The following discussion is an archived record of an user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 18:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC).
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
This is a complex dispute involving the two noted users which has extended at least 15 months. The short version is summed up with two words: "We disagree". The long version covers a huge swath of territory, involving multiple discussions on multiple topics across the project between BQZip01 and Hammersoft. Interactions between the two users is at best strained. Despite various attempts to halt the disagreements sustaining between them, it has not ended nor is there any apparent end in sight.
{Add summary here, provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.}
For more than a year, BQZip01 and I have interacted with each other in regards to a whole host of issues. Many of these issues are connected with the project's use of non-free imagery. Our respective stances on this issue are disparate. It is rare occasion that we agree on any point. I don't mind disagreement. It exists throughout the project and is a normal part of the process of developing the project. What is of concern is what happens as a result of disagreement. In quick summary, quoting TransporterMan "you're both Kryptonite to one another" and "you can't get along". After considerable effort on both our parts, BQZip01 and I have not been able to find common ground of agreement, and the disputes stemming from those disagreements remain sustained and have spun out of control.
I was hopeful that a lightweight process could be put together to bring this dispute to closure. To that end, I approached Wikipedia:Third_opinion to see if one could be attempted there {see thread). To TransporterMan's great credit, he determined it wasn't appropriate for that venue, but agreed to attempt mediation between BQZip01 and I. That mediation failed (see thread). This dispute has been brought before many different venues, and has never resolved satisfactorily for either party.
I am not a lawyer, don't wish to be one, and didn't want to get into a challenge of diffs at ten paces. Yet there seems to be no way to resolve this without treading down this path. Very, very reluctantly, I submit the following:
14-15 January 2010: A debate occurs between myself and User:Kudpung on my talk page regarding the use and licensing of Worcestershire Coat of Arms, a file BQZip01 has never edited nor has any reason to have an interest in.
15 January 2010: I place a comment at this BRFA diff
15 January 2010: 6 hours later, BQZip01 comments at the same BRFA diff, though he has never commented on a BRFA before or since.
File:Pueblo crew on 122368.jpg
26 January 2010: I post a ((nrd)) on File:Pueblo crew on 122368.jpg diff and notify the uploader diff
27 January 2010: 4 hours later, BQZip01 posts to my talk page, after I've repeatedly asked him to stay off my talk page, requesting permission to post a fair use rationale on the image diff. BQZip01 has never interacted with the uploader, or touched the image before. He has edited the article the image is on, but the last time he edited it was in April of 2007 diff, almost three years ago.
27 January 2010: I ask him again to stop following me diff.
27 January 2010: He claims he can follow my edits if he wants, and says he will now stay off my talk page. diff
6 February 2010: User:Dthomsen8 leaves a note on my talk page regarding DashBot's actions. diff
BQZip01 reads this and follows the request by Dthomsen8 to look at User_talk:Tim1357 for some discussion.
BQZip01 has never before or since posted to Tim1357's talk page. (see history)
9 February 2010: BQZip01 follows that discussion and modifies the licensing of File:Publicprivateventures.gif, a file he had never edited before, nor the article it resides on. diff
An argument could be made that BQZip01 was only following DashBot, a bot he took an interest while following my edits. However, that argument is empty; BQZip01 had not followed any other DashBot transactions, just this one that I was involved in (of several I've been involved in).
18 February 2010: I remove File:Dallas Cowboys.svg from 2009 Dallas Cowboys season and 2010 Dallas Cowboys season articles diff, diff per WP:NFCC #10c. BQZip01 has never touched either of these articles. He's never touched the image. He's never touched the three articles where it was legitimately used (Cowboys–Redskins rivalry, America's Team, Dallas Cowboys).
20 February 2010 BQZip01 changes the tags on the image marking it as free diff.
26 February 2010 01:04: Erwin85bot places a notice on my talk page that the article Steelers–Ravens rivalry is up for deletion at AfD diff.
26 February 2010 01:55:, 51 minutes later before I've had a chance to respond, BQZip01 votes keep on the AfD diff.
BQZip has never contributed to the article that is up for AfD. He had never contributed to Baltimore Ravens. He had never contributed to Pittsburgh Steelers. At the time BQZip voted on this AfD, he had not contributed to any other AfD in more than 3 months (the last was 3 November 2009 diff).
5 March 2010: I mark the image File:ETrade.svg as non-free, missing rationale. (image now deleted; diff viewable to admins: diff). BQZip01 had never edited this image nor the one article it was used on.
