Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badger Drink

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 15:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



''Anyone is welcome to endorse any view, but do not change other people's views. Under normal circumstances, a user should not write more than one view.''

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct and have previously attempted and failed to resolve the dispute. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. Other users may present their views in the other sections below.''

In brief: an apparent refusal to accept that there is anything wrong with incivility, despite this having been an issue in the past.

Cause of concern
''{Add summary here, provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.}''

I have only recently encountered User:Badger Drink, so have little or no history. Badger's attitude concerned me, but thinking that it might be an editor just "having a bad day" I checked to see if his usual interaction was markedly different. I was saddened to see that this seems to be a long-term and ongoing issue, and took it to AN/I though I now appreciate that this was probably the wrong venue. My concern is not that there was a single instance, at all - it's that despite attempts by others to get Badger to address this behaviour in the past, what seems to be happening - summed up very well in the AN/I thread - is that an ethos of "If an editor's style is to be uncivil, then it's not a civility issue" is apparently undermining the WP:CIVIL policy - which is supposed to be so fundamental as to be one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. It seems very wrong that any editor (or group of editors) should feel exempt from complying with a core policy on the grounds that "other people are too sensitive", "other editors get away with it", or it requires an inconvenient (to them) level of self-awareness and self-restraint.

Over all, I believe that when we have an atmosphere surrounding various editors of "It's OK if he/ she does it", then we are condoning the kind of working environment which can actually put off other editors, especially new ones. So, the whole civility issue has far-reaching ripples. We're being too complacent in the way we handle this kind of issue, to the extent that anyone (such as myself) concerned is met with "grow up", "It's never worked before, it won't now", and frankly derisory edit summaries (such as Greglocock's "waa waa waa he" at 00:21 8 November), which show all too clearly that one of our Five Pillars is simply not taken seriously.

I think that perhaps the best illustration that this is an ongoing issue may be the content of Badger's edit summaries over a period. Some are absolutely descriptive, but others are far from it.

To be scrupulously fair to Badger, I think this is symptomatic of a much larger problem; it's not just a problem with Badger. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 16:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The following diffs are the direct result of Snottywong's work, shamelessly copy-pasted by me from the discussion page. (My apologies for being a little less than functional at the moment - it's those Real Life Issues again.)


 * Belittling editors and/or grossly uncivil comments in edit summaries:
 * - Oct 2011
 * - Aug 2011
 * - Jan 2011
 * - Dec 2010
 * - Dec 2010
 * - Nov 2010
 * - Oct 2010
 * - Oct 2010
 * - Jul 2010
 * - Apr 2010
 * - Feb 2010


 * Unnecessary comments at RfA
 * - Nov 2011
 * - Nov 2011
 * - Feb 2011
 * - Oct 2010
 * - Jul 2008 (later blocked for this comment)


 * Incivility and rudeness when dealing with other editors
 * - Aug 2011
 * - Feb 2011
 * - Feb 2011

Applicable policies and guidelines
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.


 * WP:CIVIL

Desired outcome
''This summary of the dispute is written by the users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus. Other users may present their views of the dispute in the other sections below.''

The outcome I'm seeking is that Badger should agree that there is cause for concern with his attitude and incivility, agree to be more sensitive to the way that other editors can be affected by his mode of interaction (and to take this seriously), accept that improvement is both desirable and possible, and to agree to making positive steps to deal with this and improve. A possible voluntary agreement to avoid areas of conflict, and to walk quietly away when / if conflict develops, would also be a great step forwards. Any agreement among editors that incivility as a whole ought to be taken more seriously, and not brushed under the carpet as irrelevant, would be a bonus. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 15:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * AN/I
 * Other people's attempts and concerns best found via Badger Drink's talk page
 * just one conversation to show that other people have had problems, and that Badger cannot see that his edit summaries (being one example in themselves of the incivility) are actually an issue.
 * More on edit summaries and talk page rudeness
 * Civility reminder from Viriditas
 * invitation to take part in civility discussions

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.


 * I first encountered Badger Drink three years ago. This Oct 2008 remark was one of the worst I've seen at RFA and I raised it on his talkpage. Sad to see that this sort of behaviour continues, from the other diffs I think this is too frequent to be ignored. I'm also concerned that this is not badinage between people who know each other in IRC or real life, some of the bitten editors appear to be newbies.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.


 * Pesky's concerns are very reasonable and though I may be called a "hysterical child" for endorsing it, I do hope some sane resolution can be brought to bear. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue that precipitated the AN/I initially concerned behaviour on a candidate's RfA. There many potential candidates of the right calibre who have respectfully declined to run for adminship due to the environment of the voting page, and nominations have now all but completely stagnated.It is time to begin implementing any reasonable measures to protect the process from any editors who appear to be repeatedly  disruptive to the system, or who come to it in the knowledge that they can be rude with impunity. There is no reason why RfA should be a safe haven from our core policies of NPA and civility, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have expanded in a comment below, but I endorse this as a cause for concern and it would help if Badger Drink did not dismiss matters.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 15:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that Badger Drink has a tendency to make some rather harsh comments, and I think maybe this RfC might help to bring this issue out in the open and encourage him to be more cautious about what he says and how it can have an impact on those around him.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 09:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions
''Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.''

Q. A.

Q.

A.

Response
''{This section is reserved for the opinions and views of the user whose conduct is disputed. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but only the person named in the dispute should change or edit the view in this section.}''

Response to concerns
If this was Kindergarten, I'd feel there might be a small chance of the above concerns being valid. Unfortunately, this is an encyclopedia. The fact that this ridiculous RfC stems from one RfA and cherrypicking four years of User Talk doesn't exactly lend any validity to the process. Dressing one's expression up in a mixture of pompous legalese and painfully condescending schoolteacher-speak does not automatically make one "civil", any more so than putting a monkey in a suit and giving him a pipe makes him human. Likewise, just because I used the phrase "rat's shit" (trigger warning: cussword) as opposed to "rat's doo-doo", does not make the statement (which seems to have so wracked Pesky that in the span of one hour he went from "appreciating my concerns" to calling for a civility block over the exact same concerns) automatically uncivil. In fact, the extra emphasis seems to have been needed, as expressing the same point in my own attempt at pompous legalese seems to have resulted in Pesky's original confusion over just why I was opposing, whereas after the dreaded "shit-bomb", everybody at least seemed to be on the same page.

