Misplaced Pages

I've blocked Ikip (talk · contribs) for AFD canvassing, most recently in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom). I invite review. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Where was he canvasing at? Aren't you suppose to post a few links to prove your point? Dream Focus 10:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Was it just that one area? Where he mentioned something was at the AFD, at two other articles on characters from the series that were up for deletion as well recently? When delitionists make their rounds, nominating everything from a particular series at once, those involved in one should be made aware of the similar debates, since its basically the same thing usually anyway. In this case character articles from a series were all nominated for deletion. Dream Focus 10:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ikip has long made a practice of pushing the boundaries of WP:CANVASS, and makes a regular practice of linking AFDs to favorable venues. His article talk contributions speak for themselves. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

And another related article was up for AFD three months ago, but other than that only the one article was on AFD. That's not "character articles from a series all nominated for deletion" or "delitionists mak their rounds". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

AMiB - as a deletion-minded editor you are not unimpartial and not uninvolved. You shouldn't be the blocking party here. Ikip should be unblocked immediately by you and discussion and consensus achieved. Okay, you didn't comment in this AfD but your views are pretty obvious on the matter. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This attitude is disturbing to me. It gives anyone who villifies their opposition a shield against criticism or censure by that opposition, because obviously that villification is the only reason they'd act, right? Ikip has been warned and warned and warned, by a variety of editors and admins, about various probes of the limit of WP:CANVASS, and continues to constantly advertise AFDs, policy discussions, and many other discussions to favorable venues. My stance here has been consistent. The canvassing is a problem. It needs to stop. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of such shields amount to attempts to change the subject off the problematic behaviour. In many case it should be view as gaming the system. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Were the rules of WP:canvassing broken? Was it not a Friendly notice, which is allowed? There was Limited posting AND it was Neutral in the announcement, AND Nonpartisan, AND had Open transparency. If you believe someone has violated a rule, then you should discuss it here with others, and let the editor defend himself, before taking such an action. Dream Focus 10:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2)I'm missing something here. This is the only edit (of two in total by Ikip) to that deletion discussion, which appears to come firmly under the heading of Misplaced Pages:CANVASS#Friendly_notices (if even that, since WP:CANVASS is more relevant to user talkpage edits than article talkpages). I also see you didn't get round to placing any warning that you'd blocked Ikip, nor did you mention on their talkpage the existence of this thread (I've now rectified that omission). Tonywalton  10:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I can only do so much at once. I left a note at his talk page regarding the block immediately after blocking, then invited ANI review, then replied to DF at the same time you put a notice on his talk. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edit says nothing about a block. Tonywalton  11:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was going to be unclear that he was blocked, what with the big "You have been blocked!" thing whenever he tries to edit. However people end up feeling about the block, hairsplitting about the wording of a block notice doesn't particularly interest me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see it as tangential. Blocking someone unilaterally, without any apparent consensus, failing to warn them of it in a polite (or indeed any) manner previously, then taking it here without having the courtesy to mention it to them are what I might call unacceptable behaviour rather than hairsplitting, and do interest me. This is hardly conduct likely to encourage editor to modify their behaviour. I agree with others here; this is not a good block. Tonywalton  11:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Two issues here. First, this pattern of canvassing isn't new. He's been warned about it both here and on his talk page, most recently over the whole WP:ARS recruitment fiasco and similar "FYI" posts for WT:FICT. Second, I was busy considering my first reply here when you linked the ANI thread on his talk page; I didn't even get a chance. I am done discussing the latter point, but invite review of the former. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Whilst we obviously have major issues with canvassing and votestacking on AfD and the Article Rescue Squadron, this isn't really a good block. Not so much because you're involved, but he hasn't really caused mass disruption. If he'd spammed a lot of editors with a partisan message then fine, block away, but a few editors (even if it's known they'll probably contribute in a certain way) with a "FYI" message? A stiff warning would've been better here. However, AMIB is absolutely right that the disruption emanating from certain quarters of the ARS (which has now moved into projectspace) needs to stop. Black Kite 10:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above. Testing the limits of WP:CANVASS is not forbidden, breaking it is. If your only reason for blocking him is that he did not in fact break the rules, then the block was wrong. As this discussion shows, there is no such consensus that his actions were block-worthy and you should have considered proposing a block here rather than just doing it. Even if you are not biased against this editor, your past history and your actions may be seen as such - something you should have avoided by allowing the community to make that decision. There was no need for any rush in blocking ikip and thus there was none for you to do it. Regards SoWhy 10:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I want to avoid making this into a whole ARS versus the world mess. I still believe in the basic good work of WP:ARS. I don't want blocking Ikip to be used by anyone as "This is an example of the disruption WP:ARS is causing!" nor do I want to see unblocking him used as vindication of misuse of that project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is not what you want but how people will react. You have to admit that you were involved with this editor in the past and that you occupy a philosophy on the other end of the spectrum. Both is not forbidden but both will definitely lead to such associations, whether you like it or not. The point is this: If you know about those things and there is no real need for a block to stop current disruption, you should always bring it here before blocking, not afterwards. Even the (unfounded) suspicion that an admin might use his/her tools to sanction an editor who they have difficulties with is very damaging for the trust the community has for their admins. Again, noone is saying you did it because of that but some comments below (like Cameron Scott's) prove that this is definitely how some people will view this and you should have considered this before taking action against ikip. Regards SoWhy 15:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

AMIB's issue seems to be with the following diffs . But these were postings related article talk pages, which are acceptable and in fact encouraged by AfD guidelines. Quote: "Place a notification on significant pages that link to your nomination, to enable those with related knowledge to participate in the debate." The notifications were neutral, and could have been picked up by editors wanting to help merge just as much as !vote keep. Ikip also informed users on the AfD of his notices as encouraged by guidelines. It seems abundantly clear to me that Ikip should not have been blocked, and certainly not unilaterally by AMIB. the wub "?!" 10:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I support the block for the reasons given by AMIB. Verbal chat 11:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No real comment about this particular block (no time to look into it), but I had email about Ikip and canvassing this morning as well as seeing this on my watchlist. Which is just to say that there is at least one other situation going on right now where he's been accused of inappropriately canvassing. This might be worth having a peek at as well, at least according to one of the people who have contacted me with concern about this issue. --SB_Johnny | 11:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What if the nominator did not inform anybody of the AfD discussion? It is suggested in WP:BEFORE / WP:AFDHOWTO to contact other editors or projects. Can someone be blocked for doing what the nominator should have done as part of the nomination? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 12:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support block for inappropriate canvassing, per original arguments and additional citations given. I see someone brought up the "deletionist" bullshit already; so early! seicer | talk | contribs 13:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support the block since some seem to be trying to divert the attention to AMIB's role in the action rather than why it was done. David D. (Talk) 13:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, so long as we're !voting. 1) WP:AFDHOWTO explicitly states "Do not message editors about AfD nominations because they support your view on the topic. This can be seen as votestacking. See Misplaced Pages:Canvassing for guidelines. But if you are proposing deletion of an article, you can send a friendly notice to those who contributed significantly to it and therefore might disagree with you.". The ONLY diffs I've yet to see cited, (it seems the blocking admin either cannot or will not provide any of his/her own) consist entirely of "FYI" and a sig. Seems perfectly in-line with stated policy. I also note, with some interest, that there is no block notice on Ikip's page. Is AMIB ashamed of letting non-cabal members of his actions here for some reason...? Snarfies (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  I was the one who brought this to a wider noticeboard for review. Give me a break. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody know already why Ikip has been blocked? Not that it would change anything, but at least it would light up things a bit... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 13:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

My main objection is that AMiB has used admin tools in a dispute where he has been an involved party. See Misplaced Pages:UNINVOLVED#UNINVOLVED - this is not good. AMiB, how do you define that you are an uninvolved admin in this situation? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How am I involved? I've outlined a pattern of problematic behavior, each time ending up in a general warning to Not Do This Again. To my knowledge Ikip hasn't canvassed any discussion I've had a large part of except WP:FICT, where he was canvassing editors who agreed with me that it was a bad idea.

