User:Neuropean/User:Robertsteadman RFC
This is an ongoing record of all the choices made by User:Robertsteadman NOT to follow Wikipedia policies and guidance, either involving me or those I have witnessed involving others. This behaviour has been going on for months and, as such, this is going to be a very large article and is going to take quite some time to complete.
If anybody has diffs that they wish to add, please feel free. I have thought about doing this many times but have never been motivated enough to undertake the task. However, I have been driven to it by the recent interest Mr Steadman has shown in my edits and articles.
I do not want this to turn into a discussion page - all attempts to discuss this WILL be removed. When the article is completed and referred there will be opportunities to argue the issues. Only add appropriate diffs to the relevant sections.
Shooting The Messenger[edit]
Mr Steadman seems to be unable to separate the edits made and the editor who made them, instead of proving why he is right, he seeks to cloud the issue by making comments about other editors. This is just one page filled with incivility, failure to assume good faith, personal attacks - there are many many like this where User:Robertsteadman wastes discussion time and space with attacks on editors. When all of the personal attacks are taken out, how much is left?
Anne Frank's cats
User:neuropean's vote is not qualified: his first ever edit was deletion notice for this article. `'mikka (t) 15:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you - at last someone is seeing through what the nominatoir is up to. Misuse of WP to make a point. Not only shoudl his vote not count but the AfD should be thrown out. Robertsteadman 19:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep - it hasn't merely been merged it has been extended, other ediotors have added stuff and it is a worthwhile article with plenty of references to famous writings. This is a bad faith nomination by someone out to make a point and should simply get a speedy close. Please look at user: Neuropean's contributions - a clear sockpuppet out to cause trouble and, quite possibly, following a vendetta. Once you look at his/her contributions it is mpossible to assume good faith.Robertsteadman 19:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Just because Neuropean disagrees with you doesn't mean he/she is a sockpuppet. (And Neuropean's edit history looks sizable enough to me.) Vote speedy keep by all means... but please try a bit harder to be nice. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Just because Neuropean disagrees with you doesn't mean he/she is a sockpuppet. (And Neuropean's edit history looks sizable enough to me.) Vote speedy keep by all means... but please try a bit harder to be nice. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not the size of the history (a new user immediately AfDing articles) but the content - [1] - if you look at his/her behaviour and comments it is almosty impossible to assume good faith - this is a sock puppet out to make a point, probablyt continuing a vendetta. It's that simple. Nothing to do with subject matter or disagreemnts on that. Robertsteadman 20:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Line 38: Line 38: Cut down and Merge with Anne Frank I don't understand what the rationale for an expanded separate article on the cats is, and none had been offered. Are we to have articles on the pets of every famous person? Bwithh 20:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Close this AfD and bring it to mediation The opposing parties ought to listen to each other, not accuse each other (no offense to either side, I'm not familiar with the entire history). AfD isn't the proper outlet for dispute resolution. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Close this AfD and bring it to mediation The opposing parties ought to listen to each other, not accuse each other (no offense to either side, I'm not familiar with the entire history). AfD isn't the proper outlet for dispute resolution. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
'Comment:' - I agree - this is a vendetta being persued - this nomination is bad faith and is by a sockpuppet. This AfD should have been stopped ages ago. Robertsteadman 17:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Line 48: Line 48: These things happen when users get upset. I don't fully understand the situation, but it seems complex, so I'm not sure calling it "clear hypocricy" is a good idea. It might escalate what appears to be a delicate situation. No offense, I'm sure it does seem like clear hypocricy to you. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Understandable, and no offense taken. I am confident in my assessment, and can easily back it up. Honestly, I am not sure if this nomination is a result of other issues, so I am not even certain if this is a bad faith nom or not. Given that I do not believe the nominator was involved with the previous debate, I will assume good faith unless an admin does show this to be a case of sockpuppetry. As such, I believe the expanded article stands on its own merits and should be kept regardless of the politics of users. Resolute 00:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The nominator was involved in both this and one of his other sock names on the Rith Kelly article disputes - that is why the nomiatiopn id bad faith. Then there are seve4ral contributors who have supported in bad faith because of the Thunder Bay Northern Hawks dispute. This is truly pathetic. Robertsteadman 17:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Line 