Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Romaioi


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Keep - deleting a usertalk page is rarely appropriate (and when it is it is usually speedy and involves blocking and oversight). The comments to userfy are read to mean archive, the page is already is usertalk space and can't be further userfied which simply means moving it to userspace. The user has voluntarily archived the page here which is an appropriate step towards returning some sense of civility. However, there is no policy that supports requiring a user to archive (it still remains in usertalk space and there is no distinction in policy for subpages), archiving here is no more than an etiquette matter. If there is any personal information about a user in the archive, any affected user may request oversight, however, uncivil and abusive language, while not appropriate and often warranting blocking, does not require deletion. Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Romaioi
Nominated for deletion as an attack page under G10. As background User:Noclador and I were investigating a sockpuppet circus generated by User:Generalmesse, Romaioi's edits fitted the pattern of the sock puppets but he was cleared by a checkuser. Unfortunately posts by another sockpuppeteer seemed to implicate him again but again he was cleared. It has been to WP:WQA (here and here and WP:AN here. I've tried to explain to this guy that it was nothing personal and to move past this but only been accused of shit stirring for my troubles.

For info, there is much more on the Talk Page but it is hidden as comments.

User:Romaioi has made some constructive edits to articles but seems to have taken this incident far too seriously. It has already spilled into article space and other user's Talk Pages. If he can move past this I believe he could be a constructive and useful editor, however a line needs to be drawn under past misunderstandings so that everyone can move on. Justin talk 20:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ummm deletion seems awfully strong for a talk page... I agree that he needs to move past it, but why not have him archive all of it?  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  21:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmm, he isn't moving past it, thats the problem. How many times do we have to explain it wasn't anything personal?  Justin talk 21:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't archiving it achieve the same goal??  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  21:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * At WP:WQA2 he agreed to remove attack comments from his talk page, then added them back in spades. Look at the hidden comments as well, he is having a go at virtually everyone he's come across even those who tried to help him.  He accused me of "shit stirring" for trying to smooth things over.  I didn't do this for no reason, I thought about it carefully first.  I would suggest you look over the previous discussions.  Look if he can move past this I would agree he could be a productive editor. Justin talk 21:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was looking over the history of the page while I was waiting for a response. =) I agree that he overreacted completely...but if I had been here for two weeks and been accused of sockpuppetry twice, I'd have left! Kudos to him for getting through it... My view is that the entire thing should be archived into a separate archive page (not /Archive1, but /Archivesock or something similar). With this solution, you should be happy because the attacks are away, but Romaioi gets to keep it...Is that a decent compromie?  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  21:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmm, if he'd been accused and left to hang you might have something but that wasn't the case. Noclador tried to explain things, I've tried to explain things, and smooth things over, but got accused of "shit stirring" at WP:AN for my trouble.  Attack pages are not acceptable whether in archive or not.  I don't know, let me think about it some more but you should realise I've already thought long and hard before bringing it here.  Justin talk 21:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine if you have to think. I'm trying to be neutral and play a devil's advocate role at the same time. =)  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs- 
 * After reading the page and everyone's views, I support userfying.  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  21:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I understand your point of view, Justin, and, while some parts of the page are attack-y (i.e. "Further Examples of slanderous insinuations and direct personal attacks by the accuser"), other parts are just summary of the event. Perhaps the user doesn't want to be accused a third time, and so he/she has put these defenses up to avoid the hassle of the work. Besides, the talk page also has some other valuable posts (see bottom)! Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment the point is you're not allowed to have an attack page in your user space. I don't see a qualifier that says but its OK if there is other material there.  Also Romaioi already removed comments that were a personal attack and now has added them back and then some.  Tell me, did you look at the hidden comments?  He attacked even the people who helped him.  Justin talk 08:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Userfy into a subpage the posts by Romaioi on User talk:Romaioi (including any hidden comments) not related to a typical user talk page. This should separate the issues if later deletion discussions are needed for an attack page. Also, provide a note to Romaioi about the purpose of a talk page and how user subpages may be used. -- Suntag  ☼  03:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Userfy That I don't have a problem with, seems a good solution to me. Justin talk 08:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * From Wikipedia:User page - What may I not have on my user page? "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason." -- Suntag  ☼  04:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - As background, here is a list of the other processes discussing Romaioi
 * RFCU1 (25 June 2008)
 * RFCU2 (29 June 2008)
 * WO:ANI1 (4 July 2008)
 * WP:WQA1 (12 July 2008)
 * WP:WQA2 (27 July 2008)
 * WP:ANI2 (12 September 2008)
 * WP:AN (12 September 2008)-- Suntag  ☼  04:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:AN Justin talk 09:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC) (you missed one!)


