Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:02, 29 September 2005

User talk:Hipocrite/Archive1

Romath

FYI, Romath was deleted last month. Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/Romath Can you tell me why we shouldn't speedy-delete Romath and alt.romath? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:10, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Three reasons:

1. The old delete proceeded because no one was willing to shepard the project. I am.

2. The old delete was about a non-notable subject - Romath. While she's on the cusp of notability, the newsgroup itself is quite notable - it was the highest traffic alt.* newsgroup for at least 3 months. I'm trying to find the old trafic stats posts to cite for that assertion on my part, but I assure you that if I remember 6 years ago correctly, it's true.

3. The old delete was about a much worse article. This article does not suck.

Hipocrite

PS: Doing your talk-page archiving by page moves makes it very difficult to see old comments. It's your talk page, but please don't archive article talk pages that way in case you had an impulse to do so. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:10, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciate the heads up. Hipocrite 22:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention 6 to keep and 11 to delete is a very weak consensus to delete, and it's quite arguable that the article should not have been deleted. I wouldn't put a lot of weight in that prior VfD. Kelly Martin 23:00, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

If there are good reasons for keeping it then I don't object. Hipocrite may have a full-time job shepherding this article when Ms. ROMATH gets wind of it. I wish you luck - and I'll try to help. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:49, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Re: alt.romath

I wanted to inform you that I wrote a stub article located at alt.romath. Any help expanding, researching and improving it would be appreciated - I believe you may have been around at the time. Hipocrite 21:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I am only familiar with this topic in connection with Romath making various silly threats against Misplaced Pages. Kelly Martin 22:55, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

FYI, if you're looking for people who may know something about the newsgroup, user:Josh Parris and user:IMeowbot were also involved in adding information to Romath]], and may have some insights (and biases). Based on the username, there is a possibility that user:IMeowbot has posted to the newsgroup. -Willmcw 00:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Gibadabmoob

Is a troll...check his/her user talk and edit history.--MONGO 13:59, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

It was clear to all that there was no consensus around removing trolls from the project, nor any around making you the project adminstrator. Stop removing people from the project. Hipocrite 14:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Now you look here buddy, you most certainly don't tell me what to do. You edit history certainly doesn't make you some kind of special contributor to this place. There is no concensus for what you claim in any way, manner or form. You are certainly not the project admin either...you can bet on that. I will edit the page any way I see fit and if you don't like it too bad.--MONGO 20:33, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Stop removing people from the project, or we'll remove you. Hipocrite 23:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I wish you luck in that endeavour.--MONGO 00:28, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Suicide

Glad to see the notice you put up there. It's the little things like that make me happy to be a part of this project. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 21:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't hang out with the trolls

I know the Comstockians over at WWem are abusive in their edits, and annoyingly belligerent. But however badly they act, you should refrain from stooping to the same level. Specifically, it was wrong to mess with the membership list by striking out other user's names or changing their membership comments. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:16, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

I did not strike any members names. I'll refrain from doing anything but reverting the members list from here on in. The nazi comment pushed me right over the edge, and I no longer assume good faith from any of them, evidenced by the fact that they are happy to accuse others of disruption but totally unwilling to admit their motives. I'm there to keep people from deleting all the nekkid people, as I've been perfectly clear all along. They're there to delete nekkid people, but they won't admit it. It's transparent disrespect for consensus. Hipocrite 11:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, you put a strike-through on one, and deleted Noitall's pretentious comment accompanying his membership. I understand why—it's difficult not to get pissed off about their behavior, and the Godwin's law matter was crass even beyond the bounds of their prior behavior. And obviously, the Comstockians have had wave-after-wave of inappropriate deletions of their disfavored members. But one needs to rise above them. Anyway, it's locked now; that should slow down the nonsense. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:40, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Boobies

No one has any problem with boobies. Boobies are a lot of fun. But Misplaced Pages isn't a catalog or a collection of random information. It's an encyclopedia.

I <3 File:BreastsCF.JPGAgriculture 04:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It's an article about a porn star. What really bothers me is that you were totally disengenuous with your removals - you said it was "picture overload," but the page is far uglier without. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I call bullshit. Three box covers detract from the article, it's image overload and makes it look like a fregging ad.

I <3 File:BreastsCF.JPGAgriculture 04:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Then we have to agree to disagree, which is fine. Why is the oldest box-cover the one still there? Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Because no one cares which box cover is used. Quite frankly, box covers aren't really appropriate, we ought to be using glamour shots instead. Agriculture 04:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Then make that edit instead - you won't find me disagreeing. The edit you made was pure boobie censorship. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

PS: someone obviously cared, because when I made the picture the most recent one, someone reverted it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

BigDaddy777

Thanks for your note. Completely agree with the action you've taken -- I've had a perfectly civil chat with the user by email and as you've seen he's now prompted discussion on Talk:Bill O'Reilly (commentator), so with any luck he will now become a useful and productive contributor. Thanks! --Ngb 06:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Hip, I really appreciate your coming to BD's defense, and for the sensible approach you are taking to the Coulter page. I look forward to working with you on this, and hope you will fee free to be candid with me. Also, I would appreciate your input, if you have time, on my last two added sections on the talk page. Kind regards, paul klenk 23:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Hip,

Right now my burning passion is for politics, but I also love American history, computer technology, sports (of course) and chemistry.

Big Daddy 13:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Hip Writes: "One of the best ways you can help with the encyclopedia is providing knowledge in the less contravercial sections of our encyclopedia."

Why???

The stuff in the Coulter, O'Reilly etc articles are so obviously in dire need of attention, I doubt I'll go anywhere else for a long, long time.

Nice try, though.

15:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The changes you are making are wholey unecyclopedic. You need to at least try to work with, rather than against other editors. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Hi Hipocrite, just a quick note to thank you for your support on my RfA. I was pleased to see so much support, especially from people such as you who I do not know very well, if at all. Now that I am an administrator I will do my best to please the community’s expectations. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 17:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

RC Patrol

You know, RC Patrol is kinda relaxing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

GWB

I reverted to the last version in the history which said it was a reversion of vandalism. But then I found further vandalism. I'll take a look. Zoe 05:53, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Important notice, for immediate attention

This message has been posted on the talk pages of all users actively editing the Decency project. The RFAr has now been completed, documenting an extensive range of disruptive edits by Hipocrite and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, and is available on request.

Before the RFAr is submitted, I think a conversation on Noitall’s talk page User_talk:Noitall#Arbitration should be read, where Hipocrite seems to indicate he might be open to mediation. Perhaps the mediation process might be productive on this occasion, and I am willing to extend an olive branch before banning is contemplated. I will file a mediation request in the next few days, unless there are any objections on my talk page. Of course, if Hipocrite and/or Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters do not agree to mediation, the case will go immediately to arbcom. Erwin

I would happily join a meditation, and will accept any Mediatator save Ed Poor. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Erwin Walsh?

