Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Friday

Balloonman's view
Moved from main page: "I came here fully expecting to say something different. I honestly find Friday to crass and somewhat hypocritical. In my experience, he adds more fuel to the flames than he does in putting the issues to bed.  This is largely the result of the Scarian incident where he clearly used the block button in appropriately and fueled that issue.  My impression has also been that he is the type to act on emotions and that when he !votes, his !votes are vindictive/personal.  That is my impression of Friday.  Reading through the 'evidence' above, I have to wonder if my impression was accurate?  I honestly expected to see more.  I'm a little disappointed with the strength of the case being made against Friday.  The lack of stronger better defined examples, has me questioning my impressions.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)"

I'm not sure how much stronger you want. I went through his edits back to about March. There's probably tons more. But this is just to give an impression of his problematic behaviour. I don't know what you mean by the "Scarian incident" - his inappropriate block of Scarian is recorded there in the diffs. I could very well go back further, but these are just recent examples.  Majorly  talk  21:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. The point isn't to bombard people with hundreds of diffs. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)I expected to see more proof that he fuels the flames in discussions. I was somewhat shocked that the evidence presented didn't have more of that from various discussions. Shocked enough that it has me questioning if my view of Friday is accurate! I also found the presentation of some of the evidence to be poorly presented. 1) It should have been better organized by type of offense. 2) It should have been introduced better---eg setting/background. 3) The quoted material should have been allowed to speak more. The message is lost in some places as your commentary speaks louder than the actual quote.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * His baseless and offensive remarks on RFA don't add fuel to the fire? His "chat room buddy" mudslinging is helpful how? The diffs speak for themselves. I'm really not sure what you're wanting here. Every single thing on that list is problematic, and unhelpful to the collaborative environment.  Majorly  talk  22:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What could have helped the case would be to have different subsections: Evidence of behavior X, Evidence of behavior Y, Evidence of behavior Z. And then under those headers having the links.  As it is written, you don't get the consistent thread and it comes accross more as you don't like him.  His comments at RfA are questionable, but I really wish you had more elsewhere.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The other problem is that the Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute has the look of Majorly going to Friday's talk page to pick a fight to use on the RfC. It would have been nice to see other "Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute."  The fact that the evidence is from today and from Majorly would look better.  EG it looks like Majorly is quoting Friday on Friday's talk page, that quote would have been better than showing Majorly picking a fight.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that this dispute has been successfully resolved, or are you just nitpicking? Sorry to sound irritated, but it really sounds like you're nitpicking for no apparent reason. This is a requests for comment, not a court case. It's obvious to anyone Friday has brushed off all concerns brought his way, and therefore the dispute has failed to be resolved. This is clear when you read the sections on his talk page where he simply repeats the same old tune of "criticism is allowed" and other irrelevancies, rather than listening to the issue at hand. Since you claim to agree that Friday's behaviour is problematic why don't you just help instead of hinder this RFC? Find some diffs yourself, make a statement, improve the case.  Majorly  talk  22:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What a profoundly odd statement. You're getting feedback that Balloonman, someone predisposed to your point of view, finds the evidence you've gathered unconvincing. He's telling you that you need to either make a better case, or re-evaluate the soundness of your claims. He's only "hindering" the RfC if you view it as a weapon to take down an enemy. If, on the other hand, you view this as a forum to solicit constructive feedback, then he's trying to help you. MastCell Talk 22:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with him that it needs a stronger case. If he is inclined to my point of view, he can help by adding his own statement as to why he thinks there is a problem here. What is not helpful is saying there isn't enough to go on - this is precisely what outside comments are for. Balloonman should make his own statement, collect diffs and people endorse it. What's happening now is he is posting a comment on how well the RFC was constructed - it's irrelevant. He needs to make it better by adding more to it.  Majorly  talk  22:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was expecting a stronger case to be made... if my impressions were right, then a stronger case could have been made. The fact that a stronger case hasn't been made has me second guessing if I've been unfair to Friday.  I will probably look closer at his edits, but as for nitpicking.  No, the fact that your proof of failing to get the desired results was a single link to a discussion you had on his talk page, where if I were to categorize it would have said that it was more you picking a fight with Friday than proof of his failings.  Another example of trying to resolve the dispute was attempt number 2, wherein Friday's response is "You're right (...) I amended the comment."  It isn't very convincing when the example is immediately responded to with, "You're right" and the person fixes the problem.  As for criticism of this RfC?  Yes, it is valid, if there is a case to be made, then this RfC missed the mark.  If there is a case, and I'm not as sure as I was an hour ago, then the strength of this case is lacking and may only deem to protect the accused.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "You're right..." is meaningless when nothing changes, as it hasn't. Please help the case further by providing your own diffs and statement - you mentioned earlier you were going to find something, so please do. I'm not going to provide hundreds of diffs for people to wade through, end of story. This is just a random sample. If you're unconvinced, I don't know what I can do to help you.  Majorly  talk  23:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * PS the failing to resolve the dispute is clear when Friday says he doesn't think there is a problem - numerous times. So what if that happened today? I let him know I was going to produce this RFC some time ago. He has had plenty of chance to change his ways, but has refused.  Majorly  talk  23:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I just read through the new presentation, and it is much improved. The other thing that would make it stronger, would be examples where people are explicitly calling him out saying "This is wrong." Eg examples from the abuse of admin tools... again, there I was a little surprised that I knew about all (2) of the incidents where he debatably misused his tools. I expected to see more if there was more.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The biggest issue is his attitude, the misuse of admin tools is simply an aggravating factor. Personalities cannot really change, but I'd like him to at least make a bit of effort to work more collaboratively, as per the "result desired" section. At the moment, he frequently makes editing here quite uncomfortable, especially for younger editors or people who use IRC whom he seems slags off at every opportunity. He passes this off under the guise of "criticism" when really it's "slagging off".  Majorly  talk  00:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocks?
Regarding "He has also made poor blocks swiftly reversed by other admins." - I don't recall ever having made any blocks that were reversed. Granted, it may have happened and I don't remember it. The Scarian one was not overturned. Some people thought it was reasonable, and some people disagreed with it. Friday (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the Scarian one was generally condemned at the time as a bad decision... just most people (such as myself) didn't think it was worth getting into a dispute over.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment/User conduct
Hate to be a wonk, but shouldn't this RFC/U be listed under Requests for comment/User conduct instead, as it does involve the usage of admin tools? MuZemike 02:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Feel free to move it, though as I said above, it's mostly his attitude that's the problem.  Majorly  talk  11:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

