Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Nobody

A Nobody
Initiated by  Flatscan (talk) at 05:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

 * , filing party


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * A Nobody


 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried


 * WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 58 (August–December 2009)
 * WP:Requests for comment/A Nobody (September–October 2009)
 * #Disruption of AfD by merging during discussion or fait accompli
 * #Certifier view by Flatscan
 * Messages from Flatscan at User talk:A Nobody
 * 23 August 2009
 * 8 September 2009
 * 12 October 2009
 * 8 November 2009
 * 22 February 2010

Statement by Flatscan
A Nobody has persisted in making copying edits that introduce attribution dependencies and interfere with the deletion process. Considering that AN continued with the similar merging during active AfDs until both the WT:AFD discussion and his RfC, Arbitration appears to be the only remaining venue.

Recent activity:
 * 21 February 2010: WP:Articles for deletion/Zoe Graystone closes keep, AN immediately merges it and related articles (contribs) into List of Caprica characters, but without redirecting.
 * 22 February 2010: I approach AN about a few questionable edits during February (permanent link). AN does not respond, eventually removing the section via a botched move archive (history, diff).
 * 7 March 2010: Shortly after commenting at WP:Articles for deletion/Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess, AN adds reception to Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess, then copies it to Big Boss (C.O.P.S.) (contribs). I clarify that the content was all contributed by A Nobody.
 * 8 March 2010: AN removes a prod from List of characters in Tron, then copies a few sentences to Tron (film) (contribs). User:Deor removes the copied content.

If this case's scope is confined to the copying issue, I would be satisfied by a motion that restricts A Nobody from any copying. While I have only tried to resolve the copying issue, I agree that it is merely one of a number of problematic behaviors and that a full case may be appropriate. Flatscan (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I support an accept/defer motion as described in others' comments. Dispute resolution is a long process, but the ball shouldn't roll back. Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * General clarification of already resolved issues

Both attribution (WP:Copying within Wikipedia, a guideline) and merging during AfD (WP:Guide to deletion, fifth/last bullet) have been resolved. Copied is transcluded on around 1000 pages. Flatscan (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Response to Hersfold

A Nobody's problematic edits form a long pattern with minor variations. For example, one type of edit that he has used is a faux copy: contribute nearly identical new content to multiple articles, but label the later edit(s) as merges. After the restriction on merging during AfD was strengthened, he continued these edits, only not during AfDs, an evasion of the letter of the restriction (raised 8 November 2009, in list above). The "Bulletproof" item is another instance of this with a minor wording change, "expanded using some information from Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess".

WP:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Hendrix, April 2009, listed in the RfC
 * initial edit
 * "merged from Rebecca Hendrix"
 * "cannot delete" argument at AfD

I can expand on the other recent items if necessary. Flatscan (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding whether issues will remain (to Steve Smith)

I have not seen any other editor use similar types of edits. I have seen merges done during AfDs occasionally, but nothing like an extended pattern. Flatscan (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Fran Rogers
For well over a year now, A Nobody (formerly "Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles") has been evading any and all attempts to discuss or scrutinize his behavior or start the dispute resolution process, by claiming convenient reasons to disappear as soon as an AN/I discussion or RfC on his behavior is attempted. For example:


 * In late 2008, when an AN/I discussion was started where users expressed concern he was evading AfD decisions doing basically the same thing Flatscan mentions above, he first tried to repeatedly blank the thread, then exercised his "right to vanish" claiming "off-wiki harassment," only to come back as a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet ; after his sockpuppet was discovered and blocked, he then returned under his original account (but immediately requested a rename).
 * In mid-2009, when an RfC was started on his conduct, including many concerns and evidence of disruptive behavior, he avoided the RfC completely by claiming a "rare combination of simultaneous flu and need to focus on job". The RfC was closed with the rationale "It appears after several overtures that A Nobody has no intention of responding to this RfC."
 * He posts many overly-detailed comments explaining why he might be away from Wikipedia, alternately claiming that he is sick with diverticulitis, that a family member of his is sick, that his dog is sick...
 * And within a few hours of this arbitration request being posted, he claims a wikibreak due to kidney problems.