I did say that Erwin Walsh should not engage in personal attacks. The note that you posted does appear to be a copy of a personal attack. Please post it to the RfC instead. Comments about other users to my user talk page may be deleted, archived, or ridiculed.

You probably have a case, I did say that he should not engage in personal attacks. Please do not use my talk page as a soapbox. I reserve the right to delete, archive, or ridicule. Robert McClenon 02:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I am merely alerting you to the kind of crap he is pulling, using your support as a wedge. I do not object to anyone removing anything from their talk page. I do object to him removing things from other peoples talk pages, which he is now doing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 02:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I dunno.

I dunno. I went through this a while ago on ann coulter, and gave up. I figured I'd just come back after the nuts found something else to go to work on and fix things up again. But they never went away. Gzuckier 02:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Why We're All Here?

Just posted this at Katefan0.

Lost cause. It's not why he's here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I presume Hipocrite is referring to your comments for BigDaddy. I don't know what to do about that fellow. He initiated an e-mail conversation with me; not uncivil at all but his mindframe is such that I don't think he'll ever be able to properly work with people on this project. I've never started an RfC (and don't know if one has been started for him) but it might be needed here. Marskell 17:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the format fix! Doing too many things at once. Don't give up yet; take a deep breath and hang in there. · Katefan0 18:11, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Good luck. I'm taking a break from it for a few. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Warning?

Warning for what? Bite me. Looking at your edit history you're a troll, so stop trolling my talk page. Illinoisian 15:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Responded at User_talk:Illinoisian#Warning.3F Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I have responded as well. Illinoisian 19:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

_{Note: user:Illinoisian has since been permanently blocked from wikipedia for this kind of bahaviour Darkfred}

Vandal

I guess you waited a few days before resorting to your troublesome and destructive behavior. And this is after I discouraged an RfC against you. I think you ought to reconsider your actions. --Noitall 07:09, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

You contined to restore the GFDL tag. This was a violation of someone's copyright. I have said in the past that I EAGERLY LOOK FORWARD TO AN RFC. My not-fragile ego isn't going to be shattered by anything some guys say. Is yours? Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

With regard to the copyright, it is not. Several times now, I stated that I vouched for the source and that it was being used with permission and was a fair use of the author's intent. The only reason you are on this picture is because of previous disagreements that we have had. You layed low and I thought you were attempting to stop your disruptive behavior. I was apparently wrong. With this new issue, I attempted to resolve it once with you above. You requested an RfC. Now I am asking you a second time to stop your disruptive behavior. What is your response? --Noitall 12:05, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

An image used with permission is not a "fair use." If the author consented to GFDL the image, then say that. I'm on the picture because I saw you go balistic on a good editor on their talk page, and then have such behavior rewarded. I am not being disruptive, and I will not stop doing anything I have been doing. Please submit an RFC and we will see what the community has to say. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I can state that the author consented and believes its use on Wiki constitutes fair use. As always, when targeted for no reason by vandals, I do go ballistic. The problem is that you are too willing to create problems and disrupt. I have never once seen you be a problem solver, and you certainly weren't in this instance. --Noitall 16:10, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

If the author has consented to it's use, then the appropriate tag is Template:PermissionAndFairUse. According to Image_tags, "you should also describe as much as possible about the permission including who from and conditions." And you say I'm not a problem solver? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You are a very strange editor. You admit that you are a troll. You constantly revert to disrupting and vandalizing even though people give you chances and chances. Occasionally, you indicate that you will reform your ways only to start back with edit warring and disruptive behavior. You request RfCs be filed against you time and again. The people we crash into here on Wiki . . . . --Noitall 06:03, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

done

add your own evidence of trying to resolve the dispute and post it. --kizzle 21:22, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

post it up, i think it's done. --kizzle 17:28, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

just posted it myself, it's up at: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777... by the way you might want to post the RfC notice on his talk page and the ann coulter, karl rove, and pat robertson pages. --kizzle 19:04, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very kindly for your support for my nomination. I promise your trust will not be misplaced; I may occasionally be slightly buzzed with power, but never drunk. ;) · Katefan0 22:25, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I also wish to thank you for your kind words and clirification; The verifiability point you raise and the perception of admin abuse that someone (maybe you?) raised are good points. For the second point, let me assure you that while I've edited heavily on one area, namely Schiavo matters, I am not likely to use my admin powers on an area where I've edited as an editor: We all know this is against the rules, and that is actually the same as the first (verifiability) point. Yes, as you say, it's not possible to prove "I'm nice guy," but on the other hand, while I'm not as experienced as some, I can certainly prove that my involvement in very controversial matters has still left me without a block, ban, or discipline. (You can see the admin logs for that.) ~~ Of course, my point is that, while I'm not perfect, I try to not misues trust, and much of my record, while contentious and argumentive -is within the proper guidelines: After all the arguments in the past (some of which I won, others lost), we all got along (for the most part) -and I was generally not tainted by any ban or block. Well, anyhow, the greater issues are the learning proceess and making new aquaintences and hopelfully friends. I hope My various contributions and pages were helpful and maybe interesting. PS: I'm sorry I called you a hipocryte regarding my reaction to what I thought was you criticizing my use of a fairly dictionary term: I was merely trying to defend my point, but people are more important than points. Thanks again for your feedback, User:Hipocrite.--GordonWattsDotCom 22:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The page in question

Got your message. I take it that the page in question is his talk page, and what you did specifically was leave a welcome message. If you intended another meaning, please let me know. paul klenk 18:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Noitall

I ran into Noitall after noticing his arguments that Image:Tbcatw.gif was fair use I headed over to his talk page to ask him to tell me more about what he thought fair use, with the ultimate goal of clearing up some misunderstandings. His eventual reply was ... well, a lot less polite than I expected. After reading his discussion with you and others I am considering filing an RFC on him, with the hope that if some other people he will both realize that he's in the wrong and that the people correcting him aren't either failing to assume good faith, or acting in bad faith themselves. I wanted to know what you thought about this, since you appear to have dealt with him a fair bit more than I have. --Gmaxwell 10:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I am jumping into the conversation here, but if you do file an RFC please send me a note, I will comment. Personally I think he may be doing all of this in good faith, he thinks he is helping. But he is very rough with newbies and responds with personal attacks to some who disagree with him. This may outweight his contributions, sometimes it takes an RFC to convince an editor that this sort of thing is not acceptable within the community. --Darkfred 12:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll post this on all the relevent talk pages, but I think that given a regrettable situation on a WikiProject in the past, I am not in a good position to assist in a constructive RFC process. While I don't disagree that it might be helpful, I can promise that with me involved as a cosigner it would not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd not Noitall's response is largely due to Hipocrite's liberal trolling. My experience with him is he gets defensive quite easily. Given Hipocrite's behavior I can't blame him for snapping at who he assumed were Hipocrite's partners in crime as Hipocrite is known to either create socks or find meat puppets to help him in his trolling campaigns. Agriculture 14:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

That's just plain not accurate. I have not trolled. I am not getting "defensive." I am not known to create socks or find meat puppets to help me in "trolling" campaigns, as A. I am not trolling and B. I don't create socks and C. I have no meat puppets. Your accusations are baseless, and I don't think they help forward this process at all. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You keep telling yourself that... one day it might even make it true! Agriculture 06:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Agriculture, don't take this wrong, but are you getting involved in this just because NoItAll is firmly planted against hippocrite? I have read a lot of what you have written and I wouldn't have expected you to come out on NIAs side. Please have a look at his history, he acts in this fashion regardless of whether hipocrit is involved. He has even modified the { test } messages he uses on RC patrol to be more personally insulting. He is scaring off possible wiki editors.

