Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat

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

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

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

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

message: #*Comment:  Thanks for noticing the RFC and commenting, but please note that CSLOAT has apologized for, "any offense taken" but not for saying "you hate muslims", ie calling me an Islamophobe.  Also, he has said several times that he defends his action of calling me an Islamophobe, so this is not something that was done in the heat of the moment.  Bigglove 00:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the end of the paragraph you are quoting from makes pretty clear that I am apologizing for my actions, not just the offense taken, but I have added an additional paragraph to clear it up further: I apologize. csloat 03:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply from Bigglove to [[User:Verklempt]] 

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

message: Please note that CSloat has not apologized for saying on my user page, "you don't like muslims".  This is an accusation of Islamophobia, and a personal attack.  Personal attacks are an infraction of Wikipedia policy.  I would like an admission from CSloat that 1) this WAS a personal attack and that 2) he apologizes for this personal attack and that 3) he promises not to make personal attacks like this again.  I appreciate the apology, and I am not doubting its sincerity, but I would like an apology directed specifically at the complaint.  Thanks for hearing me out.  Bigglove 13:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, CSloat has apologized for making a "hyperbolic comment": "you don't like muslims."  If he admits that this was a personal attack and apologizes, we're done.  He has not done so yet.  Bigglove 14:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to Outside view by [[User:Durova]] 

message: Bigglove, I recommend that you do not place your request to csloat inside his response . Perhaps it's better placed in your certifying statement, along with a reminder to csloat via talk if you're concerned he didn't see your response to his latest apology. RfC policy is there to give everyone a chance to make their views heard without interference - and while I know you're not intending to interfere with csloat's statement, purposefully placing a comment in his response could be seen as denying him the right to make an unhindered response. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree, but I don't know how else to get him to see it.  I asked above, in my statement, where I felt it belonged, and the next thing I know he is asking for an admin to come and close when this has not been completely resolved.  This is not really in the spirit or letter of apology.  Do you want me to move it?  I will, but hopefully he will see it before this is closed prematurely.  Bigglove 18:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In short, 'I' don't want anything except for this RfC to be as productive as possible for all concerned. Accordingly, I would advise you that you should avoid any perception that you are hindering csloat's response by leaving any of your comments there (unless you endorse his view) - that's just policy. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, I removed the short note asking the closing admin to look here.  Bigglove 18:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I see it, the issue is resolved.  I don't see the need to re-parse my apology yet another time just because you demand that I do so.  If you re-read the apology, you will see that I have apologized for the comments in question.  The debate about whether I intended a particular phrase as hyperbole or literal is neither relevant nor constructive. csloat 18:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: My tone appears to be quite steady.  Your interpretation of the phrase "hyperbolic comment" is interesting, but not relevant.  I accept your apology - can we now please move on? csloat 20:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on other users' Responses or Outside Views

message: I do not feel that this RFC has been completely resolved.
I very much appreciate the spirit of the apology, but would like an adjustment in the substance.  I do not think this RFC should be closed without an admission that this user made a personal attack against me and agaist Isarig in violation of WP:NPA.  He has apologized for a "hyperbolic comment" towards me.  This is not the same thing.  Given his very  agressive failure to admit that he had done anything wrong first on the talk page of the article and then here, I do not think it is too much to ask. Bigglove 18:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please reflect for a moment with a bit of dispassion. While you moved 'some' of your comment from csloat's response, you have left a comment there against the rules of RfC . I know you're trying to resolve the issue amicably and don't mean to stifle or inhibit csloat from responding - but someone else who didn't understand your goals (or who didn't care) might consider that an 'aggressive failure' to follow RfC policy. I suggest you leave csloat's response entirely unfettered and show by example the kind of flexibility and willing compliance you want from csloat - or you similarly allow him some latitude in complying with your request for a renewed apology. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I'll take it off completely.  But, respectfully, as I said before, if he hadn't asked for closure while there were outstanding issues despite my request I would not have posted there.  Bigglove 18:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are entirely 1000% entitled to your point of view and I'm hopeful csloat chooses to discuss it further with you, in order to resolve any remaining issue that you may have with the completeness (or incompleteness) of his apology. Cheers. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Thanks for the clarification but I already understand your objection; the problem is that it has no merit.  My comment was meant hyperbolically as I have explained.  I have also apologized for it.  I have not denied that it was a personal attack.  If you want the RfC to be finished, all you have to do is say so, as you are the only one holding it up at this point. csloat 20:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please just say it was a person attack explicitly, which you have not done, and as far as I'm concerned we're done.  I'm not sure what your objection is to that.  Your response that my request is "without merit" is not especially helpful as this was the whole basis of the RFC I filed.  (and actually, it is insulting).  Bigglove 23:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have got to be joking.  What benefit is there to continuing this nonsense?  I apologized over and over already for the personal attack.  I have not denied it was a personal attack; you want me to say it was a personal attack?  Fine - it was a personal attack, one which I have apologized for over and over, unconditionally and without reservation.  This is getting tedious, and it is your actions, Sir or Madam, that are insulting here -- not just to me, but to everyone who takes this RfC process seriously.  I have done everything you have asked for even though I am under no requirement to do so.  csloat 00:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

