JzG notified [1]. Cla68 ( talk) 11:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Before someone inevitably points out that JzG does a lot of work for the encyclopaedia etc is this arbcom ruling: [2]
Viridae Talk 11:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
hi folks, I may respond more fully in due course, possibly with an 'outside view', though I've clearly been in dispute with guy, so maybe there's a better place.. I'll figure it out.... In the interim, I thought I'd post a tuppence worth here, to share some thoughts and see what others think.....
My desired outcome is to draw a few lines in the sand - not to obsess over blame, or raise the temperature unduly, or even to get too stuck in the detail of the whys and wherefores of what's happened in the past.
Without digging too deeply, it's pretty clear to me that amongst some of the 60+ points raised on the RfC are some for which Guy should apologise, and I'd encourage him to be willing to share some indication of contrition, and therefore growth. Guy was kind enough, in our dispute, to say that he didn't think I was evil - well, I don't think he is either - I think he's a passionate, intelligent man who cares deeply about this project. I also frankly see Guy as someone who has caused damage to the project through some of his good faith actions. From my perspective, the best outcome of this RfC is that Guy could take a look, maybe say 'geez, I do kinda get the wrong end of the stick once in a while, and stuff up' and then the wiki will have an even better editor and admin. than right now.... I wish this process well, and hope you do too... Privatemusings ( talk) 11:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The man's father just passed away. I imagine he's under quite a lot of stress. Certainly we saw that during the Oxford Round Table saga. I'm not commenting on the merits of this RfC - let's be frank, it's been coming a long time - but as a matter of basic human courtesy, can't this wait? ~ Riana ⁂ 15:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
His recent editing, I believe anyway, has not been worse -probably better- than his past editing. We can't blame the death for his current actions, and we can't blame if for his past ones. Nor does WP stop for the personal concerns of editors, at least not beyond a point. I know that in my case I would not take a death as an excuse for bad editing- thought I might simply not edit. So when would be address Guy's behavior? What if he loses his job? What if he needs a long time to mourn? I was under the impression that the death occurred over a month ago? Anyway, as GRBerry says, he could ask that this be delayed. He hasn't, which at least means we have to assume he feels up to it. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Do we know that the submitters knew of Guy's father passing away? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Two points - Wikipedia is not therapy was my rather hamfisted way of communicating to Guy that he had to take responsibility for his actions regardless of the personal circumstances - in other words you are there to help wikipedia noth the other way around. It was not said in bad faith. Secondly, the mentions of his blog are just there to highlight the different standards he applies to essentially the same material - vicious attacks from both sides. None of the people filing the RfC want to see a purge of BADSITES, it would just be nice if he didn't apply some massive double standards. It would probobly also be nice if he kept to his own standards and removed the offending material, not just the links - but that is entirely up to him and his conscious. Viridae Talk 21:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
What's best for wikipedia is for everyone who turns wikipedia into a battleground to go somewhere else. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 16:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we just get rid of all sanctions, then? If AGF means that we have to trust people to change their behavior appropriately without any binding action, by what logic is anyone ever blocked? - Amarkov moo! 18:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Why would/should Guy be exempt from our AGF and civility policies? No one is exempt. Period. Full stop. Lawrence § t/ e 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Re this comment by Shot info: "Time to remember that we are here to edit an encyclopedia not engage in an experiment in social interaction. If admins like JzG are "stressed" it's because he doesn't receive the support from the system that he and editors interested in making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia need. It's time to start wondering why we put up with the socks, the IPs, the edit warriors, the COI wackos, the woo-pushers and everybody out there who think that Wikpedia is just about being nice to each other....and ignore the crap editing, poor sourcing, conflicts of interest, spamming, POV pushing and all those things we see time and time again. It's time for the community to take a step back, and remember what we are here for, and if what we are here for isn't editing an encyclopedia, then off to MySpace you go. This RfC is just the start of a witch-hunt. But since Wikipedia seems to be interested in getting rid of editors that actually do something, it is not surprising... Shot info (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)"
Shot info accusing people pursuing good faith (and demonstrably legitimate given the quantity of evidence) attempts at dispute resolution using the recognised dispute resolution process of conducting a "witch hunt" is both unhelpful and uncivil. I would appreciate it if you could refactor your statement to remove that statement, which is unecessarily inflamatory. This doesn't of course mean that I don't think your opinion on the matter is valid, just that you can express it without inciting arguments. Viridae Talk 03:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
As I see the subject of this RfC has characterised it as "laundry list of Wikipedia Review members' grudges" here, I want to put it on record that I am not a member of that site (although I understand many Wikipedians in good standing are, and I see nothing wrong with this). Furthermore I am not aware of having any sort of "grudge" against JzG; like most here I have great respect for JzG and just want to see him improve his behaviour so that we can make better and more harmonious progress on the project of building a free encyclopedia. That's all. -- John ( talk) 18:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
There has been quite strong participation from a whole variety of people, however JzG's participation is still lacking. Can someone who he won't ignore encourage him to aprticipate, it is for his own good - especially seeing that consenus in this RfC seems to indicate that people agree he has a problem. Viridae Talk 00:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure Guy is reading all this over...he does not have to participate, and maybe not participating will decrease the drama level for everyone...how is that a bad thing?-- MONGO 19:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Using emotive words like witch hunt is hardly a civil way to characterise a good faith attempt at dispute resolution. That the RfC was being collated for 2 weeks (not the month claimed - it was ready to go a week before it was actually stated but JzG went to france for a week, meaning it was 3 weeks before it was actually posted) is simply a testament to the sheer amount of evidence of bad behaviour that had to be collated - apparently 180 diffs - which is equal to one uncivil comment, disruptive edit or abuse of administrator tools every 2 days across the period which the RfC covers. There is a problem, community consensus shows there is a problem, it is not too much of a stretch to think that people might like to know that Guy has taken the criticism on board and this behaviour is going to cease, hence my feeling that it would be nice to see Guy acknowledge the existance of the RfC more than simply erasing the mentions of it from hsi talk page while simultaneously insulting Cla68. Viridae Talk 11:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Nick says of that this is "an RfC that's been plotted over for the best part of a month by people who are coming bloody close to being banned for the endless shit they stir up or who otherwise have scores to settle with the subject." Does anyone know who exactly Nick is talking about? Perhaps Nick could explain who he means? Cla68 ( talk) 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
To Sidaway, Doc, and whoever else whoever is spouting either "witch hunt" or "go back to the encyclopedia" nonsense: Cut it out. It's off topic and unhelpful here. If you don't believe civility should be required, bring it up at
Wikipedia_talk:Civility. If you don't believe in RFC as a means of dispute resolution, you can ignore the RFC or take it to
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. If you just want to act childish, we have chat rooms for that. There is pretty clearly a problem here. If you don't want to help, that is your choice, but get out of the way. This seems to happen every time civility concerns related to a longtime editor are brought up. If you have reasons you don't like RFC as dispute resolution, and you want to discuss it like an adult, go right ahead. But what you're doing now is childish, stupid, and disruptive. Enough.
Friday
(talk) 14:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
PS. I may not have been accurate with who was doing this (Sidaways's comment could be purely trying to lighten the mood as easily as it could be heckling), and it's pointless to name people anyway- you know who you are. Anyway, my point is, if you came to the RFC only to heckle, please don't. If you don't think user RFCs are effective, by all means propose a better alternative. But don't try to derail other people's efforts. Friday (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, and civility is paramount, but Guy has had to deal with some pretty bad long term baiting and other issues as well directed at him. Yeah, we all know we shouldn't take the bait, but if someone asks repeatedly to not post to their talkpage and to stop following you around just looking to stir the pot, then that request should be honored. What Guy needs is support from others so he'll feel less isolated and less in need to respond to others in harsh terms. And yes, there are some out there who simply do have an axe to grind and Guy is their target. This of course doesn't mean I believe that the complaints here are unsubstantiated, just that in some cases, there are two sides to this situation to a degree.-- MONGO 19:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Mastcell's view merits discussion. I'm not certain that it is endorsable, given that it is primarily if not entirely a series of questions. But they are important questions, and not just for this individual editor. So lets talk about those questions, either here or in a better venue. GRBerry 01:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
←If you want comments and discussion on how this situation arose, let's open a generic RfC and move relevant comments there, if it's your noble intention to try and prevent a situation such as this arising again, there's no need to have a specific administrators name attatched to it. That aside, the RfC is still boiling down to "Guy, behave" and "the community really appreciates what you do". Do we really need another hundred people to sign some cheap comments about Guy's behaviour when a) they don't know him and very rarely see the work he does; b) throw him a friendly comment, thank-you note, barnstar or what have you or c) intend to try and prevent a repeat occurence of this situation. I'm certainly hopeful that we'll get a few more people out of this RfC who will help Guy out in some way, but I'm probably being unduly naive, pretty much everybody will go back to what they were doing before and continue to treat Guy as the general dogsbody, having him do all the work, while they sneer at him from the sidelines. Nick ( talk) 14:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
People, this RFC is all about JzG; a history of his abuse against other human beings and his(story) about breaking the rules here. Please stop trying to pretend that anyone is entitled to break the rules. The ends do not justify the means. There are not asterisks in the policies and guidelines for JzG. 41.194.1.22 ( talk) 22:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#.22Ignore_all_rules..22_What_does_it_mean.3F 201.254.90.97 ( talk) 03:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for the tone of my previous post. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
GTBacchus, I agree with you completely about blame, that's what I meant by "present society." We don't need to blame, it just seems to be the way society deals with things. No problem about the tone. And Rocksanddirt is right, it is a general thing.
Rocksanddirt, that analysis is very good, and is what I was trying to communicate. The only problem I have with it is that a bunch of what JzG does is POV pushing (but I don't know exactly how to communicate that without dragging in articles which themselves generate a lot of prejudice). So saying that other admins simply need to help him do what he does isn't quite the thing. Nevertheless, JzG obviously does deal with a lot of negative stuff, including a lot of fringe POV pushing, and needs help with it.
Rocksanddirt, thanks for recognizing the kind of responses I often get (-: I didn't know GTBacchus was an admin, I was just talking about a lot of people.
But as someone who does at the very least strive to be civil when everyone else is not, I can say that it is possible. Also, it becomes easier (or can), in an inverse relation to the extremity of the abuse. Thus, while I sympathize with Guy in that arena, I think that is just one of the things an admin has to deal with (no, I'm not an admin).
MastCell, I really have no idea why you would go harder on ScienceApologist, the sock puppet abuser, uncivil, and disruptive editor. That you constantly defend him, seemingly no matter what he does, seems to me to indicate that you are going to go very easy on Guy indeed (see Arbitration enforcement and AN/I). Or were you trying to poison the well against me? If so, I believe you may sympathize with Guy a little too much.
I do not believe that we can put up with incivility and disruptive editing because the user's contributions are otherwise good- "good" being a subjective judgment on our part, which can very easily degenerate into "the guy who has friends." I have seen it do just that: the person who has friends gets away with making everyone else's lives miserable, and abusing power.
If it were true that we could have a bunch of great editors who were mean power abusers and run the whole wiki on their contributions, then you would be right.
I agree with you that "The next step there is up to Guy." I also agree that it is useful to discuss universal issues. I have nearly left Wikipedia except to come back and discuss such issues, as with at least one other user at this RfC. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
MastCell stated, "If it's not inevitable, then I'm curious what could be done differently, either from here on or in future cases, to support editors who are dealing with these issues and to keep them on the straight and narrow."
If he is to be supported to keep him on the straight and narrow, someone that JzG respects (and I doubt that is me) should politely tell him that this comment by him today, the part about as indeed is...Marsden is terribly disparaging, not appropriate, is WP:BLP, and should be removed. If he is not told about it (I have no idea if he has or hasn't been), I believe this is an example of the end justifies the means double standard and enabling that many have been talking about here. Ward20 ( talk) 23:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought that really might be an example of SPADE, so went looking at recent contribs. Found this edit summary: " Original research my arse." [6] Then "We know the Truthers don't like the fact that their conspiracy theories are likely to be lumped together with Elvis-alien-abduction and other such nonsense, but it's not our job to fix that." [7] which at the least is making things worse. Then this edit summary " rm. unreferenced nonsense" Which is inflammatory and insulting to whoever put it in [8]
I also found this: "And as I noted, your version was factually inaccurate and biased (due to omissions in your source). Please take more care, especially when reverting long-standing users, who might, just occasionally, know what they are doing." Which is downright nice (please take more care), then spoiled by the sarcastic end. [9]
I didn't look at all his recent contribs. I didn't expect to find anything at all amiss. The first one about Marsden that Ward20 brought up sounds to me like it almost meets SPADE if it is technically true. Anyway *ahem* I think I might not be the one to try and bring it to his attention. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this is a small, small matter in relation to other issues in this RfC, but let's not pretend that it's somehow a Good Thing to disparage people's beliefs, so long as they meet our criteria for "nonsense". - GTBacchus( talk) 04:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You know, it's really unbelievable how people don't see the picture here. No incivility can be taken out of context- and in anticipation, that includes Guy's worst as well as lesser examples. But taking the least example, treating it as if it is the only one and the worst one, then going after those who want to see the whole picture as if they are persecuting Guy..... that's not going to wash. Nor is it going to help Guy be a better editor. Read the beginning of this thread again, more carefully. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This seems to me to be another bad block. First, the user was obviously a good faith user, nor was any warning given (that I can see- hard to fathom to some extent [10]). In addition, the block summary was an attack of some sort, I'm not sure how to charicterize it, and I give you my word it is 100% wrong (he thinks it is Tom Butler). Nor has the user previously edited EVP, I think [11]. The summary is "Block evasion, or using IPs to evade scrutiny or something. We know who this is, and the tendentious editing of electronic voice phenomeneon can stop right now." In fact, the user for obvious reasons was using only an IP to seperate editing of EVP from other editing. This kind of thing is an approved use of socks. Looks like MastCell did something as well [12]. At least an explanation is in order. This is just another example of certain admins, JzG and MastCell in this case, protecting their favored user ScienceApologist from the consiquences of his disruptive and POV editing, and favoring him over other users. Is Wikipedia really all about who knows whom? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#.22Ignore_all_rules..22_What_does_it_mean.3F
One of the themes here is the predictability of who a person knows being more important than what a person does. And if that is a long-dead non-horse then Wikipedia is a long-dead non-community, or at least not a community which anyone with a sense of justice or respect for the rule of law should want to join. I was under the impression that a bunch of others here were also beating that horse.
I don't know what you did, I think that you blocked another IP which was associated with the first one, which is to say that you helped Guy make that block. But I could just be confused, and my apology if so.
Whatever the case with you, Guy just blocking without warning while making accusations about the user's identity (which he often does) was not appropriate. Any block at that point was not appropriate, as the user had not been warned. And the user didn't deserve a block anyway.
As to the link above to Jimbo, what he says is what I've been trying to say, and the common sense way of looking at WP is what has been distorted by who-knows-whom mentality. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
My assessment of the general situation stands. Guy made an unjustified block which -funnily enough- had the effect of handing the EVP article to SA. This kind of thing is a trend, and you are near the heart of it, always defending SA, no matter what he does, and attacking me.
I noticed accusations of double standards on the main page. Are they relevant to this case, and if so, what exactly is meant? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: ScienceApologist's comment at [13]. That is an appalling comment. It is IMO a clear attack on those of us who are in favour of civil discourse on the Wikipedia. DuncanHill ( talk) 14:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
As for your implication (by linking) that I didn't assume good faith, you're simply incorrect to equate "good faith" with "paying attention". I will never doubt your good faith, unto your dying day, but it's very easy for me to believe that you don't always pay sufficient attention. I know I fail in my attentiveness, without relaxing my good faith one bit.
See, if you paid closer attention to my comments, you wouldn't make such mistakes. I didn't say that civility was objective, and I didn't remotely doubt your good faith.
Your assertion that civility is so subjective is simply incorrect, and an elementary study of management, systems theory, psychology, interpersonal communications, or a variety of other fields would quickly convince you of that fact. You are not at fault for being mistaken, but this is not a matter of opinion, and I can prove that you're wrong.
Every diplomat in the world, every teacher in the world, every bartender in the world knows that you're wrong. Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, Tolstoy, and Einstein all knew that you're wrong. You're doing the ethical-theory equivalent of asserting that the world is flat. I encourage you to learn better communication skills, and find out that civility can be reasonably well-defined (without being "objective"), and that it is extremely worthwhile - indispensable even - as a tool. - GTBacchus( talk) 04:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If you had been paying more attention, you would not have made the errors you made. Thus I don't "assume" you're not paying attention; I simply observe that you failed to mischaracterized my argument by casting it into words I didn't - and wouldn't - use. If you were more attentive to the specific words I used, you probably would have understood my point more quickly.
You appear to have taken my comments as uncivil. I'm sorry to have offended you, and I assure you that I didn't intend any kind of insult. I'm trying to convince you of a point that I think is very important, and I'm keen to offer as much as I can to persuade you (and to persuade other readers). I think that many people, realizing that those who are thought of as the most wise and intelligent humans ever have agreed on certain points about getting along with each other, might consider thinking about those points very carefully. I suspect you have not previously realized that there is such a clear and widely accepted understanding of civility.
To an extent, this widely accepted understanding includes the recognition that civility is somewhat subjective, and this very recognition is the core upon which we're able to create something less subjective, and to find common ground. It works, really well, but not if you don't try it. You can be effective in defending neutrality without being bothered or blocked over incivility, but you have to approach interactions in a certain way. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You were blocked because your communication skills are lacking. If you were better at not pissing people off, you would never have been blocked. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The community does not simply judge civility to be in the eye of the beholder; they take a more holistic view of the situation, and consider how the editor accused of incivility reacts to the accusation. Reacting by arguing about civility is pretty dumb, because it's likely to turn the community against you. Reacting by saying something like, "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you; how can I express myself better?" will buy you a lot more community sympathy, and you won't find yourself blocked for incivility if you respond civilly and respectfully to accusations.
"You cannot have it both ways. Either civility stems from the intent of the person to respect everyone or civility is externally measured by the effects it has on others." That's false. Incivility has to be understood in context, and not as an isolated property of the speaker's intentions, nor of the hearer's reactions. It comes out of the interplay between the two, and it tends not to reside in single statements, but in an overall attitude. - GTBacchus( talk) 04:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Next, we need to establish something about subjectivity versus objectivity. That's not a black/white distinction. Some things are more subjective than others. Civility is somewhat subjective, but in an environment such as Wikipedia, there are proven methods for working it out in the vast majority of cases. Thus, it's not objective, but it's not as subjective as you make it out to be. Yes, individual comments can be understood as civil or uncivil to different editors, but we do not generally deal with individual comments in a vacuum. They're in some context, where it becomes pretty clear to the vast majority of observers what's going on, who's trying to be civil, and who isn't. The waters can be muddied significantly if some editor takes the attitude that civility is not a worthwhile goal. That editor would be unlikely to discover the effective ways of dealing with civility issues, because they would be assuming that such ways don't exist.
I'm speaking as someone with a lot of experience in dispute resolution. You can learn how to deal with civility issues effectively, and never get blocked. I have no reason to doubt that you can do it. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not some kind of "luminary"; I'm just someone who has learned a bit about talking to other people, and I'm in a position to say that certain approaches work better than others. Pissing people off, in a collaborative editing environment, is stupid. That shouldn't be a controversial point. To avoid pissing people off is not always trivial, but by pursuing that goal, you can actually get a lot of work done.
You're right about civility being arbitrary. I do not disagree with that point, nor do I consider it a helpful or useful point. More useful is the fact that, even though civility is arbitrary, there exist effective strategies for maintaining it in difficult situations.
Now, I'm not asking you to believe anything you haven't seen demonstrated in some way (I'm not even talking about "proof" - that word seems to push buttons with you). I'm ready to put my money where my mouth is, and show you what I'm talking about in the context of an article. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be claiming that there is no such discourse, that can settle questions of civility. You seem to offer as evidence for this claim the fact that a comment can be intended as civil and yet taken as uncivil, or that it can be inteded as uncivil and yet taken as civil. Am I mistaking your point? If so, please do correct me.
If I got it right (or close), then I can give you my reply: There is a way to approach discourse that will solve all of these problems of mistaken intentions. It involves certain communication habits, without which it just won't work. If you apply this method, you will never be blocked, you will spend less time in dispute resolution and more time getting productive work done, and you will find your path smoothed before you on the wiki.
Now go on and tell me there is no way to do this, even though you haven't tried any effective method, and are not in a position to make claims about what doesn't exist. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
As I explained, I wasn't using the word "prove" in a formal logic sense, nor in a legal sense, but in a common language sense. All I was trying to say is that your "lesson" didn't support your point, as I understood it.
I would agree with you about the absolutes. I'm willing to use some hyperbole, in cases where we're better off assuming certain absolutes. Always assuming that respecting and dignifying your interlocutor will work is a good idea. There are cases where it won't work, but in those cases, the optimal strategy is still to assume that it will. (That's how you keep your own ass covered for when the other guy gets banned.)
