Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Pixelface

It should be noted that the only reason this RFC/U was started was that the last two times Pixelface's 3RR-like behavior was reported to ANI (including the ones on Dec 30) it was strongly suggested to RFC/U the case since there was no admin action that could be immediately taken on that alone. --MASEM 13:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think he's right about the Desired Outcome being too vague, though. Black Kite 13:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Since this RfC/U was indeed started only after PF initiated a one-sided edit-war on WP:NOT for the umpteenth time, and because the other four points are only collateral concerns, I'd agree to just focus on stopping PF from directly editing WP:NOT as the desired outcome, with no restrictions for policy&guideline talkpages. PF's other behavior, even if considered annoying by some editors, already falls under arbcom's E&C 2 admonition to "work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community". – sgeureka ^t•c 13:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't necessary limit it to WP:NOT, since PF's done the same on other pages (WP:WAF). However, if it is truly the case that the other points are covered by the E&C2 case, then this suggests we should be opening a arbcom incident case on PF. Personally, I don't think it goes that far, but the behavior of the other four point is poisonous to discussion and a WQA did not correct it. (Figuring out how all this goes together may be part of putting together a resolution, so while I agree its vague, I wrote it that way on purpose to prevent biasing a result that I may desire but not merited by the facts as presented.) --MASEM 13:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (e/c) What Masem said (
  WP:WAF are the two examples that spring to mind.) Black Kite 13:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Seeing that some editors take issue with the perceived bad faith regarding PF's intentions and future behavior, my thinking was that if PF was restricted from solely editing WP:NOT but would then move to edit-war on other P&G pages (as it seems, but I can't prove it yet), it would become apparent that (1) bad faith was justified and (2) it would be easier to restrict PF from editing the other P&G page in the future if necessary, citing the precedent of this RfC/U. Rome wasn't built in a day, and I'd (now) consider it enough progress to restrict the undeniable worst instead of losing ourselves in inactionable details and accomplishing nothing at all. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just 2¢ from the sidelines, but... It seems that limiting the restrictions/sanctions to WP:NOT would be more of a corrective action. It would give PF a chance to rethink their style of arguing their POV on the issue but still allow them to contribute to related P&G topics.
  If the full blown pattern moves to other P&G topics, then the restrictions/sanctions can be revisited and expanded. That is assuming that there isn't enough evidence to support the contention that the pattern is already well established on other P&G pages. - J Greb (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If editors feel that he is edit warring, then what provisions are there against those he would be edit warring with as it takes two to edit war. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• When it's one editor against an army, sanctions are normally applied only to the one editor. This is a classic case of one editor editing against consensus.—Kww(talk) 16:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The same question/comment came up in E&C2 about TTN's edit-warring, and arbcom's imposed restriction on only TTN seems to have stopped the edit-warring. I expect that a similar restriction would also work for PF's edit-warring on WP:NOT. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I still wonder though, given the RfC on Gavin as well as the arbcom request on TTN, if we should simply move to an Episodes and characters 3 rather than all these separate threads? --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm unconvinced that would be useful, partly because not all these issues are directly related to E&C, and also because the previous example of C68-SV-FM etc. shows that trying to conflate different problems into one RFAR can be very messy (and extremely time-consuming). Black Kite 16:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There might be another problem with this RfC, by the way. Does this seem like this? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Anon IPs, even of former non-banned/blocked editors, are free to comment - there's no restriction on that. However, if the former user is blocked and evading that, that's a completely different issue. --MASEM 16:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The suspected former user is currently indeffed for block evasion. See here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Then that should be taken to the proper channels (AN or ANI, I believe). If the anon IP is that user, we'll disregard the input. --MASEM 17:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No need, it's fairly obvious and I have removed all the IPs comments. It is clearly unhelpful to have them here. Thanks for pointing it out, A Nobody. Black Kite 17:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Even if obvious, it should be reported - if said user wants to ever come back, this would be a strong point against that user. --MASEM 17:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I asked for a checkuser to be sure. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that, given how close a new FICT is to being set as well as other more recent work towards consensus from several sides of the issue that an E&C3 case would be both premature and looked unfavorable by ArbCom. --MASEM 16:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We need to avoid conflating civil disagreement over fiction with the behavior of Gavin and Pixelface: namely, edit warring to push their view point. The ends *never* justify the means, for Gavin, Pixelface, or anybody. Randomran (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If it were two editors edit-warring, then I would agree with you. Even a quick perusal of the policy pages that PF has edited recently, and only going back in the history a few pages, sees ten different editors reverting Pixel's edits - Masem, Bignole, Future Perfect At Sunrise, Cameron Scott, Jack Merridew, Collectionian, Sceptre, Ckatz, Randomran and myself - and seven of those only once each. Black Kite 16:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Are there any instances of any inclusionists reverting him? Also, part of what concerns me here is that if there is edit warring going on, then I wouldn't excuse that and as I said in my comment on the main Rfc page for him that I did once ask him to strike a word he used, but in terms of degree I think what's being alleged against him is far less serious than what is being alleged against someone else at arbcom, i.e. edit warring on a policy page is low in the list of things that would concern me than say mass nominating literally hundreds of articles for deletion seemingly indiscriminately. I don't see how that can be regarded as okay if this is not. Neither edit warring nor tendentious deletion nomination should be acceptable. We should not be partisan in this as I believe Randomran hints at above. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I agree - the edit warring, though disruptive, is more irritating than anything else. I don't think anyone is asking for serious sanctions such as blocking or banning, they just want him to cease that particular disruptive behaviour. Black Kite 17:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe he would be amenable to an RfC on Plot and agree to go along with whatever outcome it has? It might not hurt to try that and maybe we could get broader community input that way too? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There was one, started by PF in April 08. --MASEM 17:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there anywhere where there is an outcome to it, though, in glancing through that link, I didn't see (maybe simply overlooked) a "Conclusion" of sorts. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously there isn't a summary or conclusion to it, but I think at the time that the clear consensus favored keeping PLOT though suggesting alternate wordings to address some issues, that no one proceeded to seek a conclusion (nor are RFCs required to, though it is good form). However, the important part is that several non-common editors to WT:NOT provided their input to gaint he wider consensus. --MASEM 17:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What we really need is a community wide discussion as the handful of editors who comment in those sorts of threads seems disconnected from the much larger number of editors who create and work on the sorts of articles in good faith and the millions who come here reading it (for what it is worth, I think articles should not be entirely in universe and support adding reception and creation sections to character and episode articles, but I support actually doing that not just deleting the articles when they can be expanded and revised). But as regards Pixelface, I think some editors only make things worse by mocking him a la this unconstructive and rather incivil edit. One might support and say he is unconvinced by Pixelface's oppose, but to have a support per someone's oppose is just not right. Imagine if inclusionists started having "Keep per TTN" as a rationale. What would that add? We need to keep a mind into not just how Pixelface edits, but how others treat him and if others deserve some blame for why he does what he does or for escalating rather than deescalating. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Part of what Pixelface gets in terms of mocking towards them (which I agree occurs from certain editors) is a result of how PF edits (as per the RFC/U), though without looking through PF's history, it's a chicken-egg problem of which mocking editor came first. Still, sometimes the best policy is to turn the other cheek, though if there are editors consistently harrassing PF, they should be dealt with the same warnings/restrictions (if any are placed) on PF. --MASEM 17:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I agree, no one on any side of these issues should be harassing anyone or making mocking comments. We should not tolerate it period. Mature editors should not allow themselves to be baited and should not feed into unconstructive edits with unconstructive edits of their own. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (Ec) As much as I see where you're coming from, we're getting increasingly off-track. Feel free to start a new thread at WP:NOT, but let's keep this RfC/U first and foremost about Pixelface's edit behaviour please. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the thing, those he is allegedly edit-warring with are engaging in incivil behavior with him as seen here, i.e. it's a two sided matter and thus others' behavior toward him is problematic as well and needs to be addressed. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you (as a supporter of PF's view on fiction) agree with PF's "non"-supporters that PF is the source of edit-wars, and that edit-warring is problematic under any circumstances, then we have a common ground of agreement and can work towards finding a solution where incivility and views on fiction no longer matter. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that neither Pixelface nor the editors cited by me above should be incivil or engage in edit warring; that multiple editors are cited above could suggest some sort of bullying of Pixelface or putting him in a corner as well, however. As I commented to him and to someone else in your RfA, I do not tolerate incivility from anyone, even those who share the same inclusion ideas as me. Even though I opposed your RfA, I wound up refuting others who opposed you (got to love the irony), but I think that's important, i.e. that we don't just tow the partisan line. We can disagree, sure, but not to the point of insults. We all have to stop at certain points and I urge Pixelface to not edit war if he is, but I also urge others to engage with him constructively. We have to take both sides into account. No one, whether inclusionist or deletionist, should be edit warring. No one, whether inclusionist or deletionist, should be engaging in personal attacks. For what it's worth, when I asked him to strike an unhelpful word he used against you, he did so. Maybe all we need is for civil requests to be made toward each other? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely share Gavin's concern, because it was something I saw when a lot of people were engaging in his RFC/U. e.g.: it's one thing to punish someone for their behavior, but it's something else to punish them for their viewpoint. Being a stubborn negotiator may make you look like a dummy, but it's someone's right to negotiate that way if they want to. For that exact reason, I'm not crazy about this comment. And I think it would be a good idea for Masem or one of the other initial submitters to remove the paragraph about discussion style. Yeah, I'm not a fan of long posts either. But it really just takes this RFC/U off topic. Randomran (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arb Break

