Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:44, 5 February 2008

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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/BQZip01 2. Lawrence § t/e 16:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: Per WP:CSD#G10, WP:CIVIL, etc. Keep things like this elsewhere. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• FYI, this is not eligible for "Speedy delete". — BQZip01 —  06:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Misplaced Pages 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• Delete Not an appropriate use of Misplaced Pages. --TheOtherBob 19:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please explain more fully why you believe it is not an appropriate use. Are you worried about disk space? Johntex\ 04:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Perhaps you should let this user respond in his own words instead of assuming it and placing your views in place of his. — BQZip01 —  05:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages (as his comment about disk space suggests), then his is a very unpopular understanding of Misplaced Pages. 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)

Thank you for answering my quesiton. Your original statement gave absolutely no reason for wanting it deleted. Johntex\ 15:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confusing brevity for emptiness - but that's not a point worth debating. --TheOtherBob 15:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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\ 15:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages - 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)
• 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 Misplaced Pages. Lawrence § t/e 19:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• 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 Misplaced Pages'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 —  23:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

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 — 

• A month and a half? How about 72 hours Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 —  00:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

It is not BQ's responsibility to solve CC's drama for him/her. The drama is up to CC. Johntex\ 04:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• 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)
• This drama affects Misplaced Pages, 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)

• Yes, the drama does affect Misplaced Pages, 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\ 15:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• That is incorrect. CC asked for the page to be deleted in the ANI posting. You merely moved the request to this forum. Johntex\ 17:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• "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)
• 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)

• 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\ 17:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• (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)
• (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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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\ 22:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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\ 04:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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\ 15:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

Also the question of what happens (not in this case obviously) where a user leaves behind such a page having quit or basically quit Misplaced Pages. 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages.
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.
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 —  23:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"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)

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 Misplaced Pages.

• 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)

• "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 —  01:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• 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 —  01:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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 —  00:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• 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)

• Keep Assume good faith. I trust that he is planning to go through w/ what he says. нмŵוτнτ 00:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Here's a pretty good reason to doubt him at his word. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• That is not a valid reason to preserve the page. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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 —  03:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• 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 Misplaced Pages - 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)

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)

Wiki-formatting and linking (as he would use in DR). нмŵוτнτ 03:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

...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)

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)

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)

Ahem...--Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct TomPhan (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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.

• How about 72 hours. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• 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 —  04:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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\ 04:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

It does not violate policy at all. It is not a personal attack. It is not being used to disrupt Misplaced Pages. It is being used to research edits that he feels are problematic. That is for the good of Misplaced Pages, 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\ 04:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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 —  04:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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\ 04:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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\ 15:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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 04:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• 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 —  04:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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 05:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• 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 —  05:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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 —  05:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I tagged it. This page is intended to document such edits by CC more adequately show he is a disruptive force within Misplaced Pages. That's an attack. This page is shameful. the_undertow 05:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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 —  05:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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 06:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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 —  05:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages. Tell me, how do you justify this as not an attack? the_undertow 06:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• This is EXACTLY why I a prepping this page.

• 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)
• How can anyone "hide" a page in Misplaced Pages 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 —  12:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

• 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 16:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I stated specifically the opposite and have been willing to even set a reasonable deadline. See below for more. — BQZip01 —  19:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

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 —  19:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

• Before you do, you might want to ask the user why this page needs to remain on Misplaced Pages for the month interim that he won't be working on it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)