Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Continued wikistalking/wikihounding and harassment

Continued wikistalking/wikihounding and harassment
Note: I've made absolutely certain User:JBsupreme is aware of this AN/I discussion. He removed the notification from his talk page. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made two previous AN/I reports and this is still unresolved. Since the first two reports, User:Miami33139 has continued to wikistalk/wikihound and has even attempted to bring others into their own efforts. I seem to have come to the attention of Miami33139 due to tagging articles for the WP:COMP workflow.

The first AN/I report that I made on September 15th can be found here. The second AN/I report that I made on September 17th can be found here. Miami33139 refused to participate in the second AN/I discussion.

Since the second AN/I report, Miami33139 has also continued their bulk removal of edits made to articles by User:Ed Fitzgerald. This month alone Miami33139 has removed 100s, possibly as many as 500 or more of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits. This seems to have originally started around January 2009 and since then Miami33139 took this on as a personal crusade to remove his edits, up to the point where User:Ed Fitzgerald left Wikipedia. There was also a WQA regarding Ed's edits here and an AN/I report made by Miami33139 here. They have been using "T - I have tidied." in many of their edit summaries when removing Ed's edits but have also used other text in the past.

Furthermore, Miami33139 seems to consider the lack of action over the last two AN/I reports indication that their actions are acceptable. See

Timeline of interaction

 * Prior to the What wp is not revert below, It appears Miami33139 began digging into my contributions due to my work on the WP:COMP deletion tagging workflow.
 * Reverted my removal of an invalid CSD R2 for What wp is not
 * Got involved in the Davfs2 AfD
 * Modified User:ParkerJones2007/Comparison of Prolog standards compliance which was userfied during the Comparison of Prolog standards compliance AfD that I had recently participated in.
 * After !voting in the Davfs2 AfD, they began mass prodding a number of articles relating to Linux file systems      and subsequently nominated one for deletion when it was de-prodded.  (kept)
 * Nominated NexIRC for deletion at AfD after seeing my edits to the article. (merge/redirect)
 * Nominated What wp is not for deletion at RfD. (kept)
 * It was at this point I made the first AN/I report. Two days later after realizing they were mass-reverting User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits I made the second AN/I report. It was at this point that Miami33139 stepped up their wikistalking efforts to a whole new level.
 * Got involved in the Parchive AfD (kept)
 * Got involved in the ProSystem (Emulator) AfD (merge/redirect)
 * Got involved in the Parchive DRV
 * I decided at this point to try an experiment and tag (see articles' talk pages) and !vote in a number of WP:COMP articles that were at AfD as a test to see if Miami33139 really was without a doubt monitoring my contribs. They were.
 * Celemony AfD
 * Elecard MPEG Player AfD
 * OneFinger AfD
 * Fortitude HTTP AfD
 * Miami33139 then decided to nominate more articles I've worked on for deletion and attempted to CSD G8 a template I had created for Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients.
 * Nominated Psotnic for deletion at AfD after seeing my edits to the article.
 * Attempted to CSD G8 Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC
 * Nominated ZNC (IRC bouncer) for deletion at AfD.
 * Nominated Bip IRC Proxy for deletion at AfD.
 * Nominated PsyBNC for deletion at AfD.
 * Nominated Psyced for deletion at AfD.
 * Prodded KoolChat.
 * Filed a WQA against me here.  (Note this diff, which also shows that they have been monitoring my contributions. )
 * Got involved in the QuickPar AfD
 * Made a borderline personal attack on my talk page after having been told in the WQA to disengage. (removed by another editor)
 * Canvassed and attempted to bring User:JBsupreme and User:Joe Chill into their own efforts.
 * Got involved in the SmartPAR AfD
 * Prodded Quiet Internet Pager.
 * Nominated Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC for deletion at TfD
 * Note Miami33139 appears to be attempting in the TfD to get all the subtemplates removed in an attempt to damage Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients, which they know I've spent months so far restructuring and expanding.
 * Nominated Quiet Internet Pager for deletion at AfD.
 * Prodded rcirc.
 * Got involved in the Leafpad AfD
 * Prodded Bottler (IRC client).
 * Prodded Pork client.

I do not believe Miami33139 has any intentions of disengaging as they were asked/told repeatedly in the WQA   and the above diffs and Miami33139's contribution history should speak for itself.

In addition, after these edits by User:JBsupreme and User:Joe Chill on 5 of the AfDs and the TfD Miami33139 initiated, it appears as though there may be some off-wiki communication and meatpuppetry occurring. I do not believe there to be sockpuppetry involved but given Miami33139's attempts to bring these two editors into their own efforts against me,  I do not believe these !votes cannot be considered coincidental.
 * Psotnic AfD
 * ZNC (IRC bouncer) AfD
 * Bip IRC Proxy AfD
 * Psyced AfD
 * PsyBNC (2nd nomination) AfD
 * Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC TfD

