Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: MBisanz (Talk) & Dougweller (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Stephen Bain (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Hope I'm doing this right. I have no evidence to present, and I don't care to participate in this process. Tothwolf has been making bad faith accusations towards me (accusing me of bad faith, or collusion, or what have you) and none of it is true. While I do have my faults, they are not to do with him and I do not care to waste my time on this process as I feel his claims are invalid. If the arbcom disagrees or finds fault in my actions toward Tothwolf then so be it. I will simply find another way to spend my time. That is all. JBsupreme (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to primarily bring evidence after October 5, 2009. I would certainly defend my actions before then, because I did not target Tothwolf, but after that date, I took a wikibreak of one week. On my return I very specifically and studiously avoided any engagement with him.

Just One Diff[edit]

I have offered repeatedly to leave the project if anyone can show how this edit harasses Tothwolf. My minor edit, separated by eight months to a minor edit in another section by Tothwolf.

Detailed example of false claims[edit]

Harassment claim, October 14, 2009

Tothwolf claimed I harassed him on October 14, 2009, [1]. This is less than 24 hours after my wikibreak.

This is my edit history in the day leading up to that accusation, [2]

I do not see any evidence of stalking Tothwolf in those contributions. This is where our paths cross.

Out of twelve deletion discussions, our paths cross twice. On neither did I address Tothwolf.

I came to this discussion ten days before Tothwolf did, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VisualFlow.

I came to this discussion one day after Tothwolf did. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WAMP. I did not come to this conversation following Tothwolf. I gave a quite complicated response here which shows that I am not entering discussions just to tweak him. Tothwolf claims this as harassment. [3]

There are four articles on the general subject of IRC where we also cross paths. In all cases but one, our edits are separated by several months, ZNC (IRC bouncer) where I asked for speedy deletion of a recreated material THEN Tothwolf had an admin reclaim it and userfied [4].

I see no stalking or harassment in any of my contribs leading up to Tothwolf's claim of harassment on October 14.

Tothwolf throws out accusations based on people, not content[edit]

Tothwolf often throws out accusations and sometimes threats. It is quite peculiar in his manner that he seems to believe people in normal conversation are insulting him.

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

The period starting onward of 3 November brought out the worst in Tothwolf, repeatedly being the first to make attacks, accusations, threats, and generally being disruptive.

• [8] *this one is very interesting
• [9]
• [10] *also interesting, after being called out as "sounding paranoid" for basing the above Deletion Review comment on people "out to get him" he left this ramble on a user talk of someone often sympathetic to him.

This entire Articles for Deletion discussion is interesting. I felt this AfD nom was a little POINTy, but that would be obvious to anyone reading it. Such things can be closed without the kind of drama Tothwolf created.

• [11], tossing out a long rant that the nomination was an attack on him personally
• [12], my own contribution to this discussion which expressed an opinion that was neither keep or delete. I did not address either the POINTy nom or Tothwolf's rant, though I did note that there were ownership issues of the article, I did so indirectly without attaching a name.
• [13], my comment was met with flaming
• [14], to which a 3rd party asked Tothwolf to stop flaming
• [15], Tothwolf has to fix his personal attack, because the things he flamed me for were done by someone else. He believes that we are the same editor (as shown in other diffs where he calls us puppets).

I note here, that I did not respond to these flames at all. I commented on the comment of the article and did not respond when attacked.

• [16], Tothwolf flames the person who asked him to stop flaming

Tothwolf's attention returned to a DRV where he was called paranoid for his rant at another user.

• [17], I made a simple comment that I believed a user article should be strongly sourced before returning to main. I had nominated this article for deletion 6 weeks earlier, and noticed when it went to DRV from my Watchlist, and from watching DRV.
• [18], Tothwolf attacks me.

I didn't respond.

• [19], Tothwolf flames me again!
• [20], a neutral admin tried to reduce the drama
• [21], [22], Tothwolf edit warred to make sure his flaming attacks were visible to everyone, note the edit summaries while revert warring.

Tothwolf brings extremely strange evidence to ANI[edit]

Our issues went to ANI.

[23] Tothwolfs primary response includes accusations of sockpuppetry, and he provides six diffs which he claims as proof of his harassment.

Tothwolf says: Here are a few links that demonstrate the continued Wikistalking the moment I touch anything outside of the Template namespace: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]

NONE of these diffs show wikistalking behavior. That sixth diff was particularly interesting to me. An article called Billy was deleted, I removed backlinks in other articles [30] [31].

My third removal, of a backlink after article deletion [32] could have prevented this case from coming to Arbcom. It is plainly obvious, from the context of my other edits, to the article history, that this article has nothing to do with Tothwolf. He edited the article eight months before me, and made a minor edit to a different section. When asked to explain how this harassed hi Tothwolf posted more flaming, [33]

This diff proves several things:

1. Tothwolf believes he owns any article where he has ever edited. It is impossible to edit around this kind of ownership, I would have to check several years of article history before making minor and routine edits to avoid this.
2. Tothwolf really is paranoid. He claims I dug this out of his contribution history in order to harass him. These kinds of strange claims create a disruptive editing environment.

It also showed that administrators are not actually investigating issues. I asked, countless times, for anyone to show me how this diff harassed Tothwolf. [34] I offered to leave the project if someone in the thread showed me how that diff harassed Tothwolf.

When Tothwolf finally replied to that diff, all he offered was more claims of harassment. There was such an obvious showing in that thread that Tothwolf has obvious detachment from a fact based investigation. This could not have harassed Tothwolf (even assuming I dug it out of his history, which I didn't, this edit doesn't harass him!), no adminstrator ever answered the claim on the merit.

Tothwolf made personal attacks during my absence

• [35]

Tothwolf makes his "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" cry to anyone who thinks would be sympathetic, on some barely related issue[edit]

Wolves shouldn't cry wolf.

• [36]
• [37]
• [38], this also contains a direct personal attack, calling people "meatpuppets" which, in the localized slang of wikipedia, is an attack.
• [39]
• [40]
• [41]
• [42]

It just gets stranger

• [43], this attack was ignored.
• Tothwolf says "Yo Sandstein, I'm really happy for you and I'mma let you finish, but I had something to do with this drama before it even existed."
• And some how thinks it relevant to this discussion.

Tothwolf has a history of claiming victim to other editors long before me[edit]

Other editors

COI/Will BeBack[edit]

• [44] Will shows frustration at failure to answer simple questions regarding Tothwolf and a potential COI.
• [45] Will tells Tothwolf again on his talk page to deal openly with the potential COI issue, but Tothwolf has insisted on moving the discussion to Will's talk page.

Opinion of Mikeay[edit]

• [46]
• User:Theserialcomma/Tothwolf, Mikaey compiled an evidence document indicating Tothwold should have been on admins radars for civility violations in June or earlier (which is long before I ever came along).

Yworo[edit]

• [47]

WQA[edit]

• Tothwolf just frustrates everybody by claiming he is the victim, [48]

ANI[edit]

• [49] (not involving any other parties in this dispute but Tothwolf) ANI initiated by non-involved editor to dispute, discussion eventually centers on Tothwolf's inability to AGF and his false claims of harassment

Nov 25[edit]

I saw from WP:REFUND (which is on my watchlist) that Tothwolf had three articles restored. Per WP:BADCAT, I removed the mainspace categories from the restored pages in userspace, which he then reverted.[50]. This may have been a little presumptuous on my part, but still the right thing to do, and I've done it probably hundred times before with other user pages having mainspace categories. Blaxthos also removed them, and was reverted [51] [52]. Tothwolf then claimed everyone was banned from his userspace. [53], [54], claiming that it was impossible to read his WP:REFUND contributions without stalking him. Blaxthos' four point riposte is all that needs to be said that Tothwolf violated basic policy here, [55].

Dec 3[edit]

Tothwolf claims that my actions today are further evidence that I am hounding him. Today I worked on articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing/Article_alerts. At the time of my working on this, Xircon is article #34 in a list of 60 that need attention after deletion discussions. I open several redlink articles from the list, click "What links here" and remove the deleted article from templates, unlink bogus references, remove redlinks from See also, etc. It is just normal maintenance and housekeeping tasks and I've done probably a few hundred edits like this today. He is concerned about one edit right in the middle being terrorizing him? This is not evidence of me hounding Tothwolf. Wikipedia can't function without editors doing these thankless tasks. That Tothwolf thinks this is about him is more evidence he has no ability to assume good faith and screams harassment for no reason at all. This needs to end soon. Miami33139 (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dec 11[edit]

Tothwolf accuses me of being a paid editor [56], providing no evidence for this accusation.

Tothwolf accuses me of editing the Epona disambiguation page in a negative way because I had to depopulate it before nominating it for deletion. DUH! Epona the software article was deleted. We remove deleted articles from dab pages. This left only one entry on the dab page, which meant it was disambiguating anything and didn't need to exist. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE AND HOW DOES THIS AFFECT TOTHWOLF? Miami33139 (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Restores deleted content contrary to the WP:REDLINK guideline, simply because I made the edits [57], [58]
• Restores deleted and unsourced (after years of complaint) contrary to the verification policy, simply because I made the removal. [59], repeating attack on me in the edit summary
• Spends an entire paragraph attacking my character on a talk page instead of discussing the content, twice repeating "kick rocks" that means "fuck off"(lingo: [60]). diffs: [61] [62]

Dec 16[edit]

Continues to revert war over unverified content and make AfD comments about me, instead of addressing content. [63], [64], [65], [66], and one revert called policy based removal of unverified information "vandalism", [67].

