Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Cumulus Clouds

Desired Outcome

Comment - Blocks are not punitive, and to say that the outcome should be an emphatic block is clearly going against the grain. the_undertow ^talk 23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much of what I've seen from BQZ in the recent past is going against the grain... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr

Being concise is a virtue. I got lost halfway through. FCYTravis (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you said it first :) That's about where I stopped too. Did the cyclo get damaged, or is this a story of two editors who don't get along? Maybe the best outcome here is a two-way application of fish. Franamax (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually read a fair portion earlier -- some of the gems include complaining about CC improperly using the "this is a minor edit" button, and one bit where BQZ throws around the word "n****r" (sans asterisks) to illustrate a point. Resolving it with trouts all around sounds like a nice, fair, undramatic way to deal with this, frankly. --TheOther Bob 07:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The MFD diffs should be disregarded in toto. BQZ originally attached no time frame to his attack scratch pad. CC was rightly pissed off considering BQZ had a history of leaving such things lying around for months. From my short time watching this unfold, CC should have been the one filing an RFC. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is getting out of hand. And who else is going to endorse this as involved? This whole thing was a waste of time and will only hurt CC's good name, before this RFC is deleted as required in 3 days. Lawrence § t/e 16:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Bob, I included improper use of the minor tab as he appears to be attempting to hide his edits and because it was simply one more thing he has done. I also think that you should have noted the context in which I used "n****r": it was to illustrate that we have offensive articles here and that taking offense at something is not justification for its deletion (I didn't use the word as an insult/expletive). — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you could have made that point without using that word. But at the end, it's just your reputation that suffers from doing so -- so do whatever you like. --TheOther Bob 00:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly would you have provided as an example then? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man, sometimes you crack me up -- is there any tiny point you won't argue? (Ok, let's wiki-lawyer about the necessity of throwing around the word "n****r" to prove some minor point. Uh, ok, actually let's not.) Anyways, I'm sure you can find your own less offensive words - but, like I said, it's your reputation, so you can do what you want. --TheOther Bob 03:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to "wikilawyer" anything. I'm trying to come up with a better word to replace in the document. Do you have a suggestion for an example of an offensive word that is less offensive to you? I'm trying to improve my statement. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dick. (No, I'm not calling you one...it's another word you could use as an example of something inflammatory but ok if used in certain contexts.) Or shit. Or bitch - hell, George Carlin has a whole routine on this subject. You didn't need to go racial to prove your point -- but if you really needed to, why not go with "cracker" or "whitey?" (Speaking as an old southern cracker, no one with my skin tone ever ever risked being called the n-word...but I nonetheless know that it is offensive (and not just "to me" as your post implies).) Look, you wanted a word that was inflammatory -- I can understand that. I wouldn't have used the big-daddy n-word, but, like I said, that's all on you so you're free to do whatever. --TheOther Bob 06:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dick. (No, I'm not calling you one... :-) ) all of those are certainly valid, I'll replace them ASAP. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find nothing gets a stronger reaction than the c-bomb myself. Just saying. Johntex\^talk 07:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cumulus_Clouds#Outside_view_by_Lawrence_Cohen

Moving here from the RFC page itself:

Comments on the Outside View

I politely beg to differ, as I have myself been the subject of CC's attentions in his/her repeated violation of WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:CONSENSUS, ETAL. There most definitely is evidence of CC in conflict with other editors. I will not go through the long list of those edits and actions, as a few cogent examples are listed here on this RfC page, but CC does seem to have a contentious attitude when his edits are in any way questioned. His/her edit history both illustrates this and provides ample evidence that there are more people affected than only BQZ. (If this is the wrong place for this comment, please move it to where it does belong.) MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ as well. Please note that the RFC has been certified. Johntex\^talk 21:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to help us out, can you show us where you "tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed"? Franamax (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs need to be produced. They should also be unrelated to the MfD page, meaning the dispute resolution process should stem from previous interactions with CC and not the subpage, which was essentially a template for this RfC. the_undertow ^talk 22:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one for you prior to the MfD.[1] - Johntex\^talk 22:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that a diff from the ANI about the subpage? The spirit here, would be that you tried to resolve a dispute with this user, that is unrelated to this RfC. The MfD, the ANI, the subpage should not be the basis to show an ongoing problem with CC and other editors. If you first encountered the editor at an ANI, I would hardly see that an independent event at which the two of you could not come to a resolve. the_undertow ^talk 22:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would not be acceptable. It would need to predate this entire situation that has gone on since the MFD I'd think. Lawrence § t/e 23:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The attempt to resolve would need to be slightly different to Franamax's request, it's not resolve 'a' dispute, it's 'this' dispute. I agree with the comments above the diff given so far seems to be a related dispute, but certainly doesn't cover the full depth of this complaint. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to cover everything, just that he tried & failed with respect to this user and the confict(s) mentioned. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are missing the point. It's elliptical. ANI IS a conflict resolution process itself, so it's not appropriate as evidence. It's like saying that I came into conflict with this user during said conflict. Mentioning an ANI, which is going to be a conflict anyway, would put every single one of us at RfC with plenty of users claiming to have 'conflicted' with us. We need to see a clear and distinct conflict, outside of the scope of this RfC, where a user made an attempt at resolve and failed. That does not imply that ANY conflict exists just because CC didn't want to adhere to Johntex's compromise. Seriously, a conflict is edit warring, or reverting or personal attacks. But if every editor could call 'conflict' when another does not take someone's advice, then RfC would be severely backlogged. the_undertow ^talk 00:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:DR#Step_6:_Turn_to_others_for_help. Nowhere in there is WP:ANI. Furthermore, if it is a form of conflict resolution (I assume you mean dispute resolution?), then, by definition, doesn't that mean we have all tried to calm the storm? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, lots of hyperlinks. I would like to see a conflict between Johntex and CC. I would like to see the breakdown of the resolution process. So far we have one diff provided by Johntex. One diff cannot satisfy a conflict, an attempt to resolve the conflict, and a failure at resolution. I would like Johntex to expand on this, because it seems that you may have more of an interest at stake here, seeing as how you filed the RfC. the_undertow ^talk 03:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, you removed The Undertow's endorsement of my statement when you moved this. I'd rather not readd myself. see here. Lawrence § t/e 23:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm in over my head here :) I've tried to fix it, hope undertow agrees. Franamax (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsement by Johntex

