Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Blackworm

• Blackworm (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

(The current date and time is: 05:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC).)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

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.

Summary

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.

Evidence

On the positive side

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.)

• (Example of neutrality) "We need stuff that is cited in reliable sources. Not to be curt, but this isn't a forum for discussion of the topic, or your own analysis" 07:40, 16 October 2008
• ":I think the lesson was for me to learn. " 06:43, 22 October 2008 (with "Sorry, Jake." in edit summary.)
• "Sorry Avi, I've struck most of my the remark." 22:10, 9 September 2008
• "I appreciate your cool-headedness, and your kind words, however." 18:57, 5 September 2008

Remarks about editors

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.

• "I am confident in my opposition of your recent bid for Bureaucratship, as this latest edit and faulty assessment of editors' positions is another egregious example of poor judgment of consensus on your part." 21:48, 23 October 2008
• "And according to Google there's over 800 occurances of "amputated a limb," but don't you think it would be a bit disingenuous to list a handful here?" 19:35, 27 September 2008
• "Indeed, but some people would apparently prefer if you remained ignorant of this information. " 22:24, 25 September 2008 (And edit summary "Silly to attempt to suppress this information.")
• "Obviously many such studies are cited in an attempt to show that circumcision increases sexual pleasure, which of course is disingenuous to the alert reader (but it works for the masses, so it's in Wikipedia)." 19:50, 21 September 2008
• "IZAK seems to contribute nothing to this but original research and incoherent, unsourced arguments, combined with misrepresenting the views of those opposing him." 18:33, 9 September 2008
• "Also, please don't engage in WP:OR, then turn around and cry "OR" when people seem to have stronger arguments. It is disingenuous." 22:35, 5 September 2008 (Also re edit summary: "Not impressed with your mischaracterization of my position.")
• "Jakew, Avi, Nandesuka, and Jayjg worked as a team for years, unopposed, skewing this article into a POV mess..." 18:00, 5 September 2008 (With edit summary "Avi is resisting policy, not enforcing it." )
• "It seems as if it's more important to you to implicitly claim the word circumcision as really only meaning male circumcision than it is for you to allow the universal English language reader to instantly understand what forms of circumcision this article discusses." 03:47, 5 September 2008
• "Those who vehemently support male circumcision and have a disregard for encyclopedic, scientific, non-ambiguous language wish to present female circumcision as something that isn't "circumcision,"" 21:18, 4 September 2008
• "It's more incivil and damaging to play loose with events and discussions of what consensus was reached in a discussion, than to point out ..." ("...these falsehoods" later refactored by Blackworm to "ambiguity")21:13, 4 September 2008
• "The motivation is again your silence on the irrelevant attacks and misinterpretations of policy made by your supporters, while insisting that their support equals a WP:CONSENSUS. That smacks of dishonesty, Jake. I do prefer to attribute it to weakness, however." 06:15, 24 August 2008
• "I believe that flies in the face of policy, and indicates a desire to skip discussion and consensus and proceed immediately his desired article state." 20:52, 5 August 2008
• "Are you being flippant, or are you genuinely confused? If the former, please advise me so I can stop good-faith attempts to communicate with you." 19:30, 5 August 2008

Editor temporarily left Wikipedia

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.

• Jakew said to Blackworm: "Why am I not editing? The answer is that I find the editing environment too unpleasant, and in part (though not entirely) that's due to you." 18:42, 23 August 2008
• Sarcastic barnstars: 04:12, 9 July 2008 with edit summary " I agree, Jakew needs more wiki-love. Mass barnstars on Jakew!!"
• Admission that the barnstars were sarcastic: "The barnstars in general were sarcastic, exaggerated, and born of disgust for Jayjg's and Coppertwig's outpouring of "wikilove" and apparent solidarity without substance in the form of multiple barnstars each." 06:15, 24 August 2008

Edit summaries

Blackworm has said or implied critical things about other editors in edit summaries, and has continued after having been asked not to do this.

