Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.245.228.175 (talk) at 02:12, 11 February 2008 (→Duplication of Links). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Desired Outcome

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

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

tl;dr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Cumulus_Cloud#Outside_view_by_Lawrence_Cohen

Moving here from the RFC page itself:

Comments on the Outside View

1. I politely beg to differ, as I have myself been the subject of CC's attentions in his/her repeated violation of WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:CONSENSUS, ETAL. There most definitely is evidence of CC in conflict with other editors. I will not go through the long list of those edits and actions, as a few cogent examples are listed here on this RfC page, but CC does seem to have a contentious attitude when his edits are in any way questioned. His/her edit history both illustrates this and provides ample evidence that there are more people affected than only BQZ. (If this is the wrong place for this comment, please move it to where it does belong.) MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

   I beg to differ as well. Please note that the RFC has been certified. Johntex\ 21:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

   Just to help us out, can you show us where you "tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed"? Franamax (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

   The diffs need to be produced. They should also be unrelated to the MfD page, meaning the dispute resolution process should stem from previous interactions with CC and not the subpage, which was essentially a template for this RfC. the_undertow 22:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

   Here is one for you prior to the MfD. - Johntex\ 22:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

   Isn't that a diff from the ANI about the subpage? The spirit here, would be that you tried to resolve a dispute with this user, that is unrelated to this RfC. The MfD, the ANI, the subpage should not be the basis to show an ongoing problem with CC and other editors. If you first encountered the editor at an ANI, I would hardly see that an independent event at which the two of you could not come to a resolve. the_undertow 22:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

   That would not be acceptable. It would need to predate this entire situation that has gone on since the MFD I'd think. Lawrence § t/e 23:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

   The attempt to resolve would need to be slightly different to Franamax's request, it's not resolve 'a' dispute, it's 'this' dispute. I agree with the comments above the diff given so far seems to be a related dispute, but certainly doesn't cover the full depth of this complaint. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

   It doesn't need to cover everything, just that he tried & failed with respect to this user and the confict(s) mentioned. — BQZip01 —  23:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

   I believe you are missing the point. It's elliptical. ANI IS a conflict resolution process itself, so it's not appropriate as evidence. It's like saying that I came into conflict with this user during said conflict. Mentioning an ANI, which is going to be a conflict anyway, would put every single one of us at RfC with plenty of users claiming to have 'conflicted' with us. We need to see a clear and distinct conflict, outside of the scope of this RfC, where a user made an attempt at resolve and failed. That does not imply that ANY conflict exists just because CC didn't want to adhere to Johntex's compromise. Seriously, a conflict is edit warring, or reverting or personal attacks. But if every editor could call 'conflict' when another does not take someone's advice, then RfC would be severely backlogged. the_undertow 00:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Endorsement by Johntex

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

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

I'm a little confused - are you saying there is no dispute here, and thus the RfC should be deleted? Or that they should argue about it some more, and then come back to RfC? It serves no purpose, in my mind, to delete the RfC as uncertified when users have certified it. Few RfCs get a great degree of scrutiny on the basis for certification - if this user conduct RfC gets any attention, the issue of whether the dispute is significant or warrants further action will be resolved. Deleting it short circuits that process. Avruch 01:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Mediation

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

Duplication of Links

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

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

Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Might be a database issue. I get the same result when I run a search for "Turd" 68.245.228.175 (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)