Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Either way

Someone help them out
Can someone experienced with RFCs help these users out in forming this? It's an odd collection of links that doesn't show clear connection to behaviors and patterns right now. Additionally, someone should probably guide them as to what decent points to raise actually are. Statements such as me being disruptive by discussing things in an RFA, or nominating "perfectly good and informative articles" for deletion is not going to be taken very seriously by experienced users viewing this (especially since one of the three "perfectly good and informative articles" is now deleted, and the other two are likely on their way out, too). Any help for them would be appreciated so that a proper discussion may be formed, either way (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you attempting to mock us? This is why we created this request.   -  down  load  ׀  sign!  03:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No comment from me one way or the other regarding the complaints against Either way, but I do agree that this seems extremely condescending. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm in no way, shape, or form attempting to be condescending, but I have big concerns about the way it's formatted and presented at the present time. If people find this unhelpful, I will remove this section.  either way (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To expand on this, while RFA is "no big deal," I believe that an RFC is "a big deal." If one is being filed and opened on me, I want it to be able to achieve full, thorough discussion.  My concern is that in the present form, a large percentage of the evidence being presented does not provide for a thorough discussion.  The specific points about the evidence I raised above are there because those really don't connect to the behaviours at all, and don't help their arguments against me out.  Like I said, I believe that refinement on their points and statements is needed right now, and I was hoping someone could/would help them out.  There was no attempt to mock or condescend through this.  If it comes off as such, then I apologize.  As I said, if people would like this section removed, I will do so, but it was added in good faith with an intent to improve this RFC.  either way (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of the outside viewers are not seeing the real Either way
Somehow, they are blinded from the truth. Wikipedia is supposed to be the main authority on information. Stuff like what he's doing is contrary to Wiki's reputation as the ultimate authority on everything. FMAFan1990 (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not provide some informative diffs or links? Let us see what it is that we should be commenting on. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 20:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying anyone who disagrees with you is "blinded from the truth" isn't going to help anyone see your side of the matter. The edits that were removed were trivial, and didn't belong in an encyclopedia. For example, you've just added this edit, which although properly sourced, is extremely trivial. Just because information exists doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article about a certain subject. Dayewalker (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this was a very notable film for Murphy. FMAFan1990 (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And by saying stuff doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, you are practically saying that there shouldn't be encyclopedias at all. Almost anything that can be taken from reliable sources belongs in an encyclopedia. FMAFan1990 (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, as evidenced by the fact you admitted to having to search very hard to find your information. In any case, it's only one example. Opinions will differ when the information being presented is not clearly notable.


 * Taking comments that say extremely trivial points don't belong in an encyclopedia, and expanding that to say the comment is saying there should be no encyclopedias at all is ridiculous. No offense intended, but I'm not going to bother to debate that point. Just read the notability guidelines. Dayewalker (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That bit about Murphy is true. As bare as it is, it's a factoid, in the "true but insignificant" meaning. What would help that article about the movie is saying something like "Murphy said in blahblah interview that it was different working with Buena Vista rather than Paramount because the Disney people did blahblahblahblah...[ref]"

<==There is no "the real Either way" to see. Most here judge the user solely by his editing actions and interactions, even if they don't know him in person. I would have performed very many of Either way's edits if I were him. I think deleting content is healthy for the wiki, especially when "subject x" trivia is wedged into the article about "subject y". Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * May I remind you that Wikipedia is not censored for any reason whatsoever and that it is also not paper? FMAFan1990 (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're misquoting both of those policies. Removal of unencyclopedic content is neither censorship nor done for purposes of length. It's because they don't fit in an encyclopedia, and don't add quality content as per consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

In any case, either way's behavior is causing users to feel stressful about Wikipedia. I have no problem with his edits, and he should continue doing so. However, he should either find content to edit by searching it or clicking Special:Random, not stalking others' edits.  - down  load  ׀  sign!  22:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be a lot easier to ignore the other editors if FMAFan1990 seemed likely to understand the point. Right now, he had some of edits reverted for being trivial and rather than ask why and how he can increase the quality of his edits, he's taken a case against the other editor to ANI and now an RfC.


