Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/A Nobody

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

Comment on Outside view by MichaelQSchmidt

 * Referent is Outside view by MichaelQSchmidt
 * Come on. So his only flaw is that he is too focused on improving articles.  Can we please not make this about inclusion and deletion?  Please?  WE have attempted to bring up serious concerns about behavior and in response we get some dodge about articles. Protonk (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. There's nothing wrong with being an inclusionist, or a deletionist, or a idontknowwhatiam-ist. Nor is there anything wrong with being passionate about rescuing articles or about making the case for what you truly believe, and the like. To think this RfC is about inclusion and deletion seriously misses the point. It's about behavior. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, behavior like supporting Jack's stalking and calling A nobody a troll. Wikiquette_alerts/archive70 If this RFC escalates to the next level Lar, I will strongly suggest that you lose your adminship for your partisan and abusive behavior. The level of abuse from Jack, which you have repeatedly condoned has never been present with A Nobody.
 * I find it pathetic that you three have to go back to 2007 to find any serious problems, this is Michaels main argument too.  He never uses the word deletion or inclusion in his argument. This is the only use of inclusion at all: "We are being offered some negative diffs from over a 3-year period without without inclusion of the positive ones.""
 * Whereas you two did repeatedly use deletion in the opening section the three of you put together.


 * 1) "He has been intent on confounding the deletion process ever since."
 * 2) "intent of precluding a delete outcome"
 * 3) "A Nobody has a habit of commenting at AfDs where an article looks likely to be deleted, and stating that because there is some other topic that could possibly exist at the same title, the existing article should not be deleted."
 * 4) "In the past, he also did this late in deletion discussions and raised an immediate deletion review claiming that the scope of the AfD had been changed during the discussion, invalidating all previous !votes."
 * 5) "A Nobody assumes bad faith of anyone who does not share his views; of anyone who would delete anything..."
 * 6) "Part of a long pattern of seeking sanctions on anyone inclined to delete things A Nobody wants kept."
 * 7) "Tries to forbid any arguments he does not like and ban arguments for deletion that do not contain "new information"
 * 8) "There are a great many cases where A Nobody/LGRDdC opposed RfA candidates on purely inclusionist/bad faith grounds. These generally take the form of opposing a candidate because he !voted to delete an article, often over a year previous to the nomination, and A Nobody disagreed with the !vote."


 * So if this isn't about inclusionism and deletionoism why do you three admins continue to REPEATEDLY bring up the words deletion? You can't have it both ways. You can't complain ad nauseum about how you dislike A Nobody's edit behavior against deletion in your huge attack section, then criticize Michael when he doesn't even bring up deletion. Ikip (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Back to 2007??? There are diffs from earlier this week that show the same problematic behavior. As for losing my adminship over pointing out that there are serious issues with A Nobody's behaviour, I'm recallable. As I have been since 2007. Nice try shooting the messenger, but no. ++Lar: t/c 23:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. The impetus for this is disagreement over deletion/inclusion.  I wouldn't be on the opposite side of an argument with him if it weren't for the inclusion/deletion spectrum.  But there are plenty of people who undertake to save articles, correct errors in nominations, inform editors that don't treat the opposition with disdain.  That don't engage in infelicitous arguments, that don't turn the deletion/inclusion spectrum into a battleground.  Those are the issues. Protonk (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, A Nobody used socks last week? I didn't see that. Please point out where that happened? I do know over a month ago, you were supporting Jack in his personal attacks and stalking. You are not a messenger Lar, you are one of the central protagonists in this dispute allowing for the continued abuse of another editor. That is why, if this escalates, I will strongly encourage that you lose your adminship. Ikip (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes... let's look at behaviors. But from 3 years ago? Has A Nobody used a puppet today? Last week? Last month? Has the A Nobody account used a puppet at all? I would happily discuss recent behaviors, and be happy to scold A Nobody if he was totally to blame for any problems.... But if any one of us ever ever ever received a caution for a bit of pique or made an edit that others disgreed with... we would be well advised now to look at both sides of this discussion and keep our concerns rooted in the recent and not the distant past. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not germane to my comment. But yes.  If the behavior hasn't changed, it is relevant to look at patterns.  This isn't a fit of pique by the way.  One compliment I will make about A Nobody is that he is almost always calm.  He's also (in regards to FeydHuxtable's comment below) a very nice person.  He's probably genuinely kind at heart.  But he doesn't see his opponents as human beings.  The instant someone reaches a strong disagreement with him he throws AGF out the window and ignores their comments and criticism.  He will (I suspect) not condescend to respond to this RfC.  That's a crucual problem, especially when paired with his actions at AfD/DRV. Protonk (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, talk about a personal attack: "But he doesn't see his opponents as human beings" this is going to be a very long month, from the minute I saw the large sections of non-evidence presented here, and I saw that Lar, who supports calling A Nobody troll was behind this, I knew this was going to be a huge WP:BATTLE. Protonk's comments just bear this out. Ikip (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hardly a personal attack. It's my assesment of his behavior.  As I said below, he's a nice guy.  He and I have corresponded publicly and privately on a number of issues.  But once it was clear that I wasn't coming over to his side he just hardened.  I stopped being a person and was just a "bad faith incivil deletionist".  I also note your implied threat to escalate this. Protonk (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

His problem is not that he is an inclusionist, but the way he goes about acting as one. It's fine to want to keep articles, but he constantly badgers experienced users with the same links over and over again, uses underhanded tactics to force articles to be kept in AfDs (such as merging a single sentence to another article, claiming that it cannot be deleted, or the Salvation, Texas mess where he added details from three unrelated subjects, and after all was said and done, the original content was removed), doesn't accept the fact that other people have different feeling about how to manage content on this site (he'll reply over and over with the same exact comment), and then there's the whole thing with his original username. TTN (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sure your own behavior has nothing to do with these arguments you two have: Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, and, like Lar and Protonk say, this is not really about deletion or inclusionism. Ikip (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, this has nothing to do with my behavior. Just recently, I proposed to merge an article, and after three other people agreed with it, I went ahead with it. He was the only one who disagreed, but he still reverted it and used the argument that the merge comments should not be taken seriously just because they do not subscribe to his particular viewpoints. Even after three other users, who have all taken part in getting fiction related FAs and FLs promoted, added their comments, he is still just reiterating the same exact comment over and over without fail. I would think such people would probably have a much better idea than him about how to manage such content. He just needs to be able to understand that his perfect vision for this site is not the common viewpoint. TTN (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again. I'm prepared to assume that your views on content are not totalizing w/ respect to your behavior.  Are you prepared to grant me the same courtesy? Protonk (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your answer is this: how many times do you accuse A Nobody of lying, bad faith, disruption, harassment, and hounding and just above you state the absurd claim that A Nobody "doesn't see his opponents as human beings." Now you are asking for courtesy? If I were to call you a liar, who disrupts, hounds and harasses other editors, and "doesn't see his opponents as human beings" how would you feel Protonk? Ikip (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would damn well expect that you justify it with evidence. Protonk (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Focus on the core of the defense, Ikip: Protonk and the others have made accusations and supplied evidence. Reading over it (and having experienced a part of it), I would say that A Nobody certainly lies, certainly disrupts, certainly hounds, and certainly harasses. I think that to state that "he doesn't see his opponents as human beings" is psychobabble, and won't defend that part. The first four are pretty concrete: if you believe them to be false, refute them. Trying to impeach the accusers is a waste of time. The case should stand or fall on the evidence.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * More to the point. If you want to start an RfC on me, Requests for comment/Protonk is not protected from editing. Requests for comment/Lar is not protected from editing. Requests for comment/MBisanz is not protected from editing. If you think that we are acting in some fashion where organized community feedback is required then feel free to start that process. But I have limited patience with a strategy that just impeaches the integrity of the RfC authors rather than focusing on the claims. Protonk (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The beauty Protonk, is that you have already have created the RFC, "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." so all those other red link RFC's are unnecessary. I am sorry Protonk but you don't have a monopoly on "impeach[ing] the integrity" on other editors. You in fact stated yourself that you helped create this RFC with Lar and Mbis.  I personally feel that you and Kww: "certainly disrupts,  certainly hounds, and certainly harasses" by calling this RFC and some of the claims that you make and support. If you don't want such accusations thrown at you, then don't make such slurs in the first place. We can't forget Jack in all this. Lars support of personal attacks needs to be addressed, as does the stalking and continued harassment by Jack Merridew, who just two days ago got a final warning from an admin to leave A Nobody alone. Ikip (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. But if your defense is just focused on pointing out how me, Misbainz and Lar are not bringing this in bad faith, then assert that and move along.  It doesn't actually speak to the evidence. Protonk (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd be interested in knowing how I've disrupted, hounded, or harassed. And, as always, I will remind the world that my reaction to the AN/JM dispute was to suggest blocking them both and throwing away the key. I can't defend Jack Merridew's actions any more than I can defend A Nobody's.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Laugh, the same argument in the Pixelface RFC. Ikip (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a god-damn laugh riot. An alternative hypothesis might be that the same strategy was employed by the editor under discussion in both cases. Protonk (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a god-damn laugh riot. An alternative hypothesis might be that the same strategy was employed by the editor under discussion in both cases. Protonk (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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


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


 * Note that the "opponents as human beings" comment comes from Protonk, not Ikip. Nathan  T 00:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, I just fixed it.   DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll retract that comment if it is a problem. Note that the comment is my opinion and isn't noted in the RfC itself. Protonk (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I won't retract it. I don't think he sees people who criticize him as anything other than 2 dimensional assailants.  This was one of my core complaints about him from the moment we clashed.  DGG and Ikip misread this as a personal attack where it is a characterization of my views. Protonk (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To the original point, MQS (if he doesn't mind the username abbreviation) says that raising issues from the distant past is inappropriate in this RFC. It isn't; it is a way of demonstrating that the behaviour patterns are continuous over a long time period. For every diff from last year there is one from the last few months. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem with the simple shorthand of MQS, as it is unlikely to have me confused with any other editor.
 * In response to Stifle, the precedent is now being established that long-past history can be used as evidence against a user. With respects, and I will need not mention names, but there are editors involved in these very discussions whose own pasts may have included perceived incivility, or accusation or actuality of puppetry, or blocks for one reason or another.... editors who, despite a colored past, have been allowed to continue editing by the community.  But by allowing the consideration herein of an editor's distant past behaviors in a review of their current behavior, a door has been opened to a form of inquest where even a current recant (were it offered) can and will be ignored. Variations on KWW's phrase "his misbehaviour is not three years old, it's three years long" will be seeing itself repeated many times in the future in many other discussions about many other editors. Excuse my metaphor... but the floodgates have been wedged open and I can hear a distant and growing rumble of what is appproaching. Any who cannot swim best head for high ground.
 * Per this precedent, any editor who anytime seen as incivil by anyone, may now be brought to task at WQA or ANI or RFC, with every instance of a perceived incivility to anyone, even instances going back years and involving other editors, allowed as evidence of a years-long patern of behavior... even if that history does not include the filer or endorsers of the WQA, ANI, or RFC... and such will be allowed even if the current incident does not include the sames "crimes" as the past history (IE: there is no recent puppetry here, but it is among the "old" evidences presented to newly "convict" the accused). Those who find such drama entertaining, will be well satisfied.
 * Yes, I grant that there are concerns with A Nobody's curent behaviors.... but how current behavior is being documented by using behavior from years ago, will itself have repercusions that echo across the project for a very long time. So with respects to all, and pardon me, but I have some articles to go expand and source. My doing such may be less entertaining to any drama-lovers sitting back and watching this discussion, but I find it satisfying enough. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Michael, I think this is over-simplifying. The RFC evidences a long-term pattern of problematic behaviour. It's not like saying "he did X 3 years ago, and last week he did X2, so therefore there's a problem". pablo hablo. 21:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Outside view by FeydHuxtable

 * Referent is Requests_for_comment/A_Nobody

We should check to see if MBisanz's account is compromised? Is that a serious request? No, MBisanz's account isn't compromised, nor is mine, nor is Protonk's .... you can write any of us and check, if you like. But that sort of rhetoric makes me chuckle. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, Lar, don't cut off your options yet, maybe the compromised argument is what you can use when I bring up Wikiquette alerts/archive70, where you actively support Jack calling A Nobody a troll, while condemning A Nobody for the same behavior.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikip (talk • contribs) 23:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And Durova is compromised as well? Protonk (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I make no compromises. ;) Durova  320 23:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt many would have a problem with Durovas contribution. She clearly has a history with the user, but her comments were moderate and she didnt make accusations that are easily demonstrable as false. Actually I do have a problem with her, she doesnt appear to be an arbriter. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My general comment is this. Sure, A-N is a nice guy. He's a kind soul. Iff you are on his side. If you aren't he is relentless about assigning malign intent, deflecting criticism and engaging in acts of reprisal. I don't want him to go away. I just want him to accept that the criticism of him by people who he doesn't agree with has some basis in reality. I want him to understand that we are all better off if we refuse to treat deletion as a battlefield. And I want other folks to understand that this RfC has been a long time coming. People have been attempting to get this across to him for 3 years. 3 years. Look at his first edits to AfD. Look at his more recent edits to AfD. Message has not been received. This is a natural point along the DR continuum and I think we should rest upon it for a while. Protonk (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's the main point: his misbehaviour is not three years old, it's three years long.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Protonk you forgot to add that he "doesn't see his opponents as human beings" Your off handed compliments about A Nobody sound incredibly hallow Protonk when you look at all of the things you three admins have accused A Nobody of, "incivility", "Harassment_and_Hounding", "Lying" I am working on a response to show how empty this long RFC is. It is clear you three have an axe to grind against A Nobody, which I will clearly demonstrate. As FeydHuxtable wrote: "Yes he has faults like all of us, but certainty not to the extent that's implied by this highly flawed RFA." 23:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ikip, the signal to noise ratio on your comments is increasing. I think he has made grave errors and has persisted in those errors even in the presence of good faith feedback.  Yes a lot of criticism has been in bad faith.  Yes he has been trolled on WP by a number of editors.  and Yes he is a genuinely kind soul.  If I met him on the street or at a conference I'm sure we would get along famously.  but those three things do not exempt him from the community.  His actions make discussions more polarized and bitter.  His actions not just anyone else's.  Not "a plague on both your houses".  His actions.  Statements he needs to take responsibility for.  All I am asking is that we can offer this feedback and have it addressed on the merits. Protonk (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My identity is incredibly well documented and can be extensively mapped at places such as and  (note: I am sitting in the chair pictured in the last link typing on the Logitech keyboard pictured in it at this very moment)  MBisanz  talk 23:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Matt, I think I know you well from the NYC chapter, and I was amazed to see you join in this. Obviously, the "compromised" remark was not intended literally, but as one of the things we say when someone takes a stand very different from their usual position. I know you are relatively much more deletionist than I, and I have no quarrel with some of your criticism here, and I recognize that A nobody has a much more annoying style than you and me, but   I did not think you would join in an attack on a editor that goes back as far as it does to material that is not directly relevant to current problems.     DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, because he thinks there are problems that merit community comment? Why isn't that an option?  Honestly. Protonk (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * DGG: calling this an attack on A Nobody misses the point, and does you a disservice. It's a recounting of problematic behavior that the certifying editors want acknowledged, and then stopped (or at least just stopped). That's what an RfC is, and that's what this RfC is. If you want to see attacks, you might want to review some of the edits here from those attacking the certifiers of the RfC. ++Lar: t/c 01:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * DGG is absolutely right. This RFC paints ANobody in an unfairly negative light. The evidence has been grossly misrepresented, as has been demonstrated by editors like Ikip, myself and dream focus with some level of agreement even from an arbiter. There no question that this RfC is an attack. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

This will be the only thing I will say in this RFC/U or as far as this RFC/U is concerned, because frankly, I don't want to hear it anymore. MuZemike 03:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * MuZemike, i used the word "arguably" as i hadnt seen enough of you to be sure if you were a deletionist. Sorry to bring you into this. That said I treat "deletionist" as a descriptive word about ones stance on inclusion - its not neccessarily a negative.  No doubt many or most deletionists are of good character and sincerly believe they're improving the product.FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There's possibly things we could say to A Nobody that might result in him taking a more relaxed attitude to RfA. For example, that the existence of articles on trivial fan related subjects will have a side effect of depriving fan sites of traffic, which may even cause their members to fall below the critical mass needed for a lively community, and so in a way it can be for the greater good for certain nice articles to be deleted. But Im not sure Id want to approach him like that until this RfC has been withdrawn or refactored.  Its just too heavily biased. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason this RfC exists is that criticism, both strident and mild, of A Nobody has been pretty well ignored. In my opinion this RfC had to establish that a problem existed, that prior attempts to solve the problem were unsuccessful and that the problem was serious enough to merit formal community feedback.  As such the diffs are going to be bad.  The presentation is going to be negative.  We aren't going to say "you're doing a great job, keep up the good work, here's an RfC". Protonk (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes of course diffs are going to be bad. If the RFC was just for genuine problems like the frustrating fait accomplai tactic youd surely have concencus.  But one doesnt  really expect diffs to be used in a strained attempt to suggest the subject is abusive and prone to harassing and  hounding  when that seems the opposite of what hes actually like.  One doesn't expect to see three wikipedian heavyweights launching at unleavened attack against a not especially tactically aware young student.  And one certainly doesnt expect to see some of the supposedly most trustworthy editors producing such a superficially impressive body of evidence  where many of the claims made are clearly false. There only seems to be two diffs later than July that claim to be attempts to resolve the dispute.  Weve already seen the diff  from Mat  is really an attempt to communicate with A Nobody, let alone resolve the dispute.  Heres the other one from Stifle,  where he quite fairly asks A Nobody not to use bare appeals to  JNN in AfDs:Advice from Stifle re JNN   Ive checked A Nobodys recent AfD contributions, and  after Stifles intervention he doesn't seem to make any more appeals to JNN:       Here's an example of the policy based post stifle justification he uses: "Keep in some capacity as a major and notable fictional location as confirmed on Google Books and Google News.  Sincerely,"


