Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Angie Y.

Outside view: Deckiller
I agree with the majority of what Deckiller has said, although I feel I should point out that yes, Angie has apologised to TTN now, however the dispute with the episodes remains. I think the RfC will definitely benefit Angie and other editors involved.

Very good constructive advice from Deckiller.

Seraphim Whipp 17:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope it benefits them as well. I have been very concerned with the behavior of numerous users with the Television project, and I don't even edit in that area. However, if what Angie says on her userpage is true (and I think so based on her interactions), she could be entering a calm phase. But I'm not an expert in that :) &mdash; Deckiller 17:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am entering a calm phrase. I just want the whole debate to start over. Angie Y. 18:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said in my view, it might be best to at least take some time away from the debate by editing uncontroversial articles solo. &mdash; Deckiller 18:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. That way, I won't be in trouble and something can be done within the debate. :) I really don't wanna be blocked from here and I hope this RfC will close soon. Angie Y. 19:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think Seraph was petitioning for your blockage, only that some outside views would come and address your behavior in an effort to show what may or may not be appropriate here on Wikipedia, and possibly (like Deck) give you some helpful advice on how to better apply yourself on this online encyclopedia.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if this episode guideline was further explained to me, maybe I'll understand and this RfC can be abolished. Angie Y. 22:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We can talk about that on your talk page, so as not to clutter this one.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As Bignole said up above, this isn't about you being blocked Angie, it's about teaching you how your behaviour affects other people. I really think you'll come out of this with some good advice and as a much more capable editor.
 * Seraphim Whipp 09:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Outside view: Matthew
I'm sorry Matthew, but I respectfully disagree with what you've said. All the evidence shows that Angie's behaviour is unacceptable. You say the diffs are unfair, but let me tell you, I went through every single one of Angie's contribs, and this is what I found; a history of incivility and unacceptable behaviour. Do you think that type of behvaiour should go unnoticed? I did not create this RfC to harass Angie; I created it because her behaviour is unacceptable.

Seraphim Whipp 10:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not twist my words, I never said anything was unfair, I was it's misleading (which is a statement of fact). Your behaviour has been equally unacceptable, tantamount to stalking from my perspective. To be honest I'd likely support an RfC for you. Matthew 10:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I may agree that Angie has been uncivil at times, I contend that most users have been uncivil at times. This issue is primarily a battle regarding an interpretation of WP:NOTE and it's application to WP:EPISODE.  I have seen significant "canvassing", wiki-stalking, and disruption on all sides of the issue.  I have seen name-calling, mocking, swearing, faux apologies, and other personal attacks all around.  This RfC can be seen as singling out one editor in an editorial dispute.  However, I am assuming that it is a good faith effort to help Angie argue her point of view more effectively.  I also assume that her behavior that you see as "unacceptable" is simply her ineffective effort to express her point of view and achieve consensus.  Ursasapien (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (To Matthew) I'm sorry but I do have to laugh. Stalking? I had to go through Angie's contribs to set this up. I did not go around calling people "freaks" or "weirdo"s or any of the other insults that Angie chose to use, so I'm having diffculty understanding where you are coming from on this. I have tried to help Angie, I really have, but thus far, everytime Angie states that her behaviour has changed, she makes an action which directly contracdicts her words. If my dispute resolution with Angie is a bad thing, let's take it up on my talk page. I believe it is best to help people if they can be helped. Clearly Angie is a good editor. She is very conscientious and contributes greatly to the project, however that does not mean that it excuses negative behaviour as shown in the diffs. I would prefer not to lose an editor like Angie, and I considered that if her behaviour remained in this pattern, then yes, eventually she would get blocked. This process is to prevent that from occurring. Angie herself has already endorsed Deckiller's statement and has also agreed that her behaviour has been unacceptable. This is positive! If Angie understands how the things she's saying affects those around her, she will become an even better editor.
 * Also, why are the diffs misleading? I listed the evidence I found.
 * Seraphim Whipp 10:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't helped her, you've just continued to add fuel to the fire. You should of let it die, but you continued to push the issue. Matthew 11:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So you would have preferred that she didn't recognise why her behaviour was incorrect? That would have had detrimental consequences on other editors and on Angie herself. If you disagree with me, fine disagree, but please do so respectfully rather than mud slinging.
 * Seraphim Whipp 11:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to realise your own behaviour has been equally bad, if not worse. Matthew 11:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec)Well, I would have to disagree that parties on both sides have been incivil (notwithstanding my apparent extreme incivility). Angie Y. has clearly been incivil as shown by the myriad diffs. This isn't a "singling out" of one user among a slew of incivility, its trying to address the clearest example of incivility. As to Matthew, how on earth has Seraphim's actions been even remotely related to stalking? I   (said)  (did) 10:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How haven't they? Matthew 11:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, lets look up the definition of stalking. 1. stealthy pursuit: the act or process of stealthily following or trying to approach somebody or something Well, he didn't stealthily follow her, he mentioned this on her talk page and tried to resolve this with her. 2. act of steady harassment: the crime of harassing somebody with persistent, inappropriate, and unwanted attention Well, I can just hear someone claiming he has "steadily harrased" her. He didn't. He has only commented about this on two pages as far as I'm aware; Angie's and Bignole's, the latter where he asked for an opinion on opening an RfC. I can't see how this is stalking. I   (said)  (did) 11:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) Hehe, I'm a she actually :-). I've commented in all the public places (i.e TV review, AN/I etc), and exactly as you said, a few talk pages, Angie's, Bignole's (about this RfC) and also TTN's, which was to notify s/he that I had listed their name under trying to resolve the dispute. I have been party to some discussions about episodes, template deletions and a category deletion (which were sacttered across a variety of talk pages). The only other way I have been involved with any of Angie's edits was when I took a look over Code Lyoko. I don't think that's unreasonable since it's on her user page and I like anime...I placed a few story tags and spoke to Someguy0830 about trying to help out...
 * Seraphim Whipp 11:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like definition #2 to me. Matthew 11:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Suprise. I was right. Anyways. Steady harassing only describes on person here, and that is Angie Y. She insulted TTN on many many occasions. Seraphim, however, has only tried to help. I   (said)  (did) 11:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, and I replied to her on a talk page ...I'm not sure how my behaviour has been bad...


