Wikipedia:Editor review/A Nobody

A Nobody
I have been around for a couple of years now and while I had earlier entered into and graduated from the adopt-a-user program, I thought it might be worthwhile to set up a page for good faith and constructive feedback as I have seen a number of colleagues set up these pages and they seem somewhat helpful. I have experienced some unfortunate things involving certain editors and other individuals whom I do not know if they are here. These issues caused me to change my username and abandon my old userpage on which I had many barnstars and posted other nice comments editors said about me. As such, please refrain from referring to my old username and as my editing style is somewhat different too, please be sure to make suggestions based on recent edits, i.e. since my rename only. Also, I have started this review looking for constructive and good faith suggestions and as such personal attacks and unconstructive posts are not welcome and will be reverted. Thank you for your time and consideration! Sincerely, A NobodyMy talk 20:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * NOTE: per User_talk:A_Nobody/Archive_9 and User_talk:A_Nobody as well as Casliber's comments to "can" this discussion, it can now be archived as it has been removed from my watchlist. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool

 Reviews 
 * I for one did not appreciate that this user altered my user page with basically an advertisement for himself and I have seen others with similar complains. If you are forced to use these tacticts in order to get your name "out there", perhaps you should consider why you are not popular to begin with? I don't need your welcome, I can find my way around here very well thank you. So in short, stop hi-jacking new peoples' pages for your own personal gain. 83.250.217.236 (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think A Nobody (AN) makes a steady and conscientious effort to find compromise. While s/he may not agree with the outcome of every discussion, AN makes the effort to understand where all parties are coming from and tries to use that discussion to improve Wikipedia. Whether this is via working on an article kept at AfD or requests an article to be userfied to work on the concerns raised at the AfD, it's clear the goal is to improve the project. While AN has a passion for all things fictional, I suggest a possible diversification since working on different articles improves all of our strengths as editors. Feel free to ask me if you'd like further information. StarM  23:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * When I first heard that a new Ethiopian restaurant was opening, I was eager to dig my injera-filled hand into a hot, heaping serving of sega wat while nursing a glass of tej...what, isn’t this where I’m supposed to do the restaurant review? Oh, sorry...wrong review. But if I can stay on the culinary analogy, I can say that our friend A Nobody has provided the project with plenty of food for thought.  In the AfD and RfA discussions, his points are never undercooked and he offers his opinions in carefully prepared servings that doesn’t leave you hungry for more details.  He is one of the most pleasant and helpful members of the Wikipedia community, and his passion for improving the content and character of the project is peerless.  I can state, with no degree of exaggeration, that A Nobody is among my favourite Wikipedians – and I’d gladly treat him to dinner! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Overall I've been impressed with AN's recent editing patterns, particularly the welcoming of hundreds of new users and the efforts to collaborate with other and find references for articles. We had butted heads in the past, and when I noticed his return to WP I had my concerns, but I'm happy to say that his contributions have been on the whole very constructive. Typically, where disputes arise, AN looks for venues through which to discuss the issues (talk pages, RfC, etc) and the end result is constructive consensus. While I may often hold the opposite opinion on the issue, I respect AN's views and can see that he is acting in good faith. A few recent edits I noticed at an AN/I thread, however, raised my eyebrows a bit:     – these are indicative of old patterns that need to be curbed. Reposting his original comment multiple times gives the impression of trying to dominate the discussion, can be quite annoying to others involved in the discussion, and is way too similar to some of the contentious behavior that led to past troubles. It would suffice to simply ask others to stay on topic, rather than shoving the topic in their faces multiple times. Also remember that when you bring an issue to RfC, AN, or other such channels, you raise just as much scrutiny on yourself as you do on the other parties involved. Keep a cool head and just ignore the detractors. Other than that I feel that AN is doing a great job overall. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I frequent the AFD's and a name I often see is "A Nobody". I would describe him as an "inclusionist" (I hope he doesn't take that as an insult), he improves articles whilst at AFD as part of the Article Rescue Squadron. What stands out about him is that he is the only !voter (I've seen) who regularly improves articles, that I also suspect aren't even in his field of interest! He is also one of the few inclusionists that understands what Wikipedia's definition of notability is. I respect all this about him. However this laudable vigour in which he throws himself into his work would give me concerns if he were to attempt to become an admin. I believe that A Nobody feels very strongly that the scope for inclusion could/should be bigger, and this could lead to all sorts of undesirable emotive debates in which the potential for abuse of tools could occur. I will note though, that this is slightly my personal preference; I like my admins to be reasonably apathetic and generally dis-interested in adding content to the encyclopaedia (in short the opposite of a regular editor). I would recommend that A Nobody join "Adopt-a-User", but as an adopter. Ryan 4314   (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately my view of A Nobody has recently been marred by what I see as attempts by him to redact negative comments out of this review, I'd recommend checking onwards from here. I would now definitely oppose this user becoming an admin. Ryan 4314   (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely seems like a good user, very helpful and pleasant, although I admit I only met him today. However, it seems like today was just an average day from looking at the comments above. Spinach Monster (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good editor, always willing to help new editors out. Very brave, not afraid to be in the minority on an issue. Very intellegent editor. Ikip (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've known this user in his current and previous incarnation for better than two years now and I consider him to be among the most competent and rational of all the people that frequently piss me off. That's not a slam against him, rather it is a pretty big compliment coming from me. He is consistent and dedicated, and more knowledgeable than all but a fraction of the administrators on the project. In a perfect world, he would be an administrator himself. However, he has refused my offer to nominate him for that position... and for good reason - he would never pass an RfA, which truly is a shame. The community could only benefit from giving this editor the tools. If I had to point out any area that he needs to improve on, it has to do with his overall ability to reject compromise. He has the tendency to be unwilling to accept anything short getting things the way that he wants them. Trusilver  06:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * User:A Nobody does actually useful work at RFA by providing a lot of diffs rather than just hand-waving, and I like the fact that this editor seems to have a consistent philosophy of kindness towards new contributors (but not towards admin candidates). But there's a problem with this editor's record at RFA, although the problem isn't so much this editor as the way voters react to this editor.  It would all work out alright if people would just say "Thanks for the diffs, but no thanks on those rationales; if you want to make the argument that agreeing with SNOW deletes is a horrible thing to do, the place for that argument is at DRV, not here."  But they don't; there's a long series of arguments like this one that confuse people new to RFA.  The diffs really can be helpful for people looking for AfD information, but I'm wondering if it's time for the RFA community to come up with a standard, linkable response to this editor's lengthier rationales to save people some time, with a reminder along the lines of WP:Forum shopping. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe an incident similar to the extended "neutral !vote" occurred here; where another user accused A Nobody of "hijacking" a thread about an admin abusing his tools "and taking it way, way off topic", attempting to discuss the result of a recently closed AFD. Ryan 4314   (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: there's been a noticeable improvement at RFA, ever since the diff I mentioned. Friendly, well-researched  rationales.  Right on! - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Editor:A Nobody is certainly not a nobody. He is a Peacemaker. In today's WikiWorld that is a hallowed position to take. He advocates communication and co-operation, in human terms. The fact that he can interrelate with opposing editors and (almost) forces them to admit to a common ground is admirable. We should all have that quality.--Buster7 (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * User:A Nobody is a Godsend. The article I've been working on got flagged for deletion, and I've been spending all of my time trying to prevent it rather than being able to actually work on the article. What a conundrum, huh? Thankfully, User:A Nobody has been helpful in putting references in place correctly, editing the article for clarity, et cetera, work I don't have time to focus on myself. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ks64q2 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 27 February 2009 diff
