Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CarolineWH

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

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the 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: 14:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC).

CarolineWH (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

There a three issues concerning this editor on which I would like to request the comments of others. In two of those three I am quite literally requesting comments. The user in questions has:

1. Made insulting comparisons regarding other users and refuses to retract them in full;
2. Appears to come to wikipedia for the purpose of bringing the terms in use here into line with a preconceived agenda;
3. Has bragged of underhandedly attempting to discover another editor's place of work.

Cause of concern

1. The first issue, and the simplest, is that in the course of a discussion about content that has sprawled over several talkpages, User:CarolineWH likened those of her fellow editors who disagree with her to members of the Ku Klux Klan. The diff is here, a long edit in which the key phrase is:

"As it turns out, the three people who have thus far argued here for the use of "mother" by claiming it is neutral are themselves religious conservatives who would call themselves pro-life. They are therefore from the partisan group that is notable for abusing this term. While I AGF, of course, this would suffice to explain why they don't recognize how controversial this usage is, as it is likely commonplace among their fellow churchgoers and activists. It is in some ways akin to Klansmen who see nothing improper with Mr. Fuhrman's vocabulary. CarolineWH (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)"

When User:Schrandit took exception to her likening other editors to Klansmen her response was

Klansmen are people too, and would tell you that they are good Christians to boot. I'm sorry you dislike my analogy, but I suspect that this just shows that you understood it.

(again, part of a lengthier edit); even reading "understood" as a typo for "misunderstood", this is simply unacceptable, as I pointed out on the same page, to no avail. Taking this issue to wikiquette alerts, a number of other editors commented adversely, and her response was to concede that those who disagree with her are not in all respects comparable to Klansmen. A further editor, Shell, trying to get her to tone it down on her talkpage, was told that she would not rescind the comment completely until she had found another that was equally as offensive, because she had no desire to draw an inoccuous parallel. This first issue can, I think, be resolved easily enough by a full retraction and a full apology.

2. The user has repeatedly introduced herself as "one of the editors who ...", in a formulation I took to refer to an on-wiki group. But in following up on the previous course of discussion between the other parties, I came across these exchanges, which seem to indicate that the editor is part of an off-wiki claque that comes to the project with a preconceived agenda picked up in one particular journalism class (I make a good faith assumption that this information is correct and was provided voluntarily).

3. In trying to ascertain whether this editor's behaviour is the sort of one-off that can be passed over more lightly, or part of a larger pattern, I came across her bragging about how she had tried to ascertain another editor's place of work by deceit. This does not affect me directly, but I find it too troublesome simply to let lie, and it is at the suggestion of an editor on wikiquette alerts that I bring the matter here as going beyond a mere question of etiquette.

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.

Desired outcome

1. A full apology and retraction, showing some sense of just how offensive such comparisons are, would seem the most desirable outcome.
2. Strictly for comment. Does this in fact violate policy?
3. Strictly for comment. Is it something that should go further? Is it something that should be dismissed as a youthful indiscretion?

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)

User's response to Schrandit is here.
User's response to Paularblaster is here
User's response to Shell's attempt at mediation is here.
User's response to comments of other editors on wikiquette alerts is here.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

--Paularblaster (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- Schrandit (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Response

{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed. Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.}

Response to concerns

{Add summary here.}

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

Users endorsing this response

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

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.

Outside view by Spitfire

I'll try and write this in the same format that Paul has filed the case, dealing with his concerns in order. Note that I was involved in the Wikiquette alerts concerning this.

