Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Duncharris: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:19, 22 November 2005

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC).

(Duncharris | talk | contributions)

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

Statement of the dispute

Description

In recent months, User:Duncharris has flagrantly ignored Wikipedia policy and abused administrative powers.

During his self-nomination for adminship (Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Duncharris) one year ago, several other members of Wikipedia raised concerns regarding edits by Harris where he showed signs of incivility toward others.

Harris has continued to contribute to an uncivil environment by being rude towards others, persistently referring to another editor's contributions as "crap", using unnecessary profanity during edit summaries, blanking criticisms on his talk page, and telling several people to "fuck off". In two seperate instances, Harris has explicitly told two different editors to "fuck off" after they had asked him to stop using abusive language. [1] [2]

The WP:CIVIL policy divides civility concerns into two groups, petty and serious. Harris has made a number of serious personal attacks which contain profanity directed at another contributor.

On November 21, 2005, Duncharris again made offensive use of edit summaries [3] after another good faith contributor had marked an article for speedy deletion, telling them to "fuck off". As a result, Ed Poor blocked User:Duncharris] temporarily to cool off. Rather than contact another administrator to work things out, Harris used his sysop permissions and Duncharris unblocked himself, violating WP:BP. The Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Unblocking explictly states that: Sysops are technically able to unblock themselves by following this procedure but should absolutely not do so.

Cursing in and of itself is not a violation of policy, but cursing at someone is. I would expect this type of apalling behavior and disregard for policy from a vandal, but certainly not an administrator for heaven's sake. Constant abuse such as this is poisonous to Wikipedia and should not be condoned. Experienced administrators need to set a higher standard than this. This RFC has been created as a means to open this up for discussion with the hopes that this ongoing problem can finally be resolved. Swift and severe action should be taken if Harris is unwilling to show civility toward others and stop violating Wikipedia policy.

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Privilege abuses

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ADuncharris - Self-unblocks after being banned for violating WP:NPA policy

Personal attacks

[4] - Personally attacks Kookykman, telling him to "fuck off" after marking an article for speedy deletion
[5] - Personally attacks CalJW, telling him to "fuck off" after being asked to refrain from abusive language
[6] - Personally attacks Bahn Mi, telling him to "fuck off" after reiterating requests for civility
[7] - After having been told that he should not remove others comments, he removed the warning, calling the warner a "troll".
[8] - Called Ben Aveling an "creationist troll".
[9] - Claimed that User:Kookykman was "then incapable of parsing simple English sentences".
[10] - Personally attacks Ed Poor, telling him to "fuck off moonie POV pusher"
Consistantly calls other people's contibutions "crap" or "bullshit", per the edit summaries when adding {{cleanup}} or {{vfd}} tags
[11] Tells User:Benapgar "Don't launch your rattle out of your pram attached to an Exocet." with an edit summary of "I know I shouldn't feed this troll but". Elsewhere, he apparently said "Yeah, a good one. You're just a lowly troll." I don't have a link for that, though I'm sure it could be found if absolutely necessary.
[12] Edit comment "rv anon's smelly brainfart".
[13] Edit comment begins "rv silliness by anon." (In the middle of a revert war)
[14] "Okay, I'll try to keep this simple for you." ... "You would have to be remarkably stupid not to realise this" Edit comment "It was silly, now it is becoming utterly stupid" (The revert war continues)
Refering to numerous articles created by new users as "crap" or some variation there-of, needlessly biting newbies who had no idea of his crusade against school articles. (See "Crap" diffs below)

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Duncharris/archive8&diff=prev&oldid=23637879 - Request to refrain from abusive language by CalJW
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADuncharris%2Farchive8&diff=23345750&oldid=23304101 - Request to refrain from describing other editors contributions as "crap" by Kappa
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADuncharris%2Farchive8&diff=23852416&oldid=23772066 - Request to be left alone by Kingboyk
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADuncharris%2Farchive8&diff=22739029&oldid=22738548 - Harris substitutes the words of another contributor in an effort to taunt
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADuncharris%2Farchive8&diff=19226175&oldid=19225898 - Concern by Edcolines that Harris may be abusing powers as administrator
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADuncharris&diff=28930583&oldid=28930290 - Dmcdevit requests that Harris not mis-use administrative rollback in POV disputes
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADuncharris%2Farchive7&diff=17948838&oldid=17931545 William M. Connolley requests that Harris stop making "gratuitous insults" to his user page
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Duncharris&diff=next&oldid=24213260 Ed Poor requests that Harris maintain civility when making references to him
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Duncharris&diff=next&oldid=24310297 Sebastiankessel expresses concern regarding page protection abuse by Harris
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Duncharris&diff=next&oldid=24340226 Jonathunder expresses concern over rollback and page protection abuse by Harris

