Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Calicocat

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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, not different disputes. 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: 13:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC).

(Calicocat | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute[edit]

Description[edit]

User Calicocat has made some 120 edits since 28 February. All but ten or less have been to Ward Churchill or its talk page. He displays what can only described as a messianic zeal in copyediting that article to make it conform to his own particular ideal. In the course of doing so, he insults and willfully reverts other editors and accuses them of bias and pushing POV. He also ignores and disparages Wikipedia editing conventions, notably Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies).

Calicoat could become a useful contributor, but he urgently needs to learn Wikipedia:Wikiquette and understand how communal decision-making and collaborative-editing works at Wikipedia.

On 17:44 on 5 Mar 2005, he posted a message on the Talk page, "Pyrrhic Victory of the Attack Dogs (Have fun)." [1], announcing his withdrawl from the article but less than three hours later he was editing it again.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

Some of Calicocat's edit summaries ("V" is user Viajero): [2]

"Struggling aginst non-NPOV saboteur"
"revered edit by POVist V."
"reverted Viagero POV edits, who is simply out to pormote his obvious POV intent and not to honest wiki editing."
"the struggle to make this a fair, honest, NPOV based entry continues despite sabotage by Viagero and others"
"Removed POV edits by V, His ethnicity as first sentence in article obviously POV and misplaced importance to article's subject, NPOV is non-negotiable per wiki policy
"everted edits by V, His ethnicity ast first sentence in article is obviously POV and misplaced, this is non-negotiable. He's born in the US, so obviously american, he's a tenured professor"
"His ethnicity and his authorship of "many books" just does not belong in the lead paragraph, let alone as the first sentence.. GET REAL."

These are from Talk:Ward Churchill:

1. Pyrrhic Victory of the Attack Dogs (Have fun). [3]

It seems the right-wing and Indian attack dogs can't be honest about creating an NPOV Wikipedia article on Professor Churchill. The double standards are appalling and relentless which is, I think, part of the whole "big lie" propaganda effort of which this article is but a part. As someone else mentioned, this issue itself should be reflected in this entry, but it seems likely that such an effort would render an endless stream of postings designed to defeat honest scholarship and destroy creation of sound, NPOV, fact-based entry.

The relentless effort to frame Churchill continues and I think the substance of the effort is to make Churchill a symbol for use by right-wing intellectual terrorists and fascists -- that is the true intent here, to create a symbol, an easy shorthand so that anyone can be written off as a "Ward Churchill." The utter lack of sincerity both of the right-wing and Indians are two pillars of this effort, their lies and negative framing standing as tall on the landscape as did once World Trade Center. You should be ashamed of yourselves for this.

I've learned a lot about wikipedia from attempting to work collaboratively on this entry with hope that it would turn into an informative article of honest, sound scholarship, but that seems impossible since the propagandists, the anti-Churhillists just won't allow it. Congratulations on helping to destroy Wikipedia. I've had enough of suffering fools for now. Go on dogs, savage the entry, in doing so you expose yourself for the hate-mongering, anti-intellectuals you are. I'll continue to watch the page as you bask in what will surly end up being a Pyrrhic victory for you.

sorry it cames to this point :-( ~~ [unsigned]

2. ethnicity in intro

Calicocat, virtually every biography of a Jewish person identifies that they are Jewish in the intro. This is not POV. Moreover in the case of Churchill, his ethnicity is highly topical, since it is also a matter of controversy. Also, in every bio, we identify the individual's nationality. Perhaps you could familiarize yourself with other Wikipedia articles before inisisting so relentlessly what is right and wrong. Viajero 20:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS Please take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Viajero 20:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your insistence on putting a remark about his ethnic background in the first sentence is obviously POV and pedantic references to the wiki style manuals are just subterfuge to help you sustain your obvious POV intent to run not an article, but hatchet job on Churchill. Calicocat 21:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This language is much more NPOV, accurate, subsantiated by factsand it includes your pet issue of ethnicity.

Ward Churchill, an American academic, is a tenured professor of ethnic studies at University of Colorado at Boulder and co-chairman of the American Indian Movement of Colorado (Colorado AIM). In some of his published work he characterizes the United States as an imperialist power with a history of genocide. Professor Churchill's specialization has centered on Native American issues, but he has also written on subjects such as the FBI and police states. In 2005, Churchill became the subject of intense right-wing propaganda campaign and debate in the United States because of an essay he wrote in 2001 about September 11, 2001 attacks.

Churchill is a Viet Nam war veteran and is of mixed White and Native American ethnicity.Calicocat 21:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Per wikipedia style manual on a Biography entry.

Opening paragraph The opening paragraph should give:

1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)) 2. Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death) 3. Nationality

Not Ethnicity -- over and over it's been pointed out that Churchill is American, that's his nationality, his ethnicity is simply not relevant to the lead and especially not as the first sentence. This false notion of yours might be best addressed by reading the Style Manual yourself. Your insistance on including it over and over is, I fear, but only a reflection of your and others particular obsession with this rather small aspect of this article and of Churchill in general. The harping on it is just another example of the attempt to use this piece not as a good and interesting wikipeida entry but for a particular POV slash and burn of Churchill.Calicocat 22:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

4. What they did 5. Why they are significant

3. Page Mediation Needed/Stop the POV insanity.

To All: Continual POV reversion of this page represent an effort not to create an valid, useful, NPOV entry, but to have this article be nothing more than an attack page on Professor Churchill designed to do nothing more than support the particular political and propaganda agenda of those clearly biased against Churchill. I have had reasonable language reverted countless times and almost gave up on the article, but after thinking about it further decided that the article deserved to be made as NPOV and accurate as possible.

It's better than where it started, but it has now turning into a petty reversion contest and this serves neither the letter or spirit of the Style Manual or Policy of Wikipedia. Any voices of rationality and reason on this would be most welcome, but I fear nothing short of mediation or perhaps stronger measures are going to render impossible creation of a fair and useful entry.

The person most responsbile for the irrational behavior in this is user Viajero http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Viajero, who, oddly, on his user page claims to be one against such practices himself, which based on my experience with this user seem utterly hypocritical. He seems rather good at playing the liar's paradox game and intent on foisting his POV here.

Calicocat 05:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

4. In a private email to Viajero, he wrote:

From: "Calico Cat"

To: "Viajero"

Subject: RE: Churchill, Viajero's obvious POV is as large as the former WTC as shown by your continual reversions of fair and acccurate edits.

Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 16:08:55 -0500

Viajero:

RE: Churchill, Viajero's obvious POV is as large as the former WTC as shown by his continual reversions of fair and accurate edits to Ward Churchill article.

Viajero, it seems you just want to be a whining baby about this, your obvious POV is disappointing and reprehensiblly absurde. You're part of what should be honestly addressed in the Churchill article and what I'm trying to address honestly. I guess I'll have to bring this situation up to the mediation board..

Sad, I thought you were into honesty and accuracy and NPOV.

CC

Applicable policies[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

[4] (Viajero)
[5] (Viajero)
[6] (Anthere)
[7] (Alai)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

Viajero 13:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Alai 17:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

Response[edit]

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.

{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.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

First, let me publicly offer my apology to Viajero. I was intemperate and impolitic with some of my remarks; I regret that and won't repeat it with you or any others. I am the new kid on the Wikipedia block and as I've gotten more into things, I see where I was wrong in how I dealt with this all. I've since talked to other more experienced Wikipedians both in e-mail and via the IRC channel and have made an effort to learn more about the project.

In a way, I appreciate Viajero's effort to get my attention with this and assure Viajero and others that I will not repeat this kind of thing again. It serves no purpose. I've looked at the links provided herein and by others, and reexamined my own comments. I was wrong and see that now and I hereby pledge to improve my editing and outlook.

I do object to some of what Viajero did. He showed little regard for some of the language I edited into the entry and it was really the attention of a few others whom I spoke to on IRC who helped get both he and I on back on track.

Viajero also executed a good number of rather rude wholesale reversions, deletions, so, in part, I think he has to ask himself a few questions about this and has some more to learn as well (don't we all?). In the spirit of the Wikipedia project, I'm willing to set all this aside and have it be chalked up to a good lesson for me.

I object to Viajero's inclusion here of a private e-mail that was sent to him and only to him, but maybe that's standard in these matters, however, it is not something I would have done, but I'm not going to make much of it other to say I think it was wrong of him to do that.

I hope not to be blacklisted or blocked and don't think that would be fair or right.

Perhaps the most valuable link that was offered to me during this was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot

I look forward to delving more deeply into the project and learning to be a better editor and contributor.

My Best,

Calicocat 19:55, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Outside view[edit]

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.

{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.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

I am sorry I will not endorse Viajero summary above. Two reasons. First, I think I should not take sides and second, not following well current rules on the english wikipedia, I am not sure what consequences would my signature has. I do not want to sign a paper, to find out afterwards a whole list of consequences due to my signature, without me knowing about them before hand.
What I can say is that indeed Viajero and Calicocat are basically involved in an edit war in this article. I think both have show a desire to have this fixed, since Viajero contacted me last week by mail, and Calicocat independantly by mail as well later. I talked to Calicocat on irc as well. Regardless of my opinion on the reason of the disputes, I think Calicocat is indeed being too much aggressive toward Viajero, and using personal attacks where he should not be. As such, I think he is indeed not frankly respecting guidelines of civility and I hope he really makes an effort in that direction. As for not respecting consensus and guidelines of biography edition, I will consider having no opinion on this. The number of editors in the article is low enough that we cannot really talk of consensus (perhaps more opinions would be welcome), and guidelines of biography may not be clear enough, or may reflect the opinion of the few who drafted them... It is not so obvious this could be the basis of a decision making disfavorable to cali imho. Hence would invite Cali to be (much) more civil to dear Viajero, and more editors to join on the article. I also recommanded Cali 2days ago to leave that article alone for a month and go work on other bios.

Anthere

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

I just found this today and thought it particularly salient and germane to the issue taken with my editing and think it's something that Viajero has engaged in here. I recommend he read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Calicocat 16:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)