Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dicklyon 2

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 15:17, 11 February 2009 ), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC).

Dicklyon (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Dicklyon's pervasive incivility and hostile profanity, tendentious editing, edit warring, aggressive assumptions of bad faith regarding other users' motivations, persistently unevidenced accusations of misconduct of other users, and lack of responsiveness to community feedback have all resulted in a long-standing disruption of a block of pages relating to transsexuality.

Many editors speak highly of Dicklyon's editing in many areas of WP. Ideally, Dicklyon will begin to contribute as productively to the pages involved in this dispute as he does elsewhere. Dicklyon’s conduct on these pages, including antagonistic resistance to input, far exceeds community norms.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

Dicklyon should agree to:

No profanity on talk pages or edit summaries
To refer to other editors respectfully, and not as members of a cabal, an army, or similar
Assume good faith editing on the part of others, limiting allegations of impropriety to appropriate channels, such as noticeboards
Abide by a 1RR limit
Abide by a 2-tag/page limit (without interpreting this rule as permission to top up disputed pages to two tags)

Over-involvement in specific pages can often be assisted by time away from the disputed articles, as one other editor in the dispute has already volunteered to do.[1] Although Dicklyon did not agree to reciprocate with such a withdrawal [2], self-restraint for improvement of WP is the expectation of the community.

The pages subject to the most disruption are:

What this RfC is not

The purpose of this RfC is not to impose a topic ban. It is hoped that by taking some time out, then returning to the talk pages, and later to the main pages, Dicklyon will have the maximum opportunities to learn and apply greater self-restraint, enabling him to participate in the pages cooperatively and productively.

Although there have been many discussions regarding whether Dicklyon’s off-wiki relationship with one of the individuals related to the above pages constitutes a COI, it is not the purpose of this RfC to judge whether Dicklyon does in fact have a COI. The purpose of this RfC is to address inappropriate conduct regardless of any COI.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Incivility and Personal Attacks.

Dicklyon's incivility and hostile profanity are relentless:

"This is bullshit." [3] [4] "Asbestos won't save you this time. What a jerk!"[5] "it's still bullshit" [6] "You also failed to mention the hateful new article you created yesterday...totally to prop up your colleague Blanchard in his bashing of the trans women (one of whom is indeed a long-time friend and colleague of mine"[7] "Bullshit. You made the edit on Jan. 7." [8]

user:Hfarmer has been the recipient of particularly blistering attack:

In providing descriptions of all the editors to a mediator, Dicklyon wrote: "Hfarmer, the transsexual black muslim physicist, seems to be in it for the attention more than anything else" [9] After reverting an edit of Hfarmer's, "If there's a consensus that more needs to be said in this section, let's have someone less wierd and biased write it, OK?"[10] "Hfarmer exceeded my tolerance for snipy little BLP violations" [11]

Dicklyon fails to own responsibility for his behavior when he is confronted on it, instead placing the blame on the recipients of his hostility for provoking him or calling for it.[12][13]

Extraordinary POV-pushing

Dicklyon believes that among all the editors involved in content disputes, he alone is neutral: "It still appears that Cantor wants to silence the only person working to balance the content (that's me), so his stories can prevail." [14] "At this point, I think I'm the only editor who is not a principal in the off-wiki controversy who stands up for the side that you're not on." [15] He refers to consensuses that fail to support him as "unfair attempts by several editors, allied with Cantor, to exclude one side of the story and write the articles from only the point of view of the academic sexologists," [16] and feels that he is responsible for defending the page: "If we could attract some other people to keep an eye on this space, people without a vested interest in that version of the 'story', then maybe I could step back; but not now." [17] Such philosophies are not conducive to cooperative editing.

Dicklyon does not respect dispute-resolution agreements. After a series of disputes over these pages Dicklyon and James Cantor entered mediation, resulting in an agreement not to edit the controversial areas. [18] Dicklyon nonetheless violated the agreement [19], [20], [21], justifying the edits saying they were very unimportant. Subsequently, he abandoned that agreement altogether justying it saying he then needed to make important edits. [22] No-edit agreements he proposed himself included clauses rendering them meaningless, such as by adding "Of course, it should also be recognized that such a truce may have to some day be abandoned if someone new starts to push one POV again, as I had to abandon the truce with Cantor when Hfarmer went to work on the Conway bio." [23]

