Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/The Number

This could be considered an alternative summary, but I've already edited the main summary, which I do not principally disagree with. These are my personal comments, so I've put them on the talk page.

There is no question that The Number is not being a productive contributor at the time of writing, and has in fact not ever been. He/she has demonstrated a stunning lack of good faith, and in fact seems hell-bent on seeing everyone in as bad a light as possible.

That's not to say he/she is alone in this. Wyss, Gamaliel, Ashley Pomeroy and others have happily indulged him/her in this behavior by responding in kind. Since they are contributors while The Number could arguably hardly lay a claim to that title, I am naturally inclined to give them more leeway than someone who seems to spend all time on Wikipedia making provocative comments on talk pages, but that doesn't mean they can be excused for not exhibiting the maturity to ignore or defuse baseless provocation. In particular, Wyss's stubborn insistence on claiming or amassing evidence for the assertion that The Number is John P. Ennis AKA Sollog in disguise was not productive, and just gave The Number more bait to troll upon (and I do call these activities trolling, as in "making statements that are deliberately provocative for the sake of getting heated arguments on irrelevant topics").

It is possible that The Number could be compelled to make valuable contributions rather than lash out at people who offend what seem to be hair-trigger sensibilities, but given his/her gleeful delight in doing so, I consider it unlikely. JRM 17:03, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

My greatest objection is the uneveness in the way Editors/Administrators have treated me. Even in these pages I say 'largely' and this is misrepresented as me saying 'exclusively'. In these pages I quote an Administrator (from whom one expects high standards) as responding to my polite request with: "I am not your fucking monkey!". Not one comment of protest; not one censure and yet later we have Pomeroy saying I insult people even though I have never called him (or anyone else) a 'fucking monkey'. Some of what I have written has been because of naivety - I am referring to page positioning. Some has been a reaction - entirely justified in my view - to Wyss's planned and deliberate character assassination on me. She posted on my TPages that I am Sollog; she even now refers to me as Sollog and all the time she pleads her behaviour is fair. Then we add Pomeroy's rather insipid protestations of normality when in fact there is more proof he is Sollog than I am. (Though of course, neither of us are) I guess people here just don't like it when people don't contribute elsewhere and yet stand their ground here. Wyss's behaviour is that of a playground bully supported covertly by the teachers (i.e. Administrator) whose own behaviour shows bias, ignorance and is quite possibly the outcome of stress. Gamaliel has openly said he wants me banned for life and has said I am never ever to post on his Talk Page or contact him or refer to him again. Provocatively he seeks to appear normal by posting here in a 'groups condemnation fest'.Maybe this is the camaderie that Wikis have, 'stuff the truth lets all kick him when he's down' type of mentality. Hardly admirable qualities. Each Editor is taking a different line of attack. Gamaliel exercises his 'delete' button; Firestone refuses direct questions; Mark misrepresents what I say; Ashley deflects my observations about his own impropriety and by claiming normality seeks to denigrate me...and all the time Wyss is hovering in the background like an odour that won't be dispelled, waiting to envelope its prey. Logic and sensibility have long gone - even comments in the past from other Editors that support my stance get deleted as the embarrassment (which is what I have become as I won't sink to the abuse level of a Gamaliel but equally I choose not to contribute in the same volume as a Wyss) stays. The latest tactic, apart from the knee-jerk deletions of my posts (Wyss even boasts she deletes my writings without redaing them...and I am called 'provocative'!)is to ignore sections of what I say as more Editors are recruited to condemn. For example it is ignored that I asked several Editors for help in dispute resolution; it is ignored that the advice that Gamaliel gave me I proved to be incorrect; it is ignored that I have never once behaved in the loutish, arrogant way that Wyss has done. The Number 07:52, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did try engaging The Number civilly when s/he first made their appearance. That attempt and The Number's subsequent behaviour is all archived in the various discussion pages. The Number apparently enjoys time-wasting conflict for the sake of time-wasting conflict itself. S/He always appears (at least) to take what anyone else says very personally yet seems not to notice (or mention only dismissively) the feelings or opinions of others and has stayed in that position of selfish double-standard for hundreds of monotone contributions. Since The Number only responds to seemingly convenient questions or statements and has a tendency to unilaterally declare moral or logical (sic) victories over those whom The Number publicly considers idiots, again only selectively answering their discussion points if The Number answers their points at all. I would recommend something be done to help this person (or us), as reasoned discussion or coaching in even-handed public policy has gone nowhere with him/her as far as I can see. Fire Star 21:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your point about something be done to help this person echoes my feelings for Wyss but when I expressed such concern over her lack of mental stability I was accused of vandalising. It is not ME who spends ages accusing someone of being Sollog and then asks 'Sollog' his source for....'Sollog'. I referred to that behaviour in rather accurate terms for Wyss but of course was condemned. So the 'help' you allude to should be for the accusers, not the accusedThe Number 22:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please explain how repeatedly being accused of being a known pornographer and a liar as to my whereabouts should not be taken personally. The Number 21:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was actually talking about how cranky you became when we asked you to learn how to sign your name, well before the Ennis identity speculations. Again, this is evidence of conveniently selective memory on your part. Fire Star 22:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So you are in fact ignoring my question. This is evidence of selective reading. The Number 22:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How not to take things personally that really shouldn't have the power to upset us is a matter of character development, not encyclopaedia development. We should work that out before we can successfully tackle a public project involving as many different people and opinions as Wikipedia. Seeing someone taking such unimportant, ephemeral situations personally actually implies to an observer that there may be a bigger problem unrelated to the seemingly trivial issues that excite the easily-offended party. For example, your simply projecting what I've said back on me; knee-jerk retaliation, not reply to the issue of your behaviour way back when you were trolling us over your name (remember?), is character evidence of just that sort. Fire Star 22:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Seeing someone taking such unimportant, ephemeral situations personally actually implies to an observer that there may be a bigger problem unrelated to the seemingly trivial issues that excite the easily-offended party. I agree, and thus Wyss's prolonged attack on me (covertly supported by the negligence of others) is an excellent example of this. This idea you create of me projecting something back to you - my, my, persistence itself is being criticised now. I am not 'projectinbg back' but just repeating my question. Continuous evasion is character evidence; repeatedly lying about me is character evidence; allowing someone to trick you into mute support is evidence of weakness; inability to write logically and follow a strand of argument is another; persistent flouting of Wiki rules on civility is evidence of arrogance - need I go on? Look at my 'accusers' who preach civility and yet say: "I AM NOT YOUR FUCKING MONKEY" without even a hint of censure. Look within at Wiki The Number 22:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are (once again) apparently intentionally ignoring what prompted my post here in the first place, and that would be your initial behaviour towards others on the Ennis talk page. You complain that I don't answer your question, yet your question has nothing to do with the post I originally made, and is simply a vain attempt to avoid responsibility for what you routinely publish, a treatment of issues you indulge in that I and others have repeatedly noted and you once again confirm. Smokescreen all you want, but you cannot sidetrack me like that, and it is futile to try. I remember how you treated my (and others') attempts to help you here, even if you don't want to. As well, the other editors with whom you seem to want to have problems in large part reacted to your unbalanced behaviour towards them. So, it is your uncouth treatment of what I have said to you that has damaged your credibility with me. You contribute nothing to Wikipedia. You don't have to agree with me, I won't hold that against you, but that is my vote. This RfC is just the first step in aid of deciding whether or not enough editors agree with me that that indeed is the case. No amount of dismissive insinuation, non sequiter finger pointing or transparent retaliation from you can stop this process, rather it shows clearly yet again why all this is necessary. All is not lost, there is one way you can demonstrate otherwise. Small people use small tactics, perhaps you can rise above them. Some humility and statements indicative of a newfound sense of responsibility that shows sincere concern for the effects of your behaviour, all your behaviour, on others will go a long way to change my mind. Fire Star 23:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So you seek to excuse the abuse heaped on me as being my own fault. Well, that gets rude Administrators off the hook - I must rememebr that. It gets Wyss off the hook too - not her fault, my fault for being in existence. Preaching civility and then hurling vulgar abuse - yep, both allowed and both my fault apparently. How neat. I did one thing wrong and that was to respond to repeated accusations that I was lying and that I was not in England. Had I ignored them then this may not have happened. I'll take the criticisms for that, yes. I'll also note that the accusers went, largely, uncensored. The Number 07:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How interesting. 'Respected contributors' are not expected to meet the same standards of behaviour as others. So Wyss, for example, is allowed to continually and obsessively address me as a known pornographer (John Ennis) and that's acceptable on the grounds she is a 'respected contributor'. Well, well. The Number 19:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with JRM, except that it's been months since I've gathered any evidence that any sockpuppet/user was Ennis. I was/am still relatively new to WP and did allow myself to be pulled into being trolled now and then. Then, having completely disengaged from any discussions with The Number, s/he returned recently, littering my talk page with unprovoked personal attacks, interspersed into discussions that had nothing to do with The Number. When I revereted these, The Number claimed to be the victim. Now that I better understand the "dynamics" of WP trolls I can say I wouldn't have bothered responding to the The Number's attempts to bait me. Live and learn, I guess. I can only add that The Number's whole contribution history is one of trolling and baiting with no work on articles (except adding one link to the Sollog page?). Wyss 17:22, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's been months? You never had any evidence so your statement there is just another way of you accusing, yet again. Very devious. The Number 07:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If someone tells an untruth then that is de facto, a lie but to call that someone a liar is 'uncivil'. What a weird world Wikis live in. I am wrongly accused of 'littering'. This person who has insisting that I am John Ennis harasses me asking me (supposedly John Ennis) for a source that I, (supposedly John Ennis) am not in prison! The Number 19:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now, I've followed this mess from a distance for a while, but I would like to make a single comment here: If Wyss truely believes that The Number is the person The Number claims that Wyss believes him/her (I'm not gonna guess at genders here), then Wyss wouldn't have needed to ask for a source proving that he wasn't in prison - unless prisons have started having webaccess for their inmates. Since Wyss infact does ask for a source, it's logical to assume Wyss does not believe The Number to be the person The Number claims that Wyss believes him/her to be. Thats logic people.