I think it needs to be clear that Pixelface and their reverts are very different than other editors reverting other editors. Obviously, first off, editing warring of any form is bad, that's a given.

In normal mainspace content, as long as content doesn't immediately fall under the domain of vandalism, nonsense, and inappropriate content (BLP violations), neither side of a dispute should edit war; say newbie editor A makes a change that is generally against consensus but doesn't harm WP for it being there, experienced editor B reverts, and editor A reverts back (despite WP:BRD); at that point, editor B should really start a discussion and not revert back despite it being the "wrong version" until they either confirm consensus that the original way was better or to convince A why not to include.

Policy and guideline space is very different because people constantly refer to these to help resolve the mainspace debates among other things; while it is possible that pages may get protected at the "wrong version" due to edit warring, pages should not change at all until consensus has been sought to make the change. Thus, if newbie editor A alters a p/g which experienced editor B, assuming good faith, recognizes has no consensus, should revert that change. At that point, because p/g pages should remain stable and at a version that is considered to have consensus, B should open discussion to explain why A's change is inappropriate as to stem a further revert by editor A. (and I will admit this hasn't been done in all cases, but when Plot's being removed by the same people involved in previous discussion, I think it's fairly obvious that discussion either was either ongoing or recently concluded). Now, if A continues to make the change (as pretty much only Pixelface has done, none of the other editors cited above) without establishing consensus, other editors should revert that. Or in other words, p/g pages should not be changed from a long-existing "correct version", and edits should be done to maintain that, until it is shown that the consensus is there to change it. This still allows for BOLD additions that don't get reverted, though usually good form to explain why you made the change at the talk page as to prep discussion in case it does. (And of course, edits to copyedit, remove or fix vandalism and the like are all appropriate).

So, short answer: there are probably isolated instance of editors both changing PLOT and reverting it where discussion was not initiated at some point during the process, but p/g pages should not be changed in the first place until consensus is shown or via the

• This is a relatively nuanced point but I want to be clear that the policy is silent on this.
  WP:PROTECT and others don't treat policy pages differently from article content. What I do want to point out is that this isn't a case of Editor B reverting editor A. This is a case of Editor A reverting editor C, D, E, and F across a half dozen policy pages over a period of weeks and months. It isn't so much that other people aren't "edit warring", but we can't really call it that if Pixel continually reverts and the editors responding are different each time (and not acting in concert). Protonk (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • FWIW
    WP:POLICY at this section outlines the basics of what I was talking about. --MASEM 07:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Very well, I stand corrected. Protonk (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do we do with those who are reverting Pixelface as well as multiple other editors a la...
        • • Collectonian reverting DGG and Hiding: [1], [2], and [3]
          • Masem reverting Hobit: [4]
          • S@bre reverting Colonel Warden: [5]
        • I would say Pixelface has probably done the most reverts, but editors C, D, E, and F, have also reverted in addition to editor A, editors B, G, H, and I? I'd have to check the notability pages to see what kind of edit warring we have going on there or maybe someone can make a pie chart or something comparing who's doing how many reverts and what, but I am still not convinced any of this is helpful. Has anyone asked Pixelface if he will refrain from edit warring and does everyone else agree to do so? I really do hope we can all find more cordial means at colloboration from here on out, but so with one last sip of Champagne for the night a toast to everyone. Again, Happy New Year, have a pleasant night and all! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't just look at who reverted what. You have to consider each case on it's own.
            • Case 1 (Collectonian/DGG/Hiding) - a three-way revert that included both a language change and a relocation of plot. Yes, that was a problem, and you'll notice that after Ned Scott reverted back to the last stable version and Black Kite protected the page. That was a case of trying too many things at the same time that confused matters, and while active discussion was going on.
            • Case 2 (Hobit/myself) - Hobit's revert was an extension of a string of PF's rereverts in the hours before that, and thus was inappropriate to have been made.
            • Case 3 (Colonel Warden/S@bre) - C. Warden made a change while active discussion was going on, and again, per WP:POLICY this is not an appropriate step.
          • But again, here's the point; it doesn't matter how many editors try to implement a given change, and how many editor change it back - policy and guideline pages should not be changed at whim and particularly to prove a point or game the system, and that is no way to get consensus. It has to be done by communication at the talk page and after a 1RR step, should only be changed if consensus is clearly shown the change is appropriate. That's where it matters, in the rough sense, of how many editors for and against change comes into play, among all other considerations of building consensus. --MASEM 07:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • • I agree that no one should have persisted in edit-warring and that page protection was appropriate. I wonder if we can do a wiki wide pull or something to get a consensus on plot, because clearly a larger number of editors who add the plot sections to thousands of articles believe we should cover them. For what it is worth, where I stand is not that we should have a bunch of plot only articles, but that we can and should improve them by adding development and reception sections rather than just give up on them and in instances where we can't find sufficient sources to build such sections but are able to verify that the article is not a hoax, then we should redirect as valid search term. Anyway, getting ready to visit family, so Happy New Year redux! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Let's avoid going down the path of determining policy and guidelines issues here - this is about PF's editing behavior. Starting an RFC (even though there was one in April 08 started by PF) is a good solution, though I would expect that editors abide by the consensus gathered there and not keep trying or shopping for a different forum to get the desired result. PF did start an RFC once so that's at least one positive step. What is not a good thing is constantly changing policy pages without clearly showing that the consensus exists to make a change to longstanding policy. (see
                  WP:POLICY). That's the primary behavior that needs to be stopped. --MASEM 16:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
                  ]
                  • He posted somewhere something to the effect of changing his tactics. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redux

I thought that Gavin.collins's view was entirely off base and perhaps reflects and misunderstanding of the RfC/U process. Behavior does not have to be blockable to be undesirable. Desired outcomes do not have to be concrete, specific, and measurable to be desirable. RfCs are supposed to be discussions, with some ideas about how to improve things for the future. They are not judicial trials that end in a sentence being imposed on the guilty party. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with some of the things he said, these are the main reasons I did not endorse his statement. BOZ (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm with BOZ. Gavin is right that some of this RFC is a little overblown, both in its tone and its focus. But there are legitimate behavioral problems here that need to be discussed and resolved. Randomran (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That, and Gavin seemed to be saying a lot of the same things that he said regarding the legitimacy of his own current RfC/U, and I didn't want to support that either for obvious reasons. BOZ (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that discussion on the page and here clearly shows that PF's editwarring and PF's discussion methods are two different issues, I propose the following remedy for the first aspect, effectively placing Pixelface on a

For a period of a year, Pixelface is warned of edit warring on

consensus may have changed

(3). All editors are cautioned that edit-warring on policy or guideline pages is inappropriate and may lead to administrative action.(4)

• (1) I don't know if we should limit it to only
  WP:WAF
  , and others; NOT is the key one of recent behavior.
• (2) This prevents someone from gaming Pixelface if they add something that is accepted on the p/g pages but revert that change much later, and Pixel attempts to revert. And obviously fighting vandalism is a good thing.
• (3) PF must be allowed to attempt to seek more clarification given WP:CCC after a period of time - we just don't need a new discussion every 2 weeks or every month.
• (4) While I feel this is a one-way street in that PF is editwarring against consensus, it should be noted per others concerns that no editor should be edit warring policy and guideline pages.