message: It was reasonalble to move this, so I did as per his request.  
:#*addendum CSloat has characterized the above request for an explicit apology for a personal attack as having "no merit". This is the kind of dismissive attitude that I encountered with this user on the talk page of Southern California InFocus when he called my compaints "bogus" and repeatedly said he hadn't made personal attacks  Bigglove 23:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling your complaints bogus isn't even close to a personal attack.Verklempt 02:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Verklempt, please allow me to clarify.  I did not say that calling my complaint "bogus" was a personal attack.  I said that saying "you don't like muslims" was a personal attack.  When I originally pointed that out to him on the talk page of an article we were editing together, he said that my complaint was "bogus".  I hope this helps.  Bigglove 13:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point to the diff you are talking about.  And please stop moving the goalpost here.  I have apologized unconditionally and totally (not "partially" as you state on the main page), so I do think your further complaints are bogus here.  Your moving of the goalpost invalidates the entire RfC because you have now changed the statement that was previously signed by several other editors.  When you change it like that you need to strike out the signatures and allow each editor to sign again.  That is why it is better to add any addenda after the signatures or on the talk page.  Doing it on the RfC page like you have done, in my estimation, renders the entire RfC null and void.  But in any case it doesn't matter as I have answered the RfC and apologized over and over.  This discussion is finished. csloat 17:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think there is any punishment indicated here.  I made inappropriate comments, I unconditionally apologized for those comments, and that is that.  I really do think it's time to move on; hopefully this RfC can be closed forthwith. csloat 21:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Mr. Sloat, I met you halfway and removed my request that you be blocked for a week, because it was the reasonable thing to do.  No why don't you do the reasonable thing and change your main page comments now and avoid arb com??? Bigglove 21:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me get this perfectly clear: you think ArbCom is going to accept a case based on the claim that my unconditional and unreserved apology and honest willingness to not let it happen again is just not worded in precisely the way you want it to be worded?  That will be an interesting RfA. csloat 21:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If you have problems with some other aspect of my behavior than you have identified here, it would be great if you could discuss it so that we can move to reasonable methods of WP:DR rather than arbcom.  My guess is that Arbcom will want to see evidence that you tried and failed to resolve the same dispute you are going to arbcom with. csloat 01:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is off topic to the discussion here, but be assured that, as I did in this case,  I would follow all the proper procedures to the best of my abilities.  Every time I have made a mistake I have corrected it when it was pointed out to me.  I only mention arbitration as some of the admins writing on this page have mentioned it as a next step.   From the comments on the main page from others I expect that others would have imput into such a case as well.  They would likely have  complaints regarding other aspects of policy than those I have mentioned in this case, and other examples regarding personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith.  This is why I said I would expect a broader based discussion.  I do not personally have anything specific in mind at this time.   I suppose at this point we should leave this and see what happens.  I would like an apology explicitly recognizing violations of WP:NPA on the main page as that was the basis of my complaint in this RFC; you are unwilling to give that since you feel that you have already given that and I am just being unreasonable.  Neither of us is really able to bend on this.  So be it.  If you are true to your word and avoid personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith in future, then we will not have any problem.  If I do feel you are making personal attacks or assumptions of bad faith and point this out to you, I hope you will be able to be more flexible than in past at admitting that your behavior has been problematic, apologizing for it right away, and retracting your remarks.  In this RFC, you have have admitted that you made mistakes, and to be fair you have to admit this process was necessary to get you to admit to that.  It ate up a lot of my time and your time and other people's time.  I am not enthusiastic about another process.  Let's see what happens, ok?  Bigglove 01:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, this is ludicrous.  I copied and pasted the exact statement you wanted me to on the front page.  Yet you still say "I would like an apology explicitly recognizing violations of WP:NPA on the main page ... you are unwilling to give that."  What more do you want?  If you are satisfied with what I did there, please make that very clear on the main page. If you are not, please try to explain yourself in clear terms so I can at the very least understand why you persist in threatening me.  I understand that you feel you are backing off of your demand at this point, but you haven't even acknowledged that I already met that demand in spades. csloat 02:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it took me a few mintues to write the above, and I wrote it and posted it BEFORE I noticed your final addendum on the main page.  Thank you for posting that.  The minute I saw it I left my own addendum requesting close of this RFC.  And, per your promise, you could actually follow through and start assuming good faith, well, maybe right about now.  OK?  Bigglove 02:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to hear it.  Please strike out your last two sentences as they were uncivil and unnecessary.  The problem here is not my assumption of good faith; the problem is that I have been hounded over and over and over again to do something I already did, without asking, at the very beginning. csloat 03:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved from my main complaint at the request of CSloat.   

