Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/JzG2

Notification

JzG notified [1]. Cla68 (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Point of note

Before someone inevitably points out that JzG does a lot of work for the encyclopaedia etc is this arbcom ruling: [2]

Editors are expected to make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy.

Viridae^Talk 11:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

an early tuppence

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)

Hi Privatemusings, I broadly agree, but think we shouldn't hammer JzG over events that happened last year. Addhoc (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate timing

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)

It might have been desirable for him to take a wikibreak given these circumstances, and if he did, then everybody else should have cooperated by leaving him alone and not re-opening old disputes. However, he did not; he kept on making controversial admin actions during this "condolence" period, so there's no reason he should be exempt from having to take some of what he continued to dish out. His defenders will make any excuse to keep him from having to answer for his own behavior; his recent actions are due to the stress of his family loss, while his older actions are ancient history that shouldn't be dug up. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone is under so much stress that they are unable to participate to acceptable standards, a break is probably in their interest as much as it is in Wikipedia's. Naerii (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In my view JzG has acted poorly on many occasions, so let's not act like I'm trying to cover up for him. But to say "But he started it!" and "He should have known better!" does not bypass what is, in my opinion, a patent lack of common civility on the part of the initiators of this RfC. I cannot fathom how anyone could embark upon this endeavour with a clear conscience, but I guess that's not my problem. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Riana. Nice work slurring any and all who may think there are problems with guy's editing and admin-ing as monsters. An RfC is not an attack, it is an attempt to show there is a problem and resolve it when the editor insists there is not one. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, IP. I'd've taken part myself, and I have problems. And RfC isn't an attack, but sadly it mostly turns into an inquisition. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Then that's a problem with RfC that should be fixed. But we can't stop all dispute resolution while we find a way to make it better. -Amarkov moo! 18:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought about the timing issue also. The problem here has been pointed out above, if JzG was allowing the stress from recent events in his personal life to affect his behavior in Wikipedia, and that may be the case, then he should have taken a long wikibreak. Others have done so successfully, one example here. This editor recognized that off-wiki stress was affecting her adversely, announced she was taking break, and actually did it [3] (by the way, I'm not saying that there was any problem with Elaragirl's editing, just using her wikibreak as an example of someone who actually took one). If someone chooses not to take a break when they need to, and then behaves or continues to behave in a manner that isn't acceptable, the community's concerns need to be brought to their attention quickly, for the benefit of all concerned. Cla68 (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Riana, we've all known this was coming for a couple weeks. Even Guy has known it was coming. He could have asked for more time, he could have said something. Instead, he removed his advance notice from his talk page and told the poster to never post on his talk page again. When he said he was taking a wikibreak for Cannes, the preparers decided to delay posting it until after he returned. (Not that I could tell Guy was actually taking a wikibreak; he went right on being active throughout it.) As a matter of human courtesy, this could have waited if Guy actually had taken a break - but he has shown that he intends to keep right on going. This is a long standing problem; I almost started getting one of these ready around May of 2007 - but he did declare stress and take a real wikibreak then. GRBerry 13:59, 3 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. ——Martin^phi ☎ 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)

I knew and left a condolence message within a day or two of the announcement. Cla68 (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Addhoc's view

back on topic

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)

Hi Viridae, what I'm saying is that hopefully Guy can be more diplomatic, and you can be less clumsy. Addhoc (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important that a lot of people look a bit more introspectively and do some self evaluations.--MONGO 19:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

what's best for wikipedia

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)

Quite. Neıl ☎ 16:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

<cough> --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

And I suppose you have a foolproof method for determining who is at fault in all cases? I'd like to know about it if you do, that's something that nobody else in the world has ever come up with. -Amarkov moo! 18:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to view by Doc

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)

Shot info's comment

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)"

I am interested in getting rid of trollish, abusive, foul-mouthed, homophobic editors. His behaviour damages encyclopædia building by alienating and demoralising good contributors. If I used the language JzG so frequently uses, if I was as uncommunicative as him, if I baited and abused other editors as he does, I would rightly have been long-term blocked long ago, just as countless others have been blocked for that type of behaviour. JzG gets enormous support from other admins - often at exactly the wrong time, and Wikipedia has in my opinion acted as an enabler for his abusive behaviour. I don't want to be part of a system that tolerates or even encourages and endorses his kind of behaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That commenter seems to favor witch hunts... as long as they're against the "right" people. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't hold back boys...feel free to let it all out... Shot info (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself (not necessarily for any of the others involved in this RFC), my reason for opposing JzG is precisely out of my dislike of witchhunts... and all other aspects of a vindictive, punitive, guilt-by-association, Judge Dredd-ish administrator (judge, jury, and executioner), attitude, which I find JzG to exemplify, and which his supporters, even those who admit he gets a bit overzealous and uncivil at times, like him for. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:24, 3 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)

Wikipedia Review comment

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)

I am not a member of Wikipedia Review. DuncanHill (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Me either. I understand how admins, and established editors, can get stressed and tired. But bad behaviors interfere with the project, and when stressed users start believing that they have license to go Dirty Harry Callahan to catch the bad guys, they need a vacation, not beatification. Unfortunately, too often that's what is happening, the bad behavior is being cheered and encouraged as badge of honor for fighting the good fight, and incivility championed as "necessary" for getting the job done around here. Well it isn't, it simply increases the level of pov editing as well as increasing the number of edit wars, filling talk pages with irrelevant finger pointing and extraneous arguments, adding to the already burdensome administrative load at wikipedia, and on and on. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the direct relevance of whether I am or am not a member of Wikipedia Review to this matter. Nevertheless, I am, and I have explained why on my nascent blog. ++Lar: t/c 00:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a sad indictment of the BADSITES / siege mentality that has people even feeling a need that they need to disclaim or clarify WR involvement. Whilst Addhoc, somewhat inappropriately in my view, tells Neil "an RfC may bring increased scrutiny on all concerned" (as indeed it should), one cannot be but somewhat frustrated that many have skipped right over a list of something in the order of ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY alleged infractions of various WP policies by an administrator to start attacking the motivations of those raising concerns with said behavior by "Watch out, this has WR written all over it". Achromatic (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

{{snotty comment retracted}} I agree with Acrhomatic that it is unfortunate, if not unexpected. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

JzG participation

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 don't see why he has to participate - I'd like to think that he's reading it and thinking about, and I think he very probably is doing so, or will do so. We don't need to force him to make a public statement about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

An indication that is being read is all I ask, his reponse to the notification did not exactly inspire confidence that that would happen. Viridae^Talk 05:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Eventually, it's hard not to read a page about oneself. Give him time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I only wish that those friends he wouldn't ignore had been kind enough to Guy to let him know that he was heading in a difficult direction a long time ago. There have been gentle pushes in that direction from the community for a while now. I understand he was one of several editors put on moderation on wiki-en-l for over-the-top commentary (his commentary was no better or worse than that from others, I will point out); and there was the recent MfD of one of his user pages that referred to "Troll-B-Gon." In the latter case, many editors expressed the sentiment that they could live with the page, if Guy would only modify his behaviour. Risker (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it's because people haven't wanted to but it carries a certain risk to do that. As MONGO says above it's also about looking at oneself and re-evaluate one's priorities and behaviour. You can't really force someone to do that, it needs to come from inside oneself. I've seen how things have gone downhill for the last year or so, actually ever since the article about him on ED was created. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

JzG will be monitoring the RFC, even if he never admits it. If he chooses to participate, so much the better, but we cannot and should not force him to. I would support those editors he trusts gently encouraging him to participate, but nothing more, and no badgering. Neıl ☎ 12:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Badgering rarely gets anywhere - especially in DR, so I absoloutely agree. Viridae^Talk 12:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I like how EconomicsGuy put it, that "it needs to come from inside oneself." That's it exactly. We can't force anyone to behave correctly. Either they do so, or else their access to participate is restricted. We all slip up now and then, but a repeated pattern of inappropriate behavior needs to be addressed and corrected. Once it is pointed out to the person whose behavior is causing concern, it's up to them to correct it and maintain it. Cla68 (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Neil, Viridae and Cla68 on this. ++Lar: t/c 14:40, 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)