Now, you said that you're claiming that the rules of discourse are arbitrary and capricious. I would agree that they're arbitrary, but not that they're unpredictable, difficult to work with, or capricious. It's surprisingly easy to avoid accusations of incivility by simply implementing a few simple habits of speech and interaction. If you haven't tried those habits, then you don't know how easy they make it. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
(out)In practice, that is the easiest part to consistently enforce, yes. -- John ( talk) 04:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
GTBacchus, the main case in point is ScienceApologist- or that is the main one I know of. There are of course others. Sometimes -and here is relates to who you know on WP- even an ArbCom decision isn't enough. But the thing is, that edit warring, POV-pushing and disruption can be done by an editor or admin who knows his political situation well, and knows what he can get away with. I can get away with little. Others much more. POV-pushing has to be accompanied by other things- I don't recall anyone being banned for POV pushing. That is content, not the kind of thing an admin is there to enforce. Some edit warriors are really clever. Disruption is also in the eye of the beholder. Some admins won't act because they think they'll get into a wheel war with an admin on the other side. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The issue of including fringe theories in articles is probably the reason that Moreschi started the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, which is a valuable tool to use when debating the inclusion of information in an article that may or may not be a fringe theory. Rationale discussion of the theory in question is the way to go instead of attacking the editor(s) trying to introduce the theory. I used that noticeboard myself about an issue in the 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident article and it worked as that article is now featured. If JzG or anyone else insults or belittles editors over their "fringe" theories, that is counterproductive and against our standards. If anyone here sees anyone engaging in this type of behavior, please ask them to stop on their userpage. If they don't, then dispute resolution may be the next step. Cla68 ( talk) 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The RfC is now being vandalized by an editor seeking to remove one of Guy's comments, see [16]. DuncanHill ( talk) 19:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
My apologies to everyone for rushing into this without reading everything first, and acting in anger when removing the disputed text for the second time.
Perhaps the following will help prevent this type of mini-drama from recurring. It taught me a thing or two, although not necessarily what certain people thought I had to be told and at least writing it helped me get some things off my chest.
What happened here was not vandalism, as it came with a carefully worded and clear edit summary: (remove accusation outrageously out of context. Guy's qualification there was exceedingly mild). Which someone reverted straight away with a totally unhelpful edit summary which did not even try to make a case for including the disputed text, and without even trying to discuss this with me. The Another editor also posted accusations of vandalism on this talk page (which I'm glad to say I didn't see until a minute ago, when already corrected by Neil). A revert with a simple "Editors have already commented in the context of this evidence" would have told me all I needed to know. I simply wanted to fix this problem straight away before people started responding. My bad. I removed it again, indicated to the editor that I would ask an uninvolved admin to block in case of a subsequent revert, and went to spend a couple of hours with friends. When I came back online I was immediately greeted by an equally unhelpful comment on my talk page from an admin I knew as one of the editors that had prepared the RfC and was likely responsible for the insertion of the disputed text. I found the comment borderline threatening and inflammatory. It certainly did not try to discuss, find middle ground, understand where I was coming from, and generally failed to AGF as expected from an admin. It also failed to exhibit the restraint expected when an admin is warning others regarding material they're involved in. Another admin (this time uninvolved, someone I trust and helped vote in) chimed in with an equally unhelpful (but much friendlier) comment, which led to a discussion. I only realized my mistake when reading through the rest of the RfC later on, and started endorsing some of the views.
About my mistake: I was aware this RfC was coming as Cla68 is on my watchlist due to the Mantanmoreland arbration. When told that it had gone live, I assumed it had just started and wandered over here to see if I could endorse or impart some words of wisdom that might benefit Guy. I went straight to the evidence, saw the disputed text within seconds and removed it for the vile contextomy it was -- it attacked Guy's response yet failed to mention what had prompted that response: one of the worst NPA violations I've ever seen. I felt angry and ashamed that Wikipedians would continue baiting and goading Guy even in this RfC, which presumably intended to help improve behavior. Avb 16:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[18] = Please don't remove diffs from an RFC (as you did here). Simultaneously threatening users with a block if it was reinstated makes it worse. If you don't like the content of a diff, then discuss it on the RFC. Thanks. Neıl ☎ 19:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Could MastCell please provide an explanation here of this diff - [19]? DuncanHill ( talk) 22:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"Guy has the cojones to take on the disagreeable cases that most admins won't touch. It's easy to complain about his indiscretions, but I don't see others jumping in to take over the tough stuff."
(undent) tea, anyone? Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 00:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Raymond, is there a certain threshold representing the number of evildoers one must successfully thwart to earn the privilege of treating one's well-meaning neighbors in a distasteful or even despicable manner? Are you making the utilitarian argument that JzG has done more good to the project than harm? I don't know if the extent of intimidation or dissuasion from editing can really be quantified--and I question whether certain administrators would be in a position to witness firsthand the chilling effect (sorry for the cliché) that bullying or unwelcoming behaviour has on less experienced editors. Even if such a net loss/gain could be calculated, I'm not sure the numbers produced would be in Guy's favor.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 00:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG2#Outside_view_by_Kirill_Lokshin
Hardly. 51 editors say that just ain't so. 24.210.46.32 ( talk) 03:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see it that way. Kirill seems to be making the same argument to some small extent at least: "JzG's contributions to the project are not in doubt. He may well be tolerated—as many other surly editors are—on their basis alone." In other words, it is how much good versus how much harm. I'm wondering if that's really what people want to embrace as a principle. Of course, any user makes mistakes and so causes harm, but is quite a long way from what we are talking about here. If Guy did 51% good, is that OK then? I'm not sure if we want to embrace that kind of evaluation as the basis for community consensus about any editor. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG2#Outside_view_by_Kirill_Lokshin
Over 50 editors agree that JzG should give up the tools. 202.181.195.219 ( talk) 01:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There have been several mentions in this RfC of the work that JzG does, and how thankless and frustrating it can be. That is certainly true. Some people have voiced the opinion that those who castigate JzG for incivility should try doing some of the work that he does, and find out just how easily they can keep their cool.
Indeed, there are those among us who are happy enough to rise to that challenge. For the benefit of such editors, could we compile some kind of list of areas of the wiki where the work gets particularly dirty, and where JzG, and other admins doing the "dirty work" would benefit most from backup? Thanks in advance to anybody who can help with this. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm asking for more specifics because I think a lot of us who are advocating for civility do handle editors with obvious COI, but apparently we're all absent in the particular trouble areas where JzG works. So, where would that be? - GTBacchus( talk) 18:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"Guy is a tremendously good editor who deals with some of the worst shite to be blown in by the high-speed fans."... "I would also encourage all the administrators who've commented on this to do a few of those hard actions each day to relieve the stresses all around."... "I have absolutely no expectation that anything constructive will be built on this observation. What is anybody here going to do about this?"... "Guy has the cojones to take on the disagreeable cases that most admins won't touch."... "I would add (as I've done) for the admins who are here to do some of those difficult admin tasks so JzG doesn't feel like he has to."... "There is dirty work that needs to be done around here. And someone has to do it."... "Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant?" My answer to that question is, "yes, I'm going to do it; get out of the way old man."
Most Wikipedians understand that civility is indispensable in a collaborative editing environment, and that good dispute resolution skills are to be cultivated and encouraged, not spat upon. We're taking back the Wiki. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Raymond, if you took my comment as uncivil, then I apologize. I didn't mean it that way. I respect everyone involved here, and I respect those who disagree with me enough to shoot straight with them. - GTBacchus( talk) 22:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm perfectly capable of communicating with JzG (how do you know I haven't?), but as I indicated above, I'm trying to get people who have been banging the drum for how Guy's detractors don't do the dirty work to be a little more concrete, and I feel that I'm being criticized for that. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You do realize that stating "we're taking back the wiki" under the current politically correct rules might be viewed as unCIVIL and a reason to ban you, right GTBacchus? You have already failed at your first test of civility.
The problem is, we need to think more carefully about better ways to handle these situations. The current methods were fine a year ago or two or three years ago when the enterprise was much smaller. But these methods are ambiguous, and counterproductive and inefficient. We need to think carefully about what results we want to get and how we are willing to get there. See the discussions here.-- Filll ( talk) 16:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Civility is not something you "fail at" by making an unintentional rude remark. Civility is in how you react when someone says they thought your remark was rude. Am I being uncivil to you now? Do you want to ban me?
Why do you think I'm promoting some kind of trigger-happy legalistic interpretation of the page WP:CIVIL? I'm arguing for actual civility, not a "violation" you can "charge" people with. Do you disagree with actual civility, or just with some stupid use of WP:CIVIL as a bludgeon? - GTBacchus( talk) 16:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I personally am not offended by your remark because I think one has to have a thick hide to edit here. However, given the low standards for "offensive language" that have been increasingly adopted here, some might very well take offense at it.
I also agree that CIVIL should not be used as a weapon, but that is exactly what is happening. Over and over. Why? Because it works.
This is the natural consequence of ignoring all else but CIVIL and BITE. We could in a very civil fashion, create an article here that violated NPOV and RS and NOR and so on. And in the end, we would have a lousy article. But we would have respected CIVIL the entire time. CIVIL is not an end in and of itself; it is just one of the guidelines to use on the way to producing good articles.-- Filll ( talk) 17:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, since I am now told that one can handle ALL problems on Wikipedia just by enforcing WP:CIVIL more and more aggressively and discarding all other standards such as WP:NPOV and WP:DE and WP:RS, I challenge anyone who holds this pollyanna-ish notion to show me. Take a very contentious article, and single handedly, only being CIVIL and enforcing CIVIL, bring peace and tranquility over warring POV factions and create a high quality article. Show me how you can discard all other principles and policies and just rely on CIVIL. I want to see. I think that is a load of horse pucky, frankly.-- Filll ( talk) 19:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, since I am now told that one can handle ALL problems on Wikipedia just by enforcing WP:CIVIL more and more aggressively and discarding all other standards such as WP:NPOV and WP:DE and WP:RS, -- could you please provide a WP:DIFF that shows where you were told this and by whom? tia Dlabtot ( talk) 21:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I looked at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeraeph. Although it is hard for me to know the particulars, it seems to me that this is a case of bending over backwards to accommodate someone unproductive, which WP is quite good at, and often does in the name of being CIVIL.
The case of the FAC for Introduction to evolution where I saw SandyGeorgia working her magic and using CIVIL to try to calm a festering situation underwhelmed me. The result was that two productive editors (one an admin) quit rather than deal with the ugly situation since we could not call a SPADE a SPADE and could not be uncivil to a clearly disruptive and unproductive editor who was only on WP to cause turmoil and engage in TE and DE. And after bending over backwards for this disruptive editor, and sacrificing two productive editors, did it gain us anything in return? Nope, because the disruptive editor stopped editing anyway. The only way this situation was resolved was when I stepped back into the picture and became quite aggressive and confrontational, putting my own article up for deletion while it was being considered for FA and challenging the disruptive editor to defend his edits and claims in the face of community input from dozens of other editors. Not very CIVIL of me, but it worked to stop someone engaged in disruptive editing and nasty behavior. Anyone who is new is supposed to be nurtured, no matter what trouble they cause, because we do not want to violate BITE and they might someday become productive. So we discard current editors that are already productive in the frantic desperate hope that one of these newbies will actually contribute something. I think we are hurting ourselves. And I think the User: Zeraeph situation was a perfect example of that.-- Filll ( talk) 15:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Zeraeph, while somewhat productive, really did not produce much compared to SandyGeorgia. Zeraeph had only 5300 or so edits, and less than half of those were mainspace edits in a 2 year period. Compare this to SandyGeorgia, who in a 1.5 year period has 45000 edits and about 17000 mainspace edits. And yet, in the name of not BITEing newbies and AGF, WP was quite prepared to sacrifice SandyGeorgia in favor of Zeraeph until finally the ArbComm stepped in. This was almost a case of "too little, too late". Even then, I notice that Arbcomm did not all immediately agree on what to do, since acting against Zeraeph probably went against their favored approach, which is to give the benefit of the doubt of the less experienced editor over the more experienced editor, and to attack the more experienced editor for not being sufficiently CIVIL to the less experienced editor.
This I believe is an example of what is wrong here; in the interests of not rocking the boat and not offending someone like Zeraeph, and retaining Zeraeph in the hopes she would become a valuable member, we almost lost SandyGeorgia. Why is Zeraeph viewed as equal in importance to SandyGeorgia, or even more important, as a default? Yet we make similar assumptions over and over and over.
Would it be better to have sanctioned Zeraeph for something other than CIVIL? Probably, but I am not going to look extensively through her editing history to see what. I suspect that TE or DE or NPOV or other problems are probably in her editing record. Did Zeraeph really curse or act in an unCIVIL way? Or was that just an easier catchall to use, since it is more politically correct complaint to use at the moment?-- Filll ( talk) 16:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to rehash the entire Zeraeph case other than to say you've got a lot of that wrong there, Filll; also, if WP was quite prepared to sacrifice SandyGeorgia in favor of Zeraeph until finally the ArbComm stepped in, someone should have told me that :-) As far as I could tell, only one person wanted to "sacrifice me", and since I am unfailingly civil and I do AGF, and since not a piece of evidence against me could be produced, I prevailed. Contrast that to some other cases. And I don't have 45,000 edits, I have 59,000 sorry, editcountitis overtook me for a minute :-) without a personal attack, without a failure to adhere to civility, although I definitely do sometimes lose patience and fail to achieve the high standards of patience and decorum that my Wiki model,
Encephalon (
talk ·
contribs), set. And I completely disagree, still, today, with your interpretation on the other editor on History of Introduction to evolution; I think that's a good example of someone who started out helpful, who produced good changes in the article, becoming a problematic editor because others were aggressively rude to and dismissive of him. And I disagree with what saved the article according to you, since I was ready to promote it anyway. I believe, Pollyanna to the core, that in the longrun, civility works and produces a better outcome in terms of stable articles and happier editors. For every editor you claim has been chased off by a "troll" or "vandal", I can show you one who has been chased off by rude and abusive admins, and I can show you articles I abandoned when regular Wiki editors became rude and incivil—articles which didn't make featured status because good, civil editors left.
Asperger syndrome and
autism—both subject to off-Wiki canvassing—are beautiful, stable featured articles because they are frequented by Wiki editors who are unfailing civil and AGF. You asked for an example: I gave one.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 21:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I have signed my paragraphs above so hopefully everything will be ok now.-- Filll ( talk) 01:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
When I look at the JzG situation, and Vanished User (of Matthew Hoffman fame) and Science Apologist and Durova, what I see are editors who are willing to take on difficult situations, and who are being punished for it. It is extremely difficult to deal with these challenging areas in WP without having some sort of useful tools to draw on. And editors trying to bring order to these areas have no tools they can use. If we cannot produce more clear guidelines, and endow our admins and editors with better tools to use to bring some order to these difficult areas, we will end up with chaos and erosion of our experienced user base. Who will dare even try to edit these contentious topics, except for assorted POV warriors?-- Filll ( talk) 16:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
As for Friday's comment - is anybody actually saying "you should never say anything negative?" Who has made that claim, ever? Isn't that just the straw-man argument that some people are putting into the mouths of those arguing for civility? - GTBacchus( talk) 18:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
<undent>Kendrick7, you are quite correct. We are defining the phrases "troll", "POV pusher", "homeopathy promoter", FRINGE, and similar words as unCIVIL now. And the standard for what is uncivil is changing to include even disagreeing with an advocate of FRINGE views. We are on the edge of losing control with this policy, however well-meaning it is. Just take a look at the complaints about Science Apologist if you want to see how CIVIL is being used to GAME the system.-- Filll ( talk) 18:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I am sick and tired of the uncivility warriors who see WP as a battlefield. Lets all just stop responding to them. It's clearly not worth the effort. Normally I try to avoid doing this, but in the face of such blatant argumentation for disruptive processes it seems necessary to resort to the most effective means for conflict resolution. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 19:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Civil discourse is not bad. However, if that is all you care about, then it can be unhelpful to overemphasize it. Suppose that I am editing an article about Holocaust denial. And I remove all references to the mainstream historic view that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust. And I argue strenuously that those sources are biased and do not belong in an article about Holocaust denial. And I argue that according to NPOV, we must be neutral and not assume that the Nazis killed so many Jews. And I am very civil throughout. And NPOV is explained to me 50, 100, 500, 1000 times over, over and over and over again, and I just ignore it and keep arguing in a civil fashion. I flood the talk pages with links to NeoNazi websites and Holocaust denial and Aryan Nation and Jihadist sites. People rebut my arguments, but I just make them again and again and again, cutting and pasting and burying the talk page in spam. I ignore comments that my sources are not RS. And I recruit friends to do the same thing. And when an admin questions me, I charge him with admin abuse and uncivil behavior (like our friend User: Whig tried recently, and he still might get away with it) and claim that since he is involved he cannot use his admin tools. What options does WP have against me in such a case? Very little, frankly, very little. Now suppose I get the admin so upset he says the "f word" or something else. And I can charge him with incivility and maybe he gets desysopped. I am winning this battle ! The bottom line is, I am not abiding by RS and NPOV, but since I am doing it civilly, WP is powerless to do anything against me. You see?-- Filll ( talk) 19:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
"And when an admin questions me, I charge him with admin abuse and uncivil behavior." Oh, and who will believe you? If the admin was civil about questioning you, why will this charge somehow stick? There are lots of good ways to stop POV-pushers, and none of them involve using incivility. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I quite disagree. The "POV" of what Popper calls "normal science" is that present theory pretty well explains major observations, and any major ones not explained, are due to experimental error or poor science or maybe fraud. Small steps in fiddling with details are accepted, especially if they come from people and institutions with reputations. Big ones that question central paradigms, struggle even for publication. You've worked on the K-T article; I'm old enough to remember that the standard answer for the demise of the dinosaur was "overspecialization"! It took somebody with the stature of Alvarez to begin to get that back into speculation-land, and get catastrophism at any level seriously questioned. Now the arguments are all over the board, as you know. If only detritavores made it, how did honeybees make it? [22] Well, perhaps there was an event somewhere in there short enough to be survived by eating a few months (not a few thousand or million years worth) of honey. And so on.
I'm also old enough to remember when the proton had no structure. Now we're told that for sure that it surely does, but the electron surely doesn't. Okay, if you say so. I remember when everything was more or less explained by hydrogen and helium produced in the Big Bang. Now we've had to add in dark matter and dark energy and who knows what they are, but they are needed to explain recent observations. We're now wondering if some of it might be supersymmetrical partners like selectons and sneutrinos and stuff that sounds like it came from a bad episode of Star Trek/Next Generation, added in so that Wesley Crusher could look smart. All of this new dark stuff violates the POV of 40 years ago-- all of it. In cosomology, this whole last century consists of discovering new structure in the (now expanding) cosmos at larger and larger scales, none of which was previously predicted, and all of it non-POV before somebody tried to get new observations published (sometimes unsuccessfully).
In medicine, in the 1960's, the FDA banned foodmakers from warning that saturated fat and cholesterol in food led to heart disease. Then, later, that very hypothesis became accepted doctrine and scripture. Then, even later, the French paradox and the coconut-eaters forced another rethink, and everybody re-trenched, and now we're not so sure again. At every step an orthodox POV predominated, and you were a fool if you didn't believe in the "establishment position." Yet, through it all, the only fact that has survived from that era, is that smoking remains bad! And trans-fats, which we didn't even suspect or know about, now look as bad (or worse) as anything we DID know about it, back then. Yet at one point, the trans-fat warners were considered food quacks.
The upshot is that I have some meta-sympathy with the homeopathic position, here, even though I don't believe a bit of their actual content. What "science" believes in your current year, is ALWAYS a POV, and ALWAYS has been. The "scientific" POV changes regularly, and in a way that reminds you of Orwell's 1984 if you've lived through it. The continental drift people were ridiculed until about 1957, because a mechanism was lacking (even though the observations were too-obvious-for-coincidence to anybody with a map). The rejection of primary data, because no mechanism is at hand, is the NORM in science, not some anomaly. Name me a field, and I'll give you an example. Rosalyn Yalow could not get her RIA published, because the reviewers simply refused to believe the results. She showed that rejection letter at her Nobel lecture. So let us lighten up a bit, here. Give the homeopaths some room to state their position, but (even if they are wrong and we're nearly sure of it) let us all not look like the Inquisition going after Bruno and Galileo. S B H arris 23:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The value of NPOV, is that we list all the views and sample the evidence on various sides. We present the mainstream, but we present contrary views. We present a variety of studies. And this is appropriate and fine, for exactly the reason you state; because our current knowledge is only temporary and provisional, and we do our readers a disservice by presenting the dominant view as the only view. And we should compare and contrast dominant and FRINGE views. We should not exclude the dominant views from FRINGE articles at all, for exactly the reason you stated; this encourages critical thinking and analysis and this is exactly the kind of information that is fertile ground to produce the next generation of knowledge! I do not think we are hurting these FRINGE areas by comparing and contrasting their views with the mainstream. We might be laying the foundation of their rebirth as readers learn why they are not accepted and why they are FRINGE positions, at least currently.
