Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Apostle12

Brief comment on Apostle12's position statement
The following is perhaps less civil than I normally try to be, because I am a bit frustrated. If it crosses a line, well, mea culpa. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That Apostle12's efforts at canvassing were not particularly successful does not negate the fact that he or she did in fact attempt to recruit editors to the page because of their opinions, which Apostle12 states clearly both in a talk-page diff and on the RfC itself -- Apostle12 contacted THOSE editors because they expressed an opinion ("the page needs a criticism section") that Apostle12 was attempting to push at the time. Going through the various dispute resolution processes would have been much less inflammatory and fairer imho.
 * Apostle12 consistently denies that he or she has violated WP:CAN, including on the RfC itself, and in the same edit gives confirmation that he or she had an agenda in contacting those specific editors. this suggests willful ignorance of the policy, at best.
 * Apostle12 consistently levels accusations of WP:OWNership at myself and Marie Paradox. This is literally the best possible counterattack Apostle12 has: that there are two users active on the page, working to make it better, where "better" happens to be in a way that Apostle12 disagrees with -- and not a simple disagreement over scholarship or process, but a disagreement about the legitimacy of the topic the article describes. The talk page is filled with good faith efforts to accomodate or help Apostle12 evaluate and integrate contrasting views into the article, which Apostle12 almost universally rebuffs, before then attacking the editors who were attempting to help. Apostle12 also seems to studiously avoid looking for RS-compliant references. It certainly seems to me like Apostle12 treats all criticism as a personal attack.
 * All of this is of a piece with Apostle12's insistence on pushing a specific viewpoint. this POV is frequently on display in his or her WP:SOAPing. He or she seems so insistent on pushing this POV that they seem willing to violate any number of policies in order to do so, with a particular focus on doing so in the lede paragraph, largely to the exclusion of the remainder of the article (which does need work).
 * I have long tried, in spite the evidence available, to assume good faith, and I (among others) feel that this is rarely reciprocated. Apostle12 seems to have a siege mentality, and this overflows into the talk page discussions, which is counterproductive to the production of a good article. This would be poisonous to the workings of any article, but is particularly so on ones that, like White privilege, have a history of edit wars and inflammatory drive-by comments from non-editors.

Marie Paradox's Comments on Apostle12's Response
Regarding Apostle12's accusations of ownership, I concur with UseTheCommandLine's comments above. That is, I believe Apostle12's own response demonstrate that Apostle12 is inclined to disregard WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I also believe that Apostle12 has a tendency to treat UseTheCommandLine and me as an undifferenctiated mass, despite our disagreements (including some public disagreements over how to move forward with this RfC); this might go some way towards explaining why Apostle12 regards us to be a tag team. If another editor feels it would help, I would be happy to provide diffs that show that Apostle12 has a history of not respecting WP:NPA, that show that Apostle12 has a history of not respecting WP:AGF, that show that has previously attributed UseTheCommandLine's comments to me, or that show that Apostle12 has been rather hasty in previous accusations of WP:OWN. But in the absence of such a request I will not belabor the point. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing
I am wondering whether Apostle12 or anyone who has endorsed his summary could, when they have the time, provide an example of a diff in which anyone has said that Apostle12 has, as Apostle12 claims, "covertly canvassed other editors" (emphasis mine). To my mind the relevant line from WP:CAN is, "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions", which I take to mean inviting on the basis of another's opinions is canvassing, even if done overtly. Apostle12's stated criterion of selection was that the editors were of the opinion that the article should include "criticism of 'white privilege theory'". I believe the question I ask is important, because Apostle12's response to the allegations has been to claim that his actions were not covert, even after it has been pointed out to Apostle12 that this has never been the cause of concern.

Among the three editors Apostle12 invited to return to the article at least one had previously been banned by someone outside the situation from editing for violating WP:3RR at white privilege, and the contributions of the other two had at that point consisted of little more than drive-by criticism. Is it really difficult to imagine that this behavior could result in a situation in which (a) there was an influx of editors who shared Apostle12's opinion without a corresponding influx of editors who did not share Apostle12's opinion or (b) an influx of editors whose contributions were at best not constructive? And in fact there ended up being a situation in which both happened, and someone outside the situation gave the article protected status for three days. How were these incidents connected? I cannot say with any certainty (though I will say that I have never thought there was any sockpuppetry on Apostle12's part), but I do find it odd, to say the least, that Apostle12 has used this RFC/U as an opportunity to point a finger at the two editors who, as far as I have seen, were the only ones who had been trying to prevent such an incident from occurring.

Regarding the canvassing issue, I would like at the very least for us to use this as an opportunity to say, "Actually, Apostle12, canvassing is canvassing, even when it is not covert or stealthy, and even if your controversial invitations are not deemed to be canvassing in this RFC/U, we probably will not look on your behavior so favorably, should you once again take the same approach to inviting other editors to an article." Perhaps incidentally, if an RFC/U is not the appropriate place for discussion about this, what is? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

groupuscule's view
Hi, I am an editor who has recently been relatively active at the white privilege page. I said at the time and will say again that Apostle12 comment on Marie Paradox's talk page was way over the line. Overall, Apostle12's behavior around white privilege has not been egregious, but their constant needling (and also canvassing) is really disrupting progress on the article, not to mention discouraging and frustrating users who are working on the page. Marie Paradox and UseTheCommandLine have both been bending over backward to be civil and to treat all editors respectfully—honestly, I am very impressed with their patience.