Of course, this may be too wordy and likely can be cleaned up, but as a starting point, I think this addresses most of the concerns. --MASEM 18:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I might support a softer restriction, but I think we need to look at a wider range of policy pages. Pixelface should be free to make any edits to policy pages, but for the next few months he must propose them for discussion and get consensus for his viewpoint *before* making the edit. He is still entitled to revert other peoples' *recent* edits, but he's not allowed to game the system by making a change under the guise of a "revert" across several months or years. I'd apply this restriction to all guidelines and policies, because it's obvious that his edit warring has spilled out onto redirects,
  WP:WAF. We need to show that it's unacceptable everywhere. Randomran (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Suggestion: "For a period of a year, Pixelface may not make any changes to policy or guideline pages (excepting vandalism reverts, grammar fixes and other uncontroversial edits) without proposing those changes on the relevant talkpage at least 7 days in advance, in order to gauge the level of consensus for those changes. If Pixelface's suggested changes do not gain consensus, Pixelface may not suggest the same or a very similar change for a period of at least three months, after which consensus may have changed. All editors are cautioned that edit-warring on policy or guideline pages is inappropriate and may lead to administrative action."

Black Kite 18:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I think that's fair, but we don't want to disarm Pixelface completely: he should be allowed to patrol for bad edits to policies/guidelines and thus be allowed to revert *recent* changes (so long as he doesn't edit war). Randomran (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about NO editor may make unilateral changes to policy or guideline pages? Really, when it comes to policies and guidelines, pretty much any non-vandalism reverting edit should have consensus behind it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No other editor has been edit warring. For all of them, the normal
          WP:BRD process is working. We shouldn't take away peoples' bold editing privileges (and it is a privilege) for the actions of one editor. Randomran (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • It seems others are being reverted as well when they try to make unilateral changes (see for example [6]) and that Pixelface is actually NOT the only one trying to remove Plot (see for example [7]). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Which is exactly as it should be - unilateral changes without consensus should be reverted. However, at the moment Pixelface is the only one making such unilateral changes on a regular basis. Black Kite 18:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Of *course* people are editing
              WP:EDITWARRING. Can you show me anyone who has tried to push the exact same edit more than a dozen times, reverted by nearly a dozen different editors? Randomran (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • I agree that unilateral changes without consensus should be reverted, but from a quick glance I see that at least Colonel Warden has also removed Plot, which means it is not just Pixelface versus "everyone," as he does have at least one editor from a quick search who also removed Plot and discussed doing so on the talk page. Pixelface may be removing it more so than anyone else, but he is not the only one to be doing so, i.e. if there is a broader edit war on Plot, he not the only person on that side of the dispute. Some of what I have seen in this RfC makes it seem as if only Pixelface has removed Plot, but that is actually not true. It should be clear that it is not as Pixelface is all by himself in that opinion and effort. Plus, other edits such as this seem a bit discouraging, i.e. why wouldn't we want to let people know there is a discussion concerning that particular on the talk page? Other edit warring by other editors not including Pixelface includes [8] and [9], i.e. two reverts of two other editors by one editor. See also [10]. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Pushing the exact same edit twice isn't an edit war. Pushing the exact same edit more than a dozen times, a few times right up to the edge of
                  WP:3RR, is an edit war. I agree we should hold everyone to the same standard, but Pixelface has breached that standard and beyond. There's a difference between Pixelface and others like DGG/Hiding/etc. They share the same viewpoint, but not the same behavior. Randomran (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
                  ]
                  • I posted below some examples of people other than Pixelface being reverted for removing Plot. Maybe we should make a chart of list of diffs indicating who has done the most reverts concerning Plot? I think Pixelface would indeed probably be on top, but if we added the reverts of him by those listed below to their reverts of DGG, Colonel Warde, Hiding, and Hobit, I don't see how we could fairly say that those reverted the below editors as well as reverted Pixelface aren't in fact also engaging in edit war, i.e. there is a much more participant laden edit war going on for which Pixelface may indeed be doing the most reverting, but for which he is hardly to only participant. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • If you find anybody else who has engaged in edit warring, feel free to name a name. But I haven't seen anything from anybody on the level of Pixelface. Reverting two or three times is not an edit war. The problem is that Pixelface has come back with the same edit over several months, and has brushed right up against the
                      Wikipedia:3RR#Not_an_entitlement. Randomran (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
                      ]
                      • Not on the same level, but as indicated below at least one editor has actually reverted 3 times different editors, i.e. other than Pixelface, which is pretty close to 3RR. Anyway, I saw you reached out to Pixelface and that DGG left him a note too. Maybe we can all find more cordial means of resolving our disuptes from here on out. Happy New Year! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How about "For a period of a year, Pixelface may not initiate any changes to policy or guideline pages without proposing those changes on the relevant talkpage at least 7 days in advance, in order to gauge the level of consensus for those changes. If Pixelface's suggested changes do not gain consensus, Pixelface may not suggest the same or a very similar change for a period of at least three months, after which consensus may have changed. All editors are cautioned that edit-warring on policy or guideline pages is inappropriate and may lead to administrative action. Note that this restriction does not prevent Pixelface from performing uncontroversial edits to such pages, or from reverting other editor's changes with a reasonable rationale as long as such changes do not constitute edit-warring. " Black Kite 18:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And to be honest, no-one should really be changing policy pages without consensus, so this is hardly controversial. Black Kite 18:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds fair. One concern I have though is that it technically allows PF to start a one-month-one-policy-to-challenge crusade so that the same arguments still get rehashed all-around-the-clock by the same people. That's the fault of too many overlapping policies and guidelines though, not PF's. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Initiate" may be the wrong word, as in another case on WP:N, PF is attempting to revert a portion of a guideline to a previous version. Also, I still feel that the scope of what p/g this applies to is necessary; if, say, PF should come up with a guideline that is readily accepted that is outside the scope of fictional works, PF should not be prevented in tweaking it or the like. (Also, this begs the question, are p/g pages those explicitly marked as such, or include Wikiproject guidance pages, or what? Limiting the scope would prevent the need for trying to answer this question). --MASEM 18:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I again think it is wrong to make it only about Pixelface. Below are examples of editors who have reverted removal of Plot by editors other than Pixelface.

• Collectonian reverting DGG and Hiding: [11], [12], and [13]
• Masem reverting Hobit: [14]
• S@bre reverting Colonel Warden: [15]

• So aren't those who reverted DGG, Hiding, Hobit, and Colonel Warden in addition to Pixelface also edit warring? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (reply to Masem) - aye, it needs a little more tweaking yet. Will have a look tomorrow, off to a New Year's party now. Happy 2009 all. Black Kite 19:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Same to you and everyone else, i.e. Happy New Year! Let's make 2009 a more compromising and collegial year!  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided evidence that multiple editors have treated Pixelface in an incivil manner. Thus...

Editors must not bait Pixelface, harass him, or escalate disputes by making incivil edits or personal attacks. Obvious personal attacks and unconstructive escalation should be dealt with by an immediate block as this remedy should be considered a warning and per the outcome of Episodes and characters 2 which noted that editors are expected to work colloboratively and not escalate things.

The above could probably be worded better, but we need to make sure we're not being one sided here. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility goes both ways - however, both sides need to extend the olive branch here. Something on PF's own baiting behavior would need to be added to this. --MASEM 18:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sarcastic or harsh discussion style is a side issue. But it's a standard that should be applied towards everyone equally -- Masem is right that it applies to all sides. I don't think it's fair to block anyone for incivility without some kind of warning and lighter action first -- so we need to handle them on a case by case basis. But I think it's fair to amend the remedy for edit warring with a broader reminder to everyone to be civil, and that incivility will have (proportional) consequences. Randomran (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how about:

Editors involved in discussions concerning what Wikipedia is not must not bait each other, harass each other, gang up on and bully opponents, or escalate disputes by making incivil edits or personal attacks. Obvious personal attacks and unconstructive escalation should be dealt with by first a warning and then an immediate block as this remedy, which is likely to have been viewed all the major or regular participants in those discussions, should be considered a warning and also per the outcome of Episodes and characters 2 which noted that editors are expected to work colloboratively and not escalate things.

Thoughts? I don't think it's a side issue, but rather partially an explanation of why Pixelface edits as he does. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're making progress. But "gang up on" is kind of vague. Arguably, any time you're the minority viewpoint you're being "ganged up" on. And while I can understand why someone in a minority viewpoint would use edit warring to get their way, being in the minority is never an excuse for edit warring. I think you should just leave that part out, and focus on personal attacks and incivility. Randomran (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the suggestion below is sufficient? I hate to simply make a "Why can't we all just get along?" plea, but maybe all we need is to just decide that we can and we will. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about simply,

Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#Parties_instructed_and_warned, "The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute."

