evidence of bad faith

...mimsy-whomever was clearly editing in bad faith in late Dec by deleting the link without discussion, as he was politely informed in early Nov that the link was not a copyvio, and that he should not even be attempting to delete it without discussion (see below). He is also an official member of the "You Tube Deletion Committee" started by Dmcdeviti.e., has an admitted bias/ego investment in something other than editing this article.  From his current talkpage, you can easily observe that "Nearly Headless Nick" is a close ally, and not constructively for the benefit of Wikipedia, from what I have seenNHN has recently made the bizarrely ludicrous accusation on mumsy's talkpageto Arygiouthat stating any alternate opinions about YT links is "disruptive." He clearly has ZERO idea what "disruptive" means, as on-topic good faith editorial opinions on talkpages are never disruptiveor perhaps he does know and is trying to bully??? NHN, on the other hand, is in fact participating in a project which is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; has certainly had a decidedly and idiotically disruptive effect on this article, in my experienced judgement.  My feeling is that they can get lost and stay lost, or we can take it to a higher level.  They are not editors of this article, they have categorically refused to engage in discussion on the talkpage of this article while making edits they know are disputed, and they do NOT have consensus on policy pagesconsensus is against them. What they lack in consensus they have tried to compensate for with bullying (which disgusts me).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cindery#Barrington_hall