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

message: Only a short period after I posted yet another unconditional apology, at User:Bigglove's insistence,  has attempted to expand the scope of this RfC even further, suggesting that there are other issues he would like to see addressed, and following up Bigglove's threats of Arbcom.  I am getting tired of this and I would really appreciate users here not piling it on like this.  The purpose of the RfC is to request comments regarding a specific issue.  This is (as armon says) a step in dispute resolution.  I have addressed quite clearly all the issues raised in this RfC and I think I have done more than extend an olive branch -- I have extended the entire tree.  My apology was absolutely unconditional, yet I was still hounded for days by Bigglove to add more to it.  Each time he acted as if I were being intransigent when in fact it was bigglove who kept moving the goal post and then berating me for not hitting it.  Armon wants evidence that I "get" it -- I do get it, Armon, and I have apologized unreservedly for the violation.  Armon further wants to suggest that Wikipedia is not a battleground -- I heartily agree with him there, and I look forward to evidence of his newfound attitude on this issue.  Armon has treated Wikipedia as a battleground of the worst sort ever since I first met him on the Juan Cole page over a year ago.  The best I have been able to hope for in my interactions with him has been a respectful distance such as Durova called for rather than true Dispute resolution.  I tried Community Enforced Mediation with him and he absolutely stonewalled it over a minor issue.  We also went to arbcom already and arbcom refused to take the case.  Armon stresses that by not going to arbcom he is doing me some kind of favor.  That is one of the more condescending things I have read here.  Arbcom may be necessary, but my behavior will not be "on trial."  What will happen is that our dispute will be mediated and discussed in embarrassing detail, and most likely neither one of us will be happy with the result.  For Armon to portray this as him taking me to the Principal's office is ludicrous, as his behavior on wikipedia is a huge part of the problem here.  Many times I have implored him to simply leave me alone but he refused to.  If this goes to arbcom I think everyone knows that we will see evidence of misbehavior by all concerned.  At least I have acknowledged and apologized for my part in this.
Now Armon is calling for "a similar solution to to what's being tried with Isarig" -- a known sockpuppeteer who has blatantly abused the 3RR.  I am not at all averse to the idea of mentoring and would welcome a mentor here but his suggestion comparing my actions to Isarig's is absurd and insulting.  I hope that Armon understands that and replies -- an apology for that remark would go a long way toward showing the community that he is willing to work with me constructively rather than turn every discussion into a battleground.  If he is not willing to do that, I suggest he take Durova's suggestion (that he signed off on) and that we both keep a respectful distance if we cannot cooperate. csloat 02:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piling it On 