The only involvement I have with Ikip that wasn't chiefly in agreement with him is saying "Stop canvassing, dude" and being attacked for it. The idea that attacking an admin who warns you to stop doing something disruptive "involves" them to the degree that they cannot act to stop you from persisting in that disruptive conduct is baffling to me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Casliber has an obligation to define exactly how he believes A Man In Black is an involved admin. Certainly it wouldn't be reasonable to argue that admins are only permitted to act against editors that share their personal philosophy about exclusionism/inclusionism. I'm not a big fan of this particular block, as I've shared on AMIB's talk page. Not being a fan of this block doesn't mean I think that AMIB has violated WP:INVOLVED, though.—Kww(talk) 14:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This diff merits discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems the definition of whether people think you are involved or not depends on whether they agree with you. AMIB actions were correct, this is gaming and canvassing and should be stopped. This whole involved/univolved thing is tedious. AMIB brought it here for discussion, so attacks against him should stop. Verbal chat 14:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• AMIB failed to provide evidence supporting the block. Editors should not have to guess. If AMIB doesn't have time to to a block properly, AMIB shouldn't do it.
• The notices we guessed were the basis were proper, allowed, or even encouraged. Ikip was not violating WP:CANVASS.
• AMIB was acting outside community consensus here, and that some editors seem eager to support this block goes to show....
• Because concerns were raised about action while involved, AMIB should have immediately recused, allowing any other admin to unblock, if AMIB wasn't willing to unblock directly.
• Because there is clearly no consensus for block, and blocks should represent consensus, and because there has been adequate discussion here to make this clear, User:Ikip should be immediately unblocked by any neutral admin who comes across this discussion. --Abd (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  On the fourth point, isn't that what coming here for review means? I don't much interact with the bureaucracy of blocking. If I need to say so outright, then any admin can reverse my administrative actions if they feel that they are improper. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, AMIB, that makes it very clear, and could avoid further disruption. --Abd (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• As for reversing it myself, I'm torn; the opposition is "This was not a good reason to block," the support is "Despite that this user is obnoxious and this just happens to be on the inside of the technical line." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  • You have no obligation to unblock, unless you conclude that the block was in error. Let me suggest that it was, because the actions Ikip took that you considered canvassing were actions that are routinely accepted as proper or even desirable, even if the effect might be some differential participation at the AfD. He wasn't just "on the inside of the technical line," he was doing what is allowed or even suggested. If you unblock, this resolves this whole disruptive dispute, in one stroke. Hence it would be laudable. --Abd (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: I've looked at the diff's and I don't see what's the problem with Ikip's notifications. The notices were neutral in content and at related talk pages. Canvassing is allowed and "votestacking" seems to be thrown around a lot without any evidence. Like Casliber, I'm troubled that the admin my not be completely uninvolved in these articles. With that kind of power, AMIB should have deferred to another neutral admin for review or at least solicited comment before taking unilateral action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattnad (talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Improper due to the previous involvement of User:A Man In Black who has been stirring up trouble about this for days now. There was no breach of WP:CANVASS and a block is not an appropriate response in any case as blocks are not supposed to be punitive. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  I've criticized Banjeboi for proposing the modification of a template to solicit people directly to a deletion discussion when it was originally intended for something else. I don't recall Ikip even being involved in that discussion.

  If you mean questioning whether Ikip's canvassing of various discussions strictly to favorable audiences is a good idea, well, you caught me. Damn me for asking for input first. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• As an utterly neutral and uninvolved party, I am very troubled by the way this discussion is going about, which is more like a witch-hunt than anything else. I would like to review the unblock and cannot support an unblock until things calm down so that the evidence can be reviewed properly. If you make a claim that an admin is involved, you need to provide diffs first - asking the admin to prove how he is uninvolved first is absolutely unreasonable. Interim support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The possible problem with involvement has been resolved by AMIB through his explicit recusal, so it is moot, leaving only the issue with the block itself. NCMV, your comment criticized the "witch-hunt" against AMIB, but then supported (interim) the block without giving a reason. Given that the stated reason for the block was defective, as there was no canvassing, but only quite proper, even desirable neutral notice to articles under AfD, I'd think you could agree that unblocking is appropriate now. --Abd (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In striking my vote, I neither endorse or oppose the unblock as I am still asking questions to both administrators to satisfy my concerns over how this was handled broadly; this includes questions over the initial block. But this does not detract from you inappropriately closing this in the absence of allowing discussion of the subsequent unblock; I note that the unblocking admin appropriately reverted your closing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support block It's just part of a pattern of behaviour by members of the Article Canvassing Squadron - look at the recent discussion at the project page, it's a political focused inclusionist activist group and should be closed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  This is not the kind of support I am looking for. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  Yes and? You must have mistaken me for some form of robot or drone. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  Then let me clarify. This accusation has nothing to do with why I blocked Ikip, and I would not want to see him blocked based on this accusation, which I believe is false. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to support what Ncmvocalist has said. We should review the block, not who made the block. A decision is either right or wrong, it does not change depending on who made it. Chillum 14:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• AMIB is an involved admin deep in the inclusionist/deletionist wars, and involved admins are explicitly forbidden from using their tools. AMIB at this point has no more standing to use his tools to process AFDs, or anything related to them. He needs to respect that, or the next time he's probably on a short train to RFC and then Arbcom. rootology (C)(T) 14:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  Exceptional claims require exceptional justification. Either take this to the arbcom to have my admin bit removed over this, or strike it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, we are reviewing the block, not the admin. Either the block was correct or incorrect, who made it is not going to change that. I will not accept the idea that the same decision can be correct when one person makes it and incorrect when another makes it. Either it is a correct decision or it is not. Chillum 14:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hear hear. I agree. Re the ARS: If there are problems with the ARS (and there may be, or with a subset) then that is a separate matter and should be brought up elsewhere. Verbal chat 14:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Up to now we still don't know the reason for the block. We're still guessing. Therefore we can't discuss the block. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 14:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  Kay, I will elaborate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ikip has made a practice of pushing the limits of WP:CANVASSING. At every opportunity, he advertises any contentious discussion with which he is involved to any sympathetic party (most infamously here, advertising an otherwise-neutral project on hundreds of article talk pages of people with "inclusionist" userboxes), not respecting any requests that he desist save when they are enforced, and following only the letter of the rules. When anyone calls him on this, he goes on the attack, describing them as deletionists or devoted to destroying article content. However, he's aware that soliciting only those who agree with him is wrong (criticizing Ryan4314 for it here), but continues to walk the line any way he can.

I blocked him because I do not feel that Ikip will respect any sanction that is not enforced. I respect that the reason I blocked him in this case may have been within the letter of the rules; the wording of the rules shifts often enough that I'm not always 100% up to date. Nevertheless, I feel that this is a pattern of disruptive behavior that needs addressing.

Diffs forthcoming. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• What diffs? http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Ikip
• That's all we need. How long ago was this blockable canvassing? Also, read my note to Chillum. You as an admin have zero standing or authority to levy this block as one of the deepest "deletionist" partisans on this site, just as anyone deeply involved in the squadron would have zero standing or authority to undo it. You must undo this block and not do such a thing again, or you will not be long for your tools once the Arbitration Committee sees what you're about. All that aside, blocks are preventative. Note: that's preventative for Misplaced Pages's protection, not your political inclinations. You pretty much missed the goal as far right as you can on this one, for being involved. rootology (C)(T) 14:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  Edit conflicting with me trying to edit them in isn't gonna get them here any faster. Also, I'm adding diffs for my assertions; are you? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Unblock. There is hardly ANY canvassing here, and cross-posting a note that is just the AFD itself plus the text "FYI" to a tiny handful of talk pages is not canvassing or disruptive to the AFD process, which already has too few people looking at it. I would unblock myself, but I don't think I'm a totally uninvolved editor in regards to Ikip. In regards to inclusionism/deletionism, I'm 100% uninvolved (just look at how many AFDs I've begun and I believe I'm about 66% delete, the last time I looked at the stats). rootology (C)(T) 14:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• The more I think about it, I am uninvolved with this editor. We just used to chat back in 2006, and then he literally leaped down my throat and went off on me, on the worst terms imaginable with zero faith in me back then, and then basically said "Welcome back, congratulations," last year. Based on the zero evidence preceeding the block (involvement aside, we do NOT block for long-past or even days-past actions) in Ikip's contributions, I have unblocked. Any uninvolved admin may reblock that's not one of these people in the fights if required. rootology (C)(T) 14:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think you need to carefully justify the accusations you have made against AMIB. Being an exclusionist doesn't render him impotent when dealing with inclusionist editors, just as being an inclusionist doesn't render one impotent when dealing with exclusionists. If you believe that AMIB is so deeply involved with Ikip that his behaviour is skirting with Arbcom sanctions, I suggest that you provide evidence to support that belief.—Kww(talk) 15:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support block - we give far, far too much leeway to those who game the system, and should look particularly dimly upon those who have been warned multiple times before to stop doing it. We should also look extremely dimly upon those who show up to these sorts of discussions only to throw around ad hominem 'deletionist' or 'inclusionist' insults--for make no mistake, when one editor calls another either of those things, it is almost always intended as an insult. //roux   15:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose block 3 friendly neutral notices, placed exactly where and how they are supposed to be as per guideline, do not constitute canvassing. Had there neen 20 notices, there might be a case. But 3?? No consensus over the 3 edits was asked for or reached. Due process was not followed. Pique over perceptions of past edits or edit history do not justify lack of process in this one instance. Although Ikip might have pushed the guidelines a bit in the past, in this case he did no such thing... only upset an editor who does not agree with his editing style. Bad form. Schmidt, 16:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Rationale for my unblock

1st:

• Ikib blocked by AMiB on 10:18, April 26, 2009. AMiB for starters has no authority or right to block for anything related to the Article Rescue Squad, Deletionism, or Inclusionism, or anything like that, barring vandalism, as one of the major players on the "Deletionist" side. This would be like User:DGG or another user widely perceived to be on the 'other' side doing likewise. We don't allow politics in the use of admin tools, and I encourage AMiB to never do this sort of thing again, as it's a short road to RFAR and losing his bit.

2nd:

1. Misplaced Pages space: Nothing for 72+ hours.
2. Article talk: Nothing for 72+ hours.
3. User talk by Ikip: Nothing for 72+ hours.
4. Misplaced Pages talk by Ikip: Nothing for 72+ hours.

Again, any demonstratably uninvolved admin can freely reverse my unblock, I waive all wheel warriness, etc rootology (C)(T) 15:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• A bit more discussion here. rootology (C)(T) 15:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you didn't address any of my comments to Casliber on this subject while still accusing me of being involved, but I respect unblocking due to a lack of a pressing issue to prevent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The first part of your argument is a real stretch, and it's part of the reason why disruptive inclusionists and exclusionists seem to operate under a protective shield. Admins on the same side aren't inclined to block, admins on the opposite side use an extreme interpretation of WP:INVOLVED to justify inaction, and admins uninvolved in the issue at all are so tired of the mess that they don't poke their nose into it. AMIB has not participated in the discussion in question, and seems not to be involved with Ikip except for repeated warnings about canvassing and near-canvassing. Your second argument is that after having been warned by an admin multiple times about behaviour, the editor does it again, and the admin didn't catch it fast enough? I think arguments against the block based on Ikip not having technically violated the canvassing rules warrant discussion, and I can respect those. Arguing that no exclusionist can ever block an inclusionist or vice versa means that we might as well give up and split the project in two.—Kww(talk) 15:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all--just report the issues here, and the uninvolved folks can sort it out. The same as anything else. :) rootology (C)(T) 15:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice theory ... in practice, they just turn into squabbles that people tune out, like this one: giant squabblefests with one group of admins afraid to act, another group uninclined to act, and everyone so eager to blame it on inclusionism/exclusionism that they don't evaluate the situation and judge whether the underlying behaviour of either party warrants action.—Kww(talk) 15:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of being overly idealistic. rootology (C)(T) 15:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably 90% of active admin are uninvolved in fiction, and at least half do other things than participate in deletion/inclusion debates at all. But they're willing to help out in other areas as neutrals, just as I ewill comment here on things i don't otherwise actively work on. I don't primarily hunt down vandals or copyvio or BLP violations (unless I happen to come across them) but if there's a dispute about it, I can look. That's what this board is for. DGG (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

But that's not what happens on this board. Hell, we are on AN/I right now and look what is happening. Admins and editors are sorting neatly into groups based on their preferences and those without preferences are either ignoring the issue or clucking their tongues at what a shame it is to have disputes like this. At what point are we allowed to just say that treating wikipedia like a battleground is OK as long as your area of advocacy is notability of fictional subjects? Because that's what it looks like from here. Protonk (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No accusation was made, Root. He just said that in practice the model doesn't work. Most of the cases do tend to fall right along the lines that Kww mentioned. Protonk (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• I see no reason to re-impose this block, so endorse. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

'Nuff said

I don't think A Man In Black blocked for political reasons or out of bad faith, but perhaps he should have sought community opinion before the fact, rather than after the fact. I don't think Rootology should have been the one to do the unblocking since he is to some extent involved, but I don't think he unblocked in bad faith either.

FWIW, I would have unblocked if Ikip had requested unblocking via template. The fact that he didn't is rather odd, but that's neither here nor there. Both admins involved here were a bit quick to hit the buttons, but I don't see any reason to think that either were being quick out of malice or without a belief that they were taking correct action. --SB_Johnny | 16:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Pattern of problematic adminship?

This is not the first time A Man In Black has blocked someone with whom he was involved and which garnered the community's scrutiny. See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive489#Review_of_A_Man_In_Black.27s_block_of_Jtrainor. Given this admin's extensive block log for edit warring as well, I strongly urge the community to consider to what extent adminship has been abused by this editor when dealing with opponents per WP:INVOLVED. After all, don't we as a community occasionally consider desysopping after two bad blocks? We have at least two questionable blocks as well as a long history of edit warring. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. A block that ended a long-running case of brinksmanship over copyright is a clear example of a a pattern of inappropriate blocks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen nothign wrong with AMiB's actions as an admin, and I've been on the wrong side of it before. Knock it off. One dubious block in which the major opposition is a direct attack on AMiB's 'wikipolitics' is hardly anything, and another lbock which was reviewed is also not enough. ThuranX (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, desysopping is only handled by Jimbo Wales and Arbcom, and if the administrator elects it, WP:RECALL (which AMiB does not), so either User talk:Jimbo Wales or WP:RFAR. MBisanz 17:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

AMIB has a history of edit warring, and then blocking people to get his way. I can't say I'm terribly surprised he would misuse his tools in other venues as well. Jtrainor (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Jtrainor was invited to rehash his six-month-old dispute over copyright with me by Ikip here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant, as I regularly browse and comment on WP:ANI (as my contrib history will show) and thus would've noticed this eventually anyways. Ikip just sped the process up a bit. Jtrainor (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Ikip leaving a note regarding this ANI post on the talk page of an editor favorable to his particular position isn't relevant at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Having likewise been blocked over opinions of content issues during a dispute, I likewise believe that A Man In Black has gone above and beyond his station in certain instances. Perhaps not material for an RFAR, but nevertheless Jtrainor should not be singled out as a unique "problematic" case - this has happened before and to other people. MalikCarr (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

For example, MalikCarr, at the same time and for the same cause as Jtrainor, also here rehashing that same six-month-old dispute. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ikip didn't leave a note on Malik's page, however. Anyways, saying "it's old" is irrelevant when one is attempting to display a pattern of inappropriate behaviour. Jtrainor (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition to involved or at least questionable blocks of Jtrainor, MalikCarr, and Ikip, at least one other has come under scrutiny as seen at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive475#Edit_War_at_Now_Museum.2C_Now_You_Don.27t_.26_Request_for_review_of_actions. The revert warring mentioned there has actually occurred on SIX articles and not just the one discussed at ANI (I am surprised that hadn't been brought up yet at ANI): , , , , , and . Sincerely, --A Nobody 03:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Man, I need a scorecard or something, this thread is turning into allusions to implications to veiled accusations of implied misdoing... - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Man, you need to just shut your damn yap and stop replying to every accusation :-). Just sayin. --SB_Johnny | 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In over two weeks time I have commented in only one AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom). And so, what is the most recent edit to that article? See this.

• First off, you would think after Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jack Merridew-A Nobody, that editor would not make it a point to go after me in the lone AfD I have commented in the past couple of weeks, especially since I made no argument in the numerous AfDs he commented in or started.
• Now, as you can see at this, I am fourth in number of edits to that AfD and those in first and second place have 10 or more edits each, whereas I have a mere 3 edits). So, somehow my reply to ONE delete "vote" gets labelled as badgering when others have replied to a few times as many others in that discussion as I have?! Why single someone who is fourth in number of edits and who hasn't replied to anywhere near as many others in the discussion as those with the most edits? And again, especially given the recent ANI debate?
• On a second look, is this even meant as a serious contribution? Aside from the use of WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT style of non-arguments, is using antagonistic phrasing like "this piece of shite article" really necessary? And what's with the "teh good reazons twoz delete; juz dooz-zit." Are we editing an encyclopedia as mature adults participating in a serious discussion or what?
• Now, I know some don't like me and probably don't care if someone goes after me, but there have been more disruptive/pointed edits beyond the above and thus beyond me:
  • See Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Proposed_Motto (even A Man In Black, hardly an inclusionist told him to “knock it off”)
  • See (giving a suspected sock account a barnstar accomplishes what? Even if we aren't sympathetic towards sock accounts, how does mockingly giving one a barnstar improve the project? What is the point?)
  • See (is this even meant to be a serious argument…note edit summary in addition to the WP:JNN argument to avoid?)
  • Not sure if the edit summaries here are supposed to be funny or what: , , ,
  • See (accusing those who defend fiction articles of merely "prattling on about whatever franchise has ensnared them as a means to vicariously participate in the story"--that's a great way to look at our volunteers!)

I once again must appeal to point five at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Jack_Merridew_ban_review_motion#Indefinite_block_lifted_with_editing_restrictions. I am absolutely baffled that after the recent ANI thread he would actually go after me in the one and only AfD I bother to comment in in the past couple of weeks. Unbelievable. I strongly urge the community to reconisder supporting at least Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Jack_Merridew-A_Nobody#Mutual_topicban_proposal_community_.21vote, if not Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Jack_Merridew-A_Nobody#Proposal:_Community_ban_of_Jack_Merridew. How much more of the above are we as a community really going to put up with? You would have thought that after that last and recent ANI thread, he would have either totally disengaged from me as I made sure not to comment in or rescue tag the AfDs he started, but instead not only comments in the same AfD as me, but to me in a bizarre manner and then uses a swear-worded stance that is hardly conducive to a civil discussion. And as indicated above, there are indeed other examples of less than productive or non-pointed editing since that ANI thread. I am at my wits end. I don't know what more to do here. I limited my replies in the AfD to only one editor's comment that I thought weak; I avoided rescue templating or arguing in the Honorverse AfDs JM started and we still get the above. I hate posting on ANI again, but I'm not interested in seeing if it's going to continue. None of us should have to keep putting up with this. Please help. Sincerely, --A Nobody 08:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

5,531 bytes. I'll admit that I didn't read a word of it. But as someone who is entirely uninvolved in this drama, I'll offer a suggestion. Perhaps your time is better served improving these articles you continually vote to keep rather than posting here? Just my two cents. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I do... Sincerely, --A Nobody 08:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Good God, do you have to bring every single case where Jack even playfully slights you to ANI? If you can't deal with that of all things, grow a skin. It's not harassment of any kind, and is even insulting to the spirit of the term harassment and the serious connotations it carries. If we're to have any proposal, is to ban both of you from reporting to ANI and restrict all complaints to Jack's mentors, whom I trust a lot more than you to know when to make a post to ANI when the situation is serious and needs outside comment. On top of all that, saying something is "not notable" in an AfD is not a bad thing no matter how much you think it is and certainly is not an offense of any sort. — sephiroth bcr 08:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If he is unwilling to leave me alone and to contribute constructively, the community should take action. I am not interested in just sitting passively by while someone who was unblocked under a strict condition to make NO disruptive edits sees fits to go after me in the only AfD I commented in two weeks time, to come at me in an accusatory manner when if anything at least two other editors replied to way more editors in the discussion, and to test the community's patience by making other unconstructive posts. Point 5 of the ArbCom either has meat and meaning or it doesn't. No, I don't want to just watch this go on and on. The community should have either endorsed the mutual avoidance last time or the reban proposal, because it is plainly obvious that things are not otherwise getting better. And I would hope you could look past any dislike of me of shooting the messenger as it were. I am here to contribute to what should be mature and academic discussions, not writing in "lulz", not calling our volunteers "prattlers", not calling their contributions "shite". It's not about me, but about adding to a needlessly antagonistic and unpleasant environment for our community as a whole. And we should do something now rather than just let things get worse. Sincerely, --A Nobody 08:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Except that you're so caught up in this perceived conflict that you can't differentiate between an innocuous and trivial comment and one that was genuinely harassment or disruptive. None of these are, although I'd like it if he didn't completely butcher the English language in the process. One would think that you'd learn what constitutes a proper ANI post at this point; you would have a lot more success in getting what you want if you were able to make a concise post that concentrated on significant disruption and not trivial stuff like this. — sephiroth bcr 08:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

He was unblocked on the agreement to make NO disruptive edits, not even what you perceive as "trivial" disruptive edits. Ergo he has violated, once again, the arbcom unblock agreement. Seriously, if you were subject of a dispute thread, wouldn't you make it a point if you saw your opponent comment in only one AfD in a couple of weeks time after that ANI thread to say err on the side of avoiding that one discussion? Who wouldn't?! And again, do you really think his giving a sock account a barnstar, even for "humourous" purposes actually adds something to Misplaced Pages? I don't mind good faith editors calling me out and challenging me to be a better editor. I obviously disagree with Sgereuka in that AfD, but he made a comprehensive nomination and did try a redirect first per WP:BEFORE. Thus, I can engage with him as an academic. How can any of us have a serious discussion with a "article is shite", those who defend it are "prattlers"? A number of editors have this misconception that I simply dislike deletion based arguments when more so than anything else, it's how one argues. And writing in this strange manner as what I cited above, does not allow for the advancement of a productive, academic discussion. And making it a point to go after someone after a divisive ANI thread is just mind-boggling. Could you imagine if after that ANI thread, I made it a point to say mock him specifically in the various AfDs he started and commented in since? Are you sure no one would see that as problematic? Sincerely, --A Nobody 09:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, you didn't address anything in my post. I don't know why I bother any more. Also, are you really rehashing your old JNN/PERNOM arguments for AfDs as Verbal notes below? Do you really have a stalker problem? I mean, your userpage is now the same, all your old behavior is back, and whatnot. I'm strongly feeling that there's no need to honor anything you say about this anymore if you don't care about your own safety. — sephiroth bcr 09:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sephiroth, please stop trying to derail these discussions. We want this dispute resolved, right? It is clear and undeniable that 1) we recently had a rather divisive ANI thread about my and his interactions and in that discussion many suggested we avoid each other; as such, I commented in one AfD since and didn't comment in the many he commented in and certainly not to him; why then would he comment to me in the lone AfD I commented in since? 2) he agreed to be unblocked and to make NO disruptive edits, so then why have to be told by A Man In Black to "knock it off" in a discussion? Why see fit to give a sock account a barnstar? Why accuse good faith contributors of essentially arguings so that they can be part of fantasies? Why make an argument needlessly antagonistic by calling the article "shite"? Again, please look past whatever your opinion is of me, because I don't want this resolved just for my sake, but for the commmunity's sake. I wouldn't risk continuing to edit here, if I didn't seriously think Misplaced Pages was worth it. I believe in this project; I think it has a real potential to contribute to humanity's catalogging of human knowledge and it pains me to see the community being played in the above described manner. Sincerely, --A Nobody 09:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You're still not bothering to address my post, so I don't see it as necessary to address your points either. I haven't seen anything on why this is non-trivial and why this is suddenly a blockable offense or something violating his ArbCom restrictions. — sephiroth bcr 09:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The arbcom agreement says "no disruptive edits." It does not say, "okay, well, so long as some people think they are trivial disruptive edits." Making a point of going after someone fresh off of a big ANI thread that resulted in even a spinout ANI thread is NOT a way to resolve tensions, but rather an attempt at escalation. Sincerely, --A Nobody 09:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As the target of the comment from a nobody, I would appreciate it if he (and others) stopped this inane badgering at AfDs. The lack of good faith and civility is poisoning the atmosphere. Verbal chat 08:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I forgot: Sincerely, Verbal chat

Afds are discussions and not votes. People interact in discussions. People's stances are challenged in discussions. But in any event, if you think they shouldn't be discussions, but rather votes, then that is a discussion for Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion as here we are discussing an ongoing and long unresolved dispute and it is best that we not side track it. Best, --A Nobody 08:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Discussions"is correct, but your haranguing, lack of good faith, incivility, and self-rigtiousness do you more harm than good. I have changed my mind on AfDs (in both directions) following improvements or arguments on the AfD, but when you badger someone with your soundbites that are only tangentially relevant you make it harder for me to agree with your view, as I have to overcome the intense dislike you're fostering with your behaviour. Make your point in your own !vote, and ask people to clarify or bring up a point if they are egregiously wrong, but to badger as your edits do is counter-productive and irritating. If anything comments like Jack's in response help to defuse and calm the situation - I know it calmed my initial reaction to your poorly thought through comment on my !vote. Interactions should be collegial. Stick to discussions, not dogma. Verbal chat 09:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think my one reply to your one comment in one discussion is badgering then you do not know what badgering is. And if you think by contrast, his replying to me after an ANI thread in which many editors supported neither of us comment to each other at all in AfDs is helpful then I don't know what to tell you. And yes, when one such as I makes efforts to improve an article, it is indeed frustrating to see WP:PERNOM style comments that say nothing about the changes made since nomination, especially when they follow , i.e. you support a block for canvassing when as far as we can tell, no one actually commented in the AfD from the three pages where Ikip mentioned it, where by contrast it is likely that you and perhaps a couple others came across the AfD because of the ANi thread concerning that now undone block. Sincerely, --A Nobody 09:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: AfDs, plural. This is one example. I also didn't say canvassing, my understanding was that gaming was part of the problem; but this isn't related. It ceases to amaze me that people who file ANI notices of this kind are often the guilty party. Verbal chat 10:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I with much displeasure have started this thread now knowing some will likely jump on me raher than see the message, because it is clear that the previous ANI thread resolved nothing and as such, not for my sake, but for the community's sake, it is far better we definitively resolve this dispute now rather than let it escalate any further. I appeal to the three arbcom mentors to determine whther or not this should continue here for community resolution or if rather it should be discussed on arbitration enforcement. As my self-deprecating username suggests, I am not editing here for myself, but because I believe Misplaced Pages potentially serves humanity in general. As such, I am even willing to pledge to take a real break from this site for a time so as to help deescalate things and when/if I come back to focus on DYKs and the like as I've pretty much had my fill of AfDs, partially why I've only commented in one in two weeks' time and only rescued that one article. People should be able to edit this site without having their good faith contributions called a "&curid=22519824&diff=286395449&oldid=286384688 piece of shite", having their motivations for editing be described as "prattling on about whatever franchise has ensnared them as a means to vicariously participate in the story," etc. or for someone who has been blocked for sockpuppetry to somehow see it a worthwhile use of time here to give a suspected sock account a barnstar. It is unfortunate that I have my own perception by many of me here that I fear clouds the validity of my request. Please, don't put up with this stuff, because it's an opportunity to go against me, but because the diffs I cite above actually do create a poisonous and unwelcoming atmoshphere for others beyond me and because given the agreement to make NO (without exceptions) disruptive edits, that there would be even questionable disruptive edits makes a mockery of that good faith unblock request and those who supported it. You don't need to care if I feel insulted. I'm a nobody. But it's not just me who is being insulted by the above cited diffs. And it's not me who is effectively being slapped in the face by having them made. And I implore anyone who is neutral to sift beyond whatever partisanship comes up here. Surely, some impartial arbcom members can do that. Please resolve this dispute now. Please do not allow it to get derailed again. Thank you for your time and help. Respectfully, --A Nobody 09:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this the diff we are meant to see as harassment/disruption? Protonk (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have posted about a half dozen diffs of disruptive/unconstructive/escalatory edits in various places above and I am confident that no neutral editor with no past involvement with me will see the totality of them as anything but a collective violation of point 5 of the arbcom agreement. This time, even more so than the last time, it is fortunately obvious, and as such I am much more confident that neutral parties and/or the three arbcom appointed mentors will indeed do something to prevent this dispute from needlessly escalating any further. Sincerely, --A Nobody 10:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well bringing ths here as disruption, harassment or both is certainly what I would call "escalating". pablo_hablo. 10:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want play games and wait and see to what degree this stuff is going to continue. I would much rather we put a stop to this dispute right here and now than just allow for swipes to continue and build over time. We can minimize the disruption by accomplishing what the first ANI thread failed to do. I have commented in one AFD since that last ANI thread and naturally he sees fit to comment to me in that lone AfD thread while in his delete "vote" saying the article is "shite" and saying it exists for the sake of "fans of a hottie prattling-online," which patently insults the various editors who worked in good faith on the article and who defended it in the AfD. Making a blanket assertion about our contributors is insulting. Seeing fit to go after me in first and only AfD I comment in since the last ANI thread is an ominous sign. We already had one ANI thread that was pretty massive and so, why allow things to build again? Why not just deal with it not, before it gets any further out of hand elsewhere? Let's iron it out here on ANI, rather then see AfDs or anywhere else be disrupted by a totally unnecessary dispute. He has three arbcom appointed mentors. He has an agreement not to make any disruptive edits. Doesn't that agreement have some teeth? And I don't want the precedent to be set that it's okay if I get bullied, because if we allow that, then it sets the stage the same happening to others. Regards, --A Nobody 10:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You've posted a half dozen...and just like last time, only one is relevant. What are we supposed to make of the 3-4 "is this edit summary supposed to be humorous?" diffs? What are we supposed to do with this? That's not him harassing you or him being disruptive. Remember our conversation last time? That you will gain more from honestly presenting a small number of issues than inflating them into something they are not? Protonk (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If even one you think is relevant, then it is still a violation of point 5. Sincerley, --A Nobody 10:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not my point. Multiple people have asked you not to come to AN/I with posts that are essentially throwing everything you have at a wall and seeing what sticks. I'm not particularly concerned about the diff you mentioned. I can't for the life of me see how it is the end of the world for you to be told that JNN/PERNOM copy/paste responses are badgering. People have been trying to tell you that for YEARS (literally). And don't respond with "but JNN/PERNOM votes are..." I don't want to get into that discussion. In my opinion, your one cited diff was fairly benign. So no, I don't agree that it was a violation of point 5. Protonk (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You would think after such a discussion as Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Jack_Merridew-A_Nobody#Mutual_topicban_proposal, in the only AFD I commented in since that thread, he would not comment directly to me in that discussion, while saying say nothing to anyone else there. Seriously now. How many editors commented in that AfD? Why would someone who earlier this month many editors supported he and I avoid each other or if we comment in the same AfDs not comment to each other see fit to of all the participants in the AfD to only comment to me? Sincerely, --A Nobody 10:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I can only note that Jack refused to agree to that compromise mutual topic ban so it doesn't have any bearing on the subject. I have an alternative view. Jack is being impish. He intends to needle you up to the point of frustration, which unfortunately for you seems to be a relatively low threshold. What he's not doing is harassing you or disrupting the project. Making an offhand comment designed to rile you up isn't harassment (as you have noted in the past when people have accused YOU of harassment). Relentlessly following your contributions, stalking you (or whatever we call it now), reverting your edits, refactoring your comments, etc. THOSE are signs of harassment. Again, taking a comment like his and making a production out of it isn't going to win converts. Eventually, the list of people who will diligently read through each diff and judge it on its merits will dwindle and people will have heard you cry wolf enough. I'm not "neutral", so I can't say that definitively, but that's what it looks like from here. Protonk (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, why antagonize someone by "needling them up to the point of frustration"? And as far as relentlessly following my contributions goes, as you can easily see, I haven't edited as much since that ANI blowout. There are a few days I didn't edit at all. Indeed, I only edited in one AfD since then and so, there really wasn't much to follow around since then, but the one thing that I did focus on, i.e. rescuing that one article, is where he did indeed see fit to comment to me and only to me and no one else. I would much rather this not be an ongoing trend when I by contrast didn't see fit to even rescue template all those Honorverse articles he AfDed. But again, I'm not sure why you don't see the other evidence above problematic. To take the Socratic approach... What is the point of giving a suspected sock a barnstar? How does that improve Misplaced Pages? What is the point of calling the article "a piece of shite" rather than criticizing it in a more articulate and less inflammatory way? What is the point of in two AfDs calling those who write/defend these articles "prattlers"? How does such a designation reach out to those volunteer contributors? How are these edits not unproductive? What do they actually do to improve Misplaced Pages? Sincerely, --A Nobody 10:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Who knows why? But it is a stretch to go from one diff to say that he's stalking your contributions. The fact that you have editing little since the last AN/I would make it easier for us to make that claim but it can't possibly make it so easy that one response is sufficient. As for your litany of questions--I DONT CARE. I suspect few others do as well. I can't imagine a smaller thing to get worked up about then whether or not Jack has given a barnstar to a sock or not. I also note AGAIN that you are bringing up tangential issues and presenting them as core problems. It is most certainly not harassment for Jack to have an intemperate opinion of an article which is at variance to yours. Likewise I should hope that you would be the first to defend someone's views of content being separated from their conduct, right? Either the sole new diff you provided was sufficient to present an incident requiring administrator action or it wasn't. Rehashing old issues or conflating non-issues with issues won't hold water. 11:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It shows that even after that ANI thread and even with me not commenting to him, he will indeed be sure that even if I comment in but one AfD, he too will not only comment in it, but to me, and only to me and as such, it is clear that barring an admin tells him to avoid me, he won't, but here's the fun part, an admin did tell him to leave me alone, and he didn't. In fact, even after the last ANI thread, I reduce my editing, only try rescuing one article and commenting in one AfD, but still there he is to go after me and in the process call the article I worked to rescue "a piece of shite" and those who defend it, which means not just me, "prattlers." And yes, I think the good faith editors who worked on the article and who argued to keep it don't much appreciate having the work and motivations dismissed in such a manner. You may not care, but perhaps they do. Perhaps our volunteers aren't going be encouraged to contribute if their just dismissed and insulted. So, if he's alreeady ignoring Casliber's warning to leave me alone, and further doing so after the previous ANI thread and with me not replying to him anywhere, I don't know what more it's going to take? Is he going to comment to me in every AfD I comment in? Does he not care if admins warn him about anything? And really, you can probably imagine, I certainly would have liked to say more in that AfD, but thought, no, you know what, this time, I will only reply to those who reply to me and maybe make one other reply to someone else. From here on out, I will reisist, as I did, replying to everyone of an opposing viewpoint. I try to change my approach and even then, I get singled out. Who would want to put up with that? Who would want to just ignore it and watch as it continues as Casliber's warning is just essentially laughed off and yeah, I would say accusing those who defend fiction articles as being mere "prattlers" is hardly tangential, because I defend such articles, and so it is indeed an insult to me as well as the other keeps in those AfDs. Sincerely, --A Nobody 11:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that his view of an article is somehow a special slight to you. Most of what you said directly above has been said before and is so intertwined with the inclusion/deletion mess that I don't think a neutral person could reliably judge its relevance. And I've said in the past thread that I think he should avoid you. I'll go further. If he persists in antagonizing you, he should be blocked. However I still think you are misrepresenting the scope of the problem and in doing so damage your own case. Multiple people, in this thread, have asked you to stop conflating views on content with harassment and yet you persist. YOU have escaped sanction in past AN/I threads by the skin of your teeth because people have been willing to grant you a great deal of leeway in order to avoid punishing you for your views. You specifically should avoid characterizing his comments about articles as harassment directed at you or if not harassment something worthy of umbrage. All that was required here was 1-2 sentences noting that diff and asking for some relief. Protonk (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that in this ANI thread I did not use the word "harassment." As no, I am certainly not alleging he is doing anything off wiki against me. And as far as views goes, this is not merely inclusionism/deletionist. I don't think deletionists are "prattlers" and I wouldn't label them as much. I disagree with a deletionist philosophy, sure, but I see no need to comment on the editors in the AfD. Arguments, sure, but my umbrage is not with his believing the article should be deleted, but that those who worked on it or who think it should be kept are some kind of non-worthwhile entities which he labelled as "prattlers" in at least two different AfDs. And yeah, I am frustrated because an admin, Casliber, has already warned him to leave me alone and he didn't. So, I started one ANI thread and it devolved into I don't even know what to call it. And after that, I made no on wiki comments to him (nor on Misplaced Pages Review or anything). Yet, I comment in one AfD and sure enough he comments to no on else in it but only to me. And yes, after having already been warned by an admin to leave me alone. So, if someone has been warned by an admin to leave someone else alone and doesn't, then what the heck? If someone disregards an admin's warning, especially an arbcom appointed mentor admin, I don't if a firmer warning should be given or what, but in any event, as I propose below, after this thread is archived, hopefully, a much more sterner community agreement will be made that precludes him from hounding me any further and discourages me on the reverse from starting these threads. I hope that after two ANI threads now, you and everyone else will indeed look at any future antagonism by either party very sternly. Sincerely, --A Nobody 11:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We shant review all of your pleasant commentary about deletionists. But if the heart of the matter is his refusal to abide by Casilber's warning, then ask Casilber to put some force behind it. I'm not willing to read a sentence with the word "please" in it as a dictum, so I won't interpret it and block accordingly. Only Casilber knows exactly what he wrote there. If he wants to block or propose blocking JM based on this issue, then ask him and have him propose it. Protonk (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr

A Nobody really needs to take User:SB Johnny up on his request to start an email dialogue; I did and we're waiting for his input. Seems that he's only interested in kicking-up more drama, which needs to stop. At this point I'd be on solid ground making a harassment case against him. And where's my ani notice about this? Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
See also: User:A Nobody/RfA#Suggestions — A Nobody's 'rules' for whom is welcome to offer suggestions and, more to the point, who is not. Seems he has about a half dozen allusions to me as someone unwelcome. Obviously I, and a hoard of others, will oppose any RfA. Duh. It seems to me that his rules amount to a series of digs at me and an offer of bait for a round of ani drama such as this one. I've focused on content since the last dust-up. Sure I took a few of the unworthy to the block, but I've also created new articles (and the pic) such as the water temple. I've been working my way across Africa building navigation templates for rivers. I also have done some interesting things to the non-notable 'Honorverese' dreck. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

While A Nobody has brought one diff to the table, in the last 10 days Jack Merridew has 100 edits in the Misplaced Pages: namespace, mostly in the Fiction AFDs. When viewed from that perspective, 1% doesnt seem like grounds for complaint. If it was on an AFD topic that Jack Merridew doesnt often go to, I might see your point, but Jack does seem rather fond of voting delete on most Fiction related AFDs. I've tried to convincing him that he should vote keep on them, and maybe even clean them up, but he has yet to see the light. Has there been other diffs where the paths have crossed in that timeframe? John Vandenberg 10:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I did tidy up Moby-Dick the other day and if anyone ever AfDs that, I'll be sure to work to rescue it. This isn't about 'fiction', it's about inappropriate articles and my new wikihounder. — Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have avoided commenting in and obviously to him in the various AfDs he has started or commented in since the previous ANI thread. I comment in one thread and he not only comments in it, but to me as well and again, this follows on a thread in which a proposal that we avoid each other had more supports than not. You would think just as I refrained from commenting in the AfDs he commented in, he would not see fit to make it a point to comment to me in the one that I commented in. And again, I am not simply concerned here about this interest in me, but also in this bad faith accusing of editors who work on fiction articles. Look, all I want is for it to be clear that if I am not going to be going after him in AfDs, there is absolutely no need for him to go after me. And moreover, if there is an agreement that he should make no disruptive edits, then, he shouldn't be giving blocked socks barnstars, calling people's good faith contributions "shite" or calling those he disagrees with "prattlers". Why is it necessary to comment to NO ONE else in an AfD but me? Why say I am badgering when I replied to ONE other editor, yet the nominator and someone else replied to 10 editors a piece? Sincerely, --A Nobody 10:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside question. Since you keep pointing to the topic ban proposal, what do you think about point 3, "Starting any AN, AN/I, AN3, WQA, RFC, RFARB cases or threads about each other without the blessing and approval, onwiki, of a neutral admin"? Have you done that here or is it just Jack's conduct at issue? I know none were passed, but even under the particular language of point 4, "Commenting on AFDs or article-rescues started by the other", Jack hasn't violated that. Are we supposed to punish him for violating a requirement nobody suggested (under a proposal he wouldn't agree to) when you went against an explicit proposed requirement you supported? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that I have largely laid low since that ANI thread. There's a few days since that I even made no edits. So, in the time, I did rescue one article and defend it in an AfD. And I made sure to avoid any articles or AfDs he was in. Yet, of the dozen or so editors who commented in the one AfD I participated in since that ANI thread, he only sees fit to comment to me in that discussion and then makes a "vote" where he calls the article that I and others worked on a "piece of shite" and those who defended it are dismissed as "prattlers," a condescending term he used in another AfD as well. If in the only one article I tried to rescue since and the one AfD I comment in since the previous ANI thread, he sees me as the only person in that AFD worth commenting to, my concern is that it is a sign of things to come, i.e. even if I don't comment to him or even in the same AfDs as him, he will nevertheless still go after me and only me for that matter while making "votes" that essentially insult our contributors and their contributions. On as big a place as Misplaced Pages is and if I can resist commenting to him in AfDs or even slapping rescue templates on AfDs he nominates, then there's just no valid reason why of all the participants in the sole AfD I comment in in two weeks, I am the only one he must respond to. I don't want this to continue in any manner beyond this ANI thread and I'd rather not just sit back and watch the replies pile up in AfDs even if it would give me some kind of stronger case in the future, I'd rather it be nipped in the bud now and given the additional element of calling those who defend fiction articles mere "prattlers", that is something that should be addressed sooner rather than later. Sincerely, --A Nobody 11:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, A Nobody, but I honestly can't see you have a case either for harassment or disruption, and the spatter of irrelevant diffs just weaken your position further. I think you are disposed to see any interaction with Jack as harassment. Have you e-mailed SBJohnny as suggested at the previous ANI? pablo_hablo. 11:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Enough was going on earlier this year that culminated in this talk page warning by his arbcom appointed mentor who is also an admin. Following that comment by his arbcom mentor to "leave me alone", he continued to see fit to not do so in various places (for example, , --and no, I was not talking about him, , etc.), which resulted in the first unresolved ANI thread after which I greatly reduced my editing and only defended one article from deletion. In that lone AFD I comment in since, he comments to no one else but me, bearing in mind that enough was going on pre-April that he had already been advised to leave me alone. And then given, the first ANI thread and my avoiding saying anything after him in any AfDs, you'd think there'd be nothing else. Thus, I believe the below solution is the best way to avoid any further tensions. No playing games trading emails, no need for extensive mediation. Just plain and simple on a site with 2 million articles, we avoid each other. AfDs and RfAs thus will not be marred by any animosity between us that distracts from the article or candidate under discussion. No need for additional ANI, etc. And my concern is largely given what he did to White Cat that resulted in his sanctioning, there are signs of it starting with me. I do not want to take on that role. I can leave him alone, he should be able to do the same. Let's move on. Sincerely, --A Nobody 12:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A quick note, since I was mentioned. If I thought JM merited a block for his post at WP:ARS, I would have made that block. If someone feels that that comment crossed a line and feels that JM should be blocked for it, that's their business, but I don't want to see my comments misused further, thanks. Please do not involve me or my comments in this nonsense. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I am not sure if we can just do this here or if it requires arbitration, but to make it clear that this dispute ends in this thread, I propose and obviously endorse the following for the good of the community:

• 1. User:Jack Merridew and User:A Nobody agree to completely avoid each other on Misplaced Pages English pages. No confrontational editing the same pages (not a big deal if we happen uppon the same article without noticing the edit history and say make a lone grammar improvement), no comments about each other by name or innuendo. No harassment of each other in other venues. This restriction will be interpreted in the broadest way with no allowance for any attempt to skirt the restriction in any manner.
• 2. A Nobody and Jack Merridew are hereby completely forbidden from:
  • 2a. Commenting to each other anywhere onwiki, including each others' talkpages, with the sole exception of formulaic community-mandated notifications;
  • 2b. Commenting about each other anywhere onwiki, with the sole exception of responding to AN, AN/I, AN3, WQA, RFC, RFARB cases brought by the other;
  • 2c. Starting any AN, AN/I, AN3, WQA, RFC, RFARB cases or threads about each other. )This time around, enough eyes should be on us, that I trust someone will take notice if either party goes after the other beyond this thread and as such let someone familiar with react accordingly).
  • 2d. Commenting on AFDs or article-rescues started by the other--e.g., A.Nobody tags an article for rescue, Jack Merridew must stay away from both the article and the AFD discussion. Likewise, Jack starts an AFD, A.Nobody must stay away from both the article and the AFD discussion. It should be emphasised that in light of the other above points, any attempt by either of these two to game the proposed restrictions via baiting, veiled references, or any other type of wikilawyering end-run should be viewed extremely dimly by admins. Infractions to be met by the usual series of escalating blocks. ADDED: To put it in a much simpler way, the two of them be told to stay away from each other, permanently.
  • 2e. Neither editor nominate articles for deletion for which the other editor created or significantly worked on.

Let's put a stop to this dispute here and now. No more antagonism in AfDs, no more ANI threads. Misplaced Pages has over 2 million articles. I avoided commenting in and trying to rescue his Honorverse AfDed articles, there's no urgent need for him to have to go after any ones I work on either. There is no real reason why any two editors on such a big project cannot agree to avoid each other. Clearly, the community is not interested in AfD antagnoism, and clearly it is not interested in any further ANI threads between us. Let's put a stop to all of this and get back to improving the project. And the above is far and away the best way forward. No need to play games trading emails, no need to discuss fine points. I tried reaching out to him in the past, was rebuffed. We tried with Casliber firmly saying to stay away. That didn't work either. So, let's just make it a clear and umabgiguous avoidance per the above and that's that. No more escalation, accusations, or anything else. The community will be far better for it. Sincerely, --A Nobody 11:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Since 2c was proposed at point 3 last time, and you supported it then while ignoring it just now, how am I supposed to believe you'll do anything but support it again and ignore it again next time? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd generally support it but if you won't follow suggestions by others and won't follow promises you made before (let's not even get into the whole RTV thing about promises and allegations you've made before), the community is supposed to trust that this time, you are being serious and not just flailing accusations at everyone who disagrees with you until they leave? The last character doing that stuff I saw ended up with a one-year community ban. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As you said above, the previous proposal was not marked as "resolved", "approved," etc. So, even though I wanted them supported, I was hardly bound by them. By contrast, Jack did have a separate talk page warning from Casliber (arbcom mentor) to leave me alone, which was actually ignored and as such, that's why I am here, i.e. he was warned to leave me alone and isn't. Now, this time around, if all the points above are closed as "passed" by the community, whether any one party really wants to keep after the other for whatever unjustifiable reason, well, obviously both parties will have to abide by them or face being blocked. I am hoping that this time, with two ANI threads, enough editors will have seen them that if a pattern of going after me persists, there wouldn't be any need for me to ask for help as enough editors will be aware to take action themselves. Surely after this thread and when the above proposal is passed, someone will take notice if in AfDs they start seeing antagonistic replies to me. As I said previously, there is no legitimate reason why anyone would be so fixated on someone else on Misplaced Pages that they could not totally disengage from them. So, yeah, if the above is actually passed this time, you will not see any ANI threads from me, because I trust someone else will notice or keep an eye on our edits for any violations and will do something accordingly. Sincerely, --A Nobody 11:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Or we could focus in the relentless drama-seeking and disruption on your part. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  ...and that comment helped to resolve the issue how? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  It puts the proper issue forward. The whole bit above is a rehash of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jack Merridew-A Nobody. A Nobody is focused on extending my editing restrictions. I expect that this go-round, the concerns that many have about him will result in a rather stiffer proposal that adheres to him alone. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 2

