Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 17:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:21, 24 June 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 Wikipedia's most vocal members on fictional elements and has a strong stance against the apparent removal and reduction of the coverage of fiction on Wikipedia. This 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. 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: [1], April: [2], May: [3], June: [4], November: [5], [6], December: [7]) 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: [8], [9] — Instance two: [10], [11], [12] — Instance three: [13], [14], [15] — Instance four: [16], [[17], [18], [19]) 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 Wikipedia, they can remove it per Ignore All Rules. ([20])
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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.([21][22]) 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 Wikipedia in policy pages, particularly on those points of relocating material not appropriate for Wikipedia, is a conflict of interest as it serves to better Jimmy Wales.([23]) 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. ([24]) 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: [25], [26], [27] (though when suggested, they did move the list of examples to a subpage), [28]) 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. ([29]).
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.([30]) 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: [31]) 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. ([32]) Pixelface is strongly opposed to Jack Merridew's return to Wikipedia based on past actions and not assuming good faith for work moving forward. ([33]) 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. ([34], [35]).

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. sgeureka as participant in (at least) Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive46#User:Pixelface, where many of the concerns of this RfC were raised before. – sgeureka t•c 18:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I can certify. Sceptre (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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[reply]
  2. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 18:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC) as a participant and observer of many of these discussions[reply]
  3. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC) As a largely neutral observer who wishes to see the matter resolved congenially, and who recognizes that the behavior of Pixelface does not work to that end.[reply]
  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)[reply]
  5. --EEMIV (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  7. --MuZemike (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC) as this user has also had a run-in with Pixelface.[reply]
  8. Jack Merridew 03:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Lankiveil (speak to me) 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.[reply]
  10. Eusebeus (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section.  Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.

Q. Is the person responsible for drafting this aware that WP:BRD is not actually a policy? It is incorrectly described above, and compliance with it is strictly optional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. Good point, but WP:EDITWAR policy can be considered to address the same issue. --MASEM 22:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Q.WP:TA is also not a policy/guideline but a proposal. I am wondering if the submitter was unable to get such simple facts straight (2 out of 7 wrong), how much time should I spend analyzing all the edits he cited and the context in which they occurred? 212.200.243.17 (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Pixelface: Are you going to respond to this? Jack Merridew 14:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. So I guess I'm the pig now, huh Jack? --Pixelface (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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."[36] 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 Wikipedia 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.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Nandesuka (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC) This seems a reasonable summary of the problems.[reply]
  3. Events could all too easily follow this sad course. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Karanacs (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. -- MuZemike (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Bill (talk|contribs) 08:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 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.[reply]
  10. Well put. Jakew (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mostly agree per Jack Merridew above. I do think a self-imposed ban by Pixelface if practiced in good faith (non-WP:GAME'ed) would do some repair to his damaged credibility; however, Pixelface has reneged on previous pledges to reform. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Endorse. Although I think we should wait to hear from Pixelface before finding an appropriate sanction. Randomran (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Well said. Eusebeus (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC) The "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks" method is ineffective.[reply]

Outside view by SheffieldSteel

Policy should be a record of what we, as a community of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. If two or more groups of editors cannot agree upon which course of action is best for Wikipedia, 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.


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Karanacs (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- MuZemike (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC) sounds like turning two policies against each other.[reply]
  6. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC) IAR is not a liscence to do whatever you want, whenever you want.[reply]
  7. Bill (talk|contribs) 08:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jack Merridew 09:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC) *nod*[reply]
  9. IAR is not a reason, it's a method. Sceptre (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. There is no excuse for edit warring except to revert vandalism. Randomran (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. BOZ (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. Concur with Protonk that we're not here to change WP:NOT#PLOT (which really has no consensus to be changed). — sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree. Hooper (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. MuZemike (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Bill (talk|contribs) 08:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Well said. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Though I agree with him that NOT#PLOT doesn't belong as part of NOT, he can be too abrasive. I generally (almost always) support his goals, but more tact might be called for. Though the same could be said of most (myself included). Hobit (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yep, being outnumbered is a clear contributing factor. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. There is much good sense in this statement. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Pixelface does valuable work in his attempts to defend the project from those who may do it harm as they weed. Catchpole (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Absolutely. Others share his viewpoint, but that does not excuse the behavior. Randomran (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Pixelface is a valued contributor, but with better debating skills would be even better.[reply]

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.