Some people don't like cusswords or seeing people not kowtow to their boring, tedious missives. That's cool. I personally don't like patronizing Leave It To Beaver speak or seeing greengrocers' apostrophes in articlespace. There's a Rolling Stones song that comes to mind here. This is my final word on the subject, as I have many more fascinating activities to pursue than further legitimizing the vapid, frivolous, and/or completely bogus concerns of two-faced individuals who are just upset that I didn't support their pet RfA candidate and are seeking petty retribution. Badger Drink (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Applicable policies and guidelines
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.


 * WP:BATTLE
 * WP:THERAPY
 * WP:POINT
 * WP:AGF
 * WP:AAGF
 * WP:DGAF
 * WP:DROP
 * WP:STICK
 * WP:SPADE
 * WP:WE'REALLFUCKINGADULTSORATLEASTWESHOULDCARRYOURSELVESLIKEADULTSANDMATUREWELL-ROUNDEDADULTSCANCERTAINLYHANDLECUSSWORDSWITHOUTLETTINGITDESTROYTHERESTOFTHEIRDAYANDIFTHEYCAN'TWELLTHENPERHAPSTHEYSHOULDSEEKMEDICATION

Users endorsing this response

 * As responder Badger Drink (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bility (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 12:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC). The RfA-deformers have gone bananas because Badger Drink opposed Zhang's RfA. Somebody cried at ANI, and was told by many administrators that Badger Drink had responded to a string of objectionable remarks, and that it civility was expected of everybody, not to be used as a hypocrite's club to beat RfA opposers; see in particular the remark by CasLiber. The RfA deformers went back and found apparently uncivil edit summaries, which in every case express appropriate indignation at defective and embarrassing writing. Granted, Badger Drink could have written "defective and embarrassing" rather than "shitty" (my original choice) or "fucking shitty" (not the way I was raised, alas), but in every case Badger Drink improved Wikipedia by removing defective and embarrassing material. The RfA-deform mob needs to be concerned with writing an encyclopedia, instead of enforcing its vision of charm school on writers, particularly when it doesn't police itself. (The hypocrisy in SW's view was especially nauseating.)  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 12:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Questions
''Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.''

Q. Will you be answering questions? Badger Drink (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

A. No. Badger Drink (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Q. Badger, I know you don't want to answer questions, but here's something to think about even if you don't answer it here. Do you see rudeness / aggression as strength, and civility / kindness as weakness? If so, can you work out why? And what could change that view? Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 21:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Expanding a little: If an editor is disruptive in other ways (even so minorly disruptive as to keep inserting unsourced material) than that's something that other editors can clean up after. But this problem is something that only you can change. No matter how well-intentioned, no other editor can do anything to un-bite people you've bitten, or to remove direct rudeness in your edit summaries. You have a creative and intelligent mind - nobody's doubting that. Can you apply that intelligence and creativity to come up with solutions here? To create ways in which you could change your views on the usefulness of civility, to reduce your irritation and aggression with other people? (Or at least not to put it into words in here preserved for eternity?) We need you to at least meet us half way and accept that change is needed, and to work on how to accomplish that change. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 08:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

A.

Additional views
''This section is for summaries and opinions written by users who are not directly involved with the dispute, but who would like to share their views of the dispute. Anyone is welcome to endorse any view on this page, but you should not change other people's views.''

Outside view by Snottywong
Badger Drink is the rare combination of a useful contributor and, frankly, a troll. When he's working on articles, he seems to generally do good work and stay out of trouble. When he's interacting with other editors (particularly those who disagree with him or when an argument arises), he seems to go out of his way to be as insulting and outrageous as possible. I can only surmise why he feels the need to do this; it could be that he just gets a kick out of watching everyone freak out whenever he lets loose, it could be that he enjoys the copious attention he gets whenever he acts up (including this RFC/U), it could be that he believes this is the best or only way to effectively assert his position.

Whatever the reason for his behavior, we need to clearly communicate to him that it is disruptive. Not only are his inappropriate comments disruptive, but each inappropriate comment elicits a predictable response from a dozen other editors which compounds the disruption, and the whole situation unnecessarily wastes everyone's time. We also need to clearly communicate to him that content contributors don't get a free pass to disrupt Wikipedia. Just because he does good work doesn't mean we should cut him extra slack when he gets off track.

