Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fairness And Accuracy For All

Derex's Request
Per Derex's request I will make a breakdown of FAAFA specific incidents: As per this I feel the bahaviour simply continued under the new name, there are posts on his talk page of people feeling the same way: Mt apologies to FAAFA if you take this as an attack, however seeing as Derex told me I should file the RfC already, and is now requesting a breakdown, I feel its appropriate to post in defense of myself. Hope this doesn't affect our ability to come to a resolution. --Nuclear Zer0 01:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT
 * Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground
 * Other
 * Accusations
 * Vote stacking
 * WP:C
 * Disruption / Threats
 * Points 4,5,6
 * WP:CIVIL / WP:NPA
 * Points 5,6,8
 * Comment above striken as Derex feels he did not push me to file the RfC. I took his comment that I should file an RfC or it was going to look like harrassment, as a push to do it, however Derex felt other wise. My apologies if you feel you are misrepresented Derex. --Nuclear Zer0 03:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I said that keeping a running tally of edits over a long period of time was harassing. Nothing wrong with a workpage preparing an action, but it shouldn't become a stalking page. As to the RFC, I simply said that arbcom was unlikely to take the case without one. My opinion is that FAAFA has learned to stay largely within the rules since his last block (under the old name), as you have largely since your arbcom sanction. However, you both have acted petulantly and baited each other. What I'd like is for you two to simply stop interacting, whoever started it, and that would solve much of both your behavioral problems. Just don't comment on each other. Derex 03:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You said you have felt he has been acting within reason yet we have above 3 uncivil comments, 1 being a personal attack, a case of votestacking, wild accusations, attempts to turn Wikipedia into another front in the CU/DU war and an instance of adding copywritten material. While the WP:CIVIL issues have gone down I would argue he is more disruptive now as WP:C is a big issue for Wikipedia and WP:NOT a battleground is even more serious as it hurts the colaborative efforts of this project when outside issues are brought here, or continued here. I thank you for your comment however, when you asked me to show what has happened under FAAFA, I was expecting more of a surprise, but I guess some of this doesn't seem to bad at all to you personally. --Nuclear Zer0 14:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't say I'm really overwhelmed by the diffs matching this list, particularly discounting stuff not including the noticeboard debate, which you well know my opinion of. Let me put it this way: I can easily put together a more compelling RFC case on you. I don't think FAAFA has behaved well, but I do try to keep things in perspective. You've repeatedly gone out of your way to harass this user, so a complaint based on interactions during that harassment bears very little weight with me. I advise you to not seek out interactions with him. Derex 09:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You can actually add what you want to the existing RfC noted in FAAFA's response section, the section that doesnt actually respond to the points made. I reccomend you do if you have a complaint and you also read the replies to the RfC, as many felt it should not have been opened at all and most of those editors have left Wikipedia since then after realizing this is not a place for soapbox'ing. As for harrassment, I would actually like you to document when I harrassed this user as you are now making an accusation. Thank you. --Nuclear Zer0 21:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Response: 1) To allege that my comments to TWO editors, on articles we share a common interest is 'votestacking' is absurd. This is a much smaller number than the accuser notified of this RfC, and I did not ask the editors I contacted for any specfic action. 2) I filed an ANI on CU, as I believed (and still do) that the personal insults and possible meatpuppety going on there were so egregious that it should be brought to the attention of Admins. The editor in question clearly baited BenBurch, as he called him out by name, and said he 'knew' he read CU. Rather than this incident being an attempt by me to 'import off Wiki Drama', I contend that this was a case of a Wiki editor purposely baiting and attacking another Wiki editor, (and me as well) off Wiki, in a venue where he knew there was no NPA policy, and meatpuppety, on a forum where Meatpuppetry regarding Wiki issues has been documented in the past. more to come - F.A.A.F.A.
 * I am not sure what meatpuppetry has to do with all this, one editors possible bad issues are no excuse for breaking rules and guidelines yourself, I am sure you are well aware of this already. The issue of vote stacking isnt because you messaged people to let them know, that is permitted in a non-bias manner, however your messages as displayed by the dif's were surely not neutral remarks. Again I ask, please do not turn Wikipedia into a battleground for off wiki stuff. Your actions are being considered here and instead of discussing them, you attack. CU/DU drama needs to stay there and I ask again for you to leave it there where it belongs and not contribute to turning Wikipedia into an extended battleground of that place. Two wrongs don't make a right either and votestacking is about bias messages, not simply alerting people to the existence. --Nuclear Zer0 04:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

In Response to: New Allegations
Note that it appears that user Nuclear Zer0 posted (spammed?) the same message in order to solicit comment on this RfC on multiple user pages, and not ONCE did he document his actions, motives, nor the content of his posts in his edit summaries:

22:12 10 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Junglecat (→Thank you...) (top) 22:08, 10 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Durova (→Could you talk with Shell Kinney?) (top) 22:06, 10 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:CheNuevara (→November Esperanza Newsletter) 22:04, 10 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dman727 (→RE: Your revert message to 194.8.192.4) 22:03, 10 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Morton devonshire (→I don't follow your comment: 1RR)  22:02, 10 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:GabrielF (→November Esperanza Newsletter) (top) 22:01, 10 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:MONGO (→Warning for your recent vandalism..) 22:00, 10 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tbeatty (→Closing Hacking Democracy AfD) (top)

