User talk:Paul Klenk

Welcome to my talk page.

I am glad to hear from you. Working with Wikipedians is an exciting opportunity to learn, engage, and grow in wisdom and truth. I welcome your questions, ideas and concerns. Please note:

• I seldom copy threads between talk pages; if this is a problem, just let me know.
• I move discussions to my archives rather quickly. However, I seldom archive attacks and insults.
• I prefer to discuss articles at their respective talk pages. Please leave your comments there and bring them to my attention here.
• I welcome private e-mails.
• I sometimes talk using my normal voice, and sometimes in a high, silly voice.

This page has three ironclad rules:

File:Executive-ape.jpg

Rule One: No anonymous messages. Leave a user signature, a nickname (if.not.logged.in), or nothing at all.

Rule Two: Be civil. WP's many freedoms do not include personal attacks.

Rule Three: Don't make trouble. It wastes everyone's time and leads to a bad end.

Those are the rules. Please follow them.

Copyvios

Hi...just stepped away from the computer. Anyway, I usually blank the copyvios and add the template to save space. Don't know if it's entirely necessary, but it looks official.  :) - Lucky 6.9 05:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. I'm a strong believer in the "CYA" theory. What a way to spend an evening! Man, I'm bushed. - Lucky 6.9 05:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: comments on deletion page

Generally, I'd be referring to an interpretation of a debate somewhere. But I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically? Do you mean in my deletion log, or on a particular page somewhere? -Splash^talk 19:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, you mean those three AfDs I just added to today's log. I'm relisting them from the Sep 5 log. Personally, I'm not too happy actioning a debate where the only happenings are that two people happened to agree with one another. The outcome of deletion debates, particularly those resulting in deletion, rests on the notion (fuzzy as it is) of consensus. I'm not personally of the opinion that two people agreeing with one another constitutes a consensus. If more than 2 people are involved (as long as the debate is not split), then I'm happy that things are unlikely to be any different if I relist it. It's not at all uncommon for the nominator and first AfD editor to agree with one another but a later editor to point out some key fact and swing the debate; thus my requests that more people study a particular AfD nomination before I delete it. Hope that helps. -Splash^talk 19:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

That said, I'm open to persuasion that I should act on a debate regardless of the number of participants. Part of my reason for relisting is to see if so doing generates any comments to me that I should or should not be doing so. -Splash^talk 19:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You think I'm being purposefully disruptive to satisfy my own evil ends? I did look at the articles, as I always do when I'm closing AfD discussions. And I don't think they have much chance of survival. And I will absolutely not repost them if they are deleted — I'm surprised you think I'm such a bad editor as to do that kind of thing. I could have made my own comment, you are right. But the fact is that I was closing the debate (or notclosing it, as it turned out) rather than particpating in it and I judged that consensus had not been reached on what should be done with the article owing to the lack of participation. If I should be the admin who comes to close the relisted debate, and there is a consensus to delete, I will do so without hesitation. Note that over the last few days I've relisted quite a number of one-participant AfDs, and they all now have very clear results. So far, you're the only person to suggest I shouldn't be doing so, and I will of course take your feedback seriously. But I reiterate that I am not pushing some Machiavellian scheme to repost poor articles. -Splash^talk 19:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I had thought it reasonably clear, given the timestamps of the comments prior to my italicized ones, that I had come across an old debate that I was not happy closing. That phrasing was just the one I used today. I think last time I said somethign like "more eyeballs needed, but tell me if I should just be closing these instead". So I'll make sure I use more specific language in future. -Splash^talk 19:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I just added a parenthetical comment to the 3 I relisted explicitly indicating that I'm relisting an old debate. I hope that makes things clearer. -Splash^talk 19:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Advertising is not a CSD criteria, sigh.

You listed Quark city for speedy deletion. But ads are not a speedy criteria. I've removed the tag. It is a clear advert, so I'm sure AfD will take care of it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

VFD Participation

I, V. Molotov, hereby give you this Working Man's Barnstar for active participation of Wikipedia's Votes for Deletion.