How we communicate this to Badger should be the focus of this RFC/U. If he accepts the message, then perhaps this RFC/U is all that is necessary. If he rejects the message, then escalating blocks and bans should not be off the table.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) &mdash;SW&mdash; verbalize 19:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Badger Drink's response, above, makes it very clear that he feels his behavior, including name-calling and assumptions of bad faith, is just fine thank-you-very-much. It's not, especially things like assigning malicious intent to people who disagree with him and subsequently speaking as if they deserve all the scorn he can come up with, and that this is not ok really needs to be made clear to him. It's not about saying things like "rat shit"; it's about using things like "rat shit" to belittle other editors - this distinction does not seem to be coming across to BD, and my hope is that this RfC can help it do so. If he's willing to change his behavior according to the results of this RfC, great, that's all that we need. If he's not, behavior like his above ought to be treated as the willful disruption (it becomes willful, to my mind, at the point at which he is made aware that it is disruptive and continues on with no effort at moderation) it is. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) LauraHale (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Eluchil404 (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) &mdash; Joseph Fox 04:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) -- Jayron  32  07:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Total agreement.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 08:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Also see my comments below. fish &amp;karate  11:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Without comment on the usefulness of his article edits, which isn't the issue here. Jafeluv (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Part-endorse. I haven't assessed the quality of his article edits, though 500 edits go back to the beginning of the year, including a significant amount of discussion regarding his incivility - it's not like he is a prolific editor. I also feel uncomfortable with the label "troll", since I don't believe he's trying to cause a reaction, but rather he talks as he would in real life. However, his edits are problematic, be it through sarcasm, rudeness or incivility.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 12)  Catfish   Jim  and the soapdish  18:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Indeed, it's nothing to do with "cuss words". Response above proves he is not mature enough to understand this. AD 18:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) As is often the case it seems, his response to the RFC tells the whole story here. causa sui (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 15)  Hurricane  Fan  25  13:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) Part-endorse. User is not a troll and this isn't a rare combination. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) Civility has nothing to do with curse words. If you insult and attack other editors that is a violation of the policy. Kaldari (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) Looking at the editor's response, I infer one of these: 1) he realizes this is enraging, doesn't really want to edit here anymore, and is pursuing a sort of "suicide-by-cop" endgame, or 2) he realizes that this is enraging, but has a "they-can't-touch-me" attitude, or 3) he's none too astute and doesn't realize that this is enraging. Whichever it is, it's troubling and not a good sign for this editor's future development. So I'll sign on here in favor of further escalation. Herostratus (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) Fully agree. Disruption of this nature - which in this case has been going on for years - is not acceptable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) Don't know if maybe there's some past history in his life that makes him so bitter and rude, but it doesn't give him the right to take out his aggression on other people. We can all strive to be civil, if you can't then don't say anything at all. --  &oelig; &trade; 09:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Outside (procedural objection) by Mkativerata
This RfC should not be certified until it is filed properly. As required by the instructions to filing RfC/Us, evidence needs to be presented in the form of diffs, not a generalised complaint about an editor's behaviour. That is necessary for two reasons: first, to afford procedural fairness to the respondent; secondly, to enable uninvolved editors who are unfamiliar with the dispute to review the relevant evidence.

Also, the first statement in this RfC is: "I have only recently encountered User:Badger Drink, so have little or no history." That is not a good start. An editor's history is very relevant. If the filer isn't aware of it, he or she should find out.

I suggest the filer withdraw this RfC and start a new one with proper preparation.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) --Mkativerata (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Procedures exist for good reasons - and ought not be waived (albeit too frequently they seem to be) Collect (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this was brought into line before its time limit.Hopefully someone else can clarify. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 15:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not the reason for why procedures must be followed. When people enter opinions without the proper evidence being set forth at the start, there is a possibility that a false consensus might ensue.  Restarting the process does not cost a great deal of effort, and should be done.  Cheers. `Collect (talk)
 * My apologies for having got it wrong; I thought that the edit summaries themselves contained enough information, over a long enough period of time. However, bearing in mind that Snottywong provided diffs for me within an hour of me noticing the request here, and so little had happened in the few hours before they were there, (and so much since then), would this be a sensible application of WP:IAR to let this run, as re-starting it now would cause much more disruption?  (I've never done one of these before, and this seemed a bit atypical.)  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 19:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The subject has declared his non-participation. It would be a total waste of time to start this again. Leaky  Caldron  19:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly why RfC is a waste of time in the dispute process. It's a non-binding process that festers for a month or two, while the problem behaviour carries on.--Crossmr (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC). Inexperienced editors and especially inexperienced administrators should first draft RfC's and ask for a competent, experienced administrator to review the draft and make suggestions. Incompetent editors, especially incompetent administrators, should stop drafting RfCs.

Ignore it
The "civility problem" is unfixable on wiki. "histronic bullshit" is nothing compared to what others say and get away with. Plus, there's a double standard regarding so-called "enforcing civility". Best solution is ignore whatever you think is incivil.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) -- Pumpkin Sky  talk  21:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) -- roughly agree but what double standard? Greglocock (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Can't-believe-this-is-happening-now Objection
I learned about this at Requests for adminship/Steven Zhang, and the only good thing I can say about it is that it proves that I'm not Steven's dumbest supporter.

Look, Badger Drink has advanced the stupidest argument I can imagine for opposing an RfA candidacy: Great support for a candidate proves that the candidate should not be supported.  A total Catch-22, I can see why some think it to have been trollish. But what the hell was whoever thinking bringing this up here during Steven's RfA? Despite the claim that the timing is coincidental, given the nature of Badger's claims, this sort of thing just feeds into it.