Odd huh? - F.A.A.F.A. 01:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: These comments were removed from FAAFA/NBGPWS's response section per formatting and replying rules. While I appreciate the votes of support we are technically not suppose to edit in eachother sections. If you guys want to comment you have to create a new section below where it says "Outside view of X" X being your name, then after that write your input. You can also write where me and TBeatty have written if you feel you are directly part of the overall conflict, giving a paragraph statement or so and signing. Thanks again for your support everyone, but I do not want FAAFA thinking I am selectively applying formatting rules, your comments are more then welcomed however in the appropriate sections. --Nuclear Zer0 03:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I received one of the notices on my talk page and I did not find it to be spam or odd. FAAFA/NBGPWS and I are on opposite sides of a current content dispute and therefore it seemed reasonable to me to solicit my input.  I'm glad that I was notified.  For the momment, I am reserving comment(beyond this one), however I do not consider 8 requests for comments to be spam nor inappropriate. Dman727 02:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with the notification either. I have asked to be informed on these type of matters - Especially recently after the behavior of one editor- F.A.A.F.A. JungleCat    talk / contrib  02:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually thanked Nuclear for notifying me, as I had just begun attempting a new mediation of the article. - Che Nuevara  02:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I will say that I did find it a little bizarre that Nuclear didn't put the section at the bottom, but rather split an old section, but it didn't really bother me, and I'm willing to assume he was well-intentioned, lacking evidence to the contrary. - Che Nuevara  03:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with his notices. They would fall well within the "Friendly Notice" section of WP:SPAM. Jinxmchue 03:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Nuclear for the info on this RfC. I knew I was going to do something wrong. JungleCat   talk / contrib  03:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Its no problem its a complicated proccess at first, if it helps you can post what you want to say on my talk page or this talk page for sake of transparency and I will add it in in the appropriate section etc. Its really just the format that is a pain to grasp, and the habit of not directly responding under others comments. --Nuclear Zer0 03:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment : I believe the evidence will show that in every case documented, NU went so far as to add a new section, named RFC, and attempted to disguise his actions by referencing the section above. Many might consider such actions highly suspect. NU's 'creative' use of edit summaries (note that I am leaving for the evening, and won't be responding till tomorrow) - F.A.A.F.A. 03:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The section above is references whenever you add a new section header to a location. I believe this is a limitation of the script where it cannot reference a header it has not actually created yet. Perhaps it has to do with the order in which records are placed and the inforamtion is actually written. For instance feel free to visit say Derex's talk page and create a new section using ==Example Header== and you will see the edit summary will references the section before it. While I could add this to AGF, I would rather you see this as a simple over reaction on your part. --Nuclear Zer0 03:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A good example is this edit you made, it says you simply posted in the section called response, however you actually created a new section, thus demonstrating my point. There was no attempt to hide anything. --Nuclear Zer0 03:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For future reference, Nuclear, that's true on article pages ... but on talk pages you can click the "+" button on the article bar and it will add a new section with a separate field for the name of the section; the name of the new section will become the edit summary. - Che Nuevara  17:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

FAAFA, it's really beside the point who was notified. You are free to notify people as well. Personally, I think NuclearZer0 has consistently gone to tremendous effort to bait you. But, that will be dealt with separately. You should respond to the merits, not the procedure. Derex 03:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point! - F.A.A.F.A. 08:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A minor note
Crockspot notes this ANI incident filed by FAAFA. It's truly fascinating stuff, but it was dismissed for being about off-wiki content. I do think it's indicative that the underlying problem here goes beyond FAAFA. There's some war spilling over onto Wikpedia from elsewhere, and all parties involved in personal conflicts should simply step away from articles related to political message boards. Some people handle it fine, but it's clear that some here are emotionally invested in this off-wiki conflict, and it is reflected in edits here. ... Out of equity, it's also worth noting that the complaint about FAAFA's old moniker were also based on off-wiki content, as he never brought up the meaning here. Derex 06:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with you partially, that AN/I post is highlited in the RfC under Wikipedia is not a battleground. The importing of that DU/CU drama while under the name FAAFA is another problem that hurts this projects colaborative effort. While more then FAAFA is involved, he is the first one to attempt to escalate it by attempting to seek administrative intervention over it, taking it from snide comments, to something entirely larger. --Nuclear Zer0 14:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have an off-wiki conflict with FAAFA, at least I don't think I do, since his off-wiki identity in unknown to me. CU contributors have been taking shots at liberals for years. It's what we do there. I try to keep my CU and WP contributions separate, as they are completely different animals, and require a completely different behavior. FAAFA is the one who keeps dragging off-wiki things to wiki. But I do appreciate that his complaint allowed me to insult him on wiki, without actually insulting him on wiki. I think Karl Marx had a name for people like that... - Crockspot 14:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Deletionist'?


