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: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC).

Angie Y. (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute[edit]

Angie Y. has made a great wealth of contributions to wikipedia and is a valued editor, however the manner in which she edits can sometimes be inappropriate due to a lack of respect for others. This can be seen from the way that she has personally attacked editors, mainly TTN (talk · contribs). When presented with policies, guidelines and consensus, she continues to attack, lack good faith and fight against editors whose intentions are very much for the best. This behaviour creates an uncomfortable atmosphere, full of conflict which makes the environment for editing unproductive. This behaviour has resulted from disagreements with WP:EPISODE and redirects of episode articles. She has also canvassed many editors for a "fight" for episode articles and tried to use admins to "back her up".

Desired outcome

The outcome most desired is that Angie can recognise why her behaviour is unacceptable and reform her character, by obeying wiki policy and guidelines as far as possible, resuming good faith about her fellow editors and their actions, and overall (in a way which doesn't restrict her right to have a different opinion), trying to work to build consensus with other editors.

Description

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

Angie has made repeated personal attacks, whilst maintaining that she has been civil, and has canvassed many editors in a manner which completely goes against wiki ethics. It was only when I took a glance through her edits that I noticed the majority of this continuing alarming behaviour.

Evidence of disputed behaviour

Personal attacks

Called TTN; a weirdo [1] and [2]
Called TTN a freak in edit summary [3]
Told TTN to "SHUT UP!!" [4] and [5]
Called TTN a "Wikivillain" [6]
Called TTN stuck-up and arrogant [7]
Called TTN callous [8]
Called TTN an asshole [9]
Called TTN a vandal [10] and [11] and [12]
Called TTN an idiot [13]
Angie Y. vandalised TTN's user page [14] and Ned Scott's user page [15]

Canvassing

Canvassing when Angie filed for arbitration against TTN

Only the people on Angie's "side" were contacted:

Incivility

OWN

Suspicious behaviour

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Angie_Y.&diff=next&oldid=141872691
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Angie_Y.&diff=prev&oldid=142134831 (Angie nominates herself for adminship- read the reasons why.)

Trying to use admins as "back-up"'

Disruption

By plotting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Angie_Y.&diff=next&oldid=128259660
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Prince_of_Darkness&diff=next&oldid=130418977
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ckatz&diff=prev&oldid=136441073 (Acknowledges that behaviour might be contravening policy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Television_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=136608717 (Angie agrees to stop and then her very next edit is this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Angie_Y.&diff=prev&oldid=136615765
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_24&diff=prev&oldid=140535635 (voting to disrupt episode process)

By creating bad atmosphere:

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

I attempted to resolve the dispute [38]
I attempted to show Angie that some of things she was saying were unacceptable [39]
I showed Angie Y. the things she had said which were unacceptable to try to resolve the dispute further [40]
TTN and a handful of other users tried to resolve the dispute [41]
Bignole attempted to resolve the dispute [42] [43] [44]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Seraphim ^Whipp 13:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will ^(talk) 13:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

— Deckill er 17:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Eusebeus 10:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-N 13:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

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:

Outside views[edit]

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.

Outside view by Deckiller

Asperger syndrome can be difficult to deal with; I have friends with the same condition, and it does cause communication problems from time to time. Based on what I've seen, I can assume User:Angie Y.'s behavior is caused by the syndrome, which she mentions on her userpage (especially since she apologized afterward [45]) Aspgerger's is an unfortunate side effect to high intelligence, and I am sorry that you have to deal with it. However, Wikipedia stresses consistent maturity; those who cannot act mature at all times find it very difficult to survive on Wikipedia. Even if they do, they find themselves getting blocked numerous times for childish things like WP:3RR or civility, or stuck in RfCs like this one. Angie is not a child, obviously, but all it takes is one blow-up to spiral out of control, which is the case here.

There are some simple solutions to this: edit uncontroversial articles. Why not work on the article on your hometown or your favorite food? Fiction is a very controversial area, especially now that many editors are beginning to apply real encyclopedia guidelines. Stay far away from debates, especially on topics you don't care about. Also, do not buddy edit by bringing in your "friends"; it just takes a stalemate and magnifies it by starting World War I, becuase it will just encourage the other side to bring in "allies". Not to mention how childish is looks (after witnessing the laughable scenerio at Juice Plus, I have a foul taste in my mouth). These suggestions will help you to enjoy Wikipedia; you might not care for the actual editing as much, but the stress and arguments caused by the community aspects will be a lot lower.