And having said that, I don't have a problem with either you or hippocrite, neither of you have ever insulted me when I was just trying to help out. However I have seen what happens when things turn personal. And i have begun taking things a bit too seriously with NIA myself. So.... I am not going to comment any more or involve myself in this. I don't need the stress. Regards, --Darkfred 17:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Noitall and I have a history of bashing heads, but he is a mature and helpful Wikipedian when it comes down to it, and my problems with him should strengthen my position, as I support him despite our past. Hipocrite is a user who rarely submits useful content, and has a habit of launching personal attacks and harassment campaigns, he did so against me once. I am of the opinion that he should be perma banned because of his disruptive nature. Agriculture 06:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I have not launched a personal attack, or engaged in a harassment campaign. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

You keep telling yourself that... one day it might even make it true! Agriculture 01:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Rather interesting conversation happening over here. The difference is that with Agriculture, it was one page and it was me who got carried away on one page on a really stupid issue, and it was me who pushed it. And I admit that I am probably a better editor for having met Agriculture. I never even met the Gmaxwell person before until he came on my own talk page and tried to mislead me, having already made up his mind about me. I still have no idea where he is coming from except with the desire to stir up trouble. And in that regard, he came to the right place, to Hipocrite. Here is the big difference with regard to the former incidents and everything after, I am trying really really hard to totally ignore and avoid users such as Hipocrite and apparently Gmaxwell. I am doing my own thing trying to be a productive editor, and then trolls and vandals spend their entire time trying to undo useful and valuable work. Yes, it is likely to get me somewhat upset. Now, if you 2 would attempt to learn some lessons and try to be productive, there won't be any problems. --Noitall 04:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

If you are trying to ignore me, why are you reading my talk page? Stop violating copyrights and I'll stop tagging your copyvios. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been gone a while, so I know nothing of this conflict. But, there seems to be an RFC or RFAr planned against you: User_talk:Noitall/archive_2#RFC_against_Hipocrite. I've had bad experiences with Noitall, so I assume he's just out to torture you for being sane. If you're already aware of it, then nevermind me. Derex 07:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. I am aware that there is a group of disgruntled editors trying to take some sort of action, but I remain unaware exactly what their dispute with me is, other than that I have tagged some copyvios of theirs, and opposed their attempt to make content more restricted on the project. Other than screaming loudly that I must stop being a disruptive vandal, they have not suggested any concrete behavior changes that I could consider (and quite possibly reject, but at least consider). I welcome community input on my behavior, through any process. I believe that with feedback, we can all become better people. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Request

I am asking past editors of the Karl Rove page to weigh in on a survey. If you can spare a couple of minutes, please visit this page: Talk:Karl Rove/September Survey, read the introduction, and answer the three questions that have been posed. Thank you. paul klenk 09:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Sticking together on Rove

It's clear there is a lot of directed attack by various folks against the editors of this article. Thanks for keeping a cool head. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Nandesuka's RfA

I just wanted to drop you a note to thank you for your support on my RfA. I'll try my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. Thanks, Nandesuka 00:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Preparing for reconciliation

I want the BD RfC resolved, or at least put in the past. I'm asking him to answer the RfC. I respect your reasons and intentions for bringing the RfC and the usefulness of RfCs to WP culture. This user did have it coming. However, this particular RfC is very dependent on characterizations of comments, rather than hardcore facts (which do exist) for its weight. Characterizations are often very POV in and of themselves, and accurate ones usually include points valid to each side. Many false accusations of "vandalism" were thrown around at one point; this certainly could not have given the user any confidence in the credibility of the "team" involved. Also, this isn't, in the grand scheme of things, the biggest deal in the world. To help those involved to prepare for this reconciliation (I am sending this identical message to the three original signatories), I am asking them to:

• Go over your own edit history with respect to the user, in detail, with the same scrupulousness with which you have examined his. View it as an adversary might. This requires time and work.

1. Identify anything, directed at the user or referring to him, that has been a violation of WP policy, or could be construed as such, including the possible inadvertant deletion of a user's text on a talk page by someone that, technically, was a violation of vandalism policy, and later reverted by an admin. Because RfCs involve behavior before and after they are brought, do not limit your review to pre-RfC history.
2. Identify all comments you have made that could be misconstrued as an "attack" -- based, of course, on the same standards which the other user is being held to. Recognize how unforgiving edit histories are.
3. Then, apologize to the user in advance for any and all of these things which you have done, even if his sins are greater than your own. This is known in Wikiquette as admitting one's mistakes.

• Give the user some credit -- to his face -- for identifying the bias in the Rove article (the NPOV tag I added has never been seriously questioned, has it?), and for the reasonableness, if not the certainty, of a newbie making conclusions, however silly, of a liberal "cabal" or clique at WP (indicated by comments such as "Sticking together on Rove").
• Let the user know you're not perfect, and will happily accept an apology from him as well.
• If the user chooses not to give the answer he is being asked to give, be prepared to move on.

You can never pile too much love onto an adversary. It's called "heaping coals on their head." I'm asking this user to swallow his pride and admit his errors. Let's all be prepared to do the same. This may require us helping him to find ways to save face. We all screw up from time to time. We all require grace. If I've made any errors, let me know as well.