ABF
Looking at the diff in which Friday makes a comment about blind users, I think there has been a misunderstanding. I think Friday was using the term 'blind' in a straightforward description of the medical condition, as opposed to in a metaphorical sense. I don't think Friday did anything wrong in this instance, and if anything, this an example of someone assuming bad faith about Friday. PhilKnight (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think Friday minds people "assuming bad faith" about him, since he seems to do the same to people he doesn't agree with (e.g. RFA opposes assuming the worst of most people). In any case though, you seem to be right, I misinterpreted that particular comment.  Majorly  talk  22:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Friday's response
This response isn't exactly responsive of most of the issues raised. Just some examples of problematic behaviour he hasn't explained: his inappropriate dirty laundry lists of users, his vicious and insulting commentry in subpages, attacking editors he disagrees with by namecalling (e.g. boneheads, attention whores, whining), his problems with RTV, nastily claiming people use it to "cover their tracks", his abuse (yes, abuse) of RFA by not bothering to check if a candidate has improved, his numerous unfounded accusations of editors (claimed I go looking for trouble), his "kid in a chat room" remarks with regards to adult editors, his vicious commentary on Realist2's RFA...

Basically, Friday has misunderstood this RFC. It has little to do with disagreement. In fact, I would say it has nothing to do with disagreement. I actually agree with a lot of what Friday says. So what's the issue that is being ignored. I've stated on this talk page, and the main page several times: it's the attitude, and it stinks. People are going to oppose RFAs based on age - I don't care that they do, if they do it civilly. "I just can't fathom this drama queen chat room kid being an admin" isn't in the slightest bit polite, or civil. It's angry, vicious, negative. His petty namecalling of people he disagrees with isn't a "disagreement", it's simply Friday violating NPA. Making unfounded accusations about people isn't disagreement, it's simply Friday slagging them off. His vicious commentary and insulting remarks to numerous editors around the wiki isn't disagreement, it's Friday violating WP:CIVIL.

