Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/PrivateWiddle

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PrivateWiddle (talk | contribs) at 09:21, 19 February 2014 (→‎Response: Addition to my response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

To remain listed at Wikipedia: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 ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 17:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 04:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC).

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Desired outcome

I am requesting User:PrivateWiddle to stop using his new signature, which appears to be a calculated method of insulting female wikipedians whilst purporting to be referring to Scotsmen. It's true that some people may find his official user name also to be offensive, but that does not concern me here. Deb (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Description

Prior to the recent dispute, this user - when he remembered to sign at all - used his official username for signing talk pages. Following a dispute which resulted from User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi nominating his article for deletion a day after I had speedy deleted an earlier version of the same article for a different reason, he began using the alternative signature "Devils in Skirts". I don't actually know the gender of FIM, but both our user names are suggestive of being female. FIM has asked him on a number of occasions to stop personal attacks (such as this), and I have asked him not to use this signature and told him what the consequences would be if he continued to do so. Offensive behaviour on wikipedia is one thing - I've had more hate mail than most and I try to ignore it - but sexism is another, and I do not feel we should have to tolerate it.Deb (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior

Before the change of signature:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thirteen_Colonies&diff=prev&oldid=563125278
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Luton&diff=prev&oldid=411393192

First use of new signature (immediately following a personal attack):

edit 595008626

Note: Thanks to User:Redrose64, I see that I made an error in identifying the exact edit that began this fiasco. I have therefore amended it above. Deb (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

  1. Wikipedia:Offensive material
  2. Wikipedia:Username_policy

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Attempts by certifier User:Deb

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrivateWiddle&diff=prev&oldid=595570073

Attempts by certifier User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrivateWiddle&diff=prev&oldid=595573370


Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, as Deb said above. Unfortunately I do not think the Private took the complaint seriously, which is why we are here now. Curiously, he seems to think that the only people "allowed" to be offended are Scottish soldiers! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.}

Response

* Why I contend the complaint should be rejected.

I have added to the top of this response in the light of a couple of comments in the area below where I think its improper for me to add edits.

Given the seriousness of the allegation made against me, I think its fair to point out a couple of things for clarity.

I have not asked anyone to change their username or signature. The suggestion that FIM's username might be hubristic did not come from me but from someone else. I had not even considered it. I have not launched an Rfc against anyone for any reason either now or in the past.

More seriously, I have been accused of changing my signature to something overtly misogynistic as a direct personal attack on two female users with whom I have a disagreement over the continued existance of the page BeerXML. That accusation is demonstrably false, deeply hurtful and potentially very damaging. Many of my personal and professional contacts are aware of my contributions on Wikipedia and this accusation, were it to go unanswered might escape into the outside world with very real consequenses for me and my family.

I have asked the mover of this Rfc to remove it and for an apology. This is the first, and I hope the last time I will ever be involved with anything like this on Wikipedia.

My sig may well be puerile and silly, but it is entirely innocent of any malice towards anyone. I remain Devils In Skirts! (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incomprehensibly, the user seconding this RFC has already admitted on my talk page and before this complaint was made that they know the references to the vintage British comedy film Carry On Up The Khyber and specifically Carry_On..._Up_the_Khyber#The_regiment in my user name and sig have absolutely nothing to do with women and male sexism. My long-standing username and sig are a completely innocent commonplace in Britain (referring as they do to an inept band of soldiers in kilts). The same user even linked to the film on my talk page at the very same time. They are gambling that you aren't familiar with the context, and that's a measure of their sincerity.


* Why the complaint was made

Since the creation of the article BeerXML, the same two users have tried persistantly to delete it giving many (often contradictory) reasons. The variety of different reasons given for deletion has now been whittled down to the single criteria of notability of the topic itself. As that last opportunity to delete the article is now in the balance, we have this complaint.

Recently, as the article has been seen by more users, more comments have been made that it should be kept (but needs improvement) and more users have started editing it. However the two users who are making this complaint have made no attempt to improve the article themselves or engage constructively with those actually doing so. They have made many (often snidey) vague criticisms of the article to further their contention that it should be deleted, but when asked for specific changes or improvements that could be made, or when asked which specific references they have an issue with, they change the subject, issue threats, or imply that the article will be deleted no matter what.