Also, as a side note: I'm becoming concerned with this concept of "ruining hard work". This is a Wiki; the whole point is to collaborate, so often times one will have to deal with losing some work. But alas, this is one reason why my WP:FICT rewrite will stress merging and transwiki over deletion. — Deckill er 17:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Haemo 12:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chaz ^Beckett 14:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphim ^Whipp 17:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ned Scott 20:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Ursasapien

I, too, believe that some of the problem has to do with Angie's Aspergers. I also agree another issue is here fervent desire and good faith effort to edit articles concerning television shows in which she is passionately interested. I have seen her struggle with ownership issues and with communicating her strong opinions while remaining civil. However, I think editors with opposing opinions have not always been patient or civil with her either. This whole issue surrounds a controversy in editorial approach and interpretation of guidelines. I have been mocked and belittled for sharing a similar editorial POV. I, too, have been accused of being "incivil" when I have expressed my opinion and I do not have Angie's communication issues. I am not saying she has always been civil or that there is any excuse for not being civil. I am saying that the core of this issue is an editorial dispute. I am all for Angie taking a wiki-break or editing other articles if she wishes, but I do not feel like she should be discouraged from editing articles on subjects she cares about. I think it is time to end this lame episode article war, invite the opposing parties to the negotiation table (perhaps in another RfC), debate and achieve true consensus, and get back to the business of creating the best encyclopedia. Ursasapien (talk) 06:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Angie Y. Angie Y. 18:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A W 04:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Matthew

This RfC just appears to be another way of harassing this user. I notice the evidence is also pretty misleading, for example the diffs of my talk page. Matthew 10:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

User:Angie Y.
Stop harassing editors who actually write and spend time contributing to this encyclopedia Peacent 03:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC has been started because of the harassment Angie was doing. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this RfC is also a harassment to the editor who really devotes herself to building an encyclopedia and an indirect favour of a sheer redirectist whose thousands of so-called contributions are to delete content. A W 04:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RfCs are not used to harass other editors. If this was was being used that way, someone would have already deleted it by now. The aims of this RfC is to improve Angie's behavior in a way that benefits her and the community. Confronting Angie with her inappropriate behavior is not harassment. Further more, we are not commenting on TTN here because this is not TTN's RfC. This is not an endorsement of TTN's actions. Whether he was doing anything wrong or not, that does not excuse the Angie's behavior. If you wish to start an RfC on him you can, the instructions are on WP:RFC. -- Ned Scott 04:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't over-generalize my comment by saying that "RfCs....". Of course I understand the aim of RfC. However, what I mean is "this RfC" no way to improve Angie Y's behavior but rather to harass her, a real contributor to the community, by citing number of inappropriate diffs. A W 04:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs are all valid, and I don't see how confronting her about the inappropriate behavior is harassment. Angie herself has already indicated that she's been able to learn from this RfC, and improve how she handles such situations. -- Ned Scott 04:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate diffs? What makes in inappropriate? As this is a discussion about her conduct, then I can't see how diffs demonstrating incivil behavior is inappropriate. The only thing inappropriate about the diffs is the content of them. And so what makes this RfC harassment but the other ones about user conduct not...? I ^{(said) (did)} 04:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(To @pple) As I have already said, this RfC was not created to harass Angie, it was partly to try to make her recognise that her behaviour in some occasions was offensive. It is unacceptable for any reason, for any editor to make personal attacks where they call people offensive names or act in an incivil manner. However good someones contributions are, unacceptable behaviour is unacceptable behaviour. The other reason for creating this RfC was to invite members of the community to give advice and help Angie improve as an editor. I think there has been some very good advice which, hopefully, will be beneficial to Angie. As well as this, if this behaviour of personal attacks, incivility etc had continued, (apart from the fact that other editors should not have to put up with it), it would have eventually lead to a block. And that wouldn't teach Angie anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphim Whipp (talk • contribs)

Sorry. I drew my comment above. However, I still think this RfC is unnecessary. As we know, Angie's Asperger syndrome and the fact that so many of her articles that she has put much effort contributing over years are cruelly devastated only within a few days are the main reasons making her misbehave in some ways. We are not in her position, so we don't fully understand the feelings of effort being rejected. I agree with Ursasapien that the core of the issue is the editorial dispute, and once the dispute hasn't been resolved, I'm not sure her behavior will change even she said that she learned from this RfC (remember that in previous discussions, other editors had already reminded her about civility and she also said she would learn from it, but she continued violating CIVIL. I assume it's due to her syndrome which hinders the ability of keeping calm.) She has suffered much depression these days and this RfC is a means of making her more depressed. The fact that she endorsed Matthew's statement points out she feels harassed by this RfC. A W 14:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A W 04:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by ChazBeckett

