Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat

THIS TALK PAGE IS FOR AN RFC THA THAT HAS ARCHIVED:PLEASE DO NOT EDIT IT Bigglove 00:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Random thoughts
I think it's pretty clear by reading the outside views that csloat could do with a little more restraint and thought with the comments he makes, but the RfC is part of some sort of content dispute. I'd rather that issue get resolved instead of wasting time on an unneeded RfC. --waffle iron talk 02:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

When is this over?
I am not sure why this RfC was not speedily dismissed. As I pointed out, it does not seem consistent with Wikipedia policy governing RfCs. We don't have evidence of two users trying to solve the same dispute; we have evidence of at least three different disputes. And I agree with waffle iron that these disputes are much more about content than about conduct. While I have gone over the line a few times - and usually apologized when called on it - I don't believe I have been violating wikipedia rules. Ron's and TDCs main claim seem to be that my post to User:172's page was a form of "stalking"; I think I pretty well refuted that claim. So does anyone know how long until someone decides whether or not I should be sanctioned for the charges made in this RfC?--csloat 00:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there is a Wikipidia ministry or subministry that deals with this problem. --CSTAR 21:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to delist
According to official WP policies Requests_for_comment/All this page should be delisted. I will wait one hour; if the page's status is unchanged by then I will delete it.--CSTAR 22:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply from bigglove to CSloat (moved by csloat)

 * Comments:
 * The ADL comment about antisemitism was there when I got to the page. I ultimately actually took it off, becuase I found it offensive and inexact, prefering to let the quote from the newspaper in question speak for itself.   I am not sure why this user is saying that I "hurled" any accusation of antisemitism against INFOCUS.  It is simply not true.
 * The two Jewish papers CSloat mentions in the diffs above and his reply are different from the INFOCUS paper. Neither is financially dependent on a larger advocacy organization and neither is published out of the offices of an advocacy organization. WP:CORP may apply to this paper and not to the others.  HOWEVER, this is irrelevant.  Logic such as this simply not be the basis for attacking other users with epiphets like Islamophobia and making comments like, "you don't like Muslims."
 * CSloat's needs to own the fact that he did call two other editors "Islamophobes" and that this is simply not cool not matter how much he feels justified in doing so. His apology to date has only really been to explain why it is perfectly fine for HIM to use this kind of language.
 * I really do invite this user to make a summary my personal attacks. I feel it would be instructive for this user to list what he thinks I have done in terms of personal attacks and to examine it.
 * WP:NPA is supposed to be a core policy. The policy does not read, "no personal attacks UNLESS you have really good justification for making it".  It just doesn't.  Bigglove 12:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else the above user wants. I apologized and acknowledged my comment was inappropriate and I explained its context. Apparently s/he wants me punished for explaining the context. I am not going to nitpick about the paper here, and I am not going to belabor the discussion with a list of things bigglove did wrong. This RfC is completely uncalled for. csloat 16:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel that my reply to CSLOST comments should be on the main page. I will put it back there. (striking incorrect remark I made about policy.  CSloat was correct to move my comment to this page)


 * Comment: I would invite CSloat to file an RFC against me if he feels my behavior warrants it.
 * Comment: Please note that CSloat has not apologized.  In his last edit on this topic, he actually defended his actions Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat
 * Comment: I have explained what I want on the main page, please refer there. Bigglove 03:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply from Bigglove to User:Verklempt

 * 1) *Comment: Thanks for noticing the RFC and commenting, but please note that CSLOAT has apologized for, "any offense taken" but not for saying "you hate muslims", ie calling me an Islamophobe.  Also, he has said several times that he defends his action of calling me an Islamophobe, so this is not something that was done in the heat of the moment.  Bigglove 00:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the end of the paragraph you are quoting from makes pretty clear that I am apologizing for my actions, not just the offense taken, but I have added an additional paragraph to clear it up further: I apologize. csloat 03:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If you will admit to and apologize for the personal attack you made against me, I promise to call it a day. Bigglove 13:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

reply to User:RyanFreisling

 * 1) *Question: Do you think it is ok for one editor on Wikipedia to call another editor an Islamophobe?
 * 2) *Plea for close reading of the project page: CSloat has not retracted the attack.  He actually apologized for "offense taken" and not for the action itself, which he still defends.
 * 3) *Comment Please note that what I want here is a true acknowledgement and behavior change. The RFC page is very clear in asking editors to make specific requests for a remedy.  I looked at CSloats user page and saw some short blocks, so I basically picked this out of a hat by suggesting something longer---one week.  Bigglove 01:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Bigglove. Here's my response.
 * No. An apology is completely appropriate for a comment like that. We can disagree strongly on encyclopedic merit, factual accuracy, etc., but labels and names aren't helpful. In my view, personal attacks are by definition not acceptable on WP.
 * The comment is inappropriate and so I don't think a non-apology apology as a response is appropriate. I'll read more closely along these lines and revise my statements accordingly.
 * I think a return to good faith dispute resolution by csloat, armon, isarig and yourself (and other interested parties like me, TDC etc.) is far more appropriate response to what appears to be an evenly acrimonious series of conflicts between these users. I think dispute resolution rather than blocking is more appropriate especially since in this specific case the suggestion is to block the 'opposition' viewpoint (which effectively stops all discussion). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this very reasonable reply. I just noted that on your comments on the main page you are still asserting that there was a real apology given here.  I honestly would not have brought an RFC if CSloat had apologized for his comment to me that I "hate muslims" and edited based on "Islamophobia".    Please note that these remarks, and the similar one to another user, plus the defense of these personal attacks based on bad-faith assumptions is the basis of this RFC.  I feel I have shown clear evidence that CSloat has violated Wikipedia policy.   If this user feels I have attacked him, I invite him to systematically and specifically lay out the details of this attack for me and give me the opportunity to apologize to him as well.  Bigglove 02:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll re-review my comments and edit those sections appropriately, pending what I think would be a constructive apology by csloat. If the RfC leads to constructive improvements by csloat and prompts all those involved to engage in dispute resolution, this RfC will be a good thing. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Bigglove 02:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