1. Made insulting comparisons regarding other users and refuses to retract them in full; this is something that I think has been resolved, Paul originally came to Wikiquette alerts with a complaint against Caroline's comparison. After discussion it was proposed by Gerardw that Caroline would not make any such comments in future. Caroline agreed to this and then, completely or her own accord and independent from what Gerardw had proposed, Caroline decided to go and try to amend her previous comment. She amended it by adding that the editors are "not akin to Klansmen in most other ways, and no insult is intended by the comparison" personally this seems perfectly acceptable to me and I don't understand why Paul is still dragging the issue out.
2 Appears to come to wikipedia for the purpose of bringing the terms in use here into line with a preconceived agenda; On this point Paul doesn't seem to be paying attention to Caroline, she has previously stated (at least 5 times I suspect) that she used to edit under a shared IP until it was blocked, due to no action of her own. Caroline has also stated that she finds it annoying that everyone keeps on referring to her as a SPA and I think it would be courtesy to cease to do so.
3 Has bragged of underhandedly attempting to discover another editor's place of work; the wording of this complaint is clearly utterly unacceptable, but besides from that, its also unfair to bring the issue to RFC. As I advised Paul on Wikiquette alerts, harassment should only be brung up at a place like RFC of AN/I if it is a long term pattern of abuse. This is not that. What Paul has done is trawl all the way through Caroline's contribs to find anything that could be discriminating. This edit was completely isolated, the user whom it was aimed at has made no complaint regarding it that I'm aware of and it really borderline Harassment. Even if it could be shown to constitute harassment it should not have been brought here, as I told Paul earlier, Wikipedia:Harassment#Consequences of harassment states that: "Although editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated incidents, that should not imply that they are acceptable or without consequences. A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith", as this seems to be an isolated incident it really should have been ignored or politely brought to Caroline's attention, not brought to RFC.

Users who endorse this summary:

Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Partial endorse: I endorse 2 and 3, but not 1: KKK accusations are never justifiable IMO. Awickert (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: Item 1 seems to have been taken care of. Item 2 seems to boil down to the suggestion that she had existing opinions before becoming a Wikipedia editor and may have consorted with other people of similar opinions, and not only do neither seem like any sort of a violation, both seem pretty much intrinsic to anyone likely to edit Wikipedia. And the voicing of 2 and 3 in the manner that they have been come across less like some attempt to resolve a dispute and more part of some campaign against the user that RfC doesn't seem designed to address. - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Caroline had already addressed the concerns about the comparison and actively sought alternative methods of communicating her point. This RfC is wholly unnecessary and I agree with Nat that 2 and 3 seem designed simply to create the appearance of an issue where there is none. Paul should seriously consider closing this quickly and apologizing. Shell ^babelfish 20:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Item 1 had clearly been resolved before this RfC was raised, it serves no purpose to have it dredged up again here. 2 & 3 appear to me to be tendentious and should be dropped. - Nick Thorne ^talk 20:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Awickert

Note: I was the the user who brought up the original sockpuppetry case (with Spotfixer). Summary: 1 is valid; 2, 3 are not, just stay out of each other's hair and tone it down 3-4 notches.

KKK-style accusations are never acceptable (provided that the target isn't a KKK member), no matter what happens afterwards unless it's a complete apology. Being pro-life or pro-choice is a controversial decision in US politics; going around terrorizing non-whites like the KKK would earn a jail sentence (if the neighbors didn't take a baseball bat to your head first) in my neighborhood. Saying that you are sort of like them is still bad. It is sort of like saying that Muslims are like jihadist terrorists because they share a religion. While true, this is very insulting. I think Schrandit deserves a complete apology. [Addendum 19:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC): I am satisfied with Caroline's apology in this diff]
Same as Paul (above); Caroline is a different user. She has an agenda, though not a group agenda. I agree that the SPA accusations should stop, as should every single accusation from each side; stay out of each other's hair, for the love of peace.
The bragging/figuring out whether that IP could be a Spotfixer sock was completely unrelated.

Users who endorse this summary:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Awickert (talk • contribs)

Outside view by Bwilkins

As this is an RFC, it is a valid place to bring up a wide range of concerns in order to possibly determine a pattern. That they are or are not related to the same case is moot.

The KKK references are atrocious - we have had similar issues with calling editors "Nazis", and they are chilling attempts to dissuade input into the project, and to demean and disparage others.
Although it seems that it's being discounted, the attempted outing is a most serious concern. If I read correctly, not only does it appear that the editor took initial steps to do simple research - which is not bad on its own right - but actually placed a phone call to another editor's place of work - did we not have a similar issue with another editor?

