Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/Pixelface - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78.34.129.171 (talk) at 13:24, 31 December 2008 (→Brief observation by Black Kite: wait, there's more). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:24, 31 December 2008 by 78.34.129.171 (talk) (→Brief observation by Black Kite: wait, there's more)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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: 06:07, 27 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.

  1. WP:BRD
  2. WP:CIVIL
  3. WP:TE
  4. WP:3RR
  5. WP:CONSENSUS
  6. WP:NPA
  7. WP:HAR

(Note that these only reflect policies on editing style, not the policies or guidelines that Pixelface edits)

Desired outcome

It is hoped that as a result of this RFC/U on Pixelface, that the editor will be able to participate more constructively and working towards a compromise and consensus that incorporates as much of their views and opinions as consensus will allow in the discussion of Misplaced Pages policy. This includes avoiding edit wars on policy and guidelines pages, avoiding personal biases against certain editors, and helping to develop consensus instead of resisting it.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

  1. Masem as writer of primary RFC/U statement. --MASEM 17:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Protonk (talk) as party of the various PLOT/FICT discussions I have attempted to resolve some of this and failed. Protonk (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. sgeureka as participant in (at least) Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts/archive46#User:Pixelface, where many of the concerns of this RfC were raised before. – sgeureka 18:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

  1. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC) as participant in many of the circular discussions noted above, but probably not considered attempted resolver
  2. — sephiroth bcr 18:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC) as a participant and observer of many of these discussions
  3. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC) As a largely neutral observer who wishes to see the matter resolved conegnially, and who recognizes that the behavior of Pixelface does not work to that end.
  4. -- Randomran (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC) As an observer and occasional participant in a few of these discussions. Attempted resolver in a similar dispute. Randomran (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. --EEMIV (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. I have frequently had disputes with Pixelface, and have criticised him for his behaviour. It's unclear to me whether that is classified as an "attempt to resolve this dispute" or not.—Kww(talk) 22:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  7. --MuZemike (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC) as this user has also had a run-in with Pixelface.
  8. Jack Merridew 03:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  9. Lankiveil 03:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC). I do not have a problem with the argument that Pixelface is trying to advance, merely the way he goes about advancing it.

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 Nandesuka

While there is nothing wrong with vigorously advocating a change in policy, edit warring over the policy is not acceptable. Furthermore, in this case, there are at least two aggravating factors that make Pixelface's behavior, in my opinion, worse than average.

First, and most importantly, Pixelface's repeated edit warring has taken place in the context of ongoing talk page discussions where the outcomes were not to his liking. So this is not simply being bold; rather, it's being truculent and disrespectful. Pixelface himself implicitly acknowledges that he's swimming against the tide here by invoking WP:IAR in his most recent edit war on WP:NOT.

Second, there's a very distressing "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks" nature to the particular arguments that Pixelface is using. The most emblematic of these, in my opinion, I will summarize as "This clause was added by someone who doesn't edit anymore. Therefore, it should be removed." This isn't just a bad argument, it's a mockery of argument, as is the "conspiracy theory" about driving traffic to Wikia for profit. I think that much of the opposition to Pixelface stems from his use of these sorts of arguments. People see those types of arguments being used, and they (or at least I) have an instinctive reaction: "I haven't thought about this issue very closely, but anyone using that as an argument has to be completely wrong."

In summary, I think that in edit warring to the extent he has over policies, and by continuing to do it in the face of substantial and widespread opposition, Pixelface has seriously damaged his own credibility with respect to direct editing of those policy pages in the future. If he continues to edit war on these pages, I believe that he will do permanent damage to both his reputation and to his ability to edit generally. To this end, I suggest that Pixelface self-impose a ban on directly editing Misplaced Pages policy pages until such time as he has rehabilitated his reputation. If he is unable or unwilling to consider such a ban, I fully expect that the community will impose a ban on him the next time he engages in edit wars on policy pages. Nandesuka (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
  1. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC) This seems a reasonable summary of the problems.
  2. Events could all too easily follow this sad course. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Karanacs (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. — sephiroth bcr 21:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. -- MuZemike (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  7. Bill  08:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  8. Jack Merridew 09:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC) — Mostly agree — But; a) the damage to his rep is done, b) 'self-imposed' will not work, c) the time is this-time.

Outside view by SheffieldSteel

Policy should be a record of what we, as a community of Misplaced Pages editors, agree upon. WP:IAR is not a licence to edit-war.

Edit-warring is disruptive on whatever page, but it is particularly inappropriate to edit-war on policy or guideline pages, which are meant to record the consensus of the community. Pixelface needs to follow our dispute resolution guidelines, in order to determine consensus, rather than unilaterally fighting for Pixelface's own preferred version of the text.