Apart from that, I think some people here needs to take a few deep breath and figure out what they are arguing about. WegianWarrior 21:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, actually, that's not the case here at all. Every unsubstantiated claim (which is what The Number was making in this case), must be cited (substantiated) before it's at all acceptable to act on it. Wyss was asking The Number for a source—even if The Number admitted to being and was publicly known to be Ennis, we still would not be able to use his "say-so" in an article, even on himself. Thus, a source is always an acceptable thing to request. For example, if Dubya himself logged in here and stated his Administration's stance on a subject in an article, he would still have to link to a press release that was independently verifiable. Thus, the reasonability of Wyss' request is unrelated to his personal beliefs.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 22:26, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

That is a point I have made many many times. My point is then deleted. What you have written is true - there are two choices. Either Wyss believes I am Sollog and therefore demonstrates her own mental instability by continually asking me (Sollog) to state sources OR Wyss does not believe I am Sollog, and therefore has deliberately and in a calculated way been lying baout me, taunting me from day one. Either way it's so clear that Wyss should be in the dock not me - which is probably why she's announced she's 'taking a Wiki holiday'. The Number 22:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do not, however, take my attempt at bringing some logic into this as a sign that I side with you - BOTH sides of this should IMO try to cool off and try to figure out what they are arguing about. As for The Number... if he's not you-know-who, I am at a loss why he can't provide a source when asked for one. WegianWarrior 10:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My sort-of alternative summary thing

I contemplated bringing an RfC myself, but The Number's edits were essentially harmless, albeit that they had a habit of filling up the talk pages with cruft. I will admit to goading and/or responding excessively to the chap, as I myself am relatively new to Wikipedia, although I now realise that he is a relatively minor pest, and I now 'blank' him entirely. For what it's worth I am absolutely convinced that he is a sockpuppet of John Ennis, and that - even if he is not (and he resembles the recently-banned WikiUser in some respects) - he is irredeemable and worthless. The following is the RfC summary I wrote a month or so ago, but never got around to actually posting:

"This all derives from the 'Wikipedia Vs Sollog' affair. Sollog is the pen name of John P. Ennis, a domain name trader and convicted criminal who drives traffic to his websites by writing conspiracy-related nonsense. After creating the page, it was listed for deletion; Ennis opposed this, but in the process the page was rewritten into its current form, a form which contains a lot of unflattering information regarding Ennis' criminal record. Irony. After vandalising the page and several others, and harassing and threatening various Wikipedian editors - to the extent of telephoning Jimbo Wales himself, and posting vile insults about Mr Wales' close family on a webpage he created for that very purpose ('wikisucks.com') - Ennis fell silent.