Jan 2, short reply to Pcap, et al.[edit]

Minor point of fact: Ihcoyc rewrote the software notability essay, not me, and he is the one that has used it in AfD, not me. Though I agree with most of it and citing essays that you agree with is normal behavior at AfD.

Pcap seems to be asking the arbcom to deal with my opinion not my behavior. My opinion is not disruptive. I take a hard line stance towards WP:V and WP:N. That is not anymore disruptive in AfD than the half-a-dozen or so regulars who don't believe in notability at all, think original research is ok for stubs, reference press releases, or even say keep just to spite me. I generally tag articles that are unsourced, let them sit for a month to see if anyone fixes it, then either PROD it or AfD it depending on other article issues. There is plenty of time here to fix problems and it isn't getting done - don't blame me for that, the article should have been sourced before it was written. The new page edit header says unsourced new pages will get deleted, what does anyone think will happen to them if unsourced articles get proposed for deletion?

I have no relationship or communication (on or off-wiki) with JBSupreme. Consistency between us isn't synchronicity either. We both obviously follow software related AfD and have similar opinions about notability. This issues keeps being raised and there isn't anything there.

Behavioural issues with Theserialcomma[edit]

Issues with Theserialcomma began on May 26, 2009 shortly after the uproar over the 3rd YTCracker AfD (related AN/I discussion).

Theserialcomma nominated The Digital Gangster LP for deletion, which I felt was very pointy and disruptive given the disruption and edit warring with the YTCracker article and AfD (in which Theserialcomma had played a part during the article's 3rd AfD). Theserialcomma was unhappy with my comments where I pointed this out. [68] [69] [70] [71] (Note that contrary to their statement otherwise, they nominated The Digital Gangster LP for AfD after [72] YTCracker was nominated for deletion. [73])

Theserialcomma began wikihounding me about 5 minutes after they made the above linked comment in the The Digital Gangster LP AfD, in which they claimed "either you are purposely lying, or you are mistaken".

They found that I had edited Eggdrop and made this edit where they removed material from the article in an attempt to bait me into edit warring with them. [74] About 5 minutes after that they made a series of edits to Internet Relay Chat flood [75] which I had been editing, their last edit including an edit summary which appears to be a threat to nominate it for deletion (they knew TenPoundHammer had just withdrawn an AfD nomination for the article). They then made a series of edits to TenPoundHammer's talk page which included a threat of a block against me. [76] [77] [78] [79]

MuZemike restored the section of text Theserialcomma removed from Eggdrop [80] and said to discuss the issue on the talk page. I attempted to add references [81] Theserialcomma removed my changes [82] and still refused to discuss the issue on the talk page. I again attempted to move things to the talk page [83] and I undid Theserialcomma's removal of the references [84] and stated in the edit summary to discuss it on the talk page. Theserialcomma made this reply on the talk page (which included a veiled "COI" threat), [85] removed the references from the article again, [86] and then removed the entire section from the article. [87]

It was at that point where Theserialcomma began attacking me with false "COI" accusations. [88]

When the discussion on the article's talk page [89] didn't go the way Theserialcomma wanted, they opened a COI/N [90] and SPI [91] against me, [92] which seems to be a tactic Theserialcomma sometimes uses against people with whom they have a disagreement. Theserialcomma also dug around on several webservers looking for something to use against me (webserver logs have been provided to ArbCom). I found this particularly disturbing given Theserialcomma's statement when they first initiated the COI/N discussion which they referred as an "Outing hypothetical question". I was not even aware of the COI/N discussion that Theserialcomma had started until after Will Beback left a comment on my talk page. [93]

Contrary to Theserialcomma's statement claiming/implying that I was "the lead developer of a certain type of software", I wasn't. As explained in detail in the COI/N discussion I've contributed to that project and many other open source software projects over the years. I do not feel that my edits to the Eggdrop article violated the COI guideline as my focus has always been and continues to be to improve Wikipedia. I think the edit history on the Eggdrop article and my contribution history should make this point quite clear but I'm addressing this issue here directly because it is closely linked to the wikihounding behaviour from Theserialcomma. While I can understand how Will Beback may have been concerned given what Theserialcomma initiated on COI/N, I still think it would have created a lot less drama with Theserialcomma had he approached me without the initial presupposition of wrongdoing.

Even after being told to "disengage" by Will Beback [94] Theserialcomma removed another reference and the html comments that referred to the Eggdrop talk page. [95] [96]

They still did not disengage and continued to wikistalk my edits. Almost exactly one week later they made this edit [97] after I removed a link spam from the Kickban article. [98] They then initiated an AfD for MIRCStats. [99] (AfD) This continued with edits to the XiRCON article minutes later. [100] and after I added a reference [101] they made this threat [102] and then removed the reference and the text it supported [103]

Prior to the above, Theserialcomma had never touched an IRC-related article, it was only after the YTCracker related AfDs that they began targeting articles that I had worked on. Theserialcomma has a history of this sort of behaviour and has filed false or abusive SPI, COI/N, AN/I, 3RR, etc reports against other editors in the past with whom they had disagreements, sometimes getting them blocked. They also have a history of edit warring, and while they are careful to avoid going over 3RR, they are certainly still violating the spirit of 3RR.

This behaviour started up again after it had paused for awhile when Miami33139 and JBsupreme began mass prod/AfDing articles as detailed on AN/I here and in the table below. Even during the RFAR for this case and after making a statement, Theserialcomma initiated an AfD for XiRCON, [104] which would appear to be yet another baiting attempt.

Theserialcomma made accusations on Miami33139's talk page claiming I was canvassing when I attempted to bring the wikihounding and mass-XfD behaviour of Miami33139 and JBsupreme to the attention of several administrators. [105]

Theserialcomma challenged the closing admin on his close of the Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients AfD that JBsupreme had initiated [106] and then went on to attempt to stir things up with JBsupreme [107] about an hour after the closing admin answered Theserialcomma and said he would not reopen the AfD. [108]

Theserialcomma has repeatedly attempted to stir things up with Mikaey when I've started AN/I discussions. [109] and had been trying for quite awhile to get access to a deleted subpage in Mikaey's userspace. [110] During one of the AN/I discussions, they also brought Miami33139 into this effort. [111] Despite all this, Theserialcomma was undeterred and continued what clearly seems to be forum shopping behaviour [112] until someone finally undeleted that material.

A search of some of the noticeboards turns up dispute after dispute between Theserialcomma and other editors. Some examples include: [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130]

Other more recent behaviour is linked in the table below.

After being absent for a week, on December 9th [131] Theserialcomma returned to immediately prod [132] an article from my contribs. [133] Theserialcomma's next action was to notify Adambro of Shii's evidence section below. [134]

Theserialcomma continues to make false allegations and baiting attempts.

After Miami33139's removals of large portions of Comparison of video player software were restored, Theserialcomma attempted to involve himself in the discussion on the talk page strictly to attack me [135] [136] [137] after I called Miami33139 out on his conflict of interest [138] [139] surrounding software articles, with Theserialcomma even attempting to use something found in Urban Dictionary as justification. After I equated Theserialcomma's comments to that of an Elvis isn't dead conspiracy theory, [140] [141] Theserialcomma began attacking me in earnest with claims of "outing" [142] and made additional threats that he was going to use that as "evidence". [143] [144]

Theserialcomma even went as far as to suggest one of the ArbCom case clerks should ban me for "outing" [145] and after I replied to Theserialcomma on Dougweller's talk page, [146] Theserialcomma as previously threatened took it to the ArbCom case evidence page [147] followed by yet another claim of COI [148] (see also the COI/N discussion linked above).

Theserialcomma is now attempting to create trouble on Talk:Shell account [149] [150] [151] [152] where a heated debate has been taking place between two editors.

Behavioural issues with Miami33139[edit]

Issues with Miami33139 seem to have begun in September 2009 where Miami33139 began wikihounding me after I tagged a number of WP:COMP related articles from Category:Proposed deletion with the {{WikiProject Computing}} banner template so that the Article alerts bot would pick them up. [153] Miami33139 had previously been mass-prodding/AfDing media player software articles (pretty much exclusively) for some reason. [154]

The first interaction I am aware of related to this issue is the revert [155] of my removal of an invalid CSD tag [156] and then RFD nomination [157] of a redirect that Miami33139 has admitted to finding from my contributions. [158] [159] After they saw where I had reverted vandalism on NexIRC [160] they nominated it for AfD. [161]

From there this pattern continues and includes !voting in AfDs I participated in just to !vote the opposite [162] as well as getting involved in AfDs that I tagged for the WP:COMP deletion workflow, all of these also clearly being taken directly from my contributions (see the table below for links). Miami33139 then went on to begin mass prodding and AfDing a large number of other filesystem articles. [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171]

On September 25th Miami33139 initiated a mass-AfD/XfD campaign against articles I had previously edited and specifically began to target IRC-related articles. See the table below for links and details.

