User talk:RobJ1981/Archive 15

Lonpos

I noticed that you made some edits to Lonpos. I just want to point out that Lonpos is actually a physical logic puzzle game, and that the Wii version of the game has its own page at Lonpos (video game). Misterkillboy (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Nifboy

Why did you call me a nifbot on WP: WPVG?Gears Of War 03:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It was helpful to the section. Unless there is an editor named User:Nifboy?Gears Of War 04:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, sorry, it was a misunderstanding.Gears Of War 04:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What is your email address?

I looked on your userpage but couldn't find it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What I think

I wouldn't rule it out right now, and I think you have a point. But the disruptiveness is not as obvious as other persons: he's not cursing, making personal attacks, or vandalizing articles. The problem is more subtle. He's taking major policy disputes with the notability requirement and deletion mechanism into nearly every article for deletion discussion, and multiple times in other talk pages. It doesn't mean he should be sanctioned or punished, but he may need to have some kind of administrator clarify policies for him. Really, I'd just like him to stop saying that deletion is only to be used for hoaxes and libel. I'd also like him to stop saying "this is notable" without referencing any policy or evidence. I'd definitely back you up if you wanted to register a complaint. But you'd need two things: (1) policy and (2) evidence of a breach of that policy, or else we're no better than him. Do you have the time and the stomach to start building a case for a complaint? Randomran (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely be willing to help, especially if you could find a few other editors who are willing to participate. I can help you with the case, but at this stage I don't have the faintest idea what that case would look like. If you began by finding one or two policies and one or two examples of breaking that policy, I'm confident I could help find many more just by looking at AFD discussions alone. Randomran (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't keep my email address in wikipedia because I'm concerned about privacy issues. So it won't let me send you an email. Let me think for a minute about how we can contact each other outside wikipedia. Worse comes to worst, I might have to cave in, since I understand the sensitivity of this subject. Randomran (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

How would you feel about posting your email address to my talk page, and then quickly reverting it? That way it would be buried in the edit history only. If you still think that would read to too much spam, then I could just create some cheesy temporary email address and email you with that. Randomran (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

We can meet on IRC if you'd like. Hit me with another message and let me know a channel / server that you prefer. This whole situation stinks. Randomran (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm not really sure the policy on talking to people outside of wikipedia, I think it's better if we wait until this whole situation blows over. If you have any further comments, don't hesitate to contact me at my talk page. Randomran (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Rob,

I have blocked you for a month, for long-term harassment of Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. This is based on my own investigation of the situation, and on the extensive discussion at WP:AN/I. My final opinion on the matter was stated at AN/I as follows:

"I have re-read the above, and given it a lot of thought. I concede Fut.Perf's point that Rob is not stalking GRC in the sense of following him from page to page in order to harass him. However, it is abundantly clear that Rob has become obsessed with GRC, and is unable or unwilling to control his urge to harass and attack him whenever their paths cross. Rob may well be (is presumably) going to XfD pages for the good faith purpose of D'ing the X, but as soon he encounters GRC there, this purpose is set aside for the sport of demeaning and harrying GRC. I suspect even Rob would agree to a sympathetic version of what I'm saying here: something like "I've had enough of him and will do whatever it takes to see him kicked off the project, or at least make sure that others see him for what he is". That such a campaign of harassment has been allowed to continue for nearly a year is simply unacceptable. In my opinion it is important that this community protect itself against this kind of long-term harassment. Therefore I will block Rob for a month. The stated reason will be harassment rather than wikistalking. Hesperian 11:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)"

I accept that you have Wikipedia's interests at heart, and I hope this block doesn't mean you leave us for good. But if you want to continue here, you really must get over this obsession with GRC. Even if you are correct in thinking him hopelessly misguided (personally I have no opinion on the matter), it remains unacceptable for you to have targeted him so relentlessly for so long.

As you probably know, you are free to appeal this block by use of the {{unblock}}. Hesperian 12:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian 12:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

{unblock|I've realized my mistakes, and I'm willing to avoid Le Grand from now on, per the agreement/my comments below.}

It's sad that it has come to this. You're not an untalented editor, and you're capable of positive contributions; but you really need to review your recent (long-term) conduct and have a long think about it - learn and fully understand for yourself what it was you did wrong over the period of time, and what you need to do so that it does not happen again, and commit yourself to ensuring it does not happen again. Those should be your goals, and once they're completed, you can come back to editing. The RFC, the AN/I and the above message by Hesperian are good places to start with in making such a review. Good luck! Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A closer look at the evidence

I think there is evidence of civility problems. The worst offenses were in 2007, and it looks like Rob was warned. Perhaps Rob has not improved his attitude since then. But his handfull of replies to Le Grand cannot be considered "stalking" -- which is a serious offense:

• There are probably 100 AFDs where one editor made an appearance, and the other did not show up
• There are at least 10 AFDs where the two editors merely disagreed, albeit strongly:
  • "Nope, this should just be deleted. There is no reason to redirect it."[1]
  • "It would still be a move list, which isn't an acceptable article for Wikipedia either."[2]
  • (Three times) "Note to closing admin. The page that Le Grand mentions is just an essay and isn't a requirement to follow when editing."[3] [4] [5]
  • No incident: [6]
  • No incident: [7]
  • No incident: [8]
  • No incident: [9]
  • No incident: [10]
• But there are a handful of instances which can be construed as rude:
  • "Leave it be Le Grand" (in an edit summary)
  • "It's pretty clear Le Grand refuses to agree with game guide policies, so he chooses to think the policies don't exist. Which is disruptive, and not helpful to debates on video game weapon lists."
  • "Le Grand, why are you posting that Amazon link more than once? People can see the link once, it doesn't need to be posted in two replies.
  • "This is more proof Le Grand still doesn't understand the policies of Wikipedia."
  • "It's not required for people to just drop what they are doing (or working on) or whatever, just to improve an article in deletion. You don't need to criticize others just because they don't want to improve the same articles you want to. I don't think it's rude to not reply to every comment in AFDs. Not everyone has the time to go back to where they posted, and reply each and every time. Assume some good faith, instead of thinking people are bad because of minor things. "

Rob is clearly not innocent. He definitely isn't a shining example of good community. But he hasn't sworn at anybody. He hasn't "YELLED" at anybody. He hasn't attacked anybody personally. He clearly failed to assume good faith several times, and used a rude tone. And that's in the broader context of many occasions where the two editors were merely in the same place at the same time, which isn't surprising for two editors who are active in AFDs and similar wikiprojects. I can't say Rob is innocent. But I can't stay silent if he's accused of a more egregious wrong (stalking) rather than a few instances of incivility after being warned in 2007. I'm not sure if he should be unblocked, but make sure the punishment fits the crime. Randomran (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Disclosure: Rob tried to canvass my support for a formal complaint against Le Grand, but I disagreed with Rob that Le Grand had acted in bad faith. Randomran (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As much as I hate to comment here as I really want to just be done with it, months of removing my rescue templates, removing my additions to wikiprojects, trying to merge articles I edited extensively, commenting to or about me in various discussions (not just AfDs) rather than about the article content, making bogus stalking accusations against me and others, venue shopping for suppoort against me at Wikiquette alert, user talk pages, IRC, email, ANI, in what a hundred odd instances is indeed wikiharassment/wikistalking or whatever you want to call it. We are NOT talking about a few random instances. We are NOT just talking about AfDs. We are NOT even just talking about behavior against me. We cannot tolerate this behavior. When I have ignored and avoided him, there is no acceptable or legitimate reason why he cannot do the same. Period. And again, he has done this stuff against others as well as the evidence demonstrates. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just using the evidence that you've provided. I agree he was warned for bad conduct in 2007, and I agree he has had a few rude contacts with you in 2008. But there are many instances where the two of you have ignored each other or peacefully coexisted. Again, I'm not saying he's innocent. But I don't think you've established "a hundred odd instances of wikistalking" and I don't think it's fair to punish someone for that unless there is evidence. The only evidence I see is displayed above (aside from problems in 2007). Punish him for incivility and rudeness, but not more than that. Not without further evidence. Randomran (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would like to bring Rob's previous RfC up. This is not an isolated thing. There were fully 117 items cited, and that was by no means a comprehensive list. Even if there were a few duplicates in that list (on account of me copypasting those diffs from various sources), I think that just goes to show how massive Rob's conduct issues truly are. I will admit he has not bothered me between the times of the RfC and this incident, however, I so completely withdrew from everything he was working on in Wikipedia that he'd have had to engage in Wikistalking to continue arguing with me. To me, this is a case of the RfC findings working through the efforts of one party, not both, especially considering his conduct towards the other complainants in the RfC has not changed. McJeff (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Assuming all those complaints are valid, then yes, punish Rob for incivility and for accusing others of bad faith. But stalking and harassment are egregious accusations that haven't been made out. The closest thing to stalking is two editors from the same wikiproject who encounter the same AFD discussions, and usually ignore or avoid each other except in a few instances. Randomran (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Then you are not reading the evidence. So, to repeat it: I am having some health issues, so this may be my last post for a while, but as I possibly leave the project, I want the community to be clear of some of the harassment I have endured since the summer of 2007 from RobJ1981. He is supposed to be avoiding me, but has not and is not doing so, even though I have repeatedly ignored and avoided this bad faith editor. Here are some of the cautions and warnings made to him:

From Chaser on 4 October 2007: [11]

From DGG on 22 December 2007: [12]

From Casliber on 25 December 2007: [13]

From Ncmvolcalist on 6 May 2008: [14]

Notice the language from the request for comment on RobJ1981's closer: "If either of you feel the need to respond in an Afd (for example), then please completely ignore the comments of each other entirely. Do not engage in ANY discussion with or about each other - even if it involves having to ignore each others comments, no matter how much merit (or lack therof) they may have. Le Grand appears to have not replied to any of your comments, so you need to do the same."

Despite the above, RobJ1981 continues to comment to or about me: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], etc.

Instead of focusing on the contents of the discussion he focuses on me in the above examples, which he was explicitly warned against doing. Notice by contrast that I neither commented to or about him, nor directly about anyone else in those discussions for that matter.

And he attempts to get the article for which I have made the most edits (over 100) merged: [20]

I am trying really hard to ignore him per Chaser, DGG, Casliber, and Ncmvolcalist, but I do not understand why he refuses to do the same considering Chaser threatened to block and a Request for Comment on RobJ1981 concluded with fairly explicit instructions that he avoid and ignore me.

But he didn't and so note the new warning at [21].

The post above was made by Ncmvocalist (talk) at 20:06, 26 May 2008. Notice these posts made by Rob AFTER Ncmvocalist's post in the Request for Comment:

• 23:53, 26 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines‎ (→Weapons...: comment)
• 22:51, 26 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines‎ (→Weapons...: fixes)
• 22:48, 26 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines‎ (→Weapons...: comment)
• 22:42, 26 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul series mystical weapons‎ (→Soul series mystical weapons: comment)
• 21:39, 26 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines‎ (→Weapons...: comment)

In the above posts he outright says, "In response to this comment by Le Grand", "We can't assume good faith," "Le Grand is just coming here to force his anti-deletion views", etc.

We were told not to comment to or about each other and as indicated previously admins have been warning him for months now. If you ask Chaser or Durova, they can tell you that they also had offered mediation, suggested we disengage, etc., which I have done, but which he continues to ignore. Notice I have not responded to nor have I referenced any of this recent comments on wiki until now. He is admittedly assuming bad faith against me and claims that I am "coming here to force" my "views". I came to the talk page to discuss civily with other editors, to maybe even be convinced by them (I have actually changed my "votes" in both AfDs and RfAs, and several times, so I am open to reason), and hopefully come to some understanding why if we have these policies and guidelines does so much of the community in practice not seem to follow them and how we can get a more universally agreed upon consensus. While I may disagree strongly with some, I respect that they are willing to discuss with me and acknowledge that just as I mean well, I'm sure most in the discussion also do as well. If I "lose" the discussion, so be it, but notice in that discussion that I do not accuse anyone disagreeing with me of being disruptive, assuming bad faith, nor do I mention editors by name or otherwise call them out, etc. It gets really tiresome when AfDs and talk pages devolve into being about the editors rather than the articles and arguments. Sure I may go back and forth with Randomran and others in AfDs, but I would not be able to do so if they did not also reply to my posts and that's a good thing, it's what AfD is a discussion. Does it mean that I think ill of him or others? Of course not. I made over 20,000 edits here, welcomed thousands of new users, uploaded a bunch of images, created articles, etc, and so I engage people in sometimes determined conversation, but I do so because I respect them enough that I am willing to volunteer my time to do so, because I believe that if they are also willing to talk, maybe we can eventually come to an understanding.

And what's classic is I who have argued to delete more articles than Rob has argued to keep (I've never seen him argue to keep in fact) has the hypocritical audacity to harp on me for not arguing to delete more. I wasn't aware of the quota!

How does Rob deal with spirited discussion that doesn't even involve him? He tries to coordinate an off-wiki attack against me: [22], [23], [24], etc. Why when I have ignored and avoided him for so many months has he refused to do the same? Why fixate on me for so long? Why is he derailing good faith discussions and personalizing them? Why is attempting to indocritinate users against me? There is much more, and even more despicable and disturbing stuff than I am willing to post here, but again, my family and friends mean a lot to me and if content disputes are so important to someone that they want to harass and threaten me on and off wiki, it's just not worth it.

I don't know what more I can do to just ignore him that will cause him to follow the warnings he has received by admins and in the request for comment, but it isn't right that discussions that otherwise would be civil now change direction and instead of being about the articles under discussion or the guidelines suddenly become about me, because of one editor.

The bottom line is I care about my family and friends and the on and off wiki harassment from this user has gone on long enough and taken an increasingly obsessive and real world turn that even without my health issues, it is not worth allowing some wikipedian to spill things over off the project. So thank you to all who have been kind and respectful; I wish you all well and I just hope that once and for all the obsession of this editor with me is dealt with so that no one else becomes his next target. While I really do just want to depart at this point and my head is so congested it's somewhat hard to concetrate on typing and I hope that whatever happens here is enough that I will be left alone, I might as well clarify a few things. Rob and I were told over and over again that if we participate in the same discussions we are not to comment to or about each other, which he did and I didn't. There is no reason why he can't comment in say the weapons discussion without mentioning me specifically. I did not mention him after all. His comments in the weapons discussion might not seem like much, but they need to be taken in the larger context and have gone on despite administrator warnings for almost a year now. This has gone on since maybe JULY 2007. Now, regarding the weapons discussion, after editors suggested I take it to the notability guideline I did in fact do that as seen here. As far as AfDs go, I outright created a userspace page and asked editors to post feedback on my participation in them as seen at [25] and [26]. I have taken whatever advice editors have given in good faith and if I'm persistent in some discussions it is because I really believe I am arguing in the best interests of our project, I would not waste volunteer time doing so otherwise (after all, I have a family and life outside of Wikipedia), and in all cases I still am civil. If it ever seems that I go back and forth with anyone; well, I couldn't do that if others didn't reply to me as well. Even when editors ridicule me (see [27] and [28]), I still try to find ways to be friendly with them otherwise (see [29]). And if ever I seem flustered, it is in part, because I've had to also contend with guff from various now blocked sock farms (User:AnteaterZot, User:Aipzith, User:PatrickStar LaserPants, User:Noble Sponge, User:Lord Uniscorn, and User:Only Zuul were one such checkuser confirmed group; User:Eyrian, User:JohnEMcClure, User:THX1337, User:Varlak, and User:Graevemoore are another; not to leave out User:Blueanode or User:Dannycali, i.e. one anti-inlcusionist sock farm after another). Rob also says above, "Also, I wasn't informed of this discussion on my talk page. Isn't it good faith to notify a user about a discussion about them?" Funny, I wasn't informed of the Wikiquette alert on my talk page... As far as persistently going after editors, please note that I am not the only editor Rob has done this stuff to at least on wiki: [30] and [31]. Notice JzG warned Rob about Henchman in pretty firm terms only to have Neil have to warn him as well not long after. And as far as trying to get others to go after me, well, that's been going on for months as well (see [32]). Anyway, to get a sense of things, please consider Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Television series considered the greatest ever (2nd nomination). Notice every time I try to get back to the discussion, he kept focusing instead on me and every time I offered something friendly it was just dismissed. I don't mind, as many know, interactions with others, even spirited ones, but there's a difference between a spirited discussion about the article under question and one about each other and about making it about each for months and months and months. I am deeply concerned if not disturbed by this refusal to ignore the many warnings to disengage with me even though I have done so with him and with him and the trying to start up email and IRC chats on me (see [33]), it's really getting out of hand and I am deeply concerned that if it doesn't stop now it will escalate further. For the sake of factual argument, please consider all of the most recent AfDs in which Rob has participated in descendeing order with the most recent on top:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul series mystical weapons - his first post is a response to me, as is his next post