--Tothwolf (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Miami33139 has historically not worked on articles in these areas but while having to sift through contribs to create the above list, I found a troubling pattern of what appears to be bad prod and CSD tagging. Miami33139 claims a deletion percentage of 80% and while I would think this is probably not something to brag about, I can't help but wonder just how many of these are badly placed prod and CSD tags, especially with this comment that they made at TfD regarding their own CSD tagging efforts of subtemplates.  I found additional evidence of bad CSD tagging while looking at Comparison of media players as Miami33139 had most recently largely been targeting media player type software for deletion. Possible examples may include             all of which are/were still in use at the time that they were CSD tagged and deleted. See Comparison of media players and Comparison of media players. Given Miami33139's attempt to CSD G8 and now TFD Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC,  which they saw me create while expanding Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients, I think it is quite obvious this was meant as harassment and they are abusing both CSD and TFD. Their removals of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits are as equally worrying and it seems as though my raising concerns over those removals may have been what led Miami33139 to step up the level of their actions against me. Given the history I see in Miami33139's contributions, I personally would support a restriction for Miami33139 barring them from using any sort of JavaScript (monobook.js, Greasemonkey, etc) or other forms of automated editing tools as it would appear that they have a long history of misusing them. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC) What's up with you and assuming bad faith? I didn't talk to them off-wiki. Joe Chill (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This timeline of edits does appear to be worrying, and I think Miami needs to explain the apparent correlation between the two edit histories quickly. If none is forthcoming, some remedies spring to mind, such as interaction bans.  Comment from Miami is, however, what is needed at this point.  For transparency, Tothwolf notified me of this thread as well as at least one other administrator - the notification was neutral in tone, and I am unaware of any significant involvement with either editor. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was almost certainly notified because of my article rescue of, which tacitly demonstrated as false claims that independent sources do not exist. I found it quite easy to find sources in that particular case.  Possibly my question at Articles for deletion/ZNC (IRC bouncer) &mdash; a little bit of AFD patrol to try to eke out a good rationale that a closing administrator can hang xyr hat from &mdash; is relevant, too.  Uncle G (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Uncle G, you rescued the UMSDOS article by changing the topic to FAT Filesystems and Linux. I was perfectly happy to remove my nomination with the expansion from a single topic to an umbrella topic. This does not "tacitly demonstrated as false claims that independent sources do not exist" because you changed the subject matter to find sources about. You changed the subject, managing to include the previous info, and I withdrew the nomination. That is good faith from both of us and fairly normal process. This has nothing to do with Tothwolf either, yet you seem to be using it here to hammer me about bad faith in a discussion about Tothwolf. Miami33139 (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * False. The subject matter did not change.  It expanded, and sources were found by the simple action of sticking the word "UMSDOS" into a search engine.  As I said, I found that quite easy.  And since I didn't mention doing this, either in the AN/I discussion or the AFD discussion, it was tacit by the very definition of the word.  Uncle G (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to go back to my regular editing pattern of working on technology, Linux, and IRC-related articles, and doing occasional deletion tagging for WP:COMP when other editors get bogged down but I'm currently unable to do so as something as simple as a vandalism revert or a minor template change will cause User:Miami33139 to AfD said article.
 * I originally discussed some of these issues with User:Miami33139 following his report to wp:wqa. I was disappointed in that, even as I was advising him his best bet was to disengage, he was taking concrete steps that appeared likely to unnecessarily escalate tensions with User:Tothwolf.  Like Fritzpol, I was troubled by the number of instances in which User:Miami33139 tagged articles for deletion only hours after User:Tothwolf had last edited said articles.  At some point, the sheer frequency of those occurrences being happenstance begins to stretch the assumption of good faith to its limits.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a note, as I haven't been able to go through all of the evidence, but User:Miami33139 edited Articles for deletion/Celemony before Tothwolf made any edit  on the talkpage. This by no means makes all of the evidence wrong, but it shouldn't be taken at face value. Quantpole (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck from list above, good catch, thanks. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You were supposed to notify everyone involved in the report. Your issue is with Miami so leave me the hell out of it. Joe Chill (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You were involved in this within the past 24 hours at Wikiquette alerts. You were involving yourself in it, by creating reports on this very noticeboard within the past 48 hours, at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566 and Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566.  You are currently involved in this within the past 48 hours with a lengthy discussion at Articles for deletion/Leafpad (2nd nomination), where you seem to be suffering from a severe case of "I'm not listening!".  Crying that you aren't involved (since you clearly are) and that you didn't know this was happening at WP:AN/I (when you started two of these discussions) isn't really going to wash. Uncle G (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said that I wasn't involved. I said that I should have been notified! How was I supposed to know that Tothwolf would start this report? My first post here has nothing to do with Tothwolf. Joe Chill (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably by the very method that you demonstrably did know. You are, after all, here.  And you were already here on this noticeboard, starting discussions yourself about this.  This is a discussion of your interactions with Tothwolf and others.  Wikilawyering over formalities that your very presence here clearly demonstrates to be needless is, as I said, really not going to wash.  Nor, indeed, is your claim that Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566 is not about Tothwolf, given that it clearly is.  Uncle G (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I said that the csd-g4 discussion wasn't about this (which is the first one). I found out about this discussion on accident because I thought that the issue with Tothwolf was over. I am not wiki-lawyering. I have been participating in software AFDs for a year. I said zero uncivil things, but I'm still being attacked. Joe Chill (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And it has been hours with no replies and with how this discussion is going, there will most likely be no conclusion like most posts at ANI. The person that started the report hasn't bothered to reply in the last several hours and his recent edit here was to fix a spelling error. No one besides me has replied in the past several hours. Uncle G was only able to respond to me with false claims and not to Miami's long post down below. Quantpole and J seems to be done with the discussion and if that is, it was a longer time ago. No one else besides us seems to be interested in this discussion. Joe Chill (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

response
Tothwolf is crying wolf. Note, , , are not about me. Tothwolf has been accusing JBsupreme, Joe Chill, and probably others of bad faith, retaliation, and targeting him in the last several days in deletion discussions. These accusations from him are getting stale.

It may be tl;dr, but I have thoroughly answered this here: User_talk:Miami33139. I also requested intervention here, WQA, over the weekend, because Tothwolf is accusing multiple people of harassing him. Most of this "evidence" is nothing more than saying I have been involved in PROD or AfD discussions for software that is not apparently notable. It has nothing to do with him and I have been doing this for a year! except for the fact that he works or is somehow involved with a company that makes products that have to to with IRC so he feels invested in this area. Any examination of my deletion discussions over the last year, will show you that this last week has been absolutely routine.

To the extent it is about him, I looked at his contribution history when I first encountered him, in a public deletion discussion opened by someone else. I opened the category of Linux file systems, opened all the articles, and if they didn't have any usable references, I tagged them in various ways. I didn't look at Tothwolf to find them. I can look back to June to find my first interest in deletion/notability of the IRC category. I didn't find this via Tothwolf. Note that the suggestion to look at more IRC articles here, did not come from Tothwolf. When he accused me of stalking him, I did not open his contribution history afterwards, but found the same articles and discussions via JBsupreme, Joe Chill and just opening the AfD page.

The most interesting things I have looked at have been things in AfD nominated by other people, not Tothwolf, then opening up the category of the article, or the contribution history of the nominator. This is an example, not involving Tothwolf, that AfD discussions happen totally rationally, in good faith, with my ability to recognize a fixed article Articles_for_deletion/UMSDOS in his absence.

Since Tothwolf has a COI in this issue, and his "keep everything philosophy" about software is diametric to mine, it is just plain destiny that we will butt heads in this arena. Since he puts the Computing project wiki-banner on articles en-mass, there is no doubt he will have edited articles I start looking at. This is an open and transparent project without article or area ownership. Contributing to Wikipedia is under the assumption that contributions will be edited mercilessly, and that includes deletion. It's part of the Wikipedia charter. There is no personal crusade against him.

This is too long already. Miami33139 (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Added point by point discussion of each bullet in Tothwolf's list, about half of which do not actually involve him: User:Miami33139/nothing. Miami33139 (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's surprising that what Tothwolf is doing is considered acceptable. After my ANI post ended with him calling me disruptive, pointy, a sockpuppet, and admitting that I didn't break any policies but was only breaking his belief about them was over, it started up again with him calling me a meatpuppet. I don't understand why people think that this is acceptable. Joe Chill (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And it's surprising that people get so pestered by users that they get chased off the project. The only difference between this and the high-profile case is that a phone hasn't rung yet. I'm not commenting on the merits of the case (though I am of the opinion this seems like harassment), but I would wisely advise all parties to use common sense in regards to each other. Toth, Miami, TSC, etc. That means no harassment, no stalking users (TSC), and no accusations of harassment. Disengage. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 05:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Further evidence of wikistalking and harassment
I did some additional WP:COMP workflow tagging (see article talk pages) and it brought additional wikistalking evidence. The workflow bot has not updated yet (it won't update for approximately another 24 hours) so everything below was clearly taken from my contribs. Note the timestamps on the edits.


