Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/Duncharris - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AKMask (talk | contribs) at 12:04, 22 November 2005 (endorse). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:04, 22 November 2005 by AKMask (talk | contribs) (endorse)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 15:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC).

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

Statement of the dispute

Description

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence of disputed behavior

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

Privilege abuses

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

Personal attacks

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


Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy (specifically Misplaced Pages:Blocking_policy#Unblocking)
  2. Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks
  3. Misplaced Pages:Civility
  4. Misplaced Pages:Etiquette
  5. Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

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


Profane use of edit summaries

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

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Silensor 23:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Kookykman|(t)e 23:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ben Aveling 00:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Karmafist 23:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Nandesuka 00:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC). Duncharris's response to my re-applying the block he removed on himself was to suggest that I didn't consider who I was blocking, and that I should be worried about "the Wikipolitics of who you are making enemies with." I find the idea that a temporary block for violating Misplaced Pages policies should be a reason to "make enemies" is laughable and repugnant. That he would consider "Wikipolitics" to be a valid reason to selectively enforce policy or to treat some users as more equal than others is a clear leading indicator that he doesn't yet understand the responsibilities that go along with being an administrator.
  3. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 00:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC). I have no problem with the vast majority of Duncharris's edits, but think that he repeatedly violates WP:CIVIL in a manner extremely unbecoming of an andministrator.
  4. Dmcdevit·t 00:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) I asked him not to use his rollback in POV disputes (which he has done multiple times, even reverting other admins) and the response was unimpressive. Particularly "Anyone else got any pointless comments or criticism?" I expect admins to be able to maturely respond to constructive criticism.
  5. Ann Heneghan 00:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Such behaviour is frankly disgraceful. The diff Nandesuka refers to is this which makes "I'm going to make implicit dark threats because I'm popular" language. If any small part of these diffs had occured before an RfA, we all know that they would have ruined it. Duncharris should bear that closely in mind. -Splash 01:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Bahn Mi 04:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. I simply ask that he takes this seriously. Some sign of that would go a long way. Sam Spade 05:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. This paints all of us with a bad image, especially considering this user is an ADMIN who should know better!  ALKIVAR™ 06:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. The evidence speaks for itself. Very disappointing, very worrying. Harro5 07:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. We expect civility and restraint from all our editors. Admins should set an example. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 08:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Dunc does make good contributions, and I don't want to lose these from the poject. However, there is no call for the breach of WP:CIVIL. Saying "Fuck off" once or twice should merit no more than a polite note on the talk page, but when that doesn't stop it then the user involved needs to be made aware how seriously others view this. Thryduulf 08:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. This sort of thing is horrible in an admin. A good review of WP:CIVIL would be a nice first step here. AKMask 12:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Other users who do not endorse this summary

  1. Guettarda 02:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC) - This collection of diffs are very misleading and needlessly prejudicial. There is no policy against "bad language". These diffs all bold the word "fuck", despite the fact that, in the vast majority of cases, there is nothing even vaguely wrong with the language used, even in the most broad interpretation of policy or guidelines. Has all the appearances of a witch hunt against an excellent editor who is inclined to using "bad language".
    If we were having a pleasant dinner with colleagues, and someone came out with something equivalent to those diffs, you and I would take two different approaches. I would consider such language entirely within the realm of freedom of speech but profoundly unWP:CIVIL by any measure of how one conducts oneself in a decent way. I would be unsurprised if the person instructed to "fuck off" was not a little offended. You would apparently tell the offended colleague that his offence was actually harassment intended to make the other party want to run away in tears. -Splash 02:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    I have removed the bolding. It isn't necessary to make the point. The problem is not just foul language, but that so much of it is directed at people. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. FeloniousMonk 02:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) - per Guettarda. Duncharris is an excellent and knowledgeable contributor who willingly takes on the thankless (and now apparently risky) task of POV Patrol for particular segment of articles that are POV-magnets, namely, those at the intersection of science/religion. I'll also add that EdPoor, who, for this very reason has run afoul of Dunc (and has his history of issues with civility), has been following Duncharris around looking for any opportunity to block him. Again, there is no policy against strong language, and Dunc's slip of civility is understandable looking the history of who and what he was confronting. FeloniousMonk 02:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    Are you accusing us of having raised this RFC because we have a different POV to Dunc? As one of those who Dunc seems to see himself as 'confronting', I'd like you to make clear why you think 'strong language' and a lack of civility towards myself and others is 'understandable'? Regards, Ben Aveling 02:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Response

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

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

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

Outside view

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

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

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

Outside view by Doc

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

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


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

  1. Right.--Sean|Black 00:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. David D. (Talk) 01:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Karmafist 01:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC) I do agree with both views. Dunc's behavior isn't acceptable under WP:CIVIL, but Ed Poor's block was questionable at best. However, unblocking yourself is almost as bad as the original action, and I re-blocked for a shorter period today until told that it was not a bad faith move on his part, with I AGFed considering the person who told me and the examples they showed me.
  4. FeloniousMonk 02:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC) - Doc's right. Ed's been gunning for Dunc for some time now , and today he finally got his wish.
  5. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC). I have added my view on my opinion on the block further down as well.