 * Keep - It's just a talk page. If necessary, objectionable stuff on it can be deleted or oversighted, there's no need to delete the page. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It was never my wish to aggravate Justin. I sincerely appreciate his efforts. I am just saying it how I see it. P.S. I appreciate the balanced comments by all. Romaioi (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The userpage contains material relevent to other users and other subjects and deletion is too blunt.  There is a complex dispute and/or behavioural problem and MfD is not the proper forum.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment/Keep. User:Intothewoods29 has hit the nail on the head. I do not want to be accused a third time. I think it is inevitable, given the lack of reason on my accuser's part and his my accuser's complete disregard my being categorically exonerated. And I do not want to go through the hassle of the work again! It is not an attack page. Also, some things said above need addressing:
 * 1) It is my opinion that Justin always has an extreme view of my position and tends to form way off the mark summaries of what my work represents. But I have always stressed to him that I respected his efforts to smooth it over.
 * 2) Though, he admitted that he did not read much of anything I have written on the matter, sighting TLDR . So how can he form an informed opinion?
 * 3) He repeatedly states that my accuser did nothing wrong, ignoring the slander that I clearly have highlighted, and claims that I am the only one who made personal attacks (I called my accuser a liar).
 * 4) I acknowledged early on that I overreacted and explained why - one reason was that the content of my talk page was expunged.
 * 5) I have not "had a go at everyone I have come across" - this is a fallacy. Rather, it was acknowledged that I was otherwise gracious and civil to other users (except my accuser) . This acknowledgment was not a one off. If you do as Justin suggests and read the history, you will see this. But the history is summarized, with the relevant links, on the talk page Justin would like expunged.
 * 6) I said now I am beginning to think that you [Justin] are trying to stir the pot (never said shit stirring) after he a) sighted TLDR and then b) he made the unsubstantiated claim that there were links between me and one of the socks. There are no links.
 * 7) Contrary to what Justin claims, my accuser never tried to explain things. This event history indicates that the accuser made his mind up, before I ever communicated with him. And when I was cleared he still petitioned for my banning and later canvassed other users with false information as to my activities, etc to rally them against me.
 * 8) I wasn't cleared the second time. The accusation was a character assassination and no official investigation was launched. Instead, I did an IP check and demonstrated the logistical impossibility (for a second time) of doing what I was accused of. Then, one of my accuser's colleagues examined the writing styles (something I requested all involved to do when I was first accused) and concluded that I couldn't be a sock.
 * 9) User:Suntag stated: Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason. Yep, this kind of negative information is precisely what my accuser was putting in public view about me on multiple user pages. (Yet, NO ONE has picked him up on it.) And this behaviour of my accuser is part of what the discussions on my talk page highlight.
 * 10) Referring to the list of discussions above, most were instigated by accuser (and Justin) giving you an indication as to what I have had to fend off. Note that I was cleared of sockpuppetry and the other users involved with the WQA believed that the comments on my talk page did no harm. But I toned down my comments anyway as a sign of good faith. The good faith was not extended back towards me, as the second accusation came after that (during the ANI that I instigated).
 * 11) I think that abuse and slander by those who are policing on behalf of Wikipedia is a serious matter.
 * 12) It is not an attack page! It is a portion of a page whereby documentary defense is presented in the event of further accusations and further slander.
 * i find it extremely irritating that having repeatedly tried to help Romaioi I now find myself having to list a defence against his accusations. A couple of points:
 * Nobody has expunged Romaioi's talk page, about the only thing I can think of is Noclador made a blooper posting to by mistake.
 * Romaioi cites user:Bahamut “was otherwise gracious and civil to other users” but a just a paragraph above Bahamut says: “However, the conduct of the accused has been less than pristine. Naturally, being falsely accused would make anybody angry, adding confusion and disorientation due to his lack of understanding of the process at the time only makes the situation worse. This is not, however, justification for the persistence of this scandal, nor some of the very harsh remarks made on Romaioi's part. I can sympathize with the expectation for an apology, however, in light of the hostility the accused showed his accuser, I cannot fault nocaldor for refusing to make one.” (he picked the single positive line out of the long comment of Bahamut)
 * Noclador did try to explain things.
 * I have never at any stage made any claim linking Romaioi to socks. About the only thing I have ever posted that could be miscontrued as intimating such an allegation was to point out that a sockpuppet had implicated Romaioi but that I felt the sockpuppet had deliberately been shit stirring by doing so.  Once again you're striking out against the people who tried to help.
 * TLDR was a none too subtle hint that writing reams of text was helping his case.
 * Could someone independent please explain to Romaioi that WP:WQA is an attempt to resolve this case and not an accusation. While they're at it could they explain that a checkuser is designed to identify sockpuppets and clear the innocent.  A checkuser request is not an accusation.  Justin talk 19:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Userfy. Though I believe the original sockpuppet charge against Romaioi was unjust, and I don't believe he is a sock, his reluctance to let this issue go is causing a waste of admin time, and a general uproar that is working against his interests. In the ideal case he would userfy his complaint voluntarily. The repeated messages from others, telling him that he is beating this issue to death, seem to be falling on deaf ears. Ironically, the most likely problem that would cause him difficulty in the future is that he will annoy so many users with his unceasing complaints about Noclador that action will have to be taken against him.  