Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. The discussion is starting to meander and outweigh its usefulness, so I'm going to close this here. Generally I get the impression that people think this page, while perhaps not run-of-the-mill or wholly appropriate for a community-based project, is not a direct attack or outright condemnation of another editor's actions. I'm going with the most middle-ground position on this - keep, providing that BQZ follows up on the proposed RfC in the very near future. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:BQZip01/Comments

Per this discussion on ANI I am nominating this for deletion. BQZip01 appears to have no inclination per his comments there to file any action on this, and this appears to be a possible retaliation over commentary at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BQZip01 2. Lawrence § t/e 16:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This simplified tally is only a quick summary based on the initial word in their post. Please read all opinions below for a better understanding of each user's justification. Comments and those that don't explicitly fit any of the above descriptions were not added in. If your opinion is not prefaced by one of these categories, please specify exactly what your opinion is and I will be happy to include it. Analysis of this leads me to believe we are about split on the issue. — BQZip01 — talk 20:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please retally As of 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC) 25 clear opinions were expressed. It is possible that the nominator was missed, and/or 2/3 opinions that don't have a Keep or delete were overlooked(but their intent is quite clear). I would also suggest that the "move to rfc or delete" is clearly a delete from page in question. Bugs has 2 opinions: 1 delete, 1 keep, clarification needed TomPhan (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC) See Below[reply]
Good point. I didn't mark comments as they didn't explicitly make a call one way or the other; noted above. — BQZip01 — talk 03:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. If one does not like what one reads, one can choose not to read it. The information in the draft on user's coments page is NOT a public article and one has had to been looking for it to have found it at all. It does show the edit policies of both editors, and shows the train of thoughts of both in their individual editing styles and how one might logically seek redresss for certain actions. I found it to be quite illuminating. Again, until it was brought to the noticeboard, I never knew it existed. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does this show the target's train of thought? The target is apparently not allowed to edit it per the warning near the top of the page. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry. Not so much "train of thought" (as no one one can know what another is thinking) as it educates and illuminates a pattern of edit style that some agree with and others decry. Kyle Field is simply its latest manifestation... as the edit histories tell a very interesting story. It would be good if the two of them could actually meet face to face, share a beer, and put everything into perspective. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. --TheOtherBob 19:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain more fully why you believe it is not an appropriate use. Are you worried about disk space? Johntex\talk 04:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because there's nothing appropriate about it. It's not helping to build an encyclopedia. It's just riling people up for no reason. I have not heard a remotely satisfying explanation for not keeping the page off-wiki. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should let this user respond in his own words instead of assuming it and placing your views in place of his. — BQZip01 — talk 05:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't have much further to say about this - I think my above comment is clear. If Johntex disagrees that there are inappropriate uses of Wikipedia (as his comment about disk space suggests), then his is a very unpopular understanding of Wikipedia. If not, then I think we can all agree that attack pages tracking your "enemies" are among the inappropriate uses...indeed, the community has agreed at WP:USER. Unless promptly converted into an RFC, this is such a page, and therefore inappropriate. Not much to explain there, frankly. --TheOtherBob 14:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for answering my quesiton. Your original statement gave absolutely no reason for wanting it deleted. Johntex\talk 15:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confusing brevity for emptiness - but that's not a point worth debating. --TheOtherBob 15:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not worth debating yet you chose to make the statement? Your initial reply did NOT give any reason why it was inappropriate. It would have been just as useless of you say "Delete" and nothing else. Now that you have clarified your comment, it is possible to see what your reasoning is. Thank you. Johntex\talk 15:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • sigh* I'll be frank - I'm not willing to debate stupid stuff like this with you. If you think my initial comment was unclear...then you do. I disagree (and kinda think you're just looking to pick a fight, frankly) -- but, hey, if this still matters to you three weeks from now we can come back and hash out the meaning of "clear." For now, it's just not worth the incivility or my time to determine whether my comment was adequately "clear," so I'll go on record as saying that mine was the least clear comment ever made...and bring this strange sideshow to an end. --TheOtherBob 15:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The page was brought to light as part of User:Cumulus Clouds apparent personal vendetta against BQZip, which has a long history dating back to BQ's achievement of FA status for Texas A&M-related articles. BQ has a right to organize his thoughts here in peace. All this page is is a record of Cloud's own actions in harrassing BQZ, which he only could have found by continually scrutinizing BQZ contributions - something generally called "stalking" by WP policies. I am appalled at the support such harrassers continue to receive from certain elements in WP, but I'm not surprised. - BillCJ (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vendettas in response to vendettas is no answer. If there is an RFC to be had, we should have one - but if not, then we should try to steer things back to "content, not contributors." The argument that this page is ok because Cloud really deserves it...well, that just rings hollow for me. I don't think anyone needs to choose a side here to say that this sort of thing is inappropriate on Wikipedia - it's counter-productive and disruptive no matter which side is "right." In any event, per the discussion at ANI Cloud discovered the page by reviewing BQZ's contributions as part of BQZ's recent Adminship run - I don't see any reason to doubt that, or why doing so as part of an RFA would be inappropriate or "stalking." --TheOtherBob 19:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is an actionable case, it needs to be brought. Disclaimers that this page may exist "forever or never" -- and the intention behind them -- are the problem here. With that now disclosed ideal it's become an attack page. File an RFC or RFAR or clear it. Theres no need to maintain a hit piece on Wikipedia. Lawrence § t/e 19:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am extremely offended by your misquote of me as I have NEVER EVER SAID SUCH A THING. This, in conjunction with other edits of the same kind, are one of the reasons I am quickly becoming disillusioned with Wikipedia's administrative processes. Quotes taken out of context or flat out lies are stated as if fact when no evidence exists to support such assertions. Tainting others' reputations is inherently uncivil, IMHO. — BQZip01 — talk 23:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a paraphrasing of your own words, which are "It may take weeks, months, or years to put this page together". If such a page sat for months, let alone years, it would be unacceptable. I'm sorry if you take offense, but others take offense at pages that if not used for WP:DR are basically a smear against other users. Yes or no: Are you going to take this to a user RFC against CC, or file for Arbitration? Those are the DR avenues open here that I can see. If you sincerely are not going to do so, or have no intention to, I advise you to request a speedy deletion of this page. Lawrence § t/e 00:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Per WP:TALK "Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context...Be precise in quoting others." As I stated in the next sentence, this was intended as a CYA (cover your butt) move. It was not intended to be taken as an indefitite attack page.
  2. I don't know how long it will take...I'm not done yet, 'BUT, how about this for a compromise: If I am not done within 45 days from now, I will submit it as-is or delete it. Furthermore, I will not link it to any other page. While I feel a deadline is not required I think this is a good compromise. Fair 'nuff? — BQZip01 — talk
No one is misrepresenting you - Lawrence's characterization of your statement was certainly fair, even if what you said didn't turn out to be truly reflective of your intent. To your point, WP:USER requires that dispute resolution be brought within a "reasonable" time. "Reasonable" is flexible, but a week or two seems to be the accepted length of time. 45 days (a month and a half) is way too long - CC should not have to sit there for over a month while an attack page sits unrebutted and you decide whether he ever gets to respond. If you need six weeks to whip this into shape (especially given the time that it's already existed), then you should take it off-wiki. It's not the case that you are required to bring an RFC within a week or two - you can wait all you want. However, you can't leave up an attack page in the interim. Your options, it seems to me are (1) bring an RFC promptly or (2) take this off-wiki and work on it until you're satisfied. --TheOtherBob 00:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could keep working on it, but I have to keep defending completely reasonable actions instead. Kind of hard to put together a list of problems when people keep trying to delete that very list. — BQZip01 — talk 00:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but if it were in Word, no one could delete it...so I guess that's another reason I think you should delete it. It solves the drama, and lets you get back to what you want to work on. --TheOtherBob 00:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not BQ's responsibility to solve CC's drama for him/her. The drama is up to CC. Johntex\talk 04:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make it sound like it's my fault for objecting to this page being here. I'm completely mystified at what you're trying to accomplish with that, since it goes against the very nature of what this process is all about. I don't really know what else to say here except that I'm extremely disappointed by it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This drama affects Wikipedia, Johntex - not just CC. That we're having this much wiki-drama to save BQZ a few minutes of reformatting is...well, it's absurd. Blaming CC for it (when BQZ has a quick and easy solution that he could - but won't - use) is similarly a little bit absurd. --TheOtherBob 14:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the drama does affect Wikipedia, and CC caused the drama. There was no drama until CC started an effort to delete this perfectly allowable user-sub-page. CC should just forget about it. Johntex\talk 15:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, John, CC did not cause this drama and I was the one that nominated this attack page for deletion. If BQZ didn't want people to see this, why put it on WP? Looking at ones' contribs is never stalking. BQZ is prone to a short temper, wikilawyering to extreme lengths, and taking everything extremely personally. Your clearly an involved party here, as an "ally" of BQZ, so everyone is going to justifiably take your stern defense of him and condemnation of CC with a major grain of salt and a second look. BQZ has yet to even file a complaint against CC on AN or ANI. He hasn't asked for mediation. Where is the Dispute resolution? I see allegations from mainly BQZ that CC is this horrible evil person, yet CC is the one following process, and trying to keep things above board, and not fighting tooth and nail over every micro-detail. That is BQZ, that is doing that. Lawrence § t/e 16:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is incorrect. CC asked for the page to be deleted in the ANI posting. You merely moved the request to this forum. Johntex\talk 17:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Forget" that there is a page viewable by everyone solely dedicated to itemizing everything he does that someone perceives as a fault? O RLY? Put yourself in his shoes. Could you simply ignore and forget such a thing? It's not right that we even ask him to forget about it. He shouldn't have to. And there's still no reason given to justify such a lofty request. "Hey, could you look the other way while I slam everything you do for an indefinite amount of time? I really don't feel like maintaining it off-site out of public eye - that would be annoying what with the formatting and all. Thanks." Please. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting aside the debate over who started it (CC...by discovering the attack page that BQZ had created...? Really? I mean, really?), the pertinent question asked above is "who can put this to bed." This disrupts the encyclopedia. BQZ could end that disruption for the cost of (at most) 10 minutes of formatting work. CC cannot delete the page, and cannot end the disruption (even if he ignores it, because the community is involved) - but BQZ could in a heartbeat. Even if you're right (and I don't think you are), and BQZ is within his rights to leave this page up, the fact that he allows the disruption to continue to save himself a little formatting work...well, I think that reflects very badly on him. --TheOtherBob 16:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I have a perfectly legal tree in my backyard and a neighbor complains about it, then yes, the neighbor is the one causing the drama. In this case, BQ is perfectly within his rights and CC started a bunch of drama by filing an ANI report. CC should not be rewarded by getting to mandate that BQ chop down the tree just to make peace. Johntex\talk 17:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (unindent) Tree?! What if that tree were actually a large visible sign listing all of your neighbor's flaws? If the neighbor put up a stink and started all kinds of problems, I'm betting the cops would turn an unkind eye on that sign. They may even make him take it down. They sure as hell wouldn't treat it the same as the benign tree in your analogy. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (similarly unindent) A page like this isn't "perfectly legal" under WP:USER. It is, if at all, barely tolerated by the community - and only to the extent that it is really necessary to dispute resolution...and reasonably short-lived. We tolerate brief disruptions, the thinking goes, so as to resolve the greater disruption of a dispute. That makes it "barely tolerated if short-lived and productive" -- not "perfectly legal." The more proper analogy is therefore a spite fence. Although legal in some places, a spite fence is highly disruptive and therefore often not tolerated by the local community. You'd say that so long as the fence is just-this-side of legal (which some are), then any disruption from it is caused not by the guy who built a giant fence to harm his neighbors, but by those who complained. I think that's a ridiculous view, frankly - but it also misses the point. Regardless of who started it, BQZ could eliminate the drama by removing the spite fence. You would say that he doesn't have to, because it's just-this-side of legal. But what I'm saying is that by maintaining this page, he looks like the kind of person...well, like the kind of person who would build a giant fence to get back at his enemies...and that he'd be well-served (and would serve the community well - a good idea if he ever wants the mop) by taking it down. --TheOtherBob 18:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, I hope that's not how this is being percieved. I think the fact that this page exists is more likely to create the same kind of mistrust and doubt in my actions that is apparent in BillCJ's remark. I don't really appreciate the accusations, but instead of debating them, I'd like to renew my request for deletion on these grounds. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the concerned party, per my remarks at ANI and because I don't believe there's a valid argument for keeping this. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Making a file on an editor one doesn't like is fundamentally wrong because it poisons the working atmosphere. It is only constructive if it serves an immediate purpose, such as a concrete RfC in the foreseeable future. See WP:USER#What may I not have on my user page?: "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. An exception is made for evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process." Why this rule? From the discussion on the talk page: "The issue is with people who collect evidence not for dispute resolution, but for disparagement." Also: "To send the wrong signal on this would in fact drive people with grievances to nurse those grievances in secret. This is not how we do things." BQZip01 has admitted that he has no intentions to make steps towards a resolution of this conflict right now. He has shown at his failed second RFA that he cannot control his retaliatory comportment. Allowing him to keep this kind of page around against the intent of WP:USER could only serve to make it worse. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is perfectly acceptable for one user to research and keep track of the editing habits of another. There are many valid reasons for this, such as: preparation of an RfC, consideration of an RfA, etc. There is nothing objectionable about the page itself and BQZip01 does not advertise that it exists (there are no inbound links). The only reason someone found the page is that they were checking BQZip01's contributions. In other words, they were doing similar research of their own. The page does no harm and is useful to BQZip01. There is no valid reason to try to force him to keep the same information in another format off-wiki. It pertains to this wiki and it should be kept here. Johntex\talk 22:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How long can such materials be kept before an action in WP:DR is processed? What if I kept such a page on you, with a big disclaimer that I may never do anything with it, and it's there for my own edification? Lawrence § t/e 23:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They can be kept indefinitely and infinitely. They are not a problem. Therefore, it is OK for them to remain in their non-problematic state for all perpetuity. And yes, I fully endorse anyone making such a page on my edits if they wish - I ask for no special treatment. I only ask that the page be factual and free of personal attacks. If they make such a page and say something like, "Johntex is a thief and liar and a homosexual racist", without the evidence to back any of that up, then that would be a personal attack. Simply cataloging edits they disagree with is not a personal attack and efforts to try to remove such catalogs are sorely misguiding. Cataloging bad or questionable edits is only to the good of the project. Johntex\talk 04:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • John, they most definitely can not be kept indefinitely and infinitely. Such a thing is called "harassment", to create a hit list of another user's actions just to call attention to them. Are you aware of things like WP:STALK, and WP:HARASS? You are an administrator, correct? Lawrence § t/e 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it alarming that somebody who is as familiar with policy as you are would be in favor of such divisive, destructive behavior that is clearly incompatible with the very foundation of this encyclopedia. Allowing other users to maintain lengthy hit lists of users and edits they don't like is immediately and completely in contradiction to the policy at WP:CIVIL. It does not promote agreement, it does not promote consensus and it does not help the community. Instead it encourages individual users to harbor grudges, promotes conflict through the use of subversive and demeaning attack pages and through it all damages the credibility of this encyclopedia. I hope you will change your mind about that. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it alarming that anyone is taken in by your rhetoric. There is nothing uncivil about the page, therefore keeping it in place is not a violation of WP:CIVIL. Johntex\talk 15:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really wonder if this is too big an issue for WP:MFD. It happens too often. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest there should be a policy or process for dealing with "research materials"/"attack pages" on why ones' peers are troublesome/disruptive/awful Wikipedians for WP:DR purposes, but then someone would come racing up screaming "Bureaucracy! CREEP!" Lawrence § t/e 23:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Hans Adler pointed out a discussion of these issues at the talk page of WP:USER - the discussion is pretty long, but worth reading (good job finding that, Hans). The net was that if you're planning an RFC promptly, you can use a user page to draft it -- but that if you don't have a present plan to bring some action (and to do so fairly soon) then it's just an attack page. That discussion seems to go directly to this issue, so I really would recommend it to everyone considering this issue. And, to Johntex's point, I don't agree that it's "perfectly acceptable for one user to research and keep track of the editing habits of another." The word I'd use for that isn't "acceptable." Sorry to say this, but I'd use "creepy." If there is an RFC, an RFA, etc., then it is acceptable to place evidence in that RFC or RFA. But a permanent repository for tracking "enemies" just in case you ever want to take some action against them? No, that's not acceptable. --TheOtherBob 23:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also the question of what happens (not in this case obviously) where a user leaves behind such a page having quit or basically quit Wikipedia. I know of at least a couple around that probably should go, but it would invite far too much drama to MfD them. Orderinchaos 00:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Break 1
  • Keep Ok guys, seriously, let's go over why I have this page in the first place and I'm trying to be nice about this:
  1. I believe CC's edits are disruptive to the editing process at Wikipedia.
  2. I am preparing a submission for one of the WP:DR processes (at this time I'm not sure which one, but we will see what most effectively applies when I'm done compiling it...trying to keep my options open here, but some people seem to be falling into a schoolyard mentality of "Fight! Fight! Fight!" and want it to happen now or never) falling squarely under WP:USER which states (as noted above...strangely in a delete option): "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. An exception is made for evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process."
  3. I intend to use this in some WP:DR location, but that does not necessarily have to be so. I could change my mind. CC could change his attitude. Another editor could change my mind, etc. I'm trying to keep that possibility open. CC doesn't seem to want that in any way. He wants me to file an RfC now or just forget about anything he's doing. Contrary to CC's (and others') desires, I don't have a deadline with which to create this and I can take my time and choose my words carefully. I would think that would be the prudent thing to do instead of hastily typing a massive quantity of words that may not reflect my true intentions. I feel as if people don't want me to actually think about anything, but just to rush to RfC, etc. THAT would be uncivil, but preparation is not and is given an explicit exception.
  4. I don't have a lot of time these days and this may take a little time to compile, so I am trying to get it done ASAP...but responding to stuff like this is eating up my available time to complete it.
  5. As for this being an attack page, there is a sole user who brought this page to everyone else's attention...and it wasn't me. I was just trying to put my thoughts together and this person brought it out in the open long before I was prepared to discuss its merits. THIS IS A DRAFT. I don't know how much more explicit I can be.
  6. Contrary to this over-reaction by associating this to my RfA, this pattern of disruption existed long before my RfA (which would have failed even if CC hadn't submitted a response). If you will actually read the page, not a single remark pertains to the RfA. The RfA was merely the one of the more recent things that happened, though there have been other hostile edits since then too. (struck comment as I have added this information into the draft; it may or may not stay in. I haven't decided 19:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)).
  7. Posing a question to everyone: If this were in an RfC, would anyone mind? If this were in an ArbCom submission? If not, why can't I prepare this submission on a userspace page before actually submitting it IAW WP:USER?
— BQZip01 — talk 23:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"strangely in a delete option": There is nothing strange here if you just assume, for a moment, that I am obsessed with getting such things right in principle, not with subduing an enemy. I am happy to see that you have offered a compromise. I would be even more happy if the timeframe were more reasonable. (What do you need 45 days for? Discussions with your attorney? Setting up traps for CC? I hope not.) --Hans Adler (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try assuming good faith, please, and don't insinuate what isn't there.
  1. I said strangely in the fact that I am quoting it to support my position, while you say it should be deleted.
  2. I am currently in military flight training and will be beginning a phase where I will not have a lot of time for Wikipedia.
  • Sorry, but I don't care what your job is, I don't want to wait until you're done with it to see some action taken with this page. That is not an excuse to maintain this list indefinitely. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I don't care what your job is, I don't want to wait until you're done with it to see some action taken with this page."...and here is the problem. I'm sorry I'm not done, but you will have to wait until it is complete. — BQZip01 — talk 01:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On top of that, this wasn't even addressing any comment of yours, but an answer to someone else's question. In short: I wasn't talking to you or about you. Why do you feel a need to interject your comments? — BQZip01 — talk 01:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you kidding me? You've created a page blasting me for being a disruption to this encyclopedia and you're honestly wondering why I feel the need to voice my opinion? You have the option here to be gracious, delete the material and/or move it to a Word document. You don't want to do that because you treat Wikipedia as a battleground and want to win the argument over the existence of the page. Your actions are not helpful, they are not productive and they certainly are not necessary for the RfC or dispute resolution process. You could have taken the high road a long, long time ago with this and just consented to moving the page somewhere else, but again, you didn't do that because you don't want to lose a percieved conflict. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to point out that you are interjecting a comment that simply isn't needed. I never said you couldn't voice your opinion, I just don't think you need to respond to every posting I make. You too have the option to say, "Hey, WP:USER does say he can keep it and use it for an RfC (or whatever). If he keeps this page up for a while or starts showing it to everyone to show what a "bad user" I am, then it clearly becomes an attack page and it should be removed." I don't want to do remove it for a multitude of reasons, but one of them is a matter of principle. I'm not going to be bullied into removing a page just because you (or anyone else) doesn't like it. I personally don't like some of the things that are on Wikipedia, but I don't go around demanding their removal. You may believe they are "not necessary", but I do not have the time to put together such an RfC in one sitting...so it is necessary to save it and organize my thoughts under a Wiki construct. I realize this is a rather obscure guideline (perhaps it should be changed? Shall we talk about it there too?) and it isn't as palletable as some guidelines, but it is out there and that is what I was going by.