CSloat wrote on my user page, "you hate muslims". Do you think this was ok? (It is ok to say yes if that is what you feel). Bigglove 02:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. Rude. How does anyone know what is in another's heart? Valid edits focus on content, not contributors. Apology definitely required. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Could you consider clarifying your comment on the main page based on your comment above (you mentioned the title only)?  Bigglove 02:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * With respect, for now I think I'll leave my comment as is since I revised my comment since only part of csloat's comment (plus it's title) were over the line. He was obviously exasperated and at his limit and other parts of his comment were indeed attempting to remain constructive, as I recall.
 * Overall, the RfC can be constructive if it leads to a renewed attempt at dispute resolution, and so rather than parsing every last comment of csloat's (or mine) in this fashion, I am hopeful the subject and certifiers will concentrate on the big picture of renewing dispute resolution efforts. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope you will forgive me one more "parse" (please give me the benefit of the doubt that I am not trying to irritate you, I just a systematic person and want to get this right). Telling another editor, "you hate muslims" = calling them an islamophobe. I agree that the title he wrote was pretty rude, but it was not the topic of the RFC and is not something I would have brought an RFC about. I understand that he may have been very exasperated, but I don't feel that this is an excuse for violating an important policy. If it your opinion that "you hate muslims" is not a personal attack then I accept that 100% as your opinion; if you think that it is a personal attack then I would request that you give me the honor of ammending your statement. Bigglove 02:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I amended my statement already. Not sure what specific words you object to but again I'd ask you to focus a bit 'bigger picture', await an apology and engage in dispute resolution in good faith. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, in the ideal world, I would like you to address specifically the "you hate muslims" comment, as that and the other Islamophobia comment were why I brought the RFC. However I appreciate that you were willing to have this dialog.  I am hearing you on the rest.  Bigglove 02:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * When all editors are well-intentioned, constructive dialog is the only way to get past these kinds of disputes, so no problem! :) Anyway I thought about it, looked at it again and altered my statement accordingly. Thanks :)-- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I dealt with the above in my apology but let's be clear -- I did not write "you hate muslims" on bigglove's user page. He's paraphrasing out of context the following sentences: "I'm sorry, but you need to stop the nonsense on the Southern California InFocus page. You don't like me, fine. You don't like Muslims, fine. You don't like Muslim newspapers, also fine. But that is no reason to disrupt Wikipedia like this." Now, I did say "you don't like muslims" (not "hate"), as well as made other comments about motives, and I am very explicitly apologizing for those statements, but let's not turn my statements into something I never wrote. Thanks. csloat 03:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Commodore Sloat is absolutely right and I apologize for my mistatement. He did not say, You hate muslims".  He said, "you don't like muslims".  Still a personal attack warranting an apology in my opinion.  Bigglove 13:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for highlighting, but please explicitly say that you made a personal attack and apologize for it on the main page and we'll be done. I am not being unreasonable here.  I am only asking for an adherance to policy.  Bigglove 14:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Response by Armon to User:RyanFreisling

 * Neither is averting one's eyes to sloats problematic behaviour -which is exactly what you are doing. I honestly think that you aren't doing your friend any favours by ignoring the problem here. Because of your attempts to dismiss the problem, sloat has taken as a license to continue his bad behaviour. I think that a week ban for his ongoing and long term disruption is both reasonable, and much less that what he will get if this goes to arbcom. Sloat needs an unambiguous wake up call that his approach is not acceptable. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 01:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm ignoring nothing. And what exactly does that link have to do with me? Nothing. So I'm ignoring nothing again. Csloat needs to shape up, as do you all. Armon, please resume dispute resolution. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify what the diff has to do with you. He characterizes this ANI report as "laughed off" due to you ignoring the related issues I raised there. You are an admin now, so you're expected to act for the good of the project, rather than simply protecting your friend. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 02:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm an admin? When did that happen? If I were an admin, that would be a classic logical fallacy by attacking your opponent instead of their words... and I am allowed to express my views whether I am an editor or an admin. As is stands, I'm not an admin. And Armon, I didn't ignore anything then either... I'm quite proud of those links in which I am 1. advising him to keep calm 2. offering him support, and 3. urging him to avoid 3RR. Right now, I honestly believe I am acting in the good of the project by pointing out the aborted dispute resolution between you and csloat and seeking to resolve the dispute with WP process. Why not pick that process up with Durova? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Outside view by User:Durova
Please note that CSloat has not apologized for saying on my user page, "you don't like muslims". This is an accusation of Islamophobia, and a personal attack. Personal attacks are an infraction of Wikipedia policy. I would like an admission from CSloat that 1) this WAS a personal attack and that 2) he apologizes for this personal attack and that 3) he promises not to make personal attacks like this again. I appreciate the apology, and I am not doubting its sincerity, but I would like an apology directed specifically at the complaint.  Thanks for hearing me out.  Bigglove 13:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, CSloat has apologized for making a "hyperbolic comment": "you don't like muslims." If he admits that this was a personal attack and apologizes, we're done.  He has not done so yet.  Bigglove 14:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments on other users' Responses or Outside Views
Bigglove, I recommend that you do not place your request to csloat inside his response. Perhaps it's better placed in your certifying statement, along with a reminder to csloat via talk if you're concerned he didn't see your response to his latest apology. RfC policy is there to give everyone a chance to make their views heard without interference - and while I know you're not intending to interfere with csloat's statement, purposefully placing a comment in his response could be seen as denying him the right to make an unhindered response. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree, but I don't know how else to get him to see it. I asked above, in my statement, where I felt it belonged, and the next thing I know he is asking for an admin to come and close when this has not been completely resolved.  This is not really in the spirit or letter of apology.  Do you want me to move it?  I will, but hopefully he will see it before this is closed prematurely.  Bigglove 18:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In short, 'I' don't want anything except for this RfC to be as productive as possible for all concerned. Accordingly, I would advise you that you should avoid any perception that you are hindering csloat's response by leaving any of your comments there (unless you endorse his view) - that's just policy. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, I removed the short note asking the closing admin to look here. Bigglove 18:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I see it, the issue is resolved. I don't see the need to re-parse my apology yet another time just because you demand that I do so.  If you re-read the apology, you will see that I have apologized for the comments in question.  The debate about whether I intended a particular phrase as hyperbole or literal is neither relevant nor constructive. csloat 18:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Commander, please consider steadying your tone. Hyperbole means exaggeration or amplification, and a "hyperbolic comment" is an overblown one. This refers to the "size" of the comment, but not the category it is in---ie complementary statement, statement of disagreement, personal attack, etc. If you explictly said anywhere that your remark was a personal attack and that you apologize for it, then I apologize for missing it. Bigglove 19:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My tone appears to be quite steady. Your interpretation of the phrase "hyperbolic comment" is interesting, but not relevant.  I accept your apology - can we now please move on? csloat 20:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