I know that fiction editors (from all sides) have had a hard time to follow this admonition in the past year, but it can't be repeated often enough, even if it's just as the occasional sanity check. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is pretty balanced. A reminder about

WP:CIVIL couldn't hurt either. Randomran (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I can agree with that. I really do not think it should be that hard for proponents on both sides of this issue to compromise. I would say Magioladitis and I are probably on opposing ends of the inclusion spectrum and yet see User_talk:A_Nobody/Archive_3#Clarification. If we can work together, so can others!  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noting a number of incivility accusations being made, and believe that they are a bit misguided. Pixelface's behaviour has invited comment, and some of that comment is going to be in the form of sarcasm. Was a comment like mine particularly nice to Pixelface? No, it wasn't. Would it be reasonable to start templating civility warnings on my talk page because of it? No, it wouldn't. I'm quite certain that Pixelface's diatribe did far more to help Sgeureka's candidacy than hurt it, and it isn't a crime to acknowledge that.—Kww(talk) 23:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the wringing of hands about this from A Nobody is unproductive. The issue at hand is edit warring and refusal to get the point. Simply saying "well, there are two sides to this coin so nothing can happen to Pixelface unless it happens to everyone else" is pretty inaccurate. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kww or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Protonk are all available if there is some concern about incivility. Protonk (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying that it is only Pixelface is inaccurate and unproductive. If we want to move forward, we must be willing to honestly acknowledge that others have fanned the fires by being incivil to Pixelface and edit warring with him. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...I understand your position. Repeating it doesn't help. It also isn't necessary to agree with your position in order to move forward. Protonk (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a new year; let us take the bold step of not making 2009 yet another partisan year of conflict. Editors should take steps to reach out to each other as the proactive means of resolving these disputes, not going after some while ignoring others. Editors should not just make things work their way by excusing some editors' incivility while attacking others' for it. Either incivility is wrong for everyone or it is not. Either edit warring is wrong for everyone or it is not. I think Randomran and some other above want to move forward, not regress, not stagnate and have realized that to do so we all have to compromise with and forgive each other. I think we are all adults and we should thus all know that we gain nothing by holding grudges and letting animosity linger perpetually. All of us should start this year fresh and try as hard as we can to work cooperatively. Take care! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It isn't "regressing" or "Stagnating" to say that the crux of the dispute is edit warring and that we don't want Pixelface to edit war on PLOT related policies. And it is Pixelface edit warring on these policies--other editors reverting him piecemeal isn't edit warring, its the result of his willingness to edit against consensus. Should there be some other editor who takes it upon himself to revert Pixelface continually, that's obviously edit warring and should be dealt with appropriately. But the fact that dispute exists over the subject doesn't suddenly make all parties to the dispute equally culpable. That's my main point. That's what Kww is trying to get across. It's fine to acknowledge that people treat Pixel like shit sometimes (see my comment on the RfC). Where that results in some problem, it should be dealt with. But this is a comment about Pixelface's behavior. It is not a comment on WP:PLOT generally, nor is it a comment on the ongoing disputes over notability. As such marginal infractions on that turf between editors is extraneous to this RfC and should be ignored. What I see you doing is bringing up these notions "Either incivility is wrong for everyone or it is not. Either edit warring is wrong for everyone or it is not." Those are broad statements of principle, not ways for this RfC to move forward. Edit warring is wrong for everyone. Incivility is wrong for everyone. But that doesn't help us here. It does not follow from those statements that "either we punish all parties for edit warring here or we punish none" because we are not meting out punishment. Wikipedia isn't an exercise in distributional justice. We are going to try to create a result that minimizes disruption and comes from consensus. The easiest route out of here would be to get Pixelface to participate. Failing that, we will try to come up with some minimum solution. Should that solution (or a solution that comes from collaboration) include recommendations that we watch for edit warring by all sides, fine, but I am opposed to jamming up the works simply on the basis of accusations of incivility. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thus, the bottom line is Pixelface shouldn't edit war over Plot and nor should those who have reverted him for removing it as well as reverting at least four other users (including multiple times by the same individuals) as cited above. The way to move forward is to remind everyone not to edit war, not to be incivil, and to reach out to each other. It's a new year, I'm drinking my Champagne as I type, and I hope you and your family are too. I wish everyone a happy new year and hope that 2009 will be a far more collegial one than 2008. Have a nice night to all! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The bottom line is not that. Masem wasn't edit warring when he reverted pixel's change once on PLOT. Jack Merridew probably was. Collectonian might have been. There are varying degrees of this and the response should be proportional. Proportionality doesn't mean creating a solution that ignores the crux of the problem. Protonk (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Masem didn't only revert Pixelface's changes to plot, but at least one other editor's as well. The crux of the problem seems to be that various editors disagree about whether Plot should be included, i.e. it lacks real consensus. None of these editors should edit war over it. By now the whole bold, revert, etc. has been exhausted. Everyone should just discuss it, maybe reach out to the broader community somehow to get a consensus and take steps to move forward. I really hope everyone can do that. Randomran, DGG, myself, etc. have reached out to Pixelface. Who knows maybe through those gestures we'll all get somewhere. Take care! --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • As I've noted above,
                  WP:POLICY demands stronger adherence to editing rules for p/g pages; changes to p/g that are reverted need to be discussed and agreed by consensus to be kept, and the removal of PLOT thoughout all last year has yet to be shown to have strong consensus to remove. Any editor that has been part of that discussion should be aware of that, so removing PLOT by these editors can be seen as disruptive, with the reversions to the long-standing version as necessary corrective measures. Obviously, at some point if this is done someone needs to start a discussion - if not the one removing PLOT then the ones reverting it should at least try to start something. From this aspect, yea, those of us that reverted could have done more by starting discussion, though I would easily stated that with the reversions to PF's latest removals, the regulars (including PF) of WT:NOT well understand the various issues over PLOT and there's really no point in rehashing the entire discussion over and over. --MASEM 16:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
                  ]
                  • Because multiple editors have removed it, I wonder in such cases if we are better off then leaving it off until a consensus is reached or keeping it, but noting that it is disputed or under discussion? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To
      WP:NOT#PLOT.) If you think that other people have crossed the line to the same degree as Pixelface, then I guess you're entitled to your opinion. But I don't think very many people will see that "equivalency" as credible and we'll have to agree to disagree. Randomran (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • As I've said above, I think Pixelface has probably made the most reverts, but just think it should be clear that while those others only removed it once or twice, the fact that at least four others have also removed it shows that it is not a case of one editor versus everyone, rather that there are others who also share his viewpoint. I felt a bit concerned that it is being misrepresented as a totally unilateral war on Plot by one editor, when it is clear that he is not alone in the effort to remove that section. He may indeed have gone about it more aggresively than others; however, I believe I saw him write somewhere perhaps on his talk page that he is not going to edit war any further on it or something to that effect and if what everyone wants is to avoid edit wars and he seems to be agreeing to do so than I guess that goal has been accomplished. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The status of PLOT is not the discussion of this RFC/U, it is PF's actions of rereverting multiple times despite what
          WP:POLICY states. It doesn't matter if there are others that agree with them, WP:POLICY is pretty clear that exceeding 1RR changes is disruptive and that action needs to stop. Yes, it's clear that an RFC on PLOT is probably necessary but that doesn't not excuse PF from 2RR/3RR removals. --MASEM 03:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Part of my concern with these threads and what makes them unproductive is that they seem to keep splitting down partisan lines. Some will say that TTN mass nominating articles for deletion with tendentious copy and paste nominations that overwhelm AfD is not disruptive and that anyone who starts threads on him should be blocked. Yet, somehow edit warring on a policy page rather than disrupting the mainspace is of such significance that we have to focus on one editor and not try to acknowledge the broader issues, i.e. that maybe it isn't just any one editor's behavior, but a much broader dispute and pinning it on any one or two editors doesn't really resolve the larger issues. If what this RfC as started is about is to encourage him to not edit war, he has already agreed not to do so. I don't see anything gained by not giving him a chance to follow through with it before trying to formally sanction him. Let's give him a good faith chance first. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Respectfully, I think you're missing the point of this RFC/U. No one is misrepresenting this as though Pixelface is the only person who has tried to remove
          WP:PLOT. Of course people agree with his viewpoint, and there are very few viewpoints on Wikipedia that would be considered disruptive in of themselves. What makes Pixelface unique is that he is the only one who has edit warred over it -- you won't find anyone with the same editing pattern I showed you above. If he is willing to understand that it is his editing pattern (and not his viewpoint) that is disruptive, and if he is willing to stop voluntarily, then I think that will go a long way to finding a softer remedy. Speaking only for myself, but I'd be willing to consider just a strong warning, with no formal sanctions. But the problem is if him and other editors refuse to acknowledge his breach of behavioral policy. If he insists that he is acting within the norms of acceptable behavior, then I hope he understands that will undermine his credibility as this dispute continues. Randomran (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • See User_talk:Pixelface#RFC.2FU. I see no reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt. It's a holiday. let's start things off by assuming good faith. He's not removing it further, he said he won't; if he lies then that's another story, but we should give him a chance just as we would want others to give us a chance too. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • "I have promised to not edit WP:NOT during January" is a weak pledge, and nothing that I can see as a substantive step in the right direction.—Kww(talk) 03:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • He goes further though with "I am also considering not editing that policy, and maybe not commenting about PLOT on its talkpage, for a few months or more." Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • But we're not trying to silence PF, and talk page input is important (though the way PF approaches certain discussions as outlined in the other points in this RFC/U needs to be addressed separately). Sure, it's PF's choice not to input onto the page, but the last thing we want to is to prevent PF from providing input. But as to the "promise", it's again missing the point of the RFC/U in regards to editing p/g pages. --MASEM 03:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I've made another suggestion to him on his talk page. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Again, resolving the underlying policy dispute is peripheral. Of course people are allowed to dispute policy. This RFC is about his dispute resolution strategy: going beyond removing it once or twice to an outright extended edit war. I think that if Pixelface had an offer that people could live with (e.g.: not outright removing
                      WP:PLOT, but rewriting it), that would go a long way to showing that he had learned not to edit war. But whatever he does, the edit warring needs to stop. You'd be helping everyone if you told him that we respect his viewpoint (even if we disagree), and that he's entitled to advocate for it at talk pages, but that he won't be looked upon kindly if he repeats the disruptive editing for a 14th time. Randomran (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
                      ]
                      • I'm under the impression from his talk page as if he is not planning on removing it further and as you can see DGG and I have asked him to go about things differently and he seems responsive to us. I want to be sure that we don't belabor the point if he's more or less agreeing and wind up putting him in a corner or making him bitter. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • After Gavin's edit wars on D&D tags, we put him on a moratorium for three months. He voluntarily agreed to it. I think a three month moratorium (more or less) suggests a remedy that fixes the crime, without "belaboring the point". If Pixelface shows a better understanding of what he did wrong than Gavin did, then I think that will help a lot. That's why it's probably best to wait for Pixelface's actual response to the RFC. It will show us whether he has truly learned his lesson, or if he's going to avoid responsibility using the 5Ds (Dodge, Dip, Dive, Duck, Dodge). Any effort to craft a remedy will be premature until we see his response. His editing conduct on redirect pages after the RFC began probably doesn't help him demonstrate a good faith effort to improve. But his words on his talk page offer some hope. Randomran (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                          • He's commented further at User_talk:MBisanz#Request_to_unprotect_Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                            • It's a start. Let's see what he has to say when he reaches this RFC. I think it's fair to assign some blame to other parties such as Sceptre. I wouldn't blame him if he shrugs off some of the other criticisms too. But the fact that he's trying to conflate a long-term edit war with a few reverts worries me. It shows an unwillingness to take any responsibility for
                              WP:EDITWARRING at all. But I'm going to assume good faith, and wait until he comments on the RFC directly. Randomran (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
                              ]
                              • Okay. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded in an Outside View thread, but I'm wondering if that's allowed. Should I only make one response in the Response section? Several people have told me about brevity, so how long should that response be? Shall I put a longer statement in my userspace? --Pixelface (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be removed from there; you should make that known in the Response section. The general view sections of the RfC are normally not designed to include threaded discussion because that is the talk page's purpose.

