Talk:Metamodernism

Disruptive Editing

This article talk page is a terrible mess. I won't say that the article is a mess, but the discussion on this talk page has not helped. Wikipedia depends on collaborative editing, and that has been in short supply on this article. User:Steelpillow made some progress in restoring cooperation, but restoring cooperation requires efforts by multiple editors. It isn't clear to me why this particular article attracts so much disruptive editing and hostility, as opposed, for instance, to post-post-modernism, which appears to be almost the same as metamodernism. Maybe that is because this article has attracted more attention, or maybe it is because this article has the attention of advocates for two scholars who have published papers referring to metamodernism by that name. In any case, if the conduct disputes that prevent resolution of content issues are not resolved, this article is likely to end up in WP:arbitration, which could result in discretionary sanctions, draconian restrictions on editing. What I have seen, and what may be considered by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) include: personal attacks, including allegations of lying (which are serious personal attacks); walls of text that are {{WP:TLDR|too long and difficult to read]] and are in some cases incomprehensible; accusations of doxing, and threats of doxing; allegations of sock-puppetry. Since any further disruptive editing probably will result in a Request for Arbitration, and since the ArbCom requires posts to be limited to 500 words, each editor should limit their posts to a readable length. I suggest that, in order both to avoid arbitration and to prepare the way for arbitration if all else fails, each editor state, in 500 words or less, what he or she thinks should be done both to improve the article and to improve the collaborative editing environment. Do any of you really want arbitration? If not, state clearly, without personal attacks, what should be done. If you do, state clearly, without personal attacks, what should be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Aside from the extensive disruptive editing of one user's sockpuppets, I believe that there has been cooperative editing on this page by numerous editors. It appears to have been the latest sock's plan to flood the talk page with thousands of words of largely incomprehensible and unsupported PoV comments and to harass other editors, obscuring the healthy discussions about the content of the article that have been taking place between the legitimate editors here for some time. Since the latest sock ceased their activity - their exact status pending the findings of a sock-puppet investigation - calm has returned. Since the disruption appears to have nearly all stemmed from this one disruptive user, I hope that in future admins will be able to act quickly to prevent this behavior returning. If this can be achieved, I'm optimistic that a collaborative editing environment will prevail. Although the talk page is currently a mess, I believe that thanks to the efforts of editors such as Steelpillow, Inanygivenhole, Ricky81682, and others, the article itself is in largely good health. Esmeme (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Can I suggest that several kinds of cleanup are needed:

• The first is the deletion of any material which pushes outing and doxing to the fore. At least some has already been removed by an uninvolved editor, but there may still be more.
• The second is retractions and apologies for the most outrageous accusations still current. These include, but may not be limited to; accusations of outright lying (by Inanygivenhole). and persistent accusations of sockpuppetry before investigations have concluded (by Esmeme) (redacted per collapsed apology below).
• Third can come the deletion of long and unproductive rants, possibly by archiving whole sections. I think this has to be done by someone not involved in the discussion, as it is bound to make snap judgements on the material to go.
• Not so much a suggestion, but a plea for personal recognition by the editors remaining that their discussion skills are appalling and that endless repetition of accusatory rants is just as much their own trait as anybody else's and actually harms their case each time they indulge.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

[Update] All the things that matter have now been done, IMHO: material archived, recognition that accusations of bad faith have gone stale, I am content that things are now as good as we will get. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic or too on-topic but retracted nevertheless

@Steelpillow: Your characterization of my edits is incorrect, since the fact of that user's sockpuppetry has already been confirmed here, so this is in no way an unfounded accusation at all. The SPI is simply awaiting a behavioral evaluation to establish the relation between this account and the master. An uninvolved admin over at ANI has already requested that you stop make unhelpful statements such as this about obvious sockpuppetry, as WP:DUCK is sufficient here. Another uninvolved user, Anthonyhcole, has also been kindly assisting me over on my talk page with handling the abuse and disruptive editing that the sock has been causing, if you'd like to read the additional evidence of their clear deception that I have posted there. Esmeme (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC) The editor in question over at ANI seems unwilling to explain their comment to me, nor even whether they agree with your own analysis. I have now read the discussion you link to on your talk page, and I agree that you have suffered misrepresentation on several occasions. Since you were merely retaliating against confirmed abuse, the persistence of your accusations is understandable. I am redacting my suggestion that it requires apology, and I hope you will accept my apology in turn for piling one distress upon another. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Thank you Steelpillow, and apology accepted. I know that your comments have always been well-intentioned, and I'm simply glad that you're better acquainted with the facts now, which the disruptive user had tried to obscure. I just hope that we've now seen the last of these disruptive accounts, so that the friendly collaborative atmosphere can return here. Esmeme (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC) I would like to note that I will not retract my claim until the untruths uttered by the user, out of ignorance or malice, have been adequately retracted and apologized for. Coming out of nowhere with accusations of SPA is blatantly disruptive and trolly. Inanygivenhole (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC) @Inanygivenhole: No, there is nothing perjorative about being an SPA. I also made clear that not all editors concerned were SPAs. I explained all this and more some time ago on your talk page, explicitly clarifying that you were not included. For your part, you are continuing your gross violation of WP:AGF and have since ignored the warning also posted on your talk page by another editor. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC) You've moved goalposts again, I see. Your initial claim that most of the major editors were SPAs remains patently false, and you refuse to retract it. But it appears that we've moved on, so I'm willing to drop it, even if you don't have the decency to apologize. Inanygivenhole (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I archived everything else here. Other than this discussion, the last discussion hasn't been commented on in a week and focuses more on the theory of what the other editors want to do with the article rather than its actual content. Prior attempts got reverted but at this stage, I'll ask that people make a link to the prior discussion if there's actually something work discussing. This article is a hivemind for accusations because it's a combination of being something with little concrete RS and is based on public individuals who seem to be watching this page. Editors here either need to accept editing to their work and AGF even if you may be repeating it a dozen times or move to another article. I think discussions that aren't appropriate (general forum-like complaining) should be archived and ignored rather than engaged. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to pick at one thing--it's not so much that there's little concrete RS as it is that those sources don't offer much to work with. We have plenty of RSes, just not enough to say with them! The real problem is that the only people who feel like speaking about metamodernism in any great detail are the metamodernists themselves. 3rd party, high-quality sources have been a constant nightmare for this article since its birth. Inanygivenhole (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Architecture

I don't think we can categorise metamodernism as relevant to architecture unless independent architectural commentators explicitly reference metamodernism. The fact that a couple of metamodernist writers drag architecture into their view is not significant. Can we remove these categories here? (I tried but got reverted) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Metamodern architect is talked about in secondary sources, such as [1], p. 563, [2] and [3]. --Mark viking (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Those are no use, they are just three more metamodernists claiming architecture as potential territory. You need to find architects or established architectural critics who have put forward buildings and overtly stated them to be metamodern. To my knowledge, none of the architects mentioned in your sources has done this. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand the reasoning behind your assertion that these sources are of no use. Do we reject sources discussing algebraic geometry because they were written by algebraists, not geometers? --Mark viking (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)