regarding Commodore Sloat's request for closure
I do not feel that this RFC has been completely resolved.

I very much appreciate the spirit of the apology, but would like an adjustment in the substance. I do not think this RFC should be closed without an admission that this user made a personal attack against me and agaist Isarig in violation of WP:NPA. He has apologized for a "hyperbolic comment" towards me. This is not the same thing. Given his very agressive failure to admit that he had done anything wrong first on the talk page of the article and then here, I do not think it is too much to ask. Bigglove 18:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please reflect for a moment with a bit of dispassion. While you moved 'some' of your comment from csloat's response, you have left a comment there against the rules of RfC . I know you're trying to resolve the issue amicably and don't mean to stifle or inhibit csloat from responding - but someone else who didn't understand your goals (or who didn't care) might consider that an 'aggressive failure' to follow RfC policy. I suggest you leave csloat's response entirely unfettered and show by example the kind of flexibility and willing compliance you want from csloat - or you similarly allow him some latitude in complying with your request for a renewed apology. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, I'll take it off completely. But, respectfully, as I said before, if he hadn't asked for closure while there were outstanding issues despite my request I would not have posted there.  Bigglove 18:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You are entirely 1000% entitled to your point of view and I'm hopeful csloat chooses to discuss it further with you, in order to resolve any remaining issue that you may have with the completeness (or incompleteness) of his apology. Cheers. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

When CSloat says that he made a personal attack instead of a "hyperbolic comment" I will then wholeheartedly accept his apology. He has refused to do so, and has now actually accused me of widening the RFC. This is a misrepresentation. The original RFA is quite clear on the issue of personal attacks. I added addendums in response to CSLoats's claims that he had already apologized; these were for clarification only and made in good faith. Bigglove 19:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have apologized Bigglove; your objection to the fact that I made the original comment hyperbolically is only leading to growing suspicion that you are not sincere about resolving this dispute. If you wish to avoid creating such suspicions, it would be a good idea to accept my apologies and let us all move on. csloat 19:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm writing again to make this perfectly clear only and not to argue or inflame or belabor. I do not object to "the fact that [you] made the original comment hyperbolically". I object to the fact that you label it as a "hyperbolic comment" and not a "personal attack". Here is the text of your apology (with my emphasis):

"'I apologize for attributing unacceptable motives to Bigglove, Armon, and Isarig, including the hyperbolic comment 'you don't like muslims,' which I wrote on Bigglove's user page. This apology stands whether or not these users are found to be sock puppeteers, and independently of any other abuses or perceived abuses committed by these users or any others. As I said above, bigglove is correct that it isn't my role, or any other editors, to psychoanalyze him or her, and I apologize for questioning their motives. I am apologizing for my actions here, not just for any offense taken. And I will see to it that I don't make such comments again. I hope this clarifies the nature of my apology on this issue. csloat 03:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)'"

It would not take you much for you to ammend this to say you made a personal attack and you apologize for it. If your intention to apologize is sincere, I am not sure what is holding you back. At this point, I feel like you are again assuming bad faith by referring to a, "growing suspiction that [I am] not sincere about resolving this dispute," and even threatening me when you say, "If you wish to avoid creating such suspictions it woudl be a good idea to accept my apologies." Please be assured that I want to end this RFC. I have already said I do not insist on a block, etc. I think I am within my rights to request an apology explicity for what I made the complaint about, personal attacks. Bigglove 20:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification but I already understand your objection; the problem is that it has no merit. My comment was meant hyperbolically as I have explained.  I have also apologized for it.  I have not denied that it was a personal attack.  If you want the RfC to be finished, all you have to do is say so, as you are the only one holding it up at this point. csloat 20:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please just say it was a person attack explicitly, which you have not done, and as far as I'm concerned we're done. I'm not sure what your objection is to that.  Your response that my request is "without merit" is not especially helpful as this was the whole basis of the RFC I filed.  (and actually, it is insulting).  Bigglove 23:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You have got to be joking. What benefit is there to continuing this nonsense?  I apologized over and over already for the personal attack.  I have not denied it was a personal attack; you want me to say it was a personal attack?  Fine - it was a personal attack, one which I have apologized for over and over, unconditionally and without reservation.  This is getting tedious, and it is your actions, Sir or Madam, that are insulting here -- not just to me, but to everyone who takes this RfC process seriously.  I have done everything you have asked for even though I am under no requirement to do so.  csloat 00:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you've added another addendum to the RfC itself. Please keep in mind that by doing so you have invalidated the entire RfC.  You cannot move the goal post like that -- the RfC cannot keep expanding beyond control.  Please delete your recent addendum.  Thank you in advance. csloat 00:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If you would kindly put your statement, "Fine - it was a personal attack, one which I have apologized for over and over, unconditionally and without reservation" on the main page we woudl be done with it. Bigglove 12:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

moved from my main complaint at the request of CSloat.
It was reasonalble to move this, so I did as per his request.


