Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Darwinek

I hope I did this right!
This is the first time I've entered a "Request for comment." Sorry if I didn't do it quite right. And, Darwinek, if I've misunderstood you, I do apologize. But you seemed utterly unwilling even to follow the links that were provided to the relevant WP policy/guidelines. Moreover, once you wrote "fxxx off" to WikiFair1, it became very difficult to keep trying direct communication. --  Cultu ral Fre edom  2006-07-18 18:34 (UTC)

Violet/riga wikistalking Cultural Freedom?
I find it odd that violet/riga would out of the blue jump in here with two odd comments. First it is obvious that part of what was removed was a valid warning. Second, what is the relevance of Cultural Freedom's "having problems with several users regarding his (sic) and their views of dialect usage"? (Cult. F. is a woman.) But, violet/riga, are you stalking Cult. F. to "punish" her? I've noted that you followed her around and engaged in what looks like harrassment. --WikiFair1 19:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't take things off my watchlist. CF's talk page cropped up a lot and was clearly about another dialect dispute.  I'm not taking sides as I've not looked into this, but just wanted to add those comments.  violet/riga (t)
 * Fine, but you clearly have a strong bias against most (at least) things American. You could have fixed the double-redirects of my moves. Instead, you just reverted them. That's not conducive to peace. But it seems like peace is not your goal. Rather, confrontation is, as well as elimination of as many traces of American culture as possible. Your claim not be "taking sides" is hard to believe. --WikiFair1 21:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And you hate all people with large noses. Umm, excuse me but do you know me and the edits I do?  No you don't, just like I don't know if you have a nose-size bias.  I do not like American bias, but I don't like any other biases either and avoid them.  There is far more work fixing the double redirects and that would be more taking sides than simply reverting the moves.  I couldn't care less if it's "transport" or "transportation", but I don't like the way that people have jumped on Darwinek in this way.  violet/riga (t) 21:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Violet/riga: May I ask why you jumped into this discussion at all? Why did it matter to you? If it mattered for reasons that don't have to do with me, personally, why didn't you engage the question where a group of us (a group which, unfortunately, does not include Darwinek) are sincerely looking for a fair solution (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28categories%29)? We are trying to solve yet another ambiguity in WP's policies about dialect differences. That has been my primary motivation here. I get the sense (though I don't know you, and freely admit I could be wrong) you're out to "punish" me because I effectively (though I don't mean necessarily "winningly") debated you on your authoritarian misuse (in my view) of the notion of common sense in deciding the question of "dialectic drift" vs. "orthographic right of return". Why not, instead, conlude: "Cultural Freedom: very bright person, very interested in solving some of the serious problems caused by the ambiguities in WP's policies. How can I work together with this person who might well have a lot to offer WP?" --  Cultu ral Fre edom   2006-07-19 -22:02 (UTC)
 * I merely came in when I read this RfC and saw that there were some parts that (imo) are not valid. I don't hold grudges and find it odd that I am so quickly accused of stalking and "punish[ing]"!
 * There have been lots of attempts to fix the dialect problems, but I cannot see any solution that can be implemented that we would all see as fair, at least over and above what we have. violet/riga (t) 22:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved material
'''The following 2 contributions were added to Darwinek's response section on the project page. I'm moving them here to keep it neat''' (please note that section is his "soapbox", discussion should take place here on the talk. SB Johnny 00:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine with me... except for the "leave me alone" part. Working together and without hassles toward a common goal is the meat & potatoes of Wikipedia (and everything else, FTM).   JackLumber.  19:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)  (moved 00:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC))


