| Revision as of 17:40, 30 December 2008 editMasem (talk | contribs)Administrators187,160 edits ←Created page with '{{subst:RfC2|Pixelface}}' | Revision as of 17:40, 30 December 2008 edit undoMasem (talk | contribs)Administrators187,160 edits →Cause of concernNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| === Cause of concern === | === Cause of concern === | ||
| Pixelface is one of Misplaced Pages's most vocal members on fictional elements and has a strong stance against the apparent removal and reduction of the coverage of fiction on Misplaced Pages. This is not considered to be an issue - everyone is entitled to opinions and thus can argue for whatever position they feel Misplaced Pages should be at. However, of late, Pixelface's contributions towards discussion has become edging on disruptive instead of helping to create a constructive debate, including toeing the line of ] violations for not adhering to the ] policy at policy and guideline pages. Please note that this RFC/U is not an attempt to resolve policy matters despite the inclusion of such policy-related issues, only how Pixelface behaves in discussions of these. Nor does this RFC/U attempt to prevent Pixelface from editing in mainspace, as their edits there are well within expected standards and very beneficial to the project. | |||
| ''{Add summary here, provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.}'' | |||
| ;Editwarring on the removal of ] and other policy/guideline pages | |||
| :Pixelface has made it clear that they believe ] harms the encyclopedia. While discussion has taken place on ] for nearly a year now (about one refreshed discussion a month), most initiated by Pixelface, all these discussions generally end with the consensus that WP:PLOT may be worded inappropriate but its intent is valid. (Example discussions include: March 2008: , April: , May: , June: , November: , , December: ) To this, Pixelface has repeatedly edited out the section of ] that contains ] or references to Wikia (see below), which has usually been reverted, and repeats this to the edge of the ] editing restriction, but not completing the fourth edit to merit the warning. (Example instances include: Instance one: , — Instance two: , , — Instance three: , , — Instance four: , , , ) In the most recent set of edits of this type, Pixelface claims that removal of WP:PLOT is because it gets in the way of improving Misplaced Pages, they can remove it per ]. () | |||
| ;Citing historical "problems" in policy creation to consider policy null and void | |||
| :One of Pixelface's methods to state that a policy is no longer valid is to seek out the original discussion on the creation of the policy and the status of the editors, and attempt to show through this that the policy should not be part of Misplaced Pages despite being on policy pages left undisputed for several months. For example, Pixelface will try to invalidate policy by pointing out the original author has since left Misplaced Pages, that the original author has since changed their stance believing the policy section to be inappropriate, that a policy was only proposed for a few days before being added to policy, or that only a small handful of editors showed support for the proposed addition.() While the historical creation of policy is useful to understand what the intent was, when a piece of policy has sat undisputed for several months or years from its creation, the issues that revolve around its creation become insignificant over the weight of its long-standing consensus. | |||
| ;Claiming Conflict of Interest issues with Wikia | |||
| :Pixelface believes that because Jimmy Wales has a financial stake in Wikia that any mention of Wikia on Misplaced Pages in policy pages, particularly on those points of relocating material not appropriate for Misplaced Pages, is a conflict of interest as it serves to better Jimmy Wales.() This point has been discussed in other forums before, and most agree that there is no conflict of interest though we should avoid specifically calling out one service over another when describing how to transwiki material. () However, Pixelface strongly believes this COI exists despite being pointed out these previous discussions. | |||
| ;Discussion style | |||
| :Pixelface's debate method is generally along the lines of providing a long, long response to previous users statements, augmented with numerous examples of either historical precedent or counterexamples or the like. In general, providing these examples once in an important discussion is useful, but Pixelface tends to reiterate these every other response, and this can become very spammy. (Examples: , , (though when suggested, they did move the list of examples to a subpage), ) They also take a very accusative tone in their responses that nearly beg for the previous commenter to respond back, and generally border the edge of being ]. I think at all major policy pages where Pixelface operates, the regular groups of editors are well aware of Pixelface's general objections, so while a short comment from Pixelface is appreciated and considered in the discussion, a complete reiteration of Pixelface's stance bogs it down and yet begs some type of response to it. I had previously opened a ] on Pixelface's contributions to the ] RFC regarding their discussion tone, which was resolved then (around June 2008) but obviously has made little impact on the user's contributions since then. (). | |||
| ;Attacking the editor, not the behavior | |||
