Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ArmchairVexillologistDon

Apologies in advance. This is the first time I've had to use "Requents for comment." I am trying to follow the guidelines, but may inadvertently make mistakes along the way. If I've made a mistake, I'd appreciate it if someone could offer guidance.

Statement of the dispute

Description

The problem is twofold: (1) ArmchairVexillologistDon has been making comments that clearly violate the Wikipedia policy on civility, and (2) he has been using the Talk pages as a chat group, posting long, irrelevant passages and engaging in debates on issues not directly related to the relevant article.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Evidence of point (1) violating policy on civility:

"Homey, first off Wikipedia is not a Court of Law, so can the Lawyer-speak crap, ok. Everything for you is some damn legal arguement. For once just one, please do not take yourself so seriously. Next up, you would a made a shitty lawyer." [1]

"Listen HistoryBA, I do not appreciate your needless editing my words on this talkpage. Frankly you are being quite petty. This is a talkpage, not an article. Contributions to articles need to be carefully reviewed, and if needs be edited. Frankly, I will drop this, as you are not worth the trouble. Be warned HistoryBA, you have needlessly pissed me off, and frankly I am now suspicious that you might in fact be someones sock-puppet and/or collaborator." [2]

"Excuse me? You just can not leave well enough alone. You've got mental problems. Big ones." [3]

"My opinion of your "analytical thinking abilities" is quite low indeed. Again, get the *bleep* off my talkpage, you are not welcome here. " [4]

"You are the one who looks like the psycho idiot." [5]

"You have no call to lecture me on "internet-ettiquette", that is for damn sure. Frankly, I can not stand your guts." [6]

"You framed that stupid arguement, not me. Save your condecension for someone would actually listens to your bluster.... You have absolutely no clue about this subject do you. Holy-crap." [7]

"...get the hell off my talkpage, you are not welcome here." [8]

He was asked, and has explicitly refused, to withdraw or apologize for some of these remarks. See [9]

Evidence of point (2) posting irrelevant material on the Talk pages (or lengthy passages that are only partly relevant):

There are many others on the Talk:Canada page and the Talk:Canada's name page. I will provide the links if others think it necessary.

Applicable policies

Wikipedia:Civility

Wikipedia:Writers_rules_of_engagement

Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

Wikipedia:Wikiquette

Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

These issues have been raised by at least two editors on his talk page:

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Response

Outside view

Outside view by McClenon

I have not bothered to check the diffs and links. However, I find ArmchairVexillologistDon's response to be troubling because he never addresses the substantive allegations of incivility. There are numerous examples posted of what are clearly very uncivil posts. His reply appears to say more about the certifiers and endorsers than about the substance of the complaint, which is that he has been uncivil. I would like to suggest some way of resolving this. Unfortunately, ArmchairVexillologistDon does not appear to be showing any interest in resolving this dispute.

Hello Robert McClenon,

The page that you were originally pointed to is an imcomplete dead-end, with regards to the full fact of the ArbComm Case field against me by Homey, which he later withdrew. Here is the full accounting of the process,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ArmchairVexillologistDon/Proposed_decision#Limited_ban_on_ArmchairVexillologistDon

Salient Points,

(i). SlimVirgin was an honest broker of a deal between Homey and I,

(ii). Homey formally withdrew the ArbComm Case (Sept. 3, 2005),

(iii). the ArbComm has registered 5 Votes (only 4 required) to formally close the ArbComm case (from Sept. 17 to Sept. 24, 2005),

(iv). the 4th Vote was cast on Sept. 20, 2005 (ans thus the techincal closing date).

As per your observation that I have not directly addressed the "substance of the complaint of in-civility" filed against me, well experience here has taught me that silence is prudent in offical matters, I just present the facts.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Arbitration was previously filed against this editor, and was then closed, partly because it appeared that AVD had stopped editing. If he is editing again, then the ArbCom can be petitioned to reopen the dispute and take into account all of the evidence that was previously accepted and any new evidence.