For a short while. He re-emerged as various transparent sockpuppets, all of which were easily spotted by their inability to act like normal people. The Number has continued the personal attacks, although he has not yet substantively edited a single non-user page. The Number is clearly a John Ennis sockpuppet, albeit one pretending to be a normal person, badly. The Number strenuously denies being a sockpuppet of John Ennis, and claims to be a resident of the UK, but the only proof he provides of this is dubious, to say the least, consisting mostly of information which is either unverifiable or which is available on the internet. Requests for a photograph - not necessarily of himself, but of something, anything - are met with the usual excuses; a lack of time, a lack of technical expertise, no access to hosting, and so forth.

The Number is presumably therefore Ennis attempting to 'build capital' as a trusted Wikipedia editor before going on to vandalise Sollog with a shield of righteousness. He also has a habit of losing his cool, using insulting language, and threatening people. He also uses a sub-sockpuppet, 'Sollogfan', as a peculiar 'foil'. In a comical turn, The Number took to arguing that I was a Sollog sockpuppet, despite abundant and publicly-available evidence that I am both a normal human being and that I am who I say I am; he seemed to be using this tactic in order to goad me into posting my home address and telephone number, without much success. He has otherwise gone out of his way to insinuate that he is trying to find out where I live.

You are a normal human being? On your talkpage there has been exactly the same page day after day and yet you give the appearance it is constantly updated. You have pages about your new 'sex language'. You're not known under Pomeroy in any Salisbury hospital. Your books are 'unusual' on Amazon. I proved that there is a greater case of you being Sollog than I (though naturally I don't believe either of us are). But 'normal' you certainly are not. The Number 22:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

At this point the hot-shot prosecution lawyer goes out of his way to point out that he has been trying to find out where I work - I don't believe for a moment that he actually has telephoned all the hospitals in the Salisbury area, but the assertion that he has done so is clearly an attempt to intimidate me. As for the "pages about your new 'sex language'", [1]-Ashley Pomeroy 12:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ennis is, essentially, a nasty pest. Although he has not actually used 'The Number' to vandalise Wikipedia, his behaviour here [2] could be construed as advertising, and his habit of filling up talk pages tends to obscure valuable information as it becomes archived. As for personal attacks, this one suggests that the good people of Salisbury are inbred [3] - which is probably true, but for an outsider to claim this to be in the case is an insult - whilst this one implies the Mr Wyss above is akin to Hitler [4], and this one [5] implies that a chap called Saxifrage is as thick as a mouldy old plank. The last edit contains two of The Number's most obvious traits; a habit of arguing incorrect and irrelevant points in excessive detail, and a preening self-regard. I also include the future contents of the 'Response' section (!) as an example of The Number's inability to... well, just inability.

I argue for a perpetual block; judging by Ennis's own websites, he has nothing to offer Wikipedia, or indeed society at all, and The Number's edit history to date has amounted to a book-length display of sophistry and mania." -Ashley Pomeroy 18:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I note the following untruth and ask that the typist asks himself what tellers of untruths are called: "Requests for a photograph - not necessarily of himself, but of something, anything - are met with the usual excuses;" This untruth will no doubt be ignored - as to be expected. The Number 19:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Amazingly, I sat in a pub near Salisbury and stated what was on the wall of the pub. That, apparently, was not proof. OK then Mr Untruth, you set me ANY task to prove I am in the UK except providing a photo of myself with a UK background as surely that too could be faked, and I will comply. (I know you won't though) The Number 19:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See the definition of "unverifiable". Either recognise that this is unverifiable or recognise that you are not successfully appearing to have the faculties of a "normal" adult. Pick one, because picking neither is logically inconsistent and not possible in this universe.

Remember, we still don't care at all where you are located. This is only being brought up as an irrefutable example of your continued inability to be reasonable. The substance of your unreasonability is immaterial to the fact of it.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 22:41, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

To refer to me as an outsider of Salisbury is an insult. They just pile up! The Number 20:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MarkSweep's view

I'm adding this here because I'm not a neutral outside party: I've been peripherally involved in an earlier stage of this debate and have been following the recent discussions on Talk:Sollog without actively contributing.

First, and most importantly, let's not make this a debate about whether The Number is or isn't Sollog. This is precisely the direction TheNumber has been trying to take, but this is not what this RFC should be primarily about. TheNumber's recent strategy has been to react angrily to real or perceived accusations that he/she is Sollog/Ennis, often sidelining debates and painting herself/himself as the victim of attacks. At a point in the past, this may even have been justified: TheNumber has been consistent in claiming that he/she is based in the UK, several editors have expressed doubt, some of them have even been asked to stop pursuing this line of debate. Nevertheless, TheNumber has been unusually vocal and detailed in trying to convince everyone of his whereabouts. Since neither side can offer any definitive proof one way or the other and the debate cannot possibly be resolved, any attempt to raise this issue again should be seen as trolling.

So this RFC is about the behavior of TheNumber, and not about any factual claims regarding his/her whereabouts. I have endorsed the summary of the dispute statement, because I agree that TheNumber has been a source, catalyst, and strange attractor of hostility, pointless acerbic debate, and other bad behavior. I would consider this RFC a success if TheNumber could be convinced to (1) focus on issues of his/her own behavior (rather than insisting on beeing seen as the victim of a conspiracy) and (2) promise to substantially reduce the abrasive behavior.

Since I don't want this debate to turn into a big troll fest regarding TheNumber's whereabouts and identity, I will personally revert any and all contributions on this topic in the present subsection. Constructive discussion of TheNumber's behavior and ways to modify it is what this debate should be about instead. --MarkSweep 20:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Number wrote: Ways to modify: It's really very simple. All Wyss has to do is stop calling me Ennis (and insulting me accordingly) while at the same time trying to interrogate me for a source about Sollog (Ennis) [off-topic comments deleted, as stated above --MarkSweep 02:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)]

This area is for the discussion of The Number's behaviour and I submit that this behaviour has largely (though not entirely) been because of Wyss's continuous abuse. You should also read (if you haven't already) the response from The Number on the accusation page. The Number 20:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you implying that you're not responsible for your own behavior, because it is mostly the product of this harsh and unfriendly (sarcasm!) environment we have here? I've deleted your comments because you repeated yourself and you strayed from the topic. The topic is: do you have any constructive suggestions regarding how your interactions with other editors can be improved from your side? --MarkSweep 08:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The big question

The Number has a habit of refusing to answer direct questions with long-winded excuses and rehashing of old grudges. So I doubt I'll get an answer to this, but I am curious how the Number would answer the following:

1. Why are you here? What do you hope to accomplish by participating in Wikipedia?
2. In what way have you positively contributed to the goal of constructing an encyclopedia?