Take care, Molotov (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the cocktail! Molotov (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Response to your message: See my talk page. I say those IPs shouldn't be allowed to add articles as most of what they add is vandalism or worth deletion. Secondly, the text now is fine enough especially the following: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. " Thus justifying if an article is to be deleted or not, etc. Molotov (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page. ; ) Molotov (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

More Wiki brah

Take a look at what this guy left on my talk page. I have had it. - Lucky 6.9 02:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I am so relieved you're online and that you've seen this nonsense. I've blocked him for 48 hours on the "no personal attacks" criterion. E-mail address is at work, though. Can't access it until tomorrow. - Lucky 6.9 02:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Karl Rove/September Survey

For future polls, don't ask three questions... ask one, or better yet don't ask anything at all. Create a proposal and ask for support so that users may if they wish vote, support, object, merge etc... and elaborate if necessary. This is more efficient and consistent with voting elsewhere in Wikipedia. Since its early days you can still change it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Karl Rove

Paul_Klenk said: I am asking past editors of the Karl Rove page to weigh in on a survey. If you can spare a couple of minutes, please visit this page: Talk:Karl Rove/September Survey, read the introduction, and answer the three questions that have been posed. Thank you.

I'm not sure. I think it's safe I stay out of this one. Aside from what I submitted to the article, I know little about the subject matter, and feel it easier to not weigh into something I don't really know. I'm sorry. Best of luck that the survey gets the results you want. Bobo192|Edits 17:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Got your message. However, I will not be tolerating "BigDaddy"'s rants any longer. I'm sure you've seen his RFC page, etc. The poster is in flagrant, abhorrent violation of any Wiki code of conduct, and I will call him exactly what he is: a troll, a vandal, and a coward. Is there no point where his behavior gets him banned, or are Wiki editors obliged to waste time obliging every harebrained screed he types? Once Wiki can get him to cease personal attacks, I will tone down my rhetoric. If you haven't already, I recommend you try to get him to change his attack-mode ways. In any case, enough is enough.

Rove/Plame stuff

Nice handling of the Rove/Plame issues. I'll be interested to read your final merged article on the whole thing. android79 19:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Secret admirer

Look what I just found! User:PaulKlenk, now blocked. You must have done something good. Dmcdevit·t 03:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

3rr

paul, i can understand why you are upset. there is a lot of tension on karl rove right now, and though i'm not really much involved there, i know from experience how maddening that can be. that said, i do think it's pretty questionable whether ryan broke the 3rr.

it's perfectly fine to 'undo' someone's edit if you really are adding something substantive to the article that is relevant to the 'undo'. in a sense, any edit to existing text is an 'undo' as it changes someone else's work, but that doesn't make it a revert. another one was removing a cut-n-paste from a copyrighted source, that is perfectly appropriate and doesn't really count as a revert. so, that's only 3 at most (which is allowed). some of the remaining 3 are also a little dubious, e.g. reverting one word (footnote).

the 3rr is a relatively new one (< 1 year), and there was a very lengthy discussion about how to do it. the bottom line is really whether the reverts are in 'good faith' or part of an edit war. the two i cited would, at least to me, clearly fall in the good faith category. so anyway, while i do sympathize with your frustration, i wanted to clarify the spirit (and actually letter) of the 3rr so that you didn't get more frustrated. in other words, there won't be a block, but it won't be because people are 'siding' with her position on the article. sorry for the long-windedness here, but thought a bit more explanation might be helpful since you are new.

best regards & welome to the wiki, Derex 05:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

ok, just my two pence. by the way, i agree with your response to 69.121.133.154 about the comma & kizzle part. it doesn't matter whether one technically uses a rollback (the *.154's standard) or manually changes the text. the relevant part is whether the 'undone' portion is substantively changed in a good faith way. cheers. Derex 05:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, look up a section! I thought you knew I was an admin because I just blocked that accout today. :) btw, most admins should say so on their user pages. Of course I don't want anyone to be angry. Here's how it goes: that 3RR page is specifically for reporting violations to admins so they can either issue blocks, or decide not to. In that vein, the "comments" section is only therefore people to make comments about that, as in when the admin says they've blocked, or when the offender disputes that there was a violation. It is not the place to carry on a disscussion about the person, just the violation. As I said, take it to a talk page or RFC. It is certainly not the place for you to impugn the character of an admin, one of our most respected users. Nobody's covering up anything and you didn't catch anyone at it and no one's admitting anything. That's what got me. So, you just need to cool it, and don't go to the page for requesting user blocks if you don't wan't one. Try reading WP:RFC. And surely you see why there was no block, correct? No one's glossing over anything. Dmcdevit·t 07:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

You said to Kate and the anon (and possibly me) that they were all "glossing over," and then in big bold letters admit that I was right or something like that. That's just not how we talk to people civilly here. (Try not to come off like a paranoid person, too.) Dmcdevit·t 07:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Goodnight...