I see no significant evidence of conflict between CC and Johntex, and believe Johntex is not valid to endorse this RFC. What conflict if any existed between CC and Johntex prior to CC's objection to BQZip's drafting of the RFC in the way he did? Provide evidence of historical conflict here, and failed efforts to resolve them, that are seperate from the creation of this RFC itself. Otherwise, Johntex's name needs to be struck as invalid. Lawrence § t/e 23:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is no validity here. The diff does not show a conflict. The diff is directly related to this RfC, so it violates the spirit of the entire process. You cannot be involved in dispute resolution and consider that a dispute in itself. the_undertow ^talk 00:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused - are you saying there is no dispute here, and thus the RfC should be deleted? Or that they should argue about it some more, and then come back to RfC? It serves no purpose, in my mind, to delete the RfC as uncertified when users have certified it. Few RfCs get a great degree of scrutiny on the basis for certification - if this user conduct RfC gets any attention, the issue of whether the dispute is significant or warrants further action will be resolved. Deleting it short circuits that process. Avruch^T 01:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signing one's name is not certification - there has to be validity to the certification, and there are questions as to if Johntex has actually had a conflict outside of the scope of this RfC. If not, we still need a second candidate to certify this RfC. the_undertow ^talk 01:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is whether Johntex has had disputes with CC preceding the user-sub-page/ANI/MfD issue (related to this RFC or not, for all that matters, he can always modify the complaint); or whether Johntex is responding to an appeal on his talk page by BQZip for another certifier. Johntex has previously asserted approval of ongoing collection of evidence against users, more or less "keeping an eye on some editors", in support of BQZip's sub-page. His certification is in question here, is it made in good faith? Absent his valid certification supported by diffs previous to the "sub-page dispute", this matter is better addressed by WQA or MedCab. A large part of this dispute is based on strict reading of policy, so there you go, what is the evidence of "tried and failed to resolve a dispute", whatever it says right at the top of the RFC page? What we're saying is that the formal RFC terms have not been met. Franamax (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that one of the problems I have with CC is the misleading statements he made in those venues, Johntex's inputs certainly were valid. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all they appear to be - input. Not a conflict. You are very quick to point out strict-interpretation of policy on several occasions, so why are you failing to see why Johntex's certification does not meet the criteria? the_undertow ^talk 03:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on here BQ, regardless of how your sub-page came to light, once CC became aware of it, how was it not a de facto "declaration of war"? Once you started that page on-wiki, didn't AGF pretty much go out the window? Do you plan to examine CC's responses in this RFC, and keep adding them to the RFC? Franamax (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I hadn't yet submitted it. The decision was that I could have such a draft, so the objections seem null and void. But even if I had submitted it, that didn't mean he all of a sudden has the right to say ~~(and this is just an example for dramatic effect; CC never said this), "This guy is a worthless fuck off. He can't do anything right. All he wants to do is rape little girls."~~ whatever he wants. His behavior and its effects are cumulative. Who knows? If he had said, "no biggie, I'll just work somewhere else on Wikipedia," maybe I wouldn't have even submitted this. Furthermore, he has continued the same behavior I see as uncivil and disruptive since the time I began composing it. I see no need to exclude such behavior as it pertains to the discussion at hand. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(UNDENT) ~~I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE PRECEDING STATEMENT. Capitals are used on purpose. This has no place on Wikipedia.~~ Franamax (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franamx, I think you essentially violated WP:AGF by saying, "...didn't AGF pretty much go out the window?" The matter of the sub-page was discussed at length at both WP:ANI and MfD, and neither venue concluded that there was even anything wrong with BQ's page. Therefore, I think it is completely unfair of you to say that assuming good faith of BQ went out the window. What basis do you have to insinuate such a thing?