I personally would even favor "Teaching the Controversy" if it was really done honestly. It would be a fantastic way to learn the science and critical thinking, exactly like the creationists and intelligent design supporters claim. Unfortunately for them, to do it very carefully and scientifically, most of the evidence makes creationists look very bad. But in the course of learning that, and why their arguments fall apart, students would learn a tremendous amount.-- Filll ( talk) 00:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
As for mechanism, please review what I said. You can't get anybody who doesn't believe in continental drift NOW, but it was easy to get mainstream geologists who didn't believe it in 1955. Right now, homeopathy has result effects that look about as good as that for (say) antidepressant treatment of the moderately-depressed. Really. And it lacks a mechanism. It can't work with atoms. But we gave up having to answer to atoms for everything when we went to dark matter in astronomy. Ah, you say, that was only to explain observations that wouldn't go away. But whether homeopathy has observations (primary data from trials) that won't go away, largely depends on how hard and carefully you look. So this is not cut-and-dried. It deserves more careful handling in the meantime, so we all are not accused of bowing to the bias that dogs all medical trials (they tend to turn out as the people who run them, want them to). S B H arris 00:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The 800 pound gorilla in the room is what exactly is the placebo effect. It is clearly real. And it is clearly incredibly powerful. And we have no idea what it is and very little idea of how to tap into it. But if we could, we would be far far more effective against many diseases. And we just sweep a lot of results under this carpet we call "placebo" (or "nocebo" as the case may be). But I do not get the impression that it is the subject of very much investigation at all. We sort of ignore it. We shouldn't. If we only had a better way to get a handle on what it is...--
Filll (
talk) 00:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I first encountered Guy when one of our biography articles lead to a threat of legal action by the subject. This person had written a number of books about butterflies with his wife. The books are full of beautiful photographs of butterflies. The author has no degrees in science whatsoever, and scientific reviews of these books are uniformly dreadful. Nevertheless, these books are sometimes the only sources of some rare butterfly pictures, and so they have been purchased by libraries and research institutions worldwide.
What did the subject of our biography object to? He was angry that we described him as a "butterfly photographer" and that we said his wife was sometimes a coauthor, both of which were easily verifiable. He huffed and puffed at WP, although we were far more gentle with this biography than we could have been. Guy acted as the intermediary between us and this raving lunatic. Guy was calm and professional throughout.
Dealing with this sort of nut day in and day out is challenging. Fending off serious legal threats is wearing and thankless. I am sure our butterfly photographer is still fuming and furious at us. Someone with less backbone than Guy might have easily just folded in the face of the long multipage letters full of ranting and bluster.
Guy performs a valuable service here. As did Vanished User of Matthew Hoffman fame. There is some idea that everyone who wants to contribute here or have some input into our project is reasonable and rational; this is far from the truth. I have encountered many who want us to rewrite the articles from the New York Times and misquote them, to bolster their own views. I have encountered people who believe that we should report that fairies and ghosts are scientifically proven. I have encountered people who believe we should describe how atoms are fictional and this is proven scientifically, or that Noah's Ark has been discovered and this has been demonstrated by DNA studies, or alien abduction is a proven phenomenon. Now, if you explain to someone 10, 20, 100, or 500 times how their own personal views do not belong in the encyclopedia the way they envision them, and they still do not get it, you have to have an option for dealing with them. And sometimes, the people pushing these views are not going to like it.
Guy is one of our options for dealing with these cases. It might not be perfect, but until we come up with something better, we should be extremely cautious about discouraging Guy from the tasks he performs.
We are reaching the point where calling someone a "vandal" or a "POV pusher" or a "pseudoscientist" or a "promoter" is viewed as uncivil. We are getting mired in political correctness. Some information just is offensive to some, like the fact that Salman Rushdie was knighted, or that Japanese troops had comfort women, or contact with Europeans resulted in the deaths of many Native Americans, or that lynching was common in the American South, or that William the Conqueror was also known as William the Bastard and had a very messy demise. We can censor this sort of information to sanitize the encyclopedia, and avoid offending some, or we can present it all in its rawness, as best as we can. If we decide in the interests of civility that we will allow WP to be heavily censored and we will coddle assorted vandals and POV pushers no matter what their behavior in an attempt to create a welcome environment for all, we will find ourselves creating a far less useful resource. And we will find ourselves just babysitting hordes of malcontents and flakes with agendas. We need to have some standards, or else Wikipedia will be identical to just the raw internet, including random blogs and silliness that is completely uncensored or unselective. Remember, not all of these people who want to include material on Wikipedia are going to even agree with each other!
Some of the complaints about Guy are just ridiculous. Some are upset that Guy redirected "turd burglar" to Gay? Come on here, give me a break. This is some terrible crime? Sounds more like a joke to me. I notice a google search for this phrase has more than 40,000 hits! Are we supposed to start censoring this sort of thing from Wikipedia because some find it offensive? I could be convinced that we needed a "Civilopedia" that was cleaned up for children or sensitive uses, but I think we still need a venue that presents information in a raw, unvarnished form.
You know, WP deals with a veritable onslaught of kooks every day. Thousands of articles are deleted daily. Probably hundreds of thousands of instances of vandalism are dealt with every day. Many of the examples here of Guy's supposed egregious and unforgivable behavior can be chalked up to one or more of:
The demands that civility be the main consideration for dealing with conflict on WP do have a hidden cost. It means that increasingly, POV pushers and vandals are learning that as long as they are civil, they can use CIVIL as a weapon against established users and admins. It means that the goalposts for CIVILity are being moved, to where it is uncivil to disagree with a POV pusher. It means that we are having, and will continue to have, more and more trouble enforcing NPOV and RS and TE and DE, because we only care about CIVIL.
For those worried about a double standard, I do see a double standard emerging. It is that newbies can say and do anything, because they are not allowed to be sanctioned because of BITE. Newbies and SPAs can engage in profanity and obnoxious behavior, but established productive users cannot because they are supposed to "know better" and we are frantic to protect newbies since they might eventually become productive. The case I mentioned above when we were seeking FA status for Introduction to evolution is a case in point; we sacrificed 2 established productive users including one admin because we did not want to offend a problem newbie who had a long string of battles to his credit (including some viscious fights with a bot!!). Just telling this editor that his ideas were not suitable and did not match the consensus was inappropriate, because he might get upset. And he did get upset, fuming and cursing everyone and everything. But after all that coddling, where is this user today? Gone. How much did he really produce that remains on Wikipedia? Essentially nothing. Was it worth all the drama? I would say no. It would have been far better to tell this problem newbie that unless he could work in a productive collaborative way with others, including bots, Wikipedia was not the place for him. It might have hurt his feelings, but in the long run, it would have been far better for our overall productivity.
Although Guy might find it in his best interests to reign himself in a bit, I think it would not be in WP's best interests to lose Guy or discourage him from continuing to perform assorted housekeeping duties around here. Many of those who I see most upset with JzG are editors who push incredibly unencyclopedic content. Let me ask; if a reader looks up something about physics or evolution on Wikipedia, should they get something that resembles what they get on Encyclopedia Britannica or in a good college textbook, or should they get a bunch of flaky pet theories and nonsense ?
I have no problem with articles on FRINGE material, but lets make it clear that these are FRINGE beliefs. It might hurt the feelings of those that believe static on radios is evidence that ghosts are talking to us, or that water has memory, or that Joshua's Long Day really happened, or that Jonah really lived in a Whale, or humans lived together with dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden, or that the 12th Imam will come back at the end of the world, or that Barbara Bush is secretly an extraterrestrial reptile, or that Xenu killed billions in volcanoes using hydrogen bombs, or that the US government secretly attacked the US on 9/11, and so on and so forth. However, what does WP do when the proponents of these views get aggressive? We need to have ways to deal with them. And JzG/Guy is one of the ways we deal with them.
Some of those on this page have written long extensive treatises about how the standard interpretation of NPOV is incorrect. These have been removed repeatedly from Wikipedia. Arbcomm has weighed in to state that these are incorrect. Nevertheless, this does not stop them from actively promoting this alternative view of reality. Do we want to be a serious reference work, or a joke? If we let people like this have free run of the place, we are not a serious reference work, and we will not be one. It might hurt their feelings to be told this, but they are flakes and kooks. Sorry, but that is the consensus view. It does not matter how nice we are to people who believe that NPOV means nothing negative about FRINGE beliefs should appear in WP articles, they will not change their minds by this tactic, and all we will do is waste large amounts of time and effort.
Guy's problematic outbursts are because we do not have good mechanisms for dealing with these people and such beliefs. If someone does not understand a policy that has been explained to them 500 or 1000 times, what makes us think they will get it if we are just nice and explain it one more time? We might not like to see an admin use 4 letter words; fair enough. Let's create the tools and mechanisms for dealing with these difficult situations so they are not driven to use profanity, if we decide this is a priority. Let's not hamstring our admins. Let's not create "test cases" to attack our admins who are only trying to defend those writing the encyclopedia.-- Filll ( talk) 16:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Amarkov, you are hitting right on an important issue. Journals are allowed to reject material. Encyclopedia Britannica is allowed to reject contributors. Wikipedia has much much lower standards. And as a result, we are overrun by spam, and by FRINGE material and POV pushers and trolls and SPAs.
Do you think that the homeopathy promoters like Whig and Anthon01 and Dana Ullman would be allowed to push and push and push for uncritical presentation of homeopathy in the New England Journal of Medicine? In the Lancet? In the Encyclopedia Britannica? Absolutely not. Their ability to promote their FRINGE views would be restricted long long before they drove anyone to distraction.
What about Amaltheus? Would he be allowed to unilaterally declare, contrary to the opinion of 20 or 30 other editors, that sex is the most important principle in evolution, particularly a treatment of evolution for 12 year olds? In most venues, he would make his claim, he would be firmly and politely told to get lost and that would be that. But here, we nurture these people and coddle them for weeks and months. Until finally it gets ridiculous. And we lose regular productive editors. And/or someone like Guy tells them to f-off.
So, you are quite right. Something is rotten here. We have created a situation where profanity sometimes is resorted to, because people are so frustrated. And that is not because we are tolerant of profanity. It is because we are tolerant of nonsense that drives people to profanity.-- Filll ( talk) 17:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been called a vandal and much much worse here. I have been called a POV pusher and much worse here. You are allowed to call me that, and I will not protest. However, I maintain that we should follow the principles of WP, including NPOV. Others who want to discard NPOV disagree. And that is the root of the problem. We can consult others to see which of us has the correct interpretation of NPOV. But we have no proper mechanism for discouraging those who want to reinterpret NPOV, or DE, or TE, or RS, or NOR or many other policies to favor their POV. We do have a way to discourage CIVIL violations, whose definition is changing and experiencing definition creep.
When I first came here, about a year and a half ago, it was common to revert vandalism with the edit summary "rev vand" or "rv" or "rvv". But I have noticed that many who disagreed with these actions then used CIVIL to combat the revert. Maybe the edit summary "rvv" should go the way of the Dodo bird; it is just too offensive to too many. I myself notice that edit summaries are a good way to get in trouble, so I try to create edit summaries that say as little as possible, for fear of offending someone.
So go ahead. Call me a POV pusher. Call me a vandal. I don't particularly care. I will let my editing history speak for itself. But when it comes to a conflict on policy, we need a better way to enforce things like NPOV and RS and NOR.-- Filll ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not necessarily constructive. But you might be driven to distraction by my refusal to abide by the standards of WP and the principles of WP.--
Filll (
talk) 18:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Such as? You mean "turd burglar" is hate language? As I am sure you know, this gets quite complicated.
Is the N-word hate language? Depends on who uses it and in what circumstances. What about all the rap stars who use the word?
How about the word "queer"? Well again, in some circumstances, by some people, maybe. Remember the television show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?
What about " faggot"? Again, in some circumstances, by some people, maybe. To some people, faggot is a cigarette or a bundle of sticks or a type of food.
What about "fruit" or "queen"?
How should WP handle these cases? There are words that in the US that are strictly verbotten, which are fine in other places. There are words which were fine 100 or 200 years ago, but have been on a dysphemism treadmill and now have negative connotations.
Suppose that "turd burglar" is socially acceptable where Guy lives. It might be socially acceptable for homosexuals to use the term, but not for straight people. How do you know that Guy is straight? You see, the deeper you plumb into this issue, the more complicated it gets. I do not know why Guy linked "turd burglar". I would not have done it, but that does not mean very much. I do not know the circumstances and I do not know Guy's side of it. But we have a lot more offensive material on Wikipedia than "turd burglar", that is for sure.
If you want to start some sort of Wikipedia sanitization drive, there is plenty of other material to go after. Jumping on the "turd burglar" bandwagon just seems sort of silly to me. After all, we have articles on all kinds of sexual acts. We have disgusting pictures of corpses and We have articles on porn stars. Wikipedia itself was initially associated with a company that provided hosting services for internet porn, if I am not mistaken.
How about c*nt? In some places, this the worst possible word. But not in Australia or the UK, where it often is used for a male, and is only slightly rude. In the US it is viewed as highly disrespectful towards women. Except when used by lesbians and assorted feminists who use it partly as some sort of political act. And in France, its counterpart means "silly" and is very common and used in polite speech. So is c*nt hate speech or not? Well depends on who is using it and when and where. Take a look at this WP article: [23] and this one: [24] where the word finds its way into the name of a band declared by the Guardian "one of the 40 most important bands in the UK". Can you imagine a comparable US newspaper making a similar declaration? Absolutely not, right? Well it is because we have different standards about this kind of language, clearly.-- Filll ( talk) 19:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well you are more offended by "turd burglar" than by "n*gger". Others are more offended by "c*nt" than by "n*gger". Others are more offended by "sh*t" than by "c*nt". And so on and so forth. You are arguing that the word that offends you is more offensive in general, and that case is not so easy to make. We can try to remove all these, which has not been the direction that WP was heading when it started, or we can try to deal with this with some level of understanding.
I do not know where you live, but the word "turd burglar" could be said here where I live on regular broadcast television and radio without much trouble, I bet. However, if you said the word "n*gger" on broadcast television or radio where I live and you were Caucasian, you might be looking at a fine of millions of dollars. If on the other hand, you were African American and said the word "n*gger" on broadcast radio or television where I live, people would probably not bat an eye at it, might ignore it or not even notice it.
This is complicated. I know you want the phrase that offends you to be the most offensive phrase for everyone. But this just is not the way the world works, from my observation. The people where I live would like "n*gger" to be the most offensive word anywhere on planet earth, but this just is not accurate. If you talked to my neighbors about Beijing or Tokyo, the first thing my neighbors would want to know about are the relations between the African Americans and the whites in Beijing. But this is not how the world works; it is more complicated than our simplistic models. -- Filll ( talk) 20:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well since you find so much offensive, I fully expect you to organize a movement to censor and clean up Wikipedia. Make a list of everything you believe is unacceptable, and then recruit other editors to go out and remove large swaths of material from Wikipedia. If you do not do this, then we will know much stock to put in any of your declarations of indignance.-- Filll ( talk) 20:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah so you do not want to censor Wikipedia and remove things that you take extreme offense at. All this dustup is because a page that has long since been removed, a redirect, was created by an admin and You have no idea why he created it. I bet you never even asked him. But you are offended beyond belief and crying for blood and writing and writing and writing about it. Right...makes a lot of sense. By the way, I notice DuncanHill has very little experience in editing controversial articles here so probably has little to add to this conversation. Oh well. --
Filll (
talk) 20:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Filll, are you mad at DuncanHill or something? What's the point in saying, "I notice DuncanHill has very little experience in editing controversial articles here so probably has little to add to this conversation. Oh well."? Is that helpful? How is it going to come across as anything other than caustic? Do you think asking for an explanation of a seemingly inappropriate action is wrong, somehow? Why would you characterize a request for an explanation as a "cry for blood"? I'm confused. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You are supposedly here to sort of half ask why Guy redirected "turd burglar" to "gay", a redirect that no longer even exists. And you do not even expect to get an answer.
Your participation at this RfC seems sort of pointless, to be honest. You have no experience at editing contentious articles. Without that, I daresay you really cannot quite understand how things can get so heated here and what the problems even are.
Try editing Depleted Uranium for example. Or any of the evolution and creationism articles, about a year or so ago (we have them pretty quiet now). Black people was pretty nasty about 14 months ago, but I am not sure what the current situation is. A lot of the alternative medicine articles are pretty contentious, at least from time to time. The abortion articles have been pretty bad. The Mormonism articles have been bad. Scientology of course has been very bad (you might even get some real life death threats and stalkers out of that one).
When I want a break, and I want peace and quiet, I edit the kind of articles that DuncanHill edits most of the time. And it does not do much good to edit an article once or twice, or even 20 or 30 times. You need an experience where you edit the article and its talk page many hundreds of times, in the face of brutal fighting and criticism for months on end. Then you will start to get an idea of how rough things can get here.
You are free to question the behavior of certain editors. But unless you have walked a mile in their shoes, you really have little of relevance to contribute. There are neighborhoods here on WP which are just pitched battles. Brutal nasty fights that go on for months and years. Articles which have meat puppets at them, recruited from other websites or through television and radio. Articles where professional public relations firms are involved in trying to influence the article. Articles with one or two new sock puppets every day. Articles where the editors have been coughed up by Wikipedia in answer to subpoenae. Articles where the editors have been outed by off-wiki attack sites. Articles where the editors have received repeated death threats.
And until you can wrap your head around these realities, it is a bit hard to see how an editor or an admin might be driven to cursing, or why they might need different tools than they have now. And it might be difficult to understand how unpleasant things can be in some corners of Wikipedia.-- Filll ( talk) 22:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
In high conflict articles, one is driven to careful diplomacy, if one wants to get work done. If we're responding to difficult editors by descending to their level, then it's no wonder so many pages are pitched battles. On what high-conflict page has telling someone to "fuck off" improved anything, ever? I'll accept that someone's feelings were vented, but that doesn't count as constructive or helpful. They should have hit a punching bag instead, and come back when they could apply their communication and conflict resolution skills.
By the way, I have worked on high-conflict pages, and I'm speaking from experience, so don't start with that. - GTBacchus( talk) 22:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I've already volunteered for OTRS in response to this RfC, and you will be seeing me around more. Take care.