Profane use of edit summaries

[15] - "fuck off"
[16] - "grrrr!!! I want save not fucking preview!"
[17] - "save not preview!!! fucking hell"
[18] - "yeah whatever. To Bahn Mi (cos I know you're watching) fuck off"
[19] - "Talk:Fjellstrand Skole moved to Talk:Fjellstrand skole: Do not move VFD nominations, it fucks them up real good"
[20] - "Abusive language - fuck off"
[21] - "seriously fucked up"
[22] "Portmadoc, Beddgelert & South Snowdon Railway moved to Portmadoc, Beddgelert and South Snowdon Railway: I hate having to fucking do this!"
[23] "Rushden, Higham & Wellingborough Railway moved to Rushden, Higham and Wellingborough Railway: and AND AND AND AND AND AND AND AND for fuck sake how many of these bleeding things do I have to move?"
[24] - "totally disputed. fucking group selection!"
[25] - "what the fuck is this?"
[26] - "Morality links -fucking hell"
[27] - "fucking hell!"
[28] - "oh for fucks sake,"
[29] - "for fucks sake!"
[30] - "delete this fucking page"
[31] - "that's becuas eit Neo-Lamarckian bullshit rather than ID bullshit"
[32] - "OMG what utter shite."
[33] - "cleanup tags should be for shit articles, though not perfect, this ain't bad."
[34] - "delete patent nonsense, POV christian fundamentalist bullshit."
[35] - "delete this crap"
[36] - "crap"
[37] - "more crap"
[38] - "crap"
[39] - "crap"
[40] - "REDIRECT medicine (will vfd if neccesary cos it's crap)"
[41] - "WP:CIVIL - the crap is of your own making dear boy"

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Karmafist 23:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nandesuka 00:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC). Duncharris's response to my re-applying the block he removed on himself was to suggest that I didn't consider who I was blocking, and that I should be worried about "the Wikipolitics of who you are making enemies with." I find the idea that a temporary block for violating Wikipedia policies should be a reason to "make enemies" is laughable and repugnant. That he would consider "Wikipolitics" to be a valid reason to selectively enforce policy or to treat some users as more equal than others is a clear leading indicator that he doesn't yet understand the responsibilities that go along with being an administrator.[reply]
— Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 00:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC). I have no problem with the vast majority of Duncharris's edits, but think that he repeatedly violates WP:CIVIL in a manner extremely unbecoming of an andministrator.[reply]
Dmcdevit·t 00:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) I asked him not to use his rollback in POV disputes (which he has done multiple times, even reverting other admins) and the response was unimpressive. Particularly "Anyone else got any pointless comments or criticism?" I expect admins to be able to maturely respond to constructive criticism.[reply]
Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Such behaviour is frankly disgraceful. The diff Nandesuka refers to is this which makes "I'm going to make implicit dark threats because I'm popular" language. If any small part of these diffs had occured before an RfA, we all know that they would have ruined it. Duncharris should bear that closely in mind. -Splash^talk 01:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who not endorse this summary