I have no idea if Badger has a history of incivility. But I don't care. Unless the person who started this has no knowledge of the fact that Steven was having an RfA, this just plain reeks, and this matter needs to be closed. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Jayron 32
I've never interacted with Badger Drink before today, but I am highly concerned that he doesn't appear to notice the difference between the use of swear words and verbally abusing other editors. No one has yet, in anywhere I can read, told him he can't cuss, and yet his only defense of his behavior has been "Cussing isn't against the rules". No, it is not, but incivility and personal attacks ARE against the rules, and if Badger Drink cannot genuinely understand the difference between saying swear words and verbally abusing other editors, then there are serious WP:COMPETENCY issues here. It has nothing to do with saying "fuck" and everything to do with creating a poisonous environment to work in. Behaving in the manner he does (regardless of whether or not he swears) makes it difficult to work alongside him, and in an encyclopedia that requires collaboration, that is simply unacceptable. -- Jayron  32  07:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) as writer. -- Jayron  32  07:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  this is precisely my point.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 08:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Agreed; the problem isn't the use of cuss words in interactions - it's being patronising and arrogant to fellow volunteers. IT could just as easily and just as rudely be done with nary a fuck or shit. I get the distinct impression that when interacting with others, Badger Drink is playing to the galleries, just as he has with his response to this RFC, above. I am unsure who he thinks this will impress as it comes across (to me) as rude and dismissive. I appreciate that this attitude is sadly becoming more prevalent, particular among users who do make good contributions, as Badger Drink does, but my attitude has always been those who make it more unpleasant for other users need to change their ways or leave. This prevailing attitude is probably why Badger Drink thinks he can get away with denigrating others, but you can interact with others without being a toolbag all the time, and a line needs to be drawn. fish &amp;karate  11:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Jafeluv (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Couldn't care less about expletives, but sarcasm and intentional rudeness (as per my view) is clearly not ok.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) There's a big difference between an edit summary of "removing unreliable source" and "whichever fucking retard added this source must still be in fucking kindergarten". The important difference between the two is not the addition of the word "fucking".  &mdash;SW&mdash; soliloquize 14:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) SnottyWong puts it very well. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 9)  Catfish   Jim  and the soapdish  18:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) AD 18:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) causa sui (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 12)  HurricaneFan 25  13:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Yup. &mdash; Joseph Fox 11:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) --Crossmr (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) --Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 16)  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) Kaldari (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) Nailed it.  Master&amp;  Expert  ( Talk ) 00:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) Right. (For one way to think of it: let V(BD) be this editor's value. Let N be the number of editors driven off by a toxic atmosphere. Let V(A) be their average value. Let P be the percentage of toxic atmosphere attributable to this editor. If V(BD) >= N x V(A) x P then this editor is a net positive for the project. Badger Drink's just one editor, so P is very small. But N is very large. So only if V(BD) is larger than V(A) to a magnitude indicating superhuman abilities would the statement be true. I haven't seen evidence of this.) Herostratus (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) Herostratus' comment has confused me a little because it is all maths-y, but I know what he's getting at. The Cavalry (Message me) 01:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) The lack of comprehension compounds the issue. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) Well put. --  &oelig; &trade; 09:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Worm That Turned
I've had a look through Badger Drink's edits this year and I see that incivility is an ongoing issue with him. It is significant that there is about half a dozen instances of users complaining about incivility on his talk page, a WQA alert and an ANI on racism. He appears well aware that his comments are rude, yet almost every response to issues is met with the opinion that the problem lies with other users being too thin-skinned. He seems to think that he has a "... right as a Wikipedian to offer a slightly sarcastic remark in the edit summary". This behaviour is problematic to say the least and I would recommend that Badger Drink refrains from sarcasm and rudeness, especially in edit summaries.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)   WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash;SW&mdash; babble 16:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) We can only hope. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Jayron  32  19:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) AD 19:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Yep.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 19:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 7)  Catfish   Jim  and the soapdish  19:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) WikiPuppies! (bark) 22:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) With the caveat that sarcasm and rudeness is just as big a problem in edits as in edit summaries. causa sui (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 11)  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) endorse summary, proposed solution doesn't go far enough--Crossmr (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) --Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Kaldari (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) Herostratus (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) The Cavalry (Message me) 01:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) Classic case of WP:NOTTHEM. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 18)  &oelig; &trade; 09:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Panyd
There appears to be a cognitive dissonance within the project which says that if a user can contribute competently to articles (pillar 1), then they can completely ignore civility (pillar 4). This should not be the case. Incivility, especially borderline-racist incivility (I don't know what else you can call the perojative term Goyim, especially when used in that context), is not something we should ever tolerate. That this incivility has then been compounded by a refusal to participate in RfC, as well as calling the individual who opened it a vapid, frivolous, and/or completely bogus...two-faced individual, is ludicrous. Why are we allowing this?

Editor retention is dropping by the month. New editor rates are also decreasing by the month. This issue is larger than simply the editor to hand but I must ask; Do we honestly think the allowance of continued incivility for the sake of one good editor is worth losing however many potential new editors are driven off by this behaviour? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) As writer PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) A-bleepin'-men! Turning out quality content is not, repeat, is not a "get out of jail free" card for violating one of our pillars. It's just not, no matter how many people believe we should look the other way when that particular pillar is chipped away at. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Absolutely!  The real irony is that surely any editor who can contribute good NPOV prose in an article, or many articles, can make the effort do so so elsewhere in their communications? If an editor were incapable of writing clearly, and concisely, and inoffensively in articles, one might understand it.  But when someone who can so obviously do the right thing "where it counts" (content creation) chooses so deliberately not to do it when interacting with other editors, it seems like a real case of waving two fingers at Pillar 4.  Pillar 1 is not, and never should be, or be considered to be, immunity from compliance with Pillar 4 (or any others!)  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 08:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)   DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) I've spent years asking for the secret cheat sheet that says how many good contribs let's you tell someone to "Fuck off", or let's you piss all over another user. Surprisingly all the users who spend time defending these "good contributors" can never provide it.--Crossmr (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) -- Jayron  32  02:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) And this rule isn't just stated in Pillar 4, it's also Founding Principle 4, listed in the simplified ruleset, and, my favorite, it's the second of the three points of the Trifecta. Notice that "don't be a vandal" and "don't have a sock" are listed.  In reality, "don't be a vandal" is merely a subset of the same principle.  These should be treated just as seriously, but we often overlook civility because the direct effect on content is not obvious and some of our content is disputed/controversial.  Look at some of our sister projects that have fewer issues with content disputes and vandalism (e.g. Wikisource) and you will find that issues of civility are frequently recognized as far more important.  On some of those projects there are no other important disputes.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Especially considering that Badger's contributions thus far aren't very extensive, I think some would agree that his contributions along with his disruptive comments are a net negative. &mdash;SW&mdash; prattle 17:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Kaldari (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Right. This is systemic problem. See my point above re questioning if (V(BD) >= N x V(A) x P). There's a limit to how much "eternal September" type behavior it is healthy for the this project to tolerate, I'd say. Herostratus (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Badger may be a competent editor, but he's not irreplacable. I personally find his attitude to be extremley childish and based on his unwillingness to even participate in this RfC (behavior which, if you'll pardon my expression, is comparable to that of a child covering his ears and going "la la la"), I doubt he's willing to change. -waywardhorizons (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC) This was waywardhorizons's 15th edit. Cardamon (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Permitting this sort of behaviour damages the encyclopedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) We can very well go on just fine without his contributions. --  &oelig; &trade; 09:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Hipocrite
This RFC is not properly certified. Only one individual alleges they have "tried and failed to resolve the dispute."

