Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Rfwoolf

Case Filed On: 07:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:

Rfwoolf (talk · contribs)

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

Yomangani (talk · contribs) - for administrating the original deletion of an article for allegedly being too much like a how-to guide.
JzG (talk · contribs) - for redeleting the article and locking it from recreation! This unilateral decision is wrong!

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

Anal stretching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anal_stretching (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anal_stretching|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Questions: edit

Have you read the AMA FAQ?

Answer: Yes

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

Answer: Unilaterally locking an article from recreation!!! Bureacracy, Wrongful deletion, Article subject biase, Christians opposed to anything remotely heathen such as Anal stretching.

What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.

Answer: First the article 'Anal stretching' was brought up for deletion here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anal_stretching

I objected. Consensus was to delete, but I found this very biased, the article just needed work, amendments, not deletion!!!
The article was then deleted by Yomangani for being a 'how-to' guide (disagree), also dicdef (disagree), and badly referenced (possible).
I then brought the article up on deletion review:
deletion review
The user Guy (JzG) said the deletion was for valid reason, but that I am free to recreate the article so long as it is properly referenced, etc. So I begun to redo the article, but it was then promptly deleted by Guy (JzG) and locked from recreation!
Not only was that a unilateral action, but it means that nobody (not even me) can recreate the article better.
Back on the Deletion Review, everybody seems to think the article wasn't up to scratch because it was badly referenced -- which is why I put a template tag saying the article should be better referenced.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

Answer: 1) The article Anal_Stretching should be unlocked and recreation allowed. There has been no actual objection to the existence of the article, just heavy-handed admins deleting as many articles as they can.

2) An admin needs to help me understand precisely what is wrong with the article that was deleted. Some insist its like a 'how to' guide, others say it isn't. My attempt to recreate the article ensured it wasn't -- it was deleted and locked. Others say it's badly referenced. I believe there are decent references, but they need to be wikified and edited appropriately, and as such I put in a template saying so -- they ignored and deleted nonetheless.

Summary: edit

(Repeated from above...) First the article 'Anal stretching' was brought up for deletion here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anal_stretching
I objected. Consensus was to delete, but I found this very biased, the article just needed work, amendments, not deletion!!!
The article was then deleted by Yomangani for being a 'how-to' guide (disagree), also dicdef (disagree), and badly referenced (possible).
I then brought the article up on deletion review:
deletion review
The user Guy (JzG) said the deletion was for valid reason, but that I am free to recreate the article so long as it is properly referenced, etc. So I begun to redo the article, but it was then promptly deleted by Guy (JzG) and locked from recreation!
Not only was that a unilateral action, but it means that nobody (not even me) can recreate the article better.
Back on the Deletion Review, everybody seems to think the article wasn't up to scratch because it was badly referenced -- which is why I put a template tag saying the article should be better referenced.

Discussion: edit

Hello Rfwoolf, I'm Dfrg.msc (talk · contribs) and I'll be your advocate for your case: Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Rfwoolf.

Firstly, I see what you want to do, unfortunately I can't see what it looked like before ans subsequently why it was deleted. However, what I could discern from the Deletion article was that:

Read like a how-to guide
It was unverifiable
It was unsourced POV
It was a howto and a place for dicdefs

Positively:

Subject matter did not come into question
"Legitimate concept that needs to be referenced"
Could be referenced properly

I've no idea about these actions:

The user Guy (JzG) said the deletion was for valid reason, but that I am free to recreate the article so long as it is properly referenced, etc. So I begun to redo the article, but it was then promptly deleted by Guy (JzG) and locked from recreation!

But it doesn't matter. I have had previous dealings with JzG before. He is not unreasonable. I understand that you can't edit the article, but it shows promise. What I suggest you do is construct the article here or in a test page, and then upon completion take it to JzG. If it is decent article then I'm sure he will unlock the page so you can paste it in.

