User talk:.Raven: Difference between revisions

• Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process

Hi.

So, as I'm fairly sure you're aware, there is an AN/I discussion going on right now, concerning your behaviour in discussions, and the concerns seem to be about bludgeoning discussions.

I'm not here to assess whether that is true.

I merely have something to ask of you - which you are of course welcome to ignore if you like.

a.) Even if you may have done so already, please read over Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process and the page it is clarifying: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Examples of disruptive editing.

then

b.) Now that you've re-read those pages, from all the diffs linked at the AN/I discussion, select 3 that you would agree were probably egregiously unacceptable per those pages, and explain for each one why, in detail. And then explain how you might have differently addressed the situation in each.

The goal here is not to punish, or to re-litigate the past. But rather to try to show the community that you understand their concerns, that you understand the policy/guidelines concerning collegiate discourse, and that you are going to work to address their concerns.

If you would rather not do so, that's of course perfectly fine. No editor is ever required to edit Wikipedia. I'm merely asking this as a way to offer you an opportunity to positively move forward.

If you don't think any of your edits were at issue, then I'll leave that to others to assess.

In any case, I wish you well. - jc37 23:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and replied to the original complaint opening the AN/I, referring to my comments from June 30 on, at Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely, and the complaint of bludgeoning ("A person replies to many '!votes' or comments, arguing against that particular person's point of view"). I found just two (2) replies to any !vote or equivalently left-edge comment... both of which I agreed with, and certainly did not argue against.

Per LokiTheLiar's comment, "The classic form of [bludgeoning]  is responding to every !vote to try to convince the editor in question to change it. Raven is not doing that, and I'm very clearly not doing that: most of my replies are deep in a thread and several of them are to people I !voted the same way as." [emphasis added] Likewise, I won't count my replies in ongoing threads.

Ironically, earlier on this page Starship.paint had insisted to me that anything I posted counted towards "argumentative" and "bludgeoning", because even if I agreed with someone, I was still expressing my own point of view. This does not seem consistent with policy as written, or as Loki explains it. And I truly don't understand how it would apply even to resubmitting Jerome Frank Disciple's failed pings of prior RfCs' participants to join the current RfC on WP:VPP, since (not knowing any of them or their past positions) I had no idea which of them might agree or disagree with me on any issue. Likewise for quoting verbatim policies none of which I had written.

All that seems consistent is that the complainants were INsistent on disregarding WP:BLP (-CRIME and -PUBLIC) to call a living person a "killer", as a purported "fact", in advance of our society's finder of fact (a court) producing that verdict — a rush to judgment in which my policy-citing comments were a stumbling block.

But I'd willingly be persuaded otherwise, because that seeming has grim implications. – .Raven  .talk 06:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.Raven, I invite you to an ominous thought experiment. Imagine there is not the thing "Wikipedia policy". Instead, there is a group of human beings upset with your approach to discussion. What differentiates your conversational style from that of others, such that it might cause people frustration? I feel like I read somewhere that things leading to harm and ill ought be abandoned. Please block out some time for genuine reflection. Like me, you defeat yourself. Folly Mox (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just possibly the same thing that caused multiple people to complain to AN/I about Randy Kryn and Freoh, content disputes about which the accused differed in opinion and declined to be silenced. If I were the only person this had ever happened to, I might think "It's just me." But the pattern antedates my being targeted. On the flip side, I've been on-wiki for 14 years, and such complaints just started. My "conversational style" hasn't changed in that time. If it had been so bad, surely someone would have noticed earlier. Even someone who didn't so emphatically and heatedly disagree because of what they wanted included despite the established wider consensus (which is what policy records). – .Raven  .talk 20:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.Raven, in your 14 years on-wiki, 2023 is the first year in which you have made more than 73 edits. In 2023, you have made 3711 edits since February, according to Xtools as of this comment. This is something I have considered while reviewing your recent contributions and the pending ANI complaint. While your conversational style may not have changed, it appears the quantity of conversation has increased in the past few months. Beccaynr (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was the first year an article I'd been working on got moved without notice by another editor, who move-warred to maintain the change, so that I had to do an RM to restore it; and who complained about (among other things) my creating RMs to restore other articles they'd just moved without notice. (He'd also accused me of using "racist tropes" for retaining the words "tribe" and "ancient" in articles about tribal societies antedating the Fall of Rome.) I started following AN/I at that point. My ratio of comments vs. article-edits changed because (as noted elsewhere) I prefer the "D"/discussion to BRRRRRR/edit-warring. Likewise my edits at Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely instead of edit-warring over the article content. I thought that the preferred route. Oh well.