Just a note to say I am going to bed --- at 6:30 AM in the morning...

There may be a lot of discussion in the coming hours which is addressed to me. Please don't think I am ignoring you if I don't respond. I'm just getting some sleep. Kitties and I will be back this afternoon after our quiet cuddle. paul klenk 10:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Page Diffs

Paul -- I just remembered seeing you say you weren't sure how to provide difflinks, so I wanted to take a second to show you. It's not hard. Basically, all you do is click on a page's "history" link. Select the "old" version and then the "new" version you want to demonstrate the difference between, and then click on "compare versions." That'll bring up a comparison page. Just copy the link in your browser and paste it into the page like this: [http://linkhere.com]. It'll appear as an external link [43] or such as that. Not hard at all. Hope this is making sense. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, on the 3RR page it should include a timestamp. To do that, just put a space and copy the time from the diff page within the brackets, like [http://linkhere.com 18:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)], for 18:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC). Dmcdevit·t 18:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Sleep time...

It's 5 AM Eastern on Sunday, and I'm going to bed. Will talk to you all later. Good night. paul klenk

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles

Because of the complexity of the vote at the above AfD, I have attempted to break down the individual votes on the AfD talk page. If I have misunderstood your vote with respect to any of these, please correct it. Cheers! -- BDAbramson ^talk 12:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Response

Paul -- thanks for the note on my talk page; it wasn't necessary that you take all that time to explain your views, but I appreciate that you did just the same. It's a sometimes unfortunate fact of Wikipedia that often people act without taking time to talk about the roots of their views, which can lead to many misunderstandings. Let me answer a couple of your points.

First, I must confess that I am confused as to why you made a report on the 3RR page if you weren't seeking a block. That's the point of the page. Next time you see a 3RR but don't want a block effectuated, please don't report it there. That's the sole purpose of the page -- not to be a court or place to seek some kind of judgment from on high about user conduct; that's what the ArbComm is for. There's no need for you to continue to explain on this point; it's done and probably best left to rest. I understand that you weren't familiar with the process; it's really OK. This place has a pretty steep learning curve; even I am still learning about certain things, after nearly 10,000 edits and almost a year of involvement with all sorts of articles and debates.

Let me be clear about one thing -- you didn't "seem to call my actions into question," you did. You suggested that I was somehow favoring RyanFreisling in the matter by not blocking her as a result of your report, then you essentially discarded my decision and asked for someone else to evaluate your report. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, as I know you were a bit confused about the 3RR policy that night, but you seem to justify your stance even now by saying you "don't kowtow." My reputation is here is good and I consider your suggestions on the 3RR page essentially a smear against it. I'm not sure how else I'm supposed to take this.

Regarding your mentoring BigDaddy, good. I'm glad to hear it and hope that he will improve. As to the rest, I agree that the IP in question needs watching. But there's no way for anybody but a developer to tell whether or not an IP is linked to someone else's account, so for now everyone should be careful about accusations of sockpuppetry. Best · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Stobbster?

Okay, in the AFD debate for Stobbster, you made some crack about how it could have been saved by an inverted triangle.

That's the sort of subtle joke that just forces me to read the article, to try to figure out what you meant. So I did, and I still don't get it.