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Randomran (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This type of edit-warring is unacceptable, regardless of motivation. Karanacs (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Excellent example and fully agree -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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)[reply]
  6. MuZemike (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 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)[reply]
  8. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Ends do not justify means, and bad actions will undo good intents always.[reply]
  9. Bill (talk|contribs) 08:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 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.[reply]
    and someone, please, explain what Ball sport (Battlestar Galactica) is doing on this site!
  11. (big sigh) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. This kind of edit warring is unacceptable, and may support a topic ban. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Pete.Hurd

I really havn't had anything to do with Pixelface for quite some time (Aug 2007 it seems [37] [38]) 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.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jack Merridew 10:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC) — Thank, Pete. Folks, see the diffs; they support the civility concerns rather well.[reply]
Reply by Pixelface

Regarding this comment of mine at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genderfuck, that was a joke Pete.Hurd. After I nominated Chewbacca defense for deletion in late July 2007, and people argued to keep...using the Chewbacca defense, to say that I began taking AFDs a little less seriously would be an understatement. I notice now that Sceptre was one of the people arguing to keep using the Chewbacca defense.

Browsing through open AFD debates in late August 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genderfuck caught my eye. I was unfamiliar with the term so I commented there. I made a joke, quoting WP:NOT#DICT, thinking "Genderfuck" was a neologism. To me, it looked like someone had just suffixed "fuck" onto another word (which works on every word by the way).

Some people at the AFD thought my comment was funny. One person took issue with it. Pete.Hurd didn't like it and contacted me on my talkpage about incivility. I thought that was just a little ironic. If I couldn't say "fuck" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genderfuck, where could I say it? I replied on Pete.Hurd's talkpage. (I notice now that that was right after Jack Merridew had left a comment). Then I made another joke in the AFD. Yes, I went overboard, but that was part of the joke. Maybe I was mocking the concept a little, because I didn't understand it. But my joke also had a deeper meaning about AFD debates in general. I considered my comment meta-humor, like when I nominated Chewbacca defense for deletion and people argued to keep using the Chewbacca defense. I made 4 other comments in that AFD, mostly trying to understand what exactly the concept was.

I wasn't even aware of the following until I found it while searching through ANI to type up my statement: Before Pete.Hurd contacted me on my talkpage about incivility, he started an ANI thread about my comment at the Genderfuck AFD. That's the very first ANI thread about me, after I'd been editing 14 months. Some people there thought my AFD comments were funny too.

I'm sorry if anyone was offended by my comments. They were intended to be funny. I didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings. --Pixelface (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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. See also this unconstructive and mocking edit. 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,

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --A NobodyMy talk 21:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. Yep, it has worked both way, though I don't know of arbitration will be hlpeful. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support, I think this is simply editors attempting to silence another editor they dislike. Ikip (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree. I believe they are handing out torches and pitchforks as I post this.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Black Kite 05:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. *Rolls eyes* Amazing. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 05:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. One would think. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Spectacular. I will be very interested to read Pixelface's response to this RFC/U. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  5. 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)[reply]
  6. Even their response to my informing them of this RFC/U continues said behavior. --MASEM 05:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. MuZemike (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Any normal user would have been blocked for such edit warring.[reply]
  8. 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)[reply]
  9. Bill (talk|contribs) 08:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Is Pixelface aware of Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you? – sgeureka t•c 09:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. The behavior spilled over to other policies/guidelines, and continued even after the RFC begun. Randomran (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Pixelface

That's a redirect Black Kite, but yes, doing that was a bad idea. After Masem informed me of this RFC, I reverted Jack Merridew, saying "rv, I've never vandalized Wikipedia" after Jack Merridew said "rvv" in his edit summary. I think Protonk has noted that below. --Pixelface (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that Jack shouldn't have said "rvv", but that was a really unwise way of countering it. Black Kite 11:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another brief commentary by Protonk

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.