 * So as far as we can tell ANobody has taken Stifles good advice on board. Yet you guys try and use the diff to suggest A Nobody is carrying on regardless!  This kind of evidence belongs in a withchhunt, not in a fair "formal investigation". FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that referring to "A Nobody" as a "tactically unaware young student" belies a lack of knowledge of the context. I have no idea how old AN is nor do I have any idea as to his current employment status (says on his talk page that he has his PhD, which median age would put him at about 30).  But I'll certainly protest at the claim that he is tactically unaware.  As I said elsewhere, I have trouble believing that an RfC focused on the one issue you agree with (at least noted here) would be accepted as a consensus view.  We can't unwind the clock but I think the response would be relatively similar.  As for the two specific claims you make.  First, attempts to resolve the dispute will be sporadic and somewhat one sided because AN either doesn't acknowledge there is a dispute or has demanded that all sides be upbraided equally before he accepts criticism.  A good deal of those "attempts at resolution" diffs are from parties hoping to point out where he is confounding a process or hassling a person.  Some of them are old, some of them at not old.  As for the second point, I think that a more thorough review will bear out the complaint.  For one, there is a recently closed thread where he repeats his insistence on expurgating the phrase here closed because he felt criticism was made in bad faith.  There is this, this, this, this, this whole AfD, etc.  I can go on without many problems.  The issue is this.  Each of these taken alone do not show a problem.  It would be nuts to take every editor who has made comments like AN's and bring an RfC for them.  But when we are talking about the same comments to the same editors for years after he has been blocked indefinitely for disrupting AfD (then unblocked as he promised to reform), returns from a tumultuous vanishing process and promises to avoid AfD, receives feedback on multiple occasions both on his talk page and in individual AfDs that editors like TTN and Doctorfluffy understand WP:AADD and really don't need AN to link it to them multiple times, what do we do?  What is left?  If there isn't enough evidence then let's say so and bring enough to convince those skeptical of the claims, but I suspect that there is enough evidence.  The RfC is long enough, if overlong. Protonk (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Those looking for a collection of "good things A Nobody has done," and general (if limited, given selective contribution retention) feedback, can take a look at Editor_review/A_Nobody. I'm sure no one would object to someone making this part of their "Outside View by X" to "balance" the bevy of criticisms against the editor; perhaps A Nobody himself will draw from them when/if he responds. --EEMIV (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is the unspecified user hounded into a ban? FeydHuxtable mentioned him again below. Flatscan (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In case it comes out I better say that very likely everyone involved had no ill intent and just saw themselves as defending the wiki. He was a nice guy, with some journalistic talent and views that are mainstream in the general population but fringe in sections of academia. In real life I have to think back years to recall his sort of views being met with anything more hostile than a raised eyebrow. I guess that was his experience to, so he was totally unprepared for his reception here, which might explain why some thought he was behaving in a way some saw as paranoid.  I guess in his case it  may have been optimal  for all concerned that he was banned before hed put down roots here, and indeed when I first ran across him I tried to help by migrating his work to another wikki. Anyway the same outcome would IMO be totally unacceptable for a quality editor  whos been an active member for years, loves the community and has made many great contributions, and Im pleased to see its looking less likely. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Bias?
Considering I presented critical evidence on A Man in Black and started the thread to extend the block on Everyme, two well known opponents of A Nobody, I am a bit surprised to see all the assumption that I am part of some ideological war to eliminate inclusionists.  MBisanz  talk 23:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If MBisanz is actually out to eliminate inclusionists, I'm in trouble. :) This isn't about inclusionism. It isn't about other editors. It isn't about battles. It's about a sustained pattern of behavior that people have been telling A Nobody about for years. I wish it hadn't had to come to this, but he's been in WP:ICANTHEARYOU mode all this time... it's time for the behavior to stop. ++Lar: t/c 00:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Likewise I received a barnstar for warning an editor that their behavior at AfD hazarded a topic ban. Protonk (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "This isn't about inclusionism....assumption that I am part of some ideological war to eliminate inclusionists."
 * Then why do you three mentioned deletion so many times in your RFC against A Nobody, as I document above?
 * Michael's comments make no mention of this deletion/inclusism argument, and yet Protonk and Lar derides Micheal about this. So far the people who mention deletion/inclusionism almost exclusively are you three admins, making ridiculous claims like MBisanz does: "I am part of some ideological war to eliminate inclusionists".
 * I am sure that you 3 didn't plan for this to be about Lar supporting Jack Merridew's personal attacks against A Nobody: Wikiquette alerts/archive70. I am sure you 3 didn't plan this to be about Jack Merridew's continued stalking and harassment of A Nobody, which Lar supported. But it will become the central issue. 01:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I eschew the labels "inclusionist" and "deletionist" as perhaps doing more harm to a discussion than good... as such labels often act to divide rather that unite editors in common purpose. I am worried though, and with no aspersion intended to MBisanz and his fine work within the project, that RFCs too often concentrate on the negative and forget the positive. Anyone care to supply the diffs showing the good A Nobody has done? The articles he has actually saved? The barnstars he has received? The respect from many editors that he has earned? I believe the RFC discussion could benefit from a balance that also grants that among the perceived bad, there is much good he has done. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to provide that in a summary and if you offered a factual and balanced presentation of the good things he has done I would endorse it. I think that A-N has done many good things for wikipedia.  As I pointed out in my summary, he has improved.  But the problems presented in the RfC should be addressed.  If there is a problem with an editor it is not sufficient to say "but s/he does good things too".  What we are hoping to do is convince A-N that the 'bad' (for lack of a better word, please bear with me) things presented in this RfC should be addressed and that after addressing them we will all be better off.  We wouldn't be here if A-N didn't rebuff criticism of his actions (See here and here in the RfC for evidence). Protonk (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Aw gee.... now I have a homework assignment. I'll see what I can do... but there are 44 thousand edits to go through, and I do have real-world responsibilities. I ask for patience and any assistance anyone might offer. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got all the time in the world. I'm actually putting together a real homework assignment atm.  My first suggestion is to look at his userpage.  He keeps links to resued/good/etc. articles there. Protonk (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From Shakesphere's Julius Caesar, "The evil that men do lives after them ; The good is oft interred with their bones."  Time to seek the good.  MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sincere advice: be sure that what you put together as evidence of "good" is widely recognized as such. Rescuing an article about Mother Teresa is one thing, rescuing an article about the third guardsman from the right in the Portuguese edition of a video game is another. One of the complaints about A Nobody is that he rescues articles that Wikipedia would have been better off without.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said in my summary, the RfC is a list of grievances along with some indication that those grievances have been ignored. We don't intend to tar and feather him. I don't want to run him off the project. I want him to understand that some of his behaviors are inappropriate and that he ought to change them. As such, the good works he does are laudable but unrelated. If we were talking about running him off or shutting him out then the balance would be vital. Protonk (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The place for an evenhanded review of a person's edits, citing both areas of positive contribution and negatives they can address is at editor review. A Nobody had an editor review at Editor review/A Nobody and failed to take the constructive remarks from even charitable people such as DGG ("I've found you perhaps the most frustrating editor I work with. Not even my strongest wikiopponents on particular issues give me as many problems.") into account, hence the need to move to a dispute resolution forum such as WP:RFC which is expressly for discussing specific users who have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  There is no question that A Nobody has done things that improved the encyclopedia, the issue is that he has done other things that make his behavior unacceptable and require detailed community scrutiny to determine the subsequent steps to be taken.  MBisanz  talk 04:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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


 * The three years old stuff includes sockpuppetry and controversy over RtV. Can you explain how that pattern of behavior is ongoing? Nathan  T 00:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also about WP:CIVIL. Joe Chill (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * He continues the obviously exaggerated story of the personal danger he is in to this day. If you have ever referred to him by his old name, he will not acknowledge messages on his talk page. He has a banner on his talk page advising people that have referred to him by his old username that will not listen to them until they apologize and make amends. That is directly linked to his abuse of the right to vanish. It is being used as pretext to support his refusal to accept negative feedback from any source.
 * It is also linked to the fact that there really is no need to go through an elaborate conflict resolution procedure with him. He was blocked. In the course of getting out from that block, he made a pledge to avoid his traditional area of conflict. The old evidence lays out his old areas of conflict. The new evidence shows that he is repeating all of his old behaviour, with only minor twists. It really should be as simple as "pledge broken = block restored".&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) @Kww: Exactly. Why do I get the feeling that if we'd kept this short, and only gave a few examples drawn from the past few weeks or so, we'd be hearing "those are just isolated incidents" from certain staunch defenders, who apparently will tolerate any behavior from A Nobody while attacking those who were concerned enough to raise the issue under any pretext they can come up with?
 * They're not isolated incidents. It's a pattern of behavior that's three years long. When A Nobody got renamed the last time, a condition of the rename he committed to was to discontinue the problematic behaviors that caused ruckus before. Well, as far as I know, there haven't been any creditable allegations of socking recently. That's an improvement over the past, yes. But the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior hasn't stopped, which is an issue. There was a lull, but it started up again. So here we are. The behavior is disruptive enough in some cases to warrant blocking, and I have no doubt that after much drama they'd be sustained. But I'd rather see A Nobody take the feedback on board and be a more collegial editor than get blocked. ++Lar: t/c 00:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As for RTV: RTV means vanishing. It doesn't mean that you get to come back under a new identity, actively reference your own old ID but insist that no one else can do so. A Nobody routinely refers to things he said that are signed with his old ID, which is an open acknowledgement of his old identity. But he chastises others for referring to his old identity. You can't have it both ways. ++Lar: t/c 00:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you are characterising me with that comment, but I don't think its at all fair if so - I wouldn't describe myself as a "staunch defender" of A Nobody by any stretch of the imagination, and in fact I have not dismissed the evidence of recent misconduct. And as for RTV, I think most of us can think of quite a few examples of people who have used RTV and then returned without any penalty at all. Nathan  T 00:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, you know that, former coachee. :) We may disagree but we can do so civilly and with good faith. ++Lar: t/c 01:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just checking, since this section is technically a comment on my outside view ;-) Nathan  T 01:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * An example of that would be me. Several editors know about it, but the difference is that I was never blocked on the account and only left because of incivility and harrassment including from admins. Joe Chill (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I honestly cannot. I know people who have had an attempt to get a WP:CLEANSTART unravel, but not an RTV. I believe Joe Chill is a case of WP:CLEANSTART, not WP:RTV. If he is guilty of an WP:RTV violation, he should be blocked pending a community discussion allowing him to return.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)I support RTV. I support CLEANSTART. But you have to actually vanish and put the old account behind you. Which you have done AFAIK (I don't even know who you (Joe Chill) were, nor care). But A Nobody hasn't. He openly links to his old account's comments and acknowledges them as his own but chastises others who mention it. That's not fair dealing. ++Lar: t/c 01:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The biggest difference is that under CLEANSTART, you don't reference your past, but edit under a new account. Under RTV, you actually go away, never to return, in any form, at any time, under any circumstance. You go away for life, and never edit again. I was elated to to see him vanish, and gravely disappointed to see people tolerating his return to editing. I'm even more disappointed to see that even having violated the conditions of his return that some aren't willing to consider it to be a problem.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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


 * The RTV misuse/abuse is annoying, but it's also a dead horse. Is it just oddly weird he kneejerks so much at the mention of the old ID? I suppose -- after all, it carries a lot of baggage, whether in Wikipedia world and/or the real world. But, really, it was thoroughly hashed over at ANI and I don't think makes for worthwhile fodder in this discussion. The RTV stuff, after all, isn't behavior per se; it was an incident. Everyone rolled their eyes, but ultimately a wide consensus allowed him to come back. Of course, that consensus also mentioned the possibility of RFC at several points -- but, even then, it was in reference to problematic behavior, not RTV itself. Anyway, point being, regardless of whether a process was carried out in a manner that irked a lot of folks, it's a done deal. I ascribe his touchiness about the old ID to a quirk -- and perhaps genuine concern about stalking, in which case he just makes really bad decisions about advertising his identity and he can deal with the consequences. But, an event so old probably isn't the best focus or component for this exchange. I think the merits of this RFC stand fine even if he hadn't RTVed; assume it's the same user name, and look at the persistent pattern. Although pre-/post-RTV is a common frame of reference, the event itself is so muddled in "huh?"s and "I don't know if I believe him"s and "For sure this was an issue"s that it's more a point of mucking-the-water. Anyway, stream-of-consciousness over; time for sorbet. --EEMIV (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree w/ EEMIV. The RTV thing isn't too important.  It plays a role in the RfC insofar as it marks the watershed of past bad behavior, but the purpose of this RfC is not to rap his knuckles about that issue.  That's why I didn't sign Kww's summary. Protonk (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not too surprisingly, that disagreement is why I didn't sign the original summary. The purpose of this shouldn't be to try to extract another promise to be a good boy in the future, because it is apparent that such promises aren't kept.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Ikip (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There might be nuance in the position of your opponents. I think that what he did during the RTV was wrong and I think it trivialized RTV for everyone else.  but it isn't a central element of the RfC and unlike Kww I don't feel his abuse of RTV rises to the level where the community need demand a year later that he be banned.  Not at all.  Look at the 'aims' of the RfC, please. Protonk (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Please remove A Nobody's old user name material from this RFC immediately. Ikip (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why we chose not to is explained in the RfC. I'm prepared to have a discussion about this, but the cat is out of the proverbial bag. Protonk (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All that's needed to refute this specious charge of Ikip's is one diff showing where A Nobody links to a comment he himself made using his old ID which acknowledges it's him. Any takers on how long it would take to find that? An important point: THIS is the root of the "RTV" issue... that A Nobody plays it both ways. Claims no one else can refer to him by what he himself refers to as. That's just not on, and it's one of the issues the RfC raises. If A Nobody wanted a rename for reasons of alleged harassment, he needs to not go back. That's the way CLEANSTART works. ++Lar: t/c 02:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to remove it. Same user and same incivility for three years. Joe Chill (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Protonk, where in policy is this allowed, where in policy can you continue to use editors old names after you out them? Policy please, not proverbs. Ikip (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "the cat is out of the bag" means I can't obscure tens of thousands of discussion page edits. Honestly in the main I try and respect A-N's name change.  when/where I have commented about him in public forums I have used (mostly) his new name and I will continue to refer to him under his new name.  But scrubbing this RfC of references to the old name is folly.  1/3-1/2 of the diffs are under the old username or signed with the old username.  Referring to him for the purposes of discussion through some euphemism would just be confusing.  So I NOINDEX'd the RfC (And talk page) and offered a note of explanation.  Furthermore OUTING refers to personally identifiable information like name, location, etc.  I have absolutely no intention of divulging any information like that even if I knew it. Protonk (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Protonk hasn't outed anyone. As an oversighter and a steward I deal with personally identifiable information, and the removal of same, all the time.I am normally a big fan of trying to honor editor wishes, of trying hard to put genii back in bottles, however impossible it might be, but that's not the case here. It's not outing when an editor refers to himself by his old name. Your continuing this line, Ikip, makes you look foolish. ++Lar: t/c 02:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have policy on one side, and I have two editors, one who quote proverbs and one continuing his personal attacks, by calling me foolish on the other. Where is the policy? There are cases involving Arbcom Cool Hand Luke, where editors are not allowed to mention old user names. In this case their was real world harassment. On its face:
 * It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently."
 * Is crystal clear. Unless you have policy to back up your opinions and personal attacks, you don't have a leg to stand on Lar. But I am quite used to you Subverting policy when it is convenient. Ikip (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's clear to me that that part of WP:OUTING relates to where a user is trying to get away from an old identity. It was not designed to allow a user to refer back to a previous name but forbid other users from doing so, and if it doesn't explicitly say that, it should be changed so that it does, as policy is nothing more than a collection of standard practices and procedures. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's "policy to back up opinions"; the line before your quote in WP:OUTING. "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted one's own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia oneself." - I think that if we're considering account names "personal information", this edit is clearly A Nobody giving away his previous account name - he included the info in the edit summary, ffs. I believe that's match point to Everybody But Ikip. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Outside view by by Kww
Per: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors"

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

I have received no response, and since Mr. Chill continues to edit here, I know he is online. I think this should be discussed. Ikip (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Look here. I barely ever check my email. Joe Chill (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Assuming that's the proper account, you didn't use WP:RTV, you used WP:CLEANSTART, which you've just blown. Still, that account has a clean block log, so no real harm done. If you want to truly disassociate yourself from that account, you should retire this one and start over again. I don't know exactly what your motives are, but I doubt any action is necessary.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My only problem was not understanding all of the policies associated with it. I got another account because a sockpuppet attacked me and no one did anything because my explanation was never good enough, an admin said that I was attracted to feces, people constantly assumed bad faith, and many editors loved nominating articles of mine for deletion to make a point. Joe Chill (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If it starts up again, you may want to try another WP:CLEANSTART. I think it's best to keep one account for life and work through any problems you may have, but others disagree.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's still continuing. Which is why I said in the link above that sometimes I regret ditching that account. There was no way that I would have known that creating a new account wouldn't work. I tried many times on that account and this account to stop it, but most editors defended the one that was being uncivil. Joe Chill (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest we take this subthread to your talk page, it may not be completely germane to this RfC. I have commented there and I would try to help if I could. ++Lar: t/c 02:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ikip, don't ever bother talking to me again. Joe Chill (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Joe Chill, I have about 20 more edits about your sock puppeting, would you like me to share them here?
 * It shows the incredible partisanship behind this RFC that these editors are actively helping you now, and yet they are crucifying A Nobody for the exact same behavior.
 * Joe, its not so "entertaining" when you become the target is it? Now you have a very small taste of what A Nobody is going through himself. Ikip (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any evidence of sockpuppeting by Joe Chill. Please feel free to share it with me. My talk page is probably a better avenue than here.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a sockpuppet. You obviously didn't pay attention to the discussion. I don't have a taste of what A Nobody is going through. I just have a taste of you being uncivil. Explain to me how I was a sockpuppet by not fully understanding the policies surrounding getting a new account and not causing any trouble? You are a dick. Joe Chill (talk) 11:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have told Kww, Lar, pablomismo, Edison, Michig, MichaelQSchmidt, and Dylanfromthenorth about my other account. They never considered it as me being a sockpuppet. If you really want to know how I acted on my schuym1 account, talk to Schmidt because he probably knows more about my behavior than anyone else. Joe Chill (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not understanding the rules after being aboard for many months is never a convincing defense toward accusations of using multiple accounts abusively, specially since even rank newcomers are expected to follow the rules, HOWEVER.... I for one, and with some knowledge of Joe Chill's earlier account history, can accept with good faith that any perceived misuse of multiple accounts was accidental and not in any way intended as deceptive, specially as Joe Chill has offered full disclosure. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

←Agreed. Ikip needs to leave Joe Chill alone to sort out his account(s) and editing future. None of this is germane to this RFC/U. pablo hablo. 20:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't bring myself to endorse this. Whilst I absolutely respect Kww's viewpoint that deceit is contrary to collaborative editing, I think that A Nobody has the capacity to change his disruptive behaviour. What is needed is some indication from him (not a proxy) that he has the will to do so. pablo hablo. 19:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Where's A Nobody?
We have a lot of Ikip's comments. Meanwhile A Nobody is off welcoming IPs. Wouldn't it be more efficient for A Nobody to address some of the issues raised instead of Ikip? ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you seriously expect him to participate?&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT notwithstanding, you mean? I don't think I can honestly answer that, I don't know. I think it would be a good thing if he did. But that's the issue, isn't it? He doesn't participate if there is anything like honest feedback involved. One can hope. ++Lar: t/c 02:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, it can be rather tough to know what to say in response when something like this opens. Sometimes a routine repetitive task can kind of fill the time while one decides how to handle a tough issue. That can look like contempt of process when it isn't intended to be. If A Nobody is planning a response and needs time to collect his thoughts, it would be a good idea for him to post a few brief words to that effect. Will be making that suggestion at his user page now. Durova 320 02:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Good thinking. Even a brief statement from A N would be helpful. ++Lar: t/c 02:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


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


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

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


 * considering that while this RfC has been running, there have attacks on him at someone else's RfA, and the bringing of a patently false sockpuppet case dragging an editor totally involved in these issues into ANB to defend herself --one supported by an erroneous identification by  Durova--, that the complaints are mostly driven by a blizaard of old rather than recent matters,  he might reasonably feel that anything he might say here is likely to be misused against him by people whom perhaps he might reasonably see are out to get him in order to decrease his voice as an inclusionist.     DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * " there have attacks on him at someone else's RfA" I do believe you have the subject and the object reversed. Protonk (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack said some mean things. Not that it matters.  I don't think AN really has anything to gain from commenting here, other than prventing Durova from starting a RFAR, I guess.  It would probably just start a big drama fest. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I dispute the contention "one supported by an erroneous identification by Durova".  There is nothing wrong with noting a pattern of similarities and asking for clarification.  It is in the site's best interests to discuss such matters freely without fear that they would become political fodder.  At no time did I assert actual identification; DGG's claim misrepresents that discussion.  Durova  325 18:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to User:Ikip
With regard to your comment on my advice at, citing both A Nobody and Jack Merridew's behavior, I would have no issue signing onto an RFC regarding Jack's behavior as I have counseled him on what he needs to change in his behavior. Granted I am not as familiar with his behavior as A Nobody's (most of Jack's AN threads predate my joining the site), but certainly if people feel there are issues and present them at RFC, I do not see any reason I would not sign (more clearly: I do not see a reason why Jack Merridew's behavior is beyond reproach to the point that I would consider an RFC frivolous).  MBisanz  talk 04:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will post it now. Although it may evolve. Ikip (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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


 * The mentions of Jack Merridew by Ikip are a little over the top, particularly references to the 'final warning'. Merridew's post here actually raises many of the points in this RFC/U and is further evidence that a problem with A Nobody's editing exists. pablo hablo. 19:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This Request for comment makes a mockery of the RFC system
I took a long and hard look at the compiled "evidence" here. I went through every section carefully.

Granted, I may have missed an piece of evidence, in between all the absurd allegations, this is the grand total of A Nobody's rule violations:
 * Requests_for_comment/A_Nobody "This is downright ludicrous and so I absolutely will not humor ridiculousness."  The evidence section states: "Calling other users ludicrous." Which is false.  As mentioned in that same section, Protonk and Kww have made much larger personal attacks against A Nobody in this very RFC.
 * A Nobody leaves, using his right to vanish, he then returns as Elisabeth Rogan. This all took place over a year ago, in September 2008.
 * A Nobody edits with other account before 2008.

