Dave Souza adds a
section of analysis to RfC/ID discussion...
QUOTE(Dave Souza @ RfC/ID Discussion, 21:36, 26 June 2008)
View by dave souzaThis RfC opened with desired outcomes in terms of article content policies, and in relation to behaviour "That editors be able to edit such content with a minimum of conflict and strife." The description notes disagreements about civility, allegations of cabalism with reference to some users dealing with intelligent design and others allegedly creating a non-helpful backdrop of drama and poor feelings, as well as some alleged personalized disputes.
#Viewpoint of SirFozzie named specific users who deal with intelligent design, and stated an aim of getting them and others to "act in a more collegial manner", citing name-calling, well-poisoning and use of loaded terms to describe other editors as behaviour to be avoided. While SirFozzie then produced flimsy evidence of alleged problems, putting an exaggerated slant on complex issues, the aims in terms of behaviour are worthwhile and I am glad to see that the named editors have accepted that their behaviour is part of the problem, and that they need to be more civil.
#View by User:Rocksanddirt gave a perceptive analysis of an underlying problem of uncivil "labelling" coming across as harassment. It was widely accepted that everyone should refrain from labelling editors in group terms.
It was therefore disappointing to find that a subsequent thread at
Wikipedia Review was titled "ID Cabal Request for Comment", and that the
#Outside view by Cla68 alleges "problematic behavior by a group of editors whose account names feature prominently in this RfC".
In my opinion the evidence Cla68 presents does not stand up to detailed examination, and he shows a remarkable sensitivity to criticism, particularly when he seems untroubled by what WR's provisional posting rules apparently call "the bounds of decorum that operate here". More significantly, he is talking in terms of "behavior by this group". Editors who have posted to Wikipedia Review have very reasonably objected to being described as "Wikipedia Review editors" or "Wikipedia Review members" as though that defines their behaviour, and similarly they should not stereotype other users.
From a recent
Wikipedia Review thread it seems that there have been complaints there about editors working on intelligent design as long ago as June 2006, and a post there dated 6th July 2007 apparently alleged a "Science cabal" editing on Global warming, intelligent design and so on.[
51] This does seem to be a pervasive atmosphere on that forum, and all editors here must be careful to set aside such prejudices and poisoning of the well in order to contribute to Wikipedia in a collegiate manner.
In conclusion, there have been faults all round, and we should all endeavour to achieve higher standards of behaviour. Doubtless there will be occasional lapses which should be treated in a way that defuses tensions rather than building up drama, but these principles should be followed –
- Editors should avoid labelling other editors, and take care to be civil in a way that avoids harassment.
- Editors must set aside any prejudices or or preconceptions about other editors, disregarding any allegations about "group behaviour", and take full responsibility themselves for carefully considering each case on its merits.
dave souza,
talk 21:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see an impartial observer (Random832 comes to mind) do a comparative analysis of the probity of evidence provided by Cla68 in support of his (Cla68's) theses to the probity of
evidence provided by FeloniousMonk in support of his (FM's) theses, and then compare both of those to the probity of
evidence about FeloniousMonk.
ID Cabal Request for Comment
