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

message: Per Derex's request I will make a breakdown of FAAFA specific incidents:
*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
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.  --NuclearZer0 01:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. --NuclearZer0 03:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. --NuclearZer0 14:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. --NuclearZer0 21:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. --NuclearZer0 04:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Derex's Request

message: Note that it appears that user NuclearZer0</S> 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)<BR>
22:08, 10 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Durova (→Could you talk with Shell Kinney?) (top)<BR>
22:06, 10 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:CheNuevara (→November Esperanza Newsletter)<BR>
22:04, 10 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dman727 (→RE: Your revert message to 194.8.192.4)<BR>
22:03, 10 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Morton devonshire (→I don't follow your comment: 1RR) <bR>
22:02, 10 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:GabrielF (→November Esperanza Newsletter) (top)<BR>
22:01, 10 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:MONGO (→Warning for your recent vandalism..)<BR>
22:00, 10 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tbeatty (→Closing Hacking Democracy AfD) (top)<BR>
Odd huh? - F.A.A.F.A. 01:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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. --NuclearZer0 03:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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 <no wiki>==Example Header==</no wiki> 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. --NuclearZer0 03:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. --NuclearZer0 03:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Good point! - F.A.A.F.A. 08:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In Response to: New Allegations

message: 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)
replies: text: Comment - WOW! I had forgotten ALL about that - THANKS! - F.A.A.F.A. 10:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. --NuclearZer0 15:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. --NuclearZer0 21:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Outside Views" 

message: 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. --NuclearZer0 13:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I Give Up

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: My Take On Things

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comments from the accused 

message: 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)
thread_title: Something new

message: :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)
thread_title: AfD notification

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comment re: behavior of FAAFA