 * Seraphim Whipp 11:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Suprise! The editor formerly known as Alcemáe only sees incivility in others, but does not see his/her sarcastic belittling as adding to the problem. I suppose I will have to spend an inordinate amount of time providing the long list of incivility. I guess I'll get to it later. Ursasapien (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the only one here I have accused of being incivil is Angie. And if you think that those diffs don't show it, then maybe we need to look at WP:CIVIL again, because as far as I'm aware, calling someone an asshole isn't civil. And he. I   (said)  (did) 11:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Notification
I have notified everyone who may have been involved in the dispute. In the interests of fairness, if there's anyone I've missed, let 'em know.

Note: I am not canvassing (as some are eager to not assume good faith), I am purely letting everyone know.

Seraphim Whipp 17:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Angie's behaviour regarding template usuage
Upon reading on the developments at this TfD, I noticed someone had made a comment regarding Angie's usuage of the template. Looking at her contribs shows she is behaving in a disruptive way. I'm extremely dissappointed and confused by this behaviour.

For fear that my behaviour appears as wiki-stalking (to people like Matthew), I will not ask Angie about this directly (despite wanting to know why), although I thought this needed mentioning.

I'm really am disappointed because I thought Angie was learning from this RfC.

Seraphim Whipp 19:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed that too. I sort of wrote it off because I didn't know what they were talking about, until I wondered over to the TfD and saw that, apparently, Angie was (and she wasn't the only one if you look at the pages) spaming pages with the "unsourced episode" tag. I don't know what the accomplishment was intended to be. If it was a way to prove they are notable, I don't know. I know that it confused some editors who at first thought the television review project did it, and that the project had screwed up and put it on articles that were satisfied.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Which other pages were the target of the spamming?
 * Seraphim Whipp 20:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant that the spam of the template, which is funny since TTN caught so much flak for doing the same thing, was being reinforced by other editors. If you look at the pages, mini-edit wars were taking place over its inclusion.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah I see. It is very ironic that this is going on...
 * Seraphim Whipp 21:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate is what it is. I say just let it go. People know how they act, and how others act. At this point, there is nothing to be done but put another diff on the page and that isn't going to solve anything apparently. I only knew about the tagging because of MisterHand, and since he realized, or at least assumed, it was another user trying to make a point (and so noted on another page) then it's there for others to see. If Angie doesn't learn anything from this, oh well. We can't make her learn anything, she has free will to do what she likes. Maybe someone will come along one day and help her out better than we, or anyone else has, so far in her Wiki-career.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well we can all say we gave it a good try at least *sad smile*.
 * Seraphim Whipp 22:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this over?
No one has contributed to this in a while, so I thought maybe the RFC was done with. Have we reached the desired outcome? Codelyoko193 Talk 13:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good question, I think this RfC shouldn't have been started in the first place. PeaceNT 07:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not? The behaviour needed addressing, which as a result of this RfC, it has indeed been addressed in a mature and responsible way. I too think this RfC is done with now. Either Angie has learnt or she hasn't; the editors here have tried, now it is just down to Angie.
 * Seraphim Whipp 11:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's all down to Angie, and it looks like she has indeed cooled down. &mdash; Deckiller 12:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good. Codelyoko193  Talk 15:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)