Prior to all of this, Miami33139 did not work on IRC-related articles or participate in many computing-related AfDs at all. They focused almost exclusively on mass-prodding/AfDing multimedia software articles and bulk removing Ed Fitzgerald's contributions from other articles. Since initiating that mass-AfD/XfD campaign, Miami33139 has attempted to become more active with computing-related AfDs which appears to be an attempt to have some of the other behaviour blend into their contribs.

Miami33139 has been bulk removing Ed Fitzgerald's contributions using some sort of automated tool [172] [173] [174] that they've written. [175] LessHeard vanU also expressed concern over Miami33139 bulk removing Ed Fitzgerald's contributions in one of the AN/I discussions. [176] One example of 100s, if not 1000s of these removals by Miami33139 is: [177] Related discussions: [178] [179] After all of the AN/I discussions and questions, Miami33139 added a ton of stuff to their monobook.js [180] in what appears to be an attempt to hide the fact that they are using some sort of Greasemonkey script that they wrote to bulk remove Ed Fitzgerald's contributions.

I've tried to communicate and reason with Miami33139 as well as JBsupreme to no avail. [181] [182] [183] [184] [185]

In frustration, I've twice warned Miami33139 to stop wikistalking my edits, but it has had no effect. [186] [187] The second time, Miami33139 simply removed the warning [188] but added it back [189] after Theserialcomma added another comment to Miami33139's talk page [190] and then claimed that they were not "stalking" me. [191]

Miami33139 seems to think that their behaviour is somehow normal and acceptable [192] and they continued to be abusive towards other editors in XfD discussions. [193]

After being told to disengage, [194] Miami33139 attempted to recruit JBsupreme to further their agenda. [195] Despite again being repeatedly told to disengage, Miami33139 has continued their harassment towards me and has continued to wikistalk my edits. [196] [197]

Some of the more recent wikihounding behaviour includes [198] [199] [200]

Miami33139 continues to make personal attacks, even in the latest AN/I which they initiated, this time calling me "paranoid and delusional" [201] and attacking me with claims of WP:OWN. [202] Previously they have attacked me with claims of WP:COI. [203]

They have also repeatedly made attempts at trolling and baiting. [204] [205]

Miami33139 made a claim of have been "walking on eggshells" [206] although if someone were to look at both of our contribution histories, they would see that I've mainly been avoiding the article namespace as of late and have instead been focusing on template projects because of the wikihounding and harassment that I experience when I try to do article or XfD work.

Miami33139 is not above making false or misleading claims [207] [208] [209] in XfD discussions in their attempts to discredit other editors (see the table below for more).

Miami33139 nominated WeeChat for AfD [210] making claims such as "contains only self-published sources", while knowing that the article contained non-trivial, independent, 3rd party sources. (See the table below for additional examples.) While technically not canvassing as defined per WP:CANVASS, these notifications [211] [212] [213] would certainly appear to be an attempt by Miami33139 to make sure this article was deleted.

When an article is kept at AfD and Miami33139 does not agree with the outcome, [214] Miami33139 will tag the article [215] and then often gut the article [216] in violation of the WP:PRESERVE section of the editing policy. Their edit summary in this case is misleading as the article contained no sources.

Miami33139 does not seem to care about the actual content of these articles and appears to be solely focused on deletion at any cost. This was made even more clear with Ii (IRC client) where Miami33139 prodded the article, [217] it was then vandalised, [218] and Miami33139 just let it sit there in its vandalised state. Miami33139 monitors articles they've prodded so that they can immediately AfD them if they are deprodded (see the table below) so they were well aware of the vandalism to this article.

Even during the RFAR and evidence processes for this case, Miami33139 has continued to prod, AfD, or otherwise target articles that they located via my past contributions. See the table below for links.

As of December 3, 2009, Miami33139 continues to Wikihound and is still attempting to misuse speedy deletion templates. Miami33139 attempted a CSD G8 for the XiRCON LSR template [219] which is very much still in use. [220] Miami33139 knows this template is still in use and this is not the first time they've attempted this. See Latest stable software release/rxIRC in the table below for links.

It would appear Miami33139 has taken to trawling through Hm2k's contributions now as well. This edit [221] as well as this edit [222] make this pretty obvious. The second edit, being completely erroneous as it is clearly not a "userfied" page, further shows Miami33139 to be using some form of unapproved Greasemonkey script to make these sorts of edits. Most likely the script is erroneously programmed to consider a page name with '@' as not matching "[A-Za-z0-9]" and in the same class as '/' and thus being a "userfied" page.

In order to "justify" prodding a disambig page with the WP:DAB reasoning that the disambig page only only has a single entry, Miami33139 removed multiple entries from it [223] before adding the prod template. [224]

Another editor left a comment on Miami33139's talk page [225] which had "We see you have problems with that Thotwolf guy, poor you!" in it while trying to be humorous. When I let him know that might not be a very good idea, he removed that part of the comment [226]. Miami33139 then reverted(!) him and added it back [227] and the other editor removed it again. [228]

Recently, Miami33139 has begun mass-MfDing userpages, sandboxes, and userfied articles. Their main targets seem to be only pages covering software but they have targeted a handful of other pages as well. When some of these MfDs did not result in a delete, and after not being satisfied with the result [229] of a DRV attempt [230] for User:Kerberos/Sandbox, Miami33139 has begun blanking previously MfD'd userpages such as User:Sharif aly/Freeware alternatives for commercial software [231] and others using edit summaries such as "I am editing userpage that still belongs to the project."

While I've attempted to disengage and avoid Miami33139's prod and AfD efforts, including articles Miami33139 continues to pull from my past contribs, after seeing Miami33139 efforts such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emesene, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMSN, and even referenced articles such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pisg in which they give false statements, and given the obvious battleground mentality expressed by Miami33139 with regards to software articles and deletion discussions, I find myself in agreement with Joe Chill in that at the very least a topic ban from software articles would seem to be justified. Giving Joe Chill's suggestion further thought, I think if a topic ban is decided on, such a topic ban would also need to cover all forms of deletion discussions, CSD, prod, and in addition to software articles, it would most likely need to broadly cover computing and technology topics in general. Given the other forms of disruption and harassment Miami33139 has engaged in however, my own personal opinion is a topic ban would seem to be somewhat lenient and at this point would be more akin to a slap on the wrist.

On December 11, 2009, Miami33139 moved a number of user sandboxes into article space. [232] [233] [234] Two were created by Mabdul, and the other had been edited by Mabdul, who has previously been a very active contributor with the WP:WPIRC WikiProject. After moving these to article space, Miami33139 proceeded to plaster all sorts of article issues tags on them. [235] [236] [237] This seems to be directly related to Miami33139's mass-MfD efforts mentioned above.

In addition to targeting Hm2k and Mabdul, Miami33139 also seems to be targeting articles edited by Neustradamus and Eckstasy. See the table below for a number of links and diffs. The wikistalk.py tool also shows this behaviour quite clearly when Miami33139's edits are compared with these and other contributors who have been actively working to improve software articles.

Miami33139 engaged in edit warring on Talk:Comparison of video player software [238] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pisg [239] in an attempt to edit and remove comments [240] [241] I made regarding Miami33139's conflict of interest with software articles. After Miami33139 edited and removed some of my comments from Talk:Comparison of video player software, he pasted an edited version of part of my comments and the discussion on the ArbCom case evidence talk page. [242] When I attempted to remove the edited discussion comments Miami33139 pasted and link back to the original discussion so the entire discussion could be seen unedited and in context, [243] Theserialcomma reverted me [244] and then went to the ArbCom clerks talk page claiming I was editing his comments(!) [245] which Theserialcomma did not make there as those comments were part of the discussion Miami33139 edited and then pasted there.

Behavioural issues with JBsupreme[edit]

Issues with JBsupreme appear to have begun in late September 2009, possibly with the Parchive AfD, Parchive DRV, SmartPAR AfD, QuickPar AfD, or Joe's Own Editor AfD. It is difficult pin down an exact date but after these discussions, JBsupreme began wikihounding my edits, became heavily involved in the September 25th to October 1st mass-AfD/XfD campaign that Miami33139 had initiated, and began to similarly prod and mass-AfD similar articles after attempting to mass-CSD a number of the same articles. See the table below for links.

My edits were not the only ones JBsupreme wikihounded during this time period. He also initiated an AfD for Notepad++ [246] which had previously been edited by 83.254.210.47, whom had also been rather active in many of the AfDs related to the mass-AfD'd articles. A query with the wikistalk.py toolserver tool [247] also turned up these two otherwise unexplainable overlaps. [248] [249] Shortly after, 83.254.210.47 left this comment on his talk page [250] and then struck a number of his AfD !votes before posting this message [251] to his talk page stating that he was retiring from the English Wikipedia due to abuse of the AfD process.

Miami33139 made a post to JBsupreme's talk page when the subject of a topic ban came up in one of the AN/I discussions, [252] to which JBsupreme replied with indifference and further claims of conflict of interest. [253]

The wikihounding and disruptive behaviour from JBsupreme for which I had previously been a target seemed to pause for a short while with the exception of [254] until November 4th when JBsupreme again began to AfD articles which I had edited, although this time at a much slower pace. On November 10th JBsupreme added this [255] !vote to a CfD where I had been participating.