The following is my response, as posted on Dfrg.msc's user talk page:

Hi Dfrg.msc, thank-you for your response to my AMA issue, as posted on my talk page. Note for starters that the history of the Anal Stretching article has been made available thanks to my concerns, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anal_stretching&action=history (you can find this link on the Deletion Review page in the Anal Stretching node)

Your suggestion about the article being locked for recreation, that I recreate the article on my usertalk page and then call Guy to review it, is rather problematic. Firstly, Wikipedia should be a collaborative effort, and it is unfair to ask me to rebuild an article from scratch all by myself, and, if you review the history of the article before it was up for deletion originally, you will see that it was never that bad at all, in fact only 1 paragraph in the entire article could even be accused of being a how-to guide, and as for the bad referencing, I think it just needed to have a small referencing cleanup -- I was all for amendment as opposed to deletion.
Let me conclude with these two points and please let me know your response:

Surely Guy's decision to lock the article from recreation is unfair -- I remain fully reasonable and don't think I abused the recreation process -- but if I did I was unawares. The article should be unlocked so that multiple users can try recreate the article, not just me. When the article was up for deletion debate, at least one user said that Anal Stretching seems like a legit concept that could be referenced properly, i.e. the article should exist, just properly.
Aside from the recreation lock being unilateral and inappropriate, I would value your opinion -- looking at how the article looked before deletion -- on whether there was good grounds to delete the article to begin with. Maybe I am ignorant on deletion policy, but I currently insist the article just needed to be amended, not deleted, even if it was left as a stub. Deletion is a lazy solution to an article problem, and it seems that many admins are just amendment-lazy, and deletion-happy. It seems some admins may be offended by the subject matter of the article -- Guy is a significant christian -- and he made a comment to another admin that "he just wanted to see the article deleted". What do you think? Maybe you can help me understand why the article needed to be deleted instead of amended. There is even a wiki template that says "this article is being cleaned up to comply with deletion debate"

That said, I thank you for your input whenever you are ready.

I am in no mood to re-research an article that was nearly good before it was deleted. That's just stupid.
Rfwoolf 02:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll thank you for being highly professional about this. It will make the process run much more smoothly. You remind me of me when I first joined, I really wanted to give it to those deletion-happy or as I once said: "trigger-happy deletionists". And I didn't get very far. I learnt my first and hardest lesson: Wikipedia is not a democracy.

However, I have to agree with you. You raise valid points which deserve to be answered:

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and ideally, everyone should be able to edit it.
I have viewed the article and although is was not perfect, it seemed decent enough (better by far, than most articles out there).
Guy's decision to lock the article from recreation seems unfair, though talking to him may shed some light.
I see no reason for the article not to exist (first though, it needs work).
I'd hope that Guy's religion would not influence his decision, and I have confidence that it didn't.
It does not matter that the article was deleted, it can be remade very easily. Just view the source and copy it into the new article.
You'll find that there is no need to re-research the article, most all of it can be salvaged. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 22:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rfwoolf (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
Anal stretching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article was deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anal stretching. Rfwoolf was told he was free to create a new article. What he did was to repost three times an all-but-identical article which was therefore deleted under criterion G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. The deletion was reviewed and endorsed.

As to it being a "unilateral" action, here are the logs:

16:46, December 30, 2006 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs | block) protected Anal stretching (It was unprotected apparently. [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
03:46, December 24, 2006 Trialsanderrors (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Anal stretching" (1 revisions restored: Restore protection only)
03:45, December 24, 2006 Trialsanderrors (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Anal stretching" (per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 18)
23:39, December 18, 2006 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Anal stretching" (67 revisions restored: deletion review)
23:39, December 18, 2006 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) protected Anal stretching ({{delrev}} [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
17:55, December 18, 2006 TheProject (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Anal stretching" (G4)
15:59, December 18, 2006 Can't sleep, clown will eat me (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Anal stretching" (speedy G4)
01:15, December 2, 2006 Yomangani (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Anal stretching" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anal stretching)