If it only took one sin to be damned to hell, we'd all be damned to hell. Once we were there, would there by any point in arguing about who's sins were worse? Hardly.

paul klenk 10:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

No. This is not an RFC about me, it's an RFC about him. If he wants comments about MY behavior, he should feel free to file his own RFC. I will give him no credit for identifying anything, as he's done nothing to improve anything, and said things were clearly identified before he was around heaping abuse on everyone. From the beginning, I have stated that him accepting that his behavior needs to change and changing it would be enough. If he dosen't give that answer, I am not prepared to move on. This is not about him and his face. It's about an encyclopedia, and if he dosen't get that, perhaps he should find a different place to argue about politics. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I undertand your reasons, and respect them. However, I am not suggesting this for his benefit, but for your own benefit. It might be a good exercise. paul klenk 11:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you think it's a bit dishonest for you to say this on my page, but then on someone else's page, regarding the same issue, to write "All you have to do is apologize for any infractions of our own and help BD find a way to save face." Given that I'm without infraction, I think a way for him to save face promise to stop making personal attacks and stop making personal attacks. Oh - and on that apology thing? I'm still waiting for one RE:VIP. I guess falsely accusing people of vandalism isn't an "infraction." Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

On a completely different note

Would you please explain how it happened that a large chunk of text I placed on the RfC in question got removed by someone? There may be an innocent explanation from the user. I reported it on the vandalism page, but kept the user's name out of it. Thanks. paul klenk 11:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed your text from my section of the RFC because I did not agree with it. Users editing the statement of dispute CANNOT edit the other sections. You need to read the RFC rules. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for not following the rules, but 1] why did you not inform me and 2] why did you not suggest a more appropriate section? Where should I have placed it? How did you expect me to know about this, and how did you expect me to react to its removal without notification? Were you expecting me to discover it on my own? Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see another section for this. paul klenk 11:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I moved it to the talk page with the explanation I would go over it when I had time. You are obviously not keeping up on the talk page. Please do so before accusing people of vandalism. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I was keeping up with it; I noticed my text had been copied somewhere. I was simply not aware that it had been also removed from its original position.

Right now, the numbered outline of that page's sections do not seem right to me -- see the sections that follow my new section. Does that look right to you? paul klenk 11:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

No. I moved the SCORES OF PEOPLE WHO THINK BD777 NEEDS TO SHAPE UP while moving your evidence as well. I've fixed this. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the outline; it makes sense now. Forgive me for being so concerned about this removal, but moving that amount of text is not a light thing to do. It has already caused confusion on the Rove Talk page. I also appreciate your now putting it back on the page where I left it, into its proper place; if you had done this from the beginning, this misunderstanding never would have happened. Please also understand I was never trying to edit "your summary," it was unclear to me from the outline where to put such material. The outline seems to provide a place to put "improved behavior" so that's where I placed it. Also note that I did not mention your name on the incident page where I reported the removal of the text; it wasn't my intention to draw attention to you, but to the removal. See how hard it is for a newbie to keep up on the rules? And how easy it is for anyone to make a mistake? No hard feelings. paul klenk 11:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The "Oh, I'm such a new editor, don't blame be for inaccurately reporting you on VIP." line doesn't play out for me. If you don't know how pages work, don't report vandalism on them untill you know how the page works. You were obviously aware that I had moved that section of the page to talk - you made a total of 4 edits to the talk page after I moved the text in question, with the statement "I will go over the improved behavior bits you noted, but please do not edit the sections you do not aggree with." You commented that people had responded to the evidence in question - but such responses only happened on the talk page. I'll just assume that you had a mental mind fart, instead of assuming something more insidious about your behavior this morning. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Please assume good faith.

You'll see that, unlike you, I have done so throughout. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yikes, these indents are getting small. I'll be brief: Sorry if this has offended you, but your "oh, I'm such a new editor" dig does seem to me to question my good faith. If you were intending a different negative dig at my expense, I apologize.

• Your comment "Don't blame me for inaccurately reporting you on VIP" overlooks several things that are evident if you read my report carefully: 1] I tried to find a good place to report this and that is the best page I could find; 2] I tried to keep your name out of it; 3] What I really wanted is for an admin to get back to me with an opinion. I couldn't find a special vandalism page for reporting "Not So Urgent Incidents of Vandalism" -- believe me, if I had, I would have placed it there (let me know where such a page is -- I'll bookmark it). I guess next time I will try to pull an admin into a private chat to ask him about it, but a] that hasn't worked so well in the past and b] he might have agreed with me.

1.If you do not know about AN/I, then you are not qualified to mentor BD777, and I must request that you withdraw this request.

2. I don't care if my name was kept out of it or not - as you can see by the fact that I defended myself.

3. That's not what the vandalism page is for. Next time perhaps you can go to AN/I.

By saying I am "mentoring" BD, I mean informally, not officially, and not in a strictly formalized or WP-recognized fashion. Kizzle knows about this and has given a lot of encouragement to do so. Forgive me if I seemed to indicate otherwise. I'm trying to talk some sense into him in private and give him tips on collaboration and consensus -- does that make more sense? I do think I am qualified to give BD certain kinds of help. For a while he was listening; I'm not so sure anymore. Just between you, me, and the edit history, I have constantly asked him to answer the RfC. I' ve told him that his response should be humble; it should admit where he's been wrong; it should address every single point the RfC addresses; and it should not even HINT at an attack an anyone. I hope such "mentoring" or help is welcome.

• I thought I did know how the page worked. Did I not make that clear? How difficult is it understand that the outline seems to direct the user to a proper place to comment? It is an easy mistake to make.

You clearly did not. I didn't make the mistake - you made it twice, once after being SPECIFICALLY TOLD that it was not the right place to put the text. If you'd like to run any future additions to the RFC page through me, please feel free. Given that I have now made this offer, I expect all future changes to the RFC page to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the rules, without exception or fail.

I will humbly accept your offer and promise to run all changes past you, and then thank you not to shout at me, please.

• I said I knew you copied it; I wasn't lying when I said I didn't know it had been taken off the page. You "kinda seem ta" imply that I was. It didn't occur to me to check because I never imagined someone would have deleted such a large chunk from a page.

No you didn't. In fact, on VIP you were very clear that it was just dissapeared -"A very large amount of text was removed from an RfC page. I just noticed it and reverted it." Why did you just make an innacurate statement on my talk page?

I think we're talking past each other here. 1] I placed the text there, 2] I noticed it had been copied to another page and commented on; 3] It didn't occur to me at that point to check for its existence on the project page; 4] When I looked tonight at the project page, I then noticed it had been removed; and 5] That is when I reported it -- if I used the words "just disappeared" (I haven't looked to see) I meant that it had "simply" disappeared, not "just now" disappeared.

• It was neither a mental mind fart, nor something more insidious. It played exactly as I reported it played. Please take my word for that. paul klenk 13:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

How would you describe reporting something that was 4 days old and not vandalism on a vandalism page, especially from someone who believes they can mentor other users in conflict resolution? Believe me, reporting the other party for vandalism about a four day old change that was completly not vandalism and in fact required by the rules is NOT the way to resolve disputes. In fact, I believe you've now undone any and all progress you've made to date. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I hope my comment above explains that now. Also, I am gratified to learn you think I had ever made progress, mortified to learn I have undone it, and fortified in my desire to one day regain your esteem. paul klenk 14:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion continued

To refactor - you did not mention the text in question was placed on the talk page at the same instant it was removed from the co-proponents discussion of the dispute in your vandalism report, and then said that you DID mention that the text in question was moved elsewhere right here on my talk page (which was, and remains, innacurate). That is my primary concern. It reeks of a bad-faith gaming of the system, which I am not yet accusing you of (though it's on my mind - specifically, are you doing this to try to discredit my statment that my hands are clean?) The new editor thing was merely my statement that I give individuals who report 3rr and VIP no newbie status. If you want to try to get people blocked, you don't get any benefit of the doubt. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the generous new margin, and for focusing your concern a bit for me. I hope some of our other back-and-forth has resolved itself, a bit, and really appreciate your taking the time to do it -- some users wouldn't take the time. Okay.

