User talk:Filll/Archive 22

Please Retract
Please retract this this personal attack personal attack. I've been very patient with your escalating insults but this crosses the line. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: this was amended after it became clear to me that I had provided the wrong diff initially. For that I apologize whole heartedly.  Please see the more detailed discussion below.PelleSmith (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you know that making a spurious claim of a violation of WP:NPA is itself engaging in a violation of WP:AGF and is itself unCIVIL behavior? This approaches WP:DE and WP:TE. Retract your claim immediately or I will proceed. Have a nice day.--Filll (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How then, are you supposed to make a person aware of the fact that he/she has attacked you? (BTW love all the acronym tossing around, great way to evade issues.) People can take comments, especially by way of social networking sites like this, wrong very easily without having the visual/audio cues normal in communication. Things that you think are completely normal can be taken very badly by another. 195.216.82.210 (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the best way is probably to say something like, "Could you clarify your statement here; perhaps I misunderstood. It seems that you're saying [whatever], and I think that's inaccurate because of [reasons]." If you say "please retract this personal attack," it often puts the person on the defensive because they feel they're being accused of a violation which will then be used against them. On the other hand, "please retract this personal attack" is a very understandable thing to say when one feels attacked, and the best response to it is probably to avoid getting defensive, and say something like, "I didn't mean to attack you." -GTBacchus(talk) 14:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a retraction. And I challenge anyone to demonstrate to me how my linked statement constituted a violation of WP:NPA.--Filll (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As You Wish
As you wish. I’ll start with a little bit of history for you. In answer to my first ever post on the Rosalind Picard talk page you left me these comments, none of which addressed my concern about BLP but included gems like: When these comments triggered a sarcastic response on my part you immediately started slinging around accusations of policy violations: To my second attempt at asking why the actions of an institute unaffiliated with the living person who’s biography we are writing should be highlighted in said biography you told me that my question was “nonsense”, and more than once, more than twice even: I’m not sure I understood at the time what you thought we were “fighting” over since you never explained the rationale for including the disputed sentence but simply resorted to calling my question “nonsense.”  From here things went downhill. Here are some examples, in which you continue to insult, to spuriously accuse others of policy violations and to directly threaten those opposed to you.
 * “Just state the facts. It is pretty simple to do, instead of attacking the other editors here and throwing tantrums.”
 * “If it is really important to you, show it by actually doing some work instead of just whining.”
 * “The sarcasm is not particularly becoming and shows an unwillingness to abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Are you here to fight, or to write an encyclopedia? Good heavens. Why not try doing some work for a change?”
 * “I am not going to continue to fight with you about nonsense. Do some work if you want to improve this biography,” “I will not continue to fight about this nonsense,” and “If and when you feel like doing some real work, you are welcome to do so. Otherwise, who can be bothered with this kind of nonsense?”

Directed towards me: And Directed towards other editors: By the time you posted the comment I asked you to retract I was thoroughly fed up with your behavior. Now I’ll admit that I didn’t behave like a saint through all of this but anyone can check the talk page, I stand by the fact that I have not crossed the lines you have. Here is the comment I took issue with above: My requests for retraction have barely been humored and you have now resorted to insinuating that I may be violating even more serious policies by editing for banned users and the like: Of course then you also made this statement in direct answer to something I wrote:
 * “This is not rocket science here. Just stop whining and work.”
 * “I am not even going to justify that with a response. Just be aware that the last person who tried to claim such nonsense was banned for their trouble. And I already warned you in detail about it. So..”
 * “Please feel free to be productive instead of violating CIVIL, NPA, AGF and a number of other principles. Cheers!”
 * “I will thank you not to violate CIVIL, AGF, NPA and engage in BAIT … The more blustering and attacking you do, the more lying you do about the sources, the worse things will get. Just take it easy. You will edit longer.”
 * “PS likes to argue "by fiat and fatwa". He just makes gratuitous declarations with no facts to back them up and no sources, in a desperate attempt to whitewash the situation and to try to make the Discovery Institute look reasonable, completely buying into their propaganda. I am not surprised he does things by fatwa, considering his other editing interests.”
 * “Ok I reworded it slightly. Maybe you are not buying into their propaganda and repeating their positions and those of Moulton. Maybe it only appears that you are doing so, or you are doing so inadvertantly. Maybe you are only effectively buying into their propaganda, but not literally doing so. Maybe some might call this being an "unwitting dupe". Ok fair enough. But nevertheless, this pattern of obfuscation and mispresentation is quite characteristic of some well-funded and well-organized entites involved in this discussion who are promoting certain views and engaging in propaganda. Ok?”
 * “And actually when some editors here make the exact same edits as departed editors and banned editors, appearing to engage in proxy editing for banned editors (which is grounds for immediate banning), and we have substantial evidence of recruiting of meat puppets (which again is grounds for banning of the puppets), then this is a matter of concern for the writing of this article.”

Does any of this violate WP:NPA, or related policies like WP:CIVIL? The No Personal Attacks policy has this very simply guideline: “Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack ‘’regardless of the manner in which it is done.’’ When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.” Further more, in reference to my statement above, which only came after mounting insults, the NPA policy also states: “‘Your statement is a personal attack...’ is not itself a personal attack.”  I won’t bore anyone here with quotes form the civility guidelines, and as I said, some of my comments could be construed as problematic in those regards as well. I do know this. However, Filll has crossed the line too many times, especially now that he is threating others with going to AN/I and then when people say, please do, he hides behind “I wont take WP:BAIT.” This simply needs to stop.PelleSmith (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I firmly believe that what you claimed was a "personal attack" was not and I am still waiting for you to retract it, or for someone to explain to me in what way it was a personal attack because it totally escapes me. I did not attack you personally. It was not an ad hominem attack. I discussed your argument. Period. Show me what I did otherwise. Go ahead.


 * Also, you will find that things go much easier for you when you do not purposely misrepresent the sources like the New York Times. That is not the smartest idea. You can try it, but my advice is to try not to do that so much in the future. It was tried before on this article, and it did not go over very well.


 * And are you upset about the proxy comment? Did I say it referred to you? How do you know? Maybe you feel guilty for some reason? Did you not see the comment by Odd Nature? --Filll (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fill you are insinuating once again that I might be doing this when you say "Maybe you feel guilty for some reason?" Let me put the above more clearly for you.  The NPA policy states: Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.  Your entire comment (bolded above) is directly about me, and not about my argument.  When you say things like "PS likes to argue 'by fiat and fatwa'" and "He just makes gratuitous declarations with no facts to back them up and no sources," you are not commenting on an argument, but directly on me as an editor who exhibts X, Y, or Z behavior.  However, the part I find directly insulting, again directed towards me and not my argument is the idea that I "try to make the Discovery Institute look reasonable, completely buying into their propaganda."  To make matters worse you insinuated that somehow my other editing interests make it logical for me to edit by "fatwa."  Now why on earth would you use a term like "fatwa" instead of something like "declaration" or "edict" and what do my other editing interests have to do with Islamic legal declarations or religious edicts?  Perhaps you think that because I don't put up with the POV espoused by FrontPage Magazine I must be a Muslim, and as a Muslim (which I'm not) I'm perhaps more comfortable with religious edicts than reasoned discourse?  One can't say for sure where you were going with your comment but anyone who knows my "other interests" wouldn't need much imagination to see the connection and the veiled insinuation of a disparaging comment on ethnic and/or religious lines.  Of course whether or not that is true the rest is still clearly insulting.  Good day.PelleSmith (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record can you please provide me with as much as one diff which shows me "purposely misrepresent(ing) the sources like the New York Times." I'll grant you the leeway of not being able to prove purpose, so that leaves you with at least showing misrepresentation.  I've answered your request with numerous diffs, I think you could at least oblige me one.  Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In the general heat of the discussion, I believe I accidently attributed this edit of Merzbow to you. You might have expressed similar sentiments, but I will not dig to find them, and will just assume that I became confused for the moment. I apologize if I lumped you and Merzbow together. --Filll (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you really believe that misrepresenting things and obfuscating things and rewriting history you can gain an advantage? My goodness. So what did you originally complain about as a personal attack? Let's review:

is exactly the post you described as a personal attack appearing here.

Now I describe what you are arguing in favor of. I ask a question about you buying into an agenda. Neither of these constitute an attack on you personally, do they? If you believe they do, please feel free to describe how they do. Because as far as I know, these do not constitute ad hominem statements. And I would LOVE to have your explanation as to why these are a personal attack, and/or an ad hominem attack.

Now I did use the phrase "by fiat and fatwa" to describe your gratuitous claims. I did make a wisecrack about your editing history, it is true. And when you asked me to remove it, did I ? I removed it immediately and noted that I was doing so since I did not want to give unwarranted offense, although I think you have pretty thin skin if this offends you. But whatever, I removed it to be on the safe side with no questions asked here.

I did caution you about making anything that could be construed as a legal threat since many people have a policy of blocking immediately at even the mildest allusion to a legal threat. And so I tried to warn you from getting yourself in trouble. Do you object to being warned or would you prefer just to be blocked with no warning?

I do not assume you are a Muslim. If you do a bit of websearching on Wikipedia, you will see I have used the phrase "by fiat and fatwa" over and over and over, for months or even well over a year, long before I met you. It just has an alliterative approach and sounds better than just repeatedly labelling things as gratuitous. It is just what I do and have done for a long time.

I am still waiting for your retraction or explanation of your claim of a personal attack for what bears no resemblance whatsoever to an ad hominem attack or a personal attack on initial inspection. Go ahead. Think it through. I have not been overwhelmed by perspicacious reasoning to this point, however.--Filll (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Filll that is not the comment I meant to complain about and clearly not the comment I discuss above, nor the comment you offered a a partial retraction to on the talk page. Although I am now aware of the fact that I put the wrong diff in my original complaint--something that should have been obvious too you after reading the lengthy explanation and to which I would have appreciated more good natured correction for than this obvious use of a mistake to your advantage.  Of course the wrongly posted diff, the text of which you have posted, bares no resemblance to a personal attack.  This is the comment I was trying to complain about, which is the very comment you addressed by offering a half retraction:
 * “PS likes to argue "by fiat and fatwa". He just makes gratuitous declarations with no facts to back them up and no sources, in a desperate attempt to whitewash the situation and to try to make the Discovery Institute look reasonable, completely buying into their propaganda. I am not surprised he does things by fatwa, considering his other editing interests.”
 * I can't blame you for being confused initially, but you clearly are not any longer and I will correct this mistake above. I have made no attempt to confuse in this, and that should be clear since my original mistake was not to my advantage.  I will not retract my comment, but I will amend it with transparency.  I am still waiting for the diff that shows me misrepresenting sources.PelleSmith (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your retraction. As to whether I should have realized you made a mistake, I think given the kinds of arguments people make on Wikipedia, that is a bit unrealistic.--Filll (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW. It is one thing to use the expression "by fiat or fatwa," on its own as a turn of phrase and it is quite another to directly link a desire to edit by fatwa with editing interests that clearly relate to Islam.  Don't play innocent as to your insinuation.PelleSmith (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not playing innocent. I removed it immediately when you complained. I think it was perfectly reasonable and did not constitute a personal attack, but you did clearly, so I removed it immediately when you indicated that you did not like it. --Filll (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I loved the AGF challenge. The need to allow concepts to be explained by those who purport it is certainly important part of Wiki and must be done PRIOR to posting the as why something is wrong.  I take it you are a scientist who feels strongly about evolution and feel the need to defend it and to squelsh the concepts that challenge it.  Science cannot prove many things that are true, yet it deserves to be told, and explained and then AFTER it is presented, disputed and challenged.  I am an evolutionist.  I also consider that intelligent (without God) may be a reality.  I belong to a group 80,000 atheists that believe it is possible that extra terrestrials were involved in life on Earth.  Crazy for a scientists to consider, but also it is possible just the same. Let the crazy ideas come out so that a rational scientist like you, can laugh with the rest of the world who will never know this concept even exists and has merit because of you.  Lets make Wiki about information, not just what science knows, but what may be possible.

Preceeding signed by: Bnaur   Talk  03:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * aka, lets worship a former racecar driving, alien seeing, nutter. Yay freedom!  Yay science!  Yay wiki!  Baegis (talk) 05:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

AGF/Alsee
Not so coincidentally, I had actually come across your AGF Challenge page more than a week before you suggested I go there. But before I proceed, a gift. Enjoy. Have a good laugh :) Alsee (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Smile
I thought you might appreciate this this and this. :) Vassyana (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Request
One request: please don't refer to other editors as "furious" or otherwise characterizing their mental state. We're clearly having some difficulty with having a productive discussion on the page, but I think avoiding personal statements of this nature would help a great deal. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Read through the megabytes of talk page discussion since last August and tell me that many are not furious. That is my impression, in any case. You want to argue with my impression? You want to charge me with a violation of CIVIL for that? You want to claim that is a violation of NPA? A failure of AGF? --Filll (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked. I used "furious" twice, but not applying that label to any particular editor. You claim that is an ad hominem attack?--Filll (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, you said editors similar to myself were furious, and I'm fairly certain you've used that word elsewhere. I think you've also made similar negative statements about editors "similar" to this or that editor. I'm not accusing you of anything, but simply asking you to (please) be careful with this comment.  Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe you are or were furious. I never suggested that, as far as I know. I used it twice that I found. There are many editors who agree with you philosophically who do appear to be angry to me. Perhaps they are not. Perhaps I am mistaken. So what?--Filll (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you said I was angry at some point, but I appreciate the clarification. I prefer not to comment on these things in the first place.  Just trying to have a reasonable discussion without it getting too heated is all.  Mackan79 (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

reply
As you wish...  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  16:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Article suggestion
You're just the person to do this one right. DGG (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I made a suggestion to a person that this is perfect for. We will see if anything comes of it.--Filll (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

