Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/BQZip01

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intent to annoy

[edit]

BQZip, I've just flagged a mistake in your view. HOUND, as quoted here, does not require that an editor "intend" to annoy someone. It requires that (other people decide that) your comment or action appears to have this aim. The actual intent of the accused editor is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Do not edit my comments or anyone else's. The directions explicitly state "". Accordingly, I've removed your commentary.
  2. WP:HOUND states "with an apparent aim" which I translate as "intent". While I am certainly the only one who canm, for certain determine my intent, other people can certainly make a determination on their own as to what they believe my intent is. If that consensus is that I have such a malicious intent, then that is what the WP community sees it as. It is like discussing someone's motives for a crime. The jury determines whether or not someone is believable and whether the intent to commit the crime was present. It doesn't matter what the defendant says if his actions do not match his statements and the jury doesn't believe him.
  3. You have to have "an apparent aim" to meet the definition of WP:HOUND.
— BQZip01 — talk 19:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to your removing the flag: I'd intended to self-revert it after you had a chance to see it anyway (since this page doesn't need to be listed in the cats). My point in adding it was merely to make sure that you knew exactly which word I was addressing.
Intent is not the same thing as the appearance (to a third-party) of intent. An editor can be entirely innocent of any harmful intent, and still unintentionally appear to have a harmful intent. The converse is also true: A person can have vicious intents, and appear to be acting benignly. (See insincerity, confidence trick, psychological manipulation, etc.)
To transgress HOUND, you don't need to have a negative intent. The requirement is much lower: merely that someone else (a person who is neither omnisicient nor in possession of the special knowledge about your true motives that you have) think that it looks like you have a negative intent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And as I've explained and demonstrated, I have no such intent. — BQZip01 — talk 20:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And as I've explained twice now, you can violate HOUND even if you have no such intent. The requirement is not "BQZip has this intent"; the requirement is merely "Somebody thought it might look like BQZip has this intent". Clearly someone does think that it looks like an issue, because if nobody thought this, then nobody would accuse you of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, will you drop it? BQZip01 has already made it clear that he has no such intent, yet you continue pressing forward as if he does. In case you didn't know, your behavior here can be seen as borderline harassment. Frankly, we're here to discuss a dispute between BQZip01 and Hammersoft, not attack users. Get it straight. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 05:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why should he drop it? WhatamIdoing and Cirt seem to be of the same opinion. Lots of things to do on this site. BQZip's actions following HS around are a required element in this conflict. Remove the element and the conflict goes away. All excuses not to remove the element, are active efforts to continue it. A little research of the logs finds this behavior to have existed with between BQZip and others in the past. 68.28.104.242 (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So....Sockpuppetry much? Or more better yet, using IPs to avoid scrutiny? -FASTILYsock(TALK) 03:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The referenced edit, the .242, and this are one and the same. Dynamics, nothing more or less.68.28.104.228 (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fastily, if that comment is directed at me, then I suggest you take your concerns to WP:SPI. This is really not the place for unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am addressing the IP. WhatamIdoing, I have no intention to open an SPI case on you, unless that is, you want me to. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 23:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership?

[edit]