8 March 2010: BQZip01 claims it's free, and retags it as such. (image now deleted; diff viewable to admins: diff)
24 March 2010 I re-mark the image as non-free, and it has a rationale, requesting it be taken to discussion. {image now deleted: diff viewable to admins diff)
ArbCom has repeatedly taken a very dim view of harassment. In particular; provocation:
When another user is having trouble due to editing conflicts or a dispute with another user it is inappropriate to provoke them as it is predictable that the situation will escalate.
Editing in a manner so as to provoke other editors goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors. Editing in such a manner may be perceived as trolling and harassment.
BQZip01 knows full well from many poor interactions between he and I that the editing of things I have worked on that he has found via following my edits is provocative. ArbCom is likely to take a very dim view of his actions in this regard.
BQZip01 refutes the accusation that he has violated our harassment policy because he feels he is taking legitimate action "fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles". Yet, BQZip01 knows full well that his following of my edits causes me significant annoyance and disruption.
I have attempted to disengage from BQZip01 as much as possible. I've repeatedly asked BQZip01 to do the same. Yet, he won't. Quoting ArbCom again,
Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other whenever they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. In extreme cases, they may be directed to do so.
It is this principal which I have been attempting to follow for some months now. But, it will always be unsuccessful if one of the parties does not follow it. For example, the recent blow up at File:ETrade.svg would never have happened had BQZip01 not been following my edits. If he hadn't, we'd still have the image on Wikipedia. It'd still be in use on the e-trade article. Yet, BQZip01 felt it necessary to interject himself into the situation. At a minimum, he could have sought outside assistance. But, he chose instead to jump into it.
On several occasions, BQZip01 has harassed me by continuing to demand responses from me on a given issue. The most egregious of these cases involved a failed mediation (see case, related,related). BQZip01 repeatedly raised issue with my stance in regards to that mediation.
At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#User:Hammersoft, BQZip01 requested I be blocked for prolonged incivility diff. He then claimed he wasn't asking for a block diff instead only a warning (which he never asked for in the original posting). When challenged that he was asking for a block, diff he subsequently changed it, indicating it was a mistake diff. The stance that seemed to gain the most agreement in that thread was made by admin Masemin this comment. I've attempted to take what Masem said to heart and apply it as best I can. BQZip01 was largely rebuffed in that discussion. It didn't deter him.
I get that he hates me. I really do. No further effort on his part is required to impart on me the absolute depth of contempt he holds me in. But if I am so incredibly bad in violating so many policies, guidelines and essays I would be sticking out like a thumb as sore as Willy on Wheels, and most assuredly some person would get around to approaching me about these problems. Yet, BQZip01 feels incredibly motivated to make sure he is the one that harasses me about these issues.
To the 17 November 2009 comment: As I explained here, I do not pride myself on pissing people off, and never have. My userpage is meant as a deterrent against people who would insult me for the work I do. I call myself a certified idiot for a reason, that of making it clear to most would be insulters that their insults have no hold over my actions. Over time, as the page has developed, the number of insults has decreased. I think it's had the intended effect. Much of the rest of the page is dedicated to my stances with regards to people's attitudes about my work (I especially like the nuclear bomb) and jokes. I understand you don't get the jokes. I can't expect everyone to get them; that would be unreasonable. But, others have gotten them, and even the lone barnstar I've received was for humor on my userpage diff.
To the 16 January 2010 comment: I found this especially offensive. An unseen mass of people have sent you more than "scores" of personal e-mails, as if you are the personal adjudicator of my actions. You aren't, and never will be. Further, an unseen collection of e-mails has no weight. I can not verify or even address these unseen comments. To then take this unseen collection and use it as a threatening tool against the possibility I might bring our dispute to ArbCom was appalling.
As previously noted, I recognize that BQZip01 and I will occasionally come into contact with each other due to the nature of the work we both do. My own personal policy in such cases is to avoid interaction with him. I have at times made edits that violated that personal policy, and have at times retracted those edits (something that BQZip01 has accused me of violating WP:TALK for). I will work harder to avoid such edits, or any edits that interact with him at all. I have not (except in support of this RfC) and will not follow his contributions. All I am asking for is for BQZip01 to do the same.
The vast, vast majority of the drama bombs that have gone off in the last several months in our interactions have been because BQZip01 continues to follow my edits. If he didn't follow my edits, we would not be here at this RfC today. ArbCom has previously ruled on similar cases, as noted above, and I see no reason to not apply the lessons from those cases. We can and muststop interacting. It is the most logical and sensible thing to do. If we don't, the drama bombs will continue to go off, to the detriment of each other and to those party to our disputes. As I said before, this has to end. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.
With the long duration of this dispute, a large number of policies and guidelines have been noted in various discussions. At least some of them are (alphabetical sort):
This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.