A Nobody has consistently gone out of his way to make dispute resolution with him impossible. I urge the Committee to accept this case. Fran Rogers❇ 07:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As an addendum, after I posted this comment A Nobody posted a long "farewell" message in his userspace confirming that he does have a sick dog, had diverticulitis, etc.; taking potshots at myself and some other users; and also claiming that stalkers trashed his car (whether this was supposed to be connected to the time he vanished claiming real-world harassment and returned with a sockpuppet, I don't know.) Since he directly criticized me in the message, I felt compelled to respond:


 * However, instead of responding to my message, he requested the talk page be deleted altogether. Fran Rogers❇ 19:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Dream Focus

 * The first complaint is that he copied all the information from the Caprica characters to an article list all of them, at the same time at least one of them were up for delete, with a high probability others would soon follow, that usually how these things work out. You can't copy the information over after the AFD is over, if something is deleted!  The Zoe AFD ended in Keep.  If an article ended in Keep, there would be no reason to put a redirect there, obviously, so that complaint seems rather ridiculous to me.  Note that the AFD ended at 16:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC) and his action for starting at 16:37, 21 February 2010.  Did he noticed it had been closed before copying the information over with all the rest?  Was this discussed anywhere at all before bringing it here?  Could've easily been a simple mistake.  I see no rule violation here.
 * 7 March 2010: Shortly after commenting at WP:Articles for deletion/Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess, AN adds reception to Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess, then copies it to Big Boss (C.O.P.S.) (contribs). I clarify that the content was all contributed by A Nobody.


 * The complaint is that he found something to put in a reference section of a character, and since it mentioned two characters in it, copied it over to the article of the other character mentioned as well. Once again, what is the complaint here?
 * In response to the next item, about Tron. He removed a prod, which is every editor's right to do, and no one else trying to delete the article since then.  He then copied a small bit from that to the film article, thinking the characters in the film would do well to have that information mentioned along with them.  Once again, is there any valid complaint here?
 * I didn't bother looking at the rest. I don't see any reason why the arbitrators should waste their time with this case.  And many people don't bother reading the constant messages posted by deletionists on their talk pages.  After awhile, the same familiar names keep showing up, and you just start to ignore them.   D r e a m Focus  09:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Iridescent
While I generally support what A Nobody is doing – I strongly believe that a lot of Wikipedia's problems are caused by the project being overwhelmed by short poor-quality unexpandable and unwatched stubs, and it's far more useful both for readers and editors to have one bulleted list, instead of either 20 free-standing stubs or deletion altogether – I'd nonetheless ask Arbcom to accept this. The issues of what is and isn't appropriate action when it comes to merging before, during and after AFD is a long-running argument (I was caught up in an identical incident three years ago, and nothing seems to have changed). Given Arbcom's metamorphosis into the Wikipedia Supreme Court, this is exactly the sort of thing you should be issuing rulings on rather than leaving to "the community" to sort out when it's clear that the community is never going to come to agreement. We also need to sort out what is and isn't appropriate attribution when moving content from separate articles into a parent article. – iride  scent  09:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Reyk
I will confirm Fran Rogers's summary of A Nobody as an editor who dodges and refuses to acknowledge all criticism of his behaviour. Much of which is deeply problematic, as a careful view of the RfC he's pretending doesn't exist will show. His response to the concerns of half a dozen editors (that he is performing merges, not for any naviational or content reasons, but just to create attribution dependencies in order to undermine AfD) has been to make it magically disappear in a ham-fisted "archive" scheme, and to characterize editors who question his actions as disruptive trolls that he can ignore. I know it is allowed for editors to remove comments from their talk page, but I feel the unwillingness to address legitimate concerns speaks volumes- as does the frankly deceitful way it was done.

Then there's the repeated demands to closing admins to overturn consensus at AfD.

Also worrying is the instence on using ANI and WQA as vehicles of retribution:
 * User:Dwanyewest makes a fair few good-faith AfD nominations and gets hauled to ANI.
 * Same user then accused of being a sock puppeteer (and the only user name mentioned in the SPI that A Nobody did not notify of the case).
 * User:Lar suggests very strongly that A Nobody address his own RfC before criticizing others- A Nobody immediately goes running to ANI about things Lar had done on his talk page weeks earlier and which had nothing to do with A Nobody.
 * User:Pablo X questions A Nobody's bizarre merging and redirecting- A Nobody goes running to WQA with some contrived flim-flam about swear words.