 * In all honesty, FMAFan1990 is just alerting more editors that his edits may be trivial, he neither gets it yet nor cares, and that some one should keep an eye out for him until he learns better. I pointed out above another trivial edit he made (which was agreed by another editor), and was roundly ignored. Dayewalker (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that some editors feel stressed because some of their less important work was deleted. The desired emotional result (everybody is happy) isn't as important as the result of a well-written encyclopedia, if the two come to a head (as they've done here.) Say, Download, can you show me something that was your best work that was deleted by Either way? Binksternet (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dayewalker, what you said about me may constitute slander, and may therefore be an NPA violation. I have made many good edits too, but you can't just point fingers at me. Now, I need to tell you something. I have Asperger syndrome. This makes my real life a lot hard. And having to deal with stuff like this online just makes it worse. FMAFan1990 (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you've been so diagnosed. However, you having a condition which makes it hard to edit on WP is your cross to bear, not ours. If I had no hands and had to type with my elbows or something, that would be my own personal challenge to deal with, not yours. Binksternet (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And another thing, knowledge is power. FMAFan1990 (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yo Joe! FMAFan1990, I mean no personal offense to you. I understand what you're trying to do here, but the main point I'm making is your edits were reverted by EW, but they could have been removed by anyone. That doesn't mean you don't have good edits also, you're obviously here for the better of the encyclopedia. It just seems like you've taken it personally that EW has reverted you. Sometimes, it's just best to walk away from conflicts and try and do better next time. If you feel that EW is reverting edits of yours in the future that aren't trivial, you can bring this up again. Dayewalker (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing Dayewalker said is even remotely close to being slander or a personal attack. I'd just like to state that for the record before anyone takes something out of context and looks at Dayewalker in a different light.  either way (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem about deleting our hard work; if it violates policy of course it should be deleted. As for examples, articles such as Seven ways to greet a neighbor and Washington State Mathematics Championship have been nominated for deletion due to Either way. It's obvious that he's purposely trying to cause stress to other users. We're simply asking that Either way stay away from following others' contribs, as over time it gets extremely annoying.  - down  load  ׀  sign!  22:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting that I click on "random article" to possibly find violations to fix, instead of clicking on someone's contributions and knowing there are things that need to be fixed. Seems like a very inefficient path towards building an encyclopedia.  And, no, I'm not "purposefully trying to cause stress," (and I'm the one that doesn't assume good faith?) I'm trying to clean up and fix the project.  If your articles were as important and necessary as you are saying they are, then would they have been supported in the AFDs as they have been?  Clearly these articles are unnecessary for Wikipedia as proven by one already being deleted, and others that are more than likely to be closed as delete.  either way (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no denying that your edits are causing stress to other users. We're asking you, as a person, to stop hounding us.   -  down  load  ׀  sign!  23:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you feel stressed. If you feel that way, then you are probably investing too much emotionally into Wikipedia and should step away for some time.  You agree each time you edit to allow your contributions to be "edited mercilessly," so it is a reasonable expectation that sometimes your edits are going to be reverted or deleted out of the encyclopedia.  It happens to many people here.  either way (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you read over WP:Trivia and discuss your revisions in the corresponding talk page before reverting. Just because you have admin privs does not mean you can revert others' edits without discussion.   -  down  load  ׀  sign!  23:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You really think I need to go to the talk page of an article and start a discussion about removing "[Brady] Anderson would play one more season, with the Cleveland Indians" from an article about Cal Ripken, Jr.? That's completely unnecessary.  I'm well within my editor "privs" to remove such unnecessary trivia from an article.  either way (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

←As long as there's conflict about your edit, the least you can do is drop a note leaving the basis of why you removed it.  - down  load  ׀  sign!  23:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The way I do it is I delete the stuff that shouldn't be in the article and I immediately leave a comment about why I did it on the talk page. It seems like users will learn the ropes more quickly when they see the reasoning behind why their bit got squashed. Perhaps Either way can agree to employ this method. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The exception, of course, is if the edit summary suffices to explain why. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which was done here and here. And in edit summaries as Binksternet suggests.  either way (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing
See here, for what it's worth. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ooooh, one link does not canvass make. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 23:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It's pretty clear that knew you have been in a dispute(s) with Either way, so notifying you individually of this RfC was inappropriate. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From my response, I have been watching the RfC, so the notification was a couple days too late. Plus, I was the one who asked for the RfC in the first place on the ANI thread.  I seen nothing inappropriate about letting me know about something.  It would be different if he were telling me how and where to vote, but letting me know about something is like letting someone know about a thread on ANI about themselves. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 23:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why did he choose to inform you about it, instead of the other users? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a question you would have to ask him and not me. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 23:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think this is a blatant canvassing here at all. The thing that raises it to "suspicious" though is that FMAFan1990 made the comment after he was informed that only one user has certified this so far.  So, the timing is what makes it appear to be canvassing to some.  either way (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "I need you to certify..." – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I found that as slight canvassing, but I didn't bother saying anything. I think my response to FMAFan1990 showed I really have no horse in this race and frankly don't really care.  I will certify the bloody thing, but beyond that, I just don't care. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 23:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And that, in a nutshell, is what canvassing is. It's getting someone to do something you want when they have no "horse in the race."  either way (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dude, you can't say "I don't think this is a blatant canvassing here at all" and then say it is canvassing. See, this is exactly why I don't have to deal with this because it becomes one big pissing match of flip-flopping statements with you and I don't need the migraine. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 23:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the first comment JC linked to isn't blatant canvassing. The second comment that "I need you to certify" is canvassing.  My first comment was in response to JC's first comment.  either way (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ....and this, my friends, is why I have no horse in this race. You need a freakin' score card and secret decoder ring to decypher what Either way/Metros is saying half the damned time. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 23:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Or you just need to follow the thread of the conversation to see the logical progression. Please refrain from incivility and knock it off with the "Either way/Metros" stuff.  As I have made very clear to you, there is no need to be adding my former user name every where, especially when you, yourself, get upset when I invoke your past user names, and sockpuppets.  either way (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no incivility there in that statement, those are my true feelings and the reason why I don't want anything to do with you or this damned RfC. Second, I don't believe I have ever gotten upset when you "invoke" my past user names.  They are there for all to see and everyone knows about them.  Finally, telling someone to "knock it off"...that is incivil. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 23:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Certification
As of right now, there is only one signature to certify the basis for this dispute (Download's). It is now 49 hours since it has opened. This should be deleted as two signatures for certification are required. Please note that Neutralhomer's signature in the endorsement should not be moved to certification unless he moves it himself. either way (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought we established above that I certified the bloody thing? -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 03:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If that is what you intended, you put your signature in the wrong place. I have moved it to the correct place a courtesy here.  Certification means that you have "tried and failed to resolve the dispute" so if that is not what you actually mean, you'll need to undo the move. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the courtesy move. Much appreciated.  I have tried to resolve my dispute with Either Way/Metros, but for whatever reason, he has some issue with me that he won't let go of. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 05:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Responding to evidence
Later I'll probably post a response to the dispute, but for now, I want to response to pieces of the evidence.
 * 1) "This administrator has misused his powers" There has been no evidence given that I have used the sysop tools inappropriately.
 * 2) All of the "easily-challenged" reverts show a consistent application of policy and guidelines in taking out original research and trivial info.
 * 3) I don't see the purpose of the link in point 2. I never engaged in personal attacks, tendentiousness, or disruptive behavior (especially in regards to "point").
 * 4) The "threat" was in response to your "threat" to get a person to intervene and to show you what could happen if further edits occurred. It was a warning of sorts.
 * 5) Point 6 is just a collection of links to articles. "Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article." It also does not show abuse of authority.
 * 6) I have already responded to point 7 in a section above.
 * 7) As for policies: it has not been shown (especially based on the evidence) how I have violated any of these policies.
 * a. I have never thought that any of these users was acting in bad faith.
 * b. Hound states that what I've done is absolutely "proper": "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles."
 * c. I don't see how any of this has been harassing.
 * d. Why is not censored being linked to? I don't see any diffs to where I took out curse words or anything of the like.
 * e. As for PRESERVE: "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing tagged if necessary..." (I've added the bolding here). The info. I have taken out does not belong in a "finished" article.
 * 8. The link to the incidents noticeboard in "evidence of trying to resolve..." section does not show trying to resolve, but rather, trying to get other people to take action against me.
 * 9. The second link there shows an abrasive tone. There was no thought of resolving there but rather a "You better knock this off...or else!" tone.