!!!
Have you seen this? User:WillowW Awadewit (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh no... You were right, that Action Potential defense was taxing. I do know from the 3 or 4 FAs I have been involved with, they can be a very bruising affair, particularly if they are not in your own area of expertise. Someone comes by who is an expert, and has no constructive criticism to offer, and just jeers instead; it can be very demoralizing. I have seen this in 2 of the 4 FAs I was involved with; the other 2 were just brutal fights and nightmarish.--Filll (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

renaming the AGF challenge
I've spoken to other people about it too when the "quiz" first came out, and they agree that the name the "AGF challenge" seems like a form of doublespeak because these questions aren't necessarily about the use of AGF. Of course I WP:AGF :):) but I do think a name change would be great for such a fun quiz, a "game" which could also lead to a survey of people's views on how to act in given situations. How's about just "the editor's challenge" ?  Merkin's   mum  08:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I might rename it. We will see.--Filll (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Security tips
Hey Filll! I noticed your Security tips subpage and I think it's great, but I thought that maybe a unified location for all usage tips may be less confusing, so I moved the contents into a dedicated section on NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Helpful Hints. Hope you don't mind, but if you do, simply revert my changes or let me know and I'll do it myself. Dorftrottel (criticise) 18:39, April 27, 2008

Essay on long-term article management
Hi Filll. I recently mentioned User:Filll/essaydraft at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Proposed decision. I basically said that your method is better than this proposed "Sourcing Board". See here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * At some point I have to clean up that draft! --Filll (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Question
I recently saw a note you left on QuackGuru's page mentioning he was a good contributor. Having edited with him for over 3 months on Chiropractic I wholeheartedly disagree, but that's just an opinion. I'd like to know if you consider chiropractic a pseudoscience that deserves fringe treatment. Because your comment suggests that this may be the case, in which case I'd like to get an official comment from the cabal or an ArbCom or something to get clarification. Skeptics are treating it like a pseudoscience (even though it's not listed on Wikipedia as one) and are using WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY to omit peer-reviewed research by DC/PhDs in a journal like Spine. It's getting out of hand and I would appreciate your feeback. Thanks (I'll take the challenge too!) CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert in chiropractic therapy. I have not studied the literature. However, my impression is that some large fraction of standard chiropractic treatments are of minimal value or no value. Many claims of Chiropracters that I have heard seem to verge on extreme puffery. However, some of the treatments for lower back pain I believe were shown in carefully controlled studies to be superior to standard medical treatments some years ago. I think this was a large study organized or funded or published by the NIH, but I forget the details. I do not know what the current status is on that, however. I believe that chiropractic medicine is definitely close to a FRINGE practice, if it is not exactly a FRINGE practice, by several different measures. --Filll (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we are having this conversation because it lets me know where user's understandings are at. Right off the bat I see that rather that rather than getting an informed opinion on the literature, there's been a lot of hearsay.  This is where I come and and educate and provide skeptics with literature to clarify misconceptions.  The most important one you are alluding to is the claims of some straight chiropractors who make unfounded claims.  Yes they are fringe, but they are the minority of the profession.  I have peer-reviewed references, both by DCs and MDs that confirms this fact.


 * So, we are left with the majority (mainstream) of chiropractic labelled as fringe and treated as such.  I represent the rational mainstream.  A lot of times chiropractic medicine gets compared with homeopathy.  If you look here at our latest, evidence-based [|clinical practice guidelines] I think you will be pleasantly surprised.  How can a profession embrace EBM and be fringe?  Lastly, depending on the studies 80-95% of DC care is directly towards neuromusculoskeletal complaints.  That leaves 5-20% on non NMS, which is where the controversy comes in.  To give so much undue weight on these practitioners which is then used as a straw man to discredit the whole profession and ignore the recent reformations and advances just sucks (for a lack of a better word).


 * Anyways, I feel that I be an important, sensible, credible, evidence-based CAM practitioner who can help bridge the divide here. Because as it stands, there's about skeptical 5-6 editors who really, really, tendentiously yet civilly, undermine and destabilize my efforts at physical medicine articles.  Lastly, if I provide you with sources from orthox medicine confirming that chiropractic is mainstream would that help solidify my argument?  Because mainstream medicine is now even saying chiropractic care is mainstream.  I think it's time we take a 2008 POV on this and not a dated view which, unfortunately, some skeptics are adhering to despite evidence to the contrary.  Cheers. CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * you might find it interesting to compare the article and talk page on this in Citizendium. DGG (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * From the lead of the Citizendium article:
 * "Although chiropractic manipulations have been shown to be efficacious for some types of back pain, treatment of most other health related conditions using chiropractic therapy has not been accepted by health science. That rejection is not simply based on a lack of compelling clinical evidence, but also because health science does not accept the chiropractic concept of subluxation, or innate intelligence, as part of human biology."
 * Emphasis added. I think it is a beautiful sentence. What are the chances of Wikipedia ever being able to say something like that in the lead? Merzul (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, this perfectly illustrates my point. This statement is patently incorrect, and the literature produced by experts who investigate and use manipulative therapy know the benefits and limitations.  How can we ever begin to truly move forward if there is a fundamental misunderstanding as the state of the art and science of contemporary chiropractic?  Also, as implied below, it has nothing to do with ownership but rather presenting facts.  Facts that are verifiable and in the literature. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This exposes the fundamental part of the problem. CorticoSpinal views Wikipedia as a place to "correct" the views of mainstream medicine to "right great wrongs". However, that is not the purpose of Wikipedia; it is to reflect the views of the mainstream, even if the views of the mainstream are incorrect or based on a misunderstanding or out of date or just plain stupid or ill-informed. And of course, these two conflicting views result in terrible clashes because CorticoSpinal refuses to understand what Wikipedia's purpose is and abide by its principles.


 * The bottom line is, the mainstream does not respect Chiropractic, rightly or wrongly. Do you deny that this is correct? --Filll (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia should state something like this in the LEAD. The fact that Wikipedia does not make a comparable statement is quite telling. It is very hard to overcome a large collection of editors and admins who are holding out in some area and defending their "turf" and the orientation of "their article".

For example, about 3 or more years ago on Wikipedia, a similar effort was mounted successfully to produce the current intelligent design article; several science-oriented people had to campaign for months and months on end to achieve the success. About 3 years ago the Joan of Arc article was similarly reoriented through a brutal year-long effort (the source of one of the AGF Challenge stories).