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

  1. No. As mounting evidence shows, Harris had been repeatedly warned not to use abusive language or mis-use his administrative powers. To put it another way, if three seperate users warn an anonymous vandal to stop making personal attacks, it is completely appropriate for another administrator to step in and block the offending vandal. The difference is that Harris is not an anonymous new user, he is a well seasoned administrator. Silensor 00:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ed Poor did warn Dunc. Dunc deleted the warnings. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    So why didn't Ed go to Rfc? David D. (Talk) 01:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    Ben, for the sake of complete accuracy, I'd have to say that Ed didn't warn Dunc. He informed him that he had blocked him. I don't intend that as a criticism of Ed, but it's just that what seems to be under discussion here is whether or not Ed was right to block without warning. Ann Heneghan 01:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    Good point. And I think that Ed and Dunc have preexisting unresolved issues so. Dunc still shouldn't have blanked Ed's comments. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    Although Harris was notified after being blocked, there is no disputing that Harris was repeatedly asked by many members of Misplaced Pages to please remain civil. Silensor 01:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    Right, and I did not dispute that point. David D. (Talk) 02:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. I disagree to the extent that there is no need to go to RfC and RfAr before applying a block. Go to AN/I perhaps, but it's only a block. Indeed, blocks are often used as attention-getters and this one presumably did exactly that. I agree to the extent that there was not a micron of room for self-unblocking. -Splash 01:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    I think Doc means to to RfC if the bad behaviour continues after the block. But otherwise, yes (to be frank, I think this whole thing could have been solved if Dunc had just apoligized, and allowed himself to be re-blocked. But whatever). --Sean|Black 02:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. He deletes his warnings, he deletes his critisisim, he is uncivil. - Kookykman|(t)e
  5. Granted, I am not an administrator, but I have personally and politely asked Duncharris at least four times not to label the contributions of others as "crap". He responded by telling me to "fuck off" and then blanked out various parts of our conversation. If the consensus is that my request was unreasonable and that the response I received was even remotely warranted then we have greater problems than this RFA at hand. Bahn Mi 05:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    The idea that administrators are somehow deserving of more respect than editors without admin powers is poisonous and improper. An admin is just an editor with a few extra buttons. You are every bit as deserving of being treated with respect as the longest-serving admin. Nandesuka 05:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Dmcdevit

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

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

  1. Ann Heneghan 01:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. FeloniousMonk 02:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Bahn Mi 04:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC) With this RFC I hope that Duncharris can learn to show courtesy and respect towards others, especially with those who do not share his point of view.
  4. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 05:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. --Sean|Black 07:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. All admins take heed. We don't ask too much of users, or sysops, but we get very upset when basic rules are breached. Harro5 07:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. TenOfAllTrades(talk) with one minor quibble—I agree that rollback should never be used for content disputes, but that doesn't mean that it should be used solely for simple vandalism. I think it's legitimate to use it for user tests (along with a note to the user) and undoing my own erroneous actions; there are a few other exceptions. 08:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Guettarda

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

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

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

2. Policy does not restrict use of rollback for vandalism

  • See, for example, this diff

3. Unblocking

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

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

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

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

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

Users who do not endorse this summary:

  1. Not a word of it, I'm afraid, apart from the obligatory fluff about "good editor" etc. It's excuse making where there is no excuse. It's a request for comments, not harassment. It's what you get when you don't act up to the standards people expect of you. -Splash 02:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    Not a word of it? It violates policy to complain about getting the preview pane when you try to save for the nth time? That list of diffs appears to be deliberately misleading. I can't imagine how you can see it as anything else. Guettarda 02:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. While I concur that the mere use of profanity is not against policy, you lost me at your very first point, where you claim that it's understandable that Dunc told another editor to fuck off. That's not understandable. That's not good editing. It's not reasonable. It's not civility. It is, in my opinion, absolutely unacceptable. It's an insult to the thousands of excellent editors here — both admin and non-admin — who somehow manage to be active and fruitful contributors without telling other editors to "fuck off," to suggest that this behavior is acceptable. And, frankly, it beggars belief that you actually managed to write the sentence "Fuck off is not an attack" with a straight face Nandesuka 02:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    Is "leave me alone" an attack? The only difference between that and "fuck off" or "bugger off" is the shock factor. Guettarda 02:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    Obviously, I believe there is a world of difference between "leave me alone" and "fuck off." One word we use to describe that difference is "civility." Nandesuka 03:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    The meaning is the same. How is one an attack and the other not? It's only a matter of convention regarding "bad language". Guettarda 03:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    I encourage anyone who is incapable of recognizing that being told to "fuck off" is rude and insulting to endorse your summary. Nandesuka 03:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. There's nothing wrong with profanity (free speech, and all that), but otherwise per Splash.--Sean|Black 02:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. I obviously disagree that comments such as "To Bahn Mi (cos I know you're watching) fuck off", "fuck off" ", "Abusive language - fuck off" could be considered anything but a violation of WP:CIVIL. I personally think that all the "This article is utter crap"-type comments are also in violation, both by the word and the spirit of the policy, as they are needlessly insulting the creators of the articles, who clearly meant no harm in writing "crap" articles about their schools (almost all of which were kept despite their being, apparently, "crap"). Since nearly all of the contributors who had had "crap" thown back in their faces after their effors were new users, this is also a pretty ugly demonstration of biting the newbies. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 03:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Foul language, even directed at machines, is disrespectful to those that have to read it. Directed at people, it is abuse. Nor does one have to be foul to be abusive. For example, Dunc once made a comment about the need to "save poor FM's sanity". There's nothing vulgar in the language, but it's still not a polite thing to say. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. There is no excuse for edit summaries like this - by all means swear at your computer, but don't write it in an edit summary. I also disagree that comments like "Fuck off" directed at another user are not personal attacks - they're not the worst I've seen by a long shot, but that still does not make them right. Thryduulf 08:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Agree with those who don't endorse this, you cannot make these instances of incivility OK because they're not. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Snowspinner