One can argue that attributing someone's actions to the KKK is merely an accidental use of a figure of speech, and can easily be withdrawn. The WP:OUTING violation was a direct, thought-out action that can never be reversed, and could have had far more serious consequences.

Users who endorse this summary:

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dmcq (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Outside view. I agree. The business about the agenda is fairly minor compared to those two points. The retraction about the KKK was half hearted at best and I would want to see some sort of apology and undertaking about the attempted outing. Dmcq (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taelus (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC) This best summarises what I think after mulling over the scenario. The KKK references are bad, however an apology and retraction are a good step. The outing does seem to be a concern, although I am not fully aware of the full situation for it. --Taelus (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unomi (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Calling an editors workplace and asking who knows what is deeply problematic and wholly unacceptable. How CarolineWH could possibly hold it to be within community norms to act in this way beggars disbelief. Unomi (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Why has CarolineWH not been blocked for the attempted outing, never mind including it in an RfC. I would view this most seriously. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Gerardw

The reason I made the suggestions to CarolineWH [1] listed above as Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute is not because I felt she bore the majority of the responsibility for the lack of progress on the content issue but rather

a review of the discussion thread in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Abortion indicated to me that she was the most reasonable and willing to listen and discuss participant.
- one of the opposing participants simply made repeated assertions, which I found unconvincing and not helpful to progress.
- the filer of this RFC seems to me one of those Wikipedians who knows all the rules and appears to me to repeatedly take the rules to their limits without actually crossing them. For example posting provocative statements such as Your elders and betters can do as they please and then when called on it, replying You both appear to be under the misapprehension that I was including myself among Caroline's betters. I can see no grounds for you jumping to that conclusion, but have adapted my statement to preclude any such tendentious reading. Please. I've been away for awhile but I'm pretty sure there's a WP:something-or-other for this type of behavior -- regardless it's just uncool. It's following the letter of Wikipedia guidelines while ignoring the spirit. And the tracking down of discussion on a not involved user's talk page one an unrelated issue looks like wikihounding to me.
a review of Caroline's account show her account to be rather new and I felt that with toning down of rhetoric she could become a more valuable editor.

In summary, I posted to Caroline's account rather than anyone else's because it seemed the best use of my time -- most likely to make Wikipedia a better place.

Except for a couple minor tweaks, I've done very little on Wikipedia the last year or so. I ran across a Wall Street Journal article about how the number of editors is now going down. So I figure maybe I could make a contribution again.

And this absolute nonsense reminds me of why I faded away in the first place. If there's any common sense Wikipedia community left, just close this thing now.

Users who endorse this summary:

Gerardw (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gerard's summary of Paul's involvement, although I doubt that Paul is purposely behaving this way, and so am happy to AGF. I also agree with Gerard's summary of Caroline and her potential, regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solutions

This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.

Motion for closure

1) I suggest that the RfC is closed as Caroline has removed her comment and apologized for it (see here), as the desired outcome at #Desired outcome has been met I suggest that closure is the way forward, please endorse below or comment on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/CarolineWH#Closure. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Rather premature. The desired outcome at points 2 and 3 is for community comment. So far there has not been much of that.--Paularblaster (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Absolutely. The only relevant concern here had already been dealt with. This was a poor decision and simply serves to further a dispute. Shell ^babelfish 20:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Premature, but I'll WP:AGF as to motive (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC should not have been raised, I agree with Shell_Kinney that it serves no useful purpose. - Nick Thorne ^talk 20:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. The remaining "issues" seem a case of inappropriate targeting, and to leave them for active discussion only serves to continue that targeting. - Nat Gertler (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. This editor has been the most flexible, reasonable and willing to learn participant in the content discussion. The top of this page states rather clearly: This must involve the same dispute with a single user Gerardw (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Premature. The points have not been adequately dealt with whatever about what the proposers put down as desired outcomes. Dmcq (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Summary

Matter taken to AN/I and user blocked indef, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.