• " Yes, you are wildly "misremembering," so please self-revert" 21:26, 23 October 2008 (section heading later refactored by Blackworm)
• "Jakew's solution seems to be that we don't discuss the controversy at all." 13:39, 16 October 2008
• "Someday, the nature of the controversy will actually be neutrally stated in this article, rather than obfuscated and distorted." 21:43, 15 October 2008
• "Oops. This isn't my talk page, so I'll leave Avi's misquote of me alone." 16:35, 15 October 2008
• "This all started when Avi/Jakew removed the "Foreskin-based consumer goods" (later renamed) section." 06:43, 15 October 2008
• "Gimme a break. Let's speak to each other as equals for a change, Avi. Or is that non-Wikipedian?" 08:17, 14 October 2008
• "Dodge." 07:56, 13 October 2008
• "Tag-team away." 07:09, 13 October 2008
• "Experience is not a license for fiat." 21:54, 8 October 2008
• "Again, the determination that certain terms are inherently neutral or non-neutral must have a basis in policy, not the fiat of a small group of editors." 21:26, 8 October 2008
• "Arbitrary banning of terms used in reliable sources." 15:31, 3 October 2008
• "Still no argument presented to warrant Avi and Jakew's banning of the word "severed" from this article." 21:20, 2 October 2008
• "Indeed, I am compelled to point out Avi's silence when Jakew makes an even weaker argument against "uncircumcised."" 20:59, 28 September 2008
• "Nonsense, Avi." 19:36, 28 September 2008
• "When did Avi stop understanding policy?" 17:23, 28 September 2008
• "Wrong again, Avi. That's why you shouldn't be a bureaucrat (or even an admin, IMO)." 17:20, 28 September 2008
• "No chance at suppressing this information, sorry." 21:21, 25 September 2008
• "Which POV do we relegate to the subarticles? Let's see..." 19:17, 21 September 2008
• "Not impressed with your mischaracterization of my position." 22:35, 5 September 2008
• "2nd rv to last by Avraham. TipPt, you won't get anywhere with this hostile attitude -- take a deep breath and Talk, slowly, concisely and using sources, one issue at a time if possible." 21:54, 29 August 2008
• "Restore conclusion deleted in good faith by completely neutral editors." 17:31, 18 August 2008
• "Denying the existence of a dispute to editors disputing the issue smacks of arrogance and dishonesty." 18:53, 5 August 2008
• "Odd that Google would give two people wildly different numbers of hits from the same link." 07:58, 27 July 2008

Symmetry

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.

• (with links to edit counts of several editors) "Also, these tools may assist the reader ... What percentage of Jakew's top 25 articles are circumcision related? Apparently you don't hold that against him. What percentage of Avi and Jayjg's top 25 articles are related to Judaism? Should I implicitly question whether this affects your neutrality with regard to circumcision, or assert that you make "all" your edits "from a decidedly pro-circumcision POV?" I don't believe those kinds of claims are productive." 22:18, 8 October 2008
• (Explaining the above diff) "If you'll read it again, you may notice it was an attempt to show Jayjg that poking into someone's edits and attempting to frame them as POV pushers based on which articles they mostly edit is not a viable way to resolve disputes." 06:39, 13 October 2008 , with edit summary "Do you e-mail each other to decide who will attack me next, Avi?"
• (Also apparently explaining the same diff) "Well, that an unwelcome remark follows an unwelcome remark should not be surprising. If an editor makes an implicit accusation of POV pushing, they should be prepared to have their incivility condemned, and their own neutrality assessed." 16:14, 15 October 2008
• (Also apparently explaining the same diff) ":I think generally accusations of POV pushing are not acceptable, as policy and guideline state. That said, those repeatedly making the accusations do not heed these policies, or believe that their experience gives them license to ignore the policies; therefore, in this last instance I attempted a symmetric approach, stated hypothetically, as an attempt to illustrate the inappropriateness of the accusations in a manner that may resonate with these editors." 17:23, 15 October 2008
• "Ok, I'll just keep reverting to my preferred edit, and I'll adopt your and Avi's extremely detached tone about it. Thanks for showing me the way, Coppertwig." 21:47, 5 October 2008
• "How about if I revert you, then tell you to relax?" 04:25, 28 September 2008
• "If others agree with Jakew's logic, I am going to start importing statements such as the following, from labiaplasty, into the female circumcision article:" 20:16, 22 September 2008 (with edit summary "Gander/goose." )
• "Ultimately, I'll stick to content until you force me otherwise and derail constructive discussion with your predictable accusations about editors' motives." 18:31, 5 September 2008

Accusations of POV-pushing

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:

• "You are the one appearing to push an agenda by attempting to ban language used in reliable sources based on nothing more than your fiat. ... I am trying to build an encyclopedia, what are you trying to do? " 07:09, 28 September 2008 (Edit summary: "Nonsense, Avi")
• "...I see you as nothing but a provider of misinformation in regard to this issue. But then advocacy and misinformation often go hand in hand." 17:58, 30 July 2008
• "your diatribe above is otherwise bursting with non-neutral POV" 19:12, 26 July 2008