MuZemike (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Am I allowed to respond in the threads above on this talk page? --Pixelface (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly. --MASEM 06:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel, a lot of the "rules" of the RfC are meant to protect you. We don't want threaded commentary on the talk page because someone could derail a comment and make it seem to people that a particular comment is more contentious (or, alternately, has more support) than it really does. You 'get' to reply in the "response" section because it gives some priority to your views. This makes sure that the villagers can't just storm in with torches and pitchforks. So if you feel that a particular architectural 'rule' in the RfC stops you from mounting your case,

I'm concerned that we have a lack of input from Pixelface into this. They have been posting the last several days over at WT:FICT, so it is not like they are not present. Even if it is to reject this RFC/U, some response is better than none to help resolve it. --MASEM 02:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not really participated in an RFC/U before, but is Pixelface's input needed for this RfC/U to conclude with potential restrictions to his editing (at least to WP:NOT)? – sgeureka ^t•c 11:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think not, otherwise one could just dodge any potentially adverse consequences by not responding, thus making the whole exercise futile. Nonetheless, I would very much like to get Pixelface's angle on things - as I'm more interested in getting an amicable and mutually agreeable solution to this problem than I am in just putting an editor on restrictions. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

My understanding is that it is. The whole idea is that by exposing and discussing the problem, the target of the RFC will have a change of heart and voluntarily undergo restrictions to demonstrate his new-found understanding of what correct behaviour is. There isn't a way for us, as editors, to impose restrictions. That said, you can take a failed RFC to ANI in an effort to get the admin community to agree restrictions are necessary.—Kww(talk) 13:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of response amounts to contempt for the community. His participation would facilitate an amicable resolution but it is not required for a solution. The comments have been made (and thus this is not a failure); next step, please. Jack Merridew 14:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the next step is automatic or pleasant. If, on 30 January, he hasn't responded, we find some neutral editor to write a summary of what this small subset of people feels is the dispute and we tell Pixelface. We aren't "the community" here. This is a slice of people who care strongly about fictional subjects (either way) attempting to (variously), defend pixel, hang him out to dry, or just hammer out the issues on policy pages. We shouldn't transform ourselves into the "community" simply because there is a group of us. Protonk (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the editors who have commented are not the "community". This is, however, a community process. See;

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users
• In most cases, editors named in an RfC are expected to respond to it.

See also that the AC is mentioned twice, including a specific comment concerning lack of response.

The AC is not the next step; a community discussion at

WP:ANI

is.

Jack Merridew 02:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, why don't you leave me a message on my talk page?

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Like Protonk said, the more I participate the better, but then the longer and longer my response will get. But that's one of the things you object to Masem, "long, long responses" — which you make as well. I can make short responses too. Like here, I typed 12 words. And then Masem, you responded with 1,160 words[29][30]. So yeah, my next response was 897 words[31].

I'm willing to discuss every single one of my edits to Wikipedia. I'm willing to discuss every big dispute I can remember being involved in during the past 16 months of the 30 months I've been here. I've already typed over 5,000 words. But are people willing to read what I've written without telling me "tl;dr" or without calling it a "rant" or without saying I have "wiki-OCD" — which people at this RFC have all told me in the past?

This is a request for comment from other users. No other users have commented on the RFC page in the last 5 days, speaking of lack of response. I will probably write what I am willing to do at the RFC page, and later I will put a statement in my userspace — it may end up being fairly long. I would still like to reply in several Outside View sections, and people may like short responses there.

What do you want from me? --Pixelface (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this is being discussed simultaneously at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#If I could rewrite PLOT. Since this was posted here by Pixel but arguably belongs in NOT#PLOT, both sections remain. Please try and discuss opinions about policy there and the RfC here. Protonk (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randomran brought this up above, and I thought about it a bit. If I could rewrite PLOT, it would say:

"Please do not create articles that are just plot summaries. If you see an article that is just a plot summary, first check if the article is a copyright violation, copied directly from somewhere else. If it is, list it at

better

. If you don't have time to improve the article, consider putting a cleanup tag on the article. Wikipedia has over 150,000 active editors. Maybe they know something about the topic that you don't. If you're familiar with a certain area of fiction, help improve that area of fiction.