Friday has very much misunderstood the crux of this RFC - the fact his whole outlook is very angry and bitter, and he comes across as a very sour individual with an axe to grind about almost everything. This is problematic when the editor is an admin, who should be really setting an example to editors, not slagging them off at every given chance. I'd like to see a response to the things I brought up above. I'm not sure what excuse there is going to be for namecalling, vicious remarks to other editors, and slagging off people who use IRC/are under 25/happened to have more than one RFA etc, but I hope it's a good one. As Friday is clearly misunderstanding this RFC, I doubt he will even listen to the concerns raised and attempt to change his ways.

For more information on negative people editing Wikipedia, I have written a blog post. Friday is, unfortunately, such an editor I describe in the post.  Majorly  talk  19:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's really bizarre. All I can think of to say for now is, I don't feel remotely angry or vicious when I write the things you object to.  If someone's behaving like a dramatic kid, I think it's an accurate and useful description to say "so-and-so is behaving like a dramatic kid."  It's an actual description of actual problematic behavior.  If I were to instead say "so-and-so is a poopiehead" this would be a meaningless insult, which is not at all useful, and is not a description of behavior.  Anyway, I have a feeling we've gone down this conversation path many times before, and have so far failed to understand each other.  But I wanted to try to clear that up.. if there's anger you're sensing here, it's not (intentionally) coming from me.  Friday (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you going to respond to the problematic issues I raised above, or ignore them? I'm not interested in what you feel, you are coming across as those things, and not just to me either.  Majorly  talk  20:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I still haven't decided how I am going to enter this RfC. I'll be honest, based upon what I've seen while looking over your edits in light of this RfC, my assessment was probably wrong.  And for that I apologize.  That being said, you generally don't say "so and so is acting like a dramatic kid."  You often simply say, "so and so is a dramatic kid."  This type of statement, even if true, is confrontational and off putting.
 * Part of the problem is that by making such sweeping statements, it undermines the otherwise credible statements that you might make. Eg if I see you calling somebody a melodramatic kid, you've lost me.  Not because your statements are wrong/incorrect/etc but rather because it sends the signal that Friday is off on his pet rant.  It says, "Friday is no longer looking at the specifics of the case for what they are, but rather looking through his filter which only sees age."  Therein is where you might, be doing the biggest disservice to your point of view.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Majorly, I'm concerned that your own conduct might (not) bear similar examination. Your attempts 'to resolve this dispute' are apt to have entirely the opposite effect; the 'vicious commentary', 'insulting remarks', the apparent 'angry and bitter' individual...these descriptions could very well be described as your own conduct.  Look at the very first purported attempt: User talk:Friday.


 * "...you are the one who is the drama queen around here..."
 * "...all your opposes [at RfA] are based on an ill-thought out, baseless agenda..."
 * "Was there something in your Wikipedia history that makes you not trust most people."
 * "You are barely interested in the encyclopedia, and you spend the majority of your time drama-mongering on admin noticeboards, whining about immature editors."
 * "Is [your purpose] to write an encyclopedia, or is it to act like a drama queen, and be a pain in the arse wherever you stick your nose in? Because, quite evidently, it's the second one."
 * "Your contributions to RFAs are never short of being totally unhelpful..."
 * "You just constantly get the wrong end of the stick, and assume the worst in everyone."
 * "I have found that you are constantly aggressive, belittling of other editors, abusive and yes, a drama queen."
 * "I'm sick of your antics around here."
 * "If you refuse [to resign your adminship], I'll have to take it further, but it'll only show hypocricy on your part."
 * "I hope you're not too offended (you shouldn't be, because criticism is allowed)."


 * And that's from one post. Your opening attempt to 'resolve' this issue (which, incidentally, came immediately after the close of your own failed RfA in which Friday opposed you) is full of insults and slurs, and ends with a demand that Friday immediately resign his adminship lest he be thought a hypocrite by you.  Your closing 'criticism is allowed' seems a weak defense of your own incivility.  Friday's responses in that thread, meanwhile, seem to be very calm and collected, and he's trying to engage with you in a meaningful way &mdash; or failing that, to 'agree to disagree' peaceably.


