So what's the fuss? I would personally find [[List of heterosexuals]] to be as completely useless as [[List of right-handed people]], but I do understand that some people view that differently. I really don't care if that page is deleted or not. If Adam's vote and comments had simply been allowed to stay that would have been the end of the matter. Since he was still banned during the stated voting period he could not make his comments then. The deletion of his comments was the provocative act. In that light his reaction is perfectly understandable. Would the result have been any different if he had posted to the [[.../restoration]] page.

The alleged rules strike me as an attempt to impose a tyranny of the majority. Perhaps it is a place where the rule "Ignore all rules" should apply, since their appear to be some Wikipedians that would apply this set rigidly.

In the meantime please stop developing excuses to make Adam a scapegoat.

Ec

james duffy wrote:

I'm afraid Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] is acting the ass again in exactly the same way as he did before. He new stunt was to try to edit the [[Talk:List of heterosexuals/delete (final archive)]] page.

For people who may not know, to preserve long debates that used to be moved to talk pages from the VfD but which then ended up deleted if the article and talk page were both deleted, and to avoid the problem of inconclusive delete debates on talk pages, where the debate got sidetracked as debates on deletion and on the article blurred together, a recent innovation is now being used by increasing numbers. A special /delete page is created and attached to the talk page. A set of rules are followed:

1. /All/ the delete debate is focused there, not on the talk page.

2. A strict timetable is followed. The article is created on 'x'. A

decision is taken on 'x + 7' meaning that debates no longer meander on for ever but are decided at the end of a week.

3. The /delete page is kept, even if the article and talk page isn't,

and preserved on a page linked to the VfD page, meaning that we will now have a back archive of these debates for people researching the history of wiki to review.

4. Once the page being debated is deleted, the debate ends, the page

ceases to be 'live' and becomes a record of the debate that decided the issue.

Everyone has been following this. All debates have ended when a decision was taken. But Adam, in one of his tantrum-throwing spoiled child moods, decided as so often in the past that he wants to be above the rules. The vote on that page ran from 31 August to 8 September. 70%+ voted to delete the article. It was deleted, then the /delete page closed, archived and linked to the [[Archived delete debates]] on the VfD page. Adam however doctored the archive page to add in his vote and comments, weeks after the page was closed. I reverted back the archive version that has been sitting there untouched for weeks. Adam again doctored the page. Ed Poor protected it but inadvertently preserved the wrong version. I corrected to the archive version that everyone had originally signed off on and left the protection.

Adam is now going ballistic, throwing accusations of censorship and bizarrely demanding the right to vote in a vote that finished on 8th September as to whether to delete a page that was deleted on the 8th of September. It is so bizarre it is like an episode of Fawlty Towers. He is alone complaining on the [[Problem Users]] page, where no-one has supported him and he has been attacked for his behaviour by RickK, Angela, and Cyan. (I also commented.)

However, all past experience of Adam is that he starts off like that and keeps at it, childishly setting off edit wars the way some children set off fire alarms. We all expected that /this/ time he would stop acting the ass and grow up. It doesn't say much for the future when within days of returning he is acting /exactly/ as he did as Lir, as Vera, as Susan Mason, as Dietary Fiber, as Pizza Puzzle, etc.

This behaviour has got to be nipped in the bud immediately or we are going to have weeks if not months of it, as he plays his little games. I was one of the first to say Adam should be allowed back, but that was only if he behaved himself.

IMHO Jimbo, he needs to be told clearly, unambiguously and explicitly

• STOP THIS NOW. Any more antics like that, any more returning to the

spoiled child antics and you will be banned immediately, permanently and for life. No more warnings. You are back because people, even after all they put up with before, agreed to give you /one/ more chance. But even the slightest whiff of your old foot-stomping 'I want my way' screwing around with articles and you are gone for good.

That /has/ to explicitly spelt out to him now, not one week or one month later when he has done it 5, 10 or 20 times elsewhere. Wiki doesn't need to have to put up with Adam acting the ass again if that is his game plan. And his behaviour on this one article tonight suggests that he has every intention of acting as before and thinking he can get away with it. He needs to know, bluntly and directly, that he cannot, ever again.

And for the record, I don't want Adam banned. But he has to stop acting like a spoiled 9 year old throwing tantrums and seeing how many fights he can start. Adam has shown for long enough that 'softly softly' doesn't work with him. The rules have to spelt out to him unambiguously and forceably.

JT