54: Line 54: Mediation (Committee or Cabal) would not result in a keep or delete (mediators aren't necessarily admins), it would merely try to help the involved parties come to a point of mutal understanding, and maybe even consensus. There could still be an AfD. I am merely afraid that holding the AfD at this time may increase tension in what seems to be a deeper problem going beyond this one article. However, I thank you for being able to assume good faith on the part of all parties, which reduces the chance of the AfD increasing tension. : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete Cats of a semi-famous person, nonsense. Is it a hoax? Medico80 10:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment - "Semi-famous" - you consider Anne Frank to be semi-famous? She wrote one of the best-selling books of all time - to suggest Anne Frank is semi-famous is a nonsense. Robertsteadman 07:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete I'd say merge into List of historical cats but that article already has an appropriate entry. If I was asked to list famous cats: only after 20 or so fictional cats (and mostly cartoon at that), would I get to 2 that actually existed :Socks and Kitty (?) the cat that was owned by CoCo the signing gorilla. Why? Because real cats seldom impact culture and generally become "famous" only by association with their owner. Ditto for dogs. I read the book 15 years ago and of all the things I remember from it: that fact that Anne missed a cat she left behind was not one of them. If this AFD actually closes with a firm result (Keep, Delete, or Merge) instead of a wishywashy "discuss a merger (?) REF: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_21#Moortje, I will honor it and say nothing more. I'm done, there's no need for more redundant rebuttal, I won't respond. And I'm not associated w/ neo. ccwaters 11:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Merge, and then redirect Moortje to Anne Frank, but delete the renamed "Anne Frank's cats. Under no circumstances is this to be taken as a keep vote; the cat only has relevance in relation to its former owner, and can be covered there sufficiently. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment - so along with Medico you consider Anne Frank toonly be semi-famous? I think that suggests a misunderstanding of the subjecy totally - one of the best-selling books of all time (I think only outsold by The Bible), studied in most schools..... come off it - to suggest Anne Frank is semi-famous is a nonsense. Robertsteadman 07:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment: - astonishing how many of the above comments and votes have been cast by members/linked editors to the Ice hockey wikiproject who have been upset that I AfDed an article due to its non-notability Thunder Bay Northern Hawks - this is a bad faith nomination by a sock puppet and several of those who have supported it are out to make a point and settle a score. This should be thrown out. user: Neuropean needs to be looked into. Robertsteadman 17:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Line 73: Line 73: Please stop launching personal attacks just because people are voting against you. Ad hominem attacks are bad, please comment on content. If you have any issues with any particular user, add a note to Administrator's noticeboard or start an Request for comments. Thank you. --Ragib 17:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
These are not personal attacks - these are factual. Neuropean is a sockpuppet and it is surprising how many of the Hockey lads are making a point - astonishing how interested they all are in this article. I tried to AGF but it is not possible when there is clear getting their own back going on. It has nothing to do with the way people are voting (but don;t forget AfD is not a vote ebeven though some don;'t get that) - this is people playing sily buggers. Robertsteadman 20:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Line 100: Line 100:
Vanity Vanity
This is a perfect of example why editors should be discouraged from having lists of 'articles created' on their user pages. Some editors are unable to stand by and see their articles deleted or, sometimes, even edited by others. This smacks of keeping score. NPOV & AGF all seem to be in short supply in this debate.Neuropean 18:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Well it's tricky to AGF when you're dealing, largely, with a sockpuppet who previously tried to get this removed, then within 10 minutyes changed his mind, whose contributions show someone out to make a point and who is not really being a constructive member of the WP comunity. When you start behaving like a genuine editor interested in working on the encyclopedia and only using one of your user accxounts then I might AGF. Robertsteadman 09:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikistalking[edit]
This is an ongoing pattern of behaviour. Editors who disagree with Mr Steadman often find that Mr Steadman has put them on his watchlist and then visits every artricle that they have edited and makes a minor edit with an uncivil comment. Editors who create articles have found tags for AfD, Copyvio and merge added.
I recommended one of Mr Steadman's articles for deletion and since then he has refused to accept any attempts at reconciliation.
Every single article that I made a contribution to on 17.07.06-18.07.06 has been 'improved' by Mr Steadman.
In fact, a glance at Mr Steadman's contributions shows that he has ONLY edited articles that I have created or tried to improve.