Lack of responsiveness to community input

When in pursuit of a POV, Dicklyon becomes immune to community input. He recently nominated Feminine essence theory of transsexuality for deletion (a new page created by user:James Cantor. The nomination was defeated nearly unanimously [24]. Dicklyon immediately followed-up by filing an RfC [25], which also failed to provide support for his POV about the page. Apparently displeased with these outcomes, Dicklyon next tag-abused the page with approximately two dozen dubious-tags, who-tags, and cn-tags with edit summaries such as “a few tags to point out some of the made-up assertions in this stupid article.” [26] [27][28] When the incident was reported at AN/I, multiple independent editors removed the tags, and Dicklyon repeatedly re-applyied them. The series of edit summaries were:

LOLthulu: rm inappropriate tagging

Dicklyon: Reverted 1 edit by LOLthulu; That was a complete revert and gave no idea which aspects of my calls for discussion of dubious claims were considered inappropropriate

NJGW: rv extrodinarily wp:POINTy edit

Dicklyon: Reverted 1 edit by NJGW; These tags are not pointy; they are serious; please address on the talk page

Dendlai: Undid revision 269438344 by Dicklyon Definitly seem very pointy

Dicklyon: Reverted 1 edit by Dendlai; Why not just address the problem instead of sweeping it under the rug? These tags are serious

NJGW: Reverted 1 edit by Dicklyon; Pointy and now you're at 3rr; I'm commenting on the talk page.

After that 3RR warning was posted, another admin posted on Dicklyon's talk page "Do you plan on addressing this issue, or will you continue to disrupt an article and edit war?" [29], to which Dicklyon did not respond. Then, 28 hours after making the first of the reverts noted above, Dicklyon added seven new tags, writing in his edit summary "first three dubious tags, corresonding to the discussion sections that are open on the talk page"[30]. The related discussion at AN/I is here.

Dicklyon will engage in "playing dumb" when confonted by admins responding to noticeboard reports about his behavior. After an admin warned Dicklyon for 3RR for repeated tag-bombing (over 20 tags on the page), Dicklyon wrote "Thanks for the notice; but you didn't say why you're removing the tags." [31] After an admin agreed on BLP/N that an edit of Dicklyon's violated BLP, Dicklyon responded by asked "...what living persons"?[32].

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Assume good faith
Civility (taunting and baiting; personal attacks, rudeness, insults; ill-considered accusations of impropriety; “playing dumb”)
Conflict of interest
Consensus
Disruptive editing (tendentiousness, disruptive cite-tagging, rejects community input)
Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
Edit warring
Etiquette
Gaming the system
I don't like it
3RR
No Personal Attacks

Applicable essays

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Mediator’s requests regarding civility [33] [34] [35]
Offers to participate in mutual restrictions on disputed articles [36] [37]
History of ignoring suggestions to seek external opinions is long-standing: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]

Noticeboards and mediations

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)

Abandoning mediated no-edit agreement [44]
Stating he will not re-enter a no-edit agreement until another editor is found who shares his POV[45]
Refusing to participate in mutual no-edit Pledge [46]
Formal mediation (failed)
Dicklyon’s response to talk page posts about his incivility: “You guys are nuts….How is any of this hassling me going to help?” [47] [48]
When an editor says that it is incivil to refer to someone’s good-faith edits as “appalling” and “vicious,” [49], Dicklyon responds by saying it again [50] and again [51] and again [52] and again [53].
Dicklyon's response to this RfC: “this repeatedly running to momma is just absurd” [54]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

— James Cantor (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC) (previously user:MarionTheLibrarian)[reply]
--Hfarmer (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--ProudAGP (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

PhilKnight (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inside view by Hfarmer

Given that half of the personal attacks this RFC is about were directed at me I think it is appropriate for me to give a view. This has been done in other RFC's.

The nature of some of his attacks is not totally direct, or obvious. Sometimes they come in the form of an appeal to some of the worst homophobic and transphobic stereotypes. For example in response to my suggesting that a user, DarlieB be excluded from our mediation. He wrote "Stop trying to make it a show if you hope to make progress."[55]

He appeals to this stereotype again. This is the context in which the "transsexuals black Muslim physicist remark appears.