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

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

  1. Phil Sandifer 03:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Guettarda 04:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. KillerChihuahua 04:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. FeloniousMonk 05:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

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

  1. Bahn Mi 04:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC) Biting newbies, abusive language, name calling, personal attacks, et cetera, are not things which should be taken lightly or encouraged.
    With all due respect, on the school Afd's there is a mob mentality that is part of the problem. I do not endorse how Duncharris deals with the issues but there are barbs on the other side too.David D. (Talk) 05:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    We are all responsible for our own actions, Duncharris is no exception. Bahn Mi 05:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Other comments (since we are apparently not using the discussion page for such things.)

  1. I assume that the four above endorsements are subject to Duncharris apologising to all those he has abused, and agreeing never to do it again, subject to some actual penalty? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Sjakkalle

I am not particularily impressed by either Duncharris or Ed Poor here.

Duncharris, while a good contributor and in my opinion, quite fit for his position as administrator, can be incivil which is highlighted by the use of the profanity presented. (Although it should be said that going through the contributions list of Duncharris, that does not seem to be the typical edit summary.) Regarding the unblocking of himself, yes it was a violation of the blocking policy and should not have been done. However...

Ed Poor's block of Duncharris appears to be way out of line. Before blocking anyone, they must have been given adequate warning. In this case, Duncharris did get a warning from Thryduulf at 14:58 November 20. That Ed Poor would instate a 24-hour block more than 24 hours later makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Duncharris could easily have e-mailed almost any other active admin, and would have been promptly unblocked.

A further, more serious reason why Ed Poor should never have blocked Dunc, is that Ed Poor and Duncharris have been in conflict with eachother over some articles. To me, when the block comes so long after the incident, Ed Poor's block looks like a vengeance block. Ed Poor blocked Duncharris not because of outrage over the "F*** off" edit summary, but because he saw an opportunity to get even. Except for vandalism, one should never block a user you are in a conflict with.

Dunc's self-unblock was done only once. The case being thoroughly discussed on the noticeboard, Snowspinner sees that the first blocking was out of line, and unblocks. That should have ended matters. A fairly neutral admin decides to settle the case. Setting about to then block Dunc because of the hasty self-unblock of an inappropriate block and labelling it as flagrant admin abuse, is reading the rules too squarely. The reason the policy prohibits self-unblocks is to avoid giving the impression that admins are above the rules and can do whatever they like: if they vandalize and get blocked for it, hey they can just unblock themselves; break the 3RR and get blocked, hey they just unblock themselves so the rule doesn't apply for them. That was not the case here, the block instated was clearly inappropriate and implemented by a biased admin who was in conflict with Dunc. Any other admin would have let Dunc back to editing, Snowspinner finally did so. I can hardly see that this single isolated incident of a self-unblock should lead to this much anger.

Incivility is a bad thing, and I know that Dunc might do well to soften his conduct somewhat, for starters not using profane words would be nice. Such words kind of strike a lot harder when they're written down rather than spoken, because they don't go away.

I have an admission to make, and that is that I have also been guilty, here, of taunting Dunc for his school deletionism. I would also suggest that people refrain from making posts on Dunc's talkpage with the heading "WP:CIVIL". I have yet to see any case where this kind of "friendly" request for civility has done anything else than anger the incivil editor further. People are incivil when they're upset, angry, or feel wronged, and snapping at them, taunting them or accusing them of vandalism is unlikely to improve things.

Users who endorse this summary

  1. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. David D. (Talk) 08:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. --Celestianpower 11:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

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