As expounded upon above, I seek to have BQZip01 and I disengaged from each other in as much as possible. I recognize our areas of interest have some overlap, and recognize that there will be the potential for future interactions. Not withstanding that, I would like for both of us to do as much as we can to avoid interacting with each other. I have been maintaining a personal policy of disengagement with BQZip01 for about half a year now, and would like for him to do the same with regards to me. This outcome can not work if both parties do not agree to it. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
BQZip01 and Hammersoft have brought concerns about the other to the attention of others on multiple occasions. The following list may not be exhaustive, but is at least illustrative.
Syrthiss (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC) (sorry, been afk for several days. I had certified the previous attempted joint rfc in a timely fashion, but this request must have come after I left for the weekend)[reply]
I was, and still am working with BQZip01 to resolve the dispute before this RfC was filed. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 10:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
---
Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.
Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.
Q. I am trying to understand the difficulties that you two have in working together. Hammersoft, could you comment on any one of the twelve items which BQZip01 mentioned below in his response questions Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BQZip01#Questions_2? Could you give one example where he thinks he is following Wikipedia procedures for dealing with a disruptive editor(you) which you think is actually over the limit of proper behavior?
A. Must I restrict myself to one? His 12 point response is rife with inaccuracies. Since this one is already well documented in this RfC; #4. He thinks he's tried his best to remain civil. See Attacking me personally section above. These sorts of things would not happen if BQZip01 stopped interacting with me, and I with him. BQZip01 claims that such an agreement is against policy [1]. Yet, Wikipedia:Editing restrictions has a large number of editor-to-editor interaction bans. I really don't want to have to go to that extreme. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Q. With respects Hammersoft, I read the diff you provided when you asserted above "BQZip01 claims that such an agreement is against policy", and I do not see him making any claim that an agreement to minimize communication between you two is against policy, but rather I see an observation he makes in that that "Minimizing communication will not lead to resolution. It will lead to isolation"... an observation which seems in this circumstance to be a reasonable statement... and in his expanding that such isolation itself contradicts the encouragement toward communication set forth in WP:TALK and the encouragement toward consensus reaching as directed by WP policies, also seems a reasonable statement in these circumstances.... but neither seem stated as absolutes, only cautions. My question: Do you feel that interaction with BQZip01 has reached a point where if he wrote "the flower appears be a shade of red", you might only read "the flower is absolutely crimson"?
A. In the diff you reference, BQZip01 quotes TransporterMan as saying "not follow the other's edits and make any sort of changes at such places based on following edits" and BQZip01 responds to that specific point saying "I think that this does not follow with WP policies". Encouragement towards consensus building is great, and I heartily support it. However, ArbCom and the community both have recognized that some editors do not work well together, and sustained disputes between them can only be ended by stopping them from working together, as demonstrated at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be hounding someone you must meet all the criteria:
You must be singling out a specific editor
Edit articles/join discussions in areas which you've never contributed prior and that coincide with edits of the specific editor.
Repeatedly confront said user
Intend to irritate, annoy, or distress
Hounding is not merely following another person's edits. To be hounding, you have to have the intent to disrupt someone else or blatantly annoy them. It must be based on the intent of the user not the feelings of his perceived victim. If we based it simply upon how annoyed we were with another editor, I think we could all find someone to "get rid of" on Wikipedia...
(As my intent is not to annoy, but fix problems on WP, WP:HOUND doesn't apply)
Additionally, keep in mind that the first step in dispute resolution is talking about it
I've tried to discuss this at the lowest possible level (i.e. image talk pages/user pages), but HS refuses to discuss. There is little I can do with that regard. With no other avenues available, and RfC/U for HS was the next step and User:Fastily and I were in the process of putting one together when this RfC/U was filed.
There is no "right to privacy" on Wikipedia. Your contributions are released under GDFL and are available (barring oversight) to anyone. This goes for myself as well. Anyone at any time is welcome to look at my edit history. If you think I've done something wrong or think you can do it better, you are welcome to make any/all changes to improve the encyclopedia. I might object, but we can go to the talk page and hash it out.
As is all too often the actual problem, Hammersoft, henceforth referred to as HS, is distorting the issues and the facts to suit his needs, taking quotes and mischaracterizing them, making factual "errors" in his favor, and making demands based solely upon his emotions that run contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Given the breadth of information HS presents, I feel a point-by-point analysis is the best response as it will address all points of contention. Accordingly, my response will be lengthy and I apologize for it (if someone has a better way to view this, let me know).
This distorts the facts. If you will look at the diffs provided, TransporterMan said that he presumes "you're both Kryptonite to one another" and "you can't get along". He never made any such analysis on the subject.
