User:Cailil/cailil sandbox 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
User:Blackworm report
This is an unfinished report on tendentious editing by User:Balckworm. Please note this has been carefully compilled to abide by the policy of assume good faith and is written with the final paragraph in mind
[The assume good faith policy] does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice.
Contents |
[edit] Summary of issue
Blackworm (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) Phyesalis (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) This user has attempted to turn the project into a battle ground. Disrupting at least 5 talk pages. This dispute began at Circumcision in August 2007 but became hot and started to escalate in November 2007. As of this week it has spilt over into an attack on the purpose and neutrality of Wikiproject Gender studies.
I am requesting assistance in light of WP:NOT#BATTLE and WP:AGF. These policies are at the core of this project at present 5 pages are becoming unworkable because Blackworm has not moderated this behaviour.
I am not claiming this user has not made good contributions - just that their behavior has continuously failed to AGF and has created a battleground at at least 5 articles.
[edit] Dispute resolution
User:Coppertwig has attempted to keep things calm at reproductive rights, when the page was deadlocked I offered an outside opinion and I advise Phyesalis to RFC the page or ask Pigman for a WP:3O. This has not resolved the dispute. Had the issue remained there - I would expect some form of mediation to be necessary, but Blackworm escalated the dispute. There was no reason for him to make flame baiting comments to WT:GS, except if he failed to assume (a)the good faith of its users and (b) the good faith of Phyesalis who just joined it. It reached the stage that this either needs to go to Arbcom or for both Phyesalis and Blackworm to be separated and the disputes watched by uninvolved admins.
Presented below is the a case against Blackworm for attempting to turn the project into a battle ground.
- Not Asumming Good Faith
- Not working towards resolving disputes
- Escalating and spreading disputes to other articles and areas of the Project
[edit] Not AGF
Whether intentional or not, this dispute has escalated from a discussion at Female genital cutting into failures to AGF at WT:GS and Reproductive rights. This is a list of Blackworm's breach of WP:BATTLE and WP:AGF starting with the most current.
On Talk:Reproductive rights Blackworm has made claims that Phyesalis canvassed for support on that page[1]. This is to my knowledge is a false allegation. I came to that page of my own accord and offer an opinion contray to Phyesalis's position. She discussed the matter on my talk page and I recommend she RFC the dispute or talk to "someone like User:Pigman." Asking a sysop for a WP:3O is normal practice. 'I made a posting to WikiProject Human rights - since the dispute was about reproductive rights as human rights - I am a member of that project. I stated that I made this posting on Talk:Reproductive rights[2].
Even if Phyesalis had undertaken both actions, asking for input from the relevant wikiproject and/or from an uninvolved admin is not canvassing - its normal to ask for wider input in a dispute. Accusing her of canvassing is in this case a failure to assume good faith.
It is quite clear that Blackworm and Phyesalis do not get along. However that does not excuse a continual failure to assume good faith as demonstrated [3]. It is also unacceptable that Blackworm escalates this dispute from article to article and on to WP:GS - that is creating a battleground, and is based upon not AGF.
[edit] A history of not working towards resolving disputes
These are talk page discussions (very very long ones) demonstrating this issue. Talk:Reproductive_rights#3RR_violation Talk:Reproductive_rights#Undue_weight_re_men.27s_versus_women.27s_rights Talk:Female genital cutting Talk:Circumcision_and_law#Data_from_Oregon_court_case
[edit] Escalation
Blackworm has escalated this dispute making claims about the neutrality of wikiproject gender studies on january 3rd - which Phyesalis joined a day earlier[4]. He accused the project of being "a collective of pro-feminist editors"[5]. He basically accused it of being a cabal of povpushers. He then claims his remark was hypothetical and therefore not his own assertion.[6]
[edit] Battleground
Instead of resolving an issue and moving on from it Blackworm has exhibitted a tendency to "move the goal posts" and protract the dispute. Consider his issue with Phyesalis begins on circumcision moves to Female genital cutting & then on to Reproductive rights.
After I Phyesalis joined WP:GS he begins making flamebaiting comments there. This is pointy and is attempt to escalate the dispute he was having at other articles. It is disrupting the project by turning all of these pages into a battleground - something the the project is not!
[edit] My involvement
I am involved in his dispute with WP:GS and am also involved at Father's rights movement, I have referred the disputed content to WP:RS/N for community input.
[edit] History of similar behaviour
His comments to WT:GS are not the first time that Blackworm has engaged in drama to make a point[7][8]. A discussion on his talk page about his objections on Talk:Circumcision illustrates this further[9].