Guettarda 02:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC) - This collection of diffs are very misleading and needlessly prejudicial. There is no policy against "bad language". These diffs all bold the word "fuck", despite the fact that, in the vast majority of cases, there is nothing even vaguely wrong with the language used, even in the most broad interpretation of policy or guidelines. Has all the appearances of a witch hunt against an excellent editor who is inclined to using "bad language".[reply]
If we were having a pleasant dinner with colleagues, and someone came out with something equivalent to those diffs, you and I would take two different approaches. I would consider such language entirely within the realm of freedom of speech but profoundly unWP:CIVIL by any measure of how one conducts oneself in a decent way. I would be unsurprised if the person instructed to "fuck off" was not a little offended. You would apparently tell the offended colleague that his offence was actually harassment intended to make the other party want to run away in tears. -Splash^talk 02:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the bolding. It isn't necessary to make the point. The problem is not just foul language, but that so much of it is directed at people. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FeloniousMonk 02:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) - per Guettarda. Duncharris is an excellent and knowledgeable contributor who willingly takes on the thankless (and now apparently risky) task of POV Patrol for particular segment of articles that are POV-magnets, namely, those at the intersection of science/religion. I'll also add that EdPoor, who, for this very reason has run afoul of Dunc (and has his history of issues with civility), has been following Duncharris around looking for any opportunity to block him. Again, there is no policy against strong language, and Dunc's slip of civility is understandable looking the history of who and what he was confronting. FeloniousMonk 02:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you accusing us of having raised this RFC because we have a different POV to Dunc? As one of those who Dunc seems to see himself as 'confronting', I'd like you to make clear why you think 'strong language' and a lack of civility towards myself and others is 'understandable'? Regards, Ben Aveling 02:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

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

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

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

Outside view by Doc

Duncharris should not have been blocked. Blocking is not a punishment but preventative. In any case, it is not to be used without repeated warnings. If Ed Poor was concerned about Duncharris's behaviour, then he should have warned him, and if that had no effect, then filed an RfC or RfAr. The block was clearly a violation of policy, and had Duncharris asked, I, and many other admins, would have lifted the block.

However, self-unblocking is intollerable, it leads to ridiculous block wars (such as happened here). And is effectively an admin using his/her privillages for their own benefit - which is forbidden. A blocked non-admin has to wait out the block, or persuade the blocking admin to lift it, or ask another admin to intervene. It should be no different for a blocked admin. --Doc ^ask? 23:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Right.--Sean|Bla ck 00:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
David D. (Talk) 01:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Karmafist 01:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC) I do agree with both views. Dunc's behavior isn't acceptable under WP:CIVIL, but Ed Poor's block was questionable at best. However, unblocking yourself is almost as bad as the original action, and I re-blocked for a shorter period today until told that it was not a bad faith move on his part, with I AGFed considering the person who told me and the examples they showed me.[reply]
FeloniousMonk 02:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC) - Doc's right. Ed's been gunning for Dunc for some time now [42], and today he finally got his wish.[reply]

Users who do not endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

No. As mounting evidence shows, Harris had been repeatedly warned not to use abusive language or mis-use his administrative powers. To put it another way, if three seperate users warn an anonymous vandal to stop making personal attacks, it is completely appropriate for another administrator to step in and block the offending vandal. The difference is that Harris is not an anonymous new user, he is a well seasoned administrator. Silensor 00:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ed Poor did warn Dunc. Dunc deleted the warnings. [43] [44] Regards, Ben Aveling 00:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So why didn't Ed go to Rfc? David D. (Talk) 01:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ben, for the sake of complete accuracy, I'd have to say that Ed didn't warn Dunc. He informed him that he had blocked him. I don't intend that as a criticism of Ed, but it's just that what seems to be under discussion here is whether or not Ed was right to block without warning. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 01:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. And I think that Ed and Dunc have preexisting unresolved issues so. Dunc still shouldn't have blanked Ed's comments. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although Harris was notified after being blocked, there is no disputing that Harris was repeatedly asked by many members of Wikipedia to please remain civil. Silensor 01:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and I did not dispute that point. David D. (Talk) 02:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree to the extent that there is no need to go to RfC and RfAr before applying a block. Go to AN/I perhaps, but it's only a block. Indeed, blocks are often used as attention-getters and this one presumably did exactly that. I agree to the extent that there was not a micron of room for self-unblocking. -Splash^talk 01:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think Doc means to to RfC if the bad behaviour continues after the block. But otherwise, yes (to be frank, I think this whole thing could have been solved if Dunc had just apoligized, and allowed himself to be re-blocked. But whatever). --Sean|Bla ck 02:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He deletes his warnings, he deletes his critisisim, he is uncivil. - Kookykman|(t)e