message: ::::Update: I want to apologize for moving the 'view' and 'outside view' of Armon and biophys. Clearly, I'm just as capable of error as I am of independent analysis and decision, as the RfC page clearly states:
:::::*"Anyone, including those who wrote the original RfC, is allowed to post their own view, in a separate section with their name on it, such as ==View by <name>== It can be helpful to indicate the viewpoint of the particular editor, such as "Outside view" "Inside view" "Semi-involved view" etc.
:::::*"In most cases those who brought the RfC do not post individualized views, since the initial statement already indicates their thoughts, but in some cases they may wish to post an additional individualized view to clarify their opinion. Either method is acceptable.
:::::*"Other users can endorse a view, by adding their signature to the list after that view. Along with their signature, they may wish to offer a clarifying comment of one or two sentences, for example if they agree with all but one particular part of the view. Longer responses than that should probably go into their own "View" section.
::::My view of policy was incorrect, and my moving of the 'outside views' or 'views' by Armon and biophys was inappropriate. I apologize for the inconvenience and am available to discuss this further. Honest thanks! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said on my user page, no problem. <<-armon->> 23:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

text: I included all the diffs for what happened above.  Could you review it and say what  you think we should do?  Bigglove 11:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to close it as it is. csloat 13:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so your positino is that we should NOT  correct Ryans move (by mistake in good faith) of a legitimately entered section of the RFC 20 minutes after another user posted it.  Bigglove 13:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, I believe my mistake has been entirely corrected. It was my mistake and so I've completed a self-revert. Csloat, I hope (and from your comment I believe) you don't really care either way. Close for the disputants to take whatever next steps they each believe (whether 'good faith' vows or ArbCom rows) are in the best interests of WP. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Always. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I already did, Bigglove.  There's no need to continue delaying closing this.  You will get no argument from me whether you move biophys' extraneous comments or not. csloat 15:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, well since Biophys's "outside comment" was removed by Ryan (in good faith due to misunderstanding guideline) 20 minutes after it was placed and no one had a chance to see it, I will wait a little while and give Biophys the honor of letting it be seen and signed before I close.  I don't think it helps to call the comment "extraneous" although it may or may not have been.  Bigglove 15:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It helps to the extent that it makes clear that it was extraneous.  I don't see the point of belaboring this and I wonder why you feel the need to delay an RfC you consider resolved. csloat 19:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: moving views

message: ::Re: the motion to close: this is up to people who certified the basis of this dispute by their signatures. I think we should wait and see if the behavior of Csloat has indeed been improved. So far, he filed an WP:ANI report to a person who initiated this RfC. This does not look encouraging.Biophys 17:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From: Biophys' previous 'outside view': Please note that Csloat filed an WP:ANI report blaiming Bigglove of sockpuppetry , perhaps in reply to this RfC. This is hardly consistet with the cordial collaboration spirit mentioned above.Biophys 17:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not blame Bigglove for anything as both Biophys and Armon mistakenly assert.  I reported my suspicions as is policy.  Those suspicions have not been fully answered, but I was very clear in the report that I did not know the answer and that I was not accusing anyone.  At least two uninvolved editors have already called my suspicions reasonable, but even if they are not reasonable, they are not accusations.  They also have no bearing on my handling of this RfC as I announced in my apology -- my statements were uncivil whether or not Bigglove is breaking other Wikipedia rules.  It is discouraging and appalling that instead of acknowledging my apology as an important step forward, both Armon and Biophys have tried to paint my attempt to clarify possible violations of policy as some sort of attempt to undermine this RfC or the collaboration process generally.  It speaks to severe violations of WP:AGF that I hope both of them acknowledge and repudiate. csloat 03:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I hope so too! csloat 06:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: moved from front page