Unless Romaioi wants to open an RFC/U against Noclador, this page should go. In any case, almost everything here has already been submitted at WP:AN, so the info is permanently kept in the archives. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Archive, userfy or delete. I have no particular preference which, but one way or another, this material should be removed from Romaioi's main talk page; it's just too provocative and inflammatory (both the initial sockpuppetry accusations, and the responses to them) to keep it around in plain sight. Such a dispute should be archived or deleted, to remove the immediate locus of the dispute and allow the participants to calm down and move on with their lives. Terraxos (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would be happy to archive it, but not delete it. The point of it is to have something to refer to the next time I am targeted. So archiving would suit those purposes fine. I am sorry that Justin has gotten involved to this extent and am sorry for his frustrations and those of all others. P.S. I know what checkuser is for - but the words on my talk page were You have been accused.... I have always maintained that I had not real issue with the initial sock puppetry investigation or its purpose. My issue was with my accuser's conduct. Romaioi (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The dispute was over, Noclador had agreed to walk away from you, there was no need to resurrect it on your talk page. That is the source of my exasperation, remove it and I'll withdraw the MFD.  Justin talk 10:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and my edits certainly did not fit the pattern of the sock puppets! (I find it irritating & unhelpful that this keeps getting reasserted; my edits were not non-NPOV or Italo-glorifying, nor were they fascist.) A bit of close reading will show this - this point is discussed explicitely on my user page.Romaioi (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Look you reverted one of the sock's edits, that is what kicked off the suspicions that your account had been created as a sock. It wasn't a case of randomly picking on any user and piling on accusations.  You do yourself no favours whatsoever with claims of a conspiracy against you.  Justin talk 10:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It would certainly be nice if people could get their facts straight.....particularly after the efforts to elucidate them. I did no such thing! Yet clearly the erroneous assumptions of the first accusation still stick. This in itself justifies the need for the summary. The summary (and accompanying links) is pretty clear as to what happened. I never said conspiracy - those are your words. I said abuse. When you are trying to police something, you are not supposed to go around abusing, deleting, misrepresenting evidence, canvasing etc. Why is that so difficult to understand? It cannot be denied that those things happened. The accuser still maintains that I am a sock on several publicly viewed pages that REPRESENT AN ATTACK on me (why not do a MFD on them?). The accuser's two response(s) to my ANI also represent a form of attack. And while you may believe the validity of checkuser, your friend has shown he does not, pretty much stated it, indicative of a lack of good faith. I only placed a statement on my talk page (after the first sock accusation) and was going to leave it at that - and it was concluded after your WQA that there was no issue with what I had written. Remember, aside from one ANI, none of the administrative actions were initiated by me. It is astonishing, that after clearly demonstrating the fallacy behind every assertion about my actions, patterns, and whatever else, that the same "allegations" are still stated as if they were fact, accompanied by the same disputable criticism. All this stemming from one objective attempt to clean something up. Hence I felt a point needed to be made with my own ANI. Several users have indicated that this page is not the proper forum - I concur. I said I am willing to archive the summary. Romaioi (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. The summary will be as it was intended, the last I say on the issue, unless I am accused again. Romaioi (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You were in the wrong place at the wrong time, you restored the edit of a sock puppet and that was enough to trigger suspicion. OK you were a new user and may have found the process bewildering. Putting facts straight, the WQA did not say there was no issue with what you'd written, you were asked to remove certain items from your Talk Page, which you did, and another editor at the time mentioned MFD.  This is why I find it highly irritating that a month later you choose to resurrect this drama after it had all died down, knowing that at WQA you were informed what is and is not acceptable in User Space.  Justin talk 16:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I repeat: I did not restore the edit of a sock. Also, the editor who mentioned MFD stated that he was ok with it once he read it (the pre-reduced comment), though he preferred the shorter summary . I can appreciate where it is all coming from. Had a second sock accusation not occured with a repeat of the accompanying slander, I would not have written the current summary. As I alluded already, the summary was not designed to resurrect drama, it (and the addendum to the ANI) was to document the history in structured fashion for reference the next time I am accused. The 4 week delay simply resulted from life's priorities coming first.Romaioi (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have VOLUNTARILY userfied my page by archiving the factual summary. I take it that no one will do a thing about the factually incorrect and slanderous attacks against myself that remain in public view! Strange how there is always silence regarding them. I cannot stress enough how disgusting I find the hypocrisy I have been subjected to. Anyone who actually "read" the material would see that it was there for "very good reason." There are some who have taken the time to appreciate where I was coming from, to understand the incivility I have been exposed to, and recognize that further attacks are likely.


 * I really urge those who wish to accuse others (or get involved with investigations) in future to do their homework and get their facts straight. I also urge them respect the wikipedia guidelines on civility and abuse etc. And I urge admins to be consistent in their application of Wikipedia guidelines, because right now, based on some of the threats of banning I have received and comments that show they do not know the chain of events, I see inconsistency and unwillingness to appropriately review matters. I take Jimbo Wales' statement of principles seriously, so should all. Romaioi (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.