BQ, I do find your example overly dramatic. Lets stick to what is/was actually said, rather than invent things for "dramatic effect". Perhaps you could consider striking? Johntex\^talk 06:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck accordingly, but as I said, this is an academic argument and was used to illustrate a point. I am not fond of using those words, but I used them only to illustrate what SHOULDN'T be said and accepted; I chose something that nobody could possibly accept...turns out I may have been a little too successful. If some people were offended, I apologize, but my intent remains. I hope you can understand the underlying point. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~That's a stupid reason to use it as an example and I'd say it did a pretty poor job of illustrating your point. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~What is the point of criticizing him after he has struck the example in question? Can't you let it go? Why not follow BQ and Franamax' example instead? Johntex\^talk 07:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck my response. Deep breath. Everything's cool. Let's move on. Franamax (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BQ and Franamax, thank you both for your willingness to bend and to compromise. It is great that you have each chosen to lower the tone of rhetoric. I can't speak for everyone, but I greatly appreciate it! - Johntex\^talk 07:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC) And CC, thank you also! Johntex\^talk 08:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Johntex:

I find it ironic that:
(A) BQ is being accused of wikilawyering and yet we have people falling all over themselves searching for a technicality they can use to try to close this RFC. And also
(B) People talk about wanting to get back to editing the 'pedia, yet demand that even more links and diffs be added by me to support my involvement in the RFC, even though they are simultaneously criticizing BQ for providing too many links. For the record, the history of my involvement is this matter is:

I went to BQs talk page to leave him a message about an unrelated topic. My post was in regards to what at the time was an ongoing AfD on Glossary of Texas Aggie terms. I quoted a saying sometimes said about Texas A&M and all strange/wondrous traditions that they have there, "From the outside looking in you can't understand it, and from the inside looking out you can't explain it."[2] Please note that I am not affiliated with Texas A&M. In fact, I hail from a&m's arch-rival The University of Texas at Austin and hence I am sometimes prone to writing the name of that school in all lowercase letters. :-)
While at BQ's talk page, I noticed This thread saying that there was a post about BQ at WP:ANI. I went to go see what that was about.
I read the thread at WP:ANI and determined that CC was wrong in asking for deletion of a perfectly legitimate sub-page started by BQ. To the best of my recollection, I had not had any significant interaction (let alone any conflict) with CC prior to reading the WP:ANI thread.
I posted a two-sentence statement saying that "There is nothing wrong with the sub-page BQZip01 has created. It is commonplace to use an out-of-the-way sub-page to gather ones thoughts."[3]
At that point, Cumulus Clouds accused me of being an involved party.[4] (More irony given that I am now being accused of being an uninvolved party.)
CC's attack on my perfectly reasonable ANI post served as perfect validation of exactly the sort of evidence that BQ is chronicling here in detail.
After much discussion at WP:ANI, I tried to resolve the dispute by suggesting a compromise.[5]
CC rebuffed my suggestion.[6]
~~Lawrence rebuffed me as well, with the totally spurious accusation that I was making a "false compromise".[7]~~
The very next post after that, Lawrence took it upon himself to begin forum shopping. The opinions at WP:ANI were mixed, and the discussion was still ongoing. Never-the-less, he decided to open an MfD on the page.[8],[9]
Lawrence's action made it impossible for me try to win CC and BQ over to my suggested compromise. Therefore, it is not fair to claim now that I did not try hard enough on dispute resolution. Lawrence prevented that by rushing to have the page deleted instead of allowing discourse to continue in the original forum.
The opinions at the MfD were also mixed. CC, Lawrence, et.al., failed to gain consensus for deleting the page. Once again, in a rush to close off discussion on the matter, Lawrence wanted the sub-page deleted and an RFC filed immediately or not at all.
Lawrence has clearly taken a side in this matter. That he has tried to weigh in here with an "outside opinion" is really laughable. He has plainly taken CC's side of the argument beginning with CC's unwarranted accusations that there was anything wrong with BQs page. I note that neither WP:ANI nor the MfD ended with any consensus that there was anything wrong with BQs page.
Not content to try to stifle discussion by filing an MfD, Lawrence then filed a WP:ANI thread against BQ, accusing BQ of canvassing.[10] Other than CC, not a single person supported Lawrence's accusation that BQ was canvassing.
Instead of accepting that the community does not agree with Lawrence's view, he now tries to stifle the discussion by trying to wikilawyer away this RFC. I find that improper. Perhaps Lawrence should be added as a party to this RFC? He is clearly NOT an uninvolved party.
I ask that the arguments made by BQ and CC be weighed on their own merits. And that the same should go for the statements made here by outside parties. The RFC should be allowed to run its course in the hope that it will prove valuable to the parties involved.
Alternatively, I have no problem with mediation if BQ and CC accept such an alternate venue.
What is certain, however, is that arguing over the certification of this RFC is a meta-argument that wastes much time and serves no one any good.

