Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/CarolineWH

This dispute needs to calm down.

I recommend that editors wait a day before answering posts on their talk page.

I do not believe that a RfC is helpful to the dispute at this time.

I believe that there is a good future for CarolineWH and Schrandit as editors.

Both CarolineWH and Schrandit are acting in what they believe are the best interests of Wikipedia.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this statement, it is too soon for an RfC on conduct. More attempts to resolve the content dispute should come before we enter into conduct assessments. I see nothing terrible, and User:CarolineWH has apologised for potentially causing offense. Both users are acting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia and are both passionate about doing so, which is beneficial in the long term to gathering consensus. --Taelus (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested as much within the RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CarolineWH#The issue reverts back to a content dispute. Regards Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I seem to have missed anything remotely resembling a reasonable or full apology - just some tweaking of the original statement that is really more like bait. Could somebody give me a diff? --Paularblaster (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that "reconciliation is the aim of RFC/U, not revenge or sanction", your primary aim should be to see that the issue is resolved. Wikipedia:BAIT is a essay, one that I personally find offensive having thrown in my face as its not a particularly well written one. What do you want a diff to show? Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something that goes a bit further than "well they're as bigoted and blinkered as Klansmen, but they're not like Klansmen in other respects" (respects that don't actually matter all that much in comparison). --Paularblaster (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also remember that:

• (c) lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information;
• (d) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them.

Are both considered in-civil. Your previous "quote" of Caroline is inaccurate. I think that the key to reconciliation here is that everyone remembers that this should be a content dispute, not a personal disagreement, you're perfectly entitled to disagree with me on that account of course. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they are; that's one of the three concerns at the basis of this request for comments (and the only one that affects me personally). My own paraphrase of CarolineWH's attitude seems to meet what she's expressed in the diffs given in the RfC (e.g. her express reluctance to use an "innocuous" parallel when one editor pointed out to her how offensive the one she had chosen was). --Paularblaster (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) I'm happy to say that CarolineWH has now made a full retraction and apology at the page in question, so I can provide the diff myself. As far as I'm concerned, this covers the first point of concern. I'm very pleased that CWH was finally willing to listen to more experienced editors. I await the comments of others on the points that concern me less directly. --Paularblaster (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm making my point on talk for now, since I am unfamiliar with the method/practice of RfC currently, although I will attempt to read up and comment on the main page later. However for now I want to include my view:

1. I think that this situation has escalated due to both sides involved being passionate about their view. User:CarolineWH has stated that they did not mean to cause offense, and has refactored a potentially offensive comment during the WQA.
2. I also think that the best way to resolve this conflict would be to have an RfC on content/consensus, and then conduct if that fails. I just think that if a wide community consensus was gathered this situation would diffuse itself, because the key problem seems to be that none can agree what the consenus is currently due to the small number of editors that expressed their opinion.
3. Thus in summary, I think it is too soon for a conduct RfC, and that one should come after a more in-depth attempt to resolve the content dispute is resolved.