I have heard of efforts by pro-science editors to try to make inroads on the Wikipedia chiropractic article for many months, and it has been very frustrating and exhausting. I have not joined the fray because (1) this area is not particularly interesting to me (2) one only has so much energy to spend (3) I am involved in other areas. I was invited to take part in the "animal testing" dispute some months ago but decided not to, since one has to pick their battles.--Filll (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Username on Commons
I am this user:.--Filll (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ntww12 o.ogg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ntww12 o.ogg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

AGF challenge?
No thanks, not interested in anything to do with those who support abusing our editors, as you clearly do by supporting OrangeMarlin's hostile actions without supporting evidence. ThuranX (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I view this as highly offensive and a violation of WP:CIVIL. I will thank you to try to reign yourself in and behave in a reasonable and rational fashion in the future, if it is all possible for you. Please try to WP:AGF. You might find it to your benefit. Have a nice day. --Filll (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Filll, it would be nice if you stopped spamming talk pages. Noticeboards and Village pumps are fine, but individual user talk pages of people isn't really acceptable. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon me? Please point me to the place in Wikipedia policy where I have violated some rule. In fact, why not file an RfC for my violation of some standard of conduct? Let's have it out, shall we? Frankly I find your insinuations highly insulting and a gross violation of WP:CIVIL. Perhaps you might want to reconsider that charge of "spamming" ? --Filll (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If this is not approaching a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and WP:NPA, I am not sure what is, especially given our steadily changing standards for what constitutes a violation in these areas (like telling someone to "get lost" or referring to someone has having made a "bone headed argument"). Come on try to control yourself before this gets out of hand. Show some decency.--Filll (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way alleged counsellor, the challenge still stands. Come on little buddy, let's go. --Filll (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I am still waiting. Funny how people are so full of threats and bluster, but then do not want to come through. If I am so vile and disgusting and am in such flagrant violation of the precepts and principles that govern good editing on Wikipedia, it should be an easy matter to demonstrate this convincingly in an RfC and have me administratively sanctioned, should it not? Why has this not happened then, in spite of repeated threats and allusions to my scurrilous behavior and flaunting of ever standard of decency and proper comportment on Wikipedia? Perhaps it is because they realize they do not have a leg to stand on and will be made to look foolish or worse if they continue?--Filll (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't know who exactly you're speaking to, me or Thuranx? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe one or both of you. Or maybe someone else. You just have to guess I suppose.--Filll (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be bad form to not tell who you are replying to. Also, personal attacks aren't really considered civil. Hope that helps!  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  15:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if truth be told, in the course of this thread and the thread which spawned it, I am replying at various times to at least 3 other editors. However, I choose to leave it in this format. If you can find an explicit Wikipedia policy that forbids this, please feel free to present it.--Filll (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not say that it was against a policy; I said it was bad form. In a group discussion it is bad form (not to mention confusing) to leave a reply hanging for interpretation. Also, if the was to a group, you should (not required, but should) have said which group you were talking to.  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  16:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then I will follow WP:IAR, thanks awfully. And if I spent energy in flagging everything on here that was not "good form", I would do little else. For example, I could point out the grammatical infelicity represented by a phrase like " if the was to a group" and several other difficulties. Those that comments are directed to should be able to discern who they are to. Those who do not understand the comment should probably assume the comment was not directed at them. And I am not going to clarify further. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, you have suggested I have made a personal attack. Please show me explicitly where and how I made a personal attack.--Filll (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "I will thank you to try to reign yourself in and behave in a reasonable and rational fashion in the future, if it is all possible for you" Implying that the individual is hostile, and also stating the he/she most likely doesn't know how to behave in a reasonable, rationale fashion. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Just because someone does not take your challenge because of your association with another user is not assuming bad faith nor is it incivility.  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  16:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually review the record above carefully including the diffs and the thread which spawned it? Did you know that I am allowed to ask people to not behave in an unCIVIL manner, if I have good reason to believe they have done so, without being charged with making a personal attack? I do not believe my complaint was spurious in nature. If you believe it was, please tell me how after you have reviewed the comments that gave rise to it.--Filll (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So now you assuming that I am "too incompetent" to review your comments? Perhaps you need to review the WP:ATTACK.  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  16:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you two please cool it? This fighting over nothing does NOT help the encyclopedia. Please cease. How about having some tea? There is no need for this animosity. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 16:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to call a WP:TRUCE. BTW, I don't drink tea, but do you have coffee? I love coffee! Caffeine! Yeah Baby!  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  16:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is getting pretty funny. Are you guys still heated over the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate you had last month? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 16:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is hilarious. Maybe he is upset that I have declined to waste more time debating him. Maybe he is upset that I have not gone along with his proposals to awkwardly reword some section headers at the Expelled article. Who knows?--Filll (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "awkwardly reword some section headers" That is an opinion, especially since the Ben Stein article states scientific establishment. Also, are you declining the truce?  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  16:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What truce? Please provide a diff to some purported truce. Maybe I missed it. And Wikipedia is not a good source for Wikipedia, and we try to avoid WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS reasoning here.--Filll (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Please consider taking the AGF Challenge
I've replied at my talk. As per that comment, I'm broadly suprised why you consider (well I assume you consider hence your request) I've acted in bad faith, and would welcome diffs evidencing this, and open dialogue to address your concerns about my edits and actions. I can only assure you I have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. Pedro : Chat  21:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh well sorry for any offense that might have caused you.--Filll (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

AGF challange, and my bias
I will take the AGF challenge, but don't think that I don't appreciate the hard work you put, Filll, into keeping controversial articles at the high quality as they are. Which is why I ask if I'm being disruptive in how I present my views. I can imagine it feels disruptive when I complain about stuff like WP:WTA and the structure of the article; not appreciating how much research you have put into getting the facts right.

However, the AGF challenge are mostly about what should be done about trouble-makers. I will take it, but I would still appreciate an answer about what a "trouble-maker" should do, if they believe something is wrong. Clearly, edit-warring is not productive. I think the too general philosophical rants that I've engaged in are also not productive.

What would you have done in my situation? Merzul (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While I sympathize with you, I have to make several comments.


 * (1) Your experience on Wikipedia appears to be extremely limited, with a very limited number of edits in a very limited area. When I had a comparable number of edits and experience, I knew very little really about Wikipedia and its principles.


 * (2) I have come to realize that in situations where one disagrees significantly with the consensus, that I just have to understand that and accept it and move on. Numerous times material I wrote has been deleted. I argue a little, but I do not put up much of a fight since one has to pick their battles and it just is not worth it. I have totally abandoned articles when the consensus is against me, or the atmosphere there is too poisonous.


 * (3) Probably the number one thing that I have noticed over my almost 30,000 edits that people such as yourself have a problem with is understanding WP:NPOV. NPOV does not mean neutral. NPOV does not mean unbiased. NPOV does not mean sympathetic. NPOV does not mean the absence of criticism or negative material. NPOV is pretty simple, when you understand it. One editor summed it up very well when he said you "describe the dispute". That means you do not present one side of the dispute only. You present both sides.


 * Suppose that there are two main views on some subject, A and B. Wikipedia NPOV dictates that we present A's view of A, and B's view of B, but also A's view of B and B's view of A. And A's view of B might be negative, and B's view of A might be negative. And if A is more prominent in the relevant area or field than B (such as among mainstream movie critics), then NPOV dictates that A and A's criticism of B receive more attention and prominence in the article than B's criticism of A, or in some cases, even of B's view of B.


 * NPOV might not be optimal. It might not always produce a great article. It is a compromise to try to include all views, and come up with some sort of formula to do so that people with different views can agree on. Many many other wikis do not have NPOV. And many people that do not like NPOV or have been unable to understand NPOV or unwilling to abide by NPOV have been more happy at those other wikis. For example, Wikiinfo and Conservapedia do not use NPOV. --Filll (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your advice, especially (2). And yet, your description of NPOV is precisely what I too believe that the policy is all about. Where I disagree, however, is that "99% negative" necessarily implies that "99% of the material should be negative". I'm not saying that the article spends 99% on negative material, you may be right that it even gives too much weight to some positive opinions. This is not the point.