 * 10. The evidence of resolution failing shows again that you continue to edit inappropriately, and that I continue to clean it up.

Sorry for this longer post, but I think the evidence needs to be addressed. either way (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To respond to the recent addition to the evidence: "someone else did it first" and "but the person I reverted is an anon" are never reasons to violate policy (and the second part shows incredibly bad faith: anons are just as equal in Wikipedia articles as anyone else). And as for this addition, as I've stated, using someone's contributions to fix policy violations against multiple article histories is, by the very definition of hounding, not hounding.  either way (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is if the user gets emotionally abused by it. FMAFan1990 (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Certification II
I stand by my deletion, as two people have not tried to resolve the dispute in question. Participating in a thread at AN/I is not dispute resolution. If we could quickly get some feedback from disinterested parties as to whether the certification is valid, I think it would be best. seresin ( ¡? )  18:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're looking for disinterested parties, posting here probably won't help. Try the RFC talk page, or a noticeboard.  either way (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two users who have certified the RfC, certification is valid and the RfC is back in business. I think this section is resolved now. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 23:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read Seresin's concerns, you'll see that you can't just slap a few signatures in there and call it certified. You have to show how resolution has been attempted by each certifying party. There is no evidence in there of Download trying to resolve it, for example.  either way (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Odd, never seen this happen with other RfCs. It is almost like you are trying to hide something that you don't want people to find out on this RfC, you simply can't wait to get this thing deleted.  Kinda fishy. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 23:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, not really. If you look at the section above, where I analyzed the evidence here, you'll notice there really is nothing here that's showing inappropriate actions. either way (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is your take on it. An RfC is about everyone's take on you.  Your take on yourself is going to be Mr. Clean spotless...it is your take on yourself, it should be.  This is why it isn't, to be honest, worth reading as we are here to comment on you, not have you comment on yourself. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 23:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on the outside views, though, I'd say that the view I hold is not self-bloated or anything like that. Additionally, if people judge negatively based on the evidence presented here, I'd be okay with that, because everything I've been doing is in good faith and works to better the project.  either way (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would definitely disagree with that. I think you work for the "better of the project" when it works for you.  The other half of the time, it is pissing matches like these.  Anyway....it is dinner time here at the Neutralhomer household, so I will let you talk amongst yourself for awhile. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 23:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you say so. Anyway, hopefully non-involved editors can weigh in like Seresin has suggested.  either way (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What is with the condescending "if you say so"....I am walking away and you are trying to keep things going. See, this is why you are in this RfC...your attitude towards everyone around you.  Now, do me a favor and disengage. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 02:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (unindent) It's an RFC on me; I'm not disengaging from a discussion that surrounds me. If you're trying to walk away...actually walk away, you keep coming back. And the "if you say so" and change of subject to hoping someone would come in to offer other opinions was a form of trying to get this disengaged and it was supposed to allow you a way out, but no, you decided to jump back on it.  either way (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean disengage from this little back and forth thing we have going on. Remember, you are the admin...the bigger person...you are supposed to know when to walk away from a conversation or thread before us lowly editors.  Now, I will do what you seem not to be able to.  Bye :) -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 03:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I had set it to be disengaged, but you brought it back up in taking fault with what I said once again. I was trying to get it back on topic to the certification, but you reengaged, so please dont' say I have the problem disengaging.  Remember, hours ago you were the one saying "I don't want anything to do with you anymore" and you've made dozens of edits about me since then.  either way (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Certification III
I am a disinterested, but less experienced, editor. From what I'm reading and looking at this as just a RFC on the wikihounding, it seems that FMAFan1990 and Neutralhomer could be the two who certify the RFC. Both have had a similar dispute, which you call one dispute if you wanted, and they both tried to resolve it, at least by asking EW not to follow them around. Since the way EW approached them caused some amount of friction, there might even be some benefit to discussing or modifying that approach and I wouldn't be surprised if EW welcomed the feedback of a good RFC, since he seems to be acting in good faith and in the interest of the encyclopedia. I'm not sure, though, that enough effort has been put into trying to resolve this outside of RFC and it's not obvious to me that there is going to be much feedback beyond "leave me alone." I'd recommend to everyone that this RFC be closed, that FMAFan1990 try to reach a compromise with EW and, failing that, try Wikiquette alerts and only come back here if those attempts fail. That would allow for a later RFC that isn't tarnished with canvassing and certification questions. Celestra (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts. You didn't write much about certification; you mostly expounded about things that could be presented at Requests_for_comment/Either_way. Feel free to participate there. Your opinion is every bit as worthy as any other outsider's. Binksternet (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close