The mass-AfD/XfD patterns including those that overlap with Miami33139 and Theserialcomma as well as the more recent AfD nominations are included in the table below.

JBsupreme often does not use edit summaries when nominating articles for deletion or when making edits others might find controversial. He has been cautioned and warned of this previously but it does not seem to have curbed the behaviour. JBsupreme also has a long history of violating several policies and guidelines when interacting with others (including WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE). His edit summaries while reverting other users (when he uses them) have often contained vulgar language in all caps. Some examples include: [256] [257] [258] [259] [260] [261] [262] [263] [264] [265] [266] [267] [268] [269] [270] [271] [272] [273] [274] [275] [276] [277] [278] [279] [280] [281] [282] [283] [284] [285] [286] [287] [288] [289] [290] [291] [292] (Note that this in no way a complete or comprehensive list, this is a sample taken from JBsupreme's last ~5000 edits from approximately late November 2008 to present.)

While I completely understand the frustration and the need to revert vandalism, especially with BLP articles, the language and aggression towards others is clearly inappropriate. Not all of these reverts or content removals by JBsupreme are removals of vandalism either, some appear to be well meaning editors who simply do not fact check or fail to provide a source which JBsupreme considers adequate.

I also found JBsupreme's actions on October 21st troubling. He started a second AfD for the high profile Colorado balloon incident article [293] only 3 days after the first AfD was closed as no consensus. The second AfD was speedily closed by admin Shii but JBsupreme attempted to revert the close. [294] Also see [295] [296] [297] For some bizarre reason, Miami33139 removed Shii's questions from JBsupreme's talk page [298] after Shii attempted to resolve things with JBsupreme. When Shii queried Miami33139 about the removal from JBsupreme's talk page [299] Miami33139 made this reply: [300]

Timeline and collusion[edit]

The table below documents a large pattern of wikihounding and collusion from Miami33139, JBsupreme, and Theserialcomma.

With the exception now of XiRCON, all of the IRC-related AfDs included in the table below were initiated solely by Miami33139 and JBsupreme, with Theserialcomma participating in some. It also appears that my preemptive tagging of the associated LSR templates to allow for monitoring by the Article alerts bot to prevent a repeat of what Miami33139 attempted with the rxIRC TFD seemed to lead these editors straight to the articles, where they began to prod and AfD them en masse.

The Computer software-related AfDs include discussions initiated by Miami33139, JBsupreme, and other members of the community. For the discussions where I participated that were initiated by other members of the community, Miami33139, JBsupreme, and/or Theserialcomma followed my edits to those AfDs. These editors generally seemed to either follow my !vote edit to the AfD or go straight to the AfD when they saw that I had edited the article's talk page when I added the WP:COMP template for the Article alerts bot.

The major intersections between Miami33139's and JBsupreme's edits are almost exclusively either IRC-related article or XfD discussions, or other XfDs where I had participated. [301]

While comparing JBsupreme's contributions with wikistalk.py against other usernames (both 'keeps' and 'deletes') from the AfD discussions linked in the tables below, and after weeding out false positives, I noticed a number of unusual patterns which when compared with the other results seem statistically improbable. I do not feel that I am qualified to draw any major conclusions based solely on what I saw in these results but someone with more experience in this area probably should do some additional checking.

I've spent a substantial amount of time working to expand, merge, categorise, link, and add references to articles related to technology, computing, and internet communications, including IRC. The actions of these three editors as documented in the table below after they discovered I had worked on these articles appear to be meant solely for harassment purposes, or to otherwise disrupt my own editing and content improvement efforts, and do not help to improve Wikipedia. As mentioned in the sections above, even during the September 25th to October 1st mass-AfD/XfD campaign initiated by Miami33139 and JBsupreme I attempted to encourage these editors to work on improving some of this content, but I found that to be a pointless exercise as their harassment motives became more and more obvious to both myself and others during the XfD discussions.

--Tothwolf (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC) (last edited 07:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Further collusion and wikihounding[edit]

Since November 16 when I was preparing some of the material for this evidence page, Theserialcomma, Miami33139, JBsupreme have continued in their efforts, and as documented in this section as well as elsewhere on this evidence page, it seems Blaxthos is now also trying to get involved as well.

See the table above for a number of updates since November 16.

On November 17th, Blaxthos (apparently not even knowing the history beforehand?) attempted to stir things up with Theserialcomma with regards to this very arbitration case. [595]

On November 21st Miami33139 did some non-neutral canvassing of editors [596] [597] [598] whom I had previously mentioned here while replying to Theserialcomma. While Miami33139 was warned by Dougweller [599] Miami33139 was already aware of WP:CANVASS and knew better.

On November 23rd I put in 3 requests on WP:REFUND for material being used as evidence [600] [601] [602] and Blaxthos suddenly showed up tried to oppose all 3 of my userfication requests. [603] [604] [605]

On November 24th after having bash.org userfied (also see Response to Blaxthos below) which is something Miami33139 had never edited (it was deleted in 2007), Miami33139 suddenly showed up in my userspace and made an edit to the material. [606] I warned them again to stop wikistalking my edits. [607] Minutes later, Blaxthos, also following my edits, did the same thing. [608] While ordinarily this would not be an issue, these edits by these specific editors to something that can only be located via my recent contributions are clearly a continuation of ongoing harassment. Theserialcomma then somehow also got involved, and made this comment on Blaxthos talk page, [609] to which Miami33139 responded. [610] Also [611] and [612] (discussion link). Blaxthos later, knowing that I had already warned Miami33139, does the same thing with another article I just had userfied. [613]

--Tothwolf (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responses[edit]

Responses to comments and evidence presented by Theserialcomma, Joe Chill, Mikaey, and Blaxthos can be found on the talk page here. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tothwolf has a COI[edit]

Tothwolf claims repeatedly that i "attacked him" with a "false" COI accusation of being an eggdrop developer. Furthermore, he claims my COI noticeboard posting about him was a "false report", calling any mention of a COI a "false accusation," and that it's also a personal attack against him. I believe that his COI is partially responsible for his inability to edit IRC-related articles dispassionately. His emotional editing and article ownership needs to stop.

COI evidence[edit]

• according to http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/packages/irc/eggdrop/UPDATES/1.5/UPDATES1.5.4, someone named "Tothwolf" has been developing eggdrop since 2000.
• according to www.compwisdom.com/topics/Eggdrop in "2006 - tothwolf and i were the only ones working (on the eggdrop project)"

Tothwolf writes in his arbitration evidence: "When the discussion on the (Eggdrop) talk page [[614]] didn't go the way (Theserialcomma) wanted..."

• This shows tothwolf's skewed interpretation of certain events. For the record, Tothwolf was edit warring on Eggdrop to include an open registration wiki as a source named "the tcl wiki". I said on the talk page that wikis are not RS because there's no editorial oversight. TW edit warred, recruited an obvious meatpuppet from IRC to agree with him [[615]], but then an uninvolved admin User: Luna Santin came in and removed tothwolf's wiki as a source [[616]]. I solely wanted the source removed, as the talkpage will show, and it was rightfully removed. Tothwolf's arbitration evidence states that situation "didn't go the way (Theserialcomma) wanted." - How? It didn't go the way he wanted, which is the exact opposite of his interpretation of the event, which brings me back to the COI:

• the "TCL wiki" (and disputed source) in question, which tothwolf edit warred to include, has a link to a site called www.techmonkeys.org/~tothwolf/wolfpack - "a scripting framework written in TCL" by tothwolf, a TCL and Eggdrop developer. No COI?

• I filed a Checkuser on Tothwolf at the same time due to Tothwolf's recruitment of a meatpuppet to agree with him about the tcl wiki. The CU was closed due to lack of evidence. However, I stand behind my assertion that this person was recruited by Tothwolf on IRC. [[617]] [[618]]

(will be adding more evidence over the next two days)

Tothwolf's history of failing to assume good faith, claims of stalking, hounding, and harassment[edit]

• User: Mikaey writes: "Tothwolf does have a history of crying "wolf" whenever anyone does something to an article that he doesn't like. If he has ever touched the article, it suddenly turns into "wikihounding", when those users had no such intentions. I think Tothwolf has thrown the words "wikistalking" and "wikihounding" around more than anyone else I've come across on WP. Tothwolf always manages to avoid any sort of rebuff for his actions, because he always manages to paint the user he is after as the bad guy..." [[619]]

• 3 August 2009: User: Mikaey writes on an ANI (paraphrased): Tothwolf contacted me(Mikaey) for help from an admin on IRC because he felt Yworo was stalking his edits and harassing him by editing articles he edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=305758486

• 4 August 2009: User: Mikaey "Folks, I think it might be prudent to bring up a bigger issue -- longstanding behavioral problems with Tothwolf. I took some time this morning to go through some of his contributions, and I've compiled a summary of a few encounters that he had with other users. The summary is here. There's other encounters that he has had, but I haven't had the time/energy to document them. However, the common patterns that I'm seeing here are incivility, gaming the system, and manipulation, and these encounters went mostly unchecked. This run-in with Yworo and Hm2k is just the latest episode. I believe it's time for that to stop, and I suggest that some sort of action be taken." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=305933337

