Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:48, 24 January 2008

User:Cailil/Status

User page

Talk page

Admin

Logs

Awards

Books

Archives

1 2 3 4

Blackworm and that there stuff on WP:AN

I'm not really sure what is to be done, really. I brought my concerns to AN (and not AN/I) because this wasn't an acute incident/problem but rather a pattern I was seeing. I didn't bring it directly to Blackworm because it appeared a number of other editors already had brought these issues up with him on his talk page with little result. I certainly think mediation between Blackworm and Phyesalis is a good idea. An RfC is a bit iffy and I wouldn't quite rule it out entirely but I'm not sure it would help much.

I see a couple of problems with BW's attitude and approach toward the very limited number of articles he mainly works on. One, his interpretation that NPOV means as much weight in an article must be given to minority views as to significantly more majority views on the subject of the article. He seems to think this is true even in the absence of WP:V or WP:RS for those minority positions or without consensus on the talk pages. This is what I meant by having a POV. He insists some views be included. Personally, I think he has a point that some of these views should be included but for him to insist on their inclusion without being able to provide sourcing is the essence of POV-pushing. Perhaps I missed it (and I haven't made a detailed study of his contribs) but I don't think he's provided adequate sourcing for his views except possibly for the men's reproductive rights section of the RR article (and I didn't notice if he provided those sources in particular.)

Two, BW seems to spread wiki-stress in his interactions on WP. He seems determined to win arguments by outlasting everyone and/or driving opponents away. Misplaced Pages editing and communication shouldn't be a "trial by combat" experience. Arguments on talk pages, sometimes quite forceful and verbose arguments, are often necessary to reach common agreements on article content but WP tries to foster a collegial atmosphere of respect for opposition views. Another sign of POV is the singleminded push toward inclusion of particular viewpoints in the face of reasonable compromises by a range of other editors.

Three, BW seems determined to assume bad faith of almost everyone who opposes his views. He uses a variety of methods, from wiki-lawyering to bullying to accusations of conspiracy against him, but they all seem designed to overwhelm and discredit other views rather than collaborate with other editors toward a common goal.

Blackworm's behaviour is very reminiscent of another case on WP I have great familiarity with. BW has been editing fairly regularly since April 2007 and moderately heavily since Sept. 2007; he can't be called a "new" editor anymore. Can or will he change his behaviour? I certainly hope so. However, when a person behaves a certain way on WP over a long period of time despite negative feedback from a variety of people, I don't think it violates AFG to expect that same behaviour will probably continue into the future. It might not. I'm not prescient when it comes to people's ability to change.

So far, I don't see that he's committed any specific violations of policy. Breaches of Misplaced Pages etiquette and courtesy, yes. A belligerent and combative attitude, yes. Generally, these are not blockable offences although in extreme cases they can become so. However, he could very well go over the line of acceptable behaviour if he doesn't take my posting to WP:AN as a warning to improve the civility of his interactions with other editors.

I value contrary and minority views. If at all possible, I very much prefer to see them honestly represented in WP articles as counterpoint to more conventional and majority viewpoints. But I also have to say WP:V is a bedrock principle of WP. Without WP:RS to back up the info, such things are really just WP:OR and opinion.

Sorry, a lot of this really should be said to Blackworm himself rather than here but your post apparently inspired me to articulate these thoughts. I hope you'll excuse the rant. Cheers, Pigman☿ 23:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, I think we are in agreement on this matter. I hope the 3 editors at Talk:Reproductive rights can resolve their problems via mediation and that this matter ends there. With that there is a chance of a positive resolution for everyone involved--Cailil 00:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We probably are in agreement. I actually think my views here on the subject and situation are incredibly conventional relative to WP policy and guidelines, even if a little too verbose. I also pointed User:Blackworm to my post above as I think it lays out the issues and concerns well. I also hope the three editors will enter mediation. It doesn't always work but I think it would be helpful to all concerned. I'm going to try to keep an eye on what these editors are doing and offer advice as needed but, like most editors and admins, I also have other things to tend to on Misplaced Pages. BTW, thanks for helping by adding your detailed statement on the WP:AN thread I started on the situation. It provided much needed context and background for understanding the situation. If you need anything, don't hesitate to leave a note on my talk page. I note we have several areas of common interest. Cheers, Pigman☿ 18:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge is Trust

As Knowledge is Power, with all Power comes Trust. Igor Berger (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Thank you. Please forgive my faux pas on Blackworm's page. I have stricken my comment and apologized at User talk:Blackworm#AN. I am still very interested in mediation. Sorry for any confusion. Phyesalis (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Feminism comments

I have finally finished copy editing and commenting on feminism. I hope that my suggestions are helpful. What wonderful work you are doing over there! And in such a noble cause, too. Awadewit | talk 12:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Favor

I was wondering if you would be interested in reviewing Boydell Shakespeare Gallery (it is kind of about drama and literature). Rupert Clayton and I have put it up for peer review. I would really appreciate it! Thanks. Awadewit | talk 00:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing - it'll be Monday or Tuesday before I can really sink my teeth into it though--Cailil 00:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not a problem - we're in no rush. Thanks so much! Awadewit | talk 00:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Portals

Hello Cailil! I was reading your response to portals on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies and you said that all 3 portals: women, feminism, and gender studies all sound like a good idea. User:Phyesalis and I have been discussing it on User_talk:Grrrlriot. She's wanting to do the gender studies portal. I think that User:BrownHairedGirl might do the women portal. I told her I could do the feminism portal. I was wondering if you would like to help me with that? Read more about it and give me some ideas for the portal on my talk page. Also, If you want to talk more about this, You can send me an email. (See my userpage for my email.) Do you know of anyone else that might be interested in helping with the feminism portal? I was thinking we could share our ideas for the feminism portal. --Grrrlriot (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to help out whenever I can, but at the moment I'm extremely busy in RL and have very little time to spend on WP. I'll drop you line with some ideas as soon as I can--Cailil 18:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That's ok. I totally understand. Can't wait to hear your ideas! :) --Grrrlriot (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)