Hope this helps, and sorry for my unfamiliarity with RfC procedure. --Taelus (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this diff: [1] reassures me that this is primarily a content issue. Please do consider an RfC on content rather than conduct. --Taelus (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To lie about and mischaracterize other editors, while saying "oh, it shouldn't be personal", again seems to fall far short of anything resembling an apology. As far as I'm concerned, if this was a content issue, it wouldn't have left the talkpages where it started. --Paularblaster (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that is a consensus emerges on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abortion again the User's position (and lets face it, it pretty much has) will she accept it? - Schrandit (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bridge that can be crossed when we come to it. --Paularblaster (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. - Schrandit (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the RfC is closed now, as the desired outcome at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CarolineWH#Desired outcome has been met, see also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CarolineWH#Motion for closure. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the other concerns expressed, that seems somewhat premature.--Paularblaster (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Re. to Paularblaster, actually, there has been feedback from myself and Awickert. However, the point here is that further discussion on the subject will be nonconstructive as the matter has been resolved. The essay WP:STICK pretty much sums it up, kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly aside from this, please take note of your edits on Caroline's talk page. She's apologize politely, no need to take that apology and squash it in her face. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She had an apology dragged out of her like a back tooth, for a very serious insult, but I've been happy to accept it when it came. I'd appreciate not having my comments to other users inaccurately summarized. If you have anything to say to me directly, my own talkpage is the place for that. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that was a inaccurate summary, sorry. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to have had some feedback here. Point 3, trying to take disputes on wikipedia into another editor's real-life workplace, is actually the one that worried me most, even though I am in no way personally touched by it. I have to say I am somewhat surprised that it is of such minor concern to others. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I should perhaps say as well, on point 2 Spitfire has inadvertently mischaracterized the concern raised: the issue is not the old edits on that IP; in establishing that CarolineWH is not the same editor as a previously blocked one on the same IP, the diff also shows that it's specifically CarolineWH (not any of the other users of that IP) who is taking part in a journalism class project relating to wikipedia's NPOV policy (perhaps something like an off-wiki NPOV version of NEWT?). I would appreciate it if users would not dismiss these concerns as part of an imbroglio, because they are genuine concerns about appropriate editor behaviour. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either you have some other quote than the one linked to (if so, please provide), or you are the one mischaracterizing things; the linked item only refers to a journalism class that simply mentions Wikipedia. As for researching an editor beyond Wikipedia, that is not something that one does as an editor of Wikipedia (its not part of editing), but as a user of Wikipedia. It is not uncommon to have research done on who did Wikipedia edits (certainly, more famous cases have shown up in the news), and it seems curious to attempt to be passing judgment within the Wikipedia effort on what users do in the outside world. - Nat Gertler (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't asked for anybody to pass judgement, I have simply requested comments. If this is not the correct forum to request comments, please indicate to me where I should do so. What the diff says is that CarolineWH isn't making the same edits as others on that IP because she's the same person, but because she's taking the same journalism class. One of the reasons I'd like to know how the community views this is that if it really does see it as unproblematic, I'll consider encouraging my own students to make particular types of edit to wikipedia (only constructive ones, of course). As to issue 3, phrases in policy like "Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely" suggest that wikipedians should be particularly concerned about this possibility (not less concerned because it's off-wiki). Spitfire has already quoted another part of the same policy: "Although editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated incidents, that should not imply that they are acceptable or without consequences." So again, I politely request comment, to find out just what the community's views are. Personally, although I use my real name to edit here, I feel very strongly that editors who have chosen to be anonymous should have that choice respected. If their edits are unconstructive, they can be blocked or banned. We don't have to be phoning their places of work.--Paularblaster (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Paul. You say "I have simply requested comments. If this is not the correct forum to request comments, please indicate to me where I should do so.", the simple answer to this is nowhere on wikipedia. As far as I know there aren't any noticeboards/forums on wikipedia that are willing to support discussion on an "issue" after it has been resolved.

Let me just briefly sum up what has happened so far in terms of dispute resolution, in my view;

• Firstly you came to Wikiquette alerts about a particular edit, as far as I was aware we had that edit qualified, and Caroline promised not to do it again.
• You then went through Caroline's edits in an attempt to find something else "bad", and when you did you immediately brought that up at the Wikiquette alert too. As it was clear that this was nothing to do with the original issue, no one at Wikiquette alerts really gave a full comment on the issue.
• Next thing you come to RfC requesting an apology, you get one. You claim the apology was made unwillingly ("dragged out of her like a back tooth"), but you nonetheless say that you accept it.
• Finally you say that you want the RfC to stay open for general discussion. Pretty much all the users commenting say that it should be closed.

I've bolded all the parts in my summary where you could have walked away from the issue, with it resolved. Its pointless for us to keep resolving all your complaints for you if all you're going to do is come straight back at us with a new "issue". There's a bolded section right at the end of the summary, please don't let it slip past like all the rest. Kind regards Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spitfire, I'll try to reply to your points as you make them.