The majority of Angie's contributions are positive and benefit Wikipedia. However, I agree with Deckiller that Wikipedia requires consistent maturity and civility in communicating with others. I suggest that Angie choose at least one mentor whom she'll trust to tell her when she should step away from the computer for a few hours. The mentor should be looking out for Angie's best interests and that may include telling her that she's wrong. This mentorship might prevent or alleviate the downward spirals that seem to occur. Chaz ^Beckett 14:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious. Should she choose someone away from the television scene? The though crossed my mind that it may be best to find something of neutrality when it comes to that (which I think is a good idea that you suggested), because one will probably only find two extremes on the TV articles, which seem to be Angie's focus. I think a mentor with an unbiased eye, someone that works on topics completely separate from the entertainment region, and who has established themselves as a well respected editor would be best, but that is just my opinion. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Codelyoko193

Am I supposed to put this here? Anyway, Angie Y. went to my talk page and said "the episode pages for CL are all gone". This was very random, as I did not even know her within Wikipedia (maybe it was my username). I then went to her talk page and we discussed whether or not the episode pages were allowed. Seraphim and TTN even had to come in (once again) and try to explain to her why they were removed. However, this may have to do with her Asperger's, maybe not. I do not think Angie is entirely a bad person, but made a few bad choices. Even if it is not her Asperger's, her behavior was wrong but understandable. Codelyoko193 _Talk 21:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Semi outside view by N

This has nothing to do with a "syndrome". This is caused by Angie Y.'s understandable frustration at TTN removing and tagging TV articles at robot-like speeds without even reading them. Angie Y.'s conduct is unacceptable though, regardless of how understandable her motives were and she should attempt to work out her frustrations in a civil manner from now on. -N 13:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur with N's conclusions and must also repeat/point out;

a. that Angie Y's actions were done in an uncivil manner, were unnecessary and were unproductive in regards to resolving this dispute.

b. that TTN's editing and reverting manner is extremely frustrating and is done with little to no regard as to the opinion or wishes of other Wiki users and also with little regards to the articles themselves. Judging by his history/discussion page, I am surprised that the Wikicommunity has not looked into this as he is seemingly frustrating and angering a great number of other users. Crafedog 03:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by King Wagga

I can't even remember how I got involved or how I first understood the situation, but I've been contacted a few times about it. I understand what's gone on, but I've kinda been randomly thrown into the mix of things. My view is that I understand Angie Y.'s frustration and anger, but things seem to have gotten out of hand which I do not agree with, however. And so, like I said about being randomly thrown into this, I step out of this dispute as of now, and back out of the whole thing without pointing any fingers or getting dragged in deeper. Hope this dispute ends soon, guys. King Wagga 23:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside View by Arknascar44

I agree completely to N's perspective on the issue, and would also like to point out that we may have solved the whole problem right here. I know if this RfC were happening to me, I would definitely feel terrible that so many diffs were being cited against me. That right there seems like it would teach me a lesson, and, after this, I would never forget it. In addition, I would like to quote Ned Scott, an active editor in the dispute "Angie herself has already indicated that she's been able to learn from this RfC, and improve how she handles such situations." and also the goal of this RfC at the top of the page, "The outcome most desired is that Angie can recognise why her behaviour is unacceptable and reform her character, by obeying wiki policy and guidelines as far as possible, resuming good faith about her fellow editors and their actions, and overall (in a way which doesn't restrict her right to have a different opinion), trying to work to build consensus with other editors.". It seems that Angie has already improved her character, even according to an editor involved actively in the dispute.

I would also like to break my first rule of AGF (which is to cite AGF, since saying an editor isn't assuming good faith is not assuming good faith) and say that editors such as TTN were not assuming that Angie Y. was acting in good faith. Sure, her anger (and insults, for that matter) were uncalled for and unnecessary, but their recipients never put this into perspective and said "those guys care about these articles, and maybe they think what they are doing is right, even though I think it isn't" and told them their rationale for their repeated deletions. All the editors, to me anyway, seem as though they got caught up in the excitement, and once someone threw an insult into the equation, everything spiraled out of control. Arknascar44 ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 02:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who endorse this summary:

Outside View by Rhindle The Red

While it in no way justifies her comments, I would like to say that I have always found TTN to be dismissive, stubborn and unwilling to listen to other editor's arguments once he has decided on a course of action. His generally bad attitude towards editors who do not agree with him is likely to push otherwise cooperative and well-meaning people to overreact. A glance at the many, many comments on his talk page will give some idea as to the negativity he often generates. By comparing the activities of both editors, I would say any discipline aimed at Angie Y. should also be aimed at TTN for the same basic reasons. Rhindle The Red 06:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that people constantly bring TTN up in this RfC, but is everyone aware that he's already had his AN/Is? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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.