Outside view by Dmcdevit

Whether or not Ed Poor's block was right is tangential. Even if it was in error (which I do suspect,) an administrator should never unblock him- or herself, unless it's an IP/autoblocker problem. We have almost 700 other uninvolved admins who could have looked at the block and used their discretion whether to unblock or not. Admins shouldn't be blocking or unblocking when they are involved parties, and, surely, if you are the one blocked, then that makes you an involved party in the block. Further, incivility or personal attacks, of which there is ample evidence, should never be tolerated. Not even if there is provocation or whatever. It is always wrong. The rollback button should always be used for simple vandalism, never in a content dispute. And certainly not against another admin, where good faith is much harder to question. I stress the nevers and alwayses to say that I think there is no justification for those actions, ever. Having said that, I sincerely hope Duncharris is able to respond amenably to this constructive criticism and try to improve in the disputed areas. In which case I will consider this RFC fruitful. (I often view RFCs as merely witchhunts, and don't usually comment in them. This is not meant as a public flogging, but as critique.) Dmcdevit·t 01:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Outside view by User:Guettarda

1. Use of the word fuck is not against policy.

[45] "fuck off"
- This is understandable - User:Kookykman placed a {{db}} tag on an article that Dunc was in the middle of creating. To put a speedy tag on a brand new article by one of our top editors is really abuse of the "does not assert notability" CSD. In this context "fuck off" means "leave me alone"; it is not the same as "fuck you".
[46] "grrrr!!! I want save not fucking preview!"
- There's nothing wrong here.
[47] - "save not preview!!! fucking hell"
- As above, there's nothing wrong here.
[48] - "yeah whatever. To Bahn Mi (cos I know you're watching) fuck off"
- Again, this is not an insult or personal attack, it's a "leave me alone".
[49] - "Talk:Fjellstrand Skole moved to Talk:Fjellstrand skole: Do not move VFD nominations, it fucks them up real good"
- Wtf? Page moves mess up VFD nominations. It's a comment, not an attack on anyone.
[50] - "Abusive language - fuck off"
- A comment, not an attack, as above.
[51] - "seriously fucked up"
- Huh? What's the problem here? The VfD to AfD transition messed things up. Something wrong with saying so?
[52] "Portmadoc, Beddgelert & South Snowdon Railway moved to Portmadoc, Beddgelert and South Snowdon Railway: I hate having to fucking do this!"
- What's the problem here?
[53] "Rushden, Higham & Wellingborough Railway moved to Rushden, Higham and Wellingborough Railway: and AND AND AND AND AND AND AND AND for fuck sake how many of these bleeding things do I have to move?"
- What's the problem here?
[54] - "totally disputed. fucking group selection!" - I'd say "spot on" here.
- What's the problem?
[55] - "what the fuck is this?"
- What's the problem here?
[56] - "Morality links -fucking hell"
- Again, what's up?
[57] - "fucking hell!"
- What's the problem with this? Nothing.
[58] - "oh for fucks sake,"
- No problems here
[59] - "for fucks sake!"
- No problems here
[60] - "delete this fucking page"
- Again, what's the issue?
[61] - "that's becuas eit Neo-Lamarckian bullshit rather than ID bullshit" - strong language, but...?
[62] - "OMG what utter shite."
- So? Shite isn't even a bad word
[63] - "cleanup tags should be for shit articles, though not perfect, this ain't bad."
- Problem with this? Do you believe that there cleanup tags should be on marginally problematic articles?
[64] - "delete patent nonsense, POV christian fundamentalist bullshit."
- What's the problem? Calling something bullshit is not an attack, is not breaking policy.
[65] - "delete this crap"
- Not a problem
[66] - "crap"
- Um...what's wrong with calling something crap?
[67] - "more crap"
- As above
[68] - "crap"
- As above
[69] - "crap"
- As above
[70] - "REDIRECT medicine (will vfd if neccesary cos it's crap)"
- As above

[71] - "WP:CIVIL - the crap is of your own making dear boy"
- What's the issue here?