 * addendum CSloat has characterized the above request for an explicit apology for a personal attack as having "no merit". This is the kind of dismissive attitude that I encountered with this user on the talk page of Southern California InFocus when he called my compaints "bogus" and repeatedly said he hadn't made personal attacks Bigglove 23:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Calling your complaints bogus isn't even close to a personal attack.Verklempt 02:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Verklempt, please allow me to clarify. I did not say that calling my complaint "bogus" was a personal attack.  I said that saying "you don't like muslims" was a personal attack.  When I originally pointed that out to him on the talk page of an article we were editing together, he said that my complaint was "bogus".  I hope this helps.  Bigglove 13:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please point to the diff you are talking about. And please stop moving the goalpost here.  I have apologized unconditionally and totally (not "partially" as you state on the main page), so I do think your further complaints are bogus here.  Your moving of the goalpost invalidates the entire RfC because you have now changed the statement that was previously signed by several other editors.  When you change it like that you need to strike out the signatures and allow each editor to sign again.  That is why it is better to add any addenda after the signatures or on the talk page.  Doing it on the RfC page like you have done, in my estimation, renders the entire RfC null and void.  But in any case it doesn't matter as I have answered the RfC and apologized over and over.  This discussion is finished. csloat 17:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have not done this before and I have no idea what the procedure is. Thanks for informing me, although it would have helped if you had done so earlier in the process. No one mentioned this up until now and the remarks have been there for a few days. In response to your comments, I moved all my remarks to an addendum section and clearly noted that signatures only apply to comments left before sigs. I do not really think it is necessary to ask everyone to sign again because I added this comment.

As I said above, I have not changed the RFC in any way except to request a MORE LENIENT PUNISHMENT FOR YOU! (for which I have to say you have not expressed any thanks). I added remarks for clarification becuse I felt they were necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigglove (talk • contribs) 19:26, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any punishment indicated here. I made inappropriate comments, I unconditionally apologized for those comments, and that is that.  I really do think it's time to move on; hopefully this RfC can be closed forthwith. csloat 21:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Mr. Sloat, I met you halfway and removed my request that you be blocked for a week, because it was the reasonable thing to do. No why don't you do the reasonable thing and change your main page comments now and avoid arb com??? Bigglove 21:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me get this perfectly clear: you think ArbCom is going to accept a case based on the claim that my unconditional and unreserved apology and honest willingness to not let it happen again is just not worded in precisely the way you want it to be worded? That will be an interesting RfA. csloat 21:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This case was very narrowly based on your violations of WP:NPA and use of bad faith assumptions to support your right to violate this core wikipedia policy while editing one article. I would think that an Arb com case would be broader based. Bigglove 23:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have problems with some other aspect of my behavior than you have identified here, it would be great if you could discuss it so that we can move to reasonable methods of WP:DR rather than arbcom. My guess is that Arbcom will want to see evidence that you tried and failed to resolve the same dispute you are going to arbcom with. csloat 01:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is off topic to the discussion here, but be assured that, as I did in this case, I would follow all the proper procedures to the best of my abilities.  Every time I have made a mistake I have corrected it when it was pointed out to me.  I only mention arbitration as some of the admins writing on this page have mentioned it as a next step.   From the comments on the main page from others I expect that others would have imput into such a case as well.  They would likely have  complaints regarding other aspects of policy than those I have mentioned in this case, and other examples regarding personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith.  This is why I said I would expect a broader based discussion.  I do not personally have anything specific in mind at this time.   I suppose at this point we should leave this and see what happens.  I would like an apology explicitly recognizing violations of WP:NPA on the main page as that was the basis of my complaint in this RFC; you are unwilling to give that since you feel that you have already given that and I am just being unreasonable.  Neither of us is really able to bend on this.  So be it.  If you are true to your word and avoid personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith in future, then we will not have any problem.  If I do feel you are making personal attacks or assumptions of bad faith and point this out to you, I hope you will be able to be more flexible than in past at admitting that your behavior has been problematic, apologizing for it right away, and retracting your remarks.  In this RFC, you have have admitted that you made mistakes, and to be fair you have to admit this process was necessary to get you to admit to that.  It ate up a lot of my time and your time and other people's time.  I am not enthusiastic about another process.  Let's see what happens, ok?  Bigglove 01:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, this is ludicrous. I copied and pasted the exact statement you wanted me to on the front page.  Yet you still say "I would like an apology explicitly recognizing violations of WP:NPA on the main page ... you are unwilling to give that."  What more do you want?  If you are satisfied with what I did there, please make that very clear on the main page. If you are not, please try to explain yourself in clear terms so I can at the very least understand why you persist in threatening me.  I understand that you feel you are backing off of your demand at this point, but you haven't even acknowledged that I already met that demand in spades. csloat 02:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it took me a few mintues to write the above, and I wrote it and posted it BEFORE I noticed your final addendum on the main page. Thank you for posting that.  The minute I saw it I left my own addendum requesting close of this RFC.  And, per your promise, you could actually follow through and start assuming good faith, well, maybe right about now.  OK?  Bigglove 02:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it. Please strike out your last two sentences as they were uncivil and unnecessary.  The problem here is not my assumption of good faith; the problem is that I have been hounded over and over and over again to do something I already did, without asking, at the very beginning. csloat 03:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

disbelief, confusion, frustration
Commander Sloat, You have said above on the talk page:

"Fine - it was a personal attack, one which I have apologized for over and over, unconditionally and without reservation"

...but you have only said this on the talk page and not the main page.

I brought this RFC for your violation of WP:NPA AND WP:AGF would like an admission of a personal attack from you on the main page. You have only admitted to an infraction of WP:AGF.

I think it is reasonable for you to offer this apology on the main page. I met you halfway and I have not requested any block at all, just an apology. Why not meet me halfway and give me the apology I am asking for?

You started out by saying that you had not done anything wrong and after Ryan intervened you decided to apologize. For that I am very very grateful, but I would like you to specifically and explicitly address the points I raised in my RFC. You are acting like this is a very unreasonable request. I do not think it is unreasonable. Bigglove 19:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, let me suggest something at least as reasonable... instead of asking csloat to say something more or do something more to satisfy you beyond the unconditional apology he's offered, how about getting past all this fractal minutia and offering something a little more collaborative, like "Csloat, I know we disagree vehemently about many things, but I accept your apology. Now, let's try dispute resolution." ? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ryan, respectfully, I really need to hear Commodore's reply on this. I have made a resonable request, and I have phrased it very simply and plainly and non-judgementally above.    This is hardly fratal and hardly minute; it is the very basis of my RFC complaint.    If you want this to end, please consider mediating to convince CSloat to put on the main page what he is willing to say on this one, rather than to get me to change the basis of the RFC to remove violation of WP:NPA.   It is really THAT EASY.