 * No off Wiki conflict? Crockpot's Personal Attack - F.A.A.F.A. 19:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am starting to understand now that you are a DW member, which is a blog that I was banned from long ago, after a few hours of membership. I have personally attacked hundreds of left wing bloggers on CU since that time, so forgive me if you or any momentary conflict I may or may not have had with you does not stand out in my memory. It seems you have a long memory, a huge axe to grind with it, and the benefit of hiding behind a different username. Do you have any evidence of personal attacks of you by me ON wiki? I suggest you check my edit history and block log and compare them to yours before you attempt (albeit feebly) to impugn my character. But please clarify for me, what role did you play in this recent organizing to disrupt Wikipedia, which contains a vicious personal attack against me? It's ok, you can be honest. I won't run whining to the Wiki adminis about it, though I may label you as a hypocrite. You're overmatched buddy. It's time you realized that. - Crockspot 16:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow ..... Just wow. - F.A.A.F.A. 18:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is why off wiki stuff should stay off wiki, apparently you have skeletons just like others here or feel that comments made there would stay there. This is again why I advocate the seperation of those furms and this project as well as any issues that exist there not carrying on here. Its like when you goto work, if you haev a aproblem with someone in your team from outside work, you don't bring it to work. --Nuclear Zer0 21:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He is not interacting with you on CU (or anywhere else), thus it is not a conflict with you. And besides, his comment on CU happened after the dispute here started, not the other way around. Jinxmchue 04:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I couldn't have an off-Wiki conflict with him even if I wanted to. Both DU and DW ban anyone with the slightest bit of independent and original thinking. Jinxmchue 16:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice ad-hom, but not really helpful. - F.A.A.F.A. 19:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What ad-hom? It's the truth, isn't it? DU and DW ban everyone who doesn't totally agree with their beliefs, don't they? That's not encouraging independent or original thinking. And my comment is, in fact, helpful as the assumption was made that everyone involved in this dispute is bringing it here from interactions on other boards. I may have had some sort of interaction with you, but if so, it's not been for a long time. I'm simply clearing that up. Jinxmchue 04:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to read WP again? RfC's are not SOAPboxes, nor appropriate places for you to complain about DU's and DW's policies which prohibit you and your ilk from posting there. (the same policies which ban me from FR, and don't bother me in the least) - F.A.A.F.A. 06:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Outside Views"
In case anyone truly outside does actually come along, it should be noted that most of the "Outside views", and endorsers of them are not actually "outside" at all (including me). Most of those folks have been involved with FAAFA one way or another. No one means the word "outside" to be deceptive, because that's the default language for a non-complainant. But, right now the great majority of people signing that page have past dealings with the principals. Just wanted to clarify the situation.

As an important example, consider Ruthfulbarity who endorsed Durova's view. Here is an important example of that not being particularly "outside". Derex 09:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - WOW! I had forgotten ALL about that - THANKS! - F.A.A.F.A. 10:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Outside means people not involved in the current dispute listed in the difs, not meaning they know nothing of the person. Also supporting an outsdie view doesnt mean you are also outside, you can read more about the RfC proccess on the RfC main page. --Nuclear Zer0 15:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I consider myself pretty "outside" to the current dispute, although if anyone disagrees with that they're free to change the header on my section to something else. - Che Nuevara  19:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there is a misunderstanding, outside view doesnt mean you are a passerby. I hope Derex and FAAFA will read up on the RfC page to get a better idea of the formatting, they can also ask an admin if they feel like it, they should be able to explain it to them. --Nuclear Zer0 21:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand the formatting perfectly. Generally, an RFC is requesting comment from the community at large. It's pretty clear what those involved in the conflicts already think. One important use of "outside view" is for uninvolved people to survey the evidence and make a conclusion. Unfortunately the standard template makes no distinction between uninvolved users (i.e. community at large) and users outside only the present conflict (i.e. those with past conflicts with the participants). As I said, and Che affirms, some of the signers are uninvolved, however most have a history with this user. Not casting aspersions at anyone, just clarifying the record. Derex 03:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please repost the deleted content
Where is the original list I posted of the editors that NU contacted about this RfC? When I challenged NU about not using edit summaries, he replied that he seldom did. Whomever deleted this can please repost it. (I hope I didn't delete it! LOL!)

Interesting to note that recently when NU DID use an edit summary, and posted a substantial amount of info in it - he used it to ask that someone ELSE use edit summaries!

12:53, 24 October 2006 NuclearUmpf (Talk | contribs) (revert #2, please use edit summaries, these section do not contain allegations of terrorism, please do not revert without providing them. Thank you.)