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Protonk (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not vandalism for certain, though is still disruptive. --MASEM 05:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agreed. Lets try not to put anymore petrol on this particular fire. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  4. Concur that it's not vandalism. Disruptive WP:POINT editing is equally bad though. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 05:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, I should have used a better edit summary. Maaf. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Bill (talk|contribs) 08:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Not vandalism, although no less disruptive. – sgeureka t•c 09:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Lots of vitriol around here! Got the noose ready yet? BOZ (talk) 13:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. yep. . .AIV diff. R. Baley (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. vandalism and disruptive editing are not necessarily equivalent, but a similarity is that they both get in the way of improving the encyclopedia. MuZemike 19:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Agreed. We need to be specific, and overstating the problem is not helpful or necessary. Randomran (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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 above diff, is currently blocked for 72 hours on an unrelated issue and is thus unable to respond. Nice form.[reply]
  4. 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)[reply]
  5. And just started unredirecting articles against consensus apparently reached in responsible wikiprojects.[39] Not good. – sgeureka t•c 10:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support at least a temporary Project-space ban, but the edit-warring against consensus in articles (see sgeureka's diff above) may be a bigger problem because policies & guidelines are more consistently watched. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I would support a project-space ban; so far, nothing else appears to be working to stop the disruption. Karanacs (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Still grinding that axe at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Character merges. MuZemike 17:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. Oddly enough, I agree here for the reason expressed by Kyaa the Catlord above. I do not see a need to sanction Pixelface and it does seem a bit like ganging up on someone. I urge Pixelface to avoid edit warring or anything even looking like incivility, but at the same time expect his critics to also refrain from edit-warring and incivility. It has to work both ways. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I can see this argument has merits as well. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Gavin makes good points. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Outside view by Akari_Kanzaki

Note: Akari Kanzaki has been indefinitely blocked as (ultimately) a sock puppet of Fragments of Jade. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/67.163.193.239 for details. MuZemike 17:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I'm doing something wrong-I'm new here. Anyway, I think a lot of the complaints are just people ganging up on this user. The same thing happened to me, and I was falsely accused of vandalism. It was nice when pixel defended me, as they are apparently going through the same thing. On Wiki, it's sad, but a lot of unfair things happen because a group of users gang up to argue for a point that is wrong or to bully a user. A good example of this is the articles for the "Wild ARMs" series of games, where there was an argument for how "ARMs" should be capitalized. Two users united to wreak havoc, despite admittedly never playing the game, solely to attack other users. There were emails from the game companies providing explanations of the title and even a section on one of the official sites, plus in-game support, but because they ganged up, they were able to get it changed incorrectly to "Wild Arms", and every user who dared argue this got banned. I myself am itching to join in that discussion, but since they are friends with a few admins, it would be suicide. Pixel pointed out how people were just ganging up on me to claim victory and falsely accusing me of vandalism in another case, and as a result, was also attacked unfairly. This is an ugly cycle, and it needs to be broken.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --A NobodyMy talk 05:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I partially endorse the view above in that performing in reversions or otherwise revert-warring does not constitute vandalism, especially not in the above case. I do believe that the vandalism warnings given here and here only served to inflame and escalate the situation at hand, whereas a pair of fair warnings for potentially violating the three-revert rule ({{uw-3rr}}) would have been more appropriate and might have curtailed any further reverting as well as hostility, which is where the crux of the above view comes from. MuZemike 18:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree in the same sense of MuZemike - calling good faith (if insistent) reverts "vandalism" is not appropriate until you pass and are warned about WP:3RR. However, I cannot agree with the rest of the statements. --MASEM 18:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Endorse view. Ikip (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Ikip

As User:Akari_Kanzaki wrote above, this is a case of one of wikipedia's most valuable editors, User:Pixelface being tagged teamed by editors who do not share his same views. This same behavior has gone on for years on WP:Television episodes and WP:FICT, two pages that many of these editors who are complaining frequent (refusing to allow tags on the policy pages, deleting the page, unprotecting the page). I would encourage Pixelface to use his investigative talents to show how uncivil and distruptive many of the above editors were.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Ikip (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --A NobodyMy talk 17:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Damn straight. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by SmokeyJoe

Pixelface is a likeable editor with enthusiasm and passion mixing unfortunately with frustration. I see him frustrated in policy discussions, where he is challenging the status quo, and where at the very least, he has a point. Enthusiastic dissent against the mainstream in discussions is a good thing. Incivility is not. I don’t think there can be any finding of this RFC against Pixelface with regards to his opinions, arguments or actions on any project pages.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BOZ (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.  