I wasn't going to add anything, since this thread appears to have reached a satisfactory conclusion, but people are continuing to suggest that Guy is "ignoring" this RfC. I can assure you that Guy is aware of and following this RfC, and I feel very certain that his non-participation is a conscious and difficult decision taken to allow this RfC to solicit useful feedback with a minimum of drama. Believe it or not, it's usually more difficult to sit back and take criticism without responding or defending oneself than it is to fight back or make excuses. On the one hand we're saying (rightly) that Guy needs to better recognize potentially stressful situations and manage or avoid them. He's probably identified this as just such a situation. Rest assured that he's reading this rather than ignoring it, and that if he feels he can participate civilly and constructively, he'll do so. Despite (or more likely because of) his non-participation, this RfC is generating useful community feedback, which is its goal. MastCell ^Talk 05:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem with that is that there is only one way the drama can decrease: that he deals with it in some way, either by giving a convincing statement of why his actions were necessary to WP to such an extent as to make them forgivable, or by giving an apology. Yeah, I know, it would be extremely difficult, but what other options? If he participates any other way, he would increase the drama. Yet, if he stays away, we can hardly see that he has changed any. I've been through RfC. If you think you're right, you really aren't going to be contrite. But there is a difference here, in that there isn't any dispute over whether policy was violated. So it is a difficult call, and if he thinks he was right in most or all of what he did, maybe staying away is the least dramatic action he can take. But it doesn't resolve the issues. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well; no. If Guy becomes a more civil editor and administrator as a result of this RfC (as I hope he will), then this RfC has done its job and the issue in question has been resolved. FCYTravis (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to Nick

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)

It's always ironic that supporters of JzG and his clique keep referring to opposition as "witch hunts", when it's their side that seems patterned after McCarthyism with its constant searches for enemies to be punitive towards. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a witch-hunt, it's a request for comment as part of dispute resolution, which has been recommended to many editors by many admins at AN and ANI over a long period. DuncanHill (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If this were a witch hunt, why would 35+ people endorse Kirill's outside view? That view is a very strongly worded view from a sitting ArbCom member. That seems to be something to take quite seriously, not dismiss as a witch hunt. I sincerely hope JzG takes notice of this RfC and takes seriously the many folk pleading with him to take the feedback on board. Because I really would rather not see this go any further. A word to the wise should be sufficient. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If Guy's behaviour improves, then it's a clear sign this RFC has effected a change, and it will have served its purpose. I believe if his behaviour prior to this RFC continues unabated, then ArbCom will need to get involved and a desysopping will take place. Would it still be a witch hunt then? I hope it will not come to that, and Guy will take note of the many comments made by Kirill and others, and make a concerted effort to improve his civility and to take more care with the admin tools. Neıl ☎ 15:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As a point of interest, Lar, the last RfC involving an admin resulted in that admin no longer having a sysop bit. In the same manner, they were initially dismissive and had the same incivility and admin abuse issues only much milder that what was going on here. When the ArbCom case opened and was roundly accepted by the arbs, he voluntarily stepped down but the writing was largely on the wall. Just saying, is all ... - Alison ^❤ 17:47, 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)

Neil questioned that on his talk page as well. Viridae^Talk 00:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a chilling effect - Alison ^❤ 00:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I just asked him about it on his talk page also. Cla68 (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop undermining dispute resolution attempts

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)

• And posting comedy pictures to obfuscate the point and dismiss the whole thing as "drama" is so 2007. Neıl ☎ 15:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• I like that picture! But yes, I agree with Friday here. ++Lar: t/c 18:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Well said Friday. Viridae^Talk 20:22, 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)

Anybody would think that when there is a request for comment, it really means request for approved comments. Moral is, if you don't like the answers, don't ask the question. Shot info (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone honestly believes that Guy's behavior isn't as bad as is claimed, that's fine. For instance, while I disagree with MONGO's comment above, I have no problem with the fact that he said it. The problem comes when people just call those who created the RfC "evil witch-hunting trolls" or something like that, instead of explaining why their concerns are wrong. -Amarkov moo! 23:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hence an example of unapproved comment made in a Request for Comment? Shot info (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats not unapproved, that is inflamatory and unhelpfull to all. Viridae^Talk 23:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If I called you an anti-WR troll for not wanting Guy blocked, I'm sure you'd find a problem with that. Why does it not work the other way? -Amarkov moo! 23:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If editor B can't abide by WP:CIVIL when defending editor A from complaints about breaches of WP:CIVIL, then I think editors C, D, E, and F are entitled to wonder if editor B is being constructive. DuncanHill (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, people are making comments in a Request for Comment, that other editors don't approve of. You can paint this with whatever you want, doesn't stop the fact that people have made comments that (the collective) you don't approve of. Shot info (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you on about? Viridae^Talk 01:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully. There are comments that should not be made in an RfC, because they are not approved of. For instance, me saying "you're a idiot" would not be acceptable. If you claim that this is not the case, I'm perfectly willing to add my "Shot info is an idiot" comment that you say I am entitled to. -Amarkov moo! 01:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Checkmate. Zocky | picture popups 02:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't hold back boys...feel free to let it all out... Shot info (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Whenever you've run out of arguments, you make a incomprehensible remark and hope that nobody will respond for fear of looking stupid. Too bad that doesn't work. Now, are you going to actually respond? -Amarkov moo! 03:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, whatever you say. Have a barnstar for your deductive reasoning :-). Shot info (talk)

I see the answer is "no, I prefer to ignore you and pretend that there's no substantial opposition to my view". While people usually get banned for doing that, you won't be, because you're ignoring the unapproved opinion that JzG might need to be sanctioned for misbehavior. Isn't hypocrisy fun? -Amarkov moo! 03:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't hypocrisy fun? Heh, you said it :-) Shot info (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you really not realize how idiotic you look, responding to everything like that? -Amarkov moo! 03:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure dude, keep it up. You're only engaging in the behavour you are castigating others over, Isn't hypocrisy fun? yep :-) Shot info (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please guys. Cla68 (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You see, I'm actually responding to what you say. You're only making vague implications that I'm doing something wrong. -Amarkov moo! 03:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Amarkov, just ignore him - if he has nothing constructive to say (and he appears to have said nothing constructive) there is no point rising to his bait. DuncanHill (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's reflective seeing those editors engaging in behavour that they disapprove of in others. Amarkov stated it above: hypocrisy. But feel free to continue to engage in uncivil behavour, calling people certain names, who you don't with to understand while you engage in your pursuit of women with warts on their noses. But of course that's ok, because you're the "good guys"...O wait, isn't that one of the arguments used to defend Guy???... Shot info (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, actually. Incivility is not okay, whether it's from you, or me, or Guy. I admit that I shouldn't have called you an idiot. The thing is, Guy's incivility is worse. -Amarkov moo! 04:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the other guy is always worse, therefore, I'm ok... Shot info (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, I didn't say I was okay. Second, do you really claim that what I've done is on the level of telling people to "fuck off"? -Amarkov moo! 06:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Amarkov if you actually contributed to the encyclopedia and showed you care about more than the drama maybe people would care about you. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm just finding that those that find JzG uncivil are not above using his tactics to attempt to disendorse those that don't support their point of view. If people don't approve of JzG's behaviour then perhaps they should try not acting like a mini-version(s) of JzG? Isn't hypocrisy fun? Shot info (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why the hell would I be here if I didn't care about the encyclopedia? There are much better places to argue for the sake of arguing. Do you think that I enjoy having people tell me that I'm a hypocrite, and a troll, and that nobody cares about me? I assure you, I don't. But I deal with it, because I think that Wikipedia being reasonably good is important. -Amarkov moo! 06:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Amarkov, it would be nice if you would find anything else to do that stir up more drama and try to get others sanctioned. I'm of the mindset that if virtually all an editor does is follow drama around, adding their take on the situations and have almost nothing else to offer this project, then they should be the ones that are sanctioned. As I said, many editors need to really do some self examinations and reevaluate what their purposes here are and how they may be contributing to the problems. You can't expect anyone to take you seriously until you start adding something to the sum of knowledge and not the sum of drama.--MONGO 07:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more important to try to work towards an environment where the encyclopedia prospers. When I'm convinced that there is such an environment, as I was when I first joined, you'll find that I do a lot more content related stuff. In the meantime, I'm not going to start doing something I don't think is as important just because you don't take me seriously. -Amarkov moo! 23:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read all of this thread, but amen to that. WP needs to have an environment where one would want to edit. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of Mastcell's view

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)