Citing "Ignore all rules" as a justification for such actions is also problematic. (Is it a contradiction in terms to ignore the rules when trying to change the rules?) But more importantly, WP:IAR says that ignoring the rules is only justified if the rules prevent one from improving Misplaced Pages. If two or more groups of editors cannot agree upon which course of action is best for Misplaced Pages, then they should not cite IAR, because it is not, and should not be, a "licence to edit-war" for whatever version you happen to think is best.

SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Karanacs (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. — sephiroth bcr 21:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. -- MuZemike (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC) sounds like turning two policies against each other.
  5. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC) IAR is not a liscence to do whatever you want, whenever you want.
  6. Bill  08:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  7. Jack Merridew 09:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC) *nod*

Outside view by BOZ

I haven't interacted much with Pixelface, so undoubtedly I can't comment too much on the history of incidents that he's been involved in. Pixelface is a highly controversial editor, kind of on the opposite end of the spectrum of another editor with whom I've recently been involved at RfC.

I think I can understand where Pixelface is coming from. Like him, I appreciate fiction a lot, and feel that articles about fictional elements deserve to have a place on Misplaced Pages. There is strong opposition to this notion, however, and many individuals who hold this viewpoint are involved in discussing and editing policy and guideline pages relating to fiction and notability. Many of the editors who support fiction, such as myself, don't seem to be particularly interested in focusing on policy pages, preferring to work directly on the articles themselves. Because of this, the majority of people working on pages like WP:FICT (and WP:PLOT) seem to be those of either moderate opinions towards fiction, or of exclusionary opinions towards fiction. When you believe strongly in including coverage of fiction in Misplaced Pages, and the best you can get is someone with a moderate opinion towards it, then your opinions are probably not going to be well represented at the policy talk pages, and thus the policy itself. So, I can see why the few lone wolves out there like Pixelface who do involve themselves in policy discussions can get frustrated over time. I know that I would love Misplaced Pages even more if I could edit the limiting factors in WP:FICT and WP:PLOT any way I like, or get rid of them altogether.

However, this is not the right way to go about things. Attempting to stalemate discussion, regardless of what side you're on, is not productive. And edit warring in any form (as I've seen discussed in another RfC) is certainly not to be tolerated, nor is incivility. I do believe that Pixelface can have a lot to offer the community, but is the community willing to listen? Poor choices in behavior can certainly limit how much other people are willing to look at a person's views in an objective manner. I would personally support him a lot more if he had a more even temperament and approach. I can imagine that part of Pixelface's frustration comes from the fact that some people have judged him in a negative light due to the behaviors described above by Masem, and are thus no longer willing to listen to him, which goes above and beyond any negative judgment cast upon him because of his viewpoints.

I think that if Pixelface were to tone down the rhetoric and aggressiveness and become more cooperative, and if people on the other side of his argument could put aside his past behaviors and work with him in collaboration, that Pixelface would be a very valued contributor and would be able to accomplish a lot more than he does through his controversial tactics. Challenging consensus on policies and guidelines arrived at by a small handful of editors is something that should always be allowed, especially when an editor believes that all viewpoints have not been taken into due consideration. But there's got to be a better way, and I hope that Pixelface can find it, because we sure do need more vocal editors to support coverage of fictional topics on Misplaced Pages. BOZ (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Protonk (talk), though I think the crux of the dispute (WP:PLOT) is unlikely to be the subject of too much compromise. Protonk (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Concur with Protonk that we're not here to change WP:NOT#PLOT (which really has no consensus to be changed). — sephiroth bcr 21:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Agree. Hooper (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. MuZemike (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. Bill  08:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

A view by Randomran

To all the people who agree with Pixelface’s viewpoint. I know you appreciate that Pixelface is a fierce advocate for fictional content. But do you endorse his behavior? Imagine it's the same behavior, but with a different viewpoint.

DeletionDemon visits the article for Kara Thrace, a character from ‘’Battlestar Galactica’’. He WP:BOLDly removes an entire section of plot information that’s been there for months. Someone reverts him and posts on the talk page “please discuss before making huge changes like this”. DeletionDemon comes back and says “there’s no consensus for all this plotcruft”. A few other editors push back and say “this plot summary has been here for months!” But then, a few other editors come back and say “I agree with DeletionDemon”. The discussion ends in no consensus, at best.

... Now imagine that DeletionDemon comes back to Kara Thrace after the discussion has died down and boldly removes the same “plotcruft”. The exact same section. Someone reverts him and says “please, DeletionDemon, I know you don’t like plotcruft, but we went through this a month ago and there was no consensus to remove it.” DeletionDemon responds “there was no consensus to include the plotcruft in the first place!” He removes it again. There’s another revert by another editor who says “listen, I’m a third party who doesn’t care about this article, but please try discussion instead of edit warring.” The discussion ends in no consensus, at best.

