Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence

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

Comments by Tothwolf

Response to Theserialcomma

Misquotes

The quote of "Tothwolf: ... you publically admitted to stalking me" is not what I said in this diff. [1] The correct quote is: "I wondered how long it would take you to show up here, Miami33139, since you already publicly admitted to stalking my contribs and following me around to XfD. ..." I stand by that statement and I don't think anyone reasonable would disagree with that assessment given the diffs I linked to above.

The quote of "Tothwolf to Blaxthos: "wp:duck take your ranting and threats to your own talk page" is not accurate either. [2] The edit summary was: "WP:DUCK; Please take the ranting and threats to your own talk page, thanks."

As for this comment on the Mibbit AfD [3] the nom was indef blocked soon after for AfD disruption. See this discussion on AN/I [4] and the block log. [5] This strange RFA !vote [6] led to this discussion [7] and the filing of a SPI report. [8]

The Mibbit AfD itself [9] ended up as a pretty much unanimous keep after I rewrote and expanded the article (and then took it to DYK) just to prove to a number of people that it could be rescued at AfD (I was told it was a "hopeless" case). This is a good example of the work that I much prefer to do with regards to IRC-related articles when I'm not being wikihounded and harassed.

COI & Eggdrop

As I've already stated multiple times, including above, I've contributed to Eggdrop. As you've pointed out, I've also written some scripts for Eggdrop. Neither of those mean I have a conflict of interest with either the Eggdrop article or the topic of IRC as a whole (both of which you've continued to claim).

I think SarekOfVulcan probably said it best when replying to Will Beback in the COI/N discussion which you initiated [10] while on the topic of the COI guideline "No, it strongly discourages editing to "promote your own interests". Writing about what you know isn't automatically a conflict." [11] "And, in a nutshell: "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount."(emphasis mine) If Tothwolf can confidently make that assertion, there's no issue here." [12]

I will continue to stand by my claim that there is no conflict of interest and that my focus here on Wikipedia has been and continues to be to improve Wikipedia. I have no interests in using Wikipedia to promote Eggdrop or any other projects which I've contributed to. Quite frankly, none of those projects even need any sort of outside promotion and as a simple Google search clearly shows, [13] the meager Wikipedia article isn't even the top search result and doesn't really even get that many daily hits [14] either.

I certainly have done some prior work to the Eggdrop article (and added a lot of references) but as far as I'm aware, everything there is accurate. The very first message anyone left on my talk page was from someone who thought I was doing a great job [15] improving the article. I'll also point out that no one other than Theserialcomma has claimed that I have an actual conflict of interest with Eggdrop, nor has anyone said that the article was biased or factually wrong (and if it is, then I certainly want to know so we can fix it).

While I would like to improve the article further, as seen in the article history, [16] I've not touched it since Theserialcomma initiated that COI/N discussion back in May. During that COI/N I said "... I have no intentions of edit warring with someone who wishes to cause disruption, so I'm not going to touch this particular article until after the issue of Theserialcomma's disruption is dealt with..." [17] It also shows that no edit warring actually took place (which directly contradicts Theserialcomma's claims that I edit warred on that article).

The reference Theserialcomma so strongly objected to was [18] but as another editor pointed out on the talk page, that particular page could be linked statically [19] via a slightly different url. (full discussion) Luna Santin actually invoked WP:NOTDIR [20] as the reason for removing the material from the article [21] which by in large I happen to agree with. The way in which that specific material was presented wasn't the best although I think some of the material probably could be presented in a different fashion which might be much more encyclopedic.

Misrepresentations

The way in which links regarding Mikaey, Yworo, the past AN/I discussion, and even Blaxthos are being presented is misrepresenting, very much distorted, and seems to be an attempt to paint a very different picture from actual events. While I really don't feel that this is all that relevant to Theserialcomma's wikihounding of myself and others, since Theserialcomma brought it up, I feel it would probably be best to directly address these anyway to get the events right.