Okay, Kirill correctly points out that project admins are expected to maintain and exhibit a non-negotiable level of decorum in their behavior here. If stress from trolls, personal attacks, policy debates, real-world personal issues, etc becomes too much for them and affects their behavior (and this might be the case with JzG), then they need to step off for awhile, either by staying away and/or by giving up their admin privileges. If they are unwilling or unable to do so, then the community has to step in. Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add, though, that stress might contribute to someone using bad language, but I don't see how stress would cause someone to redirect "turd burglar" to "gay" and then admin protect it. Cla68 (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some gay-related stress?? Wikipedia is endlessly educational, and there's a good example of people needing to lighten-up, and JzG not doing so. I suppose it should redirect to Terminology of homosexuality, eh? SBHarris 02:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not defending JzG's actions, particularly not that redirect. Then again, it was 8 months ago, I'm not aware of anything else remotely construable as homophobic he's done before or since, and if this RfC turns on that particular action then we might as well close it as frivolous now. It seemed to me there were somewhat more substantial issues at play. MastCell ^Talk 04:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To address the larger point, about the need to take a break: yes, I agree that is sound advice and easy to give. It may even be the best advice. But carry this out a bit further: an admin takes on difficult and sensitive tasks of great importance and utility to the project. As a result, he is harassed and baited. The admin gets progressively more frustrated, irritable, and uncivil; so he's told the solution is for him to take a break. Few or no other admins are interested in stepping into the resulting gap and performing those tasks. Since we're talking about enabling, what message does that sequence send? I'm asking: is there a way this project could actually be a rational and supportive place where dedicated volunteers would not routinely be driven to the point where they're so embittered and irritable that an enforced break is necessary? MastCell ^Talk 04:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest a better formalization of rules. A constitution gives the enforcer something to hide behind. It gives the enforcee a reference to know if they have or have not been treated right. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, but relevant. You really mean a Bill of Rights; one specifically for non-admin editors (since the admins don't really need one, except when fighting impeachment proceedings like this one). And yes, there isn't one. And yes, we need one. In the US, the nation's Supreme Court ultimately had to decide what nasty things you could say to a cop's face without fear of getting night-sticked. Why? Because citizens were getting the crap beat out of them for incivility, before we had rules of engagement handed down. Wikipedia is currently a country without clear laws, and certainly with no Bill of Rights for citizens. The real meaning of getting admin status is that you can now be as nasty and uncivil as you like, without fear of getting immediately blocked for it. So admins tend to learn that, fast. When they become nasty, it's time to take the tools until they learn civility again. SBHarris 02:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think that the RfC turns on that edit - but for what it's worth I cannot respect or trust someone who has abused his admin tools in that way - I really cannot abide hate language. If he were to make a genuine and sincere apology (recognising the improprietry of it, and not including any "a troll upset me so I had to do it" pleading) I might be able to begin to take him seriously again. One of the more substantial issues, which I think you touched on in your statement, is how did it come to this?, or in other words, there has been a problem with Guy's behaviour for a very long time, and yet nothing seems to have been done. Was he blocked for making that redirect? Or did other admins just think "Oh it's Guy - he can be as hateful as he likes, 'cos he's one of us"? His friends don't seem to like him enough to step in and try to give him the guidance and support he appears to need, and IMO a lot of other people have frankly been too scared to try. I think this is a real weakness in "adminning" as it operates at the moment, and it is profoundly demoralising for "ordinary editors". There is blatantly a double-standard in how editors are treated, abd this does no good whatsoever to the Wikipedia. The encyclopædia anyone can edit? Well, yes, but don't think you (the ordinary editor with no special tools) can behave like the so-called "trusted and respected" members of the community - because if you do, you will be blocked. Guy is clearly burnt-out, but I suppose that is inevitable with any appointment-for-life. Guy is also IMO damaging Wikipedia and I would say to him, "You obviously care about Wikipedia, do you honestly believe that you are doing the best for it?", and to his friends and defenders I would say "Do you honestly feel that you are helping Guy by enabling his bad behaviour, and contributing to his being regarded so poorly by others?". It's really rather sad - I feel sorry for him, not because of this RfC, but because his friends seem not to care about him. Maybe he amuses them, maybe he gets away with the rudeness they would like to practice, I don't know, but I do not understand how anyone can claim that his behaviour as documented in the RfC is in any way acceptable or helpful to the Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone has to clean up the libelous, tabloid-trash, blatantly-slanted messes that all too often result when anyone can edit an encyclopedia. By doing a huge amount of that ugly, time-consuming, depressing and oft-attacked work, Guy has done more to help Wikipedia than you probably will ever know. That's why his work is valued by those of us who value a free encyclopedia with integrity and clue. FCYTravis (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis, do you value his obscenities, his personal attacks, his biting of newbies, his misuse of admin tools to promote hate language? None of which, as far as I can see, do anything to clean up "the libelous, tabloid-trash, blatantly-slanted messes that all too often result when anyone can edit an encyclopedia"? Integrity and "clue" don't result from abuse. DuncanHill (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You can value his work while still condemning his behavior. If more people realized this, and told him when he was acting badly, we probably wouldn't be here. It's hard to consistently do things the right way if nobody's willing to tell you when you inevitably do something wrongly. -Amarkov moo! 07:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And I suppose you consider your own contributions on and off-wiki helpful in that regard? EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If thats another BADSITES comment EG - take it somewhere else. Viridae^Talk 07:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It needed to be done a long time ago, by people he knows and trusts. At this point, the best we can do is sanction him and hope he learns that he's not beyond the rules instead of leaving. You've seen how he responds to criticism on his talk page. -Amarkov moo! 07:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to FCYTravis...There are admins in the project, and I can name some if you'd like me to, who tackle difficult issues and make tough decisions without consistently breaching our standards of decorum. Most of the current arbitrators fall into this group. If you'd like for JzG to continue with the things he does well and that have value, then don't try to at the same time rationalize his problematic behavior. Instead, denounce the wrong behavior and make it clear that it needs to be corrected. That's all there is to it. Provide strong feedback (if milder feedback doesn't work, which it hasn't in this case) on the areas of behavior that need to be improved and reinforce the positive behavior. It's up to JzG to listen to that feedback and act positively on it, which I hope he will decide to do. Cla68 (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The current arbitrators don't do the dirty work that I'm talking about. But yes, if you'll read my outside view, I've noted that Guy needs to find more civil ways to fight (and win). At the same time, this is a problem precisely because we have allowed our administrators to become isolated, and failed to provide support/training/resources that they need, especially to fight the really ugly battles that have to be fought for this encyclopedia to continue to be a useful source of information. That, I believe, is a Foundation-level failing. FCYTravis (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The arbcom can't since much that Guy has done is dealing with repeat offenders and the committee is bogged down with the legislation more than the enforcement. If everyone just gives Guy some breathing room, I believe he'll show some changes. If others keep badgering him, especially after they have been asked to go away, then the cycle will be more likely to continue.--MONGO 07:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

JzG shouldn't be asking editors to "go away." If he doesn't accept their comment, he can't say, "You're unwelcome and don't come here again." That's incivil and against our standards. Those "badgering" comments I assume you're referring to were attempts to provide him feedback. He doesn't need "breathing room" if he's engaging in continuing, problematic behavior. He gets breathing room when he stops the behavior that's at issue here. Cla68 (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we all reserve the right to not be badgered and Guy feels that many of the comments he has removed from his talkpage are from those that have been badgering him. I've been in Guy's shoes so I know that you are more likely to get a favorable response from him if you and others that have filed this Rfc allow him some breathing room. If you escalate matters then the end result may not be what you had hoped for....namely, as you put it, an improvement in the civility issue. (I think that is your main goal...correct me if I am mistaken).--MONGO 08:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that's what I want to see happen. Neıl ☎ 09:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I would love to say, that's what we all would like to see, and I do believe it is what the vast majority of editors here want to see, but there is a small but worrying element here who don't seem to want to stop with a simple improvement in Guy's behaviour. You've already suggested there is a definite improvement in his behaviour, yet this RfC continues, people demanding he participate, people against the idea we give Guy some breathing space, all behaviour which is entirely counter-productive in my opinion, especially in light of the improvements in behaviour we have already seen. The stated purpose of this RfC was to get Guy to behave in a more polite and civil manner, a message has been sent by this RfC, surely there's really little more that needs to be done at this point. We can revisit the issue in future if there is a further deterioration AND other avenues of discussion with Guy have once again been exhausted. Nick (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There was at no point any suggestion of forcing Guy to participate, you continue to repeat that despite being told it is untrue, as you can well see for yourself if you will actually read the statements again. The RfC shoudl stay open for two reasons. One it is providing valuable insight into how this situation may have arisen and how to potentially avoid it and two it is still attracting community response, especially to the view by Kirill. The more the community pulls behind a single view the more likely it is that Guy will feel the weight and that inspire him to change his ways. It is very difficult to call hwether this has had any effect whatsoever, or indeed if Guy has actually read it, because it has only been open for a couple of days. Viridae^Talk 11:43, 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)

Appearantly we do need 200 or 300 users to tell him "Guy, behave" and "the community really appreciates what you do". Since he's not getting part one after many many individuals have tried to do what you ask. I would suggest that every admin here do one or two things a day that JzG does, so he can take a break without the project falling apart. My view is that other admin neglect has led to JzG feeling like he's the only one fighting against the hordes of unwashed pov pushing nutters. So, if you really want to help JzG, do some hard admining. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by an anon.