As evidence of the sincerity of this complaint, please consider this:

Yesterday, the user who has posted this complaint placed a help tag (expert assistance) on the article however neglected to complete the tag with an inline reason. Relevant Wikiproject(s) should also have been nominated in the tag (as is very strongly advised in the tag's own guidance) but were also missing. I asked, on the talk page, for a reason to be put in the tag and suggested that the Computing and Beer wikiprojects would be the most appropriate. I pointed out that the tag implied that the article requires improvement rather than deletion and that (far from being a negative thing) it would hopefully get more users involved in contributing to the discussion and hopefully contributors to the article itself. The tag was then immediately removed by the very same user who created it. This action alone gives an insight into the motivations behind this complaint.

The link posted by the complainant to something I said is quite correct, and I was very perplexed at the time about the behaviour I was faced with. The word 'unhinged' however is intemperate and I should have restrained myself. The complainant has neglected to mention any of the multiple personal comments they have made, or their refusal to engage rationally in improving the article.

In the mind of the complainant, this is about getting the article deleted and nothing else. It started with umbrage being taken when a speedy delete marker was misused (with no attempt at discussion), leading to it having to be reluctantly retracted. That triggered an irrational stream of demands, often at odds with one another. Every attempt to accomodate them or point out that their mistakeness (by use of verbatim quotes of policy and refs to guidelines) has been met with backpeddling, gloating comments that deletion is inevitable and comments to that effect on my user page.

This culminated in a recent threat to make this very complaint. However, while it still seemed the article might be deleted, this threat was not used. Now that several new contributors to the talk and deletion pages have said that they also think the article should be kept (but improved), the threat has been acted upon.

I'm quite happy to take any criticism of the article, any criticism of me for allowing myself to be goaded into losing my temper (or for anything else) and to have any errors I have made in any respect pointed out and corrected; but please don't think for one minute that this complaint is genuine and would be happening if the page was not still up today. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.}


Users who endorse this summary:

RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section

Views

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

Outside view by Andy Dingley

A trout to Deb for bringing this RFC/U and the most Massive Leviathan of the Seas possible to Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi for a short career so far spent in generally awful behaviour all round.

  • Private Widdle's presentation of their user sig is a very obvious pun. If Deb doesn't get it, I assume they're either not British or else a lot younger than I am. It's no more an attack on women than it is an attack on cloven-hoofed animals.
I don't like this sig because I don't like confusing sigs (note that I don't use one myself). "Private Widdle" would, IMHO, be better with something with the word "Private" or "Widdle" somewhere recognisable. This is my opinion though, and I recognise that there are many equally unclear sigs on WP already. As "a calculated method of insulting female wikipedians", that's simply ridiculous.
  • Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's behaviour so far has been bad (and their username suggests they believe themselves to be the Empress of the World much more than Widdle's denigrates women.). Far more deserving of RFC/U than anything Widdle has done. I would like to see some redress of this. RFC/U is complicated, ineffective and heavy-handed (as is ANI), so I deliberately hadn't sent them in that direction. I'd privately asked Deb if they could have a quiet word, as they seem to have their ear, so I'm especially disappointed to see this RFC/U raised.
I've just looked back at their edit history and it is _far_ from impressive. Lots of complaints on other editors, almost always on the basis of a complete misunderstanding of policy. Just for starters:
The resultant templating of other GF editors is most unimpressive. At User_talk:Drmoofix we see them templating an editor (on an edit that had already been reverted without any need for warnings) over a GF edit that's understandable, but prevented by copyright. As far back as I looked, it seemed to be much the same story. An editor with a couple of months and a handful of edits proceeding to slap their weight around, and usually missing the target altogether.
The BeerXML deletion isn't something I've felt inclined to dig too deeply into (I have to prepare for a council meeting, and if I'd rather be doing council paperwork, believe me I'm disinclined to be looking at WP trivia!). Yet the retaliatory raising of an AfD for Broadcast Markup Language is egregious.
  • No request for Private Widdle to change anything (although please note that some of us value clarity, and humour in a sig gets seen so frequently that it easily wears thin).
  • A warning to Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi that aggressive and high-handed hectoring of other editors is no way to proceed.
  • Disappointment that someone with 12 years on WP thinks that this RFC/U against the wrong party is an appropriate use of everyone's time.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ucanlookitup (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Psychonaut (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. David Gerard (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Solomon7968 07:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Binksternet