"After considerable effort on both our parts, BQZip01 and I have not been able to find common ground of agreement, and the disputes stemming from those disagreements remain sustained and have spun out of control."
I see no no evidence of a "considerable effort" on HS's part to find any common ground. All I've seen is an attempt by HS to get an edict stating that all of his edits are sacrosanct and untouchable by me.
"To TransporterMan's great credit, he determined it wasn't appropriate for that venue, but agreed to attempt mediation between BQZip01 and I. That mediation failed (see thread)."
I disagree with that assessment as the sole "compromise" brought before me basically stated I was to not talk, discuss, or attempt any actions with regard to HS other than a forum in which a block is sought. I disagreed with the basic premise of this as it would serve only to escalate the situation without any appropriate dispute resolution methods which could provide a forum for discussion and a solution. Additionally, it gave nothing to me in return and addressed none of the concerns I voiced.
"This dispute has been brought before many different venues, and has never resolved satisfactorily for either party."
Wow. Don't where to even begin with this claim. The truth is that in those "many different venues" I've had my issues resolved largely satisfactorily. I believe that this continues to this day and most of the concerns I have have been resolved to my satisfaction. I don't always agree with the majority consensus opinion, but a concrete solution against anyone's desires is usually significantly better than no solution at all. I will always submit to consensus.
So, in this entire opening section, he has already distorted the facts/truth. Please consider that when voicing your opinions. Continuing on...
Alleged Harassment by allegedly following HS's edits[edit]
I've already largely addressed these points in User_talk:Syrthiss#BQZip01_stalking_again (which HS mentions several times). I believe it is important to view this in context, so I recommend reading that.
Quick Summary In this, HS brings me before an admin who already commented favorably toward HS's opinion. When the discussion didn't appear to be going his way, HS clammed up and refused to answer any questions I posed. after a week, Syrthiss said, ok, I guess you guys are ok now. HS adamantly stated things weren't ok but offered no evidence and refused to do so for about a week. Accusations flew, but with no hard evidence. In the end, this admin stated, "...it looks like BQZip is for the most part staying away from you Hammersoft, and [he has] an explanation for [how he came] across your edits. As I say above, certainly BQZip's edits are well well below what I would consider a...stalking case." It should be noted that this admin recommended an RfC, which is one reason I suspect we are here.
Let's first look at each of the images HS mentions (and those directly tied to the images). Note that in every instance (without exception), consensus ran with me and against HS.
"14-15 January 2010: A debate occurs between myself and User:Kudpung on my talk page regarding the use and licensing of Worcestershire Coat of Arms, a file BQZip01 has never edited nor has any reason to have an interest in."
Wow. So, HS has apparently read my mind and determined that I can have no reason whatsoever to have an interest in the issues surrounding Coats of Arms? In fact, I actually have my own reasons (but that is rather immaterial) and have been involved in other CoA issues (some involving HS, some not; diffs available upon request)
"15 January 2010: BQZip01 reverts my removals of the arms from a number of user talk pages (examples: 1,2,3, 12 total)."
Yep! I did exactly that, but where is the problem? This was the proper tag that should have been on the image. By fixing it, it solves the debate between these users (BTW, I was contacted by said user). Since the image is not copyrighted, there was no need to remove those images in the first place and I restored them with a neutral tag not vilifying or condemning HS's actions (Let's not be disingenuous here: of course I used HS's edit history to find those instances where the image was removed. There simply isn't any other way to fix such problems made by the same user). And this is where I take issue with HS's approach: he blindly takes the claims of people that images are copyrighted without considering whether or not they might be wrong. Even in instances where they are absolutely, without a shadow of doubt, Public Domain (PD) images that are obviously mislabeled, he passes the buck onto the uploader: (to paraphrase) "That's not my responsibility; that's the responsibility of the uploader!"
It is also worth noting that, while browsing, I saw that all 12 instances in which the images were removed were done in the same minute. I've tried doing mass changes manually and the best I got was about 8 a minute. To manage that many in that amount of time seemed suspicious. I then noticed a contribution of his to the DashBot bot approval page...
15 January 2010: I place a comment at this BRFA diff
15 January 2010: 6 hours later, BQZip01 comments at the same BRFA diff, though he has never commented on a BRFA before or since.
As I explained on User:Syrthiss's page, this is related to the first CoA issue. I did not directly accuse, but queried as the actions seemed suspicious and I wanted to know if he used the bot. He stated that the bot was used, but only his user name showed up. HS never provided any explanation.
6 February 2010: User:Dthomsen8 leaves a note on my talk page regarding DashBot's actions. diff
BQZip01 reads this and follows the request by Dthomsen8 to look at User_talk:Tim1357 for some discussion.