 * Your second shot at 'trying to resolve the dispute' is more concise, but again seems unpleasantly inflammatory for an editor who seeks to take a 'drama queen' to task: User talk:Friday: "...your own activity on Wikipedia is almost entirely wallowing in politics and drama..."


 * Majorly, I don't doubt that you have strongly, honestly-held feelings, nor do I question your right to disagree with Friday's opinions. Your approach, however, is far more inflammatory and dramatic than Friday's has ever been.  Glass houses and stones, no?  You've taken a number of really rude stabs at Friday – heck, you've just now advertised writing a blog post so you can attach a derogatory label to him in this discussion – and now you're surprised that he doesn't really want to open a dialog with you?  Bluntly, it sounds like not engaging with you more than is absolutely, minimally required is probably his very best course of action for minimizing the drama and incivility which you so detest.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're wrong on several instances. First, this has been going on for years. That was far from my first attempt at getting him to act a little more courteously towards people. It is, however, the most recent that sparked this RFC. I'm not going to spend hours looking for diffs from years ago when there's a perfectly good diff from the other month. And it is harsh, but what of it? It's nothing compared to the unwarranted insults and slagging off Friday partakes in. If Friday simply acted a little more respectfully to his peers, there would not be an RFC. It's that simple, really. You can try and twist it to blame it all on me as much as you like, but that's out of scope for this RFC. The "criticism is allowed" comment is precisely what Friday says to cover up his own incivility. Now I am taken to task for doing precisely what he does? Ridiculous. Instead of twisting it to make it all my fault, how about look at the issues raised (the unwarranted slagging off, the insults, the nasty RFA comments, the name-calling, the admin abuse...)
 * It may seem this is "dramatic" or whatever, but this has been bottled up for some time. This RFC should have happened some time ago. And now the fact he doesn't even care to respond to most of the things I listed, and miss the point of the RFC and wheel out the tired old "disagreement" excuse, just confirms to me what I already thought.
 * To sum up: do you think Friday's behaviour is problematic, or are you going to ignore the issues and make me the scapegoat instead? I am not to blame.  Majorly  talk  15:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem Majorly is that the venom that you bring to the discussion is counter productive. Two of the examples of trying to resolve the issue with Friday involve you going to his page to attack him.  If it were me, I wouldn't listen to you either.  Then some of the dialog with the examples you cite as evidence are so jaded that the manner in which the evidence is presented becomes the factor people notice---not the evidence itself---and unfortunately for this RfC, the animosity that you have towards Friday comes out clearer than the message you seek to convey.  So far three people have made more than passing comments on this RfC and all 3 have mentioned the tone of the evidence.  That should tell you something.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is, but I disagree I was attacking anyone. And I don't have any animosity towards him at all. I just want him to start acting like a nicer person, and stop making the atmosphere unpleasant for editors he disagrees with. What is so wrong with that?  Majorly  talk  15:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with it, I too would like to see changes in how Friday approaches various situations, but it should be telling when my reading of this RfC has the opposite effect on me, a person who was inclined to agree with your stance. While I would like to see changes, this RfC made me re-evaluate Friday and upon re-evaluating his actual contributions, I realized that my impression didn't jive with reality.  Friday has room to grow---but so do I, and so do you.  By approaching Friday in a hostile manner (as disected by Ten above) you are not going to accomplish your goal.  You instantly put the person who is receiving the message on the defensive and they have a legitimate reason to disregard your message.  In both cases, I felt as if you were trying to pick a fight.  The first one so that you could declare your intention to start an RFc and the second one so that you could declare it an "attempt" to resolve he issue.  In both cases, you looked more problematic than Friday.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Majorly, this is a Request for Comment. By posting it, you've asked the community to review the statements and evidence presented, and invited our independent evaluation and comment on the situation.  By being the person to draft this RfC, you have what might be termed a tremendous 'home field' advantage.  You've chosen the subject of the RfC, you've had the opportunity to frame the dispute to your own satisfaction, you enjoy as much time as you like to prepare your statement and collect evidence, you get to post your statement at the top of the RfC,  and you get some substantial amount of time (a few hours to a few days, depending the RfC) where your statement doesn't face any statement of rebuttal or response.  The nature of the process ensures that the deck is very much stacked in favour of the person who files.  Fair or not, that's the way the present system works.  Because of those advantages, the onus is very much on the filer to make his case to the community.
 * What I'm saying is based solely on what I see in the evidence you've chosen to offer. It isn't the community's responsibility to look for diffs to support your position, it is yours.  If there is more history than you present, you need to show it.  When you chose to impose on the community's goodwill and time to review this case, you also assumed an obligation to respect our time and our effort.  At the moment, the case has not been made that a good-faith effort has been made to resolve this dispute through other channels.  Instead, what we see is that you've taken an aggressive, insulting, and demanding tone with Friday over some issues where the two of you have disagreements.  On the issue of incivility, you have apparently staked out the unenviable position of "Do as I say, not as I do".  If I'm not seeing the whole picture, it is because you've not been troubled to draw it.  If this dispute has been 'bottled up' for a long time, RfC is not the correct forum for you to vent your own frustrations. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well clearly you haven't read this RFC or talk page properly; it has nothing to do with disagreeing with Friday, but feel free to believe that all the same. What is does show is Friday has numerous problematic issues, and you're choosing to ignore them, and instead focus on me.  Majorly  talk  18:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, I've read the RfC from top to bottom. That said, it is certainly possible that I've missed something; there's a lot here. Can you point me to the diff or link where you raised your concerns with Friday in a calm, civil manner, and were rebuffed?  You've stated below that "asking nicely" doesn't work; I'm just asking for a link to a case where it was tried.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have spoken nicely with Friday on many occasions. We agree on things often. I have raised my concerns in ways I find appropriate, and they are already linked. Whether they meet someone elses nice levels, I cannot be sure, but they do for me. Friday has "rebuffed" me by saying he doesn't believe his actions are problematic, and asking if it is "just me" with the problems.