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

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

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

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


 * Uh, I'm not asserting that he has broken 'rules' in archiving talk page comments. I'm asserting that he has done so using misleading edit summaries and has done so in a fashion that would lead a reasonable person to believe that he hasn't engaged with the criticism.  The whole point of this RfC is to provide a formal mechanism for the community to say "hey, here are some problems that we are having" and it is required that we show that the subject has refused to engage in lower levels of dispute resolution.  Personally, (and comments on other summaries and on the talk page from other editors shows disagreement) I feel that archiving criticism without response while within the rules is a bit contemptuous, especially given A-N's comments about accepting criticism from "good faith" sources and rejecting it from "bad faith" sources.
 * I'm still at a loss to see why filing a request for comment should result in a desysopping. Protonk (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, please consider placing the below in the main RfC. Protonk (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "A user-conduct RfC is for discussing specific users who have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines". Following WP:TPO and arguing WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a violation of "Wikipedia policies and guidelines". Ikip (talk) 08:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I reiterate, the main function of the 'archiving' section was to illustrate his response to criticism and to demonstrate why an RfC was necessary. Protonk (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I reinterate: "A user-conduct RfC is for discussing specific users who have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines".
 * The violation of user conduct that I have found thus far, is A Nobody stating the argument is ridiculous [not the person, as falsely stated], and socks which start from over a year ago. Ikip (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point Protonk, item struck. Ikip (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an "o". Protonk. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Spelling errors fix, thanks for point this out. Ikip (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Section 1: Incivility and refusal to accept when he is called on his behaviour
Removed to main page. Ikip (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Section 2: Gaming the system
I think there is a problem with A. Nobody's behaviour which he needs to address and modify, and that is that he is Gaming the system in order to justify his soapboxing activities. I disagree with Ikip that the emperor has no clothes: clearly the emperor of soapboxing has clothes, but I think they are being used to veil the real motivation behind his activities. What we are experiencing is a type of low level flaming in which Wikipedia is being used, not as a forum for building an encyclopedia, but as platform for self-promotion and personal gratification. If the payoff for the high level flamer is to fling his opponent into a rage, then the payoff for a low level flammer is to put the verbal equivalent of pintacks into his boots. Since neither behaviour is directed towards building a better encyclopedia, then I think this RFC is wholly justified and it is time to lift the veil to reveal the true nature A. Nobody's behavour. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To evalate the true nature of someone's behaviour requires an even handed look at their overall conduct, taking into account the enviroment they're operating in and how others in that environment conduct themselves. Mbisanz seems to be saying this isnt the place to be even handed, and hes the face of authority here. No wonder some on the minority side feel themselves forced to use underhand tactics like socking. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose another way to frame the question at RFC would be: Is the alleged behavior bad enough that the person must change it? If there was no good behavior we wouldn't even be here since ANI would quickly have reached a consensus; the existence of the RFC shows a more detailed analysis is required.  And speaking on dispute resolution as a whole, I will steal a comment from Stephen Bain about commendations in dispute resolution: "There's no need for panegyrics."  MBisanz  talk 13:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In well executed  dispute resolution panegyrics are rarely required. Thats as there wouldnt be grossly misrepresented evidence painting a party in such an unfairly  negative light that it requires countering by a positive statement.   Im very glad if youre studying dispute resolution, as assuming you really are the totally upright and impartial person you appeared to be, you seem to  have a serious weakness in this area.    There may well be a case for ANobody to amend their behaviour.  But before we get to that It would be good if this RFC was withdrawn or refactored.  As EEMIV  says, taken at face value the evidence presented suggest the subject is "no good" and that a full ban might be in order.  Assuming this project is a big part of the subjects life, it might be quite a psychological blow for him to be cast out like that. Not to mention a loss to the project as we do without his good contributions.  The core problem is , as has been clearly shown,  evidence has been distorted and is grossly unfair to A Nobody.   Thats what has to be addressed first.  Everyone makes mistakes,  not everyone has the character to admit it and recognise when they ought to retract their position a little. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's only true if you think that an RfC is a means to achieve sanctions against an editor. It isn't.  It's literally a request for comments - diffs have been presented with an interpretation that can be supported or endorsed.  Anyone can offer alternative interpretations, which can then be endorsed.  The result is essentially a gauging of community opinion that the editor can examine and make a determination about - it is nothing more than a glorified and controlled feedback process.  Trying to treat it as an adversarial game (either side that it) or some kind of "trial" as appears to be happening (not you specifically FeydHuxtable) will not help A Nobody, and will just leave editors of all opinions feeling embittered.  I'm not saying evidence and their interpretations shouldn't be challenged, but the ad hominem remarks (which I call playing the man and not the ball) are unnecessarily divisive.  If the evidence is poor, say so - that is much more persuasive than impugning the editors who have requested neutral comment in a non-comabtive venue.  My only thoughts on this matter. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As EEMIV says, taken at face value the evidence presented suggest the subject is "no good" and that a full ban might be in order. - I didn't mean to suggest that the current RFC presents A Nobody in a light suggesting only a ban; the purpose/suggestions -- that he shift behavior -- is pretty clear. As for the psychological ramifications: we're in no position to gauge that, and that's a spurious reason (not) to do something. "X really wants to be an admin; being denied might by a blow -- best vote to approve"; "Y really cares about this article; blocking him for 3RR violations might be a blow -- best to let him keep at it". Etc. --EEMIV (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In case I was not clear, I meant and stand behind the result stated at the top of the page: That voluntarily stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground where editors are either allies or foes and that he recognize that serious substantive criticism exists regarding his methods and behavior. Further, when a significant number of folk tell him that a certain behavior is problematic and he needs to change it, he needs to take that on board and actually change his behavior., which in no way should be construed as seeking a ban on A Nobody.  I really don't see how it can be read otherwise, especially since it includes the word "voluntarily" and doesn't qualify it with an "or else" clause.  MBisanz  talk 14:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would go along with Fritzpoll view this could never be a trial as the "evidence" to is no such thing, just illustrations of what is occuring. The issue is that the environment of Wikipedia is generally conducive to non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project, but continious low level disruption on such a large scale is not likely to be viewed in the same way. I think the legal term Nuisance provides a useful analogy here, because low level disruption can make it unpleasant for other editors to make their opinions known. A. Nobody should not be engaged in low level flaming that serves no constructive purpose in terms of exchanging ideas, nor should he be engaged in behaviour that runs contrary to the spirit of WP:SOAP.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whats been clearly illustrated here Gavin is that this RFS presents a distorted picture of A Nobodys behaviour. Its likely very unpleasant to make your opinions known and then have a crushing mass of partly fabricated evidence made against you. No wonder if the number of editors is declining!
 * Mbisanz, your point about the purpose of this RFS would be well taken, except theres a massive disconnect between the explicit desired outcome and the vast morass of "evidence" you've poured onto this RFC.  Tell me if you dispute any of this 1) RFCs can have very different results from their expressed purpose – e.g. on a fairly recent one asking a user to read up on policies and change their behaviour, the subject ended up being indeffed banned, after suffering a storm of negative comments and being told he had mental health problems. 2) If you want someone to voluntarily change their behaviour, they have to accept you have a case and therefore it doesnt help to go in so heavy handed. 3) Considering the two points above, its especially important not to overstate the case - folk arent going to accept the need to be changed when part of what they're accused of if demonstrably not true. 4)Yet you have overstated the case, to put it very mildly, as has been acknowledged by an arbiter and which neither you nor your supporters seem to deny. This  is the central point. No ones saying you're wrong to ask ANobody to change,  though it would be nice if equal efforts could be made to get deletionists to behave, and perhaps better still to accept that theres always going to be low level conflict in an area that attracts close to ireconcilable views. Its the "evidence" here thats the problem - if thats withdrawn I personally and perhaps other supporters would be happy to try to ask ANobody to use tactics his opponents would find less frustrating. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is all predicated on your claim that the evidence is "fabricated" and on the assumption that lower levels of feedback have not been tried. What do you have to say with respect to the evidence presented that A-N ignores or marginalizes feedback from "deletionists" (his words) and fails to heed feedback when it becomes negative?  What also do you have to say to Durova, A-N's former mentor, who has certified the basis for this dispute? Protonk (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The main point here is the merges during live AfDs. At the discussion for that, (I think) I recommended taking those to ANI, and letting an uninvolved admin admonish anyone who does that.  Pretty simple.  As far as not seeing opponents as people, being civil, and battleground stuff, that's just how our wonderful AfD system works.  It creates these problems by its very nature. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone has their own view of the main point. For me, if you could actually get him to understand that being deceptive was unacceptable and had to stop (whether it's edit summaries that omit 99.99% of the changes made, distorted descriptions of people's behaviour at ANI, twisting other peoples arguments at AFD, or grossly exaggerating claims of personal danger) and simply get him to tell the truth in a straightforward manner all the time, I'd be considerably happier. The attitude that his goal is so important that the truth can be sacrificed is the worst problem. Mechanics of AFD/merger timing is a problem, but way down on the list.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Feyd, we are in a bind with respect to this RfC (or several). If we posted only recent evidence supporting our claims we could rightly be criticized as highlighting a minor and temporary problem. If we posted only old evidence supporting our claims we could rightly be criticized as dragging up old complaints which are no longer relevant. If we offered up only soft claims then we might not have due cause to go through this whole messy process--the RfC would be dismissed as frivolous. If we offer up strong claims and back them up with copious evidence then we run the risk (and have been) of being criticized as heaping page after page of negative comments, foreclosing cooperation. So we (Matt, Lar and myself) chose to present evidence for a pattern of behavior which included disruption, polarization and refusal to accept criticism. In doing so we hope to clear the bar necessary to start an RfC, convince outside observers that a problem exists and attempt to build a framework to solve that problem with A Nobody. A model for this might be Requests_for_comment/Gavin.collins_2 where evidence was presented that Gavin had been disruptive, others (including myself) argued about the evidence and the claims but eventually came to some agreement as to the basic claims and the need for a solution. Is that possible here? Protonk (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The achilles heal of Requests_for_comment/Gavin.collins_2 was that the desired outcome had already been reached, namely that I was collaborating as evidenced by the complete rewrite of the article Kender, an article (like many others) had been tagged for cleanup. Here we are dealing with what is basically low-level flaming, which is not constructive at all, and most of it is based on A. Nobody's views that run contrary to the existing framework of Wikipedia's guidelines (e.g. Notability) and polices (e.g. WP:SOAP). Compared with say, Pixelface who uses the official channels to air his views, such as policy discussion pages and the village pump, A. Nobody is "everywhere and nowhere", in the sense that he litters hundreds of WP talk pages with throw away comments (the pintacks in everyone's boots) which have little or no substance, instead of trying to construct a set of well-dfined proposals to modify or change those aspects of policy that he disagrees with. I think for this reason this RFC is quite well focused compared with say my own, or the RFA of Pixelface which was too vague.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

An offer from FeydHuxtable
I understand it difficult to deal with perceived disruption on wiki, and that folk who try to tackle it risk coming across poorly to some even though their intentions may be purely good. It would be great if this problem could be put to bed. Of course it depends what you have in mind, and what position ANobody's other supporters and friends take. This might work:
 * Per Peregrine the solution to merging during live AfDs seems simple. Unless other supporters of ANobody object,  someone could put a note on his talk that the consensus is that the tactic is per form, then if theres reoccurrences temp blocks can be issued via ANI?
 * I could post on ANobodys talk page about looking at AfD from a deletionist perspective, and that the deletion result has a silver lining. DGG would likely post even wiser words, as might other supporters.  This could maybe lead on to a one on one discussion with someone like yourself, if you still think it would be helpful.
 * Per KWW Id be happy to email Anobody to the effect that deception is invariably harmful in the long run both for oneself and others.  I wouldnt try and make him feel bad about it though, in this day and age its a very common response from someone in the minority when they're trying to fight an uphill battle for what they believe is right.  If anything I think nice people are sometimes drawn to deceptive tactics as an alternative to escalating rows.  Though that doesn't mean its a wise course. From some comments I saw A Nobody seems to be already recognising that honesty is the best policy.

From your side it would be good if the RFC can be withdrawn, so there no danger of an impression theres concensus that all the implications against the subject was accepted. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would a request from you to stop being deceptive be effective when all similar requests have failed in the past?&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Theres no guarantee it would be effective. It might not even be needed, as stated he seems to be on his way to learning the lesson for himself.   Now Kww,  you said "if you could actually get him to understand that being deceptive was unacceptable". What did you possibly have in mind apart from us making suggestions?  We cant telepathically implant the idea into his mind.  Unless of course you didnt have a superior method in mind.   Perhaps your just being deceptive yourself and trying to make cheap and manipulative rhetorical points? FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A request without an answer just seems very hollow. A statement by A Nobody to the effect of "I'm sorry that I've been deceptive. I recognize that when I revert redirects, using edit summaries that claim that I've made a punctuation change is seriously dishonest. I recognizing that mistating my opponent's arguments in an effort to persuade others is deceptive. I recognize that filing ANI reports against people I dislike that contain gross exaggerations of their behaviour in the hopes that my opponents will be blocked is wrong." would hold some weight. At some level, AN has to publicly recognize his misbehaviour. Without such a statement, I maintain that the solution I proposed in my outside view is the best way out: he isn't living up to the promises he made in order to get unblocked, so the block should be restored. That's something that will have to be discussed at WP:AN or WP:ANI, but it's certainly not a tiny minority view: so far, it's running second on the RFC. Note: I won't be able to reply quickly to any reply you may have: I'll be away from the computer for a couple of hours now.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ok that makes sense. I was more thinking that the email would maybe be the start of a dialouge. But anyway I apologise for what i said above and totally retract it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in convincing AN that deletion has a silver lining. It's totally reasonable (in my opinion, this might not be fully reflected in the RfC) to hold some specific opinion about deletion of content.  I hold one, you hold one, Kww holds one.  What I am interested in conveying is that the behavior in the AfDs is inappropriate.  That hassling people over CRUFT/JNN repeatedly is inappropriate (and that "I'll stop if they stop" is not a good enough solution).  That escalating disputes through retaliatory measures is innpropriate, etc.  As far as PG's comments, I think he is wrong.  AN has repeatedly stated that he reserves the right to merge during AfD despite obvious opposition on WT:AFD and warnings on his talk page (Which he will now ignore because some of them came from Lar).  So I don't think at all that it solves the problem to punt the merger issue to AN/I because we will just get the same set of people arguing that deletionists are trying to force process over content and that mergers are perfectly viable--in other words, each AN/I post about a merger during AfD will be a recapitulation of the same debate.  We don't need that.  And PG's comment is predicated upon the assumption that merging during AfD is the only disruptive behavior in question.


 * But I tell you what. If you propose some sort of discussion with AN and it is reasonable, I may endorse it as a possible solution to the RfC.  As I noted in my summary, I think that AN is willing to improve when he is forced to understand that serious opposition exists.  If you engage him in discussion then add a "solution" (or whatever you want to call it) as another summary to the main page of the RfC and we'll see how many people agree with you. Protonk (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * pathetic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is deteriorating quickly. Let's try and point it toward some solution that is approachable for most parties involved. Protonk (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rfc: "A user-conduct RfC is for discussing specific users who have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines". As I mentioned above Protonk, and you still have not responded. What specific policies and guidelines has A Nobody broke? In the section outline above, for example, you stated A Nobody was "borderline trolling" but list no personal attacks from A Nobody himself.
 * You still have not struck your own terrible personal attack above "[A Nobody] doesn't see his opponents as human beings".
 * Kww above states: "I would say that A Nobody certainly lies"
 * So you can understand why so many editors are so disturbed by this RFC. No illustration of any recent "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" being broken, [the most recent I can find in your evidence section is June 2008]. The way this RFC was created insured a deteriorating situation. Ikip (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How would you prefer that I stated it? Or are you denying that A Nobody makes misleading and false statements? That's the part the really bothers me on the reaction to this RFC: no exclusionist started an RFC on you, despite your rampant inclusionism, because you seem to be an honest inclusionist. No one goes after MichaelQSchmidt because, despite his inclusionism, he seems to be an honest inclusionist. Ditto for DreamFocus, and dozens and dozens of other inclusionist editors. Why does an RFC get started on A Nobody, when other inclusionists don't have RFCs opened on them? Because he is dishonest and disruptive. That's why we are here. Would you please focus on a strategy to get A Nobody to stop being dishonest and to stop being disruptive? If he would do that, he can be as inclusionist as he wants, and there's not a damn thing anyone could or would do to stop it. I didn't start this RFC, but I can promise you one thing: if I had, the evidence would drill down on one point and one point only, and that is that he is deceptive. Nothing else matters. And yes, I'm balanced: Jack Merridew is far closer to me on the inclusionism/exclusionism scale than A Nobody. Philosophically, we are in near agreement about what should be included. When he petitioned to be unbanned, I opposed unbanning him for one simple reason: he lied. He lied to us for years. There is nothing more destructive to a collaborative editing environment than lying. Once again, for emphasis: There is nothing more destructive to a collaborative editing environment than lying. It doesn't matter whether you lie explicitly or implicitly. It doesn't matter if you lie by omission or lie by comission. It doesn't matter whether you lie for fun, whether you lie to preserve articles, whether you lie to delete articles, political advantage, or to win an argument: there is no worse sin on Wikipedia than lying. Please focus on that: figure out how to convince A Nobody that being honest, forthright, and direct is the only workable way to be collaborate.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a limit to the number of times I will reiterate the claims made in the RfC. the claims and evidence presented are there on the project page.  I am plainly not going to convince you that the RfC has merit, given that you suggested that me, Lar and Matt all be desysopped for opening it.  At this point I am hoping to convince enough non-vested parties so that some semblance of consensus can be made regarding this. Protonk (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, Rfc: "A user-conduct RfC is for discussing specific users who have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines". As I mentioned above Protonk, and you still have not responded. What specific policies and guidelines has A Nobody broken? Personal opinions about what you feel about WP:TPO is irrelevant.
 * This RFC is over a year late Kww. Has there been any allegations of sockpuppets since June 2008? If so, their are no user conduct issues that need to be brought up. As per: Rfc: "...unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process."Ikip (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to respond if you keep banging the drum about TPO. Why the talk page removals are on the RfC is clearly spelled out and eminently justified.  You are welcome to your opinion that no policies were flouted or broken by A Nobody.  At the time of writing 24 people disagree, counting only those certifying or endorsing the statement of the dispute and not Kww or my summary. Protonk (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you seriously intend for me to enumerate every guideline that deceit violates. He certainly violates WP:TPNO with regularity, specifically Do not misrepresent other people. False edit summaries? Do you really need me to find a specific guideline that a false edit summary (like this, this, and this) violates before you will consider it to be a problem? This and this are more recent, but you'll have to get an admin to read them for you, as the articles themselves have been deleted.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * this and this are the two admin accessible diffs, respectively. Both fundamentally misleading. Protonk (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For information, in both cases that are now deleted, A Nobody says in the edit summary that he is italicising the title of the article in the lead. In both cases he does this, but the most significant part of the edit is the addition of Rescue. No comment on the propriety - just for info Fritzpoll (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment_on_Outside_view_by_EEMIV

 * Refer to: Requests_for_comment/A_Nobody

Rfc: "A user-conduct RfC is for discussing specific users who have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines"


 * Hounding
 * Evidence EEMIV provided: A Nobody adds two tags too two articles: Imperial Andermani Navy and Astromech droid


 * EEMIV how is adding two rescue tags hounding? You need to provide "policies and guidelines" not your own opinion.


 * "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" broken: none.


 * AfD badgering (+ requests to halt it, i.e. non-response)
 * Evidence EEMIV provided: One and two requests from three editors for A Nobody to stop "badgering" dissenting voices at an AfD.
 * "doesn't acknowledge numerous previous requests (mostly under old user name) not to respond to all/many dissenters at AfD"
 * second only to nominator in number of edits to AfD discussion.


 * User_talk:A_Nobody/Archive_12
 * ThemFromSpace writes: Please stop badgering everyone who !votes to "delete" at this AfD, it's considered bad Wikiquette. The !voters should have already looked over the discussion and noted your points. Shoving your opinion down their throats after they already !voted isn't going to change their minds, only infuriate them.
 * This is not policy, were is it considered "bad Wikiquette"? Contacting editors about changes in an AFD are routine. In addition, Themfromspace's comments are confrontational.


