Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Bidgee

Removal of notices

Because it's come up several times, I'd like to direct everyone to the guidelines on removal of talk page warnings. In short, besides a few exceptions which have not arisen in this case, deleting talk page messages on one's own talk page is considered acceptable and should not be considered evidence of wrongdoing. This comment has no bearing on the validity of the other evidence presented. Best, Danger (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no problems with this. However, corequisite to removing warnings from one's talk page is that the editor should have taken the hint regarding the problematic behaviour (from WP:OWNTALK, "the removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user"). In many of these cases, Bidgee hasn't taken the hint. -danjel (talk to me) 16:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I've clarified to ensure that there is no misunderstanding that I am objecting to his/her removal of the notices, only that the issues weren't taken on board. -danjel (talk to me) 16:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing warnings, in isolation, is not the issue. It is edit summaries that go along with such removals[1] and subsequent actions[2] that indicate a problem.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

A wise person would have backed off here, not doubled down on the templating - if that person actually was making a good faith attempt at dispute resolution. Bidgee had made it quite clear that Danjel's messages were no longer welcome and continuing to post on his talk page verges on Wikihounding. I would suggest that Danjel take a good hard look at the way he interacts with other editors so that disputes are resolved and not escalated. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

After repeated refusal to remove a personal attack, a template would seem to be justified. However, I cannot speak for Danjel's motives or frame of mind.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Use of templates are not a form of punishment and they should be used as such. Templates are not for naming and shaming recalcitrant editors but a quick and easy way to bring Wikipedia policies and guidelines to a user's attention. Like yourself, Bidgee has been here long enough to know what is acceptable and does not need a template to remind him. Templating an established editor makes the rather provocative statement that this editor is ignorant of basic Wikipedia rules, almost always leads to escalation of a dispute and is almost never justified. It is not because established users are more privileged than new users that we refrain from templating them, it is because the use of templates in these cases is counter-productive. In the case of Danjel where there appears to be a pattern of antagonistic interaction with other editors, this provocation by way of templating is magnified. Danjel's use of user warning templates is provocative, counter-productive and has the effect of seeming to harrass and intimidate other editors. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:DTTR is not policy, it's an essay. WP:TR is a response to which I subscribe fully. As a matter of fact, Bidgee seems to disagree with WP:DTTR also, as evidenced in User_talk:Bidgee/Editnotice.

In any case, if templating Bidgee is being put forward as a provocation for the uncivil actions and edits that followed, then that brings WP:CIVIL into question. WP:CIVIL is a policy, and it is a policy that forms the basis of our worries expressed here, as stated by Jeffro.

As I said above, I have no problem with Bidgee removing whatever posts s/he wishes from his/her talk page. This is a red herring and quite aside from the actual content of discussion. -danjel (talk to me) 06:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that Bidgee's belief in WP:TR, combined with others doing the same thing, is what tends to escalate things - it's part of why I really don't like that essay. - Bilby (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:TR has a section which may be helpful. It suggests that content which is appropriate for a user of a few days, but patronizing to a user of several years (ie "Welcome to Wikipedia!" or a link to an introduction page), be removed after substituting the template. Danger (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Response to Outside view

