Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct
Please consider waiting until Blackworm has posted a response before commenting or endorsing.(Struck out in response to
this edit. 22:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)) Blackworm has responded,
23:50, 9 November 2008.
(The current date and time is: 05:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC).)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
The purpose of this RfC is to discuss ongoing problems related to Blackworm's behaviour at the Circumcision article and related articles.
Blackworm is an intelligent and dedicated editor with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy. He puts considerable effort into removing what he sees as bias from Wikipedia articles. However, numerous times Blackworm has said or implied things about other editors such that one could reasonably expect those editors to find the comments unwelcome. While these comments by Blackworm may be seen by some as being mild and may not necessarily be in clear violation of any policy or guideline, they have been sufficiently frequent as to cause significant problems at the Circumcision article and related articles, including contributing to another editor's leaving Wikipedia for nearly three months. Blackworm has continued to write such comments after being repeatedly asked to stop.
On the positive side, Blackworm has made good-faith attempts to correct his own errors and get along with other editors. (This is not an exhaustive list, as the purpose of this RfC is to address problems. See also many positive contributions in Blackworm's contribs.)
Blackworm has said or implied things about other editors which are non-NPOV, are unnecessary for discussion of article content, and can reasonably be expected to be unwelcome.
Jakew essentially stopped editing Wikipedia for nearly 3 months, in part due to Blackworm's behaviour. From July 1 to September 20, 2008, Jakew, normally a frequent editor, did not edit Wikipedia except for 3 posts to User talk:Blackworm discussing why he wasn't editing. Eight days after Jakew left, whether or not he was aware that Jakew had left, Blackworm posted sarcastic barnstars on Jakew's talk page.
Blackworm has said or implied critical things about other editors in edit summaries, and has continued after having been asked not to do this.
Blackworm has criticiized other editors for doing things while doing, or threatening to do, essentially the same things himself that he is accusing others of doing.
There have been accusations of POV-pushing or bias directed at Blackworm, and also such accusations by Blackworm against others.
Accusations by Blackworm of POV-pushing (or similar things) by others:
Accusations by others, directed at Blackworm, of POV-pushing (or similar things):
Blackworm has continued to make likely-unwelcome remarks about other editors after the attempts to resolve the situation listed below.
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
These proposed remedies are for the purpose of clarifying and adding detail to existing policies as applied to editor behaviour at Circumcision and related articles. While these proposals are designed primarily to address problems caused by Blackworm's behaviour,( edited 00:16, 7 November 2008) in order to maintain a level playing field it is proposed that they apply to all editors of Circumcision and related articles who are aware of this RfC.
Editors who endorse the above remedies. (If you endorse only some, please indicate along with your signature and any comment which ones you endorse. You may indicate "C1–C7" or just sign to indicate endorsing all of the above proposed remedies C1–C7.)
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
I believe Coppertwig is unfairly focussing on my conduct, and presenting a very one-sided view of the climate in circumcision and related articles. I argue that an unacceptable climate, apparently based in distrust and a lack of the assumption of good faith in anyone having a differing view of what comprises the neutral point of view from that of Jayjg, Avraham, and Jakew, took hold in these articles before my arrival. I document that here ( diff). I am not the first nor presumably the last target.
I think any casual observer would agree that some of my comments above are incivil, and some are personal attacks. Many of them are in response to personal attacks and incivility from Jayjg, Avraham, and Jakew, however, as I believe the surrounding discussions show. If that is "no excuse" for me, I insist that it is "no excuse" for anyone. I think Coppertwig's proposed remedies are well intended, and I support them to the extent they are required of all editors, especially Jayjg, Avraham, and Jakew, who in the 18 months I've edited circumcision and related articles have consistently displayed the same patterns of incivility and personal attacks directed at any editors opposing their edits. This pattern takes many varied forms, both overt, and subtly through flat dismissals of editors' arguments without substance, a refusal to answer good-faith questions or to clarify apparent contradictions in editorial judgment, and a denial of a lack of consensus on some edits they desire, despite recent discussions showing clear evidence to the contrary. In the specific case I just linked to, when this evidence ws presented, Avraham's response was not to correct the incorrect appraisal of the dispute that targetted me personally, but to deny that the opposing editors really opposed the edit (see [ [1]] and [ [2]])! I sometimes liken this climate to an Orwellian dystopia, and I believe the comparison is apt.
