Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Raintheone

Rebuttal to Raintheone's Response to the RfC/U

Rather than Spamming the RfC/U page, I'm taking my rebuttal here. I'll try to add more as the day progresses, but I'm AFK for most of the day.

Rain's opening remarks

"So basically as I already knew, this editor wants to remove an editor contesting the inclusion of material failing to meet WP:RS. A big fan of the show disagrees with policy, but is happy to use policy to rid of anyone opposed."

Jake's response: I was specifically advised by Administrator Nikkimaria to take this matter to either RfC/U or to AN/I if I had issues with Raintheone's behaviour.

"Jake: if you have a problem with Rain's behaviour, take it to WP:RFC/U or WP:AN/I. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)" (appears in the middle of this thread)

Jake's further response: this has nothing to do with "[removing] an editor contesting the inclusion of material failing to meet WP:RS" - as evidenced by the fact that we're actually responding to his demands for additional and different sources (otherwise why would I have spent over three hours yesterday addressing his and other self-identified points on sourcing in the article in question??). It has everything to do to his disruptive behaviour - note that the desired outcomes of this RfC/U do not propose his "removal:, but only request that he cease his disruptive behaviours, and to limit his editing of G.I. Joe articles to commenting on the respective talk pages.

Canvassing

"After I asked two admins too get involved, which one was to stop dispute the other a ready GA reassesser - Jake preceeded to canvas top GI involved parties: This, [1] and this."

Jake's response:

BOZ is an admin and heavily involved in editing of Comic Books articles and thus would have insights other admins without this specialization would lack. He's also not a member of the Joe WikiProject.
Ruhrfisch is an admin, and Raintheone neglects to mention that he performed the most recent peer review of the article in question
Fortdj33 is one of the core editors of the article in question - if he's not deserving of input, then who is?

"After I mentioned to Nikkimaria that canvassing may be happening, Jake preceeded to take talk about me to Email with Fort. [2]"

Jake's response: What I take offline is my own business, but as I mentioned in the talk page posting, Raintheone has been monitoring the talk page communications of various users opposed to his behaviour

Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment

"I adressed [sic] the editor by simply calling him "a bully"."

Jake's response: and I responded to Raintheone by calling him on the fact of who's really the bully? as early on, he'd already threatened to take the article to GAR if the article did not meet his standards: "If there is no reliable source it is not to be included. Since you have decided that these sources are fine and should not be removed, I'll have to notify GAR about this as the article does not comply with the critrea [sic]. Rain the 1 BAM 16:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC) "

Concluding

"I'd like to suggest my opinion on this. I have been baited into coming back, Jake tries too create a drama to report me. Simple. Only my conduct was to the point of the GA. Two admins, a GA reviewer and myself requested Jake stop making it personal - but that did not happen. I don't think I have a vendetta agaisnt GI Joe, I think the vendetta has been canvassed, emailed, baited - in order to remove me. A point Jake has openly wished for. I think Jake should be held account for his actions throughout.Rain the 1 BAM 15:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)"

Jake's response: Actually, I never wanted it to go this far. I've had the RfC/U in draft form for about a week now, and in retrospect, I should have posted it at that time, but I was too busy in RL to do anything about it. I simply came back today to perform some more edits on the G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics) article. Given the latest flareup over the GAR, this seemed to be as good an opportunity as any to post the RfC/U. It could have been prevented, but Raintheone hasn't demonstrated any desire to cooperate, and continues to hide behind the community consensus aspect of the GAR to avoid taking personal responsibility for his actions.

I would also add that Raintheone has likewise been warned by admins for his language and conduct in the GAR -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for whether I "should be held account for his actions throughout.Rain the 1 BAM 15:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)", if you're so fussed about it, then open up an RfC/U against me. But calling for me to be held accountable is not within the scope of this specific RfC/U - we're discussing your conduct, not mine, so please keep things on topic. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I don't think suggesting an article be reassessed for failing to meet WP:RS is bullying. I said perhaps it is the best port of call if it continued to use fansites. Threatening behaviour is a totally different scenario than the one you are trying to create - further more any editor is free to read the talk page at the article, to see there was no threatening behaviour.