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ring of Honor events - notice, how, yes he posted first there, but I do not comment to or about him (please keep in mind that I am also a member of the Wrestling Wikiproject)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fingerpoke of Doom (2nd nomination) - notice I have not commented in that one

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario characters in other media - again, his first post is about me

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of Doctor Who characters, monsters, and aliens - again, who comments or suddenly appears to comment on whom here?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brawl Characters' Final Smashes - he posts to delete (still not seeing any keeps from him) after me and then comments to me

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters in Call of Duty - his only comment is again about me

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AndyJones/Triceratops in popular culture - nominates an article that I was the last person to edit prior to nomination and then reverts me including on article with "in popular culture" in its title on the "in popular culture" wikiproject listing and for which I am member!

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juggernaut (wrestler) - I am a wrestling fan and yet I stayed out of that one

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wii games (North America) - I am a member of the video game wikiproject and I stayed out of this (again, not seeing any keeps yet from him)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moon Dog (Dungeons & Dragons) - his only post there was to tag someone as a single-purpose account, but notice that I don't say anything about him; also, please not that the discussion was marred by sock account

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Devil May Cry Demons - again, no comments from me on him and anyone who sees my AfD participation logs know that I participate in just about every list related deletion as there are

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicious and Delicious - I totally avoided this one, which he nominated and closed as keep

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who - again, no participation from me in an AfD he nominated for an article that was not deleted

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Goethean/Evolution (philosophy) - yet another I avoided

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Xbox Live Arcade releases by date - I even avoided a video game list!

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oceanic Six - his contribution is yet another comment on me

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jeff Dahl/sandbox/Priestly - no comment from me there

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix - I also avoided this one

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Advance Wars COs - I avoided this list, too

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dyna Blade (Kirby) (2nd nomination) - I avoided this one, and as most know I tend to argue in the fictional character AfDs, but Rob was in it, so I stayed out

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeoGAF (3rd nomination) - another one he nominated that was kept and that I avoided

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Saturday Night Live hosts and musical guests - notice how unlike him, I can participate without commenting on him

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pit Bulls - yet another I avoided

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zappernapper/Bulba - still another I avoided

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K.C. James and Idol Stevens - yet another avoided

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Réplica (band) - yet another I avoided

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psycho Dad - yet another I avoided

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Barrera - yet another I avoided; his edit here wss to revert someone else I think he's had disputes with

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Booty call (slang) - again, I avoided him

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artakha - first person to post after me

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Delaney - another he nominated that I avoided and that was kept

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stump/Nintendo DS - yet another I avoided

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:A Link to the Past/List of Nintendo DS games - yet another I avoided

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Fairly OddParents characters - a list and a character one that I avoided

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional video games - a video game list I avoided

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rasmus Højengaard - another I avoided

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuut-Riit - his contribution is to comment on me in an AfD in which banned User:AnteaterZot participated

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turanic Raiders - yet again, he has to comment on me rather than the article

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlito and Santino Marella - I avoided this one

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ain't That Life (album) - yet another where has to comment on me rather than the article under discussion