"And then there's User:Hfarmer and User:DarlieB; each in their own way introduces more drama and noise than we need. The transsexual DarlieB is clearly on "my side"; with friends like this, who needs enemies? And Hfarmer, the transsexual black muslim physicist, seems to be in it for the attention more than anything else. Good luck with these two."[56]

This may not sound like a big deal unless you know of the stereotypes that exist about male to female transsexuals, and/or effeminate homosexuals. One of the more die hard ones is that such people are theatrical and attention seeking, want to be noticed. If you have never heard this one. A dignified analytical description of it. A fun musical which uses that stereotype to good effect. Weather or not such sterotypes have a germ of truth or not is irrelevant, this is not someplace where one gains attention. If either I or Darlie wanted that we would be in showbiz.

"Save your feigned feelings, please."[57] Said when I expressed my sincere empathy for his POV. A POV I shared about the use of certain sources, which were excluded by two discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard. I was on his side, yet I get this. One of the main ways he insults people is by assumption of bad faith.

Users who endorse this summary:

Inside view by WhatamIdoing

So I'm frustrated today.

Dick has pretty much quit cussing, which is an improvement. He's pretty much been "commenting on content, not the contributor," and he's knocked off the slurs. He's been keeping his edit wars under 3RR (possibly just because everyone else is sticking to 1RR). But that "improvement", however desirable in its own right, leaves an enormous amount of room for "civil" POV pushing and tendentious editing.

Feminine essence theory of transsexuality is the current problem. As background, for anyone that isn't involved, this is the #1 popular understanding of transsexuality. This is "I'm a (true) woman trapped in a man's body." This is "I don't just feel like a woman; I am a (true) woman."

From the research perspective, this is also about half a century out of date, and no modern sexologist buys it. As a result, there are relatively few proper scientific papers that detail the idea. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of personal blogs, and a handful of self-help-type books, but they tend to provide long anecdotes, not clear, organized, concise descriptions of the general idea.

So we have a few concise descriptions, which are presented in the article. One of these was written by a sexology named Ray Blanchard, who, like all the other professionals in his field, does not believe this idea is supported by any of the available evidence. Blanchard organizes the concept into an actual theory, with four tenets. The first is, "Male-to-female transsexuals are, in some literal sense and not just in a figurative sense, women inside men’s bodies."

Now I grant that the word "literal" is overused, but every single native English speaker except Dick recognizes that this word, when used in this context, means 'actually', as in 'not figuratively', instead of 'according to the printed words.' Blanchard even explains later that some people have misunderstood the transwomen's assertion of true womanhood as meaning that they are like women, and that this point in the theory must be understood as transwomen being true women -- which doubtless explains why he introduced the literal/figurative distinction, instead of making a bald statement that "Male-to-female transsexuals are women inside men’s bodies."

Some editors have expressed dismay that Blanchard organizes his description as a theory; every editor that dislikes the word theory thinks that it gives the idea (which they personally reject) too much scientific cachet. Most of them are also unfamiliar with the breadth of definitions present in Theory or its difference from a scientific law. Given that he names four properly falsifiable tenets, this is an obviously accurate use of the term. (In fact, this description would be a theory, even if the author didn't call it a theory.) Furthermore, "theory" is the exact word used in the reliable source, so it's really not our job to challenge the RS's choice of terms.

This has been going on for a while, but this week, Dick has been totally hung up on the use of the word "literal" in the first tenet. He has asserted that the term is factually incorrect, that it is impossible to figure out what he means, that it makes Blanchard's description totally different from everyone else's (apparently on the grounds that most other authors use words like true and actually and fundamentally instead of literally when making highly similar statements), and that this statement must be understood as an assertion of physical/biological cause(!) for transsexuality (presumably because "Heaven knows" that physical science is the sole valid understanding of the entirety of human experience) -- instead of simply assuming that Blanchard wrote what he meant to say, without filtering it through the personal POVs and OR tendencies of a Wikipedia editor.

As Blanchard writes, most modern TS people do believe that transsexuality has a neurological basis (instead of a psychosocial one), but Blanchard writes that this idea is "paired with" (a phrase known to careful readers as meaning "separate from") this belief; the belief in a neurological basis for their true womanhood is not the same thing as their belief in their true womanhood.

So what does Dick do?

Endless "playing dumb" arguments on the talk page -- 134 kb at the moment (the article is less than two months old).