 * I agree with JackLumber. That is, I agree with his comment, "fine," but also with his stress on the importance of the "working together" part. Darwinek, I encourage you to review the initial stages in this dispute. I believe you'll see quite clearly that I was civil, even friendly, and simply assumed you would discourse with me. Honestly! Many of us have even started a very civil discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28categories%29. You could have said something like, "Ah, I see. I violated guidelines about national varieties of English. I'll slow down, and join the others in a civil discussion about the best policy for WP." But you didn't. As an admin, you should realize that putting things up for a vote very often does not result in the best decision for the community being made, esp. when it comes to dialect differences (because so many people just vote for "their" dialect, without thinking). That's why I assumed, once your initial -- and entirely innocent: I believe you there! (I made similiar mistakes when I first joined WP) -- guideline-violating mass-renaming was pointed out to you (a renaming which served part of the basis for the category renaming), you would have withdrawn your requests, and started to discuss this with others who were taking the matter seriously. The fact that you still won't do this is a bit disappointing. At a minimum, I would recommend adding comments to you rintros to the votes saying that you understand that "matching" the article names might not be a good justification for the category switches, since the names themselves were changed, by you, in a way that violated spelling guidelines. It seems like saying something like that would be a good, honest, peace-making gesture. I'm in the middle of a huge project; I'll say more later tonight or tomorrow. --  Cultu ral Fre edom  2006-07-19 21:15 (UTC)  (moved 00:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC))

Moved material 2
This time from violet/riga's response. (Sorry, don't mean to be the annoying stickler, but it's distracting for outside parties that might want to endorse a view. Leaving links to the discussions in both cases.) SB Johnny 00:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * -No problem! It is indeed tidier this way. --  Cultu ral Fre edom  2006-07-22 09:40 (UTC)


 * "...users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors." (Emphasis added.) WP *Official* policy. Note that warnings of _vandalisms_ are not explicitly mentioned. Just "warnings," broadly. User:Darwinek repeatedly removed what looks like a warning from his talk page.  JackLumber.  21:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) (moved 00:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC))


 * As said above, I disagree that it is a warning. Warnings are things like test, not comments about a disagreement.  violet/riga (t) 21:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC) (moved 00:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC))


 * There's no official definition of warning, so your argument is no better than Cultural Freedom's.   JackLumber.  21:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC) (moved 00:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC))


 * 'Warnings' by convention mean the standard templates, not other points of discussion. Darwinek's method of 'archiving' his talk page is (I believe) to remove comments he considers dealt with, except where he particularly likes the comment in question (diffs:     etc.). While I don't think this is the best way to deal with archiving, it is the method he uses, and is not against policy. That said, this particular discussion seems to be still underway, and it could be seen to be misleading to remove some relevant parts of it (especially when the user is an admin and is obliged to be as transparent as possible). Edit-warring over a talk page is unacceptable, and it would have been better for someone to copy the content to another area if they still consider it relevant. Note also that I am something of an involved party, as I also noticed the transport/ation moves and proposals and tried to start a centralised discussion on them at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories), given that it's a point of contention. While I have my own opinion on how this should resolve, I'm more invested in reducing the points of contention amicably.  Z iggurat 21:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC) (moved 00:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC))


 * Ziggurat: Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure about how clear WP's definition of "warning" is. I tend to agree with JackLumber on this one. Either way, the warning about Darwinek's wholesale shift of Transportation to Transport was clearly a "warning" about a violation, and, using common sense, should not be removed until the matter is resolved. --  Cultu ral Fre edom  2006-07-18 21:56 (UTC) (moved 00:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC))


 * I'd rather not let procedure get in the way of common sense, and this is a silly thing to have an edit-war over. Darwinek doesn't want this material on his talk page, and you want it preserved for further discussion. Seeing as you (presumably) don't care whether it's specifically located at his talk page or not, and seeing as he (presumably) doesn't care whether it's preserved elsewhere or not, the solution would be to put it elsewhere. Z iggurat 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) (moved 00:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC))
 * Or use this diff. violet/riga (t) 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC) (moved 00:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC))