 * If your friend refuses, then I regret to say that I will probably need to bring this to arbitration. Apparantly, community enforced mediation has already failed to bring about a resolution of issues between Sloat and several other users.  Bigglove 21:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have satisfied the basis of your RfC complaint in every possible way at this point, even bending over backwards to re-explain an apology that should have been accepted from the beginning. The apology is "unreserved and unconditional" -- I'm not sure why you still have a problem accepting it. csloat 21:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Because you never said explicitly that you made a personal attack. Bigglove 21:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologized for each of the specific comments you had a problem with and I explained that those comments attributed unacceptable motives to you. I think that makes it pretty clear, but you kept hounding me, so I then said that it was a personal attack.  So you are wrong that I never said that explicitly; you can see it, in bold, on this page.  Your continuing insistence that I continue to belabor my apology, changing it again and again to suit your fancy, is disruptive and disrespectful of this RfC process.  I would urge you to take Ryan's excellent advice above. csloat 21:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the reason that you are completely unwilling to apologize explicitly for personal attacks on the main page? This is the discussion page.  If you mean to apologize for personal attacks, then put it on the main page and we'll be done.  It is simply that easy.  There is no reason to accuse me of hounding, or being disruptive, or disrespectful of the RFC process; frankly I could accuse you of similar but I don't think that is particularly useful.  Bigglove 23:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have apologized on the main page, specifically for the statements I made. Several times.  Each time I do so, you bring up another demand, and then when I do that, you have yet another one.  I'm not sure what else to do.   You are in fact hounding me, being completely disruptive, and making a complete mockery not only of the RfC but of the Wikipedia community in general.  Your behavior is utterly execrable.  Despite all of this nonsense, and despite the fact that it would be utterly and completely redundant, I'm going to go ahead and copy the sentence above to the front page; at that point I expect you to be the one requesting that the RfC be closed, that you declare publicly your satisfaction with the result, and that you leave me alone henceforth.  Deal? csloat 01:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Request made. As for "leaving you alone" it might not be entirely possible if we are editing the same articles, but I promise that if you do not violate wikipedia policy I will not have any reason to complain that you are doing so. Bigglove 02:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

View by User:Armon
In the larger scheme of things, this particular personal attack is minor, but it's indicative of a larger problem. I will be signing on to Durova's statement, however, I think there are a couple of key points which need clarification. Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) This RFC is an attempt at dispute resolution. Many other attempts have been made to no avail. The only other option at this point is arbcom and I'm disappointed that sloat doesn't seem to realize that not taking this to arbcom, even after all this time, is actually an olive branch.
 * 2) I have a difficult time squaring the circle between his apology, and his wikilawyering about it, and his accusations that Bigglove is a sock. To me, the apology itself is unimportant, what I would like to see it some evidence that he "gets it", that WP is not a battleground, and I'm sorry, but I don't.
 * 3) If sloat were to be blocked for a week, or under some other arbcom sanction, I'm afraid we'd be only be delaying the inevitable with this user unless some real change takes place. To that effect, I 'd like to suggest a similar solution to to what's being tried with Isarig. I believe such a dual mentorship would be for the good of the project and everyone concerned. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 01:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Bigglove 01:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Piling it On
Only a short period after I posted yet another unconditional apology, at User:Bigglove's insistence, has attempted to expand the scope of this RfC even further, suggesting that there are other issues he would like to see addressed, and following up Bigglove's threats of Arbcom. I am getting tired of this and I would really appreciate users here not piling it on like this. The purpose of the RfC is to request comments regarding a specific issue. This is (as armon says) a step in dispute resolution. I have addressed quite clearly all the issues raised in this RfC and I think I have done more than extend an olive branch -- I have extended the entire tree. My apology was absolutely unconditional, yet I was still hounded for days by Bigglove to add more to it. Each time he acted as if I were being intransigent when in fact it was bigglove who kept moving the goal post and then berating me for not hitting it. Armon wants evidence that I "get" it -- I do get it, Armon, and I have apologized unreservedly for the violation. Armon further wants to suggest that Wikipedia is not a battleground -- I heartily agree with him there, and I look forward to evidence of his newfound attitude on this issue. Armon has treated Wikipedia as a battleground of the worst sort ever since I first met him on the Juan Cole page over a year ago. The best I have been able to hope for in my interactions with him has been a respectful distance such as Durova called for rather than true Dispute resolution. I tried Community Enforced Mediation with him and he absolutely stonewalled it over a minor issue. We also went to arbcom already and arbcom refused to take the case. Armon stresses that by not going to arbcom he is doing me some kind of favor. That is one of the more condescending things I have read here. Arbcom may be necessary, but my behavior will not be "on trial." What will happen is that our dispute will be mediated and discussed in embarrassing detail, and most likely neither one of us will be happy with the result. For Armon to portray this as him taking me to the Principal's office is ludicrous, as his behavior on wikipedia is a huge part of the problem here. Many times I have implored him to simply leave me alone but he refused to. If this goes to arbcom I think everyone knows that we will see evidence of misbehavior by all concerned. At least I have acknowledged and apologized for my part in this.

Now Armon is calling for "a similar solution to to what's being tried with Isarig" -- a known sockpuppeteer who has blatantly abused the 3RR. I am not at all averse to the idea of mentoring and would welcome a mentor here but his suggestion comparing my actions to Isarig's is absurd and insulting. I hope that Armon understands that and replies -- an apology for that remark would go a long way toward showing the community that he is willing to work with me constructively rather than turn every discussion into a battleground. If he is not willing to do that, I suggest he take Durova's suggestion (that he signed off on) and that we both keep a respectful distance if we cannot cooperate. csloat 02:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Noticeboard posting for admin assistance, and violations of RfC Policy by certifying users placing their own 'Outside Views'?
In what appears to be a direct violation of policy, 3 certifying editors have placed 'Outside Views' on the RfC in addition to their certifications of the 'Statement of Dispute'. If this is a commonplace practice, despite what I read as clear policy, please advise here on the talk page.