Nick Thorne has suggested that the responses seem like they're from "people with an axe to grind against Bidgee". Whilst I cannot speak for the other editors involved, I'm not aware that I've previously had a dispute with Bidgee, and if I ever have, it must have been so minor that I've forgotten about it. However, the other editors have demonstrated that my concerns about how Bidgee has responded on the Cairns article (forcefully asserting his arbitrary opinion that 'notable effect' = 'severe damage' and then employing expletives and personal attacks when he doesn't get his own way) have not been unique to my experience in dealing with him.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to use an editor's name as a section header on the talk page of an RFC about a different editor. I have no objection to my comments being the subject of your post, but I am not the subject of this RFC. My comments BTW were based upon the appearance of the way other editors interacted with Bidgee. As I stated, it appears to me that Bisgee has been in effect set up. Also, as I said, that does not excuse his behaviour, but a little more self awareness and a little less stone throwing by his critics may well be in order. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me assure you, Nick, I have no axe to grind, As I do not have the time to hold grudges etc. I have been active on Wikipedia for just over a month, I am your normal everyday editor, who unfortunately had a 'crash course' with Bidgee. Prior to the disputes, I had always thought of Bidgee as one of the leaders, editors look up to. Well s/he is most definately a leader, not the kind I would like to look up to. I had even mentioned this in a apology e-mail to Bidgee. I only met Bidgee just over a week ago. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Nick, I just wasn't sure what to call the section, in reference to your comments.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You can call it "Response to outside view by..." but it's not appropriate to just use the username in the header. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty then.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Look, editors, we all want the same thing. That is for all of us to be civil towards eachother. We have to get to the bottom of this, one way or the other. Sorry if this sounds blunt, but it is true. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what Nick wants. I was informed of this page, came here and gave my opinion. The fact that my opinion coincides with a few other opinions is not my fault. I have no grudges againts this user, I have barely encountered him in the past. But if a few unrelated editors (at least I have never encountered any of them before) have similar opinions, perhaps it would be wise for this user to take notice. Moreover I would advise Nick to take back his accusation of stone throwing. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Mattinbgn's statement about removing template warnings, see the section above. To reiterate, the problem there was not that the templates were removed, but the conduct that continued.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, I had not previously been aware of the WP:DTTR essay (also, Bidgee explicitly disclaims DTTR in his edit notice, so he should not angered by receiving warning templates). In any case, as I stated at the ANI, where it was suggested to me to raise the RFC/U, I would not even have considered the ANI necessary if the dispute at the Cairns article didn't seem to be part of a broader pattern.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be a pattern of behaviour by Danjel as demonstrated by his edits to Pdfpdf's talk page. This suggests that there is an issue with the way that Danjel attempts to resolve disputes and is worthy of discussion here. An RfC has the scope to investigate the conduct of all parties involved, not just the named party. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In the light of User_talk:Pdfpdf#RfC.2FU, this seems to be an attempt to remove the basis of our complaint by attacking one of the individuals putting forward the complaint (me). As I said in my statement copied over from ANI, I'm not an angel. But I try to be civil. There are no attacks against any users made on my talk page or on my userpage nor is there any evidence that I improperly use templates where there is no basis (except by Bidgee at [[3]], which was a relatiatory response to [[4]] a warning based on Bidgee's inappropriate warning for personal attacks against User:MelbourneStar1 - this is mentioned in more detail in my statement). -danjel (talk to me) 06:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You might like to consider the adage that when you have dug yourself into a hole, stop digging. You are only making yourself look bad here. "He started it" is not a valid justification for your own admitted inflamatory behaviour. Stop now, please. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying.

1. Where have I admitted to inflammatory behaviour?
2. Where did I say s/he started it as a reason for doing anything Bidgee has?

I think that there must be a misunderstanding somewhere as I certainly haven't done either. -danjel (talk to me) 07:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of RfC