 * Moloch09 then thanks A Nobody: Can I personally thank you for your persuasive persistence over this AfD. It's completely party pri to criticise you when others who want it deleted keep on making their arguments heard in repeated comments. You helped change my mind completely


 * Personal attack on A Nobody by EEMIV calling him "childish"

Ikip (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I left out List of treecats, treecats, and Elysian Space Navy - all AfDs initiated by me, and the only recently-started fiction-related ones that I believe garnered an ARS tag. I suspect A Nobody has a few editors' contributions he follows and will plante an ARS tag or jump into the AfD more because he questions the editors' motives than because of the content's appropriateness for Wikipedia. That kind of hounding is inappropriate: if he thinks editors have a genuine misunderstanding of retenion policies, he should bring it up at ANI or RFC or initiate a talk-page discussion. You're free to interpret his actions differently; it makes no difference to me. *shrug* --EEMIV (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A Nobody follows AfD closely and takes a close interest in fiction. Even if they did look at your contribution history, it is legitimate to do that if following a pattern of edits; that's not hounding. If A Nobody noticed that you were nominating a lot of borderline articles, wouldn't they be quite within their rights to see what else you'd nominated and see if it could be rescued? Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion is always going to be murky. User contribution histories are public for a reason, past community discussions have shown that 'following' contributions in-itself isn't wrong.  I will also say that AN and EEMIV have some very similar deletion discussion habits (or have at point in time in the past), so the fact that AN places a rescue tag on articles nominated by EEMIV isn't by itself a sign that he is hounding EEMIV.  But what happens when we consider this as part of a broader pattern?  Is it in line with or at variance with the other pieces of evidence provided in the main RfC?  Maybe yes maybe no.  That is one reason why we didn't include rescue/editor connections in the main RfC.  But I don't think it is beyond the pale for EEMIV to feel as though he was being singled out. Protonk (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Who actually wrote this?
Who compiled all the evidence? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Protonk (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to figure out what started all this. I can't tell from the edit history what happened, unless MBisanz wrote it all, which would mean I've probably missed something.  I know you had issues with AN's merging, and as I look through the diffs, I see AN and Lar, but not you and MBisanz (although I haven't read all of them). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was written off site, shared between the three of us. the reason you don't see very many recent warnings from me to AN is because I have tried to avoid him (unsuccessfully many times, which is my fault). 05:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Protonk (talk • contribs)
 * Are some of you supposed to be impartial? I've noticed a lot of comments from Lar in the diffs that are just below NPA directed at AN. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm kinda at a loss on how to respond to this. You seem to have made up your mind about whether or not this is a "witch hunt". Protonk (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think impartiality is a requisite for an RFC. Requiring 2+ to sign off on it helps avoid frivolity and bouts of brief but intense personality clash. Part of the whole RFC process is taking a look at the evidence -- including who presents it -- and weighing it appropriately. Obviously, there's a broad spectrum of responses to this RFC -- some may think the initiators are more problematic than A Nobody, others whole-heartedly agree with the initiators, and some may think the initiators are hypocrites...but still right. *shrug* I happen to think too much of the "Outside view by X"s focuses on the initiators rather than their evidence (nevermind "rather than A Nobody"), but if you think the RFC/evidence is being presented in an inaccurate or incomplete light (e.g. by excluding evidence of A Nobody's good contributions), then chime in with that. But, back to your point: I don't think any of them have claimed impartiality, and given their overlap with A Nobody at ANI et al., I wouldn't expect them to. Hopefully, this RFCs visibility to the rest of the community will gather more *genuine* outside perspectives that can offer their own objective perspective -- and, hopefully, A Nobody will at least heed their input. --EEMIV (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that it's a little bit of a witch hunt, not mostly a witch hunt, with some real issues hiding in there, although they're hard to find. It sure reads like a witch hunt, though.  Apparently AN really pissed some people off.  It's hard to say why, looking at that laundry list.  It's like a an article that should be prose, but is just a list of facts, with no lead or background to help the reader understand what and why they are reading what they are.  I'd like to know who compiled most of that list, and why they're so angry.  It just leaves me wondering.  It's a list of bad things, then some sections where people can say, "I think AN's been bad too".  Reminds me of an AfD that just links a bunch of acronyms at the top. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on various proposals from Casliber

 * The referent is here and here. Discussion moved from the main page. Protonk (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:
 * 1) I sympathise with the intent, but this seems to defeat the discussion aspect of AFD. If you wanted to argue that threaded commentary be discouraged, I could consider that. However, if an editor makes an argument that others consider invalid or flawed, it should be fair game for others to discuss that argument within their own section. Discussion of content should be encouraged, dissecting other editors' arguments should be encouraged, dissecting or vivisecting other editors should be discouraged.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) In an ideal world AFD should be adiscussion with editors able to come back and debate points to reach a consensus. I know its generally not the case these days but enacting this would prevent this desirable behaviour from ever happening. Spartaz Humbug! 15:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess I don't know how best to respond to both of these proposals. A similar discussion occurred on User_talk:Fences_and_windows and I said there that the punting of issues to structural reform neglects the importance of agency. Structure plays a huge role in conduct. But it isn't deterministic. If the question is "should we make AfD a better place?" the answer is yes. If the question is "should we make AfD a better place before attempting to correct problems in conduct?" then the answer (obviously both are my opinions) is no. Protonk (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * These are interesting proposals but I don't see them as particularly useful to this dispute at this time, plus they have much wider impact than the conduct of a single user. Suppose this got endorsed by 100 people? It still wouldn't be policy. I think it better to propose them in the appropriate place, and remain focused here on the question this RfC raises, is there cause for concern about A Nobody's approach and behaviour. ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I started out here doing this, and was criticized strongly at my RfA for not following up with further postings to clarify responses. The ability to criticize another editor's post (though of course not the editor) is essential--its the basic way of doing a dialog, and a dialog is what clarifies issues. A limit on replies would help in some cases--but sometimes an extended dialog between 2 users turns out to be extremely beneficial in helping the article.    DGG ( talk ) 14:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Straightforward proposal by somewhat non-impartial Casliber
Isn't this RfC an odd place for this proposal? Seems more suited for the AfD talk page. - Josette (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * seems like a bold and creative move to get a positive result from this RFC that could be of wide benefit. A root cause of this RFC is the general hostility that sometimes flares up in AfD, which cant fairly be blamned any individual or side. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Cas and others are arguing that the root cause is general hostility. Myself and the folks certifying the RfC are arguing that the root cause of AN's behavior is AN.  Unless you convince me otherwise I can't see how it is germane. Protonk (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The root cause of A Nobody's behavior is A Nobody. Full stop. As is true for every single one of us, we choose how to behave. ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To convince me of its purpose, I would need to see A Nobody appear and bind himself to Casliber's proposal in a voluntary manner.  MBisanz  talk 17:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If everyone adopted it, then he wouldn't have to bind himself - nor would anyone else. Anyone who began bickering on an AfD would just find their posts removed. I am trying to be practical here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * However, we just had the experience with page merging that since it was not explicitly prohibited by a longstanding policy, he believed it was permissible to continue it. Also I believe I have seen him state on more than one occasion that he does not recognize the concept of notability as a guideline due to his beliefs on what materials Wikipedia should host.  I would expect him to expressly bind himself to it to avoid later misinterpretations as to the standing of your proposal.  MBisanz  talk 20:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * More to the point, your comment is a little non-sensical. If "everyone" agreed to this hypothetical new standard for comments at AfD then by necessity AN would have agreed, meeting Matt's criteria.  But you and I know that even if an overwhelming number of folks at this RfC agree and we construe that to mean "everyone" that there will still be plenty of room to protest the institution of this new comment regime (starting w/ Kww Josette's point that this isn't a policy talk page). Protonk (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is - who removes? Any policy change which grants a wider remit to others editors to edit or remove other's comments is a recipe for more drama. pablo hablo. 21:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC) edit to improve sense of comment  pablo hablo. 21:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pablomismo. It will add another layer or argument, was it right to remove X comment. It's sort of like the lame arguments about tagging on article pages, or the discussions about whether there is enough consensus to remove a tag saying there isn't consensus. At a typical contentious AfD, the matter in contention is what is the applicable policy, with each side claiming the others statements do not reflect policy. Removing the ones that do not support a particular position just continues it.
 * As for making arguments at AfD urging a change or modification of policy, that's perfectly in order if one makes it clear that it would be a change. After all, that in practice is where article policy does get changed in Wikipedia. We almost never get the supermajority to change a policy page, but at AfD we have to reach some decision or other. How we interpret notability for an individual article is always subject to discussion.    DGG ( talk ) 14:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I agree with DGG (I know, perhaps we should just get a room) here and (I think) elsewhere on this page that discussion is actually important, at AfD particularly. Casliber's bold reform proposals are worth discussion but I don't think that anything that stifles that discussion on a purely numerical basis (you may only comment once) is going to work. However this discussion is probably best elsewhere. Also, AfD being 'broken' or 'a combative environment' or a 'minefield' or whatever is a lame explanation for why people behave adversarially there; the behaviour of the participants - all of us - helps to create that environment. pablo hablo. 20:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Corrections and retractions requested

 * talk
 * Lar and Protonk's comments about Michael's section
 * In the first section on the talk page Protonk and Lar criticize Michael for "inclusion and deletion" arguments in his section. when Michael actually made none.
 * Refused Protonk's personal attack
 * Protonk states A Nobody: "doesn't see his opponents as human beings"
 * User:DGG in response to Prontonk's personal attack: "...such a line...perpetuates the problem, because one can hardly expect that anyone addressed in such terms will improve conduct in response to it."
 * Protonk states he will retract the personal attack
 * Protonk changes his mind refusing to retract personal attack


 * RFC main section
 * Misquote:
 * Evidence section states: "Calling other users ludicrous." Actual quote: "This is downright ludicrous and so I absolutely will not humor ridiculousness." Please remove "Calling other users ludicrous", and since there is no other "incivility" in this section, remove "incivility"  from the sub section title also.


 * Mischaracterization:
 * "Removes warning by Kww re "Your edit summaries are unacceptable"; note misleading edit summary (added note on top of talk page)"
 * A Nobody actually made a note on top of his talk page. So please remove the "misleading edit summary" statment, which is incorrect. Since WP:TPO "On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred", there are no policy rule violations here.

[more]

Ikip (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a personal attack. It's a statement of my beliefs about his actions.  As I've said before on and off wiki he is a good person and is very kind and gentle...when you aren't in a disagreement with him.  when the disagreement begins, all of that kindness evaporates.  Sorry if this offends you or if you have a different view of things, but that doesn't make it a personal attack. Protonk (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is Ikip's job to find excuses as is done in the game "Stop me if you can". I think the game just has to end, and the issues raised in the RFA should be addressed by A. Nobody, not evaded. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm curious how many different sections, not tied to any particular section of the RfC, Ikip plans to start. And how much smoke will be involved in shooting the messengers? Ikip misses the point. The root cause of A Nobody's behavior is A Nobody. This RfC shows in great detail that there is a problem and that it has been ongoing for a while. ++Lar: t/c 17:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For now, I would appreciate those two corrections Lar, but there are many more. RFC: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." Ikip (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It may, and I welcome that scrutiny. But scrutiny of other editors does not absolve the subject simply through the act of scrutinizing. Protonk (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, which shouldn't be a problem here, because this RFC is a "meritless RfC". The only policy violations happened over a year ago, and the personal attacks of you 3 is much worse than anything A Nobody has said or done. Not to mention Lar repeatedly defending A Nobody's stalker. Ikip (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ikip, not being funny, but ever read WP:DEADHORSE? If you're right, the RfC will rightly exonerate A Nobody of all the accusations.  Repeating the same things over and over will help convince nobody but those who already agree with you.  I know you mean well, but your efforts would be better expended in a different fashion.  Just a bit of friendly advice. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fritzpoll, I am always open your suggestions. Please email me with a "different fashion". I have also asked BOZ to email me to. This RFC is 7009 words how does someone respond to so much? Ikip (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

An RfC is not intended to convict or exonerate--its not an arbitration. it's intend to see if behavior needs changing, and to help getting it corrected. I doubt there is anyone working at Wikipedia who could not improve the way they do things, myself included. As for anyone's disputed comments, if they wants to leave them in, leave them in. They are likely to be  counterproductive, for they only make that person's case look over-personal. But if someone feels so strongly that he needs to do this, let them. Idf we have to have some degree of drama and personal contention, this is probably the best place for it.  DGG ( talk ) 14:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Outside view by HiDrNick
This sums (most of) the whole deal up very nicely. No matter how many collapsed tables and repetitive accusations are posted as an attempt to derail this RFC/U, the key points are here. There are problems with A Nobody's editing. A Nobody is capable of non-problematic editing. A Nobody has promised before to change editing practices. Why are we back where we were here? edited post Protonk's comment below pablo hablo. 22:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as regressing. If, at the end of this RfC, twice the number of people support that summary than anyone else's, then it will have been something of a success to bring the request here.  I'm prepared to be pretty patient, especially given the positive contributions that AN has made.  If the outcome of the RfC endorses Dr. Nick's view and AN acknowledges it, we have come to some agreement--something that I don't actually think happened before.  If AN doesn't acknowledge the RfC and Dr. Nick's view is resoundingly endorsed, then we have some benchmark for community disapproval which can't be easily dismissed as attacks by deletionists. Protonk (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have edited my post above. I don't see it as regressing, more of a wobbly continuum. pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 22:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I could support this with only a minor modification: it isn't just the area he needs to avoid, it's the tactics. If he was editing articles on obscure Prussian generals and still using edit summaries that disguised that he was reverting other editors' changes and distorting their arguments on talk pages, there would still be a serious problem. It would just be a smaller group that noticed and cared.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are people upset?
Can someone give me a summary of the conflict with each of the three authors that caused this? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the RfC if you want to know why people are "upset". Regardless of who wrote the opening section, this RfC is not about a conflict with three editors. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll play along. Let's assume for a moment that it would be difficult to satisfy the This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users criterion. What you think was a more appropriate avenue?&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've read the RfC, that's why I'm asking. It doesn't say.  I'm not saying that it would switch the venue, although that's an interesting comment that I'll have to think about.
 * So, is it something that people can't talk about because of privacy reasons or something? Is it for tactical reasons?  This is something people would normally jump at answering, so I'm finding it strange. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem comes down to the RFC format: as I read it, there are multiple disputes. There is A Nobody's insistence that he can perform mergers during active AFD discussions, which ties everyone's hands. There are the false edit summaries. There is his misrepresentation of sources. There is his ongoing use of his RTV as a shield, which he claims gives him the right to use his old edits at the time of his choosing, but prevents anyone else from using them in debates. Technically, this should have been opened as a dozen parallel RFCs, one per topic/editor combination. If there are objections to the depth of this one, imagine the objections people would have have to opening twelve parallel RFCs simultaneously.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking a guess; Prontonk doesn't like the merges, Lar doesn't like him talking to Jack Merridew, and MBisanze doesn't like ??? At least your willing to say what you don't like, Kww. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm forced to agree with this. The real problem the people who are bring this RfC have with A.N. is that he is effective in saving material. Everyone is agreed he does not always work in the correct manner, but absurdly overlong statements can  be ignored. Cogent ones can't, for they tend to convince people. Hence the desire to attack the person making it. That the desire is to attack is proven by the use of old problems, which have since been at least partially corrected. An abortive attempt at sockpuppets during a bungled renaming is not the current problem, and current problems are what RfCs are supposed to deal with.  DGG ( talk ) 15:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the real problem the people bringing this dispute have with A Nobody is that he is deceptive, disruptive, and refuses to modify his behaviour in the face of disagreement. The overall problem is that people seem to be willing to forgive that because it "is effective in saving material." Imagine how quickly I would have been banned from the site if I had used equivalent tactics to delete material. People are forgiving inexcusably bad behaviour because they condone the results.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse 100%. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this RFC is borne from frustration at A Nobody's effectiveness at saving material -- if for no other reason than he isn't especially effective, certainly no more so than you (an impeccable contributor). I also doubt this RFC would have come up a couple of months ago; after his return, A Nobody had been pretty good about avoiding AfDs (and, thus, his problematic behavior) in general, instead working on DYK and project (e.g. ARS) pages. It's been his fervent return to AfD (regardless of what side) and in talk-page fora on related activities (e.g. issues with Jack Meridew raised at ANI, and on/in response to other editors' talk pages when addressing his discussion technique) using the same frustrating techniques outlined on the RFC page that catalyzed this discussion. --EEMIV (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's easy for EEMIV and Kww to say what they perceive the problem to be. What's the deal with the creators. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The creators have given a pretty thorough reason for what their "deal" is here. They've also repeated, reiterated and re-pointed-to-the-RFC-page several times on this talk page. It is the closest you'll get to a "summary of the conflict." If you think there are individual qualms with A Nobody separate from what's been brought up at the RFC, please ask it on the editors' individual talk pages. --EEMIV (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is kind of an odd line of questioning. Above you ask an open ended question giving the assumption that writers of the RfC are supposed to be impartial and here you are asking a question which seems to imply that the writers of the RfC need to have a beef with the subject.  For the most part they are mutually exclusive.  But I'll admit to a little confusion about the question itself.  Do you want something of a Cliff's Notes?  Do you want the dispute offered in a narrative form?  Because from the first post in this section it appears that you want a summary but from follow-on posts it appears that you want some personal justification.  What is it? Protonk (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, a summary and the personal justification may help the process. Say the problem had just been the merges (although I know it isnt'), then maybe a friend could ask AN "Hey, could you not do merges during AfDs?", and then AN might say "I can see that they're causing problems, and I'll stop".  And we would have gotten somewhere.  That list would require him to promise 20 things, and he wouldn't go for it anyways.  I have a feeling this thing has degenerated too far at this point, but if we can focus it to what the three writers are really concerned about, we would be closer to a resolution (if that's possible anymore). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters let's talk about the assumption made in the second sentence. If this could have been solved by someone saying "hey, your behavior is causing problems, why don't you consider stopping" and AN saying "yeah, I'll stop" and stopping, this RfC wouldn't exist.  Period.  Full stop.  One of the core reasons me Lar and Matt wrote this RfC was that AN refused to accept criticism, even when it was valid and from a reasonably neutral (or at least distant from the dispute) source.  Further, he has a tendency to harden in the face of criticism (that is listed in the RfC, btw), whereby he classifies someone who criticizes his actions as having done so "in bad faith" thereby freeing him from responding to that criticism.  His comments about his view changing on Lar (not listed at the RfC I believe) give a good, recent example of this. Protonk (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My objection at thread-top was this question seems to open the creators of this RfC to personal attacks, with bonus accusations that objections to AN's behavior are being made disingenuously by editors who mostly want to prevent articles from being saved. [Personal comment moved to User talk.] / edg ☺ ☭ 16:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My head is spinning trying to find a good reason why you would write that this RfC was filed because AN was so effective in his defense of content. Protonk (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A primary driver for me was seeing sections 1 and 7 of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jack Merridew-A Nobody and realizing it was not just an isolated incident of behavior in the past for A Nobody, but a longterm current trend that he refuses to recognize as problematic.  MBisanz  talk 17:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably worth noting for the sake of symmetry that my initial response after reviewing that thread and his behavior was to try and resolve it at regarding his AFD behavior, which is the same issue Lar was involved in resolving before and after that and which Protonk was involved in after that.  MBisanz  talk 18:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say "simmering on a slow burn" rather than "blazing" when compared with some of the other fiascoes I have read about in the past year. AfD is so polarised it is very very easy to become antagonistic to the other side. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As a subsequent certifier on the merging during AfD issue, I'll answer also. I'm not "upset" – either angry or disturbed – "concerned" would be a reasonable description. I just wanted A Nobody to stop merging during AfDs. Given the history of AN/I discussions and the lack of an unambiguous outcome to the WT:AFD discussion, I disagree with your (Peregrine Fisher's) assertion that AN/I would have handled it. The discussion would probably be closed in archive templates by now, but the sniping would have been much worse and nothing would have been accomplished. Interestingly enough, the first interactions that I remember with A Nobody were AN/I discussions from December 2008 involving merge and delete and merge edit summaries, which deepened my interest in attribution requirements. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They should have put you in charge. You sound much more reasonable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment, if one was intended, but I disagree with your characterization of the RfC's original authors. I think that I may have introduced some confusion with my sharply restricted statements, but one may note my endorsement of others' views, including the basis for the RfC. While I have direct experience with the merging issue, I share a number of the wider concerns. Flatscan (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You just describe it in a way that doesn't seem as drama creating to me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, it's your insinuation that me, lar, matt and the other certifiers of the RfC are "angry" or "upset". Not actually a fact. Protonk (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is an insinuation, but more of an opinion I arrived at by reading the list of issues. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. And I can understand why you might come to that conclusion, but I feel it is wrong.  Not only that, but the bare statement that me, lar or matt are "mad" (or whatever) trivializes the RfC--obviously you aren't required to avoid trivializing it, but it needed to be said.  I've been frustrated w/ AN before.  And I've acted out of that frustration.  and I've regretted it.  But this RfC wasn't written out of anger or frustration. Protonk (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you. I think the issue may have gotten a bit clouded in my mind by some of the comments not made by the main three initiators. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, so MBisanz said ANs actions were brought to his attention by sections 1 and 7 of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jack Merridew-A Nobody. I'm not sure which parts 1 and 7 are, and that page is way too long, I can't finish it. So, what was so bad about that whole thing? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Timeline for A Nobody's reply
People have wondered if/when he will participate. I believe that we have our answer.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case Im on my cyber begging that we draw a line under this RFC.  In the first instance, when AN returns his friends can sympathetically discuss the valid points with him  (and of course its possible this is already occurring of wiki) – in the event of a return to past events, there is ANI or Arbcom.   As someone whos said more for ANobody in terms of volume than any save ikip,  I fully recognise that the instigators were likely motivated by the good of the encyclopaedia and that some of their concerns were justified. The Colonel has just made a most pertinent point that this isnt helping the encyclopaedia, and it doesnt seem likely we are going to reconcile opposing views any more than we already have.   The anti AN view have a numerical advantage here, but  on the other hand some of his supporters have  so far been very much pulling their punches.   If we allow this to escalate, its very likely only uninvolved lovers of drama will like how it ends.  FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm disturbed at some of the comments made by editors in the diffs that A Nobody linked to on their talk page. The hostility and rudeness of some of the editors who are participating in deletion discussions is appalling. Please, no more declarations of "war on cruft", no more calling contributions "like a dog dumping in a bucket full of cat shit", no more laughing at inclusionists. Have some more respect for other editors. It's no wonder people don't like AfD when the atmosphere is so poisonous. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And the drama begins. This RfC is not an attack on inclusionists, as you are painting it. It is about specific behaviors by User:A Nobody that are clearly poisonous. Please spare us the victim pose. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and please, NPA. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please highlight the personal attack in that sentence. Protonk (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Victim pose" could be construed as a personal attack, it's certainly not a constructive statement. Edgarde, I'm not an inclusionist. I'm pointing out the hostile atmosphere that exists around deletion discussions; your response to my comment is, ironically, a perfect example. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know the adage that commenting on behavior is supposedly OK, while commenting on an editor isn't, but I'm going to IAR and say that "specific behaviors by User:A Nobody that are clearly poisonous" is a personal attack. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I feel that is a convenient stance to take, given that this RfC is nominally about AN's behavior. I agree w/ fences and windows that edg's statement above wasn't constructive, but I can't imagine that extending NPA to proscribe speaking about behavior is helpful or logical. Also, how can you IAR to apply a rule? Protonk (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I wanted to say something stronger than "not constructive". In any case, I kind of think the comment (and quite possibly my response) are emblematic of what this RfC quickly devolved into. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would procedurally disagree - that A Nobody isn't going to respond here is irrelevant. The community must be allowed to express its opinion on the issues raised.  That can only be done by leaving it open for the full 30 day period.  That way, people (especially his friends) can point to something concrete and nominally complete to highlight the concerns (if any) that are supported by its conclusion. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Outside view by pablomismo
RE: ''To categorise this RFC as being all about "inclusionism" v "deletionism" is misleading and divisive. ''

Agreed, that is why I asked Lar and Protonk to remove their misleading and divisive comments. Lar and Protonk's stated at the top of this page berated Michael for "Can we please not make this about inclusion and deletion?" when Michael actually made no references to this at all. I specifically ask these editors to remove this "misleading and divisive" characterization and they refused, along with refusing to remove misleading and false evidence and personal attacks against A Nobody.