No, I did not mention that it was moved -- you have a good point, and I hadn't thought about it from that angle. So I see how it concerns you. Removed from one page; copied or moved to another. We are both using these terms alternately a bit.

I was completely taken aback that it was entirely gone from the page where I had placed it. Because I thought, as I have now clearly explained, that it was okay for me to place it where I placed it, it looked to me like someone was taking the liberty of getting rid of it from that page altogether. I didn't really care that it had been copied to another page. I placed it where I placed it because I wanted it there. I had also seen some digs about whether it demonstrates what I allege it demonstrates, but when I first read them, I chalked that up to the usual ugly sentiment floating around that seems to want to make BD look as bad as he can possibly look.

Again, when this happened I truly was just floored. I had just left you a message about helping BD, and when I saw my comments gone, I really flipped.

Getting people blocked is of no interest to me; but in the context of everything that was happening -- including kate's edit summary about not deleting (forget what word she used exactly) text, an assertion by an admin I did not bother to question, this "missing" text bothered me. The big surprise to me in all this, honestly, was that I had, up until then, not seen anything in you specifically that looked egregious or wrong. Suddenly I was seeing two apparent instances of you removing another editor's text.

Also, I assure you I am not trying to game the system. I've looked at your use of this term, and thought about it in terms of what I think I may or might have been able to get by with in this respect, and I don't see the angle. I'm almost afraid to ask you to tell me what that angle might be. I don't take anyone around here for being stupid enough to fall for something I might try.

Let me also go to the heart of what I think is really bothering you: Vandalism. The term has gotten thrown around a lot (I'm not saying by you). Lately, on a different issue, I have had the opportunity to read up on vandalism. I learned things I didn't know -- that changing a user's comments, or removing them altogether, can be considered vandalism. A day ago, I would have thought that blanking such text was just bad editing or rude. It wasn't until yesterday that I found the place where blanking, etc., is prohibited is on the vandalism policy page. I truly did not use that term lightly or without thinking about it. I reported it at the best page I could find that addresses the policy I thought was being violated.

Two points in closing -- and please tell me we can leave it this:

1. Hip, you really do come across as being snippy, terse, and overly harsh, not just here, but all over the Rove talk page. You may not intend that, but it comes across very loudly. I don't consider this a huge character flaw, but it plays a part in how discussions evolve. Being overly terse with people is considered by many to be rude -- "uncivil" as we say here. So please recognize, when I speak to you about "hands being clean", I do not only mean outright crimes, but occasional failures to be civil. Have you never been uncivil? Sorry, Hip, but I've never met anyone here that hasn't been, or seemed to have been, from time to time, or couldn't stand to apologize to someone for it. Please think about this in context about how long you've been here (I haven't checked to see), as opposed to how long I or BD have been here. My registration goes back two years; my heavy editing only started in early August of this year. I can empathize with someone who enters a page such as Rove, encounters terseness such as yours -- however innocent or unintentional -- and thinks its rudeness. Then, a social bungler like BD himself gets accused of rudeness (among other things) from people he perceives are being rude. Perception is all we have to go on sometimes.
2. I have thanked you, and do thank you, for placing my comments back on that page. By doing so you have indicated they have a right to be on that page. I will point out again that this option was available to you from the beginning -- keeping them on the page, but moving them to an appropriate section -- the actions of a friendly, helpful fellow editor. Had you done that from the beginning, none of this would ever have happened. It's just a mistake. That's all. If you can say you see my side, I will admit I see your side. Give me that. paul klenk 15:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, and accept that you are not attempting to game the system. To clarify some, I was moving it elsewhere in the express intent of reincluding it in the very near future - specifically, as soon as a response was provided by BD777, I intended to cosign said response with a list of examples of demonstrated improvement. I thought it would be much more meaningful there, as opposed to the appropriate section - your response to the RFC, where it is yet another line in the usless morass of the responders column, polluted already by the POV warriors and those with personal grudges against the cosponsors. In moving your substantial contribution to talk, I believed that I was prepping to use it better - as a move towards consensus, as opposed to it's current use as yet another bit of cherry picked evidence for those who believe BD777 is a hero to conservative POV warriors everywhere. I know that was not your intent in adding it, but trust me, given the poor quality of his "improvement," that's exactly what it's doing.

You should closely review Kate's changes, as I suspect you have. I suspect she will shortly return with an apology to me. Admins are just editors with a few extra abilities. Their word is not infallable. In this instance, as I suspect you have now discovered, Kate made a mistake. The mistake was not relevent. Compounding said mistake my repeating it (out of chronological order, I might add) on VIP was.

I haven't reviewed her changes. paul klenk 16:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The angle on the evil game is as follows.

1. Hope that I was not around this morning to defend myself, or that I would fail to notice VIP.
2. Hope that the admin who looked at the incident would not also review talk, or Kate's mistaken warning, and would ban before looking.
3. In the time it took me to get the ban reversed, convince Kizzle that I was an evil vandal, and that he was embarassing himself by continuing with this, and that BD777 had improved.
4. Impeach Calicocat as an improper certifier (he is, I believe, not propper, but it's not relevent), as he's an uninvited 3rd cert.
5. Decertify the RFC. BD777 continues on his tyrrany.

1. In order: 1] Nope; 2] Bans don't interest me unless there are truly serious s**t storms happening; 3] Wow -- way too much thought for my little brain to plan 4] Impeach Calicocat? I couldn't tell you who or what a proper certifier is; 5] Didn't know RfCs were certified; didn't know they could be decertified; no interest in seeing BD777 on a tyranny of any kind.

The angle on the less evil game is as follows:

1. Impeach my credibility by getting me into a back-and-forth on VIP.
2. Use that as evidence in an upcoming Hipocrite RFC.

Sadly, you've succeded in this less evil game, through no fault or intention of your own. I, however, don't really care, as I welcome an RFC, as I welcome your comments on my talk page.

In order: 1] Your credibility is of no interest to me; 2] No possible interest in an RfC against you (wow, you think ahead).

