The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. FAKEARTICLE is not a speedy reason, and that means that the community gets to decide whether it is applicable. The clear consensus here is to keep. JohnCD (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tothwolf/XiRCON (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

stale draft. userspace owner put db-u1 on it more than a year ago but it wasn't deleted. expanded nom Nominated to MfD based on inactivity on a WP:FAKEARTICLE. Being an active editor has no relation to keeping deleted articles and drafts for years at a time. It's obvious this is abandoned. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably delete. Jclemens undid the u1 last April. I have posted a note for him at User_talk:Jclemens#User:Tothwolf.2FXiRCON. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep until User:Tothwolf responds. The page was reasonably userfied. It seems that the U1 tagging may have been in error. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep pending agreement of still-active user to have it deleted. I do not understand the failure to notify the editor in whose userspace this appears--that seems an inappropriate omission. Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh...not this again. SmokeyJoe left me a notice about this MFD and unfortunately I can shed some light as to why SchmuckyTheCat made the nomination. To put things simply, SchmuckyTheCat and I do not get along. He has repeatedly attempted to create drama for me outside of Wikipedia and for this reason he is banned from a number of sites as well as from my blog. This MFD just seems to be a way for him to continue a long running off-wiki dispute which I had hoped he had finally let go of (I hadn't even thought about any of it for quite awhile now). I can provide links for some of the past on-wiki stuff, but I'll refrain from doing so for now since I feel it would only create further drama.

    I will note that SchmuckyTheCat was only tangentially involved in this round of mass-MFDs (more background) during which time I {{db-u1}}'d every single page in my userspace. Of the db-u1'd pages, I had a small number restored again later. Jclemens, if you check the arbcom-l archives from April 27, 2011 (assuming those archives still exist) you might be able to find some additional background. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracies and persecution aside, the WP:FAKEARTICLE is abandoned for years. I have no interaction with you but every attempt at MfD results in these rants. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• SchmuckyTheCat, for the umpteenth time, leave me alone.

  Prior to this wikihounding and harassment I had been working on a large number of these articles, which SchmuckyTheCat is fully aware of due to his documented attempts to disrupt the editing of Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. In fact, SchmuckyTheCat's behaviour has been eerily similar to that of the individuals documented in the above AN/I link.

  Oddly enough, despite the past AfD in which no one bothered to actually check into XiRCON's history, the client itself most certainly passes the notability guideline, as a simple Google search demonstrates: [1] [2] (due to the age of the software, much more can also be found via the Internet Archive) In terms of popularity, XiRCON was at least as popular as Visual IRC, and at certain times quite possibly a little more widely used. This particular article was originally sent to AfD strictly as a means of harassment, the background of which can be found here. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tothwolf that's an awful lot of content for people to read. Even I couldn't find the relevant content regarding Schmucky's disruption re: Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. Would it be possible for you to narrow it down some and provide some specific difs?

To the neutral observer, the incidents Tothwolf is obliquely referring to are a harassment campaign perpetrated against him by three editors. Two of whom, Miami33139 and JBsupreme, have left the project, and the third of whom, Theserialcomma, is now indefinitely blocked. The campaign revolved around nominating droves of IRC-related articles for deletion. I became familiar with the situation via Theserialcomma's contributions; I had crossed paths with him at an unrelated article. I observed but did not participate in the initial arbitration request because I thought it wasn't my business. To my disgust, the arbitration case focused almost entirely on Tothwolf while ignoring his trio of harassers and it ended with a list of bans and restrictions for him and a "pretty please be a little more careful with your AfD nominations" for Miami33139 and JBsupreme. As Tothwolf's sanctions were expiring, Miami and JB began nominating articles he had userfied for deletion in an attempt to bait him and get the sanctions extended. This time several editors, myself included, spoke in Tothwolf's defense, the case went back to Arbcom for amendment, and this time it was Miami33139 and JBsupreme who were sanctioned. Specifically, it was stated that they had been disruptive in deletion discussions and administrators could block them for disruptive conduct in XfD. Theserialcomma was later indeffed for picking a fight with Tothwolf at Eggdrop and then throwing a tantrum on his talk page after being blocked.

I find it curious that so long after the initial case took place SchmuckyTheCat has began starting trouble with Tothwolf and going through the same actions that Miami33139, JBsupreme and Theserialcomma did. I don't know if Schmucky is in cahoots with Miami, JB and TSC, if Schmucky is going through the same routine to troll/harass Tothwolf since it worked so well for them, or if it's just that XfDs are one of the most effective tools for harassing and bullying on Wikipedia. Seth Kellerman (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I simply don't care about any behavior claims. Per his request, I don't address him. Is the WP:FAKEARTICLE ever going to be worked on? It appears abandoned by an editor who declares himself retired. There is a policy reason to delete this and that issue isn't being addressed at all. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Seth, I initially didn't want to post this stuff here but this link and this link should help. The AN/I discussion contains a good number of diffs which will help explain some of what is going on here.

  Basically, as linked in that AN/I, some of this goes back to when I removed the .ch copyvio link from the Encyclopedia Dramatica article per consensus at the talk page. There had already been some prior off-wiki trolling and harassment from SchmuckyTheCat, which got him banned from my blog and a number of websites. After I removed the link from the Encyclopedia Dramatica article though, SchmuckyTheCat began digging through my contribution history to start disputes at articles such as Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. "SchmuckyTheCat" is a former moderator for Encyclopedia Dramatica and was apparently not happy when consensus was formed for the removal of the .ch copyvio link from the Encyclopedia Dramatica article on Wikipedia.

  A quick look over the edit history of the article for SchmuckyTheCat's username and those edit dates (and subsequent reverts by other editors) compared with the edit history of the talk page should begin to show more of the larger disruption pattern. User:Lexein should also be able to confirm what I'm saying regarding SchmuckyTheCat targeting these articles. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep as not a good faith nomination, but the continuation of an harassment campaign. As it is potentially notable content, it's not FAKEARTICLE, which only refers to things that have no practical purpose here. Any further nominations of this nature should be grounds for considering a xfd topic ban. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/XiRCON - indefinitely hosting previously deleted content is the very definition of WP:FAKEARTICLE. Thanks for the baseless accusations. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

WP:STALEDRAFT might be an appropriate argument. WP:FAKEARTICLE, hardly. Continually citing WP:FAKEARTICLE is textbook "editing designed to antagonize yet which would get the complainer mocked on ANI should he mention it there". It's just a shame that Wikipedia doesn't have a policy called WP:EVENIFYOURETECHNICALLYFOLLOWINGTHERULESYOUREDOINGITTOBEAJERKSOKNOCKITOFFANDGOFINDSOMETHINGELSETOEDIT Seth Kellerman (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is previously deleted content and stale too. Please read the first two sentences of WP:FAKEARTICLE. If there is any evidence I have anything to do with antagonizing this user, please bring it up at ANI. The accusation is tired and loathsome and is completely avoiding the issue of indefinite hosting of previously deleted content. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Seth, the policy you're looking for is WP:DICK. Achowat (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as policies and guidelines go, this is actually covered by Wikipedia:Harassment and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, with both WP:WIKIHOUND and WP:CTDAPE both very much applicable in this case. Other applicable material includes parts of Wikipedia:Griefing, Wikipedia:WikiBullying, and m:What is a troll?#Creative trolling. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.