And the above is just THIS YEAR alone, i.e. after the edits that caused Chaser to say, "Rob, you are making improper accusations of stalking against editors who are involved in the same recent surge of popular culture deletion discussions....These improper accusations are disruptive. If this continues, I will block you." in October; after DGG said, "just discuss the 'article' at AfD."; and after Casliber asked him to assume good faith and focus on discussing the template. I have listed ALL of RobJ1981's MfD and AfDs since the beginning of January 2008 and after these administrators warnings were made. Please consider carefully what you see above. RobJ1981 accuses me of being an "extreme inclusionist" and yet since that time I have nominated several articles for deletion. Do you see any "keeps" from him above? If I am somehow acting against policy and/or consensus then why were a good deal of the articles he nominated for deletion in fact kept? Notice if nothing else how many AfDs that are exactly the kinds of AfDs people usually see me in, but I deliberately avoided. Notice how in any AfDs in which he commented first, and the incredibly small number of those that there are, how I did not post immediately after him and how I never once commented to or about him, even after he made some remark about me. Again, look at all those instances where for sometimes days in a row his participation in AfDs is focused entirely on commenting on me and me alone disregarding the article under discussion altogether. How much longer can this go on? For what it's worth, he's still apparently interested in turning another against me (see here) and please also note this edit. He says, "There's been a good number of deletion debates I posted at, and then he popped in later. He might've not mentioned my name in the posts, but he certainly shouldn't be posting where I am... if he truely wants to be left alone." You can click on that link to his contribs that focus on Wikipedia edits and not how I hardly pop up at "a good number of deletion debates" in the past few months and by contrast how he does in fact do that to me. Anyway, considering that I participate in large numbers of AfDs, what difference does it make if he happens to post in them so long as I do not comment on or about him? Why if I can avoid commenting on him can he not avoid commenting on me? If it's not hard for me to do, it shouldn't be hard for him. And if I am so wrong, then why were so many of the above kept? If I'm wrong for being an inclusionist, then why does he never argue to keep? I have no problem with him participating the same discussions as me, just not turning the discussion into being about me and not whatever we're supposed to be discussing. And what's with the cryptic "if he truely wants to be left alone"?! Come again? Since January 1, 2008, RobJ1981 has participated in forty-one (41) AfDs and MfDs (I have probably participated in a hundred or more). In ten (10) of those he commented after me and in all of those instances his comments after me were not about the article under discussion, but about me. I commented after him a whole three (3) times and in one of which was in a discussion concerning an article that he nominated that I was the last person to edit before he nominated it. In NONE of those instances did I ever comment to or about him. But keep in mind, it’s not just AfDs and MfDs. In other discussions in which I commented first, he does not comment to someone else or focus on the comment. Rather, he comments on me or to me (again, notice in all of those discussions, I do NOT comment to or about him): [34], [35], and [36]. Is it really so hard to participate in that discussion, which I started, without mentioning me specifically? I don’t know what if any articles Rob has created or contributed to, but the one for which I made the most edits (over a hundred) happens to concern him greatly: [37]. As far as I can tell he has some kind of extensive dispute over the Smackdown vs. Raw games (which I happen to own by the way) and yet I stayed out of that. Well, if you're thinking in those terms, notice that I never once commented to or about him, but rather focused on the articles in question and even though I have extensive AfD participation, I deliberately avoided nearly forty just because he participated in them. The above is only part of something that has gone on since July of 2007. Yes, in many of Rob's AfD posts in 2008 they are indeed not in ones I was in; however, in those in which I did participate he ONLY commented on me and not on the article under discussion. By contrast I NEVER commented to or about him in any of those AfDs. We can reasonably avoid each other, because I have been able to avoid commenting about HIM. There is reason to demand that an editor not derail discussions by turning them into being about editors rather than content. There is reason to demand that an editor not try to use any means necessary to target a particular editor despite numerous warnings against doing so. My opinions on popular-culture inclusionism is no more or less controversial than the reverse of that argument and I am totally fine with anyone interested in debating the argument. Monitoring another user and making up lies about him and making hypocritical accusations against him over several months as Rob has done about me is illeigitimate. I have ever right to demand that I not be outright harassed, lied about, belittled, campaigned against via email and in IRC, etc. And the above was just this year's AfDs and AFTER all some of the warnings and those are just the AfDs. It began as simple disagreement in “popular culture” AfDs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to imps in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Behemoth in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Boy and his Dog films, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in Guitar Hero II, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Garden of Earthly Delights in popular culture (note: Dannycali was blocked as a JB196 sock), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles Police Department in media, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hell in entertainment and other popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to Grand Central Terminal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Carnival (ICP), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural impact of Star Wars, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grey's Anatomy in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NSA in fiction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal highway accidents in the Florida Keys, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters with posttraumatic stress disorder, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hardy Boys Original Titles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people youngest in their field, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Worms weapons, tools, crates and objects (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Destroy All Humans! series, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Seinfeld girlfriends, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinnok's amulet, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saabs in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parodies on South Park, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Futurama animals (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeb Bush, Jr. (third nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libby Folfax, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umbrella Biohazard Countermeasure Service, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sidekicks (2nd nomination), etc. all in which he posted after me) during which time he also typically left missives on my talk page (see [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], and [53]) to commenting about me in the AfDs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Tech in popular culture (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Television series considered the greatest ever (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balliol College in fiction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veni, Vidi, Vici in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional devices in Futurama, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Happy Meal toys (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mortal Kombat arenas, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Songs from The Legend of Zelda series (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programs in The Simpsons, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Star Wars Sith characters (2nd nomination), etc. So, he goes from simply being on the opposite sides of me in AfDs to having to comment to and about me, which I would be fine with it was not in some kind of “note to closing admin” nonsense. Plus, okay, so my arguing to keep a lot somehow makes me bad, but him only arguing to delete is okay? Notice in one of these diffs when I started increasing my delete arguments (he did not say by contrast start arguing to keep), he just dismissed it. So, even when I tried to take his advice, it’s somehow not good enough. But if it was just the above, whatever, but it included taking these disagreements to extreme dishonest assumptions of bad faith wherever he could as a means of gathering support against me or in the hopes of getting me in trouble: [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], etc. And for what it’s worth a large number of those who argued to delete in the various in popular culture debates (Eyrian, Burnrtsauce, Dannycali, et al) turned out to be sock accounts. At the same time that I’ve had to contend with Rob, I’ve also had to contend with various Eyrian and JB196 sock farms, which would be a whole new set of diffs. So, the combination of Rob and these others is just overwhelming me and discouraging me from wanting to volunteer my time to help a project that I’ve long believed in and on which I have by contrast met a larger number of respectable and nice editors. And as for the trying to get other users against me as the above suggests it is neither new on wiki, nor off. I have seen how some of these fixations and disputes have boiled over beyond on wikipedia (heck, even non-admin me has already been mentioned on Wikipedia Review a couple times now) and just given the intensity here and the willingness to coordinate these campaigns against me on and off-wiki as I have tried really hard to avoid the user in question, I just do not want this stuff to go beyond Wikipedia. And you know I have tried to respond to criticism in AfDs and have indeed done as some suggested and offered suggestions on the consensus building talk pages, which have in fact netted some positive results. Please look again to that greatest television AfD talk page how many times I tried some kind of friendly comment to Rob only to be rebuffed over and over. Look at how many AfDs he commented after me in above before and while he tried to claim absurdly that I was stalking him. It’s one thing if people want to make legitimate criticisms and you know, some of his suggestions were valid (for example, I had a number of “per x” keep rationales initially, but I since changed to try to have more extensive reasoning), but to agree with a comment another user made about “feeling sorry for my students”, i.e. a personal insult on my profession (I am a teacher and by the way due to my user page picture, some of my students know who I am here, so how nice when they see such comments and the same goes for my family who knows who I am due to the basset hound images). Since Thursday, I have had a combination of high blood pressure, an intense head cold, etc. and given some of my previous significant general health collapses, editing on something in which someone is just bent to oppose me and to get others to oppose me hardly helps. Again, I appreciate all the many nice editors with whom I have edited and I wish even those who have disagreed with me well, and I am not necessarily saying adieu forever, but I need to step back before someone’s animosity against me grows to a far more concerning level. I am willing to come back at some point as I am no quitter, although with health and other concerns it is time for a break, but such a potential future return is only if it is clear to me unquestionably that there will be nothing further against me from Rob. That if we ever participate in the same discussions we do not comment about each other (there's plenty of others who can disagree with us in any given discussion), as I have been able to do for months now. That he does not try to garner support from editors against me in IRC and elsewhere. That this persistence against me does not escalate any further. That this animosity against me because I more frequently argue to keep articles (even though I have nominated or argued to delete over two dozens articles this year alone) by someone whom I don't think I have ever seen argue to keep anything and against me from someone who chastises me for not notifying him of this ANI thread yet starts a Wikiquette alert on me without notifying me; that this hypocrisy stops. That he not worry about how I go about discussing with editors in AfDs or elsewhere any further. I created a userspace page on my AfD participation at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions and on the talk page, I invited honest and constructive feedback and advice from editors so that I can improve on my participation there. I even notified two editors about that page in the hopes that they will in fact provide me with advice, but by no means would I limit that offer for suggestions to just them. And those like Durova who have probably known me longest can see an evolution from admittedly just arguing to keep everything in rapid fashion and using the "keep per x" approach to trying to include some policy guideline or shortcut as well to also actively trying to find sources for and improve the articles under question and to more recently trying to approach the AfDs as interactive discussions (which I've noticied some do not seem to take kindly to, i.e. would rather it just be a vote or list of keeps and deletes) to also nominating articles for deletion myself. Moreover, while I have focused my deletes on hoaxes, I have also expanded to include original research (yes, I admit the per nom is a weak argument, however), as well as how to guides. How does Rob react? See here. Now if that came from someone who I've seen argue to keep a fair amount of articles, well, okay, but someone who practically if not never argues to keep is going to scold me and dismiss when I have tried to argue to delete more often? What good is it to change one's editing habits if he's going to still be hypocritically talked down to by someone unwilling to argue to keep articles? While I might not respond to "advice" given to me in a sarcastic manner, I do when it is presented in a friendly and constructive manner. If ever there's been AfD in which I have seemingly gone back and forth with others, well, it's a discussion and notice that I do not call people names or bring them to admin boards unless they turn out (as so many have) to be like socks of JB196 or Eyrian with whom I have also received all kinds of grief in many AfDs and elsewhere. We have thousands of editors, if anyone who is a good faith editor wishes to offer my constructive criticism, I set up a page for that. These constant threats and efforts of his to try to "get me" with Wikiquette alerts, ANI threads, or Requests for Comment defy belief. If my participation here is so horrible as he acts, then what, are all of these editors wrong? I may be firm in my convictions, but those who know me well and long enough know that I can be persuaded to change my stance in AfDs and RfAs when approached in a friendly and respectful manner. This authoritativeness that I have received from Rob is not how one convinces others of anything. In any event, if I can comment in discussions without commenting on him, there is absolutely no good reason given all the warnings he has received why he cannot refrain from commenting on me. This idea that he somehow can't resist commenting about me in AfDs or trying to get others to join him in Request for Comment efforts is mind-boggling. Look again at all forty-one of his AfDs since January that I resisted commenting about him in. It is not that hard and even in those that he said something about me, I resisted replying to his comment. Again, it is not that hard to ignore someone. If after ignoring and avoding him in these various discussions, he still cannot resist trying to garner support from others for a Wikiquette alert or Request for Comment on me or as he did last year multiple ANI threads just because he disagrees with me as an inclusionist, then I don't know what to think and I don't know how far he is willing to let this dispute go unless if firmer action is taken than the various warnings and attempts at mediation over the past several months. You know I could have taken all this that I posted here and just piled on in the Request for Comment against him, but I decided to just limit my particaption there to agreeing with some comments and just acknowledging what was referenced in regards to me. I was even outright asked by the iniator of that Request for Comment if I would start the Request for Comment against him and yet I turned down doing so. One would think I might have jumped on these opportunity, but tempting as it was, I really just did not want to escalate things further and in fact I hoped he would have picked up on that and realized, "You know, Le Grand Roi does not seem to be responding to my posts; he's not piling in the Request for Comment; maybe's it time I just leave him alone." But no such luck.

