Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bidgee

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: 11:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



''Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.''

Statement of the dispute

 * The statements of User:Danjel, User:Jeffro77, User:Hurricanehink and User:MelbourneStar1 below have been copied from those originally provided at ANI. User:Strange Passerby recommended bringing the issue here instead. Statements by other editors are provided here verbatim. The other editors involved have been advised of this RFC and the requirement to indicate their endorsement of the statements below.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:Danjel
I have WP:3O on my watchlist and noticed a listing at [] by User:Jeffro77 in regards to Cairns, Queensland. The discussion between User:Bidgee on one side, and User:Jeffro77 (with a single contribution by User:BorisG) had become extremely heated. User:Bidgee's contributions were clearly uncivil.

At the same time, I became aware that Bidgee included a reference to me on his/her userpage which was becoming a little shrine to the people with whom s/he had had disagreements (Jeffro77 got the same treatment at []), stating that I "had a POV" and "couldn't handle the truth". I removed this personal attack at [] and warned Bidgee for the personal attack. He reverted and reworded it, but it was still unacceptable so I reverted and warned again and notified him/her of my intent to bring the issue here at []

I have had run ins with Bidgee before, most recently because he inappropriately used a personal attacks warning template on a new user, User:MelbourneStar1 at []. MelbourneStar1 did not personally attack Bidgee any more than Bidgee him/herself did, visible at [] and the edit summaries for the Severe_Tropical_Cyclone_Yasi history at []. S/he reflexively warned me for inappropriate template use at [] (this reflexive counterwarning was also conducted on User:Jeffro77 at [] in response to Jeffro's warning on Bidgee at []).

The discussion in regards to User:MelbourneStar1 continued at my page, in the second half of User_talk:Danjel demonstrates the effectiveness of discussing shortcomings with Bidgee. S/he chose to ignore the critical point, that his warning on MelbourneStar1 was unwarranted, and instead ranted about how MelbourneStar1 had broken the rules, which apparently gave him license to react negatively however s/he saw fit. Bidgee later turned his/her userpage into a shrine, referencing the disagreement and my reversion of his final pointless contribution to my talk page, saying that I couldn't "handle the truth" (see []).

User:Bidgee has a history of removing edits to his/her talk page highlighting his/her misbehaviour but continuing the behaviour anyway. These are some examples in order from most recent:


 * []
 * []
 * []
 * []

I'm sure there are more. I only looked at the most recent 500 edits to the page. I am reminded (with thanks to Gimme Danger) that this is allowable within WP:OWNTALK, however, it is corequisite that the warned editor took note of the warning. The fact that Bidgee has been warned often suggests that these hints are not getting through.

I would like any reference to me removed from Bidgee's shrine. Bidgee is an extremely uncivil editor, and I think a reminder from up on high about the requirements for people to be civil would be great.

I'm not saying I'm an angel. I'm definitely not, but... Wow. WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE, WP:3RR, WP:USETEMP in regards to inappropriate template use. I at least pretend to be nice.&lt;/jovial&gt; I'm notifying all users mentioned above. - danjel  (talk to me) 13:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:Jeffro77
User:Bidgee removed mention of Cyclone Yasi from the list of notable cyclones that have affected the Cairns region at Cairns, Queensland (with the irrelevant claim that effects on Cairns were not notable because other places were worse-affected).

After he repeatedly reverted mention of the cyclone, I posted a 3RR warning on his User Talk page,, which he immediately deleted. He responded by posting a 3RR warning on my Talk page (I had reverted his edit twice; I had also made this earlier edit&mdash;not a revert&mdash;in which I removed the redundant commented statement, because Cyclone Yasi was still correctly mentioned before and after my edit. ) and suggested there were no sources indicating that Cyclone Yasi had a notable affect on Cairns (compare Google search for Cyclone Yasi Cairns). I provided sources indicating that Yasi had an impact on the Cairns region.

I initially (incorrectly) stated that he had breached the 3RR, rather than merely reaching 3 reverts, to which the user responded aggressively at the article Talk page in addition to a personal attack about me on his User page, which I attempted to remove, citing WP:TALKO. I also added a Third Opinion request about the original content dispute.