Explain? DS 15:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

um

This is really minor, but... um... could you go back to that comment you left on my page, and sign/datestamp it? It feels tidier that way. DS 20:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

trouble @ the Biff Rose corral

I'm posting about Biff Rose. Oyu may well be a friend to the editor willmcw. In that case I guess this is useless, as all the people I've found to be friends with willmcw seem to simply back him without paying any attention to what he might be doing erroneously. See the talk page, and how he reverts edits when ever he chooses, but demands that others not do the same when he is out of line and brekaing wiki rules and practices.Jonah Ayers 06:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Whatever I may be doing "erroneously" I'd like to know about. Anyway, thanks for your participation in "Biff Rose". The more editors of that article the better. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that there are any "newbies" involved in this topic. But otherwise I agree with everything you said. I'm a relative newcomer to this topic, and cannot fathom its controversy. Like any factual article, it's better to have it shorter and more accurate. Anyway, it's much better than it was a few months ago. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there have been reversions and talkpage deletions, but I've seen worse. The peripheral issues seem to be multiplying, but they are all based on one article so it doesn't seem to be a major problem for the project. I agree with you about the difficulty in determining reverts. I can't offer any suggestions for improvements in the system, but if you have any I suggest that you push them forward. I've encountered the same difficulty with other articles. -Willmcw 10:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

stew

thanks for the laugh about rove stew, sounds toxic to me, but i did relish the image. couple comments.

• i noticed on gator1's page that you felt there was a trend of dumping negative material into articles. you are not alone in that view; people of all political views here feel that way, and correctly so. except it's not just articles about conservatives; i'm sure you can imagine what the clinton or kerry articles were like a while back. it's essentially impossible to remove material here, even trivial stuff which obfuscates an article, without being accused of censorship (or 'electioneering'). i'm not commenting directly on rove here.

• i used to view this as the fatal flaw of wikipedia. material comes in, but never goes out, leaving a cluttered mess. but, with strategy, it can be turned into a strength. i have developed two approaches: 1st add a little more material to give a neutral context; sometimes this ends up being a net win for the article. 2nd if that tends to overclutter an article, then you probably have enough material for a good daughter article. i already know you would like to do that with rove/plame & i agree that is probably a good solution. (i just prefer waiting a month for fitzgerald to wrap it up). the end result is that you keep the main article on point with a judicious summary, but those interested in the scandal get a fuller exploration than can be crammed into the main page. based on my experience, there is just no way that BD is going to win his fight to remove substantive material. but, you can probably get some of it moved to an article where the criticism discussion can be more fully and fairly developed. again, i now see that as a strength.

• BD is his own worst enemy. he's a walking personal attack on himself. by that, i mean that he causes his true arguments to be ignored by his terrible demeanor. people who have been around here a while have little patience for that sort of behavior, because it eats up an enormous amount of time. just look at how many pages of talk & rfc have been devoted to the topic of bd's attitude. now, imagine if all that effort had been devoted to his arguments. similarly, think how much effort you've put into defending someone who won't even defend himself.

• BD is not being persecuted for his political views, it's about his attitude. proof: there are lots of very conservative editors who are well-respected here. ultimately, i don't care about BD; i care about writing an encyclopedia & having some fun. and if BD does not become a positive contributor to that on net, then good riddance.

• reputations do matter. and rightly so, for they are based on experience.

• you clearly have a strong sense of injustice & a desire to help the oppressed. you seem like a liberal at heart to me ;) Derex 17:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hasenpfeffer, Inc.

Thanks for that! A bit of Yiddish always brightens my day! As you might imagine, it's (lamentably) rather thin on the ground here in Ireland. RMoloney 20:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello good sir...

I saw your comments on some anon's user page and thought I'd ask you something. Do you really think people without a login name are worse than people with one. I'm not saying that anons don't cause more trouble, because they clearly do, but why do you not stand for some anon editing (User:71.112.11.220). Is it just the fact that this one was a vandal, or is it something against anons being able to edit in general? I was just wondering, and I hope this note doesn't sound too mean, because that was never my intent. Also, in regards to your quote on your user page (the killing a man, etc.), there was a recorded occurance of a man in Jamestown who when starving, killed his wife and kept her body in his little icehouse. He ate everything but her head because he said that would be weird, so to speak. I'm not sure you really care about any of this, I just thought I'd pass a little historical information on to you. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I sent you an email, I hope you get a chance to respond. Also, I cannot recall much about the Jamestown incident, it's just one of those things I remember from a Colonial America class I took back in college. Maybe I'll go back and try to find my notes about it somewhere. And Thanks for your timely response RE:anon users. Messages make me happy too. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Just checking to see if you got the email. I suppose you don't have to respond, I just want to know if you actually received it. Thanks. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

LOL!