Avoiding Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

1) On December 30, 2008, the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not was protected for a month — due, in part, to my actions.[40] Afterwards, I contacted the admin who first protected the policy for a month and I promised to not edit that policy during January (the protection period) if the protection was lifted. I was referred to WP:RFUP and thankfully, the policy was unprotected after my request for unprotection. I have kept my promise. In addition to that, I promise I will not edit Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not at all during February or March 2009. I am also willing to avoid it even longer, and I am open to further suggestions. --Pixelface (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:
To be honest, this misses the mark, addressing a symptom but not the issue at hand, which, specifically relating to WP:NOT, is editwarring to try make your stand on your stance on PLOT. You have started discussions, but they have come to no consensus or otherwise on the retention of PLOT based on your present arguments; you can continue to discuss and bring new reasons that you believe we should remove PLOT, that's fine, but to repeatedly edit (in the edit/revert/rerevert cycle) policy pages unless you've confirmed that there's consensus to make the change. Yes, not editing WP:NOT effectively achieves this, but it's the behavior behind it that needs to be addressed. --MASEM 00:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, like I said, I'm open to further suggestions. Feel free to propose a solution. There is no consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be policy. I explained that here. If someone adds something to WP:NOT tomorrow, do you need consensus on the talkpage to remove it before you remove it Masem? --Pixelface (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone added something to NOT that I felt needed more discussion or didn't belong, I would remove it, if I felt it needed further discussion I may open a section on the talk page about it. I would then expect the user that added that to not add it again until they either participated in the existing discussion or starting a new one. That's the same thing here: you've tried to remove PLOT based on your belief it shouldn't be there, it was put back. The next step is not to remove it again until discussion has been completed. Remember, this RFCU is not about if PLOT has consensus - this is about your behavior in editing policy against how it should be edited.
As for a practical solution, I've proposed one ; that basically prevents you from editing policy pages (and IMO a limited subset) outside of minor fixes like spelling or vandalism reverts until you've gained the consensus for that change (addition or removal) on the talk page. --MASEM 01:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not the same thing here. If a section of policy does not have consensus to be policy, it cannot be policy. Do you agree or disagree with that Masem? I've been removing WP:NOT#PLOT from WP:NOT becuase it does not now, and never did, have consensus to be policy. I have been editing policy how it should be edited — by removing a section of policy that does not have consensus to be there. My 13 removals of WP:NOT#PLOT is a bit much, but you've been re-adding a section of policy that does not have consensus to be policy. That's how not policies should be edited Masem. You cannot claim consensus where none exists.
I don't see where you've proposed that solution. But why would I agree to that? Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines doesn't even say that. If it's apparent that a section of policy does not have consensus to be policy, you do not have to wait for there to be consensus to remove on the talkpage before the section is removed. In order for something to be policy, there needs to be a general agreement for it to be policy. Hiding never had consensus to add the Plot summaries section in the first place. So why would I agree to never edit any policy page ever again until there was consensus to remove on the talkpage?
