Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Femmina

In order to remain listed at 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 01:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



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

Statement of the dispute
has been demonstrating behavior in clear violation of numerous Wikipedia policies, and generally going against the consensus on the iPhone article. The main three policies he violates are WP:NPOV, WP:CRITICISM, and WP:POINT.

Desired outcome
The desired outcome of this RFC is for Femmina to cease provoking troll like commentary in the iPhone talk page, and to cease making changes to the artilce that violates WP:NPOV policy. If he cannot remain neutral, it would be ideal for him to stop editing altogether.

Description
Femmina seems to be an editor whose sole purpose is to make a point that editors of the iPhone article are nothing but fanboys. His original argument was that the iPhone does not fit the definition of camera phone. After numerous attempts at showing Femmina that the camera phone article itself lack the proper citing of references, as well as citing references outside of Wikipedia that supports the iPhone being a camera phone, he changes his tune by making personal attacks against the editors, and at one point made the following remark:


 * Dear Apple lovers, I've a small confession to make here. I didn't start this discussion because I thought I could stand a chance against your madness. As Paul noticed, I baited you and driven this discussion to a completely ridicuols ground deliberatily. And I did this to have my friends and anybody else I care in real life that was thinking about buying something form Apple to come here and read this discussion. Some of them will hopefully never buy anything from this technological/religious supplier. Thank you for your help. Have a nice day. Femmina (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This comment demonstrates that the editor had no intent to contribute positively to Wikipedia.

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.)
 * diff 1 and diff 2 demonstrates that Femmina made the edit changes without even considering consensus.
 * This section of the talk page demonstrates that multiple editors, including myself, attempted to properly reach an editing consensus. However, Femmina failed to recognize the consensus and further made personal attacks at the iPhone article editors.

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:CRITICISM
 * WP:RS
 * WP:AGF
 * WP:V
 * WP:TALK
 * WP:OR
 * WP:POINT
 * WP:CON
 * WP:YOUREMAKINGANASSOFYOURSELF (This entry added by Femmina.)

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links) the edit changes without even considering consensus.
 * This section demonstrates that myself, as well as the other editors, defined the various guidelines and policies, and tried to teach Femmina that he is in fact breaking these rules.
 * Here is the dispute from my perspective: Initially I attempted to avoid the dispute completely by suggesting that it was such a minor point that I'd bow to the voice of the one serious objector if nobody else cared. However, Groink clearly did, so I then decided to try to find definitions of what a "camera phone" was. This was followed by Femmina asking how to "get paid [by Apple] to defend this article" and "get on our side" and Phooto suggesting that nobody cared about Femmina's opinion. At this point, I saw this turning personal from both sides, so I reminded people to be civil, and I even tried to empathize with Femmina a bit; relating how I personally have problems with the iPhone but keep my point of view and opinions out of the article. This attempt was a failure because Femmina stated that because they were "excluding" rather than "including", that the claims of "original research" were invalid. I simply stated that Femmina's opinion contradicted the source I provided, and that's the only reason why we weren't accepting their edit. Later I even offered to support Femmina's suggestions for the article if they were willing to offer sources to back up the claims made. I'm not sure what else I could have done to resolve this dispute, the only response Femmina gave to these efforts was the confession that all they were doing was trolling. --  At am a chat 00:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)
 * Although us editors did successfully stick to the guidelines and maintained the integrity of the iPhone article and the policies/guidelines, Femmina made further troll-like attacks which we don't believe is healthy not only for the iPhone article, but for the Wikipedia community in general.
 * Femmina began their contributions to the article discussion by claiming that a criticism section was necessary to protect the article from "fanbois", which was responded to civilly by an explanation of how criticism sections are discouraged and how criticisms can better be included in the article without a specific section. This was completely ignored by Femmina, who reiterated that a criticism section was necessary and went on to accuse the article of being "incorrect and biased", specifically citing the fact that the article calls it a "camera phone". This was replied to by again repeating that criticism sections are not required for an article to have criticisms, this time quoting Jimbo Wales. Femmina's response was sarcasm about "making Jimbo sad" and a repeat of the claim that the iPhone is not truly a camera phone. Following this was a somewhat civil discussion about what is and isn't a "camera phone" between Femmina and Groink. The discussion stopped being civil when Femmina admitted that they hadn't even read Groink's last comment because it was too long, and suggested that calling the iPhone a camera phone was "wishful thinking". Femmina then decided that because nobody responded within 24 hours, that consensus was implied and that it would be okay to remove the suggestion that the iPhone was a camera. Soon after, Phooto objected to the change, which prompted further argument by Femmina. Phooto took issue with Femmina's deliberate misquote and undid the change that Femmina had made to the article. Groink later reminded Femmina that the lack of response wasn't a consensus per policy. After some more discussion and after I provided a couple of sources backing up the idea that the iPhone does fit the definition of a camera phone, Femmina accused those who disagreed with them of advertising for Apple. Groink then made clear to Femmina what was needed to convince the other editors that their suggestions were correct and reminded Femmina that original research was not allowed. I suggested that we keep discussions civil, but all that Femmina did in response was call our suggestions "irrational and biased". Following this was more discussion between the other editors and a consensus was reached based on the sources provided and points argued (sans Femmina). The only other communication Femmina provided was to accuse the editors of "madness" and an admission that Femmina had been baiting the other editors with trolling the entire time. --  At am a chat 01:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on this, it is my opinion that Femmina never had any intention of improving the article at all, or maintaining a civil discussion, as they responded to all attempts at reasonable suggestions with insults, accusations, and attempts to circumvent consensus, all ending with a blatant admission of baiting us all with the intent to troll. --  At am a chat 01:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 *  At am a chat 19:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I found the long and pointless attacks on one small phrase or definition with the article tedious, timewasting and utterly pointless. Femmina comes across as someone with a chip on their shoulder, and anti-Apple, just looking for a small, tenuous point to chip away on.  People like this involved in Wikipedia force me to question my contribution to, and the value of, the site in general. Phooto (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * – Frijole ( тɐʟк 15:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fnagaton 08:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the entire issue was pointless. A perusal of the user's contributions shows that this behavior isn't really new. -- KelleyCook (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the entire issue was pointless. A perusal of the user's contributions shows that this behavior isn't really new. -- KelleyCook (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the entire issue was pointless. A perusal of the user's contributions shows that this behavior isn't really new. -- KelleyCook (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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:

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.''

{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:

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.