Dude, did I actually type those things...? AAARGH!

Yes, I really did need the chuckle. Wouldn't be the first time I was quoted out of context.  :) - Lucky 6.9 17:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Good question. I say go for it! It can't be any worse than the nonsense I got sucked into somehow. You'll love this. Go to Ashida Kim and read the votes for deletion as well as this guy's message page. I've gotten a few e-mails from him ranting about his article...and I never heard of him before now. Apparently, neither have several other users. What fun! - Lucky 6.9 17:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Ain't he cute? All this wonderful technology at our fingertips. We can literally access the world from our desks. Then we get...this. Woefully unpoetic. - Lucky 6.9 18:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

RFC

Paul:

Why is it that the RFC main page has headings that are in favor of the the RFC read generally "Users who endorse this summary" and "evidence of disputed behavior", but those that are against it are labeled as "Gator1's outside point of view" and "Paul_klenk's evidence of improved behavior" Seems like it's a obvious attempt to marginalize the opposition and make it sound like a fringe minority with no support. What do you think? Should it be changed to make it conform to the others?Gator1 02:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh I had no intention of doing anything or ever saying anything on those pages ever again. I just wanted to know your opinion on the subject. Their formatting seems biased to me that's all. Thoughts?Gator1 02:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh and Nightshade seemed eager to rescind the motion to suspend didn't he? He certainly has an axe to grind...but weight it's not personal, I forgot!Gator1 02:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your encouragement, but I've said my peace and don't want to devote any more time than I already have to it. I just want to get back to editing and I encourage everyone there to do the same. RFCs are not why we are here and Hip and Kizzle and BD have already made up their minds about what they're going to do and not to do and there's not much any of us can do change anything (than what we've already done). I hope I haven't disappointed you. I have a great deal of respect for you. See yah.Gator1 13:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment on worst of threads

What exactly are you looking for? Links to one section on a particular article or parts of articles or??? I don't quite understand. Plus, why wasn't this dropped on Katefan's talk page or someone else's? Not questioning it. I just find it sort of strange. --Woohookitty 10:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

BG777 Worst-Of Threads

All of the quotes in the RFC link to diffs. Those diffs contain complete context. The coproponent spent a great deal of time compiling the evidence we did. I don't intend to rehash this at this juncture. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Hip. I was hoping I would not have to go into length, but here is what I am asking for and why:

I am looking for a section in time of talk page history where BD gave one of his "worst-of" performances -- not a link to one specific comment. Perhaps you could indicate this with a beginning link, and tell me how many hours I should look at in that thread, say, 10 AM Sept 3 to 8 PM Sept 3. The problem I am having with tons of isolated quotes is, I have to do all the work to find out the context of the remark. I cannot evaluate someone fairly based on a ton of quotes, taken out of context, listed on a page. If it were you being evaluated, you would want someone to know why you said what you did, who you said it to, what the comments followed, etc. etc. The RfC does not provide this very well. It is asking people to "take their word for it" that, in context, the remarks were unjustifiable.

I took a couple of hours to carefully review two very long threads of conversation involving BigDaddy. I did a very detailed analysis, comment by comment, on each side of the arguments. Although I saw many of the behaviors the RfC complains about (and I believe BD should shape up), his comments really didn't seem so bad compared to what other people were slinging at him. Mostly he was making colorful but well-worded arguments, defending his case, and objecting that people were not addressing the arguments (they weren't). Instead they were objecting to how he was wording them, and whining a lot. I couldn't bring myself to search and search for something with more weight. That's why I asked you to. Out of respect for the process, I thought it only fair to let someone from that page really prove their case. Tons of isolated quotes do not prove this case. A link to one comment on one thread is nice, but I still have to wade throught the before and after of the debate -- to see context. paul klenk ^talk 11:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

But, if you must [1] has a total of 25 newlines, 11 of them blank. It starts the personal attacks on the third word. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Hip. First, read my lengthy discussion above. It really tells you what I am looking for. Not a "single edit" (however long it may be) but a long thread I can look at, seeing everyone's comments on all sides, over a period of time. In the second example you provided, I was actually readhing that thread, so fortunately I know what the contents are.