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)

It really boils down to this, doesn't it? But he has a chance to go on from here with a clean slate. He has only to take it. Are people worried about dignity? Well, that is a hard issue. Guy has violated the dignity of many others. That is not even in dispute. I don't think there is a completely dignified way out of this, unless the consensus is just to go on and see what happens..... next.... At the same time, it is not undignified in any real sense to do what needs doing. It is simply stepping to a higher level of self-awareness, and letting others know about it. I blame the other admins for this. It is their -to use a Britishism- bleeding fault that Guy hasn't been helped, by administrative action if necessary, to not get to this point. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Assigning blame - that sounds useful. Perhaps you should recall that "other admins" are not some monolithic entity that makes univocal decisions. Rather than talking about assigning blame (an utterly useless exercise), why not talk about how we can avoid getting to this point in the future? How can we be sure that admins are able and willing to exercise good dispute resolution skills? Never mind "who has failed?" here, how can we avoid failing again? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I gave my suggestion for just that above. Have the rules be more clear, and have it be closer to automatic that someone who does bad stuff just gets warned or blocked. That both protects the admin applying the rules, and gives the person to whom they are applied a clear picture of what is happening- and if it is happening properly. You say ""other admins" are not some monolithic entity that makes univocal decisions"- all too often they are- that is one of the problems: Guy is here today because of the loyalty of admins to each other. They would never have tolerated a mere editor who did as Guy does. That is what is to blame, and every admin who let it happen is to blame (just as...... well, let's not go there). People know when something is wrong. Assigning blame is useful when there may be a solution, and blame is one of the first steps in identifying a problem (ideally not, but in current human society....). I'd ask you to be more civil, but I've grown to expect that any response I get is going to be uncivil: another problem around here.

I find many admins have very good dispute resolution skills, and where they don't it is merely their own strong POV getting in the way. So I don't see a general failure there, I see a failure with only a few admins. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you about the usefulness of assigning blame; I'm pretty sure it's more effective (from a dispute resolution standpoint) to skip directly to talking about solutions. I certainly didn't mean to be uncivil to you; I'm sorry for coming across that way. I only wanted to point out that the "blame game", in current human society or otherwise, is not actually a necessary step in identifying a problem. I believe you'll find that to be true, if you try it, and I believe you'll find that you're a more effective dispute resolver if you refrain from assigning blame.

I apologize for the tone of my previous post. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think blame is the right word. More like root of the problem. I identify two roots to this problem that are not specific to JzG. 1) other admins shying away from some of the difficult, repetitive, unpleasantness such that he felt that he was the only one dealing with it; 2) admin loyalty against regular editors, which has prevented clear community communication to JzG. If we are able to adjust these two things to a more balanced place, we will have less admin burnout from folks in JzG's place. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And I don't know if Martin was being specific to you, he gets mostly rude, condecending comments from admins, generally. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if "admin loyalty against regular editors" is quite the right way to put it, though I understand what you're getting at. Admins who deal frequently with tendentiousness, agenda-driven editing, soapboxing, and promotion - which are major problems facing this encyclopedia - will tend to empathize with Guy. To the extent that I, for instance, am an apologist for Guy, it's because I identify with his frustration, and with the lack of appropriate outlets for it. Consistent civility in the face of abuse is a very demanding expectation, especially when a constant clamor of thin-skinned and tactical accusations of incivility drowns out any meaningful approach to the issue. I'm not going to reflexively take someone's side because they passed an RfA - I've seen too much of RfA and too many iffy admins to be that foolish. But people have to be judged in the whole context of what they bring to the encyclopedia. In that sense, yes, I am much more inclined to go easy on Guy than I am on someone who's "engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior, including, but not limited to, using Wikipedia as a soapbox, threatening disruption of the project, and making deliberately provocative edits."

I think the complaints about a double standard are a bit off the mark. There's really a single standard: what impact do you have on the encyclopedia? At some point, continuous incivility will outweigh even the most sterling contributions, because this is a fundamentally collaborative project - but that tipping point will be reached much sooner for a querulous agenda account than it will for someone with a long track record of positive service. I don't view that as a double standard at all.

Unfortunately, there's a clear sense from the community that even in the context of the positive work that Guy does for Wikipedia, the negatives are currently at an unacceptable level. I don't think that's arguable, seeing the wide range of editors who have expressed disapproval at this RfC; any apologies I might make for him at present are irrelevant. The next step there is up to Guy. I think what's left at this point are the more universal issues raised, which is what I was getting at in my RfC comment. MastCell ^Talk 18:54, 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. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than arguing a bunch of off-topic points (ScienceApologist? what?) or getting too personal here, I'll just say that the least useful part of an RfC is generally when the grudge-holders turn out to get their shots in. MastCell ^Talk 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't call each other names like "grudge-holders", it's unproductive. Cla68 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's keep it on a higher level. I'm here to discuss general principles, though I think Guy in particular is also worth discussing. As far as my personal history, I was disruptive did other things wrong, and one of the main incidents cited was in a run-in with Raul486- and that is relevant here because I doubt we can deeply discuss the way admins protect each other and favored users without touching on specific cases. So I'm not bringing it up for a grudge. I acted that way because I was completely fed up with the general environment which we are discussing (partly) here, but that does not excuse acting that way (BTW, I did not threaten to disrupt WP). So what you have here is proof that I sympathize with Guy on his inability to not be provoked (though it looks like he's doing a bunch of the provoking himself). Yet that is not the standard we need to live up to. If I am to be expected to learn and admit my mistakes, then others should be also. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And I frankly don't think this should be about me. This is what happened with Adam Cuerden: people mounted a defense of his actions based on what others had done. Let's say I'm the worst disruptive POV pusher on the wiki (who just happened to snooker the ArbCom into supporting him), and get on with it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we're (mostly) all hoping that Guy is able to learn and admit past errors. I'm not particularly interested in a brand of "general discussion" which focuses on your dispute with ScienceApologist, your various ArbCom cases, your "vindication" in the Paranormal case, your mistreatment at the hands of Raul654, etc. Believe it or not, those principles are not universal but remarkably Martincentric. MastCell ^Talk 22:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I was trying to put that behind us. But you give a good demo of the problem that Rocksanddirt noticed. It's fine if, unlike others here, you don't want to discuss general principles. But stop attacking me. I don't want to discuss myself, nor defend myself. Apparently you don't want me to be here at all. You started the discussion about me, by poisoning the well against me. Please stop. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, do you realize you're the one who brought up the ArbCom case involving Science Apologist. You drag that out of left field, and then start going off on Martinphi for talking about his ArbCom case? Why did you decide to randomly attack him in the first place? "In that sense, yes, I am much more inclined to go easy on Guy than I am on [your description of Martinphi, dragging out some kind of laundry]." What was that? Constructive? Random? Civil? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider it random, incivil, or a personal attack to point out that someone making provocative comments here has a lengthy, documented history of deliberately provoking people. However, since my throwaway remark has apparently completely overshadowed the other 300 or so words in my original post, I would agree that it was unconstructive and a mistake on my part. MastCell ^Talk 05:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Overshadowed, yeah. One personal comment in a sea of otherwise reasonable commentary will do that. I thought Martinphi and I were having a fairly civil exchange, without any provocation that I was aware of. I apologize for missing the gist of the discussion, if I did so. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

An example of what could be done

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 agree. He can't keep saying things like that. That comment was ok until the last few words turned into a personal attack on a living person. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So, is anyone going to go talk to him about it on his userpage or just let it go? Think about it. Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Rome wasn't built in a day, if someone tells him, they need to approach it so it helps him not hurts him. Ward20 (talk) 00:00, 7 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. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

These diffs are very discouraging. I would suggest that it would be better if someone else besides me or one of the other certifiers of this RfC go talk to JzG about these. Cla68 (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

MastCell would be ideal. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. MastCell, would you please go talk to him? Cla68 (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this stuff is just nitpicking now. Calling the phrase "unreferenced nonsense" uncivil is... nuts. What Guy reverted *was* unreferenced nonsense. His statement about 9/11-truthers is a legitimate and civil expression of opinion. How on Earth is it uncivil to compare one set of fringe conspiracy theories to another set of fringe conspiracy theories, especially in the context of a broader debate about the 9/11 conspiracy theories article? The use of sarcasm on talk pages is not prohibited, and calling something "factually inaccurate" is again a legitimate and civil expression of opinion. FCYTravis (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a response to this, then threw it out. The point was, though, that telling people (especially in edit summaries) that they believe or what they say is nonsense is insulting. It is also 100% unnecessary. A really seasoned Wikipedian knows (and therefore Guy knows) that personal opinion is not a good basis for making any edit whatsoever. Guy should have used the edit summary "rm unreferenced material." That is all that was needed. Instead, he chose to make a completely unnecessary insult. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides isn't that the definition of uncivility? "Everything that Guy says"? Shot info (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No straw men please. Cla68 (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a dead horse... Shot info (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling nonsense, nonsense, is not a "completely unnecessary insult."