... Now imagine that DeletionDemon repeats this two or three times a month. March. March again. And again. April. April again. And again. He cools off. Then back again in October, with back to back edit warring short of WP:3RR. November. And one, two, three back to back to back in December. And every time he removes a section from Kara Thrace, he gets reverted. But now he's going after multiple Battlestar Galactica articles, and is now going after Kobol's Last Gleaming multiple times and Lee Adama over and over and over – albeit with less gusto. And after he is reverted, he says he's allowed to have his viewpoint and that a lot of people agree with him. And thus it justifies WP:BOLDly making the same edits on the same article(s) over and over, until he gets his way.

That's the definition of disruptive.

And that’s what Pixelface is doing. Except instead of targeting articles, he’s targeting policies and guidelines. This is not about Pixelface’s view of policies and guidelines. Of course people are entitled to their viewpoint. The problem is he’s pushing his viewpoint in a way that’s disruptive. The relevant behavioral policies are:

For the record, I haven't been too involved in the dispute with Pixelface over WP:NOT or WP:PLOT, let alone WP:WAF or WP:OCAT. But I caught onto the unfortunate pattern when he began applying the same editing technique at WP:N.

Distinguish the viewpoint from the behavior. You’re allowed to agree with Pixelface’s viewpoint. But ask yourself what precedent you’re setting if you endorse his behavior too.

I don’t care what remedy we use, so long as the bad behavior stops. Randomran (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
  1. This type of edit-warring is unacceptable, regardless of motivation. Karanacs (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. — sephiroth bcr 21:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Excellent example and fully agree -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. Outstanding summary. I was going to leave one (and may still) but this would leave most of my comments redundant. Protonk (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. MuZemike (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. Like I said in my view, I can absolutely sympathize with where he's coming from, but his behavior will get him into trouble sooner or later. BOZ (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  7. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Ends do not justify means, and bad actions will undo good intents always.
  8. Bill  08:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  9. Jack Merridew 10:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC) — Thank you for the interesting presentation. The crux of the issue here is massive disruption over time.
    and someone, please, explain what Ball sport (Battlestar Galactica) is doing on this site!

Outside view by Pete.Hurd

I really havn't had anything to do with Pixelface for quite some time (Aug 2007 it seems ) but I was left with the clear impression that I was dealing with a young man who was totally unable to separate the strength of his initial conviction on a point from a distanced view of the merits of that point. His dismissive attitude to the views of others seemed nearly absolute. I got the impression that he was confident that advancing his personal view of how things ought to be done was synonymous with progress, and that he was deaf to other opinions. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Jack Merridew 10:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC) — Thank, Pete. Folks, see the diffs; they support the civility concerns rather well.

Outside view by A Nobody

I have found Pixelface to generally be friendly in our personal interactions (if you treat him with respect, he will respond the same way) and spot on in regards to his interpretation of our various policies and guidelines or how they should be. His efforts, while disputed above, do far more to help build an online paperless encyclopedia than the disruptive editing described at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_TTN that really is detrimental to our project by in effect diminishing our value as a comprehensive reference guide and by turning away editors, readers, and donors. Can Pixelface ever be too aggresive? Well, see my response to his initial "vote" at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Sgeureka#Oppose. But is it a one sided matter? Does he make such comments in a vacuum? No. As seen here, Pixelface and others have had to deal with persistent dismissive personal attacks and ivcivility from those of more deletionist leaning as well. That does not excuse anyone, but it shows the context, i.e. that Pixelface is also being treated condescendingly by others. Should we start these Requests for comment about those editors as well? I reckon I alone could probably locate as many if not more diffs of incivility from some of his critics as those cited above against him. Or given the request for arbcom extension against TTN, the similar fiction behavior related request for comment on Gavin.collins, should we instead just have an Episodes and characters 3 to localize the disuptes pertaining to Gavin, Pixelface, and TTN all in one place as the truth and reality is that all three really boil down to the larger dispute over our coverage of fiction as a list of those commenting in these discussion pages reveal many of the same names from the two previous arbcom cases. The bottom line is unless if we are also willing to address the incivility of those who have insulted Pixelface and other inclusionists like the above cited diff, then we are just being biased here. A solution could be to stop all these threads that keep popping against each other here, on ANI, etc. and instead to just localize it all in Episodes and characters 3. But that is what I see as necessary to move forward, i.e. we either also starts Rfcs concerning those who have been incivil to Pixelface and others or close these and instead start Episodes and characters 3, because any action taken solely against Pixelface would be entirely one-sided and therefore unfair. Sincerely, --A Nobody 21:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Have to agree here too - you can't have a dispute between one person, unless MPD is involved, and I've seen some nasty tactics from the other side of the dispute. BOZ (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Brief observation by Black Kite