After realising he had only reached the 3 reverts, I reworded the incorrect statements and removed his personal attack about me from his User page. User:Bidgee has restored the attack, claiming it was "not personal" and that he had not "claimed there were not sources for the effect Cyclone Yasi had on the Cairns region". However, if that were genuinely the case, there would be no contention with listing Cyclone Yasi in the Cairns article as "a notable cyclone that affected the Cairns region".

When he saw the 3O request, User:Danjel also indicated similar difficulties in dealing with User:Bidgee. User:Danjel thereafter warned the user about personal attacks and attempted to remove User:Bidgee's comments about him. See Talk:Cairns, Queensland.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:Hurricanehink
First, can I just point this edit out? Anyways, I dealt with Bidgee a little bit. There was a discussion in the WPTC that seemed to reach a conclusion, so I went ahead and started moving articles to the more common title. Bidgee posts on the Australian notice board, claiming I was moving it to a less common name, despite the discussion we had. Bidgee went ahead and unilaterally reverted some of the moves I made  Around that time, Bidgee got into the discussion, but IMO was ignoring the developing consensus, even calling my analysis of the data useless. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 05:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:MelbourneStar1
When I first had a look at he/r discussion page, I was pleasently surprised to see that she was not the subject to violations, there were many editors thanking he/r, It was as if everyone liked her. The "View History" on her talk page, unfortunatley, told me another story. S/he has reverted so many notices, warnings, etc. She has kept all of the "Thank you's" or "Can you help.." or the awards, but has kept a big bulk her/his history reverted to only be viewed in the View History section.

Prior to having an issue with this user, i though of he/r as a strong user, a 'Leader', But all s'he wants, is to be the boss. To get the last word. S/he has used profanity before to get her/his own way [, as well as notice templates on other users talk pages to satisfy her own agenda. I have been on Wikipedia since the 17th of Decemeber 2010, so a substantial amount of time, I know rights from wrongs...accusing another editor of being disruptive after 2 small edits (that had references) and then getting smacked with a 'stop attacking' template on my talk page  after trying to defend myself, Is all wrong. I had apologised to her/him for my actions (which were'nt as bad as hers/his actions)  (Feb6) and still have not gotten a reply, with her/his excuse being 'busy'...when her/his contributions log shows that s/he has been editing pages and talking with other users. It is disrespectful, and I honestly take my apology back.

We all make mistakes, I am sure admins now and than make them too. It is normal. We're all human, but this user on the other hand just keeps on making them as well as blaming them on others. This is not what Wikipedia is about. It is atrocious that there are users like her/he on here. Someone has to set her into place, tell her/him what s/he is doing is wrong.

I don't want to ever cross her again because I'm 100% certain that she'll stick the issue (our conversation) right onto her/his user page so everyone can see, as s/he has done before, and is currently doing now. I don't think that there are many Bullies on Wikipedia, but I think I may of crossed one. A major one. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:BorisG
While I think I encountered this user before, in the exchange concerning cyclone Yasi, Bidgee showed a strong tendency to wp:own the article, and not to listen to any arguments. This isn't a big deal but a warning would be useful. - BorisG (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Desired outcome
User:Bidgee to edit according to consensus, not to resort to personal attacks when his arguments fail, and not to post comments about other editors he doesn't like on his User page.

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * (Whilst reverting information in an edit dispute is not necessarily a problem, in this revert Bidgee's edit summary distorted the criteria for inclusion)
 * (Warning templates were posted retributively after Bidgee was himself warned.)
 * (Disproportionately aggressive response, incorrectly denying a post-cyclone source had been provided, claim that he had not denied effects on Cairns contradicting his premise for removal of listed cyclone)
 * Personal attack
 * Inappropriately aggressive-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * WP:NPA
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:BITE
 * WP:3RR
 * WP:USETEMP
 * WP:OWN

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

 * Sources provided
 * Retracted statement about breach of 3RR, as 3RR was only approached.
 * Third opinion requested-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Immediately thereafter, apparently, Bidgee created his shrine at []. I didn't see it until Jeffro posted at WP:3O because I didn't have Bidgee's page watched.

I have pasted the above from my comments on the talk page. - danjel  (talk to me) 22:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

 * (Disproportionately aggressive response, incorrectly denying a post-cyclone source had been provided, claim that he had not denied effects on Cairns contradicting his premise for removal of listed cyclone)
 * Personal attack, repeatedly restored, and still present
 * Inappropriately aggressive-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * - danjel  (talk to me) 11:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * BorisG (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * I also fully endorse per my statement. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

Outside view by Nick Thorne
It seems to me that Bidgee may well have shown a lact of tact in his resposes to others in this sorry little mess. However, the complainants here are not without fault in the matter either. It seems that Bidgee to a certain extent has been goaded into responding in a way that was known from past experience he is likely to, if provided with the apropriate provocation. So far the responses here read like those from people with an axe to grind against Bidgee and so I am not particularly persuaded by the arguments made that they are actually in good faith. Careful reading of the links shows that a pattern of escalation between Bidgee and others is a common element and it makes me wonder which is cause and which is effect. Bidgee may well have "started it" (I have even seen that exact childish comment being made in one of the discussion threads related to this) with a not especially tactful comment, although it seems to me that the original comments were essentially based upon valid criticism. Then one of his existing antagonists responds in a more tactless manner and so it goes back and forth ramping up in intensity at each iteration. If you set out to deliberately create a conflict and to manipulate Bidgee into an over-reaction you could not have done a better job. I do not absolve Bidgee from all this, but those complaining share at least as much of the blame. Everyone here needs to take a chill pill and learn to accept that sometimes people say things online in a way that can be misinterpreted to be much more critical than it was intended. Before you fire off a snappy response to something someone else has said, you might like to consider whether it is possible to interpret the comments you object to in a less negative fashion. Then please refrain from pouring fuel on the fire.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Nick Thorne  talk  07:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Mattinbgn (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 5)  -- Lear's Fool 14:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Mattinbgn
Let's get one thing out of the way to begin with. Bidgee is entitled to remove whatever templates or messages he likes from his talk page and citing this as evidence of anything whatsoever other than he read them is pointless. I note that Danjel has a history of restoring removed templates as seen at User talk:Pdfpdf. Apparently Danjel reserves the right to decide if the user has heeded the message Danjel wishes to impart and only then are they permitted to remove the tag. This of course is not the case. I suggest that all participants in this "dispute" and Danjel in particular have a good long read of WP:DTTR and take in its central message - if you want to ensure your message will be ignored and/or received with hostility by an established editor and any dispute between you will be escalated, include a template with it. It works every time.

Bidgee is a long time editor here currently in good standing who has been an active part of WP:AUSTRALIA for some time. Over that period he has shown an ability to work with a range of other editors of varying views and opinions. He can be emotional on occasion but in the main is a solid editor who works in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. Bidgee is also an administrator in good standing at Wikimedia Commons where he can and does deal with contentious issues and editors in a measured manner. Given all this, why does there appear all of a sudden to be a problem in this case? I see Danjel is also in "dispute" with another long time productive editor,. One dispute involving repeated templating an established editor could be a outlier, a second dispute regarding heavy handed templating suggests a pattern in the case of the conduct of Danjel. I suggest all involved parties in this RfC should take a look at their own recent history and consider if they have aided in resolving the issues raised or merely fanned the flames.

Lastly, the parties raising this "dispute" have not provided any evidence that they have tried to resolve the dispute. Indeed my reading of the dispute is all parties are intent on templating the other to death with no actual attempt at resolution. Indeed everyone seems so caught up in the user conduct issues that the differences of opinion on content (you know, what we are here for ...) seem to be ignored altogether. This RfC/U has all the hallmarks of an attempt to "subdue an adversary" rather than a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia. The best solution to this problem is to liberally apply WP:TROUT to all parties and send them away to have another attempt to try and work together rather than resort to ratcheting template posting. Lets close this RfC/U and move on.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Mattinbgn (talk) 08:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  Nick Thorne  talk  00:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 5)  -- Lear's Fool 14:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by — kwami (talk)
I haven't looked through all of this, but from what I have seen, it certainly seems that Danjel at least (and perhaps others) have been itching for a fight. If Bidgee was blocked for poor sportsmanship, so should they be. Bullies who pick a fight or egg it on are just as guilty as those who blow up because of the harassment. (22:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC))

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  Jeffro 77  (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC) (Though I stand by my own comments, I previously stated, "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).")

Outside view by ExampleUsername
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

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.

Summary
Due to User:Bidgee's retirement, and by agreement of the certifiers, I am closing this RfC. Should User:Bidgee return and edit in a similar manner, the certifiers may re-open the RfC without prejudice. Worm   TT   09:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)