Please note: I've posted a general notice on the admin's noticeboard about this RfC, and this issue in particular. Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe you are correct Ryan, and it is what I was trying to point out to all the participants when I spoke of piling it on. RfCs should address specific disputes, not become a general bullying session for everyone who has ever had a problem with a particular user to come get a kick in. csloat 02:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, Ryan and CSLOAT I did not see either of you complaining when Durova both certified and placed an outside view awhile back.  Are you also complaining about Durova's outside view, which you both, armon, and I all endorsed?  I think we need to stop Wikilawyering here and realize we are all trying to grapple with what is and has been a difficult and upsetting situation and stop jumping down each others throats.  Bigglove 02:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, I'm attempting to suggest a real solution to the problem. I consider wikilawyering to be at least as disruptive as socks and editwarring. You and everybody else are perfectly within your rights to ignore me, but please, when you're in a hole, stop digging. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 02:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Armon, don't make hostile comments like that. I just asked Durova about his double-posting, since I didn't notice that he had certified AND posted an outside view until Armon pointed it (and TDC's) possible violations of policy out. TDC and I have an acrimonious past, but I'll try to inform him of the perceived violation in as non-confrontational a way as I can. (In fact, I think reading this should suffice). And it's not WP:WL to point out policy any more than it is WP:VANDALISM to revert back those violations of policy. If I were interested in continuing your cycle, I'd revert... but I haven't done so. I just think policy is important in adversarial processes like RfC. If you were the sole target of an RfC in the context of a group dispute, and that group began posting multiple outside views (despite their having been certifying editors), you'd probably think so too. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to stick close to policy and I did not really have hostile intentions, but I apologize if I made a hostile remark. I just noticed that Durova posted his/her outside view the day before yesterday, but you did not raise objections until Armon posted an outside view a few mintues ago. You have clearly taken "sides" in this overall dispute, so it seemed a bit partisan to be pointing out a problem at the moment you did. I assumed bad faith, and I apologize. And by the way, since Sloat has finally admitted on the main page that he violated wikipedia policy on personal attacks we have agreed to close this at this time so when an admin comes they can do so and archive. I am sure we will all be glad to be done with this. Bigglove 02:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The 'Don't make hostile comments like that' was in response to Armon's 'when you're in a hole, stop digging' comment so no worries! I accept your apologies (no biggie and thank you)! Indeed, as I explained, I only noticed Durova and TDC's dual posting to the 'Outside Views' and 'Statement' sections after Armon pointed them out. You'll notice I moved the comments carefully, rather than deleting them - I don't have a 'side' regarding this RfC and in fact I stated my views in agreement that csloat should apologize. He has and I haven't taken any 'sides' at all, except to say that I am csloat's friend and my outside view of the situation. I think you may also be assuming bad faith by saying I 'seemed a bit partisan' - because I didn't and am not. Please continue to extend me good faith in this regard, I'll continue to look at things as dispassionately as I can and never fear - I won't ask you for an unconditional apology :) . Be well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Arbcom is even more adversarial. WP:IAR for a second and realize that the point here is to end drama. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 03:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In addition, ArbCom would be far more procedural, and bad for everyone given the length of time and effort it would take from edits to WP article space. I am very very very very hopeful that the people involved can:
 * end this on a high note with the start of an agreement between bigglove and csloat to afford 'breathing room' to each other,
 * all act to create some 'breathing room' from each other,
 * assume good faith towards one another 'just' enough not to begin spiralling accusations, edit wars or attacks when they come across each other,
 * participate in dispute resolution (not ArbCom) should issues arise, and in so doing
 * avoid ArbCom as the perilously close next step, as Durova wisely said in his statement. In fact, we can WP:IAR to our mutual hearts' content if we just focus on offering each other ongoing good faith instead. Given that there are lots and lots of articles, it really doesn't seem hard for people who want to edit on the encyclopedia to do. However, civilly disagreeing and focusing on avoiding serial edit wars requires a willingness by all. I know csloat, he's my friend and so I believe it's possible. I extend good faith to you and everyone involved and so I believe it's possible. Is it impossible? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hold on Ryan, exactly what method of dispute resolution do you think myself or others haven't attempted with sloat? It's great to say "participate in dispute resolution", I'm all for it, but in my interactions with him, it hasn't worked in over a year and I'm not interested in drawing out things out any further. The only thing left is arbcom. Sad but true, which is why I'm making a last ditch effort to resolve things here. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 03:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The dispute resolution process that was underway under Durova, which was abandoned. The individuals here didn't complete the process. If you don't want 'drama', go back, do the work and pick that up as I have repeatedly said. It takes effort from ALL participants to change things, since all are ultimately responsible for themselves. I'd hate to believe the only resolution left is for you to go before ArbCom, but at least that would afford the wider perspective on the group's conduct as a whole - perspective that in my 'outside view' is sorely needed here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, but let's also be clear that yours is the "outside view" of sloat's buddy. That's fair enough, but I really don't think you're hearing me. Arbcom will just look at the evidence. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 04:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Mine is the view of RyanFreisling. Not someone's 'buddy', but an independent mind capable of independent analysis and decision. The rest (including whether you submit yourselves to the ArbCom) is up to you and the rest of the participants. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK I guess I need to clarify comment above. I don't for a second think that you lack an independent mind capable of independent analysis and decision. What I'm pointing to is what I believe is an intellectual blind spot on your part. I'm sure your experience with him is radically different, especially if you hold very similar POVs. In that case, unsurprisingly, sloat won't be a problem. The trick is to get along with people who don't agree with you. I welcome everybody to look at the CEM I had with sloat, read the whole thing if you have insomnia one night, and ask yourself how dispute resolution is meant to work when appeals to the evidence simply won't work. The other thing to keep in mind is that ship has sailed, Durova can clarify herself, but that's how I took this. I'm also fully aware that arbcom will look at my record as well, regardless of whether I'm the "subject" or not. Will they see stuff I'm not proud of? Sure, I can even give some examples. OTHO, if you look at the evidence, you'll also see me apologizing for bad behaviour without the threat of a block, arbcom, rfc, whatever. Therein lies a key difference, which is why I object to false equivalences such as what I think you're doing here. Arbcom's job is to sort this stuff out, so I really think sloat needs to step back and reflect. This is also why I also strongly suggest the mentorship idea for sloat. Anyway, we've discussed sloat's behavior in the past, and we'll have to agree to disagree. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 00:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If the ship has sailed and it's time for ArbCom, it will happen. And ArbCom's process is intended to attempt to ensure everyone's responsibility for their own actions, so all the disputants (and not just Csloat) will be in a position to offer their own evidence and respond to others' evidence. That's a good thing, not a false equivalence.