 * My position is that an article about a creative work can be qualitatively 99% damning, and yet successfully and accurately describe the work in question. My view is not that the two sides be treated equally. All I'm saying is that a few paragraphs can be included which dispassionately describe what happens on screen without supporting it nor debunking it.


 * I think it is a mistake to immediately conclude that my suggestion would skew the article's bias. Actually, if it does so, I speculate that it would make it slightly more effectively anti-ID. The article would clearly describe what it forcefully refutes, which is more impressive in my opinion. But this is just that, my personal opinion. In any case, it isn't our goal to find the most effective means to refute ID. So you may be totally right. But I suggest that our disagreement is more due to you being extremely sensitive to getting the facts right, while I think that how facts are presented are just as important, if not more important.


 * Am I right to assume you are a scientist? If so, I will repeat what Richard Dawkins says about how to write for a general audience. He tries to read his draft putting himself in the position of his mother, the local librarian, etc. He says that each time he comes up with a different set of changes. Have you tried to read the article from the perspective of someone trained in the humanities? To some people, matters of whether something seems like a straw man argument is just as important as the empirical evidence.


 * I myself used to think WP:WTA was an annoying obstacle to good and truthful writing, but I have changed my mind and I suggest that you too might want to take quite seriously the fact that the use of suggestive verbs create an appearance of bias. I'm sure you agree that intelligent design isn't bogus merely because we say so, it is bogus because of the fact that it hasn't produced any testable scientific hypotheses, and so on. I don't understand where exactly my position can be seen as contrary to NPOV. I very seldom use boldface, but I don't understand why complying with the style guideline WP:WTA would be against the content policy WP:DUE? The first has to do with the choice of words to avoid an appearance of bias, and the latter has to do with the actual content presented and the explicit message conveyed by those words.


 * I'm leaving the article alone and I thank you for your advice, fully accepting your second point, but I must say that I have a very hard time accepting the first. I think that's a very dangerous attitude to hold. It may be correct with respect to this incident, but even in my limited experience, I have seen no correlation between edit-count and sound judgement. One of my first negative experiences of this was on Talk:Martin Luther, where experienced editors (with well over 50k edits each) had created a section on "Recent Luther scholarship". However, its only focus was on recent expositions of Luther's anti-semitic writing. When Pastordavid, then a recent admin I think, suggested that they might want to look at what is actually published in mainstream Luther research, this was brushed off by another 50k+ editor. So I ask you, Filll, if you look at, e.g., the disputes on Talk:animal testing a while ago, do you detect a correlation between edit-count and sound judgment?


 * On the other hand, I do see a correlation between focused-on-content talk page commentary and acutely sound judgment of NPOV, exemplified by Tim Vickers on Talk:animal testing, and on the Expelled page, by your more recent comments about the issue. That does impress me; your number of edits and assumptions that I have no clue about policy and suggestions that I would be happier elsewhere, does not.


 * I will take the AGF Challange to perhaps better understand why you couldn't have responded immediately as you finally did. Thanks for hearing me out, I do appreciate your patience, Merzul (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I hope you will accept a partial apology: although I think there are some style issues on ID-related articles, and I stand by most of what I say above. I was not aware of just how badly science is under-represented on many articles. I sort of thought you were over-reacting and going a bit too far with the aggressive tone in your comments. I didn't realize how desperately bad things are elsewhere, e.g., chiropractic. I apologize, Merzul (talk) 10:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What I say when people ask me is that "about 99 percent of Wikipedia articles are just dreadful" and that includes articles that have a science component. What is more positive, however, is that if you compare the average article to its version 2 or 3 years ago, it is far better now than it was previously. In areas like chiropractic, editors promoting a topic have established some sort of stronghold that they are defending with some success. They believe they are correcting some great wrong, or showing how all the mainstream of science and the media has made a mistake. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia; Wikipedia is supposed to reflect, for the most part, the position of the mainstream in the relevant field. What value is a general encyclopedia that does otherwise? Of course, the mainstream can make a mistake and often does make a mistake, but Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, as people often state.


 * What is going on in the chiropractic article and the homeopathy article are classic battles to try to stand by the principles of Wikipedia; to make the mainstream view in the relevant field the most prominent one in the article. The same goes for intelligent design articles. Although it is possible that there is evidence of the action of the supernatural in the physical world, a position that has not been part of mainstream science since the Scientific Revolution several centuries ago, this is an extreme minority position among scientists, held by way less than 1 percent of professional scientists. Should we represent things differently in Wikipedia articles? Should we turn our science articles into religious tracts?


 * Similarly, there is an extreme minority among theologians and Christian scholars that asserts that Jesus never existed. Should the articles on Jesus on Wikipedia all be written from the viewpoint of this extreme minority of the relevant experts? I have had long arguments with a Muslim scholar who claimed that Jesus was not one, but two separate people and therefore Christianity is an extreme blasphemy practiced by stupid people, as compared to Islam of course. How mainstream is this view? Should it be the dominant view on Wikipedia in the associated articles? I have also had several heated arguments with fundamentalists who claim that Jesus never said "love thy neighbor as thyself" and that such a statement appears no place in the bible, and that Jesus even ordered his followers to hunt down and slaughter those who denied the literal truth of every word of the Old Testament. Should Wikipedia write its articles about Jesus and the bible accordingly? Even though such views exist (the supernatural should be included in science, subluxations can cure most illnesses, Jesus never existed, etc) and should be described, a responsible approach to writing an encyclopedia will not make these positions dominant positions in the articles that touch on these subjects. These views might even be "true", but how useful would it be to take such minority views and make them the main views on a general purpose encyclopedia? --Filll (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you on all this. Wikipedia should reflect the world, and not be a vehicle for fringe groups to tell the rest of us the truth, finally... ;)

The difficult issue, however, is how to exactly represent such fringe views. If virtually all mainstream sources so violently denounce something, such as the case with Expelled, then to what extent do we also denounce it. Most people would agree that we make it very clear it has been denounced by virtually everyone and most people agree that we must report on all inaccuracies in the film as stated by reliable sources. This much is not controversial among reasonable editors (and I count myself as sometimes being reasonable).

The question is how much that should influences the structure and tone of the article. I started off being very convinced that it shouldn't influence the structure and tone at all. I thought we should treat this as any other documentary and let the facts speak for themselves. I'm now fanatically convinced that I don't know what is The Right Thing. No reliable source will discuss the film dispassionately, and I certainly don't want you to turn it into a religious tract to just repeat propaganda. However, my initial reaction when reading the article was that it felt as if written by people that are biased against the film, and I wonder if that feeling could be avoided.

I guess this is a bit paradoxical. One the one hand, such articles must in a deep sense be biased against the subject because that's the attitude of virtually all reliable sources. On the other hand, I wish one could avoid giving the impression that we are siding with these sources. Clearly, I don't really know what is The Ultimate Solution, but still does it make any sense what I'm trying to say here? Merzul (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I agree with you in some senses, you have to realize that this article is still in flux because of the huge interest in it. We went from about 80 views a day in December to almost 20,000 views per day when the movie opened. It still gets about 5000 views per day, which is more than the intelligent design article gets under normal circumstances. We have had many new editors appear, and things are changing rapidly. The writing is poor and there is a problem with formatting and content. It will slowly get corrected, but it is not easy under the present circumstances.