• 1 Oct 2009: User: Mikaey proposes on ANI (paraphrased) that if Tothwith continues to fail to AGF, takes Ownership of articles in which he has personal interest, he should be blocked http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=317226229

• 1 OCT 2009: User: NeutralHomer responds to Mikaey's proposal with a "Yes" vote and notes Tothwolf is "definitely in violation of WP:Own http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=317227347

• 1 OCT 2009 Ncmvocalist proposes anotehr community sanction for tothwolf's failure to AGF and WP:OWN http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=317231868

the following are paraphrased and summarized by me. please see diffs for exact quotes and context:

• Tothwolf: this is a bad faith nomination and I cannot assume good faith

• Tothwolf: ... you publically admitted to stalking me

• Tothwolf to Blaxthos: "wp:duck take your ranting and threats to your own talk page [[620]]

• • Yworo to Tothwolf: please assume good faith.
  • Tothwolf: my comments are valid observations and i cannot assume good faith [[621]]

Tothwolf to JBSupreme and Miami: "... your willful disruption that you created as a group and enjoyed doing... you thought you would mass afd articles "to get back at tothwolf"" [[622]]

Tothwolf accuses User: TenPoundHammer of 'getting revenge' on him by AFD stalking his articles [[623]]

Tothwolf is told by WLU that even if my nom of ytcracker was pointy, it still lacked reliable sources. tothwolf reverts the talk with the message "please dont cross post" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tothwolf&limit=500&action=history

tothwolf follows me to an AFD for a blatantly punitive vote[edit]

• 00:47 27 September 2009, I vote delete on leafpad (which was deleted) "Delete non notable, fails WP:N and no significant coverage otherwise. easy delete"

• 01:02 27 September 2009, about 15 minutes later, tothwolf follows me to an AFD i've voted 'keep' on (bullshido, which was kept) and writes verbatim my previous words: " * Delete non notable, fails WP:N and no significant coverage otherwise. easy delete Tothwolf (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tothwolf takes ownership of a userfied article and misuses rollback[edit]

tothwolf recently had a series of deleted articles userfied to him. the problem with a userfied article is that the article can often still be found with google in its new location, and if it's still in a mainspace category, then it wasn't really deleted but just moved to someone's user space. this practically defeats the purpose of deleting it. tothwolf's userfied articles still had mainspace categories, so blaxthos removed them. tothwolf immediately did a rollback [[624]]. this is improper use of rollback. just because the article happens to be in tothwolf's userspace, that doesn't mean tothwolf owns it. the categories should have been removed, but tothwolf refused. then it happened again and again. Tothwolf needs to be told he cannot subvert AFD by userfying an article and abandoning it in his userspace; further, he cannot rollback or edit war on userfied articles regardless of where they are stored.

• more rollback misuse unrelated to the previous situation [[625]] Theserialcomma (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• [[626]]

tothwolf's recent attempts to antagonize miami (reverts without discussion)[edit]

[[627]] [[628]] [[629]]

(December) tothwolf's thinly veiled outing attempt against me[edit]

Tothwolf thinks he can bully and threaten people with allusions to their identity or location. he writes: "Btw, Theserialcomma, how's Elvis this time of year? Any good shows?" this is either a reference to a location, such as Memphis or Las Vegas, or some sort of other private information that Tothwolf has erroneously attained about me off wiki, as I've never edited an elvis wikipedia article. I've sternly asked him to explain exactly what he meant[[630]], and his responses consisted of backpedaling, bloviating, and further accusations of bad faith, but without any real explanation as to his Elvis remarks. tothwolf was then warned by the clerk that he would be blocked if he continued his attempted outing or making accusations that Miami was a paid editor Theserialcomma (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tothwolf's IRC-related article ownership issues, summarized[edit]

Tothwolf has edited almost every IRC related article, usually in minor ways, such as tagging them as being part of the IRC project. Many IRC articles have been deleted because there are no reliable sources, as can be seen in Tothwolf's collusion diagram. Tothwolf takes these successful and unsuccessful PROD nominations and AFDs personally, regardless of the fact that the community -- and not the afd nominee -- decides the article's fate. See tothwolf's COI for a possible explanation for his emotional investment in IRC articles. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tothwolf contacted Joe Chill off-wiki and talked him into removing his arbcom evidence, citing "too much drama"[edit]

[[631]] [[632]]

I was a past victim of Tothwolf[edit]

When I !voted deleted in IRC AFDs started by JBSupreme and Miami, Tothwolf started calling me a meatpuppet and assuming bad faith towards me every chance that he got. He digged through the contributions of this account and my previous account to twist things. A big example of him assuming bad faith and calling me a meatpuppet is [633] (It ended with a message that his bad faith assertions toward me was over). After everything that I have seen, I think that he is paranoid. Other examples are here, here, and here. Joe Chill (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change of opinion[edit]

I think that it is possible that Miami is hounding Tothwolf by nominating articles that he has worked on for deletion or that it is possible that he just has a strong dislike for software articles. He participates in software AFDs a lot, but I have only seen him !vote keep in one. If it's a review, he says that it's not long enough or at times that reviews don't show notability (notice how he changes his comments about reviews?) If they aren't reviews like book mentions for example, he always says that it isn't significant coverage. Right now, he is trying to make the software notability guideline proposal into a guideline with his bias opinions which are far different than any other guideline. If Arbcom thinks that he isn't hounding Tothwolf, I think that he should be topic banned from software articles. Joe Chill (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JBSupreme[edit]

I don't see any problems with JBSupreme. His opinions about reliable sources for software aren't bias. I've also noticed that now JBSupreme is putting an effort into searching for sources when he !votes in software AfDs. Joe Chill (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My memory is a little fuzzy on some of the details here, so I apologize for not being able to provide all the details that I could.

Tothwolf appeared on my radar a few months back, in the days when I hung out on IRC in #wikipedia-en. I responded to his !admin ping, where he claimed that Yworo was stalking him. After reviewing his claim, I told him that there was nothing block-worthy -- in fact, all I could see was that they had crossed paths on a few articles -- and I declined to take any action against either of them.

Tothwolf contacted me a few more times over the next few days, again claiming that Yworo was stalking him. I re-iterated to him that stalking is not, by itself, a blockable offense, but I did see a hint of incivility in Yworo, so I did give a friendly warning to Yworo. Yworo's reply started to give me a clue as to what was going on; and after I reviewed the interactions between the two of them more thoroughly, I came to the conclusion that Yworo had done nothing wrong.

After I watched Tothwolf get into another spout with Hm2k on Talk:Shell account, I decided that Tothwolf was trying to assert control over the pages that he was involved with, to the point of taking well-intended contributions from others and turning them into "vandalism" and "disruption". I began reviewing his contributions, and compiled a list of the disturbing things I saw. I saved it under User:Mikaey/Tothwolf, since I didn't necessarily trust that I could find it on my own computer later on. It was brought to my attention (and I don't remember exactly where or by who anymore) that this could be perceived as an attack page, and I didn't have the energy to pursue any further action against Tothwolf (such as RFC/U or RFAR), so I deleted it. Since then, I've kept mostly to myself about it, only occasionally participating in his squabbles with others when people asked me to get involved.

Conclusions[edit]

I'll simply say that I still stand by everything I wrote in User:Mikaey/Tothwolf. The pattern that I have seen with Tothwolf is that he takes ownership of articles/issues that he has a vetted interest in, and defends them by picking a fight with anyone who makes changes he doesn't like. He will ask for admin intervention where he can't succeed on his own. Further, when he is put on the stand, he will try to divert the discussion away from its intended topic and drag it out for so long that people lose interest in taking any action against him. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 23:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to be directly involved with this case unless so requested by the ArbCom or their clerks, but given the large number of other editors who have shared similar experiences with Tothwolf, I feel obligated to make mention of my brief experience here. Several months ago I nominated an article for deletion and "caught the attention" of Tothwolf. I encourage readers to review the AFD in question, in which Tothwolf exhibited what I consider to be an astounding lack of good faith and general badgering of editors with whom he did not agree. Tothwolf stalked me off wiki (both in IRC and email), and apparently had his IRC pals do so as well -- for several weeks I was inundated with generic and specific harassment. Please make special note of his implicit threats referencing DDoS attacks. I also encourage readers to review the ANI case regarding this incident. The experience taught me to just avoid Tothwolf and his thugs, so I haven't had any run-ins since. I have no good faith that Tothwolf will ever improve, and I hope this statement will help the Committee resolve this issue. Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of rollback[edit]

An involved editor has twice reported to me that this and this may be abuses by Tothwolf of the rollbackers privilege.. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tothwolf has now informed me that I am "banned from his userspace". My response notes my concerns of misunderstandings of WP:ROLLBACK, his pretexts of the WP:REFUND process, and his repeated "playing the victim" who is being "harassed". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have been mentioned in this case I feel obligated to add my 2 cents.[634]

Shell account[edit]

On reflection it seems to me that Tothwolf couldn't get his own way with the Shell account article I was trying to improve. He simply threw his toys out of the pram on Talk:Shell_account and did not assume good faith with my edits.

Eventually he pushed my buttons to the point where I did not see the point of continuing the debate unless it was decided that the article was even worth keeping. See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shell_account.