In short, it meets all the criteria defined under WP:USER and will be used in an RfC in the near future. If you have a preference, we could try another forum, but I am willing to try somewhere else too. — BQZip01 — talk 19:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say "a matter of principle. I'm not going to be bullied into removing a page just because you (or anyone else) doesn't like it" - are you trying to make a WP:POINT here? The original objection was your statement that the page could exist for weeks or months at your option, which you strenuously defended. Now you've switched over to principle. At least now you're down to an offer of 20 days, so there is some progress. Franamax (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I said was "I don't want to do remove it for a multitude of reasons, but one of them is a matter of principle." This is not WP:POINT and I don't view this as a disruption; it is discussion. As I stated below, I admit this is an obscure "rule", but it is there. Perhaps we need to do somthing about it (please see below for a proposed solution; feel free to make your own; I'm willing to go on consensus here).
The original objection on this page was that I "...[appeared] to have no inclination...to file any action on this..." I have stated the exact opposite, but it appears to me that my good faith isn't assumed and I feel I am accused of lying (though not directly) about some inaction in the future. I have always been open to building a consensus on how long it should be up, but all I've received so far is a hard "72 hours" with no room for real life issues. If you have another proposal (a week, 10 days, whatever), let's hear it and build a consensus!
BTW, EXCELLENT civil discussion all around today! — BQZip01 — talk 20:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(partial undent)The statements on the page when it came to MfD made it hard to AGF, it stated a very open timeframe and indirectly said "you shouldn't even be looking at this", and you've said herein that you may be persuaded to not file any action. I have great sympathy for real-life issues, but if these arise, then the proper thing to do is withdraw the page from the on-wiki space and reinstate it as your time permits. Can you see how your stance is open to gaming? I can craft a page full of clever lies about someone and leave it there while crying for time: "my dog died and my typing finger is broken". That's not what you're doing, but your position opens the door for exactly that.
When you mention civil discussion and include CAPITALS, is that sarcasm? I think I have been civil, I'm not trying to be uncivil (nor incivil either) but I will point out what I see as inconsistencies in your position(s). This is a very important issue for all, and especially for those who feel they are being watched. At the least, the form of the page when it came to MfD would be intimidating for the subject, and Wikipedia is not about intimidation. Franamax (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was meant sincerely, not sarcastically (there should be some button we can use to indicate when we actually use sarcasm). You bring up a valid point and I can certainly see how the system could be gamed on that method. My intent is not to do it that way (see proposal at the bottom of this page). The original text was not designed to create the connotation "you shouldn't even be looking at this", but "I'm not done yet and I may make a lot of changes before I file it. Please let me finish before responding." As for open-ended my intent was to show I was willing to back off and that action was not imminent and nothing could be done to change my mind. I guess that could have been made more clear. As for "intimidation", I was trying to cut off people debating it on that page before I was done, that's all. Does that address your concerns? — BQZip01 — talk 21:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a regular IRL user of sarcasm, I sympathize there, it doesn't work so well when you can't see the person's face and follow up. It's like making a sick joke, doesn't always work so well when you're typing it where hundreds of people will see it. I'm glad you think things are civil today, it means we've all stopped shouting.
It's good to know that you're intentions were sincere, of course, perception trumps intention and that's where the problem arose.
The problem with "willing to back off" and "cut off people debating it" - well, this is a public encyclopedia and you freely license your contribution the second you hit "Save", it becomes public property. You certainly can't cut off other people from debating what you've licensed to the public domain. And the willing-to-back-off part, well, follow that thought along a bit, put yourself into the other person's shoes, the one who has no knowledge at all of your true intent - could that person maybe see your actions as a threat? Maybe a bit of intimidation, like "you better change or I'm going through with this"? Now, the minute that comes to light, since presumably the other person thinks they're in the right, we have a dispute - so then don't we have to go to dispute resolution, where everyone can weigh in? Put it another way, if you're not sure yet, why put it where anyone and everyone can find it? Regardless of how they find it (there are lots of ways as described elsewhere herein, I follow all kinds of neat avenues) why are your nascent thoughts out in public? Franamax (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that perception trumps intention, but in the public sphere, it certainly can. If everyone would assume good faith, I think a lot of these problems would go away
No particular disagreement with what you say, except where you use "can", substitute "does" - "that's not news, but that too is reality" (P. Trueman) Franamax (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said before, I was following WP:USER which states both that "evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process." is appropriate and "Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others...In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission." Any statements on my page's header were reflective of this guidance and not intended to stifle general debate. — BQZip01 — talk 22:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you absolutely can use your space for an immanent submission, the big problem here arose from the unfortunate preamble to the page where you laid out a vastly vague timeframe and a "may-or-may-not" approach. That's where the "attack page" concerns arise, you left it open-ended (which I see you've largely corrected now).
Now here's some more murkiness: "Your user page will usually not be edited" (emphasis added) and of course I would never think of editing your User:BQZip01 page, but your User_talk:BQZip01 page is open to all comers, within community limits. Conventionally your user page solely describes yourself, even so, if you put a userbox on it that says "Franamax is a faggot Nazi Jew running-dog-lackey-of-the-capitalist-imperialist-masters", someone is going to come along and take that off. (Cluebot, if you're watching, this post is not vandalism :) There's the absurd example, now move from there to the example of a user sub-page with statements about other editors which I may not happen to agree with. Why can't I add my contributions? The User: prefix doesn't make you the WP:OWNer, it all depends on context (and perception). Franamax (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My nascent (had to look that one up) thoughts are in that location to prepare a submission for an RfC and becauseguidelines permit such a usage. That someone objected is why we are having this discussion. Some people are saying "you can't have that!" when indeed you can. Others say "you can have it, but not for very long" when guidance is murky. — BQZip01 — talk 22:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, why here? Efficiency is a pretty thin argument, when you can copy-paste from Notepad into and out of a preview page so easily. That is a matter of seconds, compared to the large (presumably large) amount of time you're devoting to evaluating the subject editor's actions. Surely your convenience does not outweigh anothers discomfort, you may well be right that the other is disruptive (no opinion from me) but until you are determined on your course of action, why publicize your thoughts? Again, perception comes to bear. You may or may not invite selected others to add in, but wait, as soon as it's not your page, isn't it our page?
So yes, this is a permissible use of your space, iff you get it done quickly. Not 20 days or 10 days, active use of the space. It's ready to go now, as I said somewhere else, use it, lose it, take it off-wiki, your choice. And yes, we've managed to get past the shouting stage and are discussing substantive issues rather than "positions" so there has indeed been progress. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to finish it this weekend provided, barring any unforeseen problems. I look forward to hearing all of your opinions (as I'm sure many of you will weigh in...<wink> :-) — BQZip01 — talk 03:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because, as I said before, I don't think you actually intend to use this in an RfC. That's your out to stall for time so you can maintain this page indefinitely. Nothing requires that you keep the page in your userspace and, since it would appear prima facie to be uncivil, the controlling protocol here is WP:CIVIL, not WP:USER, WP:TALK or any of the other guidelines you've cited to try to wikilawyer your way out of this. Nobody is trying to encourage an RfC, but I think a lot of people recognize that the threat of a DR process is being abused here to try to validate this page's existence. You've also said several times that "nobody would have found it if they hadn't been looking." This makes it look like you're trying to paint yourself as a victim here. You created an attack page about me and now you're trying to throw everything you've got to keep it up when it's plainly doing more harm than good. As I've said before, you should probably give this up, but I have great doubts about whether you'll take that as good advice. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is about maturity, nothing else.TomPhan (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC) It is a matter of balance. There are two opinions. One states that the page in question violates WP:CSD#G10, WP:CIVIL and several agree. The question is not whether it is disruptive. If it was not, the issue would be over. The question is what good reason is there for this page that out weighs the fact that it is causing others grief? Perhaps the answer is 'Because I can, and no rule says I have to remove it.'. If so, I would suggest that sole searching is in order. Perhaps it is for some greater good. If so, someone please explain so that it can be kept for the benefit of the project. TomPhan (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prep for an RfC? Wouldn't you want well-thought out words like "I think user XYZ is being disruptive and here is why" instead of "User XYZ is f***ing up my edits and should be banned!"? (profanity used here explicitly for dramatic effect; I have no intention of using those words. — BQZip01 — talk 00:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please sir, I ask what is the greater good that these words bring to the project? Surely your thoughts can be scribed elsewhere. I myself use MSWord files privately kept on my computer to formulate thoughts for later use. I believe that text and links can be written and previewed on the project. If all links work, then copy and paste to such a program. Do not save the page. All can be brought back into the project when you have need to proceed. This would allow you to accomplish what is important to you, without any disruption. If your intent is to document, please do so elsewhere. I believe a polite removal of the page, would bring you much credit.TomPhan (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, attack page, has no use or benefit for the project if the user who keeps the page doesn't plan to use it in dispute resolution. Based on what I've seen here, the user has no intent to use it for anything of the sort. If the user whose page this is plans to use it, then use it now (or soon) - otherwise, it should be deleted. --Coredesat 00:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This whole discussion seems rather unnecessary. We should assume the creator is honest about its purpose. Userspace subpages used for compiling evidence and thoughts have long been acceptable, if occasionally controversial. If the subpage lingers around for an overly long period of time, therefore serving no outside purpose in dispute resolution, it can clearly be deleted under the criteria for speedy deletion. Rather than generating a bunch of drama over this, why not just let established practice (allow it for evidence compilation, speedy delete if it lingers beyond a reasonable time-frame for its purpose) rule the day? Vassyana (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page was left up for 5 months after the RfC ended -without consensus- and with no action from BQZip01 to delete it. As I said before, I don't want a protacted dispute about the contents of the page. There is no reason for him to keep such a draft on Wikipedia that couldn't just as well be served with a text file, but he has responded to my request saying that I "wasn't the boss" of him. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone's opposed to that in priniple - the question is what counts as reasonable. At the beginning, BQZ held the position that the page might exist for months or years. Now it looks like he's asking for 45 days - a month and a half. I'm thinking reasonable is more on the order of three days to a week - maybe two weeks tops. What timeframe seems reasonable to you? --TheOtherBob 00:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Assume good faith. I trust that he is planning to go through w/ what he says. нмŵוτнτ 00:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still have the same opinion. I think you 2 need to go go through some sort of DR, so maybe it's simply wishful thinking. нмŵוτнτ 01:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an attack page. It would need to be edited significantly to not meet this criteria, and a Word document offline would fulfil the purpose. Orderinchaos 00:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have have family in the military and can be certain that BQZ has not been able to devote as much time to this draft as he would like.... specially since he answers to a series of bosses that could send him to the other side of the globe in a heartbeat and keep him there for months. That simple fact must be understood before anyone demands he publish or delete. That his comment page sat idle for so long is a sure sign that he does have other worldly worries. His offer of 45 days might seem inordinately lengthy, but only to those not in the military and not familiar with the vageries of the military chain of command. He simply does not have the freedom and access and time that so many others take for granted. I am sure that if he could devote as much time as he'd like, the page would move on to its next step in short order... but to demand he act in a hurried manner does not take into account that he has responsibilities in the real world. So BQZ... is there a number less than that realistic 45 days and the unrealistic demand of 72 hours? How about 30 days instesad of 45? I know that is far less time than you'd prefer. Sadly, in this world of microwave ovens and cell phones, everyone seems to expect instant results. Does your schedule allow that kind of time frame? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is however, a valid reason to allow time. A repeated 3-day demand attempts to force a premature resolution without making an attempt at reasonable compromise. 