And to answer your question, no, this behavior, while perhaps having been "most" intense against me, there is evidence that he has done so towards others at various points as well. Please notice these warnings: [69] and [70] regarding one particular user and this request for comment regarding several others (please note that there was an earlier request for comment someone made against him which was deleted prior to the starting of the new one). Please also not that this warning by Chaser, Chaser cited bogus stalking accusations Rob made not just against me but also against at least one other editor and Chaser said a block would follow if it continued. I am trying to get over being sick and so once this discussion runs its course, I do plan to take some kind of break of indeterminate length and in part based on whatever happens here, but I've already received encouraging messages from others asking me to not outright leave and if it is in fact made clear that what has been indicated happened to me and to a lesser scale to others will be dealt with in such a manner that this dispute ends right here and now and any attempt to escalte it further will indeed be dealt with in a firm manner, then after things cool down and I recover, I may indeed return. I just want to be sure that any attempt to reignite this dispute on or off wiki will not be tolerated. Thank you for your time and consideration. Regarding the wikistalking aspect, he did say "As I know you will probably ignore this, I will be mentioning this in every AFD that has the essay used for keep," i.e. he seems aware that I am indeed avoiding/ignoring him, but outright declares he is in effect watching my edits and will in fact comment on them. What else do you call telling another user you have been asked to avoid multiple times that you plan to comment on his posts? And again, my concern includes discussions like User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Archive 7#About Deletion, which starts out as a civil and cordial attempt at understanding between Judgesurreal777 and me, which needlessly is jumped in on to become a critique on me. Are you sure you are "neutral" on this? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul series mystical weapons, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters in Call of Duty, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brawl Characters' Final Smashes, and Talk:Resident Evil 4#Merger_proposal. Are you sure it's a handulf or merely rude replies? He made scores of posts in AfDs and other discussions (see [71], [72], [73], etc.) after I did and generally in direct response to me and at the same time somehow tried to claim that I and others were stalking him. He didn't simply comment in AfDs, he commented on multiple users' talk pages to and about me, he started various Wikiquette alert and ANI threads on me (all of which went against him), because he didn't like my stance in "in popular culture articles" and when those failed he threatened to start new threads and again went on user talke pages to the point that someone warned him for venue shopping. He dismissed when I made a good faith effort to increase my arguing to delete in AfDs. He has attempted to stir support against me, not just from you, but also from others, in IRC, on talk pages, and by emails. I am a member of the Article Rescue Squadron, and RobJ1981 (as you are not an admin, you may not be able to see all these contribs) has removed my rescue tags to articles! Please see [74], [75], and [76] for examples. These articles are not ones that he nominated for deletion and I limit my use of the rescue tag to maybe one or two articles at most a day and only for articles that I also make an effort to improve. He has been cautioned about this behavior: [77], [78], [79], and [80]. Please also consider Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 3#List of fictional devices in Futurama. Please also see the Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics. The category is not exactly flooded and those that I did not myself tag, I also attempted to improve. I am a member of the popular culture wikiproject and he removed my listing of an article there (notice the name of the article): [81] and removes it a second time while assuming bad faith. For his interaction with another member of the project regarding those edits, see User talk:ErgoSum88#Comment. And as far as his comments to me go, see [82]. I gave a few reasons why I thought the article should be saved, but he fixates on one aspect of my remark. And again, I'm not the only one he has made accusations against: [83]. Nor am I the only one he has been asked or warned to leave alone: [84]. He says above, "it takes TWO to have a conflict." And yet as the hundred odd diffs show above, I keep avoiding and ignoring him, while ONLY him keeps commenting to and about me. He says, "Asking one editor isn't 'trying to canvass'," which would maybe be correct if it was again not a pattern going back into the fall when (if you search through enough of the diffs in this thread) he has indicated that he has tried to get a number of others prior to Randomran to start threads on me. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Le Grand, you are not innnocent. So why do you continue to act like the victim here? You twisted many of the things around on me. I talked with Ran on his talk page about you, that's the only case you are right about. The other cases you assume (collectarian and Judgesurreal's talk pages): I didn't mention your name once. Instantly assuming things isn't helping matters. It's clear you haven't avoided me either, the list of Ring of Honor events AFD (which I believe you explained with: "I'm part of the wrestling project") is one example. Project members aren't required to visit/post in AFDs of the project's scope. You could've had restraint there, but didn't. The fact you come here to harass me during a block, is also bad faith in my view. In response to McJeff's RFC link he provided, see this section: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RobJ1981#Findings. It was found that McJeff was a part of the problem. Remember: it takes two to have a conflict, and the evidence I provided at the RFC shows McJeff isn't innocent either. If he ignored more things, it would be a different story. But for the most part: McJeff harassed me, and egged me on to get a reaction out of me. Also, Le Grand's repost of ANI comments here isn't productive in my view. People can see the ANI post clearly, so there's no need to be redundant. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, Rob is defending himself by attacking the other editors rather than defending his own actions. It does NOT take two to edit war - it takes one to start it, but two to end it. Given the chance to end it, Rob has opted not to do so. I think the fact that his entire defense consists of attacks on the other users involved is particularly telling. McJeff (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

RobJ1981, you need to take that advice I gave you (after you were blocked) if you want to continue editing freely at Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Punishment for incivility, not stalking/harassment

I've seen that evidence. I took a closer look at it, see User_talk:RobJ1981#A_closer_look_at_the_evidence. The five worst comments I could find from Rob were:

1. Leave it be Le Grand" (in an edit summary)
2. "It's pretty clear Le Grand refuses to agree with game guide policies, so he chooses to think the policies don't exist. Which is disruptive, and not helpful to debates on video game weapon lists."
3. "Le Grand, why are you posting that Amazon link more than once? People can see the link once, it doesn't need to be posted in two replies.
4. "This is more proof Le Grand still doesn't understand the policies of Wikipedia."
5. "It's not required for people to just drop what they are doing (or working on) or whatever, just to improve an article in deletion. You don't need to criticize others just because they don't want to improve the same articles you want to. I don't think it's rude to not reply to every comment in AFDs. Not everyone has the time to go back to where they posted, and reply each and every time. Assume some good faith, instead of thinking people are bad because of minor things. "

Other than that, the evidence actually shows many many more incidents where the two of you had no contact, and several incidents where the two of you peacefully coexisted. Rob has problems with civility and accusing others of bad faith, but the evidence shows he generally leaves Le Grand alone. Most of these incidents were incivility between two editors in the same wikiproject, not any pattern of stalking or harassment. My only concern is that the punishment fits the crime. Randomran (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly outright ignoring the evidence posted above and you are not neutral in this dispute. Yes, I can participate in AfDs with him and NOT COMMENT ON HIM, as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ring of Honor events, which I would be fine with if that was what he did with me, however, as over a dozen diffs above show, in AFDs, on talk pages, etc. he does not simply participate in them, but comments specifically about me. The evidence shows that he has NOT left me alone after months of warnings to do so, i.e. an undeniable pattern of stalking or harassment. There is no other reasonable interpretation of this evidence. This dispute has to end here and now. It cannot go on any longer; it has to be clear that any more of these campaigns to venue shop against me to make participation in AfDs and other discussions not be about me, to stop removing my rescue templates, to stop removing when I listed something in a project etc. I don't go about reverting him. If it is made undeiably clear that there will be no more of this from Rob against me, then I also agree that as I have in fact done, I will continue to refrain from commenting to or about him when and if I return. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop yelling. I've posted every reply from Rob to you above. A few are rude, but many more are just strong disagreement or merely two paths crossing. You yourself posted numerous situations where your paths did not cross. This isn't stalking. Randomran (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Randomran, we are talking about something that has gone on since July 2007 and that other admins at various points so fit to warn him about. You posted a couple of his replies to me; in the evidence I presented, there are dozens and not just in AfDs. You are not acknowledging the removal of rescue templates, the times that he was warned to leave other users alone as well, the removal of the article on the wikiproject, the multiple bad faith venue shopping at administrator threads against me, alleging that I and others were stalking him when he has had just as many posts or more after us in AfDs, etc. You cite above only a few items out of scores of diffs and only focus on one aspect of the problematic behavior. All I want is to be sure that if I ever do actually come back to Wikipedia once I get over these health issues, that whatever dispute he has with me stops once and for all and it is clear that it will no longer be tolerated. I don't care if he comments in the same AfDs as me as long as he comments on the article and not about me, just as I do not comment about him. It is unacceptable for one account to just keep trying to get me in trouble by asking for help from Otto4711, you, and others, by starting various ANI and Wikiquette threads, etc., just because he disagrees with me. It is not acceptable for someone who never argues to keep articles to come down on me, who has argued and even nominated to delete, for not arguing to delete more. This hypocrisy and aggression and again, it has not just been against me but against others as well, and he can say, "it takes two to make a conflict" as much as he wants, but again even when he has made these comments to me, I have still outright resisted replying to them. Sincreley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that he had civility problems in 2007, which he was warned about. And he's continued to have civility problems, albeit not as severe in 2008. However, there is far too much evidence where you have peacefully coexisted or totally avoided each other to consider this stalking. And the times where your paths have crossed, those were the five rudest things he said to you. You've done a lot of editorializing between that evidence, but it doesn't lay out the case for stalking. Randomran (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The evidence overwhelmingly lays out a case for stalking or harassment; there is evidence of me peacefully coexisting with him, but not the other way around. You don't see agreeing with a personal attack as a problem? Or outright admitting he will watch my posts and comment on them as de facto admission? You don't think it odd that he has not merely been warned in this fashion regarding behavior against other users as well (See [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], etc.)? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent the facts. He never said he was watching you, he said he was watching the essay wikipedia:give an article a chance. Besides, those are all problems from 2007. The incivility towards you has been noticeably reduced since then, aside from 5 rough AFD comments between two people with nearly 200 AFD edits between them in 2008 alone. A punishment should look at those 5 comments, but also look at the larger pattern of coexistence or avoidance. Randomran (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read the facts. Exactly it is from 2007; this dispute has been going on for that long. They are problems that have continued to this year. Whether or not you think the incivility of 2008 is minor is that it follows on a series of administrator warnings, even one from Chaser with a block caveat included, that he outright stop doing that altogether. The problem is that the warnings and cautions have not worked so far. Anyway, all I want in order for me to stay on Wikipedia is for it be clear that any further escalation by Rob on or off-wiki will not be tolerated:

• 1. We do not comment to or about each other anywhere on Wikipedia ever again after these discussions here conclude. If he comments to or about me ever again, an admin may block him.
• 2. Which means we can participate in the same discussions, but NOT immediately after each other and we cannot comment to or about each other in such discussions. Any comments in the same discussions must be on the content of the discussion and cannot have a snide "Le Grand refuses to..."-esque remark included. At the same time, however, we are encouraged to avoid discussions in which the other participated as much as possible, but the key is the discussions remain about the topic at hand and not about each other. And we do not post immediately after each other in them.
• 3. He does not conspire with other users against me on talk pages, on IRC, or via email. He is in effect forbidden to start Wikiquette alerts, Requests for Comments, and ANI threads about my interactions with other users that do not even involve him. If I do anything questionable, which I have no intention of doing anyway, there are plenty of other admins and editors who can let me know. It is not up to him to be the one to do so. Similarly, if he does get into disputes with others, I will resist from commenting in them, even if say another ANI thread or Request for Comment starts on him. If it does not involve me, I will stay out.
• 4. He does not nominate articles for deletion that I have either worked on extensively or was the last editor to work on prior to nomination (such as the AndyJonesTriceratops page) nor does he try to have articles merged for which I was a major contributor (such as the Weapons of Resident Evil 4 article that I took photographs for and edited over 100 times). You obviously do not need to worry about inclusionist me trying to have any articles he created (I don't know if he has done so?) deleted or merged. And as even with most that I am interested in, such as the Smackdown vs. Raw ones, I'll continue to stay away from those discussions about the rosters being prose or lists.
• 5. He does not remove rescue templates I place on articles. Again, if any of them are questionable, leave it to someone else to check. If he does so, he may be blocked.
• 6. He does not remove listings I place of AfDs in relevant wikiprojects. If I am incorrect, someone else can remove it. If he does so, he may be blocked.

The bottom line is that this dispute not go beyond these discussions today. I am willing to coesist with someone so long as I know that they will not allow whatever dislike they have of me to spiral out of control and in effect distract any further from what should be a civil colloborative venture. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• You said yourself that you have participated in 100+ AFD discussions in 2008 and that Rob has participated in at least 40. From that, you've pointed out about 15 incidents where your paths have crossed, and only 5 have been remotely rude. Punish him for the incivility, and yes, be mindful that he has already been warned for that. But 5 rude comments in 5 months with nearly 200 AFDs between the two of you does not constitute stalking. Randomran (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The span of behavior from July 2007 through the present does. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The evidence shows a change in behavior after the 2007 warnings. In 2008, Rob has been incivil, but nothing more than that.Randomran (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      • He still reverted me in 2008, he still nominated an article I was last to edit for deletion, he still canvassed others to start admin threads on me, he still tried to get the article I edited most merged, etc. Not much of a change and especially given the prior warnings, there should have been NONE of that at all anyway. The bottom line is he disengages from me altogether is the only acceptable solution here. He does NOT continue lying about me overusing the rescue template (how many dozens of AfDs have I argued to keep that it was used for?). He does NOT report me to admins for anything that does not directly involve him. Period. After today. He never comments to or about me anywhere ever again. No exceptions. And I will of course do the same with regards to him. It has to be total disengagment for this situation to end. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The few encounters you've had in 2008 are incidental to the wikiprojects/interests you both share, not stalking. Reverting or deleting an article is usually done in good faith. I agree with you that the punishment should focus on disengagement. My only point is that a month-long block is undue for what amounts to a few civility problems, an incomplete effort to heed multiple warnings. You guys have actually done a pretty good job avoiding each other, and I think the last 5 or so incidents are totally correctable. But the punishment must be appropriate. Randomran (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
          • The block was for the long-term problem for which warnings did not seem to accomplish much and for what is more than juts a few civility problems. Again, whereas I have avoided commenting on him in all of those AfD and project page discussions in this year, most of the AfDs and project talk pages on which we both commented somehow entailed him commenting on me more than anything else. Given the long-term nature of the dispute, that has to stop. The fact that he had been warned about the behavior regarding other users as well augments the problem with exhibiting it against me. How long he is blocked does not matter to me. I am not vengeful, but I do want to be sure that as the blocking admin indicated, I do not have to worry about someone being obsessed with my editing here. That they completely ignore and avoid everything I do. We have thousands of eidtors and admins who can set me straight on any given issue if necessary. It is not any one user's job to do so. The best way to be sure that this issue is resolved definitively today is that it is unambiguously clear that after today neither of us comment about each other anywhere anytime, which includes not having to tell admins about rescue templates or other matters not relevant to each other. It has to be clear that violations are blockable, because obviously the mere warnings were insufficient. I hope that after all is said and done, we all can indeed help build our project without worrying about what each other is doing. It has been extremely dispiriting having to post all these antagonistic differencs made against me, if not honestly somewhat humiliating, and doing so while I'm sick on top of it. All I ask is that someone who has had issues with me for nearly a year, once and for all just walks away from me and focuses on other things. If it means we don't even participate in the same discussions as each other at all, fine. Randomran, you and I have obviously said how we interpret the situation and we both obviously feel strongly about it. I am not sure that we are getting anywhere here and I think it may be time to avoiding going in circles and allow a neutral admin to review the evidence for his or herself and decide a fair solution that will indeed resolve the dispute satisfactorily. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Putting all those "if Rob does this, he gets blocked again" is a bit over the edge in my view. Also, Le Grand... stop saying "off wiki". Discussing things off Wikipedia isn't a crime, so stop acting like it is. Wikipedia talk can happen off Wikipedia. I will agree to the following things:

• 1: Le Grand does NOT post where I post (the same discussions of a project talk page, user talk pages, AFD/other deletion debates, and everything else). If I posted first, then he respects it and doesn't post there. If he posted first, I respect it and don't post. (This is related to the Ring of Honor AFD, which Le Grand showed no restraint at...and had to comment in after I did. He justified this by saying he was a member of the wrestling project, but that doesn't make it alright. Project members aren't required to comment in relevant AFDs all the time.)
• 2: I wont nominate things Le Grand has worked a lot on recently. However, if it's something he edited a few times (many months ago or longer), then it's fair for me to put it in deletion.
• 3: I wont revert Le Grand's edits.
• 4: If I see the rescue tag being overused (again), I will be reporting it to admins. It should be used properly, and not just placed on nearly every AFD article you comment in.RobJ1981 (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Being mindful of the 5 terse comments in 5 months and two administrative complaints he filed, the two of you have obviously disengaged in 2008. This becomes more apparent when you look at the ~200 AFDs in 2008 where your paths don't cross and the dozen where the two of you peacefully disagreed. A month-long block seems unnecessary to scrub out the last few incidents. A shorter punitive block makes sense, but so does a policy of total disengagement. As far as I know, Rob has not been punished before. Only warned. We should see if he responds to a shorter or more focused punishment before trying a much harsh/broad block. Randomran (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, totally. A month long block is absurd. -- Ned Scott 00:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not absurd, considering this user has a years-long history of incivility of all kinds, and considering he has directly ignored orders from four different administrators to disengage. Excessive, maybe, but not 'absurd' in the slightest. McJeff (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't even speak of incivility McJeff, the RFC outside view proved you were to blame as well. I know you wont admit it, but the diffs show it clearly. You aren't a perfect editor, so you probably shouldn't even posting in the discussions. Your view is clear, you want me punished no matter what (ever since the RFC). That is a poor attitude to have. Anyway, I agree to let go of the rescue tag issue, but the rest I stand by.

Going forward

Rob,

In the User:RobJ1981#What I think section above, you ask Randomran, who appears to be your staunchest supporter here, what he thinks of RfCing GRC, and his response can be summarised as "I'd like to, but GRC hasn't actually violated any policies - the only thing he has done wrong is peddle an opinion that we think is a load of rubbish." Looking at your Wikiquette complaint, you give two examples of his "poor attitude", and I could see nothing wrong with his attitude or behaviour in either. You complain about his citation of the Don't Destroy essay: "He acts as if it's something people must follow", but all I could find was GRC saying "Keep per User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy", which is simply GRC justifying his keep vote by endorsing that essay. "He also pushes his own point-of-view as fact that everyone should follow"; in fact most people on this planet are guilty of this, GRC possibly less so than many. All in all, I am yet to observe any problem with GRC's behaviour, anywhere, at any time. In my assessment, we aren't going to get anywhere here if you can't get your head around that. Therefore, if you want to dig yourself out of this hole, your first step would be to understand and acknowledge that GRC hasn't been doing anything wrong this last year, and is entitled to continue doing the same thing going forward.

Hesperian 07:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So you want me to lie and say Le Grand, did nothing wrong? I think you should look through more of his AFD comments. Many times, he lists the Don't Destroy essay, with Wikipedia policies. Lumping those together with no clarification on what is what, isn't the correct thing to do. I'm sure many people do click the essay and see it's opinion, but there is others that just assume it's policy due to it being listed with a bunch of other policies. I'm not an expert on the unblock policy, but I don't think this is part of it. I see this: Therefore, if you want to dig yourself out of this hole, your first step would be to understand and acknowledge that GRC hasn't been doing anything wrong this last year as very disrespectful to my views, in general: an admin shouldn't be posting like that, period. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Rob, I've probably been the most sympathetic of all outside commenters on your issue, but on this point I must agree with Hesperian. Your reaction to those essay links was really out of line. Linking to an essay as documenting an opinion is a totally normal thing to do, and your stereotyped objections tacked on to them really did look like harassment. Things would be much easier for anybody if you'd agree to stop that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I wont react that way to essays anymore. I'm fine with sanctions and so on, as Fut. Perf suggested on ANI. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm am not comfortable with the proposed sanctions. The root cause of all this is that you seem unwilling or unable to distinguish between someone expressing an opinion you don't like, and someone behaving inappropriately. Your numerous messages on his talk page, your almost-stalking reactions to his XfD votes, your AN/I report, your Wikiquette report, your attempt at an RfC — all of it comes down to you seeing benign behaviour as malignant, and feeling that you must act to put a stop to it. This is the issue we need to address here, in order for us to move forward. The sanctions don't do that. In fact, the sanctions just give you another grudge to hold.

No, I am not asking you to say that Le Grand did nothing wrong; I have been around long enough now to know that few people could take such a bitter pill. But I would feel much better about letting you loose on Wikipedia again, if you could acknowledge that you have gotten a bee in your bonnet over Le Grand this last year, and have gotten in the habit of greatly over-reacting to his comments.

