Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/PrivateWiddle

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Translation Issue

Andy Dingley criticizes Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi for claiming, in heruser name, to be the empress of the world. Her user name, like the signature of the PrivateWiddle, is ambiguous. She does not appear to be making that claim. Her name may indeed be a noun phrase; but it is more likely to be a sentence, with the linking verb omitted (a common practice in Latin sayings). That is, she isn't saying (that she is)"Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi", but rather "Fortuna (est) Imperatrix Mundi": "Luck is the ruler of the world." That is, even queens are not in control, for fortune happens to us all. What this says for the subject or certifiers of this RFC or this RFC remains to be seen. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to the Latin in FIM's username, but then FIM does not stand accused of changing their signature as a personal attack on another user because of their gender.

I must contend that my username and sig are not remotely ambiguous. They are a character in and a phrase from a film that is so well known in Britain that the series it belongs to is considered a cultural icon (to the extent that tourist have been placed in the places it was filmed) Devils In Skirts! (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using RFC as a starting point...

The nominator declared that they are going to submit a RFC without even consulting the editor in question first what is the intended meaning of the perceived "offensive" signature is. The assumption of bad faith from the very first is troubling. Is there something I am missing? Solomon 7968 18:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's become comments on the dubious nature of the complaint and the social skills of the complainants, which appears appropriate - David Gerard (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I have long been aware that this is not an environment in which women thrive. I did not realise until now how deeply ingrained sexism is within this project. Perhaps it is fortunate that my role as an administrator makes it difficult for me to respond as I would do in real life, and consequently I have not descended to any of the following behaviours:

Telling blatant lies
Personal abuse
Canvassing
Falsely presenting my views as impartial

Widdle’s taunts on my talk page about having been “hauled over the coals” do not trouble me, nor to do those of the malcontents who have piggy-backed on his complaint. Almost all professional women have had first-hand experience of sexism (the IT industry being particularly noted for it - [1]) and will understand how hard it is to fight, so we rarely bother trying.

I never had any difficulty in identifying "Devils in Skirts" as having originally been a reference to members of Scottish regiments, just as I never had any difficulty recognising "Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi" as a quotation from a medieval Latin lyric set to music by a distinguished 20th century composer. What puzzles me is why it should be considered impossible for me to be offended by the use of a signature that quotes from a mediocre film franchise noted for its coarse humour and sexist content. I would ask those reading this to consider an analogy: if I were to start using the signature "All Men are Fools" (which I would never do), would that be less offensive to men simply because it is a quotation from a rather higher-quality comedy show of the same period? Of course not.

What strikes me as remarkable is not so much the fact that PrivateWiddle has offered no explanation as to why he suddenly began using a new signature in the course of this dispute - well, he wouldn't, would he?, just as he has omitted from his version of events all mention of the original deletion nomination by User:Wgolf which first drew my attention to his article - but the fact that no one who has contributed to this discussion has thought of asking him why he chose to use a new signature at that particular moment.

While I’ve been absent from Wikipedia (for reasons completely unrelated to this particular discussion), I’ve had some time to reflect on the matter. It is of course possible that I misread PW’s motives and that he "didn't mean" to be offensive, that he merely didn't think about the possibility before he did it. If, in your minds, that makes it okay, then obviously I have to accept community consensus, whatever I personally may think or feel about the matter. That's the whole point of an Rfc. PrivateWiddle, in his inexperience, has failed to see this, and some of the other contributors to the discussion have also mistaken the process for some kind of kangaroo court.

There is one positive thing that has come out of this, however, and that is the enormous improvements to the BeerXML article, bringing it up to the standard required for inclusion, something that would certainly not have happened if it had been left to the creator. You can thank User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi for that. You can also thank him/her for the comparable improvements to Broadcast Markup Language made as a result of PrivateWiddle trying to "shop" its creator with a "stuff exists" argument. It's all very well quoting Wikipedia:BEFORE, but that does not absolve the creator of responsibility for not looking at notability and verifiability requirements before creating the article. I also resent the assumption that I never looked for reliable sources for BeerXML before I deleted it first time round; of course I did, as did User:Colapeninsula, User:Uncle Milty and User:mark viking, who all came to a similar conclusion. I assess every deletion candidate on its individual merits, and nothing I do in the future will be different as a result of this exercise, trout or no trout. Deb (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shameful.

Your recent editing behaviour has been roundly rejected in this RFC/U, your complaint against Widdle's sig dismissed completely and the attempts to delete articles whilst under construction significantly criticised. Your response? To ignore the comments made and instead to dismiss those making them as simple sexists. You devalue a real issue at WP, the exclusion and under-representation of women here, by tacking your trivial and over-personalised animosities onto it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have falsely presented your prejudiced opinions as an "outside" view. I pointed this out to you early on, but you made no effort to rectify it. I'm totally disgusted with your conduct. I think that makes us quits. Deb (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tone down the rhetoric Deb. Not everyone who disagrees with you is "prejudiced". Solomon 7968 13:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carry on the witch hunt as long as you like. It won't make the slightest difference. Deb (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You accused an editor in good standing of falsehood and prejudice, when asked to not take every other disagreement/dispute personally you say "It won't make the slightest difference". Slightest difference of what? So you will continue to accuse others of sexism without any basis and lodge RFCs against them without discussing first? If that is it you will likely see yourself in trouble in not so distant future. Solomon 7968 14:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AIUI for RFC, I'm an "outside" view because I wasn't one of the parties that you listed in the initial RFC. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have, however, resorted to playing the female card, quoting Wikipedia's woeful lack of female editors about which this issue has nothing to do. This is not about the difficulty of a woman thriving on Wikipedia, it is about your poor behavior, and your misguided RFCU which boomeranged. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "playing the female card"? What exactly is your qualification for making the statement that "this issue has nothing to do" with sexism? And indeed, what "issue" are you talking about, exactly? I raised an Rfc about a user's signature, nothing else. Yet almost everyone who has commented in this discussion has focused their attention entirely on the nomination for deletion of an article, in the course of which I happened to cast a vote. Talk about blinkered. Deb (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I raised an Rfc about a user's signature, nothing else." That's a simple falsehood. You first threatened that RFC after substantial animosity had already built up over an article deletion. Within hours you're involved in a second article deletion. It is very far from the truth to say, "you have done nothing else than this RfC about a sig".

The conclusions of the RFC are to my eye pretty obvious: a sizable boomerang that turned the RfC around and made it more about the instigators' behaviour regarding article deletion than anything involving sigs. I see, and I believe many others at that RfC do too, that your RfC was trivial and retaliatory, nothing more. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't make threats. I tell people what I intend to do and I do it. You state that "animosity" had built up because of a deletion discussion in which I participated. This is just about the only part of your comment that has any truth in it. It was animosity that led an inexperienced user down a path in which you encouraged him; you came here to add fuel to the fire and you are continuing to try to stoke up resentment. You and others with axes to grind have failed to restrict your comments to the matter in hand and have persisted in assuming bad faith on my part because I dared to raise the issue of an offensive signature. Is this because you are not capable of keeping to the point, or is it because you choose not to? Deb (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and have persisted in assuming bad faith on my part: Quite the opposite, in fact Deb you assumed bad faith about PrivateWiddle' signature from the very first. RFC should be used as a last resort after discussion with the editor concerned. You first raised the issue of gender in a dispute regarding nomination of an article for deletion stating "but both our user names are suggestive of being female". I don't think it is so. The Wikipedia disambiguation page Deb contains at least an one entry of a male with surname "Deb" and your user page also gives no clue regarding gender. Solomon 7968 16:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]