 * As far as my own personal 'outside view', since I have come to know csloat well enough to believe that he would not willingly use personal attacks, deceptiveness, or lies (or indeed, any intentional violations of WP policy) to advance his content goals, I can say that I will be very surprised if such evidence is uncovered and convincingly presented. If it did, my support for him would surely waver.


 * In any case, even if onerous and stressful the ArbCom process would at least apply to all the participants in this ongoing multi-page edit war, as I believe is in WP's best interest, and so we're not in disagreement about the usefulness of ArbCom should it happen.


 * Where we disagree is as regards 'the ship' of non-ArbCom dispute resolution. The ship hasn't sailed if the disputants are simply willing to WP:AGF and say they're willing to try to avoid disputes - or, resume the prior process that was abandoned. As Durova said, she was concerned that things hadn't settled down - between you, csloat and Isarig. I agree with what you said, and I hope you will agree that if anything, this situation proves that finding points of agreement with people who don't agree with you takes work. The disputants can choose to assume good faith and leave each other some space, and/or work to come up with reasonable compromises or they may choose not to continue, apparently in favor of a favorable finding from 'the big bench' of ArbCom. However, I don't think ArbCom will see the history here as representing a good faith attempt at dispute resolution by all parties, nor do I believe they'll see the big 'problem' underlying this edit war as being the fault of one editor. And (hopefully last, as this page should be closing) as I think I said yesterday, we can absolutely agree to disagree and do so civilly - and I do respect your opinion. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well in that case, prepare to waver. A cursory glance over the articles and talk pages he's disrupted will be highly surprising then. There's also plenty of evidence that I've attempted to engage with him in good faith, and I have to admit being annoyed at the implication that I'm simply looking for a "favorable finding from 'the big bench' of ArbCom". It would be nice if you'd also extend the A of GF. It's easy to have endless patience when you're not subject to his constant attacks and he will either have to make a big change or he'll go go to arbcom -AGF has nothing to do with it. He won't listen to me, or anyone else he regards as the "enemy" so if you really want to help your friend out, please try and get him to listen to reason and make positive changes. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 02:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Believing that someone 'won't listen to me or anyone else he regards as the enemy' and that he makes 'constant attacks' is itself the opposite of assuming good faith - so if that's the track your mind is locked into and you are consciously unwilling to assume good faith concerning csloat then ArbCom is indeed the only likely place where this ongoing battle between you and csloat can achieve effective resolution.
 * And while I'm still extending you AGF, will continue to do so and will continue to believe you should do so with csloat, I won't continue to go tit-for-tat on this with you. I have reasoned with csloat - and he has made positive changes - within the context of this RfC alone, and his conduct here thus far has not changed my overall view of his editing style. As far as the rest of this 'disagreement', I've made my point more times than I care to at this point. I am hopeful you will agree to disagree, won't respond with another claim of offense at my statements and will leave it at that. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A key part of WP:AGF (bolded in fact) is: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. If you like, I will provide the evidence/diffs for backing up the #2 point in my statement so that you can sign on to it. Otherwise, please see carbonite's law and simply agree to disagree. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 04:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's just agree to disagree. If in your eyes WP:AGF doesn't apply, that's that. I'm done trying to convince you otherwise. Since you insist there's no alternative, we'll all have to keep an eye out for your case at ArbCom. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Armon you and Ryan can agree to disagree but I will need to be extremely clear about what you are saying here. Are you saying that you do not consider yourself bound by WP:AGF when dealing with me anymore because of some alleged "evidence to the contrary"?  Be very careful with this, as I can certainly produce evidence myself, but I still consider myself bound by AGF as is clear from my actions in this RfC.  If you wish to avoid ArbCom it would be best if you would respect the dispute resolution process, take note of my extremely good faith actions on this RfC, and assume good faith from me in the future.  Otherwise you are taking us both down a road that neither of us will like.  But if you do intend to go down that road, I want you to clarify about your intentions and state very clearly that you will be assuming bad faith from now on.  I'd prefer you chose to adhere to Wikipedia policy instead. csloat 06:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Mu. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 07:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then please enlighten us as to the appropriate question. Two editors have now read your words in good faith and come to the same conclusion about what they mean.  If they mean something different, do tell us what that is; I will be pleased to hear it. csloat 08:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * AGF is an extremely important core policy on WP. Playing games of "gotcha", as you're doing here, is flouting it. I would like you to stop doing that. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 08:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you misunderstand me. All I'm doing is asking you to clarify your own words.  If you plan to assume good faith as WP policy requires, I think we're finally in agreement about something.  I am not "playing games of gotcha," and it strikes me that such an accusation smacks of assuming bad faith. Again, I am simply trying to clarify your own words, but if you are willing to assure me that you will assume my good faith in interactions with me regardless of what "evidence" you can point to, then we ought to be able to get along. csloat 13:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