F.A.A.F.A. 10:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I mainly use edit sumaries when reverting, there is a program that actually counts how often someone uses edit summaries, you can use that if you still want to argue that I use edit summaries. I will attempt to do it tomorrow when I am back at work if it makes you feel better, or you can simply look at my edit history and see how often they are used. --Nuclear Zer0 15:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I found the tool, its by someone named mathbot. Anyway here you go that is my edit summary usage stats of my last 150 edits. I hope that clears up this matter. --Nuclear Zer0 17:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to encourage you to start using edit summaries regularly. I enabled the "warn me if I submit an edit without an edit summary" option a while ago, which is inordinately helpful. - Che Nuevara  17:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It would slow down my work too much to constantly use them, most people just write what they wrote in the message in the summary, which is pointless to me and figure people can just click the dif button if they want to know. I use them when its somethnig controversial like reverting, however I dont have the patience to write edit summaries when I am fixing 30+ reference tags in an article or slowly building an article from scratch. --Nuclear Zer0 18:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This, honestly, is not acceptable. JBKramer 18:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To find that of everythnig here this most peaks you to a response is pretty odd. However soothes the masses I will post the first sentence into the edit summary box so completely useless edit summaries are made. You started a section on a page called Seagulls and made the edit summary seagulls ... thats not very useful, wouldnt an appropriate edit summary be "created section on summaries, requesting assistance" or something to that fact? The point I am maknig is not that your edit summaries are useless, just that in general they are not actually helpful and just lead to people crying out over what was left out of them or how they were not detailed enough. However for the sake of calming the outrage I will start using them, or at least attempting to remember to. --Nuclear Zer0 18:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't believe how much easier an edit summary makes it on recent-change patrolers. Also, "Seagulls" was a pretty good edit summary for that edit, as I was adding a section to the talk page in question discussing that I would be removing all questions related to Seagulls. A one worder like "refupdate" or "started" works fine. JBKramer 18:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Was simply an example, wasnt knocking your summary, simply showing why most are pointless as they are not very detailed. --Nuclear Zer0 18:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jinx is absolutely correct that they make life easier by leaps and bounds. If you fix 30+ ref tags, use the summary "fixing ref tags". If you're building a new article, use the summary "article creation". If you're adding a new section, use the summary "adding section on (whatever)". It doesn't have to be complicated and detailed -- that's why it's called a "summary" -- but it helps anyone looking at the edit to see at a glance what you were trying to do with the edit.
 * You may feel that it slows down your progress to use edit summaries, but how long does it really take? Five seconds to type a summary? This, compared to the frustration it causes people filtering through the history of an article or through recent changes, seems like a small sacrifice to me. It's a question of consideration for other editors. No Editor is an Island, after all. - Che Nuevara  21:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Noone has ever complained to me and I have never seen anyone ever complain about edit summaries other then to say the person who made one was hiding something else they did. As I said I will add them, though I don't think anyone really cares about them, though obviously the people here complaining do, if it was that big an issue I am sure someone would have said something over 8 months ago. The issue is whatever to me, If I remember to, I will add, if not, then it prolly wasnt that important anyway. --Nuclear Zer0 21:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What's it going to hurt to turn on the "remind me to use edit summaries" option in your prefs? Then you'll always remember to use them. And of course you know which of your edits are important and which aren't -- the problem is that others don't automatically. If for one was asked to use more edit summaries, and since then, I've used them 100%. - Che Nuevara  21:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Its gonig to slow down my work as noted, though as I stated already, I will try to remember to use them. --Nuclear Zer0 21:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) On talk pages it's less vital, but still nice to have, especially if the comment is long. It also helps people who go back later on to look at the page, or at your contributions (for whatever reason), to be able to comb though at a glance. In the article namespace, it's incredibly helpful. - Che Nuevara  21:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

regarding revised response
Regarding: Note regarding Crockspot's comments, again FAAFA, I have learned how to separate the two environments, and you need to as well. Imagine my surprise when I just return from assisting you on the Mike Stark article, to find that comment. Almost makes me regret helping you. - Crockspot 19:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Rather than advise me on what I need to do, perhaps you (and everyone else, including me) should consider following the WP stating:


 * "As with the attacks defined above, personal attacks on other editors in off-Wikipedia venues reflect badly on the attacker and are unlikely to achieve a positive outcome. Wikipedia acknowledges that it cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks elsewhere may create doubt as to whether your on-wiki actions are being conducted in good faith. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the entire community, and to your relationship with it."