Because the encyclopedia is what it's all about. As Jimbo has stressed over and over again, we aren't an experiment in democracy or anarchy or society building, we are an encyclopedia. If you aren't here to construct an encyclopedia, you are trolling, taking up space, or getting in the way. All of us who work on Wikipedia have faults, we have done things wrong, and we've been part of the problem at one time or another. But regardless of how much blame we deserve, and even if your behavior was as blameless and as innocent as Anne Frank's, unless you are here to contribute, you are just wasting everyone's time and Wikipedia's resources. Gamaliel 08:37, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will give you my answer, and be polite in so doing, if you give me your unequivocal guarantee that you will not delete the answer and will revert any other deletions.There's no point contributing an answer if it's just deleted.The Number 10:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If your answer is civil, relevant, and does not rehash old grudges, I don't see what grounds anyone would have to delete it. Gamaliel 17:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for Peace

These are my personal conclusions and suggestions. I'm not any more important or authoritative then the rest of you, and I'm not trying to be. I'm not even less guilty of failing to remain neutral, given a statement like "it is possible that The Number could be compelled to make valuable contributions rather than lash out at people who offend what seem to be hair-trigger sensibilities, but given his/her gleeful delight in doing so, I consider it unlikely". However you turn it, that doesn't help in resolving matters. I shouldn't have said it.

With that in mind, here's what I think it all boils down to, and what I think we might be able to agree upon to resolve this. (In replying to this message, please reply below it, not in the middle, because this will muck up the numbering.)

I put it to you that:

1. None of the discussions that have been going on here were relevant to Wikipedia's primary goals; this is a strictly personal conflict between editors.
2. None of us can entirely absolve themselves from blame in prolonging and exacerbating the conflict, regardless of who we consider "right" or "wrong" in it.
3. The discussions on identity, bad faith, uncivil behaviour etc. have reached the point of going back and forth without any progress between parties, and are unlikely to make progress.

As a means of resolution, I suggest that:

1. Nobody will demand "apologies" or "acknowledgement" for perceived bad behavior. It's certainly nice to give it in the spirit of good faith, but playing the blame game is what got us here in the first place. Yes, people have been bad all round. Acknowledging this openly and without reservation should be sufficient.
2. Everyone will refrain from starting or continuing discussion on anyone's "real-life" identity; in particular, there will be no more accusations or implications of anyone being John P. Ennis, or not from the country they claim to be, or any other identity issues wholly irrelevant to building an encyclopedia, whether in explicit comments or edit summaries. Editors are free to hold whatever personal beliefs they wish on the topic, but it does not deserve mention on the talk page of an article, and in light of developments, it no longer belongs on personal talk pages either.
3. Everyone will try harder to assume good faith and be civil. Calling someone a "liar" or "Mr. Untruth", marking messages on talk pages as "vandalism" or using phrases like "I am not your fucking monkey" is not acceptable behavior, no matter what the provocation. A very important, nay vital part of assuming good faith is trying to imagine where the other side is coming from. This has simply not been attempted; everyone was too busy focusing on how they were mistreated, misrepresented and harassed, without bothering to consider how it appears to the other side.
4. Everyone will recognize that every community forms de-facto social ranks, that this is a simple truth, and that while people should be more aware of it, it is not in itself a ground to claim a conspiracy, cabalism, favoritism or even inbred hostility to newcomers. It is true that it's not nice to see established contributors band together to ward off what they see as an intruder, but it is no more than human nature that they do. A little understanding and especially a little humility on both sides goes a long way. Wikipedia is not a collection of turf wars.
5. Everyone will accept that the requirement of civility does not include the obligation to like or pretend to like people, nor does it include the obligation to talk on matters not related to article content. Contributors are allowed to remove messages from their talk pages they do not wish to consider or do not wish to present to others, regardless of how discourteous others may think this is. The baseline of civility is not violated in maintaining a strictly goal-oriented attitude.
6. Everyone will recognize that the primary goal of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. It is not Usenet, a chat forum or a collection of personal blogs. In that vein, anyone is allowed to remove or refactor messages on article talk pages that do not pertain to the article contents, provided that good faith is taken into account (assume someone is trying to make constructive comments on the article and has merely slipped into taking things personally) and clear mention is made of what's going on.

I'm not so naive to think everyone will kiss and make up, nor do I think that's what we need here. We should simply recognize and put an end to a massively unhelpful conflict that's eating up time and resources we could be spending on improving articles. Personally, I recommend The Number and "everyone else" respect a cool-off period where they simply stop talking to each other—at the very least a truce could be recognized where we don't bring up the contentious issue and don't respond to the other side if they do. Wikipedia is a big place. There's room enough for all of us to edit, if we're wise enough not to deliberately step on each other's toes. If someone after all this still feels their personal grudges have not been satisfied, fine. Let them take it up in e-mail, chat, or have them meet in a pub for a bout of fisticuffs for all I care. Just ignore any attempt to rekindle the flame on Wikipedia. Be the mature party. I know how wounded pride can sting, but festering conflicts hurt worse.

You can agree or disagree with me as you see fit, but whatever you do, please consider burying the hatchet. Get on with your lives as Wikipedians. Go smell the roses for all I care. I don't care what you do it for, just do it. :-) JRM 13:08, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Yup. That sums it up for me. --MarkSweep 13:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've said what I had to say. The Number's responses to my statements are consistent here with a demeanour s/he's displayed to everyone all along. I'm content to let the consensus judge the result. Fire Star 23:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with everything JRM has posted. I do have ONE question and ask that it not be misinterpreted. I realised only two days ago that Wyss is a girl. The reason for that is that on the RFC pages Wyss's pages are referred to as 'her' pages. Because I have been trying to be fair (and robust in my defence) I have, at every opportunity since, referred to Wyss as a 'she'. This is because of:

Look:

"S/he complains loudly and frequently about the behavior of others, including the breaking of "rules" that only exist in his/her mind, such as demanding for days that User:Wyss be punished for deleting a message from her own talk page posted there by User:The Number." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/The_Number#Statement_of_the_dispute

I have now been accused of making 'snide' remarks by an Oxford Philosophy lecturer so just perhaps in trying to do right I have in fact done wrong. So if Wyss is a male then I apologise but you can see why I made the mistake. If Wyss is in fact female then, obviously, I do not apologise. In writing this I am hoping that good faith is taken into account. Assuming everyone agrees with what JRM has written then that would be great and I can now go and contribute elsewhere. As I said earlier (weeks ago) I have been hesitant about contributing elsehwere as people may delete what I write not because of content but because of what they believe I am as represented here. So - truce all? The Number 13:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In a way that's familiar to those who have encountered him before, The Number has here taken a comment that I made on his Talk page, which referred to a comment also on that page:

I see the 'gang' is all there and I see no-one's objected so far to your blatant lie. A true test of the honesty of Wikipedians this will be! I notice you reveal - at last - that you're female....that would explain a lot of your comments. The Number 18:22, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He has presented it out of context so as to make it look as though it referred to something here. One can only assume good faith if bad faith has not already been amply demonstrated. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And that, in turn, entitles you to soundly trashing him on this talk page, happily ignoring everything I've written, because demonstrating the evils of The Number is our first duty. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, as it were.

You could have asked this on his talk page. And, of course, The Number should have posted his question on your talk page, no doubt about it.

"One can only assume good faith if bad faith has not already been amply demonstrated." One can also assume that once a demonstration of bad faith does not always a demonstration of bad faith make.

I'm very much hoping that this is just an aftershock, and not the next chapter of this endless story. Please let it be so. JRM 14:10, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Ias ked here as to whether Wyss is female or male because Wyss posts more here than my TalkPage. Here is where the quotation comes from. Here is where people concerned with this RFC visit most. I posted here because it is in context. Here is also where I have made most of my 'she' comments about Wyss. So - is Wyss a she or a he? The Number 15:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since the cat's already out of the bag, in a manner of speaking, I'm sure Wyss won't mind if I confirm she's a she. I feel a pre-emptive warning is necessary that I will take a dim view of any continued discussion of editor motives or the relevancy of their gender, and I don't think I would be alone. At this point, we are really no longer interested in what was right or wrong in the past discussions. This is not relevant to the discussion at hand. Continue on a user talk page, if you feel that's necessary. JRM 16:15, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

What possible relevance is Wyss' gender? It's just an excuse for The Number to troll again and not address the matter at hand. Quite frankly, I haven't seen anything from The Number that makes me think s/he is willing to change at all, so in my judgment a truce may be counter-productive. If The Number's sole objective is disruption, the faster we get this to ArbCom, the better. If The Number is willing to act like a useful, productive, civil editor, then I will abide by whatever sort of truce is arrived at by consensus. Gamaliel 17:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again. You're accusing me of wanting to troll and for good measure you put in 'again'. Clearly you think you can read my mind. Sigh The Number 17:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Prove me wrong, then. Show me up in front of all of Wikipedia and become a productive and civil editor. Gamaliel 17:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My intention is not to 'show anyone up' I do not have that vindictiveness in me. I will answer the questions put earlier, in a civil and honest and constructive way. I will then see what others write. The only 'proving people wrong' I want to do is when I am wrongly accused - as I have repeatedly said. I would ask also that you become a civil editor.I do not find comments such as: "If only I had the kind of influence on this site that you imagine I have! Then you would be quickly and permanently blocked" to be helpful. The Number 18:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Name one thing that you've done on this website that's helpful in any way. Over 200 edits with no positive contributions, just talk page blather about how oppressed you are. Gamaliel 18:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's easy. Considering you said to me "I am not your fucking monkey" when I asked you a polite question about editorial conflicts, just by showing up your behaviour I am giving you a chance to change and progress. Now you might say that your comment was not on this site, so it doesn't count. OK. I remind you what JRM said: "You can agree or disagree with me as you see fit, but whatever you do, please consider burying the hatchet. Get on with your lives as Wikipedians. Go smell the roses for all I care. I don't care what you do it for, just do it" You persistently ignore this to the continued detriment of this page. By reminding you of this and your behaviour I am hoping for peace - that's something positive. The Number 18:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I stated 'very recently' below but you trumpet your 'discovery' as if it were something new. My comments were on Talk Pages and therefore your insistence that they should be elsewhere suggests that always all comments on Talk Pages have a particular destination. You make an error. The second is not a joke but then you're not that sharp, as can be seen from the user's contribution history. If you're ever in a bookshop pick up "Sex 16 years onwards: Haynes Owners Workshop Manual" by Dr Ian Banks. Then turn to page 5*3 and look at the section on aphrodisiacs. Look at section 3 and you'll see the recipe. When dealing with the problem of impotence, aphrodisiacs have an important role to play. Your rudeness and unfeeling attitude towards those who may be seeking relief from impotence (and hence look at the Wiki pages) is indicative of your whole demeanour to life where according to your own Talk Pages you "believe that, to quote the bloke from 'Bad Astronomy', "never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty, and the pig likes it" Shame on me for not following your advice. The Number 23:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I shall reinstate this, which seems to have become edited-out of the discussion: ":User's sole contributions in this regard are [6] and [7], to the talk pages of Bournemouth and Impotence; both contributions were made this evening, during the discussion above. The first half of the first contribution is potentially worthwhile, but needs sources and should be at Bournemouth University; the second is a joke. As can be seen from user's contribution history, [8] of 250+ posts to Wikipedia's precious servers, user's sole edit to an article is this. [9]-Ashley Pomeroy 23:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)"-Ashley Pomeroy 13:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What do you hope to accomplish by participating in Wikipedia?

I simply give what expertise I have. The Oxford Philosophy lecturer condemns me as having no skill - but then that is to be expected from someone who teaches at a University where the alcoholism is so high and lectures take but a few hours a week. I'd like to think that the uncivil behaviour of some Editors may change - but I doubt it. Nonetheless that is not my purpose, just a positive spin-off.

In what way have you positively contributed to the goal of constructing an encyclopedia?

Bad behaviour, uncivil behaviour, lying behaviour, deceitful behaviour all detract from Wikipedia. I have continually exposed the behaviour of others - maybe they will learn. I have also inadvertently provided a focus for the anger felt by those who felt sullied by Sollog because the more they believe I am Sollog the more they can vent their anger.

I have also very recently contribute to pages elsewhere, but that is only very recent.

In vain have I tried to enlist advocates. I leave messages on their pages and they don't reply. In vain have I tried to find out what the edit/conflict was about but the only person who answered was the uncivil owner of the 'fucking monkey' retort.

That's it. The Number 22:37, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your recent 'contributions' have been to Talk:Bournemouth and Talk:Impotence — still nothing to an actual Wikipedia article. Is there some deep reason that you can't or won't cointribute to what we're actually trying to do here? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:08, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let me try to understand you correctly. You're using these pages here to criticise me for adding to Talk pages elsewhere? I wonder, is there some reason that you feel this burning need? You post elsewhere about problems in class control - is this page your outlet? The Number 23:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

??? What on earth (or off it) are you talking about? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Number, while I admire in principle the efforts of those people to forge peace with you, I believe the time for that has passed as you have slapped away all the previous hands held out to you in friendship and show no indication that you will do any different in the future. Given that you have openly stated that your sole purpose here is to annoy people by constantly pointing out what you think they are doing wrong and bringing it up over and over again, and given that you apparently have zero interest in the purpose of this project, I don't see any alternative other than banning you as your presence is counterproductive. If you are not going to participate in editing or programming, then you are wasting our time and the resources of the project. This is not an insult, but a statement of obvious fact. Wikipedia does not need a third-rate cyberspace version of Dr. Phil providing amateur diagnoses of our problems. Wikipedia needs editors and programmers. If you are not interested in being either, then you should go away, or be made to. Gamaliel 06:39, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear Gamaliel is there something wrong with you? Is it some sort of compulsion you have? Did you think that saying you were not my 'fucking monkey' was holding out a hand of friendship? More seriously you state: "Given that you have openly stated that your sole purpose here is to annoy people by constantly pointing out what you think they are doing wrong and bringing it up over and over again" Source your comment as I maintain that is a deliberate lie, written to fool those too lazy to check. So, source your quote. The Number 08:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am waiting for the source of: " Given that you have openly stated that your sole purpose here is to annoy people " from Gamaliel The Number 09:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Question above to the Number: In what way have you positively contributed to the goal of constructing an encyclopedia? Answer given above by the Number: Bad behaviour, uncivil behaviour, lying behaviour, deceitful behaviour all detract from Wikipedia. I have continually exposed the behaviour of others - maybe they will learn. That's the only answer. Perhaps this is what's summarized as you have openly stated that your sole purpose here is to annoy people by constantly pointing out what you think they are doing wrong and bringing it up over and over again. True, annoyance isn't the stated objective, but it has very obviously been the result.

Why do you sink to the same level as Gamaliel? Let me put the FULL quotation:

What do you hope to accomplish by participating in Wikipedia?

I simply give what expertise I have. The Oxford Philosophy lecturer condemns me as having no skill - but then that is to be expected from someone who teaches at a University where the alcoholism is so high and lectures take but a few hours a week. I'd like to think that the uncivil behaviour of some Editors may change - but I doubt it. Nonetheless that is not my purpose, just a positive spin-off.

In what way have you positively contributed to the goal of constructing an encyclopedia?

Bad behaviour, uncivil behaviour, lying behaviour, deceitful behaviour all detract from Wikipedia. I have continually exposed the behaviour of others - maybe they will learn. I have also inadvertently provided a focus for the anger felt by those who felt sullied by Sollog because the more they believe I am Sollog the more they can vent their anger.

Now that I have put the FULL quotation you can see that my PURPOSE is simply to 'give'. My purpose is NOT to change the behaviour of Editors - I specifically and unequivocably state that. Look I'll quote: "Nonetheless that is NOT my purpose"

The second bit asked me about outcomes and I stated what I believe to have been positive outcomes. They were not my purpose - my purpose as, again, I have stated, was to put what I believed to be, accurate statements on the Sollog page using the knowledge I have of Sollog. That I made very clear and naturally you totally ignored. So you too have been beguiled (infected) by whatever legacy dealing with Sollog has left. The Number 08:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That matter aside, I sympathize with the reasoning for Gamaliel's suggestion, but suspect that it would lead to a worse mess than we've got now. As soon as you ban somebody (or of course before), that person can get a new username. It's indisputable that -- for better or worse (and I think worse) -- Number is energetic and persistent. Ban him, and he'll almost certainly pop up again, further embittered, leading to further squabbles and further wastes of time. Work to have him resign and re-up, and who knows, he might shape up (under a new moniker). I'm not optimistic about this, but think that there's a non-negligible chance that it would work, whereas I'm pretty certain that a ban (of a single username, not of a person or IP number) would aggravate matters. -- Hoary 08:39, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

There are grounds for banning Gamaliel IMO but not me. There are grounds for banning Wyss too as another contributor (given you ignore everything I really write) has pointed out the illogicality of Wyss's campaign. The Number 08:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Number, we can all see what you wrote. I abridged it to save space. OK, so your original purpose was to contribute knowledge about Sollog. Got it. Meanwhile, my own reason for hoping that you will disappear is that (unlike Gamaliel and Wyss) your writings are usually longwinded, repetitive, and boring, while your actual contributions are minimal. I haven't looked at Impotence, but your contributions to Bournemouth appear to be limited to its talk page and are minor. Actually they're commendably concise; perhaps if you abandon your "Number" identity and start afresh with a new username, you'll have more time to add this kind of thing. -- Hoary 09:33, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

Now you have FINALLY understood what I very clearly stated perhaps you'd be kind enough to let me know why Gamaliel has reverted my deletion of his lie on the article page? His behaviour is totally counterproductive. Interesting that you found Wyss's repetitive "You're Ennis! You're Sollog!" accusations against me, interesting. Surprising what you reveal with comments like that. The Number 09:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Interesting you removed my emboldening in your comment - it must be ebarrassing to you to admit I was right all along i.e. I had clearly stated my purpose and it was as I said not as Gamaliel keeps saying. Careful - they'll be after you - wait until Ashley wakes up! The Number 09:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I removed your additions (plural) of bold to my comments because they altered what I was saying. You had clearly stated that your original purpose was to contribute on Sollog. That was then, this is now; I don't know what your purpose is and I don't care. But keep altering comments, no matter how trivially, and I'll add my voice to those asking for a ban. -- Hoary 09:53, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

You're going to add your voice anyway - that's obvious. The three-revert rule means Gamaliel cannot keep deleting my resolution so you'll step in. The Number 09:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why is The Number here?

Yesterday I wrote this:

I am here because I stumbled on Wikipedia by accident. Out of curiosity I looked for 'Sollog' and stumbled on the Sollog pages. With amazement I saw how Sollog and Wikipedia were locking horns. I have seen Sollog 'fight' others and thought that this would indeed be an interesting battle to watch. The typical Sollog reaction with the anti Jim site, the phonecalls, the abuse etc plus of course the TOH 'court case'. I then saw that as everyone was so wound up by Sollog that no-one seemed to be posting any sense. There are IMO some interesting aspects to Sollog's work and so I posted about them. Immediately I was condemned and suddenly my identity and location became important factors especially as someone put a Sockpuppet on my Talk Page and Wyss, demonstrating maturity, even posted 'I am Sollog' on my Talk Page. Thus started her obsession. Lie upon lie was told about me and I could see that Sollog's method of 'fighting' was being aped by Wyss. I tried to respond but each time 'reasonable' people got interested they ended up siding (or at least not opposing) Wyss. Until 2 days ago I figured that perhaps people were frightened by big bad Wyss as they all awarded each other Barnstars etc. Now I suspect it was either flirtation or some sort of protectionist instinct. Certainly responses such as 'I am not your fucking monkey' (by an Administrator no less!) did not fill me with confidence for the behaviour of others.

I then didn't post on Wiki for a time but when I returned Wyss was still shrilling that I am Sollog etc. Wyss then decided to start all this.

Why am I still here?

Well, I am defending my corner as I watch the various 'gang' attempt to defy logic and pin every crime upon me - deleting my own entries when I point out mistakes in their posts (as Mark Sweep did).

I am also 'here' as in 'here at Wiki' because I have been contributing elsewhere (try looking at the pages on Bournemouth and also Impotence).

Now that's very clear. I have clearly stated my original purpose - to contribute to the Sollog pages. That is - surely - what most people are here for - to contribute.

So, I state my purpose and what does Gamaliel write? Well he sees that my stated purpose does not fit in with his personal crusade therefore he deliberately lies and picks something which I have clearly stated is NOT my purpose and says it IS.

You cannot get a clearer example of someone acting totally against the ideals of Wikipedia than to ignore what my purpose IS and take something it is NOT. The Number 09:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel said: Prove me wrong, then. Show me up in front of all of Wikipedia and become a productive and civil editor.I have comprehensively shown that you are wrong when you deliberately lied about me. However as people saw fit to trash my contributions and refer to a serious post as 'a joke' how can my efforts be productive? I am waiting for the source of: " Given that you have openly stated that your sole purpose here is to annoy people " The Number 09:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mr./Ms. Number, I find it amusing that someone who has repeatedly lied about and manipulated the context of our talk page conversation has the gall to complain that s/he has been misquoted. Regardless of that, I feel that what I wrote was a reasonable interpretation of what you answered, though I admit I might have been off a bit given that your writing is convoluted and unclear. You might try editing your meandering prose instead of accusing me of lying and/or having some sort of mental defect. (Thank you, by the way, for your mock concern about my welfare.) You might also try the radical step of being clear and concise. With that said, your purpose may indeed be merely to "give" - how very Jonathan Livingston Seagull of you - and the annoyance factor is just icing on the cake. However, you might consider that we may have no idea what it is that you want to "give" from your rambling answer, and that we may not wish to receive it at all. Gamaliel 09:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am waiting for the source of: " Given that you have openly stated that your sole purpose here is to annoy people " I openly stated what my purpose was NOT. Which part of 'NOT' did you find unclear? That's what I meant about mental defect. I have put my purpose (from yesterday) in BOLD. Which part is not clear and concise. You're to vain to apologise aren't you! You made a mistake and now cannot climb down. I have removed your personal attack from the article BTW.Thank you for saying what I might consider. Have you considered taking a break? The Number 09:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hoary had no problem figuring out how I came away with that interpretation of what you wrote. I guess we share the same mental defect then? Gamaliel 09:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Most certainly not. Hoary has finally admitted he sees my purpose. Unlike you he can understand concise sentences - it's the long ones that bore him. Read what he's written - and then take a break. You removed the stressometer from your site - did it break? The Number 09:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Number, are you asking Gamaliel to read what I wrote, or are you asking him to read your illicitly altered version of what I wrote? I have twice removed your egregious addition of bold flags to my comments. The use of bold implies importance. Since it's my comment, others will infer that this is the part that I think is important. Wrong inference, since it's your bold, not mine. Hoary

I suspect that Gamaliel will not like what you wrote as it contradicts what he has written. I quite understand how you prefer to sacrifice accuracy for keeping in with others. The Number 09:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't see your purpose. I see that you say your original purpose was to contribute to the article about Sollog. Long sentences, well written, don't bore me. Your long paragraphs and repetitiveness do bore me. Hoary

'I don't see your purpose'.....'I see you say your original purpose was...' Do you not see an inconsistency there? The Number 09:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually your purpose doesn't interest me at all. It could be some undergraduate participant research into trolling, for all I care. What interests me is finding a way to persuade you to stop wasting people's time. -- Hoary 09:48, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

Twice the resolution to exactly that has been deleted by Gamaliel. He's loving all this. Me? I'm bored. The Number 09:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Will Gamaliel now admit he's wrong?

It takes a special kind of sanity to admit your mistakes.

Hoary wrote: "You had clearly stated that your original purpose was to contribute on Sollog."

Gamaliel wrote: "Hoary had no problem figuring out how I came away with that interpretation of what you wrote."

And Gamaliel's interpretation?

"Given that you have openly stated that your sole purpose here is to annoy people"

So Gamaliel thinks that:

a. "You had clearly stated that your original purpose was to contribute on Sollog."

b. "Given that you have openly stated that your sole purpose here is to annoy people"

are the same?

That's why he keeps deleting my resolution - he is loving all this! The Number 09:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I kept deleting your response because it was a talk page comment and not a "resolution". I also restored my comments which you repeatedly altered. Instead of blocking you for vandalism, I decided to ask an unrelated administrator to keep an eye on this page to keep all of us in line. Gamaliel 10:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It IS a resolution as you very well know. You (plural) stop getting at me and I'll go and Edit. It really is that simple. And your 'resolution' contains inaccuracies amounting to a personal attack. The Number 10:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The point was that Wyss's question exposed Wyss's activities hence my refusal to answer Wyss. But this is just a rehash. The RFC is the key issue now - in particular Gamaliel's constant deletion of my resolution and his woeful attempt to misrepresent meThe Number 10:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Number is taking a Wiki-break

I am spending too much time on this. I am now taking a Wiki-break - perhaps indefinitely. Provoke and lie (or not) as you wish - I'll not be replying. The Number 12:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now he's gone, and out of curiousity - I believe that one of the administrator noticeboards allows for a request to investigate whether the passwords of two different users are the same. Would it be possible to determine whether User:The Number and User:Sollogfan shared the same password? -Ashley Pomeroy 12:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Number hasn't had any trouble spending inordinate amounts of time on Sollog-related arguments until they were publicly called up on their behaviour with this RfC. I submit that this is simply more anti-social behaviour: when the defence crumbles, simply stop responding after giving a plausible but thin excuse. This is exactly what The Number has always done in response to conversation threads that have taken a turn not in their favour, except on a larger scale.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 23:02, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Please see [[User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive/archive M%E4rz 3#RFC]]. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:53, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Number returns from "wikibreak" to spam Sollog article

As can be seen from The Number's edits of March 28, 2005, he has returned from his "wikibreak" in order to insert Sollog-generated prediction spam into the Sollog article. I submit that The Number is being deliberately unresponsive to the community.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 16:30, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the "break" was obviously a sham? What now? Arbcom? Gamaliel 19:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I imagine so. This RfC seems to have been unproductive except as further evidence for an RfA.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 20:59, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Would anybody (aside perhaps from the Number) derive any benefit whatever from the process, or any decision made by it? Sounds to me like a huge waste of time. -- Hoary 07:56, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Note that the most recent edit to the talk page of Impotence [10] includes what looks suspiciously like an advert.-Ashley Pomeroy 14:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let him have his fun and think that he's somehow "legitimising" himself by spamming non-Sollog articles. After all, if he ends up contributing positively anywhere, that's a sign that he might actually have the potential to become a productive editor. Let his collegues at those articles, rather than us, pass judgement on his contributions. We are, after all, pretty fed up with his smokescreens are would be biased in judging any new contributions.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:16, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Here is Number's "contribution" being zapped (by Gamaliel). For those who can't be bothered to look, it's a "recipe - culled from page 5*3 in the book 'Sex 16 years onwards: Haynes Owners Workshop Manual' by Dr Ian Banks". User:The Number has not made any contribution to the article itself; although, oddly, "User:Sollog" has just done so. -- Hoary 07:56, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

RfAr: don't bother

Regarding RfAr: don't bother. The ArbCom has much more important things to do than to deal with this matter. There is no conflict over content, and the only conflict between contributors is between The Number and two or three regular contributors, with just about everyone else agreeing that The Number, even if not the primary cause of the trouble, is certainly the one who keeps it going with no or only feigned interest in a solution.

All edits made by Sollog(ites) so far could be simply reverted because they were plain false and/or not corroborated by sources. The number of edits made to the article has dropped sharply since the initial stages, and it's nothing we can't handle collectively. In short: I suggest we acknowledge that we have been trolled, that we have lost, and that we continue having a nice day. JRM 09:41, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Good point. It's evident that The Number is already toothless without being banned. All we need to do is stop responding to him and revert or ignore nonsense as we would from anyone else.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 11:50, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The time that The Number has wasted alone justifies ArbCom intervention. Even if we all collectively muster the willpower to ignore him completely and just revert revert revert, what of the new editors who end up engaging him? Other trolls like Rex have run off new contributors with their confrontational ways, and The Number is eventually going to exact some sort of toll on this project even if you don't count the time s/he's already wasted. The Number isn't going to stop - his/her "wikibreak" was a week at best - and we shouldn't sit around hoping that s/he will come to his/her senses. The Number should be forced to change under the threat of banning, or actually be banned. Any other solution is wishful thinking. Gamaliel 18:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As shown by the antics with Sollogfan, even if we ignore the chap, he is fully prepared to talk to himself and his imaginary friends, or to cross-post nonsense to the talk pages of users unconnected with Sollog, [11] [12] or any of us here. His recent spate of alterations to Sollog - of his 307 edits, only five have been to a non-talk/user page, and they were all to Sollog - have consisted of advocacy of an incorrect Sollog prophecy [13] (a post which argues that the earthquake of March 28 [14] took place "within this time window! 3/29 - 3/31", after which "New York will soon be struck with bio/chem terrorism!"), and a typical obfuscation of another, wildly incorrect Sollog prophecy. [15] The former contribution is inarguably a deliberate attempt to insert knowingly incorrect information into an article, presumably on the assumption that no-one will take the trouble to actually follow the submitted references, which flatly contradict the post's assertion; he thinks that Wikipedia is a soft touch. The major positive point of a ban is that, when he comes back, he can be squelched immediately as a sockpuppet, rather than going through this lengthy process. As I have learned from working for Britain's NHS for so long, you can't deal with the sick by treating them, by giving them pills or letting them see a consultant; you have to force them to realise that they are wicked, wicked, selfish time-wasters, evil little attention-seekers who have to be turned away, shunned, etc. Arthritic knees and compressed carpal tunnels are irrefutable symptoms of spiritual and moral evil, with no basis in any supposed physical deformity. They sicken me, the sick.-Ashley Pomeroy 20:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're enjoying this far too much, Ashley. Wikipedia is not for having fun, you hear? JRM 20:27, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I spend too much time hearing about fractured bones, ruptured tendons, burst menisci... resected... torn... (cough)... from people who remind me too much of David Cronenberg, whilst trying not to think of my own knees - there are woodlice crawling inside them, see, and although the consultants say there there is... are not woodlice, I can feel them, at night I can hear them. Clicking. I still argue for a proper block, although not to the extent of an RfA, which would I agree be a waste of time; there are plenty of knees in the world, it doesn't matter much if one pair stops working. Another set will come along. Wikipedia is bigger than any one pair of knees. You should feel good about debriding the torn ligaments, removing the K-wires, etc.-Ashley Pomeroy 10:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Number switches to Sollogfan

The Number recently stated that he will be abandoning the account named The Number in favour of a different account. At the time I applauded this decision, hoping that he would make good on it. However, I'm now pretty sure he has just transferred his activity to his puppet account, Sollogfan (contribs). (Note the spelling corrections to The Numbers' January posts on Talk:Sollog (diff), just for starters.) In his "goodbye" statement, he said specifically, "I have decided to 'rename' myself as advised by...I dunno, probably everyone. One final point, I am 99.99999% certain that Sollogfan's password is not mine it would indeed be a very very unhappy coincidence if it was!", which shows a typical Sollog pattern of letting slip his plans by trying to defuse suspicion before he executes them.

Is an RfAr justified yet?  — Saxifrage | ☎ 20:43, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. Make this fellow an admin, I say. :-)

On a more serious note, I would be perfectly neutral to an RfAr. I'm sure not going to sink more time in this hopeless affair. JRM 21:05, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Well, wasn't that silly of me! (/me fixes.) Anyway, I only ask the peanut gallery because though I'm willing to sign on as a party and lay out the diffs I've gathered, I'm unfamiliar and busy enough that I wouldn't want to start one.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 21:28, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Under whatever name, Number is energetic in (repeatedly) relating what he claims are affronts and grievances, and he seems to thrive on attention. Would anyone want to be bothered to read the logorrhea? Not me. -- Hoary 03:33, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)