I note that you utterly failed to address the point I raised in my above comment. You have no answer for why "driven to cursing" makes any sense at all. You seem to be arguing for the right to use piss-poor dispute resolution skills in areas where good ones are called for, and rather than addressing or even acknowledging my arguments, you've chosen to attack me. And you're surprised that you find working on Wikipedia to be a battle. That's just dandy. Like I said, I'll see you around. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Glad to hear you are going to use your superlative skills here in some controversial areas. And I did not check to see when you were involved with abortion. Sorry, but things seem to have become much worse in the last year or so, at least the little bit that I know about. And if you will read what I have written over and over, I do not claim that it is reasonable to curse out the editors and that is a reasonable dispute resolution technique. If you think I have claimed this, please provide a diff of where I made such a statement. I was arguing that these things are somewhat understandable in high stress areas, and an indication that our tools are not adequate for dealing with these situations. I also asked that we not discard JzG for these failings, although he might want to tone it down a bit. That is my position. Ok?-- Filll ( talk) 00:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I never said they should.-- Filll ( talk) 00:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
That is, quite frankly, the most absurd logic ever. I respect JzG for dealing with trolls, of course. That does not mean that I cannot question the way in which he chooses to do this. I don't weep over those who are actually trolls; I weep over those who were not trolls, or might not have become trolls were they approached in a nicer fashion. War, metaphorical or otherwise, does not justify any methods used to fight it. - Amarkov moo! 16:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I do not think that JzG or OM or many others would be in favor of capricious rudeness or random profanity and arbitrary expletives and indiscriminate imprecations. But you have to look at the context and the situation that lead to the use of the malediction in question. In all the cases that I know of, the situation became intolerable because of sustained efforts of trolls, POV warriors, SPAs, probable sock puppets, putative meat puppets, etc. I wonder about the people complaining; have they ever been in a dispute with some POV warrior that refuses to back down or compromise? Do they edit controversial articles at all?-- Filll ( talk) 17:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Dealing with someone who doesn't want to compromise doesn't have to be so stressful, there are ways to make it easier. That's what we should be working on: How do we make our admins more informed and more empowered to deal effectively with difficult editors, and support this type of work? That doesn't mean enabling abusive behavior, nor does it mean simply slapping down admins who mess up; it means teaching better mediation/negotiation skills. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course we shuld have better strategies. That is the entire point of this page. Things that worked a year ago or two or three years ago when the project was much smaller really are not suitable strategies any more since the site is much much bigger and more high profile. We need to think creatively for how to deal with POV pushers and trolls. We need to think of ways to improve our efficiency and effectiveness. I am not saying that all admins should have license to curse as much as possible and to sling invective at problem editors. I am saying this behavior is a symptom of problems that we should address. And Guy is a valuable admin here. And so was Vanished User. And just dumping them is not necessarily addressing the root of the problem, particularly when Guy and Vanished User were defending editors like me. Why do we not create a system where they do not have to go to such lengths to defend me? -- Filll ( talk) 19:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Nevertheless, have you got anything concrete in mind, as far as improvements to the current system? - GTBacchus( talk) 20:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not know what part of Wikipedia you have been editing. But the part I have been on has slowly but surely been making it tougher and tougher for admins to act to stop DE and TE and NPOV violations etc.-- Filll ( talk) 20:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with this, and I have attempted to make proposals like this at the Village Pump and other places. We need to make the system more fault tolerant so a single admin has less responsibility and less chance of making some irretrievable error, single-handedly. Make it harder for admins to make mistakes. Make it easier to create admins since they will have less unilateral power. And provide other venues for deciding on content, like a content arbcomm or outside review board etc. Some of these ideas are described on the Raymond Arritt Expert Withdrawal pages-- Filll ( talk) 16:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Right at the moment on the talk page of homeopathy, disagreeing with the precepts of homeopathy and having critical material about homeopathy in the article is viewed as unCIVIL. Disagreeing with homeopathy supporters is viewed as a personal attack. Abiding by NPOV is viewed as UNCIVIL and a personal attack. NPOV is being redefined. FRINGE is being redefined. If you disagree, you are viewed as mounting a personal attack and being unCIVIL and there are calls for you to be blocked for disagreeing. So in other words, if you want to abide by NPOV, this is viewed as unCIVIL and there are calls for editors who want NPOV to be blocked. In other words kids, we have a problem. If you want to see this in action, go to [25], [26], [27]-- Filll ( talk) 18:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I have not ever claimed and never will claim that we have no problems. Please stop repeating this falsehood about me. Dlabtot ( talk) 18:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I certainly don't believe there are no problems, nor have I seen a sign that anyone else believes that, but I also don't believe that you have accurately assessed what the problem is. Fringe theories are a problem, but editors turning Wikipedia into a battleground is also a serious problem, and I believe it also makes fringe theories more difficult to deal with. Sχeptomaniac χαιρετε 22:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem that we're all working on is this: How can we stop people using pages such as WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:BITE as weapons? That's not at all what they're for, but many people seem to want to use them that way. How can we stop that? - GTBacchus( talk) 23:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we should not just send one or two admins out to curse at those who are violating our WP principles like NPOV and RS and NOR and FRINGE and LEAD etc. That is silly and no one is suggesting doing that in a serious manner. What I have said repeatedly is that this is symptomatic of a lack of effective mechanisms for dealing with the onslaught of various malcontents.
In the creationism and evolution area, a year or two back things on WP were almost impossible. It was a terrible pitched battle that those who wanted to uphold standards and rationality were losing. But we turned it around, using a variety of techniques and some trial and error: [29]. Now, things are much calmer. It takes far less effort to maintain many more articles, and they are better written in general. Evolution was allowed to improve drastically when the fighting died down, and has been very favorably reviewed externally: [30]. I have even seen one external review of evolution that compared it to something a faculty member would produce at a major US research university. Now, we are getting cited more often by blogs and mainstream journalists. There are even notices circulating in judicial circles that it is ok to use our articles in this area for legal research for legal opinions etc. So we have made a lot of progress.
We did it by experimenting with different ideas. And we hit on a mix that worked for us. It might not work in all subject areas on WP. But if we experiment with a variety of ideas, we have a chance of finding something that works there too. -- Filll ( talk) 17:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we have several goals here, not all of which are independent or uncorrelated with each other. The connections between these are not as obvious as what you have stated, however. We could try to estimate their interrelations, but I would be loathe to put much faith in any conjectures without any data.
Here are some of our goals:
Now suppose we retain a large volume of FRINGE proponents by bending over backwards to nurture them and not offend them. This might increase our total number of editors, but more of our current editors might have their efforts consumed in nonsense. More experts might leave. We might end up with an undesirable population of editors and have trouble attracting the kind of editors we want. The more one thinks about this, the clear it is that this is a very complicated problem. You can claim that we have to be more CIVIL to attain our goals. And ScienceApologist, with about as much authority, can claim that overemphasizing CIVIL is detracting from our goals. And we have no real data one way or the other; just speculation and conjecture.
I can tell you anecdotally that we did not move forward on our goals in the areas of creationism and evolution by being polite and WP:CIVIL. We were, and continue to be, pretty rough on editors there who come to spread nonsense. And we discourage them and move them out aggressively.
If we operated with the same CIVIL principles that seem to be reigning in alternative medicine right now, our creationism and evolution articles would be a disaster and horrendous. Probably most of our current contributing editors would have left. The articles would be probably be unreadable messes that the outside world would not respect particularly. We would be in the business of providing free bandwidth to assorted religious groups to publish religious tracts. And various religious groups with different views would be using this space as a place to beat each other to a pulp. And the WP infrastructure would just function as some sort of traffic cop to keep them from tearing each other apart, since they all hate each other and disagree with each other.
Do you think that academia is CIVIL? Mainstream science? If you think that, you do not know very much about academia or science.-- Filll ( talk) 23:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
As you've seen on my talk page, we're getting in touch with people who are doing research on conflict resolution on Wikipedia, and we've got some very suggestive data about which approaches work and which ones don't. I'm in the process of learning more, and will be pushing to generate more data, targeting specific DR tactics. I'm currently very optimistic that we can deal with the POV problems you're describing without having to jettison any part of our civility policy.
It may be that people have been gaming the policy, but that can be stopped. It may be that people involved in these arguments haven't happened upon the correct formula yet, but we can work on that. It may just be that we need to bring a lot of fresh eyes to the situation, lay the facts out very clearly, and make some decisions.
Would you agree, at least, that there is room for disagreement, as to whether our current system coddles trolls and supporters of fringe theories? - GTBacchus( talk) 23:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I was not clear enough. Without data, I do not know if our current CIVILity policy is worthwhile or not, and if it is productive and efficient or not. Some claim it is. Some claim it is not. I have my doubts, but I am willing to explore this and other options, and generate evidence. This is of course a very complicated problem, as I am trying to suggest. And just changing one or two variables blindly might not get us very far. This has to be done carefully, with a lot of thought.-- Filll ( talk) 00:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Filll, thanks for the reply. I encourage you to stay tuned, because we're just now at the cusp of being able to ask and answer some questions about how conflicts are resolved in this medium.
Oh, and I think I did misunderstand your tone above, and thought you were asserting that we are, in fact, bending over backwards to nurture and not offend fringe proponents. Now that I read it again, I see that you weren't making that assertion. Sorry. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I find it amazing and quite telling that Dlabtot has read my initial statement and my answer to the question, both of which I think are quite clear where I come down on this issue. And for some reason, he has been unable to understand either one. This is a very interesting datapoint. I never said our current system coddles trolls and supporters of FRINGE theories, at least in the last few posts here. And even if it does, we might find that it is to our benefit to do so, if we have data demonstrating that. Right?
For example, maybe we are not applying CIVIL aggressively enough. If we redouble our efforts, and push harder yet, we might find we get much closer to our goals; we might be more productive, we might be more efficient, we might attract a higher quality of editor etc. Maybe. I have my doubts about that, but that is an interesting hypothesis that some probably hold. And with data and experiments and observations, we might be able to compile empirical evidence that supports or does not support this conjecture.
I do not know if I am more clear and better understood now or not. But anyway, the answer to all these complicated questions is, we do not know. We do not have the data yet to be able to tell what we should be doing to meet our goals.-- Filll ( talk) 00:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Per a section below... we might want to migrate this conversation somewhere else... maybe a page somewhere to talk about DR research? - GTBacchus( talk) 00:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes I think this is a good idea. I have already suggested something similar, as you can see by looking
here and
here for example.--
Filll (
talk) 01:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
(Moved from the RfC page)
What I find a much bigger cause for concern is this comment by Nishkid64 ( talk · contribs). He accuses Uconnstud of being the sockpuppet of Bigdaddy718 ( talk · contribs). Bigdaddy718 was blocked as a sockpuppet of Armyguy11 ( talk · contribs). A ecis Brievenbus 00:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is this thing still festering on? Since guy has decided not to respond and has either read and noted complaints or decided to ignore them, what's the point? Over two weeks of this is enough. Can we close it down now?-- Docg 23:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Festering on? That's a rhetorical question, right? It's the WikiWay. When someone is a vicious, vile, insulting editor, but the "right" people like them (usually other vicious, vile, insulting editors and admins), they never have to answer for their actions and they are allowed by "the community" to continue their abuses. I have a high tolerance for what some call incivility, but a couple editors go way overboard, and JzG/Guy is one of them. As I've said before about a similar-acting editor... ...and as usual, nothing happens because nobody cares...the user is now free to start up his incivility and personal attacks and name-calling and harassment because nobody seems to have the backbone to chastize this often-blocked user with a long, "distinguished" history of complaints, harassment, steamrolling, and victim-playing... of course, i shouldn't be surprised... • VigilancePrime • • • 17:44 (UTC) 20 Mar '08
I agree completely, and was just about to point out that under our new rules of "political correctness", your characterization of someone as "vicious, vile, insulting" is more than enough to get a nice long block, just by itself. --
Filll (
talk) 17:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
What I believe is happening is that we are experiencing "CIVIL standard creep". What was permissable a year or two or three ago, is now viewed as a violation of CIVIL in many cases. Many of the examples of JzG's inexcusable behavior date from a year or two ago, or more. Some of these probably would not have raised eyebrows then, but would now. If regular editors did such a thing now, without a record of productivity to fall back on, they probably would be blocked, obviously. Someone with a long record of productivity gets a bit more slack from the community for obvious reasons. Someone who has had personal turmoil in their personal lives, like JzG has, also gets a bit more slack from the community. And whether we like to admit it or not, admins get a slightly larger helping of community tolerance than regular editors do. So you have to look at these things carefully to try to understand what is going on. This is essentially a strong warning to JzG and other editors and admins who behave in a similar fashion. If it continues, by JzG or others, then probably there will be consequences. It does not appear at the moment that the community is willing to impose consequences for this compilation of putatively problematic posts, some going back into ancient Wikihistory.--
Filll (
talk) 18:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
As we become larger and more prominent, we probably should discourage the use of profanity by our admins. And I said, at this moment we do not appear that we will impose consequences. However, a slipup this evening, an outburst by JzG tomorrow morning with some profanity, a meltdown tomorrow afternoon, and things could change quite drastically. I have no doubt that if this RfC closes, and in a month someone compiles a record of fresh infelicities by Guy, that things will go far far worse for him. Does anyone seriously doubt that? People might cut him a little slack this time, but it is hard to imagine that they will continue to do so if he does not toe the line. That is my two cent prediction, anyway.-- Filll ( talk) 18:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I believe real incivility is not a reasonable response to very much. I have noted this repeatedly. However, pseudo-incivility, which I have seen bandied about a lot, I think is just silly, and dangerous. And it causes people like me to want to just pack their bags and go home. That is the whole point of Raymond Arritt's Expert Withdrawal pages. However, I am willing to tolerate more civility problems from someone who is productive than someone who is unproductive.-- Filll ( talk) 19:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Well the line is moving. And that is the point of Raymond Arritt's Expert Withdrawal pages; to notice that we are suffering from efforts to redefine CIVIL, NPOV, NOR, LEAD, RS, AGF and many other WP principles to suit assorted groups with agendas. So, I am shining a light on these efforts.-- Filll ( talk) 19:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Try saying that at WT:AGF though... I was roundly shouted down when I said it, and I didn't edit another policy page for months. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Festering on? That's a rhetorical question, right? It's the WikiWay. When someone is a vicious, vile, insulting editor, but the "right" people like them (usually other vicious, vile, insulting editors and admins), they never have to answer for their actions and they are allowed by "the community" to continue their abuses.
I have a high tolerance for what some call incivility, but a couple editors go way overboard, and JzG/Guy is one of them.
There's too many items wrapped up in one RfC for this to be much use.
Please see [34] in which I link into the RfC JzG's reply to it, which can be found at User:JzG/RfC ++ Lar: t/ c 01:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Damn, if only lines had been this easy at school.
- I must not let Dan Tobias troll me.[this line is repeated 100 times - V]
It seems rather strange that people would report to him only those things said by people he respects. After all, it's the opinions of the people he's dissed that are here to be aired, and responded to. If he has to respect the person before he can listen to the view, then I rather think that bodes ill. He's still being extremely insulting on talk pages, though I actually do think he's trying. The funny thing is, there isn't anything positive to his incivility- for instance, it doesn't say anything that would otherwise remain in the dark. It's just incivility because he wants to be uncivil [36] this is uncivil because insulting for no reason [37]. In any other user, a stream of constantly harassing and useless edits like this would be considered disruptive. Harassing because so insulting to anyone who liked the film (and surely some such people might like to edit there?), useless because the insults don't add anything new. As you saw, when I requested he be civil, he said (I'm not sure why) that I should not insult his intelligence- itself an uncivil remark. So, it looks to me like he continues apace, even if he is trying to tone down some of the more egregious stuff.
In an ordinary user, this would be seen as extremely poor form. As Kirill said, however, he's an admin, and we ought to be judging him by higher standards, not the lower ones which seem to apply. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
for ($i=1; $i<=100; $i++) { print "I will not troll JzG.\n"; } *Dan T.* ( talk) 17:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Doc_glasgow asked 8 days ago why this Arbcom continues. The answer:
An arbitration which JzG's behavior is a central part of the Arbitration. Trav ( talk) 03:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll be honest, this was brought to my attention by someone (who is not, to my knowledge, a banned user) at a certain website critical of wikipedia. However, this seems to speak for itself. — Random832 ( contribs) 16:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Guy did respond, just not on these pages, but on a subpage of his userpage. And invited people go to there to read his response. And it was a very full and well thoughtout response. So this is sort of a moot point, isn't it? Does he have to put his response on THESE pages? Are we getting that hide bound? He is sending a signal by putting his response somewhere else, but it is not that he has not responded; he clearly has.-- Filll ( talk) 16:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If someone states that they have no intention of reading the request for comment, how can this possibly be a response to the RfC? I think this shows a disrespect for Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. Nesodak ( talk) 03:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
While I appreciate that he is taking steps to become a better administrator, I do not accept his avoidance of reading the RfC. SashaNein ( talk) 17:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been keeping an eye on this case with interest, and haven't given my own outside view, so I could objectively hear from both parties in this Rfc. Given that there is some sort of response (even if it wasn't made here), and that both parties have had a say, I will be giving a fairly detailed outside view that will go through all of the evidence (given by both parties). This view should be posted within the next couple of days. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 03:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that the word in question is subject to widely variable usage. Some would say that the word is innocuous in their country. Others would say that even your usage of the word as a standalone is offensive in itself. This is more a commentary on variable word usage than it is on anything that JzG has done. Antelan talk 03:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to find out if the community consensus was that it was okay to call each other cunts. I happen to think we shouldn't call someone a cunt, because when we do that we empower other people to do it, and I happen to think that's the spirit of WP:CIV and why it is so important. I have less trouble with Guy's actions than with his language, because he validates every troll who uses such language. If admin's like Guy act in such a manner, it makes it far harder to simply block other users who use such language. You can argue all you like about context, it matters not one jot. On Wikipedia the policy here is WP:CIV, and we do not allow profanity directed at another contributor, and the word cunt is, in the English speaking language for which this is the Wikipedia, sadly, profanity. You aren't down the pub with your mates here, you're building an encyclopedia and subscribing to a code of conduct. Don't like that? You have the right to fork. What the person said to Guy was completely and utterly reprehensible. I accept and understand why he responded, but I want to show that there is a commitment to WP:CIV and that Guy's language was unacceptable, so that other editors get the message. If I do not say this to Guy, I have no business saying it to anyone else. Hiding T 13:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Please forgive me if making edits here are inappropriate. I do have something to say about JzG due to a recent action by him and I hope this is the appropriate forum.
I was banned indef by JzG and labelled a "SCOX troll". My account was accused of being a "disruptive Single Purpose account". What did I do to get this sanction? I brought a violation of a ban to the attention of the administrators. Jeff Merkey was editing again, so I asked for enforcement of the Merkey's ban, in what I believed was the appropriate place to ask for action. I was given no warning of any action against me, no opportunity to discuss it beforehand. His assertions that I am an "SCOX Troll" [strange that he should use Merkey's own phrase?] is false and that my account is disruptive or single purpose are all false (as evidenced by the fact that I was able to get another administrator to remove the block that JzG imposed)
I need to state right now that, while I am aware of the issues surrounding Merkey and WP, I have stayed out of them. I have never trolled Jeff (here or elsewhere) and Jeff has never accused me of trolling him.
Nevertheless, after a polite and brief discussion of Mr Merkey's ban evasion on ANI, which resulted in an IP block and further extention of his one year ban, JzG swung by and blocked me indef.
A real life comparison would be this: Someone witnesses a robbery in progress, reports it to the police. Some police come by, arrest the perps and leave. Then another cop comes by, asks no questions about what is going on, shoots the witness and drives off. Is this the type of cop you want in your city?
I attempted to engage JzG in a discussion of my ban, but he did not respond. Apparently, JzG does not believe in the WP:AGF policy, or perhaps he thinks it only applies to others in the WP community?
JzG claims to have blocked 1200 users. How many of these were unwarranted and just left people upset with WP? People who never get their editing ability back?
JzG clearly has a hair trigger. Sometimes this is necessary, but a responsible admin/sysop should be prepared to discuss and remedy his/her own actions. In my case, JzG showed that he is not.
JzG showed contempt towards me and, by not responding in the normal manner to this action, he shows contempt towards the WP community. Much has been made of the loss of his father, shich I am am sure is devastating -- but it is his problem and he must not be allowed to make it the community's problem. If he cannot use his admin powers responsibly at this time, then he should relinquish those powers until he can. Would JzG grant the same level of deference to someone who was suffering a similar level of stress? Based on my own experience and what I read here, the answer is clearly no.
My proposal is that JzG should lose his sysop/admin authority until such time as he can show that he can use thoose powers in a more judicious maner.
Captain Nemo III (
talk) 15:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps JzG needs to read his own pages. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG/help is this:
In light of the lack of any response from JzG to my email to him, his suggestion looks pretty hypocritical. Captain Nemo III ( talk) 00:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this should go on the regular page, not the talk page. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
My experience, coming only a couple of days ago, shows that JzG is unchanged and unrepentant. Look at the comments on his own talk page regarding this RFC -- the first thing he writes is that he is not going to read this page. He has not changed and, as an Admin, he is a liability to WP and brings WP into disrepute. People, please stop enabling his abusive behavior. My blocking shows that, contrary to the assertions that this RFC has been effective, it has done nothing to affect JzG's behavior. Captain Nemo III ( talk) 19:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
JzG recently "courtesy blanked" a comment from the ANI archives that was made on September 1, 2007 [39]. Was this an appropriate deletion? Cla68 ( talk) 23:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
There has been a lot if discussion here. However, Guy has made it clear that he does not intend to even read the discussion, so his behavior will not be changed as a result of the comment and discusison here. So, what is next? Does this RFC come to some kind of conclusion? Is there some action that will come out of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Nemo III ( talk • contribs) 05:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
JzG needs to stop incivil remarks like this: "Martinphi made a number of changes which served, in my view, to give the impression that RV is widely accepted and disputed only by "out there" skeptics. Randi is indeed one of the few proponents of the mainstream view who dignifies this twaddle with a rebuttal" [41], "Already discussed, and you lost that time as well" [42], and "Ah yes, silly of me to forgetL the way Wikipedia is set up to work is that you keep pushing the same fringe POV until everybody else has lost interest and you get your way. Oh, wait, no, that's precisely what you're not supposed to do. So I find myself wondering why you are, once again, requesting the same change with the same argument and hoping for a different result. No, hang on, I know why you hope for a different result: you don't like the scientific consensus and feel that the complete nonsense that is paranormal True Belief should be given parity or near-parity of esteem. Sorry, no" [43]. Cla68 ( talk) 00:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [48] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.-- Filll ( talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
[49], [50]. Neıl ☎ 12:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is this user still allowed to edit on Wikipedia? Looking at all the above, you'd think he should have been ousted a long time ago, and yet he remains, an admin nonetheless, still up to his old tricks of incivility, POV-Pushing, and abuse of administrative priviledges. Someone needs to step up and do what's right for the project. 124.171.0.208 ( talk) 11:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
A request for arbitration involving this behaviour as well as that following the RfC has been filed [51]. See WP:RfArb to participate/comment. Viridae Talk 09:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess this probably could be added to the current ArbCom case also, but here [52], JzG removes a record of how he voted in a deletion discussion at the same time that he closes the discussion, preventing an accurate record from being visible. Cla68 ( talk) 00:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
JzG notified [1]. Cla68 ( talk) 11:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Before someone inevitably points out that JzG does a lot of work for the encyclopaedia etc is this arbcom ruling: [2]
Viridae Talk 11:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
hi folks, I may respond more fully in due course, possibly with an 'outside view', though I've clearly been in dispute with guy, so maybe there's a better place.. I'll figure it out.... In the interim, I thought I'd post a tuppence worth here, to share some thoughts and see what others think.....