Meanwhile I've also made 85 edits to Most Serene Federal Republic of Montmartre, 89 to Draft:Botanophobia, and 28 to Draft:William E. Pomeranz, all of which I created; plus 116 to Magical alphabet, for which Nosferattus created the draft stub. Among other article-edits. Not just commenting. – .Raven  .talk 07:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Researching and creating/improving articles is clearly your best talent. You're objectively not good at changing entrenched opinions--which is ok, few are. One path leads toward your stated goal of improving the encyclopedia, the other does not. Xan747 (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Results on the two discussions brought up at AN/I would tend to support your second sentence — though I must say, I don't usually meet quite such a combative and hostile reception at talkpages. (The person who heatedly accused me of using "racist tropes" had come here without my having previously commented to them at all, or even being aware of their existence before; i.e., as a self-starter.)

That a civil and pleasant editor like Randy Kryn got treated likewise says something to me.

But I still believe in the value of D[iscussion]. – .Raven  .talk 18:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I pointedly have no comment whether you've been treated fairly or not. I do have an opinion that what you are engaged in is not a valuable or productive discussion. Randy gave you good advice in his first comment to you at the ANI. I echo and extend it: slip away quietly into an interesting but unloved corner of the project and use your research skills to make it shine. Xan747 (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who counted resubmitting of pings? I certainly did not count that. I omitted that and humorous comments. starship.paint (exalt) 09:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So when you complained,"you have 66 comments within the WP:VPP RFC", that was 'omitting' my pings and humorous comments? – .Raven  .talk 20:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was twelve days ago, a rough measure, and not an exhaustive analysis. It has been superseded by the comprehensive list I posted at WP:ANI two days ago, which did not include such comments. In any case, the number of resubmitting of pings plus humorous comments, by my estimate, is 6. There isn't much difference, really, between 60 comments and 66 comments. You are missing the forest for the trees because the real issue is the 60 comments and not the 6 comments. You latch onto any inaccuracy and it becomes a lasting grievance. When I came here to warn you, you complained about El_C's usage of the wrong tool to count edits. Now you're still complaining against something I said twelve days ago. Even above you're complaining about things that happened in March or April. You don't (or rarely) admit fault, which leads me to wonder if you constantly see yourself as the victim or infallible. starship.paint (exalt) 14:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> "That was twelve days ago, a rough measure, and not an exhaustive analysis."

Unfortunately, it did not exclude the pings. Your "Now, when I said 'argumentative', it doesn't necessarily mean that you were hostile to the other person you were replying to." also gave me no reason to believe you excluded pings.

It's nice that you clarify your position now, twelve days later. Thank you. It would also have been nice for you to say the same thing (clarifying your meaning of "argumentative") at AN/I, but somehow that didn't happen.

Then you conjoin this with the accusation "You latch onto any inaccuracy and it becomes a lasting grievance."

May I point out that the entire AN/I thread is about a "lasting grievance" over old comments?