If you find an article that is just a plot summary, and you don't think Wikipedia should have a separate article on that topic, try proposing a merge of the plot summary into another article on the article talk page. Was it split off from another article that was getting too big? Discuss the merge with other editors. Try making more people aware of the discussion. You could try templates like {{

preserve

information. Remember that someone else added that information to Wikipedia because they thought it makes Wikipedia better.

If you don't think a merge is appropriate, and you think Wikipedia should not have an article on the topic, and you think Wikipedia readers or websurers are likely to search for the term, consider turning the article into a redirect. Don't go too fast though; Wikipedia wasn't built in a day. It will still be here tomorrow, and hopefully long after everyone here is gone. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Check "what links here" in the article's sidebar to see what other pages have wikilinks to the article. Editors of those articles may know something about the topic. If you have read the deletion policy and think the article cannot be improved and needs to be deleted, read what to do

before

nominating it for deletion. When deciding to delete an article from Wikipedia, the question is not whether Wikipedia should have the current article, but whether Wikipedia should have an article about that subject."

I guess some might find that too weak, but I think PLOT should teach new editors how to write better articles — not be used as a bludgeon. We were all new once. With policies we can encourage volunteers to do better and teach them how, or we can lord them over the inexperienced. I know what I think would do more to improve Wikipedia. --Pixelface (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, but then I guess I'm not one of the folks who needs to be impressed. :) BOZ (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good piece of discussion to have at

Masem, please remove it from that talkpage. If I had wanted to put it there, I would have. The entire reason this RFC/U exists is because of policy viewpoints. So remove it please. --Pixelface (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. The whole point of the RfC was to avoid policy considerations and discuss conduct. Protonk (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy what Protonk said. I know the writeup is long, but it clearly says your view of fiction "is not considered to be an issue - everyone is entitled to opinions and thus can argue for whatever position they feel Wikipedia should be at." (That's a direct quote.) We're here to talk about how to fix your conduct problems, and bring you in line with our behavioral rules. Randomran (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(2x edit conflict, but agree with above) No, the reason is because of your incivility and edit warring to name a few, not to mention your apparent inability to work with other editors rather than against them. MuZemike 16:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As I understand it, this RFC is associated with this particular policy issue, not with Pixelface's general editing behaviour. The policy issue therefore merits discussion since airing this will help clarify the matter and perhaps point to possible resolutions which would be helpful. Pixelface's position seems to be that this policy is disputed and does not have consensus support. I agree with this position. We have had other editors agree that WP:PLOT is unsatisfactory, such as its original author. It therefore seems that we really have a content dispute here and resolving this would resolve the matter complained of here. We should therefore adjourn and resume our efforts to rewrite WP:PLOT. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded. The policy issue is what really needs to be resolved. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One can dispute a policy or guideline without aggressive and uncivil editing. That is the core of the issue, not whether PLOT needs to be modified (as the provided evidence was more than just what happened on WP:NOT). Sure, if we resolved PLOT to PF's liking, I'm sure their behavior would change, but that's rewarding the wrong behavior. --MASEM 18:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copy what Masem said. Yes, a few people are disputing WP:PLOT, and a few people have tried to remove it. But Pixelface is the only person who has gone so far as to actively edit war over it, reverting it an unprecedented 13 times in a few months (give or take). Randomran (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an RfC on user conduct, not an RfC on policy or guideline. There would be no purpose for this specific RfC had it not been for the questionable conduct by said user. I think suggesting otherwise (which is also an argument that the wrong RfC has been initiated) is an attempt to
    game the system by changing the topic at hand. We must stay on point and discuss, in a constructive manner of course, what we think about the conduct and not what solely what we think about PLOT. MuZemike 19:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Given that Arbcom rejected Episodes and characters 3 at this time so that the community could work on a compromise, it is apparent that this request for comment is not serving a constructive purpose at this time and in effect is disrupting that attempts at working towards a compromise. Pixelface's actions since January 1st seem constructive and that he has heard the critcisms and is now doing what he can to work with the community. Discussing specific editors at a time when we have a much bigger concern, i.e. working on the fiction compromise, is only augmenting the divisiveness of the community and is providing a distraction of our time and efforts from working together to indeed iron out a compromise. If we really want to move forward, then we need to stop going after each other and start devoting our time and energy to actually accomplishing something useful. For the same reason that right now since TTN has not edited since December 26th, it would be a side tracking to keep going on and on about him, I see nothing to be gained by going on and on about Pixelface. Again, for this month so far, he seems to be making the effort to rein himself in, discuss proactively with myself and Randomran, etc. We should all be capable of setting aside personal differences and focus where we need our actual focus on. If we fail to compromise on Fiction and we still see questionable behavior from sepecific editors or if it is apparent that specific editors are trying to sabotage the efforts to compromise, then okay, and then we'll probably wind up with yet another arbcom case, but let us exhaust what we can on the priority at hand and not be side tracked here. You don't have to like Pixelface or approve of his past to see that we are being distracted here and that if anything such an RfC/U is only raising rather than lowering tensions. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has he heard the criticisms? I don't see it. Thus far, he hasn't acknowledged any behavioral problem at all. Yes, he's promised to stay away from

WP:NOT#PAPER -- edit warring is edit warring, and it's unacceptable. I know Pixelface is your friend, and you agree with his viewpoint, but that doesn't give him a free pass for bad behavior. Randomran (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not about giving anyone a free pass, but about priorities. Has he edit warred recently? We sanction people to deter, not to punish. If he's stopped doing it, then that's that. Otherwise, every time any of us post here is time that we are not ironing out differences on the Fiction front and I got a good sense from reading the arbitrators that they are postponing Episodes and characters 3 so we can reach a compromise. Why risk raising tensions or increasing animosity on any of these side issues? Can we really expect Gavin and Pixelface to join in the compromise while trying to get them sanctioned at the same time? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that we sanction people to deter, not to punish. But we can't know if this RFC has had any deterrent effect until we hear what Pixelface has learned in the past month. Thus far, I haven't seen him acknowledge the problem. That doesn't work in his favor. Randomran (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't see the rush here; if he is cooperating constructively with the effort to compromise on fiction, I see these sorts of discussions as a detriment to that process. If we fail to compromise on Fiction and anyone starts resumes edit warring, then we can defer our attention to then, but we can only put our fingers in so many pies at a time, n'est-ce pas? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No rush. Pixelface has until the end of the month to respond. Most of us had ample time to deal with Gavin and TTN and still discuss policy changes. I don't see this RFC/U as particularly onerous or time consuming. It's a legitimate problem that deserves a legitimate response. It's in Pixelface's best interest to respond and explain the situation as he sees it. He still has time to figure out what he wants to say. Randomran (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given some of the incivility with which some (not you) have dealt with him throughout recent memory, I can hardly blame him for not wanting to respond. These things can easily be perceived as witch hunts or as hypocritical and I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't feel as much. But to be more precise, consider the recent thread he made suggesting a survey on the Fiction status. Now, think about how you, Masem, and Drilnoth replied, i.e. reasonably, and yet far less maturely or collegialy we also get this response (notice the edit summary as well as the actual comment). So, we're going to lecture Pixelface about civility when he gets outright mocked for making a suggestion? In any event, the RfC/U is just another factionalizing thing that really doesn't help us all move forward on compromising. Now, if he were today edit warring against everyone, then okay, but I am not seeing a continued issue at present. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any preceived long-term incivility towards Pixelface that causes the incivil responses, those should be called out (by Pixel or anyone else) and identified and remedied in the same fashion - this is a means of correction, not to punitively punish anyone. --MASEM 04:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just going with recently, in addition to the above example, he gets mocked for opposing an admin candidate, other have been cautioned for their incivility toward him and others, and we even had a block evading IP try "voting" in this RfC/U. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt there are some who are taking this RFC too far, but there are a lot of people who are acting in good faith and waiting for an honest answer. Protonk was quick to defend Pixelface from those who accused him of being a "vandal", and wanted us to focus specifically on the edit warring. Others who share Pixelface's viewpoint, such as BOZ and Casliber, have noted that there is a legitimate problem here. Pixelface has a choice in how he wants to handle this. He explain himself, defend himself from the more ridiculous comments, but acknowledge the legitimate complaints. Or he can just