45 days is definitely no "highball" figure. To be properly presented in all its context, he would be better served by having 90 days rather that his 45-day original offer or his 30-day generous compromise. Per WP:AGF it is important to understand and accept that he has major real-world obligations that do not allow him the luxury to dedicate the time and resouces to his draft that he would prefer. Not all editors can spend 16 hours a day editing on Wiki. Not all editors simply edit or delete without cause or reason or consensus. Some editors wish to ensure that if they make a statement or an edit, that it can be backed up with facts and examples. Some editors wish to ask for consensus before rushing to judgement. If he says he needs time, then under WP:AGF I believe him. He need not delete or even defend his page under WP:User. It is not an article for public desemination, after all. If the facts of the histories are true, then he deserves the time to assemble his case. If the facts of the histories are false, then his draft will die abornin'. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about 30 days? CC, let me get this straight, it needs to be deleted regardless of whether it is used in RfC or not? — BQZip01 — talk 03:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's correct - an RFC does not require or allow a separate "evidence" page. You can draft an RFC outside of the RFC area, but you can't then maintain that draft after the RFC is filed - the RFC is the record. (As noted above, if no RFC is to be filed, then it becomes an attack page and must also be deleted.) So, either way, it does have to be deleted - it's just a matter of when. 30 days is way too long - as above and below, if you need more time than that, you should take it off-wiki. This page is a disruption to Wikipedia - we tolerate the disruption for short periods where it will lead to dispute resolution. But if the balancing is "30 days of disruption" versus "an editor doing 10 minutes of reformatting from a Word document," then I don't see why the community should be willing to accept that much disruption. --TheOtherBob 14:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The central question: Why does this material need to be kept on-wiki?, has not been answered at all. Why can this NOT be kept in a word document somewhere??? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki-formatting and linking (as he would use in DR). нмŵוτнτ 03:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...Can still be created in a word document. That they won't work until uploaded back to WP:DR is moot; wikimarkup uses standard keyboard characters and will work just fine in Word...--Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, in Word, it will show up the same way it does on the page editing view, not the final view. It just makes things easier to have it here, in my opinion. нмŵוτнτ 03:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read strikeout above. You can preview and verify without saving to page. I agree, he has the experience to do this offline, but not the maturity. it is obvious this is about getting attention and getting his way. The drama and causing grief to others is the goal.TomPhan (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem...--Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct TomPhan (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
COMPROMISE
While I still believe I am right (see the expressed intent in the talk page of WP:USER of the aforementioned line explicitly permitting such a page), I am also willing to compromise. Demands for now or never are not a compromise. How about 30 days? 28? Another alternative would be editing it just as I am now, but at the end of my time editing it, I will delete all text so that nothing remains visible unless checking the history. Fair enough? More to the point, if you will read the talk page at WP:USER, you will see this is the exact situation they wanted to allow in full public view.
  • This is your version of compromise (make a demand and be absolutely unrelenting that your opinion is the right way and all others are wrong) and you have shown it on at least two other pages BQ and Kyle Field. This is not compromise. This is a demand that I acquiesce to your will; quite frankly, I'm not going to do that, though I will be happy to discuss other solutions. — BQZip01 — talk 04:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Hans Adler. Three days is long enough, use it or lose it, or take if off-wiki. The page author has just had a failed RFA, this is now the period where we see if they are learning and changing in preparation for the next RFA. Apparently there is no change, argumentation is the order of the day. The obscurity of this page location and the way it was brought to light are immaterial, it's inappropriate for Wikipedia. If I knew such a page about me existed, my skin would crawl every time I logged on. BQZip, copy it into Notepad, request it's deletion and lets all get on with life. Franamax (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really: In this case there is no reason for BQ to change. His page does not violate policy and should not be a problem. I would expect a potential admin to be diligent in gathering evidence if they feel a user's edits are problematic. He may or may not be correct in that assessment, but that is all BQ is doing. Johntex\talk 04:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the page does violate policy. BQ is now bargaining for a time period to keep it and using that bargaining to perpetuate a dispute with another user, see immediately above. Is this a desirable quality in an admin? How do all the other current admins manage to gather evidence without keeping such pages in their userspaces? That the whole problem could be solved so easily by simply making an off-wiki copy makes this whole discussion simply baffling. Franamax (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does not violate policy at all. It is not a personal attack. It is not being used to disrupt Wikipedia. It is being used to research edits that he feels are problematic. That is for the good of Wikipedia, nothting else. And yes, existing admins absolutely do use similar pages. You can view mine my draft work space at User:Johntex/Sandbox - although right now it only contains information on article drafts. I don't keep this info off wiki because doing so would be inefficient. What is baffling is the idea that BQ should use an inefficient off-wiki process instead of working right here on a quiet user sub-page. That is baffling. Johntex\talk 04:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it "bargaining"? I am perfectly willing to accept a reasonable compromise IAW WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:CONSENSUS, etc; this is not bargaining but an attempt to establish a common ground. If we want to discuss it on the WP:USER talk page, I would be happy to continue that as well. — BQZip01 — talk 04:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, it's bartering. You highballed the offer with 45 days so that people would think 30 was a reasonable compromise. 3 hours would be reasonable for filing an RfC in the matter. 3 days is being incredibly generous. You keep trying to argue that you should be allowed to keep the page so you can collect evidence over time that would let you judge my character. Well, you are not the judge of me anymore than I should be allowed to publish judgments of other editors in my userspace. This is counterproductive in every sense and you are wasting everybody's time by arguing so hard for such a pointless goal. Please stop. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - pushing this type of information off-wiki is exactly what we should NOT encourage. Not only is it inefficient for the creator, but doing so is bad for the project. We already have way too much off-wiki communication, such as IRC and mail-lists. We should be striving to keep important information and arguments on-wiki. Pushing discussion off wiki merely hides it from the light of day and leads to bad governance and bad decision making. Johntex\talk 04:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's your opinion - and it's an oversimplifying blanket statement. Off-wiki communication has only caused problems when it was off-wiki miscommunication, such as with the User:!! situation. Otherwise, it's entirely appropriate to discuss or store things off-wiki, esp. in cases (like this) where more problems are caused by discussing or storing them on-wiki. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it is my opinion; everyone here is voicing there opinion. My opinion happens to have a solid basis of fact. Logic dictates that it is an added burden on people to not only keep track of their watch list, but also multiple mail-lists, and multiple IRC channels. To make matters worse; identities on IRC can be spoofed, and no record is readily available to see who/how-many people agreed with any particular viewpoint. Johntex\talk 15:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where that comment went off the tracks (sorry) is the word "communication." Off-wiki communications are a problem, because we should communicate on here. Off-wiki drafts, on the other hand, are fine. --TheOtherBob 14:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please... Can somebody tag this for G10? This is like Nixon or McCarthy keeping tabs on other editors. It's really not cool at all. If these are simply just for the editor's benefit than a diary would be more suitable. the_undertow talk 04:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they were simply for my benefit, I'd agree. An underhanded comparison to an impeached President and McCarthyism is not very civil hostile, IMHO. — BQZip01 — talk 04:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't underhanded, it was pretty blatant comparison, and Nixon was not impeached. Civility is not the right for you to feel unoffended. If it were, then I would think the object of your 'essay' would find you just a tad incivil. the_undertow talk 05:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but throwing comparisons to McCarthyism is incivil, IMHO. An analysis of someone's actions submitted on an RfC page is not inherently incivil. — BQZip01 — talk 05:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's not simply for your benefit, then for whose benefit does it exist? You say right on the page it's to "organize your thoughts" and there is "no reason anyone would have to see" it. Franamax (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have stated, it is not intended to be complete and is a draft. There is no reason anyone had to look at the draft at all until completion as it is not my final thoughts on the matter and lots of things will change with it. It will be submitted to some administrative function soon. — BQZip01 — talk 05:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it. This page is intended to document such edits by CC more adequately show he is a disruptive force within Wikipedia. That's an attack. This page is shameful. the_undertow talk 05:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:USER where it explicitly states this is permitted. BTW, this was uncalled for and I am glad it was summarily removed. — BQZip01 — talk 05:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed with a poor edit summary. "X can't be speedied because somebody wants to keep it..." That's not how the criteria works. the_undertow talk 06:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seriously If I said this would be submitted tomorrow, would anyone have a problem with this? If I submitted it next week? two weeks? next month? next year? If time is your only issue, your comments belong on the WP:USER talk page, not here where we need to clarify what "reasonable time" means. If it's 24 hours, then I'm SOL, but if it is reasonable based on real-life circumstances, then it is another. If that is what we are disagreeing on, then let's go try and make consensus on that page. — BQZip01 — talk 05:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you feel the need to keep track of your interactions with others. What exactly is the point here? O yeah, it is to document such edits by CC more adequately show he is a disruptive force within Wikipedia. Tell me, how do you justify this as not an attack? the_undertow talk 06:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the evidences of past, disruptive, bad faith edits is true, then its not an attack.... its an idictment. Halting bad behavior is to the ultimate benefit of Wiki. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's the point! The big "if". Indictments belong at RFC or ANI or ArbCom where they can be discussed openly. They do not belong on semi-hidden user pages stated to be WP:OWNed by someone where only favoured editors will be allowed. Those are called attack pages and they are prohibited by policy. Don't confuse the issues - the subject of the page may or may not be a bad editor, but it's just not allowed to keep a running score where people may or may not stumble across it, or be personally invited to view it. That is not a wiki. If there is bad behaviour, halt it, don't keep some open-ended maybe-I-will-or-maybe-I-won't list of look-how-bad-this-guy-is items. BQ has openly stated on (this) public site they think an editor is disruptive. So put up or shut up, do it or don't, we're not in the business of open running sores. Franamax (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it is best to keep this line of discussion open and transparent and not in a word document on a private pc as has been suggested. Fosnez (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated on the page: "I request that no one except those I specifically invite make any sort of comments about this page; any comments violating this rule will simply be deleted on sight." It is not a discussion and BQZip01 has previously stated that he did not intend for it to be transparent. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You tried to keep the page hidden, then when it was discovered you blamed me for taking offense to it. How is that transparent? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can anyone "hide" a page in Wikipedia in the first place? I blame you, not for taking offense (I can't possibly control your emotions), but for making it so publicly known in a "poor me"-type whining. I had no intention of letting this see the light of day until I was done and you didn't need to bring it up until then. Had you known the guidelines for such a page and simply ignored it until it was submitted (or followed along, I really could care less) no one would know about it (and that would probably be the worst attack page in history...one no on knows about). As I stated on the page, things may change and so may my phrasing (maybe even to the point of not being offensive towards you, but how could I possibly know since you won't let me finish?). It is "transparent" because, by definition on a wiki, it is not hidden. — BQZip01 — talk 12:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just in case this helps because one of you two recovers a cool head. I believe everything that needs saying has been said by now, and a lot more. This is a relatively untested border case of our policies and both sides have brought good arguments (although it took one side a bit longer). For either side there is only one way to obtain a positive outcome from this battle: Conceding this point and winning all the brownie points instead. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Break 2
  • Delete. Collecting evidence on a user is perfectly acceptable - when the evidence is being collected for a future RfA or dispute resolution. However, BQZip01 has stated that he has no intent to start the dispute resolution process. Collecting evidence on a user you don't like is not acceptable when you're just collecting it to disparage the user, which is his apparent intent. Bart133 (t) (c) 16:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stated specifically the opposite and have been willing to even set a reasonable deadline. See below for more. — BQZip01 — talk 19:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Keep. Delete per statement by user on the page, "This page is intended as a draft and a place to organize my thoughts, nothing more." Keep if user states a) this is evidence in preparation for a dispute resolution b) which dispute resolution c) envisaged time to start resolution process d) why this time frame is necessary - I would have thought a month at the outside. This is quite clear per WP:UP#NOT:
Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. An exception is made for evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process.