My desired outcome is to draw a few lines in the sand - not to obsess over blame, or raise the temperature unduly, or even to get too stuck in the detail of the whys and wherefores of what's happened in the past.
Without digging too deeply, it's pretty clear to me that amongst some of the 60+ points raised on the RfC are some for which Guy should apologise, and I'd encourage him to be willing to share some indication of contrition, and therefore growth. Guy was kind enough, in our dispute, to say that he didn't think I was evil - well, I don't think he is either - I think he's a passionate, intelligent man who cares deeply about this project. I also frankly see Guy as someone who has caused damage to the project through some of his good faith actions. From my perspective, the best outcome of this RfC is that Guy could take a look, maybe say 'geez, I do kinda get the wrong end of the stick once in a while, and stuff up' and then the wiki will have an even better editor and admin. than right now.... I wish this process well, and hope you do too... Privatemusings ( talk) 11:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The man's father just passed away. I imagine he's under quite a lot of stress. Certainly we saw that during the Oxford Round Table saga. I'm not commenting on the merits of this RfC - let's be frank, it's been coming a long time - but as a matter of basic human courtesy, can't this wait? ~ Riana ⁂ 15:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
His recent editing, I believe anyway, has not been worse -probably better- than his past editing. We can't blame the death for his current actions, and we can't blame if for his past ones. Nor does WP stop for the personal concerns of editors, at least not beyond a point. I know that in my case I would not take a death as an excuse for bad editing- thought I might simply not edit. So when would be address Guy's behavior? What if he loses his job? What if he needs a long time to mourn? I was under the impression that the death occurred over a month ago? Anyway, as GRBerry says, he could ask that this be delayed. He hasn't, which at least means we have to assume he feels up to it. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Do we know that the submitters knew of Guy's father passing away? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Two points - Wikipedia is not therapy was my rather hamfisted way of communicating to Guy that he had to take responsibility for his actions regardless of the personal circumstances - in other words you are there to help wikipedia noth the other way around. It was not said in bad faith. Secondly, the mentions of his blog are just there to highlight the different standards he applies to essentially the same material - vicious attacks from both sides. None of the people filing the RfC want to see a purge of BADSITES, it would just be nice if he didn't apply some massive double standards. It would probobly also be nice if he kept to his own standards and removed the offending material, not just the links - but that is entirely up to him and his conscious. Viridae Talk 21:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
What's best for wikipedia is for everyone who turns wikipedia into a battleground to go somewhere else. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 16:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we just get rid of all sanctions, then? If AGF means that we have to trust people to change their behavior appropriately without any binding action, by what logic is anyone ever blocked? - Amarkov moo! 18:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Why would/should Guy be exempt from our AGF and civility policies? No one is exempt. Period. Full stop. Lawrence § t/ e 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Re this comment by Shot info: "Time to remember that we are here to edit an encyclopedia not engage in an experiment in social interaction. If admins like JzG are "stressed" it's because he doesn't receive the support from the system that he and editors interested in making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia need. It's time to start wondering why we put up with the socks, the IPs, the edit warriors, the COI wackos, the woo-pushers and everybody out there who think that Wikpedia is just about being nice to each other....and ignore the crap editing, poor sourcing, conflicts of interest, spamming, POV pushing and all those things we see time and time again. It's time for the community to take a step back, and remember what we are here for, and if what we are here for isn't editing an encyclopedia, then off to MySpace you go. This RfC is just the start of a witch-hunt. But since Wikipedia seems to be interested in getting rid of editors that actually do something, it is not surprising... Shot info (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)"
Shot info accusing people pursuing good faith (and demonstrably legitimate given the quantity of evidence) attempts at dispute resolution using the recognised dispute resolution process of conducting a "witch hunt" is both unhelpful and uncivil. I would appreciate it if you could refactor your statement to remove that statement, which is unecessarily inflamatory. This doesn't of course mean that I don't think your opinion on the matter is valid, just that you can express it without inciting arguments. Viridae Talk 03:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
As I see the subject of this RfC has characterised it as "laundry list of Wikipedia Review members' grudges" here, I want to put it on record that I am not a member of that site (although I understand many Wikipedians in good standing are, and I see nothing wrong with this). Furthermore I am not aware of having any sort of "grudge" against JzG; like most here I have great respect for JzG and just want to see him improve his behaviour so that we can make better and more harmonious progress on the project of building a free encyclopedia. That's all. -- John ( talk) 18:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
There has been quite strong participation from a whole variety of people, however JzG's participation is still lacking. Can someone who he won't ignore encourage him to aprticipate, it is for his own good - especially seeing that consenus in this RfC seems to indicate that people agree he has a problem. Viridae Talk 00:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure Guy is reading all this over...he does not have to participate, and maybe not participating will decrease the drama level for everyone...how is that a bad thing?-- MONGO 19:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Using emotive words like witch hunt is hardly a civil way to characterise a good faith attempt at dispute resolution. That the RfC was being collated for 2 weeks (not the month claimed - it was ready to go a week before it was actually stated but JzG went to france for a week, meaning it was 3 weeks before it was actually posted) is simply a testament to the sheer amount of evidence of bad behaviour that had to be collated - apparently 180 diffs - which is equal to one uncivil comment, disruptive edit or abuse of administrator tools every 2 days across the period which the RfC covers. There is a problem, community consensus shows there is a problem, it is not too much of a stretch to think that people might like to know that Guy has taken the criticism on board and this behaviour is going to cease, hence my feeling that it would be nice to see Guy acknowledge the existance of the RfC more than simply erasing the mentions of it from hsi talk page while simultaneously insulting Cla68. Viridae Talk 11:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Nick says of that this is "an RfC that's been plotted over for the best part of a month by people who are coming bloody close to being banned for the endless shit they stir up or who otherwise have scores to settle with the subject." Does anyone know who exactly Nick is talking about? Perhaps Nick could explain who he means? Cla68 ( talk) 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
To Sidaway, Doc, and whoever else whoever is spouting either "witch hunt" or "go back to the encyclopedia" nonsense: Cut it out. It's off topic and unhelpful here. If you don't believe civility should be required, bring it up at
Wikipedia_talk:Civility. If you don't believe in RFC as a means of dispute resolution, you can ignore the RFC or take it to
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. If you just want to act childish, we have chat rooms for that. There is pretty clearly a problem here. If you don't want to help, that is your choice, but get out of the way. This seems to happen every time civility concerns related to a longtime editor are brought up. If you have reasons you don't like RFC as dispute resolution, and you want to discuss it like an adult, go right ahead. But what you're doing now is childish, stupid, and disruptive. Enough.
Friday
(talk) 14:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
PS. I may not have been accurate with who was doing this (Sidaways's comment could be purely trying to lighten the mood as easily as it could be heckling), and it's pointless to name people anyway- you know who you are. Anyway, my point is, if you came to the RFC only to heckle, please don't. If you don't think user RFCs are effective, by all means propose a better alternative. But don't try to derail other people's efforts. Friday (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, and civility is paramount, but Guy has had to deal with some pretty bad long term baiting and other issues as well directed at him. Yeah, we all know we shouldn't take the bait, but if someone asks repeatedly to not post to their talkpage and to stop following you around just looking to stir the pot, then that request should be honored. What Guy needs is support from others so he'll feel less isolated and less in need to respond to others in harsh terms. And yes, there are some out there who simply do have an axe to grind and Guy is their target. This of course doesn't mean I believe that the complaints here are unsubstantiated, just that in some cases, there are two sides to this situation to a degree.-- MONGO 19:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Mastcell's view merits discussion. I'm not certain that it is endorsable, given that it is primarily if not entirely a series of questions. But they are important questions, and not just for this individual editor. So lets talk about those questions, either here or in a better venue. GRBerry 01:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
←If you want comments and discussion on how this situation arose, let's open a generic RfC and move relevant comments there, if it's your noble intention to try and prevent a situation such as this arising again, there's no need to have a specific administrators name attatched to it. That aside, the RfC is still boiling down to "Guy, behave" and "the community really appreciates what you do". Do we really need another hundred people to sign some cheap comments about Guy's behaviour when a) they don't know him and very rarely see the work he does; b) throw him a friendly comment, thank-you note, barnstar or what have you or c) intend to try and prevent a repeat occurence of this situation. I'm certainly hopeful that we'll get a few more people out of this RfC who will help Guy out in some way, but I'm probably being unduly naive, pretty much everybody will go back to what they were doing before and continue to treat Guy as the general dogsbody, having him do all the work, while they sneer at him from the sidelines. Nick ( talk) 14:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
People, this RFC is all about JzG; a history of his abuse against other human beings and his(story) about breaking the rules here. Please stop trying to pretend that anyone is entitled to break the rules. The ends do not justify the means. There are not asterisks in the policies and guidelines for JzG. 41.194.1.22 ( talk) 22:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#.22Ignore_all_rules..22_What_does_it_mean.3F 201.254.90.97 ( talk) 03:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for the tone of my previous post. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
GTBacchus, I agree with you completely about blame, that's what I meant by "present society." We don't need to blame, it just seems to be the way society deals with things. No problem about the tone. And Rocksanddirt is right, it is a general thing.
Rocksanddirt, that analysis is very good, and is what I was trying to communicate. The only problem I have with it is that a bunch of what JzG does is POV pushing (but I don't know exactly how to communicate that without dragging in articles which themselves generate a lot of prejudice). So saying that other admins simply need to help him do what he does isn't quite the thing. Nevertheless, JzG obviously does deal with a lot of negative stuff, including a lot of fringe POV pushing, and needs help with it.
Rocksanddirt, thanks for recognizing the kind of responses I often get (-: I didn't know GTBacchus was an admin, I was just talking about a lot of people.
But as someone who does at the very least strive to be civil when everyone else is not, I can say that it is possible. Also, it becomes easier (or can), in an inverse relation to the extremity of the abuse. Thus, while I sympathize with Guy in that arena, I think that is just one of the things an admin has to deal with (no, I'm not an admin).
MastCell, I really have no idea why you would go harder on ScienceApologist, the sock puppet abuser, uncivil, and disruptive editor. That you constantly defend him, seemingly no matter what he does, seems to me to indicate that you are going to go very easy on Guy indeed (see Arbitration enforcement and AN/I). Or were you trying to poison the well against me? If so, I believe you may sympathize with Guy a little too much.
I do not believe that we can put up with incivility and disruptive editing because the user's contributions are otherwise good- "good" being a subjective judgment on our part, which can very easily degenerate into "the guy who has friends." I have seen it do just that: the person who has friends gets away with making everyone else's lives miserable, and abusing power.
If it were true that we could have a bunch of great editors who were mean power abusers and run the whole wiki on their contributions, then you would be right.
I agree with you that "The next step there is up to Guy." I also agree that it is useful to discuss universal issues. I have nearly left Wikipedia except to come back and discuss such issues, as with at least one other user at this RfC. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
MastCell stated, "If it's not inevitable, then I'm curious what could be done differently, either from here on or in future cases, to support editors who are dealing with these issues and to keep them on the straight and narrow."
If he is to be supported to keep him on the straight and narrow, someone that JzG respects (and I doubt that is me) should politely tell him that this comment by him today, the part about as indeed is...Marsden is terribly disparaging, not appropriate, is WP:BLP, and should be removed. If he is not told about it (I have no idea if he has or hasn't been), I believe this is an example of the end justifies the means double standard and enabling that many have been talking about here. Ward20 ( talk) 23:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought that really might be an example of SPADE, so went looking at recent contribs. Found this edit summary: " Original research my arse." [6] Then "We know the Truthers don't like the fact that their conspiracy theories are likely to be lumped together with Elvis-alien-abduction and other such nonsense, but it's not our job to fix that." [7] which at the least is making things worse. Then this edit summary " rm. unreferenced nonsense" Which is inflammatory and insulting to whoever put it in [8]
I also found this: "And as I noted, your version was factually inaccurate and biased (due to omissions in your source). Please take more care, especially when reverting long-standing users, who might, just occasionally, know what they are doing." Which is downright nice (please take more care), then spoiled by the sarcastic end. [9]
I didn't look at all his recent contribs. I didn't expect to find anything at all amiss. The first one about Marsden that Ward20 brought up sounds to me like it almost meets SPADE if it is technically true. Anyway *ahem* I think I might not be the one to try and bring it to his attention. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this is a small, small matter in relation to other issues in this RfC, but let's not pretend that it's somehow a Good Thing to disparage people's beliefs, so long as they meet our criteria for "nonsense". - GTBacchus( talk) 04:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You know, it's really unbelievable how people don't see the picture here. No incivility can be taken out of context- and in anticipation, that includes Guy's worst as well as lesser examples. But taking the least example, treating it as if it is the only one and the worst one, then going after those who want to see the whole picture as if they are persecuting Guy..... that's not going to wash. Nor is it going to help Guy be a better editor. Read the beginning of this thread again, more carefully. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This seems to me to be another bad block. First, the user was obviously a good faith user, nor was any warning given (that I can see- hard to fathom to some extent [10]). In addition, the block summary was an attack of some sort, I'm not sure how to charicterize it, and I give you my word it is 100% wrong (he thinks it is Tom Butler). Nor has the user previously edited EVP, I think [11]. The summary is "Block evasion, or using IPs to evade scrutiny or something. We know who this is, and the tendentious editing of electronic voice phenomeneon can stop right now." In fact, the user for obvious reasons was using only an IP to seperate editing of EVP from other editing. This kind of thing is an approved use of socks. Looks like MastCell did something as well [12]. At least an explanation is in order. This is just another example of certain admins, JzG and MastCell in this case, protecting their favored user ScienceApologist from the consiquences of his disruptive and POV editing, and favoring him over other users. Is Wikipedia really all about who knows whom? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#.22Ignore_all_rules..22_What_does_it_mean.3F
One of the themes here is the predictability of who a person knows being more important than what a person does. And if that is a long-dead non-horse then Wikipedia is a long-dead non-community, or at least not a community which anyone with a sense of justice or respect for the rule of law should want to join. I was under the impression that a bunch of others here were also beating that horse.
I don't know what you did, I think that you blocked another IP which was associated with the first one, which is to say that you helped Guy make that block. But I could just be confused, and my apology if so.
Whatever the case with you, Guy just blocking without warning while making accusations about the user's identity (which he often does) was not appropriate. Any block at that point was not appropriate, as the user had not been warned. And the user didn't deserve a block anyway.
As to the link above to Jimbo, what he says is what I've been trying to say, and the common sense way of looking at WP is what has been distorted by who-knows-whom mentality. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
My assessment of the general situation stands. Guy made an unjustified block which -funnily enough- had the effect of handing the EVP article to SA. This kind of thing is a trend, and you are near the heart of it, always defending SA, no matter what he does, and attacking me.
I noticed accusations of double standards on the main page. Are they relevant to this case, and if so, what exactly is meant? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: ScienceApologist's comment at [13]. That is an appalling comment. It is IMO a clear attack on those of us who are in favour of civil discourse on the Wikipedia. DuncanHill ( talk) 14:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
As for your implication (by linking) that I didn't assume good faith, you're simply incorrect to equate "good faith" with "paying attention". I will never doubt your good faith, unto your dying day, but it's very easy for me to believe that you don't always pay sufficient attention. I know I fail in my attentiveness, without relaxing my good faith one bit.
See, if you paid closer attention to my comments, you wouldn't make such mistakes. I didn't say that civility was objective, and I didn't remotely doubt your good faith.
Your assertion that civility is so subjective is simply incorrect, and an elementary study of management, systems theory, psychology, interpersonal communications, or a variety of other fields would quickly convince you of that fact. You are not at fault for being mistaken, but this is not a matter of opinion, and I can prove that you're wrong.
Every diplomat in the world, every teacher in the world, every bartender in the world knows that you're wrong. Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, Tolstoy, and Einstein all knew that you're wrong. You're doing the ethical-theory equivalent of asserting that the world is flat. I encourage you to learn better communication skills, and find out that civility can be reasonably well-defined (without being "objective"), and that it is extremely worthwhile - indispensable even - as a tool. - GTBacchus( talk) 04:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If you had been paying more attention, you would not have made the errors you made. Thus I don't "assume" you're not paying attention; I simply observe that you failed to mischaracterized my argument by casting it into words I didn't - and wouldn't - use. If you were more attentive to the specific words I used, you probably would have understood my point more quickly.
You appear to have taken my comments as uncivil. I'm sorry to have offended you, and I assure you that I didn't intend any kind of insult. I'm trying to convince you of a point that I think is very important, and I'm keen to offer as much as I can to persuade you (and to persuade other readers). I think that many people, realizing that those who are thought of as the most wise and intelligent humans ever have agreed on certain points about getting along with each other, might consider thinking about those points very carefully. I suspect you have not previously realized that there is such a clear and widely accepted understanding of civility.
To an extent, this widely accepted understanding includes the recognition that civility is somewhat subjective, and this very recognition is the core upon which we're able to create something less subjective, and to find common ground. It works, really well, but not if you don't try it. You can be effective in defending neutrality without being bothered or blocked over incivility, but you have to approach interactions in a certain way. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You were blocked because your communication skills are lacking. If you were better at not pissing people off, you would never have been blocked. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The community does not simply judge civility to be in the eye of the beholder; they take a more holistic view of the situation, and consider how the editor accused of incivility reacts to the accusation. Reacting by arguing about civility is pretty dumb, because it's likely to turn the community against you. Reacting by saying something like, "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you; how can I express myself better?" will buy you a lot more community sympathy, and you won't find yourself blocked for incivility if you respond civilly and respectfully to accusations.
"You cannot have it both ways. Either civility stems from the intent of the person to respect everyone or civility is externally measured by the effects it has on others." That's false. Incivility has to be understood in context, and not as an isolated property of the speaker's intentions, nor of the hearer's reactions. It comes out of the interplay between the two, and it tends not to reside in single statements, but in an overall attitude. - GTBacchus( talk) 04:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Next, we need to establish something about subjectivity versus objectivity. That's not a black/white distinction. Some things are more subjective than others. Civility is somewhat subjective, but in an environment such as Wikipedia, there are proven methods for working it out in the vast majority of cases. Thus, it's not objective, but it's not as subjective as you make it out to be. Yes, individual comments can be understood as civil or uncivil to different editors, but we do not generally deal with individual comments in a vacuum. They're in some context, where it becomes pretty clear to the vast majority of observers what's going on, who's trying to be civil, and who isn't. The waters can be muddied significantly if some editor takes the attitude that civility is not a worthwhile goal. That editor would be unlikely to discover the effective ways of dealing with civility issues, because they would be assuming that such ways don't exist.
I'm speaking as someone with a lot of experience in dispute resolution. You can learn how to deal with civility issues effectively, and never get blocked. I have no reason to doubt that you can do it. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not some kind of "luminary"; I'm just someone who has learned a bit about talking to other people, and I'm in a position to say that certain approaches work better than others. Pissing people off, in a collaborative editing environment, is stupid. That shouldn't be a controversial point. To avoid pissing people off is not always trivial, but by pursuing that goal, you can actually get a lot of work done.
You're right about civility being arbitrary. I do not disagree with that point, nor do I consider it a helpful or useful point. More useful is the fact that, even though civility is arbitrary, there exist effective strategies for maintaining it in difficult situations.
Now, I'm not asking you to believe anything you haven't seen demonstrated in some way (I'm not even talking about "proof" - that word seems to push buttons with you). I'm ready to put my money where my mouth is, and show you what I'm talking about in the context of an article. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be claiming that there is no such discourse, that can settle questions of civility. You seem to offer as evidence for this claim the fact that a comment can be intended as civil and yet taken as uncivil, or that it can be inteded as uncivil and yet taken as civil. Am I mistaking your point? If so, please do correct me.
If I got it right (or close), then I can give you my reply: There is a way to approach discourse that will solve all of these problems of mistaken intentions. It involves certain communication habits, without which it just won't work. If you apply this method, you will never be blocked, you will spend less time in dispute resolution and more time getting productive work done, and you will find your path smoothed before you on the wiki.
Now go on and tell me there is no way to do this, even though you haven't tried any effective method, and are not in a position to make claims about what doesn't exist. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
As I explained, I wasn't using the word "prove" in a formal logic sense, nor in a legal sense, but in a common language sense. All I was trying to say is that your "lesson" didn't support your point, as I understood it.
I would agree with you about the absolutes. I'm willing to use some hyperbole, in cases where we're better off assuming certain absolutes. Always assuming that respecting and dignifying your interlocutor will work is a good idea. There are cases where it won't work, but in those cases, the optimal strategy is still to assume that it will. (That's how you keep your own ass covered for when the other guy gets banned.)