The RfC lists a large number of times where JzG crossed the line in terms of vulgar language and demeanor - "fuck off" and "twat" and "idiots." It lists not a single instance of JzG saying something is "nonsense."

So is this RfC about vulgarity, or about nonsense?

I suggest that there is a consensus that the vulgarity needs to stop, but there is no apparent Wikipedia-wide consensus that calling something "nonsense" is unacceptable incivility. FCYTravis (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It may not be terribly rude to call nonsense "nonsense", but neither is it necessary to do so when removing it. If you're interacting with someone who believes what they're typing, do you think calling their beliefs "nonsense" is more likely to raise the heat, or lower it? Do you think we should try to avoid raising the heat, in general? Is there a point in going out of our way to "call a spade a spade"?

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)

Does this RfC want to be seen as a legitimate attempt to improve Guy's behavior, or an attempt to laundry-list and nitpick?

I support this RfC inasmuch as it is clear that Guy's consistent use of inappropriate language and behaviors in dealing with other admins and editors is uncivil, counterproductive and unhelpful to the cause of creating a better free encyclopedia - which is why we're all here, right?

I believe the broad expression of community consensus on this issue has helped push Guy to change his behavior for the better. It behooves him to continue the process of self-examination and improvement.

But once the issue devolves from "he's calling editors twats and idiots, and telling them to fuck off" to "he said something was nonsense," then we've gone from the realm of clearly-unacceptable vulgarity and attacks, to a strong (perhaps too strong, and not required) yet entirely civil and legitimate, expression of opinion.

When someone is searching through the recent contribs of an editor who is being RfCed for persistent vulgarity, and the "worst" that can be found is calling something "nonsense" or comparing 9/11 conspiracy theories to Elvis sightings, I would suggest that perhaps we ought to note his behavioural improvement and express support and encouragement.

Instead, the suggestion on the table is that we further criticize him for the use of "nonsense?"

That really smacks of a long, long, long reach to find something, anything to criticize. FCYTravis (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fair. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:48, 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. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis did address both the context and the big picture immediately above. For the record, since my name came up, I'm happy to be a part of process that involves addressing problematic behavior by Guy in a rapid and constructive way. I'm not interested in being part of a process where people who dislike Guy look through his contribs and highlight every slightly brusque comment or questionable word choice, because I don't think that will actually help him be a better editor. MastCell ^Talk 20:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy does a range of stuff that cause friction and hurt feelings on WP. He's still going to be detrimental to the project even if he stops telling people to fuck off, as the above diffs show. You have to tell him that the shades of gray have to lighten up as well. The thing is that there is simply no need for it, and it is detrimental. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(to MastCell)Kicking JzG out of the project is not my goal. My goal is to correct the behavior that is causing concern. Any help in doing that from anyone is appreciated. Cla68 (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record- neither do I. No one wants to kick out an editor who is a good citizen of WP. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Another

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? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So JW speaks and explains...yet how do "newbies" survive if JzG takes them out without warning? 24.152.150.18 (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#.22Ignore_all_rules..22_What_does_it_mean.3F

Martin, you're becoming predictable. I don't think Guy's 1-month block here was necessarily appropriate, but I'm not going to discuss it with someone who's trying to leverage it through a series of misleading insinuations to beat a long-dead non-horse. For my own part, I'm happy to discuss any of my actions, though you're going to have to drop the vague insinuations and be clear about exactly what I've done that you feel demands an explanation. Perhaps my talk page or another forum would be more appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 04:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. You "don't know what I did", you think may have I blocked some associated IP (er, no) and that I "helped Guy" in some way you can't define, and you can't be bothered to look at the actual details. Yet you're willing to level the accusation that 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", with a conditional apology if you're called on it. Enjoy the moral high ground. I will give Guy my feedback on the block, but I think your input here has been relentlessly inflammatory and unconstructive. MastCell ^Talk 07:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, MastCell, if you look back, you'll find you're the one who's been relentlessly inflammatory- you've quashed good discussion by attacking me. I wish you'd stop. I've been trying to discuss issues. What I meant was this edit, which wasn't a block but did help in Guy's process. Also, I got something funny -it seemed to me that clicking the same link got different pages, and you seemed to have blocked one IP, and not the other, and said one was a sock of the other. Anyway, I got it wrong.

Yes, I'm interested in looking at the evidence, especially the ongoing evidence. That is not inflammatory, it's just looking at the evidence. If I'd wanted to inflame, I'd have tried harder. I want to discuss issues of this case, and of the surrounding atmosphere. That is more than legit. So if you don't want to discuss, just don't. You have my apology already for thinking you did some of the blocking, and you're right that I should have been more careful.

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.

Now, please, let's get off of me, and discuss issues relevant to this case and to WP in general as related to this case. For the third time, you have my apology. I get things wrong sometimes.

If you keep attacking me, I probably won't respond to you again. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of keeping things on topic, it would be helpful to avoid the sort of ill-considered accusations with which you opened this thread. That's not an attack; it's a request. MastCell ^Talk 04:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's true, although I think that as many others have said, there are issues basic to WP here which are not totally about JzG but are on topic. The only ICA that I know of was that you had participated in the blocking. That was a mistake. The rest, I feel I can prove. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to do so - elsewhere. MastCell ^Talk 04:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, keeping the discussion on topic is a good thing. As others have pointed out, it is on topic to wonder exactly why the situation has developed to this point, and others have also expressed opinions similar to those I explicate. Also as you say, I don't think I'll continue to respond on this thread, because as you say you don't want to discuss such issues, and others are dealing with them on other threads. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of double standards

I noticed accusations of double standards on the main page. Are they relevant to this case, and if so, what exactly is meant? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that if most people were to start acting like Guy, they would be banned very quickly. Guy, however, hasn't been sanctioned at all. Some people call this respect for an established editor, and some call it a double standard. -Amarkov moo! 16:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but what about the fact that Guy takes on tough jobs and fights trolls? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

...fights people he thinks are trolls, which isn't the same thing. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a problem with deciding that anyone is a troll, really. If you're ever mistaken, then you've just been grossly uncivil. There's nothing that we do here that we can't do just as well without calling people trolls, even if trolling is what they're doing. The essay is WP:NOSPADE. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've seen some good work Guy has done against obvious trolls. Though you're right that he didn't have to call them that. But there are some obvious cases after all. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologists's comment

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)

Not to worry, that's SA's usual MO. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 16:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to get into a debate with either of you over what civility means. To wit, it is patently a subjective judgment (unlike, for example, the principle that there is no physical evidence for ghosts which is an objective fact). Certain people at Wikipedia (and I withhold judgement about present company since I have never been involved myself with a discussion, dispute, or interaction with either of you until this point) are too caught up in their own little virtual-society that has an arbitrary and invented standard of civility. Some of these civility-wonks think their invented standard to be "self-evident" and "obvious", but it is, in fact, based on the sensibilities of reactionary conservative discourse to the tune of narrowly-educated computer nerds who have no social skills in the real world (How's that for a personal attack? -- but before you go off reporting it, consider the fact that I'm talking demographically and not personally about any person here.) Get over it. Wikipedia is a pluralistic place and civility is in the eye of the beholder. Just because certain groups are dominating the consensus for what civility means today doesn't mean that this standard is inviolable. It's clearly not; it has changed and it will continue to change. I repeat: get over it. People who love civility should not throw stones. Let he who is without incivility cast the first stone. Etc. etc. etc. Bye all, I love you both. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually we have had a (very slight) interaction before [14]. DuncanHill (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's not enough for me to form a judgement about your connection to Wikipedia social networks. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And no-one was suggesting it was - I was just pointing it out in the interests of accuracy. DuncanHill (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I found another [15] - it seems I welcomed an alternate account of yours and you thanked me. DuncanHill (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And it is a prime example of double standards: SA defends a POV through disruptive editing which some powerful people, including Guy, agree with, and they protect him. Raul486 is a former Arbitrator who lost his bid for re-election because editors though he was mean and abused admin tools. Even at least one sitting arbitrator voted against him. Raul unblocked SA on a 96 hour block recently (after only 12 hours), over the strenuous objections of multiple other administrators including ArbCom clerk(s?) and one sitting arbitrator. Raul is one of those old-time Wikipeidians, and an old-time friend of SA. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