Tyrenius (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a) check
b) check, but I am not yet sure as to which one (It will be RfC, mediation, or WP:ANI. Arbcom does not yet apply) does this satisfy your concern?
c) check, 30-45 days
d) check, due to real life responsibilities
Does this meet your criteria for keep? — BQZip01 — talk 19:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended my position to "keep" per above response. User meets criteria for legitimate usage. However, a month should be enough. If resolution process hasn't started by then, and failing any new mitigating circumstances, then the page would qualify as an attack page for speedy deletion. The ideal outcome would be dialogue between the editors to resolve differences. Tyrenius (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before you do, you might want to ask the user why this page needs to remain on Wikipedia for the month interim that he won't be working on it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that he will be working on it, but slowly as has limited time to do so. If there is no work done on it, then it would be better stored off-wiki. It can be saved on a word doc with all the formatting by copying from the edit box. Again I suggest some dialogue to resolve this before it gets to RfC or whatever. Tyrenius (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I've already attempted dialogue once, which proved unsuccessful. Since that time I've been called names, maligned as a puppetmaster, chided, baited with hidden messages, accused of things I clearly didn't do and have generally been treated very poorly by this user. Even above, he's said that -though he wouldn't use that phrasing- he would like to see me banned for my contributions. This page is another escalation of a conflict that is so petty that it should have ended on the talk page of Kyle Field. It's with a great deal of sadness that I've watched this user "seek input" from those he believes hold similar perspectives. I've been very patient, but I honestly can't see how any of this is beneficial or how it isn't designed to irritate me or chill my desire to contribute to this encyclopedia. I don't really know what else I can say at this point so I don't think I'll be commenting any further here. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it help if I asked for your explicit permission before asking another user for advice? This is really quickly becoming a case of stalking. Lara was on your side of a previous discussion, which is why I chose her. — BQZip01 — talk 21:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Move to RFC or Delete - No reason it can't be easily stored off-wiki. It's been sitting for months, otherwise I may be inclined to vote keep, but I am not convinced it's going anywhere. Move to RFC and complete there, move it off-wiki. Lara❤Love 21:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I misread the above intent to keep it for some time as it having been created some time ago. I have, therefore, amended my vote. Lara❤Love 04:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lara, it was created only 4 days ago, not "months" ago. Furthermore, it hasn't been sitting there and I have been editing it. Please check the history. Bit confused at your response. — BQZip01 — talk 21:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't disagree with your vote, but I am not sure you looked at the right page. The one we are discussing was created less than four days ago. At the same time BQZip10 is keeping around this page, which is clearly against policy. The fact that he still hasn't done anything to have it deleted, now he knows it's illegal, does not inspire much trust in him. (At least he has blanked the collection of "offenses" when CC confronted him on this.) --Hans Adler (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An accusation of an illegal act is a personal attack, but I assume it was a typo? If anything a blank page of "offenses" shows what I have on ThreeE...nothing. — BQZip01 — talk 21:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, at this pace we're all going to be accused of personal attacks. But "X has not complied with the rules" is not a personal attack - and calling it one is frankly a little over-dramatic. Can we rachet down the wiki-drama? --TheOtherBob 21:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On BQZip01's request I clarify, although I don't think it should be necessary. By "he knows it's illegal" I mean "he can be expected to know it's illegal because he has been told so several times by several people", and by "illegal" I mean "against the express wording of WP:USER". --Hans Adler (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I figured you meant, but thanks for the clarification. — BQZip01 — talk 21:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - the page seems to be fairly together in terms of highlighting what bqzip sees as problems with cumulous clouds. If he needs more than a few more days (a week?) to complete either an rfc-user or an arbitration request, I begin to wonder what if the motives are not as they have been presented. The request doesn't need to be perfect, just full of diffs and some kind of explaination of the issues. waiting waiting waiting to get to dispute resolution, is not a good plan. so, my suggestion is for bqz to move out with his dr request(s) or allow this to be deleted and drop the subject. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia is not censored. Also, the "logician," above, Hans Adler made an if-by-whiskey fallacy.

By "he knows it's illegal" I mean "he can be expected to know it's illegal because he has been told so several times by several people", and by "illegal" I mean "against the express wording of WP:USER".

With that said, even though I vote keep, that doesn't mean I agree with User:BQZip01's page. It looks silly. And based on his behavior, I voted against his RFA.
However:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

-Voltaire
People here would do well to remember that. Most of us are lucky to live in nations where we're free to criticize or even insult eachother. The measure of a page should not be whether it is "offensive," or "inflammatory" or "pointy," but whether it is disruptive. Libraries are bastions of free speech and free speech in Wikipedia should be understood in this same way. One is free to say all kinds of expletives and absurd things in the library they like and to insult one another so long as they keep it quiet. If somebody comes along and says, "HEY YOU!! STOP USING CURSE WORDS!!" then it is that person who is being disruptive.
Based on that, Lawrence Cohen disrupted Wikipedia by digging into a user's sub-page, just so he could make a big stink about it. That is frankly just as immature as anything Bqzip might've said in this page.
The lead specifically clarifies it is not intended as a personal attack and hostility towards criticism is censorship, and people should be ashamed of themselves for supporting it. It is important for people to not attempt to start flamewars with inflammatory remarks, but it is also important to note that flamewars can also be started by users who are oversensitive and overreact, or basically search for things to complain about. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm...well, first, could you refactor your comments? They're a bit oversized. Second, that's not an "if-by-whisky" fallacy, because that particular fallacy requires a statement that falls on both sides of an issue. What Hans did was a clarification. (Sorry - that's irrelevant, but logical fallacies are a special interest.) Beyond that, surely you agree that there is such a thing as a personal attack, and that personal attacks are not permitted on Wikipedia...right? That editors here are not, in fact, allowed to curse and insult one another, no matter at what volume? No Personal Attacks isn't censorship, Wikipedia doesn't have a right to free speech, etc. To the argument about Lawrence digging into a subpage - I'm sorry, but CC (not Lawrence) brought this issue up on ANI; Lawrence just refactored to a MFD. The reason CC found this was because of BQZ's RFA, and the reason he was interested is because the attack page was attacking CC. I don't know if that all changes anything for you, but it seems like you might have some misapprehensions about who's done what in this debate. --TheOtherBob 01:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a chance that it still could be a personal attack, despite the lead? I want to know if this disclaimer can be used in all of my future comments, regardless of content. the_undertow talk 02:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is a nice random attack on myself. Thank you. Cumulous Clouds posted this to ANI as he is 101% entitled to do so. There is no "digging" deep into contributions. Look at BQZip01's last 500 edits here. This page is all over them. Since when is looking at one's contributions a problem, or unethical? I do it all the time when someone interacts with me, or just randomly when I see a name. Click on their userpage, hit history, click on their contribs. Ten seconds and I may find an interesting thing to read. This whole thing would have been a completely typical MFD and discussion if not for the various over the top wikilawyering flying and "censorship!!!" talk. Lawrence § t/e 07:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hans said:
  • "he knows it's illegal"
Bqzip01 challenged him on the fact that he was attacking Bqzip himself.
Hans responds with the ridiculous assertion:

By "he knows it's illegal" I mean "he can be expected to know it's illegal because he has been told so several times by several people", and by "illegal" I mean "against the express wording of WP:USER".

By whiskey, he means "vile poison." By whiskey, he means, "the devil's drink."
Accusing someone as bad faith is not the same as "others have told him," and WP:USER is not law.
Perhaps it's not an If-by-whiskey fallacy, since he doesn't affirm Bqzip's argument, but he did just try to slip out of the fact that he attacked Bqzip with blatant assumptions of bad faith, by totally changing what he just said.
Regarding personal attacks, a very simplistic definition of "personal attack" as an "attack on a person" yields the fact that all criticisms of anybody is a personal attack (ad-hominem). There is a spectrum. What defines a "personal attack" in terms of what's unacceptable is how inflammatory it is, but this concept of "a personal attack is inflammatory" is entirely contingent upon the fact that it is disruptive.
Say that you and I are friends. I jokingly say, "LOL. You're a ****ing idiot," in passing. This isn't a personal attack, of course (and you wouldn't report me for it, because we're friends!). It's inflammatory, but you're likely to be OK with it and it won't disrupt anybody. Were anybody to come trolling along and say, "OMG! He used an expletive and called somebody an idiot!" would be disruptive.