From the comments raised at this RfC, is anything else needed here? The presentation of evidence is misleading at best, and several users agree that there has been no wrong-doing. Peter Symonds</b> ( talk ) 11:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned this case is closed. Yinta ɳ   13:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it might be better to keep the RfC open, if only for the sake of transparency and openness. If there's more support for the position that there are no grounds for the original complaint, then it will be easier for Download and NeutralHomer to understand and accept that, and if future comments say that Either way needs to change their conduct, I'm sure they will be heeded.   S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 14:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not quite sure what I need to "understand and accept", but I have no horse in this race as I have previously stated. If you all want to close this, I will not object. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 14:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding what you ought to understand and accept - read the views of everyone who responded to the Request for Comments that you made.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 14:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't made any comments on this RfC. The only that you will find my sig on is the certification and that is it.  So, please enlighten me on what I "ought to understand and accept" cause I ain't followin'. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 14:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(un-dent) When you certify an RfC, you are saying that you are a party to the dispute, that you desire a particular outcome, and that you have tried and failed to resolve it, and that you are Requesting Comments from other editors.

In this case, your request has been granted. Unfortunately, no one has yet posted to support your desired outcome, but several other opinions have been offered...
 * Requests_for_comment/Either_way
 * Requests_for_comment/Either_way
 * Requests_for_comment/Either_way
 * Requests_for_comment/Either_way

Since you requested comments, I hope that you are going to pay attention to what they actually say. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 14:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, to be honest, I haven't followed this thing that closely. I personally didn't see any change coming from this RfC, even though I certified it.  I read the other comments and pretty much all of them said there was no problem with the edits, which is pretty much what I expected and half the reason I didn't bother being a part of the RfC...the other half, didn't want the stress. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 14:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By signing you became a part of this RfC. I sure hope you're paying more attention to the details when you sign things in real life... Yinta ɳ   20:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Support Motion to Close Withdrawing support to close. - Second? - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 07:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Alleged canvassing by User:Either way
Oppose Either way is clearing email canvassing (if it were on here we would know). He just wanted people to stand up for him, instead of them standing up for the little guys (me, Download, and NeutralHomer). He is misusing his power to get others to agree with him. FMAFan1990 (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again with a horrible assumption of bad faith. Why is it that those who oppose me here feel it's okay to assume bad faith towards me and bring forth completely false and unfounded accusations?  either way (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You yourself are assuming bad faith by just reverting my edits as if my account were a toy. And it's NOT a toy. FMAFan1990 (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't use me as a "little guys" example. I will say again....I have no horse in this race and wish not to be brought up as if I do. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 15:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand this: by certifying this RFC, you have officially declared yourself as having a horse in this race. If you don't have a horse here, remove your certification.  either way (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I certified it, but that doesn't mean I have a horse in the race. I certified it so there would be comment, no more no less.  I have, above, supported the motion to close.  So, one way or another, I want to see it closed...the right way. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 20:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not the way certification works. It's not "I certify this so that people talk about it," it's "I certify this because (as shown by the evidence I have added above) I have experienced the same problems and will like to work resolution."  Your definition of certification is wrong.  either way (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence, please? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Second Sorry FMAFan, there's no ulterior motive or recruitment going on. Editors have looked at this RfC and made their decisions. It's time to close out and move on, and turn all of our attentions to other things. Dayewalker (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Deny if you will, but I stand by my statements. FMAFan1990 (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would love to see any evidence that I was canvassed, to be sure.  This is about the cleanest RFC/U in aeons. Collect (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Take it you're accusing me of being canvassed as well because I dared to disagree with you? Show some evidence. Hell, show some suggestion. – iride  scent   22:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I came here because of your ANI thread FMAFan. I have never had any prior contact with either way at all.