BQZip01 has never before or since posted to Tim1357's talk page. (see history)
9 February 2010: BQZip01 follows that discussion and modifies the licensing of File:Publicprivateventures.gif, a file he had never edited before, nor the article it resides on. diff
An argument could be made that BQZip01 was only following DashBot, a bot he took an interest while following my edits. However, that argument is empty; BQZip01 had not followed any other DashBot transactions, just this one that I was involved in (of several I've been involved in).
WP:AGF? Perhaps I had no other issues with DashBot? Given the mass tagging for deletion that DashBot was supposed to provide, it seemed fitting to monitor the actions of the bot. Again, the image was improperly tagged and I fixed it, thereby improving the encyclopedia. Why does it matter that I found it on Tim1357's page (or anyone else's for that matter)?
File:USFseal-ortho.jpg* 9 January 2010: I modify the licensing on File:USFseal-ortho.jpg to note that the image is now not free due to the cropping of the image. diff
17 January 2010: BQZip modifies the image claiming it is PD diff.
17 January 2010: I noted BQZip01's actions on User talk:Syrthiss diff
17 January 2010: BQZip01 responds there, accuses me of violating WP:OWNdiff
HS modified the image licensing in error (the primary problem I have with his edits). Instead of discussing this disagreement on the talk page, he decides to go directly to an admin (I won't guess as to why he chose this particular one) and not a more neutral venue such as WP:ANI or any number of other fora. I do know that he appears to be escalating the disagreement without using any methods discussed in WP:DR and refuses to actually discuss the problems as [[WP:TALK dictates. In any case, the image was PD in the first place. Again, HS is recklessly causing problems by labeling images based upon how he "feels" about a subject rather than the facts. Claiming that HS can make edits and that no one can challenge them is, by definition, asserting ownership. There seems to be no dispute whatsoever that HS labeled the image incorrectly and continues to consider only invalid uses when things are labeled wrong. Instead of fixing a label that is obviously in error, he removes uses that are not prohibited and says they don't meet our NFCC.
5 March 2010: I mark the image File:ETrade.svg as non-free, missing rationale. (image now deleted; diff viewable to admins: diff). BQZip01 had never edited this image nor the one article it was used on.
8 March 2010: BQZip01 claims it's free, and retags it as such. (image now deleted; diff viewable to admins: diff)
24 March 2010 I re-mark the image as non-free, and it has a rationale, requesting it be taken to discussion. {image now deleted: diff viewable to admins diff)
Wow. Can you leave out any more of the pertinent facts?
The image clearly consists of nothing but characters and 3 other users (to include 2 admins) agreed. You indeed requested that it be discussed on the talk page, but then HS refused to discuss it! This charade that HS has done everything by the book is laughable (see below for more)
WP:PUF would have been a more viable forum in which to discuss this, but HS largely refuses to put images on such pages.
Of all the contributors (8 in total), only HS felt the image was anything other than free.
The image has been restored in Wikipedia's space. I STRONGLY suggest everyone view this file, it's talk page, and the edit history and the summaries.
File:Pueblo crew on 122368.jpg
26 January 2010: I post a ((nrd)) on File:Pueblo crew on 122368.jpg diff and notify the uploader diff
27 January 2010: 4 hours later, BQZip01 posts to my talk page, after I've repeatedly asked him to stay off my talk page, requesting permission to post a fair use rationale on the image diff. BQZip01 has never interacted with the uploader, or touched the image before. He has edited the article the image is on, but the last time he edited it was in April of 2007 diff, almost three years ago.
27 January 2010: I ask him again to stop following me diff.
27 January 2010: He claims he can follow my edits if he wants, and says he will now stay off my talk page. diff
In a perplexing situation, HS puts ((nrd)) tags everywhere, but has a problem with me adding such requested rationales. Since he has complained before, I try to talk to him to attempt to come to a consensus/smooth things out/not have a confrontation/try to do them his way. Instead, this apparently only enrages him more. Again nevermind the fact that I am doing exactly what he requested on the image and that I am trying to not escalate things. As for "following" see below.
18 February 2010: I remove File:Dallas Cowboys.svg from 2009 Dallas Cowboys season and 2010 Dallas Cowboys season articles diff, diff per WP:NFCC #10c. BQZip01 has never touched either of these articles. He's never touched the image. He's never touched the three articles where it was legitimately used (Cowboys–Redskins rivalry, America's Team, Dallas Cowboys).
20 February 2010 BQZip01 changes the tags on the image marking it as free diff.
Again, the image was improperly labeled. HS ignores that he was WRONG...again...