Accusations by others, directed at Blackworm, of POV-pushing (or similar things):

• IZAK said to Blackworm, "...it is important to note that to tar and feather, issue insults, and throw into the figurative garbage the historical facts you don't like and that do not conform to your obviously personal POV is itself not a way to deal with disagreements. You are violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND and being a Wikipedia:POV warrior as you seek to crush simple debate and discussion ..." 07:22, 10 September 2008
• Coren said to Blackworm: "The fact that you disagree with the title does not mean that it is not neutral; that tag is reserved for when there is a genuine problem with the neutrality of the title and not simply because some people would prefer it to represent a specific POV." 22:48, 5 August 2008

Blackworm has continued to make likely-unwelcome remarks about other editors after the attempts to resolve the situation listed below.

Previous attempts to resolve the situation

• Discussion between Coppertwig and Blackworm, 15–17 October, 2008
• Discussion between Avi and Blackworm, 12–14 October 2008
• Discussion between Coppertwig and Blackworm, 26 September – 6 October, 2008
• Discussion between Avi and Blackworm, 5 September 2008
• Discussion between Jakew and Blackworm, 23 August &ndash 7 September, 2008

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. Civility policy
2. No personal attacks policy
3. Civility discussion
4. Assume good faith

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Coppertwig (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
2. Well put. I would also add WP:AGF to applicable policies. Jakew (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
3. Agreed, and while Coppertwig seems to have used recent diffs, I can bring a number of older diffs that can demonstrate problematic edits of Blackworm, such as:
   • Edit summary: "Moved chopped off statement back closer to what it was responding to, for clarity and maximum embarrassment for Avi."
   • POV-laden edit
   • POV-laden edit
   • "…and the entire article, presenting circumcision as a normal, legitimate procedure violates WP:SOAP.
   • The exchange at User talk:Blackworm#Civility is also telling.

   -- Avi (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

These proposed remedies are for the purpose of clarifying and adding detail to existing policies as appled to editor behaviour at Circumcision and related articles. While these proposals are designed to address problems raised primarily by Blackworm's behaviour, 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.

• C1. Comment on content: It would be best if all editors of Circumcision and related articles would refrain from making pejorative assertions or implications about other editors and just discuss article content.
• C2. Because edit summaries can't easily be deleted or edited, editors should be especially careful when writing edit summaries not to include remarks that might be interpreted as sarcastic or as making unwelcome assertions or implications about other editors.
• C3. No excuse: Inappropriate behaviour doesn't become appropriate when used in response to inappropriate behaviour of others. If another editor does something inappropriate, appropriate responses include ignoring it, discussing it with the editor, and other steps described in dispute resolution. Imitating the inappropriate behaviour or doing other inappropriate behaviour in response is not appropriate and may be a POINT violation.
• C4. If someone has a conflict of interest (COI), it's best if they declare it themselves. If someone feels the need to declare that another editor has a COI, they should do it as diplomatically as possible, in neutral terms; they should not do it in the middle of a thread which is concerned with an article content discussion; and they should not repeat the declaration unnecessarily. The only reason for repeating the declaration would be if there are new editors in the discussion. If it's only one new editor, they can be informed on their user talk page. Rather than re-stating the declaration, giving a diff of the previous declaration without additional comment or innuendo is preferable.
• C5. An editor is not considered to have a COI in connection with Circumcision and related articles merely because the editor is circumcised or is not circumcised; has personal beliefs and values about circumcision; belongs to a religion which requires circumcision or does not belong to such a religion; spends a lot of time editing circumcision-related articles; or spends a lot of time editing articles related to a religion which requires circumcision.
• C6 If an editor does not have a COI, then unwelcome remarks about the editor's personal qualities, alleged personal bias etc. are inappropriate.
• C7. Accusations of POV-pushing: If an editor believes that an article is biased and that the article does not conform to NPOV and tries to change the article to something which in the editor's opinion conforms better to NPOV, or if there is no clear evidence otherwise that would be convincing to a typical outside observer, then others should not refer to the editor using "POV-pusher" or similar terms. Assume good faith..

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.)

1. C1–C7. Coppertwig (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Response

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.

{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:

Outside view

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:

Discussion

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.