I'd advice you to acknowledge (to yourself) that you just might actually be wrong and learn from your mistakes. A majority of your edits, although made in good faith, were bad and needed reverted. It is OK to make mistakes - we all do. Learn from your mistakes and become a better editor instead of insisting that you are right and consensus if wrong. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ditto what ThaddeusB said, including the part about having no prior contact with either way. Kcowolf (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't had an email from Either way for 11 months. I haven't had an email about this RfC at all. Actually, I haven't even mentioned nor heard mention of this RfC by anyone. The accusation of email canvassing is possibly the most hypocritical assumption of bad faith I've seen on the English Wikipedia in a while. Such ill-founded and baseless comments are normally made for those persons who now grace the Simple English Wikipedia, and I must say that FMAFan certainly carries the traits of a number of those users (many of whom are/were banned from the English Wikipedia). Daniel (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Allegations of canvassing should either be substantiated, or withdrawn. I have received no email from anyone involved in this RfA. I came here as a result of an ANI thread.   S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 13:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The allegations of canvassing are totally without weight, evidence and fact. This is not something to worry about. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 13:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I found this RFC because I wanted to vote on Download's RFA and looked into his past contributions. I don't think I've ever communicated with Eitherway. You're doing yourself no favours, FMAFan. Yinta ɳ  14:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * FMAFan1990 has withdrawn his allegations. Since that's resolved, and there's support (from one of the "certifiers", no less) for it above, I'm going to close the RfC shortly barring objection. seresin ( ¡? )  21:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since it seems above that Either way/Metros would rather have a pissing match over whether I have a horse in this race or not or just be damned happy that I am supporting the motion to close, I am withdrawning my support of the motion to close. We need a new second....don't think that will be too hard to find. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 07:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He is currently named Either way. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Second motion to close, if I'm allowed to do so as an outside observer. Binksternet (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also second the motion to close, and I am also simply an observer. — neuro  (talk)  13:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Motion to reopen
As creator, I should have final say on whether the RFC should close. Since I was against it, I want it reopened. I won't restore my canvassing accusations, but at least I want more people who feel they have been wronged to comment, as the RFC as it stands is very biased. After all, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges and Special:Random are not here for no reason. They should serve to curb hounding, but that seems to have failed. FMAFan1990 (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As this has been dormant for over a week and was filed more than three weeks ago, I'd strongly recommend not reopening this case without new concerns or evidence of something needing comment. Dayewalker (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * FMAFan1990, maybe an RFC should be opened about your continued editing against the policies and guidelines. Please stop adding random trivia to articles.  Thanks, either way (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Additionally, this RFC isn't biased, it's just a statement that my actions were not as inappropriate as you want to believe. "A lot of people support the other guy but not me" does not equal bias. either way (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, just following a user around is itself against the policies and guidelines. Think about it. It's very similar to cyberbullying. FMAFan1990 (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, next time you revert one of my edits = WP:AIAV. Just a little forewarning. FMAFan1990 (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What will it take for you to understand that my edits are perfectly within the guidelines of WP:HOUND as it allows for "following" a user's edits to clean up problems spanning across multiple entries. Additionally, any AIAV report you make against me will be easily removed as it is in no way blatant vandalism.  either way (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As Download pointed out, if you wanted to edit articles, there is Special:Random - or even Special:Recentchanges, which I pointed out. Use those instead of bullying me, please. FMAFan1990 (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Or if I wanted to keep the Wikipedia free of useless, uncited trivia, I could take a peek at your contributions. either way (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to keep an encyclopedia free of this so-called useless stuff, you could start your own wiki. FMAFan1990 (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you want to add this useless stuff, you could start your own wiki with guidelines and policies that allow that useless stuff. But, on this wiki, that useless stuff is not allowed.  either way (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)FMAFan1990, do you have any new accusations that you are being followed around? If not, as I said above it's probably best just to leave this RFC alone, since the majority of responders agreed you weren't being hounded or stalked unreasonably. Furthermore, threatening another editor with a false report isn't the way we do things around here. Quite a few of your edits are random unsourced trivia, and can be undone by any other editor who disagrees with you. Dayewalker (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The horse has been beaten enough. Let it rest in peace. There is no consensus to reopen, and you do not have the final say in this matter. So no, case closed, back to work. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 02:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)