 * What is most important here is examining Friday's behaviour, seeing if it's a problem shared by other editors, and what to do about it. Examining me, the RFC's structure and searching for diffs that aren't relevant in looking at behaviour, are unimportant. Please, focus on the subject of the RFC and nothing else.  Majorly  talk  19:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is the attitude of "please focus on the subject of the RfC and nothing else." This is the attitude that you take to Friday's page when you approach him.  When you open an RfC against somebody, the motives of the person opening the RfC become subject, as does the filer.  Ten could write an outside opinion that reads to the effect of the comments he made above and most people would endorse it.  Friday's behavior is problematic at times, but that does not mean yours is without reproach or that we can't comment on how he's been approached on the subject.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They could endorse it, but it wouldn't make it any less off-topic. Feel free to start an RFC on me, if you think my behaviour is so terrible and more important than Friday's.
 * This is getting simply ridiculous. It's unbelievable how much some people get away with on here. The ironic thing is, I based the style of both this and Aitias's RFC on my own, that lead me to resigning adminship. I was the only person who stuck up for myself then - the diffs were poorly presented, they were weak, misrepresenting me out of context. Nobody listened to me. I was desysopped. Now when it comes to other problematic admins (I at least have the maturity to admit I was out of line on many occasions), they get away Scot-free, with outside views mostly interested in the file and the design of the RFC rather than the actual issue being brought up. I thought RFC worked. Guess it doesn't. As far as I am concerned, Friday can continue his driving his agenda at RFA, continue making his insulting remarks, continue making his uncivil sweeping generalisations, continue making his subpages that read like the "diary of a sour individual with an axe to grind" (not my words) and continue dissing and slagging off those he disagrees with. I'm unwatching this RFC now. It's a massive waste of time if people aren't interested in discussing the real issues here: an admin with a history of problematic use of admin tools, civility issues and personal attacks. If you want to discuss this further please go to my talk page.  Majorly  talk  19:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved discussion about an endorsement of Friday's response
I don't disagree with what Friday says... just how he expresses his opinion. How can I make this more clear: it has nothing to do with disagreement of his opinion. How do you suggest we stop his uncivil remarks? Because asking nicely doesn't work. Asking firmly and strongly doesn't work. What will? The biggest problem here is he doesn't seem to think there's even an issue, and that it's "just me".  Majorly  talk  16:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've already indicated that I think Friday could be more diplomatic. PhilKnight (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I know, but why are you still under the false impression this RFC is because I disagree with Friday's opinion?  Majorly  talk  16:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll trim my comment. PhilKnight (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Time to close?
Would an uninvolved admin please look at whether this can be closed?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)