I can't tell you how much I wish I could just speak to you on the phone. Honestly, I can type and type, but a person to person conversation would be so meaningful right now. Would it offend you if I begged for twenty minutes on the phone?

I really appreciate what you have been doing to help me, by the way. paul klenk ^talk 11:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not interested in a phone conversation. I do not intend to provide more detail or discussion untill the individual who the RFC targets either continues in his poor behavior or corrects it. There is no more slack, no more negotiation, no more arguemnt. This is done. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[2] is the thread in which I determined this user needed serious intervention. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You have provided a well-intended, partially accurate, but horribly flawed RfC. You are asking all those judging it to do your work for you: Do their own digging through endless threads looking for dozens and dozens of out-of-context quotes to try to put those quotes in context.

I asked you for the worst, you gave me the most recent. I asked you for a lengthy discussion over a period of time. You gave me one moment in time. I will live with it.

You asked him not to use so many new lines. He uses more than you like. You will live with it, Hip. With all due respect, I absolutely cannot believe you would even bring that up with respect to an RfC. It just takes my breath away. I know you have a thing for formatting, but it can be taken to an extreme. I think you may have just surpassed that extreme.

You have called his comment about Wales "ignorant and uninformed." But that can only be determined from context. You didn't provide it. But I assure you, if BD had ever used the words "ignorant and uninformed," those words would be included -- out of context -- among the dozens and dozens of quotes in your RfC. And you would expect fellow editors and arbitrators to do what -- make some sort of determination from that? What would you be asking them to do? Dozens of quotes are not weight, they are volume.

The above is essentially a microcosm of your RfC. In it you can see many of its flaws. I truly know you are well-meaning, and BigDaddy has screwed up. He uses the word "girls," which is inappropriate, and people flip out like their world is falling apart. Neither side in this will get satisfation. It doesn't exist. Neither side will never agree on the terms for getting to a resolution -- so how can they get there?

A group of editors is writing about some of the most hated and controversial political figures in the news. For their sources, they have to rely upon a media that is driven by sensationalism, allegations, innuendo, rumor, and accusations. We have to sort through that junk, as historians (which is essentially what we are). Up until now, editors of these disputed articles have failed to use impartial sources, failed to balance the articles, and failed to provide a broader overview of their subjects -- just lots and lots of snippets and quotes, gussied up to look at an article. You can never get a good article by starting with the material we're using. It'll never happen.

Such articles can never be written by a group of editors whose baseline for "getting along" is the baseline provided by the most sensitive and touchy among them. John Cleese once talked about this as the reason we have political correctness. The touchiest people are the ones who tell everybody else -- the moderate, well-adjusted, thick-skinned ones -- what the standard is for behavior. Cleese was brilliant in his characterization. paul klenk ^talk 13:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You write too much for me to reasonably respond to. BD777 will clean up his behavior or we will go to RFAr. There are not other options. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

ps: Click the "next edit" link to see the thread. This is how we do things here.Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You have written too lengthy an RfC, with too little context, for a reasonable and fair arbitrator to respond to. You still have options: You could do the work ahead of time, instead of asking arbitrators to slog through piles of out-of-context quotes, to find out the full context of his remarks. paul klenk ^talk 13:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

An RFC is a community request for comment. An RFAr is a structured process with authority figures. The RFC forms a basis for the RFAr. I would have moved the vast majority of the RFC to the talk page, but someone objected to me doing that before, and accused me of vandalism. That person was you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You know what, I just went ahead and did it. The RFC page is now clean. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

We have already settled that matter on your talk page, you and I, have we not? Is there something else we need to talk about there? Please say so if there is. You and I had a great conversation, we covered a lot of ground -- everything, I thought. I guess I am wrong. I'm happy to do address anything that needs addressing. I would go into more detail here, but it just saddens me that I would have to. Please think about what your comment may have undone.

My comments took up the "vast majority" of the RfC? I'm not so sure that is true. What was the percent, mine vs. everyone elses? But it isn't just the length of the RfC that I think is a problem -- it is its inability to provide good summary, good analysis, and good context. It relies too heavily on characterizations of comments, or comments out of context. If you had read my thread above, you might have seen that.

You have so many valid things to say about BD. I just don't think you've provided the best kind of foundation you needed to do it.