Avraham and Jayjg, administrators both, are especially quick to invoke the personal beliefs of editors in content disputes, as an apparent means of swaying debate on content:
Avraham (14:38, 4 September 2008): "Yes, Blackworm, we know that you and I disagree on this issue, as we disagree on whether or not circumcision, as a whole, should be permitted or forbidden." [3]
Jayjg (06:32, 2 July 2008): "The fact that anti-circumcision editors dislike the word only confirms that fact. Please abide by the consensus, which included you, before you found some like-minded allies." [4]
The latter further seems an unfounded accusation that I enlisted or somehow otherwise canvassed other editors.
I could point to other examples, but anyone who has been around circumcision for any length of time knows that these more experienced editors taught me through their actions and comments that this behaviour was acceptable -- and I'd really just rather get back to the content. If, now, we are to accept Coppertwig's assertions that focussing on editors isn't acceptable, then it isn't acceptable from anyone. After this unsavoury exposition of the hostile climate around circumcision, hopefully we can get to the task of resolving the actual content issues at the basis of this hostility. I repeat my offers to Jayjg, Avraham, and Jakew that we follow proper dispute resolution on the major issues of the framing of the topic of male and female circumcision, and the acceptable terminology to be used in circumcision articles. On these issues, their position is not a consensus despite their apparent refusal to admit so in the face of several editors opposing their edits.
Ultimately I'd like to get back to the task of writing an encyclopedia, and properly reflecting reliable sources on the topic of male and female circumcision, without the strong non-neutral stance Wikipedia now takes in favour of male circumcision and in opposition to female circumcision. Jakew openly expresses the view that anti-circumcision activism is deceptive on his user page, and is praised specifically for opposing editors critical of circumcision (see his barnstars), and I believe this systemic bias, that of administrators and others looking the other way because it's viewed as a "good cause," pervades Wikipedia and prevents the neutral point of view from taking hold.
I hope we will all actually adopt the proposals Coppertwig makes above, and get on with resolving the major WP:NPOV content disputes through civil discussion, or, if needed, mediation and arbitration, rather than the continuation of the long-standing climate of incivility and distrust aimed at editors disagreeing with Jayjg, Avraham, and Jakew, three editors unanimous on all edits, the first two having also received similar warnings about conduct from Coppertwig, despite being administrators. (See User_talk:Avraham/Archive_33#Comment, User_talk:Jayjg/Archive_27#Circumcision, User_talk:Jayjg/Archive_27#Comment_on_deletion.) These editors have in no way ever apologized, stepped back, struck out remarks when requested, or indicated any desire to compromise or to correct past inappropriate conduct. Will this change? After endorsing the basis for this dispute (but not, apparently, the remedies which require the assumption of good faith), Jayjg made this edit:
...including contributing to another editor's leaving Wikipedia for nearly three months.
The above is no doubt referring to Jakew. I do not agree that an editor getting frustrated and temporarily or permanently leaving Wikipedia is necessarily considered by the Wikipedia community to be a "problem," as I believe the following more extreme example, also taken from the time right before I arrived, perhaps illustrates:
Blackworm has continued to write such comments after being repeatedly asked to stop.
I have also repeatedly asked other the editors involved to stop writing such comments. I have more proposed remedies for your consideration:
BW1. Editors should not lower the quality of the editing environment by questioning other editors' motivations in Article Talk. If questions about motives are asked, one forum might be User Talk. If an editors asks another to cease questioning motives, the next step might be dispute resolution, but not continuing the questioning.
Right away, there is a problem with this proposed solution, because as I view it, Jakew makes apparent open admission of being specifically and especially critical of the propagation of anti-circumcision views on his user page:
That seems to be a statement attacking opponents of neonatal circumcision, as well as inciting a lack of good faith in contributors who edit circumcision pages in such a way that correct non-neutral material that is biased in favour of male circumcision, or in their view fails to properly summarize and integrate views that are more critical of circumcision. One wonders whether the following statement would be viewed positively or negatively by the other editors endorsing the basis for this dispute, and on what policy grounds:
Again, it seems the only way for me to help these editors frame issues neutrally is to point out the absurdity of the argument or the clear offensiveness of the statement viewed from another point of view -- and this often is inappropriately (if ironically) interpreted by these editors as personal attacks. I propose:
BW2 Editors should discourage failures to
WP:AGF by avoiding statements casting doubt on the sincerity of editors based on editors' points of view on controversial topics. (Adoption of this clause would seem to require Jakew to refactor his
user page to remove comments about "deceptive activities of many activist groups opposed to neonatal circumcision.") (struck out, see
this comment.)