 * I will honor the request to not mention your previous identities, but I consider you to be the same disruptive editor that you have always been, simply presenting yourself in a less contentious form. Your constant contention that knowledge of your previous identities presented some threat to your safety which required you to abuse the right to vanish, which explicitly states that "vanished users have no right to silently return under a new identity" is beyond credibility. I would strongly encourage you to honor your obligations and, having vanished, cease editing Wikipedia.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You requested more detailed comments on your behaviour in your new identity, so here it is. The use of deceptive edit summaries is clearly disruptive behaviour. This, this, and this are clearly using the edit summary to disguise the actual nature of the edit.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All that is a mischaracterization. I did fix the format while ignoring a unilateral redirect without discussion, as I did here (ignoring TTN's unilateral redirect despite the AfD that closed as keep), and just as I did here (again ignoring the intermediate unilateral redirect by TTN).  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Disruptive user. Previously (Sept '08) got into trouble for disruptive and badgering behaviour at AfDs, was facing an imminent User RfC, and invoked a right to vanish and promptly resumed editing with another account and as an anon. Blocked. A month later, returned under a new name (this one). User continues disruptive participation in AfD and policy discussion ever-seeking to lower inclusion standards and demonize those who do not share his extreme views. Long history of bad faith at RFA. Jack Merridew 09:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kww, w/ the exception that you be expected to stop editing wikipidea. You ignore criticism, conflate judgment on your actions with judgment on content for tactical gain, use misleading edit summaries to hide feedback on your talk page, engage in circular arguments with an apparent goal of frustrating your opponents into bursting out--which you then use against them.  you spent the better part of the summer confounding the deletion process (your stated goal from the moment you registered an account, a goal which you supposedly disavowed in return for not being blocked indefinitely) and when that came around to bite you, you abused the trust of multiple editors in order to "vanish."  Immediately after vanishing, you returned with a new account and trolled AfD and DRV participants.  When confronted, you lied in order to continue the farce that the Rogan account wasn't you under another hat and lashed out at editors indiscriminately.  A few weeks later you returned.  It seems you are on the same path as before.  Treating other editors as intractable enemies, creating persecution of "inclusionists" in order to foment a battleground environment and generally returning to your old ways. Protonk (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not interacted with this user much, and thus I cannot determine the truthfulness of the statement he makes about harassment and socking. My only encounters with him have been at XFD and RFA, so that's all I can really comment on. I disagree with many of the !votes he casts at AFD, and I strongly disagree with his philosophy regarding our inclusion criteria. That said, I recognize that when this user !votes, he explains and clarifies his position as much as necessary, and always has a clear and concise rationale. Furthermore, his work at ARS trying to improve articles to address the concerns listed in their deletion discussions is very much appreciated. Over at RFA, I have occasionally seen him being one of the few opposes to a candidate that has received overwhelming support, and that does trouble me with regards to his philosophy. Nonetheless, I recognise his contributions to the RFA discussion, and appreciate that a candidate must be strictly scrutinized before they can be approved. Overall, I think this user is a solid contributor to the wiki. Firestorm  Talk 01:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, trying to move onwards. I commend you on working in such a difficult area. I edit WP to relax and find the trenches on the margins of notability and AfD too draining for extended periods. I was expecting more of a backlash against me when I ran for arbcom, and the fact that it wasn't anywhere near as big as I thought (Eusebeus even suggested I run) gave me alot more faith in folks I had consistently been on the opposite side of in AfD. What does this mean? I guess it means you may be successful at a run for adminship in the future but I think some more collecting of goodwill would be a good idea. For instance, helping at WP:PR would be fantastic; these folks are dead keen for any input on how to improve their articles. Also WP:GAN. I'll think of some more later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Listen, peer review is easy and helpful. A backlog here means articles with more issues at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, which turn into de facto Peer Reviews. When reviewing, I think to myself, "what else does this article need" and "can I read it easily?" (and if not why not).


 * Another thing to consider is article mergers and move proposals, most of which get very little feedback, which then results on more materail going to AfD (groan).