So that's one deletion per AfD, three per WP:CSD (all by different admins, all forming exactly the same judgement of the similarity of the content), and two [{WP:SALT]]ings. Not unilateral, not by any stretch of the imagination. Rfwoolf told me he had a new, different, fixed version - when I checked the deleted history I found it was almost word for word the same article. You will note that I restored the history to facilitate deletion review, which is hardly an act of ill-faith. Several people went to considerable lengths to help Rfwoolf avoid the problem, but his response was aggressive, not particularly civil, and in the end the lack of any other significant contributions to mainspace leads to the conclusion that this obsessive focus on anal stretching is not motivated by a desire to build a great encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What follows are my rebuttles and response to Guy: The article was deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anal stretching. --Nope, near-consensus. I agree that there was near-consensus on issues with the article, but those issues shouldn't necessarily be grounds for outright deletion. Also, nobody (including yourself or Dfrg.msc) have been able to adequately explain why it was better to eliminate an entire article instead of amending it -- that is to say that you thought the entire article was useless -- and yet all over wikipedia are dozens of stubs that get to stay, far worse articles that get to stay, but with anal stretching, some unclear referencing and a small paragraph that was slightly how-toish, and it's grounds for absolute deletion -- without a scrap being saved. ...cos that's what we do in wikipedia, we take hard work, and if there's a few problems we scrap the whole thing! No admins even once tried to put up 'bad referencing' templates or 'reads like a how-to guide' templates, not even once, instead you simply clicked and deleted! Do you agree with that philosophy, delete instead of improve? :( Rfwoolf was told he was free to create a new article. What he did was to repost three times an all-but-identical article which was therefore deleted under criterion G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. The deletion was reviewed and endorsed. Please note well, that while I admit the repost may have occured three times, I must stress that this happened in one repost attempt, while I was trying to fix the article (look up amendment in the dictionary) but deletion-happy admins kept on deleting the article. I ask you, how else am I to amend an article if people keep deleting it? One of the first things I did was read through it to fix the how-to complaint, which you must admit I seemed to do. So now you will see that your apparent good-faith wasn't misplaced. I was trying to fix an article three times and it was deleted, three times. As to it being a "unilateral" action, here are the logs: -You have mis-read. I said your blocking of the article was unilateral not its deletion, and so far, it was. The original article deletion was closer to consensus views, but nobody has managed to rationalise why deletion of every word in the article was better than amendment. Furthermore your unilateral blocking of the article has meant that nobody can recreate the article, decently or otherwise. ~~16:46, December 30, 2006 Nishkid64 (Talk \| contribs \| block) protected Anal stretching (It was unprotected apparently. [edit=sysop:move=sysop])~~ ~~03:46, December 24, 2006 Trialsanderrors (Talk \| contribs \| block) restored "Anal stretching" (1 revisions restored: Restore protection only)~~ ~~03:45, December 24, 2006 Trialsanderrors (Talk \| contribs \| block) deleted "Anal stretching" (per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 18)~~ ~~23:39, December 18, 2006 JzG (Talk \| contribs \| block) restored "Anal stretching" (67 revisions restored: deletion review)~~ ~~23:39, December 18, 2006 JzG (Talk \| contribs \| block) protected Anal stretching ({{delrev}} [edit=sysop:move=sysop])~~ ~~17:55, December 18, 2006 TheProject (Talk \| contribs \| block) deleted "Anal stretching" (G4)~~ ~~15:59, December 18, 2006 Can't sleep, clown will eat me (Talk \| contribs \| block) deleted "Anal stretching" (speedy G4)~~ ~~01:15, December 2, 2006 Yomangani (Talk \| contribs \| block) deleted "Anal stretching" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anal stretching)~~ So that's one deletion per AfD, three per WP:CSD (all by different admins, all forming exactly the same judgement of the similarity of the content), and two [{WP:SALT]]ings. Not unilateral, not by any stretch of the imagination. Rfwoolf told me he had a new, different, fixed version - when I checked the deleted history I found it was almost word for word the same article. Well, that's because no drastic changes were necessary, ie. the main complaint of the article was that it was too how-toish, which is what I tried to fix, along with improving the referencing and putting up a bad references template. That is why the article was almost word for word the same article -- and I hadn't finished yet. Nor had the wikipedia community which you have banned from the article. You will note that I restored the history to facilitate deletion review, which is hardly an act of ill-faith. Several people went to considerable lengths to help Rfwoolf avoid the problem, but his response was aggressive, not particularly civil, and in the end the lack of any other significant contributions to mainspace leads to the conclusion that this obsessive focus on anal stretching is not motivated by a desire to build a great encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC) In short I say to you that your deletion of every word of the article seems unfair given that the deletion review complained of a how-to guide -- and the entire article was not a how-to guide, complained of bad referencing -- which a simple wikitemplate would have rectified. But then, as if that wasn't unfair enough, your outright unilateral blocking of the article from recreation serves only to further prove bad will to the article and bad faith. We can put all of this disagreement behind us, if you'll unblock the article, and allow me (and 6 billion people) to try fix the article up, add in some tags about bad referencing and reading like a how-to guide, and let the article exist, even in a stub form, for the sake of knowledge and the vision that wikipedia and its community share. Do you disagree? Rfwoolf 07:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted through process, the deletion was reviewed and endorsed. Your own behaviour in repeatedly reposting all but identical content is the reason the article was salted. Your other contributions to the project are few, which raises legitimate questions regarding your motivation for obsession about this particular subject. Policy states that articles deleted through process and re-created in substantially similar form may be speedily deleted and if necessary locked to prevent re-creation. You have the option of creating a new article in your user space and requesting at WP:DRV that it be moved into mainspace, but that is about it. Your chances of getting me to remove the protection other than through that preocess are slim, since you already abused my trust once by reposting substantially identical content. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming there was perfectly good grounds for deletion, the locking is unnecessary, and as Dfrg.msc even agrees, Wikipedia is a collaborative process, i.e. if the article on Anal Stretching should exist, it should be open to all, not just me. By your own comments it seems that the article has been locked because of me which is arguably unfair, but, ultimately needs to be unlocked to allow recreation by a variety of people. You of all people understand that wikipedia is a collaborative place, and new articles don't just appear in full -- but instead most of them appear as stubs which get built on and developed by various people. By your rationale that I recreate the article on my usertalk page, would you therefore accept a stub? Surely you can't expect me to take Anal Stretching on as a research assignment? Dfrg.msc even said that most of the deleted article is usable. This indicates that a) the article should exist, even as a stub, and b) that I can recreate the article on my usertalk page as a stub and you will accept it. If not, then you're being rather ridiculous.
I should also point out that it is usually not wiki policy to lock articles from recreation permanently, you are only justified in locking it from me -- and even then you should have now read my reason for recreating it 3 times and my attempts to fix it which should restore good faith. Unlock the article, work with me so that it doesn't get speedy-deleted again, and I'll see what I can do. Rfwoolf 09:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break edit

