Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/WaverlyR and Burks88

Welcome to Community enforceable mediation. This page is for WaverlyR (talk · contribs) and Burks88 (talk · contribs) to discuss their differences and reach an agreement. Other interested parties, please post to the outside comment page. The mediator Durova may move or refactor comments at either page as appropriate.

Discussion

As I see it, we need to find agreement on matters of both policy interpretation and on the organization of the article. The organizational items would seem to be the low hanging fruit here. Right now the article is set up so the factual information comes before the critical. We disagree on where the list of journals should go, and where the information about the guest editor selection of poems by their spouses and David Lehman's wife should go. In my view, the spouses information should not be in the critical reception section because that information is not tied to any reliable source's critical response to the series. I don't have a strong sense of where else it could go but it doesn't belong where it is. Also, today's addition to the rules and process section -- the Gonzales quote -- properly belongs in the critical reception section. (Right now the process section comprises information from the volumes and by either the series or guest editors themselves, that is, those with first-hand experience of editing the volumes.Gonzales is not involved in the series and furthermore he reveals elsewhere in the quoted piece his likely bias against the series because he's never been included.) The policy interpretation questions may be beyond the scope of CEM. They involve disagreements over NPOV, use of OR, and proper citations. We have a posting on the BLP board and perhaps should await the outcome of that discussion. In the meantime, I would again suggest that we refrain from editing the article until these matters are settled. Additional edits without guidance will likely give rise to more time consuming disagreements. Lastly, the tone of some of the comments on user talk, RFC, edit summary, and the article talk page is disturbing and seems to cross the line into personal attack. I would like feedback on this so I know what is appropriate here and what I might expect when editing other WP pieces. WaverlyR 20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My honest suggestion would be that you and I agree to both stop editing the article, and here is why (and it so happens to be the same reason you feel my comments to you have, on occasion, been somewhat piqued): you will not engage in the direct conversation of this topic which is necessary for continued editing of the article. I have questioned you repeatedly regarding the reasons behind certain of your edits, and we've gotten nowhere. And indeed this questioning is of a rather urgent character, because when I edit the entry to include a critical comment by Rigoberto Gonzalez, you can agree Gonzalez is a noted poet, agree that his observations were written for The Poetry Foundation, and then we can haggle about where the comment should go--and, perhaps to your surprise, we can find agreement on that, and put the comment in the "Critical Reception" section of the entry--but in contrast, when you declare that a poet who has appeared in the series, and who has acted as an assistant to the series many times, Stacey Harwood, is every bit as valid a critic of the series as Gonzalez, I am flabbergasted, I question you, and I receive no response. Moreover, your edits have no logical terminus: you responded to my addition of the relevant and verifiable Gonzalez criticism by a) privileging as more important than his criticism his jest about not having been included in the series himself (which makes his quote appear absurd, and completely rearranges any basis it may have for being in the article; also, it violates WP:BIO, see below), and b) responded by adding a comment by Rita Dove about her selection process which i) shouldn't be there (are we to add comments, then, from all 21 editors, about their selection processes?), and ii) is clearly misleading, as, played off of the comments in the "Critical Reception" section, suggests that Lehman does not engage in a vetting process as admitted by Hass and as observed by the well-placed Gonzalez. So it is not clear how your editing strategy admits to any conclusion: we will keep adding positive reviews about the series without ever elucidating the criticisms of the series; we will keep adding glowing statements by the guest editors of their impartiality, while citing as without credible source facts evident in the text (e.g., that Heather McHugh selected a student of hers for the recent edition of Best American Poetry, and this student had never published before), and all in all we'll get nowhere.

Our points of agreement are: there should be a section listing contributing journals; it is reasonable that the "Critical Reception" section contain both positive and negative observations about the anthology. That's about it. It is clear to me that the section listing contributing journals is in the nature of a footnote, which, if we are to elevate it to non-footnote status and also not have it dominate the article with its formidable size, must be the last section in the entry. It is clear to me, too, but you have indicated not clear to you, that there is much negative criticism about the series--you will find the poetry blogs are about 3 to 1 against the series--and that some especial effort must be made to capture that zeitgeist, whereas positive remarks on the anthology by minor media outlets not reflective of the sentiment in the poetry community are easy to come by. You confuse citability with accuracy: the anti-BAP sentiment is powerful, it is merely difficult to cite because of WP conventions. It's not an insurmountable task--accurately depicting what's happening in the poetry world--if you don't make it one.

At this point, if we moved the journal listing behind the "Critical Reception" section, I would be satisfied and would call it a day on that issue.

At this point, if we moved the spousal information to the appropriate area in the "Critical Reception" section, and removed the slanderous material against Gonzalez--which clearly implies his review of the BAP was the product of bias, and is therefore a violation of WP:BIO and much else--while keeping his observation (correctly catalogued in the "Critical Reception" section), I would be satisfied and would call it a day on that issue as well.

The information on assistants and advisors is relevant to criticism of the series, which criticism has now been verfiably sourced in the article, and it should have a place, tastefully done and not overstated (I'm not trying to have it be as long as the journal listing) in the "Critical Reception" section.

Finally, and perhaps most difficult, is to determine what the "Rules and Process" section is supposed to be. Provided that that section establishes that Lehman has a substantial role in vetting possible poems, but that the guest editor makes the final decision, that is accurate and therefore fine. Anything which tries to obscure that fact--i.e., the Dove quote, if it is not placed in context (i.e., Dove is not saying all the poems came to her solely from her own research, simply that she didn't look at the names on the poems that came from Lehman; obviously, she'd seen the names on the poems which were the product of her own reading!)--should be elided.

As to tone: if you agree to engage on the topic of your edits, you're obviously going to be treated differently than if you make edits that are self-contradictory (why do you keep moving to the individual edition entries any comments by guest editors on "process" that you don't like--saying, "this belongs in the entry for that year, not the series' entry"--and then add the Dove quote? It's hypocritical and therefore frustrating) and refuse to engage others on the subject. I've made my own thinking transparent to you, above: I think there's a zeitgeist about the series in the poetry community, indeed it is fact that there is, and the "Critical Reception" section of the article must reflect that, or else we are intentionally misleading readers of the entry. And whether you desire that end or not, your edits are making it happen. Burks88 20:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

One additional note, re: recent edits. It is absolutely appropriate to say that the comments made by Gonzalez are "speculation," so I kept that verb in. Also, if we can simply re-format the "journal listing" section (e.g., more columns) I think it can stay where it is, ahead of the "Critical Reception" section, i.e. that's a concession I'm willing to make. As to the removal of quotes about specific editions to their respective entries, I did that per your previous (repeated) instruction to do so, and I think the entry is better for it, and so that is a concession as well (e.g., I "lose" what I think is an important Hass quote about the series, by having to move it, and you "lose" nothing but a Dove quote you added today). Finally, as to the ordering of the "Critical Reception" section, I can understand why it wouldn't make sense to you--because you do not understand, or do not wish to (I can't know your motives), the primary criticism of the series, which pertains to nepotism and cronyism. As it is ordered now, the "Critical Reception" section aims to make that "criticism" (not "fact," but "informed opinion," which is what "criticism" is) clear. That said, if you feel it necessary to add one or two "positive" reviews to the beginning of the "Critical Reception" section, I'll concede that as well, provided they are not so onerously long as to be clearly an attempt to push down the actual "criticism" so far no one would/could ever possibly read it (which, I'll admit, is the only explanation I have for you having edited this entry for weeks, or months, and then adding the burdensome "journal listing" section before the "Critical Reception" section, only after negative reviews went up in the "Critical Reception" section; you've never explained that, either). Burks88 21:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree to stop editing the article until we get guidance from the WP: BLP board and feedback from observers here. I will be away from electronic communication for ten days or so and am hopeful that we will have some resolution upon my return.

In the meanwhile, it isn't up to us to decide that information from the blogs is OK; WP has a policy, it has been stated several times. We should in good faith comply with it. The blogs have no editorial structure thus they are not reliable sources.

I agree that the individual guest editor statements about how they made their selections belong on each volume's page.

The spouse information does not come from anyone's critical response to the series. It doesn't belong in the critical reception section. It probably belongs on each volume's page (the page of the volume in which a spouse of the guest editor or series editor appeared).

There is nothing slanderous in the Gonzales quote that I added. He didn't slander himself. Gonzales quote that you put in was in a comment to his own Foundation blog posting whereas the piece that I added was from the posting itself. He's the one who privileged it, not I. And it sets the tone for his blog entry. Nonetheless, it's fine as it is now.

If you read the WP tutorial and articles about editing, you will learn that the burden to demonstrate a statement's verifiability rests with the editor who adds the statement. I don't have to demonstrate that your statements about cronyism are not verifiable, you, as the one who makes them, have to show that they are. I removed the additions that didn't meet the burden.

You continue to be invested in the statement that Lehman vets all poems that get into the volume yet you have been unable to verify that claim. When you can, I won't object to having it in.

I have not engaged with you because your first comment to me was a threat. After that, you attempted to make private information about me public, of adding things to the article that I didn't, and deleting things that I didn't. You wanted to add the list of advisors. When I observed that it could be a good addition and made it complete, you no longer wanted to add it and instead suggested that if you did I would delete it, a baseless accusation.

We need clear guidance from the WP:BLP board and from those observing this mediation. WaverlyR 12:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond to this in more detail later, only because I'm pressed for time right now. For the moment I'll just note that my first message, on your talk page, was not a "threat," and that is a rather disappointing explanation for weeks of non-engagement with someone who's indicated he's willing to converse with you if you will with him: in fact, what I said was that I believed you had engaged in vandalism (which, in good faith, I did indeed believe, whether you can see my rationale or not) and that if you continued to do so I would report you, which is precisely what WP expects editors to do in response to persistent vandalism. You have intimated repeatedly that my comments to you violate WP rules--I can assure you that no one will confirm your belief that an editor, acting in good faith, cannot tell a vandal he/she will be reported. As to making an allegation regarding your identity, I have apologized for that and have not repeated my error. I don't know what kind of pound of flesh you want here. Finally, as to accusing you of acting in bad faith--which I have indeed done--I have explained, multiple times, that I did this precisely because you were undoing my edits without explanation. Ironic, now, that you should note that editors are responsible for explaining their edits, because it creates an obvious chicken-and-egg debate: I believed my edits met WP standards, and thus you had to explain to me why they didn't; you, of course, believed the opposite--that my edits were contra to WP standards--and thus felt no need to explain why you undid them. Is this sort of miscommunication truly so difficult to understand? I have made clear, haven't I, my willingness to discuss and to come to a meeting of the minds? And I will volunteer that I think, recently at least, you've shown this same willingness, which I appreciate. As I see it, the only roadblock we will have is that I find a) I find certain sources reliable and consistent with WP standards that you do not (and I'm not referring to blogs here), and b) I believe that we have sourced the allegations against the BAP substantially enough that the spousal information, taken from the text, is now mere background to those allegations, and consistent with WP standards and not OR. I sense that on almost everything else we'd be able to come to an agreement. Burks88 19:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Reformatting the journals as you suggest is fine with me. As for the spouses, the more I think about it, the more I believe that those names belong on the pages of the individual volumes for which the spouses were chosen. They do not belong in the critical reception section of the series page. You haven't sourced any "allegations" and your hyperbole strains credulity. One spurned poet posts a charge on his or her blog and others respond; that doesn't add up to a "zeitgeist." The information about Harwood supports nothing. Consider for a moment that Harwood may have kept her maiden name so as not to prejudice editors in one way or the other. That is, she may have acted independently of her husband. It's what women have been doing since the second half of the last century. It is likely that Muldoon was unaware of her relationship with Lehman and your assumption that her poem was chosen on the basis of cronyism has the odor of sexism about it. As for my editing of the page: I have removed material that violates WP policy and have said that in doing so. It is the editor who adds material who has to support it. I advised you to familiarize yourself with WP policy and you responded with a threat. You have posted material without doing your research into WP policy, necessitating the involvement of at least three other editors all of whom have agreed that you have been in violation, not I.

I hope we have more guidance when I return, in ten days or so. WaverlyR 11:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is odd for someone who has complained to WP about my "tone" to be throwing insults at me now, accusing me of exaggeration, sexism, and the continued slander that I "threatened" you. It is odd that someone who says, rightly, that speculation is taboo on WP now says, based on nothing, that "it is likely" Paul Muldoon, one of the smartest men in Academia, was gobsmacked to learn (unless he's still in the dark?) that he selected in 2005 a poem by the wife of a man he'd been working closely with for months. It is odd that you crow about understanding WP policy to the letter when I have to direct you, now, to WP:SPS for the proposition that blogs are not per se unacceptable, and in fact most of the blog links you removed would have been allowable under the "expert" classification. Finally, it is odd for you to say that "all" of the editors have agreed with you when in my very first communication with you I reminded you that you had been warned previously by a WP editor (Noroton) not to systematically remove content about the BAP you deemed "negative." And yet every edit you've made for weeks now, without exception, has been to eliminate "negative" facts from the BAP entry here. Now you are making suggestions which simply do not make sense: for what possible reason would we randomly put information on spousal selections on the pages for individual editions? So that a future WP editor could (rightly!) come around and delete that information as not anchored in any relevant fact in that entry...? You decry my hyperbole yet seem unwilling to do a Google Blog Search to confirm that what I said is true: the blogs are 3-to-1 against the BAP. Maybe that's one reason you deleted six links to high-traffic blogs fuming about the BAP, only to immediately claim there's no blog consensus on the issue? We have, in fact, sourced the allegation of cronyism in a manner consistent with WP guidelines. In fact that link is on the entry right now, until, I suppose, you delete it and then come back to opine that no such link could ever be found (something you have done before). As to nepotism, not only is it sourced, it is a self-executing fact: the definition of "nepotism," which I'm happy to put a dictionary link to in the entry if need be, is selecting your spouse for an honor when you're in a position to bestow such an honor and are not obligated to. I will repeat my suggestion that you and I agree to cease all editing on these articles, all BAP articles, forthwith. If, as you've observed, "all" of the editors are on your side, you have only to gain by making that agreement here, now, in a CEM for all to see. Burks88 01:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Having thought about it more, I've come to a decision: fighting with David Lehman and/or his proxies really isn't the way I want to spend my time. Everyone who writes poetry regularly knows what the BAP has become, whether it gets whitewashed by WP editors with an agenda or not. WaverlyR, feel free to continue deleting all negative information about the series, and WP, feel free to continue allowing it. It's a free country, and frankly I just don't want to play this game anymore. WaverlyR, the entry is yours to do with as you please; enjoy. Burks88 05:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)