• Jack Merridew, leave A Nobody alone, don't comment on him, reply to him, or try to needle him otherwise. With your past, you don't get to behave like any other editor, you have to be a much better editor than most, with special attention to your interactions with other editors, to counterbalance your history.
• A Nobody, ignore Jack and his comments, spare the community the drama of making a molehill out of a single reply to an AfD post you made, and don't repeat proposals which were not agreed upon two weeks before and which you don't follow either. And stop posting essay links in AfD discussions as if they are policy, even when they are hardly relevant. Fram (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I can agree to that if it is clear that anyone paying attention will take action if the above is ignored, i.e. yeah, okay, I won't start threads here, if after this thread is archived I'm not hounded any further by him and if I am anyone who notices, whether it's you, Protonk, Casliber, etc. does something about it. And I'd rather it be clear as well that not just me, but anyone who does defend these fiction articles are not denigrated as "this piece of shite article is about; fans of a hottie prattling-online" and "prattling on about whatever franchise has ensnared them as a means to vicariously participate in the story." I think none of our contributors need be dismissed or insulted in such fashion. Sincerely, --A Nobody 12:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment by slipping in that "hounded any further" clause you are claiming that it is self-evident you have been hounded. There is no evidence for this. As far as shite, prattling, doe-eyed hotties etc goes - this is certainly robust language and some may see it as uncivil but I don't think it harasses anyone nor is it particularly disruptive. pablo_hablo. 12:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • He did enough earlier this year to be told by his arbcom appointed mentor to leave me alone. Yet, he continued to make digs at me and only me in RfAs, AfDs, etc. In the only AfD I commented in since the last ANI, I am the ONLY editor he commented directly to. Why only comment to me and no one else? Why if told in March by Casliber to leave me alone, not do that? The bottom line is clear that if the community asserts we must avoid each other, the community will be better for it, because it precludes any room for the dispute to escalate beyond this thread. Sincerely, --A Nobody 12:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment As needed as the last sentence of A Nobody's half of the bargain is, I feel compelled to point out that it isn't terribly germane to the matter at hand. I should also note that apart from that last sentence, this proposal and the last one are identical (if you strip the faux legal jargon from the last proposal). Just figured I would point that out. Protonk (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to indicate that the less you needlessly annoy people (by being uncivil like Jack Merridew in some cases, or by responding with the same irrelevant essays as if they are policy like A Nobody in some cases), the less other people will feel the need to reply accordingly, and the more chance you have of a sympathetic ear when you are complaining about these replies. Fram (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Protonk (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Fram's proposal makes a lot of sense. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Not very enforceable on A Nobody's end. A mutual topic ban is tricky to enforce, but compare that to coming to AN/I and being asked to block A Nobody for violating the last sentence of this little agreement. That will go down like a lead balloon, regardless of who agrees to it today. Though I will reverse my opinion if this proposal garners enough support to simply apply it to JM and not merely suggest it. Protonk (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Fram hit the nail on the head. BOZ (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support as proposed by Fram, as an interim measure while they are working things out for the longer term via e-mail, mediated by User:SB Johnny (assuming he's still up for it) as recommended at the last AN/I. pablo_hablo. 15:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  I'll certainly agree to this sort of thing as an interim measure if it will get A Nobody to the table. That's been understood all along. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 3 :Lock the doors, walk away

Reinstate Jack's ban, enforce A Nobody's vanishment, and be done with it. This is a dispute between two editors that don't enjoy the normal rights and privileges of a typical editor. Jack Merridew is here after being reinstated from a ban, where one of the primary reasons was the constant taunting of White Cat. I can sympathize with the argument that his treatment of A Nobody looks like that pattern could be starting again. A Nobody vanished ... he invoked his right to vanish, a process which entails actually leaving. A Nobody voluntarily abandoned his ability to edit Misplaced Pages when he did so. He edits only under the tolerance of others. The simplest and most effective way to keep the rest of us from having to deal with disruption caused by these enormous scattershot ANI reports generated by A Nobody over complaints about juvenile taunting by Jack Merridew is to indefinitely block both accounts and walk away.—Kww(talk) 16:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that your post above is largely fair. I only have two quick notes...1) aside from items that were oversighted, I was essentially unvanished (my talk page history still exists, I have the same block log, etc.). 2) So long as the community makes it clear that neither of us are able to do anything whatsoever to each other that could possible enflame things beyond this ANI thread, really that should be enough to prevent anything further as if either party goes against that, enough eyes have been on this thread that surely someone would do something accordingly. Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Given Nobody's unwillingness to abide by the editing restrictions he wants enforced, and his refusal to curtail the verbal diarrhea, I would support enforcement of his alleged vanishing. No comment on Jack. //roux   18:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• • I absolutely agree to the proposal you suggested last time so long as it is clear that I will not be fixated on by this editor any further. Remember, I didn't comment to or about him since the previous ANI thread until he saw fit to reply to me and only me in the lone AfD I commented in since. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Reinstate Jack's ban, enforce A Nobody's vanishment, and be done with it. Agreed. Both sides seem to want drama. Both have been in trouble before. They're fighting over a spinoff article about a minor TV mini-series. Just block both of them for a few months, so we can do something else. --John Nagle (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

55 kilobytes, and counting

• One edit warrants all this? Right. This is disruption. It's all of a piece; A Nobody, E&C/E&C 2, Pixelface, Ikip, ARS, fancruft. In the E&C 2 case folks were told to not inflame the situation, and I feel that the defend-at-all-costs crowd has done an awful lot of flame-fanning. This is blowing up every few days now.
• I commented that A Nobody was, yet again, badgerring folk at AFD. See the reply from the badgered editor. No wonder Cas calls AfD the trenches; some are endlessly combative.
• It is time for the disruption, the bad faith, the off-topic TL;DRs from A Nobody to end. He had the chance to hash this out with SB_Johnny; still does, I expect. I'll talk. But he doesn't want that; he wants to rally the villagers, and their pitchforks and torches, and burn down the windmill. And he claims to be a 'mature adults participating in a serious discussion.' These little dramas on ANI are called 'clubbings'. Don't get too caught-up in the drama.
• I'm at UTC+8, which is pretty much day/night inverted from most here; close, at least. It gives one a different perspective. I'm off for the night soon, but many will pick at this while I sleep. Tomorrow, I'll read through all the noise, reverts, collapsing and uncollapsing. Don't have too much fun, ok? And don't reward disruption.
• Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  Jack Merridew, stop commenting on A Nobody, just leave him completely and utterly alone. There are more than enough editors around who will comment on him or his actions when he goes too far. But you are definitely not the one to be doing this. Drop the comments, drop the attitude, or risk a lengthy block for disruption. A Nobody needs a thicker skin, but there's no need for you to put needles in it anyway. Fram (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  Good advice in general, but Jack Merridew has to be allowed to comment freely here, if nowhere else, surely? This "incident" is after all, ostensibly about him. pablo_hablo. 14:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  I'm off for the night anyway. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  (ec)He is free to comment here, and has done so a number of times. But how is his last comment helping in any way? It is obvious that noone is going to take any direct action against Jack Merridew for this last incident alone, but that most people are quite fed up with the disruption both cause through their actions or their responses to actions of the other. To drag in other editors and projects is not helpful in any way and will only serve to create more drama (and linking drama to Rwandan Genocide is not really helpful either, of course). If both editors back off, here and in general (from one another), then this may get resolved. If they don't, then both editors are risking lengthy blocks for just wasting everbodys time with their actions. And Jack's comment above was a step in the opposite direction, expanding this section into a larger dramafest instead of seeking a resolutionor quietly stepping away. Fram (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  I see the way forward as w/SB_Johnny. I've a dozen emails with him seeking a resolution here. That's what came out of the last attempted lynching. G'night, Jack Merridew 15:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cutting the Gordian knot

These threads are coming up too frequently, aren't going anywhere, and are taking up too much administrative time. Although I like and respect both A Nobody and Jack Merridew, we have a shortage of administrators at this site and have to solve this some other way. So proposing a 1-2-3 solution:

1. Encourage both Jack and A Nobody to enter mediation.
2. Offer to certify a conduct RfC on either of them.
3. If another thread like the current one appears on an admin board within two months (long and unactionable) and no other formal dispute resolution has been undertaken, I will open a formal mediation request for the two of them. If that works, wonderful. If it doesn't, the next stop will be RFAR.

Any objections? Durova 16:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for chipping-in, Durova.

