Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Elaragirl

Over the past few weeks, I have seen Elaragirl's contributions to some discussions I've participated in or read through. I have agreed with her position in some cases and disagreed with her in others. However, even before this RfC was filed, I was struck by her statement on her talkpage that "I am very aggressive. I am very familiar with WP:NPA and I know the precise limits to which I can and cannot go...." My question for Elaragirl (and it's a straightforward question borne out of desire to know the answer and not for any other reason) is: Why do you deem it appropriate or helpful to act very aggressively and to push up to the precise limits of permissible personal attacks? Newyorkbrad 17:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "I know the precise limits to which I can and cannot go" - hmm, that might need changing now! I just read the edit for which she was banned, and I thought - only 24 hours? It reminded me of Kelly Martin's lists of good and bad users. Carcharoth 18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved discussion (Morwen)

 * This discussion moved from Outside view by riana_dzasta. —Doug Bell talk 21:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC) 


 * 1) Morwen - Talk 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC) 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)
 * Which I find even more mystifying. riana_dzasta 17:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe not so mystifying now.... – SAJordan talkcontribs 19:39, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC).
 * I don't think that is totally fair. See here. I don't agree with the tenor of the comment, but I think Cool Cat is genuinely unhappy and planning to depart. Newyorkbrad 19:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See here too: yet another if-I-can't-have-my-way-I'm-leaving issue. – SAJordan talkcontribs 20:12, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC).
 * Honestly, I don't doubt that Cool Cat is genuinely unhappy - I am just worried whether this was planned well. I'll restate my concerns a little better. I don't question this RfC - I've seen it coming for some time now, and if Cool Cat had not initiated it, someone eventually would have. I am concerned that Cool Cat may have initiated this in the heat of the moment, given the situation around the AfD. It's merely my opinion, but I think that before taking any form of official dispute resolution, one should wait some time, gain some perspective, and then push on if they still feel it is necessary.
 * I have no personal bias towards either user in question, and feel that some truth can be found in both their statements. riana_dzasta 20:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Morwen I do not understand why you are overwhelmingly motivated with my departure...
 * It appears I am a terrible person. I dislike Elaragirl's conduct and I complain about it. And for that people immediately discuss when I am to leave wikipedia... Stunning.
 * I am genuinely unhappy, do not doubt that. No one has the right to "aggressively" jolt through wiki strictly to delete articles and destroy other peoples work.
 * I'd like to add that SAJordan had been banned indefinitely from commons wiki for pushing the communities patience to its limists. As far as I care he is a troll.
 * Cat chi? 00:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, banned "For making threats against Cool Cat and others".  But what threats?   For some reason the accuser refuses to specify. – SAJordan talkcontribs 15:10, 8 Dec 2006 (UTC).
 * No one has the right to "aggressively" jolt through wiki strictly to delete articles and destroy other peoples work. Cat chi? 00:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC) That would be true if that's what she was doing. Aggressively making good-faith XfD nominations based on policy, precedence and guidelines is quite another thing.  Pay attention to the notice on the edit page:
 * If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.