 * JollysFastVNC (tag)
 * Monit (tag)
 * Nemu64 (tag)
 * MyPaint (tag)

Since User:Theserialcomma has been attempting to stir things up with regards to this AN/I report and Miami33139  (as they've done with other things in the past), the sudden !vote by Theserialcomma in the JollysFastVNC AfD was not a coincidence and their contribs  are quite telling.

User:JBsupreme is also becoming increasingly aggressive in his attempts to escalate things since I started this AN/I discussion.
 * Got involved in the Quiet Internet Pager AfD User:Miami33139 initiated (see above)
 * Endorsed the prod of rcirc that User:Miami33139 placed (see above)
 * Got involved in the Leafpad AfD
 * Nominated E2compr for AfD after seeing my de-prodded and addition of a merge template as part of the WP:COMP workflow.
 * Nominated BitchX for AfD after seeing it in my tagging work. (The nomination of this one is actually downright silly as it has references and we can easily find plenty more things with which to improve this article.)

With regards to the two AfD nominations, JBsupreme does not edit at all in this area. The E2compr and BitchX AfD nominations were pulled directly from my contributions and are blatant attempts to escalate things. Note that JBsupreme has an extremely long history of this type of behaviour with other editors and AfDs.

I also want to point out Miami33139 immediately got involved in the two AfD nominations JBsupreme made. If this isn't meatpuppetry, it is clearly some form of tag teaming behaviour. 

Just before I posted this, User:JBsupreme decided to take things even further.
 * Nominated Coolsmile for AfD after seeing it in my tagging work.
 * Mass-tagged a large number of IRC client software articles as CSD A7 (and A7 does not apply to software).

--Tothwolf (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC) As for any issues between you and Uncle G, I don't have anything to do with that and I can't really comment on it. If you were referring to this message that I left on Miami33139's talk page, I guess I'm still trying to create something good from a bad situation. I thought if Miami33139 were going to suggest article mergers (which I assume they saw me do on e2compr/ext2 (which User:JBsupreme followed behind me and nominated for deletion), the responsible thing for me to do would be to explain how to use the mergefrom template since they had overlooked it while applying several mergeto templates to other articles that I had on my watchlist. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Joe, I'm willing to admit I may have been wrong in referring to you as a possible meatpuppet of Miami33139 so how about we just bury the hatchet regarding our disagreements and work on improving Wikipedia? This is using up both our free time and I don't know about you, but I'd rather be working on fixing up some articles.  As I mentioned above, I'm willing to AGF and assume you just got caught up in the mess Miami33139 and JBsupreme have been causing. Given the patterns of edits linked above, you can probably understand why I originally brought that up as a possibility. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Per User:Mikaey[], any admin who wants to see another admin's perspective of tothwolf's previous behavior, just check out User:Mikaey/Tothwolf) (only viewable by an admin, but Mikaey gives permission for it to be undeleted (here: []), Theserialcomma (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See for a few important details that Theserialcomma left out (and would prefer not to talk about). --Tothwolf (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is clearly just you assuming bad faith on everyone that wants articles that you think is notable deleted. Everyone you notified about this added section seem to be done with this ANI report because of their editing history. I don't need to read the deleted subpage above to know that it's about your bad behavior from the wording of the serialcomma's comment. This ANI report has gone against you. Joe Chill (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Joe, I'm still trying to AGF with some of your actions and if I were you, I'd leave this one alone. Theserialcomma's past actions have been well documented by both myself and others and if they really are intent on it, a full AN/I report can be made. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It should have been AGF the whole time when all of my comments were civil. That was the only time when I assumed bad faith towards you. If you can do it constantly to me and Uncle G did it twice, why can't I get one comment like that in? With your recent post on Miami's talk page, it seems like you don't suspect him of anything anymore. If that is true, do you think that this should be closed? Joe Chill (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Joe, to answer some of your questions, I think part of the problem is that in many of the recent AfDs your comments have not always been completely civil. I did note that you backed off this situation with regards to the actions Miami33139 was taking (completely opposite of what JBsupreme did) which is the main reason why I'm still willing to AGF. It currently looks to me like you got caught up in some of the things Miami33139 was stirring up without realizing what was happening.
 * What comments weren't civil? I tried to keep Articles for deletion/Leafpad (2nd nomination) as civil as I could which was hard with you assuming bad faith. When an editor asked me if I had a conflict of interest in the OneFingers AFD and had an edit summary of wikilawyering, that got taken care of with him making one post on my talk page. When an editor that didn't understand AFD !voted keep because it was verified on the Leafpad AFD, I told him about the rules without any uncivil comments. When an editor tried hard to keep OneFinger by his opinion, it was solved by me and other editors explaining the rules to him in a civil way. Saying "I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources" isn't uncivil. On the other hand, you called me disruptive, pointy, a sockpuppet, a meatpuppet, and attacked me for having a different interpretation of guidelines. Joe Chill (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2009: (UTC)
 * I believe you are referring to Articles for deletion/Joe's Own Editor instead of the OneFinger AfD? Where I see an issue is you attempt to browbeat other editors who express their opinion.  There are no rules that prevent editors from !voting however they like in AfD.  In the end, if a large group of editors forms a consensus that it benefits Wikipedia to keep an article that doesn't quite meet the notability guideline on its own, they may do so.  The Notability guideline can be and sometimes is overruled by consensus and the Ignore all rules policy.
 * I was replying to !votes that I disagreed with which is very common in AFD. If I was doing it to save an article, most likely no one would complain (like you for instance). I was not being a bully. If you have problems with me replying to keeps, you have a problem with almost everyone in AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and that can be seen as browbeating other editors and actually isn't that common. You don't have to agree with other editors but you should at least respect their opinion as to why something should be kept or whatever and not try to force them to change their !vote by referring to the notability guideline and such. I would appreciate it you would stop implying that I want to "keep" everything that goes through AfD though. You have no idea how many articles I see go through the various workflows that have been prodded, sent to AfD, etc that absolutely should go. I think the difference between you and I are is I tend to be more focused on the Verifiability policy. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And in most AFDs that I participate in, people reply to another !vote. Joe Chill (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Note Joe Chill and I have resolved our differences in a discussion continued on his talk page. While Miami33139 may have attempted to bring both he and JBsupreme into their own efforts,  I do not feel Miami33139 was effective in their attempt with Joe Chill, therefore I do not feel Joe Chill was attempting to act maliciously with regards to his above linked edits.

This still leaves the issues with regards to User:Miami33139 and User:JBsupreme currently unresolved.

