Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:25, 9 March 2008

Notification

JzG notified . 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:

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 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages, 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 (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 ☎ 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

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This section was rapidly sent off topic into debate that adds nothing to the RfC at hand. It can therefore be conducted elsewhere should someone wish to continue it at a more appropriate forum. Viridae 03:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"the assertion that JzG's blog is an attack page is slightly odd considering the filers of this RfC presumably don't consider the label applies to the Misplaced Pages Review."

The point, which Addhoc appears to have missed, is that by Guy's own criteria (outing, gross personal attacks and insults towards Wiki editors and towards people identified by their real name), Guy's wiki (chapmancentral.co.uk) is as much an attack site. These are the same criteria which he used to remove any and all links to Misplaced Pages Review. The filers of the RFC may not share Guy's view on what constitutes an attack site. Neıl ☎ 15:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Neil, to be honest I'm more confused now. As I understand what you're saying, you are suggesting that JzG's conduct is significantly worse than other editors. And in the same breath your saying evidence for this includes that he has linked to a site that involves outing, gross personal attacks and insults. And still in the same breath you're saying that you are involved in a site that involves outing, gross personal attacks and insults. From where I'm standing you haven't shown that your conduct is any better. Addhoc (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Has either Neil or JzG knowingly linked to outing and personal attacks on external sites, or is this just hyperbolae? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably hyperbolae. Addhoc (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Does Neil post on WR? Guy's site, from having looked at it, should NOT be linked from Misplaced Pages due to gross personal attacks there. Lawrence § t/e 17:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an editor by the username of Neil on WR, though I don't know if they are the same person. WR contributors routinely attack, insult and belittle those they have a beef with. Efforts by some WR participants have included attempts to identify the real life identities of our contributors. Some editors at WR have called our contributors almost every name in the book....little or nothing is done by the mods there to refactor those comments...therefore, if JzG's blog also does this, then they are both sites that attack our contributors.--MONGO 17:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

And, as two wrongs do not equal a right, neither should be considered acceptable. --John (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Addhoc (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

John, I didn't say either was acceptable...and I also believe neither should be linked to.--MONGO 18:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Your views on restricting what people can link to have resoundingly failed to achieve consensus; most of the community believes that we're (mostly) responsible adults who can be trusted to follow whatever links we want without being corrupted thereby. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"WR contributors routinely attack, insult and belittle those they have a beef with." - gross generalization there, MONGO - Alison 18:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope we're a long way away from ever taking that festering dungheap seriously. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling it a "festering dungheap" would only make sense if WR was monolithic. It isn't. -Amarkov moo! 18:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it's monolithic. It is indeed the very model of a community of diverse elements united only by bitterness and the baser instincts. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's not monolithic, why does it make sense to talk about "taking WR seriously", when WR is not one voice? -Amarkov moo! 18:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I simply don't understand your point. In my town there is a corner of a park (Speakers' Corner) where, historically, people gather at weekends and speak in public about whatever they want. It tends to attract nutters. I don't take it seriously. It is not monolithic. I don't believe that it would make any difference if it were monolithic, I would still not take it seriously. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

So should your town have a BADPLACES policy where they ban anybody from linking to such a sinister Attack Park-Corner... like, perhaps, forcing the local mapmakers to leave the place out of their maps? *Dan T.* (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you've got me really confused now. What does my not taking Speakers' Corner or Misplaced Pages Review seriously have to do with banning anyone from linking to it? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies; I (apparently incorrectly) pegged you as being part of the same "camp" as the BADSITES advocates on this. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Who are "the BADSITES advocates" in this matter? What do they have to do with the observation that Misplaced Pages Review has long been a festering dungheap of ill-will, bitterness and trolling? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Some do that, and some don't. And some speak out against it when they see it, if speaking out would help at all. ++Lar: t/c (a WR contributor, for why see ) 18:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Alison, I don't have the percentages but if you are in denial that some, certainly not all mind you, contributors to WR routinely do the things I mention, and that little or no effort is made by the mods there to refactor those comments, then you haven't bothered to read the comments posted there very much. I expect our contibutors to work towards Karma with each other....--MONGO 18:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That statment you've linked to says that people associated with "sites hypercritical of Misplaced Pages" may expect to be closely monitored. That's fine. It does not logically follow that people associated with such sites are at fault for what anyone else says there. -Amarkov moo! 18:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point and I wasn't alluding to Alison in particular...just trying to encourage all to not use off site venues as a place to encourage those persons who do that sort of behavior. But when someone characterizes my comment as I made it as a gross generalization, then that indicates to me that they must not have been on the recieving end as much as myself and others have been. Useful critique is welcome, and I do read that website often and have tried to learn from what obstenably appear to be useful comments, but that's hard to do when SOME editors there insist on calling me an asshole etc.....I already know that, so I learn nothing!--MONGO 19:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been on the "receiving end" of enough nonsense, both on and off WP. I'm featured on ED right now for using my own children as sex toys, etc, etc. I try not to let it get to me. Frankly, seeing the same old faces doing the BADSITES thing, both pro- and anti- is getting boring at this stage; both "sides" make valid points and neither listens to the other. And on we go ... - Alison 19:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Alison's corollary to Godwin's law: - ""As a Misplaced Pages discussion grows longer, the probability of a heated debate involving BADSITES or Misplaced Pages Review approaches one.". Folks, can we move on to the topic in hand and not get diverted on yet another pointless debate? - Alison 19:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure... we mustn't assume that an off wiki venue which has this Rfc festering (not to mention a recent RFa where they indicated that others should "vote early and often") would not be worth noting as being a potential rallying point. Nah, there surely is no malicious intent...it's a REVIEW of course.--MONGO 19:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter who has a rallying point where. Even if WR members are completely responsible for making this RfC, I fail to see the relevance to JzG's behavior. -Amarkov moo! 19:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Which Misplaced Pages Review members are alleged to have made this RfC? Is this just a random jibe, or is there an actual accusation? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, MONGO says that the RfC was "festering" on WR, and also says that it is "a potential rallying point". I suppose if you're using some bizzare dictionary that defines words in whichever way is convenient, that doesn't mean that WR members are behind the RfC. But normal people, using normal definitions of words, would find it hard to arrive at another conclusion. -Amarkov moo! 19:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That opinion is noteworthy and a good point and I do not believe that WR sponsored this Rfc...but no doubt, that "dungheap" of a website is oftentimes used as a rallying point...a point from which a few dramaqueens masquarading as editors may (as they apparently have in the past) decide to get their sweet reward for all the horrible offenses that have befallen them, since, of course, they are not responsible for their actions in any way....it was the CABAL, surely. As far as normal, by wikipedia expectations, normal would mean those that have provided, at least some time in their editing history, some evidence that they have made some sort of substantial effort to contribute to the sum of knowledge, not just to the sum of drama.--MONGO 19:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's nice, WR is evil and all. Are you going to provide a concrete way in which that is relevant to an RfC on Guy, or are you just going to keep insisting that it is without explaining why? -Amarkov moo! 19:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the website is evil, nor do I think it's contributors are either...(aside from the ones who are dead set on stalking just for the sake of it and do nothing else it seems)...my point is that website does influence things here to a degree, some perhaps postively and some not so positively....and the fact that they have a section dedicated to the presumed evilness of JzG is not unnoticed--MONGO 20:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