Lar and Protonk make 8 references to deletion in their evidence section. See above, and it appears Lar and Protonk are the first editors here to mention "inclusionism" and "deletionism", when the berated Michael incorrectly.

[more]Ikip (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * At this point I'm gonna have to ask, are you just confusing mentions of deletion (given that AfD was pretty heavily trafficked by AN to say the least) with motivation? Because it seems to me like you are conflating the two.  As for the response to MQS, I invite people to review it and his statements.  He may avowedly steer clear of the words deletion and inclusion (As he makes known a fair bit), but the tenor of his summary was do indict the RfC on the grounds that it was motivated by a stance on content. Protonk (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

@Ikip - just so you are clear about what you're agreeing with, I was not suggesting that the authors of this RFC/U were motivated along those lines, it was more a comment on one or two of the other participants, and A Nobody's stance. pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 21:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No surprise there. I know. Ikip (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

@Protonk (re comment on main page, not above)- I was trying to argue in favour of looking past the whole IvD partisan thing, and against digging in. The RfC has merit, there are problems here that need to be addressed. Perhaps I did not make that clear. So what is the next step toward a positive outcome? Write a proposal? pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 21:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't really talking to you I guess. Well, the first half was.  I recognize that we tend to split along 'party' lines (a review of names on the various proposal should quickly put claims to the contrary right to bed), but I wanted to reiterate that the split itself doesn't invalidate the RfC.  It is just something we have to work through.  I think the next step is convincing everyone (or most everyone) to sign on to a summary or if we can't find one that everyone can agree on, write one then repeat the first step. Protonk (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't consider myself to belong to any "party" (here or in real life), certainly not to a deletionist one; so I hope you weren't placing my name on one side of the split. I've just become increasingly exasperated with A Nobody's behavior, and I'd like to see some effective end to the disruption he causes. I'll admit that I do think that the encouragement he receives from his ARS buddies, along with their quick deployment to battle any perceived threat to one of their own, does tend to exacerbate the situation; but I have hopes that this RfC/U can result in some sort of workable solution to the problems raised by those who initiated it. AN's habit of going into hiding whenever he feels beset may make that difficult, however. Deor (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to name names and point fingers. What I do want to say is that there are two poles for motivation here.  One pole is that both (ex post) "sides" in the debate are motivated by factionalism of some kind.  The other pole is that all "sides" in the debate are operating from some sort of Olympian detachment from the particulars of the debate--everyone is speaking impartially.  I don't feel the latter is true, however I don't feel that it needs to be true in order to present a problem to the community and correct it. Protonk (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "I don't want to name names and point fingers." LOL. That is all you have done for 5 days Protonk. You simply cannot have it both ways. Please stop trying to appear to others that you are taking the high road when you stated above that [A Nobody] "doesn't see his opponents as human beings" and then repeatedly refused to remove that comment. Ikip (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep banging that drum. Protonk (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Quick summary from me then (I need to sleep).
 * A Nobody's editing is problematic, and he needs to commit to changing it
 * there is a strong indication that AfD should be reformed
 * Don't know how many people would concur with both of these though, there may be a split. pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 23:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. I think the party line division thing misses the point. I'm an inclusionist far more than I am a deletionist. I'm here to write articles, (which I do, see User:Lar/DYK, I'm not as prolific as some but I do have 4 GAs and an FA) and to facilitate the writing of articles by others, and generally make the encyclopedia a better one. That's why, ultimately, we all should be here, because this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a social club or a MMORPG. All the charges and countercharges being volleyed back and forth are distracting from the real questions of this RfC/U, which are two: is A Nobody's editing problematic? does he need to commit to change it? The evidence presented makes it abundantly clear that the answers are yes and yes. Really, that's all that matters. XfD may well be in need of reform (I think it is), but that's not what this RfC/U is about. ++Lar: t/c 01:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of the votes are based on the FICT and NOTE battle, I think, regardless of intent. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the FICT or NOTE battles are. What I would like to hear from all of those lobbing side issues around is this: is A Nobody's editing problematic? does he need to commit to change it? ... not any of the rest. Because that's the issue at hand. Not any of the rest. If we stay focused on that it would have saved a lot of the excess wordage in this RfC. If you are asked those two questions, and you answer with "but I think this is a witch hunt", or what have you, you miss the point and do this process a disservice. ++Lar: t/c 04:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That question — "is A Nobody's editing problematic?" — leads to the answer: "A Nobody is problematic in the context of two opposing groups of SPAs at AfD". Which means that yes, A Nobody needs to modify his behaviour, but, it's not reasonable to single out him without dealing with several others who behave in a very similar way.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  07:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In a word: No. For example, the only incivility this RFC has listed is a misleading quote, which Lar and Protonk refuse to correct. The more problematic bahavior is where Administrator Lar has repeatedly supported the continued harassment and personal attacks against A Nobody, which were violations of Jack Merridew's conditions for Merridew to be unblocked. An arbcom and an admin twice warned Jack Merridew to stop the behaviors which Lar vigorously supported.
 * Requests_for_comment/A_Nobody.
 * Is Jossette your wife Lar? This is interesting:
 * User:Josette 19:36, 7 August 2009: defending Jack Merridew calling another editor a WP:DICK: "You may find DefendEachOther interesting reading."
 * User:Jack Merridew 09:51, 8 August 2009: [In response to Josette's comments Mr. Merridew presents an award to Josette on her talk page]: "Presented for moar insightful observations about the true nature of Wikipedia culture and Wikiquette and the littluns whats don'ts gets it."''
 * "Defend each other" states: "If you are personally attacked, don't defend yourself. Instead, allow other community members defend you." Jack Merridew on the September 18 is given a final warning to quit harassing A Nobody. after ignoring repeated warnings, two days later you start this RFC against A Nobody Ikip (talk) 07:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ikip: You ask "is Josette my wife?"... If you had read my user page, or hers, you'd find a complete disclosure of that, including our full real names. We have nothing to hide in that regard, Ikip... Focus on the question that is being asked by this RfC: is A Nobody's editing problematic? does he need to commit to change it? instead of raising red herrings. You have done nothing but raise extraneous issues, in what appears to be an attempt to deflect consideration of the real questions. Answer those honestly, please instead of raising all this smoke. ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't started investigating your talk pages fully Lar. But I am sure in the course of investigating the strong support you gave to Jack Merridew to harass and personally attack A Nobody several times, I will come across it. RFC: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors" How is this harassment you vigorously supported an "extraneous issue"? How is my section criticizing your laughable evidence "extraneous"?  Are we on the same RFC Lar? Don't talk about honesty Lar, when you absolutely refuse to remove some of these sections which are ridiculous, or correct mischaraterizations. Ikip (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * @S Marshall - He's singled out only because this is a request for comment on his editing. If there are other editors whose editing is problematic then a similar process needs to happen with them, doesn't it? Starting, as always, on the user's talk page. pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 10:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack Merridew's behaviour is undoubtedly concerning. I would think that the fact that A Nobody has been inappropriately targetted by other users might explain, but cannot excuse, his own problematic behaviour. Having said that, it is quite wrong that there should be one law for A Nobody and another law for others.  I think this supports my view that this RFC that singles out A Nobody personally should be delayed until the question of substantial groups of tendentious editors at AfD can be considered as a whole.  There are a substantial number of recent DRVs that are highly relevant to tendentious editing at AfD. I do not think the matter can start on each individual user's talk page, simply because I think we should reach some kind of conclusion before I die of old age.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  10:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good points all S Marshall. Pablo, many of the of the IDs which attacked A Nobody and other inclusionists appear to be socks.  Even if we had ten times the time addressing them individually wouldn’t be an option.  Personally I don’t favour directly  addressing other namned indviduals even en mass.  Our best chance for a constructive outcome is any  practical solution that might  reduce the general hostility at AfD. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Feyd, that is just so vague. You are claiming that A Nobody and some other unnamed inclusionists have been "attacked" in some way by many unnamed sockpuppets, too many to be worth tackling directly and individually, yet an (unspecified) reform of AfD to reduce what you see as hostility will make all that go away, and make this RFC unnecessary? Note this is not a RFC on the AfD process. It's not a RFC about content inclusion criteria. It's about whether A Nobody's editing is problematic.  pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 23:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Any proposal focussing on ANobody's behaviour is going to be highly contentious unless its fully takes into account the environment in which it occurred.


 * Blaming someone for borderline incivility like calling comments "ludicrous"  doesn't really sit right  when they themselves have been subject to the most  appallingly graphic sexual insults, sock farm attacks, and even physical RL harassment.


 * The gall of certain people is astounding when they get on their high horse about honesty, but they themselves remain firmly aligned behind "evidence" clearly demonstrated as false,  and even seem to support physical harassment by claiming its a reason why an editor should retire.


 * An elegant option here is for neither side to push too strongly. Regardless of the hype expressed here,  many of ANobodys strongest friends clearly recognise there was some merit in case raised.  It seems to have passed unnoticed,  but Schmidts view has an 11 point list where he recognises specific behaviours are indeed problematic, and acknowledges they have happened in recent history.  DGG has offered strongly worded advice.  Peregrine specifically says the merge tactic is out or order. Etc etc.     So there's consensus for some of the core points made by the instigators here.  It can be referred back to if things reoccur.  Folk can be assured ANs friends have talked to him about this.  Why isnt this enough?


 * Anobody did indeed make problematic edits, but if one looks at his conduct and takes into account how passionate he is about defending the work of other, and the appalling abuse he encountered, the fair conclusion is he deserves a medal, not a condemnation.Any attempt to push for a proposal that trys to make him look at fault with out recognising the provocative factors is going to be met with an increasingly forceful response.  I don't need to conspire offline to know there are editors who will work with me to raise RFC/u if that becomes necessary. If folk  don't want to drop this,  why cant they use their energy to work on a something constructive to tackle the root cause – the hostility at AfD? FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what you're saying is generally fine - and that A Nobody's closer colleagues realise this and are talking to him about it is good. But that does seem to highlight two issues that appear to be at the core of the more negative comments.  1)  That A Nobody has nowhere acknowledged this as a problem.  Were he to post here or anywhere on-wiki that he has read the RfC, acknowledges the criticisms and will take some form of action, I think that would cover most of the concerns.  2)  Why won't he listen to others - why only his friends who are like-minded?  Is it because he sees battlegrounds where there are none?  His friends are not the only ones he is meant to be collegial with - he is supposed to take on good-faith feedback from any member of the community.  That includes those who do not share his philosophy - an acknowledgement of this should eliminate most of the residual concerns
 * I appreciate the problems in our processes that lead to a battleground mentality. In reality, however, the hostility at AfD is the sum of the hostility and problematic behaviour of the participating editors - that includes A Nobody.  If he can amend his behaviour, we will have a much better chance of persuading, or forcing, others to do the same.  I like A Nobody - passionate about things - but the behaviours highlighted are concerning and he needs to acknowledge it.  Other editors also have problems, and make mistakes, but the errors of others do not vindicate our own. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding. Before Id followed some of the links etc I also thought it was best for him to participate.  But trying to look at it from his point of view,  I don't think his experience here has predisposed him to react well to criticism that appears one sided.   The instigators have explained why they raised the RfC in the manner they did,  but perhaps there would have been a much better chance of him engaging in discussion if communication had been kicked of more in the style of Durova or even BackslashForwardSlash. Id like to answer your question more fully as your point is good, but I dont think speculating anymore about his  POV would be fair.    Ive no reason to believe he isnst serious when he says on his talk page he intends to take a break of at least a month. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect, I doubt it. I've had enough experience with him to gather that his view of critics forms in the presence of criticism, not necessarily the form.  AN at least publicly acknowledged to thinking a great deal of Lar, managed to change that view following Lar's request to not merge during AfDs.  Similar examples happened last year among editors who were neutral.  Could the RfC have been gentler and more neutrally presented?  Yes.  Would we have gained cooperation or assent if it were?  I don't know and I'm leaning toward no. Protonk (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

AFD is a poisoned environment? Not really
With all the comments about the poison AFD environment, I went through to make a list of all the AFDs I have participated in since June: a nice, recent, 90 day long sample. Here we go: I find a few things quite notable: first, the generous use of supporting people "per nomination", with no one opposing that as a reason. Second, the cordial referencing to notability guidelines as a key decision-making factor. A few of these were beset by socks (Articles for deletion/Let Loose (Marc Mysterio song), Articles for deletion/Roll Wit It, and Articles for deletion/Broken-Hearted Girl), but that was dealt with promptly and efficiently. Mistaken nominations (such as Articles for deletion/Stay (SafetySuit song)) were made, but that was dealt with politely and reasonably.

Third, and perhaps most notable is Articles for deletion/Biker's bell. It's one of the few that even approached the level of ugliness associated with the AFDs being discussed here. Look at the participant list, and compare it to the others. Then compare it to the normal participants in fiction AFDs.

My conclusion is simple: there isn't a problem with the AFD process per se. Behaviour at AFD is something learned by the participants, and some of what people have learned needs to be unlearned quickly.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a problem with small sample sizes, I think. Looking at my own recent AfD contributions, I come up with this and this as the only "contentious" ones (the latter of which was argued in good faith, long though it was).  I don't find much resemblance between your experiences and mine. I'm a fairly constant contributor to DRV, and from a DRV perspective I would want to say that there are other SPAs whose recent actions seem to me to be more questionable than A Nobody's.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the difference is between music stuff, and fictional stuff. Heck, I'd vote delete on some music things. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I see quite a few of ANobodies friends took part in the Bikers Bell discussion, so  KWW, I guess your implication is we're a cause of any ugliness that sometimes breaks out there? Very nice Im sure.

I find supporting physical harassment in the manner I explained above rather ugly. The same for getting on ones moral high horse demanding harsh punishment for dishonesty, while hypocritically supporting false evidence. These two points only seem to apply to you KWW. So there you go.

There is a grain of truth in your analyses there. These last 90 days AfD does seem to be less hostile – after all the deletionist side is increasingly gettings its way, and this can be attributed to the success of the ugly  tactics in driving those with a positive outlook away from the area. Thanks for advising on what you consider noteable, but its secondary sources that determine that round here. Lets see what they have to say:


 * New York Review of books: "a narrow, almost grade-schoolish notion", "bullies, who take pleasure in wrecking and mocking peoples' work", "Notability purges' are being executed throughout Wikipedia by empire-building, wannabe tin-pot dictators masquerading as humble editors.", "book burners";
 * Guardian: "self-promoted leaf-pile guards appeared, doubters and deprecators",
 * Guardian: "There are some people on Wikipedia now who are just bullies, who take pleasure in wrecking and mocking people's work..." "Inside, Wikipedia is more like a sweatshop than Santa's workshop";
 * Telegraph: "The notability debate has spread across the discussions like a rash", "Newer folks feel like they're wielding a machete, not planting new trees.", "…in the past few years Wikipedia has changed; it now takes short stubs and throws them in the trash can, and excoriates those who have the temerity to create

FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think about the editors behind the articles, and not the articles themselves, it you can see how people get worked up over AfD. There are tons of wikiprojects that have become ghost towns because of our AfD process.  More newbies and inclusionists mean more deletionists, but more deletionists mean less newbies and inclusionists.  This can get people worked up. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Can provide citations and diffs to show that tons of wikiprojects have become ghost towns because of AFD. Please can you also say exactly how many tons is too? Ta. Spartaz Humbug! 16:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't have a bot that can do stats or anything. It happened to my main project: [Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons, although we've come back from the dead a bit.  It happened to a lot of series specific projects in TV, anime and manga, and video games too.  I would estimate that tons is in the 10s.  Maybe 20-40. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't the real problem that many wikiprojects become insular groups, not knowing or caring about the wider standards of the project as a whole? Then, when those broader project-wide standards get applied at AFD, the participants get mad because they thought the only opinions that matters were those of the wikiproject participants?  Friday (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends on your perspective. I think wikipedia should adjust to its volunteers, but maybe some think we should get rid of all the volunteers that don't adjust to wikipedia. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We should adjust to volunteers, and not the other way around, but within some constraints. We all agree that we can't adjust to volunteers who want to advertise their product on WP (and we get thousands a week).  We obviously all disagree to what extend we should adjust to volunteers who want to work on things which can't be sourced from reliable sources.  However this is all unrelated to the conduct question at hand. Protonk (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect you shouldn't throw emotive statements like that around without being able to source them to some degree. Please provide some examples otherwise your statement starts to look a little over the top Spartaz Humbug! 19:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Convincing you wouldn't do anything. Even convincing arbcom wouldn't do anything.  Unless we have some sort of governance reform, there's no one to complain to in a way that would fix anything.  In any case, if you're curious, you can look through talk page revision histories, like this one for show 24's project.  Lot's more [Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television#Task_forces_which_deal_with_specific_types_of_articles here].  Then you can put it together with the events in Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 to see the general timeline. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The essential problem, in my view, is that Wikipedia is unduly populated by editors who have a very emotional response to disagreement. This will show up as a problem in AFD, sure, but also in any other place these overly-sensitive editors go.  The important distinction here is not inclusionists vs deletionists, but rather editors who behave like adults versus those who do not.  Friday (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was a member of a Wikiproject that became a ghost town and behulieve mee it was not because our articles were being deleted. It was a combination of clashing personalities, and the fact that we ran out of interesting topics to write articles on. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we avoid tossing around the NYRB and guardian articles again? I really don't think that they provide a counter argument to Kww's statement that the AfDs he has been involved with have been relatively pleasant. The also serve as a convenient guise under which we can attack 'deletionists' and still feel and sound neutral. Protonk (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That bulleted list appears to have been copied from WP:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation, which Ikip recently pointed out to FeydHuxtable. Flatscan (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes you're right Protonk, there's no doubt the AfDs KWW participated in were relatively civil affairs.  Despite him making what are IMO by far the  most problematic edits concerning this RfC,  he may be a perfectly decent editor, and certainly he conducted himself well in the discussions he linked to.   But that wasnt the thrust of his argument – he was suggesting that those stating AfD is a hostile environment are wrong, and wasnt far from implying that problems there centre round the conduct of ANobody and his friends.   Hence the counter. I hope not to make that sort of edit again, but I will if it looks like this discussion is moving beyond a reasonable recognition of the concerns raised  to a grossly unfair assignment of blame on the subject or his friends. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You've assumed that I only refer to the inclusionist defense. I think the AFD behaviour on both sides has some real problems: the famous "dog-crap in a bucket of catshit" quote has no place in a deletion discussion. Looking at Articles for deletion/Biker's bell, I see names on both sides of the debate that I normally associate with fiction AFDs and not with the ones I normally deal with, and I can see from the discussion that I cautioned DreamGuy about exaggerating the case for deletion. My basic belief is that there is nothing inherently flawed in the AFD process. Somehow, somewhere, the fiction segment has picked up people that will attack for the sake of attack and some that will defend for the sake of defense. Once that occurs, the process does break down, because the process is supposed to be about rational comparison of the article to content guidelines.
 * I do have to take issue with your statement that I have made "the most problematic edits concerning this RfC". If you can point to a false or misleading statement that I have made, I'll be happy to discuss it. I've been doing my best to focus on the issue at hand: A Nobody's behaviour.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there is an interesting discussion to be had about the perception of AfD and the behaviour of participants (whatever their view) there. Probably best at WT:AfD (where it will benefit from other eyes) though; certainly not here, it's a distraction from the focus of this RFC. pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 12:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that I don't think behaviour of participants belongs in a process discussion. We need to talk about behaviour of participants individually in individual RFCs. This RFC belongs to A Nobody. If someone starts one on any of a dozen other editors, inclusionist or exclusionist, about behaviour at AFD, I may comment on those as well (and I would have some pretty harsh words for editors on both sides). My essential points:
 * The problem at AFD is behavioural, not structural.
 * Those behavioural problems lie with individual editors, and those individual editors should be dealt with.
 * Those individual editors include people that would be labeled exclusionist as well as inclusionist.
 * RFCs, by their nature, are focused on individual participants.
 * Since AFD isn't structurally broken, there's no reason to try to stall this RFC under claims that the whole AFD process needs to be examined/repaired/revised first. This one is, as Pablo says, about A Nobody and A Nobody's behaviour.
 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 12:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Kww here for the most part, as I do feel there is a natural border of notability at AfD, and for the most part it is fairly easy to predict what will end up deleted and what won't. Yes the nature of AfD is confrontational and vulnerable to arguments and polarisation, but I think that is a necessary evil. However, for as much overuse of tenuous sourcing that inclusionists may resort to, I have seen alot more deliberate ignoring or pretending that sources don't exist by the deletion-minded. I am also unimpressed by folks here mimimising the partisan nature of many of these debates. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to parse the last sentence. Obviously AfD debates are highly partisan.  But it does not follow from the statement "AfDs are highly partisan" that "editors fomenting that partisanship or otherwise impacting the standard of debate negatively should not be held accountable".  There seems to be a pretty naked attempt to force that connection on the part of some editors. Protonk (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I too am unclear on that sentence's meaning, especially considering Casliber's statement of general agreement with Kww. Pointing out specific comments (diffs) "mimimising the partisan nature" may be helpful. Flatscan (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am talking about partisan editors - Please then show me the last time that TTN, EEMIV, Stifle, Deor, Gavin Collins and some others voted 'keep' or what sort of percentages. One could also add when the last time I, Ikip or AN or some others voted 'delete' Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And the point being? Protonk (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Eh, I get the attempted point. I just think you are going to embarrass yourself by going down this road too far.  A cursory look at the summaries endorsed in the RfC will show that a number of the editors you listed are well aware of their own stance but don't feel it is determinate with respect to their opinions.  I also think that taking the pepsi challenge WRT votes for stifle, myself, Kww, Lar, Matt or any number of the folks who certified or endorsed the main summary will be a revelation for you. Protonk (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Er...yes...I am aware that some of the editors vote keep some of the time. Others I have yet to see vote keep. "number of the editors you listed are well aware of their own stance but don't feel it is determinate with respect to their opinions." - good to know. Well, that goes for me too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And if an editor never votes keep? Or never votes delete?  Are they not capable of recognizing flaws in others?  Should we keep a list of editors whose opinion 'really' matters next to the list of editors who have left their opinion? Protonk (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you've mentioned my name, I have to express my thanks for the assumption of good faith, Casliber. :-( Among the small minority of editors who bother to comment at AfD at all, I comment only infrequently, when a particular discussion happens to catch my eye, and by no means invariably for deletion (does a barnstar from a subsequently blocked inclusionist editor count for anything?). The last time I did a survey of my AfD contributions—which was, admittedly, a while ago—I found that my opinions matched the eventual closures about 90% of the time. The continual focus on the inclusionist/deletionist divide is what's poisoning this RfC, and I really expected more from you. Deor (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay then, Deor, show me some examples where you've voted 'keep', especially if at a debate where there may have been some controversy, and ditto Stifle, TTN, Kww, and EEMIV (the more the merrier) and I will happily profess my error and revise my statement accordingly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This request strikes me as a really divisive road to go down and I'm frankly surprised an arbitrator would suggest it. But then I get surprised by arbitrators doing things I didn't expect on a fairly regular basis, proving that we are all of us human and imperfect. ++Lar: t/c 09:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point, Casliber (FYI, among my last 1,000 edits, I have one keep-ish in a highly controversial, multi-AfDed article; out of 29 AfD discussions, I have a ~50% record of my !vote aligning with the final decision, so...yeah, big whoop). There may be an -ism bias between commenters, or even initiators, for this RFC -- but I think a bigger oomph from RFC comes more clearly comes from the bona fide third-party, uninvolved editors who swing by to endorse (but rarely add) their perspective. If you discount the "partisan" (what an awful misappropriation of the word) folks' "outside views" and endorsements, there's still a body of signatures and brief blurbs from familiar folks who are active enough in the community to, ya know, care about RFC and A Nobody, but who don't raise the, "What is your quest? When did you last !vote keep? What is your favorite colour?" challenge. [I have an image now of "you shall not pass!" Gandalf replacing that fellow from Monty Python, casting King Arthur and Wikipedians on this talk page into that dark pit of whatever-the-fuck.] I doubt A Nobody will particularly care about the comments I wrote or endorsed -- but, maybe a comment's endorsement from e.g. Mazca (a somewhat familiar name, but not someone I've known to get fired up in AfD or in loggerheads with A Nobody) will be "neutral" enough that A Nobody takes it seriously. Thank goodness this talk page, a sandbox for many of the same personalities, has an effective wall that keeps its noise from bleeding into the signal (itself a bit cluttered, of course) on the actual RFC page. Maybe someone should write a plug-in that allows folks to remove from the RFC page any comments made by folks fired-up, emotional and/or myopic enough to comment on the talk page, just leaving those real honest-to-goodness "look, just passing through and here's what I think" comments. --EEMIV (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hell, here's one where I even committed the heresy of evaluating the evidence and reversing myself on an article I had nominated. Here's one where I listened to evidence that Ikip presented, and reversed myself. Happy now? Not only will I vote to keep, I even listen to people with opposing points of view.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a fiction example? I think that's where the battle is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's any kind of "battle," this isn't the forum for it. Take it to users' talk pages, WT:AFD, etc. --EEMIV (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still at a loss about this. Does he need a fiction example? If he has one are his arguments somehow lent credence? Protonk (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this thread has gotten off topic IMHO, but it is an interesting subject that's related to the whole environment, if not AN specifically. I believe everyone's view is equal (including editors who don't frequent the policy/guideline pages), but that's way off topic.  I don't believe that there is a kind of AfD voting that makes a persons views on this RfC less equal, although having a history with AN might.  As a wikifriend of AN, you can probably give my views a bit less weight, I guess.  That said, Kww doesn't spar with AN over music AfDs, I don't think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I could give your views less weight by virtue of your friendship, but I don't. I think that we should recognize the importance of bias and the possibility that our prior views on something may cloud our decisions about it.  That said, we don't have a reservoir of editors who have no interest in AfD, no history w/ AN and yet find themselves on this RfC page with an opinion or a solution.  As is often the case on these internecine disputes, anyone distant enough to make a totally unbiased judgment either doesn't care about the dispute or doesn't understand the particulars.  So we deal with what we have.  I hope that editors will make an attempt to realize their own bias and comment accordingly, but there isn't some scale whereby we should look at another editor's bias (Really look at our imagination about their bias) and correct their views accordingly.  I also don't subscribe to the view that this bias makes concerns about behavior irrelevant.  Neither does the occasionally combative environment of AfD/DRV make behavior irrelevant.  On the contrary, editor behavior helps shape and reinforce those biases and environments.  So we should be doubly concerned about behavior that seeks to turn wikipedia into a battleground between editors who vote "keep" and vote "delete". Hence this section of the RfC. Protonk (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't "spar" much with anyone at AFD. I was surprised while researching my AFD history how thoroughly I've given up on fiction AFDs. There aren't two dozen in my entire edit history. Fictional material that I would tend to keep (sourced primarily to completely independent sources, with an emphasis on real-world material and only sufficient plot description to render the real-world material comprehensible) doesn't tend to come up for deletion, so no, there aren't any "keeps" in the last two years. There aren't even a handful of fiction AFDs this year. However, I will point at Articles for deletion/Body_Transfer as an example that shows that I do the legwork necessary to form an opinion on fiction, rather than reflexively arguing to delete.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Certifier view by Flatscan

 * Referent is WP:Requests for comment/A Nobody

I think my statement could use some amending, perhaps a note clarifying that it covers only a subset of the issues raised and pointing out that I have endorsed others' views with wider scopes. Despite its limited scope, I believe that it offers value by focusing on a well-defined issue, providing more complete background, and proposing a solution that is neither controversial nor onerous. I want to avoid distracting from the other concerns. Flatscan (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It does offer value. It's a sensible alternative to the disruption caused by a wholesale merge during an AfD, and demonstrates to A Nobody a way that he could amend this aspect of his disruptive behaviour. As you say, it doesn't touch on the other aspects highlighted by the RFC, but it's a good starting point toward a way forward, and I'd endorse it as such. pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 07:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * RE: WT:Articles for deletion
 * It is important to point out that there was a lot of disagreement in this section about merge policy. Ikip (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that there is less well-supported disagreement than you think. After this RfC quiets down – but probably before it closes, I would like to preempt the WT:AFD archiving – I plan to revisit the issue with a policy RfC and/or listing on . Flatscan (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I thought it was a very well judged and valuable statement. Didn't endorse yesterday as I felt considering how the discussing was progressing its wasnt the right time to be moderate.   This is one of those rare cases where because of the high impact yet non neutral way the RFC was framed by well regarded admins,   it simply isnt always possible to respond moderately (or  remain silent   )  without letting down the subject. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reconsidering and endorsing. Flatscan (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jack Merridew-A Nobody
What was so bad about that? It's too long to read. MBisanz said it was sections 1 and 7, but it doesn't have those sections. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is something you can ask matt on his talk page. I'm not sure what you want explained to you or why it would matter. Protonk (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured it was something big, that I was just missing, since it's what brought MBisanz on board for this RfC. If it wasn't one of the big things, I guess I won't worry about it.  As far as I can tell, AN did a bunch of tl;dr on the ANI page, and it wasn't actionable, which I guess is frowned upon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, then you could probably ask him there or email him. Protonk (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Section titled "1 Wikistalking and harassment by User:Jack Merridew" and "1.5 Proposal: Community ban of Sceptre" (1 and 7 if you are counting in the TOC). Specifically if you look at 1.5, the idea of proposing a site ban against someone simply because they proposed a site ban against you first is really quite unreasonable; and mind you, I have in the past supported site bans against Sceptre.  MBisanz  talk 07:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. That part is pretty silly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To their credit, I notice that both Kww:
 * "I'd have no objection to reinstating Jack's ban on that basis"(02:39, 13 April 2009)
 * "If you could show me concrete evidence of disruptive editing (not disagreeing with you at AFDs, not correcting wikilinks, but actual disruptive editing" 01:09, 13 April 2009
 * and Protonk:
 * "I'll agree. I say so only because of the explicitly short leash that JM is on. I still prefer an actual remedy (i.e. blocking him for being disruptive) to using the threat of an indef block to bring him to agreement on the mutual avoiadance issue." 03:24, 13 April 2009
 * both called for Jack Merridew being blocked. I respect that. Ikip (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This goes way back to April. Is there something that refreshes its relevance now?  Durova  320 04:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 days before this RFC was started Jack was warned again by an admin, this time with a stronger threat:
 * "How about you don't ever comment on A Nobody again or get indefinitely blocked again? With your past, you have absolutely zero authority to suggest that someone else is "extremely disruptive" and "primarily responsible for creating the polarized I/D schism". You have been warned before to stay away from A Nobody. Consider this a last warning." 18 September 2009 Jack continued to harrass A Nobody and Lar continued to support this harrassment.
 * Why are you questioning something that happened 5 months ago, when on this RFC you wrote:
 * "Certifying with caveats regarding 2006-2008 events, particularly regarding the opening request's use of the term "harassment"
 * How are events that happened in 2006 are still relevant today? and yet events that happened 5 months ago, and two days before this RFC not relevant? Ikip (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "... with caveats" means that Durova had problems with including material that old. I disgree with her, but she is being consistent. withdrawn, sorry &mdash;Kww(talk) 18:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually Kww misrepresents my opinion, which is surprising because it was explained clearly (I made the longest endorsement comments of anybody). I objected to the opening request's framing of the term harassment.  Actually in August 2008 upon resigning from mentorship of A Nobody I pledged to endorse a conduct RfC, and renewed the offer in April 2009.  That was never withdrawn.  Please inquire if something appears unclear, rather than attempting to speak for me.  Durova  320 19:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kww. :)  Regarding this thread here, I wonder what the special relevance is of that archived page in April to the current discussion. Both Jack Merridew and A Nobody were unhappy with me for that resolution, but it did stop the lengthy ANI complaints. I was perfectly ready to take them both to arbitration, with Sceptre too if necessary, in order to relieve the community from the strain of a problem the admin boards couldn't solve. They knew I meant it, too.  ANI megathreads stopped coming from them at that point, so wouldn't we count this particular angle as being already resolved?  Durova  320 19:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your guess is as good as mine. I suggest you ask PF why s/he has brought this up a few times.  I suspect PF is searching for some sort of ultimate cause to the RfC.  I think that so long as PF assumes that AN's behavior can't be an ultimate cause, that search will be somewhat fruitless.  But I digress. Protonk (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that AN's actions cannot be the cause, but that something broke the camel's back for the three nominators, and I figured it would be the important thing. The list includes so many things, from so many time periods, it's hard to figure out the main reasons, and why an RfC now instead of some other time, etc. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well from my perspective, this old talk page archive offers some thought on why not then. My feeling is this.  AN was barelling toward a conduct RfC or worse in August of 08, when the harassment/vanishing business occurred.  Immediately following his return, the concept of an RfC was brought up but (As you can read in the talk page) I felt that he had moved away from the more egregious behavior so one was unwarranted.  What brought the more recent concern was the merging at AfD bit but I can only see that as a proximate cause.  In that discussion (and related ones) I and Lar and Matt saw the same pattern of refusal to accept criticism, vilification of critics and personalization/politicization of disputes.  The reason the RfC itself is so sprawling is because the pattern of behavior persists across so many venues and for so long.  As I tried to explain to Feyd (in regards to the Dr. Fluffy bit) the RfC could have been made longer without too much effort.  We excluded a number of similar diffs in order to make it a little more presentable.  I avoided (explicitly) writing a narrative core summary because I didn't want to offer a monolithic story which would undoubtedly reflect my bias as much as it reflected his behavior.  Readability suffers, but I think letting the evidence speak for itself is sufficient for most people. Protonk (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Without necessarily agreeing with every aspect of Protonk's assessment, the overall chronology fits the bill. One gets to recognize which editors are likely to become subjects of conduct RfC and he's the sort: heavily involved in a long term dispute, quirky manner, tends to tread close to the line in terms of site norms, and not especially good at taking constructive feedback.  Durova  320 21:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The September 25 barnstar to Jack Merridew speak volumes about Durova's position in this RFC, quote: 

This barnstar was awarded five days after Jack was given a final warning by an admin, after several other warnings to stop harassing A Nobody:
 * "How about you don't ever comment on A Nobody again or get indefinitely blocked again? With your past, you have absolutely zero authority to suggest that someone else is "extremely disruptive" and "primarily responsible for creating the polarized I/D schism". You have been warned before to stay away from A Nobody. Consider this a last warning." September 18, 2009

Does this sound like an editor who is "setting the example" and "showing it's possible" Durova? Is Jack and Lar's behavior harassing A Nobody an example for all of Wikipedia Durova? Did you know about this ban warning when you gave Jack a barnstar Durova?

Why the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT comments like this:
 * "Regarding this thread here, I wonder what the special relevance is of that archived page in April to the current discussion."

And Prontunk:
 * "Your guess is as good as mine."

After I explained why this thread is relevant? 2 DAYS before this RFC Jack was warned to stop harassing A Nobody. 2 DAYS. Then the admin who repeatedly supported this harassment, Lar, writes this RFC and posts it. Covering issues that go back over 2 years, which have no relevance today, because A Nobody has not had a sock since September 2008. Whereas Jack was warned for harassing A Nobody on September 18th. Rfc: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors" Ikip (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to have lost focus here, if you ever had it. This RfC is about A Nobody. Not anyone else. You have spent a lot of time trying to establish the same memes, over and over again, (it would be interesting to measure the number of bytes added by you repeating the same charges, the number of edits, the number of times you move stuff around, restate the same false points, and so forth) in what seems to be an attempt to shift focus away from A Nobody and on to Jack, myself, anyone and anything else. Why is that? It's really tiresome and it doesn't help move matters forward at all. ++Lar: t/c 02:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ikip, whilst it is true that an RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors, that does not necessarily mean that it has to. In this case, I fear that it is not conducive to do so, unless you have some evidence that this RfC was borne out of bad faith, which, looking at the participants is difficult to judge.  This is especially true when one of the initiators of the RfC has offered to help you start an RfC on Jack, which would be much mroe constructive.  This RfC is about A Nobody, and with respect, your contributions here have the appearance of trying to muddy the waters of such a discussion by diverting of onto other, tangentially related topics.  That may not be your intent, but focussing on A Nobody is the most constructive use of your time here - you have made your points very clear in your outside view, so you can now settle back and await endorsements if other editors agree. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Shortly before Jack's barnstar, a sock of User:John254 got identified and Jack stepped forward with an incredible candid statement about how to return the legitimate way. I'm pretty sure A Nobody got a similar barnstar from me long ago.  Neither award carried political subtext.  Durova  320 02:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that the admin threatening JM w/ a block if he bothered AN more has endorsed the main summary of this RfC. Protonk (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * RE Lar: "it would be interesting to measure the number of bytes added by you repeating the same charges, the number of edits, the number of times you move stuff around, restate the same false points, and so forth"
 * This from an editor who wrote a huge RFC complaining about A Nobody's WP:TPO "On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred" and WP:Otherstuff, continued mischarectrizing evidence, etc. Of course you want this to only be about A Nobody, because if we expand this RFC just a little bit, we see that Lar has continued to support Jack's  harrassment and personal attacks against A Nobody. Lets not investigate A Nobody' conduct in a vaccum Lar. Ikip (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So far I've pretty much let everything you say slide. But if we really want to start digging, your own conduct is a very fruitful place to dig. You should let it drop. As multiple people have pointed out. ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment on View by Durova
I don't give a hoot about inclusionism and deletionism either, I like to think that I judge articles on their own merit. I think that those editors who complain most about either of the main -isms are those with a vested interest in prolonging the conflict because it validates their own stance. Anybody else's mileage will of course vary.

Durova's view is reasoned and sensible. The conflict needs to cease. But the fact that different 'ideologies' exist does not negate the disruptive editing, of which there is ample evidence here. pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 21:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said. Durova  320 21:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll endorse this view with reservations in a bit, but I do want to state those reservations. I think AN has responded to the RfC, just not on the RfC or the talk page. I don't necessarily blame him, it's pretty crappy to be read the riot act and we don't demand that volunteers participate, but I think his views are made relatively clear here. I also feel that the goal of the RfC is not necessarily discordant with Durova's statement. We don't seek a ban. We don't even seek a topic ban. We want to make abuntantly clear formally what has been impossible informally: that there is good faith serious criticism of AN's habits. Most of those problematic habits are primarily related to deletion. Whether that is due to the writers' partisanship, the 'nature' of AfD or the bulk of AN's problems is left up to the reader. Obviously I feel it is possible to accept my partisanship, accept the nature of the environment and demand that specific participants in that environment behave appropriately.

