Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Blackworm

Proposed change to remedy
In response to this edit at User talk:Blackworm, I propose changing the last sentence of remedy C7 to "When the issue is points of view which differ between editors, editors should assume good faith, or at least formulate their comments as if they do." ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 01:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I implemented the above as proposed remedy C7.1. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 01:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've changed my mind, and endorsed the original C7. As much as I despise hypocrisy, I really think that acting like you assume good faith isn't the same as assuming good faith. If Jayjg can only act as if he does, fine; I will strive for more. Blackworm (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate status quo
I oppose this edit. My response isn't as important as an adequate investigation into the previous interactions I've had with all editors endorsing this RfC. Editors who feel such an investigation has been made to their satisfaction should be free to comment. I apologize if anything I said implied to you that I believed otherwise. Blackworm (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

BW2
Re proposed remedy: "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.")"


 * I agree with the part in italics, but I disagree with am not willing to endorse(01:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)) the part in parentheses. We're supposed to AGF of other editors, but not necessarily of everybody in the world. Freedom to criticize the accuracy of published sources is necessary for normal Wikipedian activity. (Struck out as off-topic here.)(14:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)) ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 01:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about that. Criticizing published sources is seen as irrelevant original research in article space.  The policy on user pages is much more lax, but it does say that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself.  Whether those comments are soapboxing are a judgment call.  In my view their presence casts a shadow of deception and fear not directly on editors, but on a point on view some editors may legitimately have.  As I asked, would you feel the phrase "deceptive activities of groups who support male circumcision" on one's user page is completely reasonable?  Do you think, as I do, that it might make that editor a kind of rallying point, or important community figure, for opponents of male circumcision?  (A kind of Wikiproject: Countering Deceptive Circumcision Supporters.)  Do you think, as I do, that it might reasonably offend those editors who happen to support male circumcision, but believe in good faith that they can edit on the topic neutrally?
 * That said, I agree that the quoted part in parentheses doesn't explicitly contradict the proposed remedy. I'm willing to live with it if Jakew refuses to remove the material.  Mostly I just want one standard for all editors, and mostly I don't care what that standard is.  Blackworm (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm not going to answer your question. I'm not interested in participating in a discussion about Jakew's userpage here and now, and may or may not be interested in participating in such a discussion if I see it happening elsewhere. If you think there's something inappropriate on someone's userpage, I suggest that as a first step you discuss it with the user diplomatically on their user talk page, and if that doesn't resolve it, then follow the steps of dispute resolution. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 01:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

BW3
Re proposed remedy: "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.'''"


