Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Angie Y. 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: 00:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Angie Y. has often been inserting POV into articles and violating WP:MOS, despite being warned several times.

[edit] Desired outcome

That Angie Y. please abide by WP:NPOV and WP:MOS, add citations for her claims instead of original research and stop ignoring warnings.

[edit] Description

Because Angie states on her userpage that she has Asperger syndrome, this is probably the reason for her behavior. But this has continued persistently despite several warnings. I do not think a block is in store, but I believe something should be done.

Angie has a tendency to start edit wars relating to her POV and OR edits. THere are examples.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. pompous, demanding father -- I remember the movie well, and the father character is indeed a pompous "stuffed shirt"; he makes imperious demands on his wife and children (not really a good example of POV pushing here --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC))
It is still POV. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It COULD be POV. If the character is introduced/brought upon as pompous and demanding, then it is not. Angie just does not source the fact that he is meant to be this, so it was reverted.Thanks!, ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 18:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. similarities to Peter Pan -- Again, this is silly: both movies involve magic, young children with upper class parents, a journey to a fantasy world --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. It was unsourced original content. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but she doesn't explain that in the edit. If she did, this wouldn't be reverted. Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 00:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. [3]
  2. removed user comment she didn't like
  3. [4]
  4. [5]
  5. [6]
  6. [7]
  7. this to this, with Someguy0830
  8. end of another with SG)830
  9. All edits from September 8th to September 14th on Jim Moralés.
  10. Angie has CONTINUED this behavior by including the word unfortunately

And more. The point is she caused edit wars, and makes POV and OR edits despite warnings.

  1. [8]
  2. POV (read the edit summary as well
  3. OR
  4. Another OR edit
  5. [9]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:MOS
  2. WP:NPOV
  3. WP:CIVIL
  4. WP:OR

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [10]
  2. [11]
  3. [12]
  4. [13]
  5. [14]
  6. [15]
  7. [16]
  8. [17]
  9. [18]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 01:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] 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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

[edit] Outside view by Ursasapien

I have not been involved with these particular articles, but I know Angie to be a passionate editor, particularly on Code Lyoko related articles. Most of the evidence I have seen in this RfC comes down to a content dispute. She was certainly right in boldly making the initial edits. However, once reverted, I would agree that she needed to take it to the discussion pages and get consensus. I have a fondness for Angie, but I think she could use a mentor.


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Ursasapien (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Vrac (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC) (Frustrating as it may be, it seems to me that more tolerance is in order.)
  3. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC) It seems that Angie is a vivid writer yet "vivid" language often conveys a tone, which needs to be avoided in Wikipedia.
  4. Uncle Ed (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC): Yes, but I didn't see her re-insert her deleted edits. No action needed. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] View by Seraphim Whipp

I think editors make provisions for Angie when she does not deserve them. It is all well and good writing content but there is no point adding that content if it is incorrect and POV. She continually edit wars and behaves in an incivil way. She toned it down after the first RfC but after a while used sock-puppets, and was blocked for that and incivility; her behaviour has reverted to previous form. She needs a mentor desperately, someone to keep her on the straight and narrow. Although this doesn't mean someone she can complain to and use as part of a tag team. Her mentor should be someone neutral who would help her to resolve issues with other editors, someone to tell her when she is starting to step over line and monitor her edits every once in a while.

Angie has been allowed too much licence to break the rules. If she persists in personal attacks or edit warring, she should be blocked for appropriate time and not given an "Angie, please stop attacking so and so" warning because that has not worked with Angie in the past. I really thought Angie had adapted and I even fought for her not to blocked when she sock-puppeted because I thought she was changing... There just needs to be some change in Angie's behaviour.

Ammendments

I should have added this evidence to back up my claims before. Regardless of whether there is just one personal attack or just one comment of incivility, one comment, one attack is too many since Angie has been told time and time again that she has a problem in this area. It's unacceptable to carry on unchanged. Comments like this from Angie, "Okay. I'm just sorry for all the trouble I caused. :'(" [19] (back in July), really made me think Angie was sorry and that she'd try to change. I also did my best to be friendly to Angie [20].

Edits of behaviour:

Personal attacks
  1. [21] (It's pretty clear in this diff that the attack is aimed at the nominator and in the sockpuppet case, consensus agreed that a comment from an IP was also Angie so she actually called JetLover an "asshole" twice.)
  2. [22]
Incivility
  1. In edit summary
  2. [23]
  3. [24]
Edit warring

(I'll list the first diff in a series of edit warring)

  1. 01:51, 23 August 2007 onwards (about 1 month after Angie's last RfC closed)
  2. 01:04, 1 January 2008 This happened yesterday. She reverted instead of beginning the discussion process.
Original research (incorrect content) and POV edits


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Seraphim Whipp 17:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 18:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 22:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Agree in principle, but where is the evidence of personal attacks or edit warring or incorrect content or POV? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] View by Interrobang² (Codelyoko193)

Angie, Angie, Angie. The sources tell all. Angie first came to me in the middle of the TTN-Angie Y. war. She had been canvassing many users about the issues. We then discussed whether or not they were necessary, and then I knew she was trouble.

I know from experience (my friend has Asperger's) that Asperger's makes people lash out at small things. Angie edit wars, and makes POV/OR edits. Countless times, editors including myself have come to her to ask her to stop. Whenever she says she will, she continued the behavior the next day.

Angie feels very strongly about her edits and opinions, but she doesn't realize that most of what she adds is unacceptable and THAT is why she needs a mentor. She also will sockpuppet and be incivil to "protect" her edits.

Asperger's should not be an excuse, it should be a challenge for us. Angie has been given too much leeway when it comes to these. How many times has she been blocked? Once. What was that for? Meatpuppeteering. If admins gave her discipline evry time she lashed out, she would probably be indefed by now. Which is why...

she needs a perfectly qualified mentor to work with her. Obviously no one will block her (even if many other 3-reverters and edit warrers have been blocked), and constantly complaining will just make it worse. I know that one-on-one contact will help her and even make Angie a great user to be with. Thanks!, ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 00:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Agree. If you become Angie's mentor, I believe the results will be fruitful. Seraphim Whipp 00:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks <:-) Thanks!, ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 00:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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.