 * I invite you to look back at the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article at the end of December of 2007. I measured it as being roughly 90 percent pro-film at that time. Nevertheless, we still had several on the talk page who were absolutely livid that the article was too negative and did not present the thesis of the film in a sufficiently positive light, even at that time. Even the 10 percent which included a negative review or two, and some explanatory information describing the mainstream position on intelligent design and claims that "evolution caused the Holocaust" was viewed as excessive and incorrect, that no one who was rational and reasonable would subscribe to. The thing is, it is impossible to satisfy everyone, particularly those with an agenda. WP:NPOV represents a compromise, but some people are unable or unwilling to compromise and come to a consensus. Those people do not belong on Wikipedia, unfortunately.--Filll (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

AGF Challenge
Hi Filll, Thanks for inviting me to take the AGF challenge. I have completed the essay response version. My asnwers are located here. I thought a few of the situations were somewhat ambiguously described, but I simply stated how I understood them in my responses. Hope there is something there you can use. My days here seem to be numbered, but good luck with it. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Good luck.--Filll (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Good work on the AGF Challenge. It is a very interesting and instructive exercise. Good work. I wonder if we can incorporate some examples like this into the policy pages. I think people learn more from actual cases than they do abstract theory. CO GDEN  05:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm enjoying taking your AGF Challenge. Thank you for providing it. I want to drop a note to especially thank you for including the Ghost in the Machine question because it's interesting to read the responses. Incidentally, it is a common belief that ghosts call cell phones and even send emails, a sort of contemporary version of the old phantom caller beliefs surrounding analog phones. Mainstream sources for this common belief are in the form of newspapers and psychology papers examining why people believe weird things. Obviously there's no science to it, but it could be argued that it is a notable belief worthy of Wikipedia provided that it didn't try to misrepresent itself as scientifically based. The limited responses provided seemed to be either delete it as non-notable, let believers have a field day with it, or stuff it with mainstream science debunking it. I don't believe there's enough information in the question to choose any of those options if one wanted to provide a real answer. You may want to add the following information in future versions so that one can answer the question from something other than an ideological response to the topic itself, or an assumption that it's non-notable:


 * 1) Is it reliably sourced as a common belief? Many of the respondents said delete it as non-notable. The question didn't mention whether it was a notable belief, or whether the editors were providing sources. It only mentioned an absence of scientific sources debunking it.
 * 2) Are they presenting it as scientific (like the Electronic voice phenomena article)? If such were the case, I would answer that it does need a great deal of mainstream science because it would then be a pseudoscientific topic. The question didn't say how the editors were framing it.
 * 3) Are they simply presenting it as a common belief (like the Ghost article)? If that were the case, it wouldn't really need that much science, probably about as much as the Ghost article has. An article doesn't really need a lot of science if it's clearly described as a belief, urban legend, folklore, etc. not based on science.

Numbers 2 and 3 are suggested if you want to get a real response from your participants. You may want to add information about how the editors are presenting it. Probably the common folklore/urban legend/ghost story of the phantom caller would elicit different responses, so you might want to say in your example that the editors are asserting that a ghost is communicating on a higher frequency or some other nonsense. I understand that it's implied they are presenting pseudoscience, but you may want to make that clearer to over-analytical respondents like myself : ) -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 08:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * One might even say that a folk belief article that has to invoke heavy amounts of mainstream science has "failed" as an article, in providing an overly credulous presentation of its subject in the first place. Antelan talk  08:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree with that. However, the question didn't elaborate on how it was being presented. I feel the lack of information is reflected in the number of editors choosing option "Other" (majority response thus far). Most of the editors choosing to delete all "CPP" articles said they would do that because it's non-notable. But the question didn't elaborate on how notable the hypothetical "CPP" subject was. It only said there are no mainstream scientific studies on it. EVP is an example of a notable subject with no mainstream scientific studies on it, but few would say delete it altogether since it's a notable subject. Based on my experience of seeing what happens when an article swings to misrepresenting science (like EVP from time to time), I also feel a lot more editors would choose the option to "Demand that the CPP articles include a strong measure of mainstream science" had the question worded it as POV editors trying to validate the subject scientifically. As worded, it read more like "CPP" was simply a fringe belief, rather than a fringe theory with advocates trying to slip in pseudoscientific material. I assume that's the way it was meant to be worded based on the play to WP:FRINGE at the end of the question. It needs more info if that's the goal, to measure editor's attitudes towards fringe theories rather than fringe beliefs. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 23:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

challenge
Sure, it looks like a worthy program to participate in. But what procedure do I have to complete in order to enter the AGF challenge? Chimeric Glider (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure you're just welcome to set up a page and answer the questions. Filll can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's any prerequisite. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You just click on the directions link on the main AGF Challenge page.--Filll (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm positively surprised by the AGF challenge
Hi, Filll. I was impressed by the AGF challenge. After the first two questions, which are quite boring, it really captures some of the real problems. In any case, it has made me realize a few things. I will not insist on any changes to any controversial articles. I think there are enough difficulties on science-related articles as it is. I will follow the discussion on Expelled, and perhaps make a few comments, but I'm done playing the devil's advocate. Speaking of which, I finally decided to actually look at Conservapedia's article on the documentary, but even more fun was their number one Example of Bias in Wikipedia. Merzul (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are another 25 or 30 AGF Challenge exercises to come. I will issue them in groups of 8 or 10 I think. Thanks for the compliments.--Filll (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Some are better suited for admin-schooling or DR training. The average editor probably doesn't have the time to answer so many challenges. :) As a post to people like me to understand what's going on, I'd recommend removing questions about extremely disruptive editors, as these are more admin-issues and is often responded to by "block him". For the purpose of the discussion on the role of AGF/CIVIL on Wikipedia, it would be better to focus on questions that capture the challenges on controversial articles. On this first one, I think 3-6 are quite helpful. When you first posted this, I only read question one. That didn't give a good impression of what the challenge is about. It was only when I now looked at it again and reached question 4 that I saw the real deal. Merzul (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Even the situation described in question 1 had all kinds of other aspects to it and twists and turns. Oh well..---Filll (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, would you be willing to consider renaming it? The name "AGF challenge" is easily misunderstood, as we're seeing over at Pedro's talk page. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, it would be enough to change the announcement to make clear it is not instruction for someone to assume good faith. Merzul (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I might reword that. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

AGF Challenge
I read the challenge questions, and they are indeed very thoughtful. Many of them are difficult questions to be answered in a clear-cut manner. However, I will submit a complete response soon. Thank you for informing me of the challenge! Chimeric Glider (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

AGF Challenge (revisited)
Hi Filll, I think Pedro and Merk's Mom are right about the tendency to misunderstand your "challenge". I also saw it at first as a nudge and wink and I have to admit that I still do. I think those who have suggested you not present the challenge during a dispute are right. It was impossible not to interpret your challenge within the context of my recent topic ban. What's interesting, however, is that the meaning of the wink is not stable. (The challenge, as others have noted, is to AGF when receiving the challenge.)