WP:EDITWARRING. I think a lot of people would agree with that. Randomran (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Other examples of personal attacks and incivility against Pixeflace includes such despicable edits as this, which I am actually loathe to even link to, but it shows what he too has had to contend with. Plus, the "ok pixie" edit summary just seems off. After all, you and I don't refer to each other by pet versions of each other's nmaes. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is good to know; again it would be good for Pixelface to respond to state if they feel that the long-term incivility they get is the cause of their incivility so that we can figure out what to do those that may provoke him. Of course, if the cause is something else, we'll address that. We want this to end up to allow Pixelface to contribute in the best manner possible, and if its something we can figure out how to correct outside of their own actions, that should be identified. But there is also the idea of "what you reap is what you sow", and that needs to be determined if that's happening too. --MASEM 04:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is also talked down to in an overly aggressive fashion with [32], [33], and [34]. Others have noticed that the accusations have gone both ways. Now more recently we see incivility/hostility towards Pixelface when he seems to be acting in good faith: Pixelface: asks a question in a neutral style and gets this needlessly aggresive reply. Now, who is being incivil out of the two in both examples? Now, by contrast, when editors, including those have commented against him here engage him civily, he does respond civily. See for example this. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your point anymore. Are you saying we should file

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, or are you saying that the behavior of other editors absolves Pixelface of responsibility for edit warring? Randomran (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I am proving that his alleged incivility is hardly one-sided and as such it's not really accurate to suggest that he alone has some kind of problem. Or put simply, if people want a fair solution, then we need to hold those accountable who have edit-warred and been incivil with him, but again, do so at a time when we are not trying to mend fences and are trying to compromise on these policies issues. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the incivility hasn't been one sided. However, Pixelface is the only person to go beyond a couple of reverts to outright edit war. If you disagree, you should follow the procedure for an RFC/U by following these instructions. No free passes for anyone. Randomran (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be starting these on anyone we're trying to compromise with elsewhere as calling for action on someone who seems to have stopped doing what was alleged against him and then trying to come to terms with him seems odd (sending mixed or confusing signals/messages). If we fail to compromise then we can address all of this stuff at the arbcom that is probably what would result. As posted somewhere above, at least one editor has done more than a couple reverts on the Not page, but I don't wish to call anyone else. I'd rather we stop tossing accusations at everyone and get back to getting a consensus and building an encyclopedia. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I haven't found anyone edit warring like Pixelface. If you find someone, there are appropriate actions to take to warn them. But if two wrongs don't make a right, then neither do a wrong and an alleged wrong. Randomran (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And we're talking about diffs that are now a couple weeks old. It's becoming beating a dead horse. If we're going to work on side projects, why not something that encourages editors such as

User:A Nobody/Article Rescuers' Hall of Fame? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll defer to other editors as to if this is relevant to the RFC, but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Character merges seem to be repeating the same behaviors that have led to this RFC. MuZemike 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see some accusations of bad faith. But that's kind of par for the course in these discussions. I'm much more concerned about Pixelface's editing strategies, although I think it's time to lay down a line on discussion-style for everyone. Randomran (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MuZemike, what led to this RFC is Protonk baiting me into removing PLOT again on December 30. But I would encourage everyone to read that thread at WikiProject Video games, which led to a newer editor being blocked for no good reason. --Pixelface (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have read all of it so far. I don't readily care about

WP:PLOT that you (or any contentious edit warrior) may have. MuZemike 05:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Is English your first language? --Pixelface (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I surely hope you are not serious in that comment. MuZemike 06:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant no offense. I saw "what it comes from it" so I asked a sincere question. --Pixelface (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that for a minute. The "is english your first language" is almost always used as a subtle insinuation that someone doesn't have full command of the language. In the cases where it is no, it is clear that the target of the question is not speaking natively. This is not one of those cases. You are in a hole Pixel. Stop digging. Protonk (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't. I noticed that me and MuZemike both commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace Online — that's a Korean videogame. And I saw MuZemike say "what it comes from it" so I asked a question. You can believe what you want. --Pixelface (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, baiting you to do what? What the fuck? Protonk (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I removed PLOT yet again on December 30 was because of your incivility Protonk (and I see you're still at it) — and you're an admin. Earlier at WT:NOT, you said "The articles I could give a shit about, frankly." and I responded "You could give a shit about the articles? Really? Then why the hell am I even talking to you?" Then you said "Tl;dr. PLOT isn't going anywhere." and you used the word "conspiracy" and you said "Continually remarking, in every forum possible that PLOT has no consensus doesn't make it so." I read your comment, it made me mad, and that's why I removed PLOT yet again. That's why we're here. To me, you seem to be grossly unaware of the past year of discussions at WT:NOT, and beyond. I suppose that's understandable though, since you started editing on April 17, which is one day after Sceptre reported me as a "vandal" for removing PLOT from NOT. --Pixelface (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as being baited into edit warring. Come on. Either you're capable of letting it go, or you're not. Randomran (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I told you why I removed PLOT yet again on December 30. That doesn't excuse my behavior, I'm just telling you why I did what I did. You can take it or leave it. --Pixelface (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so you made a unilateral and controversial change to a policy to get back at another editor that you were in a dispute with? There are so, so many reasons why that was inappropriate, and you really ought to have known better. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

No Lankiveil, I removed a section of policy that doesn't have consensus to be policy for the 11th time in 9 months because Protonk pissed me off. That's a bad reason, but PLOT is a bad policy. It wasn't unilateral. Three other editors have removed PLOT from NOT since March 2008. It doesn't have consensus to be policy. Start looking through the WT:NOT archives here. I should know better. But Protonk is an admin for crying out loud. Protonk said most of the "rules" of this RFC are to protect me, but who's going to protect me from Protonk? --Pixelface (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What did you hope to achieve? Did you think maybe we'd say "Oh, he really means it this time, better leave it!". Did you think perhaps nobody would notice? Did you think anything would happen other than the change being quickly reverted and a further explosion of drama? Because I'm sort of struggling to understand how on earth you thought that it could possibly be a good idea. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Unreal. So now it is my fault. Protonk (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I suppose that's understandable though, since you started editing on April 17, which is one day after Sceptre reported me as a "vandal" for removing PLOT from NOT." This is a laugh riot. That's HYSTERICAL. This gets better and better. So did I block myself Pixel? Protonk (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all a part of our vast conspiracy to pass a new version of

WP:FICT, where Pixelface has been his usual self and had demonstrated that he still doesn't grasp that his style of editing is completely unproductive. Can I suggest we get on with the "proposed solutions" phase of the RFC? Anyone for a 1-year topic ban on all policies and guidelines, including their talk pages?—Kww(talk) 16:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I think there has to be an objective basis to whatever sanction we come up with. But Pixelface's lack of comment doesn't give me much assurance that he's learned his lesson. Rather, his continuing stubbornness and towing the line on personal attack (e.g.: "is English your first language") suggests he's actively defiant. Randomran (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that snarkiness and unproductive sniping is behaviour that can be objectively quantified, I think that we've done all that we can.—Kww(talk) 17:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best to compare to other recent RFCs. Gavin was given a three month topic ban for edit warring and incivility. Pixelface did roughly the same things, although it's arguable if he's been more or less cooperative. Randomran (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Kww, a "conspiracy." Keep misrepresenting me. Maybe you could also call me a "vandal" while you're at it. When I was the 40th person to oppose at your RFA, and I brought up that article you created, you actually added references to it after I brought it up. So my "style of editing" can be productive. I promised not to edit NOT at all during January and you said that's wasn't a step in the right direction. I'm willing to voluntarily stay away much longer, from all kinds of pages, but if that's not a step in the right direction, what is? --Pixelface (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to imply that you were a conspiracy theorist, Pixelface. It's Ikip that has been accusing editors of conspiring to pass

WP:FICT through faking conflict, not you.—Kww(talk) 00:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sorry Kww. I misunderstood your comment. I didn't know you were referring to another editor. --Pixelface (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was your fault Protonk. I take full responsibility for all of my edits. I told you why I removed PLOT yet again on December 30 — after your comments where you said "PLOT isn't going anywhere." I can see that you blocked Sceptre. I never said you were Sceptre. So laugh all you want. It feels really nice to be laughed at by an admin. You're a class act all the way. You started editing April 17. So I don't expect you to know about the RFC on PLOT I started January 30, 2008. I don't expect you know to about the threads in March 2008, which showed no consensus for PLOT to be policy. --Pixelface (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing start date isn't a "born on" date. If you felt I was "baiting you", you sure didn't note it for almost a month. When you did, you told people other than me and got in a twist when I expressed surprise. I also note your attempt to be cute below. I'm not your mom. I'm not your dad. But someone needs to tell you to grow up. Act like an adult. I don't need this act about "you are a class act" or your 14th mention that I'm an admin. You've been edit warring over plot and filibustering the discussion pages since before I've been a wikipedia user. You've lobbed insults and made coy insinuations all along the way. What has kept you from a long forced vacation is primarily the fact that you are not alone in edit warring or being "incivil". This RfC is about you. It is a serious inquiry from the community about your behavior and your insistence that policy conform to your views. you can either treat it like that or you can ignore it. If you ignore it and stop the behavior noted in the RfC, the end result will be a happy one. If you ignore it and return to PLOT/NOT/WAF in the same manner you run the very real risk of being blocked when some uninvolved administrator gets a compliant on AN or AN/I about your relatively disputatious behavior. The choice isn't anyone elses. It isn't mine. It isn't Jack Merridew's. It isn't TTN's. It is yours. Protonk (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Up above, Randomran said I have "until the end of the month to respond." I'm not familiar with that rule.