 * I think I might support this, but I'm having trouble understanding what it means. I'm having particular difficulty understanding this part: "without being explicit about what it is the reader should presumably also hear or see."  I think this remedy might be expressing the idea that it's preferable to say things like "I hear these ideas in your message" than to say things like "Your message tells me these things"; that is, shifting the stated responsibility for the perception onto the person doing the perceiving/interpreting rather than blaming the original message for the ideas.  Maybe that's not what's meant.  I find this easier to understand, from Blackworm's comment: "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."  How about this version: "Editors should not criticize another editor's comments without stating specifically what it is about the comments that are allegedly causing a problem." (Struck out because it seems off-topic for this RfC. 17:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)) ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 01:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's preferable to say things like "I hear these ideas in your message" -- if "these ideas" are specified. But statements of the form "this edit tells me something about you," without any further specification about what the something is, seem to only cast fear, uncertainty and doubt onto the editor; in a vague, unclear way.  I think that could easily be interpreted as some kind of suspicion that what "the something" is, is too awful to be mentioned.  Your version captures the essence of the remedy, but I prefer my version as it is specific about phrasing like "that's telling," or "i see now."  Blackworm (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me that BW3 and BW4 seem to me to be designed to address problems caused by the behaviour of other editors, not of yourself, Blackworm. I don't think this RfC is the right place to discuss things like that. Therefore I don't plan to participate in discussion about them here.(00:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)) One reason is that RfC is not a first step in dispute resolution.  Before focussing on the behaviour of an editor on an RfC, you have to go through steps such as discussing it with the editor on their talk page in an attempt to resolve the problem, and having the RfC certified.  For a proper place to discuss those issues: possible places might include the user talk pages of the editors involved; your own user talk page; a subpage in your userspace; possibly a section or subpage of Talk:Circumcision devoted to a general discussion of behaviour issues, if having such a discussion there is generally accepted by the editors there; or a user conduct RfC focussed on an editor who displays such behaviours. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 17:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:RfC: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." I believe that gives me some latitude to present the conduct of the other editors involved which upsets me, and try to propose remedies for the benefit of all.  No one is being forced to agree to or even respond to any of my proposals, and I don't view your objection to my presentation of them as valid.  My support of your proposals is not conditional on anyone's support of my proposals.  We're not writing any new laws by proposing remedies, we're applying policy and guideline to the specific situations we're observing and suggesting changes in future conduct.  At least that's how I read your proposals.  Blackworm (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to response
Blackworm said, "I believe Coppertwig is unfairly focussing on my conduct". The whole purpose of a user conduct RfC is to focus on the conduct of one user. If you wish to change this, you can try to get pages such as WP:DR changed. You need to take responsibility for your own behaviour. Saying that it's unfair to focus on your behaviour deflects attention from that responsibility. Other editors should of course also take responsibility for their behaviour; discussions about that can take place elsewhere.

Re "and presenting a very one-sided view of the climate in circumcision and related articles." I haven't presented anything about the climate in Circumcision and related articles. This RfC is about your behaviour.

Re unacceptable climate: To change this, I recommend the following approach, which I believe can be effective: I don't recommend the following, which I believe is not effective:
 * 1) Show exemplary behaviour yourself.
 * 2) Consider ignoring attacks, per WP:NPA and per DefendEachOther; but if you ignore them, then ignore them completely; don't bring them up later or in indirect ways.
 * 3) Discuss it with the user on their user talk page and try to come to an agreement.
 * 4) Follow other steps in dispute resolution.
 * 1) Imitate unacceptable behaviour.
 * 2) Respond to unacceptable behaviour with other unacceptable behaviour.
 * 3) Discuss others' unacceptable behaviour in the middle of discussions about article content and in the middle of discussions of one's own behaviour.
 * 4) Refuse to start behaving properly until others start behaving properly by your standards first.

Re "If that is "no excuse" for me, I insist that it is "no excuse" for anyone." (and further down, "If, now, we are to accept Coppertwig's assertions that focussing on editors isn't acceptable, then it isn't acceptable from anyone.") I'm uncomfortable with the word "if" there. How about putting it like this: "That is no excuse for me, and I insist that that is no excuse for anyone." The "if" makes it sound as if you're not sure – as if you're thinking of making your own good behaviour conditional on others' good behaviour. To do so is not an effective method, in my opinion, and tends to lead to infinitely ongoing problems.

Re "I think Coppertwig's proposed remedies are well intended, and I support them to the extent they are required of all editors,..." Again, this sounds as if you may be thinking of making your behaviour conditional of the behaviour of others. One problem if you were to take such an approach is that perceptions differ. When one person says "I'm going to do something to you just as bad as what you did to me!" the chances are that the other person is going to perceive the action as considerably worse than what they themselves had done. No two situations are identical, and people tend to choose their own actions in a way that satisfies their own idiosyncratic standards, but which might break unwritten rules the other person is following. An injury tends to be much more salient to the one actually feeling the hurt than to one who inflicts it and merely imagines it. People tend to be biassed in their own favour. For these reasons, an attempt to inflict a hurt equal to what one has received tends to result in a hurt that is perceived as worse, and things escalate. I see nothing in Wikipedia's recommended dispute resolution steps about using attacks or deliberately breaking rules as a method of holding others to account for their breaking of rules. I call on you to uphold Wikipedia's policies and general decency unconditionally. You can hold others to account, but working within the system.