 * It's unrealistic to pretend that Wiki exists in a vacum, and that you can attack and insult other Wiki editors to your heart's delight off Wiki, and then expect those attacked to hold no grudges. Maybe we can all agree that if we need to vent about another editor off Wiki, we'll do it in a private setting. - F.A.A.F.A. 19:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as you are not excluding yourself from this and your PWS persona that has been shown to have malicious comments on DW website. While I would prefer you all just not bring it here, especially since I can see everyone just changing there names there and again continuing attacks. I guess the idea is, your boss at work doesnt have to believe you like him, as long as you work properly. Here I am not sure what the drama is about. If someone on another site says NU sucks and is a loser, but doesnt attack me here and edits the article according to the rules, then there is nothing to say. In the end everything comes down to the rules / guidelines / policies and those trump personal bias and name calling anyday. --Nuclear Zer0 21:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. You suggest we should follow policy and guidelines but also claim "If someone on another site says NU sucks and is a loser, but doesnt attack me here and edits the article according to the rules, then there is nothing to say". Refraining from attacking other editors off Wiki IS a WP guideline. I hope we can all agree that it would be best to follow this guideline rather than create a rationale for breaking it. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No its not, it says its not helpful. My point is that crying here about attacks you wage there is pointless and only hurts here. Over there its the norm, but its not the norm here, you are bringing actions from a hostile environment here to be judged. You all curse and mock eachother there, its not permitted here in any form, especially when it becomes a game. You complain here that person X said Y on DU, but you exclude you said ABC about person X. Since its off wiki do you suggest an admin register an account on DU and actually track down who started it? Of course not, and since you werent forth coming with your comment that was later divulged, it defeats the point all together. The truth is if you cannot AGF here because of comments over there, then all of youll should choose which site is more important to you guys. Its nonsense to think admins here should be patrolling comments over there, or acting as administrators while youll chase around eachother on political forums mocking and instigating eachother. You want to follow a policy, how about you just AGF while here and that is all, instead of accusing people of being part of some massive right wing conspiracy and of being freeper death scum. --Nuclear Zer0 00:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nuclear, I hope it's not really necessary to point out how ironic it is that you tell FAAFA to "just assume good faith" and, in the same breath, accuse him of "accusing people of being part of some massive right wing conspiracy and of being freeper death scum" when, in actuality, he said absolutely none of that, but rather simply that comments such as "you fat, hypocritical fuckface", "I'm not a slimy shitweasel like yourself", "It's proving ... what a worthless human being you are", "He's the king Moonbat of Retard Mountain", and others are not exactly an impetus to assuming good faith. And he's got a point: things like that are absurdly childish and clearly reprehensible, whether it happens on-wiki or off.
 * No, admins should not be patrolling other sites for these things, but when they surface, it clearly and unequivocally casts a shadow on the editor who said it. It's a question of self control and basic human respect, and every Wikipedia editor should have the decency and sense not to publicly -- in any arena -- say offensive and provocative things about other editors, or about anyone in general, if they expect to maintain good standing within the community. Whatever an editor wants to say in the privacy of his own home (or a friends-only blog) he is welcome to, and I couldn't care less about it. Yes, it's true that such things are the norm on such forums, but the Wikipedia community should neither encourage nor condone it. And yes, it absolutely does reflect on the character and the perceived intentions of the editor perpetrating the abuse. If they wanted anonymity, they would use a different handle on Wikipedia and not admit to using these other forums. Since they don't, they can and absolutely should be expected to own up to and take responsibility for what amounts to public behavior.
 * There have also been on-wiki attacks, which are also clearly reprehensible, and should be dealt with, and no amount of being attacked gives an editor a right to attack back. But are you really going to defend this immature, offensive behavior which is completely unbecoming of anyone who wishes to be a productive and constructive member of a diverse community? - Che Nuevara  03:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Um he actually has made those accusations, its not me accusing him of making them, I can actually get the quotes off AfD and add them to the accusatiosn section if you prefer. Freeper Death Scum was a direct quote as well in the RfC. Further its not a matter of defense the issue isnt right or wrong, its about using Wikipedia as a weapon in off wiki battles. The point here that I think you miss that I keep reiterating is that FAAFA has an account on one of these political forums, he attacks people on wikipedia with it, he attempted to get people to vote on an AfD here through there as well. He then comes here with comments by user X stating they said horrible things, when in all actuality he has as well. The idea behind doing that is that unless they run around reporting your off wiki actions you are basically a hapless victim, when in reality you may be equally responcible or the person who started it. The idea of brining off wiki attacks to be judged on Wikipedia, especially since as I pointed out, he did not disclose his own actions, is childish in itself. To run and tell while continuing to fight over there leaving admins to hand out unequal punishments. Had an admin here acted, they would have never been aware of PWS's comments since Jinxmue was on a 3rr block. Which is why I am saying they need to keep their off wiki personas seperate from their wiki personas, or choose the site they like to contribute to more. --Nuclear Zer0 11:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm not saying he didn't say those things; indeed he may have, although I haven't seen the diffs. What I am saying is that, as the saying goes, just because the police may have planted the glove doesn't mean that OJ didn't kill Nicole. That is, levying ad hominem attacks against FAAFA, whether or not they're true, does not make the reality of what he is protesting untrue. I have said before, and I will repeat myself, that I disagree with FAAFA's methodology and I am aware that he has engaged in reprehensible behavior; however, that doesn't excuse the attacks against him. - Che Nuevara  17:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[insert diff for clarity] "Freeper Scum Death" Rant Addhoc 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, I dont think its proper for anyone to attack anyone else, I more over feel its inappropriate for users to call eachother names in one venue, then come here seeking punishment. I further think its unfair to the entire wiki community that outside drama is brought into wikipedia as the recent PAIN notice shows. As I stated Freeper Death Scum is in the difs on the RfC page, its point 7 under WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA. --Nuclear Zer0 17:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Note : Nuclear is misrepresenting some of my edits. For instance, I removed and refactored my inappropriate comment 'Freeper Death Merchants' shortly after I made it, as can be plainly seen here. NU documented my original comment, and keeps referring to it - but not the removal. One might ask if those are the actions of someone who wants to present an accurate portrayal of what really happened. To keep harping on a comment that I myself realised should be deleted, and then deleted it shortly after I made casts doubt on both his motives and methodology. my own refactor - F.A.A.F.A. 18:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You were told by Derex it was inappropriate, then removed it, if we are gonig to be honest, lets be complete in that honesty and not tell only half. Also the point isnt that the comment stood forever, its that it was made, Che said he never seen a dif and so I pointed it out to him, its not me harping on it as he keeps stating he didnt see it and I keep pointing him toward it. I am glad you are finally responding to the actual RfC and not attacking the people commenting on it, anything to say on the other 20+ items, anything I took out of context perhaps or you refactored right after that we should ignore existed? The point FAAFA is that you should not be stating the items in the first place, if that is where your mind is, that people are dems and freepers, then its not healthy. If you seen your wiki stress getting to that point you should have stepped back etc. I am glad you are burying the hatchet with most of the people you have had negative interactions with, it shows this RfC was in fact quite useful. Unfortunatly it seems you rather attack me then attempt to do the same, so I will take this as a minor victory. --Nuclear Zer0 18:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Honestly, Nuclear, you might have more success leveling with FAAFA if you toned down your manner a bit. I understand that you're frustrated and feel wronged, but your tone is insulting: comments such as "it's not healthy" and "anything to say ... that we should ignore existed?" are not likely to be met with a willingness to cooperate. I'm not defending the behavior, I'm just suggesting you go about responding to him differently. - Che Nuevara  20:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am more then open to this, what would you suggest is a good middle ground for what is being dealt with here, the off wiki DU/CU drama comnig to Wikipedia. --Nuclear Zer0 20:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Crockspot, Jinx, and FAAFA seem to have begun to mend their mutual wounds, and have all recognized and agreed to change their behavior. That, to me, is the point of an RfC. That being said, it seems that you still feel slighted by what FAAFA has said and done, but I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for. I think the best course of action would be for everyone to recognize and apologize for past wrongs, and agree to do better in the future. Important issues have come to light here, but they have been recognized and that's a step in the right direction. I strongly encourage both of you (FAAFA and Nuclear) to both grasp the olive branch and agree to both get along and act appropriately. Everybody wins :) - Che Nuevara  21:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Its not a matter of winning, as I stated I am happy that this led to them getting along better, however the constant allegations, have tired me of interacting with this user. I have offered 2 such olive branch's before as noted in the RfC. I am tired of wasting my time and see this as a positive outcome as hopefully they see how the community feels and were able to settle their differences of off wiki drama with those they have off wiki drama with. I am not one of those person's and my complaints all took place on wiki. As I said, its not a matter of winning, just acheiving apositive outcome which by and large this was, more then I expected it to be. I don't hold grudges, I am here to edit and its only when I feel someone is attempting to impede that, that I take things to this step. Perhaps one day down the line I will offer that branch again but there response here seems to be souring that by the moment. --Nuclear Zer0 21:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) If you don't want to interact with FAAFA, then don't, but be aware that that's your decision and not necessarily his. It seems to me that FAAFA has recognized his behavior as inappropriate and agreed to change that. Perhaps it would behoove him to extend an apology to you; being as he has admitted his wrongs, I do not think he would resist offering one if you expressed you were due one. That, plus an e-handshake and a sigh of relief, in my opinion, looks like enough to send all involved off on their merry wiki-ways. - Che Nuevara  22:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize to any and all editors I insulted, even in response to insults directed at me, and for any violations of WP. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