For what it's worth, I think that both of you have been uncivil at times, because you seem to be taking this debate about reliable sources personally. This RfC has become necessary however, because Raintheone has no desire to come to a consensus with other editors that don't share his POV. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have the pages in my watch list, therefore hardly monitering your contribs - besides you stated that you had watched me ask two admins. Then you asked Fort if he knows any good admins to help you. And he went and asked admins with a specific interest in the subject matter. Tactical. This is not a game of back and forth. Wikipedia should not be used as a battle ground - We are meant to converse.

Jake simply asked me if there were any admins that could add to the discussion about the GA review. Of course I contacted admins that specifically work on comic book articles, because that is the type of article that was being discussed! I was not trying to gain any bias or "tactical" advantage, as neither of the admins that I contacted are necessarily inclined to choose sides one way or the other. But both of them are qualified to determine whether an article about a comic book meets GA-class criteria or not. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If what you talk about in your own time if your business, why leave a comment requesting that conversation be taken to Emails incase I see what is being said? "::::Aye, well the bickering has moved onto Nikkimaria's talk page now :P Also, I've emailed you a couple of times - dunno if you've seen those or not - as Raintheone's been monitoring my in-Wikipedia communications. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)" - That comment says it all, you have tried to email him and talk about something you don't want me to see. That is an underhand act by Wikipedia's standards.[reply]

I agree that anything discussed outside of Wikipedia is no one else's business, but I have nothing to hide. As Jake can tell you, I have not responded to his e-mails, because I prefer to keep my correspondence with other Wikipedia editors on Wikipedia. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If emailing another user is improper conduct, I'd like to know why the function is enabled. Don't blame me, blame the people who run this place, if you're so disturbed by it. Furthermore, since you're not actually privy to the content of those emails, then you can't rightfully comment on them. But for the record, I was simply asking Fortdj33 whether it made snese to take this to AN/I or RfC/U. He never replied, which is why I initiated the proceeding myself. I didn't want to alert you the possibility, as I didn't want to risk a pre-emptive AN/I or RfC by you against me, which based on your behaviour was a distinct possibility. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say it has nothing to do with removing me. Well that is basically what you mean - backed up with your blatant request I leave GI Joe articles alone because I am not familiar with the subject. There is no rule to say the editor has to be a fan of the subject matter. A running theme of this seems to be that because I am not a fan, in your opinion I do not make helpful edits. So I improve an article, you laugh me off and state it was a "low hanging fruit" - You have even tried to influence Jezhotwells - that didn't work so you got really angry and posted a really unhelpful rant.

I cannot speak for Jake, but this has nothing to do with whether you are a fan of G.I. Joe or not. It has everything to do with you removing information from articles because you don't like the sources, nominating articles for AFD and GAR because you don't think they're being worked on properly, and arguing with editors on talk pages instead of allowing them the time to address the issues that you've raised. Such behavior is not constructive or helpful, it has only served to distract the editors of WikiProject G.I. Joe from improving the articles in question. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also you took it to ANI at first - even suggested I am blocked from editing. So to say your intentions were to remove me from involvement with GI Joe is very thin, more so you want me blocked.