Upon the decision of keep, I went on to improved the article considerably, with the help from other editors who mainly added references.[635] Since then tothwolf is only seen on this article reverting abusive edits.[636][637]

Throughout the debate on Talk:Shell_account I became aware that tothwolf was clearly in defensive mode, acting out toward anyone who he felt was attacking him. At this point I didn't really understand why.

I felt that reporting me and User:Yworo was completely counter productive. At the time I felt that this just gave tothwolf a further soapbox where he could attempt to discredit me further.[638]

This was, in my opinion a bad call on the part of MuZemike, who raised the report in the first place. However it did make me realise that there was a bigger issue.

However, there is no excuse for this behaviour on Wikipedia as it does not assume good faith, but as I said before: "rather than start ganging up on Tothwolf, can we focus on a resolution?".

It is worth noting that before this drama began I had not come across Tothwolf, Yworo or MuZemike.

Beyond[edit]

Beyond this drama, I came across tothwolf a further time when debating a statement within an article that lacked reliable sources. Despite an initial hostility, eventually good faith was assumed and we managed to settle the debate, which resulted in reliable sources and a more accuratly worded statement. See: Talk:EFnet#NickServ

I since learned of tothwolfs involvement in the eggdrop project[639] and the Wikipedia:WikiProject_IRC, which naturally deserves a hat tip.

Further to this I am starting to see users ganging up to delete IRC related (such as psyBNC). These users include Miami33139, JBsupreme, Joe Chill and Theserialcomma, all of which appear in this case. See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PsyBNC_(2nd_nomination)

There's clearly a relationship starting to develop between deleted IRC articles, and users ganging up on tothwolf. This is a clear abuse of Wikipedia.

Two wrongs don't make a right and Wikipedia should not be abused in order to get back at another user by ganging up and deleting articles that they are involved in. It's completely counter productive.

Conclusion[edit]

In conclusion, tothwolf clearly likes to get his own way and hasn't done himself any favours. However I do think tothwolf has seen the error of his ways and is trying to now back paddle. I don't think he deserves being targeted any further. It's just not nice.

I hope my insight has been useful.

--Hm2k (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the users Tothwolf, JBsupreme and Miami33139 from when I met them at AfD, I was never involved with the corresponding editors before. There was a mass deletion of IRC related articles going on in September/October 2009 and I remember that the tone was hostile, to a point where it was pointless to discuss and work on issues together. When one article that I worked on was dragged into AfD (possibly as some sort of revenge by JBsupreme following my edit history) I stopped participating. It was my wake up call, I realised that the English Wikipedia policies and processes are being abused. I can understand if Tothwolf feels harassed by JBsupreme and Miami33139, because as a direct result of their harassment and disruption I have withdrawn from Wikipedia since then. JoeChill teamed up with JBsupreme and Miami33139 in AfD end of September and rather ran along (what looked like vote stacking to me [640][641][642][643]) but he distanced himself later and stayed more in the background. Critics about the vicinity to JBsupreme's and Miami33139's activities has JoeChill always rejected as bad faith accusations against him. After all I have seen very little de-escalation strategies from any side. - 83.254.210.47 (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I first became acquainted with the players here at the end of September/Early Oct 2009 during the IRC AfD Death March, apparently long after their feud started. For that reason, I can't really say for sure what started the feud and why. In my opinion from viewing their edits since, however, Miami and JBSupreme are smart editors who lean deletionist, and would be fully able to subtly annoy the hell out of anyone they wished, if they chose to do so. (Just look at 83.254.210.47's comment above; I remember seeing him being run off.) Miami's little schtick about "tell me why this diff is hounding" has been repeated before; of course we wouldn't hope that every edit he makes is intended to piss off Tothwolf. Is Tothwolf reacting with too much drama and emotion? Maybe so, but its not borne out of complete hallucinations.

IRC Death March Evidence[edit]

During the IRC death march, I found that a number of the AfDs by Miami and JBSupreme were likely ill-advised. Whether that was intended to annoy Tothwolf or not, I really can't say.

E.g., Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BitchX. Nom by JBSupreme (29 Sept), Miami as the first delete. Coming by soon after (with no special knowledge of IRC clients) I noted I found numerous references; I added some to the article. The serialcomma later chimed in with a delete vote. Toth also participated throughout (adding a rescue tag after the nomination for starters) but there was no overt animosity among the players in this AfD. Article was kept.

Oct 1 nom for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kopete. Nom by Miami, in which he said no existing references showed notability, but not that other references could not be found. I found this odd because I saw copious google hits. JBSupreme soon commented (after I noted I saw sources out there) that he had "just searched and found no evidence of notability." With a quizzical eyebrow now raised, I added 16 references into the Afd. Miami subsequently withdrew the nom. Tothwolf did not comment on this one, but at the time I felt there must be some ulterior motive for the AfD.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PIRCH was an Oct 1 nom by Miami, where the nom said in part "the burden is on the article creator to demonstrate the notability of the subject via references." As Uncle G said in the first reply: "No, the burden is on you, and everyone here at AFD, to look for sources yourself. Otherwise you have no way of knowing, and thus no real grounds for claiming, whether something is notable or not." Toth chimed in on this one, commenting to Miami that "this has gone beyond absurd." My own comment was keep, "Based on discussion to date, its clear nomination was half-assed. There appear to be sources out there."

--Milowent (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Theserialcomma calling me a puppet of Tothwolf[edit]

• The only contribution where I crossed path with Tothwolf before my last one were to The Game (dice game) and its AfD. Tothwolf asked on IRC if there was a German that would like to verify and search for some sources. I did that and added them to the article [644]. I then felt the article was worth keeping and the issues raised in the AfD were addressed, so I commented in the AfD [645]. I was never asked to comment there by Tothwolf.
• The only other article Tothwolf and I both edited was Talk:Eggdrop. Theserialcomma raised concerns about using a wiki as a source because anyone can edit it [646]. He constantly kept removing it from the article instead of finishing the discussion on the Talk page to find consensus first [647] [648] [649]. After removing it a third time, he went on to remove a complete section from the article [650] while the discussion on the Talk page still went on. I read the discussion and had an idea: a static revision link for that wiki. I went on to suggest that and asked Theserialcomma why he now removed the whole section and the official website of Eggdrop as a source [651] (I was still new to Wikipedia and not familiar in depth with WP:V WP:RS and their implications). He didn't reply to my comment. Instead, he called me a sockpuppet and/or meatpuppet and filed a SPI case [652] (closed due to lack of evidence [653]), and now he still does it here after I didn't edit for 6 months after that encounter. Calling me a puppet was totally uncalled for, I never voted or backed up Tothwolf's opinion in any way.
• I never bothered contributing to Wikipedia again because of that behaviour: I commented in a discussion by making a constructive suggestion and all I got was being called a sockpuppet and a meatpuppet and I never got a reply to my suggestion by Theserialcomma. There's a reason for WP:AGF, especially on new editors, after all. thommey (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to response of Theserialcomma[edit]

Which of the google results is relevant here? WP:Meatpuppet reads "Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus". Which consensus did I try to reach? I just made a suggestion to solve the problem with the anonymous editing of the Tclers wiki link and asked why the official website is not a WP:RS according to WP:SELFPUB. I did that on the Talk page, not in any vote-like discussion. thommey (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miami33139 is overzealous in pursuing laudible goals[edit]

Miami33139 is overzealous, perhaps, though the goal of protecting Wikipedia from COI motivated spam is laudible. It would be more helpful if they toned down their remarks during AfD discussions and stuck to arguments based on the article as it appears, and avoided assumptions of motives or facts unknown. [654]

Tothwolf has a history of assuming bad faith and making unfounded accusations[edit]

I am uninvolved in the current situation but have had past interaction with Tothwolf. He dredged through my old userpage versions to find something so he could accuse me of bias in an AfD, and also accused me of "browbeating" others in the AfD discussion. After being unsuccessful at resolving things with him personally, I took the issue to a Wikiquette alert, where everyone but Tothwolf agreed there was no evidence of bias or browbeating on my part, and agreed that Tothwolf's behavior was uncivil. Tothwolf accued me of "gaming the system" by bringing the Wikiquette Alert, and then began accusing those who attempted to arbitrate of personally attacking him. The discussion can be found here:[[655]]. So based on my observations of Tothwolf's past actions, and after reading the diffs in this situation, it is apparent to me that Tothwolf has a pattern of behavior of assuming bad faith and making accusations without basis. Any accusations he is making of hounding or wikistalking should be taken with a grain of salt. Mmyers1976 (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre behavior by JBSupreme, Adambro, and Miami33139[edit]

So, uh, this is actually a duplicate of evidence Tothwolf himself presented above, but I prefer my version of the account so I'll just leave this here. Shii (tock) 15:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Penthouse Letters, I never thought this would happen to me, but I once found myself in the presence of Our Lord and Savior JBsupreme, he who is beyond the habits of mere mortals such as presenting evidence during his own ArbCom case, and I lived to tell the tale. Come with me, to a strange place on the Wikipedia, where one man's talk page does not deserve to be besmirched with discussions from mere administrators.