SA sounds a bit like Carl Rove, before he was ever so politely escorted out of the current U.S. administration. Not that he was forced to resign, mind you, he was simply forced to re-ass-ign himself to another career. That, me thinks, is what should happen to Mr. Chapman. :) 91.98.169.206 (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

lol. Well, bad cops are necessary in the beginning of republics to keep the trains running. Later on, the same methods are seen as violation of civil rights, which is part of what has happened here. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say it is more likely for people hiding behind anon accounts to be forceably "reassigned". Cheers. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That was helpful. o_O It's actually very unlikely for anon accounts to be "foceably reassigned", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. Cheers. Oh, and civility is not nearely as subjective as you make it out to be, SA. People who lack communication skills often make that mistake. People with good communication skills don't find any reason to object to WP:CIVIL, I've noticed. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen enough sockpuppetry cases in my day to know that combative anons are looked on as suspicious. If you think civility is objective, GTBacchus, then you are spending too much time devoted to Wikiality. Take a class on the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it's objective. I said it's not nearly as subjective as you make it out to be. Communication: good stuff. Have you spent any time living in cultures where civility is defined differently? I have, and I'm still prepared to say that civility is less subjective than you make it out to be, while not being "objective" in some indefensible straw-man sense. Pay more attention. (I also wouldn't contradict your claim about anon's being looked at suspiciously, but if you're not listening, what's the point replying?) -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Some people could take your comments to be uncivil above. You make some rhetorical questioning that looks curiously like taunting as well as making some bold admonition to "pay more attention" which assumes that I'm not paying attention. I don't, however, consider your comment to be uncivil. If I had made such a comment at Talk:WTBDWK, I would be facing a 96 hour block right now. It's pretty much a subjective standard, I'd say. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Some people could take my tone as being uncivil, and if you indicate that you took it that way, I'm prepared to apologize, even though it wasn't my intention to be rude. Civility includes being prepared to say you're sorry if you make a mistake.

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)

You assume I'm not paying attention. I was paying attention. The good faith thing to assume would be that I was paying attention. Also, civility on WP means that you can be blocked even if you say you're sorry. Happened to me. My assertion that civility is subjective is not only correct: it's the only practical way to deal with the large number of cultures that interact in this space. You can bark as much as you want about your training seminar classes on people skills, the fact is that these are all contextual points. And by telling me I'm so wrong and pitting every major world leader and most of the population of the planet against me, you are ironically as uncivil as they come. Best of luck towing that double-standard to your grave. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility is merely a matter of showing respect; if I disagree with someone, but still respect them as a human being, I will treat them with civility, no matter how wrong I may believe them to be. I won't need a set of 'objective rules' of civility to follow. My civil behavior will flow naturally from the basic respect I feel. Dlabtot (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I respect you. You still think I'm uncivil towards you. Obviously you don't know that I respect you when you make those accusations. However, you have no way of knowing that I respect or do not respect you, so I'd thank you to keep your speculations to yourself. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what 'accusations' you are talking about - please provide WP:DIFFs of the 'accusations' and 'speculations' that you believe were inappropriate. Thank you. Dlabtot (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to, and I won't. This is not a court of law and you know that you've accused me of being uncivil in the past. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have in the past noted your repeated blocks for incivility, disruptive editing and sockpuppetry, and the ArbCom sanctions against you because of this behavior. Perhaps that is what you mean by 'accusations'. Dlabtot (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And when did you stop beating your wife? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We clearly do have different ideas about what constitutes respectful discourse. Dlabtot (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Civility, as well as being fully described at WP:CIVIL, seems like a straightforward enough idea to me. One of the first things that attracted me to this community was its civilised discourse. Civility is merely the difference between saying to someone with whom one disagrees: "I disagree with you" and saying "I disagree with you, you bastard". Clearly they both contain the same rational information; but the latter also contains an attempt either to intimidate one's opponent into silence, or provoke them into a flame war. It seems obvious enough to me that the former is much preferable in a community of people trying to write an encyclopedia. Of course there will be grey areas where it is difficult to call, but I much prefer to work in an environment where I am reasonably confident that nobody will swear at me or call me names if they disagree with me. I think that is a consensus view here still. --John (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Dlabtot and John have got it right. You get a lot of mileage out of treating people with respect and dignity, and by avoiding personal comments, no matter what culture you're dealing with. There is nowhere that "I may disagree with you, but I respect you as a colleague" doesn't translate as civil. If you can't respect the person, refraining from displaying your disrespect in a collaborative work environment is still recommended. That's management/systems theory. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

GTBacchus is right. If you don't respect people you should at least pretend that you because it lets you better promote your own agenda. It's a time-worn bit of sound advice that has been expressed in various forms. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I must take issue with your interpretation of GTBacchus's comment. He did not say, nor imply, that one should pretend to respect others. He said that one should refrain from displaying one's disrespect. It is an important distinction. Perhaps it is rather un-Machiavellian of me, but I personally think that one should engage in honest, as well as civil, discourse. Dlabtot (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Some people interpret comments that are not intended to display one's disrespect as displaying one's disrespect. This community tends to think incivility is in the eye of the beholder and if ANYONE finds it uncivil then it is uncivil. That's the problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to nit-pick, but I feel that I must point out that a display of disrespect does not require an intention to display disrespect, just as uncivil behavior is uncivil even if it was not engaged in with the intent to offend. Actually I think it more likely that these type of behavioral issues happen unintentionally, rather than with malice. The absence of malice or ill-intent does not make the behavior acceptable. Dlabtot (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If it is unintentional, then there can be no way of knowing whether there is a lack of respect or not. 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. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree, incivility is unrelated both to intent, and to its effect on others. Rude behavior does not require evil motives, nor does rude behavior in a discussion suddenly become polite because people react to it rationally - by dismissing it as inappropriate, rather than emotionally - by becoming offended. Dlabtot (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, you are taking an over-simplified view of matters. Of course a comment that not intended as uncivil can be interpreted that way. That doesn't prove that all civility is subjective. Consider what actually happens in that situation. We don't immediately defer to some kind of judgment; we talk to each other. If someone thinks that someone else is being uncivil, they say so, and then the person who didn't mean to be uncivil has a chance to explain what they meant, and to apologize if necessary.

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)

If there exists comments which are not uncivil to one person and uncivil to another than civility, by the definition of subjectivity, is subjective. If you think discussions of what is and isn't "civil" play out in Wikipedia by "talking to each other", then you are not involved in enough disputed areas to see that's not what happens. You just inhabit a Pollyanna dreamworld, tis all. I agree that civility as intepreted on Wikipedia comes from the "interplay" of intention and reaction, but that judgement about what is and is not civil is always subjective ultimately. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never found myself at a loss for a way to express any disapproval I have in a civil way. Any disapproval relevant to building an encyclopedia can, in every case, be expressed as a comment on content, not contributors, even indirectly. Sometimes it is of use (anc civil), however, to comment on the contributor, but that is almost always when they have expressed personal views. For example, when Arritt says that he embraces the Machiavellian view of civility in order to get his point across... I wonder how that relates to building an NPOV encyclopedia. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I should think it was obvious that I was showing where GTBacchus' statement "If you can't respect the person, refraining from displaying your disrespect in a collaborative work environment is still recommended. That's management/systems theory" eventually leads. And I most certainly did not say that I "embrace the Machiavellian view of civility in order to get (my) point across," as you falsely state. One wonders who the real Machiavellian is. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since GTBacchus's comment that one should refrain from displaying disrespect does not actually "eventually lead" to your erroneous conclusion that one should try to feign respect in order to "better promote your own agenda" - no, it's not "obvious". Dlabtot (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I had actually typed "pretend to respect them", and then I didn't like it, and changed it before hitting save. I think there are situations in life where I might cross the line into feigned respect, but I'd do better to just find a way to respect the person. If you can truly understand someone, then you will respect them, and a true diplomat can get things done without ever having to misrepresent. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%. This is not Machiavellian, on the contrary it shows maturity and wisdom. --John (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that polite society is based, in part, on not always saying exactly what you think of someone. But it's interesting that WP:CIVIL defines incivility in much broader terms, as "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress." That obviously includes the sort of name-calling of which there are diffs aplenty in this RfC, but it suggests that there's more to civility than just moderating one's choice of words and finding creative ways to describe POV-pushing. A very wide range of personally targeted behavior can lead to an atmosphere of greater stress; ill-considered accusations are an example cited in the policy. Should we consider extending the emphasis on civility to (for example) editors who lodge repeated frivolous accusations on the noticeboards? Is a person who deliberately attempts to provoke someone being incivil even if they use flowery language to do so? MastCell ^Talk 21:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