• I am quite unable to share your assessment that changing "these particular wikipedians are like Klansmen" to "these particular wikipedians are in some respects like Klansmen (no offense)" can be considered a constructive outcome at wikiquette alerts and a (missed) opportunity to drop the first issue. This issue has, however, indeed been cleared up now (in part, no doubt, due to your own comments on CarolineWH's talkpage), and a civil discussion about content could be (and has been) resumed elsewhere.
• I didn't go looking for "dirt" on CarolineWH (quite the reverse, I was hoping to find a constructive editor, and perhaps some common ground), but having come across material that worries me, and that can be construed as breaching fundamental assumptions about how wikipedia ought to operate, I am not inclined to sweep it under the rug in the interests of gaining some sort of "moral high ground" in an unrelated (and relatively minor) content dispute.
• It was User:Spitfire that advised me to request comments. Apparently you think I ought not to have followed his advice. (If you can explain this, please do so on my talkpage).
• Yes, the user's behaviour worries me, quite apart from either the insult or the content dispute that led to it. I am very willing to have my worries allayed, but not to have them dismissed as "mudslinging".

I'm going to be very busy in real life over the next four days, so in the meantime please do not take my silence as consent to any further suggestions you might make. --Paularblaster (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If what you wanted was to explore what you could legitimately do with your own class, then you should have raised that discussion on its own, rather than posting inaccurate and defamatory claims about another user to do so. If you are now switching your concerns from WP:OUTING to harrassment, you should note what is meant by off-wiki attacks, as it refers to material posting elsewhere. You have not shown where the user has posted any attack information or privacy violations elsewhere. And if you are willing to have your comments viewed and responded to only in certain ways, then posting a request for comment is properly not the best path to take. - Nat Gertler (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's been repeated invocation of WP:OUTING in describing the user's research. I would recommend that anyone attempting to invoke that go read that policy. It says nothing about finding out information. It is all explicitly about the posting of information. The post being message contains no such information, and in fact specifically avoids naming certain information. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and furthermore to this, as I understand the matter (which is maybe not brilliantly) Caroline used to know the user in "real life", which maybe goes some way to reducing the concern over this issue? Although I'd like it if some one with more knowledge of whats going on could confirm that. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors commenting on the matter seem to take a rather dimmer view of it (thankfully; I was beginning to think wikipedia had changed out of all recognition). An attempted outing still falls under outing. Since no harm came of the attempt I don't, myself, think that any sanction should be imposed for it (but I don't know what policy or precedent are in such cases - contrary to the character that some have ascribed to me, I have no great grasp of wikipedia policies, never having come across situations like this before in my three years as an editor). It should, I think, be made very clear, both to CarolineWH and, I fear, to NatGertler, that phoning other editors' presumed place of employment is not acceptable behaviour for a wikipedian (something that Spitfire's initial reaction to the incident was beginning to make me doubt).--Paularblaster (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you feel there should be no sanction imposed logically you would therefore support closing the RFC. Gerardw (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what "attempted outing"? The outing is not the finding of information, it is the posting of information, and you've shown zero sign that she attempted to post anything of the sort. In her post, she in fact specifically avoided posting what information she did have, the name of the company she was calling. Your continued and repeated posting of misinformation is not painting your efforts in a good light. - Nat Gertler (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to Gerardw: where's the logic in that? Because I've given my own (provisional) opinion I should no longer be interested in hearing the opinions of others? --Paularblaster (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to NetGertler: don't call me, I'll call you. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence is listed at the top of the template. Do we not believe this? Gerardw (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC is used to establish pattern. If an editor is willing to go to great lengths to track down an employer, call them up, thus performing "...actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others" (from WP:NPA), then it shows a pattern of behaviour which is not merely limited to the "single user" in question. This therefore is of wider Wikipedia concern, and has an extra-chilling effect on all editors of Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bwilkins, I believe the incident you referred to has been archived. I did a bit of research and found it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive508#Real life stalking by Ecoleetage. Is this correct? --Kevinkor2 (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After three years editing I've suddenly found myself subject to lies, insults, and assumptions of bad faith, simply because I don't think a sufficient case has been made to censor the word "mother" in such phrases as "health of the mother", "rights of the mother", etc. The comments here have been very helpful in showing that while some wikipedians see the behaviour that has worried me as problematic, enough take a "non-judgmental" attitude to off-wiki harassment to make me rethink my involvement in this project. I assume that an RfC, like an AfD, will be closed by an admin who considers the required outcome to be settled on, and that no further input from me will be necessary. Regards, --Paularblaster (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]