Best regards to all, Johntex\^talk 05:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, your #9 above was actually me making a totally spurious accusation, not Lawrence. Not that I care whether this RFC is "certified". If you feel the need, I say have at it. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woops! My mistake. Apologies to you both. I got my spurious accusers mixed up. :-) I struck that line. Thank you. Johntex\^talk 05:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, remember GFDL - all totally spurious accusations must have proper attribution. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like everyone agrees on when you began interacting with CC - the disagreement is whether that makes you involved. But, you know, I for one don't really care -- I think BQZ and CC should go ahead and have the damned thing resolved. The question, really, is whether it's appropriate to have an RFC or whether mediation is the better option. But if you guys want it to be an RFC...this is just me, but I could give two shits as long as it's resolved. About Lawrence - having a strong opinion about a dispute doesn't make you "involved" in it. But in any event why do we care? I suggest we try to find a way to bridge the gap between BQZ and CC, rather than introducing new "involved" parties to complicate it. --TheOther Bob 06:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence is "involved" because he has done more than simply state a strongly felt opinion. He is the one who filed the MfD. He is one of the loudest voices trying to end this RFC. I agree with you that mediation would be a fine opinion. Like you, I don't care what the venue is. Let's just move forward with some discussion instead of venue-shopping and wikilawyering about exactly what it means for "at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed." Let's get on with it. Johntex\^talk 06:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So he expressed his opinion about someone else's dispute loudly, frequently, and through multiple channels...so what? Anyways, yeah, let's get on with it. --TheOther Bob 06:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This does not qualify. Attempts to resolve issues must be shown as diffs on either user talk pages or discussion pages of articles. There is no evidence that this has ever occurred. Again, Johntex, I do not accept your signature as certification. It does not meet criteria. the_undertow ^talk 07:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly does qualify. The RFC page states "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~ I have complied with the policy. What do you hope to gain by trying to squash the RFC? BQ and I are at this moment, in conflict with CC and trying to resolve it. That is all that matters. Johntex\^talk 07:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I'll make the formal offer here to attempt mediation to help the two parties understand and accept each others positions, and develop better strategies going forward. I've posted to both talk pages and have one tentative acceptance. I'll note here this would be a first for me and all I have to offer is NPOV, low tolerance for rhetoric, and a desire to get everyone back to working on the 'pedia. We have nothing to lose except our drama. Franamax (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franamax, I hope that this will not seem adversarial, this is meant as an honest question.

I appreciate your offer for mediation, but I ask you to take a few moments to reflect on whether you can be completely impartial. I ask this because of some of your postings above, specifically:

You say, "Hang on here BQ, regardless of how your sub-page came to light, once CC became aware of it, how was it not a de facto "declaration of war"? Once you started that page on-wiki, didn't AGF pretty much go out the window? Do you plan to examine CC's responses in this RFC, and keep adding them to the RFC?" (Emphasis mine)
You also say above (jokingly, so perhaps I should not take this seriously) that you did not make it through BQ's entire RFC posting. If you can't make it through his whole argument (which I agree is lengthy) does that bode well for your role as a mediator? Would you resolve to devote the time to hear the entirety of all sides of the case?
You have also questioned me by saying, "...[Johntex]'s certification is in question here, is it made in good faith?..." I don't see what basis for doubting that I am acting in good faith. I respectively ask that you either clarify or strike that question.

I hope that someone, perhaps yourself, can serve a role in mediating this dispute. However, you seem to be questioning several things related to one party (BQ and Johntex) and I see no equivalent questioning of anything said by CC or Lawrence. Perhaps another mediator would be better? Johntex\^talk 05:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer with equal honesty, I will grind everyone equally down to seeing their own truth. My major objection was to the open-ended timeframe of BQ's page, never to the page itself, and I have never had cause yet to turn my eye to CC's role in this. Both parties will emerge unsatisfied, I'll pretty much guarantee that. But I favour nothing other than "get over your own self", that's all I offer, that and the promise of a neutral view. There are many others here who can fill the mediation role, I happen to be the first to step forward.

I've just posted to ANI to strongly object to a post BQ made and nevertheless, my offer is still exactly the same, I offer no prejudice to any party.

I will go back to examine my good faith question with regards to yourself, otherwise I consider the only parties here to be BQ and CC. Regards. Franamax (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw offer so I can !vote. Hopefully the two involved will shuffle feet, say "aw shucks", shake hands. Don't necessarily have to hug (not that there's anything wrong with that) :) Franamax (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication of Links

Under this topic "First reaction to a revert to one of his edits is to re-revert creating an air of hostility where a discussion is needed" are 5 links. Two seem to be duplicates, leaving 3 unique links.

It would be easier to follow if this was cleaned up, but there is no way I'm going to edit this.

Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wanderer, thanks for the head's up. I've fixed that section. If there is something obvious that someone sees that is a typo, feel free to type me a note on my talk page, leave a message here, or (if it doesn't appreciably change the meaning of the text) you are welcome to fix it yourself. Once again, thanks for the input. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm - try again?

Johntex, to move down from above, where my faith in, uh, humanity in general, has been somewhat shattered:

Which do you prefer, that I question your good faith, or question your understanding of the mechanics of RFC certification? I suppose my question is whether you would have certified a dispute with CC the minute before the RFA/MFD/RFC brou-ha-ha emerged, or whether your participation is down to a desire to support BQZip01 in his pursuit of goals which the two of you share. Based on my involvement, I haven't been able to see any independent conflict you've had with CC, but I have seen your support for BQZip in the philosophy of "keeping track of editors". I would suggest that the MfD closing admin has completely discredited that notion, but that involves some interpretation, I'm not qualified there, you might want to ask User:Riana exactly what "acceptable" means.

I will retract here any suggestion that you have acted in a non-good faith manner. I will not venture to strike any previous edits whilst objectionable content is visible above. I'm sure that you are acting according to your beliefs and best intentions for this encyclopedia, I apologize if I've caused you offense by suggesting you have acted in bad faith, and I intend to continue opposing you in every case where our best beliefs and intentions mis-align :)

Rant slowing now, "AGF go out the window", well that's a fair question I asked, if you start a sub-page about me, and that page is exclusively devoted to my failings, you say on the page I shouldn't see it unless I'm poking around, you say it may be there for weeks or months, you say editors that you invite can contribute and everyone else can't, and you say you'll use it when you think the time is right: what is left out of AGF? How am I supposed to react? (And this isn't even the right spot!)