lodg[ing] repeated frivolous accusations on the noticeboards -- assuming that the accusations truly are frivolous, and repeated -- seems blatantly to be a form of disruptive editing, making the question of whether it is also uncivil to be somewhat moot. I would submit that all forms of disruptive editing are inherently uncivil. Dlabtot (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's certainly reasonable. What about the second case? MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As I just said, I would submit that all forms of disruptive editing are inherently uncivil. Again - somewhat obviously -- deliberate attempts to provoke incivility are disruptive. Which is probably why taunting is already specifically mentioned at WP:CIVIL as a serious example of incivility. Dlabtot (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Now that is something I can agree with! Calling someone a naughty name is uncivil, no question, but it's not the only way for people to be uncivil and it's arguably not even the most damaging kind of incivility. Deliberately (but oh-so-politely) misconstruing people's comments, filing frivolous accusations, and so on destroy constructive interaction at least as much. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I also agree that there are many ways to be uncivil which are not direct name-calling. For example, if you say "group A are jerks," and there is someone who edits that page who is known to be in group A, that should count as uncivil. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

More often what happens is an editor says something to the effect that "People with red hair have recessive genes" and then someone jumps down their throat claiming that they are being uncivil simply for pointing out a fact of biology. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the example you 'cite' did not actually happen. Sure, I'm going out on a limb with this speculation, but, I have the distinct feeling you're not going to prove me wrong with a WP:DIFF. Can you cite an example that supports your position and actually did happen? Dlabtot (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Some people just don't get object lessons. For example, I could say that you are obsessed with depleted uranium causing the Gulf War syndrome and you probably believe in the quasi-steady state universe. You might find this comment uncivil. You might not. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously that comment is not uncivil. It is 100% inaccurate, but it is not uncivil. Dlabtot (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

OTOH, now that I have stated clearly that those are not my views, if you were to engage in a series of edits, repeatedly erecting these strawmen, that could easily be construed as taunting, disruptive behavior. Dlabtot (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here ends the lesson. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the opposite of your point has been proved. Incivility is not purely in the eye of the beholder, nor purely in the mind of the offended party, but comes out of the interaction, taken in context. It's actually surprisingly easy for people from a wide variety of perspectives to come to agreement about what types of behavior are and are not civil. That's an empirical fact. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Baloney. First of all, nothing is "proved" here at all. Counter-examples that confused the situation were given. The empirical fact of the matter is that people got confused over whether a comment could or could not be construed as uncivil. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like he did something very clever: used an uncivil word that Dlabtot wouldn't mind, thus proving his point: "obsessed." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'll admit that I only really noticed the problematic word 'obsessed' after I replied... probably because I was somewhat puzzled and amused by the comment - I don't even know what the quasi-steady state universe is - although I assume it refers to some WP:BATTLE SA has engaged in in the past. But the fact that I didn't take offense at his comment, yet you seemed to think it was at least a bit uncivil, I would say seems to support my point. Dlabtot (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought he put an uncivil word in, to prove that civility is in the eye of the beholder. When you didn't behold it, it supported his point. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. That doesn't prove his claim at all. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No one ever proves claims, they prove propositions valid. Take some logic. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• So. Let's say the tables were reversed, and say, JzG opened an RfC on whether or not I was civil. Would you defend me as much as you are currently defending him? Or is there something going on past a simple "incivility is okay because you can't define it"? -Amarkov moo! 03:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  There is something greater going on here. I see a political witch-hunt attacking one of the few remaining administrators who seems to have a decent head on their shoulders. I think that the witch-hunt is focusing on incivility because in the current climate, it is easier to define than "good editing". This is political expediency. I'm at the point now where I don't believe any civility complaint has any merit. However, it may be politically expedient for a person to use civility to get an uninvolved drone of an administrator off their ass and block a POV-pusher, for example. No, I'm not going to fight for the rights of the idiots to stay on Wikipedia when they break the rules. (And note that I'm not calling you an idiot in this rhetorical remark -- I don't have any opinion on you -- but for argument's sake let's assume we're talking about an idiot who believes in the second coming of Elvis and is spamming this junk all over pages devoted to mainstream science and happens to make some rude comments along the way, for example.) I'm not acting as the ACLU of civility monitors here. I'm acting to defend someone right now against a policy that, objectively, really should be pared down or scrapped because there are other, better ways of determining who is worth keeping as a Wikipedia editor and who we should show the door. I would be more than happy if WP:CIV got marked "historical". I would not complain. However, as long as it is still policy here at Wikipedia, I encourage all like-minded editors to use it to destroy the people who are out to destroy the encyclopedia as a resource. Kudos to those on the other side who have effectively used the weapon against me. Yep, I'm Machiavellian about it, through-and-through. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  If you think that collaborative editing is best carried out in some environment other than mutual respect, then you're just betraying your lack of experience working with human beings. It's a simple, plain fact that if you want to work with people, try not to make them hate you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  I think mutual respect is fine. Some people assume that it doesn't exist and get away with that assumption here at WP. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  Do you really not see what a terrible idea it is to let people use policies that way? Sure, you may trust Guy with the power to use policies as weapons against those he thinks should be gone. But how do you know that everyone with the political skill to do that will be someone you trust with that power? For instance, what happens if someone becomes politically powerful, and then starts using this theory against you? I doubt you'll be saying "well, political expidency is more important than fairness". -Amarkov moo! 03:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  If you want a better system, you're going to have to change Wikipedia's policing and enforcement structure. I think it's awful how anarchic and arbitrary the legal system is at Wikipedia, but everyone is too afraid to do anything about it. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, starts using this theory against you, I assume you haven't seen the theory being used in practise against SA have you? Shot info (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Amarkov is right. It's the same logical fallacy as often seen when people use the quote "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (attributed to Edmund Burke) It sounds like a good quote, but it begs the question of who gets to define "good" and "evil". Similarly, SA likely feels bitter because he has run into the same kind of difficulty as JzG has. No matter how right you think you are, our policies still apply to you. --John (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And by "policies" we mean the parts of WP:CIV involving the use of intemperate language, because in practice that's the only policy that we consistently enforce. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(out)In practice, that is the easiest part to consistently enforce, yes. --John (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

SA is right in a big way: there isn't anything you can do about POV pushing or disruption or edit warring, at least in some cases (such as his own). Sometimes in the current WP,the policies don't apply to you. The only thing the admins will enforce is incivility, and then only the most -and I mean the MOST- blatant. The example I used above was just trading the word "jerk" for the the others which are often used. Even incivility is not enforced a lot of the time. So he's basically right even though if admins were not (as SA called them) puffballs he would probably get the whacking end of the stick. Admins are not doing their jobs of looking at the whole editing pattern and environment, and using the rules we have to improve that environment. They could, they have the rules behind them. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) There are some others... there is enforcement against sockpuppetry abuses... blatant edit warring. Probably because contrary to the assertions about civility standards being too 'subjective', incivility as well as these offenses are pretty easy to reach consensus about. More problematic are long-term issues of tendentious editing, which seem to be completely unaddressed as far as I can see, with obviously (and sometimes even self-proclaimed) agenda-driven editors on all sides of every issue given free reign till they break one of these other rules. Dlabtot (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It isn't even a matter of having an agenda, really. There are editors with an agenda who are also willing to work with the community and make NPOV edits. There are legit disputes which could easily be seen as tendentious or disruptive editing. In other words, it is a tricky business. For one thing, NPOV is non-negotiable, even against consensus. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(after ec)I disagree strongly that there are cases where nothing can be done ab out POV-pushing, disruption, or editwarring. Show me such a case. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Homeopathy probation. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because somethin hasn't been done, doesn't mean it can't be done. Why ALL the edit-warriors haven't been banned from Homeopathy, however, is a mystery beyond my understanding. What's the big deal? No one is irreplaceable. Topic ban everyone involved and move on, I say. Dlabtot (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that something can be done. The point is that if no one does anything, then for all practical purposes nothing can be done about the situation. I encourage GTBacchus to topic ban everyone involved and see what happens. Note that I'm being serious with this suggestion here, but if he isn't, he should be careful lest he be accused of violating WP:POINT. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