Actual answer: 1] It was not a game at all, evil or otherwise. I do not play games. 2] It is exactly what I've always said it is -- the reporting of an incident about a matter related to the topic of the incident page, to get immediate view of an admin. paul klenk 16:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I apologize if I wasn't clear. I understand that it was not your intention to do anything other than notify an admin about something that concerned you. For future reference, you'll want to use WP:AN/I

I get it now -- these "angles" were what you had referred to earlier, which I said I almost hoped you wouldn't explain to me!! LOL!! You actually laid it all out! That is way too funny. Thanks -- I needed the laugh. I will also do some reading on AN/I. Thanks a lot. paul klenk

Yes, what is bothering me is vandalism. I have not done such, nor have I ever. (As a side note, BD777 has - ) Accusing people of such is like using the F word. When you did more than just say vandalism (as you can see from this talk page, I've been called such for tagging images as copyvios, so the word has lost some force, and yes, in my distant past, I've used it innapropriately,) but instead reported it on VIP, it was above and beyond.

With respect to snippy and terse, again, I have a substantial history with BD777 well before his Karl Rove involvement. I pointed it out to you before - he did not run into Karl Rove and encounter terse me - he had already gone on his name-calling windsprints through three other talk pages (and one article main page) before you saw the dispute in the first place.

With that, however, I realize that I can be quick when informing people that they are doing wrong. I will renew my attempts to Not Bite Newbies. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hip, we've made amazing progress getting through everything involved here -- it is a credit to both of us. As per your comment above that such incidents can easily seem to impeach another user, I completely understand, and would not want that to happen to you. To that end, if you think it would help, I would have no objection to your completely blanking out this lengthy discussion. We both realized what happened; the RfC page looks like nothing happened; and I wouldn't want anyone who stumbles in on this to think any less of you. I know it wasn't a pleasant experience, but you held through very, very well. Kind regards. paul klenk 16:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you also for your kind words. You can be my second model of how to be a better wikipedian, but only behind Kate. There's no worry about appearances. I'm just glad I was wrong in my haste to discount my positive impression of you. I've struck some bits I'm embarassed to have written. I expect there are some I missed. Please help me edit the KR sections - I'm terrible at reading long articles and finding bits to fix, but I'm great at fixing broken bits. I think you might be the opposite. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Kate

Hipocrite -- after looking back through your edits, I see that you didn't actually erase talk page text on Rove. It appeared at the time as if you had, but it looks like you were just moving them around. Anyway, apologies for any confusion that may have caused. I would caution you about moving other peoples' comments, though, even though I appreciate what you're trying to do -- but even text moves can be controversial. · Katefan0 15:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that it can cause conflict, and, in one case, have. I've attempted to revamp the section titles to try to clarify. I apologize for making you do this.

No, it's me that must apologize for inadvertently setting off a brushfire between you and Paul =). But it looks like maybe some good communications have come of it -- of course I would never take credit for that part, the glory all to you two. Best · Katefan0 17:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

bigdaddy

i'm done bending over backwards for a user who threatens to report me as I'm one of the only people who is trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Tuesday's gone. Seeing as BigDaddy is too bullheaded to even acknowledge the presence of the RfC against him, I think its time to seek RfA. --kizzle 19:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but I believe that first we need to wait for him to actually edit after the deadline you set. In addition, I would like to review his most recent work to evaluate to what degree he may have improved. I would very much like to avoid RFAr, but the whole RFC and related experience has left me nothing but frusterated. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think his edits since the RfC at this point are irrelevant if he doesn't have the respect to even acknowledge his behavior or apologize for it. And the deadline's passed, it's Wednesday where I live. No more benefit of the doubt. --kizzle 22:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Did you see the evidence 69 just posted from BD's comments on my page? I'm done. It's time for Arbitration. --kizzle 22:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for a link

I'm trying to analyze User:BigDaddy777's behavior in context, based on the RfC. This is very hard, because the RfC quotes him out of context; I can't fairly analyze a quote that way. Working through the threads to do post mortems is extremely time consuming.

Would you please send me one or two links to a discussion of some length, representing BDs worst behavior? It should include more than just one or two isolated remarks.

Please leave it at my talk page under User talk:Paul Klenk#BG777 Worst-Of Threads, trying not duplicate a thread submitted someone else. I will continue to sort through the RfC, but one or two links would be a great help. Thanks.

paul klenk 07:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

See my comments, now unfortunately at length, on my page. The offer of a phone call is a serious one.  :-) paul klenk 11:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is my point: I have asked you to give me the worst example of what BD has done.

• • You have shown me a comment where he begins, "Don't worry girls..."
  • I really don't care that, of 25 lines, 11 are blank. Don't know why it's worth mentioning.
  • This is in the context of a lengthy discussion, in which the guy had been falsely accused of vandalism. We all know what that feels like. He mentions it in the passage.
  • He then makes comments about Wales, which, if you have not followed the thread, make absolutely no sense, but if you have, make perfect sense.
  • He does address content, "I maintain this piece about the bug is unsubstantiated rumor"
  • He lays out a passage that he has rewritten.
  • Surely this passage is not the worst thing you can show me. paul klenk 11:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not showing you the worst thing, I'm showing you the most recent thing. The RFC told him to stop putting newlines all over the place - he ignored this. Calling a bunch of women and men girls is just not appropriate. His comments about Wales are not the target of this RFC, however ignorant and uninformed they are. I'm done wasting my time with this right up untill he deigns himself to respond. If he edits again without responding, I will file and RFAr, and we can take it from there. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC

Reagan/Doral

I'm new to the AfD thing, what does it mean when people vote "Bicycle" or "Pony" as you did? PRueda29 02:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Finalizing RfC

Hip, two things:

1. I have noticed Eleemosynary has added some comments to the section you created for me. I don't think they belong there. I have left him/her a comment, and ask that you please read it to see if I have the right idea:

User talk:Eleemosynary#from Paul Klenk

2. When is the deadine for adding signatures or views to the RfC?

Thanks for your help,

paul klenk 14:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

One more thing: I noticed you added a "contributions" link for this IP address, 68.40.168.173, attributing these edits to BigDaddy. He hasn't signed them; has he taken credit for them somewhere? I have left a similar message on his page. If he can't be proven to have made them, it should be deleted -- it's only five edits, after all. Judging from his pattern of behavior, I can't see any reason why he would deny edits he has made. Thanks. paul klenk 14:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in, Hip. paul klenk 16:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Hip, for your valuable comments on my sandbox. They are actually very helpful. One of the reasons I am holding on to it is so I can go back and forth and carefully look at the RfC, the comments, etc. I edit it once in a while, as you can see, reevaluating and rethinking some points. I'd like to be fair to both sides. I don't, however, recall ever "accusing" you, specifically, of having pet pages. There truly are a lot of people, as you said, who do. If some of these people had done their jobs in the first place, and written NPOV articles, there would not be the necessity of someone pointing out liberal bias. It does not excuse some of BD's behavior, but it explains it, and it fuels it.

The passive-aggressive refusal of many people to address his excellent arguments is sometimes very funny to watch. And the glutting of quotes to puff up the RfC actually hurt it; the histrionics overshadow many of his statements by a factor of 10. And the boo-hooing over his "not answering" it has actually fueled the war. Demand, demand, demand, then, if the demand isn't met, make more threats. Someone has actually threatened BD with banning.