--Tothwolf (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Continued disruption/harassment 2009-09-30
User:Miami33139:
 * Mass-AfD'd more articles
 * Trying to get access to a deleted subpage  (Note: this is the same subpage User:Theserialcomma keeps trying to get)
 * Participated in the AfDs User:JBsupreme created
 * Continuing to be abusive towards other editors in AfD

User:JBsupreme:
 * Added a bogus speedy deletion template to WeeChat
 * Mass-AfD'd more articles
 * Initiated a RFD for LeetIRC
 * Added a prod to the transcluded Template:Latest stable software release/ccorp-irc template in an attempt to get Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients deleted via prod. (See Category:Proposed deletion as of 30 September 2009)

--Tothwolf (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment from a largely unrelated user (note that I have participated, in agreement with the aforementioned editors, in Articles for deletion/Leafpad (2nd nomination)):
 * It seems to me that they are not harassing you per se, they are simply pushing for deletion of a large number of articles (that, I assume, you are somehow related to (perhaps you wrote them, edited, etc)). In my opinion, these will resolve themselves-- articles are only deleted if there is consensus to do so; as such, the deletion (or keeping) of any of these articles will be good for Wikipedia. If the articles are indeed notable enough to have an article, then consensus will keep them.
 * To extrapolate, if every article on Wikipedia was nominated for deletion, only good could happen: all the non-notable articles would get deleted, and all the notable ones would be kept.
 * Only issue that I see (other than un-civility, etc, that I haven't looked into) is that the above editors will influence consensus into deleting rather than keeping; if you believe that the articles would normally be kept, perhaps you should check WP:Article Rescue Squadron, who would provide third-party !votes without any accusation of canvassing. -M.Nelson (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement from Miami33139
I fully admit that on 2009-9-30 I:
 * 1) Nominated some articles for deletion
 * 2) Requested a copy of a deleted user page for a valid purpose
 * 3) Participated in deletion discussions
 * 4) Made replies to comments in deletion discussoins

These are all horrible transgressions.

It is obvious that Tothwolf has used my contributions list to make a very thorough and undeniable record of my sins as shown by evidence in his diffs above. It is obvious that I am the center of a vast conspiracy against Tothwolf. This weekend this conspiracy consisted only of myself, but my charisma and leadership skills have recruited five more Wikipedia editors to the conspiracy in just the last three days. My ability to Time Travel has even recruited editors in the past to harass Tothwolf by by raising questions on his ability to assume good faith and not proscribe motives on his fellow editors. Tothwolf's understanding of what it means to collaboratively edit in an open and transparent project where contributions will be edited mercilessly are superior to mine, so I must be punished.

I am a wikicriminal and I need wikiprison. Please put me out of Tothwolf's misery! Miami33139 (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

According to Tothwolf, I am still, STILL!, committing horrible acts against Wikipedia policy, and he is commanding me to stop RIGHT NOW. Why has no administrator taken action my clear actions of stalking and harassing Tothwolf? Miami33139 (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop trolling.  Enigma msg  04:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd love to. Can you close this entire meritless complaint so I don't have to keep putting up with it? Miami33139 (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I don't have the authority to close an AN/I discussion. This section is decidedly unhelpful, however, and I have edited the title.  Enigma msg  04:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it again cause "misleading trolling" just seems BITEy to me. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 04:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

JBSupreme just nominated Notepad++ for deletion. Considering it's one of the most-widely-used free text editors out there, and part of his rationale was that the name was a ripoff of Notepad, I find it hard to see this as anything but disruptive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe he followed my edit history, I am engaging in AfD discussion since a few days. It also might helps to look at his responses to my AfD edits, I wouldn't describe them as friendly. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bulk removals of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits
This seems to have been largely overshadowed by several of the above sections so I am creating a new subsection for this. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In the second AN/I report that I made on September 17th I voiced my concern over Miami33139's removals of User:Ed Fitzgerald edits:

"I realized today that the minor edits Miami33139 has been making are removals of Ed Fitzgerald's edits. I really don't feel it is appropriate for Miami33139 to be systematically removing Ed Fitzgerald's edits, particularly after all the disagreement and heated discussion between Miami33139 and Ed Fitzgerald, some of which seems to have led to Ed's 'retirement'. Some past 'discussion' between Miami33139 and Ed Fitzgerald can be found here. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)"

LessHeard vanU also expressed their concern at these removals of Ed Fitzgerald's edits. 

At the very beginning of this AN/I discussion I again raised this issue:

"Since the second AN/I report, Miami33139 has also continued their bulk removal of edits made to articles by User:Ed Fitzgerald. This month alone Miami33139 has removed 100s, possibly as many as 500 or more of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits. This seems to have originally started around January 2009 and since then Miami33139 took this on as a personal crusade to remove his edits, up to the point where User:Ed Fitzgerald left Wikipedia. There was also a WQA regarding Ed's edits here and an AN/I report made by Miami33139 here. They have been using 'T - I have tidied.' in many of their edit summaries when removing Ed's edits but have also used other text in the past."

So far the only response has been on Miami33139's talk page and it leaves a lot of things unanswered.

If there is an actual valid, technical reason that Ed's edits are causing display problems for people then we really need to find out how and why so it can be corrected. If Miami33139 can point out a discussion where this was raised (I have been unable to find one) and there is community consensus to remove Ed's whitespace or layout changes, then we need to submit this to WP:BOTREQ to get it corrected asap (I'll even volunteer to put in the request).

If there is not a valid reason for these removals and if no discussion has taken place, then the bulk, semi-automated removals of Ed Fitzgerald's edits would likely be violating WP:HOUND and as LessHeard vanU pointed out in the last AN/I discussion it could appear to others as being an attempt by Miami33139 to "win" a content dispute by taking advantage of Ed Fitzgerald's absence.

Furthermore, the only way I know of for Miami33139 to be tracking Ed Fitzgerald's whitespace and layout edits to remove them is to cull Ed's contributions, which in turn re-affirms the original issue I raised at the very beginning of this AN/I discussion regarding Miami33139's tracking of user's contributions and edits.

--Tothwolf (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, even assuming that Miami33139 did track the contributions of a retired user, I'm not really seeing the link here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't that Miami33139 simply tracked Ed Fitzgerald's edits after he was gone. While Ed was still here editing, Miami33139 appears to follow behind him and remove his edits. Since Ed left, this month Miami33139 appears to have greatly picked up the pace of removing Ed's edits. I am going strictly by a side by side comparison of both of their contributions from the same time periods. To borrow from an old cliché, it reads like dueling pianos and explains why Ed Fitzgerald finally just up and left. This is very similar to the situation I found myself in with regards to Miami33139, with one major difference – I've not been willing to edit war with Miami33139. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You say "If there is a valid reason..." which I have said multiple times. The MoS says don't add wiki-elements, whitespace, fake columns, or other tricks in order to force some sort of preferred layout or style. These are issues for global CSS. This is exactly what most of the automated editors remove (advisor.js, AWB, wik.ed). I worked on a tool to find this stuff automated, but removal is by hand. Wikipedia's provided tools remove it automated, but finding it is by hand. That you have brought this up, again, shows you are grasping for things to attack me for.
 * You are mischaracterizing the circumstance of and blaming me entirely for Ed leaving, this was not the case. This is now the third time you've raised this at ANI about me. How am I to take you at your word that you want to see how you can collaboratively edit with me when what you want to do is dredge my history for mudslinging? Miami33139 (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Since it was mentioned below we had not made any progress in dealing with this issue, I'll give my opinion: Ed's edits, while very well-intentioned, were not really in accord with policy, and their revert was not inappropriate. There should be a discussion in a proper place of the actual issue involved--the best solution would seem to me to adjust the CSS to accommodate different browsers.    DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

WTF is this crap?