Robert McClenon 11:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

I see that ArmchairVexillologistDon has "coloured outside the lines" by editing my comments, while officially declining to comment on the RfC itself. I consider this to be a bad-faith response to the RfC. If the ArbCom reopens the case, I will submit the bad-faith altering of my response as evidence. Robert McClenon 00:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I think, this has to be sent to ArbCom again. Zach (Sound Off) 01:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

by Zscout370

FWIW, there was a WP:RFAr case against AVD that was recently closed: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ArmchairVexillologistDon. Zach (Sound Off) 05:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The link above is an imcomplete dead-end with regard to the ArbComm Case filed against me by Homey, and later withdrawn (Sept. 3, 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ArmchairVexillologistDon/Proposed_decision#Limited_ban_on_ArmchairVexillologistDon

ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest petitioning the ArbCom to re-open the case. --Carnildo 06:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was recently closed because the original petitioner, with an agreement by SlimVirgin and AVD, closed the case. If you want, I can contact SlimVirgin and see what happens now. Zach (Sound Off) 06:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SlimVirgin#RfC_against_AVD. Zach (Sound Off) 06:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think it would be a good thing if you were to contact SlimVirgin and inquire about this matter. HistoryBA 01:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I already did so above, but I am not sure what she will say. Zach (Sound Off) 01:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zscout370 posted this,

RfC against AVD

I noticed at the RFAr page against this user, you was able to get into a agreement with AVD and another user to stop the RFAr. I wish to tell you that a RFC has been filed against AVD and it is pretty much over the same stuff, except with a different user. It can be seen at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ArmchairVexillologistDon. Zach (Sound Off) 06:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArmchairVexillologistDon 07:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AVD, I mainly posted that message to SlimVirgin's talk page, since she hashed out an agreement with you and the person that filed the RFAr against you. I have nothing to do with the filing of this RFAr, I am just making a comment and playing messenger boy. Zach (Sound Off) 07:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zscout370,

Could you please explain to me what is the difference between an RfC (Request for Comment), and an RfAr (Request for Arbitration). Oh yaa, which one is this one, again? 'Cause it feels like an RfAr (not an RfC).

Take care, and best wishes,

ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comment allows for other users to come in and try to solve an issue and propose solutions. However, a RFAr usually gets into issues of who will be banned for how long. While this is supposed to be a process where no "blocking penalties" are supposed to be issued, some have commented towards me and others that the RFC process is "just a waiting room for RFAr." But, the proper procedure was followed here and I personally feel that those who were seeing this RFC should know about the recent closing of the ArbCom case. Zach (Sound Off) 16:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zscout370,

Thanks alot for explaining that to me, I appreciate it very much. You have made me feel a little bit better, about this whole situation, and I thank you for that.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 17:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. What I very strongly suggest is look at the accusations in both places and try to modify the behavior as much as possible, since that is what the ultimate goal is: to make you a better contributor. But what I also noticed is that you like to edit pages related to Canada and flags. Since I have worked with you before with some success, what I like to propose to you. There is a group called WP:TINMC, they provide for a mediation/mentoring to take place. If you want, we can have it arranged that I could mentor you and try to help you become a better editor. Zach (Sound Off) 17:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

by E Pluribus Anthony

(First of all, I'm unsure if this is in the right spot; please move appropriately, if applicable.)

I would like to belatedly comment regarding this situation, for what it's worth. My position harks that of User:Saxifrage. Over the last long while, I have observed many repeated, constant violations of Wikipedia norms of behaviour and conduct by AVD. Particularly: name calling, taunting, and personal attacks are among actions that are clearly unacceptable in any form, et al.

However, beyond having to read through reams of apparently inchoate text lifted verbatim, in toto from numerous sources without elaboration (itself a breach of conduct), I have not personally experienced any negative behaviour from AVD. In his defence (and not in support of his conduct), I have also noticed behaviour by various users that could be perceived as being antagonistic and (colloquially) adding fuel to the fire.

I have also been (and am) involved in discussion's regarding Canada's name, et al. and have incessantly attempted to walk a fine line, but to also present authoritative information accurately either way. One of AVD's intentions, I believe, was to reiterate text as much as possible so that varying user interpretation could not apparently obfuscate the issue ... often having the reverse effect. Moreover in some of these discussions, there have been fewer instances of substantiation from various parties than are desirable for such topics and AVD apparently perceived some user commentaries as being deprecating or militant (also having the reverse effect).