Part of what I call the "flaw" in your RfC may be very typical of RfCs here at WP -- I don't know. You may be doing what everyone does. From my position, reading comments that are purported to be "dispute resolution," they often appear to be merely pleas and demands for him to change, followed by threats about what will happen if he doesn't. Those, unfortunately, are not attempts at dispute resolution. There may be actual attempts somewhere, but I then I have to wade through history to find it.

The biggest mistake anyone could make in this whole affair is to take a side. It is far too complex for that. If someone could step back and look at how this all played out, it would make a very interesting sociological study: people's use of words to war, use of rules to play out a sort of chess match. Everyone on both sides making a case, but unable to step above everything and see themselves from a NPOV, within the case they've made. Everyone's behavior leaves a pattern. Some people are unable to see it. paul klenk 16:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

If what Paul is saying is true, than BigDaddy has Nothing to fear from an Arbitration Committee. But for some reason he keeps on arguing. I think the community consensus on this issue is overwhelming. . And no long posts are going to change that. 69.121.133.154 17:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in to your talk page, Hipocrite. I have a few questions for Paul: You put not answering in quotes, i.e. "not answering" the RFC. Quotes in this context I take to mean ironic distance; does this mean you feel he in fact HAS answered it? Second, you criticize the process as not real dispute resolution, while seemingly endorsing BD777's decision not to answer the RFC (calling peoples' calls for him to answer "boo-hooing.") Is his silence not also detrimental to dispute resolution? Regardless of what anybody else is saying, how can any dispute be resolved if the party being talked about won't respond? I find your comments extremely curious. · Katefan0 17:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Kate, thanks for "butting in" -- I always learn something when you do. 1] No, I am not saying he has in fact answered the RfC. 2] No, I do not criticize the "process" as "not real dispute resolution" -- if you read my remarks, I have stated that the summary of the resolution in this particular case does a terrible job of establishing anything but pleas and demands to change, and threats if no change happens. There may well be a true attempt buried somewhere -- why should I or a fairminded arbitrator (the true audience of this RfC) have to do all the digging through endless histories, clicking back and forth on changes, to find it? 3] I do not endorse his non-response, nor any actual bad behavior on the part of BD. Nothing in my comments indicates this, and I don't know where you're getting it from. You are reading into my comments. 4] The boo-hooing refers not to the calls for him to answer, but the overblown, histrionic, indignant cries that he has chosen not to, like somehow it's the end of the world. 5] You ask, "how can any dispute be resolved if the party being talked about won't respond?" You have a point. But, besides his not answering the RfC, what is the dispute? What needs "resolution"? He is editing, he is getting along, he is making colorful remarks, but so what? Is that what this is about? His cries about a liberal bias, and use of rhetoric? That is what makes this RfC so severely overblown, as well-meaning and intelligent as its endorsees are. paul klenk 18:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Fairmined arbitrators are not the target audience for this RFC. Arbitration has its own evidence process. No arbitrator will do more than give a cursory glance to the RFC, and as I've said all along, this was not supposed to be a vehicle for an RFAr. The dispute is that BD777 engages in personal attacks. It can be resolved by him saying he will not engage in personal attacks, or just not engaging in personal attacks for an extended period of time. Neither of those two things have happened. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Hip, for whatever it's worth, I don't speak in bumper stickers. I'm capable of a thought more complex than, "Attack!" The oft-repeated "long post" complaint is quite laughable. When you win your argument, it's just ignored because it's "long". No wonder BD annoys people -- he argues his cases well, and nothing is left to do but whine about his colorful rhetoric, and revert his changes. By the way, the person(s) making the above statement is one of the reasons your RfC is compromised -- its talk page has been glutted with out-of-context quotes, and the histrionics about those quotes overshadow anything BD has done by a factor of 10. He/she/they have consistently blanked out all my comments on their talk page (wait, they're anonymous -- they don't have a talk page). Instead of sharing his/her thoughts with me on my page, they come here. Quite a joke. They showed up suddenly at the time the RfC was underway with a huge axe to grind on BD, and have gone from page to page, trolling for comments on his RfC. For someone who care so much about community, they should register and log in. Anonymity, in this case, is the enemy of credibility. paul klenk 18:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

69.121.133.154 is not me, nor are the random people who commented on the talk page of the RFC. I can not, and will not, be held repsonsible for their actions. You should closely review Katefan's comment. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

PS: Please provide one example of BD777 arguing his case well. Do not refer to anything that references Jimmy Wales. All the experienced editors who reviewed Wales' statement found it to not mean what BD777 said it meant.Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Examples asked for, with emphasis added by Klenk

"Good. I think we have it about right. Support for McVeigh? Nonesense. Support for Joseph McCarthy? Absolutely. In fact, I propose we eliminate the word 'allege' to "unwavering" support for McCarthy. Ann Coulter is an admitted (and apparently quite proud) Joseph McCarthy apologist. Much of her book Treason is an attempt at resurrecting his image. I don't know if she actually supports Nixon."

This argument asks that Misplaced Pages put in the peacock langauge of "unwavering." No matter how well written, it cannot be well argued, much in the way any argument that the earth is flat cannot be well argued. If you are saying that BD777 advocated violating policies very eloquently, then you and I agree. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

"Well, if you go to the Franken article, you'll see a nice, rather pleasant photo of him. And if you go to the talk section, you'll find someone rejoicing that he found an 'awesome' photo to use. And no one minded one whit, which I think is great. I hope we will extend that same goodwill to conservative commentators at Misplaced Pages and I'm happy to say it looks like we are."

Taken out of context, this looks almost reasonable. However, in the section BD777 is arguing for the inclusion of a photo that at least two experienced editors think is "too dark." His response to this has been to accuse those editors of wanting AC to look bad. This comment was pure gamesmanship, much like his promise to go clean up the Jesse Jackson article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

For the record I had an email conversation with this editor right after it happened. I was curious how he knew the letter writing complainers were republicans. He said he didn't know but only that they said they were. It stands to reason we don't know for sure where the letters emanated from either. So to infer that this Arizona editor was claiming they came from all over because he didn't specifically say they were from Arizona is faulty logic. It's a moot point anyway. The context was a local Arizona paper. It's not just a stretch to START her article with the implication that readers around the world wrote the Arizona Republic. It's flat out dishonest. NOTE: To those reasonable people who are wondering why I even have to make these obvious points in here...don't ask. lol!"