 * I stumbled onto this discussion after witnessing a slew of IRC related articles being nominated for deletion in the past day or so. I first found the one for Articles_for_deletion/BitchX; I know very little about IRC clients but did some research and found tons out there about this one, and worked on the article some.  Then I see that the same editors, JBSupreme and Miami-whatever are serially nominating them all; that by itself didn't automatically concern me, but then i seriously started to question what they were doing WP:BEFORE nominating, if anything.  Then, I saw  DGG chime in on Articles_for_deletion/Z-Net, with what I would consider a very strong comment from him:


 * "*Keep and look for sources,and then come back here if you don;'t find any after a proper search, including likely printed manuals. You say that you are going through subject areas you recognize that are not an expert in (see your comment at the List of ircII scripts AfD a little above) looking for articles that happen not to have sources. Butthe criterion for deletion here is not "unsourced" but unsourceable". Attempts to use "unsourced" as the criterion have been thoroughly rejected buy the community. Our job is to construct sourced articles. This is attained by sourcing the ones that can be, and deleting the others.  It is an abuse of process to use AfD  to force sourcing--it should be used to delete the articles you tried properly   to source with an appropriate search for sources, and failed to do so. There are certainly enough of them! -- I would never say otherwise. It is wrong to enter an article without looking for sources, and just as wrong to delete one without looking.    DGG... "


 * So I looked at one other of the mass IRC death march AFDs, Articles_for_deletion/Kopete, and asked the nom, Miami, "So, if I spent some time digging through the 843 google news references to this software, and the 511 Google book references, the aggregate of these mentions could never equal notability? What did your WP:BEFORE due diligence show?" I got a reply comment from JBSupreme, "Delete. I just searched and found no evidence of notability for this product. What did you find, Milowent?" -- Now, very skeptical I looked and found a cornucopia of sources, some of which I included on the AFD discussion page.


 * So, in short, i don't know WTF is going on, but its disruptive. --Milowent (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What is your point - what is it you want to say? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That this behavior is disruptive and should stop. I think  DGG's proposed remedy below would do that.--Milowent (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay; I've proposed a formalised wording of that in the section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The work of Miami33139 seems to damage WikiProject IRC. He and JBsupreme tell sites to have no print sources without, that's at least how it appears to me, even doing a single google books research themselves (which seems to indicate they mass suggest articles of an area where they have no experience themselves). E.g. here Articles_for_deletion/Naim_%28chat_program%29, Articles_for_deletion/Konversation, here Articles_for_deletion/BitchX (see []) or Articles_for_deletion/Bersirc (see ]).
 * What I want to say, I want to stress that I also find this disruptive (although I'm fairly new to wikipedia as a more involved editor and cannot tell if this is even expected as normal workflow, but if it is then it's pretty unconvenient - having articles mass suggested with the wording "no print sources" although a 10 seconds search on google books shows many books).
 * And also I don't know if I was expected to get notified as I'm on wikiproject IRC, but that didn't happen - some other user notified me, otherwise I would probably not have noticed those mass delete nomations.
 * This seems pretty disruptive and one could spend this time on editing and improving those articles instead of writing and researching just for the delete request pages. I understand there must be someone keeping an eye what should be on wikipedia and what not, but this seems to be done without any research or previous checking in those cases. Yarcanox (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(semi-)automated editing tools and prod/CSD tagging?
The other concern I voiced above was Miami33139's use of (semi-)automated editing tools. In addition to the mass-prods and mass-AfDs, while working on the above list of diffs and trying to figure out what was going on regarding their removals of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits, I also noted what seems to be a troubling pattern of bad prod and CSD tagging:

"Miami33139 has historically not worked on articles in these areas but while having to sift through contribs to create the above list, I found a troubling pattern of what appears to be bad prod and CSD tagging. Miami33139 claims a deletion percentage of 80% and while I would think this is probably not something to brag about, I can't help but wonder just how many of these are badly placed prod and CSD tags, especially with this comment that they made at TfD regarding their own CSD tagging efforts of subtemplates."

"I found additional evidence of bad CSD tagging while looking at Comparison of media players as Miami33139 had most recently largely been targeting media player type software for deletion. Possible examples may include            all of which are/were still in use at the time that they were CSD tagged and deleted. See Comparison of media players and Comparison of media players."

"Given Miami33139's attempt to CSD G8 and now TFD Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC, which they saw me create while expanding Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients, I think it is quite obvious this was meant as harassment and they are abusing both CSD and TFD."

Given all the above, it might be good for the community to know just what sort of (semi-)automated editing tools Miami33139 is using. From Miami33139's comments above and a quick glace at Miami33139's monobook.js, it appears that those tools have been customized are also being used client side (i.e. Greasemonkey) and are not being used from monobook.js. I'm a little concerned that some of the (semi-)automated edits such as the removals of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits may be running afoul of the Bot policy.