I've got to say this RfC looks a little premature to me. Has anyone run through any attempts to resolve this? (See Wikipedia:DR#Resolving content disputes) It looks like an entire step of dispute resolution has been skipped out. As such, I expect this will be deleted in an hour and a half per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct#Minimum requirements. Perhaps an RfC/U will be necessary, but there's other steps to go through first. Perhaps mediation? Worm^TT 09:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I only raised the RFC at the suggestion of User:Strange Passerby.[5] Maybe it's not entirely necessary? However, there is some inappropriate behaviour that is outside of the scope of the article dispute itself.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I can understand that, and it may be just that the RfC is malformed - as it's just a copy paste of the ANI thread. But unless someone can provide diffs of trying to resolve the conflict (and that's not just diffs of the conflict itself - but some sort of resolution like a 3O or mediation), an RfC seems premature. Just my opinion. Worm^TT 09:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this RfC/U is massively premature and is using a sledgehammer to crack an nut. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it is possible, but I had sent the defendant Bidgee an apology aswell as an explanation of my side of my statement, if possible admims (?) may be able to see that message as I sent it via Wikipedia. If it is not possible , may i reveal the contents here? There has been no reply from Bidgee (not that I would appreciate one anymore)... But that will show that I atleast attempted to set things straight between us. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Use of the term "defendant" here is somewhat revealing of the intent of the parties raising this RfC. This is not a court and Bidgee is not on trial. The conduct of all parties here is up for consideration. The goal of any RfC is not to punish any editor but to resolve an issue. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In defence of MelbourneStar, I believe she has only been on wikipedia for a couple of months, and has not yet participated in an RfC/U, associating it with a trial is not un-natural. As Mattinbgn has pointed out, this isn't a trial, and punishment should not be an intended goalWorm^TT 10:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My 3O request is indicated in my statement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It may just be a malformed issue, Jeffro77, you may want to provide diffs of attempted 3O and it failing in the appropriate sections. MelbourneStar, I personally can't see a problem with you copying your own words onto wikipedia, I know you're not meant to reveal emails sent to you, but since the text is something you want to write, that shouldn't be an issue. However, I don't think it can be used to confirm dispute resolution. Worm^TT 10:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've now provided some diffs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that, but as someone who hasn't participated in many RfCs, I'm going to leave it to someone more experienced to say if it's sufficient. Worm^TT 11:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem may have been that the advice to go to RFC/U was premature, but even if not, the method - of copying everything from the AN/I discussion to here - means that it isn't clear what the dispute is. There are multiple issues being raised, many on which seem to have been solved, and the attempts to resolve the dispute that have been included only cover one of them (and that one is both minor and currently not a concern). Better advice might have been to go to WP:WQA, presuming that the actual dispute concerns how Bidgee responded to issues. - Bilby (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've already expended more energy than is deserved on this process, so it's really not worth the effort of starting yet another process.

Bidgee needs to 1) acknowledge his shared blame in elevating the dispute 2) remove and not repost personal attacks on his User page, and 3) not post in an aggressive manner. That's pretty much end of story as far as I'm concerned.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a very fair request, to me. - Bilby (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I think that's what's getting to me, the fact it isn't clear what the RfC is trying to achieve. Rather than one editor copying from AN/I I would have expected to see each editor summing up what their issue is in a statement specifically for the RfC. Also, this RfC is listed as certified and was so immediately by danjel[6] - I'm not certain that is has been. Worm^TT 12:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Danjel would not have needed long to certify the statement because it was his own statement from the ANI. I copied the original statements here because it seemed as though it would have been re-inventing the wheel to entirely rewrite the import of the original ANI from scratch when the same information is already present.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My link was to Danjel certifying the RfC, not his statement, something that should be done by someone not involved in the RfC. The benefit of rewriting would be to focus the situation. I am sorry that you are finding the beurocracy tiring, but an RfC on a user is a big deal and should not be taken lightly. A half-hearted attempt is as provocative as... I don't know... posting a template to a regular contributor's page? Worm^TT 12:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That comparison is just a little disingenuous. But aside from that, I've only been involved in one User RFC process before, and it was withdrawn and resolved at Talk. The whole process is a bit tedious, and I only brought it here because based on advice I was given I thought it was the proper thing to do.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, that was probably a little harsh of me, have stricken. My point is that if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. Doing it wrong will lead to more drama than it will stop. Worm^TT 12:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand why you struck your comment Worm but it gets to the heart of this matter. An RfC/U is the nuclear option, to be used after all other avenues of dispute resolution have been tried and failed. To ratchet up this dispute to this level so quickly can only be provocative, no matter the intentions of the creator. I accept that the creator of this RfC was acting on (poor) advice but one is still responsible for one's own actions. Some time spent reading about the RfC and the dispute resolution process may have been useful before rushing here. There does not appear to be a continuing dispute at present, Bidgee appears to have withdrawn from debate and this RfC does not appear to be resolving any dispute between the named parties but is more likely to inflame them. I suggest that this RfC is closed immediately. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that Bidgee has not edited since 11th, I don't think we can say the user has withdrawn. I personally would suggest that this RfC can be deleted as uncertified, and that a note left on Bidgee's talk page stating Jeffro's reasonable requests above. If Bidgee accepts the request, I'd consider the matter closed. (Assuming Jeffro and the other 3 participants are happy with this state of affairs.) If the 4 participants are happy with this proposal, I will get on with closing the RfC, writing a note to Bidgee and we can all get back to editing the encyclopedia. Worm^TT 20:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Certification

I'm responding to a specific point raised by Worm, and I wanted to ensure that it didn't get lost in the nesting.

My link was to Danjel certifying the RfC, not his statement, something that should be done by someone not involved in the RfC.

To be completely honest, I read and I have read again through the guidelines and couldn't find much guidance on what attributes a certifier needs. Then again there seems to be a few different instances of the rules.

If Jeffro and I are excluded as the main complainants, then I'll accept this and remove my name as required. -danjel (talk to me) 07:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't checked whether you meet the requirements yet, but I will state an answer to your underlying question here (what attributes are needed to be a certifier). In order to be a certifier, you need to be an editor who has "contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem"; this evidence (in the form of diffs preferrably) should not just show the dispute itself between you and the editor, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The evidence should usually be submitted within 48 hours of the RfC being created in order to avoid deletion. If you are not the user involved in the evident attempts to resolve the problem, then you cannot certify the dispute. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ncmvocalist. I made an attempt to engage Bidgee in a discussion regarding his biting and inappropriate warning of MelbourneStar1 as evidenced in these diffs from my talkpage (in chronological order):

1. [[7]] MelbourneStar1
2. [[8]] MelbourneStar1 - Admission of poor form by MelbourneStar1
3. [[9]] Danjel - Me admonishing MelbourneStar1 and stating that Bidgee was in the wrong also
4. [[10]] MelbourneStar1
5. [[11]] Bidgee Bidgee's involvement starts here (discussion bolded from here).
6. [[12]] MelbourneStar1
7. [[13]] Danjel - My response to Bidgee (discussion bolded from here).
8. [[14]] Bidgee
9. [[15]] Danjel
10. [[16]] Bidgee - At this point Bidgee had decided to not address the meat of the issue
11. [[17]] Danjel - My reverting Bidgee's last edit, and closing out the discussion

Immediately thereafter, apparently, Bidgee created his shrine at [[18]]. I didn't see it until Jeffro posted at WP:3O because I didn't have Bidgee's page watched. -danjel (talk to me) 09:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The above needs to be added to the statement on the RfC/U because it is good material of the dispute (and to some extent, attempts towards resolving it). That's enough for you to meet the minimum requirements (and what's already presented on the RfC/U is enough for Jeffro to meet the minimum requirements). In regards to MelbourneStar1, obviously it would have been more ideal if the apology was on-wiki so I'm not sure if he can qualify as a certifier. However, he is involved in the dispute significantly. The real problem is with BorisG's certification as no evidence has been submitted of his attempts to resolve the dispute; it's possible that his signature should be shifted down to 'users endorsing this summary'. That's all as far as procedure goes. The question of whether this dispute needed to be escalated to RfC/U or is going to go very far is a question for others to decide - in the views that they express/endorse in this RfC/U. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. My involvement was peripheral and I do not need to be a certifyer (whatever this is). Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the guidance Ncmvocalist.

Boris, your opinions are welcome as "outside views" perhaps? -danjel (talk to me) 23:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - semi-involved and even involved views are also welcome. What distinguishes valid certifiers are that without them, the RfC/U is not permitted to exist as such (otherwise there would be nothing to prevent editors misusing RfC/Us to harass their adversaries or to besmirch their reputation, particularly in the absence of actual attempts to resolve a dispute). Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose to end this RfC by posting the following comment on Bidgee's talk page and closing this RfC as uncertified. Please note that this would normally involve deleting the RfC, and I'm not sure if userfication is an appropriate option. Should the information be required, it can easily be accessed by an administrator.

Suggested talk page comment to Bidgee

Hi Bidgee, since your last edit at 13:17 on 11 February 2011, there has been a discussion at ANI regarding your conduct with 4 editors. An RfC was raised, although it was agreed on the talk page that this was not yet appropriate. One editor User:Jeffro77 put forward 3 requests: Bidgee needs to 1) acknowledge his shared blame in elevating the dispute 2) remove and not repost personal attacks on his User page, and 3) not post in an aggressive manner. That's pretty much end of story as far as I'm concerned. I, as an uninvolved editor, believe that these requests are not unreasonable and would request that you accede to these three requests - allowing all editors to go back to writing an encyclopedia. I look forward to your response.

Users who agree this text

• As Proposer - Worm^TT 21:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Jeffro77 (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Users who disagree with this text

• - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Though I agree in principle, I'm not sure I like the phrasing although it was agreed on the talk page that this was not yet appropriate, one editor User:Jeffro77 put forward 3 requests.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I was going to agree to this proposal until User:Jeffro77 posted this , as a result I no longer consider any requests by that editor towards Bidgee on this issue to be valid because I do not believe they have been made in good faith. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The conditional phrasing of Nick's complaint immediately above is phrased in a manner apparently intended to make me feel as though I've 'shot myself in the foot'. However, I have provided entirely valid clarification in the section below. Whether you choose to assume good faith is up to you. As an objective editor, my original in-principle agreement with User:Worm That Turned stands. It is up to you all (plural, i.e. Bidgee et al and Danjel et al) if you want to continue 'hostilities' if Worm That Turned's suggestion is employed. I will not be drawn into subsequent unrelated disputes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That was not the intention and I'd welcome any suggested alterations you may have. Worm^TT 09:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a minor change. Replace "appropriate, one editor User:Jeffro77 put forward 3 requests." with "appropriate. One editor, User:Jeffro77, put forward 3 requests:".--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done, if anyone else has any other suggestions, please do raise them. Worm^TT 09:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• I echo Jeffro's concerns. I also think (1) is unnecessary and might be asking Bidgee to abase him/herself. Removing the current content from the userpage and a commitment to follow WP:CIVIL is all that's necessary. That being said, I agree in principle. -danjel (talk to me) 07:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I personally agree with this comment in its entirity. Worm^TT 09:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

To give a little background, to my knowledge, I have never interacted with Bidgee or Jeffro77 before. Indeed you can check for yourself by comparing similarities here. I stuck my nose in where it wasn't wanted during a dispute between danjel and pdfpdf a month ago and at the time both agreed to keep off each other's talkpages and stop commenting on each other. What's happening there is another matter, but one factor is that there are some similarities between the cases, which were alluded to by Mattinbgn. He notified pdfpdf, and I counselled him to not get involved unless the RfC went forth. I do have both pdfpdf and danjel's page watchlisted, indeed that was how I found this RfC in the first place. My proposed solution is designed to diffuse the situation and was not made in bad faith. While I do still consider myself impartial in this debate, I no longer believe it is appropriate for me to be the one to leave the comment to Bidgee. It is essential that the user is not only uninvolved, but seen to be uninvolved, and as such I will step back from that role. Worm^TT 09:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, it seems you may have misinterpreted my reference to the "complaint" above. It was in reference to Nick's response, and I have clarified the statement above. Though I wasn't entirely comfortable with a minor detail of the phrasing of your suggestion, I do not at all consider your suggestion to have been done in bad faith.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my comment was with regards to Nick Thorne's suggestion of "this editor acting in bad faith". Having said that, on re-reading, he may not have been referring to me, and appears to have changed his stance on the bad faith. Worm^TT 09:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. However, Nick was complaining about me, based on his misunderstanding of a statement of mine in the section below.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(1) needs to go. I've also copyeditted an and out. -danjel (talk to me) 11:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It's an integral element of the dispute.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, then it needs to be reworded to reduce the humiliation value. I'm not looking for Bidgee to cut his belly open. -danjel (talk to me) 11:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not keen on apologies on wikipedia, but Bidgee play a part in the escalation and should accept that. Do you have a suggestion on how to reduce the humiliation? Worm^TT 11:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't. But yeah, I don't like it. Anyone else got ideas?

I've had a tiring last three days. I'll go to bed and see if I can think of something tomorrow. -danjel (talk to me) 12:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

'Acknowledgement' doesn't mean grovelling or any other form of 'humiliation'. There isn't some 'script' he needs to follow.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Outside views

I had initially hoped that the outside views given at this RFC were from objective uninvolved editors. It was disappointing to learn of a section (now archived at User_talk:Pdfpdf/Archive23#RfC but archive omits this reply from me) where a group of Bidgee's friends discuss how they can best influence the RFC in Bidgee's favour. I should probably have been aware of this at the degree of protest when, unaware that it was not appropriate, I had innocently named a section on this Talk page after Nick Thorne (who has also previously defended Bidgee) in response to his comments on the RFC page. It further seems that some of these editors are involved in a longer-term dispute with User:Danjel and possibly other editors (who may or may not be affiliated with various IP vandals attacking Bidgee's Talk page).

In principle, I agree with the suggestion in the section above by User:Worm That Turned. I don't want any involvement with the other editors' broader dispute or to be seen as one of Danjel's 'supporters'. I would also caution User:MelbourneStar1, as a relatively new editor, about getting involved in 'alliances'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I take great exception to the implications in this comment and I demand that you strike all references to myself. At no time anywhere have I discussed this RFC with anyone, other than what I have posted here. The entire tone of the above comment shows a gross lack of assuming good faith. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nick, there is nothing to retract. I did not state that you were involved in the discussion indicated above. I only stated that you have previously defended Bidgee. Sorry if you misunderstood.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You need to be more clear in the wording you use then, the implication is clear that I am somehow colluding with others in defending Bidgee. However, I will assume good faith one last time in that you did not in fact mean to cause offence, so I will point out to you that whether or not I have defended Bidgee in the past is entirely irrelevant to this case. I still request that you strike the comments because not only are they misleading but they are not relevant to the RFC as I am not a party to it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me that Nick may have misunderstood my use of the word "also". The intended meaning was "also an editor who has defended Bidgee" not "also an editor involved in the cited section".--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I understood you perfectly here. You need to strike the comment because it infers I lack impartiality, a clear breach of civility. Also, as stated above, the comment is not relevant to this RFC. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't infer anything, you infer that it implies something. I have correctly stated that you have previously defended Bidgee, and I have clarified where there was ambiguity. It is what it is. Your aggression and assumption of bad faith right from the start on this Talk page is disturbing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) To be honest, I think you may have mistakenly mischaracterised that discussion - there was no discussion about how best to influence the RfC. Just some sensible recommendations about waiting until it is clear if this can proceed, and being honest and factual in any comments made here. I'm also not sure that any dispute with Danjel is relevant, as I'm only aware of one of those editors having had a prior dispute (speaking for myself, I've had no interactions with Danjel that I'm aware of). Although it isn't unusual for an RFC/U to look at the interactions of all the editors involved. - Bilby (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I am still waiting for Nick Thorne to retract his accusation of stone throwing. If you missed it, please read my comment above. - BorisG (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I will AGF, so I will also assume that you have simply misread the context of my statements. I have not said anything for which I need to offer an apology or which needs to be retracted. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Bilby, it is possible that I misunderstood. However, the following statement made me think otherwise: "The only problem is, if I express my true opinion, it will do our mutual friend more harm than good. Hence, I will try very hard to express an opinion that adds value to our mutual friend's case."[19]--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think he was entitled to express that as an opinion, but I don't think that it really characterises the discussion. - Bilby (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm also not exactly impressed with the way that this has moved forward. To be honest, I didn't think that an RFC/U was appropriate and said this over at ANI. But it seemed a reasonable suggestion, and when Jeffro went with it I followed. A particular comment at Pdfpdf's talk page stands out:

Sadly the eventual result of this RfC if allowed to continue will be much the same as the YM one, the loss of a productive editor who—like most of us—sometimes makes a mistake when provoked.

...how are we meant to interpret this? First, it's become clear from the number of affected parties here that "sometimes" is an understatement, and "provoked" is an overstatement. Second, how is "productive" meant to be defined? And third, critically, is this meant to mean that "productive" editors should be given latitude to treat other editors ("productive" or not) however they like?

What of the effect that uncivil and biting behaviour has on other "productive" editors? Why can't an editor be both productive and civil? If this is as isolated as we're meant to believe, or as a result of a mental break or whatever, how come there are no apologies and shrine making to those isolated incidents?

I'm sorry, but this is rubbish. Bidgee's contributions to discussion, where people disagree with him/her, are demonstrably WP:UNCIVIL. This is a problem. This is the problem. -danjel (talk to me) 06:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• I will remind certifiers that their conduct may also be addressed in this RfC/U; discussion is not limited to the subject's conduct (or the editor that you are complaining about). Unjustified assumptions of bad faith may find their way in outside views as each outsider is not limited to making a single view in the RfC/U - they may make "Another outside view by..." to address subsequent issues that pop up. I also note that outsiders are expected to comment on how this dispute appears to them - that's the entire point of this. If some users don't like the fact that it appears as if there is (for example) stonethrowing by some users, those users should probably take steps to avoid giving that impression rather than reinforcing it by demanding that the view be censored.
• It would be a substantial pity if involved editors were unable to respect the feedback that they receive from others (seeing it is they who have requested for comment). Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries Ncmvocalist. I'm aware of the criticisms of me and this is why I've responded to the apparent criticism of me that I use templates (against WP:DTTR). -danjel (talk to me) 07:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What to do next?

Bidgee has retired[20]. He has not edited since 11th. I would suggest that this RfC is closed, as it can be re-opened if the user returns at the certifiers discretion. Any thoughts? Worm^TT 13:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with closing it. - Bilby (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Closing sounds a good idea, as one of the nominators has partially withdrawn. And we will not get a response out of Bidgee here. Better to stop the arguing, hose down the spilt blood and clean up. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Before any of this hose down buisness happens, whos going to assure us that no other user will be 'victimized' by Bidgee. If I were in his shoes that 'retired' sign would not last to long knowing that this RfC is closed. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the fact that RfC can be reopened with no issue at your (and the other certifier's discretion) should be relevant. I would be happy to volunteer to keep Bidgee's page watchlisted, so I should know if he starts editing again, if you'd like. Worm^TT 14:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, it was never found that Bidgee had victimized anyone, and the comments so far had suggested that it was more of a give-and-take. Worded that way, the question feels loaded. - Bilby (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If the edit by User:Pdfpdf at Bidgee's Talk page referenced above by Worm That Turned is sufficient evidence for action taken by User:Bidgee, the RFC/U can probably be closed, though it may not accurately reflect whether Bidgee actually intends to resume editing. Bidgee also 'retired' in June 2008,[21], September 2008,[22] September 2009,[23] April 2010,[24] November 2010[25] (this is not an exhaustive list). However, whether Bidgee chooses to retire or take a break or take any other action is his own decision. He apparently claimed after his previous dispute (in which I was not involved) that he would leave Wikipedia if he got into editing difficulties again. Any attempt to apportion 'guilt' or 'blame' about Bidgee retiring now or in the future based specifically on this RFC/U would also be irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Didnt victimize anyone? Oh right, you werent victimized, Bilby, by him. But I felt that I was , thanks. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You have not been on Wikipedia very long, so I am going to cut you a little slack and offer you some friendly advice. Your comments in this section appear to show a degree of petulance that is not very edifying. I suggest you might be best advised to drop the stick. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

OK to close. One of our objectives has been met anyway (that his/her shrine be dismantled). -danjel (talk to me) 21:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad the certifiers are all happy with this being closed. I've left a note to the outside views, but intend to close it in 12 hours if there is no objections Worm^TT 21:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I am ok with whatever the majority here decides. - BorisG (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Having successfully avoided this RfC, Bidgee has now returned from his latest retirement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You tell us, you started all this. What, exactly would you like to see? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Something in the spirit of the Proposal section above, and a cessation of the repetitive 'retirements' when disputes arise to avoid accountability.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

And if not, what? Permanent ban? It is funny that someone accusing someone else of being a diva is reduced to rehashing old wikidrama. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Attempts to put words in my mouth aside, there is clearly a pattern of behaviour that should cease.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Regaurdless of whether Bidgee comments or dosent, its in the past. This was a month ago. Lets all forgive and forget. Apologizing, and forgetting is the way to go. I apologized & welcomed Bidgee and was forgiven. I respect Bidgee for that.

WP is an encyclopedia, maybe we should all take a look at ourselves, and think 'are we editing for encyclopedic purposes? Or just editing a disputes page?'. Reguardless of what any one here thinks, there is no problem with Bidgee. I'm not going to continue this dispute, as it has gone for far too long. Thank You for your time. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 07:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure Bidgee is well aware of this RfC. He and MelbourneStar1 have moved on. If he returns to unacceptable behaviour, I'm sure we can take it from there - including their leaving at an opportune moment, but for now I accept their rationale that things got on top of them, and a wikibreak has done them good. I hope that's acceptable for you too. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, tentatively. It remains to be seen whether Bidgee's most recent return from one of many 'retirements' will be the last or just a continuation of a pattern of behaviour. Time will tell.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I AGF. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Pity people have to use the past and not find the real reasons as to why I had retired (more then once [I'm not the first nor last person to do so]). Fact is I wasn't going to return however I'll be helping an editor here with a new project on Wikipedia. I also find it rather funny (and evidence) that you didn't even look at the so called April 2010 retirement which was in fact a April fools prank (click on retired and see where it takes you). Also the attacks made/directed at myself ([26] and [27]) even though I haven't made any attacks to anyone since my return. I agree that before my retirement that my actions and behaviour were not appropriate but I wasn't the only editor involved in the ugly dispute (which was pointed out by those in the outside view of the premature RfC). Bidgee (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So one of your many 'retirements' was a prank? So what? It doesn't discount all the others. The description of your pattern of behaviour of going off in a huff was and is accurate. Don't do it, and you won't be called on it. I noticed that you apologised at your Talk page, so it would seem that no further action is required.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Right so where is your good faith? Again you know very little as to my past retirements. Please retract your comments as your allegations of "pattern of behaviour" is unfounded. Bidgee (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing to retract. Assuming good faith is a process in the event that there is not evidence to support a conclusion. Your past actions indicate a pattern where you have 'retired', usually following a dispute and then resumed editing soon after. I assume in good faith that that pattern won't continue.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that next time you feel upset by a dispute that you simply take a 'wikibreak', and when you've calmed down, you can decide whether you actually want to retire. This will free you from any possible perception of continuing the previous pattern of behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There is, your allegations of "pattern of behaviour" based on past retirements without knowing the reasons behind them. Bidgee (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You're going around in circles, so I'm done here. It certainly is a pattern that in the event of disputes you have 'retired', only to resume editing shortly thereafter, and that you have done this several times—there's nothing to call it other than a pattern. The particulars of those disputes are quite irrelevant to the actual 'retirements'. There is a perfectly simple way for you to avoid repeating the pattern, and that is to either not retire or only 'retire' if you are actually retiring, perhaps with some retrospect about your previous 'retirements' to temper any possible decision to hastily 'retire' in the future. As I stated earlier in this process, "whether Bidgee chooses to retire or take a break or take any other action is his own decision." You are the master of your own destiny (or something like that). Good night.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)