It's not over surprising that your advocate takes your side - that's rather the point. But having re-created substantially identical content several times, protection absolutely is warranted, as noted at deletion review. Your options are: (a) drop it; (b) create a new and different article in your user space and take that to WP:DRV. I can't think of any others offhand. If you're not prepared to do that, I'm not interested. My tolerance for demands from obsessive creators of sexcruft with no significant edit history and a past history of abusing my good nature is, I'm afraid, roughly zero. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to interject that I am not on anyone's side, save the AMA's. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 07:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, please remain civil, without compromise Wikipedia will cease to be. Also, I'd like to remind you that all users on Wikipedia are equal, being an admin means only that you have more responsibilities. One of which is overseeing the deletion and recreation of articles. There is obviously a problem, so why not work with and not against the process for a speedy resolution? Dfrg.ms c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 08:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am being civil. I am also being firm. Rfwoolf previously said he had a new, different article, but it turned out to be an all-but-identical reposting of the same content (WP:CSD#G4). Several admins deleted it as such. I salted the title, but I don't do that unless there has been serial re-creation, which there was ni this case. There was a deletion review, the deletion was endorsed as a re-creation of content deleted by AfD. If Rfwoolf wants this article he can do it through process, which is to take the new an different article to deletion review. I would be more inclined to help if it weren't for Rfwoolf's previous abuse of good faith, the sub-trivial nature of the subject and his lack of substantive contributions to the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Re: "...his lack of substantive contributions to the encyclopaedia"
is absolutely 150% irrelevant. My contribution to this encyclopedia shouldn't make a difference to whether or not I am in the wrong or in the right. You are trying to use a straw-man approach. My contributions to Wikipedia have no merit in your argument whatsoever. Why do you avoid the issue by making irrelevant attacks against me?

2) Re: "Rfwoolf previously said he had a new, different article, but it turned out to be an all-but-identical reposting of the same content
is inaccurate. All I ever motioned to do was to fix the problems found by Deletion Review, namely 'reads like a how-to guide and bad referencing -- that isn't much. More over, before I even had a chance to fix the article, it was continuously deleted by G4, before being protected from recreation -- I never even had the chance to fix the article -- even though on some level I did fix it! So instead of working with me or communicating that my recreations of the article were invalid you instead bit the newcomer (see WP:NEWBIES), accused me of ill-will, and protected the article from recreation. As Dfrg.msc says -- and I agree -- try work more with me. The article should exist -- in its rightful form -- and your protection from recreation has no respect for that.

3) Re: "I SALT the title, but I don't do that unless there has been serial re-creation, which there was ni this case. ",
and, I have appealed this, saying that I only recreated the article 3 (three) times -- which is hardly serial recreation -- and explained I did so within the space of an hour or so because I kept on trying to fix it before admins deleted it on grounds of G4. In other words your assumption of 'ill-will' is inaccurate. Unsalt the article.

4) Re: if it weren't for [...] the sub-trivial nature of the subject
is also irrelevant. There are plenty of trivial subjects on wikipedia, including an article on mugs for example -- this is no reason to disregard the merits of my case. And, as it happens, I suspect there are plenty of people out there (I'm one of them) that would be interested in reading an article on Anal Stretching -- it's why I looked it up in the first place -- as well as sexologists in general. The article should exist! Don't be biased. Rfwoolf 12:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BITE does not apply, your first edit was well over a year ago. And that was the most compelling of your arguments above. Your use of your user space as a soapbox does not inspire confidence either. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good admin would not bring in foreign issues to detract from the issue at hand. Another straw man approach. Well done. Rfwoolf 13:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good user would not abuse the good faith of an admin who helped him our, or indeed invoke "biting the newbies" while simultaneously trumpeting that they have been an editor since November 2005 (albeit with almost no edits during that time). And it's about time you stopped spitting in the soup. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit

Cool off both of you. There will be no more personal attacks on my AMA page. As far as I'm concerned you are both good editors, let's just try to get this resolved. Dfrg.ms c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 09:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not your page. Rfwoolf is not a "good editor", he has very few contributions to the project, exactly 28 mainspace edits over 15 months as of this writing, less than one edit a fortnight, and these are vastly outweighed by the disruption he has caused by violating deletion policy and then arguing and arguing and arguing some more over it. All this for an article that is of approximately zero objective importance. One day wth a lot of work to put this behind him he might become a good editor, but right now in my view he is a substantial nett cost to the project. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's not my page, but I am the advocate so I have to maintain some semblance of order or you'll be at each others throats. Oh, too late. Please Guy, this is not about how good and editor Woolf is, it's about re-in statement of an article witch upon completion will have no reason not to be included in the Encyclopedia. Let's just focus on that. Dfrg.msc 23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal edit

I propose that:

The article is recreated (using any means and material) in user space.
Guy and my self will review the article, and make recommendations to the quality and correct content.
Upon being approved the article is re-instated (with new article) and the page is unlocked.
The case is closed.