Now, you said that you're claiming that the rules of discourse are arbitrary and capricious. I would agree that they're arbitrary, but not that they're unpredictable, difficult to work with, or capricious. It's surprisingly easy to avoid accusations of incivility by simply implementing a few simple habits of speech and interaction. If you haven't tried those habits, then you don't know how easy they make it. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
(out)In practice, that is the easiest part to consistently enforce, yes. -- John ( talk) 04:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
GTBacchus, the main case in point is ScienceApologist- or that is the main one I know of. There are of course others. Sometimes -and here is relates to who you know on WP- even an ArbCom decision isn't enough. But the thing is, that edit warring, POV-pushing and disruption can be done by an editor or admin who knows his political situation well, and knows what he can get away with. I can get away with little. Others much more. POV-pushing has to be accompanied by other things- I don't recall anyone being banned for POV pushing. That is content, not the kind of thing an admin is there to enforce. Some edit warriors are really clever. Disruption is also in the eye of the beholder. Some admins won't act because they think they'll get into a wheel war with an admin on the other side. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The issue of including fringe theories in articles is probably the reason that Moreschi started the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, which is a valuable tool to use when debating the inclusion of information in an article that may or may not be a fringe theory. Rationale discussion of the theory in question is the way to go instead of attacking the editor(s) trying to introduce the theory. I used that noticeboard myself about an issue in the 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident article and it worked as that article is now featured. If JzG or anyone else insults or belittles editors over their "fringe" theories, that is counterproductive and against our standards. If anyone here sees anyone engaging in this type of behavior, please ask them to stop on their userpage. If they don't, then dispute resolution may be the next step. Cla68 ( talk) 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The RfC is now being vandalized by an editor seeking to remove one of Guy's comments, see [16]. DuncanHill ( talk) 19:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
My apologies to everyone for rushing into this without reading everything first, and acting in anger when removing the disputed text for the second time.
Perhaps the following will help prevent this type of mini-drama from recurring. It taught me a thing or two, although not necessarily what certain people thought I had to be told and at least writing it helped me get some things off my chest.
What happened here was not vandalism, as it came with a carefully worded and clear edit summary: (remove accusation outrageously out of context. Guy's qualification there was exceedingly mild). Which someone reverted straight away with a totally unhelpful edit summary which did not even try to make a case for including the disputed text, and without even trying to discuss this with me. The Another editor also posted accusations of vandalism on this talk page (which I'm glad to say I didn't see until a minute ago, when already corrected by Neil). A revert with a simple "Editors have already commented in the context of this evidence" would have told me all I needed to know. I simply wanted to fix this problem straight away before people started responding. My bad. I removed it again, indicated to the editor that I would ask an uninvolved admin to block in case of a subsequent revert, and went to spend a couple of hours with friends. When I came back online I was immediately greeted by an equally unhelpful comment on my talk page from an admin I knew as one of the editors that had prepared the RfC and was likely responsible for the insertion of the disputed text. I found the comment borderline threatening and inflammatory. It certainly did not try to discuss, find middle ground, understand where I was coming from, and generally failed to AGF as expected from an admin. It also failed to exhibit the restraint expected when an admin is warning others regarding material they're involved in. Another admin (this time uninvolved, someone I trust and helped vote in) chimed in with an equally unhelpful (but much friendlier) comment, which led to a discussion. I only realized my mistake when reading through the rest of the RfC later on, and started endorsing some of the views.
About my mistake: I was aware this RfC was coming as Cla68 is on my watchlist due to the Mantanmoreland arbration. When told that it had gone live, I assumed it had just started and wandered over here to see if I could endorse or impart some words of wisdom that might benefit Guy. I went straight to the evidence, saw the disputed text within seconds and removed it for the vile contextomy it was -- it attacked Guy's response yet failed to mention what had prompted that response: one of the worst NPA violations I've ever seen. I felt angry and ashamed that Wikipedians would continue baiting and goading Guy even in this RfC, which presumably intended to help improve behavior. Avb 16:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[18] = Please don't remove diffs from an RFC (as you did here). Simultaneously threatening users with a block if it was reinstated makes it worse. If you don't like the content of a diff, then discuss it on the RFC. Thanks. Neıl ☎ 19:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Could MastCell please provide an explanation here of this diff - [19]? DuncanHill ( talk) 22:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"Guy has the cojones to take on the disagreeable cases that most admins won't touch. It's easy to complain about his indiscretions, but I don't see others jumping in to take over the tough stuff."
(undent) tea, anyone? Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 00:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Raymond, is there a certain threshold representing the number of evildoers one must successfully thwart to earn the privilege of treating one's well-meaning neighbors in a distasteful or even despicable manner? Are you making the utilitarian argument that JzG has done more good to the project than harm? I don't know if the extent of intimidation or dissuasion from editing can really be quantified--and I question whether certain administrators would be in a position to witness firsthand the chilling effect (sorry for the cliché) that bullying or unwelcoming behaviour has on less experienced editors. Even if such a net loss/gain could be calculated, I'm not sure the numbers produced would be in Guy's favor.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 00:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG2#Outside_view_by_Kirill_Lokshin
Hardly. 51 editors say that just ain't so. 24.210.46.32 ( talk) 03:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see it that way. Kirill seems to be making the same argument to some small extent at least: "JzG's contributions to the project are not in doubt. He may well be tolerated—as many other surly editors are—on their basis alone." In other words, it is how much good versus how much harm. I'm wondering if that's really what people want to embrace as a principle. Of course, any user makes mistakes and so causes harm, but is quite a long way from what we are talking about here. If Guy did 51% good, is that OK then? I'm not sure if we want to embrace that kind of evaluation as the basis for community consensus about any editor. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG2#Outside_view_by_Kirill_Lokshin
Over 50 editors agree that JzG should give up the tools. 202.181.195.219 ( talk) 01:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There have been several mentions in this RfC of the work that JzG does, and how thankless and frustrating it can be. That is certainly true. Some people have voiced the opinion that those who castigate JzG for incivility should try doing some of the work that he does, and find out just how easily they can keep their cool.
Indeed, there are those among us who are happy enough to rise to that challenge. For the benefit of such editors, could we compile some kind of list of areas of the wiki where the work gets particularly dirty, and where JzG, and other admins doing the "dirty work" would benefit most from backup? Thanks in advance to anybody who can help with this. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm asking for more specifics because I think a lot of us who are advocating for civility do handle editors with obvious COI, but apparently we're all absent in the particular trouble areas where JzG works. So, where would that be? - GTBacchus( talk) 18:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"Guy is a tremendously good editor who deals with some of the worst shite to be blown in by the high-speed fans."... "I would also encourage all the administrators who've commented on this to do a few of those hard actions each day to relieve the stresses all around."... "I have absolutely no expectation that anything constructive will be built on this observation. What is anybody here going to do about this?"... "Guy has the cojones to take on the disagreeable cases that most admins won't touch."... "I would add (as I've done) for the admins who are here to do some of those difficult admin tasks so JzG doesn't feel like he has to."... "There is dirty work that needs to be done around here. And someone has to do it."... "Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant?" My answer to that question is, "yes, I'm going to do it; get out of the way old man."
Most Wikipedians understand that civility is indispensable in a collaborative editing environment, and that good dispute resolution skills are to be cultivated and encouraged, not spat upon. We're taking back the Wiki. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Raymond, if you took my comment as uncivil, then I apologize. I didn't mean it that way. I respect everyone involved here, and I respect those who disagree with me enough to shoot straight with them. - GTBacchus( talk) 22:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm perfectly capable of communicating with JzG (how do you know I haven't?), but as I indicated above, I'm trying to get people who have been banging the drum for how Guy's detractors don't do the dirty work to be a little more concrete, and I feel that I'm being criticized for that. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You do realize that stating "we're taking back the wiki" under the current politically correct rules might be viewed as unCIVIL and a reason to ban you, right GTBacchus? You have already failed at your first test of civility.
The problem is, we need to think more carefully about better ways to handle these situations. The current methods were fine a year ago or two or three years ago when the enterprise was much smaller. But these methods are ambiguous, and counterproductive and inefficient. We need to think carefully about what results we want to get and how we are willing to get there. See the discussions here.-- Filll ( talk) 16:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Civility is not something you "fail at" by making an unintentional rude remark. Civility is in how you react when someone says they thought your remark was rude. Am I being uncivil to you now? Do you want to ban me?
Why do you think I'm promoting some kind of trigger-happy legalistic interpretation of the page WP:CIVIL? I'm arguing for actual civility, not a "violation" you can "charge" people with. Do you disagree with actual civility, or just with some stupid use of WP:CIVIL as a bludgeon? - GTBacchus( talk) 16:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I personally am not offended by your remark because I think one has to have a thick hide to edit here. However, given the low standards for "offensive language" that have been increasingly adopted here, some might very well take offense at it.
I also agree that CIVIL should not be used as a weapon, but that is exactly what is happening. Over and over. Why? Because it works.
This is the natural consequence of ignoring all else but CIVIL and BITE. We could in a very civil fashion, create an article here that violated NPOV and RS and NOR and so on. And in the end, we would have a lousy article. But we would have respected CIVIL the entire time. CIVIL is not an end in and of itself; it is just one of the guidelines to use on the way to producing good articles.-- Filll ( talk) 17:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, since I am now told that one can handle ALL problems on Wikipedia just by enforcing WP:CIVIL more and more aggressively and discarding all other standards such as WP:NPOV and WP:DE and WP:RS, I challenge anyone who holds this pollyanna-ish notion to show me. Take a very contentious article, and single handedly, only being CIVIL and enforcing CIVIL, bring peace and tranquility over warring POV factions and create a high quality article. Show me how you can discard all other principles and policies and just rely on CIVIL. I want to see. I think that is a load of horse pucky, frankly.-- Filll ( talk) 19:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, since I am now told that one can handle ALL problems on Wikipedia just by enforcing WP:CIVIL more and more aggressively and discarding all other standards such as WP:NPOV and WP:DE and WP:RS, -- could you please provide a WP:DIFF that shows where you were told this and by whom? tia Dlabtot ( talk) 21:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I looked at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeraeph. Although it is hard for me to know the particulars, it seems to me that this is a case of bending over backwards to accommodate someone unproductive, which WP is quite good at, and often does in the name of being CIVIL.
The case of the FAC for Introduction to evolution where I saw SandyGeorgia working her magic and using CIVIL to try to calm a festering situation underwhelmed me. The result was that two productive editors (one an admin) quit rather than deal with the ugly situation since we could not call a SPADE a SPADE and could not be uncivil to a clearly disruptive and unproductive editor who was only on WP to cause turmoil and engage in TE and DE. And after bending over backwards for this disruptive editor, and sacrificing two productive editors, did it gain us anything in return? Nope, because the disruptive editor stopped editing anyway. The only way this situation was resolved was when I stepped back into the picture and became quite aggressive and confrontational, putting my own article up for deletion while it was being considered for FA and challenging the disruptive editor to defend his edits and claims in the face of community input from dozens of other editors. Not very CIVIL of me, but it worked to stop someone engaged in disruptive editing and nasty behavior. Anyone who is new is supposed to be nurtured, no matter what trouble they cause, because we do not want to violate BITE and they might someday become productive. So we discard current editors that are already productive in the frantic desperate hope that one of these newbies will actually contribute something. I think we are hurting ourselves. And I think the User: Zeraeph situation was a perfect example of that.-- Filll ( talk) 15:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Zeraeph, while somewhat productive, really did not produce much compared to SandyGeorgia. Zeraeph had only 5300 or so edits, and less than half of those were mainspace edits in a 2 year period. Compare this to SandyGeorgia, who in a 1.5 year period has 45000 edits and about 17000 mainspace edits. And yet, in the name of not BITEing newbies and AGF, WP was quite prepared to sacrifice SandyGeorgia in favor of Zeraeph until finally the ArbComm stepped in. This was almost a case of "too little, too late". Even then, I notice that Arbcomm did not all immediately agree on what to do, since acting against Zeraeph probably went against their favored approach, which is to give the benefit of the doubt of the less experienced editor over the more experienced editor, and to attack the more experienced editor for not being sufficiently CIVIL to the less experienced editor.
This I believe is an example of what is wrong here; in the interests of not rocking the boat and not offending someone like Zeraeph, and retaining Zeraeph in the hopes she would become a valuable member, we almost lost SandyGeorgia. Why is Zeraeph viewed as equal in importance to SandyGeorgia, or even more important, as a default? Yet we make similar assumptions over and over and over.
Would it be better to have sanctioned Zeraeph for something other than CIVIL? Probably, but I am not going to look extensively through her editing history to see what. I suspect that TE or DE or NPOV or other problems are probably in her editing record. Did Zeraeph really curse or act in an unCIVIL way? Or was that just an easier catchall to use, since it is more politically correct complaint to use at the moment?-- Filll ( talk) 16:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to rehash the entire Zeraeph case other than to say you've got a lot of that wrong there, Filll; also, if WP was quite prepared to sacrifice SandyGeorgia in favor of Zeraeph until finally the ArbComm stepped in, someone should have told me that :-) As far as I could tell, only one person wanted to "sacrifice me", and since I am unfailingly civil and I do AGF, and since not a piece of evidence against me could be produced, I prevailed. Contrast that to some other cases. And I don't have 45,000 edits, I have 59,000 sorry, editcountitis overtook me for a minute :-) without a personal attack, without a failure to adhere to civility, although I definitely do sometimes lose patience and fail to achieve the high standards of patience and decorum that my Wiki model,
Encephalon (
talk ·
contribs), set. And I completely disagree, still, today, with your interpretation on the other editor on History of Introduction to evolution; I think that's a good example of someone who started out helpful, who produced good changes in the article, becoming a problematic editor because others were aggressively rude to and dismissive of him. And I disagree with what saved the article according to you, since I was ready to promote it anyway. I believe, Pollyanna to the core, that in the longrun, civility works and produces a better outcome in terms of stable articles and happier editors. For every editor you claim has been chased off by a "troll" or "vandal", I can show you one who has been chased off by rude and abusive admins, and I can show you articles I abandoned when regular Wiki editors became rude and incivil—articles which didn't make featured status because good, civil editors left.
Asperger syndrome and
autism—both subject to off-Wiki canvassing—are beautiful, stable featured articles because they are frequented by Wiki editors who are unfailing civil and AGF. You asked for an example: I gave one.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 21:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I have signed my paragraphs above so hopefully everything will be ok now.-- Filll ( talk) 01:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
When I look at the JzG situation, and Vanished User (of Matthew Hoffman fame) and Science Apologist and Durova, what I see are editors who are willing to take on difficult situations, and who are being punished for it. It is extremely difficult to deal with these challenging areas in WP without having some sort of useful tools to draw on. And editors trying to bring order to these areas have no tools they can use. If we cannot produce more clear guidelines, and endow our admins and editors with better tools to use to bring some order to these difficult areas, we will end up with chaos and erosion of our experienced user base. Who will dare even try to edit these contentious topics, except for assorted POV warriors?-- Filll ( talk) 16:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
As for Friday's comment - is anybody actually saying "you should never say anything negative?" Who has made that claim, ever? Isn't that just the straw-man argument that some people are putting into the mouths of those arguing for civility? - GTBacchus( talk) 18:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
<undent>Kendrick7, you are quite correct. We are defining the phrases "troll", "POV pusher", "homeopathy promoter", FRINGE, and similar words as unCIVIL now. And the standard for what is uncivil is changing to include even disagreeing with an advocate of FRINGE views. We are on the edge of losing control with this policy, however well-meaning it is. Just take a look at the complaints about Science Apologist if you want to see how CIVIL is being used to GAME the system.-- Filll ( talk) 18:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I am sick and tired of the uncivility warriors who see WP as a battlefield. Lets all just stop responding to them. It's clearly not worth the effort. Normally I try to avoid doing this, but in the face of such blatant argumentation for disruptive processes it seems necessary to resort to the most effective means for conflict resolution. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 19:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Civil discourse is not bad. However, if that is all you care about, then it can be unhelpful to overemphasize it. Suppose that I am editing an article about Holocaust denial. And I remove all references to the mainstream historic view that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust. And I argue strenuously that those sources are biased and do not belong in an article about Holocaust denial. And I argue that according to NPOV, we must be neutral and not assume that the Nazis killed so many Jews. And I am very civil throughout. And NPOV is explained to me 50, 100, 500, 1000 times over, over and over and over again, and I just ignore it and keep arguing in a civil fashion. I flood the talk pages with links to NeoNazi websites and Holocaust denial and Aryan Nation and Jihadist sites. People rebut my arguments, but I just make them again and again and again, cutting and pasting and burying the talk page in spam. I ignore comments that my sources are not RS. And I recruit friends to do the same thing. And when an admin questions me, I charge him with admin abuse and uncivil behavior (like our friend User: Whig tried recently, and he still might get away with it) and claim that since he is involved he cannot use his admin tools. What options does WP have against me in such a case? Very little, frankly, very little. Now suppose I get the admin so upset he says the "f word" or something else. And I can charge him with incivility and maybe he gets desysopped. I am winning this battle ! The bottom line is, I am not abiding by RS and NPOV, but since I am doing it civilly, WP is powerless to do anything against me. You see?-- Filll ( talk) 19:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
"And when an admin questions me, I charge him with admin abuse and uncivil behavior." Oh, and who will believe you? If the admin was civil about questioning you, why will this charge somehow stick? There are lots of good ways to stop POV-pushers, and none of them involve using incivility. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I quite disagree. The "POV" of what Popper calls "normal science" is that present theory pretty well explains major observations, and any major ones not explained, are due to experimental error or poor science or maybe fraud. Small steps in fiddling with details are accepted, especially if they come from people and institutions with reputations. Big ones that question central paradigms, struggle even for publication. You've worked on the K-T article; I'm old enough to remember that the standard answer for the demise of the dinosaur was "overspecialization"! It took somebody with the stature of Alvarez to begin to get that back into speculation-land, and get catastrophism at any level seriously questioned. Now the arguments are all over the board, as you know. If only detritavores made it, how did honeybees make it? [22] Well, perhaps there was an event somewhere in there short enough to be survived by eating a few months (not a few thousand or million years worth) of honey. And so on.
I'm also old enough to remember when the proton had no structure. Now we're told that for sure that it surely does, but the electron surely doesn't. Okay, if you say so. I remember when everything was more or less explained by hydrogen and helium produced in the Big Bang. Now we've had to add in dark matter and dark energy and who knows what they are, but they are needed to explain recent observations. We're now wondering if some of it might be supersymmetrical partners like selectons and sneutrinos and stuff that sounds like it came from a bad episode of Star Trek/Next Generation, added in so that Wesley Crusher could look smart. All of this new dark stuff violates the POV of 40 years ago-- all of it. In cosomology, this whole last century consists of discovering new structure in the (now expanding) cosmos at larger and larger scales, none of which was previously predicted, and all of it non-POV before somebody tried to get new observations published (sometimes unsuccessfully).
In medicine, in the 1960's, the FDA banned foodmakers from warning that saturated fat and cholesterol in food led to heart disease. Then, later, that very hypothesis became accepted doctrine and scripture. Then, even later, the French paradox and the coconut-eaters forced another rethink, and everybody re-trenched, and now we're not so sure again. At every step an orthodox POV predominated, and you were a fool if you didn't believe in the "establishment position." Yet, through it all, the only fact that has survived from that era, is that smoking remains bad! And trans-fats, which we didn't even suspect or know about, now look as bad (or worse) as anything we DID know about it, back then. Yet at one point, the trans-fat warners were considered food quacks.
The upshot is that I have some meta-sympathy with the homeopathic position, here, even though I don't believe a bit of their actual content. What "science" believes in your current year, is ALWAYS a POV, and ALWAYS has been. The "scientific" POV changes regularly, and in a way that reminds you of Orwell's 1984 if you've lived through it. The continental drift people were ridiculed until about 1957, because a mechanism was lacking (even though the observations were too-obvious-for-coincidence to anybody with a map). The rejection of primary data, because no mechanism is at hand, is the NORM in science, not some anomaly. Name me a field, and I'll give you an example. Rosalyn Yalow could not get her RIA published, because the reviewers simply refused to believe the results. She showed that rejection letter at her Nobel lecture. So let us lighten up a bit, here. Give the homeopaths some room to state their position, but (even if they are wrong and we're nearly sure of it) let us all not look like the Inquisition going after Bruno and Galileo. S B H arris 23:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The value of NPOV, is that we list all the views and sample the evidence on various sides. We present the mainstream, but we present contrary views. We present a variety of studies. And this is appropriate and fine, for exactly the reason you state; because our current knowledge is only temporary and provisional, and we do our readers a disservice by presenting the dominant view as the only view. And we should compare and contrast dominant and FRINGE views. We should not exclude the dominant views from FRINGE articles at all, for exactly the reason you stated; this encourages critical thinking and analysis and this is exactly the kind of information that is fertile ground to produce the next generation of knowledge! I do not think we are hurting these FRINGE areas by comparing and contrasting their views with the mainstream. We might be laying the foundation of their rebirth as readers learn why they are not accepted and why they are FRINGE positions, at least currently.
