[Threshold]

Neurolysis: I understand you are a part of Wikipedia, care about it, and as such do not want to think it is run by a cabal of borderline internet-gangsters who do absolutely anything they want and bully "outsiders." But if you objectively look at the situation, it is obvious that is the case.

First, it is widely known that an extremely small number of Wikipedia editors do the majority of the editing. , founder of Wikipedia, a group of 1400 editors are responsible for 74% of the content and edits.

Second, look at that post from "blair." That reveals the sick truth of the matter. If we'd been "nicer" to him and his cronies, our article wouldn't be in trouble. Put aside for the moment that "blair" is saying people who spent the last 4+ years working on and editing the Threshold entry should have been all rainbows and butterflies when a random person shows up and starts gutting the article, removing 75% of the content, and from the get-go questions its notability and general worth as an article. The problem is people like "blair", "Mendaliv", "Black Kite", and others seem to think they are the Lords and Ladies of Wikipedia, and the peasantry should bow down and worship them whenever they appear. That kind of garbage is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about.

Third, look at how the situation played out. Mendaliv shows up and starts gutting the article. The people who worked on it for 4 years objected, and restored information. But while restoring, they were also tracking down better citations and references. If Mendaliv's goal had truly been to improve the entry, then he would have let people KNOWLEDGEABLE about the topic continue. But instead, every time someone added back a section, with better references, it would get removed again and the person would get accused of "edit warring."

Over a period of weeks, Mendaliv would continually poke and prod at people, systematically undoing or removing anything they added or improved, and when they added it back, get his buddy Black Kite (a Wiki administrator) to ban them. If anyone else from the Threshold or MUD community decided to make an account to try and help out with improving the listing, Black Kite would ban them as "sockpuppets" or "meatpuppets."

Then, once they had just about everyone banned who was actively editing (in a positive way) the article on Threshold, they moved in with the AfD. There is NO WAY that timing was a coincidence. They waited until they had people most likely to make cogent arguments to KEEP it banned, and then proposed the AfD. That right there should be plenty proof that they never had a positive motive from the beginning, and that they were indeed acting like a "cabal."

Fourth, look at the AfD itself. Systematically, people who voted to KEEP were either banned as sockpuppets, flagged as accounts that rarely post on Wikipedia, or their EXTREMELY ON POINT AND VALID ARGUMENTS were moved to a crossed out box that was shifted to the bottom of the page and hidden. People I have known for 10+ years were accused of being sockpuppets of me, which is not only ridiculous but pointless since at that time I was banned and couldn't post on the AfD anyway. How can someone be a sockpuppet of someone else if the first person isn't even able to post?

I understand the need to deal with people who might make multiple accounts just to stuff the voting box, but go to that AfD and actually read what was posted by these supposed sockpuppets. The arguments made were extremely valid. Examples of things that were pointed out (with direct links to the policies and rules on Wikipedia)

1) TMC, TMS, GameCommandos, TMJ, and other sites are indeed legitimate historical sites for MUDs. Examples and citations were given, but then removed or dismissed out of hand.

2) .

3) .

4) Donathin made a detailed argument about the historical significance of TMC, but at one point he was accused of sockpuppetry and his comment was removed. I believe it got restored eventually, but I am not sure as I haven't been back to the page in a while.

5) Donathin specifically asked for an explanation of what these "people" would need as proof that TMC/TMS were reliable sources about MUDs, and Mendaliv replied "the above comment has no bearing on this discussion, and probably should be moved to the talk page." Wow. Just wow.

6) Donathin provided information where Richard Bartle verified the utility and reputation of TMC, but they simply dismiss that as well. And then Crossmr adds this totally absurd comment: "Even if you can establish that mudconnector is reliable you need to establish how many people are actually seeing it to make a shot at it conferring notability." So its not just RELIABILITY that has to be established, but current POPULARITY, eh? Ridiculous.

7) .

8) : "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper"

9) : "Wikipedia is not paper and (practically) has no size limits, and so should include "everything" that fits within its other criteria. There is room for articles on any and every verifiable subject. There is no harm in including an obscure topic, because if it is truly non-notable, people simply won't search for it or link to it. It will not create a significant server load as such.''

Those are all extremely good and important points that should be made and at least read by the admin who will eventually decide on the AfD. But instead of letting the argument stand or fail on its own merits, Black Kite sweeps in, declares the posters of those arguments sockpuppets, deletes their arguments, and bans the people who posted them.

I feel confident that the goal of the sockpuppet/meatpuppet rule was to prevent mindless ballot box stuffing. I highly doubt the rule was created so administrators would have an easy access, all purpose tool for banning people who made arguments they didn't like. Especially when the reason they don't like them is because they are GOOD ARGUMENTS that could potentially make the final decision go against their wishes (in this case, the deletion of the entry).