Wikipedia currently has 56 official policies. In the 2 1/2 years I've been here, I've edited 3 policies. I've edited WP:OS once to add a category, I've edited WP:V once to remove a disputed sentence, and I've edited WP:NOT multiple times. Currently, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is the only policy page I've edited twice or more. --Pixelface (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that policy and guideline pages are meant to be 1RR - you are free to try to add, change, or remove something even without discussion (though it is preferred), but if that change is reverted, any further attempt at modification should be done on the talk page to establish that consensus. Each time you've tried to remove it (and passing 1RR) and opened discussion, the discussion clearly shows that there is still consensus to keep it, even with your RFC that you started a few months ago. The fact that when it was added by Hiding "without consensus" (though I'm pretty sure he had talk page support for it when added, IIRC) is not important - no one reverted his change immediately, and thus implicitly it had consensus.
That's why asking you to stay away from the pages is not a practical solution, because we do not want to ignore your input, and outside of PLOT you may come up with a reasonably good addition to NOT that maybe needs to be included. What you need to recognize is that WP:POLICY states that while you can make one change without seeking consensus, making the re-reversion after it was reverted is highly improper and discussion must be sought first. --MASEM 14:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that policies and guidelines are under 1RR Masem? If they're under 1RR, then you've broken it.
In October 2007, Sgeureka said TTN "enforces" WP:NOT#PLOT. After E&C1 closed, it was obvious to me that WP:NOT#PLOT did not actually have consensus among the community. There was a thread at WT:NOT created December 27, 2007. There was a thread at WT:NOT created January 26, 2007. So I started an RFC on WP:NOT#PLOT on January 30, 2008. That RFC was inconclusive.
I made my first bold removal of WP:NOT#PLOT on March 10, 2008, after seeing multiple AFDs where there was no consensus to delete articles that were simply plot summaries. Since there was no consensus that articles were not simply plot summaries, and since WP:PSTS said the use of primary sources was acceptable, and since I knew that writing plot summaries directly from fictional works was acceptable, I removed WP:NOT#PLOT saying it contradicted PSTS.
Moreschi reverted me. Equazcion then started a thread on the talkpage. I participated in that discussion, so did you. Several people said WP:NOT#PLOT did not belong in that policy. So I removed WP:NOT#PLOT again 18 days later on March 28 because WP:NOT#PLOT did not have consensus to be policy. Sgeureka reverted. I reverted two hours later. Then you, Masem, reverted. Then Hobit reverted. Then you, Masem, reverted again. Hobit clearly thought that my removal was correct. You started a thread on the talkpage two days later on March 31.
Just because an edit is not reverted immediately, does not imply that the edit has consensus. Silence does not imply consent, no matter what any page on Wikipedia says. I did discuss after I first removed WP:NOT#PLOT on March 10. My removal started a discussion, and that discussion indicated that WP:NOT#PLOT did not have consensus to be policy, as I explained here. After my first removal, I didn't remove WP:NOT#PLOT again until I could see that WP:NOT#PLOT did not have consensus to be policy.
And if you read when WP:NOT#PLOT was first proposed, there wasn't consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be policy then either. And read the threads about WP:NOT#PLOT in the WT:NOT archives. Please.
WP:POLICY says "Policies and guidelines express standards that have community consensus." If a section of policy does not have community consensus, it cannot be policy. You cannot claim consensus where none exists. --Pixelface (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
I agree with Pixelface that there is no consensus for it to be policy based on practice and the fact that Pixelface is not the only editor to have removed or disputed it. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for WP:PLOT, and there is no consensus against WP:PLOT. A resolution of WP:PLOT and WP:FICT is underway, and it may take another five years. Consensus is a result of a process, not a state of the moment. Although the issue remains in dispute, more users with better arguments support WP:PLOT, and my reading of consensus there is that the dispute is acknowledged, but WP:PLOT is to remain policy at this time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would help us to know why you think three months is appropriate. As opposed to six months. Or no months for that matter. It's not just important to see the connection, but understand how you see the connection. It gives us a sense of how you perceive the events. Randomran (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you think me avoiding that policy for three months is not appropriate? --Pixelface (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1RR on WP:NOT and WP:FICT and corresponding talk pages