It is my distinct hope that collaboration and the use of tactful diplomacy will morph AVD (or any user) into being a positive contributing Wikipedian. It is regrettable that he, thus far, is unwilling or unable to change his behaviour with regard to others, not to me per se, but I acknowledge why administrative/corrective actions are necessary. Thoughts? In any event, thanks for your time. E Pluribus Anthony 01:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AVD's summary of the "Evidence of disputed behavior"

It has been posted above by HistoryBA that,

Evidence of point (1) violating policy on civility:

Posted to Homey(6 Cited posts).

(Subject: Canada's name, speaking like a Lawyer over me expressing my suspicion that HistoryBA might be a sock-puppet.).

(1). "Homey, first off Wikipedia is not a Court of Law, so can the Lawyer-speak crap, ok. Everything for you is some damn legal arguement. For once just one, please do not take yourself so seriously. Next up, you would a made a shitty lawyer." [21]

(Subject: Canada's name, putting words in my mouth about the origin of the word "Realme").

(2). "Excuse me? You just can not leave well enough alone. You've got mental problems. Big ones." [22]

(Subject: Harrassment on my own Talkpage).

(3). "My opinion of your "analytical thinking abilities" is quite low indeed. Again, get the *bleep* off my talkpage, you are not welcome here. " [23]

(Subject: Old quotation. Dealt with in ArbComm case that was dropped by Homey).

(4). "You are the one who looks like the psycho idiot." [24]

(Subject: Old quotation. Dealt with in ArbComm case that was dropped by Homey).

(5). "You have no call to lecture me on "internet-ettiquette", that is for damn sure. Frankly, I can not stand your guts." [25]

(Subject: Harrassment on my own Talkpage).

(6). "...get the hell off my talkpage, you are not welcome here." [26]

Posted to HistoryBA (1 Cited Post).

(Subject: Incessant deletion of this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Ensigns )

(7). "Listen HistoryBA, I do not appreciate your needless editing my words on this talkpage. Frankly you are being quite petty. This is a talkpage, not an article. Contributions to articles need to be carefully reviewed, and if needs be edited. Frankly, I will drop this, as you are not worth the trouble. Be warned HistoryBA, you have needlessly pissed me off, and frankly I am now suspicious that you might in fact be someones sock-puppet and/or collaborator." [27]

Posted to Ground Zero (1 Cited Post).

(Subject: the Republic of Ireland vs. Eire name)

(8). "You framed that stupid arguement, not me. Save your condecension for someone would actually listens to your bluster.... You have absolutely no clue about this subject do you. Holy-crap." [28]

HistoryBA, (after me openly telling him that I was suspicious that he could be a sock-puppet, due to him constantly deleting this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Ensigns , which was only on a talkpage, not an article page), has filled this complaint about me.

HistoryBA has cited 6 posts to Homey, 1 post to himself, and 1 to Ground Zero. First of all, why is HistoryBA only quoting 1 offending post to himself, yet 6 offending posts to Homey? This is very curious.

Next, HistoryBA has cited 2 OLD POSTS that well dealt with by my ArbComm case that Homey filed against me, then later dropped.

All in all, HistoryBA makes a very pecular choice of things to cite, and to bring in peripheral discussions that I had with Saxifrage. These discussions with Saxifrage where not hostile, he was just offering me advise.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 08:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