BW3. Editors should not assert that another editor's comments "tell" the reader something, nor that the editor "sees" anything, without being explicit about what it is the reader should presumably also hear or see. A preferred response is to express what the editor is "told" or has "seen," and perhaps also to ask the other editor if they agree that what is "told" or "seen" is indeed the case.
Re: the above, it seems to me that statements akin to "this tells me something about you" or "i see what you are now" are prone to be viewed as incivil taunting. Editors shouldn't be bullied into changing their comments by the implication that their comments condemn them, without being clear about how, specifically, their comments condemn them -- and that, in a civil manner. I believe Avi's comments above ("The exchange [...] is also telling") fail this clause.
BW4. All editors' opinions on the neutrality of organization of articles and article content are valid and should be weighted by the strength of their arguments and their use of reliable sources to support their arguments. Editors should not assert without evidence from reliable sources that their own such assertions carry more weight than another editor's.
This seems required by this exchange:
How can any editor, disputing an edit in good faith, accept such a brazen dismissal? Note also, this contradictory view:
So yes, let's get to the content, and not intimidating or eliminating those opposed to one's edits. I support BW1 to BW4. I support C1 to C7.
Users who endorse this summary:
I feel like someone should say something on Blackworm's behalf. I have been editing circumcision for about nine months now and would like to think I have a good measure of the regular editors who currently watch/edit the page. Blackworm's talk page, if read in its entirety, is a lesson in frustration. I see a concerned editor who has been valiantly trying combat WP:NPOV issues and systematic bias with the cards stacked against him. Blackworm may be a bit harsh and/or sarcastic sometimes but in general he is one of the fairest editors I have come across. I have seen him work with other editors who have cross and/or opposing views but still hang in there and help that editor with questions of formatting, policy, etc... Circumcision and related articles are very controversial and contentious. To say that there are opposing view points would be quite an understatement.
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
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.
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct
Please consider waiting until Blackworm has posted a response before commenting or endorsing.(Struck out in response to
this edit. 22:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)) Blackworm has responded,
23:50, 9 November 2008.
(The current date and time is: 05:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC).)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
The purpose of this RfC is to discuss ongoing problems related to Blackworm's behaviour at the Circumcision article and related articles.
Blackworm is an intelligent and dedicated editor with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy. He puts considerable effort into removing what he sees as bias from Wikipedia articles. However, numerous times Blackworm has said or implied things about other editors such that one could reasonably expect those editors to find the comments unwelcome. While these comments by Blackworm may be seen by some as being mild and may not necessarily be in clear violation of any policy or guideline, they have been sufficiently frequent as to cause significant problems at the Circumcision article and related articles, including contributing to another editor's leaving Wikipedia for nearly three months. Blackworm has continued to write such comments after being repeatedly asked to stop.
On the positive side, Blackworm has made good-faith attempts to correct his own errors and get along with other editors. (This is not an exhaustive list, as the purpose of this RfC is to address problems. See also many positive contributions in Blackworm's contribs.)
Blackworm has said or implied things about other editors which are non-NPOV, are unnecessary for discussion of article content, and can reasonably be expected to be unwelcome.
Jakew essentially stopped editing Wikipedia for nearly 3 months, in part due to Blackworm's behaviour. From July 1 to September 20, 2008, Jakew, normally a frequent editor, did not edit Wikipedia except for 3 posts to User talk:Blackworm discussing why he wasn't editing. Eight days after Jakew left, whether or not he was aware that Jakew had left, Blackworm posted sarcastic barnstars on Jakew's talk page.
Blackworm has said or implied critical things about other editors in edit summaries, and has continued after having been asked not to do this.
Blackworm has criticiized other editors for doing things while doing, or threatening to do, essentially the same things himself that he is accusing others of doing.
There have been accusations of POV-pushing or bias directed at Blackworm, and also such accusations by Blackworm against others.
Accusations by Blackworm of POV-pushing (or similar things) by others:
Accusations by others, directed at Blackworm, of POV-pushing (or similar things):
Blackworm has continued to make likely-unwelcome remarks about other editors after the attempts to resolve the situation listed below.