 * I would can this review now, as it will just result in more drama and confrontation which is really really unneeded at this point. Another thing to consider about RfA is Opposing one when it is at say 75/0/0 is unlikely to sway anyone and just engender further hostility. These may be the times to leave it as neutral and concede that the community does think it can trust the person but allows you to voice your reservations, leaving Oppose votes for those who have other issues that at least some folks are uncomfortable about as really one is voting on a whole package. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly I can't claim to know A Nobody particularly well, and have no idea of their previous name. It's clear from this review page alone that he/she certainly manages to wind up some people, but I'm not in a postion to comment on those. For me, A Nobody always clearly explains their rationale for voting a particular way at XfD or RfA, and that is a critical issue for me. Nobody (not A Nobody!) is ever going to agree with everything another editor thinks all the time, humans just aren't like that. By clearly explaining your position, you make your position clear whilst also allowing comment. I think that your decision to undertake this review is also commendable. Your Wikichecker results show that you only have about a quarter of yuor edits to articles. Perhaps you may be better served by just doing 'simple' editing rather than some of the other areas that seem to find people that wind you up. You've said that you sometimes need to step back and go back to simply editing, which is a good thing. Overall, you seem friedly and helpful, being an adopter may well be a good idea. Keep up the good work! -- Ged UK  08:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. In general I agree with your ideas of what Wikipedia should be (or perhaps I could say more accurately that I am pleased that you generally agree with some of mine). You work hard at defending articles, but you will defend the defensible and the indefensible alike; you will make good arguments and also ludicrous one; you will find references, but some of them are extremely marginal. I will sometimes not defend an article because your defense of it is so inappropriately strong as to make support appear extremism. You are more likely to take extreme positions than to compromise; I understand this as an initial tactic in response to those who take extreme deletionist positions, but if we are to resolve things in the end only compromise can avoid mutual exhaustion, and only compromise will attract sufficient support. Similarly, at RfA you have sometimes taken positions so unfair to candidates that, though I may have also had my doubts, I have refrained from opposing because I did not want to be associated with your statements. I have tried very hard to persuade you to that the best way of protecting privacy is to tread softly, but you still protest so hard as to effectively publicize what you want to hide. I've tried to persuade you--as some people have hinted here--that excessively friendly gestures to bitter opponents can seem hypocritical and even insulting--liking giving a failing grade to a student and wishing them a happy summer--a businesslike approach works much better at establishing some basis for future work. What i wish you would do here is edit, reference, defend rationally and briefly, and help to merge properly when that's the best course--and let all other matters go. I want to remain your friend, but I don't want to need to apologize for what you do. DGG (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A Nobody's removal of what he construes as trolling or comments from socks to me suggests this is a disingenuous Editor Review -- something that he can point to and say, "Look, I'm open to feedback," although I doubt the After picture will differ much from the Before (oh, so tempting to link those to current and former user names). As with his evaluation of sources and RfA/AfD discussion, A Nobody here demonstrates a myopia in which he mostly acknowledges/recognizes only the things that fit his schema about himself/how things Should Be. Previous "reviewers" have pointed out blatantly dishonest edit summaries and RTV abuse (or, at best, failure to own up to misunderstanding despite multiple big, bold explanations of what it involves). ANI and talk page archives across this and the previous user name are replete with multiple editors trying to discuss the nature of reliable sources and A Nobody's annoying rhetorical devices* in discussion, with no evidence from him of a willingness to acknowledge validity of differing perspectives. Naturally, this follows with an adolescent, "Well, I'm not going to do X if someone else won't do it first." (*I was heartened when this latest incarnation refrained from AfD and the near-copy-and-paste appropriation of a dissenter's words as a juvenile retort -- unfortunately, he's more recently returned to form, at least with the latter. I do appreciate, however, his greatly reduced direct presence at AfD. And although there are a few instances of ARS spam followed by negligible, if any, article improvements, A Nobody in general does find useful smidgens of real-world information to at least bring pause to AfD discussions.) Most frustrating is the kernel of his RTV: if the nature of his real-world issues was as severe as conveyed to me via e-mail by A Nobody and an admin. he trusts, then returning to Wikipedia and following the exact same editing habits demonstrates annoyingly poor judgment -- not only about being "found" again (although I suppose that should weigh in), but also about ticking up the community's skepticism about RTV requests as a whole. There were solutions other than RTV, and the freneticism surrounding the non-V, followed by heavy-handed demands that the old handle not even be uttered, are annoying. I'd welcome a broader RFC on A Nobody's behavior -- but am too apathetic about him, considering the large hole he's dug for himself, to care enough to try to open one myself. --EEMIV (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above have adequately covered this, but the intentional circular arguments, the irrelevant and pointless opposes at RfA, the constant aggrandizing of other editors for not following his views, and an incredible myopia to views other than his own deserve repeating. On top of all of this, your faux-RTV issue was extremely discourging. Under your previous username, you were by all accounts disruptive and if anything, your behavior was worse. On the verge of a user conduct RfC, you claim real life harrassment and invoke RTV, which several editors (including the deletionists you abhor!) aided you in. You then choose to spend a week off and return as an obvious sock. That you are even attempting to deny that Rogan was a sock is an insult to our intelligence. After it is indef blocked, you return under your current user name and continue the same behavior under your previous user name. Now, what I fail to understand is how if you were being stalked, how repeating the exact same behavior that a stalker would know helps you in any fashion. For a person experiencing real life harassment, it's extremely easy for any casual user to connect the dots. Seriously, one can peek at a contribution under your own user name and your new user name and it's blatantly obvious that they're one and the same. That you fail to realize this either shows a blatant disregard for your own safety or that you're utterly ignorant that connecting the dots is this simple. I'd agree with the above that you're obligated to either change your behavior or stop editing Wikipedia per your invoking of RTV and honestly for your own safety. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 00:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 Comments 
 * Per comments left below, I consider this editor review effectively a sham. If he is unwilling to accept criticism from a class of editors then this runs the risk of being little more than a pep talk, not an actual place for community feedback. Protonk (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I am totally find with established editors like Kww saying what they want to say, but it is now being edited by accounts from the following sock farms and as such has lost any useful purpose:
 * Sock farm A: User:AndalusianNaugahyde, User:Pilotbob, User:Doctorfluffy, User:Doctorfluffytemp, User:Doctorfluffytemp2, User:Doctorfluffytemp3, User:Doctorfluffytemp4, and User:Doctorfluffytemp5, User:DoctorfluffyPublic
 * Sock farm B: User:Davenbelle, User:Thomas Jerome Newton, User:Moby Dick, User:D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5, User:Note to Cool Cat, User:Diyarbakir, User:Senang Hati, User:Jack Merridew, and User:Wayang kulit
 * I am all for honest and fair criticism, but I and other inclusionists have had to contend with these accounts' incivility and personal attacks for some time now and as such their comments are neither honest nor welcome. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Protonk (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not OK. Jack Merridew 05:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's ludicrous for A. Nobody to pass judgment on Jack Merridew. I opposed the restoration of Merridew's editing privileges, just as I oppose allowing A. Nobody to edit, but, since he is permitted to edit, he's permitted to edit. There is no community sanction in place restricting Jack Merridew's interaction with any editor besides White Cat.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC) You carry with you, around you, in you; the atmosphere created by your actions, and if what you do is beautiful, good and harmonious your atmosphere is beautiful, good and harmonious. &mdash; The Mother, The Sunlit Path
 * It is ludicrous to permit an account that has been used to harass inclusionists to make dishonest statements in such a forum as this. If editors in good standing want to come here and blow off steam, so be it.  I am not reverting you or Protonk even though I started this review in the hopes that good faith and objective comments would come here.  I am not willing to humor Merridew in this instance, because he is indeed in effect restricted per his unblock request not to needlessly enflame tensions in general, which making these bad faith and inaccurate comments here does, especially when I tried to be nice to him by creating Moon of Pejeng an article he had mentioned he thought should be created.  Nothing like attempting a good faith gesture at someone only to have them continue to be incivil.  The whole point in why I started this page was to seek fair and neutral feedback that would help me as an editor to improve my editing habits, not for accounts with a history of harassing inclusionists to use it for unconstructive remarks.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My review was not 'dishonest'. Protonk said much the same thing as I did. I stand by my characterization of you as distruptive. Jack Merridew 10:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope that you aren't implying that my comments weren't made in good faith, and were simply "blowing off steam". Merridew's comments weren't incivil, simply negative.