Of course "Devils in skirts" originally referred to the 51st (Highland) Division who were also called "Ladies from Hell" by the Germans during World War I. I can see on Google Books search this exact usage from 1928. The term is not used as an insult to women. I will not comment on behavior as I have no time right now to look into the matter. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Of course . . ?" . . . or the Black Watch, or the Cameronians, or one of the Canadian-Scottish regiments, or any kilted regiment, for that matter. See Wikipedia. But no primary evidence, contemporary, German, or otherwise, for anyone being called "Ladies from Hell." On the other hand, "Devils in Skirts" is far easier to cite. See Redrose64, below.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Psychonaut (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. David Gerard (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Redrose64

It is claimed at #Evidence of disputed behavior that the first use of new signature was with edit 595072741. This is demonstrably untrue: one merely needs to follow that link to see evidence that the signature in question had been in use at least eight hours earlier - it's on the line beginning "This behaviour is getting out of control" immediately above the first bullet. It was added with edit 595008626.

I immediately recognised the name "Private Widdle" as being the character played by Charles Hawtrey in Carry On... Up the Khyber. This film concerns a fictional Scottish regiment, the 3rd Foot and Mouth Regiment, nicknamed "The Devils in Skirts"; like many Scottish regiments, the uniform includes a kilt. If there is any offence here, the blame lies with the film's scriptwriter, director, producer etc.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Psychonaut (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. David Gerard (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah

I find myself unable to endorse any of the stated views, because they all assume that the signature in question is not offensive. I don't know whether it is or not. I find their arguments that it's not because it's a line from a movie unconvincing. It might well be offensive. My position is that it does not matter whether it's offensive or not. Deb is, even if genuinely offended, using her position as an administrator and her power to sanction users as a weapon in her battle to get BeerXML deleted. It's analogous to a cop who has a personal grudge against someone following them around until they see them violate a traffic law and then ticketing them. It does not matter if their victim actually violated the law, the cop is still abusing their power by targeting someone because of a grudge. Furthermore, neither Deb nor Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, the other certifier of this RfC, understands WP:N, WP:CSD, or WP:BEFORE. It frightens me that either of them is involved in deletion, given how they show a complete lack of understanding of the process and that they're willing to threaten the use of Deb's administrative powers as a stick. Here's how I see the history:

  • Much arguing and name-calling and templating ensues, too much to list here.

That's how I see this episode. Maybe PrivateWiddle should change her/his signature, I don't know. But these two need to stop their misbehavior.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Binksternet (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. David Gerard (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Robert McClenon

I don't think that the subject's signature is offensive, and I don't think that it is meant to be misogynistic, or that it is meant to be a deniable misogynistic comment. (It is not, for instance, similar to a personal attack by a now-banned user that was deliberately meant to be ambiguous, with plausible deniability of its on-the-face meaning.) I am not British, and I still understand what the reference is. It isn't meant to say that women are devils in skirts, and I consider it a stretch to read it that way. (If multiple female editors will concur with the views of the certifiers, I will withdraw and strike these conclusions.) I think that the issue is a flap over very little, and that this RFC should be closed without action or recommendation.

The subject's signature is ambiguous, just as the second certifier's user name is ambiguous. I disagree with the criticisms of both. Both should be given the assumption of good faith. (See the talk page as to the second certifier's user name.) Maybe editors with ambiguous user names shouldn't throw stones at editors with ambiguous signatures.

I don't like signatures that bear little or no resemblance to the user names that they stand for. They are confusing. However, Wikipedia policy on signatures does not prohibit confusing signatures. (It does prohibit signatures that misbehave in certain defined technical ways. This is not one of those cases.) Since there is no policy against this signature, I see no reason to use a vehicle designed primarily for user conduct issues to raise this point.

I can see that there is an unpleasant history between the certifiers and the subject of the RFC. They don't like each other. A deletion controversy started by the deletionist certifier against the subject is part of the history. RFCs are often started by editors who don't like other editors. However, this RFC is about a tangential matter that is not a violation of policies or guidelines. Since this RFC isn't about editing conduct, I haven't researched the editing histories of these editors in detail. (Maybe I will. Maybe I won't.)

I think that this RFC should be closed without action or recommendation.


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by ExampleUsername

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/PrivateWiddle&oldid=596157476"