18:46, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tony Sidaway (→Tower Colliery)
18:43, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Godshill (add external link)
17:46, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ruth Kelly (→Children's names) (top)
16:48, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Naomi Wilkinson (top)
16:47, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Naomi Wilkinson
16:46, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Michael Barrymore (→Early history) (top)
16:44, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tony Sidaway (→Tower Colliery)
16:41, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Ruth Kelly (rm irrelevant section about her grandfather which has nothing to do with RK) (top)
16:38, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tony Sidaway (→Tower Colliery)
16:37, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ruth Kelly (→Children's names)
16:01, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Notability (athletes) (→My comments)
07:04, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Butlins (top)
06:36, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Mr Shifter (correct poor formatting - whilst its here it may as well be done properly)
06:35, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:PG Tips (top)
06:23, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:PG Tips
06:22, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Mr Shifter
06:22, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Mr Shifter
06:19, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Savlon
06:15, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Tower Colliery (Correct poorly formatted external link) (top)
06:14, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Tower Colliery (rv simple vandalism - please stop) (top)
21:40, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Butlins
21:39, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Tower Colliery
21:39, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Tower Colliery (→user: Neuropean - rm copyvio)
21:38, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for investigation (→New requests)
21:35, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tony Sidaway
21:33, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for investigation (→New requests)
21:33, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for investigation (→New requests)
21:32, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Butlins (Reformat poor formatting AGAIN - and reply)
21:28, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tony Sidaway (→Tower Colliery)
21:28, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tony Sidaway (→Tower Colliery)
21:27, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Tower Colliery
21:25, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Butlins
21:24, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Redcoats (Butlins)
21:24, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Ruth Kelly (→Family History - we have no evidence of that)
21:20, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Redcoats (Butlins) (rm empty section)
21:19, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tony Sidaway (→Tower Colliery)
21:15, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for investigation
21:14, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for investigation (→New requests)
21:12, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tony Sidaway (→Tower Colliery)
21:10, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tony Sidaway (→Tower Colliery)
21:07, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Redcoat (Butlins) (Redirecting to Redcoats (Butlins)) (top)
21:01, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Tower Colliery
21:00, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Neuropean
20:58, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Tower Colliery (rv - that link is an add - it is nothing to do with Tower Coolliery - that is why it could be spam - please stop your silliness)
20:55, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ruth Kelly (→Children's names)
20:51, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Tower Colliery (rm dead link and probably spam link)
20:50, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Ruth Kelly (→Career as an MP - rv - please discuss and give reaonss for including this here - it is a random statement which makes no sense in that section)
20:49, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ruth Kelly (→Children's names - reformat reply - for the reasons I have stated - Anne Frank's cats are a red herring)
20:46, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Godshill (rv poorly worded version please don't revert for the sake of it)
20:36, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Little Woodham
RFIs logged inappropriately[edit]
RFCUs logged inappropriately[edit]
At least 2 requests declined during June under 'no fishing' policy. Not archived.
Failure to AGF[edit]
WP:NPA[edit]
WP:Point[edit]
[[16]]
WP:Civility[edit]
Uncivil edit summaries:[edit]
- 06:36, 18 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Mr Shifter (correct poor formatting - whilst its here it may as well be done properly)
- 21:32, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Butlins (Reformat poor formatting AGAIN - and reply)
- 20:46, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Godshill (rv poorly worded version please don't revert for the sake of it) (top)
- 06:59, 17 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Robertsteadman (rm more unwelcome attention and harassment from stalker) (top)
- 18:09, 16 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Robertsteadman (rm various unwelcome comments by a stalker and sockpuppet)
- 18:44, 1 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Frank's cats (→Why Is Anne Frank Famous? - correct titling so we can see this ridiculous question properly)
- 06:45, 1 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Frank's cats (→Vanity - reposition neuropean's irrelevent rant and my response)
- 17:56, 18 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Ruth Kelly (rv - tyhis has been discussed before - I am going to report your POV pushing)
- 17:54, 18 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Ruth Kelly (Please stop your clear POV pushing and discuss further changes BEFORE making them.)
- 17:38, 18 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Thunder Bay Northern Hawks (if you're going to follow me round adding minor comments and changes at least get them right!)
- 15:52, 9 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Ruth Kelly (→Early life - How about here? )I don't think it fits here and simply shows how idiotic the comment is!)
- 06:09, 6 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Charlwood (→Features - correct poor grammar)
- 15:10, 5 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Ruth Kelly (→Early life - Meaningless trivia - unencyclopedic)
Uncivil Edits[edit]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobertsteadman&diff=63642748&oldid=63641071