I'll also make a broad offer that I have made over email to some folks. I am willing to lobby Lar and Matt to amend the original RfC and support some view like Dr.Nick's, but only if I can be convinced that it will be worth a damn. If such a concession would be approached by folks opposed to the merit of the RfC as a tactical retreat to be capitalized upon, then I won't bother. But if I can convince both sides to pile on a view that AN is a good editor who needs to accept criticism, then this will be something of a success. Protonk (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From this angle it looks like the question is more about whether it's worth the risk of not attempting to find middle ground. And I mean this sincerely for both sides.  It's gratifying to see you respond this candidly, Protonk, because I've seen so many situations before where the partisans had blinders on--they acted as if tactical maneuvers could continue forever and ignored cautions until arbitration was actually underway.  Two or three years ago it was a safe bet that the editors who sought resolution fairly and extended good faith would come out all right at arbitration and those who lacked self-restraint would have involuntary constraints placed upon their actions.  Since then I've lost that trust in our arbitration process--seen hatchet jobs ratified and compelling evidence go unread--and those 'quirks' of the last couple of years don't tend to be random; they usually correlate to a wikipolitical framework.
 * So for half a year I've given tiered advice to disputants, which might as well be posted onsite too. Arbitration at its best is as much fun as a root canal; if you're heavily involved in a dispute consider departing because you may get included at a case.  Especially if your real name is known or may become known because there are people on and off this website who may try to ruin your reputation; they may try to make you unemployable and unless you are astoundingly well connected within the wiki-universe the arbitrators will not care.  Take this from someone who became an unwilling 'case study' subject in a book chapter written by an irresponsible minor academic as a result of an arbitration case.  Do not depend upon your evidence being weighed or even read, no matter how good it is, unless the case is neat and small. The latter example was a summary post onsite of evidence that had been submitted privately in two prior arbitration cases which not a single arbitrator had read in either of those cases; within a day and a half of the onsite evidence post the administrator resigned and retired and has since been indefinitely blocked for socking.  If you become a named party it is possible that even if no onsite evidence appears against you, a proposed decision may fault you on policy grounds for edits that complied with policy as it existed at the time and you may be topic banned from a topic you hadn't edited in a year and a half and where had never been blocked nor warned--with a decision which expands upon your username to state your full real name, and afterward your appeal will be archived without a vote and no followup action taken.  If that makes you nervous, it should: the latter example happens to be a research professor at a leading university.  I hate to think of the word of mouth that generates regarding our site, but he just doesn't know the right people internally.  So my honest advice to editors here on either side of the ideological fence is how much is this worth to you?  Please come to the table, and if the other side doesn't reciprocate then think seriously about walking away.  Durova  320 22:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point I'm ready to walk away. The point that we wanted to make has been made. We have firmly established (perhaps in too great a detail, but established nonetheless) that A Nobody has behaviors that are not helpful and does not have a good track record of taking constructive feedback. There is a strong desire among many participants that A Nobody stop behaving that way, and start taking feedback. Anyone but the most partisan, repetitive, and unfocused of his defenders can see that is the case, and the many endorsements of various views pointing that out in various permutations of wordings show there's a rough consensus among participants. The view of the most partisan, repetitive, unfocused defender received exactly one endorsement (as of this writing) showing that there isn't a lot of support for it. It's not necessary that anyone declare victory here or hang on to the bitter end or what have you, this is good enough. Should A Nobody return to these destructive behaviors, he has been put on notice by this RfC that we have requested him not to do that and he won't get away with them again for long. And that's really all that is desired. Not banishment, not sanctions, not an arbcom case, not even blocks. Just more constructive behavior. As far as I am concerned this RfC can be wound up now. The point that we wanted to make has been made. ++Lar: t/c 02:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lar expresses the other side of things well here. it would be great if we could get everyone to agree on some central plank, but I'm certainly not going to diminish the agreement over the basics of the RfC already. Protonk (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the RfC is ready to be closed down quite yet. There have been a number of opinions about A Nobody's conduct and a number of opinions about inclusionism vs. deletionism (the latter of which I consider irrelevant in varying degrees); but I'd like to see more views from editors who can review the evidence without the prejudice of previous interactions with AN. Perhaps that is unlikely, given that such editors are not apt to stumble upon the RfC randomly; but there seems no reason to declare the matter settled at this time. As long as AN has chosen to adopt his usual attitude of not hearing or responding to any criticism of his actions, waiting until everything blows over before returning to editing, I'm willing to wait for any additional views that may be forthcoming. Deor (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel this should go 30 days or until (almost) everyone can agree on a single summary or way forward. Protonk (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I was saying as far as I am concerned, not "I'm asking that we close it now". Letting it run is fine by me. In fact, if some new consensus view comes along that says what many views say, but better, I'm happy to endorse it. But Durova was advising people about fignting on to the bitter end, I think. I don't see a need for that. (and in fact I've not fought. For example, except for occasionally pointing out how wide of the mark and off scope Ikip's participation has been, I've eschewed any direct engagement with him, although if I had chosen to I could refute him in detail, point by point. I just don't see the need, though. He knows where my talk page is, he knows how my recall process works, he knows how to start RfCs, etc...) But no. A Nobody isn't going to come to the table, so walking away is the alternative. The purpose has been met. There is broad agreement. The point has been made. ++Lar: t/c 09:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it should run for the whole scheduled 30 days or whatever is normal; A Nobody should have the largest window of opportunity possible to respond here. pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 12:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Pablo makes a good point. This has been open ten days.  The RfC subject hasn't responded in this venue yet.  If it closes early we'll never know whether he had the flu or whether he really didn't want to join.  Let's give him a fair chance.  You know how much I don't relish the alternative, but if problems do persist it'll probably get arbitrated.  And it'll probably be about more than just him.  That's pragmatism speaking: the community is not talented at resolving continued problems in this type of situation.  See this generalized summary from last June.  I wish there were a form of mediation designed to manage non-article disputes.  But temperamentally I ain't no mediator, so don't look in this direction.  Durova  320 18:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're kind of arguing for both sides, in a way. Anyway, in case it's still not clear, I have no objections to keeping it open or to closing it, whichever. Because there's a lot to be said for giving A Nobody every reasonable chance to participate, if he's so inclined. But I also do not expect a lot of motion from here to the end, most have said their say. Could be wrong of course. ++Lar: t/c 02:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, where do we go from here? I'm not sure waiting for AN is a big enough reason to keep this open.  I don't think he wants to comment. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The other reason to leave it open is to convince folks to support a view like Dr. Nick's. I'm heartened by the fact that Dr. Nick's view has the 2nd most endorsements (behind the main summary and a little ahead of mine).  Or we give time for some editor who doesn't immediately have a stake in the issue to comment. Protonk (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine too. I think HiDrNick's view is a good one. Maybe we'll get more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs)

It seems that it does no harm to leave this open a little longer. Usually conduct RfC runs about three weeks or so. That's enough time for the heat of any early reactions to settle down and for reasonable discussion to take place (if it's going to happen at all). Regarding "arguing for both sides", that reflects a moderate perspective. For wrapping it up, would someone like to leave one more request for participation at A Nobody's user talk? I think we could put a time frame on it now. As in, one week from the invitation the RfC can close if he doesn't reply. Durova 321 15:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's been a day. I'll go ahead and make the request.  Durova  322 16:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So what now?
Forgive my ignorance, I don't wade into this sort of DR very often. So what happens now? A Nobody has made it clear that his intention is to continue the undesired behavior that landed us here in the first place. Is there any recourse other than arbitration? Is that premature? Hi DrNick ! 20:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Where was it made clear? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Special:Contributions/A Nobody. I would say that 20 pestering edits to a battleground RFA in the span of an afternoon is pretty clear evidence of failing to heed the RFC's call.   Hi DrNick ! 21:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What was the call? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what happens now. It would be helpful if A Nobody chose to comment here rather than badgering those who disagree with him at yet another RfA, but it's his prerogative to blindly carry on his old ways. "I see too great of a certainty of being "right" and too unwillingnes of making efforts to reconcile or even treat fairly those of opposing viewpoints" indeed. pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 21:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC) slight edit for clarity  pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 21:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing like having your viewpoint distorted and belittled in an environment where you can't fight back to make your day.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * RfA or RfC, or both? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Who, me? RfA. pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 21:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems he's referring to the distortion in the link above made in an environment "RfA" where community norms dictate that opposers not be responded to. Decidedly not the RfC, where response is expected and desired (and clearly not forthcoming). Protonk (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it really affects anything: the RFC stays open the 30(?) days, and then gets archived. Whether Arbitration, resignation, frustration or spontaneous combustion happens will depend on whether the spirit moves anyone. --EEMIV (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think AN's comments at Kww's RfA are beyond the pale, but maybe I've become inured by all the conversations on wikipedia I've been a part of. RfA needs the reform, in this case. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the problem is always with the process rather than with any individual editor. Deor (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See the thread above: we already have a final request for participation posted to A Nobody's user talk with a time frame of one week for response. Ideally the closure proposal would be written by a neutral party other than myself, but if it proves impossible to do so in a non-sarcastic manner (please consider withdrawing the example above) then I will write that also.  And in return, if this input is helpful then please consider thanking me for it by starting the biography for an opera singer named Mignon Nevada: it would supplement some of the content work I've been doing that's been backburnered while dealing with this RfC.  Durova  322 03:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a real tag. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that's one I won't retract. This RfC is about A Nobody's behavior and nothing else, and the continual suggestions that it is about the flaws in AfD or RfA or any other process that goes on here are beside the point and seem to be calculated efforts to place the focus elsewhere. If AN has sufficient health and free time to post (roughly) 15 opinions detailing, in his inimitable fashion, why others commenting in an RfA are utterly wrongheaded, he has sufficient health and free time to participate in this process as well; and his refusal to do so indicates both his contempt for the process and his belief that it will have no outcome that will affect his continuing to behave in the same fashion (a belief that, at this point, I must admit has a certain degree of plausibility). What a particular opera singer may have to do with the question I fail to understand—many of us would rather be working on articles than dealing with this RfC, and we all have our own interests. Deor (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Kww's RfA is pretty interesting. It's reminding me of this RfC, what with sides being taken and whatnot. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Dior and Peregrine Fisher, in the unhappy event that the next step after RfC is RFAR, certain statements arguably frame this issue as something broader than one individual's behavior. Sarcasm undercuts the message which conduct RfC ideally sends--that the input is constructive and nonpartisan.  Linking to another editor's request for adminship (which, upon reading earlier today, appears to be the candidacy of an inclusionist) enhances the impression which uninvolved editors may come away with that wikiphilosophy rather than conduct is the underlying factor.  Is that really the impression you want to be creating?  Durova  322 04:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a supporter of sorts of AN, and I think that our philosophical divide does play a part in this. That said, Deor has kept his focus on AN's behavior, which is the correct tactic in this case for his side. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone who has no ideological dog in this hunt, the best thing for all parties is to keep the tone of this RfC constructive and focused. Durova  322 04:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you know about the FICT battles? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Know about? Yes.  Durova  322 17:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Linking to A Nobody's comments at an RfA where A Nobody is currently spending a lot of time badgering people who disagree with him has nothing to do with "wikiphilosophy", and everything to do with A Nobody's editing. Specifically, he has regained sufficient vigour to resume editing, but not enough to address the habits that (in part) led to this RfC. pablo <sub style="text-shadow: 3px 3px 3px rgba(255,255,0,0.75); color: #c30;">hablo. 08:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all related to the 3.5 year (or longer) disagreement over how to treat fiction on Wikipedia. Lot's of  people have gotten worked up over the matter, and AN is one of them.  Kww is another. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And it's germane to the concerns raised in this RfC how, exactly?  pablo <sub style="text-shadow: 3px 3px 3px rgba(255,255,0,0.75); color: #c30;">hablo. 16:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of people have gotten worked up over the matter. It's nothing unusual. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. So 'not at all' then. That's what I thought.  pablo <sub style="text-shadow: 3px 3px 3px rgba(255,255,0,0.75); color: #c30;">hablo. 17:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But enough that it isn't exactly kosher to single out AN. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No one tries to claim that AN is the only inclusionist, simply that he is a poorly behaved editors. Requests for comment/Pixelface exists, too, so he isn't the only inclusionist with an RFC. Since Ikip and Colonel Warden haven't had RFCs opened against them, it wouldn't appear that anyone has gone on a warpath against outspoken inclusionists as a class.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If an RfCU were to be started against Ikip, it would not be because Ikip is an inclusionist. This RfCU was not started because A Nobody is an inclusionist. I'm an inclusionist, please remember. It's about behavior, not belief. Behavior makes things worse. Regardless of whether it's motivated by general orneryness, contrariness, inclusionism, deletionism, stubbornness, whatever. We should not care about motive. Only about outcomes of behaviors. ++Lar: t/c 04:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty stunning that you can just toss out that Kww is worked up about fiction, evidence to the contrary be damned. But in a general sense, message received.  You, PF, feel that this is all due to some broad miasma about fiction and notability.  Folks certifying or endorsing the RfC disagree with you. Protonk (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, 'scuse me. As one of the certifiers I'm open to that possibility.  Hoping the answer is negative, but the antenna is up.  Receiving signals.  Durova  322 19:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would hope that the qualifier "all" would exclude you from that category. I'm certainly in agreement with the statement "disputes at the margin on fiction and notability are made worse due to the environment".  But it does not follow that environment dictates those disputes or those behaviors or that the environment isn't made substantially worse by the participation of some disputants.  That disconnect makes it impossible for me to accept general hand wringing as a solution to the problem. Protonk (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's the real potential for two forking paths here. One would end in a small arbitration case about conduct.  Another would be an omnibus inclusionism/deletionism arbitration.  Ideally we don't need any arbitration at all, but next best would be a small case.  Editors who cast a wider net upon this RfC do so at the risk of ensnaring themselves.  Durova  322 19:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this will see arbitration, regardless of the need. EnC/EnC2 were borne of very specific actions from an editor and decided rather narrowly.  the broad dispute is unactionable, for a dozen reasons.  I still don't think I'm getting across the recursion element here.  The deletion/inclusion margin would be a better environment if AN accepted criticism of his actions and changed course.  Likewise this is true for some of the other editors engaging in boundary maintenance.  That, to me, means that we get a better environment from correcting the behavior of a small number of participants.  Separating the two bisects an issue which is intimately connected.  If we have some small case on conduct and some parallel case on "environment" they aren't two forking paths but two leverage points on the same system.  fixing things from the broad and diffuse end would demand exceptional pressure and fortitude.  Fixing things on the small scale end does not. Protonk (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding HiDrNick's original questions, I think that the next step is Arbitration, but that a filing would be rejected at the present time. I agree that the current behavior is relevant – compare contributors to Kww 2 and Kww 3 – but the prior step in dispute resolution (this RfC) hasn't been completed. Flatscan (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Comment by Black Kite
Blackkite condemns A Nobody's recent comments at the RFA as "badgering".
 * Badgering
 * Old edits

Kww and his supporters can't have it both ways, Kww can't condemn A Nobody for behavior over a year old, and yet want others to ignore evidence less than a year old in his RfA.

As I have tried to show many times, there are so many double standards with the editors supporting this RFC. Ikip (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Separately I'm not seeing much in the way of oppose comments that provide little rationale in that RfA. Some I disagree with (one I even replied to arguing the rationale was probably mistaken), but they have pretty solid rationales.  The supports less so.  But that's standard in an RfA.   I don't see how AN could be expected respond to oppose !votes that have little rationale if they don't exist.  Hobit (talk) 04:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ikip, in the quotes you give above, you yourself have shown the difference and refuted your own claim. Contrast "I don't care what happened in 2008. 2009 looks good enough for me" with "his misbehaviour is not three years old, it's three years long". There is a difference there. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've renewed the call for A Nobody to actually comment here. If he is able to leave twenty comments examining Kww's behavior, he is definitely able to leave at least one about his own behavior here. AniMate   draw  16:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A question for Ikip. given your (and AN's) position at KWW's RfA, is it fair to say that you feel material from years ago is fair game? Protonk (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * @Lar. When was the last time that A Nobody used a sock? According to the evidence section, 16 September 2008.
 * When was the last time Kww edit warred and was blocked for it?
 * 00:27, 30 September 2008 Rlevse (talk | contribs) blocked Kww (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: rm rollback rights too)
 * Ironically, 14 days after. There is no difference here. Ikip (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So that's a yes? Protonk (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should actually bother to read the whole log? Like the preceding line that reads
 * 30 sep 2008 00:58 Rlevse (Overleg | bijdragen) heeft de blokkade van Kww (Overleg | bijdragen) opgeheven ‎ (my error)
 * The block you quote was an admitted mistake by Rlevse. If you read the block log to find the block, you must have noticed that. This is the second time in a day that you used an event out of context to make a point. Please stop doing that.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake. That said, there is also this block:
 * 00:12, 20 November 2007 Rlevse (talk | contribs) blocked Kww (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (3RR)
 * Many of the controversial statements you have made are much more recent. Please keep your comments here Kww, I will continue to remove them from my talk page. Ikip (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll put my comments wherever they seem most appropriate. As I mentioned here, it is exceedingly difficult to believe that you made such a mistake with regard to material that you can be demonstrated to have both read and quoted. If it was a mistake, it indicates a level of recklessness inappropriate to the seriousness of the charges you make.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Kww, your extreme battleground mentality and double standards are going to cost you any chance of adminship for a third and final time. You are judged not only by your own battle mentality, but by the company you keep. It is in fact correct that you were blocked (and unblocked), it is in fact correct that an editor was inappropriately canvassing for you. As I mentioned elsewhere, unlike your fellow editors here, who protect personal attackers and stalking and personally attack other editors (that is the real "level of recklessness" here), at least I am willing to correct and modify my statements. Ikip (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, excuse me, but this isn't the talk-page for Kww's RfA. Ikip, you've made clear you think many of this RFC's participants are hypocrites, guilty of the same battleground mentality, badgering, etc. that A Nobody is accused of. Fine. Really, though, I don't think this talk-page or the RFC page have much need for any more "development" or "expansion" or responses-to-comments form anyone other than A Nobody; Ikip aside, it seems everyone's either a) said and re-said their position a million times or b) branched off into superfluous topics or topics better addressed in a site-wide (rather than specific-user) forum. --EEMIV (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ikip - what do you see as a fair summary of this RfC? pablo <sub style="text-shadow: 3px 3px 3px rgba(255,255,0,0.75); color: #c30;">hablo. 23:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding whether Ikip considers the situations comparable, readers may note Ikip's transparent adaptation of Kww's "three years long" comment. Flatscan (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ikip is not the only person beating a dead horse and offering a distraction. Really, folks: can we keep this to just A Nobody's behavior without these tangents? Let's not let this become a "I want the last word" battleground. --EEMIV (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Which is why I said nothing more in this section. However Ikip apparently does not agree. 5 days after you said stop beating the dead horses, Ikip added this ... note that it is an extension of his previous recanting of Kww's "crimes" as evidenced by supporters, (inside the boxes, above) and that it's done in a way that gives no indication that it is newer than the material that all these responses actually responded to. That's pretty deceptive, and really not good editorial behavior, but it's pretty standard Ikip behavior. Ikip keeps piling more stuff in instead of getting what he/she wants said and leaving it. Perhaps he/she thinks that by repeating it, it carries more weight? I suspect not, that rather, it just frustrates people more. Ikip should stop beating his dead horses. ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have interacted with you this past month, I am seeing a pretty standard theme here by yourself, Kww, and Protonk; Lar. It reminds me
 * The quote by Isaac Asimov:
 * "It is not equal time the creationists want. ... Don't kid yourself. They want all the time there is."
 * As long as this page stays on message, your message, "A nobody is disruptive" then there can be a hundred messages hammering the same thing. But when I attempt to divert from YOUR message, I am accused of all manner of bad acts. Ikip (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought the message was "Is A Nobody disruptive? Discuss". It's a request for comment. People comment.

Moving forward
It appears after several overtures that A Nobody has no intention of responding to this RfC. To keep things open longer is unlikely to have any positive result, and the existence of this page is becoming a bone of contention. Let's wrap it up.

Users who endorse this summary

 * 1)  Durova  326 02:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC) withdrawn
 * 2)  MBisanz  talk 02:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) --EEMIV (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) BOZ (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Protonk (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) otherlleft 03:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack Merridew 04:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC) indent per Lar. Jack Merridew 15:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Irbisgreif (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)  Ryan 4314   (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Ikip (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 5)  MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 6)   D r e a m Focus  00:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse this summary (yet?)

 * 1) A summary of the findings of the RfC needs to be drafted first, as we have a pretty broad rough consensus here. Just closing it without that summary won't help achieve what this RfC set out to achieve, modification of problematic behavior. ++Lar: t/c 13:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Furthermore, keeping it open for the full term that these things usually run gives A Nobody the greatest possible opportunity to comment here.   pablo <sub style="text-shadow: 3px 3px 3px rgba(255,255,0,0.75); color: #c30;">hablo. 13:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * A Nobody announced his intention to resume his break just before his last edit, so it's plausible that he has not read the new message. — striking per subsequent edits Flatscan (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Leaving this open has limited upside, and there is some tension, but nothing out of control. If there's a well-established standard duration for user RfCs (I couldn't find one, RfC tags last 30 days), I would prefer to wait the few remaining days. I would like to preclude any procedural objections like "This RfC is invalid because it wasn't open for the normal listing period." Flatscan (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really care either way. The RfC itself is substantively complete without his participation.  I think the chance of future participation from him given all past signals is basically 0.  You are right that the downside is limited, but we are basically done. Protonk (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to support any motion to close this until it's absolutely clear what the next step is going to be (and, yes, I've read your above-linked posting to AN's talk page, Durova). Despite much evidence to the contrary, I'd like to think that RfC/Us don't have to be exercises in futility, with a lot of people blowing off steam to no effective purpose at all. Deor (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well regardless of the next step, its either going to close at 30 days or it is going to close early. Protonk (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but not a sufficient reason for me to explicitly support the closure motion on the main RfC page. Deor (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