He insists that the entire idea be identified solely as Blanchard's theory[58] -- even though we have solid sources describing the idea as "the predominant cultural understanding of transsexuality", "the standard story", and so forth. He re-writes the lead to say that it's solely Blanchard's made-up idea.[59][60] He endlessly calls it a deliberately weakened strawman argument, despite never finding a single source that supports that view, or even a single source that contradicts Blanchard's description.[61][62] He adds tags like ^[who?] to statements that already have sources.[63]

I realize that a few readers are going to be looking at some of this with astonishment. Yes, Dick has asserted that Blanchard is the only person on the planet to write about this idea and that none of the many other authors agrees with Blanchard. He has asserted that the idea is Blanchard's made-up strawman that nobody has ever believed and that the article should be written from the perspective of the true believers. Yes, these are mutually exclusive views. I don't know whether to classify this as a rapidly evolving understanding of the subjeect, blatant opportunism, or early onset dementia, but as he doesn't make conflicting assertions on the same day, I've been assuming the least-evil motivation.

He's been causing problems with his constant moving targets: Okay, so he wanted the article deleted, and when that blew up in his face, he wanted the article gutted. This is not entirely surprising, if you assume that the goal is to hate on an idea instead of to write down an aspect of human knowledge. But it goes on: Then he says he wants the article expanded to include other POVs, but can find exactly zero sources that actually have materially different POVs... Yes, these would be the same authors that prove Blanchard wrong because they don't use the word literally. He says that he wants the article expanded, while insisting that the scope of the article be defined in the WP:LEAD in such an unbelievably narrow manner -- reducing the scope of the article essentially to a single, short, non-peer-reviewed commentary -- that no rational editor would think any such expansion were wanted. He whinges that it is "biased" in favor of the expert views (this is a problem?) POV, but apparently can't find a single reliable source that has another POV. He complains that one reliable source didn't cite its sources, so he says that can't trust the author (a very senior sex research) to know what he's talking about. Whenever I think we might be reaching an agreement on one tiny point, he jumps to an unrelated point and demands that it be addressed simultaneously, with the result that nothing ever gets resolved.

Dick has encountered direct and active opposition by (as far as I can see) every single editor that has ever edited the article, but that is apparently an unimportant indicator of the value of his work there. His derogatory and POV-based edits have been reverted with pointed, policy-based comments like Do you have a RS saying it's a strawman? or objected to on the talk page, but it doesn't sink in that this might add up to a pattern that means he is doing a bad job and should stop; instead, he seems to think that it indicates only that a dozen editors are irrevocably biased because they aren't automatically lining up with his POV. (I think if every change I made to an article was met with reversions and sourced complaints from a dozen different editors, I'd stop. I think any reasonable person would stop.)

Frankly, I'm tired. I'm tired of fighting an endless battle with a jerk who values his personal interpretation what the sources should say over what the reliable sources actually say. I'm tired of explaining grammar, like the difference between "X is paired with Y" and "X is identical to X". I feel like all he cares about is making the article about an idea he personally hates look bad. I wish that Dick would self-impose a topic ban. He's obstructing, not helping.

Users who endorse this summary:

WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

It's a content dispute. Read the tags and the talk page. Cantor has refused to reply to the content issues brought up by the tags in the bogus article he created.

Users who endorse this summary:

Dicklyon (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.}

Outside view by PaleAqua

I still worry as I mentioned at the previous RfC that RfCs like this make mediation more difficult and wished that the unfortunately stalled mediation was more successful. While have a lot of respect for Dicklyon's edits, especially in the color article space which is where I normally stick too, I think that his responses in this conflict have been at times been a little sharp even if baited and being understandably(*) frustrated. That said when looking pass the problem statements he does raise some valid concerns that should be addressed in some of the articles. For example the dubious tags in Feminine essence theory of transsexuality, despite being pointy and the edit war of reinserting them, the issue with the article behind them in my opinion is well justified. In my opinion most of the tags were individually valid it was just when taken as a gestalt that they were pointy. It just should have gone to talk after the 2nd revert. I think the best outcome would be one that does not necessarily see a withdrawal, but a better attempt at consensus building from both sides. In particular I think naming a specific RR limit or tag limit is not the best approach not the least because can encourage wiki-lawyering on either side of the issue. I would rather see Dicklyon reminded to avoid edit wars and not to overuse tags to prove a point.

(*) Note I am not saying or implying that either side is in the wrong, just because some of the conflict involve people known by others in the debate and potential BLP issues that getting frustrated and taking it personally is understandable.

Users who endorse this summary:

PaleAqua (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by PhilKnight

Making remarks such as

"And Hfarmer, the transsexual black muslim physicist, seems to be in it for the attention" 29 January 2009

is completely unacceptable, and can't just be dismissed as a content dispute - there are clearly serious behavioral concerns.

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for 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.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.