So he said "fuck off" three times. Fuck off is not an attack - it's a "leave me alone". These are not personal attacks. Less than civil, but that needs to be read in context of the whole debate.

2. Policy does not restrict use of rollback for vandalism

See, for example, this diff [72]

3. Unblocking

Sure, this isn't a good idea, but it doesn't merit a RFC

This RFC is without merit. Dunc is one of our best contributors, and has made a huge contribution to Wikipedia. This RFC amounts to harrassment. I hope this isn't an attempt ot drive out one of our best contributors, because it is starting to look that way. Guettarda 02:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

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

FeloniousMonk 02:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KillerChihuahua 04:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC) Dunc is impolitic in his choice of words, no doubt. However, the semantics of "fuck off" are radically different from "fuck you." Either is offensive to those more concerned with words rather than meaning. He should probably, in the interests of tact, refrain from "crap" comments. In short, Dunc is my poster child of incivility, to the point that I have used him as a 'bad example' - but this does not merit an Rfc.[reply]

Users who do not endorse this summary:

Not a word of it, I'm afraid, apart from the obligatory fluff about "good editor" etc. It's excuse making where there is no excuse. It's a request for comments, not harassment. It's what you get when you don't act up to the standards people expect of you. -Splash^talk 02:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not a word of it? It violates policy to complain about getting the preview pane when you try to save for the n_th time? That list of diffs appears to be deliberately misleading. I can't imagine how you can see it as anything else. Guettarda 02:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While I concur that the mere use of profanity is not against policy, you lost me at your very first point, where you claim that it's understandable that Dunc told another editor to fuck off. That's not understandable. That's not good editing. It's not reasonable. It's not civility. It is, in my opinion, absolutely unacceptable. It's an insult to the thousands of excellent editors here — both admin and non-admin — who somehow manage to be active and fruitful contributors without telling other editors to "fuck off," to suggest that this behavior is acceptable. And, frankly, it beggars belief that you actually managed to write the sentence "Fuck off is not an attack" with a straight face Nandesuka 02:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is "leave me alone" an attack? The only difference between that and "fuck off" or "bugger off" is the shock factor. Guettarda 02:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I believe there is a world of difference between "leave me alone" and "fuck off." One word we use to describe that difference is "civility." Nandesuka 03:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning is the same. How is one an attack and the other not? It's only a matter of convention regarding "bad language". Guettarda 03:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage anyone who is incapable of recognizing that being told to "fuck off" is rude and insulting to endorse your summary. Nandesuka 03:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with profanity (free speech, and all that), but otherwise per Splash.--Sean|Bla ck 02:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously disagree that comments such as "To Bahn Mi (cos I know you're watching) fuck off", "fuck off" ", "Abusive language - fuck off" could be considered anything but a violation of WP:CIVIL. I personally think that all the "This article is utter crap"-type comments are also in violation, both by the word and the spirit of the policy, as they are needlessly insulting the creators of the articles, who clearly meant no harm in writing "crap" articles about their schools (almost all of which were kept despite their being, apparently, "crap"). Since nearly all of the contributors who had had "crap" thown back in their faces after their effors were new users, this is also a pretty ugly demonstration of biting the newbies. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 03:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Snowspinner

I propose that the seriousness of the offenses is such that Duncharris should not be allowed to have a cookie tonight. If Duncharris gives his word that he has refrained from a cookie tonight, I consider the matter settled.

Phil Sandifer 03:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guettarda 04:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

- - I'm walking down the street. I pick up some trash. As I prepare to throw it away, someone yells out "fuck off." Is he being civil? How was I supposed to know that this article was from one of our "top editors"? All I saw was a one-sentence substub that didn't explain his importance. - Kookykman|(t)e

@@ Line 243: / Line 243: @@
 Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>):
 #[[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 02:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
+#[[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]] 04:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC) Dunc is impolitic in his choice of words, no doubt. However, the semantics of "fuck off" are radically different from "fuck you." Either is offensive to those more concerned with words rather than meaning. He should probably, in the interests of tact, refrain from "crap" comments. In short, Dunc is ''my'' poster child of incivility, to the point that I have used him as a 'bad example' - but this does not merit an Rfc.
 Users who do not endorse this summary: