Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elaragirl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is an inactive a request for comment that was withdrawn. It is here because the actions on this page are referred to in several other related discussions. Please do not modify it.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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: 08:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC).



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

Statement of the dispute

User is overall unfriendly and hostile. --Cat out 10:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Description

User is overly hostile. In her own words she is very aggressive. She claims to know the precise limits to which she can and cannot go (in her own words). [1]

I am bailing out of this request. Too many trolls and/or members of the deletionism cabal. If Elaragirl's conduct is acceptable, please delete WP:CIVIL. --Cat out 00:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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. See her userpage: [2]
  2. Signs with "Dark Mistress of the Deletionist Cabal against Kittens, Smilies, and Niceness" [3]
  3. Her tone is quite unpleasant: [4]
  4. User:Elaragirl/Deletionism: entire page can be considered evidence.
  5. User was recently blocked for NPA violations

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. m:Dick
  2. WP:NPA
  3. WP:TROLL
  4. WP:POINT

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Judging from my interaction with her self righteous tone, I feel dispute resolution would be fruitless [5]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. --Cat out 00:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

I was under the impression (perhaps in error, but unlikely) that an RfC was intended to resolve a dispute between users related to conduct disrupting Wikipedia, either through the violation of policy or through visible disruption. The diffs cited by the person bringing this RfC do not reflect anything aside from 1) my sarcastic nature and commentary on the dislike of deletion and 2) my inability to accept that anything I have said in reference to this editor was a personal attack. The nature of the conflict here is appearantly a collection of things that have nothing to do with the user, that the user did not attempt to make any commentary on whatsoever excepting his assertion I had conducted personal attacks, and finally that the entire basis of the RfC seems to be that I hold myself as a deletionist and that I dislike the idea he has put forth that anyone who suggest certain articles don't meet criteria is acting in bad faith. Diffs of his actions are already included in the diffs he provided, and I see no reason to respond further to what some might consider an unfair summary. Trolling is the disruption of Wikipedia, which cannot be proven. Likewise, WP:POINT is the disruption of Wikipedia to make a point, which is also unproven. My statement that I know the exact limits of NPA and that I do not exceed them should be taken at face value and not as some gameesque commentary. I am an aggressive person by nature, and many other users of Wikipedia are equally aggressive, but aggressive does not mean disruptive. I will be happy to answer any questions anyone has regarding my behavior. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 14:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Rather Upset Subnote to Response

Furthermore, I'm vastly interested in how anything this user says can be taken seriously, given their penchant for disruption, leaving, being blocked, and personal attacks. Of special note is the user'sblock log.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 14:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. SAJordan talkcontribs 19:40, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC).
  3. Doug Bell talk 20:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. --That block log is the length of your arm. Being wilfully offended in this manner is simple WP:POINTism. See also [6]. Charming. Moreschi 21:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Agree. Cool Cat is an argumentative sort. This RfC amounts to "Elaragirl behaves like Cool Cat but disagrees with Cool Cat, therefore must be slapped down". Frivolous and a waste of everybody's time. Which is probably why it's not been certified yet. Hopefully it never will be. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. I heartily endorse this product or service. Frankly, given his record, I have been long bemused by the fact that User:Cool Cat is not yet permanently banned. Morwen - Talk 23:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. I agree with the "Rather Upset Subnote to Response" section. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Indefinitely block this idiot. This cool cat guy is only here for a malicious purpose. He should be annoyed harassed like no tomorrow as he has always been. (please check timestamps of evidence too) --Cat out 00:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Yeah, because the above comment by Cool Cat is entirely civil and constructive. I think that's clear enough example of why this RFC is bullshit. SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 02:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Shocked at the diffs - that's really quite disappointing. riana_dzasta 03:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Well said, Elaragirl. see attention and privilege seeking, highly disruptive individual here on a commons RFA. --Moby 07:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Agreed on all counts. Additionally, feel that Elaragirl was precisely accurate in conversation noted in that first diff, which seems to have sparked this ridiculous farce. Shimeru 00:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. It becomes difficult to assume good faith given the supplied diffs and extensive block history of Cool Cat. Sorry. --Kyoko 00:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Wholehearted support, both Response & Subnote. Athænara 12:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside views

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 ElC

Ordinarily, I would'nt comment, knowing that this RfC would be delisted —it isn't even certified, and it seems rather fluffy, which brings me to why I'm commenting here— I read Sings with "Dark Mistress of the Deletionist Cabal against Kittens, Smilies, and Niceness" and I just could not wrap my mind around it. Then it came to me (well, after I clicked at the diff): Signs with "Dark Mistress of the Deletionist Cabal against Kittens, Smilies, and Niceness". ♪Sings!♪ So that was pretty funny. Sorry, this probably isn't very helpful. El_C 09:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So, it's decided: Cry Me a River. Also, I removed the Bad Admins & Admins that need to be fucking banned, permanantely, on the entire Wikimedia network sections from User:Elaragirl/AdminCriteria for what should be obvious reasons. El_C 12:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 17:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Addhoc 18:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Of course. I've added my on view along this same line, albeit more direct in my statement, below. —Doug Bell talk 21:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by riana_dzasta

I have enormous respect for both the subject of this RfC and the initiator, so I'll try not to take sides here. However, I'd like to see Cool Cat expand on his remarks, especially considering he has decided to leave, and also in the light of this comment. Plus, I find this comment surprising - when you give an organisation a name with as strong militaristic undertones as the Counter Vandalism Unit, I'm not sure what sort of users you do want in it. I also won't pretend that I didn't see this coming - Elaragirl's style, which I personally consider refreshing, is undoubtedly deemed overtly agressive by many. That's my 2 cents - further commentary from both parties would be valuable. riana_dzasta 15:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Um, yes this is a bit odd, isn't it, really? Note though that despite User:Cool Cat's notice, he has shown no sign of having actually left. Morwen - Talk 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    Moved comments on this endorsement to the talk page. —Doug Bell talk 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC) - I agree that Elaragirl can be very..."enthusiastic" is a good word (^_^)...I believe her intentions are good. I agree with the removal of the sections on User:Elaragirl/AdminCriteria which can be seen as a personal attack on some editors. There's not really any reason for those sections of that page. I do wonder at the removal of the "Good Admins" section, though, as that can hardly be seen as a personal attack, IMHO. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Quack 688 23:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Yeah, I think I'll go with "enthusiastic", that's the safest word to use :-p
    That "admins that need to be fucking banned, permanantely" section wasn't cool. But I haven't seen exactly what Elaragirl did to CoolCat that's so bad, and judging off that list she provided, it looks like like CoolCat's been violating policy more than she has. I'd still like to find some way to bring him back, though. Quack 688 23:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. I believe that Elaragirl's intentions are good, though at times her thoughts would be better received if they were worded with less profanity and biting sarcasm. I'm still not sure what has pushed things to the point where an RfC is necessary. --Kyoko 00:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Dev920

I know nothing about CoolCat, so I cannot comment on his behaviour. However, it seems to me that this dispute is nothing more than Elaragirl's usual acerbic commentary being taken too personally. Elaragirl is, by her edits and own admission, aggressive, rude, and intolerant of the deeply stupid. As a result, her attitude toward users she does not like leave something to be desired, and perhaps she will soften as time wears on. But she rarely crosses the line into personal attacks (though I should point out she has just been blocked for doing so), and so I do think that Coolcat's reaction to her comments are simply oversensitive, and that filing an RfC over a talkpage discussion is somewhat unnecessary.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Well, since I was just about to add the same comment, I guess I'll just endorse this one instead. —Doug Bell talk 20:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Yup. Cool Cat is every bit as aggressive (or assertive, depends how you want to put it). This RfC amounts to "Cool Cat disagrees with Elaragirls". Big fat hairy deal. The whole thing is absurd. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. This RfC is starting to look more and more petty. It would be nice to see some attempt at polite dispute resolution, on the part of both parties, before throwing accusations of WP:CIVIL about - especially through an official medium. This seems an excessive overreaction. riana_dzasta 03:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Endorse - talk about the pot calling the kettle black. See also this - staggering. Accusations of cabalism, accusations of trolling, failure to assume good faith, personal attacks, incivility - basically the whole whack in one diff. Why was this guy not kicked out long ago? Moreschi 10:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Endorse fully. Shimeru 00:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. I agree, this RfC seems excessive for what should have been an agreement to disagree. --Kyoko 00:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Jeffpw

I also don't know CoolCat, so my comments are solely about Elaragirl. I have found her to be a very good Wiki user, interested in improving the site, and also helpful to others. I know she can be sharp at times (who can't), but her observations about Wiki and its users are acute and mostly highly constructive. I find it absurd that this has been allowed to escalate to such a degree. Jeffpw 20:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 21:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Doug Bell

This RfC is without merit and fails to either make a substantive claim that requires RfC or to illustrate an attempt at resolution. The evidence supplied also fails to provide evidence in the form of specific diffs to support any claim. This RfC is frivolous and malformed and should not be accepted. —Doug Bell talk 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --cj | talk 21:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. -- JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. --Moreschi 21:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Hanuman Das 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. SAJordan talkcontribs 23:17, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC).
  8. SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 02:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. riana_dzasta 03:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. --Moby 07:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Jeffpw 14:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Definitely an RfC without any substantive merit. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Shimeru 00:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. --Kyoko 00:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by JoshuaZ

Elara is an excellent user who has on occasion put other users in their places and is one of the more forceful and effective arguers for deletionism on AfD. Nothing is wrong with that. The user does however have some civility and personal attack issues (such as the recent admin list). I would urge her to continue doing everything the same except to use the preview button a bit more and before posting any comment think about whether the comment is a) useful and b) civil. JoshuaZ 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Yup. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Her comments are never useless, IMV. riana_dzasta 03:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Don't think the user is really a bad person, but there are certianly WP:CIV issues but those can be resolved by even the toughest user if the motivation is there. -Husnock 04:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Per my previous comments. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. --Kyoko 00:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Swatjester

Elaragirl, while sometimes sarcastic, is a very good editor on wikipedia. She's quick to help, and she does good things for the project. Coolcat's RFC is without merit, and has has no real evidence. He's just making a WP:POINT to disrupt wikipedia, as evidenced by his dismissed arbcom case against himself, and the display on AN/I. This is ridiculous. I doubt you'll even find a second person to certify this. SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 02:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Doug Bell talk 08:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. ya, rfc wo merit. --Moby 08:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. --Moreschi 09:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Per my previous comments. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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.