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. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

More of a general point, but a number of POV-pushing editors have now figured out that as soon as an admin tries to act against their POV-pushing by editing it out, they can be considered "involved in the dispute", and can revert war knowing that if the admin goes to the next stage and blocks/protects/deletes/whatever, they can cry admin abuse. I think this is veering wildly off-topic, though. Neıl ☎ 11:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This may be off-topic too, but I need to say it. I am no fan at all of pseudoscience, but the very worst way to deal with it is to engage in sockpuppetry and abusive language. Those self-appointed guardians of science who have done this have done huge damage to Wikipedia's ability to deal with such things and actually by their behaviour are discouraging other rationalist editors from participating in those areas. DuncanHill (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Since others are also of that opinion, abusive language has been interpreted to be statements like "people who believe that ghosts are in their radios shouldn't be editing Wikipedia articles". ScienceApologist (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

SA, I gave you a message of support when someone called one of your socks, and welcomed the sock, which you (via the sock) thanked me for. It's kind of hard for me now that I realise that you were less than honest with me to give you support. You should think about that - if you want people to support your efforts to keep Wikipedia's coverage of pseudoscience on the straight and level, you need to keep it clean. DuncanHill (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to know the full story of the "socks", maybe you should research it a bit. Things aren't always what they seem. Have you ever been harassed at a job by committed Wikipedia POV-pushers? No? Then maybe you have no way of knowing whether I was being "less than honest". ScienceApologist (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you have redirected their talk pages to your own I think it is reasonable to assume that they are yours. DuncanHill (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And where was I dishonest (or less than honest)? Note that telling someone that they are being dishonest is tantamount to telling them they are lying which is explicitly described as an uncivil action at WP:CIV. The acrobatics with which you are jamming your foot down your throat are incredible. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, you lied when you complained about another editor's correct identification of one of your (now blocked) socks. You were less than honest with me when you replied "in character" as one of your socks, thanking me for the welcome message. Please feel free to open an RfC about this comment, or to report it to AN or ANI. I note that ArbCom has seen fit to place a "one account only" restriction on you, and you are prohibited from editing disruptively. Please consider whether your contributions here are disruptive to the current RfC. DuncanHill (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

SA, "people who believe that ghosts are in their radios shouldn't be editing Wikipedia articles", is a personal attack based upon their belief system. It is little different than, "people who believe that their loved one's ghosts (spirits) are in heaven shouldn't be editing Wikipedia articles." WP:NPA, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit as long as they abide by WP:FIVE, not the encyclopedia where your beliefs are different than mine means you and your views are inferior (Conservapedia). We know that attitude causes harm and wars on Wikipedia, the same as in real life. Ward20 (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. One can hold to a belief system without advocating for it. I'm simply pointing out that people who are of the opinion that there are ghosts in their radios shouldn't be editing Wikipedia to that effect. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and this is at the core of many civility problems I've experienced: Editors classify others as being on one side of some issue or another, gang up with those who think and act similarly, and make WP their battleground, rather than focusing on the articles. Potential good editors are being driven off this project when they stumble onto the wrong article and get attacked for supposedly not being on the right side, though I know in some cases they were actually potential allies. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, if you are ignorant, then you shouldn't be clamoring for content. That's sort of a given. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

But we are all ignorant, in different areas and different ways. That's sort of a given too. --John (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Is SA a sock of JzG? 172.165.33.165 (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

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)

And again here [17]. DuncanHill (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it vandalism, but it is not appropriate. I've reinstated the diff and asked Avb (talk · contribs) not to do it again - if you don't like a diff, discuss it. There are many editors who believed including the diff was appropriate. Neıl ☎ 19:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well call it what you will, removing diffs from a current RfC distorts the discussion, as some editors will have given opinion/comment based on the evidence presented. Removing evidence divorces comments from their context. DuncanHill (talk) 19:18, 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)

Just a small correction - I am the editor who described it as vandalism, but I did not do the reverts of your removal of content. Reading the RfC in the first place, or explaining the removal here on the talk page would have avoided much unpleasentness. DuncanHill (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the misidentification; corrected. About preventing unpleasantness: There's usually two sides to this type of drama. I have already admitted to my side of it. No need to rub it in. Thank you. Avb 17:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"I found the comment borderline threatening and inflammatory.", lol, like threats to block people you mean? -- Naerii · plz create stuff 17:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't I just explain and apologize for that? Besides, I am not an admin, Neil is. Please apologize, discuss reasonably, or go away. Avb 17:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of view

Could MastCell please provide an explanation here of this diff - [18]? DuncanHill (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Alpinist (talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked for harassment, disruption, and importation of a real-life dispute involving Simon Wessely onto Wikipedia, as well as extensive sockpuppetry. Guy is one of the admins involved in reining him in, and Alpinist dislikes him. Catherinefionarichardson (talk · contribs), who posted this view, is self-identified as Alpinist's partner ([19]). Catherine has almost no other edits and is either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet/proxy for Alpinist. The view not only outed Guy's real-life details (subsequently removed, though perhaps these are not particularly secret) but included legal threats and the continuation of a real-life dispute. For all of those reasons, but primarily because it was a contribution from a sock/meatpuppet of an indefinitely blocked disruptive user, I removed it. MastCell ^Talk 22:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

MastCell was correct to do this, and also the view didn't provide valuable new information. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - for the record, now it is explained I don't have a problem. Explanations are good - they help others (who may be unfamiliar with the history) to understand why things were done. DuncanHill (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. MastCell ^Talk 22:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Raymond arritt

"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."

Ballsiness is of little value unless it is coupled with good judgment. While I won't dispute those who claim his heart is in the right place, Guy comes across as impulsive, hotheaded and almost comically susceptible to troll bait. JzG seems resigned to battling troublemakers but seems unconcerned with or unaware of the collateral damage and unwelcoming environment he creates. One can be a good hall monitor without boxing every students' ears.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well said Fat Man. My personal interactions with Guy came about because he failed to read a thread and a deleted contributions log properly before jumping in with both feet - and then, despite his mistakes being pointed out repeatedly, he carried on his mistaken comments. Didn't really inspire me to trust his judgement. DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So when Guy gets fed up and leaves, both of you are going to leap in and help take care of the sockpuppets, harassers and agenda-driven SPAs, right? Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I already go after harassers and sockpuppets, when I find them (though I don't spend as much time online as some). And other people do so to a much greater degree. The sad truth is that people can contribute in these areas while maintaining a semblance of common courtesy.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And lest my criticism be misunderstood, I'm not saying that JzG needs to be nicer to trolls and stalkers (although doing so would make him appear more even-keeled); I'm talking about the way he treats everybody else.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think he believes he's only being mean to trolls, and trolls deserve it. That's the trouble. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(twice edit conflicted) Oh I forgot, Guy is the only person who does any of those things and Wikipedia would collapse without him! And I have never ever raised concerns or sought admin intervention when I have seen harrassment or SPA's at work. Oh just hang on a minute though - he isn't, it wouldn't, and I have. DuncanHill (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're known throughout the project for your courageous actions in these areas. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No I am not. But if you want ordinary editors to bother to report these things, then treat us with at least a pretence of respect and decorum. If, on the other hand, you want to get rid of ordinary editors who do care about trolling and harrassment and SPA's and the like, then just adopt Guy's mode of behaviour. Then it'll be a nice straight fight between Guy and the Forces of Darkness, with no messy little unambitious people getting in the way. DuncanHill (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) tea, anyone? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy is there to be gotten, so don't get in the way lest yea be crushed... :-) Shot info (talk) 00:16, 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)

It's not a one-way street. Maybe Guy has put some people off, but remember that trolls, harassers, sockpuppets and others you mockingly trivialize as "evildoers" also turn off constructive editors. I agree that Guy should hold back on his temper and moderate his language. But I'd rather have him as he is than lose him altogether. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It does seem you are making the utilitarian argument, and that a lot of other people here are doing so. In fact, it seems to be one of the main themes. Is that really so? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:59, 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. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We shelter and protect many whose constructive contributions are far below 51%. I would say the standard here is more like 1% than 51%.Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we certainly agree on that, don't we? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)