on off-wiki personal attacks
While I disagree with FAAFA's methodology, he has a point: posting disparaging or provocative material about other Wikipedians on third-party sites is both harmful and unwise. Every Wikipedian has times when he or she becomes frustrated or even angry with other editors, but publicly attacking them, even off-wiki, is really inappropriate. Is the need to "vent" really that strong? This seems to me to be a pretty simple issue of self control. No matter what you feel, keep two things in mind: 1) the person on the other end, behind the other handle, is also a human being, who gets just as upset and frustrated as you do, and 2) your behavior in realms accessible to the public reflect on you. "I needed to vent" is not really an excuse to be unkind or aggressive, no matter what the perceived wrongs against you may be. If you must speak ill of other editors, it would be very wise to do it in a private sector where it is not available to the scrutiny of others. - Che Nuevara  21:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you (and others) will be glad to know that Ben and I have agreed to cease commenting on other sites about things that go on here. I will admit that my venting that was pointed out in the last few days was grossly inappropriate and it's something that I'm personally regretful of as I have been trying to reign in my language. I apologize to all for that. Jinxmchue 05:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am very glad to hear that, Jinx, and I think it speaks to your (plural) credibility and maturity that you are able to step up to this sort of thing. Hopefully this will signify turning over a new leaf and the beginning of a more constructive period of interaction among this group / with respect to the DU article :) - Che Nuevara  06:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And I'm very sorry that I savaged FAAFA off-wiki. I have been working with him on Mike Stark, and we are playing nice. Crockspot 13:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC) comment I have refactored my previous comment, since FAAFA's improvement in behavior was short-lived. He is back to his old bad bahavior. You can't say I didn't try. Crockspot 18:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you Crockspot :) - Che Nuevara  17:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes - Jinx, Crocks and I have all 'buried the hatchet' - F.A.A.F.A. 18:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While I wholeheartedly agree that bringing up Wikipedia content disputes on other online venues is probably ill-advised I don't think it's sanctionable.


 * What NBG is doing, on the other hand, i.e. posting reams of irrelevant, but supposedly damning, information about the activities of users he's in conflict with on Wikipedia itself, is not only disruptive, but detrimental to the larger project.


 * Whatever political differences someone has with a particular Wikipedian they should be left at those other sites.


 * Neocons-both under his old pseudonym and his more recent handle-has repeatedly stepped over the line in this respect, as has been amply illustrated in this Rfc. Ruthfulbarbarity 05:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, "sanctionable" and "reprehensible" do not mean the same thing. - Che Nuevara  06:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean.


 * It's just that I think there is a distinction to be made between one set of actions-which might not be wise decisions in and of themselves-and another set, which run afoul of, or at least run up against, Wikipedia policy.


 * I also believe the actions of both sides with respect to the DU article-are to a lesser or greater degree-regrettable.


 * The specific problem I have with Neocons is that his transgressions go above and beyond any questionable contributions he's made to the discussion revolving around DU.


 * I'm amenable to burying the proverbial hatchet with Neocons-if he's willing to temper his behavior.