Now trying to catch up while I've been editing :) Franamax (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I must say that I find it confusing that you have chosen to start a new section like this. What could I possibly have done to shatter your faith in humanity in general? That is quite a statement.

You ask, "Which do you prefer, that I question your good faith, or question your understanding of the mechanics of RFC certification?" That is quite a choice isn't it? I don't think you have any valid reason to question either one. I am acting only in good faith. I have explained in detail above why I have certified this RFC. I was ask to provide evidence of a conflict between CC and myself that dated prior to the MfC and I provided such evidence. I was ask to provide evidence that I tried to resolve that dispute prior to the listing of the MfC and I provided that evidence also. In short, I have a valid reason to certify this RFC

I am certifying this RFC because I had a conflict with CC, I tried to resolve that conflict, and I was unsuccessful.

Even more importantly, CC shows a pattern of disruptive editing, as detailed at length in this RFC. His actions merit rebuke and censure.

As to your failure to assume good faith on the part of BQ - neither WP:ANI nor MfD resulted in a consensus that there was anything wrong with BQs subpage. Therefore, it certainly does not provide any evidence whatsoever of a lack of good faith on the part of either BQ or myself.

I respectfully ask that you turn your attention to the voluminous evidence presented in the RFC itself, and drop the drama of how and why it was certified. Johntex\^talk 07:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in conflict with you independent of my conflict with BQZip01. Your involvement post dates almost all of the diffs BQZip01 has cited. This makes you a third party to this dispute and therefore casts doubt on your certification, since it would mean your vote isn't unique and is actually only being used to make BQZip01's original vote count twice. I would be interested in resolving any concerns you may have about my edits (again, independent of the RFA, MFD and ANI threads), since I obviously dispute BQZip01's line of reasoning. Thanks. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. I don't see that this criteria has been met. I don't consider this certified. the_undertow ^talk 07:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may not have noticed that WP:ANI is a talk page involved in this dispute. The RFC is properly certified. ~~Please stop wasting time trying to censure discussion of CC's bad editing practices. Johntex\^talk 07:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)~~ Please stop wasting time worrying about where this discussion is held. It is obviously needed. Johntex\^talk 08:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hardly wasting time. Your only dispute with CC is at an ANI? ANI is not dispute resolution, and therefore your attempt to resolve a dispute there was not only in the wrong forum, but still does not meet criteria. If ANI is not for dispute resolution, then your attempts to resolve a dispute there do not apply to RfC certification. the_undertow ^talk 08:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is discussion - no matter where it occurs. I made an offer in an attempt to resolve a situation. That is what matters. Would you seriously be looking at this differently if I'd made the same post on CC's talk page? Arguing about where the post was made does not help build the encyclopedia. Hence, it is a waste of time. Johntex\^talk 08:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't think anyone's doing that -- my read of it is that this is an attempt to cut short the drama an RFC entails. But I think this drama is going to happen one way or another, so this RFC is as good a place for it as any -- I'd say both sides should just get on with it. --TheOther Bob 08:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Johntex\^talk 08:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herein I attempt remedies for several of the cited diffs

First, I'll retract my opening statement for the discussion at Talk:Kyle Field. TheOtherBob is correct and I understand why BQZip01 was upset about that. I apologize for it.

I'll retract the RfC at Kyle Field. I don't care enough about some useless statistics to have to fight over it any further. My intent (now long lost among the pages and pages of edit warring) was to make that article seem less POV so it would one day clear FAC. In hindsight, this made a very significant mountain (range) out of a very tiny molehill. Again, I understand and appreciate what my role was in this so I apologize.

In return, I'd like to ask BQZip01 to be nicer in his responses to me. Consider what I've said and why I've said it. My edits to Kyle Field were not intended to damage the reputation of the stadium and were not an assault on the integrity of Texas A&M. My edits to BQ are not an attempt to marginalize the use of the term, but I don't wish to offend a group of people who might find such terms offensive. It may be difficult to balance tradition with political correctness, but I'm hoping we let this one slide and soldier on with our work here. Please be more open to input and suggestion from other editors, it doesn't do anyone any good to go to war over the most insignificant changes, because this chills further contributions to the article.

Beyond that, and as I've said before, I appreciate the work that BQZip01 has done on Texas A&M and its related articles. My intentions were never intended to be hostile or to undermine that work. I'm hoping this will resolve the substantive issues behind this debate and we can all get back to work for the first time in a month.

Thank you for your consideration. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also retract the statements I made directly relating to BQZip01's service in the Air Force. It was BillCJ who said it, not him. This was improper and I apologize for it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CC, I know you are speaking mainly to BQ and I don't want to speak for him in any way. I do, however, want to say that I greatly appreciate you reaching out like this. I am going to bed. I'll check in tmrw. Best, Johntex\^talk 08:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion of this RfC

It looks like the basis for disputing the certification is a method for getting the RfC deleted on technical grounds. Whether there is a sufficient history for Johntex to be considered "in a dispute" doesn't seem terribly relevant, at least not against his belief that there is. The RfC should proceed - if there is no real dispute, or the parties are being ridiculous, then that will out (as is already happening). Deletion of an active RfC with multiple contributors shouldn't be considered based on a technical reading of the RfC creation guidelines. Avruch^T 16:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. For some reason, when it comes to RFCs, even otherwise sensible editors often tend to ruleslawyer over whether it's correctly certified or not. Friday (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be deleted

"If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 06:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)."