Note the word "legitimately". HS just doesn't get it. The image never should have been listed as copyrighted in the first place! Basically all uses on Wikipedia are "legitimate".
This quote is a perfect example of the problems I'm having with HS: he is more interested in applying WP:NFCC restrictions by removing images wholesale (based solely upon the claims of the uploader) than fixing a small tagging issue. He is a veteran user who can make such a distinction and actively refuses to do so if it means actually thinking about the image before it is removed and he knows it.
So, in every instance of those images, HS was wrong about the copyright status of all of them. HS was right 0% of the time. Is it any wonder I feel he is disruptive?
26 February 2010 01:04: Erwin85bot places a notice on my talk page that the article Steelers–Ravens rivalry is up for deletion at AfD diff.
26 February 2010 01:55:, 51 minutes later before I've had a chance to respond, BQZip01 votes keep on the AfD diff.
BQZip has never contributed to the article that is up for AfD. He had never contributed to Baltimore Ravens. He had never contributed to Pittsburgh Steelers. At the time BQZip voted on this AfD, he had not contributed to any other AfD in more than 3 months (the last was 3 November 2009 diff).
As I explained on User:Syrthiss's page, I have a lot of articles to which I have never contributed on my watch page. Though I cannot be 100% certain of the date, I'm pretty sure I first "watched" this one after I uploaded File:Baltimore_Ravens_Alternate_Logo.gif as it was related to an ongoing discussion (team rivalries). I was interested in how a an image like the one I uploaded might be used on such a page. I forgot all about it until I saw it in my Watchlist when it was put up for AfD. HS would have you ignore those facts and assume I'm stalking him everywhere.
"ArbCom has repeatedly taken a very dim view of harassment. In particular; provocation..."
It is not provocation if there is no intent. I have no desire to provoke anything out of HS. I've offered compromises, assistance, compliments, etc. and all have been summarily rejected. I have gone out of my way to state that the vast majority of HS's work is commendable.
"BQZip01 knows full well from many poor interactions between he and I that the editing of things I have worked on that he has found via following my edits is provocative. ArbCom is likely to take a very dim view of his actions in this regard."
I believe this to be far more of HS's opinion rather than anything ArbCom has actually stated.
"BQZip01 refutes the accusation that he has violated our harassment policy because he feels he is taking legitimate action "fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles". Yet, BQZip01 knows full well that his following of my edits causes me significant annoyance and disruption."
My actions cannot be based solely upon HS's reactions or desires. I cannot read his mind. Even when my actions are proven unequivocally to be the correct ones and HS's are wrong, he is still annoyed. There is little I can do to address this. By the exact same token, I could say that HS's contributions are annoying to me and he should cease all contributions in the image copyright realm. However, that is also not reasonable as many of HS's actions are perfectly right down the copyright and WP:NFCC line
"For example, the recent blow up at File:ETrade.svg would never have happened had BQZip01 not been following my edits. If he hadn't, we'd still have the image on Wikipedia. It'd still be in use on the e-trade article. Yet, BQZip01 felt it necessary to interject himself into the situation. At a minimum, he could have sought outside assistance. But, he chose instead to jump into it."
The "recent blow-up" wouldn't have happened if HS would bother to follow Wikipedia policies in the first place. This is like blaming the police for watching people speed and then pulling them over ("If no one was watching me, I never would have gotten this stupid ticket. It's all the fault of the police!")
So his initial reaction to this is wrong, runs against consensus, and runs against our guidelines. What is his reaction when I fix the error? He reverts and tells those who disagree "Take it to the talk page." Surprised that he actually followed policy, I stated my concerns on the talk page. His response was silence. Once another person weighed in, he then responded, but not to the arguments, but to me personally. He then refused to discuss at all saying it wasn't worth the effort, thereby violating more policies (see above).
HS's take on this is dramatically one-sided/self-serving. My point was that he (again) refused to discuss anything at all at significant points in the discussion, but was happy to stop any updates to policy/guidelines (despite a 2:1 opinion in favor). As I pointed out several times in that discussion, HS's refusal to participate in a discussion could not signify anything other than a refusal to participate (not a "for" or "against" !vote). In it, he demanded everyone submit to his view and that no consensus could change his interpretation of certain guidelines. Again, I welcome anyone/everyone to read the entire discussion (WARNING! Extremely lengthy!!! block out about 30 minutes)
Please read all the diffs and the related discussion and you will find the same sort of behavior throughout. As for the rest of HS's statement, it just doesn't pass the logic test: he has so many problems that he can't address any of them?