I personally would even favor "Teaching the Controversy" if it was really done honestly. It would be a fantastic way to learn the science and critical thinking, exactly like the creationists and intelligent design supporters claim. Unfortunately for them, to do it very carefully and scientifically, most of the evidence makes creationists look very bad. But in the course of learning that, and why their arguments fall apart, students would learn a tremendous amount.-- Filll ( talk) 00:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
As for mechanism, please review what I said. You can't get anybody who doesn't believe in continental drift NOW, but it was easy to get mainstream geologists who didn't believe it in 1955. Right now, homeopathy has result effects that look about as good as that for (say) antidepressant treatment of the moderately-depressed. Really. And it lacks a mechanism. It can't work with atoms. But we gave up having to answer to atoms for everything when we went to dark matter in astronomy. Ah, you say, that was only to explain observations that wouldn't go away. But whether homeopathy has observations (primary data from trials) that won't go away, largely depends on how hard and carefully you look. So this is not cut-and-dried. It deserves more careful handling in the meantime, so we all are not accused of bowing to the bias that dogs all medical trials (they tend to turn out as the people who run them, want them to). S B H arris 00:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The 800 pound gorilla in the room is what exactly is the placebo effect. It is clearly real. And it is clearly incredibly powerful. And we have no idea what it is and very little idea of how to tap into it. But if we could, we would be far far more effective against many diseases. And we just sweep a lot of results under this carpet we call "placebo" (or "nocebo" as the case may be). But I do not get the impression that it is the subject of very much investigation at all. We sort of ignore it. We shouldn't. If we only had a better way to get a handle on what it is...--
Filll (
talk) 00:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I first encountered Guy when one of our biography articles lead to a threat of legal action by the subject. This person had written a number of books about butterflies with his wife. The books are full of beautiful photographs of butterflies. The author has no degrees in science whatsoever, and scientific reviews of these books are uniformly dreadful. Nevertheless, these books are sometimes the only sources of some rare butterfly pictures, and so they have been purchased by libraries and research institutions worldwide.
What did the subject of our biography object to? He was angry that we described him as a "butterfly photographer" and that we said his wife was sometimes a coauthor, both of which were easily verifiable. He huffed and puffed at WP, although we were far more gentle with this biography than we could have been. Guy acted as the intermediary between us and this raving lunatic. Guy was calm and professional throughout.
Dealing with this sort of nut day in and day out is challenging. Fending off serious legal threats is wearing and thankless. I am sure our butterfly photographer is still fuming and furious at us. Someone with less backbone than Guy might have easily just folded in the face of the long multipage letters full of ranting and bluster.
Guy performs a valuable service here. As did Vanished User of Matthew Hoffman fame. There is some idea that everyone who wants to contribute here or have some input into our project is reasonable and rational; this is far from the truth. I have encountered many who want us to rewrite the articles from the New York Times and misquote them, to bolster their own views. I have encountered people who believe that we should report that fairies and ghosts are scientifically proven. I have encountered people who believe we should describe how atoms are fictional and this is proven scientifically, or that Noah's Ark has been discovered and this has been demonstrated by DNA studies, or alien abduction is a proven phenomenon. Now, if you explain to someone 10, 20, 100, or 500 times how their own personal views do not belong in the encyclopedia the way they envision them, and they still do not get it, you have to have an option for dealing with them. And sometimes, the people pushing these views are not going to like it.
Guy is one of our options for dealing with these cases. It might not be perfect, but until we come up with something better, we should be extremely cautious about discouraging Guy from the tasks he performs.
We are reaching the point where calling someone a "vandal" or a "POV pusher" or a "pseudoscientist" or a "promoter" is viewed as uncivil. We are getting mired in political correctness. Some information just is offensive to some, like the fact that Salman Rushdie was knighted, or that Japanese troops had comfort women, or contact with Europeans resulted in the deaths of many Native Americans, or that lynching was common in the American South, or that William the Conqueror was also known as William the Bastard and had a very messy demise. We can censor this sort of information to sanitize the encyclopedia, and avoid offending some, or we can present it all in its rawness, as best as we can. If we decide in the interests of civility that we will allow WP to be heavily censored and we will coddle assorted vandals and POV pushers no matter what their behavior in an attempt to create a welcome environment for all, we will find ourselves creating a far less useful resource. And we will find ourselves just babysitting hordes of malcontents and flakes with agendas. We need to have some standards, or else Wikipedia will be identical to just the raw internet, including random blogs and silliness that is completely uncensored or unselective. Remember, not all of these people who want to include material on Wikipedia are going to even agree with each other!
Some of the complaints about Guy are just ridiculous. Some are upset that Guy redirected "turd burglar" to Gay? Come on here, give me a break. This is some terrible crime? Sounds more like a joke to me. I notice a google search for this phrase has more than 40,000 hits! Are we supposed to start censoring this sort of thing from Wikipedia because some find it offensive? I could be convinced that we needed a "Civilopedia" that was cleaned up for children or sensitive uses, but I think we still need a venue that presents information in a raw, unvarnished form.
You know, WP deals with a veritable onslaught of kooks every day. Thousands of articles are deleted daily. Probably hundreds of thousands of instances of vandalism are dealt with every day. Many of the examples here of Guy's supposed egregious and unforgivable behavior can be chalked up to one or more of:
The demands that civility be the main consideration for dealing with conflict on WP do have a hidden cost. It means that increasingly, POV pushers and vandals are learning that as long as they are civil, they can use CIVIL as a weapon against established users and admins. It means that the goalposts for CIVILity are being moved, to where it is uncivil to disagree with a POV pusher. It means that we are having, and will continue to have, more and more trouble enforcing NPOV and RS and TE and DE, because we only care about CIVIL.
For those worried about a double standard, I do see a double standard emerging. It is that newbies can say and do anything, because they are not allowed to be sanctioned because of BITE. Newbies and SPAs can engage in profanity and obnoxious behavior, but established productive users cannot because they are supposed to "know better" and we are frantic to protect newbies since they might eventually become productive. The case I mentioned above when we were seeking FA status for Introduction to evolution is a case in point; we sacrificed 2 established productive users including one admin because we did not want to offend a problem newbie who had a long string of battles to his credit (including some viscious fights with a bot!!). Just telling this editor that his ideas were not suitable and did not match the consensus was inappropriate, because he might get upset. And he did get upset, fuming and cursing everyone and everything. But after all that coddling, where is this user today? Gone. How much did he really produce that remains on Wikipedia? Essentially nothing. Was it worth all the drama? I would say no. It would have been far better to tell this problem newbie that unless he could work in a productive collaborative way with others, including bots, Wikipedia was not the place for him. It might have hurt his feelings, but in the long run, it would have been far better for our overall productivity.
Although Guy might find it in his best interests to reign himself in a bit, I think it would not be in WP's best interests to lose Guy or discourage him from continuing to perform assorted housekeeping duties around here. Many of those who I see most upset with JzG are editors who push incredibly unencyclopedic content. Let me ask; if a reader looks up something about physics or evolution on Wikipedia, should they get something that resembles what they get on Encyclopedia Britannica or in a good college textbook, or should they get a bunch of flaky pet theories and nonsense ?
I have no problem with articles on FRINGE material, but lets make it clear that these are FRINGE beliefs. It might hurt the feelings of those that believe static on radios is evidence that ghosts are talking to us, or that water has memory, or that Joshua's Long Day really happened, or that Jonah really lived in a Whale, or humans lived together with dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden, or that the 12th Imam will come back at the end of the world, or that Barbara Bush is secretly an extraterrestrial reptile, or that Xenu killed billions in volcanoes using hydrogen bombs, or that the US government secretly attacked the US on 9/11, and so on and so forth. However, what does WP do when the proponents of these views get aggressive? We need to have ways to deal with them. And JzG/Guy is one of the ways we deal with them.
Some of those on this page have written long extensive treatises about how the standard interpretation of NPOV is incorrect. These have been removed repeatedly from Wikipedia. Arbcomm has weighed in to state that these are incorrect. Nevertheless, this does not stop them from actively promoting this alternative view of reality. Do we want to be a serious reference work, or a joke? If we let people like this have free run of the place, we are not a serious reference work, and we will not be one. It might hurt their feelings to be told this, but they are flakes and kooks. Sorry, but that is the consensus view. It does not matter how nice we are to people who believe that NPOV means nothing negative about FRINGE beliefs should appear in WP articles, they will not change their minds by this tactic, and all we will do is waste large amounts of time and effort.
Guy's problematic outbursts are because we do not have good mechanisms for dealing with these people and such beliefs. If someone does not understand a policy that has been explained to them 500 or 1000 times, what makes us think they will get it if we are just nice and explain it one more time? We might not like to see an admin use 4 letter words; fair enough. Let's create the tools and mechanisms for dealing with these difficult situations so they are not driven to use profanity, if we decide this is a priority. Let's not hamstring our admins. Let's not create "test cases" to attack our admins who are only trying to defend those writing the encyclopedia.-- Filll ( talk) 16:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Amarkov, you are hitting right on an important issue. Journals are allowed to reject material. Encyclopedia Britannica is allowed to reject contributors. Wikipedia has much much lower standards. And as a result, we are overrun by spam, and by FRINGE material and POV pushers and trolls and SPAs.
Do you think that the homeopathy promoters like Whig and Anthon01 and Dana Ullman would be allowed to push and push and push for uncritical presentation of homeopathy in the New England Journal of Medicine? In the Lancet? In the Encyclopedia Britannica? Absolutely not. Their ability to promote their FRINGE views would be restricted long long before they drove anyone to distraction.
What about Amaltheus? Would he be allowed to unilaterally declare, contrary to the opinion of 20 or 30 other editors, that sex is the most important principle in evolution, particularly a treatment of evolution for 12 year olds? In most venues, he would make his claim, he would be firmly and politely told to get lost and that would be that. But here, we nurture these people and coddle them for weeks and months. Until finally it gets ridiculous. And we lose regular productive editors. And/or someone like Guy tells them to f-off.
So, you are quite right. Something is rotten here. We have created a situation where profanity sometimes is resorted to, because people are so frustrated. And that is not because we are tolerant of profanity. It is because we are tolerant of nonsense that drives people to profanity.-- Filll ( talk) 17:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been called a vandal and much much worse here. I have been called a POV pusher and much worse here. You are allowed to call me that, and I will not protest. However, I maintain that we should follow the principles of WP, including NPOV. Others who want to discard NPOV disagree. And that is the root of the problem. We can consult others to see which of us has the correct interpretation of NPOV. But we have no proper mechanism for discouraging those who want to reinterpret NPOV, or DE, or TE, or RS, or NOR or many other policies to favor their POV. We do have a way to discourage CIVIL violations, whose definition is changing and experiencing definition creep.
When I first came here, about a year and a half ago, it was common to revert vandalism with the edit summary "rev vand" or "rv" or "rvv". But I have noticed that many who disagreed with these actions then used CIVIL to combat the revert. Maybe the edit summary "rvv" should go the way of the Dodo bird; it is just too offensive to too many. I myself notice that edit summaries are a good way to get in trouble, so I try to create edit summaries that say as little as possible, for fear of offending someone.
So go ahead. Call me a POV pusher. Call me a vandal. I don't particularly care. I will let my editing history speak for itself. But when it comes to a conflict on policy, we need a better way to enforce things like NPOV and RS and NOR.-- Filll ( talk) 18:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not necessarily constructive. But you might be driven to distraction by my refusal to abide by the standards of WP and the principles of WP.--
Filll (
talk) 18:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Such as? You mean "turd burglar" is hate language? As I am sure you know, this gets quite complicated.
Is the N-word hate language? Depends on who uses it and in what circumstances. What about all the rap stars who use the word?
How about the word "queer"? Well again, in some circumstances, by some people, maybe. Remember the television show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?
What about " faggot"? Again, in some circumstances, by some people, maybe. To some people, faggot is a cigarette or a bundle of sticks or a type of food.
What about "fruit" or "queen"?
How should WP handle these cases? There are words that in the US that are strictly verbotten, which are fine in other places. There are words which were fine 100 or 200 years ago, but have been on a dysphemism treadmill and now have negative connotations.
Suppose that "turd burglar" is socially acceptable where Guy lives. It might be socially acceptable for homosexuals to use the term, but not for straight people. How do you know that Guy is straight? You see, the deeper you plumb into this issue, the more complicated it gets. I do not know why Guy linked "turd burglar". I would not have done it, but that does not mean very much. I do not know the circumstances and I do not know Guy's side of it. But we have a lot more offensive material on Wikipedia than "turd burglar", that is for sure.
If you want to start some sort of Wikipedia sanitization drive, there is plenty of other material to go after. Jumping on the "turd burglar" bandwagon just seems sort of silly to me. After all, we have articles on all kinds of sexual acts. We have disgusting pictures of corpses and We have articles on porn stars. Wikipedia itself was initially associated with a company that provided hosting services for internet porn, if I am not mistaken.
How about c*nt? In some places, this the worst possible word. But not in Australia or the UK, where it often is used for a male, and is only slightly rude. In the US it is viewed as highly disrespectful towards women. Except when used by lesbians and assorted feminists who use it partly as some sort of political act. And in France, its counterpart means "silly" and is very common and used in polite speech. So is c*nt hate speech or not? Well depends on who is using it and when and where. Take a look at this WP article: [23] and this one: [24] where the word finds its way into the name of a band declared by the Guardian "one of the 40 most important bands in the UK". Can you imagine a comparable US newspaper making a similar declaration? Absolutely not, right? Well it is because we have different standards about this kind of language, clearly.-- Filll ( talk) 19:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well you are more offended by "turd burglar" than by "n*gger". Others are more offended by "c*nt" than by "n*gger". Others are more offended by "sh*t" than by "c*nt". And so on and so forth. You are arguing that the word that offends you is more offensive in general, and that case is not so easy to make. We can try to remove all these, which has not been the direction that WP was heading when it started, or we can try to deal with this with some level of understanding.
I do not know where you live, but the word "turd burglar" could be said here where I live on regular broadcast television and radio without much trouble, I bet. However, if you said the word "n*gger" on broadcast television or radio where I live and you were Caucasian, you might be looking at a fine of millions of dollars. If on the other hand, you were African American and said the word "n*gger" on broadcast radio or television where I live, people would probably not bat an eye at it, might ignore it or not even notice it.
This is complicated. I know you want the phrase that offends you to be the most offensive phrase for everyone. But this just is not the way the world works, from my observation. The people where I live would like "n*gger" to be the most offensive word anywhere on planet earth, but this just is not accurate. If you talked to my neighbors about Beijing or Tokyo, the first thing my neighbors would want to know about are the relations between the African Americans and the whites in Beijing. But this is not how the world works; it is more complicated than our simplistic models. -- Filll ( talk) 20:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well since you find so much offensive, I fully expect you to organize a movement to censor and clean up Wikipedia. Make a list of everything you believe is unacceptable, and then recruit other editors to go out and remove large swaths of material from Wikipedia. If you do not do this, then we will know much stock to put in any of your declarations of indignance.-- Filll ( talk) 20:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah so you do not want to censor Wikipedia and remove things that you take extreme offense at. All this dustup is because a page that has long since been removed, a redirect, was created by an admin and You have no idea why he created it. I bet you never even asked him. But you are offended beyond belief and crying for blood and writing and writing and writing about it. Right...makes a lot of sense. By the way, I notice DuncanHill has very little experience in editing controversial articles here so probably has little to add to this conversation. Oh well. --
Filll (
talk) 20:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Filll, are you mad at DuncanHill or something? What's the point in saying, "I notice DuncanHill has very little experience in editing controversial articles here so probably has little to add to this conversation. Oh well."? Is that helpful? How is it going to come across as anything other than caustic? Do you think asking for an explanation of a seemingly inappropriate action is wrong, somehow? Why would you characterize a request for an explanation as a "cry for blood"? I'm confused. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You are supposedly here to sort of half ask why Guy redirected "turd burglar" to "gay", a redirect that no longer even exists. And you do not even expect to get an answer.
Your participation at this RfC seems sort of pointless, to be honest. You have no experience at editing contentious articles. Without that, I daresay you really cannot quite understand how things can get so heated here and what the problems even are.
Try editing Depleted Uranium for example. Or any of the evolution and creationism articles, about a year or so ago (we have them pretty quiet now). Black people was pretty nasty about 14 months ago, but I am not sure what the current situation is. A lot of the alternative medicine articles are pretty contentious, at least from time to time. The abortion articles have been pretty bad. The Mormonism articles have been bad. Scientology of course has been very bad (you might even get some real life death threats and stalkers out of that one).
When I want a break, and I want peace and quiet, I edit the kind of articles that DuncanHill edits most of the time. And it does not do much good to edit an article once or twice, or even 20 or 30 times. You need an experience where you edit the article and its talk page many hundreds of times, in the face of brutal fighting and criticism for months on end. Then you will start to get an idea of how rough things can get here.
You are free to question the behavior of certain editors. But unless you have walked a mile in their shoes, you really have little of relevance to contribute. There are neighborhoods here on WP which are just pitched battles. Brutal nasty fights that go on for months and years. Articles which have meat puppets at them, recruited from other websites or through television and radio. Articles where professional public relations firms are involved in trying to influence the article. Articles with one or two new sock puppets every day. Articles where the editors have been coughed up by Wikipedia in answer to subpoenae. Articles where the editors have been outed by off-wiki attack sites. Articles where the editors have received repeated death threats.
And until you can wrap your head around these realities, it is a bit hard to see how an editor or an admin might be driven to cursing, or why they might need different tools than they have now. And it might be difficult to understand how unpleasant things can be in some corners of Wikipedia.-- Filll ( talk) 22:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
In high conflict articles, one is driven to careful diplomacy, if one wants to get work done. If we're responding to difficult editors by descending to their level, then it's no wonder so many pages are pitched battles. On what high-conflict page has telling someone to "fuck off" improved anything, ever? I'll accept that someone's feelings were vented, but that doesn't count as constructive or helpful. They should have hit a punching bag instead, and come back when they could apply their communication and conflict resolution skills.
By the way, I have worked on high-conflict pages, and I'm speaking from experience, so don't start with that. - GTBacchus( talk) 22:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I've already volunteered for OTRS in response to this RfC, and you will be seeing me around more. Take care.