My friends, it all started when His Serene Holiness JBSupreme took it upon himself to renominate an article on AFD that had just been affirmed as "overturned" in DRV, which happened to be Balloon Boy, funnily enough. I speedy closed this completely unnecessary discussion. An interesting thing then happened: he reverted my closure. How foolish I was, to think that JBSupreme was limited by such things as "process"! Clever, clever! Unfortunately for him, some other admin was keeping an eye on the AFD and closed it again.

I left him a message on his user talk page pointing out his misunderstanding of how AfD works, which he promptly removed. He was perfectly within his right to do that, but I was a little grumpy that day and he hadn't yet acknowledged that either the AFD or the un-closure was out of line, so I left him another message to be a little more frank with him. [656] Now keep in mind, everyone, that I wasn't paying any attention to whatever other misdeeds JBsupreme was up to at this point in time. But I noticed that when he removed my warning the second time, he was also removing a large chunk of discussion between an accuser and Adambro about how JBsupreme never apologizes for his mistakes. [657] So I left him a third message to basically let him know what a jackass he was. [658]

Finally, I manage a response from JB himself, albeit only in his edit summary: he doesn't want to talk to me because I am a "troll". [659] Yes, it's tough dealing with trolls who point out your process violations. I'm not satisfied with this reply. [660] Okay, so far so good, a petty little personal dispute between a grumpy admin and an editor who apparently has a communication problem. Now here's where it gets weird.

Now not JB but Adambro arrives on my talk page to tell me how scandalized he was by the fact that I, a mere peon, had insulted the mighty JBSupreme. [661] I wish I had friends like that who would monitor my talk page and say nasty things to my detractors. I responded to Adambro outlining why I was upset and went to inform JBSupreme, using polite language and assuming good faith, that I would like to hear his side of the story in his own words. Then Adambro removed that message as well, because JB "obviously" doesn't want to talk to me. How am I supposed to tell this guy that I'd like to talk with him, other than his talk page? The mentality of this revert is clearly something like "those who do not cower before the fearsome power of JBsupreme have no right to leave him messages". What's more, Adambro came back to my talk page again, and gave me a condescending speech about how disappointed he was in me for my continued "harassment". I could have done so much better. I think I'm just going to sit on my bed and think about what a bad little boy I've been.

But so far I am giving him the benefit of the doubt to the High Oompa Loompa himself, because he hasn't actually said a single word to me yet besides nasty comments in his edit summaries. So, I let him know that there were strange users telling me how to treat him. Now User:Miami33139 dropped by and removed that message, saying it was likely that JBSupreme would find it boring...! [662] I left a comment on Miami33139's page, out of my idle curiosity as to how he had read JB's mind. Miami responded to me with a picture of a badger. [663]

JBsupreme never actually responded to me in any way throughout this discussion other than to call me a troll. He has not talked with me since. So, what did we learn here?

1. JBsupreme is exceptionally uncooperative.
2. He has no interest in talking with anyone who questions his authority.
3. He has meatpuppets who assist him in this task by (at the very least) cleaning all comments off his talk page that cast a shadow of a doubt on his editing practices, even if they are friendly and good-natured. Because I have not interacted with JB on other forums I cannot say if these meatpuppets collaborate with him in other ways as well, but frankly I wouldn't be surprised.

And here ends my story, because it seems to me that if you get on the bad side of these little Wikicabals, you wind up in ArbCom like poor Tothwolf here. Shii (tock) 15:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike others here, I won't speculate on editors' motives, but I found the participation of User:JBsupreme and User:Miami33139 to AfD, software AfDs in particular, quite problematic. The main issue is the apparent lack of prior research before nominating articles, and the insistence the article has no source, or that they are unreliable when challenged. Sometimes they do change their mind though. And, yes, sometimes they do nominate article that ought to be deleted. But overall, it appears to me that that not enough effort is put in preserving content. Examples, split by nominator.

JBsupreme[edit]

Problematic nominations:

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IPodLinux. Nom withdrawn.
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Notepad++_(2nd_nomination). Speedy keep.
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AMSN. Deleted. Restored at DRV with comment: "Closure endorsed; article may be re-created without a userspace draft. This DRV has no bearing on any future AfD for this article."
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nitemare_3D. Nom withdrawn.
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BitchX. WP:SNOW keep.
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/QuickPar. Keep. The only delete !vote is from Miami33139.
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_warez_groups_(5th_nomination). Speedy keep after acrimonious discussion back in April. Apparently the animosity between Tothwolf and JBsupreme goes that far back.
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rockbox. The only vote to delete was his nomination, although others asked for cleanup.
• (non-software) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Chess Club. Keep. His was the only vote to delete.
• (non-software) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punchball. Nominated as hoax. Nom-withdrawn.
• (non-software) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_films_that_most_frequently_use_the_word_"fuck"_(9th_nomination), WP:SNOW keep. Endorsed at WP:DRV.

While a good number of his delete !votes on software are legitimate (not listed here), the only time I've seem him vote keep on some piece of software is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ACDSee. He also withdraws noms without adding the appropriate AfD link on the article's talk page.

JBsupreme also constantly reiterates at every AfD that involves a linux.com review that the reviews in linux.com do not count for WP:N because they are unreliable or "user contributed", despite previous discussion to the contrary at WP:RS/N, never mind former employee, Bruce Byfield's post-NDA, testimonial. (All of the reviews from linux.com he disputes at AfD are from years before the change in ownership and editorial staff.)

Miami33139[edit]

Nominations:

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kopete. Nom withdrawn.
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bersirc. No consensus.
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PIRCH. Keep.
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WeeChat_(2nd_nomination). Keep. User:SoWhy's closure is representative, so I'll quote it here: The result was keep. Non-trivial coverage (e.g. Yalm magazine article and The Apps review) exists and thus makes all delete !votes void that claimed non such exists and thus deletion is needed. Only one editor took those sources into account and still !voted delete while the other delete !votes have not addressed those sources at all in their reasoning (one even took the sources into account but still argued it's not a notable subject despite non-trivial, third-party coverage). As such, the keep !votes are more convincing in this case although the article needs to integrate aforementioned coverage as footnotes to allow better access.' JBsupreme !voted delete.
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Naim_(chat_program)
• ERC (IRC client). No consensus.
  • This exchange from that AfD is typical of discussion like that (linux.com article in question, lwn.net article):

“

Keep - There are several references of third-party coverage added to the article, including a linux.com article. --Cyclopia - talk 14:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] None of the sources you refer to amount to non-trivial. JBsupreme (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

”

Devil may care prodding just from the past two weeks![edit]

• Tagged as needing references that show notability and no effort has been made to do that. First hit on google books.
• Tagged as lacking notability and sources, no effort has been made to show notability. First hit on google books.
• klibc (no diff as this was already deleted), Non-notable software article that only has primary sources. First hit on google books.
  • (I've since restored this page -- Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • Thanks. What's more shocking is that the obvoius reference was already in the article at the time of the prod, and the book is obviously not written by the software's author. Also, the article's talk page indicates that it has already been sent to AfD in 2007 (closed as "no consensus"), so it shouldn't have been prodded on those grounds either.
• Non-notable, probably defunct software article that has never been sourced. No non-bot edits since 2006. First hit on google books.
• Non-notable software that is only sourced to the author. gbook (not first, but on first page)
• Tagged for more than one month as lacking reliable sources showing notability. That has been unaddressed, no edits to the page since then. First hit on google books.
• Non-notable software that has never had sources. First hit on google books.
• Non-notable and unsourced since July 2007. First hit on google books.
• This is non-notable and unreferenced software tagged for cleanup since November 2008. First hit on google books.
• Non-notable and unsourced software article that has been tagged as needing sources since March 2009. That is long enough for source attempts. First hit on gbooks, 2nd.

Not being an admin I cannot review his deleted edits, but I cringe as to what else he might have prodded in the same fashion.

Update: other problematic prods Bing (program) ref Fping [664] [665] [666].

Miami's position towards software notability is best summarized by his reply to reviews of Mac software in MacWorld and MacUser in this mass AfD:

“

Reviews are also examples of routine coverage that I am not impressed by. All consumer products get reviewed so I do not consider most reviews as evidence of notability. A feature length review has more to judge, and that is not something most of these have - and we would want multiples of them. Miami33139 (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

”

This is a fairly original interpretation of WP:N. I'm afraid that by his standard we shall have to delete almost every piece of software in Wikipedia. And he thinks so himself:

“

It is correct that most of the software articles on Wikipedia don't belong. Miami33139 (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

”

Furthermore, he pushes for his own Wikipedia:Software notability essay to be used as standard in AfDs.

Deleting article contents based on WP:N[edit]

After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exodus (instant messaging client) closed as delete, Miami33139 also removed it from the list of clients, with edit summary I have remove unconfirmed non-notable protocol (marked as minor edit too), even though that info is easily confirmed in an official list, and even notable enough to have a brief description in the reference XMPP book. Given Miami33139's extensive participation in the deletion of many XMPP-based instant messengers here, he very likely is a aware of both these sources (the list was given right in that Exodus AfD), and the book in several AfDs he took part in, e.g. here, where he replies right under a link to the book. Nevertheless he deleted article contents (the Exodus entries in several tables) that he very likely was aware was WP:V and not WP:UNDUE with a misleading edit summary unconfirmed protocol, and marking the edit as minor.