2) If I may add another proposal that I hope is somewhat a compromise between free discussion on the problematic talk pages and a all-out topic ban on said pages. The intent of my proposal is to stop the problematic behavior but at the same time continue to allow Pixelface to discuss on said pages, provided the user acts within the limitations set forth in my proposal below. I hope that this is fair and that everyone feels that this is a sensible proposal.

I propose 1RR for Pixelface on WP:NOT and WP:FICT and their corresponding talk pages with an added provision to avoid any type of harassment, personal attacks, incivility, and bad-faith assumptions at other users. Violation of 1RR or continued harassment et al as noted in this RFC may lead to further sanctioning. MuZemike 17:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Amendment — per Masem's observation [41], I also propose that WP:N be added to the above pages in which 1RR and added provision is proposed to be applied. MuZemike 02:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
I would stick to a clean version on warning about 1RR on those pages, maybe include NOTE too. The incivility should be in a separate provision. --MASEM 17:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MuZemike, TTN edit-warred on hundreds, maybe thousands, of articles and he didn't even get 1RR. I've never violated 3RR in the 2 1/2 years I've been editing. I've been removing a section of policy from WP:NOT that does not have consensus to be policy. And I've never edited Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) even once. A Man In Black did remove a comment I made at WT:FICT and I did re-add it. But looking at his block log, it looks like A Man In Black has a problem with violating 3RR himself. And he also appears to have big problems with civility. Just in the past few days, A Man In Black told me "The fact that the other three stalls are a mess doesn't mean you can pee on the floor where I just mopped." A Man In Black also left me a message on my talkpage accusing me of "flamebait" and "badgering" Bignole at WT:FICT. He was also throwing the word "shite" around.
And I've been removing stuff about "undue weight" that Randomran has been told by no less than 14 people does not belong in Wikipedia:Notability.
Wikipedia already has policies about harassment, personal attacks, inciviilty and a guideline about assuming good faith. But after Jack Merridew was unbanned, those can be thrown out the window. Typically, I only respond rudely if spoken to rudely — like I explained to you on your talkpage, MuZemike. If people don't want me to reply uncivilly, don't talk uncivilly to me. --Pixelface (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sorry. I tried to go the middle road again and failed. Consider myself withdrawn from this RFC, as it is clear that I am of no more help. MuZemike 15:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
I agree with Masem that we might want to avoid being too specific about the policy/guideline stuff. Eventually his editing strategy spread to other guidelines, and even policy redirects. But otherwise, I think this is fair, and I'd think we'd handle any repeat edit warring this way. That said, I'd be open to a softer sanction if Pixelface showed a reasonable understanding of the conduct expected of him. It seems to be the only way to show that forcing the same edit over and over is not an appropriate way to achieve your purpose. Randomran (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WT:NOT edit counts- Pixelface (219), Masem (201) [42]
WT:FICT edit counts- Masem (960), Pixelface (177) [43]
Certainly silencing a vocal opponent is not the way to go about things... at least not here on Wikipedia. 212.200.243.17 (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Limiting an editor to 1RR change is nowhere close to silencing on a talk page. --MASEM 15:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't quite understand why would anyone revert anything on the talk page, and therefore proposal is quite meaningless, unless if aimed somehow to prevent editor from commenting. 212.200.243.17 (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell why MuZemike wants wanted a 1RR for corresponding talk pages (this isn't part of Pixelface's problematic behavior), but a 1RR for WP:XXX P&G pages sounds like a reasonable proposal for brain storming purposes. I fail to see a correlation between Masem's P&G talkpage activity and this 1RR proposal, so can you explain why you brought it up? – sgeureka t•c 16:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said before that I tried to find some compromise as stated above. I withdrew it because if the incivility issues that I have not followed close enough to understand and because I realized, like you have above, that the talk pages are not of this specific concern that I wanted to address. (That and I also sensed some frustration in both myself and Pixelface to the point that I can no longer be of any help in this RFC.) That was my bad for pushing for the 1RR for the talk pages. MuZemike 19:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, there's been no revert warring on the talk pages to require 1RR. Perceived incivility issues, yes, but 1RR would not affect that. --MASEM 19:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then it seems the three of us (MuZemike, Masem, me) are all in agreement. I just asked IP 212.x for explanation what another editor's edit behavior had to do with anything, and I wanted to be clear right from the start that I have no interest in getting into a long debate about MuZemike's reasoning (as if he can't speak for himself). Moving on... – sgeureka t•c 21:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator interventions

Pixelface has been warned. Incivility, personal attacks, or any other violation of behavioural norms are not to be tolerated.

Administrators are encouraged to block Pixelface for any perceived behavioural violations. This initial block is to be one hour, with subsequent blocks incrementing by one hour. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are reminded to facilitate administrator intervention by documenting violations at User talk:Pixelface, using warning such as in the table below.

What to type What it makes
{{subst:uw-npa3|PageName}} Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: PageName. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
{{subst:uw-agf3|PageName}} Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on PageName. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.