"At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#User:Hammersoft, BQZip01 requested I be blocked for prolonged incivility diff. He then claimed he wasn't asking for a block diff instead only a warning (which he never asked for in the original posting). When challenged that he was asking for a block, diff he subsequently changed it, indicating it was a mistake diff."
I made a mistake and fixed it (even annotating that mistake). I'm not sure what policy I've violated here though...
"The stance that seemed to gain the most agreement in that thread was made by admin Masemin this comment. I've attempted to take what Masem said to heart and apply it as best I can."
Masem said: "No admin action is necessary, I believe, a word of caution...is certain within line." 2 admins and another user also agreed with this interpretation.
"BQZip01 was largely rebuffed in that discussion. It didn't deter him."
I welcome all to read through it. I doubt many will come away with that impression.
"I get that he hates me. I really do. No further effort on his part is required to impart on me the absolute depth of contempt he holds me in."
I don't hate him and basically make sure to complement him on many of his helpful contributions. I do not hold him in contempt and have never stated so.
"But if I am so incredibly bad in violating so many policies, guidelines and essays I would be sticking out like a thumb as sore as Willy on Wheels, and most assuredly some person would get around to approaching me about these problems."
This sort of circular "reasoning" is illogical: If what I've done is so bad, someone else would have brought it up a long time ago. But because no one has done so he's innocent of everything? Ridiculous. The truth is, others HAVE brought it up.
"Yet, BQZip01 feels incredibly motivated to make sure he is the one that harasses me about these issues."
I've tried to handle this at the lowest level possible (talk pages and such), but it is obvious that this needs a significantly higher level of scrutiny. An RfC/U is in the works.
Everything I said is what I believe. It also addresses the problems I have with HS (refusing to discuss anything). As for his user page, he's already been asked to redact attacks from other portions of his userspace. The impression he gives below is in stark contrast to the impression given on his user page. If he stated what he says on that page, I doubt there would be much confusion. Others have expressed concerns about his user page too. Instead, his sarcasm and abrasive comments only serve to belittle others.
I already largely work elsewhere, predominantly on WP:PUF. Check my edit history.
However, I think if someone is being disruptive, it is appropriate to address their actions, not just ignore them. Like I said before, other avenues of WP:DR have failed, so an RfC/U is to follow.
I have tried my best to handle this at the lowest possible level of dispute resolution and it has clearly failed. I will work with User:Fastily (and anyone else who want to) to file an RfC/U on Hammersoft's behavior. In the meantime, I will not comment directly on any of his actions after 21:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC) and instead address them through an RfC/U instead.[reply]
{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed. Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.}
Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.
Q. BQZip01, what outcome would you like to see here? As Hammersoft has pointed out above, it doesn't look as if the two can live with the most obvious solution -- that you two avoid each other. -- llywrch (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A. The "obvious" solution HS proposes omits the source problem: HS's behavior, which will not cease in the meantime. If a student at school points out that another student is bulling others, but the bully is annoyed by the "tattle-tail", separating the two indeed prevents further animosity between the individuals, however, it does not stop the bullying of others.
I believe the Conclusion I offered above provides the most viable interim solution. I am working on an RfC/U at this time with User:Fastily and have ceased any sort of interaction until it has been submitted. I believe an amicable solution can be reached through this process.
A. Do you mean Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution? Or are you trying to accuse me of doing something? — BQZip01 —talk 16:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From your answer above ("the source problem: HS's behavior"), you are unsatisfied with HS's wikipedia editing behavior. I ask what usual procedures you have followed (Wikipedia:Disruptive editing) to try to improve HS's behavior. jmcw (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AH! I see what you are getting at. I thought you were meaning I should have been more disruptive in return...which was quite confusing. To answer your question, I have done the following actions IAW that guideline (quoting from it...):
Assume good faith. (I've gone to great lengths to point this out: HS largely makes good edits, but the ones that aren't good are significantly problematic/disruptive)
Do not attack the author who you suspect is disruptive. (I am only commenting on his behavior; I have no idea what kind of person he is)
Use an edit summary which describes the problem in non-inflammatory terms. (I try to be as clear as possible)
Stay very civil. (I've tried my best)
Post to talk page asking for discussion (HS has refused such discussion on numerous occasions)
If editor unreverts, [r]evert again if they haven't responded at the talkpage. Ensure that a clear explanation for the difference in opinion is posted by you at the article talkpage. Refer to this thread in your edit summary.