 * It will make your time here less stressful if you accept the premise of that statement before contributing. —Doug Bell talk 00:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Requests_for_arbitration Cat chi? 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add that it's inaccurate for Cool Cat to characterise those who disagree with him as "trolls and/or members of the deletionism cabal", as stated on the main RfC/Elaragirl page. I can't speak for the other people, but while I agree with Elaragirl on some topics, I disagree with her on others, and in no way could I could be considered a deletionist, with my total deletion participation of just one article to date. -- Kyok o  01:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am bothered by trolls and deletionist cabal members. My comment isn't directed at anyone. I am not labeling anyone, I just feel this RFC is shot. Cat chi? 01:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You say that your comment isn't directed at anyone, and yet you wrote, "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", with the implication that those who disagreed with you were trolls or members of the deletionism cabal. Either you were indeed referring to the partcipants in this RfC, or you typed something regrettable in the heat of the moment. Please take more care with your choice of words. That is something that Elaragirl would do well to heed as well. -- Kyok o  01:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought this whole 'deletionist cabal' business was just a bit of fun. There isn't actually one, is there? :) Much as there is no inclusionist cabal... I find it inappropriate that you take care to comment on SAJordan's behaviour on Commons, when it really has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Let's try to keep the matter on focus. riana_dzasta 03:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought this whole 'deletionist cabal' business was just a bit of fun. There isn't actually one, is there? :) Much as there is no inclusionist cabal... I find it inappropriate that you take care to comment on SAJordan's behaviour on Commons, when it really has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Let's try to keep the matter on focus. riana_dzasta 03:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "I find it inappropriate that you  (Cool Cat)  take care to comment on SAJordan's behaviour on Commons, when it really has nothing to do with the matter at hand." Well, perhaps something to do with a pattern of false accusations being made, since there I'm accused of making threats – which I had not done there, here, or anywhere else – and blocked from defending myself, while even my user_talk requests of "what threats?" (specifics and cites) are simply ignored. Ironically, what had drawn me there was Cool Cat's posted request on en-wp for people to go look at the Commons situation he was involved in, with a view to blocking other users. I followed his link with no prejudgment; as a relative newbie, I'd never heard of any of the participants. It turned out CC had been repeatedly blanking the user's page, even protected the blanking (with his brand-new admin powers there), then when others complained of the abuse he accused them of harassing him. I cited this history, with diffs, and found myself accused of wikistalking CC (for following the link he'd posted), trolling and harassing (for accepting his invitation to comment), and making threats (which to this day have never been specified or cited). There is no procedure on Commons to appeal from the indef-block, since the blocking admin has declared he's ignoring me. It's been an education in the difference between wikis. Possibly CC was hoping en-wp would be as compliant to his mere accusation as Commons has been. With two of the Commons admins involved running for Stewards, perhaps someday soon he'll be right. – SAJordan talkcontribs 11:00, 8 Dec 2006 (UTC).
 * That was some very disturbing reading, especially the part where they refuse to cite what you actually did wrong. Thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention. Quack 688 12:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that one of the commenters on this RfC, Moby Dick, who endorsed three of the summaries (Elaragirl's, Doug Bell's, and Swatjester's), and who also posted supportively to Elaragirl's talk page, has now been blocked by Cool Cat's loyal supporter Bastique (a leading Steward candidate) for those posts – and the remark "makes for interesting reading!" where his name had been mentioned. The charge is, get this, "harassment of Cool Cat". See here for details. – SAJordan talkcontribs 08:00, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).