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Hipocrite (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Cardamon
Cardamon (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The 4th pillar is important.  If the discussion areas of Wikipedia were into turn alt.flame, article building would likely decrease.
 * 2) The 4th pillar is about “respect and civility”. So, civility is a part of the 4th pillar, not the whole. Also, wp:civility lumps big things like personal attacks, that have their own policies, into civility. So, what is usually called civility on Wikipedia, which more or less means speaking in a civil manner, is the small potatoes part of a portion of the 4th pillar. Some people have called this “surface civility”.
 * 3) On Wikipedia, the “civility” that is enforced is often an oversimplified approximation to surface civility.
 * 4) It is possible to game surface civility. In fact, it can be gamed in two directions.  One can be extremely uncivil while maintaining surface civility.  It is also possible to charge people with being uncivil for voicing valid criticisms in a reasonable manner.  Quite a few Wikipedians are skilled in these types of gaming. (I’m not accusing anyone in this rfc/u.)
 * 5) Thus, if one enforces surface civility, one enforces a small and game-able part of the civility portion of the 4th pillar. Don’t get me wrong, speaking civilly is still important, but for the reasons just given, heavy handed, context - free enforcement of surface civility runs the risk of doing more harm than good.
 * 6) There is no denying that Badger Drink has a few rough edges.
 * 7) Badger Drink also calls a spade a spade. That is, he speaks the truth as he sees it.
 * 8) Some of the diffs that have been brought forward to accuse  Badger  Drink of incivility have  consisted of things like cursing the air, or using vigorous phrasing to say that bad writing is  bad writing, and probably weren’t uncivil.  A couple of others consisted of expressing a reasoned opinion in a reasonable way, and were not uncivil at all.
 * 9) The ability to say that bad writing is bad writing, and to express reasoned and relevant opinions in a reasonable way must be protected, or the discussion parts of Wikipedia will cease to function.
 * 10) A portion of Badger Drink’s statements may have violated surface civility. But, for example, saying that people should apply wp:Deny recognition to Badger Drink’s opinion at an RFA, was a more serious violation of real civility than anything I recall seeing from Badger Drink.
 * 11) The goyim remark has already been discussed to death at ani.
 * 12) Badger Drink has been doing a real service in ferreting out and correcting / removing patches of bad writing from our articles.  In order to write a good edit summary, it is actually desirable to explain why the writing was bad, as he has been doing.
 * 13) Admittedly, it would be desirable for Badger Drink to express his points in a smoother way, which doesn’t bump up against the vague boundaries of surface civility.  Also, fewer f-bombs would be an improvement. This is especially true for edit summaries, since he can’t redact them.  I see some evidence that he has started making this change.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Cardamon (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 02:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC). Balanced and fair, and shows understanding of the context of the diffs.
 * 3)  Leaky  Caldron  12:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Finally, a fair and unbiased summary that I can support.
 * 4) Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) --Mkativerata (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) —WFC—  04:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Ruslik_ Zero  11:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 11)  nancy  15:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed solutions
''This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties. ''

Some steps towards agreeing improvement
1) Badger Drink to agree to:
 * use only the edit summaries available in the pull-down menus when editing in article space; and to use those as starting points for neutrally worded edit summaries in non-article space. (Preferences -> Gadgets -> Editing -> Adds two new dropdown boxes below the edit summary box, with some useful default summaries)
 * refrain from using demeaning, belittling, humiliating or aggressive language either directly to, or to describe, other editors or their edits (Simply not adding adjectives and adverbs may go some way towards achieving this.)
 * refrain from any kind of name-calling when in any conflict-type or disagreement-type situations. Address the issue, not the editor.
 * apologise when inadvertently straying from these ideals, and to do so sincerely. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 09:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * refrain altogether from using the words retard, kindergarten, imbecilic, asinine, self-righteous, patronising, condescending, pompous, or any synonyms of the same. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

1a) Badger to:
 * consider the possibility of some kind of buddying, mentoring, accepting some help with this. Real-life constraints permitting, I'd be happy to offer to work with Badger.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I am not sure about the first suggestion: I don't think behavioural problems necessarily are best solved technically (other than blocks/protection). Otherwise, this seems like it might be sensible. Whether it'll happen or not is a completely different issue. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh - This seems a bit too "parental" for me. I don't think we need to treat Badger like he's a child, telling him which words he can use and which ones he can't. He's certainly intelligent enough to know what types of comments could be interpreted as uncivil, and he just needs to refrain from making those types of comments. The goal here isn't to turn him into an emotionless wiki-robot. There are plenty of editors on WP who are somewhat brusque, or regularly humorous/sarcastic; and they do it without being uncivil. I think this is all we need to ask of BD. &mdash;SW&mdash; babble 18:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Drop down menus for an experienced, articulate editor? Patronising and sanctimonious are just 2 of the adjectives that spring to mind. Sorry, it’s a horse that won’t run. Leaky  Caldron  19:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Leaky Caldron: Wasn't intended to be either patronising or sanctimonius - just an easy way to avoid thinking of an edit summary while frustrated, irritated, annoyed or whatever. And obviously not intended to be permanent.  Maybe only use them when frustrated and so on - as a safety net. @Snottywong; I know he's intelligent - but he seems to have real trouble understanding exactly which of the things he says are problematic (focussing on cuss-words instead of the actual problem).  Removing the commonest insulting and uncivil words that he uses would be an option.We need some kind of solution. Adding: there is also the point, of course, that using the word "retard" as an insult is wrong in itself.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 19:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 2 - Acknowledge and move on
2) Badger Drink simply acknowledges that his comments and edit summaries can occasionally be uncivil, and resolves to make an attempt to refrain from uncivil comments in the future. Badger Drink acknowledges that continued disruption in the form of uncivil comments or edit summaries could lead to escalating blocks and/or bans.