A Nobody had four days where he could have come to this RfC before announcing his latest break. He could have announced his break here and requested time. I've left three separate requests for his participation at his user talk, the last two with specific time frames. Want a closing statement? Write one. Want even more time? Well, it's too bad requests for more time weren't raised during the weeklong interval this plan was in place. Everyone had the same opportunity for input. This is currently the oldest active user conduct RfC; there isn't a set period for such things to run. And to the extent it remained active during the final week it was mainly festering--becoming a sore point. The motion to close will stand. If you think something about the closure should be better, WP:SOFIXIT. Durova 326 14:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC) RE FeydHuxtable: "Lastly, I agree a summary might be useless at best, it might just sir up more contention for no net benefit." Guaranteed it will, because not only A Nobody's behavior will be in the alternate summary. In an arbitration, about 95% of the belly aching "evidence" here will be worthless, and Lar's interaction with A nobody will be prominent in the Arbcom also. Ikip (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think throwing BB in Lar's face isn't helpful. You know that neither he nor I could write a closing summary which would have any credence. Protonk (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's more than a little disappointing to lay forth plans for closure after repeated queries and calls for it, to get no suggestions or objections during the week those plans were in place, and then this kind of thing happens once the plans are actually implemented. Durova  326 16:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Durova: Your notices to A N have been helpful, and I agree it's about time, yes. However... Nowhere in this plan was it said that there wouldn't be a summation. I figured it went without saying that there would be one, so I didn't raise it. (I don't do a lot of RfCs so perhaps that was a false assumption...) Write a closing statement that to the best of your ability summarises the themes brought forward. Or ask someone else to do it. I could do it, I am pretty sure, but I think Protonk is right... Although you were a certifier I think you have a perception here, rightly or wrongly, of being more neutral. Another thought here is that it wasn't mentioned about the 30 days run time earlier. (because maybe no one thought about it?? Well, now we remembered. It happens.) Crossing every  T and dotting every I is a way to reduce those saying "it wasn't left to run long enough", I think. That's a reason to wait a bit too. Doesn't mean that your efforts aren't appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 16:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps that's good faith misunderstanding. User conduct RfC is my least favorite form of dispute resolution.  Nowhere did I say there would be a summation--the summations I've seen before are usually partisan and unhelpful.  If editors want to get together and write a summation then maybe something appropriate could be worked out between both sides.  What it appears from this standpoint (as one of the least partisan editors in the matter) is that he hasn't chosen to directly acknowledge the the RfC.  Periodic announcements of wikibreaks and other commitments notwithstanding, he has continued editing.  And his participation at the Kww RfA represented--in the eyes of some of his critics--a return to the metapolitical behavior that had initially raised behavioral concerns beyond the scope of regular inclusionism.  Or to put the matter another way, inclusionism is itself not RfCable: editors are entitled to their opinions about project mission, even when those opinions extend to the extreme end of the scale.  Yet when an editor's behavior creates the consistent appearance of measuring RfA candidates by that ideological yardstick, that becomes a conduct issue.  We expect administrators to rise above personal ideologies when they close consensus discussions.  It polarizes sensitive matters to act habitually in a prima facie manner as if the reverse were true.  Perhaps the two examples of Eyrian and Alkivar colored A Nobody's approach.  Those would be relevant concerns.  But in the absence of any participation by him at this process it becomes impossible to address the obvious fact that the vast majority of RfA candidates are unwilling to run undisclosed deletionist sock accounts or to misuse the tools in order to advance a banned editor's disruptive brand of deletionism.  And this cannot be overemphasized: that applies particularly to RfA candidates who are themselves, in the abstract, deletionist.  If there's a closing statement in this, please cobble one from it.  Because more than anything else, this is the reason why I am willing to initiate a request for arbitration.  Durova  326 18:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not the end of the world that Lar disagrees with you. I don't feel it is necessary to overstate his objections to closing this without a summary.  I generally agree with you that a summary would be superfluous at best, but it is understandable that some folks might want one. Protonk (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if anyone wants one--feel free to mix 'n match from the statement above. Only nine people signed onto my opinion at the RfC, so if I were to tack a version of that onto the closure proposal it would be impossible to determine how many actually agreed versus how many really meant end this thing now at any price. Durova  326 18:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I should take my name off if we are talking about end it now at any price. It ends on the 20th or before the 20th.  So the closer we get to the 20th the less of an incentive I might have to ruffle feathers by closing it.  My signature was there because I don't think we are getting any more out of this (well past diminishing marginal returns, now into 0 or negative), not because it urgently needs closing. Protonk (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with an inclusionist using that as his or her personal arbitrary standard for support, since quite a few editors have explained their arbitrary measurements in detail. The twenty-something comments trying to convince supporters that they're wrong is a pretty clear example of over-the-top behavior, and completely ignoring the RfC at the same time sends a message, intentional or not, that beating down opposing views will continue.  I've never crossed swords with A Nobody, but this RfA demonstrates that the behaviors which were identified by the certifiers as worrisome are ongoing. --otherlleft 18:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You might have had more endorsement Durova if you hadn't undertook to take AN to arbitration at the request of any editor. Even if you did like RFCs,  one like this could never be an effective form of dispute resolution, except maybe in a harsh militaristic  environment where people spirits are deliberately cowed to achieve order. Taken at face value the opening statement paints the subject in an exceptionally negative light, so no wonder he refuses to legitimise this by participating.   On the other hand this RFC has been successful in achieving consensus that the subject has behaved problematically, it's a shame it couldn't have been left at that.  Why are you willing to bypass forms of dispute resolution less dependent on sanctions and more likely to lead to genuine reconciliation,  by  going straight to arbitration? Shouldn't that be a last resort? How can it be fair to AN when you've said youll accept a collection of diffs from any editor? If you intend to ensure both sides of story are presented, can you at least clarify that?
 * On another note, why are you assuming that ANs participation in the KWW RFA was due to the candidates deletionism?  KWW doesn't seem that extreme as a deletionist compared to his hardline approach concerning sanctions like bans, which AN has seen an example of on this very RFC.  I dont want to back this up with too many examples while the RFA is underway, and its seems he may be an exceptionally honourable character, but that just makes him more dangerous as a hardliner.   This argument that AN is re-enacting old behaviours by attacking deletionists for political reasons doest stand up to scrutiny.  As we've discussed ANs recently supported perceived deletionists. ANs oppose statement starts of by saying he doesnt trust KWW with the block button, inline with the concern over his hardline approach.  Lastly, I agree a summary might be useless at best,  it might just sir up more contention for no net benefit. As lar has rightly said a rough consensus has emerged – essentially that AN is a kind and valuable editor, but his behaviour has indeed been problematic, which a recent example that allmost all agree was poor form being merging in the middle of AfDs. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec'd) If you read my comments to this RfC sequentially, it's clear what the overriding concern is: an arbitration case is likely although I hope it won't be needed. In that scenario, are we looking at a small case or a large one?  Some disputes don't resolve on the community level: they amalgamate.  A potential arbitration case could go two directions: a small case specific to A Nobody or an omnibus inclusionism/deletionism arbitration.  Ideally A Nobody would have joined in resolving this dispute: I've led that horse to water three times and he won't drink.  So is it worth it to you to risk expanding this matter into an omnibus case?  That's your concern; to me it's nothing more than how many names to list and notify.  All things being equal, a smaller case would be better.  But if you really think that a procedural 30 day time frame outweighs that, go right ahead.  Durova  326 19:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just a false choice. I don't really understand your hints that some narrow or broad RFAR would be accepted. I doubt that arbcom would accept anything that looked like EnC3 and I doubt (and would probably advice against) that arbcom would open some narrow comment on a few users including AN. If this lasts until the 20th then we aren't magically going to be faced with some omnibus case about inclusionism/deletionism writ large. I personally feel that AN's opinions about this RfC are abundantly clear and that there is 0 chance he will reply in the intervening 5 days. I also think that there is close to 0 chance that he will take any of the advice (from friends or foes) presented here onboard. but the next step isn't an immediate request for sanctions, and it certainly isn't an immediate request for sanctions from that most mercurial of governing bodies. Lets just let this be archived and let AN's behavior dictate what happens next. What he did at KWW's RfA was predictable, unpleasant but ultimately within the bounds of what we allow as discourse (which is not to say that it is within the bounds of what we should allow as discourse). I want to thank you for attempting to be a neutral voice here and I understand your frustration but I don't feel speed is a virtue at this juncture. Protonk (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that Im more optimistic that some concerns will be taken on board, I agree with everything Protonks just said. The  Inc/Del divide is a factor but not neccessarily central - lar has identified that hes on the inclusionist side of the spectrum.  Is it possible Durova you could strike out your offer on ANs talk page? The threat  of being taken to Arbitration by such a formidable advocate on the whim of any editor could make being here feel like having a loaded gun to ones head.  Well maybe not quite that bad, but almost.    If not, please do add me as a party, though my concern would be more to ensure AN has a fair hearing  rather than flying the  inclusionist flag. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Beaten that dead horse much lately? If there's an RfAr and it's broad, you should be a lot more worried about your own behavior than anyone else, trust me. ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this is a viable route for discussion. My conscience is clear. Protonk (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Beaten that dead horse much lately?" Protonk?  Lar?  You're both intelligent people.  Why would you want to extend a venue where editors who are not the primary subject of scrutiny conduct that sort of dialog?  Durova  326 19:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Err. I don't actually think removing this specific venue eliminates the problem.  And I'm still signed on to close this, I just question the need to do so with rapidity or over objections. Protonk (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No one thinks removing this specific venue eliminates the problem. The question is whether to contain it or let it spread.  Durova  326 19:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Durova: I'm comfortable with that remark. I'm not the first person who has commented on Ikip's continual beating of dead horses and the need for it to stop. And I fear I won't be the last. I'm not sure I share your view of the overall matter. This is about one editor and their need to modify some behaviors. Dragging all and sundry in isn't helpful. Nor is it likely to succeed. ++Lar: t/c 19:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, I wish my hands of this mess. Durova 326 21:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As you like, I guess. But you were being helpful. I'm also at a loss as to why Ncmvocalist moved the close suggestion here to talk. Despite those objecting, it struck me that this was running pretty strongly in favor of a close. ++Lar: t/c 23:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS, like Protonk said: "It's not the end of the world that Lar disagrees with you." ++Lar: t/c 23:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think s/he explained in on Durova's talk page. Evidently motions to close normally 'live' on the talk page but are often uncontroversially left on the RfC page because no one objects.  Where someone objects, it might break up the flow for some outside observer.  That's my read.  I don't care either way. Protonk (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Closing

 * I stumbled across this last night, was completely unaware of it before then. It is clear that this process is hopelessly stalled out. If anyone has any new points or information to contribute, speak now, I'm going to close this up if there are not some very compelling reasons not to do so posted here in the very near future. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added a summary to the main page detailing what has (not) been accomplished here. I don't see any need for "endorsements" at this time, just object here if you have some reason to keep this open. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please revert it. I really don't want a summary that just happens to be a set of opinions about the claims, followed by some complaints about the RfC talk page. Protonk (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And, frankly, though I think there is merit to waiting out another two days, it is preferably to just slap an archive box over the RfC rather than having a summary where parties can litigate back and forth about it. Protonk (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) That summary doesn't go far enough. It needs to give recaps of some of the themes raised and some sense that many people have endorsed various views that when taken in total add up to a consensus that A Nobody has problematic behaviours, and that those behaviours need to stop. Some of the views include acknowledgments that A Nobody has made valuable contributions (something that was never in dispute). A smaller segment of the community advanced views that could be summed up as, A Nobody is blameless, that the AfD process is broken or causes this, that other people are to blame, and other views as well, but none of those get the broad consensus that "A Nobody has problematic behaviours, and that those behaviours need to stop" has. As Protonk says, please revert it... or extend it as I suggest. And wait 2 days in any case.++Lar: t/c 19:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to re-hash this monstrosity and re-iterate the various points that have been made. For one thing there's too many of them. My intention here is to just end this thing, I honestly don't understand what benefit there could be from leaving it open any longer. I thought I made it clear that I don't want anyone "litigating" over the summary, all I asked was for someone to either present new material that had not been addressed, or present some other pressing reason to keep this thing open. Without participation from the subject, this RFC has become a farce. There is no dialogue with the person whose behavior you are trying to change, therefore nothing has been or will be accomplished here. Perhaps that was his intention all along, I don't know. Maybe he just doesn't care what you all say about him. Without his participation there is no need to continue here. Although many of his "allies" have conceded that he does exhibit problem behaviors, as I said in the summary there is no consensus at all about the scope of the problem or a possible remedy. Since remedies arrived at in RFCs are voluntary, there literally can't be one if he doesn't agree to it, and that is obviously not going to happen. I knew I couldn't summarize this in a way that would make everybody happy, so instead I deliberately went with amore bare-bones approach aimed at ending this. The last thing I want to do is get in a prolonged argument about it's content. I think the best thing to do now is to mark the summary as being my opinion and not endorsed by anyone in particular, and simply close this mess up. Even while the above comments have sat here there has been further back and forth bickering, to what end? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Aw crap,ok I'll just add the major points and do my best not to editorialize while listing them, and then close it. 2 days from now or right this minute seems to make little difference as to the effect this will have on A Nobody himself, since he's ignoring it, and this battleground atmosphere on the talk page has got to end. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Closed
I have done what I could to respond to the issues raised in the last section, and have closed the RFC. Without A Nobody's participation, the chance of reaching any sort of acceptable conclusion is zero. I hate to say it but if anyone wishes to pursue this further it will have to go to a binding forum such as ANI or more likely ArbCom. Good Luck to all of you. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not bad at all. I take issue with 'stuck' as the one word summary... because, again, there is a broad consensus (certain minority views excepted, but they don't change the consensus regardless of how many different ways they are stated) that the base substantive issues raised initially have some validity. A Nobody cannot escape that consensus by not participating, or by having a surrogate participate for him (or whatever it was Ikip was doing) and if he continues the same issues after having had every chance to participate here, it will not be good for him at all, whatever next step is taken. So under that analysis, I don't think "stuck" is needful. The RfC ran its course, and it achieved significant outcomes. I still think it should run for the full time period... no one's flailing away except Ikip, and he keeps striking out, so let it run the little extra time, it's not going to hurt. But if not, not, I won't stand in the way. The write up you gave is overall very good, it hits the main points well. Thanks for taking a swing at it. Much appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 00:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your effort. I agree with Lar's points: I would prefer removing the, any battleground atmosphere here is not actively harmful, and I would prefer 30 days. I think that the views expressed in the initial statement should have been covered (was that intentional?), especially since it received the most endorsements by a wide margin. I'm not sure how I feel about the qualifiers "some" and "many", particularly two instances of "many" covering statements that had differing endorse counts. Flatscan (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Flatscan covers my principal complaint. Folks may have differing opinions about the merit of the level of consensus here, but the numerical breakdown is clear.  The main statement of the RfC received (counting certifiers) 35 endorsements.  The next most supported view was Dr. Nicks with 23 and the next was mine, followed by Kww's.  Unless you count Dr. Nick's as an 'opposing view', you have to draw pretty deep before you find a view that rejects the premise of the RfC, in terms of endorsements. Protonk (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied with the closing statement as well, given the circumstances. Thanks,  Hi DrNick ! 04:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the close was overly harsh. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I also am satisfied with the outcome.  MBisanz  talk 04:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * People keep talking about AN's lack of comment being a problem, but I haven't heard why it would be beneficial to him to comment. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally when someone says "you did something wrong and I would like you to change it," the only responses that will result in the person not moving to the next step in the dispute resolution process are "No, I did not do something wrong and here is why" or "Yes, I did do something wrong and will avoid doing it in the future." Not responding is generally interpreted to mean the person is not interested in collaborative dispute resolution, which can be seen as a problem on a site premised on collaborative work processes.  MBisanz  talk 04:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as is noted in the RfC itself, he has already stated multiple times that he would refuse to participate in an RfC initiated by "deletionists". That means the refusal to participate might have more to do with contempt for the process than other explanations.  Also what Matt said. Protonk (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What happens now then, will you go to ANI or something? If you do, would you mind letting me know, cheers. Ryan 4314  (talk) 08:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If (or should I say when) AN starts editing extensively again, displaying the same behavior that led to this RfC, I intend to take the matter to ArbCom. Unlike some of the participants here, I have nothing to lose, and I was uninvolved in framing the RfC. Deor (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically what Deor said. What happens next is nearly 100% up to AN.  If he chooses to change some of his behaviors in the face of criticism, then nothing happens.  More to the point, unless he relapses considerably into past disruptive behavior, I will oppose any form of sanction.  However in the event that he returns to form, the next step is AN/I or RFAR. Protonk (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wizardman (now an arbitrator) was legitimately criticised for precisely this type of closure (those wider concerns are not made moot, merely because you agree or disagree with some of the points raised here). This is also not a case where there is either just one or two views either; there are mixed views, and so this case warrants no special close. There are many instances of RfC/Us having subjects who do not respond so even that need not be specifically highlighted beyond what is left in the archive. Accordingly, I've reverted this closure and imposed a standard one. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh
I was going to offer a few comments later today, since I had tried (unsuccessfully) to do a bit of mediation involving him a few months ago. I haven't had time to read it until this morning (though I heard about it a couple days ago). Are comments only requested from those who follow this sort of thing religiously? -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 15:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently. It really should not have been closed in the way that it was, and now an admin is acting foolishly and insisting that the poor close stay in force. You can still make your view known here for the time-being though. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it should or shouldn't have been closed, but it's been around for a month. It didn't exactly fly by.  I appologize if this comes off to snarky, but are your comments so dramatic that they're actually going to change anything?--Cube lurker (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh! I was looking at all the comments and sigs from September 20 and reading October 20! Apparently a senior moment, so, as you were ;-). -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 17:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. I've done that with years.  Gotten all furious at people about something that happened Oct 20 of some previous year...its good times. Protonk (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny I did the exact same thing with the recieved calls list on my home phone the other day. Couldn't figure out why it said I'd called the number with my cell phone earlier in the day. Realized it was really a month before.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nmvocalist, don't be snarky, you can't dictate what the close should be personally. All I did was restore the status quo from the last two days and if you disagree with the close you can prpose an alternative and seek a consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 15:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Spartaz, there is nothing snarky about your failure to respond to criticism appropriately. The so-called status-quo does not exist; there is ample evidence of disagreement on the talk page with the close, and neither the guidelines, nor previous practice support the close in the way it was done. As it is, the person who proposed the close in the first place withdrew due to the many flaws in the way this was done - and now you, Spartaz, seem to act in a way that makes RfC/U practice even more flawed; I consider that foolish. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm w/ cube-lurker, this was open for the better part of a month. Protonk (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think sparring over the format of the close itself is poor form. In particular, Ncmvocalist is being overdramatic about things, in my view, with a little help from others. We got to an acceptable resolution, I think. It's not carved in stone that everything has to be done exactly a certain way. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's generally a good stance. As you can see below I reverted the close to NCM's version, but my basic opinion is DGAF.  Closed is closed.  I would prefer some non-editorial close, but meh. Protonk (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

SBJohnny, if you have a comment you'd like to make, make it here. It may not get endorsements etc because the RfC is closed but I think I'm not the only person who would like to hear your view. So please share your insight. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, ironically it relates rather strongly to his refusal to respond to the comments on the RfC. IIRC, Lar, you were keeping an eye on things when I tried to mediate between JM and AN, with the goal of finding a way for them to avoid regularly blowing up on each other on the noticeboards.
 * Both of them were quite skeptical about being able to do that, but JM at least made a good faith effort to try anyway. AN's response could more or less be summed up by "that's JM's problem. I'm not wasting time on this."
 * That's really not a big problem... it's not mediation if it's shoved down your throat, and I'm not one to nag. I did look into the pattern though (both in the general sense and in the sense I would look into a pattern as a CU if it happened elsewhere), and the pattern is fairly clear.
 * While I agree that this RfC isn't the proper forum to have yet another round in the great scope debate (a.k.a. "deletionism vs. inclusionism", but I hate those terms), AN has self-identified as an inclusionist, and clearly has a strong interest in "winning" (even using sockpuppetry in the past, which is a practice I find truly baffling). IME the radical adherents to either of these isms tend to eventually give up on strength of argument in favor of developing tactics to "take out the opposition" and/or reinterpret the rules of the game.
 * In A Nobody's case, my impression was that he was hitting JM with subtle jabs, eventually JM would blow his top, and AN would bring it to the boards. The problem part is that when neutral parties on the boards look into it and begin to focus their criticisms in his direction, he simply walks away from it. That's a problem as well, because it infuriates his "opponent", making the blowup even more speedy and sure the next time around when he repeats the process.
 * So look, I don't have a psychic modem, so I have no way of knowing whether he (a) just really has a hard time being on the receiving end of criticism or (b) is a brilliant tactician in this "war of the isms". In either case, he needs to respond to things like this, as it's profoundly unfair to his "opponents" to make a quick switch to the "talk to the hand" approach every time this happens (non-angels though they may be). If you can't take it, don't dish it out. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 19:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * +endorse ;) Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you endorse, Jack? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack endorsed the entire statement by SB_Johnny, why is an explanation needed?. Asking for an explanation from him seems like "hitting JM with subtle jab" to me. - Josette (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * +endorse, though I assume PF means well. Protonk (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Closing the RfC
Lets just close it with no comments. I honestly don't care if someone makes a summary that neither the subject nor the authors of the RfC is going to read. Unless some truly neutral party steps in and authors a superlative summary, it would be much better if it were just close the way Ncmvocalist did. No reason to edit war, so comment here if you think a narrative close is necessary or desirable. Protonk (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This all seems like process for processes sake at this point, which is the only reason I tried to close this to begin with. And unless I'm mistaken it has been thirty days now so it is even more moot than before. If you all want to bicker and moan about the close even more go ahead, I'm unwatching this foolishness and want nothing more to do with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not process for process's sake. 3-4 dozen people engaged in this RfC and I don't think it was appropriate to have your view of the proceedings be the dominant one.  It is much easier to just archive it and be done with it.  Furthermore, no one asked you to do this.  I don't really get the point of your whirling in here to close things in a particular fashion, then accusing everyone else of intransigence when people don't like it. Protonk (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair to Beeb, I did ask for a summarization of the views to be put forward, I asked it of Durova and she declined, and Beeb was kind enough to take a crack at one. Don't beat him up for giving it a good try, OK? (to those keeping score at home, this would be the monolithic anti AN conspiracy faking a disagreement for effect... OR... it's a sign that people can disagree about one thing and agree about another :) ) ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well...to be more fair (!) I didn't take issue w/ this close, which while pointed was kinda a statement of fact but this which violates the mullet strategy. Protonk (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll cop to that one. But lets let this go people, it's burned toast, it's baloney without the mayo, it's just not going anywhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Reverted to ncm's version. Protonk (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I should edit war with you but... na... ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)