The problems at white privilege do go beyond the actions of Apostle12. There is a general attitude that "white privilege" is a construct invented by a cabal of liberals or Marxists, and not a widely used academic concept. I suppose both perspectives might be true. However, the efforts of Apostle12 and others seem focused on changing the lede to mitigate and obfuscate the general meaning of the term "white privilege". This effort and others—for example, removing the position of an indigenous scholar on indigenous studies in Australia, on the grounds that this claim is "self-interested"—strike me as pretty good examples of white privilege on Wikipedia. (Imagine what would happen if we began to scrutinize the claims of white experts, and remove those which self-interestedly reinforced the interests and perspectives of white people!) Of course, we wouldn't use Wikipedia happenings as evidence on the page. But our own biases are something we should pay attention to, as part of our efforts to counter systemic bias. Merry Christmas, groupuscule (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The purpose of this RfC is to discuss Apostle12's behavior, not the content of the article. Your views on the sources alleging racism in Australian Indigenous Studies departments should be posted over at Talk:White_privilege. Since you've raised the issue here, however, I'll briefly address it. I think it tangentially has bearing on how editors should behave themselves. I would treat allegations made by a white academic in the same manner, and with the same scrutiny, as I bring to the claims made by Fredericks. If you want to include her claims, you must do so in a neutral tone, and not in the authoritative voice of the encyclopaedia. This is what I, and other editors have been requesting. We want the article to describe what the concept of white privilege is, how it developed, and different views on it. At present, the article simply states the views of Critical Race Theory and Whiteness Studies as truth, and any edits to frame the concept in a neutral tone are reverted. Your portrayal of attempts by fellow editors to replace the declaratory tone of the article with a neutral tone as "white privilege" are simply browbeating, and have no place in these forums. Don't drag these discussions into the mud with suggestions that we would bring a different attitude to "the claims of white experts," and that we would resist attempts to "remove those which self-interestedly reinforced the interests and perspectives of white people." If you make accusations of incivility, consider your own insinuations first. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Motion to close
The current situation regarding the White privilege article is far from ideal; however, as things currently stand, RfC/U is not the best forum for concerns on the subject. Apostle12 is reminded that canvassing is considered highly inappropriate, and is discouraged from future edits that may be construed as violations of the Wikipedia policies cited by the certifying editors. That said, all editors involved in disputes regarding the white privilege article and the associated topic are reminded of the following: Wikipedia's article namespace is not a forum to debate the correctness of theories. Instead, it is a place where ideas and theorems that have been developed and whose existences are reliably sourced can be described. Editors are strongly discouraged from using the RfC/U process to resolve the white privilege dispute in the absence of serious disruptions. They are invited to participate in appropriate discussion in the relevant places, such as the article talk page; mediation is also recommended if content issues persist.

Support for this motion to close

 * 1) dci  &#124;  TALK   04:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC) (as author)
 * 2) I had intended to write something more detailed, however at this point that seems like a waste of time. Support closing the motion. Apostle12 (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support because it sounds like no new opinions or resolutions have been offered. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support motion to close, while disagreeing with some of DCI2026's statements regarding canvassing and the nature of the dispute over the White Privilege page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support nothing to be profited from continuing for anyone that I can see. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Opposition to this motion to close
Several editors, including yourself (DCI2026), have suggested that an RfC/U is not the best forum for this dispute, or that it is somehow an abuse of the process to bring this dispute here. However, at no point was this mentioned to me or the other editors involved when we drafted this RfC and asked for assistance with the process. Furthermore, as a nonbinding part of the dispute resolution process, it seems perfectly reasonable, at least to me, to pursue these disputes as an RfC/U given what information I have available to me via the DR page. Please note that I have pursued other methods of DR before this, as noted in the original complaint, and none of them have been successful in reducing the level of acrimony that Apostle12 brings to the page.

Apostle12 has stated an availability to do a point-by-point response to the issues raised by the RfC/U sometime after Jan 6. I feel as though closing this RfC before that response and ensuing discussion would be premature. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of this motion to close
While I appreciate that DCI2026 has indicated there is a need to communicate to Apostle12 that canvassing is discouraged, we also need to observe, as Elkman has, that it is highly inappropriate to give a section the heading "A truly hopeless article with truly hopeless editors". Editors should be able to participate in discussion on the talk page with the confidence that they will not be subjected to more of Apostle12's demoralizing comments. I agree with UseTheCommandLine that it is odd that accusations of using an RFC/U to resolve content disputes were raised only after the RFC/U was submitted. Does it even need to be said that canvassing and personal attacks are outside the scope of discussions of content disputes? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you've made your point about Apostle12's behavior, and all parties are aware of it. I think he knows by now that if he calls the article hopeless or the editors hopeless, that sort of comment will get noticed.  As far as content disputes on the article are concerned, there are ways of requesting comments on articles, as opposed to individual contributors.  See Requests for comment and look up the appropriate section on where an RFC on the article  should be listed.  I don't know if it would fit under religion and philosophy, or under society, sports, and culture.  If nothing else, an article RFC will attract people who are more interested in judging the content of the article, and who will have different perspectives on the topic.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I probably should have included a few more details regarding WP:NPA; I will revise accordingly. I was unaware of this dispute prior to the submission of the RfC/U, and, after reading through it, believe that the issue is overly-intense content disputes, not a problematic editor.  I agree with Marie Paradox wholeheartedly that much of what Apostle12 has said is not conducive to bettering the White privilege article, but think that things could best be handled with a focus on content, not user discipline.   dci  &#124;  TALK   18:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Closing
Not many people participated in the RFC. Some of those who did pointed out that the RFC may be improper. I can't see any close here other than "everybody go home." Chutznik (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * RFC/U's are not normally "closed" in the sense of some outsider coming along and summing things up for you. RFC/U is a voluntary process, which means that the participants may voluntarily choose a closing statement that they all agree on, or not, if they don't.  See Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing for the appropriate process in this case.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)