This RfC...
... is truly bizzare! Again, I don't mean to step on toes by moving that stuf to the talk, but that's how these things work (no reply-comments, no "disendorsements"). Violet/riga, you clearly have a history of being involved with this dispute, so you really shouldn't be offering an "outside view". SB Johnny 01:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it's bizarre? Thanks in advance,  Cultu ral Fre edom   2006-07-22 09:41 (UTC)
 * Just executed in a rather strange way with comments on comments, outside views by involved parties, etc. More on your talk. -- SB Johnny 10:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Sorry! I'm still fairly new here.... --  Cultu ral Fre edom  2006-07-22 11:16 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be familiar with the timeline, as the posting of my outside view brought me into the dispute, thus was (at the time) an outside view. violet/riga (t) 12:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. That's happened to me as well (in fact, I had to make a policy for myself not to respond to RfCs involving topics I would otherwise contribute to). SB Johnny 12:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Cultural Freedom "immediately going into attack mode"?
SB_Johnny wrote: "User:Cultural Freedom went immediately into attack mode both on Darwinek's talk and on the naming conventions page." That is unfair, in my view. My exchange with Darwinek began here. How is that attack mode? Then, I added the (somewhat standard) warning about respecting national varieties of English, which seemed important here, since he was in the process of mass-violations of these guidelines. In any event, he kept answering on my talk page, not his, so it's hard to follow, but see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cultural_Freedom#Transport_etc. here, for ex.]. What frustrated me most of all was his refusal to join in on a reasonable discussion of the general issues. My assumption was that it was obvious that he had made a mistake, and (qua Admin) would 1) fix it himself, and, more importantly, 2) remove the misleading information from his call for a mass-renaming of category names (specifically, his claim that it was justified on the basis of the consistency of the article names; yet the article names were a result from his own guideline-violating renaming effort). After a while, my tone become less civil (though I never said anything approaching "fxxx off!", as he did, mostly because his attitude seemed to be: "Whatever, dude. You or others can deal with the mess I created." I've spent hours on this. He should have helped out, seems to me. He refused to help, and refused to discuss the matter in any serious way. --  Cultu ral Fre edom  2006-07-22 12:24 (UTC)


 * You added warnings without waiting for him to respond. In fact, you edited his page 4 times in one case without allowing him time to respond... which is rather aggressive behavior.
 * Saying "Whatever dude, go ahead and revert it if you like" isn't the friendliest of approaches, but it's commonly done. SB Johnny 12:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, but, still, I don't think "immediately going into attack mode" is an apt description of what I did. By the way, my frustration level certainly went up after that! And I'll admit I became more aggressive later. But his "whatever, dude" attitude seemed extraordinarilly disrespectful. (The fact that it's a commonly adopted attitude doesn't make it less disrespectful.) But he's very young, and his grasp of English is not perfect, so I should have moved more slowly, to be sure. --  Cultu ral Fre edom  2006-07-22 12:39 (UTC)

My Email to Darwinek
There's other background information I didn't include in my RfC. One is the email I sent to him the night (European time) of 2006.07.18. Here it is:

Please! Let's not edit war about this. You made some changes that clearly violated guidelines, so I reverted them. Japan is not part of the British Empire! (For ex.)

And about your requested category changes: please reflect on them carefully. They are extremely divisive. Peace and diversity are better than warring and uniformity! Best wishes, CF.

He never responded. Not that he necessarily needed to, but it added to my feeling that this person is a "non-communicator." --  Cultu ral Fre edom  2006-07-22 12:32 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but that's actually a good example of the problem. "You made some changes that clearly violated guidelines, so I reverted them. Japan is not part of the British Empire!" is probably not a good choice of phrasing, wouldn't you say? (If someone had said that to me, I probably wouldn't want to reply either!) SB Johnny 12:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Doesn't seem so bad to me. Also, keep in mind that it really isn't odd for me to be angry: I've spent hours dealing with the mess he created (the double-redirects alone, for ex.). He could have fixed them himself; but he adopted a "whatever, dude" attitude. That's simply not acceptable. I really do make an effort to assume good faith, but the evidence mounted quickly that that assumption might not be warranted here. In my view, it would be bizarre for anyone to respond to these points by somehow thinking I need to be "nicer." Why not, instead: "Darwinek, why the heck didn't you revert your name changes, given that you obviously didn't even check for double-redirects?" --  Cultu ral Fre edom  2006-07-23 09:41 (UTC)