A Nobody's RfC shows a history of deceitful and problematic behaviour for the whole time he has been here. He hasn't acknowledged any of the community's concerns and has stated quite unequivocally that he has no intention to. The diffs I and others have shown here demonstrate that the same poor behaviour is continuing apace. He won't listen to people and won't change his disruptive actions on his own, so it's high time he was pulled into line. Reyk  YO! 12:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Deor
I urge the arbitrators to take this case to examine, not just the limited issue raised by Flatscan in his request, but all the long-term disruptive behavior outlined in the opening summary of Requests for comment/A Nobody. As Flatscan and Reyk have shown above (and as other instances that could be cited show as well), this behavior has continued to the present. A Nobody now claims to have retired, so the committee may be tempted to reject this RfAr as moot. I do not think he has retired—though he may have chosen to retire this particular account—and I think the time has come for an examination of his activities by the committee, as no other attempts at resolution have had any effect. Deor (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Cenarium
I urge arbitrators to decline the case, for now at least. From what I see, there's not enough recent activity from A Nobody which is considered problematic, and the extent of the problem is not clear at all. Thus I would suggest users to discuss the specific issues raised here, about the appropriateness of some types of merges/copyings, on the content noticeboard, for example. This is up to the community to determine the propriety or impropriety of those, not to ArbCom. When this is cleared up, if actions determined to be problematic then occur, ArbCom would be able to consider them - though I hope this won't come to that. Furthermore, I'm afraid such a case would become political, since there's not enough recent behavioural issues to support it, and the deletionism vs inclusionism debate would become a focal point, matter with which ArbCom should not to interfere. Cenarium (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering the repeated unsuccessful attempts at dispute resolution, it makes sense to open a case upon return, although I believe that in general cases should be strongly supported by recent actions, in this situation, the issue lies mostly in the lack of response to DR, and that can't be efficiently handled through normal means. However arbitrators should make sure the case, if opened, is strictly confined to behavioral issues (which includes response to editors' concerns, albeit not necessarily the underlying matters themselves - as with copying/merging, and excludes the editor's views on deletion). Cenarium (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Stifle
I will offer evidence if the case is accepted. I have had many frustrating interactions with A Nobody, whose contributions seem focused on circumventing consensus and policy when it suits him but insisting on them when they are on his side, wikilawyering, and presenting faits accomplis to frustrate editors from cleaning up after him. He is, as mentioned above, well-known for stonewalling and vanishing when called on his behaviour (he made no contribution whatsoever to Requests for comment/A Nobody) and I would not believe his retirement for one second — he will be back in a month or two, either on his current account or through a sock. I urge acceptance. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to Steve Smith and SirFozzie: Would you be open to something to the effect of "accept but defer", whereby it is accepted that a case should be held, but hold off on opening it until A Nobody returns? We've gone around the circle several times of A Nobody slowly increasing his disruption level, then disappearing when hit with dispute resolution, and I can see it continuing — he'll be back and quiet for a while before starting up the same behaviour. Under this suggestion, either the case would be opened to address A Nobody's behaviour when he returns, or he will stay away. Either would, I think, deal with the disruption. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by MBisanz
I would urge the committee to accept this case based on the longstanding and divisive nature of this editor's behavior that has frequently proved unresolvable by the community. This is at least the third time he has left in the face of behavioral review. Failing that, could I suggest a motion that if and at the time he returns, a case is automatically opened. This is similar to what the committee did in regard to Aitias and seems to work well to prevent gaming while still respecting the possibility of real life issues. Also, I bring to attention that at least the photo of the alleged car attack appears to be a scan of another document and is oddly missing meta-data, which does lead me to question the veracity of the claims.  MBisanz  talk 14:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Beeblebrox
A Nobody pulled this same routine during the RFC/U on him, claiming to be ill while it was ongoing. If you're not going to make a full case may I suggest that there be some sort of motion to restrict his editing should he return, and to rapidly re-open this case in that all to likely event, otherwise he'll just keep dodging the issue every time the heat is on, and coming back after it dies down.A Nobody has clearly exhausted most users ability to take such claims at face value, it's just too convenient that he has some personal tragedy every single time he is under public scrutiny. This is a classic example of his behavior, he thinks more in tactical terms than most Wikipedians, trying to "win" every AFD whether the article merits inclusion or not, changing his arguments when they are refuted, badgering those who he does not agree with through long winded rambling posts that serve mostly to cloud the real issues, and retreating every time it comes down to a situation like this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Mazca
I would strongly urge the committee to consider a motion akin to some of the motions at Aitias's RfAr, wherein this case is "left hanging" until he resumes editing, and he is directed not to edit under any other account until this is resolved. I've been sympathetic to A Nobody in the past, but yet another convenient illness and retirement to avoid scrutiny starts to strain credibility. This situation sorely needs to be resolved in one way or another, and if this RfAr fizzles due to his absence then this ridiculous cycle is left open to continue upon his likely return.