--Tothwolf (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Remedy - Tothwolf
Folks, the way I see it, this is a continuance of Tothwolf's pattern of behavior. He has shown a history of finding other users who make some sort of change to an article with which he has personal interest, and accusing them of disruption, harassment, and stalking. Therefore, in the absence of seeing any other sort of proposed remedy here, I propose the following: ''Tothwolf is admonished for his failure to assume good faith on the part of other users, and for taking ownership of articles with which he has personal interest. If he continues to demonstrate inability to assume good faith on the part of other users, or if he demonstrates ownership of any article, he may be immediately blocked for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator.'' Thoughts? Yea's? Nay's?  (P.S. -- this proposal is not necessarily meant to relieve any of the other involved users of their actions, as I have not thoroughly reviewed them.  If someone else feels that a remedy should be imposed against them as well, please write one.)   Mikaey,  Devil's advocate  04:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the pointy section above. However, every evening I come to edit and Tothwolf has made a new post accusing all of my actions of the previous day as harassing him. Each day he ads one or two people to his harasser list. Despite the sarcasm, it does remain that participating in AfD is not harassment of any particular user. Outside of ANI, his discussions at AfD continue to attack the motives and good faith of those he has decided are conspiring against him. I have not targeted him, I am putting up with his accusations. I'd like some closure to the issue. Miami33139 (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yea on the Remedy. The links Tothwolf has put down in this thread (and there are PLENTY of them) are downright creepy in that they border on stalking, since he seems to know where everyone is at every moment on the articles in question.  WP:OWN for him is definitely in violation. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 05:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer part of that, I cataloged most of these articles and have almost all of them on my watchlist to watch for vandalism. I think the mIRC article tended to get the most spam/vandalism but the edit filter has largely stopped the spamming issue there. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced; outright interaction bans may be the way to get rid of the core problem - while the rest of the editing restriction can be imposed separately; also let's not confuse admonishments with restrictions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've done my best given the fact that User:Miami33139 has without a doubt intentionally stalked my edits and attempted to cause trouble in several areas in which I edit on Wikipedia to remain civil. I may not be perfect, but I think the above evidence (and continued mass AfD nominations and some of the comments made in those AfDs today) by User:Miami33139 are clearly meant to be disruptive. There is no reason what so ever to mass-nominate this many articles without first attempting to improve or source them. I have largely not (yet) participated in these AfDs but many other editors in the AfDs have expressed a good deal of objection to User:Miami33139's behaviour. My work so far has been largely categorizing, sorting, and figuring out how and where to merge or expand many of these neglected stubs. I do not see at all how you could construe something as "taking ownership of articles". I'd also like to point out that these two comments made right here on AN/I by User:Miami33139  are also clearly attempts at baiting. I'm still open to working with User:Miami33139 on many of these articles if they expressed a desire to do so. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC) I'm still more than willing to discuss things with you, but I do not feel it was appropriate for you to mass-prod and mass-AfD so many articles without attempting to improve them. I'm still happy to work with you on improving many of these if you'd like to have at go at adding references and expanding them. There is an enormous amount of work to do with regards to these articles and the WikiProject could use more editors who want to create better articles. Would you be willing to hold off on any further prods or AfDs and continue our discussion on either your talk page or mine? It might make folks happier since that would allow this thread to quiet down. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Mikaey, as much as I like you as a person, in this instance I'm going to have to remind you that you and I have had a lot of interaction and discussion and I feel you are way too involved to make such a proposal.
 * I opened your contribs history when we first ran into each other. I open the contribs history of most editors when they say something interesting. You flew off the handle when I participated in multiple public places which I thought were also interesting. That is not stalking! You asked me to stop (well, you accused me of stalking). I did, but continued to deal with articles in Category:IRC. You've claimed every action I took in normal editing since then as stalking you and causing trouble to you. I do not see how you are open to editing with me considering the amount of vitriol you are still sending me. Since J told me to disengage, I have only tried to interact with you on pure fact in public discussion, so I'm hesitant to save this reply, but I feel it necessary to (for the third time on ANI) rebut the claim that I am stalking you. Miami33139 (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the thing that really set things off here was your revert of my removal of the invalid CSD (which you and I did discuss and resolve later) on What wp is not and then the AfD of NexIRC  after I reverted vandalism. From there it looks like things continued to escalate, up to the point now where we have a ton of articles at AfD.

Proposed remedy (take 2)
In light of the conduct issues above, particularly those raised in the above section, and to follow up Mikaey's proposal, I propose the following:
 * Probation is subject to an editing restriction (probation). Note: for the purposes of this restriction, an administrator will not be considered involved for enforcing this restriction.
 * 1) Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be disruptive or unseemly (including assumptions of bad faith and ownership of articles where he has a personal interest), he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages for a definite or indefinite duration. The ban will take effect once that administrator has posted a notice on his talk page and logged it at User:Tothwolf/Community sanction. If he is also banned from using affected talk pages, this must be specified in the notice and log.
 * 2) Should it be deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 uninvolved administrators to prevent harassment, Tothwolf may be banned from directly or indirectly interacting with, or commenting about any particular user(s) specified by those administrators. The ban will take effect once 1 of the administrators have posted a notice on his talk page and logged it at User:Tothwolf/Community sanction.

One or both of these parts of probation may be imposed to, at least in part, get rid of this ANI drama. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - This needs to go to the archives and never come back and Tothwolf needs to tone things down considerably. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 06:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also continued try to open a dialog with both Miami33139 and JBsupreme. See User talk:Miami33139 and User talk:JBsupreme. I would so much rather be editing than watching over my shoulder after I make an edit for the next revert or AfD, which is what has been happening with regards to Miami and JB (which as I type, I see more AfD nominations in my RSS reader which displays my watchlist). --Tothwolf (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, User:Joe Chill and I continued our discussion outside of AN/I and resolved our disagreements. See User talk:Joe_Chill.
 * It seems to me you are more concerned not with getting this mess of a thread closed, but with someone creating AfDs. AfDs happen, always have, always will.  If the articles you create aren't notable, they will get nom'd for deletion regardless of who does it and they aren't going to stay, it is just a simple as that.  By the same token, if the articles are notable, they will remain.  Let the AfD process work itself out. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 06:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, my main concern was what to me seemed like contribs stalking, which included a lot more than just AfDs. In the grand scheme of things, a few AfDs aren't going to matter much one way or the other. I would be lying if I said that the mass-prods and mass-AfDs without first checking for sources or attempting to improve articles does not worry me some. I'd still like to work out whatever differences Miami33139 and I have as it does not benefit Wikipedia for us to seemingly be at odds with each other. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible to bring all of us into a discussion so we can settle whatever the underlying disagreement is? It seems like if this isn't first addressed none of this is going to help anyone. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to attempt to settle your disagreements with Miami33139, JB Supreme, or anyone else. But I'm not ready to gamble on whether you are able to reform your overall approach that led to these proposed remedies in the first place. I think these restrictions can address the underlying concerns with your conduct in the most effective way, short of full site bans or blocks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see this subection below as I honestly do not feel that everything has been addressed here. The original AN/I discussion seems to have been redirected towards only myself and there are a number of concerns that have been previously raised that still need addressing. If I am completely off base, I will apologize and walk away from this. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've clarified the header here to mean that this part is the remedy with respect to you - Miami33139 may get a similar section soon, based on whether your concerns are well-founded or not. The remedy sections should remain at the bottom of the discussion though as that inevitable leads to the threads being concluded. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wasn't sure how to order the sections. I still feel that I was trying to do the right thing by bringing these issues to AN/I but I'm always open to constructive criticism. If there is something I should have done differently in handling the situation, I would be more than happy to make future use of any pointers others can offer. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm beginning to wonder whether ArbCom may be the best place for this entire mess to go. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly. Given how complex this situation is, that could very well be the next logical step. If someone decides that to be the best option I'll gladly provide my notes and diffs. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If we do probation it should have a time limit--perhaps 6 months--both here and for others.  DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not fond of the idea that we need to come here to reimpose a restriction after 6 months if the restriction is still being used or invoked at the time. On the other hand, requiring us to review whether the remedies are still necessary after a definite time period (say, even 4 months) would lead to a better outcome I think, particularly if things are running smoothly. Would you object to that? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * that might be OK also, but usually we do with a block is let it expire and then see what happens, & I think that should apply here also.  DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Remedy - Miami33139 and JBsupreme