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If I was still vanished totally, I would indeed have stayed vanished, but I'm not going to stop editing when some stuff was unvanished. What's the point?  I'm either completely vanished or I might as well edit.  I don't like letting bullies win anyway and so long as people do not keep bringing up the old username, then I should have nothing to worry about, because I have nothing about me personally in my current userspace and about as anonymous of a username as one can have.  Now, look, I do not know you and as such I cannot reasonably be expected to trust you; I trusted Ecoleetage and he called the principal on another editor!  It would be foolish of me or anyone to reveal certain things on wiki or even via email especially to those who are not nice with us.  For better or worse, I have presented evidence to certain editors who have and continue to defend me that the real world harassment issues were true and much more than just negative comments on Wikipedia Review or Encyclopedia Dramatica even and arguably even more serious than the aforementioned calling the principal issue.  But who in their right mind would post this obviously identifiable stuff on wiki or share it with just anyone?  I'd rather you and other inaccurately call me a liar than chance the real world stuff, because I at least know that those who have always been good to me here are aware of the truth and as such can feel some vindication.  I similarly provided evidence about my IPs and such that reveal I am indeed not the only person in my family to have ever edited here (I have requested some of this be oversighted for obvious reasons), but I am not going to out anyone let alone family members on wiki just to clear myself.  So, as I once said before, I am in the impossible position of where proving myself on wiki would require presenting stuff that would blatantly identify me and out another editor.  I cannot do that.  Obviously what I provided others with in confidence of privacy was enough for them to not totally throw me to curb.  If you can detach from the animosity toward me, you should be able to see that if I hadn't provided them with such evidence, they would not defend me at all.  Now, as concerns JM, well, yes over a year ago, I did create and have since totally abandoned two other accounts that I never used in the same AfD as my main account.  Unlike JM, these accounts were never used to long term harass another editor.  Because of my own circumstances, there is one thing on wiki I find irredeedable and it is harassment.  I think we can and should be forgiving of a lot here, edit warring, mild sockpuppetry, etc.  In JM's case and unlike mine, it was severe enough that while I am happy to work constructively with him on articles like that Moon of Pejeng one (just as I would be happy to help you with articles, too even after all the nasty stuff you have said to or about me), I am not going to humor unconstructive criticism that does not offer any proactive feedback.  Finally, there is another major difference between the JM account and my account.  "A Nobody", while a rename, still has the edit history and block log of my first and thus original account.  My "A Nobody" account is in effect my original account and not a sockpuppet of any other account.  JM, however, is NOT that editor's original account, but rather a sock account created to evade a block of its original account and created to harass another editor.  If the editor behind that account requests an unblock of his original account and that account is permitted to edit as his sole account and he wants to edit here so be it.  But I and no one else should have to be lectured to by a sock account created to evade a block and to harass another editor.  If I am unable to convince you that the ER account was not me and you believe it was, then you are talking about that never edited in the same discussions as this account and that was created after this account stopped editing and while this account was not blocked.  It was not like the JM account created while the main account was blocked and with the motivation of harassing another editor.  These are beyond apples and oranges.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I use this account because it is the one the AC restricted me to; besides, unblocking my original account would not return it to me as I scuttled it by scrambling the password and blanking the email setting. I'm quite open about my past editing and accounts and recommend it to you; haven't I already?. You ask for 'constructive criticism'; read and heed the criticism offered by editors in this review. That's the point of requesting it. Modify your behaviour and attitude where you get consistent advice from a variety of sources to do so. Change your style and areas of editing. Jack Merridew 10:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I have welcomed thousands of new users, created several pages, rescued many articles from deletion, added references to a number of stubs, made numerous corrections of grammar, helped to have hoax articles deleted, successfully identified several sockpuppeteers and their puppets, and even uploaded images. All of these accomplishments I am pleased with collectively rather than feeling particularly proud of any invdividual achievement.  