moving views

 * Update: I want to apologize for moving the 'view' and 'outside view' of Armon and biophys. Clearly, I'm just as capable of error as I am of independent analysis and decision, as the RfC page clearly states:
 * ''"Anyone, including those who wrote the original RfC, is allowed to post their own view, in a separate section with their name on it, such as ==View by == It can be helpful to indicate the viewpoint of the particular editor, such as "Outside view" "Inside view" "Semi-involved view" etc.
 * ''"In most cases those who brought the RfC do not post individualized views, since the initial statement already indicates their thoughts, but in some cases they may wish to post an additional individualized view to clarify their opinion. Either method is acceptable.
 * ''"Other users can endorse a view, by adding their signature to the list after that view. Along with their signature, they may wish to offer a clarifying comment of one or two sentences, for example if they agree with all but one particular part of the view. Longer responses than that should probably go into their own "View" section.
 * My view of policy was incorrect, and my moving of the 'outside views' or 'views' by Armon and biophys was inappropriate. I apologize for the inconvenience and am available to discuss this further. Honest thanks! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You are forgiven! :-) Bigglove 22:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said on my user page, no problem. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 23:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am getting ready to close this RFC now, and don't know what to do about the loose end of the Biophys outside view section. It was created by Biophys according to policy and moved by another user 20 minutes later due to the misunderstanding stated above. The move put the text as commentary before Biophys's actual endorsement, which left other editors unable to endorse. Finally, these remarks were removed to the talk page by CSloat, reinserted by Armon (edit summary "rv let's just let someone univoveled do the refactoring OK?") and then reverted by CSLOAT with the comment "it has already been moved and responded to, ok? (ed note: it was CSLoat himself had responded to it).

All other outside views have been allowed to stand. Does anyone object to my replacing the section exactly as biophys wrote it so anyone who feels like it could endorse before close? CSloats talk page comments to the outside views would of course stay on the talk page as they are entered now. I could put a note on the biophys page to ask him if he'd like to do it himself, alternately, however I don't want to further delay closing the RFC. Sloat has been very concerned about invalidating the RFC by putting things in the wrong places, so I expect he would be especially anxious that this bit is put where it rightfully should be. Bigglove 00:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No objection at all. Restore and close. I'd do it myself but I didn't wanna run the risk of my actions being misperceived. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The biophys stuff was not made according to policy. It was not in an "outside view" section; it was added (piled on as I noted above) to the actual RfC substance, threatening to expand this RfC without limit into a bully-fest. That's not what the process is for and I objected to his attempt to turn it towards his own agenda. My conflict with Biophys from months ago is entirely separate from this RfC. So I'd prefer to leave that on the talk page. Close the RfC and let's move on. csloat 06:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

O I see - he did do an outside view section but that appears different from what I moved. csloat 06:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I included all the diffs for what happened above. Could you review it and say what  you think we should do?  Bigglove 11:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to close it as it is. csloat 13:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, so your positino is that we should NOT correct Ryans move (by mistake in good faith) of a legitimately entered section of the RFC 20 minutes after another user posted it.  Bigglove 13:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * At this point, I believe my mistake has been entirely corrected. It was my mistake and so I've completed a self-revert. Csloat, I hope (and from your comment I believe) you don't really care either way. Close for the disputants to take whatever next steps they each believe (whether 'good faith' vows or ArbCom rows) are in the best interests of WP. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

better to let him speak for himself on this. Bigglove 14:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Always. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I already did, Bigglove. There's no need to continue delaying closing this.  You will get no argument from me whether you move biophys' extraneous comments or not. csloat 15:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, well since Biophys's "outside comment" was removed by Ryan (in good faith due to misunderstanding guideline) 20 minutes after it was placed and no one had a chance to see it, I will wait a little while and give Biophys the honor of letting it be seen and signed before I close. I don't think it helps to call the comment "extraneous" although it may or may not have been.  Bigglove 15:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It helps to the extent that it makes clear that it was extraneous. I don't see the point of belaboring this and I wonder why you feel the need to delay an RfC you consider resolved. csloat 19:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I explained above, and your tone is veering a little into a assumpton of abd faith. No one's comment should be labeled "extraneous". I left it open for a few hours for the reason I said above. I'm closing now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigglove (talk • contribs) 23:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

moved from front page

 * Re: the motion to close: this is up to people who certified the basis of this dispute by their signatures. I think we should wait and see if the behavior of Csloat has indeed been improved. So far, he filed an WP:ANI report to a person who initiated this RfC. This does not look encouraging.Biophys 17:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * From: Biophys' previous 'outside view': Please note that Csloat filed an WP:ANI report blaiming Bigglove of sockpuppetry, perhaps in reply to this RfC. This is hardly consistet with the cordial collaboration spirit mentioned above.Biophys 17:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Biophys 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not blame Bigglove for anything as both Biophys and Armon mistakenly assert. I reported my suspicions as is policy.  Those suspicions have not been fully answered, but I was very clear in the report that I did not know the answer and that I was not accusing anyone.  At least two uninvolved editors have already called my suspicions reasonable, but even if they are not reasonable, they are not accusations.  They also have no bearing on my handling of this RfC as I announced in my apology -- my statements were uncivil whether or not Bigglove is breaking other Wikipedia rules.  It is discouraging and appalling that instead of acknowledging my apology as an important step forward, both Armon and Biophys have tried to paint my attempt to clarify possible violations of policy as some sort of attempt to undermine this RfC or the collaboration process generally.  It speaks to severe violations of WP:AGF that I hope both of them acknowledge and repudiate. csloat 03:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a pretty full discussion of this on the sockpuppet report page. I was upset when I saw the sockpuppet report filed right after I filed this RFC. The timing felt retialitory to me, especially since and at the time he filed the sockpuppet report CSloat was also calling this RFC friviolous. He now admits to making a personal attack and using an assumption of bad faith to justify the attack. I will now admit that it is conceivable that his sockpuppet report was made in good faith. The apology process was a very very difficult one, becuase I perceived that Sloat was refusing to apologizing for what I accused him of, while he felt he has already apologized for what I accused him of and the ongoing negotiations around this retained the rancorous character of the original interaction. Now things are different because the full apology has been given and accepted. I hope we can move on. Bigglove 00:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope so too! csloat 06:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)