Continue attempts to engage new editor in dialogue. Refer to policies and guidelines as appropriate. (Done so much I'm being accused of "wikilawyering" (a.k.a. I have a reason for doing what I do whereas others "feel" I'm wrong)
If only two editors are involved, seek a Third Opinion. (sought on multiple occasions)
If more editors are involved, try a Request for comment. (was working on that when this was filed)
Suggest Mediation. (suggested and rejected...though it was initially retried with abysmal results as the conditions for mediation were that I do everything HS wants and get nothing in return...that's not mediation)
Notify the editor you find disruptive, on their user talkpage. (I'll respect HS's opinion to stay off his talk page, but that makes it impossible to do this step)
If the tendentious editor is not violating 3RR, or there aren't enough editors involved to enforce Wikipedia policies: File another ANI report. (Done)
Diffs available upon request, though nearly every possible method mentioned above was used in the E*TRADE image. If any of this doesn't make sense, please tell me and I'll fix it. I've just got back from a 9.5 hour flight+3 hrs of preflight+3 hours of debriefing...I'm tired (and if Broozer is reading this, you can kiss my @$$! :-) — BQZip01 —talk 09:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
^^^ the above is a comment to one of my colleagues about a running joke at work. — BQZip01 —talk 22:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! In summary, is it correct to say that you believe that all the usual procedures have failed to change HS's behavior? jmcw (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes — BQZip01 —talk 17:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this instance, I was attempting to bring the issue before WP:ANI IAW "If the tendentious editor is not violating 3RR, or there aren't enough editors involved to enforce Wikipedia policies: File another ANI report." It is my take on the situation and analysis of where I believe some of the problems lie. Furthermore, it is an incomplete quote of what I actually said. I stated "He seems to pride himself..." I was willing to be wrong, but at that point, no explanation was forthcoming.
This was a response to two administrators on my talk page and was a statement of what I believe HS's problems are with me. This could fall either under discussion relating to a third opinion request or a continuation of the aforementioned WP:ANI request.
This was another instance of HS refusing to use a talk page and asking others to just do what he wanted (never mind what policies state). He never addressed the issues brought up, reverted me at every instance, and tried to impose his personal opinions (which contravene WP policy) by making misleading statements about my actions. This was an attempt to show him on a talk page what problems I had with his edits. There seems to be a subculture within WP that believes that if there is a dispute on whether something is free or not that we must default to marking an image as copyrighted: there is no such policy or guideline. Instead of admitting his actions were not in line with policy and addressing my assessment (which, by his own later admission, was the correct one), he accused me of impropriety and twisted the facts of the situation and made up policies to fit his agenda.
Again, this was an assessment on an ANI page similar to the above. Note that this was one in a series of instances where he refused to discuss the situation on a talk page and instead went straight to administrators instead.
This was another assessment in which I tried to point out his problematic behavior, to no avail. Again, more on his behavior on an ANI page, but no discussion on the image talk page.
Yet another instance of getting another "third opinion". This makes at least four attempts to bring the issue before admins without discussing any of the merits of the arguments I presented on the talk page.
This was not an attempt to intimidate anyone. It was a statement of fact and trying to point out that his wild guesses/accusations as to the motives of my actions were wrong. In this instance, HS tries to read the minds of ArbCom and twists their rulings on other cases to attempt to vilify my actions. As I pointed out, he was wrong in his assumptions and, if he was unwilling to drop the matter and proceed to ArbCom, he would quickly lose, making such actions futile.
Oh and in response to "These sorts of things would not happen if BQZip01 stopped interacting with me, and I with him. BQZip01 claims that such an agreement is against policy [2]" This is a perfect example of the problem:
I concur that interactions between myself and HS would stop if I no longer saw any of his actions. But this is the same kind of "logic" that people who commit crimes have with regard to the police: "If the cops would stop arresting me for all these robberies, my life would be so much easier." The problem behavior still exists even if no one is there to stop him.
Again, HS is twisting my words. I never said that such an agreement was against policy and I defy him to find any such statement. If you have such an agreement between two parties, I see nothing to stop such an agreement (which, by definition, such a policy doesn't apply to).
What I did state was that isolating himself from others will not solve the problems I see with HS's behavior. It will merely stop my contributions. This will not solve what I believe to be the underlying problem.
Again, this is a sidetrack from the issues I have with HS in the first place.
I think that covers everything. Short version: RfC will be filed on HS's behavior in the near future. — BQZip01 —talk 07:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BQZip01, thank you! Hammersoft , sorry for mis-spelling your name. jmcw (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of other articles and pages on this project for these users to contribute positively and help improve the quality of articles, without the need to interact with each other.
BQZip01 (talk ·contribs) should avoid interacting with Hammersoft (talk·contribs) - including commenting on Hammersoft, interjecting himself into disputes regarding Hammersoft, editing areas where BQZip01 has previously not contributed but where Hammersoft has, etc., broadly defined.
This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.
Reminder to use the talk page for discussion[edit]
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