Editors warned not to engage in hypocrisy

3) Editors are warned not bait or harass Pixelface by edit warring, incivility, or personal attacks.

Comment by parties:
This seems perfectly reasonable. No one should bait Pixelface into violation. --MASEM 17:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair proposal, but I am concerned that Pixelface will interpret a (perceived) violation of this proposal as a reason to continue his edit-warring – he has justified his edit-warring on PLOT with the incivility of others before. Since most wikipedians are at the receiving end of impoliteness on occasion and are still reasonably capable of refraining from edit-warring, incivility and personal attacks themselves, it's not hypocrisy to expect the same behavior from Pixelface. – sgeureka t•c 11:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My removals of WP:NOT#PLOT are justified because that section does not now, and never did, have consensus to be policy. Protonk's incivility is just what spurred me to remove it yet again on December 30. --Pixelface (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed so that there is no double standard as it takes two to edit war and we have all seen a good deal of incivility and personal attakcs directed at Pixelface as well. We need to be fair. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is fair. If someone else casts the first stone, they should be held responsible. That said, we need to be clear that merely reverting a change by Pixelface is not baiting him, nor is it baiting him when multiple editors disagree with him. I'm still troubled that Pixelface's excuse for edit warring on December 30th was because he was "mad" at a comment that Protonk made where he said firmly that the policy has been that way for months. When someone is strongly but civilly stating a viewpoint, that doesn't entitle you to break behavioral guidelines to prove them wrong. Randomran (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Protonk said "PLOT isn't going anywhere." It doesn't matter if something has been on a policy page for months if there was never consensus for it to be policy. I kept removing WP:NOT#PLOT that day because it does not have consensus to be policy. WP:IAR has always been policy. And Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. --Pixelface (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1RR on WP:NOT and WP:NOTE

4) Pixelface is to be placed on a One revert rule restriction on WP:NOT and WP:NOTE, as outlined in WP:POLICY, for a period of six months. Violation of this, after review by an uninvolved administrator, will result in a 24 hr block, with further blocks to be made longer as needed. Pixelface is cautioned from performing excessive reversions on other policy and guideline pages.

Comment by parties:
I think while MuZemike's propose withdrawal is more based on the added complexity of the civility issues, this remedy needs to be included. This does not prevent Pixelface from contributing in talk discussions, nor to fix vandalism or minor spelling/grammar editors on a page, and only limits it to these two policy/guideline pages (as Pixelface as stated, they are not doing much on FICT so no need to include it, though a cautionary note for other P&G's are appropriate). --MASEM 16:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never broken 3RR, ever. And no admin thought any action was necessary when Masem started ANI threads about my edits to WP:NOT in November, nor December. Masem has re-added WP:NOT#PLOT to WP:NOT five times [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] , yet that section does not have consensus to be policy. Edits to policy must reflect consensus. The only time WP:NOT has been protected after edits by me, was December 30[49], when Jack Merridew reverted my edits, calling them "vandalism." Jack Merridew agreed to avoid all disruptive editing as a condition of being unbanned, and was even warned by one of his three mentors about his edits to WP:NOT. I've been removing material from WP:NOT and WP:NOTE that does not have consensus to be on those pages. I could think about voluntarily doing this if it would make someone happy. --Pixelface (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
I think we need to be clear on what's "excessive". It wouldn't be fair to take away Pixelface's right to contest recent changes. The real issue is when he repeatedly pushes the same edits without consensus, then comes back later and does it again. Randomran (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, maybe "multiple" and adding in another pointer to WP:POLICY to indicate what is a problem. --MASEM 17:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to grasp why a person who made 23 edits total to the WP:NOT and 13 edits total to WP:NOTE should be restricted to 1RR. 212.200.243.17 (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because many of edits were the same edit pushed repeatedly. In other words, it's WP:EDITWARring and WP:Disruptive editing as defined in those guidelines. (e.g.: repeatedly pushing the exact same edit to the exact same page without consensus-building.) Randomran (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he's reverting obvious vandalism, this should not apply. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'd agree with that. Randomran (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

5)

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.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pixelface&oldid=1142569657"