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
These proposed remedies are for the purpose of clarifying and adding detail to existing policies as applied to editor behaviour at Circumcision and related articles. While these proposals are designed primarily to address problems caused by Blackworm's behaviour,( edited 00:16, 7 November 2008) in order to maintain a level playing field it is proposed that they apply to all editors of Circumcision and related articles who are aware of this RfC.
Editors who endorse the above remedies. (If you endorse only some, please indicate along with your signature and any comment which ones you endorse. You may indicate "C1–C7" or just sign to indicate endorsing all of the above proposed remedies C1–C7.)
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
I believe Coppertwig is unfairly focussing on my conduct, and presenting a very one-sided view of the climate in circumcision and related articles. I argue that an unacceptable climate, apparently based in distrust and a lack of the assumption of good faith in anyone having a differing view of what comprises the neutral point of view from that of Jayjg, Avraham, and Jakew, took hold in these articles before my arrival. I document that here ( diff). I am not the first nor presumably the last target.
I think any casual observer would agree that some of my comments above are incivil, and some are personal attacks. Many of them are in response to personal attacks and incivility from Jayjg, Avraham, and Jakew, however, as I believe the surrounding discussions show. If that is "no excuse" for me, I insist that it is "no excuse" for anyone. I think Coppertwig's proposed remedies are well intended, and I support them to the extent they are required of all editors, especially Jayjg, Avraham, and Jakew, who in the 18 months I've edited circumcision and related articles have consistently displayed the same patterns of incivility and personal attacks directed at any editors opposing their edits. This pattern takes many varied forms, both overt, and subtly through flat dismissals of editors' arguments without substance, a refusal to answer good-faith questions or to clarify apparent contradictions in editorial judgment, and a denial of a lack of consensus on some edits they desire, despite recent discussions showing clear evidence to the contrary. In the specific case I just linked to, when this evidence ws presented, Avraham's response was not to correct the incorrect appraisal of the dispute that targetted me personally, but to deny that the opposing editors really opposed the edit (see [ [1]] and [ [2]])! I sometimes liken this climate to an Orwellian dystopia, and I believe the comparison is apt.
Avraham and Jayjg, administrators both, are especially quick to invoke the personal beliefs of editors in content disputes, as an apparent means of swaying debate on content:
Avraham (14:38, 4 September 2008): "Yes, Blackworm, we know that you and I disagree on this issue, as we disagree on whether or not circumcision, as a whole, should be permitted or forbidden." [3]
Jayjg (06:32, 2 July 2008): "The fact that anti-circumcision editors dislike the word only confirms that fact. Please abide by the consensus, which included you, before you found some like-minded allies." [4]
The latter further seems an unfounded accusation that I enlisted or somehow otherwise canvassed other editors.
I could point to other examples, but anyone who has been around circumcision for any length of time knows that these more experienced editors taught me through their actions and comments that this behaviour was acceptable -- and I'd really just rather get back to the content. If, now, we are to accept Coppertwig's assertions that focussing on editors isn't acceptable, then it isn't acceptable from anyone. After this unsavoury exposition of the hostile climate around circumcision, hopefully we can get to the task of resolving the actual content issues at the basis of this hostility. I repeat my offers to Jayjg, Avraham, and Jakew that we follow proper dispute resolution on the major issues of the framing of the topic of male and female circumcision, and the acceptable terminology to be used in circumcision articles. On these issues, their position is not a consensus despite their apparent refusal to admit so in the face of several editors opposing their edits.
Ultimately I'd like to get back to the task of writing an encyclopedia, and properly reflecting reliable sources on the topic of male and female circumcision, without the strong non-neutral stance Wikipedia now takes in favour of male circumcision and in opposition to female circumcision. Jakew openly expresses the view that anti-circumcision activism is deceptive on his user page, and is praised specifically for opposing editors critical of circumcision (see his barnstars), and I believe this systemic bias, that of administrators and others looking the other way because it's viewed as a "good cause," pervades Wikipedia and prevents the neutral point of view from taking hold.