Anything that I have done to help other editors or to brighten any editor's day or to help contribute to our cataloging of human knowledge gives me some degree of satisfaction and makes editing here a rewarding experience.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * Yes on both counts. I have dealt with it in different ways.  In some instances I suspected that I was being harangued by sock accounts and reported them and those ones were and are blocked.  Other times I stopped editing for a time to cool off.  In the future, I think it will be best to if possible ignore editors that are baiting or bullying me, but if necessary seek administrator intervention.  I am here to help build a paperless encyclopedia, not to get into fights with people.  That is why I am not interested in linking to past disputes here.  I hope that hatchets can be buried and encyclopedists can move on and focus on building on online encyclopedia rather than holding grudges.  As school and work continue to be busy, my editing time is really limited and may increase in being limited, so I do not really have the time to get bogged down in disputes anyway.  Back in the day I used to have a bit more time and could really go back and forth with editors, especially in deletion discussions, but now I am far more apt to say my peace and only reply if someone replies to me.  I would much rather whatever time I use here be devoted to improving articles or spreading wiki-love.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Would you like to become an administrator one day?  Ryan 4314   (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello! Having the extra tools would indeed allow me to help out in ways beyond what I focus on now, which is primarily article rescue and welcoming new users.  For example, I think my arguments in DRVs and RfAs would be stronger by being able to see deleted contribs, I would be trustworthy with deleting hoax articles as every AfD in which I argued to delete did close as delete and someone once proposed having a shortcut that if I say it should be deleted then..., etc.; however, I changed usernames last year after experiencing some on-wiki harassment by various sock farms as well as some swear-ward laden and threatening emails that caused me to close down my old email account as well.  There have been some other off-wiki incidents that I do not wish to discuss on-wiki for privacy reasons and that I have only shared with a couple whom I really trust.  As such, I fear that being an admin would put me in a position to attract further hostility and aggression from these individuals that would go against why I changed usernames and had various identifiable images that I foolishly upload deleted and why I requested other edits be oversighted.  Anyway, thank you for your question and happy Groundhog Day!  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Just out of curiosity, what motivates you to give people smiles?Smallman12q (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As part of the kindness campaign, I believe that editors matter. As such, I want editors to feel that their efforts are appreciated and I believe that a gesture of kindness helps retain editors, brighten peoples' day, and ease tensions among editors.  Finally, as editors have given me smiles and barnstars, I like to return the favor as it were.  :)  I guess the crux of it that while cataloging human knowledge is a serious goal, there is no reason why it should not be enjoyable getting there.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It often appears that you give oppose or neutral !votes to people who don't share your extreme inclusionist philosophy, and/or who have, on a few occasions, placed !votes on AFDs that an essay with narrow acceptance discourages. Do you feel that this (a) risks needlessly antagonizing people, (b) is relevant to whether a user would be a good administrator or not, and (c) accomplishes anything? Stifle (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not have an extreme inclusion philosophy, rather an inclusion philosophy that is more in line with the thousands of article creators and writers and millions of readers in practice. I seek to defend their efforts to use Wikipedia for the kinds of knowledge they wish us to cover, because Editors matter.  The half dozen odd deletes we get from the same overall minority of accounts in any given AfD versus say the hundreds of unique editors who edited any given article and the thousands of unique page views it gets suggest that if any philosophy is extremist it is those handful trying to delete, especially because I have found that I have actually argued to delete more articles than a number of those who have critiqued me in the past have argued to keep.  In fact, the last two AfDs I commented in, I argued to delete per User:A Nobody/Deletion discussions.  Anyway, with regards to the RfAs, yes, sometimes it does convince some editors to oppose per User:A_Nobody and the old list I had with my previous name showed additional examples.  It matters greatly in the candidate's ability to be an admin, because I have seen some identifying as deletionist makes unexplained closures that appear obviously biased.  Articles_for_deletion/Rubber-Band_Man_(Static_Shock) and Articles_for_deletion/Mainframe_(C.O.P.S.) clearly had no consensus to delete either.  In Articles_for_deletion/Sennon and Articles_for_deletion/Schutzwald nearly everyone seemed okay with a redirect.  Thus, when I see "it's cruft" and "non-notable" non-arguments it seems consistent with admins who will close discussions based on their personal feelings rather than the actual discussion or some kind of neutral policy/guideline based rationale.  