Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Darkcat21

Responce for now
I've left a note on the subject's talk page. I can't give a full summary until he responds here. I can see based on the diffs provided, however, that Darkcat21 has violated some policies. Nevertheless, he also appears to be a new user, so he may not be aware of them. The last thing anyone wants to do is bite newcomers. -- Selmo  (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused as to why Darkcat21 is a new user. The user's first edit was on April 1, 2006, and the user has been relatively active since then.  ShadowHalo 04:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I also wonder why there should be a newbie bonus for an editor who has been made aware of essential policies on multiple occasions over a lengthy period of time (I believe I first pointed Darccat21 towards WP:V in November) yet still choses to ignore them. - Cyrus XIII 06:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, he appears to be a new user due to lack of policy knowledge. Looks like I was wrong, though. -- Selmo  (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Plain and simple on what should happen here. Long term Ban. Arbiteroftruth 08:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the subject's response
I am not an expert, yet I do wonder whether such a somewhat bemused tone, with those textual laughs and smileys, is entirely appropriate for these proceedings. Maybe that's just me, but on a scale from mildly to very serious, a request for comment is far enough up that I would not want to be subjected to one ever. Speaking of my own conduct, I would like to comment on a few allegations of misbehavior on my side, made by Darkcat21 in her/his response:

While this edit indeed removed a reference, it was actually a link to the website of Otakon, advertising that year's special guests. A convention wants to attract visitors, so there is a clear conflict of interest, when it comes to appreciating a guest's status as "the most influential artist in Asia". It is not an independent source.

Furthermore, I am not quite sure what the last paragraph of the response is meant to imply, that my handling of certain Japanese sources would justify hateful personal attacks? Never mind that we are working on the English Wikipedia here (that is why WP:V encourages the use of English sources) and that Darkcat21 does not know Japanese. Hence we cannot assume sufficient expertise of the language and after Darkcat21 has also added references which had absolutely nothing to do with the content they were supposed to back up, her/his good faith has become very questionable as well.

- Cyrus XIII 05:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Where I said that i don't know japanese? In that link you provided there's nothing about it, and that source about Art of Life, I was just linking to an official site with a track listing of the indie album, I was not interested in the text, just the track listing. And then the other source i add, I don't know I added a source to tell that X Japan was created in 1982, the exact year and not to put 80s as you have done, check ALL the musicin article and you'll see exact years:
 * The Beatles - I don't see 60s, I see 1960
 * The Rolling Stones - neither
 * Led Zeppelin - neither
 * No Doubt - the same
 * Darkcat21 11:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you were citing this source merely for the track list, exactly what was supposed to back up all the other information regarding the creative process of the album? Also, the founding year was given as "1980s", not because vague dates are fun. It is just that up to that point, no reliable source to support an exact year had been introduced. - Cyrus XIII 17:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Shadowhalo added one. http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:ulf1zfooeh5k~T10 Darkcat21 21:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent developments
''Darkcat21 has recently contacted me regarding a comment I made in a references-related talk page discussion. Since this is closely related to the subject matter of these proceedings, I would like to continue this discussion here. - Cyrus XIII 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)''

Hey, you're saying that I can't help people? You're banning me or whatever? It's yor problem if you don't have enough money to buy that official book and check the info written by staff from the band. And also really nice that when I added the same info that I guess that Vespertilio is going to add, Cyrus warned me and deleted the stuff and I was saying that was from a book and this stuff, and now you help him/her, really nice, you have also said this: "but in the absence of any grave misbehavior on your part, no one's going to doubt the good faith behind your contributions." ehem, you were the one that the Art of Life problem was the first problem about sources, then you removed my info, but you won't remove his/her, why? Darkcat21 18:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Because you are - and by now I have to be this direct about it - a problematic user. For some time now, you should have been aware of two key principles of Wikipedia, verifiability and consensus, because they have been pointed out to you several times and by multiple editors. Yet you keep disregarding these principles, like most recently on the visual kei article, where you single-mindedly keep making changes based on your own preconceptions. If you are not capable of maintaining the verifiability of your additions and multiple other editors disagree with you, then you are not supposed to make these changes, regardless of how easy it is to hit the "edit" button.
 * Given your behavior, the fact that the vast majority of your edits are made on X Japan-related articles and your self-professed young age, it should not come as a surprise that people are likely to consider your actions to be primarily motivated by personal fandom. And this is not in the best interest of Wikipedia and its community. - Cyrus XIII 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just wondering why this don't happens at the other Wikipedias. Darkcat21 21:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't have a good knowledge-base

 * I have been asked to comment, but I must apologize and state that I do not have a good knowledge base at all in this particular topic. Therefore I will only state that in the process of providing a Third Opinion, I tried to get some earnest dialogue going on the article's discussion page.  User:Cyrus XIII, User:ShadowHalo got involved in the discussion, but User:Darkcat21 only provided one comment on the talk page in the course of the third-opinion process, at the tail-end of the section.  The only other opinion I can provide is that the users involved could go to a Request for Comment process on the article itself - in addition to on a particular user.  Not to mention they should all be more actively discussing things on the article's talk page.  Smee 07:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Query
I'm just wondering when this process will conclude—the last three posts on the project page were one, two and five weeks ago. — Athænara  ✉  06:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was wondering the same thing. Do RfCs have to allot something like 15+ endorsements to go anywhere? I doubt the articles which came up in these proceedings do even have that many regular editors, yet I don't think they are any less deserving of intervention, if they are constantly being negatively affected by misbehavior. - Cyrus XIII 06:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)