This particular sequence of events began on July 20, 2009 where I happened upon what turned into an edit war involving a number of editors regarding an image used in the Linux article. The first removal was by Fasach Nua [22] which at the time to me appeared to be a good faith removal due to confusion over the image's license template and I restored the image about an hour later. [23] Six hours later, Yworo reverted me with the reason "there seems to be a consensus that this doesn't belong here; take to talk" [24] which I still find odd because there was no prior discussion or consensus to remove the image. It was restored by 85.240.125.85 47 minutes later with the edit summary "no, there is no "consensus that this doesn't belong here", and controversial removals of content need consensus first. This is quite relevant". [25] Yworo then removed the image again about a half hour later [26] saying "take to talk". At this point I reverted Yworo [27] and I added a warning template to Yworo's talk page [28] as it appeared to be just more disruptive vandalism from a new account that the article had been receiving quite a bit of during this time period. Yworo immediately removed the warning from their talk page [29] and then made this sequence of edits to the Linux article. [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] About 4 and a half hours later, Fasach Nua again removed the image with no edit summary [35] and it was restored again about a half hour later by 85.241.105.44 [36] with the edit summary "please discuss before removing content". Yworo reverted minutes later [37] "go ahead, take it to talk (and please create an accound first so people can communicate with you on your talk page)" 85.241.105.44 immediately added the image back again [38] which was again reverted by Fasach Nua. [39]

On July 21st, 85.240.105.138 started this discussion [40] on Talk:Linux which resulted in discussion over the course of the next few days, although a consensus was never reached regarding the image.

During the discussion I made a comment regarding similar controversial image removals from other articles by Fasach Nua [41] (which I saw in their contribution history) and I also pointed out where Yworo had been making massive numbers of what appeared to be automated edits to other articles. Yworo took offense to that [42] and it ultimately turned into these two discussions with Yworo [43] [44] on my talk page. Things further degenerated after Yworo began removing two images (including the one previously on the Linux article) from other articles and adding deletion templates to the images. [45] [46]

During these issues with Yworo, I contacted Mikaey (off-wiki in an attempt to minimise further drama with Yworo) and asked him for advice on how best to deal with this situation. Ultimately, although not a suggestion from Mikaey, I ended up cropping the backgrounds and toolbars from the images to stop the argument, and restored the images to some of the articles (not Linux, since there was no consensus there) and tried to walk away from the situation. Yworo did not stop and was eventually warned by another editor [47] to stop removing the images from articles. Yworo would not let it go though and followed me to this AfD. [48] Three days later, they started this discussion on Mikaey's talk page [49] in which they claimed I was trolling, after I made this reply [50] when they were again edit warring with another editor.

On August 2nd, Yworo followed me to a heated discussion on Talk:Shell account which was completely unrelated to anything Yworo and I had discussed. Yworo then attempted to fan the already heated debate [51] by making a personal attack towards me. MuZemike started an AN/I discussion [52] when things continued to escalate. As best I can tell, I've had no further interaction with Yworo since that AN/I discussion.

As Theserialcomma had previously done before (and has done since), they then made a false statement in that AN/I discussion in an attempt to cause additional drama. [53]

Towards the end of that discussion, Mikaey created User:Mikaey/Tothwolf which I discussed with him extensively off-wiki because I felt it contained bias and contains factual errors. I asked him several times to {{NOINDEX}} the page so Google wouldn't pick it up, but he refused. I finally posted a message on-wiki indicating the issues and again asked that he {{NOINDEX}} the page. [54]

Since then, Theserialcomma has attempted to create issues between Mikaey and myself anytime I initiated an AN/I discussion (see above) and became fixated on that deleted subpage [55] [56] (also see above). Unfortunately this has ultimately has led to Mikaey and myself not really speaking with each other anymore, which is really a shame since I rather enjoyed talking with him and he tended to give very good advice.

As for the issues on Talk:Shell account, Hm2k initiated an AfD for the article when the RFC discussion didn't result in the outcome he desired [57] although it ultimately resulted in a snow keep and a much improved article. [58] Hm2k and I later settled our differences on Talk:EFnet#NickServ. Although at first the discussion was somewhat strained, we have since worked together on other articles and have both continued to work towards improving many of these articles.

In hindsight, I think the issues with Yworo and the Linux images as well as Hm2k and Shell account went clearly into WP:LAME territory and with the experience gained in dealing with both of those difficult situations, it is unlikely that they would be repeated today. Now I would probably just let Yworo have their way and allow the Linux images to be deleted, which while probably not the ideal solution, would cause less drama. With Shell account, it might have been easier to just let Hm2k remove the links, which was never resolved anyway due to the AfD nomination of the article which disrupted the RFC.

As for Blaxthos, as I stated in the reply to Blaxthos in my RFAR statement, I've had very little interaction with Blaxthos and the only interaction has been on-wiki. The only interaction I could find during an exhaustive search was an AfD he initiated for List of quote databases [59] and a related AN/I discussion which Blaxthos also initiated. [60] As I stated in both my reply to Blaxthos and in that AN/I discussion, I have nothing to do with any of his bash.org troubles nor do I have any connections with other quote database sites.