My first thought was that you were (not so) subtly suggesting that I should assume good faith. But the challenge quickly gives a different impression. It seemed to be suggesting that I try to understand why people have dropped their assumption of good faith in my case. But I finally presumed (for the sake of argument) that that's not what you were trying to say, and took the challenge.

You put it well on Pedro's talk page when you said that "the challenge is to see if you can use AGF to solve these 8 exercises." The implication, I take it, is that it is not possible, certainly difficult. But that can be understood in at least two ways: (1) it is not possible to use only AGF to solve the exercises. That's in line with "AGF won't solve all the problems of Wikipedia", which, like GTB, I think is an assualt on a strawman that nobody defends. (2) It is impossible to solve those exercises while also assuming good faith. I'd like to think my answers show that that is not the case. AGF has built in limits and reaching them need never lead to incivility. Nor would dropping AGF make the exercises any easier to solve.

In my opinion, the situations described are ordinary ones. They come up all the time, and they do not require a modification of AGF. Nor would any modification of AGF automatically solve them. Slow, patient, civil editing and discussion, sometimes involving repeated reversions (at a rate bound by 3RR) remains the best way to run a Wiki-based Encyclopedia.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That was very well said. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Except it was wrong. I never say " "the challenge is to see if you can use AGF to solve these 8 exercises."

I write:

I know because I cut and paste the same thing each time. If that is offensive to someone, oh well. Some people take offense at anything.--Filll (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is where you said, "the challenge is to see if you can use AGF to solve these 8 exercises." -GTBacchus(talk) 01:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok so I said it somewhere on those webpages. I guess that offended some people. Well as I said, it takes almost nothing to offend many many people.--Filll (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's one way to look at it. Here you've got a pattern of multiple editors taking offense in similar contexts for pretty much the same reasons, and those reasons have been identified as the title of the exercises, the timing of presenting it to someone with whom you're involved in a dispute, and the lack of explanation as to why they're being handed something called an "AGF Challenge". It could be that you keep hitting thin-skinned wimp after thin-skinned wimp, but if there are so many of them, adjusting a few words here and there starts to seem worth it, doesn't it? That's especially if it could reduce the feedback noise without losing the signal. Your Challenge is a very good idea, and a very good page, and I hate to see it reach a narrower audience due to its pushing a couple of fairly predictable buttons in a lot of people. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "It could be that you keep hitting thin-skinned wimp after thin-skinned wimp" Well, I can't speak for everyone who didn't take the challenge, but I am not a thin-skinned wimp. Maybe it's the timing of his presenting the challenge to users?  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  02:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, really?--Filll (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Point of information
Moulton is one of his colleagues over on WR, just in case you didn't know. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Who? Cla68? I knew about Cla68. Who else?--Filll (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Cla68, sorry for not being clear. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I know they are colleagues. And Cla68 is engaging in what appears to be off-wiki threats and buying into Moulton's fantastic version of events and even goading him on. I believe that Cla68 should cease his off-wiki threats, and should educate himself a bit on the particulars of Moulton's situation before making such sweeping pronouncements. The record speaks for itself. Let anyone who is interested, read the record.


 * And if anyone can show me substantive evidence that Moulton was treated unfairly and not afforded every opportunity to reform himself and edit in accordance with the principles of Wikipedia, or that Rosalind Picard was somehow targeted, and is now being treated unfairly, then I want to see that evidence. Explicit evidence, not just some vague claim.--Filll (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

AGF challenge
I'm sorry, but what is this for? Faith (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not feel obligated to accept. It is a series of exercises that I have invited over 100 editors to try, and about 100 editors have attempted. I hope they are sort of fun. I think that even if you do not answer the exercises yourself, you might find the responses interesting to read. I tried to distill down a few difficult situations on Wikipedia to sanitized descriptions that an editor can test their skills against. --Filll (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Thank you for your consideration. Faith (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Expelled
Hello Filll, Thanks for the invitation to take the AGF Challenge. I'll do it sometime when I get a chance. In the meantime, see my response to one of your replies here. Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Already done quite a while ago. Stifle (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks. I appreciate it. Sorry for the spamming!--Filll (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.

Please note that you have not been invited because you are being accused of anything, or suspected of any improper conduct. You are not being invited because of any perceived difficulty with your editing, or any potential conflicts. You are under no obligation to try the AGF Challenge. --Filll (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks


Hers fold  (t/a/c) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Expelled
Filll, I don't think your style of conversing on the page is working, or would be endorsed by an outside review of editors. If you insist, that could be where the page is going, whether in the form of an RfC or arbitration, but I'd like to strongly suggest that long standing editors are better off working out disagreements amongst themselves. If you'll please try harder, I think it would be greatly appreciated and might help avoid a lot of unnecessary confrontation over issues that we should be able to rationally discuss. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I know it is difficult to be told that the edits being proposed violate various principles of Wikipedia such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and so on. But that is reality. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, you've also been told the same. So then what?  A contentious page will have real as well as pointless disagreements.  Sometimes the real disagreements take some effort to work out.  My impression, for what it's worth, is that you notice the poor editing much more than you notice that some people actually have valid points that should be resolved.  I don't know if I can change your mind on that -- my concern is you don't think it's worth the time or effort to sort the one out from the other -- but as long as that's the case I think you'll find increasing numbers of reasonable editors getting in the way, to everyone's frustration. Mackan79 (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As I am sure you know, my versions of policy agree with those that are well established from years of consensus on these sorts of pages. They might not agree with a new admin; that is true. However, I can do nothing about that personally except avoid him. And I also think you are too dangerous to talk to as well. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So you have your own versions of WP policy?  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Where did he state/imply/hint at that? Antelan talk  21:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "my versions of policy"  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  21:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As I am sure everyone realizes that is just the result of an innocent misreading or misunderstanding. Of course I have my own interpretations of policy, but I do not have any different versions than what appear in the official policy documents.--Filll (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody here is too "dangerous" to talk to, certainly not those who are discussing things directly with you. And if this must go to some formal dispute resolution, you will find me presenting evidence in your defence and not against you. It is obvious to me that many editors you are dealing with there have no interest in following policy, but I also agree with Mackan79 that there is a tendency on that page to focus on bad arguments, rather than mining posts for the valid objections and dealing with them. In any case, make sure you keep in mind who are really "dangerous" to you and the project, and who are here on-wiki to respectfully discuss their disagreements with you. Merzul (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ntww15
Any idea where it is? will go through it later on when i get back home. Seddon69 (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, unfortunately.--Filll (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"AGF challenge"
Feel free to AGF whenever you find the time. As a point of reference I was actually the first person to take the multiple choice "AGF challenge".  naerii -  talk  19:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge
"I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)"
 * Hey, just a friendly reminder that the external link you provide does not take the user to the proposal  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  21:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This, I would like to see your evidence of.
"Moulton declared both on and off-wiki that his goal was to create as much discord as possible intentionally so he could document it as part of assorted research projects and publish articles about Wikipedia's methods for handling disruptive users." --Random832 (contribs) 21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

He has written repeatedly about it. It might take a while to dig it up. But this is completely correct. To Moulton, Wikipedia was a research project to experiment on.--Filll (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see it myself, since some of his opponents - yourself included - have demonstrated on other occasions a tendency to read more into his words than is reasonable. --Random832 (contribs) 03:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I could the same about you. Plus, I do not have much confidence that you have much depth of experience in this kind of situation, particularly on controversial articles, looking at your edit history which includes less than 1700 mainspace edits since January 2004, mainly in very uncontroversial articles. I am afraid that is not really compelling. And your arguments have not been very compelling either. Sorry.