You would expect that most editors, after being informed that an RFC/U on them was underway which was considering their edit-warring on policy and guideline pages, that they'd actually stop that behaviour, wouldn't you? In this case, you'd be wrong. Black Kite 05:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
  1. *Rolls eyes* Amazing. — sephiroth bcr 05:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. One would think. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Spectacular. I will be very interested to read Pixelface's response to this RFC/U. Lankiveil 05:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC).
  4. In the interest of sanity, I gave a short protection to that page. I probably should have just blocked him, but whatever. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. Even their response to my informing them of this RFC/U continues said behavior. --MASEM 05:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. MuZemike (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Any normal user would have been blocked for such edit warring.
  7. Arguably reverting across multiple iterations of the same policy point to the same end is tantamount to edit warring over the same policy page. I would see that as the same as edit warring on Harvey Milk and then moving to the same subject at Milk (film) when Harvey was protected. Protonk (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  8. Bill  08:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  9. Is Pixelface aware of Misplaced Pages:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you? – sgeureka 09:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  10. What BlackKite and others have pointed out. Plus, oh, nevermind his very recent (failed, no less) attempt to demote WP:WAF based on this rationale and of course the obligatory edit-warring that seems to pursue Pixelface around wikispace. 78.34.129.171 (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Another brief commentary by Protonk (talk)

While it is abundantly clear that repeatedly reverting policy pages against consensus is disruptive and constitutes edit warring, it is NOT VANDALISM. Please, please, please do not revert his changes w/ no edit summary or with a summary like "rvv" or "vandalism" or anything like that. See WP:VAND#NOT for more information. No matter how pernicious he is, so long as he is an editor in relatively good standing with a good faith belief that the policy doesn't read the way it should, his edits aren't vandalism. That doesn't mean don't revert them. It means revert them with an informative edit summary that doesn't mischaracterize the edit. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Not vandalism for certain, though is still disruptive. --MASEM 05:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. Lets try not to put anymore petrol on this particular fire. Lankiveil 05:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC).
  3. Concur that it's not vandalism. Disruptive WP:POINT editing is equally bad though. — sephiroth bcr 05:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. Yes, I should have used a better edit summary. Maaf. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. Bill  08:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. Not vandalism, although no less disruptive. – sgeureka 09:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  7. Lots of vitriol around here! Got the noose ready yet? BOZ (talk) 13:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Sephiroth BCR

Echoing Black Kite, but see this. Even when he knows he has a user conduct RfC, this is the crap he's spewing? Seriously? On a RfC with over 90% opposition against demotion? Do we really need to put up with this? At this point, if he's simply not blocked outright, I'd support a ban from project-space editing or civility parole as the least he should be saddled with. He's obviously not receptive to any criticism (his tendentious editing of NOT#PLOT, WAF, Wikia, et al.) and has basically spat at this RfC/U (his response to Masem informing him of the RfC, the continuation of his tendentious editing after knowing the RfC was open). I don't see anything less than a ban from project-space editing changing his behavior. — sephiroth bcr 08:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
  1. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Jack Merridew 09:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC) — User:Sceptre could quite reasonably be listed up top as another editor with whom Pixelface makes it personal; nb: Sceptre, whom Pixelface is baiting in the diff is currently blocked for 72 hours on an unrelated issue. Nice form.
  3. I think this shows one of the core problems. Whenever there isn't consensus for something, Pixelface just announces that there weren't enough people to form a consensus and continues right along. Protonk (talk) 09:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. And just started unredirecting articles against consensus apparently reached in responsible wikiprojects. Not good. – sgeureka 10:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


Outside view by Gavin Collins

Having been the subject of two RFC's myself, I think this one may also misguided, in the sense that the Cause of concern is too vague to be either proven or disproven, and is too long for Pixelface to be able to respond or defend himself, and as such is little more than a coatrack for personal views that should be taken up on his talk page. On the positive side, this RFC does provide an opportunity for opponents with opposing views or of a chance to let off some steam.

I would conclude by saying that if any editor has a serious complaint, then they should request a block and provide evidence that would warrant such action being taken. As it stands, the Desired outcome for this RFC is too wishy-washy to amount to anything, and if I was Pixelface, I would be disinclined to respond at all, as even a courtesy acknowledgement might be interpreted as an endorsement of this selective fact picking, which is an approach that should be discouraged. My advice to the complainants is that we should not seek to control or modify the behaviour of other editors through the process of RFC unless a substantial breach of the rules of conduct has been made, and the editor concerned has not offered any form of remedy.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Gavin Collins (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Agreed this smacks deeply of a witchhunt by a group of biased, involved editors ganging up on Pixelface. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


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.