Would this be acceptable to both parties? Dfrg.ms c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 08:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Any questions/comment/disagreements/new proposals go here.

While it is refreshing that you have a remotely feasible proposal, it still seems like the long way round, and forces me to research and recreate an article all by myself, collaborating with only myself. It seems you (and Guy) leave me no choice, but I will try recreate the article on the Anal_Stretching talk page -- so that on some level it will be a collaborative effort where other sexology editors or passers-by can assist. Rfwoolf 05:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should have thought of that before you serially re-created deleted content in clear defiance of policy, and abused my good faith in doing so. Had you rewritten rather than simply reposting after I userfied the content for you, we would not even be having this conversation. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..was trying to rewrite. Didn't know what G4 was. Tried 3 times within space of an hour or so. So I tried to rewrite, yet you accuse me of otherwise. Good faith, remember? Rfwoolf 10:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You reposted deleted content. You are not allowed to do that. Get over it. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Total Resolution Proposal edit

There are many issues still in conflict and with a bit of co-operation, they can all be resolved at once.

1. Restoration of the Article: Anal Stretching edit

Rfwoolf will be allowed to continue to edit this User talk:Rfwoolf/Anal stretching uninterrupted and without persecution. It will not be deleted or degraded in anyway.

Upon completion, the article will be reviewed by myself and Guy. Pending that, the article will be restored.

The correct venue for review is deletion review, as stated numerous times. I can't guarantee that edits will be uninterrupted (Woolf has dragged enough other admins into this that there may well be interruptions). Persecution? Begging the question. Rfwoolf has been disruptive and rude, many editors have been blocked or banned for less. Nobody is or ever was persecuting him. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, re-worded: Upon completion, the article will be reviewed at deletion review and restored as interruption free as possible. Dfrg.msc 06:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't mind the venue of review being Deletion Review (my original bone of contention was the Guy protected the article from recreation which stopped a collaborative effort on fixing the article). To that end, don't you think the article should be allowed to be rewritten in the Anal Stretching talk page? Mel Etitis may have expressed the possibility for that. I will enquirer and revert. Rfwoolf 08:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For crying out loud! You have the former deleted content, you have it in your user space. Obsessing about precisely where you work on this piece of shit article is a waste of everybody's time and always has been. And I have told you before, what I did was to restore the history for deletion review, the close and permanent salting is the work of another admin entirely. You really must stop repeating this falsehood. Guy (Help!) 16:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion/Comments:

Agreement from Rfwoolf:
Agreement from Guy:
Agreement from Dfrg.msc: I agree to these terms. Dfrg.ms c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 01:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Un-protection of Rfwoolf's Userpage edit

A compromise has been reached. Dfrg.ms c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 09:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Rfwoolf's Userpage will be unlocked when Rfwoolf meets these condition(s):~~

I've said I'll unlock it when Woolf undertakes not to abuse his user space as a soapbox. Thus far he hasn't accepted there was any problem with it, so we are not yet at first base on that one, but I said I will unlock it when he's shown he understands, and I will. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Discussion/Comments:~~

Agreement from Rfwoolf:
Agreement from Guy:
Agreement from Dfrg.msc: I agree to these terms. Dfrg.ms c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 01:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Case Closed edit

The case will be closed. My official part in the events regarding the Anal stretching article and interaction between Rfwoolf and Guy will be over.

Discussion/Comments:

Agreement from Rfwoolf:
Agreement from Guy:
Agreement from Dfrg.msc: I agree to these terms. Dfrg.ms c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 01:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: edit

When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?

Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?

Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?

Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?

Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?

Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?

Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?

Answer:

AMA Information edit

Case Status: open

Advocate Status:

- Accepted by Dfrg.ms c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 09:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]