Similarly, if I say even the smallest criticism, like, "You are a very bad editor," that is a personal attack, by a very, very simplistic definition of that term which isn't reflective in WP:Personal attack.
Sometimes, you actually see people bring crap like this to WP:WQA and it needs to stop. Because by throwing a tantrum every time somebody criticizes you, you're being disruptive by starting flamewars that would not exist without your complaining.
the_undertow: The article is an attack on the person, Cumulus Clouds. It is an attack on Cumulus Clouds which argues that he is disruptive and in violation of policy.
Similarly, I think many editors here are disruptive, in violation of policy, and annoying. Am I free to say this? Of course. Because criticism does not fit the definition of "personal attack," which is contingent on inflammatoriness which leads to disruption.
When it comes to interacting with other Wikipedians, there are two very basic principles:
Or to be more concise:
  • Don't be rude ("Don't be a dick")
  • Don't be oversensitive (what could be called, "Don't be a crybaby\faultfinder\griper\grumbler\irritable\moaner\whiner")
Both principles are equally important and should not be ignored. Making a page alleging policy violations by other users, backed by diffs, is not being a "dick." Removing this page is blatant censorship. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(OFF TOPIC ALERT) I think you worked this out for yourself at the end, but the Whisky fallacy requires that a person be on two different sides of an issue -- not merely that their position change from a more severe one to a less severe one while remaining on the same side of the issue. Hans said "illegal" when he meant "against policy." If he'd then said "and by illegal I mean legal," you'd be right. But instead when he realized that "illegal" isn't really the right word for violating a Wikipedia policy, he merely pulled it back to a more accurate -- but directionally identical -- term. That's clarification (or maybe compromise) - not Whisky. (BACK ON TOPIC)
I guess what you're saying is that a personal page attacking another editor is fine so long as it focuses on criticizing their actions -- that BQZ could set up a permanent "Bob's Blunders" page and note every one of my comments that he thinks don't (in his personal opinion) meet Wikipedia standards - and that I could never respond (except with my own attack page, I guess). But I don't think that view is shared by the community, because such pages (a) are not geared towards building an encyclopedia and (b) create a hostile, corrosive environment. Criticism is great, but there is a procedure and a forum for criticizing another editor's behavior - an RFC (or other public forum). The community, in establishing that procedure and mandating deletion of attack pages, has said that we don't want Wikipedia to be the sort of place where people set up private shrines to their vendettas, but rather the sort of place where disputes are aired for both parties to respond. The complaint here is that BQZ is using his user page to criticize another editor (who can never respond), when he should instead make use of RFC so that the other editor and the community can weigh in. If he does make use of RFC to air that criticism, everyone will be (procedurally) happy -- the forum is the problem, not the criticism. --TheOtherBob 04:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough analysis. Your two problems then are time and location? As for time, I think "reasonable time" is too vague. What I think is reasonable is clearly not what you think is reasonable. As for location, WP:USER specifically states a user subpage may be used exactly in this manner: "An exception is made for evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process." As such, I think the problem lies with the phrasing on that guideline (as noted above) and it may need more clarification. If we all agree 30-45 days is fine, then there isn't a problem. If we all agree 14 days (or 7 or 3 or 24 hours or whatever) is fine, then that is the guideline. Why don't we close this out and move the discussion there? I'll be happy to abide by whatever consensus we reach. Furthermore, criticizing this page as an attack page is misleading. This page does not meet that criteria: even if the page is found to be disparaging of its subject, it was not "created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject." It was created with a WP:DR in mind. — BQZip01 — talk 06:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given this is now so contested, I would strongly oppose any premature close or change of venue. The full community is entitled to approximately 5 days~ to review this, and then an uninvolved admin will judge consensus on what will be done. Lawrence § t/e 06:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be closed now. It can be closed tomorrow, or 3 days from now. I'm just saying that if the problem is with interpretation of that guideline, perhaps we need to clarify/rethink that guideline, right?
BTW, I never advocated keeping the changes forever. I intended that line to show I was willing to change my mind and not submit it at all (and delete it accordingly) if CC, or someone else, showed me I had missed. I'm sorry if you think that is "wrong", but according to the guideline, it isn't. — BQZip01 — talk 06:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get into this again, like we did at your failed RFA, on how rules work around here. They are a convenience to give us guidance, not a suit of armor to defend actions. Lawrence § t/e 06:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then shouldn't we clarify the guidance? — BQZip01 — talk 06:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need. We don't have or need hard and fast bright line rules for this sort of thing. Common sense as adjucated by the community at large is sufficient. The cream of common sense will rise to the top. Lawrence § t/e 07:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, common sense should dictate that Wikipedians should be not only allowed but encouraged to use their user sub-pages to organize their thoughts. Johntex\talk 03:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) BQZip, you are going around in circles here and appear to be trying to make a WP:POINT. Can you point us to where you are trying to get the guideline clarified? You are saying the page was not created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject, and yet the only thing the page does is disparage its subject. You are saying you would get rid of the page if someone shows you where you're wrong, yet you forbid any editing to the page. It would be so effortlessly easy for you to just take the page off-wiki, instead you want to endlessly wiki-lawyer. You have already sunk your next RFA within days of losing out at the last one. If you don't think guidelines are tight enough, take it up yourself at the appropriate venues, but show some flexibility here rather than trying to end up being right no matter what. Franamax (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of the guideline was discussed and the various implications examined. A time restriction was not set, because circumstances vary depending on various factors, such as the complexity of the case to be prepared and, in the present case, the user's free time to work on it. It is left to the community to interpret the guideline for any specific case, just as with other wiki processes, such as RfA for example. Tyrenius (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - the guideline balances need against harm to the community and the other editor. We don't need to "clarify" the guideline -- we need to apply it; our only difficulty is that the lack of a set time frame gives BQZ the ability to wiki-lawyer endlessly on the meaning of "reasonable." But that's his failing, not the guideline's. (And, frankly, I would strongly oppose any future RFA -- given his willingness to create an attack page and his refusal to remove it to avoid the disruption. I assume BQZ is essentially abandoning that ambition here.) The "meaning of reasonable" red herring is just an attempt to avoid the clear import of everything that's been said above -- that the RFC draft is substantially complete, that it can and should be filed within days, that BQZ seems to be making no attempt to do whatever else he needs to do to complete it (choosing instead to wiki-lawyer endlessly about how long he can have the page up), that the disruption isn't nearly worth whatever few minutes it might (or, frankly, might not - my copy, paste works fine) save him in formatting. Granting six weeks to complete whatever finishing touches (when the draft itself was substantially complete in two-three days) seems absurd -- not reasonable. --TheOtherBob 14:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calling dissent "disruption" is done usually to silence opposition. Calling a reasonable discussion a "disruption" twice...
"the RFC draft is substantially complete"
Really? Perhaps you've not bothered to notice it has been expanded substantially over the past 2 days.
"BQZ seems to be making no attempt to do whatever else he needs to do to complete it..."
see above...still not done
"...(choosing instead to wiki-lawyer endlessly about how long he can have the page up)"
well, people are trying to delete something that I am working on IAW the guidelines on WP:USER. Why wouldn't I defend my actions? Why shouldn't I?
"The "meaning of reasonable" red herring is just an attempt to avoid the clear import of everything that's been said above"
Quite to the contrary, there are plenty of people who disagree with you and agree with me (at least that this page is acceptable). Classifying the page as an attack page ignores the intent of the page completely. If the intent of this page were to simply be a repository of information, then I would agree with you completely. As for what is "reasonable", it is such a murky definition of a word that it could mean anything. No one here is willing to explicitly clarify its intent. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (BQZip01)[reply]
Tough to know who you're talking to when you don't log in - but in any event no one is trying to "silence opposition." Oppose away - loudly, publicly, etc. But No Personal Attacks? Yeah, sorry, people do have to abide by it. Disrupting the encyclopedia to preserve an attack page (when BQZ could take it to Word for free)? Yeah, sorry, also not kosher. To the point about not expanding the attack page - you're right, I take that back. Apparently BQZ is adding every statement CC makes in this discussion to it! But that's not a proper "draft" RFC - it's stalking. (It further makes me think that the RFC will never actually materialize - because CC is never going to stop saying things with which BQZ could potentially disagree, and which he could then add to the "draft" RFC.) As to the Clintonian argument about the "meaning of reasonable" - it's been defined.
By the way, I was thinking earlier about why this page is harmful (because part of what makes this unreasonable is the harm it does both CC and Wikipedia). And what I think I decided is that it's like a pot-shot. Wikipedia is set up on the idea that if you have a dispute, you'll come down to the designated forum, the parties will talk about it, the community will weigh in, and we'll reach some conclusion. That almost universally means, though, that the person bringing the dispute exposes themselves to the same criticism as the other editor -- it can be a risky thing to do if your hands aren't clean.
But a page like this is like hiding in the weeds. There's no risk for the person creating the page, because they can say that they're planning to seek dispute resolution (you know, someday), without actually going there and facing the community -- that's why we put a time limit on it. Here BQZ is essentially asking for six weeks in which he gets to take whatever shots he wants at CC, and no one gets to call him on them. No one gets to say "I didn't say that" or "that's completely out of context" or "I only called you that after you called me [blank]." No one gets to say "BQZ - it looks like you violated X,Y, and Z rules." And, importantly, no one gets to say "wow, dude, is THAT what we're disagreeing about? Because I totally agree with you on it." Instead CC gets shots taken at him, Wikipedia gets disrupted, and...BQZ saves ten minutes of formatting time? Yeah, even if you don't know what "reasonable" means, that's not it. --TheOtherBob 16:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your missing the point. There is no risk to the person creating the page because there is nothing at all wrong with the page. Far from discouraging it, we should encourage people to use such draft spaces to gather their thoughts. It is a shame that you choose to characterize it as such an adversarial matter. No one would even be hearing of the bage if CC had not publicized it. It is CC that is creating all the drama here. Johntex\talk 03:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That you characterize this as a non-adversarial matter is a bit absurd given your above comments, but in any event your comment seems only tangentially related to mine. (Frankly it looks like instead of responding you just rehashed earlier statements - to which I won't re-respond.) To reiterate my point, which you didn't really address, there is no risk to the person making a page like this because they don't subject their comments to the other editor's and the community's response -- that's why it's a potshot and not permitted.
Following your points, though, something struck me. If I understand your arguments here correctly you believe an editor should be allowed to maintain a permanent list of criticisms of another editor so long as it is marked "draft RFC." If so, let me ask -- would you allow an attack page if it expressly stated that it was an attack page rather than a "draft"? Is the difference the "magic words" put at the top? What if it was left up for two months? Would that make any difference to your analysis?