Too late. I'm tagging it to go. Lawrence § t/e 06:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed that the filer does not count as a certifier and that is not true. Please see these recent sample RfCs that were certified by a total of 2 people:

Furthermore, it was especially wrong that you - as an interested party - decided to try to tag this for speedy deletion. I am very glad to see the deletion was quickly undone. Johntex\^talk 00:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my attempts to protect CC from overt harassment by friends of BQZip01. I will not bow to a small group of editors pushing American nationalistic garbage, trying to intimidate me on my own talk page as just happened moments ago. Lawrence § t/e 01:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA? — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem to be a spurious accusation by Lawrence. I looked through the history of his talk page and I don't see anyone pushing "American nationalistic garbage" about this RFC. Is that just a blanket statement against people thought to be American? Perhaps Lawrence got his threads mixed up, I don't know. Johntex\^talk 16:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to feedback

Well, it is good to get feedback here. Given the wealth of such feedback I'm going to split my responses to each person.

But before I begin, I would like to point out my point of view on the history of this dispute and my opinions on several main page opinions. For the history lesson, please realize some things have been retracted, but it is important for you to know how I believe we got here. In it, I will use an analogy to explain: Imagine a car doing 65 in a 70 mph zone...:

History

My edits on A&M articles were fine before CC. They were well researched and approved as featured articles by the Wikipedia community in some cases. I know what I'm doing in Wikipedia regarding reliable sources and verifiability. Then an edit I make is altered with no explanation. IMHO and per WP:VANDAL, by definition, this is hostile behavior, so I revert. I get a hostile response with threats and no discussion, but directives to do something his way. My car was going 65 and he's complaining about my speed while threatening to call the cops.

Now we continue this discussion on Wikipedia and I wonder if he's harassing others. For the most part, he's just a neighborhood watch block leader who's trying to clean up the place. Now I have no problem with that, but he is also picking on a new guy, and I hate to see some guy getting picked on, so I step in. Now, this guy has drawn attention to himself by being hostile and it seems I am the first person to stand up to him. Fine by me. I'm not going to back down until this guy calms down. If I am to be the punching bag to prevent weaklings from being figuratively beaten up, so be it.

So, the abuse of newbies stops for the most part and everyone walks away. We are still having a disagreement, but it's pretty well confined to the talk pages, but then he starts showing up in every article I'm editing, opposing me on every talk page (including user pages asking for advice on what to do) and making more baseless accusations and threats (some of them with legal implications).

Now, I apply for adminship (for the sake of continuing the analogy, let's say that equivalent is running for a public office). CC comes in and starts spreading lies about me to which people cite as their reasons for not supporting me. I'm pretty mad that this is going on, so I prepare a page that shows the problems I'm having with this person (again going 65 in a 70).

He then screams that going 65 is wrong and several people agree with him. They haul me in front of the community and demand I stop going so fast. Thankfully, some judge says..."Uh...65 is legal as long as you don't do it into the city limits"

I file the RfC and I get complaints like, you can't use information against me because I was using it against you. Sorry but it doesn't work that way.

So, onto each of the other people and their complaints.

CC

"I've been patiently waiting for this user..."

HA! In your dreams. Nothing you have done has been patient in any way. You and LC have been hounding me the entire way.

"The origins of this debate are a handful of meaningless statistics in a section with a stupid title at Kyle Field..."

Is it any wonder I have a problem with this editor? Insults like this are why he is a disruptive force. His lack of ability to compromise is another.

"...it has ballooned into a hostile and bitter argument that has been an incredible undertaking in process, bureaucracy and litigation."

I'm sorry, you took this to an RfC, WP:ANI (supporting the actions of others three times to repeat), and an MfD. All were inconclusive (at best) or rejected by the Wikipedia community. Of course it has been bitter. You have opposed every edit I've made and stalked me to the ends of the Wikipedia system. Your edits, even now, continue to be demeaning and uncivil (see the first sentence). I'm willing to have thick skin, but not when someone is going to continue to hack at it.

"All meaningful edits...have halted while the community has endured an embarrassing display of tit for tat edit warring that culminates now in this page, which I oppose in its entirety."

So we have a dispute and you refuse to moderate or offer any solution other than your first one...for anything. You have not even attempted to build a consensus. Instead you attempt to bully people around and call their edits stupid, worthless, bad, etc. This is completely uncivil behavior.

"I reject BQZip01's statements about my participation in his RfA because I did then and I do now feel that he is grossly unfit to be an administrator."

I could care less about your opinions about my fitness as an administrator, but that does not give you the right to make stuff up about me and demean me. If I did something that you don't like, fine. You think I shouldn't be an admin, fine. But the buck stops when you start making up lies.

"I also renew my objections to BQZip01's ownership over Texas A&M articles, since it is that mistaken belief that has led us to this RfC."

You have got to be kidding. That was only the first thing that was a problem. You harassed me at every turn and pretty conclusively stalked me. The problem I have is that you are trying to delete things that you perceive to be a problem and that initial perception is all that seems to drive your logic.