In that very AN/I discussion, Theserialcomma (yet again) attacked me with more false accusations of COI and canvassing. [61] [62] I'll also point out that contrary to Theserialcomma's second statement, I didn't then, nor do I now have access to the Wikipedia administrators' IRC channel (see WP:WEA).

Additional misquoting and misrepresentation

At this point I am going to formally ask that Theserialcomma refrain from further "quoting" me while calling it "paraphrased and summarized" as these are clearly misquotes and I cannot see such misrepresentations of what was actually said as being beneficial in any way to this process.

The quote of "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""" is not even remotely similar to what was actually said. [63]
The actual quote (in full) is: "JBsupreme, given the disruption you and Miami33139 willfully created as a group (and appeared to be enjoying whilst doing so) that was extremely well documented on AN/I (to the point where it required its own subpage), your continued false assertions are unlikely to do you any good at all here. You and Miami33139 may have thought you would mass-AfD articles to "get back at Tothwolf for getting other articles kept at AfD etc" but the only thing you managed to accomplish is to upset lots of other community members and bring the spotlight upon yourselves." I stand by that statement and I don't think anyone reasonable would disagree with that assessment given the diffs I linked to above.

TenPoundHammer and I had a simple misunderstanding (and we occasionally {{trout}} one another). [64] Theserialcomma also knows very well that TenPoundHammer and I resolved our misunderstanding as TenPoundHammer left a comment directly on Theserialcomma's talk page. [65]

--Tothwolf (talk) 10:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC) (last edited 18:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

Response to Joe Chill

While I was familiar with Joe Chill's former account name (his edit and behavioural patterns were nearly identical), I did not, nor would I have disclosed Joe Chill's former username. He disclosed it himself [66] and I still think it was rather unnecessary for him to do so. Joe Chill himself admitted [67] that other members of the community had also voiced a number of concerns over his editing and AfD behaviours in relation to his past username.

In our discussions on the Leafpad AfD [68] and the related AN/I discussion Joe Chill initiated [69] I did not refer to him as a "meatpuppet".

Miami33139 had made attempts to stir things up further with both Joe Chill and JBsupreme. [70] [71]

The AfD discussions Joe Chill participated in were not strictly related to IRC-topics and the fact that the pattern seemed to follow across a wide variety of topics is what caused concern. The AfDs linked in the table above make this very clear. See also [72]

When I initiated an AN/I discussion regarding Miami33139 and JBsupreme's continuing wikihounding and harassment [73] I did raise the question of possible off-wiki communication and meatpuppetry. I did not accuse Joe Chill of being a "meatpuppet", I only stated that I had concerns over possible meatpuppetry which I felt was in need of scrutiny by the larger community.

Joe Chill's actions were also questioned by others in this AN/I discussion, including Uncle G. [74] [75]

During the lengthy discussion with Joe Chill on AN/I I acknowledged that my concerns over possible meatpuppetry with regards to Joe Chill may have been in error. [76] We then took the discussion to his talk page where Joe Chill and I resolved our misunderstanding. [77] I then posted a followup note on both the AN/I discussion and Leafpad AfD indicating this. [78] [79]

--Tothwolf (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Mikaey

My interaction with Mikaey predates him becoming an administrator, [80] both on-wiki and off-wiki, and not once did I ask him as an administrator to handle any issues relating to Yworo or other editors. Mikaey volunteered to talk to Yworo after I mentioned Yworo had taken to following me around and had been edit warring with other editors (both of which are documented above).

The comment I had made to Mikaey on July 28th that he referred to here [81] was: "Yworo seems to make some constructive edits, I just wish they would not try to start so many fights with other editors or do things like try to CSD non-free images because they don't like them."

As for the heated discussion on Talk:Shell account, that was also covered above.

Contrary to Mikaey's assertion here, I had done very little in the way of editing to either Linux or Shell account so a claim of "Tothwolf was trying to assert control over the pages that he was involved with ..." makes little sense. My contribution history will also disprove this theory as I often work with other editors on both articles and template projects.

The truth of the matter is, issues with regards to Miami33139 and JBsupreme most likely would have been resolved in this rather lengthy AN/I discussion had Mikaey not diverted the discussion away from the behaviours of Miami33139 and JBsupreme when he attempted to turn the discussion into strictly something about me, [82] which derailed the prior AN/I discussion. Mikaey did not respond further on AN/I when I pointed out that he was also too involved to make such a proposal. [83]

My own feeling and conclusions related to things with Mikaey is that he simply overreacted during the time in which he created User:Mikaey/Tothwolf. I tried to discuss things with him both privately and on-wiki but at the time it seemed as though he had his mind made up and there was little I could say that that would change his opinion. I still have hopes that eventually Mikaey and I can resolve the issues that have caused us to not really speak with each other anymore.

--Tothwolf (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Blaxthos

It appears I've already replied to Blaxthos' false allegations twice before on July 1, 2009 on AN/I [84] as well as [85] in this thread [86] on PeterSymonds talk page.

Blaxthos seems to have a personal problem with Eckstasy and for some reason he seems to think I'm somehow connected with the QDB.us website. Eckstasy has also responded to Blaxthos' repeated allegations. [87] See also: [88] [89] [90] [91]

While I previously had no reason to go looking, a search of the noticeboard and WQA seems to indicate that Blaxthos has a long history of attacking other editors, fighting, and making false statements. [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] (just a sample from the search results [98])

--Tothwolf (talk) 08:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Miami33139

Reply @Tothwolf's evidence

I won't reply in depth, but ask anyone interested to ask me on any statement of Tothwolf you find interesting. The majority of evidence is stale, before my wikibreak. The table is flawed (where Tothwolf is not even involved in half of it, and barely peripherally involved in most of the rest. I think it does show, as explained in #Just One Diff that Tothwolf thinks extremely tangential confluences harass him personally which he then lashes out at. I am open to questioning. Miami33139 (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Joe Chill

Response to Tothwolf

Do you think that saying that I might be a meatpuppet is any better? You were complaining about me participating in software AFDs which I have done for over a year and you were the first person to make a big deal over it. You digged through my contributions to come up with the false accusation that whenever I nominate articles for deletion, I'm doing it to get back at editors. You also called me disruptive repeatedly when I wasn't doing anything against the rules, only your personal beliefs (which you admitted in ANI). Uncle G was questioning me because he misunderstood what I said. After I got it all explained, he stopped replying to me. So that's a minor issue. Joe Chill (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Hm2k

I wasn't participating in those AFDs to attack Tothwolf. Like I said, I have been participating in software AFDs for over a year. Most of my participation has been in AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Theserialcomma

question for tothwolf about jeske couriano

What is the extent of your relationship with jeske couriano off-wiki? What have you discussed with him on IRC/off-wiki in reference to me, and what has he said? Do your interactions with him go beyond IRC? email? more? I ask because there is no log of your interactions on wikipedia, and he has actively taken a disturbing, aggressive interest in me in all situations involving you. e.g. [[99]], [[100]]. jeske's been warned by georgewilliamherbert for attacking me in an ANI thread in which jeske was previously uninvolved, but jeske still continues to be aggressively "on my ass" which is a direct quote from jeske [[101]] Theserialcomma (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

question to tothwolf about my sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry report again him

User: Thommey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thommey is whom I accused you of canvassing on IRC to help you establish your own consensus on the eggdrop's talk page, and then I filed a sockpuppetry report against you for it. you've denied the meat/sock accusation, called it harassment just like you called the COI/eggdrop accusation 'harassment' and 'false'. question:

• have you interacted with Thommey off wiki, on IRC, perhaps? are you, or have you been in the same IRC channel as him? I have further evidence of this, but in the same of brevity, i'd like for you to respond to whether you are familiar with him on IRC. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

response to Thommey

you do realize that anyone here can google 'thommey eggdrop', 'thommey TCL', 'thommey tothwolf', right? Theserialcomma (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks made while arbitration is underway

This is a serious accusation that Tothwolf has not provided any evidence for. I am really tired of these false accusations and attacks. Saying I am a paid editor is really upsetting. What procedure is there for dealing with attacks like this during arbitration? Miami33139 (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

---

As for the real reason you wish to specifically remove material related to media player software (and have since tried to involve yourself in other software issues to hide what you were really doing, and going as far as to take "revenge" on editors who went against your deletion efforts), I'm well aware of what you are up to and you need to take your conflict of interest and paid editing elsewhere. While the community might have initially been slow to notice what you were doing and connect the dots, I'm not the only one who knows the details now and it will no longer fly. It is now pointless for your to continue your recent Hail Mary play that you began after the ArbCom case was filed as anything you can do (including deletion nominations) can be undone and fixed by the community. As YTCracker said not too terribly long ago; kick rocks. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not a paid editor. Please comment on the article and why it should not have minimum inclusion criteria. Miami33139 (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

So those sponsors don't mean anything huh? I'm not buying it, nor is anyone else. Kick rocks. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• tothwolf, it's a serious accusation to claim that someone's a paid editor. please provide some evidence of him being paid to edit, otherwise strike through your personal attacks and uncivil innuendo immediately. furthermore, when you say "kick rocks," are you telling him to fuck off or get the fuck out of here? there are multiple definitions for this slang, so i am curious as to which one you are intending. maybe you shouldn't use such language at all if the meaning is ambiguous. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Miami33139 already knows what I'm talking about with regards to him being a sponsored editor and his conflict of interest with trying to have multimedia software articles deleted. As for the details, posting that on-wiki would violate WP:OUTING and Miami33139 has made some grievous errors as his personal information is trivially easy to locate and correlate. You know, I find it rather interesting how you located this discussion...are you going to say you aren't monitoring contribs now too? Also, since when is urbandictionary.com a WP:RS? ;)
    Miami33139: There is no point in you trying to cover it up on those other sites now. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • ...and technically "kick rocks" means "go away", "get lost", or "beat it". I think the users who contribute to urbandictionary.com have way too much free time on their hands as they seem to have come up with some rather interesting interpretations for many otherwise mundane phrases. I'm surprised the edit filter even allows for linking to that site. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea wtf you are talking about concerning paid editing, what you think you know about my personal information, or those other sites. Miami33139 (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

your false accusations stop now, tothwolf. miami33139 clearly has no idea what you are talking about, and so your outrageous bluff has been called. you cannot alternate between making aggressive insinuations about another editor's motives and character, and then when asked for evidence claim, attempt to manipulate the argument with passive aggressive rhetoric in order to deflect why you have no evidence. the burden is on you to either provide evidence for your flagrant accusations or retract them immediately. period. no one should have to tolerate this flagrant violation of proper etiquette. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh I assure you, Theserialcomma, I've made no false accusations. Miami33139 does indeed know exactly what I'm talking about (as he attempts to scrub some postings off other sites...) What's to say I've not already provided evidence of Miami33139's COI? (Which I have.) I certainly can't post it on-wiki but there are other avenues with which to submit material. (Its far too late for Miami33139 to try to remove info off other sites now.) That's all I intend to say about this issue. Miami33139 knows his game is over and discussing this further will be a WP:STICK issue. It might be better for Miami33139 if he flat out came clean about it now. Btw, Theserialcomma, how's Elvis this time of year? Any good shows? --Tothwolf (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a fascinating discussion. I have no idea what you are talking about, or what "other sites" you are talking about. For this one instance, I clearly do invite you to use the email this user function and tell me what you are talking about. Miami33139 (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What the HELL does "Btw, Theserialcomma, how's Elvis this time of year? Any good shows" mean? What the HELL are you talking about? are you speculating about my off-wiki identity too? Theserialcomma (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

---

• Note: As I've noted in on the evidence page here [102] (including diffs), the above comments were edited by Miami33139 and pasted here from another discussion. I did not post these comments here and Miami33139's editing removed part of what I said and placed this material out of context. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Tothwolf, this stops now. Any more discussion about paid editing, any more even hints of discussing an editor's identity, and I'll block you. If you have any further concerns please email Arbcom. Dougweller (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied here [103] --Tothwolf (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I am no fan of User:Theserialcomma (see the evidence I just submitted to this case), but he is right here: You do not accuse other editors of being paid editors with an agenda unless you can back your accusation up with solid evidence. Period. WP:AGF and all that. Samboy (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I would not even consider accusing someone of conflict of interest unless I had very good evidence. Theserialcomma has taken to regularly attacking me with all sorts of claims of COI, which since this ArbCom case was filed have been repeated by Miami33139 as well. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Too much drama

You can discount my comments. I hate this drama. Joe Chill (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

would you care to clarify? were you contacted off wiki or something? Theserialcomma (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I was contacted off wiki by Tothwolf, but he wasn't being mean or anything. The drama that I'm referring to is on this talk page, on the evidence page, and other on wiki stuff. I know that Miami does have bias with software articles and I know that Tothwolf has caused many editors including me trouble. I really don't want to deal with this situation. Joe Chill (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Any off-wiki conversation will be ignored from now on if it relates to this. My evidence is the same which is I think that it's possible anyway and that Miami should be banned from software AfDs. Joe Chill (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Joe Chill and I have chatted off and on both on-wiki and off-wiki since we resolved our misunderstanding back in late September. As Joe Chill already stated, our discussions have been pretty calm. Even though Joe and I don't always agree on things (we probably disagree about half the time when it comes to AfD at least), there certainly isn't any animosity between us. As for any recent discussion, Joe initially contacted me on December 1st for my take on an AfD where Miami33139 made some unusual claims regarding sources. That AfD hasn't been presented as evidence here, although looking at it again, it certainly could be. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Our off-wiki conversations may have influenced me temporarily resigning my comments a little bit. So that my decision isn't influenced even a little bit, I will ignore off-wiki conversation until this is over. My conversations with Tothwolf were calm and now I have trouble with Miami. Miami is bias with software articles. I think that Tothwolf is more help with software articles than Miami. If Tothwolf does get in trouble by Arbcom, I think that it might be that Tothwolf wasn't trying to be bad and needs a better understanding of WP:AGF. I was the first to contact him and when I did, these where my opinions. Joe Chill (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Re this assertion [104] by Theserialcomma, I absolutely did not talk Joe Chill into removing anything. Any editing done by Joe has been his own decision. I certainly have pointed out a few diffs though. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the truth. Joe Chill (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

My reply to Theserialcomma’s concerns

User:Theserialcomma replied to my evidence on my talk page. I will briefly discuss his comment here.

I believe very strongly in assuming good faith. I make my best effort to assume good faith, especially when I am upset, as I was when Theserialcomma placed his PROD on the MaraDNS article. This is an issue I would have forgotten about, except that I see the same editor is now part of an arbitration dispute.

It is difficult to assume good faith when an editor proposes an article to be deleted without even spending a minute to do a Google search, Google books search, nor Google scholar search. It's really easy: When you think some article should be deleted, go to Google and see if the article in question really isn’t notable.

PROD should not be used to get other editors to add references to articles. PROD should be used when an article doesn’t have references, and a Google search doesn’t readily show anything. Editors need to do a little research before marking a article for deletion; it’s unfortunate that tools like TW make it possible to do a “one click” PROD deletion nomination. Samboy (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

i prod'd MaraDNS, a piece of software you happened to have authored, because there were no third party reliable sources. after the PROD, you wrote "Since User:Theserialcomma has brought up the legitimate concern that this article doesn’t mention third-party sources discussing MaraDNS’ notability, which would be reasonable grounds for this article being deleted". so who are you to question my motives when you yourself admitted that notability had not been established. i realize that you have a lot of emotional attachment to this article, since you created the software, but just because the article didn't show notability, that doesn't mean it's my job prove it's notable. i googled for sources and found nothing substantial. there was no bad faith or punishment intended in the nomination which you admitted was valid. i dont understand what you are possibly thinking, because your arbitration comments completely contradict your previous comments that it was a valid nomination due to lack of notability. the problem isn't TW, it's marginally notable software that may or may not be easily proven notable. the question is, does policy state that the burden is on the nominee to prove it's notable? i don't think it is. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE outlines some of this as well. A Google test is still only one of the first steps though. Google only indexes a fraction of the amount of material out there, especially with books, and not taking other resources which are not indexed by Google into account would be FUTON bias. Google has also not really been around all that long in the grand scheme of things and the web itself is so dynamic that trying to rely solely on Google will mean missing a lot of important material. The Internet Archive can help sometimes, but even then some material which would be great to reference may have been removed long before archive.org came about. One book I've cited in some of the AfDs mentioned in this ArbCom case which is not indexed by Google Books is:
Charalabidis, Alex (1999-12-15). The Book of IRC: The Ultimate Guide to Internet Relay Chat (1st ed.). San Francisco, California: No Starch Press. ISBN 1-886411-29-8.
I cited this book in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BitchX, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PIRCH, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snak, which are worth a read if only to see how Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme tried to discount a book that meets the reliable sources guideline and is perfectly acceptable for the purposes of the notability guideline. There are actually quite a lot of related articles where this book could be cited, some of which have been deleted due to prod and AfD efforts by Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme, and even though a good portion of the book itself is now outdated due to continued technology and software developments, it certainly can still be used to help establish notability for many topics. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

wrong. google has been around longer than MaraDNS. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)