To your "blame the victim" argument, CC publicized this because it is a page slamming him. It's sorta hard to discuss with you if you don't understand why the average editor might take offense at such a page and seek the opportunity to respond - indeed, I'm sorry to say this, but it seems like you don't care that CC gets slammed without a chance to respond because (as you pointed out in your first comment above), you feel he deserves it. I shouldn't have to tell a veteran editor like you this, but no editor deserves to have pot-shots taken at him. --TheOtherBob 04:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Break 3
I think that BillCJ (talk) might have said it best. Not with his opinion here, but with what he said in a similiar situation a while back: here. The first time I read it I was confused, but after rereading it carefully, it all seemed to make prefect sense. 68.244.85.81 (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're choosing a ridiculous personal attack edit as an example of making perfect sense? You'd have us all calling each other "idiots"?! This whole page is like some Wikipedia Bizarro World! —Wknight94 (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 'ridiculous personal attack edit as an example of making perfect sense' seemed fitting as to where the discussion has on occasion drifted. I am not completely sure that all of the parties in the topic are concerned about bettering Wiki 70.4.237.54 (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that this comment simply isn't necessary or helpful to this discussion. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (BQZip01)[reply]
  • Comment (formerly Delete) No legitimate reason for keeping this on wikipedia as-is. The info could be kept offline in a document until (or if) the user intends to actually file an RFC. User:Tecmobowl, now banned, kept an "enemies list" this way and accused people of stalking for daring to read and comment on it, which is essentially what the user in this case is doing. This page's sole purpose appears to be for taunting and stirring the pot, and so far it's working. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, this isn't a collection of "enemies" list. It is a draft for an RfC regarding a user and is explicitly permitted under WP guidelines. I am not accusing anyone of stalking me because they "dared" to read it. Can you please explain your assertion in the context of the guideline stated in WP:USER (also noted above?). 131.44.121.252 (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (BQZip01)[reply]
My comments are a reaction to the blatantly patronizing tone of the opening paragraph. And it's clear this guy has no business becoming an admin: "This page is intended as a draft and a place to organize my thoughts, nothing more. Nothing here should be construed as a personal attack and all comments here are subject to change. Unless someone is poring over my contributions (as they might be in my RfA), there is no reason that anyone would have to even see this page. IAW WP:USER everyone is allowed to edit this page, but IAW the same rule, I request that no one except those I specifically invite make any sort of comments about this page; any comments violating this rule will simply be deleted on sight. It may take weeks to put this page together, but until submitted, this page is exclusively a draft and does not necessarily represent even my view on a subject as phrasing may change and I may change my mind on whole sections." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing patronizing about it at all. It is a draft workspace - no more, no less. The question of whether its creator should become an admin are completely irrelevant. Any user has the right to creat and maintain such a page. Johntex\talk 03:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And every user has the right to say that anyone who would create such a page shouldn't be allowed within a mile of the mop. --TheOtherBob 04:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is that even if you do something explicitly permitted, you can't be an admin?...interesting view. — BQZip01 — talk 04:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, to answer the question begged, this isn't permitted. But even so, there are lots of permitted things a person could do that show poor judgment and immaturity. This, in my view is one of them -- that you're willing to cause or allow disruption rather than spend a few seconds copy-pasting -- indeed, that you drafted a page like this to start with -- to me speaks volumes about your character and priorities (the sorts of things judged in an RFA). It won't get you banned, but it definitely makes me believe that you should not be given the tools. --TheOtherBob 04:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, since there is broad latitude in userspace and it's a bit of a stretch to call this an attack page. Can't say the author's bullheadedness in wanting to keep it even if it bugs some other people is helpful, but we can't legislate the handing out of olive branches. The author's offer to commit to keeping it up no more than 30 days should be accepted. Rather than arguing over 72 hrs versus 30 days (since I gather this has been up for months it really doesn't matter) let's just move on. The only people who will ever look at this page are those who go in search of it. Martinp (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was created 4 days ago. Its purpose appears to be disruption. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no evidence whatsoever to support the above claim that the page was created for disruption. The creator has not advertised its existence, and has not made any inbound links to the page. It is perfectly within the norms of Wikipedia for the editor to use such a user-sub-page to organize his thoughts. The page should certainly be allowed to remain. Johntex\talk 23:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The evidence is staring right at you, in the defiant, patronizing tone of the intro. If he had simply said, "This page is a work area to construct an RFC," that would be one thing. No, he worded it purposely to lecture anyone who was observing his edits... which any wikipedian has the right to do, and also has the right to fairly comment upon, which is exactly what happened. Much more disturbing than this page is the thought of this guy becoming an admin. With any luck, his attitude here will help to sink that effort. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrt to your last two sentences, I think we needn't rub that in any more. If nothing else, I am sure that message has arrived by now. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, does this address your tone concerns? As for who has a "right" to comment, the guideline WP:USER states the exact opposite "In general it is considered polite to avoid...editing another's user page without their permission... [Some users] may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so." As for the last two sentences, yeah, I agree with Adler; they should also be removed or at least struck out. — BQZip01 — talk 03:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Baseball Bugs here. The intro has never said anything lecturing. It does not start out with any admonition that the reader should not be there, or any such thing. In fact, it clearly begins with, "This page is intended as a draft and a place to organize my thoughts, nothing more. Nothing here should be construed as a personal attack and all comments here are subject to change.[1] (Note that I took yesterday's version so as not to pick up the change just made). Johntex\talk 03:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimers are for lawyers. Saying this isn't an attack, does not give the editor absolution and certainly does not change the wording to follow. Now that this has gone from 'a draft and...nothing more' to am impending 'RfC' means absolutely nothing. This is simply an exercise in learning on how to manipulate an attack page into an acceptable use of userspace. This is exactly why BQZ should have 'organized thoughts' in a diary, where they belong. the_undertow talk 03:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. He's still editorializing and still telling the reader what to do.
How it currently reads:
This page is intended as a draft and a place to organize my thoughts for a submission to an RfC, nothing more. Nothing here should be construed as a personal attack and all comments here are subject to change. IAW WP:USER everyone is allowed to edit this page, but IAW the same rule, I request that no one make any sort of comments on this page; any comments violating this rule will simply be deleted on sight. It may take weeks to put this page together, but until submitted, this page is exclusively a draft and does not necessarily represent even my view on a subject as phrasing may change and I may change my mind on whole sections.
How it should read:
This page is intended as a draft and a place to organize my thoughts for a submission to an RfC.
Fix that, and we're good. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lose the ", nothing more" and maybe indicate a more precise timetable of when you intend to actually post the RFC, and I think it's fair. Although I still think it would be better if you did this totally offline and just post it once it's ready. Then you would avoid the appearance of taunting. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's all it takes, you got it. *Keep? — BQZip01 — talk 04:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wikipedia has one rule that I am often tempted to break: Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. I agree with it in general, but in situations like the current one I often think that someone who stubbornly refuses to learn should be told a lesson. Tit for tat. Show him what happens if other people do what he does. In practical terms: I am under a very strong temptation now to make a user subpage about User:BQZip01. I have very strong sympathies with anybody who cannot resist such a temptation to mirror severely unconstructive behaviour to make a point. However, if I have learnt one thing in the short time since I joined Wikipedia, then it is that this doesn't work. Intuitively I still think it should, but at least I know now that it doesn't. I am saying this just in case it helps others who feel the same and are also fighting against their intuition. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do it, Hans. And if it goes to MfD, I will defend your sub-page from deletion as well. That's what free speech is about. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Zenwhat. Such a page does not violate policy so Hans should feel free to make one. I have no worries if someone wants to make such a page on me as well. I am proud of my edits and I am confident any errors I have made will be viewed in light of my total editing experience. Johntex\talk 13:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has my backing too. I would be interested to see what you would come up with. — BQZip01 — talk 13:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly disagree, tempting as it is, tit-for-tat is not the way forward in this situation or any other. That leads to anarchy, where everyone can point somewhere else and say "see, they're doing it too" and the behaviour gets a little bit worse each time. We all have to be responsible for our own actions, impropriety on the part of others is not an excuse. Franamax (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bugs. — BQZip01 — talk 19:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here's an idea: why don't we set aside some space on Wikipedia for people to work on stuff like this? Just like the Sandbox it can be automatically deleted every X days (2 notes: 1. We can debate "X" later 2. I said "deletion", not just removing the text). That way no one can keep such a page, but drafts for WP:AD can still be worked on? No one can have more than one active for that time period and users can comment on the talk page, but editing is "customarily" restricted to the user and those people he invites to critique his work (this can really help in smoothing out phrases that some could take offensively). Whatdaya think? — BQZip01 — talk 19:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. This may be a good idea but MfD is the wrong forum. Village Pump would be a good spot, with reference to this page as a starting point.
2. Creation of a spot to air out someone's grievances, with the help of other people with similar grievances, with the defenders confined to the sidelines? Problematic at best, it invites competing factions to start their own pages, and individual editors to create their own "helper" factions. How will this help Wikipedia? It seems like a good spot to organize a "clean kill" - but we don't want to eliminate anyone, we want them to become good contributors.
3. Endlessly gameable, I can save the page to my hard drive the day before it is deleted, then post it back up the day after.
4. How does this compare to the existing dispute resolution mechanisms? Let's fix the problems there before introducing something new - but are there problems that need fixing? Take out the restriction that only invited editors are allowed and this just becomes RFC, doesn't it? Franamax (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I understand the concern to arrive at accuracy, no-one wants to go to a higher forum without the facts straight or with an incorrect premise. I'm just doubtful there's a good way to achieve that with this method, which disallows (or sidelines) comment by the subject editor. Is this proposal most similar to a WP:WQA? Is canvassing allowed for a WQA? I see no reason why others could not be invited to that forum, it is one of the first steps, and it does allow for outside comment in a neutral forum. Franamax (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Those who suggest storing it offline in a word doc probably haven't tried it.Mccready (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Word wouldn't be so good, but WordPad works fine. I've used it this way many times (not for RFC's, but for articles with references and the like). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it doesn't give WYSIWYG ??? Mccready (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think WYSIWYG is why we allow for a brief period in which to put something like this together on WP. It's a balance of extra editing convenience against the harm to the community from having something like this sitting around too long. (I personally use Notepad most of the time, and wonder why anyone would want their drafts to be seen by the community even for a day -- I mean, you may later change your mind on something you drafted but once it's out there it's out there. But, hey, everyone's different.) --TheOtherBob 15:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You can get it just about the way you want, and test it. You don't have to post it until you're done. And the user spent his last 24 hours work here defending that page rather than getting the page ready for an RFC... which suggests that he is, in fact, engaged in grandstanding or "wikilawyering" or whatever you want to call it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Respectfully, I believe you should assume good faith here. I have spent the last 24 hours doing far more than that (specifically, I have taken an exam which determines my standing in flight training, taken care of about 4 hours of administrative work, more classes, taking care of 2 boys, etc.). However, I am trying to work offline as well and doing what BB wants...it sure seems like a "your damned if you do and your damned if you don't" situation. You should be seeing an extensive update to that page in the near future (either tonight or tomorrow). Once tweaking is done, I'll be submitting to an RfC.