 * However, I don't think that implies that his past actions-which merited over a dozen warnings and numerous blocks of varying duration by numerous disinterested parties-are automatically expunged from the public record.


 * If that was the intent behind Neocons creating a new account, then I believe he did so in error. Ruthfulbarbarity 06:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, RB, on all theoretical counts. I'm not particularly familiar with FAAFA's edit history, and I don't recall having any contact with him as Neocons, so I can't say anything about his contribution patterns and whatnot, but I absolutely agree with your points about policy / behavior. - Che Nuevara  00:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For Ruthfulbarbarity - Reposting for your benefit : "As an important example, consider Ruthfulbarity who endorsed Durova's view. Documentation Here Derex" - F.A.A.F.A. 06:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What point, if any, are you trying to demonstrate?


 * As far as I know I haven't communicated with you-on your talk page or elsewhere-for several weeks.


 * Yet you have run afoul of Wikipedia policy-and been reprimanded by several different editors-since that time.


 * Yes, I endorsed Durova's view, as did several others.


 * Again, what precisely is your objection to this? Ruthfulbarbarity 17:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your own record, as so thoroughly documented by Derex, here,  speaks for itself.  Statements like "The specific problem I have with Neocons is that his transgressions go above and beyond any questionable contributions he's made to the discussion revolving around DU" are insulting, confrontational, and (IMHO based on your history) INTENDED to provoke and inflame, yet you talk about 'burying the hatchet'!. Civilly worded insults wrapped in flowerly language are still insults. I respectfully, yet strongly suggest that you stop them - now. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you choose to construe a factual statement as "confrontational," then so be it.


 * Nothing that I've stated, e.g. delineating your violation of Wikipedia guidelines, alluding to your chastisement by several different administrators on several different occasions, etc., is incorrect.


 * You've been involved in numerous edit conflicts and disputes outside of the DU talk page.


 * That's not my subjective opinion, it's an undisputed fact.


 * If you don't believe so then I suggest you go back and check your block log. Ruthfulbarbarity 23:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What I quoted was your inflamatory opinion (re the value of my contributions), and again I strongly suggest that you cease and desist in posting your unhelpful provocations. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How can we go about finding peace between the two of you? You're both upset with each other, but can we find a way to move on? - Che Nuevara  00:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Simple. We will have peace once he quits insulting, baiting and provoking me. Look at the evidence above. It shows that even when I was blocked and couldn't post anywhere but my own talk page, he pursued me and harrassed me there! In direct violation of my, and an Admin's requests to stop, I might add. I must try harder to ignore his baiting and taunting, as I see no signs of it abating. - F.A.A.F.A. 01:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought we had made progress here, but apparently, the beatings will continue until morale improves. - Crockspot 01:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We're getting along just fine CP! I treat each person as an individual, and treat each individual based on their actions, not their beliefs. We got along swimingly on the Mike Stark article - perhaps you'd like to help on the new Chad Castagana article I just started. Chin up, buddy! - F.A.A.F.A. 02:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of finding "peace," since I'm not actively or passively looking for conflict.


 * If there is some reason that FAAFA can not work amicably with other editors that is his problem, not the problem of editors whose patience he's all but exhausted.


 * All I'm interested in is factual content.


 * FAAFA can attempt to manufacture a controversy where none exists, but he should be aware of the consequences that attend that sort of behavior. Ruthfulbarbarity 05:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Note to RB, please remember to indent properly. This is the second time (in a row) that I've had to correct your error - but am doing so happily as a gesture of good will. Thanks! Please call me FAAFA, or 'fairness'. Thanks! Your Ken Jowitt article is good work, by the way. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I Give Up
I thank Che for trying but after this user went and edited the noticeboard and then appeared on the Iraq War article and article I contribute to greatly and they never do, I now see there is no hope for a resolution between myself and FAAFA. I take it as baiting, they edited a section that contains a further tag and purposely broke the formatting of the way the further tag is used, I reverted and they of course reverted back. Whatever, point being i have stopped editing Iraq War until I see they no longer wish to participate and will do the same for other articles to avoid this user from now on. Again thank you Che for your attempts. Its good to see some people got resolutions out of this. --Nuclear Zer0 13:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My Take On Things

 * I too appreciate Che's good-faith effort at resolving this conflict without resorting to binding arbitration.


 * That being said, I don't think that every dispute-especially those involving editors who have repeatedly demonstrated their unwillingness to compromise or amend their behavior-can be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned parties.


 * I also don't think that stating that you will correct your behavior-which FAAFA has declared in the past-is equivalent to actually correcting your behavior in practice, which this editor has yet to do.


 * Leaving aside all of the critiques leveled by users who have engaged in edit conflits with this user, e.g. Nuclear, Rogue, Crockspot and myself, there is still a proverbial mountain of evidence that condemns this particular editor's actions.


 * Suspensions of his editing privilege on at least eight occasions-from different administrators-reprimands from several dozen different users, many of them with no dog in this fight, etc., etc., ad nauseam.


 * Editors who have had conflicts with FAAFA-such as myself and Nuclear-have recused themselves from editing disputed articles for weeks at a time, and yet this problem still persists, which demonstrates to me that it is not a matter of conflicting opinions so much as egregiously bad behavior on the part of one specific user.


 * If it was simply a content dispute, then absenting myself from editing articles he's taken an abnormal interest in, e.g. Protest Warrior, Democratic Underground, etc., would have solved this problem.