"In prolonging this dispute in several different forums, this user has used the processes of Wikipedia in bad faith to spite me for the work I have done on this encyclopedia..."

I didn't even bring anything up until this forum. You initiated the RfC at Kyle Field. You initiated the ANI. LC initiated the second and third ANIs along with the MfD. This is the first forum outside the talk pages in which I have responded.

Wknight94

I disagree with Wknight94 on his assertion that "This diff is fairly benign". It was the catalyst and started a hostile and combative tone that caused major problems. Furthermore, it was repeated eight times to address different parts of the statement (since it did cover a lot of ground).

I fail to see how "The stalking section is weak". Eight different articles/processes that CC never edited, but then came back and responded to each of my inputs (it seems out of spite). The hidden comments I used only proved that he was watching my every move waiting to pounce as soon as I made an edit. This level of incivility and combativeness will only make this encyclopedia worse.

I would be happy to try mediation. In fact, I have stated as such, but CC seems to have no inkling to do so (see offers on the main page, his talk page, etc.)

TheOtherBob

Now, I don't always agree with this user, but I can respect his opinion because it is reasoned and logical. It also isn't hostile (at least not intentionally)

"BQZ seems to feel that CC is attacking him broadly on a range of issues related to [his] editing style."

Close. I feel that CC is attacking me out of spite and is unwilling to come to a compromise, consensus, or listen to reason. This coupled with the numerous violations of policy and guidelines lead me to the conclusion that he is a disruptive force within Wikipedia, though not all his edits are so. As a veteran editor, he should know better. As such I wish to have his actions curtailed.

"If I were CC, I might feel like I tried to make a small change to an article (Kyle Field), got reverted 15 minutes later without discussion"

I fail to see how?!? I left a reasoned discussion on the talk page with no response, only another revert.

"...and ended up in a slap-fight with an editor who just wouldn't give on anything."

Um respectfully, why should I have to "give up" on anything. I'm willing to discuss anything, but CC isn't.

"I'd feel like BQZ tries to get his way by just being more "difficult" than anyone else - arguing every little point for weeks at a time"

See above regarding "giving up"

"...throwing around accusations, and becoming easily offended when accused of anything in return." I've been accused of a lot, but very little of it is true. THAT is what I have a problem with.

"At this point, I imagine that I might even just want BQZ to leave me alone..."

Perhaps he shouldn't follow me to every page I ever visited then.

"...but might feel like he instead keeps escalating and escalating."

Perhaps he shouldn't keep threatening me (and others) or making inappropriate demands or stalking me to every page I visit or...

"I'd likely feel that this RFC is an attempt to re-argue and get the last word in about...well, everything."

Sorry, but that is not the case. CC's behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia and is causing problems. I'm attempting to rectify those problems.

"If I were BQZ I might feel like I was minding my own business one day when someone came along and started demanding that I make changes to a page I had worked on -- and accusing me of bad faith and ownership for refusing."

I could care less about whether or not I worked on the page

"As BQZ I might feel like I have to win every point so as to show that I'm not going to change at all in response to this type of criticism."

Amazingly to the contrary. I am perfectly willing to change in response to valid criticism, but baseless lies and accusations, no, I'm not going to change because of someone else's demeaning behavior.

"If I were either person I'd feel like the other was stalking me, just because they somehow kept showing up on the same pages. Seriously, I have no idea how these two people keep running into each other...but however it is, they should stop."

If you will look at CC's edit history, you will note he is commenting on pages immediately after I comment on them...to include lots of pages he's never weighed in on before. This is pretty much the definition of stalking. I have never changed my edit patterns...ever, but he has. That is why this is a problem.

"My personal view of BQZ thus far is that he's not shown good judgment or much maturity in this instance. He seems to me to have prioritized "winning" over building an encyclopedia, and seems to believe that any action -- no matter its effect on other editors, the community, or even his own reputation -- is completely A-OK so long as it fits within his interpretation of a rule."

Calling me immature really isn't helping things. I could care less about "winning" as much as getting the right information on Wikipedia. CC seems to be rubbing lots of people the wrong way and I have tried to follow the recommended guidelines for handling such behavior. Instead, I am described as some sort of pariah. If you don't like the guidelines we have on Wikipedia, change them, but don't criticize me for staying explicitly within the rules.

"I also don't think we're seeing his best side -- I think this whole thing...makes him feel defensive."

Administrative processes don't make me feel defensive, only attacks on my credibility, integrity, etc. make me feel that way. You are so right that this is not my best side, but I feel I have few options in this matter.

"My personal view of CC is limited, because he's edited only sparingly in this. Despite all that BQZ has written above, I don't find CC's behavior in most of the cited diffs to be all that bad -- most are honest disagreements."

I want to reiterate that I have no problem with disagreements, but his attacks and combative/contentious/disruptive editing are the problem. He admits making a mistake (such as in replacing a speedy delete on an article), but explicitly refuses to make amends. This is contradictory to what Wikipedia is all about.

"I do like that he...seems open to compromise."

You have got to be kidding. Offering to make the same misleading/counterproductive edit that was the problem in the first place is not compromise, it is an attempt at deception: Case in point.

"BQZ needs to learn that Wikipedia requires compromise, and that he has to work with other editors and consider the possibility that they might be right -- even when pissed off at them."

I have made numerous offers of compromise on numerous pages. All were summarily rejected by CC.

"He needs to not wiki-lawyer..."

If someone complains from the highest peak that I personally shouldn't be allowed to go 65 in a 70 mph zone and then slanders me in the public sphere, I'm sorry, but I'm not just going to say, "Oh well" and just walk away. It keeps the "peace", but the offending person continues the counterproductive behavior thereby making the community worse as a whole.

"He needs to learn that "lines in the sand" are fine for schoolyard fights, but not fine if you want to build something together with other people."

I want to build an encyclopedia within the Wikipedia construct. CC wants to build an encyclopedia that meets his own personal standards. This arrogance and associated bullying needs to stop. With everything that is going on, I'm not simply going to drop it (see above).

"Everyone should be trouted, group-hugged, and returned to editing." A simple trouting is not going to fix these problems. CC is continuing such behavior despite renouncing such behavior previously, though I am personally being left out of it.

Now, I accept CC's apology regarding our first encounter. It is a first step in the right direction. But since his behavior hasn't changed and bullying continues, I submit that this is a hollow example of contrition. While things on the outside look good, he still isn't willing to compromise and just gave up on one article to appear submissive...but not before calling it stupid and minor.

I ask that anyone who has read this discussion please go through and read all of the edits I cited, not just the top three before the breaks. You will quickly see a demanding pattern of behavior that is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you find time to write things like that, but I frankly don't have time to read it all (sorry). Look, I was hoping you guys could work this out -- and as part of that I was hoping you'd listen to the constructive criticism offered through the RFC process (and that CC would do the same, of course). Stop and think - you're now responding line-by-line to everyone who offered you criticism...how do you think that looks?

I think in the long run you'll find this all does you more harm than good -- sorry, but your RFA didn't fail because of "lies" spread by CC. It failed because of this sort of behavior right here. I'd like to think that you hear that, and that you might be interested in changing -- but I'm not feeling confident about that right now. --TheOther Bob 03:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could have been more clear, but my RfA failed for many reasons, but partly because of lies (putting them in quotes doesn't make them less true). As for responding line-by-line, I was simply trying to be thorough and address all points. If you find that a negative, I'm sorry. As for where I found time to write it, quite frankly I thought that's what people wanted, so I gave it. This is where I spent most of my time writing over the past few days; given the complaints of me not responding, I feel like I can't win, so I'm going to sign off for the evening. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you disagree with what CC said in your RFA (and understandably so), but I don't agree that what he said was therefore a "lie." Anyways, by "response" people meant "to CC's apology / offer of peace." I think the response people were hoping for was something along the lines of accepting the apology and moving forward...no one meant that your response had to be an attempt to refute every bit of criticism. Oh well, I hope that in trying to refute it all, you at least took some of the feedback to heart! --TheOther Bob 05:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was a lie and, while he recanted on it, he has done nothing to retract such a statement on the page. The next time I apply for adminship (if I ever do), this will be on there for everyone to see. If we disagree about something, fine, but an outright lie implying criminal activity is way over the line. Again, I realize he has retracted such a statement, but he should also go back in and fix that (while it is "closed" and shouldn't be modified, I would have no problem with him modifying it to reflect the misstatement. I certainly see that some people don't like my style, but that isn't a reason to take off after me and ignore the other person's behavior. This is an RfC about his behavior. People seem to be focusing on me and nothing on him. If someone feels my behavior is out of line, I welcome an RfC/RfA. I feel I will be vindicated as I have been in the past. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was a misunderstanding. It sucks, but that stuff does happen. (And, no, we're not going to go back and re-format your RFA. Let it go, man. Let it go.) In any event, when you were drafting this RFC, people mentioned that bringing it would invite comment not just on the other user, but also on the situation -- including your behavior. I know that's perhaps uncomfortable, but I'm hoping you listen to the comments. (Though I do have to admit that I'm disappointed to see that you think of this in terms of "vindication" rather than feedback. You don't need to be vindicated - you're not on trial, and neither is CC.) --TheOther Bob 15:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BQ, I agree with you that CC's apology could be considered somewhat tepid. He does seem to belittle the matter by saying, "I don't care enough about some useless statistics to have to fight over it any further. My intent (now long lost among the pages and pages of edit warring) was to make that article seem less POV so it would one day clear FAC. In hindsight, this made a very significant mountain (range) out of a very tiny molehill." (emphasis added). Yes, this does leave room to question whether he takes this seriously or not.

However, I think we should be generous. He has made an apology and I think he made it in good faith. I think it should be accepted in good faith.

I think we should acknowledge that CC has taken a very positive step and to thank him for it. I think we should all offer to do our best in the future so that problems like this don't occur again.

We will know how much anyone has changed and learned from this by virtue of their future actions. We don't need to continue hashing it out here. Johntex\^talk 16:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

Can we de-list and archive this RfC now? TheOtherBob's outside view appears to have been endorsed by the majority of participants as the fairest summation of the situation, and the dispute does not appear to be on-going. --Muchness (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- I think this is off everyone's radar screen at this point (hence the lack of a response to the motion to close). I see no reason to keep it open, unless someone disagrees. --TheOther Bob 18:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

zOMG this is still open?? Only flies are hanging round this horse. Posted by Ncmvocalist at BQZip's talk page on 13Apr and BQ is active on his talk page. Motion to close Franamax (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]