I note that you utterly failed to address the point I raised in my above comment. You have no answer for why "driven to cursing" makes any sense at all. You seem to be arguing for the right to use piss-poor dispute resolution skills in areas where good ones are called for, and rather than addressing or even acknowledging my arguments, you've chosen to attack me. And you're surprised that you find working on Wikipedia to be a battle. That's just dandy. Like I said, I'll see you around. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Glad to hear you are going to use your superlative skills here in some controversial areas. And I did not check to see when you were involved with abortion. Sorry, but things seem to have become much worse in the last year or so, at least the little bit that I know about. And if you will read what I have written over and over, I do not claim that it is reasonable to curse out the editors and that is a reasonable dispute resolution technique. If you think I have claimed this, please provide a diff of where I made such a statement. I was arguing that these things are somewhat understandable in high stress areas, and an indication that our tools are not adequate for dealing with these situations. I also asked that we not discard JzG for these failings, although he might want to tone it down a bit. That is my position. Ok?-- Filll ( talk) 00:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I never said they should.-- Filll ( talk) 00:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
That is, quite frankly, the most absurd logic ever. I respect JzG for dealing with trolls, of course. That does not mean that I cannot question the way in which he chooses to do this. I don't weep over those who are actually trolls; I weep over those who were not trolls, or might not have become trolls were they approached in a nicer fashion. War, metaphorical or otherwise, does not justify any methods used to fight it. - Amarkov moo! 16:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I do not think that JzG or OM or many others would be in favor of capricious rudeness or random profanity and arbitrary expletives and indiscriminate imprecations. But you have to look at the context and the situation that lead to the use of the malediction in question. In all the cases that I know of, the situation became intolerable because of sustained efforts of trolls, POV warriors, SPAs, probable sock puppets, putative meat puppets, etc. I wonder about the people complaining; have they ever been in a dispute with some POV warrior that refuses to back down or compromise? Do they edit controversial articles at all?-- Filll ( talk) 17:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Dealing with someone who doesn't want to compromise doesn't have to be so stressful, there are ways to make it easier. That's what we should be working on: How do we make our admins more informed and more empowered to deal effectively with difficult editors, and support this type of work? That doesn't mean enabling abusive behavior, nor does it mean simply slapping down admins who mess up; it means teaching better mediation/negotiation skills. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course we shuld have better strategies. That is the entire point of this page. Things that worked a year ago or two or three years ago when the project was much smaller really are not suitable strategies any more since the site is much much bigger and more high profile. We need to think creatively for how to deal with POV pushers and trolls. We need to think of ways to improve our efficiency and effectiveness. I am not saying that all admins should have license to curse as much as possible and to sling invective at problem editors. I am saying this behavior is a symptom of problems that we should address. And Guy is a valuable admin here. And so was Vanished User. And just dumping them is not necessarily addressing the root of the problem, particularly when Guy and Vanished User were defending editors like me. Why do we not create a system where they do not have to go to such lengths to defend me? -- Filll ( talk) 19:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Nevertheless, have you got anything concrete in mind, as far as improvements to the current system? - GTBacchus( talk) 20:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not know what part of Wikipedia you have been editing. But the part I have been on has slowly but surely been making it tougher and tougher for admins to act to stop DE and TE and NPOV violations etc.-- Filll ( talk) 20:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with this, and I have attempted to make proposals like this at the Village Pump and other places. We need to make the system more fault tolerant so a single admin has less responsibility and less chance of making some irretrievable error, single-handedly. Make it harder for admins to make mistakes. Make it easier to create admins since they will have less unilateral power. And provide other venues for deciding on content, like a content arbcomm or outside review board etc. Some of these ideas are described on the Raymond Arritt Expert Withdrawal pages-- Filll ( talk) 16:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Right at the moment on the talk page of homeopathy, disagreeing with the precepts of homeopathy and having critical material about homeopathy in the article is viewed as unCIVIL. Disagreeing with homeopathy supporters is viewed as a personal attack. Abiding by NPOV is viewed as UNCIVIL and a personal attack. NPOV is being redefined. FRINGE is being redefined. If you disagree, you are viewed as mounting a personal attack and being unCIVIL and there are calls for you to be blocked for disagreeing. So in other words, if you want to abide by NPOV, this is viewed as unCIVIL and there are calls for editors who want NPOV to be blocked. In other words kids, we have a problem. If you want to see this in action, go to [25], [26], [27]-- Filll ( talk) 18:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I have not ever claimed and never will claim that we have no problems. Please stop repeating this falsehood about me. Dlabtot ( talk) 18:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I certainly don't believe there are no problems, nor have I seen a sign that anyone else believes that, but I also don't believe that you have accurately assessed what the problem is. Fringe theories are a problem, but editors turning Wikipedia into a battleground is also a serious problem, and I believe it also makes fringe theories more difficult to deal with. Sχeptomaniac χαιρετε 22:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem that we're all working on is this: How can we stop people using pages such as WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:BITE as weapons? That's not at all what they're for, but many people seem to want to use them that way. How can we stop that? - GTBacchus( talk) 23:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we should not just send one or two admins out to curse at those who are violating our WP principles like NPOV and RS and NOR and FRINGE and LEAD etc. That is silly and no one is suggesting doing that in a serious manner. What I have said repeatedly is that this is symptomatic of a lack of effective mechanisms for dealing with the onslaught of various malcontents.
In the creationism and evolution area, a year or two back things on WP were almost impossible. It was a terrible pitched battle that those who wanted to uphold standards and rationality were losing. But we turned it around, using a variety of techniques and some trial and error: [29]. Now, things are much calmer. It takes far less effort to maintain many more articles, and they are better written in general. Evolution was allowed to improve drastically when the fighting died down, and has been very favorably reviewed externally: [30]. I have even seen one external review of evolution that compared it to something a faculty member would produce at a major US research university. Now, we are getting cited more often by blogs and mainstream journalists. There are even notices circulating in judicial circles that it is ok to use our articles in this area for legal research for legal opinions etc. So we have made a lot of progress.
We did it by experimenting with different ideas. And we hit on a mix that worked for us. It might not work in all subject areas on WP. But if we experiment with a variety of ideas, we have a chance of finding something that works there too. -- Filll ( talk) 17:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we have several goals here, not all of which are independent or uncorrelated with each other. The connections between these are not as obvious as what you have stated, however. We could try to estimate their interrelations, but I would be loathe to put much faith in any conjectures without any data.
Here are some of our goals:
Now suppose we retain a large volume of FRINGE proponents by bending over backwards to nurture them and not offend them. This might increase our total number of editors, but more of our current editors might have their efforts consumed in nonsense. More experts might leave. We might end up with an undesirable population of editors and have trouble attracting the kind of editors we want. The more one thinks about this, the clear it is that this is a very complicated problem. You can claim that we have to be more CIVIL to attain our goals. And ScienceApologist, with about as much authority, can claim that overemphasizing CIVIL is detracting from our goals. And we have no real data one way or the other; just speculation and conjecture.
I can tell you anecdotally that we did not move forward on our goals in the areas of creationism and evolution by being polite and WP:CIVIL. We were, and continue to be, pretty rough on editors there who come to spread nonsense. And we discourage them and move them out aggressively.
If we operated with the same CIVIL principles that seem to be reigning in alternative medicine right now, our creationism and evolution articles would be a disaster and horrendous. Probably most of our current contributing editors would have left. The articles would be probably be unreadable messes that the outside world would not respect particularly. We would be in the business of providing free bandwidth to assorted religious groups to publish religious tracts. And various religious groups with different views would be using this space as a place to beat each other to a pulp. And the WP infrastructure would just function as some sort of traffic cop to keep them from tearing each other apart, since they all hate each other and disagree with each other.
Do you think that academia is CIVIL? Mainstream science? If you think that, you do not know very much about academia or science.-- Filll ( talk) 23:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
As you've seen on my talk page, we're getting in touch with people who are doing research on conflict resolution on Wikipedia, and we've got some very suggestive data about which approaches work and which ones don't. I'm in the process of learning more, and will be pushing to generate more data, targeting specific DR tactics. I'm currently very optimistic that we can deal with the POV problems you're describing without having to jettison any part of our civility policy.
It may be that people have been gaming the policy, but that can be stopped. It may be that people involved in these arguments haven't happened upon the correct formula yet, but we can work on that. It may just be that we need to bring a lot of fresh eyes to the situation, lay the facts out very clearly, and make some decisions.
Would you agree, at least, that there is room for disagreement, as to whether our current system coddles trolls and supporters of fringe theories? - GTBacchus( talk) 23:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I was not clear enough. Without data, I do not know if our current CIVILity policy is worthwhile or not, and if it is productive and efficient or not. Some claim it is. Some claim it is not. I have my doubts, but I am willing to explore this and other options, and generate evidence. This is of course a very complicated problem, as I am trying to suggest. And just changing one or two variables blindly might not get us very far. This has to be done carefully, with a lot of thought.-- Filll ( talk) 00:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Filll, thanks for the reply. I encourage you to stay tuned, because we're just now at the cusp of being able to ask and answer some questions about how conflicts are resolved in this medium.
Oh, and I think I did misunderstand your tone above, and thought you were asserting that we are, in fact, bending over backwards to nurture and not offend fringe proponents. Now that I read it again, I see that you weren't making that assertion. Sorry. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I find it amazing and quite telling that Dlabtot has read my initial statement and my answer to the question, both of which I think are quite clear where I come down on this issue. And for some reason, he has been unable to understand either one. This is a very interesting datapoint. I never said our current system coddles trolls and supporters of FRINGE theories, at least in the last few posts here. And even if it does, we might find that it is to our benefit to do so, if we have data demonstrating that. Right?
For example, maybe we are not applying CIVIL aggressively enough. If we redouble our efforts, and push harder yet, we might find we get much closer to our goals; we might be more productive, we might be more efficient, we might attract a higher quality of editor etc. Maybe. I have my doubts about that, but that is an interesting hypothesis that some probably hold. And with data and experiments and observations, we might be able to compile empirical evidence that supports or does not support this conjecture.
I do not know if I am more clear and better understood now or not. But anyway, the answer to all these complicated questions is, we do not know. We do not have the data yet to be able to tell what we should be doing to meet our goals.-- Filll ( talk) 00:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Per a section below... we might want to migrate this conversation somewhere else... maybe a page somewhere to talk about DR research? - GTBacchus( talk) 00:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes I think this is a good idea. I have already suggested something similar, as you can see by looking
here and
here for example.--
Filll (
talk) 01:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
(Moved from the RfC page)
What I find a much bigger cause for concern is this comment by Nishkid64 ( talk · contribs). He accuses Uconnstud of being the sockpuppet of Bigdaddy718 ( talk · contribs). Bigdaddy718 was blocked as a sockpuppet of Armyguy11 ( talk · contribs). A ecis Brievenbus 00:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is this thing still festering on? Since guy has decided not to respond and has either read and noted complaints or decided to ignore them, what's the point? Over two weeks of this is enough. Can we close it down now?-- Docg 23:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Festering on? That's a rhetorical question, right? It's the WikiWay. When someone is a vicious, vile, insulting editor, but the "right" people like them (usually other vicious, vile, insulting editors and admins), they never have to answer for their actions and they are allowed by "the community" to continue their abuses. I have a high tolerance for what some call incivility, but a couple editors go way overboard, and JzG/Guy is one of them. As I've said before about a similar-acting editor... ...and as usual, nothing happens because nobody cares...the user is now free to start up his incivility and personal attacks and name-calling and harassment because nobody seems to have the backbone to chastize this often-blocked user with a long, "distinguished" history of complaints, harassment, steamrolling, and victim-playing... of course, i shouldn't be surprised... • VigilancePrime • • • 17:44 (UTC) 20 Mar '08
I agree completely, and was just about to point out that under our new rules of "political correctness", your characterization of someone as "vicious, vile, insulting" is more than enough to get a nice long block, just by itself. --
Filll (
talk) 17:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
What I believe is happening is that we are experiencing "CIVIL standard creep". What was permissable a year or two or three ago, is now viewed as a violation of CIVIL in many cases. Many of the examples of JzG's inexcusable behavior date from a year or two ago, or more. Some of these probably would not have raised eyebrows then, but would now. If regular editors did such a thing now, without a record of productivity to fall back on, they probably would be blocked, obviously. Someone with a long record of productivity gets a bit more slack from the community for obvious reasons. Someone who has had personal turmoil in their personal lives, like JzG has, also gets a bit more slack from the community. And whether we like to admit it or not, admins get a slightly larger helping of community tolerance than regular editors do. So you have to look at these things carefully to try to understand what is going on. This is essentially a strong warning to JzG and other editors and admins who behave in a similar fashion. If it continues, by JzG or others, then probably there will be consequences. It does not appear at the moment that the community is willing to impose consequences for this compilation of putatively problematic posts, some going back into ancient Wikihistory.--
Filll (
talk) 18:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
As we become larger and more prominent, we probably should discourage the use of profanity by our admins. And I said, at this moment we do not appear that we will impose consequences. However, a slipup this evening, an outburst by JzG tomorrow morning with some profanity, a meltdown tomorrow afternoon, and things could change quite drastically. I have no doubt that if this RfC closes, and in a month someone compiles a record of fresh infelicities by Guy, that things will go far far worse for him. Does anyone seriously doubt that? People might cut him a little slack this time, but it is hard to imagine that they will continue to do so if he does not toe the line. That is my two cent prediction, anyway.-- Filll ( talk) 18:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I believe real incivility is not a reasonable response to very much. I have noted this repeatedly. However, pseudo-incivility, which I have seen bandied about a lot, I think is just silly, and dangerous. And it causes people like me to want to just pack their bags and go home. That is the whole point of Raymond Arritt's Expert Withdrawal pages. However, I am willing to tolerate more civility problems from someone who is productive than someone who is unproductive.-- Filll ( talk) 19:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Well the line is moving. And that is the point of Raymond Arritt's Expert Withdrawal pages; to notice that we are suffering from efforts to redefine CIVIL, NPOV, NOR, LEAD, RS, AGF and many other WP principles to suit assorted groups with agendas. So, I am shining a light on these efforts.-- Filll ( talk) 19:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Try saying that at WT:AGF though... I was roundly shouted down when I said it, and I didn't edit another policy page for months. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Festering on? That's a rhetorical question, right? It's the WikiWay. When someone is a vicious, vile, insulting editor, but the "right" people like them (usually other vicious, vile, insulting editors and admins), they never have to answer for their actions and they are allowed by "the community" to continue their abuses.
I have a high tolerance for what some call incivility, but a couple editors go way overboard, and JzG/Guy is one of them.
There's too many items wrapped up in one RfC for this to be much use.
Please see [34] in which I link into the RfC JzG's reply to it, which can be found at User:JzG/RfC ++ Lar: t/ c 01:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Damn, if only lines had been this easy at school.
- I must not let Dan Tobias troll me.[this line is repeated 100 times - V]
It seems rather strange that people would report to him only those things said by people he respects. After all, it's the opinions of the people he's dissed that are here to be aired, and responded to. If he has to respect the person before he can listen to the view, then I rather think that bodes ill. He's still being extremely insulting on talk pages, though I actually do think he's trying. The funny thing is, there isn't anything positive to his incivility- for instance, it doesn't say anything that would otherwise remain in the dark. It's just incivility because he wants to be uncivil [36] this is uncivil because insulting for no reason [37]. In any other user, a stream of constantly harassing and useless edits like this would be considered disruptive. Harassing because so insulting to anyone who liked the film (and surely some such people might like to edit there?), useless because the insults don't add anything new. As you saw, when I requested he be civil, he said (I'm not sure why) that I should not insult his intelligence- itself an uncivil remark. So, it looks to me like he continues apace, even if he is trying to tone down some of the more egregious stuff.
In an ordinary user, this would be seen as extremely poor form. As Kirill said, however, he's an admin, and we ought to be judging him by higher standards, not the lower ones which seem to apply. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
for ($i=1; $i<=100; $i++) { print "I will not troll JzG.\n"; } *Dan T.* ( talk) 17:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Doc_glasgow asked 8 days ago why this Arbcom continues. The answer:
An arbitration which JzG's behavior is a central part of the Arbitration. Trav ( talk) 03:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll be honest, this was brought to my attention by someone (who is not, to my knowledge, a banned user) at a certain website critical of wikipedia. However, this seems to speak for itself. — Random832 ( contribs) 16:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Guy did respond, just not on these pages, but on a subpage of his userpage. And invited people go to there to read his response. And it was a very full and well thoughtout response. So this is sort of a moot point, isn't it? Does he have to put his response on THESE pages? Are we getting that hide bound? He is sending a signal by putting his response somewhere else, but it is not that he has not responded; he clearly has.-- Filll ( talk) 16:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If someone states that they have no intention of reading the request for comment, how can this possibly be a response to the RfC? I think this shows a disrespect for Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. Nesodak ( talk) 03:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
While I appreciate that he is taking steps to become a better administrator, I do not accept his avoidance of reading the RfC. SashaNein ( talk) 17:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been keeping an eye on this case with interest, and haven't given my own outside view, so I could objectively hear from both parties in this Rfc. Given that there is some sort of response (even if it wasn't made here), and that both parties have had a say, I will be giving a fairly detailed outside view that will go through all of the evidence (given by both parties). This view should be posted within the next couple of days. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 03:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that the word in question is subject to widely variable usage. Some would say that the word is innocuous in their country. Others would say that even your usage of the word as a standalone is offensive in itself. This is more a commentary on variable word usage than it is on anything that JzG has done. Antelan talk 03:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to find out if the community consensus was that it was okay to call each other cunts. I happen to think we shouldn't call someone a cunt, because when we do that we empower other people to do it, and I happen to think that's the spirit of WP:CIV and why it is so important. I have less trouble with Guy's actions than with his language, because he validates every troll who uses such language. If admin's like Guy act in such a manner, it makes it far harder to simply block other users who use such language. You can argue all you like about context, it matters not one jot. On Wikipedia the policy here is WP:CIV, and we do not allow profanity directed at another contributor, and the word cunt is, in the English speaking language for which this is the Wikipedia, sadly, profanity. You aren't down the pub with your mates here, you're building an encyclopedia and subscribing to a code of conduct. Don't like that? You have the right to fork. What the person said to Guy was completely and utterly reprehensible. I accept and understand why he responded, but I want to show that there is a commitment to WP:CIV and that Guy's language was unacceptable, so that other editors get the message. If I do not say this to Guy, I have no business saying it to anyone else. Hiding T 13:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Please forgive me if making edits here are inappropriate. I do have something to say about JzG due to a recent action by him and I hope this is the appropriate forum.
I was banned indef by JzG and labelled a "SCOX troll". My account was accused of being a "disruptive Single Purpose account". What did I do to get this sanction? I brought a violation of a ban to the attention of the administrators. Jeff Merkey was editing again, so I asked for enforcement of the Merkey's ban, in what I believed was the appropriate place to ask for action. I was given no warning of any action against me, no opportunity to discuss it beforehand. His assertions that I am an "SCOX Troll" [strange that he should use Merkey's own phrase?] is false and that my account is disruptive or single purpose are all false (as evidenced by the fact that I was able to get another administrator to remove the block that JzG imposed)
I need to state right now that, while I am aware of the issues surrounding Merkey and WP, I have stayed out of them. I have never trolled Jeff (here or elsewhere) and Jeff has never accused me of trolling him.
Nevertheless, after a polite and brief discussion of Mr Merkey's ban evasion on ANI, which resulted in an IP block and further extention of his one year ban, JzG swung by and blocked me indef.
A real life comparison would be this: Someone witnesses a robbery in progress, reports it to the police. Some police come by, arrest the perps and leave. Then another cop comes by, asks no questions about what is going on, shoots the witness and drives off. Is this the type of cop you want in your city?
I attempted to engage JzG in a discussion of my ban, but he did not respond. Apparently, JzG does not believe in the WP:AGF policy, or perhaps he thinks it only applies to others in the WP community?
JzG claims to have blocked 1200 users. How many of these were unwarranted and just left people upset with WP? People who never get their editing ability back?
JzG clearly has a hair trigger. Sometimes this is necessary, but a responsible admin/sysop should be prepared to discuss and remedy his/her own actions. In my case, JzG showed that he is not.
JzG showed contempt towards me and, by not responding in the normal manner to this action, he shows contempt towards the WP community. Much has been made of the loss of his father, shich I am am sure is devastating -- but it is his problem and he must not be allowed to make it the community's problem. If he cannot use his admin powers responsibly at this time, then he should relinquish those powers until he can. Would JzG grant the same level of deference to someone who was suffering a similar level of stress? Based on my own experience and what I read here, the answer is clearly no.
My proposal is that JzG should lose his sysop/admin authority until such time as he can show that he can use thoose powers in a more judicious maner.
Captain Nemo III (
talk) 15:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps JzG needs to read his own pages. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG/help is this:
In light of the lack of any response from JzG to my email to him, his suggestion looks pretty hypocritical. Captain Nemo III ( talk) 00:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this should go on the regular page, not the talk page. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
My experience, coming only a couple of days ago, shows that JzG is unchanged and unrepentant. Look at the comments on his own talk page regarding this RFC -- the first thing he writes is that he is not going to read this page. He has not changed and, as an Admin, he is a liability to WP and brings WP into disrepute. People, please stop enabling his abusive behavior. My blocking shows that, contrary to the assertions that this RFC has been effective, it has done nothing to affect JzG's behavior. Captain Nemo III ( talk) 19:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
JzG recently "courtesy blanked" a comment from the ANI archives that was made on September 1, 2007 [39]. Was this an appropriate deletion? Cla68 ( talk) 23:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
There has been a lot if discussion here. However, Guy has made it clear that he does not intend to even read the discussion, so his behavior will not be changed as a result of the comment and discusison here. So, what is next? Does this RFC come to some kind of conclusion? Is there some action that will come out of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Nemo III ( talk • contribs) 05:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
JzG needs to stop incivil remarks like this: "Martinphi made a number of changes which served, in my view, to give the impression that RV is widely accepted and disputed only by "out there" skeptics. Randi is indeed one of the few proponents of the mainstream view who dignifies this twaddle with a rebuttal" [41], "Already discussed, and you lost that time as well" [42], and "Ah yes, silly of me to forgetL the way Wikipedia is set up to work is that you keep pushing the same fringe POV until everybody else has lost interest and you get your way. Oh, wait, no, that's precisely what you're not supposed to do. So I find myself wondering why you are, once again, requesting the same change with the same argument and hoping for a different result. No, hang on, I know why you hope for a different result: you don't like the scientific consensus and feel that the complete nonsense that is paranormal True Belief should be given parity or near-parity of esteem. Sorry, no" [43]. Cla68 ( talk) 00:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [48] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.-- Filll ( talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
[49], [50]. Neıl ☎ 12:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is this user still allowed to edit on Wikipedia? Looking at all the above, you'd think he should have been ousted a long time ago, and yet he remains, an admin nonetheless, still up to his old tricks of incivility, POV-Pushing, and abuse of administrative priviledges. Someone needs to step up and do what's right for the project. 124.171.0.208 ( talk) 11:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
A request for arbitration involving this behaviour as well as that following the RfC has been filed [51]. See WP:RfArb to participate/comment. Viridae Talk 09:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess this probably could be added to the current ArbCom case also, but here [52], JzG removes a record of how he voted in a deletion discussion at the same time that he closes the discussion, preventing an accurate record from being visible. Cla68 ( talk) 00:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)