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support - but I'd be looking for a bit more than just an "attempt" to refrain. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 19:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support as proposer. &mdash;SW&mdash; yak 19:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't need to make it more complicated than this. causa sui (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support That's kinda the point of an RFC/U. If this does escalate to a block/ban/sanction discussion at, say WP:ANI, at the very least we'll have this discussion to point to so that Badger Drink cannot complain that he was unaware of the scope of the problem he causes.  The hope is that it never gets to that point.  -- Jayron  32  03:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Jafeluv (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is what would help. That's the point of the RfC and can sort things out.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but I would be surprised if Badger Drink would acquiesce even to this.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  16:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't describe this as "Acknowledge and move on" but this proposal is what I'd like to see happen.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ideally it would be the option in the section above, but I think that is too much for this user. This seems fine. &mdash; Joseph Fox 11:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a former victim of Badger Drink. I made a terrible decision to relist an AfD w/consensus, but nonetheless wasn't very happy at that post. Anyway, after a while of fixing the problems I'd caused I got . Badger Drink is perfectly capable of being civil and I think he will understand any further incivility on his part will be dealt with.  Matthew Thompson  talk to me bro! 02:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, I just hope Badger Drink will be reasonable enough to accept. -waywardhorizons (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 3 - Accept and move on
3) Some people should accept that Badger Drink did indeed have the right to cast this oppose !vote at the Steve Zhang rfa, and move on.