 * It hasn't. Ruthfulbarbarity 23:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I want to clarify my position by saying that I didn't believe it was only a content dispute, but I did believe that it was impossible to see the situation for what it was without considering the content dispute. If this does go to arbitration, please notify me so I can make a statement. But I hope that there is another way. - Che Nuevara  23:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And even while he is up for RfC
Here is how he behaves by editing someone elses user page. This is simple vandalism. --Tbeatty 06:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a light hearted joke, similar to your 'vandalism' of my FAAFA  page, although, unlike you, I didn't create a sock puppet to do it. Lighten up. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * When did I vandalizr your NBGPWS page? As I recall, I've only left comments on your talk page.  --Tbeatty 06:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My mistake - you created this sock puppet User:Fairness_and_Accuracy_for_Aquaman Tbeatty's Super Friend Sock Puppet account solely to 'vandalize' my FAAFA see page not my NBGPWS page. Sorry for falsely accusing you of 'vandalizing' my NBG page when it was actually my FAAFA page! My apologies! Tell me beatty, you're quite the WP wiz, or think you are, is it OK to create a sock puppet just to taunt or joke with another editor? Looking forward to your response. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A). That was your talk page (not userpage vandalism as you did) and B) it was in direct response to your creation of an enemies list as described above.  --Tbeatty 07:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, although I greatly appreciate Che's effort to moderate I don't think it's what's called for in this specific situation.


 * Yet more vandalism on the part of FAAFA?


 * Even as his case is under review?!


 * I don't see how this can avoid arbcom if FAAFA persists in his inexcusable behavior. Ruthfulbarbarity 02:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments from the accused
Evidence shows that my behavior has improved dramatically since I was blocked under my last user name. In the 22 days since I've returned, I have not recieved any type of disciplinary action. I don't even think I have been warned with a warning template of any kind. (have to check that) I have even reached across the aisle as an act of good faith to editors who want me sanctioned or banned. I specifically complimented Ruthbar on his scholarly work on the Ken Jewitt article, and have worked hamoniously with NU, who brought this RfC against me. As an act of goodnatured lighthearted fun, meant to reach out, I left a couple messages from 'Michael Moore' in the user space of another 'wise acre' who I KNEW would appreciate them. Other editors not even related to this action, but wanting to see me banned or sanctioned complained of vandalism to an Admin, but the recipient welcomed my friendly and playful act, like I knew he would. see Mort's response to my friendly act My behavior has improved, and continues to. I have 5 or 6 editors watching me like a hawk, waiting to complain at the slightest infraction, and there hasn't been one since I returned from the block which helped me change my behavior for the better. It's time to MoveOn! Respectfully and Congenially, F.A.A.F.A. 23:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On the project page, you accused us CU members who are also Wiki editors of meatpuppetry. Do you have even one shred of evidence of meatpuppetry by any CU members? I find that charge outlandish, considering that all of the CU editors are using the exact same screen name here that we use there. None of us has ever hid our "identity", and none of us has ever used multiple names/accounts here on WP. I think, unless you can provide some evidence, you should withdraw that charge. Making a baseless charge against a group of editors is not evidence of "improved behavior", as far as I am concerned. (FYI, I was an anon IP for a short time before I registered at WP, and ONE TIME I forgot to log in before signing a comment, which I quickly corrected. Nothing else I have ever contributed to WP has been done outside of my Crockspot account.) - Crockspot 13:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Something new
An interesting off-wiki exchange, and since we have on-wiki related complaints, this can properly be considered. An examination of the edit history of Ava Lowery, in comparison to this thread, makes one go hmmmmm. Certainly not bulletproof "evidence", but a minor leap of OR logic allows one to draw an obvious conclusion. For what it's worth. - Crockspot 15:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Amazingly, after I brought this thread to FAAFA's attention last night, someone edited out all of the text of the post. Though FAAFA deny's it was him. Oh well, I guess you lucked out this time FAAFA, but I got your number. I wonder if google has it cached....? Crockspot 15:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC) And FAAFA, I am sorely disappointed in you. I have given you the benefit of the doubt several times, and have attempted to work constructively with you, but in the end, you simply used my good will to try to weasel out of being called on your behavior (see my apology above for my own off-wiki transgressions, and your reply). If you had simply messaged me last night with "Gee Crock, sorry, I guess that was stupid of me, I'll go delete it and it won't happen again", I would have let it go, and you would have actually gained some respect from me. But no, you had to go delete your comments from the off-wiki site, and then come back here and play dumb, claiming you know nothing about it. Crockspot 17:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD notification

 * As illustrated by this exchange,


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ruthfulbarbarity#AfD_that_might_be_of_interest_to_you

Ruthfulbarbarity 16:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment re: behavior of FAAFA
I felt compelled to speak up somewhere regarding FAAFA's behavior. I am entirely familiar with his past behavior and tendency to (whether intentionally or not) behave in a provocative manner around political articles. Personally, I think that while his behavior on the whole has improved, there is still a good deal of civility and method for constructively interacting with other editors that he could bear to learn, particularly ones that he disagrees with. I personally think that he has the makings of a strong editor and is generally familiar with good policy, but at the same time think that he has had more than enough time to get his head around the basics of editing with people he disagrees with without making comments that could be perceived as two-edged or trollish. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)