to refute this specious charge of Ikip's is one diff showing where A Nobody links to a comment he himself made using his old ID which acknowledges it's him. Any takers on how long it would take to find that? An important point: THIS is the root of the "RTV" issue... that A Nobody plays it both ways. Claims no one else can refer to him by what he himself refers to as. That's just not on, and it's one of the issues the RfC raises. If A Nobody wanted a rename for reasons of alleged harassment, he needs to not go back. That's the way CLEANSTART works. ++Lar: t/c 02:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove it. Same user and same incivility for three years. Joe Chill (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, where in policy is this allowed, where in policy can you continue to use editors old names after you out them? Policy please, not proverbs. Ikip (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"the cat is out of the bag" means I can't obscure tens of thousands of discussion page edits. Honestly in the main I try and respect A-N's name change. when/where I have commented about him in public forums I have used (mostly) his new name and I will continue to refer to him under his new name. But scrubbing this RfC of references to the old name is folly. 1/3-1/2 of the diffs are under the old username or signed with the old username. Referring to him for the purposes of discussion through some euphemism would just be confusing. So I NOINDEX'd the RfC (And talk page) and offered a note of explanation. Furthermore OUTING refers to personally identifiable information like name, location, etc. I have absolutely no intention of divulging any information like that even if I knew it. Protonk (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Protonk hasn't outed anyone. As an oversighter and a steward I deal with personally identifiable information, and the removal of same, all the time.I am normally a big fan of trying to honor editor wishes, of trying hard to put genii back in bottles, however impossible it might be, but that's not the case here. It's not outing when an editor refers to himself by his old name. Your continuing this line, Ikip, makes you look foolish. ++Lar: t/c 02:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have policy on one side, and I have two editors, one who quote proverbs and one continuing his personal attacks, by calling me foolish on the other. Where is the policy? There are cases involving Arbcom Cool Hand Luke, where editors are not allowed to mention old user names. In this case their was real world harassment. On its face:

It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Misplaced Pages permanently."

Is crystal clear. Unless you have policy to back up your opinions and personal attacks, you don't have a leg to stand on Lar. But I am quite used to you Subverting policy when it is convenient. Ikip (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's clear to me that that part of WP:OUTING relates to where a user is trying to get away from an old identity. It was not designed to allow a user to refer back to a previous name but forbid other users from doing so, and if it doesn't explicitly say that, it should be changed so that it does, as policy is nothing more than a collection of standard practices and procedures. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's "policy to back up opinions"; the line before your quote in WP:OUTING. "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted one's own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages oneself." - I think that if we're considering account names "personal information", this edit is clearly A Nobody giving away his previous account name - he included the info in the edit summary, ffs. I believe that's match point to Everybody But Ikip. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Outside view by by Kww

Per: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors"

Joe Chill endorsed this view by Kww. I emailed Joe Chill this message this afternoon:

I have received no response, and since Mr. Chill continues to edit here, I know he is online. I think this should be discussed. Ikip (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Look here. I barely ever check my email. Joe Chill (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that's the proper account, you didn't use WP:RTV, you used WP:CLEANSTART, which you've just blown. Still, that account has a clean block log, so no real harm done. If you want to truly disassociate yourself from that account, you should retire this one and start over again. I don't know exactly what your motives are, but I doubt any action is necessary.—Kww(talk) 02:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My only problem was not understanding all of the policies associated with it. I got another account because a sockpuppet attacked me and no one did anything because my explanation was never good enough, an admin said that I was attracted to feces, people constantly assumed bad faith, and many editors loved nominating articles of mine for deletion to make a point. Joe Chill (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If it starts up again, you may want to try another WP:CLEANSTART. I think it's best to keep one account for life and work through any problems you may have, but others disagree.—Kww(talk) 02:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's still continuing. Which is why I said in the link above that sometimes I regret ditching that account. There was no way that I would have known that creating a new account wouldn't work. I tried many times on that account and this account to stop it, but most editors defended the one that was being uncivil. Joe Chill (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggest we take this subthread to your talk page, it may not be completely germane to this RfC. I have commented there and I would try to help if I could. ++Lar: t/c 02:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, don't ever bother talking to me again. Joe Chill (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe Chill, I have about 20 more edits about your sock puppeting, would you like me to share them here?

It shows the incredible partisanship behind this RFC that these editors are actively helping you now, and yet they are crucifying A Nobody for the exact same behavior.

Joe, its not so "entertaining" when you become the target is it? Now you have a very small taste of what A Nobody is going through himself. Ikip (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any evidence of sockpuppeting by Joe Chill. Please feel free to share it with me. My talk page is probably a better avenue than here.—Kww(talk) 04:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet. You obviously didn't pay attention to the discussion. I don't have a taste of what A Nobody is going through. I just have a taste of you being uncivil. Explain to me how I was a sockpuppet by not fully understanding the policies surrounding getting a new account and not cuasing any trouble? You are a dick. Joe Chill (talk) 11:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Where's A Nobody?

We have a lot of Ikip's comments. Meanwhile A Nobody is off welcoming IPs. Wouldn't it be more efficient for A Nobody to address some of the issues raised instead of Ikip? ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you seriously expect him to participate?—Kww(talk) 02:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT notwithstanding, you mean? I don't think I can honestly answer that, I don't know. I think it would be a good thing if he did. But that's the issue, isn't it? He doesn't participate if there is anything like honest feedback involved. One can hope. ++Lar: t/c 02:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, it can be rather tough to know what to say in response when something like this opens. Sometimes a routine repetitive task can kind of fill the time while one decides how to handle a tough issue. That can look like contempt of process when it isn't intended to be. If A Nobody is planning a response and needs time to collect his thoughts, it would be a good idea for him to post a few brief words to that effect. Will be making that suggestion at his user page now. Durova 02:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. Good thinking. Even a brief statement from A N would be helpful. ++Lar: t/c 02:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Durova. No matter how well-founded, an initiative like this is hard to not to take as a slap in the face, and I imagine it would take a while to regain composure and see everything in context. It's only been a day or two; let's give him a little space.  Skomorokh  03:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree w/ Durova. Though I will note that he has in the past made it clear how he would respond to an RfC like this, by refusing to make a comment or abide by an outcome. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you have your answer on whether or not he will be participating. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 05:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to User:Ikip

With regard to your comment on my advice at , citing both A Nobody and Jack Merridew's behavior, I would have no issue signing onto an RFC regarding Jack's behavior as I have counseled him on what he needs to change in his behavior. Granted I am not as familiar with his behavior as A Nobody's (most of Jack's AN threads predate my joining the site), but certainly if people feel there are issues and present them at RFC, I do not see any reason I would not sign (more clearly: I do not see a reason why Jack Merridew's behavior is beyond reproach to the point that I would consider an RFC frivolous). MBisanz 04:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I will post it now. Although it may evolve. Ikip (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, you seem to be exercising one of the behaviors I find problematic about A Nobody: "If X isn't being taken to task for their problems, why am I?" (or, rather, the third-person A Nobody). You've raised issues on this talk page and in your RFC response needling at the folks who initiated the RFC, at as-polarizing-as-A-Nobody Jack Meridew, but have made scant commentary on the topic at hand. If there were parallel RFCs on the initiators, Jack, and everyone else . . . that still leaves other people who think A Nobody has problematic tendencies. While I'm sure A Nobody appreciates your enthusiastic support and defense, I'm not sure what your exact objective in these talk-page posts other than to cry foul: A Nobody is being persecuted and the people raising these so-called issues about him are hypocrites. Okay; message received, and will be duly weighed by everyone who puts their eyeballs here. But, really, I think at this point it's best to finish posting your Outside view by Ikip, let all the RFC watchers swing by the weigh in, and really just wait for A Nobody to chime in. --EEMIV (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, as a technical matter, please change the titles of your subsections. If they are the same as the original dispute, the history links (anything prefaced by #) will not work. Adding another word, letter or symbol should do the trick. Protonk (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This Request for comment makes a mockery of the RFC system

I took a long and hard look at the compiled "evidence" here. I went through every section carefully.

Granted, I may have missed an piece of evidence, in between all the absurd allegations, this is the grand total of A Nobody's rule violations:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/A_Nobody#Incivility_and_refusal_to_accept_when_he_is_called_on_his_behaviour_2 "This is downright ludicrous and so I absolutely will not humor ridiculousness." The evidence section states: "Calling other users ludicrous." Which is false. As mentioned in that same section, Protunk and Kww have made much larger personal attacks against A Nobody in this very RFC.
• A Nobody leaves, using his right to vanish, he then returns as Elisabeth Rogan. This all took place over a year ago, in September 2008.
• A Nobody edits with other account before 2008.

This RFC looks impressive, but a closer examination shows 99% of it can be summed up as: no rules broken. MBisanz, Lar and Protonk, since when has removing comments from your talk page been considered a rule violation? See WP:TPO. Since when has arguing WP:OTHERSTUFF been considered evidence against a user? How can three admins with years of experience post such "evidence"?

I will repeat what I wrote in my section:

I have read and participated in numerous AFDs and RFCs, this by far the worst bad faith nomination that I have ever had the displeasure of reading. Worse, it is by three long time editors and admins, MBisanz, Lar and Protonk which makes me seriously question their judgment and their fitness to be an administrators, if this goes further, I feel they should be sanctioned and possibly desopyed, particularly Lar.

But how could anyone expect much more from these three editors? The outing and the refusal to remove it. These same editors chumming up to Joe Chill when it is revealed that he too has multiple accounts. Protunk writing above: "doesn't see his opponents as human beings" Also Lar vigorously defending Jack Merridew for calling A Nobody a troll.

Please, lets go through the evidence section by section. The three emperors have no clothes. Ikip (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Uh, I'm not asserting that he has broken 'rules' in archiving talk page comments. I'm asserting that he has done so using misleading edit summaries and has done so in a fashion that would lead a reasonable person to believe that he hasn't engaged with the criticism. The whole point of this RfC is to provide a formal mechanism for the community to say "hey, here are some problems that we are having" and it is required that we show that the subject has refused to engage in lower levels of dispute resolution. Personally, (and comments on other summaries and on the talk page from other editors shows disagreement) I feel that archiving criticism without response while within the rules is a bit contemptuous, especially given A-N's comments about accepting criticism from "good faith" sources and rejecting it from "bad faith" sources.
• I'm still at a loss to see why filing a request for comment should result in a desysopping. Protonk (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Also, please consider placing the below in the main RfC. Protonk (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"A user-conduct RfC is for discussing specific users who have violated Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines". Following WP:TPO and arguing WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a violation of "Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines". Ikip (talk) 08:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I reiterate, the main function of the 'archiving' section was to illustrate his response to criticism and to demonstrate why an RfC was necessary. Protonk (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

And I reinterate: "A user-conduct RfC is for discussing specific users who have violated Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines".

The violation of user conduct that I have found thus far, is A Nobody stating the argument is ridiculous , and socks which start from over a year ago. Ikip (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Section 1: Incivility and refusal to accept when he is called on his behaviour

Section 2 tomorrow. Ikip (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Section 2: Gaming the system

I think there is a problem with A. Nobody's behaviour which he needs to address and modify, and that is that he is Gaming the system in order to justify his soapboxing activities. I disagree with Ikip that the emperor has no clothes: clearly the emperor of soapboxing has clothes, but I think they are being used to veil the real motivation behind his activities. What we are experiencing is a type of low level flaming in which Misplaced Pages is being used, not as a forum for building an encyclopedia, but as platform for self-promotion and personal gratification. If the payoff for the high level flamer is to fling his opponent into a rage, then the payoff for a low level flammer is to put the verbal equivalent of pintacks into his boots. Since neither behaviour is directed towards building a better encyclopedia, then I think this RFC is wholly justified and it is time to lift the veil to reveal the true nature A. Nobody's behavour. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

To evalate the true nature of someone's behaviour requires an even handed look at their overall conduct, taking into account the enviroment they're operating in and how others in that environment conduct themselves. Mbisanz seems to be saying this isnt the place to be even handed, and hes the face of authority here. No wonder some on the minority side feel themselves forced to use underhand tactics like socking. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)