As I feel is amply demonstrated by some of the comments above, no individual incident in this situation is particularly sanctionable on its own. But the pattern of editing demonstrated here is strongly unhelpful and I feel binding arbitration of some sort is the only way it's going to be satisfactorily resolved at this point. ~ mazca  talk 23:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by mostly retired Protonk
If the committee or individual members wish to extend an abundance of good faith, they are free to do so. But AN's past history (under all account names) has shown that in the face of scrutiny, he develops a medical problem. In case you want to take me to task for being glib, please take as evidence AN's miraculous recovery from his illness/work issue (which started precisely when his RFC began) at the moment Kww's 3rd RfA needed some mendacious commentary.

I don't think you guys are in the habit of trying 'cases' in absentia and I think an informal suggestion that the committee take up the case when he makes a nuisance of himself again is unfair to both AN and the rest of us. Edit to be more clear One of the following solutions would be best:


 * 1) Begin the case without AN
 * 2) Make a motion to resume the case when AN gets back (not conditional on some subjective behavior)
 * 3) Decline the case on its merits.

Mazca's assessment of the likely outcome should you do nothing seems accurate.

As for the merits of the case at hand, I can only sigh deeply. Either you see the long term disruption or you won't. A bit tautological to be sure, but that's honestly the only true statement left. Protonk (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Lankiveil
I strongly urge the ArbCom to accept this case, whether or not A Nobody shows up to defend it or not. While I believe that A Nobody's intentions are most likely good, his conduct around the areas of article deletion has been continually disruptive for years now, and he has thus far been able to avoid serious sanction by conveniently having some sort of misfortune befall him whenever he is about to be called to account. I believe the diffs and commentary above illustrate clearly the need for a case to be opened, but if you do not feel comfortable opening it when he is not here, then I would at least urge you to open it on an "Accept but Defer" basis so that we can move forward quickly if and when he returns. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC).

Comment by Lar
Per everyone else. Do not decline with a vague "we might take it up if he returns". Accept it, and hold it in abeyance until he returns (he will, I'm 99% sure). Meanwhile enforce by block a prohibition on using other accounts for any reason. He has abused right to vanish enough that he needs to be held to this account and no other. When he returns, and the case gets underway, stay focused on his disruption, not on side issues raised by others. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Kww
Don't let him duck again. There isn't enough good faith in the universe to believe in his miraculously timed recoveries and his bravely continuing to edit despite the grave personal danger that forced him to subvert "right to vanish" and continue editing. It's obvious that he feigns problems to avoid dispute resolution, and we can't allow such tactics to succeed.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Ryan4314
In User:A Nobody/Farewell, A/N is quoted as saying "I do not merely try to interfere with deletion outcomes..." with this he is basically acknowledging the concerns that he is intent on interfering with AFDs. However he continues to be unresponsive to all the forms of dispute resolution tried such as RFC, editor review, countless ANI threads etc. Ryan 4314   (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification request: A Nobody (March 2021)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Beeblebrox at 22:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by Beeblebrox
This is basically a procedural thing. This case was accepted, and opened, but not really opened because the user in question indicated they could not participate. They committee took the unusual step of banning them before the case got underway so they could not return to editing without participating in the case. That was nearly 11 years ago. They were banned by the community a short time after that, for socking to avoid the case. They have been confirmed by checkusers to have evaded the two bans. (I'm not sure how it works when someone is banned both by the community and arbcom, but that appears to be what happened here? Perhaps one of the arbs who was on the committee at that time can clarify that?) To get unbanned they would first have to appeal to arbcom, and if the committee found that compelling, it would have to got to a community discussion, rendering this forever-open case somewhat moot. This case therefore need not be held open indefinitely and can simply be closed without further action.

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

A Nobody: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).



A Nobody: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * recuse. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been eleven years, so obviously this case isn't being pursued. I think we can deem it closed by reason of desuetude, without formal action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I had to look up "desuetude", but I agree with NYB. In non-NYB speak, this case can be closed, it has long since served its purpose. WormTT(talk) 13:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree we can close with no further action. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Primefac (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What NYB said. I think. As translated by my colleagues. Regards So  Why  18:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure we can do the formalities of closing the case. They are already banned by us and I would be opposed to changing that with this action. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What NYB said. Clerks, when closing this ARCA thread, you can also close the case directly. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, and I learned a cool new word! Had to look up how to pronounce it too... CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)