This comment is not an example of a well argued point because the "NOTE:" at the bottom is a clear violation of WP:AGF. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Hip, now I'd like you to share an example of you arguing your case well.  :-) paul klenk 18:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think a big part of the problem here is that Paul is doing everything he can to shift the focus away from BigDaddy's behavior and the resulting RfC, and instead focus on the character of the contributing editors, or even the credibility of the RfC itself. I don't think the facts on this issue could be any clearer. An RfC was filed regarding BigDaddy's unacceptable behavior, a large number of people endorsed it, BigDaddy didn't even respond to it, and so the next step should be obvious. . 69.121.133.154 18:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, anonymous IP address, I think that's premature at this point. BD777, while continuing to do little positive to either talk pages or article pages is at least following the broad strokes of WP:NPA. Of course, BD777s failure to respond to his RFC makes me wary this is just because he believes his style has chased away all the editors it can - the real test will be when he picks his next target to "remove bias" from. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen the recent stuff BigDaddy has been doing? . I mean just take a look at this edit that Katefan tried to respond to on the Karl Rove page: . How is ranting on about the "Rove-haters" and saying "Misplaced Pages is not a rat's nest for purely partisan attacks no matter how hard some may try to make it so." not a personal attack or even civil? But more than that, why are we even talking about whether or not BigDaddy is still breaking the rules? How can the dispute be resolved when BigDaddy hasn't even responded to the RfC? Mr. Tibbs 19:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

As I've said before, if BD777 stops his personal attacks and abides by WP policies, then he need not respond to the RFC. At the next point of behavior that I feel is as blatent a violation as his earlier behavior, I will file a RFAr. I will not, however, jepordize positive progress such that points can be scored. Without a response to the RFC, however, there is no leeway for backsliding, as I cannot tell that he is attempting to take community consensus regarding his behavior to heart. If you consider my policy too liberal, I cannot stop you from filing an RFAr, and would certainly provide full and complete evidence to such. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Hipocrite, take a look at this in terms of recent personal attacks by BigDaddy: . This has nothing to do with scoring "points". The overwhelming consensus here: is proof of that. The only difference I can see between BigDaddy's first edits, and his current ones, is that now he's doing everything he can to game the system, which makes his edit warring that much more disruptive. And his motives are fairly clear: . And his motives haven't changed either: . I can understand if you don't want to file an RfAr yet, even though the one you wrote up earlier was good, , but this kind of behavior cannot be allowed to go on any longer. You were the first person to interact with BigDaddy, and it might have been best for you to be the one to file the RfAr, but Enough is Enough. I think as I type this, Kizzle is writing up an RfAr, if he doesn't file it, I will. Mr. Tibbs 06:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

For your review

Hip, I've taken some time to carefully review the first four or five lines in your "attempts to resolve" section. I analyzed what you say your links say, and what they actually say. There is a disconnect, and it establishes exactly the flaw I have outlined previously. I am not saying there never was a real attempt to resolve a dispute; I am saying that, so far, your out-of-context evidence does not support it. I have given up for the moment; I may continue this analysis when I have more time and energy.

Please see the section linked here: . If you have trouble finding this, let me know.

paul klenk 17:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; I will look at them closely. But one thing stuck out: "You were provided things to look for." Exactly my point. I have to go looking for them, clicking back and forth on endless history pages, instead of reading them in a point-by-point summary.

Welcome to wikipedia RFCs. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous... Paul, see Kate's comments above, how is any dispute supposed to be reconciled if no one even discusses their own behavior. This has gone long enough, are you going to file RfA Hip or should I? --kizzle 19:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

kizzle, I truly appreciate your frustration, and you have shown me to be a very nice person. I have read Kate's comments. I wish you the best with whatever you have to do. paul klenk 19:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Paul, same to you buddy. Despite that I may heavily disagree with your perception of what to do with BigDaddy, I do have a lot of respect for your continued demonstration of civility and conduct in editing articles (although since BD its been a while since I've even edited an article). I'll expect you right there at RfA disagreeing with me, I wouldn't have it any other way :) --kizzle 19:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

While I would love it is ArbCom could just step in and do something (I expect Teresa parachuting in and telling him he's on probation would solve all the problems, and when it comes time for an ArbCom decision, I will push for probation and a 1 second ban), I believe the ArbCom proceedings, in the absence of backsliding by BD777, would not be fruitful. I would certainly provide all the requisite evidence and expect to be named as a party in any RFAr, but I do not see the time as ripe, currently. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Admin

Well, I would like to be an admin someday. I'm not sure enough people would support me quite yet. I only have roughly 2300 edits (much less than some people nominated), and have only been logging in since the beginning of June (much shorter than some people nominated). I think I would be okay, I am just not sure if other people would agree. By the way, why do you ask? I'm not fishing for compliments, I was just wondering if there was something special about me that you like (my try at NPOV, my friendliness, etc.?). Is there anything I can improve upon? Thanks Hip. --Lord Voldemort 20:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay let me see if I remember correctly. 1) Yes I would like to be a sysop someday. As to be nominated by someone cooler than you, are you sure they exist? :) 2) I would not be mad at those people that oppose. People are allowed to have their opinions, even if that means they don't like someone. Not everybody is going to get along with everybody all the time, and that's okay. Just don't let it get in the way of the goal here. 3) I don't think anyone is really angry with me right now. I had a past little mini-conflict with the already admined Rhobite, but I don't try to hide it. I wish people would tell me if they don't care for me, and since no one has, I assume they do. In summary of my long-windedness, if you think I'm alright, nominate me (or have someone else). There's no real harm in it. If I don't get the support, I can always try again later, right? Cheers. --Lord Voldemort 21:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Although, it is late in the day, and I won't be able to answer the Qs until tomorrow. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort 21:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks- I just saw the link in the nom- oops! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Nah, don't worry about it. I actually like the process. Like I told another editor, everyone should be required to go through something like this to help highlight the little areas that people need to work on. I don't hold any grudges here, and would never ban you for causing me wikistress (for none is really being heaped upon me). I appreciate the thought, and thank you for nominating me. See you around, Hip. --Lord Voldemort 19:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Just Playing!

I thought you must have been but you can never tell. Some people are very funny about those sorts of things. I do fear however this one is going to turn out like mine: no consensus. People are like that on RfA, they want everyone to fit into neat little boxes. --Celestianpower 22:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

email

Have you ever thought about enabling your email? You can always just set up an acct only for wiki stuff. I've never gotten spammed or anything despite having it enabled, and if you ever did have a problem, you can always just disconnect it. No-one sees your email address unless you email them. Guettarda 20:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Doh. I forgot I turned it off after I got hit with an "I hate you" mail "bomb" by someone. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind comments. It's always nice to hear something positive on your talk page. Warmest regards --Neutrality 22:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I do like what I see now; glad we finally bumped into each other :) Was just saying to BD that I've personally seen Kizzle, Ryan, James, me etc. bend over backwards to be fair. I've seen a couple editors with very rough starts end up being pretty reasonable after a while. Hoping BD will go that route if he believes it will be reciprocated. ... not terribly optimistic after seeing the day's edits. Sigh. Derex 00:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)