As far as antagonizing them goes, for one thing people who make weak "its cruft" non-arguments need to be called out on them and second, if someone wants to be in a position where editors will likely contest their deletions and blocks, they need to be able to handle at least RfA challenges.  Finally, as Wikipedia is not a vote, I want to add something unique to the discussion and not just repeat what someone else said or simply "vote."  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you reconcile the above rationale with your history of being either the sole dissenter or in a very small minority of opposes for candidates who have passed RfA? Do you see your comments as being "protest votes", or do you believe that RfA, like AfD, is being skewed by a particular group of editors? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say a minority of editors overall are aware of RfAs just like a minority are aware of AfDs. To be totally honest, I find AfDs to be largely a waste and drain on our time.  Most of the time anymore, I don't even bother commenting in them preferring to just work on the articles and hope the closer will see the improvements.  Imagine how many articles that are saveable could be saved if poeple just did that instead of starting AFDs in part hoping someone else will do the article improvement work.  AfDs are frequently distractions for what should be done on the talk page if anything.  It's kind of like some accounts that just slap notability tags on articles without ever actually trying to find and add sources.  All that misplaced effort...  And on top of it, I have seen several accounts that do nothing more than have rapid fire "non-notable" "it's cruft" deletes with pretty much no article creation and writing.  I don't see much value or purpose in that.  Anyway, how many total accounts do we have versus how many regularly comment in RfAs and AfDs?  My main feeling is simply that if being an admin "is no big deal", then people should be able to oppose for whatever reason they want with the oppose also being "no big deal."  Anyway, I usually support candidates (I think the last few RfAs I commented in were supports and for multiple reasons).  My main concern as an article rescuer is that the kinds of accounts who make the hit and run "it's cruft" non-arguments at AfD that hardly reflect any careful consideration of the articles turn out as admins who wind up having biased closes and the necessity for DRVs.  My hope is that editors will be encouraged to make more thoughtful comments in AfDs and for admins to be mindful of explaining their closes.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 10:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Are we allowed to leave negative reviews, or will you just remove them, like you did jacks and then apparently misuse rollback to remove them again? Protonk (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was also removed a third time as part of a larger edit without a mention in the edit summary.Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reviews left by established editors that are not flattering such as Kww's are of course acceptable. I do not get along with Kww, but as far as I can tell he is not a sockpuppet nor does he uses his account to harass editors.  Jack Merridew and Doctorfluffy, however, are the opposite.  Bad faith reviews by sock accounts used to harass inclusionists for years are not welcome.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Protonk (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not OK with me. I have restored my comment, do not remove it again. This amounts to further disruption. Jack Merridew 05:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether you find them "welcome" or not, this is not a user sub-page, and you do not have the prerogative to remove them. I would also be extremely wary of continually harping on about other editors being "sockpuppets" when you have been indef blocked twice for the use of socks in the past yourself. There is no need to confront or demonise your opponents in this manner - you can simply ignore them, and allow the community to be their judge. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I do because I started this page and I say on top that I started it for constructive feedback not for the sock of a banned user that was created to harass inclusionists to disrupt it. I am using my original account.  If he wants to talk to me with his original account, fine, but I am not going to humor the sock account.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) You seem to dislike editors whom you label as "deletionists". Is there some aspect about them that really annoys you, and what lesson would you draw from this when considering how other editors might view you? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I do because I started this page and I say on top that I started it for constructive feedback not for the sock of a banned user that was created to harass inclusionists to disrupt it. I am using my original account.  If he wants to talk to me with his original account, fine, but I am not going to humor the sock account.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) You seem to dislike editors whom you label as "deletionists". Is there some aspect about them that really annoys you, and what lesson would you draw from this when considering how other editors might view you? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)