If there is a way I can summarize my section -- for isntance, providing links to a larger page -- I would be happy to do so.

Please read the current RFC. As the extranious crap was excised to talk, I believe it provides a clear structure as to what BD777 needs to do. Specifically, he needs to stop making personal attacks. Hey, that's what I've been saying all along! Perhaps if he just said he was going to do that, and did it, or just did it without saying anything about it this would all be over? Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

New section for Paul and Hip

Let's use this formatting: You take the left margin always, I take one indent in, always, back and forth. Thanks. The ever-narrowing margin is driving me batty.

Every time I browse over to WP:VIP I know exactly why things are not settled, and why, when I came in to clean up the remainder of the RFC page yesterday, I was unable to do so, and why I had such hesitancy now to do so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Please tell me specifically what you'd like me to do with respect to the WP:VIP. Thanks. paul klenk ^talk

"I apologize for misfiling this here - I misunderstood a text move. There was no vandalism. ~~~~"

Let's also be clear here - there is community consensus that BD777 needs to change his behavior. You, in fact, joined that consensus He has not changed his behavior. (You contend that he makes fewer personal attacks of less severity - I, of course, insist that he stop all personal attacks, forever, without fail or exception. Please do not take this time to complain about the behavior of a user that is not-me. If you have a problem with a 3rd party, please file an RFC.) For the purposes of getting comments from the community, the RFC succeded - every signatory - EVERY ONE - agreed with the co proponents, or signed on to "Bigdaddy is rough around the edges and certainly tends to get hot under the collar," or "I'm still not sure that he understands that talk pages are primarily for working on the article, not for registering one's indignation with the other people involved, but he seems to be headed that way. I certainly would not want to see punitive action at this time, but he's certainly not on my mental list of editors I tend to trust to do the right thing." Every. Single. One. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

A bit of reforatting -- see my note above (sorry if it wasn't clear). You're flush left; I'm one indent in; you're flush left; I'm one indent in.

Do please tell me what I need to do with respect to WP:VIP. Do I need to go back there and summarize what you and I talked about, and tell them the matter is closed? Is that what you're waiting for me to do? If there's something else, besides that? Please tell me.

You're right in all your assertions above; thank you for noticing that I've agreed with you, and forgive me if there's something else I could be doing for you but am not. I'm sorry, I'm not justifying what he does, just saying they need to be placed in context, and pointing out that, all things aside, this experience will never, ever satisfy you. If that answer doesn't resonate with you, we can just drop it -- it's okay. I'll leave it alone. paul klenk ^talk

Please do summarize that you do not believe any vandalism occoured on VIP, or blank the report entirely. His actions do not need context at RFC. He needs to stop making personal attacks. There is never an excuse for personal attacks. They need to just stop. His last personal attack was made on September 17th ("girls"). He was obviously trolling on the 20th, but I ignored that also. He's back, and gaming the system to push his pov today, but I don't care about that. On his next personal attack, in the absence of him promising to stop on the RFC (in which case I will grant him some leeway, as I will let him wipe the slate clean at any time) I will go to ArbCom. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"You can always go to democratic undergound or daily kos and spew your anti-Rove paranoid hatred." [3] I will file the RFAr by days end. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I left a comment at VIP, and please, please feel free to let me know if there's a hint of anything else I need to do, or discuss, to ensure this matter is forever closed. If I also could delete the entire section at VIP (am I allowed to do that?), or get an admin to, I would.

I think part of our talking over each other -- just a bit -- is because I may not hold to a view of what RfCs should expect to accomplish and how they should be worded, formatted, sourced, etc. I haven't seen enough of them to have a bigger view of how Wikipedians feel about them. I think this may cause me to come across as a bit obtuse to you -- am I right? paul klenk ^talk 14:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

No, not obtuse. Most users, even those who participate, see RFCs as a judiciarry process, for one to defend oneself from the onslaugh of assault they are undergoing. It's ok that they violated WP:POINT, because someone else violated WP:AGF. It's ok that they violated WP:NPOV, because they were right! It's ok that they... because.... This is not helpful. An RFC is an intervention - much like against an alcoholic - "We, the community, think that you are doing wrong. Look at all these people who think that you are doing wrong. Stop doing wrong!" This RFC was poisoned almost instantly as another conservative POV warrior showed up and decided it was liberals vs. conservatives in RFC land. Then the liberal POV warriors showed up and did the same thing, turning what was formed as a request that someone stop making personal attacks into yet another extension of the liberal conservative flamefest that persists due to actions of editors like BD777, and their POV-pushing, dishonest, system gaming, personal attacking ways. The second BD777 stops making personal attacks, I will gladly take my name off the RFC. He shows no promise of doing so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