 * Why not try the User:Filll/AGF Challenge to get a little taste of editing controversial articles in a safe environment?--Filll (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * None of your evidence links that i've clicked on thus far have been evidence of what you were using them to support. That's a fact. You also denied calling Moulton a creationist. I don't know what you mean by your response just now, but right now in this debate you have a worse track record than I do by virtue of those facts alone. I'm not saying you're being deliberately loose with the facts, but at this point - given that track record - I am disinclined to accept claims about Moulton's behavior on your word alone. --Random832 (contribs) 04:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

At this point, 10 months later, my interpretation of the situation is a bit different than it was back then. I have had 10 months to reflect on it and 10 months to absorb assorted rumors and bombast thrown at me over the wall, haven't I? Do you think this is unusual? How much could you tell me about what you said and did 10 months ago? How accurate do you think you would be? Do you think your interpretation now of things that happened 10 months ago would be identical to what you thought and said 10 months ago, or not? If you say it would be identical, I am afraid I do not believe you.

And perhaps you missed the nuance. I am not convinced that Moulton is an intelligent design supporter, or other form of creationist, because I have heard so many conflicting stories out of him. Just because he might have made these kinds of representations to me does not mean that he is, since he made a lot of conflicting contradictory representations to me. I even remember thinking that at the time.

And even if he is, what is the big deal? Who really cares? Is that a big deal to you? It is not a big deal to me. Did you ever consider that I might be an intelligent design supporter? You better examine your narrow provincial presuppositions if you assumed I am not.

The point is not whether he is or not. The point is, was I manipulated unfairly by assorted misrepresentations? I acted based on his claims, which I am now convinced were somewhat disingenuous. And it put me in some very awkward situations because I acted in good faith and trusted him. And you have to realize that there is only a tiny fraction of what transpired in the RfC. Do you really insist that I drag all this dirty laundry out and make Moulton look like a complete disgusting jerk on a public website? Do you think that is in his best interests? Are you his friend or a bitter enemy, and you hate him and want to make him look as terrible as possible? Why do you want to dig up all the worst possible details about him? Also, an even more important point is, was he and is he willing to work within the rules and principles or not?

And if you want this to get nasty, you are doing a good job of violating WP:AGF. Do you really want me to document point by point each ludicrous claim you have made, and how false they are? Why do you want this to turn into World War III? What is your problem here? Have you not heard that Wikipedia is not a WP:Battle? You sure seem to be itching for a huge fight.

So this is supposedly a debate huh? Over what? And you deny that the links to the RfC actually link to what they are supposed to link to? So how did it happen that more than 20 people at the RfC did not notice this? Including people trying to poke holes in it? Seems a bit incredible, don't you think? Only you, some sort of incredible super-genius, notice an immense flaw in the argument in the RfC that the 6 Arbcomm members and about 30 other editors including those disputing the allegations of the RfC missed? Including probably dozens of readers at the Wikipedia Review? That would be somewhat amazing I would say. Sounds very credible...not. You should be glad this is not a real dispute in a real dispute setting. You might not find that the real world is so amenable or so forgiving to these kinds of ridiculous claims. Please... try someone else who is not so naive.

Also don't get so worked up about the need for sources which you claim are all missing. If I deem it necessary to spend hours digging through old files, you will get your sources. However, I do not have high confidence from your performance to date that you will be able to recognize the fact that you have received any sources or willing to acknowledge receiving the sources however.

Maybe you might find it beneficial to go back and make sure you really want to make that claim that all or even a substantial number of the links listed in the RfC do not support the claims in the RfC again, since it seems you are the only person who has made such allegations. You might look a little foolish if you have made a mistake, don't you think?

And if it is true that this is a gross miscarriage of "justice", why don't you take it upon yourself to write it all up in detail and file a massive RfC against me, and all those members of Arbcomm who missed noticing this when they turned down hearing the complaint about due process, and the 20 or so editors who signed one part of the RfC or another. Just go after the works of us and nail us all, to prove you are right. Would be quite a feather in your cap to find such a massive conspiracy and take us all down, don't you think?--Filll (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say all the links in the RFC. I said every one I clicked on. I clicked on the three that allegedly supported the claim that Rosalind Picard was an ID supporter, and the five on the claim that Moulton was lying about not being an ID supporter. --Random832 (contribs) 13:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to explain things point-by-point, be my guest. You can start with how each of these links supports the claim "These claims [that she wanted to be removed from the petition] were all incorrect, in fact, and Moulton knew they were incorrect, although he claimed the opposite." --Random832 (contribs) 13:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "At this point, 10 months later, my interpretation of the situation is a bit different than it was back then. I have had 10 months to reflect on it and 10 months to absorb assorted rumors and bombast thrown at me over the wall, haven't I? Do you think this is unusual? How much could you tell me about what you said and did 10 months ago? How accurate do you think you would be? Do you think your interpretation now of things that happened 10 months ago would be identical to what you thought and said 10 months ago, or not? If you say it would be identical, I am afraid I do not believe you." -- I'm not aware you've retracted anything you've said 10 months ago. If you would like to retract part or all of those statements now, please let me know so I don't have to waste time looking at things you don't still stand by. It's still a mystery, i think, how - if the links you posted were the best evidence you had - how you even thought it at the time, but I'm willing to let it go. --Random832 (contribs) 14:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you

 * Filll, have you taken the AGF challenge?  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  03:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think? I wrote it. And I have written another 30 or 40 exercises, which will be following.--Filll (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Writing it and taking it are two different things. Also, I think you haven't taken it unless you did it anonymously. BTW, the number of exercises you have written is irrelevant.  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  13:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for engaging in WP:BAIT. Perhaps you might like to do some work here at the encyclopedia?--Filll (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would like to answer the question? --Random832 (contribs) 13:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I see I am under no requirement to do so. However, of course I have my own ideas about how they should be answered. And I have written some down, but I am not sure if and when I will post them.

I have also stated in a few places that there are no right or wrong answers, and that I will not post how the cases these were based on actually turned out for a while. And I have also not asked "experts" in dispute resolution, since I did not want to color the answers of the others answering. I wanted to give others a chance to answer first. Ok?--Filll (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  16:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, enough with the jokes. I gave my response above. You will hear more about the AGFC and similar projects when they are ready, ok?--Filll (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nay! Pray tell, kind sir, what made thou thinketh that I was jesting?  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  16:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (crickets)  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  20:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)