To respond to the question raised above - yes, the Neil on Misplaced Pages Review is me. Viridae, who also contributed heavily to constructing this RFC, is also a member. Cla68, who did most of the groundwork, is not (as far as I know). I don't believe I've carried out any outing, gross personal attacks or insults. There are a number of Wikipedians in good standing who are members of that forum (Lar, Alison, Amarkov, Viridae, myself, Ryan Postlethwaite, Majorly, just to name a few) - yes, there are some bad apples, too, but tarring all WR members with the same brush is plain wrong. As for this RFC, I would hope people comment on the content, and not the cotnributors - even though the contributors are all Wikipedians in good standing. An element of obfuscation and focusing on minor points was always to be expected, of course. The main thrust of this RFC is to illustrate that JzG has a long-standing history of poor conduct that is unsuitable for an administrator, and to date no efforts to change that have been successful. His initial response to this RFC does not fill me with hope that this time will be any different, but we can all AGF and monitor his conduct for improvement from here on in. Neıl ☎ 19:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What you do with your spare time in addition to Misplaced Pages is, of course, up to you. But good grief! --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Neil, RfCs often bring close scrutiny on all involved editors. Addhoc (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I welcome it. Neıl ☎ 20:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

While Adhoc may (or may not, I don't know) be raising some valid issues, don't those issue really, really belong elsewhere? This is about JzG2's behavior. Sethie (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sethie, in case it wasn't obvious the diffs included in my outside view are taken from the evidence. Addhoc (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather see the veering-off-topic stuff on the talk page than on the RFC itself. Neıl ☎ 20:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

!!! :) Of Course. And thanks AdHoc I didn't catch that. Sethie (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

back on topic

Two points - Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 03:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Review comment

As I see the subject of this RfC has characterised it as "laundry list of Misplaced Pages 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 💕. That's all. --John (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not a member of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 05:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Eventually, it's hard not to read a page about oneself. Give him time. -GTBacchus 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 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  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 ☎ 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ☎ 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?? Misplaced Pages 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  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  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 ☎ 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages and I would say to him, "You obviously care about Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages than you probably will ever know. That's why his work is valued by those of us who value a 💕 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 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 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/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 ☎ 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 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 ☎ 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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  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 Misplaced Pages except to come back and discuss such issues, as with at least one other user at this RfC. ——Martin ☎ 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  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 ☎ 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 ☎ 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  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 ☎ 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 ." What was that? Constructive? Random? Civil? -GTBacchus 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  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 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." 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." 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

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.

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 ☎ 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 ☎ 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 ☎ 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 Misplaced Pages-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 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 💕 - 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 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 ☎ 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  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 ☎ 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 ☎ 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 ). 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 . 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages really all about who knows whom? ——Martin ☎ 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/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  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 Misplaced Pages 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 ☎ 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  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 ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:09, 9 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 ☎ 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)

ScienceApologists's comment

Re: ScienceApologist's comment at . That is an appalling comment. It is IMO a clear attack on those of us who are in favour of civil discourse on the Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 "self-evident" and "obvious", but is in fact based on the sensibilities of reactionary conservative discourse to the tune of 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. Misplaced Pages is a pluralistic place and civility is in the eye of the beholder. Just because certain groups and in consensus for what civility means today doesn't mean that this standard is inviolable. It's 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)

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 ☎ 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)

Vandalism

The RfC is now being vandalized by an editor seeking to remove one of Guy's comments, see . DuncanHill (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And again here . 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)

Removal of view

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