 * Anyone who looks at a bunch of articles on a subject will find some that need deletion. So, while I noticed some of these deletion nominations, they were in an area relatively unfamiliar to me, and I regarded it as perfectly plausible that people might write articles on non-notable computer programs, I didn't concern myself. But I started to see some to programs I did recognize, and I started looking at a few of them,  I saw that they were being nominated with the claim of unsourced, and the sources were in fact self-evident. They were right up there usually, in the built in quick search of the Googles.    What's more, many of these deletions have been defended by this user even after unambiguous sources have been pointed out. As for motivation, I can not decide if he's trying to harass, or being disruptive, or willfully ignorant of our policies, or just reckless. The proper remedy for this part is a ban of User:Miami33139 from deletion processes for a good while, and a shorter ban for JBSupreme. As for the wikistalking, i'd need to check that to see which side it's coming from, or both. (BTW, if anyone questions my willingness to delete, more than 1/4 of my AfD !votes are to delete, and, when I patrol speedy, as I do every day,  I delete -- not just nominate, but actually delete as an admin -- over 10 articles every day. and I currently stand at number 129 among the admins doing the most deletions, with  8599 deletions over the two years I've been an admin.; 93% of my admin actions have been deletions. )  I don;t think I need to go into individual AfD nominations here--they've been listed above.    DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support bans. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I propose the following wordings of DGG's proposal:
 * Topic ban is banned from participating in deletion discussions and processes, broadly construed, for 1 month.
 * Topic ban is banned from participating in deletion discussions and processes, broadly construed, for 3 months.
 * Probation is subject to an editing restriction (probation). Note: for the purposes of this restriction, an administrator will not be considered involved for enforcing this restriction.
 * 1) Should Miami33139 make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages for a definite or indefinite duration. The ban will take effect once that administrator has posted a notice on his talk page and logged it at User:Miami33139/Community sanction. If he is also banned from using affected talk pages, this must be specified in the notice and log.
 * 2) Should it be deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 uninvolved administrators to prevent harassment, Miami33139 may be banned from directly or indirectly interacting with, or commenting about any particular user(s) specified by those administrators. The ban will take effect once 1 of the administrators have posted a notice on his talk page and logged it at User:Miami33139/Community sanction.

I hope that covers it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, and struck comment above for clarity. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the lengths are in accord with my proposal.   DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Articles_for_deletion/Z-Net, DGG, you posted quite a rant to me there saying I did not search for sources. I did. There are several dogpile votes from those who have opposed my deletion requests based on your statement. Let's get real: This is a script plugin for an IRC client.
 * There is nothing disruptive about asking for sources for software articles that are not from blogs and download directories. I understand people are upset by mass nominations of software articles, but they are an absolute mess. It appears that anyone who writes software gets a free pass to write about it on Wikipedia, because it is available for download and sourced to their developer blog.
 * In my own defense, when someone has brought forth relevent, non-trivial sources and fixed an article, I have withdrawn my nomination.
 * Please, really, go back and look at Z-Net and tell me you think that is notable and I am disruptive for nominating it.
 * As explained on that deletion discussion, attempts at using processes less than AfD (like PROD) are being actively removed by an IP address who removes PROD from every proposed software deletion. That is why the nominations are en-masse at AfD. Miami33139 (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I said what I did on account of your nomination, which did not assert that you had checked, but just argued on the general principle that such scripts would intrinsically not be notable, and in context of your  other  nominations,  for many of which sources were found. --I will re-check this particular one.  I'll always reconsider a !vote if asked.  I agree that such software can not be presumed to be notable without some evidence.     DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just now did check, and changed to a weak delete--see explanation of the AfD page--this is a rather difficult search & many apparent hits are for other things. I still hold to my statement as applying to your nominations in general., many of which did have genuine references to be found. If you had done a search, it would have helped if you had said so, for it did appear in view of the other noms that you were judging entirely by what was already in the article, which I continue to maintain is reckless and against the deletion guidelines. There is a difference between nominating for deletion, and asking for sources. I do have to apologize for any confusion.   DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the probation should have a time limit, not be indefinite. I would suggest 6 months, both here and for others.   DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See my reply in the above section on this point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, but will move to oppose if diffs can be provided that prove goodwill (strong support if more diffs turn up that prove ill will). Xavexgoem (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a token showing of good faith. Articles_for_deletion/UMSDOS upon someone taking the time to add required references and expand the article beyond what was proposed for deletion, I withdrew the nom. I follow the discussions on my proposals and discuss, and change my opinion as necessary. The problem really is that, the processes BEFORE nominating for deletion are being derailed. The nomination for deletion is usually based on being not notable. Requests to SHOW NOTABILITY are being removed, . Since requesting notability via tags doesn't work, proposing deletion via PROD, should get someone to work on the underlying issues. Instead, the PROD notice is removed, without addressing the issues, . All of them. Every single PROD is removed, without ever addressing the issue. This has resulted in mass nominations to AfD, which has obviously frustrated DGG - but this is not bad faith at all. It is a clear escalated process as a result of a group of editors who put their fingers in their ears and actively remove improvement notices and do not want to address basic policy issues. Miami33139 (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * the notice is just the first step, and there's no point in doing a prod when one knows it is going to be removed without improvement. The best thing to do in such a case is to look for oneself. If that fails, or the needed refs would be something that special knowledge would be required to find, then a good next step is to ask for help at the workgroup.   DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Pardon, I mean diffs in regard to the accusations against you; these accusations are greater than an inclusionist/deletionist battle, or another's clue level. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe this will tell you that I am not approaching deletion mindlessly, Miami33139 (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The only person with an incentive to weigh in here is Miami. I've made my comment above. Rooting out bad behavior is such a pain when its much more fun to learn and contribute--Milowent (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Being a deletionist and enforcing the deletion policy isn't being disruptive, although nominating very large amounts of articles for deletion in a short space of time may be. This shouldn't be done because not every editor has the time to discuss 20 AFDs in 1 week. Both editors appear to be responding to keep arguments in their AFDs which shows they aren't just on a nomination spree. Miami33139 has shown above if their nomination is shown to be wrong, they will quickly admit it and withdraw the nomination. The above proposal is completely over the top. All that needs doing here is Miami33139 and JBsupreme need to be told to slow down on the large amount of nominations and suggest and try to restrict themselves to x amount of new nominations a week to give other editors time take part in all of them. Yes, there may be 100+ non-notable IRC client articles, but you can't nominate them all at the same time.--Otterathome (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If only it were the case that these two were putting deletion policy into practice. The problem is that they aren't.  I don't support topic bans or blocks here, for the simple reason that, as you can see from several of the AFD discussions, including Articles for deletion/PIRCH and Articles for deletion/ZNC (IRC bouncer), I'm treating this as a simple matter of AfD Patrol.  The desirable outcome, for me at least, is not that these two don't contribute and be barred from AFD, nor even that they stop nominating IRC-related/software-related articles for deletion; but that they contribute and give AFD rationales properly and help to make AFD get to results that we can be confident in being the right ones, by actually putting deletion policy into practice, by themselves making those efforts to find sources that deletion policy talks about, and that have been policy and standard operating procedure for Wikipedia editors since day one.  I'd like them both to be the sort of editor who when they say that they've found no sources, we know that they've actually looked, and looked hard, because we've seen them find sources when they do exist, and we haven't seen things like Articles for deletion/Kopete and Articles for deletion/UMSDOS. Frankly, I think that threatening topic bans is the wrong way to go about this, and probably hasn't served to make the situation any better.  I've been using persuasion and argument, not threats of administrator action.  Until the topic ban was threatened, persuasion and argument seemed to be having a small positive effect.  I believe that both DustFormsWords and Miami33139 (I haven't AFD patrolled any JBsupreme discussions.) can be persuaded to start doing things the right way, and to put deletion policy into action.  I'm concerned that the threats now made will have undone any progress on that score made so far. Uncle G (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Breakdown of AFD intersections