I hope we will all actually adopt the proposals Coppertwig makes above, and get on with resolving the major WP:NPOV content disputes through civil discussion, or, if needed, mediation and arbitration, rather than the continuation of the long-standing climate of incivility and distrust aimed at editors disagreeing with Jayjg, Avraham, and Jakew, three editors unanimous on all edits, the first two having also received similar warnings about conduct from Coppertwig, despite being administrators. (See User_talk:Avraham/Archive_33#Comment, User_talk:Jayjg/Archive_27#Circumcision, User_talk:Jayjg/Archive_27#Comment_on_deletion.) These editors have in no way ever apologized, stepped back, struck out remarks when requested, or indicated any desire to compromise or to correct past inappropriate conduct. Will this change? After endorsing the basis for this dispute (but not, apparently, the remedies which require the assumption of good faith), Jayjg made this edit:
...including contributing to another editor's leaving Wikipedia for nearly three months.
The above is no doubt referring to Jakew. I do not agree that an editor getting frustrated and temporarily or permanently leaving Wikipedia is necessarily considered by the Wikipedia community to be a "problem," as I believe the following more extreme example, also taken from the time right before I arrived, perhaps illustrates:
Blackworm has continued to write such comments after being repeatedly asked to stop.
I have also repeatedly asked other the editors involved to stop writing such comments. I have more proposed remedies for your consideration:
BW1. Editors should not lower the quality of the editing environment by questioning other editors' motivations in Article Talk. If questions about motives are asked, one forum might be User Talk. If an editors asks another to cease questioning motives, the next step might be dispute resolution, but not continuing the questioning.
Right away, there is a problem with this proposed solution, because as I view it, Jakew makes apparent open admission of being specifically and especially critical of the propagation of anti-circumcision views on his user page:
That seems to be a statement attacking opponents of neonatal circumcision, as well as inciting a lack of good faith in contributors who edit circumcision pages in such a way that correct non-neutral material that is biased in favour of male circumcision, or in their view fails to properly summarize and integrate views that are more critical of circumcision. One wonders whether the following statement would be viewed positively or negatively by the other editors endorsing the basis for this dispute, and on what policy grounds:
Again, it seems the only way for me to help these editors frame issues neutrally is to point out the absurdity of the argument or the clear offensiveness of the statement viewed from another point of view -- and this often is inappropriately (if ironically) interpreted by these editors as personal attacks. I propose:
BW2 Editors should discourage failures to
WP:AGF by avoiding statements casting doubt on the sincerity of editors based on editors' points of view on controversial topics. (Adoption of this clause would seem to require Jakew to refactor his
user page to remove comments about "deceptive activities of many activist groups opposed to neonatal circumcision.") (struck out, see
this comment.)
BW3. Editors should not assert that another editor's comments "tell" the reader something, nor that the editor "sees" anything, without being explicit about what it is the reader should presumably also hear or see. A preferred response is to express what the editor is "told" or has "seen," and perhaps also to ask the other editor if they agree that what is "told" or "seen" is indeed the case.
Re: the above, it seems to me that statements akin to "this tells me something about you" or "i see what you are now" are prone to be viewed as incivil taunting. Editors shouldn't be bullied into changing their comments by the implication that their comments condemn them, without being clear about how, specifically, their comments condemn them -- and that, in a civil manner. I believe Avi's comments above ("The exchange [...] is also telling") fail this clause.
BW4. All editors' opinions on the neutrality of organization of articles and article content are valid and should be weighted by the strength of their arguments and their use of reliable sources to support their arguments. Editors should not assert without evidence from reliable sources that their own such assertions carry more weight than another editor's.
This seems required by this exchange:
How can any editor, disputing an edit in good faith, accept such a brazen dismissal? Note also, this contradictory view:
So yes, let's get to the content, and not intimidating or eliminating those opposed to one's edits. I support BW1 to BW4. I support C1 to C7.
Users who endorse this summary:
I feel like someone should say something on Blackworm's behalf. I have been editing circumcision for about nine months now and would like to think I have a good measure of the regular editors who currently watch/edit the page. Blackworm's talk page, if read in its entirety, is a lesson in frustration. I see a concerned editor who has been valiantly trying combat WP:NPOV issues and systematic bias with the cards stacked against him. Blackworm may be a bit harsh and/or sarcastic sometimes but in general he is one of the fairest editors I have come across. I have seen him work with other editors who have cross and/or opposing views but still hang in there and help that editor with questions of formatting, policy, etc... Circumcision and related articles are very controversial and contentious. To say that there are opposing view points would be quite an understatement.
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
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.