 * Note also that Bastique has altered Moby's endorsement to delete evidentiary links Moby was offering to Elaragirl's summary list – in effect, Bastique destroyed evidence that the RfC participants might otherwise have seen. This suggests another motive for his blocking Moby: to keep Moby from restoring the links or drawing attention to the deletion. – SAJordan talkcontribs 10:25, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).

← Bastique did the right thing; what happens on Commons should stay on Commons, considering their community interactions are quite different to ours. Again, let's focus here; this isn't a mud-slinging match. riana_dzasta 11:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Same reply as to your similar comment on User_talk:Elaragirl:


 * Bastique's block of Moby cites:
 * Moby remarking "makes for interesting reading!" below a link to his RfAr case (but note the consensus where this was discussed: Moby was legitimately responding to his own name being brought up); and
 * Moby's participation in RFC:Elaragirl – endorsing the summary of Elaragirl – Moby's "Well said, Elaragirl" remark, among 12 other endorsements... (Bastique does not cite Moby's no-comment endorsement of Doug Bell's summary, or Moby's "ya, rfc wo merit" endorsement of Swatjester's summary); and
 * Moby's supportive post to the user talk page of Elaragirl, who was being accused by Cool Cat.


 * I don't see where the ArbCom forbade Moby to respond where someone else brings up his name, or to endorse summaries on RfC's, or to write to other people Cool Cat has attacked. These cannot reasonably be termed "harassment of Cool Cat" – but Bastique has done so anyway; just as Cool Cat claimed "harassment" on Wikipedia over the complaint on Commons that CC had repeatedly blanked and even protected Moby's user page, where clearly the harassment was in the other direction.


 * No neutral admin chose to declare the above-cited posts "harassment" in open discussion, or to block Moby. Bastique declared them such elsewhere, in a post he wouldn't even sign his own name to.  And Bastique is not a neutral admin. His alliance on Commons with Cool Cat shows that.


 * It is my impression that admins should recuse themselves from admin-powered intervention in disputes where they have personal loyalty to one disputant, not use those admin powers against the other disputant. That raises questions of fairness and impartiality, versus conflicts of interest. I hope you agree with that much.


 * If a block was appropriate, it should not have been enacted by one of Cool Cat's cronies. And it would have been nice to see some consensus-seeking that harassment was indeed occurring, especially since (as noted above) consensus on the first item was that it wasn't harassing Cool Cat... while the second and third items were being supportive of Elanagirl on the RfC and her talk page – and if that constitutes harassing Cool Cat (because CC opposes her), then how many other people are equally guilty of it? – SAJordan talkcontribs 12:56, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).

A big old can of worms
Not to open up a big old can of worms, but the motivation for Coolcat's behavior might be the recent strigns of AfDs against the Star Trek articles. Not that this makes anything right (on either side) but it might be looked into to get a full pcture of what's going on between these two users. -Husnock 04:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's been discussed in the diffs, yes. That's the main reason I'm concerned about the appropriateness of this RfC. riana_dzasta 04:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

lack of certification
since nobody else has certified this RFC, it should now be deleted, right? Morwen - Talk 18:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ordinarily that would be the case. And yet, so many people have commented one way or the other that it might conceivably be deemed to be the equivalent of de facto certified.... Elaragirl is on Wikibreak until Monday, maybe we should see how she feels about it. Newyorkbrad 18:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Possibly. On the other hand, majority view seems to be that this RFC was ridiculous in the first place - I can't see that those who have commented would burst into floods of noisy tears at this being chucked out. Moreschi 18:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wanna bet? I agree with NYbrad, we should wait until Elaragirl's back. riana_dzasta 18:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That may be true, too. My point is that people might not have realized it wasn't certified, who otherwise might have signed. I am not one of them, but someone might be out there. But if this section stays here for a little while and no one certifies, then it should go, unless the subject (Elaragirl) says it should stay so she can review the comments. Newyorkbrad 18:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * All right, wait till then. Seriously though, sooner or later this nonsensical RFC needs to be thrown away where no one will ever see it again, nor bother about it. Moreschi 18:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Amen to that. CC's complaints of harassment amount metaphorically to "Mom!!!  He looked at me!!!" and, sure enough, Mom unadvisedly stepped in ...  The idea that Bast could even contemplate Stewardship is appalling.  Athænara  ✉ 20:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, why is this RFC still here...the originator pulled out, and the 2 required certifications are not there. This needs to be thrown out or we can all say "Look we don't need process...rules aren't actually rules". &rArr;   SWAT Jester    On Belay!  02:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Deleted and delisted. El_C 02:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Restored inactive project page for read-only purposes
I restored the project page because the edits of several users on that page have been referenced in other discussions regarding the behavior of those users. The page is protected as it is an inactive page for reference only and should not be modified. —Doug Bell talk 12:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good move. Unless the person who initiated the ludicrous Rfc (among other recent WP:POINT-defying antics) has an epiphany and radical change of character, this piece of living Wikipedia history will be needed to help enlighten the perplexed after he is unblocked.  Athænara  ✉ 15:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)