Actually, if you'd bothered to read the original AN/I that I posted, there was no suggestion of a block, it was simply a report of your behaviour to date. It was only after a subsequent query from an admin (user:Jayron32) asking what it was that I actually wanted to be done, to which I responded: "Rather than an outright edit block on him, aren't Admins also empowered to prohibit editors from editing specific articles? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)" which is actually in line with the desired outcomes as stated in this RfC. As for going to AN/I first rather than RfC/U, I freely admit that was due to my unfamiliarity with the dispute resolution process in WikiPedia, which was pointed out to me by a couple of admins, and which I rectified by taking it to RfC/U instead. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it Jake and you said this "Isn't his use of AfD and GAR as a blunt force instrument enough to warrant at least a temporary block? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)" - You suggested I should be blocked for one AFD and a GAR. To be honest Jake all this back and forth talk we have, it is not productive, is it? I really don't want to carry this on - I mean that. The nature of the comments are not helpful to either of us. There is no point to this now as it just keeps on and on. You set out three points - If I never edit GI Joe again like asked - Does that mean that this thing is over if I adhere by your requests? (However I would request that I can keep editing Resolute?) We are human at the end of the day, so why don't we treat each other with more respect? Why don't we accept we have been wrong and move on. I have asked before, but this time I hope this works. We can have a nice departure from one another and a quick chat and we probably won't have to see each other in talk if I am not involved in GI Joe. What do you say, "Smiles and Shakes?" =)Rain the 1 ^BAM 04:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rain:

That's an interesting and gracious offer, and I'm seriously considering it. I'm assuming then, that if a side-agreement can be reached between the principals (i.e. you and me) to an RfC/U, that the policies allow the RfC/U to be withdrawn voluntarily?
For the record, it was never about the fact of you editing G.I. Joe articles (as noted before, the Joe Wikiproject has such a severe manpower shortage, that additional editors are certainly welcome) - it was about the approach you took to editing those articles. I agree with you - there is no point if this just drags on - as I've stated many times, I'd much prefer to be editing articles, rather than editing article talk pages.
If it brings things to closure, I'm happy to apologise for my behaviour towards you, but with the acknowledgement from you that we've both behaved poorly towards each other.
With regards to meeting the desired outcomes of the RfC/U, I'd like Fortdj33 to weigh in as he's the co-endorser of this RfC/U. Personally, I have no problem with you continuing to edit G.I. Joe: Resolute as you appear to have taken a genuine interest in that article (and for the record, I really enjoyed watching that show, so I'll be interested in seeing what the final product of your edits looks like).

Fair enough? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that sounds fair. We have both behaved questionably, I should have seen sense sooner and realised you were only so irate because you are passionate about editing and worked really hard on the GA. Perhaps I could have explained myself better about the sources and so forth. I guess personal feelings have contributed all the way in this, maybe upon realising this we should have met half way. But it is never too late right? Yes, I did take an interest in Resolute. Realising it was a very short series and broadcast on a channel all together - I was tempted to see if I could find the series online to understand it more, didn't know where to look though. That is fine about Fortj33, I think he understands both of us. I would have assumed this can be closed if the issue is resolved, but I think Nikkimaria might know more. It goes without saying, but you aside from the sources, I've noticed you are good at writing and structuring the article. You put a lot of effort in the the article, and in the end were willing to replace fansites with sources. So you have more than pleased me on the point of the GA, more so if the GI Joe wiki link was removed from the external links, I'd go as far to say I'm honestly happy that it meets the GA standard and that any further requests made by me were better suited to a much more stricter criteria such as FAC (That is because I looked over additional points again and realised this) - so therefore Nikkimaria could conclude it easily - but either way I'll hand it over to Nikkimaria.Rain the 1 ^BAM 16:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, I think that both Raintheone and Jake have been uncivil, because they are taking this debate about reliable sources personally. Raintheone has a POV that he wanted to get across, but he went about it the wrong way. And because of Jake's significant contribution to the articles in question, he was not subtle about his disdain for Rain, which unfortunately escalated the issue to this point.