What I'm seeing here is Hammersoft (1) wanting to delete anything he possibly can; (2) getting annoyed when interfered with in that process. In short, he wants to own things, and unfortunately a couple of admins have implicitly encouraged him in that regard. BQZip, meanwhile, refuses to kiss up. Maybe they should avoid each other. But does that mean Hammersoft gets to go on his merry way, deleting anything he feels like? How is that not "ownership"? If there are issues about the images, talk about them, and don't stonewall. I can think of an editor or two that ordered certain critics to stay off their talk pages. That betrayed a lack of collegiality, and was a step towards their eventual indefinite block. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not want to "delete anything (I) possibly can", nor do I get annoyed when someone removes a deletion template because something has been fixed. Further, I have deleted nothing, as I am not an administrator. I don't own anything here, and have never maintained that I do. Your characterization of me is incorrect. All of my edits that lead to deletions were reviewed by administrators. Occasionally I've disagreed with their decisions. Most of the time I have not. Similarly, other editors have made edits on things after I have edited them (Salavat comes to mind as an example). I've had no issue with that, nor would I. That isn't the point. The point is that BQZip01 has made himself in charge of my edits, believes I am a detriment to the project, and has gone out of his way to harass me despite being asked by several uninvolved administrators to cease his behavior. IF I am so incredibly bad for the project as he maintains, there are plenty of other people to bring me up short. I invite anyone to review my edits, make corrections as they see fit, etc. I do not invite anyone to follow me around harassing me as BQZip01 has done. If you believe I should be subject to an indefinite block because I don't want BQZip01 on my talk page harassing me, then I encourage you to make a report to WP:AN/I regarding this state of matters. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You want him to leave you alone so you can get stuff deleted, and he won't let you. Maybe he's pushy, but so are you. If there's a question about an image, then you all need to discuss it, as you are not necessarily correct about everything. Be careful you don't go down the Betacommand path. In any given situation, consider the possibility that you could be wrong. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I don't want him to leave me alone so I can get stuff deleted. As I explained, I delete nothing. All of the taggings that I have done that have lead to deletion have been reviewed by an administrator. Your characterization of what I do here is completely incorrect. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your first step should be to stop telling him not to post on your talk page, because you don't own that either. Your next step, when he challenges your desire to delete an image, should be to have a friendly conversation about it, just on the off chance that he might be right and you might be wrong. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • BB, I appreciate your comments but you're not understanding the nature of the dispute. All of those things were done, repeatedly, a long, long time ago. Interaction between BQZip01 and myself has almost always been a dismal failure. I don't particularly care who is wrong, who is right. It doesn't matter to me. If you want me to say I'm 100% wrong because it somehow moves this dispute forward, then fine, I'm 100% wrong. Hell, I'm 1,000,000,000,000% wrong. It doesn't change anything. I'm trying to significantly reduce interactions between BQZip01 and myself. I can't do that if he keeps following me around and harassing me. No matter how much I ignore him, it won't work if he maintains his behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While that advice has been given by others, I think that Baseball Bugs should drop the inclusionist party banner for today at least. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Syrthiss (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I said what I just said above. That way, nobody wins or loses the battle, they just walk away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, just find areas to work in that you won't encounter each other. Maybe you could go over to commons and help with the Fox News / Sanger fallout. That's causing wikipedia about a million times more damage than any of the petty stuff you guys contend over has any chance of causing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The trouble is, you want to win the battle. As Syrthiss says above, wikipedia is not a battleground. Meanwhile, I see the RFC has been closed due to lack of interest. Good luck at commons, where your services should be much better appreciated... and much more useful than what you're currently doing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No BB, there is no battle to win here. This isn't a battle. BQZip01 and I interact poorly on a routine basis. Whether it has to do with deletions or not is irrelevant. The point is our interactions are a source of drama. I have sought to reduce those interactions as much as possible. But, this effort is meaningless if BQZip01 continues to follow me. I am not trying to prove BQZip01 wrong, and me right. I don't care who is wrong or right. It's irrelevant. Even if BQZip01 is right 100% of the time, and I'm wrong 100% of the time, it doesn't matter. The point is our interactions are a source of drama. Nobody wins or loses by each of us going our own way, not following the other's edits. We just reduce drama. That's what I've been trying to achieve. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's plenty of room for both of us to work in image management without interacting with each other much. If the following stopped, the drama would stop. I don't want to stop him from working in places he finds of interest to him. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon, but if I'm not mistaken, the "following" is in fact a two way street. By your own logic, you're just as guilty as he is. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 22:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So let me get this straight; a person A minding their own business is followed around by person B. Person A eventually grows tired of this and tries to get person B to stop following him. But, the response person A is to expect is that person A is just as guilty of (something, I don't know what) as person B, and therefore person B's following around of person A is person A's fault? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball, please help me out here. Here's what I'm getting from you:
  • Hammersoft, in good faith, nominates images for deletion.
  • BQZip, in equally good faith, often opposes these IfDs.
  • Therefore (you conclude) Hammersoft should stop nominating images for deletion.
My question for you:
Why isn't your conclusion that BQZip should stop objecting to the nominations? If the problem is A+B, on what grounds do you declare that "A" must be removed, instead of "B"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's Hammersoft who's raising the objections to having his work scrutinized. He thinks he should be allowed to pursue deletions unencumbered. That's not appropriate. I don't care if he marks stuff for deletion or not. What I care about is that he objects to being challenged about it. If he doesn't like being challenged, he should work on something else. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have noted on many occasions, I don't have any objections to my work being scrutinized. Your statement is a fallacy. I do not object to being challenged about it. The point is, as I've explained to you before here, BQZip01's harassment of me. My objections to BQZip01's following me around does not equate to me objecting to people scrutinizing my work. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Salavat has a similar edit history, yet you don't object to him responding/fixing problems (and others). You apparently only have a problem with my edits. You ask for fixes from the WP community and then have a problem when I fix them. Apparently you would have no objection if anyone else did the exact same thing, so, my actions aren't the problem. The problem is that you don't seem to like me personally and don't want me around you. I'm sorry, but WP doesn't work that way. Just because I, or anyone else, opposes you doesn't mean you get to silence all opposition. The scrutiny/being challenged applies to everyone on WP, not just people you like. — BQZip01 — talk 03:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HS, if you don't care and "admit" you are "100% wrong", then you admit the problem, which is that you are being disruptive, which is all I am trying to stop. I do not comment on all of your image edits (not even 1%) and I haven't commented in the past month (or so). I disagree and the WP community as a whole loses. I don't care if I win or lose, but you need to back it off and consider the fact that you are making more work for the WP community as a whole when you can exert less effort on your part and correct problems without making them worse. Other people follow your edits (Salavat for example), but I'm the one you are focusing all of your effort on stopping. It seems to me that you indeed do desire to "win". — BQZip01 — talk 03:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted due to inactivity (1 month since RfC/U filed)

[edit]

Basically, if parties find that issues are continuing, they need to escalate to the next step in dispute resolution (involuntary sanctions, either via an administrator noticeboard or arbitration). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this was ONE RfC on a single user (me). One regarding HS will follow in a few weeks. I recommend waiting until that one before escalation. — BQZip01 — talk 03:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votestacking/Votehiding

[edit]

Baseball Bugs improperly deleted a simple, standard, zero-comment endorsement by an anonymous editor, with the edit summary "rv trolling". This is impermissible: Editors should normally edit others' views only to endorse them, not to hide evidence of other editors' endorsements. That Baseball removed the endorsement from a view that he apparently disagrees with only makes the violation stink the worse.

NCM closed the RfC, doubtless not realizing that Baseball had removed this endorsement. I restored the endorsement, since trolling doesn't include endorsing the views of a respected and highly experienced editor, and since no editor involved in a dispute has any business deleting endorsements made by people they disagree with.

Today, Fastily now removes it again on the rather silly and anti-policy grounds that the RfC is "closed" and therefore it is impermissible to make any changes, even to correct errors or revert the blatant removal of editors'.

So, Fastily, would you like to explain how to reconcile the fundamental policy, "A procedural error made in posting anything, such as a proposal or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post," but yet you insist that the procedural error of closing the RfC without this endorsement should result in the anon's participation being invalidated and hidden? Would you prefer that I first revert the closing (which is entirely permissible, especially since there is still discussion happening on this talk page), and then revert the improper removal of this endorsement? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this post on my page,[1] I concluded the IP was a sock. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have concerns about improper use of socks, you should report it to WP:SPI, not remove potentially valid endorsements. Your personal decision that the anon might be a sock is not sufficient grounds for removing an endorsement to a view that you disagree with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have deleted it no matter what view he endorsed. Socks are not allowed to vote. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know that it's a sock. The only thing you actually know is that it's an anonymous editor who disagreed with you. Furthermore, endorsements aren't exactly "votes". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to ask the closing admin if it would have mattered. And it's apparent I have more experience dealing with socks than you do. And I say again, he was outa here no matter what his viewpoint. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What admin? Or perhaps you were entirely unaware that the page was "closed" by a non-admin? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. Feel free to ask him if the sock's vote would have mattered. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, please realize that there is a rather prolific sockpuppeteer that has been harassing myself and BB for the better part of a year now. These actions (specifically weighing in on matters relating to Axmann8, supporting ANYTHING opposing me, and making edits/then leaving) are par for the course. I think his assessment and that of the reverting person, I would also concur (making a total of 3 people) that this IP was a sockpuppet of a banned user. As such, his comments are not welcome. — BQZip01 — talk 03:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/BQZip01&oldid=1089113964"