| :It is clear that there are certain editors that Pixelface cannot work well with due to differences in opinion: ] and ] quickly comes to mind.() While such conflict cannot be avoided, it is still generally inappropriate to attack editors for who they are not and not specifically at their behavior. In the recent Arbcom election, besides other questions "loaded" to points addressed before, Pixelface clearly tries to determine where the nominees stand in response to TTN's editing approach, which, if Pixelface does have an issue with TTN, should be raised at the ArbCom board itself. (Example: ) In ]'s admin candidacy, Pixelface posted a very large opposition explanation as to why Sgeureka should not be an admin, but this primary focused on his stance on fiction-related articles and not anything to do with how Sgeureka would operate as an admin. () Pixelface is strongly opposed to Jack Merridew's return to Misplaced Pages based on past actions and not assuming good faith for work moving forward. () In Pixelface's latest changes to ], when re-reverting the changes made by Jack Merridew, they refer to the editor as "David", a name that may obviously be known from Jack's past sockpuppetry, but is an aspect of the past and should be dropped. (, ). | |||
| Pixelface should be well aware, as a named party in the ], that the second remedy, ''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'', applies to themselves in addition to TTN and other editors they have conflict with. The above behavior, which has persisted since the closure of the ArbCom case, shows borderline adherence to the ArbCom's case, toeing the line yet avoiding administrative action. This type of behavior is not conductive towards trying to resolve the entire issue of how fiction is handled on Misplaced Pages. We are close to presenting a version of ] that has input from all sides of the inclusionists/deletionsists debate, as well as resolving other issues relating to fiction that are based on ], and thus seek as much constructive criticism as possible. Myself, as one of the discussions drivers in this area, appreciate Pixelface's input, but of late there has been little to no new arguments presented by Pixelface, instead rehashes of their past complaints, and the above editing disruptions. This RFC/U seeks to find some means to help Pixelface contribute in a healthy manner to debates in order to resolve the issue of fiction on Misplaced Pages so that we can all get back to our regular volunteer editing duties of mainspace articles. | |||
| === Applicable policies and guidelines === | === Applicable policies and guidelines === | ||
Revision as of 17:40, 30 December 2008
In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 17:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 15:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Statement of the dispute
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
Cause of concern
Pixelface is one of Misplaced Pages's most vocal members on fictional elements and has a strong stance against the apparent removal and reduction of the coverage of fiction on Misplaced Pages. This is not considered to be an issue - everyone is entitled to opinions and thus can argue for whatever position they feel Misplaced Pages should be at. However, of late, Pixelface's contributions towards discussion has become edging on disruptive instead of helping to create a constructive debate, including toeing the line of WP:3RR violations for not adhering to the Bold, Revert, Discuss policy at policy and guideline pages. Please note that this RFC/U is not an attempt to resolve policy matters despite the inclusion of such policy-related issues, only how Pixelface behaves in discussions of these. Nor does this RFC/U attempt to prevent Pixelface from editing in mainspace, as their edits there are well within expected standards and very beneficial to the project.
- Editwarring on the removal of WP:PLOT and other policy/guideline pages
- Pixelface has made it clear that they believe WP:PLOT harms the encyclopedia. While discussion has taken place on WT:NOT for nearly a year now (about one refreshed discussion a month), most initiated by Pixelface, all these discussions generally end with the consensus that WP:PLOT may be worded inappropriate but its intent is valid. (Example discussions include: March 2008: , April: , May: , June: , November: , , December: ) To this, Pixelface has repeatedly edited out the section of WP:NOT that contains WP:PLOT or references to Wikia (see below), which has usually been reverted, and repeats this to the edge of the WP:3RR editing restriction, but not completing the fourth edit to merit the warning. (Example instances include: Instance one: , — Instance two: , , — Instance three: , , — Instance four: , , , ) In the most recent set of edits of this type, Pixelface claims that removal of WP:PLOT is because it gets in the way of improving Misplaced Pages, they can remove it per Ignore All Rules. ()
- Citing historical "problems" in policy creation to consider policy null and void
- One of Pixelface's methods to state that a policy is no longer valid is to seek out the original discussion on the creation of the policy and the status of the editors, and attempt to show through this that the policy should not be part of Misplaced Pages despite being on policy pages left undisputed for several months. For example, Pixelface will try to invalidate policy by pointing out the original author has since left Misplaced Pages, that the original author has since changed their stance believing the policy section to be inappropriate, that a policy was only proposed for a few days before being added to policy, or that only a small handful of editors showed support for the proposed addition.() While the historical creation of policy is useful to understand what the intent was, when a piece of policy has sat undisputed for several months or years from its creation, the issues that revolve around its creation become insignificant over the weight of its long-standing consensus.
- Claiming Conflict of Interest issues with Wikia
- Pixelface believes that because Jimmy Wales has a financial stake in Wikia that any mention of Wikia on Misplaced Pages in policy pages, particularly on those points of relocating material not appropriate for Misplaced Pages, is a conflict of interest as it serves to better Jimmy Wales.() This point has been discussed in other forums before, and most agree that there is no conflict of interest though we should avoid specifically calling out one service over another when describing how to transwiki material. () However, Pixelface strongly believes this COI exists despite being pointed out these previous discussions.
- Discussion style
- Pixelface's debate method is generally along the lines of providing a long, long response to previous users statements, augmented with numerous examples of either historical precedent or counterexamples or the like. In general, providing these examples once in an important discussion is useful, but Pixelface tends to reiterate these every other response, and this can become very spammy. (Examples: , , (though when suggested, they did move the list of examples to a subpage), ) They also take a very accusative tone in their responses that nearly beg for the previous commenter to respond back, and generally border the edge of being civil. I think at all major policy pages where Pixelface operates, the regular groups of editors are well aware of Pixelface's general objections, so while a short comment from Pixelface is appreciated and considered in the discussion, a complete reiteration of Pixelface's stance bogs it down and yet begs some type of response to it. I had previously opened a Wikiquette Alert on Pixelface's contributions to the WP:FICT RFC regarding their discussion tone, which was resolved then (around June 2008) but obviously has made little impact on the user's contributions since then. ().
- Attacking the editor, not the behavior
- It is clear that there are certain editors that Pixelface cannot work well with due to differences in opinion: TTN and User:Jack Merridew quickly comes to mind.() While such conflict cannot be avoided, it is still generally inappropriate to attack editors for who they are not and not specifically at their behavior. In the recent Arbcom election, besides other questions "loaded" to points addressed before, Pixelface clearly tries to determine where the nominees stand in response to TTN's editing approach, which, if Pixelface does have an issue with TTN, should be raised at the ArbCom board itself. (Example: ) In Sgeureka's admin candidacy, Pixelface posted a very large opposition explanation as to why Sgeureka should not be an admin, but this primary focused on his stance on fiction-related articles and not anything to do with how Sgeureka would operate as an admin. () Pixelface is strongly opposed to Jack Merridew's return to Misplaced Pages based on past actions and not assuming good faith for work moving forward. () In Pixelface's latest changes to WP:NOT, when re-reverting the changes made by Jack Merridew, they refer to the editor as "David", a name that may obviously be known from Jack's past sockpuppetry, but is an aspect of the past and should be dropped. (, ).
Pixelface should be well aware, as a named party in the Episodes and Characters 2 ArbCom case, that the second remedy, 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, applies to themselves in addition to TTN and other editors they have conflict with. The above behavior, which has persisted since the closure of the ArbCom case, shows borderline adherence to the ArbCom's case, toeing the line yet avoiding administrative action. This type of behavior is not conductive towards trying to resolve the entire issue of how fiction is handled on Misplaced Pages. We are close to presenting a version of fiction notability that has input from all sides of the inclusionists/deletionsists debate, as well as resolving other issues relating to fiction that are based on the general notability guideline, and thus seek as much constructive criticism as possible. Myself, as one of the discussions drivers in this area, appreciate Pixelface's input, but of late there has been little to no new arguments presented by Pixelface, instead rehashes of their past complaints, and the above editing disruptions. This RFC/U seeks to find some means to help Pixelface contribute in a healthy manner to debates in order to resolve the issue of fiction on Misplaced Pages so that we can all get back to our regular volunteer editing duties of mainspace articles.
Applicable policies and guidelines
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.
Desired outcome
This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.
---
Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.
Questions
Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Response
{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed. Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.}
Response to concerns
{Add summary here.}
Applicable policies and guidelines
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.
Users endorsing this response
Questions
Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.
Outside view by
{Enter summary here.}
Users who endorse this summary:
Proposed solutions
This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.
Template
1)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.