Re "... 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." The same as what? The same as each other? Or the same as you? I dispute both assertions, and I don't think it's appropriate for you to make such a broad generalization; in fact, for you to make this unverifiable assertion is an instance of the very set of behaviours this RfC is asking you not to engage in. While the purpose of this page is not to discuss article content, I think most of proposed remedy C1 would still apply here, especially since I think your statement is untrue: I've opposed edits by all three of those editors (Jayjg, Avi, Jakew), and I don't remember any incivility or personal attacks from them directed at me.

Re "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 such cases, I suggest that an appropriate response is not to engage in incivility or personal attacks in response, but to use acceptable methods such as drawing attention to the fact that questions in content disputes have gone unanswered; if appropriate, perhaps reverting while calling on others not to re-revert until they have answered certain questions; and bringing in more editors via RfCs to help resolve content disputes. Note, however, that the situation may look different from a different point of view. Others may see the situation as one where the question has already been answered, (though you, finding the answer unsatisfactory, may not consider it to be an answer), or as one where no question has been clearly asked; it might seem to be a rhetorical question or a meaningless question, or there may be some doubt as to what question is being referred to. ("Blackworm, you've asked Jakew to answer a question, but I don't think you've specified a particular question: this previous post of yours contains approximately five questions.")

Re "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." This statement is not true, but worse than that, it appears to be an attempt to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions. I've been around the Circumcision article almost as long as you have, apparently. In that experience, I have neither been taught that behaviour such as in the diffs I listed in this RfC is acceptable, nor observed you being taught that. I may have seen inappropriate behaviour directed at you, but I did not observe you being taught such behaviour. If that happened, it would have happened within your mind, I suppose, where I couldn't see it. I certainly don't "know" that that's what happened. More importantly, you need to take responsibility for your behaviour. If you intend to pattern your behaviour after others, you need to be able to recognize which behaviours are worth imitating and which are not.

Re "...without the strong non-neutral stance Wikipedia now takes in favour of male circumcision and in opposition to female circumcision." I believe the published sources mostly take such a stance, so (arguably) NPOV requires that the Wikipedia article do the same. Wikipedia is not a forum for you to express your personal ideas as to how male and female circumcision should be viewed by society.

Re "Jakew openly expresses ..." I don't think this RfC is an appropriate forum for deciding such an issue.

Re "...and I believe this systemic bias ... pervades Wikipedia..." That may be; but personal attacks and incivility are not going to correct it and may make it worse, in my opinion.

Re "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..." I disagree, and I think it's inappropriate to make a broad, unverifiable pejorative assertion like that. For example, I think this could be taken as an apology: Jakew; and I would say that these show a willingness to compromise: Jakew Avi Jayjg.

Re "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,"..." This statement could be considered to violate proposed remedy C3, in my opinion. It also shows a lack of remorse.

Re "That seems to be a statement attacking opponents of neonatal circumcision..." Blackworm, I suggest you read what Jakew wrote again, watching carefully for the precise meaning, and modify your own statement to make that precise meaning clear. Your statement is ambiguous and could be taken to mean something broader than is justified. And again, I don't think this RfC is an appropriate place to address issues about what appears on other users' userpages. I'm sorry if I sound too much like a bureaucrat :-) but it's important to follow correct procedures.

Re "...brazen dismissal". As a pejorative non-NPOV characterization of another editor's behaviour I think this phrase is inappropriate. Even though the purpose of this page is to discuss an editor's behaviour, (though not the one being described in that phrase), it still must be done in a civil manner; the policy WP:CIVIL still applies here.

Blackworm said, "So yes, let's get to the content, and not intimidating or eliminating those opposed to one's edits". I agree wholeheartedly.

Blackworm said, "I support BW1 to BW4. I support C1 to C7." Thank you very much, Blackworm. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 00:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)