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Support as proposer. Cardamon (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment perhaps the proposer could read the RfC and take note that it is not about the Steven Zhang RfA, but rather a pattern of incivility?  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 18:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Worm – I wonder if you could re-read the thread at the rfa that grew out of that oppose !vote. Then re-read the ani thread that grew out of that. Notice how this rfc/u grew from the ani thread.  Now notice that there are tight linkages between the rfa thread, the ani thread, and the beginning of this rfc/u, both in terms of timing and in terms of who participated in them.  Notice that one individual who is all over all three of them, also thinks it would be a good idea if he personally were appointed as Badger Drink’s keeper.  Also notice how, on this page and its talk page, another editor, who supported Steven Zhang's rfa, and seems to want to do something or other to Badger Drink, keeps talking about how Badger Drink voted oppose in some RFAs.  Apply your sense of clue.  Are you still absolutely sure that there is no connection between this rfc/u and the fact that Badger Drink !voted “oppose” on Steven Zhang’s rfa?  Cardamon (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)  Apparently Pesky is female; I apologize for getting her gender wrong.  Cardamon (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No apology needed for being unaware of gender - on the internet, nobody knows you're a granny! Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 08:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it wasn't related. I'm sure that that oppose has been the catalyst for the rfc, in exactly the manner you describe. I also agree the timing of the rfc was not the best and would have advised leaving it to after the rfa had I been around. However, there is much more to this rfc than one rfa vote - and your solution does not address those problems (also this conversation may be better on the talk page if someone could move it)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 20:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The RfA conspiracy theory thing here is a bit of a strawman argument, I think. I;m not saying that this is deliberate, but it seems to be deflecting attention from the civility issue.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC).
 * Support this observation and the aftermath, which ironically proved Badger Drink's point. All context needs to be provided, which this RfC failed to do. Worm, it was the trigger for this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Badger Drink made a perfectly reasonable oppose !vote, in an RfA that I, for the record, supported. That we are here now, and that this went to ANI, is entirely the fault of those editors who just couldn't leave that oppose !vote alone. Pesky said at the RfA: "I don't go in for drama-mongering, it's not the way I work." Right... Sometimes editors on this project as just asking to get hit with both barrels by an editor like Badger Drink. That was the case here. The people that we really need to examine their conduct RfA are the self-appointed hall monitors. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: this isn't about one incident of incivility. It's about three years of incivility. It's a bit of a shame that people don't know me better (which kinda shows that I don't usually hang out in the drama areas). If people haven't already done so, a check over my own contribs might give you an idea of who I am.  I would never offer to be anyone's "keeper" - but (and anyone who does know me could vouch for this) I'm happy to be a friendly buddy to help someone overcome a glitch.  Please don't misunderstand my offer up above. (And, by the way, I'm female and over 50, and definitely not a "he"! (last time I checked, anyway!)) We should never "accept" prolonged and intransigent incivility any more than we should "accept" persistent violation of any of the other five pillars. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 08:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Editors should be able to vote at RfA without fear of RfC/U. --Surturz (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - it was the badgering of that original, perfectly valid, oppose that has snowballed in to this RfC, an Rfc I might add which to me has a vague whiff of score settling around it. nancy  11:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but these really are strawman arguments. The single instance of incivility at the RfA was a mere drop in the ocean.  Let's not forget that. Pesky  ( talk …stalk!) 11:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Just adding: and to avoid any further misunderstandings, this has absolutely nothing to do with "score-settling" at all.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 18:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - this and the un-actioned ANI report that followed it was imo the reason for the RFC user being created. As I have seen - if a user makes an uncivil comment that is block worthy, they are very often blocked. Such as this are imo attempts to control above and beyond community consensus as regards civility. A finding here of long term issues (that were considered unworthy of blocks) and the moment the user comments in a slightly rude-ish manner such a finding as is being presented above can then be used against them to block for an unblock-able comment. Off2riorob (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - Completely irrelevant and short-sighted. Just because Badger's comments at an RfA were the catalyst for this RfC doesn't mean that the RfC is solely about the comments he made at a single RfA, nor even that his RfA vote is a major concern here, nor is anyone trying to stifle legitimate negative commentary at RfA's.  Read the cause of concern above.  19 diffs were provided there.  5 of them have to do with BD's comments at RfA in general.  2 of them are for comments at Steven Zhang's RfA.  The venue at which BD's comments appear is not the issue, it's the comments themselves.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#0a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#a00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> confer 18:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose as completely missing the point. Badger had a right to oppose on the RFA, yes, for nearly any reasoning he liked. And in a meta sense, sure, he had the right to oppose in a manner designed, it appears, to be as offensive as possible; sure, he had the right to spend literally years engaging in a similar manner over and over; sure, he had the right to, when asked to account for his behavior, descend into more name calling on this RfC. The different between the first "right" and the latter "three"? The first is compatible with the privilege of continued editing rights on Wikipedia. The latter three aren't. Badger can be as nasty as he likes, to whomever he likes - as long as he realizes that that behavior is incompatible with also being a Wikipedia editor, and if he continues it, that privilege may be revoked. Opposing him being told this because the trigger for it was his RFA comment is just sweeping the very real issue of his incivility under the carpet. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose As others have said, this proposal completely misses the point of the RFC. This RFC is not about one uncivil remarks, it's about years of deliberately uncivil behavior. AD 18:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose and I have great concern over a growing case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in this particular thread. It almost looks like an epidemic.--Crossmr (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose BD did indeed have the right to cast a vote,  and to comment anywhere else on the site. He does not  have a right  to  express himself in  an inappropriate manner whether persistently, sporadically, or rarely. There is nothing  'slightly'-rudish about his behaviour, it  appears to  be a flagrant  disregard of  a core policy. This RfC/U has nothing  to  do  with  Steven Zhang - the RfA just  happened to  be the final  straw. This proposal  is a misplaced attempt  to  close a legitimate due process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as part of group of proposals, Oppose on it's own. Regarding the oppose at the RfA, Badger Drink did have the right to make it and in my opinion, it wasn't terribly uncivil. I'd even go so far as agreeing with the majority of what he said in that vote. However, Badger Drink still has made a pattern of uncivil edits and on it's own this proposal does nothing.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We should not accept persistent incivility and personal attacks. Kaldari (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This RFC is not on the 45 editors who opposed a particular recent RFA, it is on one particular editor because of the incivil way in which he makes otherwise valid edits. That his edits and RFA votes are legit is not in question. What is in question is whether the incivilities that Badger drink writes in some !vote rationales and edit summaries are acceptable to the community.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  11:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly support. Worm That Turned failed to learn that RfC's are about solving problems rather than smacking down persons who oppose RfA candidates (supported by RfA R/Deform). To ease communication, let me write with the blue-linked cliches favored by Badger Drink's critics here. The RfA-deform clique has a problem of I DIDN'T HEAR THAT, in ignoring CasLiber at ANI. Instead of pursuing mediation, the clique impulsively did opposition research. Going through an editor's history to find instances of incivility and filing a partisan RfC with hypocritical personal-attacks on Badger Drink (or myself) again damages the reputation of RfA R/Deform and its leaders, particularly and allies, especially Snotty Wong. [ 02:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC) ] CasLiber is right: Fairness dictates that you don't cherry-pick diffs out-of-context, or present only your opponents' diffs; unfortunately, WTT and Eluchia show little understanding of fairness, and so should withdraw their candidacies for ArbCom. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC) (Updated following SW's comment 02:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC) )
 * Well, firstly, you might notice the absence of my name at RfA reform 2011. My only involvement with that project was to compile some statistics for them a long time ago.  Characterizing me as a "leader" of the project is just plain inaccurate.  Do your research before your next rant.  And referring to people as being part of the "RfA Deform clique" is a great way to display the full extent of your immaturity, and guarantee that your comments are not taken seriously by anyone.  Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the RfA reform initiative or its proposals, you could at least show some respect for the editors who are volunteering their time in an attempt to improve the situation.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#0a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> chatter 18:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed "leaders" to "allies". Thumbs up for simplifying the RfA interface, although it made no difference to any serious candidate. Thumbs down for transparently retaliatory RfCs, with the obvious intent of enjoying the intimidation of opposition. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 02:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Saying that this RfC is transparently retaliatory doesn't make it so. And regardless, despite whatever ulterior motives you may believe motivated this RfC, no one artificially manufactured the diffs listed above.  It's would be quite partisan and/or cliquish to argue that the comments made by Badger aren't problematic to some degree.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#00a -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#0a0 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> confess 03:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Honest men and women have acknowledged that this was initiated directly as a result of the RfA, a point you deny. I have never denied that Badger's phrasing can be improved, a position you seem attribute to me, despite my suggestions for Badger to improve his phrasing, when he performs essential editing, like removing junk from Wikipedia. Badger's justified irritation at removing junk was the source of all the diffs initially provided, as noted above. You all would be more credible if you thanked Badger for his good deeds, which a mature experienced critic would do, because you are again acting either to have him tell you "to go jump in the lake" or dismiss you.
 * Why do you all have to mob Badger, like a gang of delinquents? ;) After the RfA, one of you who edited an article with Badger could have mentioned something, when Badger was being mistreated; in that case, he would have been much more apt to listen. Right? Who responds well to threats and intimidation? This is really not so difficult? Most of you are not kids. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 04:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What you're suggesting is that we treat Badger as if he is a kid. This situation isn't difficult to comprehend.  Badger is going around insulting other editors unnecessarily.  It needs to stop.  That's it.  I think it's great that he goes around finding errors and correcting them, but if each error he corrects is going to result in him calling someone a "fucking retard", then there are plenty of other people who can fix mistakes civilly.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#0a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> spill the beans 06:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support If we are told this is being asked to treat non-admin Badger as if he is a kid, what exactly is supporting SZ in his RFA after he violated site security? Hipocrite (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Total and utter support, and then some. - Badger's comments at the RFA are just as valid as anyone else's. It's amazing the amount of shit kicked up because someone opposes on an RFA - we get picked to death about it.  AFAIC, this is another flash in the pan created to cause more trouble.  I say put a cake in it, and let's move on.  BarkingFish  18:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: anyone thinking this is all about one RfA prepared to come up with some compelling logic as to why only one of many oppose !voters is in a starring role here? Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 21:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's easy. He said something about IRC, and he kept responding. Hipocrite (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That, and the fact that his vote got cut out of the RfA and moved to the talk page, when in fact it should have been left there, regardless of how abrasive it was. BarkingFish  00:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's mainly because none of the other opposers hurt your feelings. — Bility (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Hipocrite: Nice idea, but sadly no! @BarkingFish - I had no idea his vote actually got cut out of the main page - shouldn't have happened. A vote is still a vote, regardless. @Bility - nah, my feelings aren't that easy to hurt - and, if they had been, Warden's (? I think?) suggestion of IRC-based meatpuppeting would have been a worse one. Seriously, guys, it was seeing a huge long history of such stuff, and several mentions on his talk page.  Without it, I'd have gone with the benefit-of-the-doubt, editor having a bad day / few days (happens to us all sometimes). I looked for a doubt to award the benefit of, and there wasn't one, sadly.  But, having said all that, there has been recent noticeable improvement, for which I'm really glad  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 06:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support the underlying principles, independent of the wider debate. It's absurd that editors making perfectly valid points about RfA are lambasted, while editors whose raison d'être is to disrupt it are tolerated as long as they do not tell people to fuck off. That this user makes too many gratuitously offensive remarks is not in dispute, but it is a fact that this RFC/U was launched off the back of a witch hunt that began with a valid RfA comment. Recognition of that is an important part of any solution. —WFC— 04:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * support. Ruslik_ Zero 11:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 4 (tweaked from proposal 1)
3) Badger Drink to agree to:


 * refrain from using demeaning, belittling, humiliating or aggressive language either directly to, or to describe, other editors or their edits (Simply not adding adjectives and adverbs may go some way towards achieving this.)
 * refrain from any kind of name-calling when in any conflict-type or disagreement-type situations. Address the issue, not the editor.
 * apologise when inadvertently straying from these ideals, and to do so sincerely.
 * refrain altogether from using the words retard, kindergarten, imbecilic, asinine, self-righteous, patronising, condescending, pompous, or any synonyms of the same either in edit summaries or in describing other editors.

Point: the above is basically a re-statement of the WP:CIVIL policy as applicable in this case. So what I'm asking for is that BD agrees to abide by our core policy (Pillar 4) of civility. (If BD refuses to agree to abide by core policy, then this needs to be taken further.)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support as proposer. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 15:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose - comments that are block-able will get a user blocked without adding a user has been rude before clause. Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support the general thrust of this, although why Badger hasn't been following the fourth pillar in the first place is beyond me. The Cavalry (Message me) 01:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Badger Drink says "If this was Kindergarten, I'd feel there might be a small chance of the above concerns being valid. Unfortunately, this is an encyclopedia."  Badger Drink has evidently never heard of the book, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten (1988), which, according to Wikipedia "explains how the world would be improved if adults adhered to the same basic rules as children, i.e. sharing, being kind to one another, cleaning up after themselves, and living "a balanced life" of work, play, and learning."  Does Badger Drink object to these values? Viriditas (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 5 tweeked from 1a)
5.) Badger to:
 * consider the possibility of some kind of buddying, mentoring, accepting some help with this.
 * institute standard offer for incivility, escalating mentoring, coaching, programmed instruction. training in debating rules; training in human resource management. escalating incivility warnings up to block.


 * Comment by parties:
 * support as proposer. if we don't enforce the pillar, it does not exist. Slowking4 ⇔ †@1₭ 01:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * i am serious, we should always allow the possibility of reform, before blocking. i understand that buddying would be unacceptable; hence the block. it is high time to have a process for incivility, which is now rampant. Slowking4 ⇔ †@1₭ 21:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:


 * Won't work. Forget it. "training in debating rules & human resource mamagement (sic)". LOL, are you serious? Leaky Caldron  18:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There has been some improvement - bu no kind of buddying is likely to be acceptable. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 11:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 6
I propose that Badger Drink be immediately and irrevocably banned for having a potty-mouth. It is clear that while this case may end without sanction there are many of us who will continue to fight his villainous ways and entice out his inner soul (not provoke) until we get what we want in future cases.

Some may say that is being vindictive, but it is for the good of the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.199.247 (talk • contribs)

Note: The above is User:71.220.199.247's first edit to Wikipedia. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Who? Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Perhaps you haven't read the heading to the "Proposed Solutions" section of this page, which reads, "...resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties." So, unless you believe that Badger Drink will voluntarily agree to be immediately and irrevocably banned from Wikipedia, this proposal amounts to a bag of hot air.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#0a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#5a0 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> squeal 01:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * i really love the sarcasm, and you can consider the "vindictive" here, as an extension of the badgering that reigns elsewhere; consider the drama fest until we prevail, the consequences of arbcom blessing that tactic. what goes around comes around. Slowking4 ⇔ †@1₭ 21:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * An interesting comment. Whom did you consider to be being vindictive?  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 22:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Now indefinitely blocked
Pesky, I'm sure you didn't intend this result with your earlier talk page edit, but it was guaranteed to provoke precisely the reaction it did. WP does not need to loose editors due to the sort of nonsense that has been exhibited here for the last month. Leaky Caldron  23:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Leaky, there has been enough criticism  of the participants in  this debate already and now that  the situtation  is resolved, any further comments on  the participants is unneccessary. Any  such  reaction by by  the subject  of this RfC/U is totally  misplaced and it  happens to  be one of the worst  strings of expletives and personal attacks I  have ever seen on  Wikipedia. The result is justified and demonstrates that  although  it  is not  easy  to establish thresholds for civility, this certainly  does, and if it  means losing  an editor,  so  be it. We've lost  editors, admins, and bureaucrats for less. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You all should be very pleased with yourselves.
 * How many of you are going to watch Badger's articles or contribute to any yourselves?
 * Well, who shall dare to oppose an RfA-deform buddy at the next RfA?
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 06:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I will be taking  care of all of Badger's articles. Now let's give it  rest - without  the continued obnoxious harassment  of the participants of this discussion on  their talk  pages.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.