 * Any colour blind editors want to say if the above red / green blobs are distinguishable? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * they were properly done for universal access,containing also the words yes, or no. (& it would have been just as clear without the colors.)   DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there no content editors in the room? &#9786;  These are the ordinary yes and no templates that we use in tables in articles, with their default styles.  See Comparison of file systems, for example. Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Holy Schnikes! Not sure what that shows, but Articles for deletion/Notepad++ (2nd nomination) should be added, though. And Articles for deletion/Kopete was withdrawn shortly after ban proposal discussion started as far as I can tell.--Milowent (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to judge on the basis of oner side's presentation: possibly the chart is not complete. can Miami or JB point out any current afds on the subject to which they both did not contribute and support each other?     DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did, and JBsupreme did not, comment on at least a dozen AfD in my recent contributions. As well, here is an example where Jb and I disagreed, Articles_for_deletion/The_Last_One_(Aqua_Teen_Hunger_Force). Miami33139 (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above is taken from the intersection of the contributions of JBsupreme and Miami33139, using the toolserver tool. It excludes old AFD discussions from years ago, and it also excludes AFD discussions that weren't about IRC-related or software-related subjects (such as the cartoon episode mentioned above, a Britney Spears album, and a film), for the obvious reason that they aren't what is being complained about here.  &#9786;  I also left out  and, which are already mentioned in prior discussion here.  You can add them, and , if you want everything in one place.  I didn't intersect the contributions of Tothwolf and Miami33139, or of Tothwolf and JBsupreme, and add whatever additional IRC-related/software-related AFD discussions might be there. Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and expand the table to take into account the other intersections then. I wish I would have thought of using a table... --Tothwolf (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are several key intersections still missing. I left Uncle G a note earlier as I wasn't sure that I should try to add the information myself. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously, what is this trying to show? There are numerous topic areas that the same people always comment on at AfD. If this is deemed problematic then there's many cans of worms waiting to be opened. Quantpole (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've expanded and updated the above table to show some additional intersections, I'll add some more to it shortly. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've merged more of my notes and links that are included in the sections above into the above table. I'm pretty sure I got most of them (as far as intersections between Miami33139 and myself and JBsupreme and myself). I'd suggest to start with comparing the timestamps where I would make an edit to where they would prod/AfD/etc. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Move to Close
I move to close this mess of a thread, as it really isn't going anywhere. All editors need to stay clear of each other and not piss each other off. If there are future problems that can require immediate admin action (and not a week long thread), bring it back to ANI. Yeas? Nays? -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 06:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to go with Nay although perhaps we could hat some of the above sections since some of that material is (or will be soon) redundant to the table? I'm still working on a copy of the table Uncle G created and will be merging more material into it soon. What I've already added to the table shows a pretty darn clear pattern of disruption for the better part of two to three weeks (and I'm not saying this lightly). --Tothwolf (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm also concerned since and  have not been addressed. Both of these are quite troubling. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm up for closing, all I've seen is lots of deletionism and two editors working together which isn't strictly violating anything. Lots of minor guideline violations don't equal a big one. Concerned editors are welcome to start new threads, but this thread has got far too big and is a complaint against many users making it a big confusing mess. Any new threads in the future should concentrate on individual users to avoid this.--Otterathome (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen this has nothing at all to do with deletionism. Neither nor  can be considered deletionism in the slightest. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that's at least three separate users you are unhappy with. If the other users you are unhappy with (Miami or JB) don't appear to have strictly violated anything badly, then you need to close that discussion or at least put it under a new heading.--Otterathome (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to putting some of the older stuff under a collapsed section template since we've merged most of it into the table above now. Would that work? --Tothwolf (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Support to close it: closing this thread will be in the interest of every one involved. however, i would love some one to add "Unresolved template" or "stale", and end it there. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 10:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it in the community's best interest to allow this and this to continue unchecked? --Tothwolf (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

[] and tothwolf's immediate retribution vote here should also be reviewed. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the proposed ban [ETA: of Miami and JB, to clarify / It seems to me that Tothwolf is their target, not the agitator here] should be imposed and this matter closed. The editors at issue are not being foreclosed from editing through this slap on the wrist. --Milowent (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC) (edited - --Milowent (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC))
 * That was 6 days ago now, not a continuation of any interaction.  DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Tothwolf, take your grudge to RFC. Making continued minimal posts to keep the ANI report open isn't helping resolution of the issues. Miami33139 (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't hold a grudge against you. I do have some concerns related to your behaviour. As for minimal posts, I worked from ~19:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC) to ~08:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC) expanding the table above. I'd hardly consider that minimal. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What there seems to be consensus on : (1) There does seem to be consensus that all parties should avoid commenting on each other--especially Tothwulf and Miami. (2) There seems to be consensus, that nominating too great a number of articles at the same time is disruptive if they need to be individually searched.    DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Summarize and redirect back to original issues
This discussion got way off-track with the mass-AfD nominations. In order to redirect it back on track, let's set aside all those AfD nominations for now.

My main concerns with User:Miami33139's behaviour can be summarised as:
 * 1) Issues with wikihounding multiple editors (now including myself), at least one of which has since left the project.
 * 2) Bulk removals of the edits of one editor who was previously wikihounded (the one who left). (see: #Bulk removals of User:Ed Fitzgerald' edits)
 * 3) Use of unapproved/unknown/custom Javascript tools disguised as Twinkle while preforming (semi-)automated removals of the above mentioned edits. (see: #(semi-)automated editing tools and prod/CSD tagging?
 * 4) Increased wikihounding and retaliation in the form of mass-AfD nominations when I originally brought up the above issues. (see: #Breakdown of AFD intersections)

Where Miami33139 began wikihounding me is where I tagged a number WP:COMP related articles from Category:Proposed deletion with the WikiProject Computing banner so that the Article alerts system would pick them up. Miami33139 has been mass-prodding media player software articles (almost exclusively). The first interaction I am aware of related to this issue is the revert of my removal of an invalid CSD tag  and then RFD  of a page that Miami33139 has admitted to finding from my contributions. After that they saw where I had reverted vandalism on NexIRC and sent it to AfD. From there this pattern continues and includes !voting in AfDs I participated in just to !vote the opposite as well as getting involved in AfDs that I tagged for the WP:COMP deletion workflow, all of these also clearly being taken directly from my contributions. (See the Breakdown of AFD intersections table linked above for examples) Prior to all of this, Miami33139 did not work on articles in these areas or participate in related AfDs. Miami33139 focused almost exclusively on mass-prodding and AfDing of media player software articles and their removal of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits. See also:  Prior to leaving, Ed Fitzgerald had been with the community for over 4 years and had over 42,000 edits under his belt. 

--Tothwolf (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)