I think it's obvious that they both need to take a step back, let the admins involved determine what action needs to be taken, and then we all move on with editing Wikipedia. I personally don't have a problem with Raintheone continuing to edit G.I. Joe articles, as long as he is willing to come to a consensus with other editors when there is a conflict. But his removing information and nominating articles to be reassessed, just to move us along, has been counter-productive. And all of the arguing on the talk pages, is time that could be better spent improving Wikipedia articles. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rain:

Echoing Fortdj33's comments - we both came into this with very strong feelings on the matter - you because you want to see Wikipedia as a whole becoming as good as it can be, and me because of my passion for the topic. What you may not have realised, is that for all intents, I'm still a Wiki-newbie - 98% of the edits I've ever made have been in the preceding six weeks (and far too many on various talk pages) - WP:OR and WP:RS are difficult concepts to deal with, when what you write you "know" to be true (how many times have you written something really good in an article and then belatedly realised that you actually needed to find a source somewhere to back it up, simply to meet Wikipedia's sourcing requirements?). And things quickly spiralled out of control as we're both a couple of stubborn cusses.
At least at the outset, I think we should stick with the desired outcomes of this RfC/U, with the exception to G.I. Joe: Resolute as discussed above; and in the future if Rain wants to continue editing other G.I. Joe articles (having subsequently discovered the joys of defend[ing] human freedom against Cobra: a ruthless, terrorist organization determined to rule the world) we can discuss. As for the GAR, I'm happy for Rain to pass it on to a neutral Admin such as Nikkimaria as he suggests, and hopefully we can achieve closure on it - it made no sense to go to GAR in the first place, when it was obvious that the article was qualitatively superior to the one that passed GA in the first place - whether or not it's good enough for FAC is separate matter entirely, and I agree it still needs a bit more work for that to happen.
Agreed? So what do we do now (in an administrative sense, that is)?

-- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to stress Nikkimaria said she may block if personal comments persisted. I left and on my requested return to adress points - Jake made it very personal - he even ignored my pleas for him to stop - also another editors.Rain the 1 ^BAM 17:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your replies Fort. However my whole reply was in direct context to Jake's points. Sorry if you felt accused on the point I made about Emails. I was however pointing out Jake did do that though. It does have something to do with Wikipedia if you openly post about it and mention another editor in the context of emailing. You last reply to my last point - This is a request for comment made by Jake, and I was adressing his intensions. You yourself have requested that Jake stop personal comments via your talk page, have shown good understanding on some of the sources and WP:RS - I think you are editor of good understanding. So that comment was not mentioning your character or intention. Jake however has made it clear because I don't know about GI Joe - I have no right to question sources being used or offer opinion. A claim that was stated very clearly on the GAR page. I do oppose claims I have stopped progress, you can build a consensus amongst GI Joe editors that Youtube, Blogspot, Forums and Fansites are allowed, but at GA anf FAC they will not be accepted without question. My whole point for the GAR. I'm not sure how a few comments and a GAR stop progress. I've carried on editing elsewhere and even worked on GA's in the same time period. It was pretty clear the project endorse them - but that doesn't mean GA reviewers or a community GAR should.Rain the 1 ^BAM 18:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing - response to comment from Mabuska

Mabuska: "Canvassing editors ... by Jake Fuersturm"

As claimed by Raintheone, I was engaged in canvassing of these individuals:

"After I asked two admins too get involved, which one was to stop dispute the other a ready GA reassesser - Jake preceeded to canvas top GI involved parties: This, [3] and this."

I would note that:

BOZ is an admin and heavily involved in editing of Comic Books articles and thus would have insights other admins without this specialization would lack. He's also not a member of the Joe WikiProject.
Ruhrfisch is an admin, and Raintheone neglects to mention that he performed the most recent peer review of the article in question. He's also not a member of the Joe WikiProject.
Fortdj33 is one of the core editors of the article in question - if he's not deserving of input, then who is?