As I pointed out on AN/I yesterday, the discussion and time period Combefere had originally specified contained just two (2) of my replies to any !vote or left-edge comment, agreeing with both of them — not "in order to persuade [their authors] to [my] point of view" nor "arguing against that particular person's point of view" nor "with the goal of getting each person to change their '!vote'", in WP:BLUDGEON's phrasing. My other comments were in existing discussion-subthreads, where other people were already involved in "trying to persuade others to their point[s] of view", and civil reply likewise did not seem out of place. (I note that there's been no AN/I discussion of who was uncivil in those discussions.)

As well, I noticed that your link-list included my replies to comments directed at me, despite WP:BLUDGEON explicitly stating: "Replying to many questions that are directed to you is perfectly fine." I commented in reply, "The list is inflated by including replies to comments directed at me."... and you neither responded nor edited that list accordingly. That was just two days ago. Is it a "lasting grievance" to bring up an "inaccuracy" which inflates my purported offense, and which has not been corrected in public view despite notice, i.e. is still there for others to read? – .Raven  .talk 15:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look at what the most recent editors who opposed the proposed sanctions on you (obviously good faith editors) said: clearly attempts by well meaning editors has fallen on deaf ears which is why this has escalated ... Raven... if you're brought here again with similar issues I suspect the community will support stronger sanctions and Looking over the edits, I see definite bludgeoning by Raven, and I would support sanctions targeting this behavior rather than raw edit count. Then let's look at some other implicit opposers: off-topic response which illustrates the issue of posting more responses than necessary and OTOH, Raven's replies to this very thread make clear some kind of warning is necessary. ... unless you take to heart that commenting this much is indeed viewed negatively and learn to rein it in; you don't have to have the wp:lastword, you can say your piece and leave it at that, and just because another editor keeps repeating their own point doesn't mean you have to keep engaging starship.paint (exalt) 14:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Such as "clearly attempts by well meaning editors has fallen on deaf ears" — such as the AN/I report being filed by one who (as the same person who made that quoted comment also noted in the same paragraph) "was also beating that Neely article like a dead horse"? Or should I take it as "well-meaning" when my replies to comments directed at me are counted toward "bludgeoning"? – .Raven  .talk 15:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raven, even if you discount folks who are involved, several apparently unaligned and good faith editors have made the same point. I rather doubt the current report will result in sanctions, but continuing as you are not only virtually guarantees more sanctions in the future, it greatly lessens your effectiveness as an editor. It seems that every reply you make is heavily laden with defensiveness and snark. I get defensive. I snark. But it is not the apparent reflex it seems to be with you recently. If your reply at AN/I had been "okay, I'll think about it," then I believe the whole mess would be over without any substantive behavior change. I'm not asking you to acquiesce to anyone or to really change much of anything. I would just urge you to recognize that a counterpunch is not always the best response, and use them a bit more judiciously. As ever, though, this is all just one old guy's opinion and I wish you well however you choose to proceed. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not going to reply to the above and the above. starship.paint (exalt) 15:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who agreed with you and asked you stop bludgeoning I'm going to be direct.... If you don't show some growth here and acknowledge your issues I'm going to recommend a temporary block. It's becoming clear that you're not getting the point, you're going to defend your actions, and then point fingers at others. I can't think of any other way to get through to you, but sometimes sanctions are the only way to get an editor's attention. I hope you take this under consideration. Nemov (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thought my actually having cut back on talkpage comments (not merely promising to) might have communicated something.

Do actions no longer speak louder than words? – .Raven  .talk 18:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it occurs because I’m not logged in on the tower. For reasons that escape me, the iPad doesn’t;t format my !vote correctly when I give it, and I’d log in to vote except admins like me have been barked at loudly by the wmf to guard our accounts - strong passwords, etc - to keep people who shouldn’t have access to them out. For that reason I don’t log in on the iPad because it’s mobile, if it should go missing I have no idea who’d find it and/or what they’d do with the tool set :) All the same, thanks for the message, it’s nice to see people still reach out to isp editors with advice instead of templates as it were. 2600:1011:B132:66F2:A54B:E832:312D:4C1C (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. This is a standard message to inform you that the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS.Cinderella157 (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]