Similar edits: [667], [668], [669], [670], [671], [672], [673], (aMSN had been deleted at the time), [674] etc. Note the often misleading edit summaries. E.g., in the last diff he deleted fping from ping sweep with edit summary I have remove link farm that is not WP:V, when a source was already present in the article and supported the info; fping is also mentioned in practically every reference discussing ping sweep (see current version of the article). Miami33139 considers any software not having its own wiki article as "unverified", so removes it from lists, tables, and sometimes text of articles. From those edits, his view seems to be that software not having a separate wiki article simply cannot be mentioned in articles. It's also obvious from those diffs that he edit wars to impose his view.

Block voting[edit]

• User:Joe Chill opens Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe's Own Editor, and argues that the O'Reilly Media series of books are "tech guides", so they don't count towards notability. User:Sandstein closes it as keep with a link to one of those books. Votes:

“

Delete documentation does not show notability. Miami33139 (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete still not seeing the notability here for this "popular" editor. JBsupreme (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

”

A story of three deletionists that one day decided something is just non-notable: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OggConvert. You'll guess who two of them are. After the deletion, the 3rd google hit on that was this long review (the first two being on the software's home page).

Conclusion[edit]

I don't know if all the above deserves more than a sizable WP:TROUT, or if there's something else going on. That's beyond what I'm willing to research for this case.

This case, however, is a bit about where Wikipedia is headed. Some editors, like User:Ihcoyc, argue that a 500-year relevance standard should be imposed on article topics, and that secondary publications from a given field do not confer notability to results/artifacts/organizations in that field. Others, like Miami33139, think that "run-of-the-mill" products or companies should be excluded regardless of coverage in sources. Following these ideas would, of course, exclude a large number of articles on Science, Mathematics, etc. The current guidelines are way more lax than that, allowing for an article on every Playboy Playmate, every athlete who has "competed at the fully professional level of a sport", and every piece of software that some lowly computer journalists have reviewed.

The job for ArbCom isn't, of course, to decide guidelines for content inclusion/exclusion, but I hope the committee will decide if repeated !voting at AfD with arguments outside the commonly agreed guidelines is acceptable or not. AfD participants are sometimes newbies, and newbies have trouble distinguishing between an ever-present minority position at AfDs citing their own essays, and the more generally accepted guidelines. Speaking of outside views, the outside view of Wikipedia's AfD process is sometimes like this. Single-purpose fan accounts that vote to keep some page are normally disregarded at AfD. I'm not sure what should be done with accounts whose AfD participation in based solely on their personal standards of notability in a given field.

Reply to Ihcoyc[edit]

Re: "I have never coordinated with Miami33139 or JBsupreme to attack specific classes of articles onsite or offsite." Effectively you have, because you and Miami are the principal architects on (old) WP:NSOFT, and invoked it in AfDs (sorry, I can't be bothered to find diffs right now). It looks like there's not going to be consensus in adopting that proposed guideline, which would have culled a great deal of software from Wikipedia, even when it isn't spam and has secondary coverage. Actually, the consensus looks quite against it as of 22:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Theserialcomma’s behavior[edit]

Hello there. I have had an unpleasant experience with the editor User:Theserialcomma.

I am the author of MaraDNS, an open source DNS server that has been praised and discussed by independent reliable third-party sources (including an IEEE symposium paper, an O'Reilly book, and a ZDnet article).

I used to edit the MaraDNS article until other editors made me aware of the WP:COI policy; when made aware of this policy (in 2007), I stopped all editing to the MaraDNS Wikipedia article.

Recently, an IP put WP:BLP-violating material about myself in the MaraDNS article. As per the WP:BLP policy, I reverted the change.

On the same day, Theserialcomma proposed for the MaraDNS article to be deleted because he claimed that “no third party sources to attest to the notability of this software”.

I do not believe this was made in good-faith. A simple Google search for MaraDNS has over 40,000 hits, and a Scholar.google.com search has 30 hits (Also: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Even the most cursory of research on Theserialcomma’s part would have shown that MaraDNS is quite notable.

I believe this proposed deletion was done in retaliation for me making a revert to an article about one of my open-source projects as allowed in the biographies of living persons policy. I do not believe Theserialcomma made this proposed deletion to help make the Wikipedia a better place, but to attack me.

In the end, I do appreciate Theserialcomma making this edit, because it did result in the article having more third-party reliable sources discussing MaraDNS in the article, and I was pleased to see how notable my little open-source project has become. However, Theserialcomma would have better contributed to the Wikipedia as a whole if he himself did this research and added these references to the article, instead of trying to delete an article about a notable open-source project.

Thank you for taking the time to read my report of Theserialcomma’s behavior. Samboy (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JBSupreme and Miami33139[edit]

I comment here because of having interacted repeatedly with both JBSupreme and Miami33139 on several AfDs. I mostly endorse evidence and statement above by Pohta ce-am pohtit. I only want to add that the mass-AfD of software-related articles that they pursue quite evidently together is indicative, apart of a small WP:TAGTEAM case, also of how AfD's are prone to WP:IDONTKNOWIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT problems. In this specific case, it would be opportune to remember that software notability, and especially open source software one, can depend on publishing avenues far from being classical. A fair judgement on the matter should take care of that -and a correct guideline on the subject would help. --Cyclopia^talk 16:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JBSupreme and Miami33139[edit]

Same remark that other persons about these persons. You can see my old comment: You have a good eyes :) Miami33139 revert a lot of my edits, and request deletion of articles ! and I do not understand why ! aMSN, Gajim, Coccinella (software), Exodus (instant messaging client), Peter Millard, Gossip (software), Jabbin, ejabberd, QutIM, Quiet Internet Pager, Instantbird, Jabbim, JAJC, Tkabber, Licq, Ayttm, Aria (software), Simple Instant Messenger, Gale (protocol), and more... I have a lot of problems with this person (I am not alone)! For example, ICQ have not clients, in reality there are a lot of ... This person say only proprietary software is good (Microsoft and other), you can see the number of program removed by this person (about Audio/BitTorrent/XMPP/ICQ/IRC/Gadu-Gadu/WLM-MSN/P2P/Linux/... I think the problem is here since November or before ... So I request all removed articles on my sub pages (a lot of !) — Neustradamus (✉) 12:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JBSupreme same problem with Centericq for example ... — Neustradamus (✉) 18:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Software and tech business AfDs[edit]

Over the past year or so, I've participated in deletion discussions and proposed deletions relating to software and technical businesses and products. The fact that they're related to software or technical issues don't concern me all that much; they could be about performing llamas at the circus for all I care. Spam and gibberish do, in fact, bother me. I do not hesitate to start various deletion processes whenever I see articles that look like product brochures or read like they were written by a PR firm.

If you look at my deleted user contributions you'll see a lot of my handiwork in this regard. I've proposed a fair number of articles for deletion on these subjects.

Some that got as far as AfD were deleted. Some weren't. A sampling, for the very patient:

Deleted[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GraphLogic Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pervasive Data Integrator Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WorkXpress Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viewpath Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProjectPartner Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GRR (software) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardinis Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transitioning Applications to Ontologies Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NCircle Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santexq

Kept[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DotProject Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GanttProject Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EcoSCART Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TCP hole punching Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sawmill_(software) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Talend Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ejabberd Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FarPoint Spread

I see that some of my edits have been challenged in this proceeding by various commenters. Now, this edit probably dignified a personal attack more than it should have, but I stand by the substance: I thought it rather absurd to equate "an XMPP application server, written mainly in the Erlang programming language" with a Roman religious observance, a Renaissance carol, or a myth mentioned by Plato, as the commenter I was responding to did. Some of these things are encyclopedia subjects: one is not. And most of these software articles probably could benefit from the passage of five hundred years to winnow out the classic ones worthy of encyclopedia articles from the also-rans.

I have never, ever made a secret of where I was coming from in any of these AfD and proposed deletion discussions. I've written several essays about my position. If I or any other editor is being accused of thinking that we don't need separate articles for each separate business software package or sysadmin tool, and editing with that "agenda" in mind: yes, in my case it's true. If this is a "disruptive" agenda, I plead guilty, and throw myself on the court's mercy. But my conscience remains clear.

I tend to feel that this discussion may be at risk of being highjacked. This started out as an investigation of personal attacks and accusations made by Tothwolf, and should be confined to just that. I have never coordinated with Miami33139 or JBsupreme to attack specific classes of articles onsite or offsite. Most of my own proposed deletions and AFDs are in fact prompted by the other-stuff-exists complaints made in discussions of spammy articles about non-notable products. That's always been one of my chief source of leads; the other is incoming links to buzzword phrases. I've always tried to be evenhanded in these things; if someone comes in claiming "my competitor has an article", I'll be happy to take a look at it.

If it is decided that articles on software should not be checked for spam or gibberish, I will cheerfully stop doing it myself. Someone, I'm sure, will let me know. I do not think that these other editors conclusion that most of that stuff really doesn't belong here is all that unreasonable or unfounded in current policy and notability guidelines, either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment[edit]

I may have been wrong about the origins of this arbitration. My comments are not really addressed to the substance of the original dispute, but rather to some remarks about my own edits and !votes made above. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}[edit]

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}[edit]

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.