User:Arcayne/working page I

Re: Viriditas

Unfortunately, a problem has arisen with User:Viriditas that appears somewhat insoluble to me. We have both edited the same article Children of Men off and on for over a year, and every time I make an alteration to the article, he reverts it, refusing to discuss a compromise or seek a valid consensus. Instead I receive increasingly uncivil remarks and personal attacks.
The specific content prompting this complaint about Viriditas' behavior regards the primary sourcing practice of observable phenomena (ie, the laughter of children during the closing credits) to use the film as the primary source. Initially the matter was in regards to using the .  template to provide a time-stamp for where the laughing occurred * (I disagreed, considering the matter within the same purview that we consider plot summaries as well as being redundant and unclear; the section where the info was used is called “Closing Credits” and the laughter occurred throughout that part of the film. As observable phenomena which was also noted by closed-captioning does not need citation, I removed the template) - Viriditas saw that as an act of war.
His discussion behavior is unnecessarily dismissive, impolite and littered with personal attacks and incivility. I have been accused by him of trolling, ([1]), wiki-lawyering, cherry-picking information and/or gaming the system, ([2], [3]) and repeated again ([4], [5], [6]), pov-pushing (at least every other post of his makes the same accusation presuming without current evidence that I am trying to edit in a "pet theory" interpreting the laughter), and sock-puppetry, though only by hinting at such ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]) which presumably release him from the responsibility of actually proving such through SSP or RfCU.

This behavior extends outside the article and beyond singling out only myself for abuse; any folk that disagree or comment on his behavior are dismissively characterized by Viriditas as trolls, harrassers or (quite often) wiki-stalkers, and removed their comments from his user-talk space, almost invariably accompanied by an entirely inappropriate or misleading edit summary ([16], [17], [18], [19]). These are just the instances of other established editors being dismissed in just the last few weeks.
While we have always taken a more liberal approach towards refactoring one's own usertalk space, he also removes dissenting comments from article discussion ([20], [21], [22]), which in itself is a Civility violation. More often, he simply dismisses their posts with an uncivil comment that evolves into greater incivility through sequential, small edits or labeling them negatively ([23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]). Many of the editors treated in this fashion withdraw from the article and discussion, thereby leaving Viriditas to edit relatively unopposed.
As I have been the frequent recipient of this unfriendly behavior in the past, I took specific pains to avoid reciprocating this incivility and personal attacks when they re-occurred in Children of Men (article and discussion) as well as elsewhere
Unable to provide equitable counter-arguments to my policy/guideline supporting explanation of my edits and dissent ([34]), Viriditas first added cn tags to the info ([35]), and then stated that he was going to remove the instance of the laughter before removing the citable information completely. ([36], [37]), and began edit-warring ([38]) his version into the article, always quite careful to go up to, but never across the 3RR threshold.
This was accompanied by his increasingly confrontational approach to the discussion process in not only article discussion, but forum-shopped it to two separate noticeboards (NOR and [[RS) and the Wikifilms Project as well. To whit:
  1. He has repeatedly referred to archived posts I made while still a new editor, presumably to imply that I am adding an OR interpretation to the article that I simply have not in over a year. This is presumably to poison the well as to my contribution value.
  1. He has also repeatedly referenced various anon accounts that do offer interpretations of the sounds,* a veiled reference that I am socking via these anon accounts. These accusations are made without substantiation from either SSP or RfCU. My requests that he provides evidence of either complaint or checkuser have been pointedly ignored and even repeated afterwards in several venues *. If the well weren’t poisoned enough already, adding repeated accusations of sock-puppetry jolly well makes it nigh radioactive.
  1. Viriditas’ demeanor in discussion has been marred by personal attacks and significant incivility in both the article, ensuing discussion and other venues. I could list at least a dozen diffs that indicate where it is stated that I have never read a policy, am ridiculous and apparently have the IQ of a over-ripened eggplant (though not specifically that particular vegetable).
  1. When it was pointed out in ‘’both’’ noticeboards (by at least five different editors) that the laughter ‘’could’’ be added and sourced to the film, Viriditas refused to accept a compromise that would end the stalemate, demanding that music played during the closing credits should be added as well to the section (instead of the section entitled “Music”, where it would be more accessible to the reader). This refusal of his came with the speculative (OR) assessment * that “removing the music adds interpretive value to the children’s laughter” *. I noted that this assessment was as speculative as the archive interpretations he kept referencing himself.
  1. After edit-warring his 3RR (1, 2, 3) for at least the fourth day in a row, and after his last revert, requested page protection less than 10 minutes later.
As I noted before, many other editors have encountered this same abrasive behavior, and it extends back beyond the 1 1/2 years I have been a user here. While Viriditas does make valid contributions to some articles, his demeanor ‘’always’’ turns ugly at any sign of dissent, and those who do not back down are then subjected to his vitriolic attacks. This doesn’t foster the best examples of politeness, professionalism and the assumption of good faith that helps Wikipedia work effectively. Viriditas knows this, as he admits he is being uncivil ([[39]]). However, this admission is followed by even more personal attacks and incivility, which suggests that he is either unaware of the behavior, or cannot prevent himself from engaging in it.
Since repeated requests and attempts at DR ([40], [41], [42]) from me are always mischaracterized or simply removed without comment ([43], [44]). I would further note that attempts at mediation (the most recent attempt by MPerel, a friend of Viriditas) have all failed because Viriditas has shown a marked unwillingness to participate in any discussion where he must admit he is acting incorrectly.

Therefore, I am submitting this wikiquette alert in the DR process to share my concerns with the community, as this appears to be the last step prior to taking action that would have lasting (if not permanent consequences) for Viriditas.
I would ask that an intervention be initiated, to help counsel Viriditas on dealing politely with those whom he disagrees with. As the only other recourse is to simply report him to AN/I, for which he would almost certainly be blocked


I would ask that an intervention be initiated, to help counsel Viriditas on dealing politely with those whom he disagrees with. As the sheer weight of the personal attacks and incivility levied against me would suggest that a civility/personal attack block is necessary, I would ask that such be made in conjunction with an intervention, to act as a representation of what results from the failure to avoid personal attacks and civility.