AVD, there is no requirement for somone to cite comments only made about themselves. The issue is whether you've acted in an uncivil manner, not whether you've acted in an uncivil manner against HistoryBA. You should address the issue of your alleged incivility, not nitpick in regards to who your uncivil comments were directed at. User:Homey 21:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not nit-pick?" This coming from you? You are the "rules-lawyer" King Nit-picker. Frankly, this whole thing seems a bit "odd". HistoryBA asks you to "second" his formal DfC submission. He does not need specifically you, all it requires is one other user. I shall sit and wait to see what happens. Homey you are too skilled a manipulator/orchestrator here at Wikipedia. In this formal page, I shall just state the facts, and see what unfolds. My experience with you in formal "trial-like" settings has taught me better. The less I say, the less that you can skillfully twist my words. You are a pro at that.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to certify the RFC, AVD? Since you seem to have deluded yourself into thinking that HistoryBA is my sock puppet it seems I'm not accomplishing anything by *not* certifying this RFC in hopes that you'll realise that I'm not the only one who thinks you need to mend your behaviour. User:Homey 00:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You see Homey. You are the master of the "non-win scenario". I don't respond to you, and I look bad. I do respond to you and you twist it towards "the ends" that you had already intended.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I do certify the RFC you can, if you really believe that HistoryBA is my sockpuppet, complain that the RFC isn't properly certified. Then we can get a developer to compare our edit histories and IP logs and declare, officially, that he is not a sockpuppet and we're different people and at the very least you'll be denied that rationalization and perhaps you'll even apologise for your slur. Perhaps you'll also learn that your habit of smearing people has negative consequences for you and you'll think twice before doing it again. User:Homey 01:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homey, my opinion is that you seem more outraged about my expressed suspicion that HistoryBA could a sock-puppet, than HistoryBA himself. Frankly, I find your "level of concern" about this very "odd".

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the insinuation, AVD. I am annoyed because you've been implying that HistoryBA is my sock puppet but have declined to just come out and say so or otherwise put your money where your mouth is. Either withdraw your accusation against HistoryBA (and by extension, myself) or file a complaint. At the moment you're trying to have the best of both worlds, ie smear people you have difficulty with without actually taking responsibility for your smear and facing up to the consequences of being wrong. You've made insinuations about people before and, frankly, its contemptable behaviour not worthy of a wikipedia editor.User:Homey 17:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a "no-win scenario" if you admit that your accusation against HistoryBA is a lie. Otherwise, you have nothing to lose. Indeed, why don't you file an RFA against HistoryBA and myself accusing us of being sockpuppets (his mine, or mine his)? Since sock puppets aren't allowed to participate in Talk discussions that the "puppeteer" is also participating in you can get us both disciplined. That is, of course, if you actually believe your false claim and are not just throwing it out as a smokescreen. So that's your choice, AVD, either apologise to HistoryBA for your slur against him (and your insinuation against me) or actually show the courage of your convictions and take action with the risk that you'll be shown to be wrong and a reckless slanderer with no credibility. Your choice. User:Homey 01:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homey, this is Wikipedia, it is not Court of Law. I find your constant use of legal terms, and "prosecutors-attitude" very tiresome. Everything is NOT a legal proceeding. You take yourself way to seriously. Indeed.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So does this mean you're not willing to apologise to HistoryBA?User:Homey 17:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologise for what? I expressed my suspicion that HistoryBA could be a sock-puppet. Somehow this is such a grave hanging-offense,' that History BA files this RfC, cites 8 quotes (6 of which relates to you), then does not bother to "protest this fatal-insult" very much, but oh no, YOU are here constantly. You seem much more insensed by my "possible-sockpuppet" comment than HistoryBA himself.

Frankly, my opinion of you Homey is "very low", and I find your incessant harrassment of me very distasteful. Alas, there is nothing I can do about it. Know this Homey, no matter how much you try and harrass and bully me, you will not be able to push me out of Wikipedia. On things that you clearly have "the mob" behind you, I shall just have to tolerate. On things that you don't (and that I am interested in) I shall try and contribute to.

So why do YOU spend more time in here talking, than HistoryBA?. After all HistoryBA is the one that filed this.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 17:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is going around in circles. You are refusing to take responsibility for your behaviour or your statements yet you continue to repeat them. If you are challenged on your statements you respond with evasion or incredulity that people are taking them "seriously". Anyway, as there are numerous editors who have issue with you I'll clear out and leave it to them. User:Homey 17:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homey, you find this going in circles because I am not letting you "pin-me-down". I know better after being harrassed by you on a constant basis. Of course I am responsible for my own actions, and you are responsible for yours. Just as everyone else here is ultmately responsible for their own actions. That is self-evident. What is the real issue here is the actual circumstances of what lead me to react this way. The "ownership" of that portion of these evidents is not entirely my own. You have "some ownership" is this mess as well. But of course you would never "see it" that way. So yaa my impression of talking to you, is quite similar of your impression of talking to me (i.e., "the going in circles").

ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AVD's behaviour has been a chronic problem on a few significant pages. I have long held out hope that he could be brought around to behave in the Wikipedia way, and occasionally, he has seemed to temporarily agree to the need for civility and respect for other editors, but alas, he seems always to revert to his blustering and uncivil ways. I see no choice but to to follow this and any other necesary steps to make him realize that it is his behaviour that is is the problem here, and not the unreasonableness of almost all of the other editors he encounters. Ground Zero | t 16:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ground Zero,

Almost All of the Editors that he encounters? You certainly have a flair for the dramatic.

My interaction with Homey

(i). Our dispute started with him trying to link the old Canadian Red Ensign to Racists (by the way Homey has not touched Astrotrain's edit, but mine where always obliterated).

(ii). He came to an outside website, and used multiple user accounts to troll and threatened me with legal action.

(iii). He intiated and successfully completed a VfD of my Canadian French Tricolour form of the Maple Leaf Flag page in about 2 hours. That must a Wikipedia record.

(iv). He dogs almost every contribution I try to make here.

I find that I have little or no defense against his continual harrassment, so yaa I am a bit "edgy".

ArmchairVexillologistDon 17:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just about you and Homey. It is about you and several other editors. You seem to treat many people with disrespect. I have certainly been on the receiving end of a lot of your abuse. I admit that at times I have not been as civil as I should be, and I apologized when I crossed the line. You do not seem to be willing to do that even when it is pointed out to you by third parties that you have violated Wikipedia etiquette. Ground Zero | t 18:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Zero, both of us have a belligerent side. Mine is mainly triggered when I feel that I am being talked down to. You have a much more disciplined, mature way of managing yours than I do. The comment that I refused to apologise for was "the French-Canadian Bureaucrat that only submitted Canada as the local short form name", on the CIA Factbook. I still feel that way, so I will not withdraw it. I also feel that the Republican Irish position on the name of their country being Eire, but the description of their country as the Republic of Ireland, is hypocritical hair-splitting.

You always know where you stand with me. I do not lye to you Ground Zero.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My adivce to you, Don

Don, you're being unnecessarily hostile to people here. I know it's easy to see this as an attack, but it isn't. A Request for Comment is a forum for people to comment on what two or more editors have identified as an "issue" with an other editor.

You're already disagreeing with me, I know, but hear me out before you decide. There are two goals to an RfC, one for each party. The goal of the original filers is to have the issue(s) with which they are concerned addressed to the satisfaction of a consensus of commentors. The goal of the editor being commented on (you) is to show two things: 1) that their concern is unfounded, and 2) that their concerns are being taken seriously. (Note that defending past behaviour is not a goal, since attempts at doing that are always futile without the support of other editors who speak in your defence.)

Let's focus on your goals as the subject of this RfC. Consider how your defensive reaction impacts those last two points. When you are defensive, you confirm that their fear that you will not listen to their concerns is supported. In this particular case, since it is about how you interact with other editors, it also shows that their concerns are well founded.

Now, this is ironic. You are angry and annoyed that people would think these things of you, and so you act angry and annoyed. In turn, they take this as crystal-clear evidence that you are, in fact, guilty of these things they're worried about.

So, my advice to you: treat everyone here as if they have your best interests at heart, and hear everything said as a fear that someone has. Then, lay that fear to rest in a gentle manner, showing that not only are they wrong, but you are actually acting in the opposite manner to their fear. Your past history will be brought up, but let it pass. Your current behaviour is always the clincher in how someone thinks of you. Remember that, and don't let the desire to defend your past Talk history interfere with your current desire to be accepted as a worthy peer.

I know you can do this, because you've shown remarkable improvements in your approach to other editors since your work at Canada's name turned out in an unexpected way for you. Most of the diffs cited above on your behaviour are from before this turnabout on your part, which is why I can't endorse this RfC's summary in good faith. However, as this advice makes plain, I do strongly feel that you need to rethink how you deal with editors who have a problem with you, because so far your technique only makes you seem as bad as they already think you are, not better. — Saxifrage | ☎ 03:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Saxifrage,

Thank you for your kind words, and your kind advice. I appreciate them very much. You have given me alot of "food-for-thought", and I shall take your sage words to heart. Yes, I have a belligerent side. When I feel talked down to, "it" unfortunately can come out. I do not like that part of me, and I have tried to contain it as much as possible, all my life. Sometimes, in here "the old triggers" pop-up and Mr. Hyde, to my Dr. Jekyl side comes out in full view. I shall try doubly hard to keep Mr. Hyde boxed up.

A case in point, I recently started an article called the French Ensigns. This is a little known, but very interesting Flag topic. The Colonial Possessions of France had a series of Ensigns that directly mirrored the British ensigns of the British Commonwealth-Empire. Finally after a mini edit-war (yes again!), with Homey, he has made a comprimise, and left something that I wrote partially intact, instead of the usual complete obliteration.

In closing, thank you for showing me some trust and acceptance here at Wikipedia, Saxifrage. I appreciate that alot.

By the way, do you know were I might be able to get ahold of a pre-1790 (French Revolution) French dictionary? I am trying to trace the origin/evolution of the word Realme (Realme, to reialme, to reiame, to roiame, to Royaume). Thanks.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I can help. My time here has taught me a lot about my own tendencies to take offense and respond hotly, so I know where you're coming from and I know how much of a struggle it can be. It's also very hard to admit, so kudos on that. If you can recall these thoughts every time you find yourself wanting to write something angry, you'll already be a long way to changing the habits you don't like. — Saxifrage | ☎ 04:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Saxifrage, for the understanding, and the kind advice. I appreciate it alot. I will try hard to remember your advice when I am in "a situation" again ("Count to 10 Don, 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 4 .... BOOM! Just kidding.)

Take care, and best wishes,

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Continung to use talk pages as chat rooms

Despite this RfC being posted on October 3, Don again posted (on October 8) a long message [29] on Talk:Canada's name about an off-hand remark I made about seven months ago in reference to a possible future way of selecting a head-of-state. This does not contribute to the discussion of what Canada's official name is now. Don continues to show a lack of respect for Wikipedia's codes of behaviour or for other editors. Ground Zero | t 11:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So ban me then

Ground Zero,

I moved "it" to my Talkpage

Ground Zero: The Electorate of Canada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ArmchairVexillologistDon

If you don't like that, well why don't you initiate my banning from Wikipedia. I am tired of your condescending attitude. Ban me then, you jerk.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because of this personal attack, I have blocked Don indefinitely from Wikipedia. Zach (Sound Off) 20:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think calling someone a "jerk" is severe enough to justify an indefinite unilateral ban. An RFA would be the appropriate route - the ArbComm can look at AVD's behaviour (ie personal attacks etc) and determine the level and length of punishment. User:Homey 21:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to agree with you, Homey, except that Don has shown here that he is repeatedly and knowingly violating Wikipedia policies on personal attacks and using talk pages as chat rooms. This is not a one-off thing. He just keeps doing it over and over. And he refuses to apologize even when the WP:NPA policy is pointed out to him. I have tried repeatedly, as you can see from my earlier interactions with Don, and even from some of my later ones, to get him to accept the Wikipedia way of doing things and of treating other people. And he repeatedly violates these policies. (And then blames others for his actions -- "You idiots have driven me to this sort of behaviour".) I think he has been giving far more opportunities to play nicely than he would be anywhere, which is a good thing about Wikipedia, but there comes a time for "tough love". The gentle approach has been proven not to work with this guy. I have given up on the idea that he can be turned from a rude and offensive POV-pusher into a productive member of the community. Ground Zero | t 22:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "go ahead, ban me" to an admin is about as bright as saying "shoot me" to a cop. Nevertheless, the ArbComm is there for a reason. At the very least, the ArbComm should be advised that AVD has been indefinitely banned and why so that they can review the matter if they see fit. Leaving a message on User:Fred Bauder's talk page should suffice. User:Homey 23:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done, [30]. Zach (Sound Off) 23:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFAr

I am letting you know that I have filed Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:ArmchairVexillologistDon_-_Reopening. Zach (Sound Off) 08:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]