A new section

I really hope you're not talking about me, because I NEVER made any such liberal vs conservative statement and I defy you to show me where I did. My arguments have always been centered around the fact that BD did not deserve the filing of an RFC for his poor behavior (i.e. it wasn't poor ENOUGH to warrant it) and it was actually motivated by a personal vendetta by people who just didn't like him (conservative orliberal I couldn't care less) and the way he refused to acknowledge the RFC. I really hope you weren't talking about me and if you were...just SAY it and don't act all vague and mysterious "conservative POV warrior" lol.Gator1 15:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You advised him not to respond. You consistantly reinforced his decision to continue his personal attacks. You diminished the weight of the RFC, because you thought that just a few personal attacks were ok (in contradiction to official policy): [4][5][6]

In summary, if you had not shown up to the RFC, it would have been far more likley to curtail personal attacks. I don't begrudge you your desire for Wikipedia to be a battleground, but you hurt this process, and the encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Gator1 and Hip, you are totally welcome to use this page for this discussion; if you wouldn't mind, though, please create another section for it, then keep it in that section. I think Gator1's questions are valid and should not be vaguely dismissed. Kind regards, paul klenk ^talk 15:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Nothing you said had anyhting to do with caling me a "conservative warrior" you just assumed that and hae failed to prove your previous statement. I stand by what I said and did and don't feel it made anything more or less likely and if it hurt the RFC......good...it's pure BS and doesn't deserve to go anywhere. I didn't hurt Wikipedia, that's pure exageration on oyur part. Be ashamed. If anythin this entire process hurt it, becuase it took time away form editing to attack some guy for not beign nice....what a joke! BD's behavior needed to change, the RFC helped that....move on and don't talk about me without using my name, I don't appreciate it. It's two-faced to be quite honest. I'm done here unless you want to continue this nonesense.Gator1 15:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not interested in responding to you anymore. Your entirely self contradactory statements about personal attacks (for thee, but not for me), your statement that the RFC was "pure BS", contrasted with your statement that "BD's behavior needed to change" pretty much show that you don't really know what an RFC is. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Guess you told me! Have fun. It's very entertaining watching you and the others get more and more and more angry....can't wait to see how it ends. (oh and still waiting to see how I was a "conservative warrior" but I guess that just mor rhetoric and exaggerations.....I won't call it a personal attack and file an RFC though...who would such a thing?! ;)Gator1 16:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Read the Above, and Place your links here:

Place links in this section:

• State the name of the page
• State the time of the beginning of the lengthy discussion.
• State the time of the end of that discussion.

Sample:

• Karl Rove Talk
• 9:35 AM, Sept. 3
• 6:10 PM, Sept. 3

Thank you.

paul klenk ^talk

BD

I was asked to provide evidence if I had any about User:BigDaddy777. However I see the section here is quite long, and I'm not sure I see that it would do any good. He has yet to acknowlege the RFC, right? I don't particuarly see the point in adding to it. He knows that his uncivil behavior isn't appropriate here. What is the outcome that is hoped for here? If I see him be uncivil, I may well post a note to his talk page about it. Other than that, I don't see what would be any good. If the behavior continues, I imagine he'll end up with an RFAr at some point. Hopefully it won't go that way. Friday (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Because I'm fair:

This is evidence that he is at least partially willing to correct his behavior. Not that it's all that acceptable as it stands, but now it's at least passable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

But I'm not blind or stupid - [7]. Pure gaming the system. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

BiffRose

I'm advising you that I have discussed the revert war that is currently being engaged at Biff Rose, and that you are now considereda part of that. The article as it reads now was a rewrite of one earlier, and that was then reverted by Willmcw, surely a friend to you. I will protect the message that Rose's work is anti smetic and racist, and will include those phrases each time the article is rewritten.Jonah Ayers 01:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)