Hesperian 12:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There are 2 things needed from you Rob; first is acknowledging the issue(s) with your conduct, and second is making an assurance of what you will do so that these issues do not arise again (if you were to be unblocked). Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That would make sense. Like several others who've commented, I've found dealing with GRC's views very irritating. That being said, I've never seen him in any of our debates to be uncivil, and I'm unsure why it's so hard to avoid launching personal attacks against him, the more so in the face of an admonition not to do so. I am quite capable (for example) of registering my opinion on any AfD debate without going head to head with any other editor. I agree with Ncmvocalist; the issue at hand is not whether Rob cares for LGC's views or not ... heck, I don't. It's whether he intends to follow Wikipedia civility rules.  RGTraynor  14:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree with Future Perfect. I wish no ill will on either of the parties, despite the fact that Rob contacted me to register a formal complaint against Le Grand. My only concern is that the one month block is disproportional and unjust, because it was intended to target "wikistalking" which I think has been thoroughly disproven. Rob avoids Le Grand most of the time, but half of the time that their paths cross he has a hard time being civil. I think the first step is admitting that you haven't been civil, and the second step is admitting that the other party may irritate you but hasn't done anything wrong. Expressing an opinion over and over, no matter how mistaken or extreme, is an action in good faith. Randomran (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I admit I acted rudely, and I was frustrated with the repetitive comments I saw in numerous deletion debates. I wont go to deletion debates Le Grand has commented in, and I'll avoid ones he's created as well. Le Grand has apparently agree to the same: see the end of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RobJ1981_requesting_unblock. As long as both of us keep the agreement, this issue should be over. If I have issues with any other editors, I will report to an admin or the proper notice board, when needed (otherwise just revert as I've done with vandalism in the past). In reference to content disputes: those I will ask admins about. If it's just an editor adding nonsense to an article: that I don't need to ask an admin about obviously. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes. I hope things move forward well for both of you. Durova^Charge! 20:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If I have issues with any other other editors, I will report to an admin or the proper notice board, when needed (otherwise just revert as I've done with vandalism in the past). That phrase makes me uneasy - it sounds as though you're threatening to edit war if you don't think admin intervention is necessary. Since the issues are with your civility, maybe the best bet would be for you to agree to disengage in the event of a content dispute and ask an admin's advice on how to proceed, or to apply for mentorship and ask him/her. McJeff (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My comment above, was in reference to actual vandalism (which I have reverted plenty of times: nonsense, hoax, page blanking, etc). I don't think it's proper to simply go to an admin and ask if it's vandalism each and everytime. Such strict restrictions are a bit over the edge in my view. Look through my edit history, there is a great deal of vandalism reverting, tagging of nonsense pages (with the speedy delete tag) and so on. So next time, assume good faith instead of assuming "Rob's just going to edit war", when that wasn't what I meant in that comment. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That explanation more than satisfies me, although I wish you wouldn't assume an honest concern on my part to be bad faith. McJeff (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• OK RobJ1981, but you need to understand that the block was (therefore) not unjust here. If you can change your reason(s) for wanting to be unblocked in the template and also restate what you've said above, then I will support an unblock too. Best wishes - Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, I don't think the block is unjust. But this month long thing is too severe for a first punishment. I'm not saying lift the block right away. But just keep in mind this is to teach someone a lesson about civility and civil disagreement. Randomran (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't think you are yet familiar or understand the nature of blocks, so I'll explain so you are clear about it here. With the exception of Fut.Perf., the other 2 admins reviewing this thought a month was appropriate - and I agreed. At that point, a variant of civility parole (suggested by Durova) would be ineffective because he was told numerous times before, during, and after the RFC, that too by several uninvolved users. At the RFC alone I clearly stipulated several things, including the fact that unseemly conduct is prohibited, and continuing to engage in that conduct may lead to blocks or an arb case. It wasn't effective. Even after I drew the line a few days ago saying any further instances after this, and then admin intervention should be sought, it had still not stopped (which is why all of us were at ANI).
  • The conduct of the party (comprising of a few editors) filing the RFC was not perfect at the time, and they certainly did not want to stay away from the concerned articles - but they held up their side, however reluctantly - because any other option would involve blocking and/or sanctions - considering it's very avoidable, this isn't an option they wanted.
  • Rob didn't hold up his side, which has a damaging effect for Wikipedia, with or without a strike in his block log. A block was issued to prevent him from any (further) misconduct and damage. NOTE: blocks are preventive, they are not as punishment. The whole point of going through the other appropriate forums is to avoid any blocks (including short term blocks) by stopping with the misconduct at the request of third parties - it had come to a point that there was not enough certainty it would stop even after a short block (given that during the long term, it had not sunk in even with all the very clear advice, recommendations, warnings etc. from others). The duration of the block was set to a month so that the message sunk in this time, hopefully quite deep so that there is no repeat in the future. It's way past education and warnings stage - to be plain; it's enforced as being strictly prohibited. Do you understand? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I do. My concern all along was that the month-long block was proposed as a punishment for wikistalking, and when that was thoroughly debunked -- even conceded by the administrator who proposed this punishment -- the punishment did not change. My concern was that the punishment should fit the crime, and that if the crime was a failure to heed admin warnings about civility then the punishment should be shorter. The only other thing that makes sense, if I read you correctly, is that blocks aren't always carried out to the very last day. Sometimes a long-term block is put there knowing full well that if the offending party shows understanding of what they did wrong and how to prevent further problems, then the block will sometimes be lifted sooner. Randomran (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocks aren't intended or enforced as punishment - they're intended and enforced to prevent users from engaging in disruptive or unseemly conduct, that adversely affects either the encyclopedia, or its other users. Where long term misconduct does not stop after sufficient education and warnings (in this case, it was more than sufficient), long term prevention is applied. Sometimes, misconduct might be serious enough to carry lengthy blocks, whether it's several months, a year, or indefinite. And yes, you've mostly understood correctly for the second half of your reply - (but failing to live up to an assurance of not engaging in that misconduct will result in future sanctions/blocks, or if it still doesn't stop after these, the community may enforce a ban). Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

So basically I misunderstood the purpose of a long-term block all along. I should have saved my breath :) I think that makes sense. Randomran (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As per the renewed unblock request and the promise to stay away from Le Grand, and given the fact that the length of the original one-month block had little consensus in the first place, I have now unblocked. The exact details of any restrictions Rob should impose on his editing in the contentious area may still need to be finalised; I trust Rob will tread double carefully until that has been done and will listen to further community input. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

IPC article PRODs

I agree that most of these articles are on non-notable subjects (seriously, Sonic weaponry in popular culture?). However, some of the articles have content worth merging, such as Nineteen Eighty-Four in popular media, which has a whole bunch of information about film and television adaptations. 11 prods at once is perhaps a bit much tho, and I will probably contest some of them. Since I am in favour of merging in many of these cases, I would prefer to avoid AfDs and resolve this issue with you. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 21:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Since they will all obviously be contested--all deletions of IPC articles are, Prod is inappropriate. I am therefore removing most or all of the prods, the ones that other people did not get to first. . This is irrespective of whether they are actually good or bad--weeding out the bad ones is for afd and consensus. Prod is only for deletions that you reasonably believe are not going to be contested. If you really want to challenge them, please bring them up one or two at a time at AfD. Remember, please, that bringing many at once there might have the effect of making it more difficult to have a proper defense, and doing that might not be a good idea--surely you do want to have a proper discussion on them? Myself, I will probably not defend them all, a few may be hopeless. Why not try limiting yourself to the very worst? It's more likely to get results you want. DGG (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Spore CC leak

The leak is not relevent to the Spore (video game) page. It's been moved to Development of Spore, which deals with that sort of history. JAF1970 (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Of Mice and Men in popular culture

Please look at the growing evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay

I understand but to give my rebuttable. The guy I was talking to was a IP. Who was vandalizing. I felt it was okay since you're suppose to be nice to Users. Not IPs. From what I know I am.--WillC 20:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment to JAF on Spore Talk page

Hi Rob, I've moved the comment you made on the Spore talk page to JAFs talk page as it was a comment at him personally, and not about the article. Regards --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 18:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Marvel Video Game-releated

I'd know, but IMDb hasn't got a page on Spider-Man: Web of Shadows yet. It's cast will be revealed at Comic Con. As for the clip of the Scorpion Boss Fight in MUA, doesn't Scorpion sound like Beau Weaver! Rtkat3 (talk) 2:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying it might be Beau Weaver in that clip. Rtkat3 (talk) 2:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2008 Newsletter

The June 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

List of ROH events...

...is back at AfD. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Whoa, I didn' event know I wrote it like that, I had my CAPS lock on by accident, my bad.--SRX^--LatinoHeat 04:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD of List of Wii Games (North America) in the past

Hey Rob! I see you were sticking to my plan about putting the List of Wii games into regional articles. Thanks bud. (I also like your attitude, its much better). =) Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Archives

Hey, I got both your messages! Thanks for explaining the last message out. Could you deactivate those pages?

How do you create archive 2 on my talk page? Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me out! Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Swing by my Talk page

We might be doing a request for comments on Le Grand Roi and me potentially. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Could I ask what prompted you to revert me on a page I don't believe you've ever edited before and without any form of discussion to go with that revert? Hobit (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, trying again. What I was curious about is how you _found_ the page. Were you watching it for some reason or did someone ask you to look at it? Hobit (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, the timing was just odd. I didn't assume, that's why I asked. Hobit (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.

Just to notify you about this: User talk:SLJCOAAATR_1#About_your_reversal_of_my_change From the section above I gather this might be something you should know/be aware of. --DanielPharos (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if this seems rude...

...But please...do not post blatant lies on my talk page ever again. CBFan (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a huge misunderstanding

I am not pretending to SLJ but, that whole thing about "let's prove AMiB wrong" project is a misunderstanding. I see it as what the articles would have been like if they weren't merged and if some of the information wan't deleted. Not a bash. Unknown the Hedgehog 21:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) Rob, to your reply on Unknown's talk. I will admit that there were a FEW things that weren't needed on a FEW articles but, plently of fine info was removed. Wait, hold on. Would it be ok if you, and I email about this, instead? Here: [email protected] Email me when you get a chance, and we shall discuss what should, and shouldn't go. Instead of me having my friends speak up for me... Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 21:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The last message was sent by me (made on his talk page), so don't get SLJ in trouble. Unknown the Hedgehog 21:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)