  • Keep - Page states that it is a draft to presented elsewhere soon. As such, I think it is reasonable, particularly given the creator's comments above, to believe it is, and that it will be presented soon. Suggest revisiting in a month or so, giving some leeway on the 20 days or so stated on the page, if no action is taken by that point. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - since this mfd was filed (4 feb 08 at 16:45) User:BQZip01 has made approximately 135 edits to en.wikipeida (from 4 feb 08 23:48 until now 20:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)). Many to this Mfd Discussion. If rather than argue about the propriety of it had said "I intend to spend the next 4 days or so completing it as an Rfc" as his first response, this discussion would have been speedily closed and forgotten. So, what is the real point of the page? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this discussion so far is about 135K, i.e. rather longer than a typical article. It is beginning to look suspiciously like that was the point of the user's page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. This discussion has managed to sidetrack BQZip01 from preparing his proposed RfC; any deadline set should be reasonably long, and start when BQZip01 is notified of the closure of this MfD. All the time BQZip01 has had to spend here, defending his work, is time that the nominator and the subject of the potential RfC have stolen from BQZip; cognizance of that should be made when determining a length of time for BQZip01 to complete and file this RfC, or to delete it.
  • Comment - I'm not sure whether the page should be deleted or not, and reading 140kB of flame-warring didn't change my opinion any. What I am sure of, however, is that if the user in question hopes to secure the admin bit at some future point, his conduct with regards to his userspace will certainly become an issue. It would probably be in his best interest to minimize needless drama and avoid painting a picture of a person who may abide by the letter of the law, but ignores its spirit. In other words, this userpage is not going to help him win friends and influence people. FCYTravis (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amen to that. A single copy and paste to an off-site area was all several of us asked for, instead he bought a whole truck-full of new oppose votes at his next RFA. One of the keys to being an administrator is to kill disruption - this is the exact opposite. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voting tallies

Removed here. We don't vote. Do not re-add. Especially inappropriate for the creator of the article to add this. BQZ, you need to step back. Lawrence § t/e 00:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence, we don't vote, but we do use polls quite frequently. When we use polls, we simply don't automatically go by the majority.

In this case, the poll is useful and it has been re-added.

We don't necessarily have to go by what the majority says, but it is helpful to see from that poll that there's no consensus for this article to be deleted. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He made it very clear that it was a "simplified tally," and a "quick summary," and that people should "read all opinions below." ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And we simply don't do that on xfds. Lawrence § t/e 02:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh...any particular reason you removed my posting other than "we don't do that"? How is it inappropriate in any way. Telling me to step back is a very simple way of telling me to back off. I've done nothing wrong and was trying to simplify discussion. Showing the opinions on this page are about 50-50 shows there is certainly not a simple consensus one way or the other at this time. I've re-added it, so please don't remove my postings in the future without due cause. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you have the right/privilege of deleting it. As such, I've placed it back; it isn't a vote. — BQZip01 — talk 03:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As noted, this is something that's not done at XFD's. Does it violate any particular rule? Other than the normal way of conducting an XFD and the typical practice of putting new comments below old ones, probably not. But it's the sort of drama-inducing, out-of-process-but-technically-not-impermissible action that got us here in the first place. Since meeting BQZ a couple of days ago I've...well, frankly I've lost a lot of respect for him. But here's a minor, almost meaningless point where he could start to rebuild the community's (and my) respect by choosing to follow standard community practices rather than (a) labelling them an attack or (b) wiki-lawyering about whether what he is doing is technically permissible. Now, technically, that might mean he'd "lose" this minor, stupid little point - but I'd still like to think he has the maturity to do that (if for no other reason then because he'd realize that "losing" while looking like the bigger man is hardly losing). So BQZ, how about it? --TheOtherBob 03:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And here is where I have a problem with this. There is nothing wrong with it. It is a relatively new way to do things, nonstandard, but that doesn't make them "wrong". As for putting new comments under older ones, I'm not sure exactly where I violated that, but I put it at the top so it would be most clear. I never labeled it as an attack anywhere (disagreement maybe, but not an attack) and that is not a good summary of what I said. Calling my actions "minor, stupid" doesn't facilitate discussion as much as hostility. I'm always pushing the envelope, seeing new ways to do things. That's how we improve Wikipedia. Just because something is nonstandard doesn't make it inherently bad, disruptive, "wikilawyering," or anything else; it's just new or nonstandard. Try something new. See how well it works...and I'm not even ignoring all rules...a policy of Wikipedia! Simple disagreement is not disruption. — BQZip01 — talk 03:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you had spent half the time on finishing that RFC as you have spent on this page, you'd have it done by now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A disappointing, wiki-lawyer answer. (And have you ever considered that the reason you think "wiki-lawyer" is overused may be that you wiki-lawyer? It frankly doesn't come up that often in conversations I've witnessed. I mean, maybe it's a global social thing where everyone overuses the term -- but I think you should also at least consider the possibility that the reason you hear the word "wiki-lawyer" so much is because you are, in fact, behaving like a wiki-lawyer.)
In any event, hey, man, I was asking you to do the adult thing, be the bigger man. You respond with, in effect, "I'm technically right so I don't have to." Ok - you don't have to. You can be any size man you want to be.
But there is one small thing I should clarify, because you've misread my comment and taken unintended offense to something I didn't say. (And I'm leaving aside your comments about "attacks" and "disruption" since they don't seem to respond to anything in my post.) I said that this dispute (I think I called it a "little point") is minor and stupid. It is. It's about whether a tally goes on the top of a little-visited, temporary page on a website on the internet. That's...pretty minor, and arguing about it is stupid on both sides (mine included). You're not minor and stupid. Your edits aren't minor and stupid. But this dispute? Tooootally minor and stupid. Whether you're right or wrong, winning or losing this tiny little point will never be remembered by anyone. But whether you show respect to the community and your fellow editors, whether you demonstrate maturity - that's the sort of thing that will be. I wish you would do those things, but, hey, you're right, there's no rule so I can't make you. --TheOtherBob 04:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck my comment above asking to "Retally". Being new, I was not aware of the community standards, I saw that a tally was taken, was obviously in error (favoring the editor who placed it there), and I was looking for a correction to the facts. That the same editor has placed my comment back into the page, twisted with a reply to look like I am supporting his assinine behavior is frankly quite offensive. That making points to try to win a RfA has come to this is to me, unbelievable. At this point, it seems that maturity, and selfishness could not account for the theatrics. Are we being played as fools? Is this some game to see how far along a pointless, wikilayering babble we are willing to respond? If his attempt is to bewilder, he has positively succeeded. TomPhan (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you shouldn't worry too much about the tally. This kind of discussion is normally closed only by administrators, and except perhaps in obvious cases of consensus they look very closely at what was going on in a discussion. In its current state the only correct way to close this discussion is as "no consensus". It's possible that an admin will close it as "keep" or "delete", but that would be based on their mainly on their opinion and probably improper. Counting "votes" isn't so important. Sometimes discussions are properly closed with the opposite result of what such a tally would say. If anything, the presence of that thing will raise a red flag with the closing admin. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it raise a "red flag"? — BQZip01 — talk 22:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, I read your use of implications/accusations that I am childish and a small man as really insulting. Your definition of maturity is also troubling. Do you mean that everything that every discussion about Wikipedia is stupid and minor and simple opposition/disagreement with you personally is minor and a simple discussion is an indicator of "maturity"? — BQZip01 — talk 22:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BQZ - it's your actions that define you (I think that's from Batman). I'm not trying to accuse you of anything -- but I have to admit that I do think your behavior here lately doesn't paint a great picture. You can consider that insulting if you want (though it's definitely not meant to be) -- or you could consider it an indication that you may not be coming across to people the way you (I hope) want to. (Or you could argue about the definition of "maturity"...but, hey, no thanks.) I've asked you be the bigger man in some tiny way, in the hope that you'd take the opportunity and that your resulting small gesture of goodwill would then allow everyone to move forward into a resolution of this mess. Obviously if you don't choose to take that opportunity, then whatever that choice says about you is what it says.
To your question, of course I'm not saying that disagreement with another editor is immature - but how you disagree, and over what, definitely can be. When you find yourself fighting tooth and nail over whether to include a tally on the top of an MFD page, that's a good time to step back and reevaluate your actions and goals.
Nor am I saying that every discussion on Wikipedia is stupid and minor - but I'm surprised to hear any argument that this one is anything else. I would think that we could at least agree on that, if nothing else -- because arguing about whether to include a tally on an MFD page looks pretty dumb on both sides. But, ok, you think this is a weighty subject worth going to the mat over - that's fine. I don't, so I guess we have to disagree. --TheOtherBob 23:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then let's go from that. I have seen too much on this page from people trying to push me around when I've done nothing wrong while they don't take the time to understand the related policies and guidelines. I'm not just going to sit here and take it without defending myself and my actions. While I agree that the little tally box is a minor point of contention, I am not going to sit here and let someone delete something that is perfectly acceptable. Does that mean I can't let anything go? no, but it does mean in this instance, I am fighting tooth and nail for what I believe to be right. I believe such abuse has to stop. — BQZip01 — talk 23:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. why are we here again? is it to decide if the userspace page is an attack page or a valid draft in preparation for dispute resolution? Only you can really make that call bqz, and your actions don't seem to follow your words very well. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are learning that the nuisance of a baby playing with an annoying rattle is preferred to the result when you remove the toy.TomPhan (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TomPhan, does that comment improve the encyclopedia? Or is it meant to inflame the situation? Would you consider striking in favour of a more nuanced statement? Franamax (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Franamax, I would prefer to leave the comment, as I find it true to the heart. I will self block for 24hrs if that is acceptable.TomPhan (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your "self block" is worthless as it shows you have learned nothing. Furthermore, it doesn't show up in your block history that you are continuing to be insulting and demeaning. — BQZip01 — talk 00:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)I want to take some time to respond to BQZ (but don't have it right now). But I do want to say that I agree that Tom's note is out of line, and join Franamax's request that he strike. --TheOtherBob 00:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as he "self blocked", the inflammatory comment won't be removed/edited for at least 24 hours. — BQZip01 — talk 00:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He can't self-block, he's not an administrator. FCYTravis (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments&oldid=1089070372"