So was I really canvassing, or was I simply involving people who 1) would be able to provide valuable insights on the matter, and 2) in the case of Fortdj33 involving someone who should have been involved from the outset? So if that's canvassing, then guilty as charged - but I disagree that's what canvassing actually means. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility - response to comments from Seth Kellerman

Seth Kellerman:

"As for the users involved, I'm personally not impressed with the conduct of either Raintheone or Jake Fuersturm. Harry Blue5 and Fortdj33, despite being on opposite sides of the debate, should be commended for their conduct, and if Rain and Jake were following their example we wouldn't be here.
Raintheone is engaging in another often ignored form of tendentiousness - a low key taunting, derisive tone hidden behind the veneer of civility. His rebuttal to the RfC is full of sneaky little jabs at the GI Joe wikiproject, and at Jake in particular (I'm not going to dig for difs to support this claim, since everyone reading this should have already read that and noticed it)."

I agree, I haven't covered myself in glory here, and I freely admit to being less than civil in my exchanges with Raintheone. But as you've noted, Rain's conduct hasn't been a shining example of civility either. Most people treat others as they are themselves treated. I'm no exception. So if I'm going to be treated poorly, I'm sure as hell going to give it back. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, I don't want this anymore, like I have stated. I think you may have missed my reply above. I informed Nikkimaria that I'm happy to let her conclude the GAR and make sure I don't edit Joe again. So can we move and forget about this? We both look bad here, like I have said. We are better than that. Both humans who can forgive and forget.Rain the 1 ^BAM 15:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your offer above. We appear to have crossed paths in mid-edit. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem attacks - response to comments from Seth Kellerman

Seth Kellerman:

"Meanwhile, Jake is engaging in incivility, particularly some ad hominem attacks. Mind you, I don't consider any style of editing intending to insult or belittle other editors to be any better or worse than any other kind of deliberately insulting editing, but I do strongly urge Jake to, well, stop that.

LOL, you created an article called Porn Wikileaks and you expect us to take you seriously?
LOL, it has to do with your credibility - you're arguing notability here and you're creating rubbish like that?
If you don't like the website, why don't you get it blacklisted?
Why thankee massa I sure is pleased youse approvin' of the progress."

The first two quotes were not directed towards Raintheone. If your intent is to to comment on my behaviour in my exchanges with Raintheone, then why are these being included?
The third quote is totally relevant to the discussion at hand. If the offending website is really so unreliable, Wikipedia already has a process in place to deal with that.
I'll admit that it wasn't very nice, but it was to highlight the point that wikipedia editors are volunteers, not slaves. But based on Raintheone's behaviour, it's quite apparent that this is how he views the G.I. Joe WikiProject editors - by using punitive actions to enforce compliance with his demands. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A brief meta-comment: the blacklist is generally used to deal with offensive or abusive links (for example, to pornography, obvious spam, etc), not links that are simply unreliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

suite101.com? the issues around that website's blacklist appear to be entirely based on meeting WP:RS -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's on the global blacklist, not the local one - I'm not sure of the guidelines there. In any event, it's unlikely that any site used in the article in question would be added to either list, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they meet WP:RS. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

Per the agreement reached by the most involved users (in the "Reply" section above), I propose that this RfC/U be archived with the following summary:

Raintheone (talk · contribs) has agreed to stop using content processes to make a point, and to voluntarily limit his editing on topics related to G.I. Joe (excluding Resolute). Raintheone and Jake Fuersturm (talk · contribs) have mutually agreed to put aside their differences and treat each other with respect, even when their opinions differ. Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) has agreed to act as a witness to this agreement and to talk over the GAR discussed in this RfC/U to avoid further animosity.

Please add endorsements, objections, or proposed amendments below:

Users who endorse this motion

As proposer. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second that. (Am I allowed to, as I was original filer? If not, I'll let someone else second the motion) -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fortdj33 (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rain the 1 ^BAM 16:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BOZ (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mabuska ^(talk) 10:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this motion

Discussion

Yes, Jake, you're supposed to, as is Raintheone - you two are the most involved parties and thus have to agree to the summary and motion in order for this to be closed early. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After 48 hours with no objections raised, this motion has passed. I will be closing the RfC/U shortly. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]