Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cumulus Clouds (talk | contribs) at 00:55, 5 February 2008 (→User:BQZip01/Comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)
• 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)
• Delete Not an appropriate use of Misplaced Pages. --TheOtherBob 19:04, 4 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)