1. I've said I'll talk this through; said so last time, too. I don't see any comment from SB_Johnny re this thread and feel that's the place to start. If that doesn't work out, or A Nobody won't agree to talk, I'm not opposed to formal mediation. I've never done that; it seems a step often skipped.
2. I've said a number of times the A Nobody needs an RFC/U, as have others, including yourself. As he's said something to the effect that he wouldn't honor or respect one started by the likes of me, I've not gone there. If someone gets it rolling, I'll offer a view. If one is opened re myself, I'll listen, reply, and take the reasonable bits aboard.
3. Your point three could be moot, given my two comments above. I see a problem with your terms which basically invite stonewalling on A Nobody's part followed by another round of ANI Drama. A pity that shortcut was hijacked; it still applies. If he does not agree to any of this, you have my blessing to move sooner than two months.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems relatively simple here that he and I should be able to just avoid each other. We have over two million articles. There's absolutely no reason why any two editors on such a large site must come into contact with each other. If I can refrain from replying to him in the multiple AfDs he started since the last ANI thread, why the need to reply to me and to no one else in the lone AfD I do comment in since? We don't need to go into mediation. The simplest thing would just be for this thread to be marked as resolved under the passage of either of the first two proposals above, i.e. "Both are editors are warned to avoid each other. Administrators familiar with this thread will block any attempt to escalate tensions again." We shouldn't need anything beyond that. Casliber has already basically said we should leave each other alone. Roux strongly proposed as much last time. Fram proposes as much here as well. There's no need for us to have to iron things out beyond that. We should be able to walk away from each other and work on some of the millions of articles the other isn't working on. And there's no reason why either of us must mention or reply to each other in any RfA or AfD. If after all this, when I want and am willing to not do anything further with regards to him, he still persists in having an interest in me, then I don't know what else to call that. And hopefully after this thread, the community will absolute not see me replying to or commenting to him and by contrast if he does to me, I hope those who participated in this discussion will do something. I don't have a need to start ANI threads if warnings that he leave me alone are followed up on. My hope is that this ANI thread is enough to resolve this here and now. Not take us anywhere else. Here and now the community says, "Enough you two! No more commenting to or about each other. Period." Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You both should be able to, but obviously are not. More to the point, the community is getting repeated requests for administrative assistance that it cannot really provide--so the groping attempts to provide it are taking up substantial time that would otherwise go into useful endeavors. There are three books on my desk atm about Latin American art and as soon as this post is done I intend to include content from them in article space hint hint. Can you believe the Peruvian muralist José Sabogal is a one sentence substub? He's the subject of a whole chapter in one of these books. Now there has to be a limit to how long the José Sabogals of the world remain underdeveloped in article space. This is more about time management than anything else. The lines need to be drawn somewhere and this seems like the most reasonable way. Durova 17:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, not only did I not comment in any of the AFDs he started since the last ANI, I didn't even rescue template them. Why then the need to not only comment in the only AfD I posted in since that thread but to me and only to me? If he didn't do that, and listened to Casliber's talk page plea to "leave me alone", then there would be no ANI thread and I would continue avoiding him. As Kww hints at above, yeah, some may say, "Well, he it's just one AfD comment...", but we're talking about someone who was sanctioned for long-term going after another eidtor (White Cat). Given that, you would think once an admin tells him to leave me alone and he doesn't do so resulting in one ANI thread, why test the waters? My concern here is to stop this now before it goes any further. And all we need is as I say above whatever admin closes this thread to unambiguously state that we are to have nothing to do with each other and violating as much is blockable. I cannot imagine any legitimate reason why anyone could not under such circumstances indeed just walk away from his perceived opponent. We shouldn't need anything more and yes, I would much rather help work on articles than post here, but when someone who was sanctioned for fixating on an editor totally ignores an admin's call that he leaves me alone is incredibly disconcerting and hopefully not the start of a fixation on me. I am willing to take flak and scrutiny from many editors. I am willing to come to terms with many editors, but there is something unsettling with trying that with someone who had to be sanctioned to leave someone else alone. I want to help improve Misplaced Pages, not have to get into these discussions and I want to be sure that given that editors' history there is no chance that I am starting to become the latest target. I want to stop things now before they get any worse. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI lends itself to cut and dried situations, which this isn't. You can demonstrate that you have good faith by attempting dispute resolution. Maybe that'll work. If it doesn't, and if you've walked the straight and narrow, then you have nothing to fear from arbitration (which is designed to handle the situations that aren't cut and dried). José Sabogal has three whole sentences now. Pretty soon I'll have time to mention that he was a muralist. ;) Durova 17:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I do not see any value or need in dispute resolution beyond this thread. I don't want someone who has a history of long-term fixation on another editor seeing a need to have to interact with me. There's nothing he and I need to work out, just to avoid each other. I would much rather spend time editing articles and not going back and forth in some dispute resolution thread when all we need is for us to leave each other be and for it to be clear that if either party doesn't indeed do that on-wiki then a neutral admin will indeed take action and I think enough neutral admins have seen this discussion that there should be no need for me to have to start any future ANI threads. It's stuff like this that actually does make me question how safe/good of an idea it is to edit here and what kind of environment it actually is. I am distressed that calling those who defend fiction articles as mere "prattlers" is being glossed over for one thing, but look, we know this editor had to be sanctioned by arbcom to leave one editor alone, he was told by one of his arbcom mentors to leave me alone, and yet continued to comment to/about me. We shouldn't put up that at all. And I shouldn't be expected to wait until things get really bad before seeking admin intervention. The seeds are clearly planted. I do not want this plant to grow. The community gains nothing from any further mediation, which realistically will devolve as that previous ANI thread into some kind of partisan wiki-philosophy debate. The simplest and best thing here is a clear admin warning that we have no further interaction beyond this thread and it be made clear that any breach of it be dealt with. Again, I wouldn't expect him to have to check the edit history to see if I edited an article just to make some grammar fix or to not comment in an RfA because I commented there. But there is absolutely no need for either of us to comment to or about each other in any edit summary, talk page, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

For God's sake, just shut up already. Consensus is against your claims, so drop the stick and back away from the by-now fully decomposed remains of what was once a merely dead horse. //roux   17:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is clear that this dispute should end and as such I expect any further comments to or about me by him will be dealt with by any admin so as to prevent further escalation. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Note that if neither party initiates dispute resolution, I can attempt to initiate it. Thus if they refuse it this can trot over to RFAR without their cooperation. Either way, the admin community won't continue to be burdened with a dilemma it can't solve. Durova 18:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Per Casliber and now Fram, i.e. two admin warnings for him to leave me alone with the latter including a warning of a block, I consider my concerns addressed by admins and I hope that these warnings will be heeded and if ignored acted upon. I have nothing further to say and thank Fram for her fairness in this situation. I will not be the one to escalate this any further and hope that this is the end of the matter. Durova, I am starting to help you on that artist article instead. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that steps toward dispute resolution have been taken but there is, thus far, a vacant chair at the table. pablo_hablo. 19:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you must not realize the history of this dispute.

Jack Merridew-A Nobody Mutual topicban proposal community !vote

Two weeks ago, roux suggested and a SB_Johnny, was willing to arbitrate the two editors and came up with a solution that the majority of the community supported. But Jack refused to support this solution. Whereas A nobody immediately supported the solution.

Since Jack refused to support this proposal, the community discussed it, and the consensus was that we should follow this proposal.

Fram is a very involved editor in this dispute. His proposal requires four comprimises from A nobody, and a vague comprimise from Jack.

I don't see Jack rushing to support Durova's proposal either.

I suggest a neutral admin look over this past proposal, and make this binding on both parties, a proposal which has the overwhelming support of the community. Ikip (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good luck finding one, given that every single Wikipedian, including admins, can be so easily pigeonholed and compartmentalized. MuZemike 05:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, Jack Merridew has no real problems with my proposal ("I'll certainly agree to this sort of thing as an interim measure"), A Nobody considers his "concerns adressed by admins" (including me), but you start labelling me as "a very involved editor in this dispute"? Can you show me where I have previously acted in this dispute or taking sides with one against the other? And I don't see how "Jack Merridew, leave A Nobody alone, don't comment on him, reply to him, or try to needle him otherwise." is "a vague compromise". Please don't stir up more drama just for the sake of it. Fram (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

nb: you did strongly oppose my unban and declined my offer to talk, so I'd consider you involved re myself. That said, I do see you as trying sort this issue, and offer my thanks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
@Ikip; I was asleep; UTC+8. Jack Merridew 08:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is Nonsense - Archive Now

This is self-indulgent nonsense that brings Misplaced Pages into disrepute, reducing our "encyclopedia" to a Junior High Prom dispute. I vote this be archived at once and both parties blocked if they do this kind of crap again. I mean, honestly, *&^*&^ enough already. Eusebeus (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• As an aside, how does 'badgering' work? Deletion discussions are exactly that -- discussions, not straight votes. — neuro 01:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It's effective primarily because there's a psychological effect on other editors through seeing masses an masses of support for a position and relatively little against, much like people instinctively treat longer rationales as more thoughtful than shorter ones. This makes them more inclined to favour the position, which skews the debate. Furthermore, editors who aren't used to be endlessly pressured on their rationales might choose simply not to comment as they don't have the time to stick around for ten rounds of further questioning on their positions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Given Merridew's extraordinary history of harassing, i do not really know why he is still allowed to edit. However it seems he came back from being banned here - Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Jack_Merridew_ban_review_motion - and is now clearly being a silly bugger, despite that being a last last chance. Casliber, Jayvdb and Moreschi were assigned to deal with him, so perhaps concerns should be brought to them directly. Given the general nature of the response here i must be missing something. I recall mcdevit's comment "I think part of the problem here is that this troll is so persistent he has outlived most of our institutional memory." 86.44.29.76 (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please – I really don't care what happens, but just end it, already. Or at the very least get this crap off here and reserve this space for stuff that requires immediate admin attention, which is what ANI is meant for in the first place. Go to RFC, RFAR, whatever; don't bring this stuff here again. I'm tired of it, and I'm sure many others are tired of it. MuZemike 05:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Concur – this is ridiculous and needs to stop. ANI isn't the right place for it, especially if neither party is capable of bringing forth a concise post that actually requires admin attention. Close this now. File a case for RFAR for all I care: all of these ANI threads aren't going anywhere. — sephiroth bcr 05:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement of mutual topic ban

Can an uninvolved administrator look over:

• Jack_Merridew-A_Nobody Mutual topicban proposal community !vote

And determine whether their is community consensus to put this mutual topicban proposal in effect? Ikip (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)