• I dont' know that there is a set time. ~30 days is what I go by (I think because the policy RfCs last that long). If you've got things to say then say them. Protonk (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many words do you want? --Pixelface (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My advice is to not take the bait on some of the more frivolous stuff, but to respond to the bigger issues that were identified by more neutral parties. The main one would be the edit warring. A concise but thorough response will probably impress people more than going after every single point with a shotgun. Randomran (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually typed up a reply to Pete.Hurd pretty soon after this user RFC started. I don't think it's frivolous — Pete.Hurd filed an ANI report about it. Is it okay if I post my reponse right under his? --Pixelface (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure. It was a timeline that came up at the RFC for Gavin Collins, when he decided not to sign onto what most users were proposing. We closed it by default, with Gavin taking a self-imposed topic ban of 3 months. Randomran (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In my experience, RFCs generally last until either there is no more editing of the RFC/RFC talk or until some event happens that makes the RFC moot (RFAR, retirement, community sanction, etc). MBisanz ^talk 12:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user was indefinitely blocked for

I was looking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games and noticed a thread where Pagrashtak said that user was undoing redirects of character articles (it's archived now oldid). I looked at Akari Kanzaki's user talkpage and the user had been blocked for edit warring after 2 vandalism warnings. I looked at their contribs, saw they had started editing in November, and saw they were unredirecting Xenosaga articles. I looked at the history of a few of those articles and I kept seeing the same names reverting that user. I saw no merge discussion at Talk:List of characters in the Xenosaga series. Thinking they were a new user, and seeing no merge discussion on that talkpage, and seeing no warnings for reverts on their talkpage, and keeping in mind Pagrashtak's thread at WikiProject Video games, I left a note on their talkpage. It appeared to me that a new user was outnumbered until they were blocked without being warned about 3RR, after Pagrashtak started a thread at WikiProject Video games.

And I'm truly sorry if I offended you with my question about English MuZemike. I should have looked at your userpage before I asked. I honestly didn't mean it as a personal threat. --Pixelface (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it; apology accepted. It looked like the

skull-duckery

(which was later confirmed by checkuser in the above-listed SPI case). In a sense, we all (that is, both sides of the debate) basically got stood-up and played.

The only reason I see for keeping it myself is because you were involved in it. I mean, the person behind all the accounts is not

administrators' noticeboard), so we're not required by policy to remove/revert on sight. I think what I'll do right now is make a note under the heading about the sockpuppetry; if anyone objects, revert and/or discuss here. MuZemike 17:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

For one thing, I don't think you're a sockpuppet of TTN and urge Pixelface not to make such allegations. With that said, if we're bringing FICT into this, that page is heated all-around and Pixelface is absolutely not making any comments in a vaccuum. If what he said is out of line then so would be a number of editors on that page who have escalated things at times. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't an allegation, it was a question. I shouldn't have even asked it, I should have just gone to SPI. --Pixelface (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with A Nobody that other people haven't been very nice on

WP:FICT either. I'd primarily like to deal with Pixelface's editing "strategy", rather than his tone of conversation. To the extent that he's making personal attacks and accusing others of bad faith, I think we need a general warning all around. And *then* we need to crack down on anyone who steps the line, regardless of how much we like them. But not before that warning has been extended to all the relevant parties. Randomran (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

No, Pixelface is not showing any indication of intent to change the behaviour that brought us here. Indeed, he seems intent on waiting things out. This RFC needs sorting even absent his participation.

"Sharpen a stick at both ends."

Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I promised to not edit WP:NOT before you did Jack. That's what brought us here. And two more months after that. I've participated in this plenty. I'm the first one who proposed a solution. I haven't posted a response yet because I have 13 months of events to summarize so it's taking me a while. I've asked for a wordlimit and received no answer. --Pixelface (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Masem, this is a Bizarro

NPA: comment on the contributor, not the content. You did create this user RFC and it was Jack Merridew who instigated it. Do you dispute that? --Pixelface (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

And again, if this is not a personal attack, it certainly is an inappropriate interjection into the proper discussion. This is the type of incivility that this RFC/U needs to address (and I note that there was no slight at Pixelface made by Hiding before this, so this wasn't a retaliatory reply. )--MASEM 12:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of

WP:AOBF there. I'm not sure what an appropriate remedy is. But we shouldn't turn a blind eye to it. It's separate from the edit warring, but still important. Randomran (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Here's another. Pixelface needs to meet

WP:BATTLEGROUND. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes,

WP:BATTLEGROUND says that "if a user acts uncivilly, agitatedly, uncooperatively, insultingly, harassingly, or intimidatingly toward you, this does not give you an excuse to do the same in retaliation." Pixelface said outright "I only respond rudely if spoken to rudely". There are a lot of Wikipedians who are able to look the other way and try to bring things back on topic, instead of feeding the battleground. That said, as much as I don't think we should give Pixelface a free pass on incivility for his gross misunderstanding of how a Wikipedian should conduct himself, I also don't think we should give others a free pass. I think the best thing we can do is warn everyone for incivility, and then be vigilant from this moment onward. Randomran (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Nobody seems to care about Wikipedia:Civility anymore. It's ridiculous to scold someone for responding uncivilly, while ignoring the person who started the incivility. How about these[36] [37] comments by you Randomran? Were you trying to bring things back on topic with those? --Pixelface (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, you called people who create character articles "victims" of marketing. Is that assuming good faith? --Pixelface (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, did you even read what I was replying to? Hiding told Gavin.collins, and I quote "I can't work out if you are my own personal troll, or I am yours, or, and this is the best one, you and Pixelface are the same editor engaged in some crusade to try and point out how silly Wikipedian policy is." Hiding then said "I figure I must be doing something right if I occupy the position between you and Pixelface. Heck, I might even have consensus." Hiding brought me up in that thread. I hadn't commented there at all. Hiding said something uncivil, and I responded uncivilly. If people spit acid at me, don't act surprised when I throw it back in your face. --Pixelface (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure how that comment can be taken as a personal attack against you, specifically. But even if you see it as such,

you can always turn the other cheek. Do note that we are aware that people have goaded you in the past to intice that behavior, and that itself in not appropriate, but this is an example where your reaction seems unwarranted or unnecessary. --MASEM 03:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

What if you had asked me for advice on my user talkpage a few days earlier, and then I said in a thread at WT:FICT (that you hadn't commented in) "I figure I must be doing something right if I disagree with Masem"? Would you take that as a slight? I'm sure you'd be running over here to start another thread about it. My reply to Hiding was modulated to what Hiding said. --Pixelface (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding disputed tags per BOLD (though I do note that the {{disputed}} template suggests they shouldn't be used in this case when an editor has a personal dislike of a guideline) is generally accepted, and I do note Pixelface did start talk page discussion about it [38].

However, re-reverting when they have been removed twice ([39] and [40]) is exactly the behavior that lead to an the ANI report pointing to start this RFC/U.

Again, Pixelface is allowed to dispute policy and guidelines, and discuss it in the talk pages - all editors have that right - but again, per

I've warned Pixelface on his talk page for this. If he adds the disputed tags again without a significant show of support on the talk page, then he should be blocked for edit-warring/disruption (whether the tags are re-added today, tomorrow, or next month). Karanacs (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is the problem. Pixelface is entitled to his viewpoint. But you're not supposed to prove your

WP:POINT by repeatedly pushing the same change after it's been reverted. If we turn a blind eye here, I shudder to think how disruptive Wikipedia could get, with people pushing the same edit over and over ad nauseum. Randomran (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]