Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Duncharris

Regarding the "Outside view by User:Guettarda"
Guettarda, do not speak for me. Do not pretend you know wwther I was offended or not. And do not pretend that I think that "fuck off" means "Thank you, could you kindly leave?" Don't put words in my mouth. - Kookykman| (t) e


 * I have no idea what you are talking about. Guettarda 03:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

comment by Kookykman
(moved from Project page by KillerChihuahua 04:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC))
 * I'm walking down the street. I pick up some trash. As I prepare to throw it away, someone yells out "fuck off." Is he being civil? How was I supposed to know that this article was from one of our "top editors"? All I saw was a one-sentence substub that didn't explain his importance. - Kookykman| (t) e

You weren't walking down the street, the analogy doesn't hold water. Here is the edit history: (cur) (last) 14:42, 20 November 2005 Duncharris (fuck off) (cur) (last) 14:37, 20 November 2005 Kookykman (Db'd.) (cur) (last) 14:36, 20 November 2005 Duncharris (very stuby stub) Now, Duncharris made the article at 14:36, and one minute later you Db'd? Please! Much of my time on the Afd page is reminding people to not place articles on Afd if the cleanup tag might be appropriate. I remind them to check the edit history - its WP guideline at least to not place items on Afd if they have just been created. And the article was not the type for db - Not "Bill is a great guy" content! No, it looked perfectly respectible to me, birth-death, British zoologist (which is a clue they might indeed be noteable) including even wikification, external link, cat, and stub tag - clearly not the work of a newbie or vanity from some bored minor. []

Now you can claim you "picked up some trash" but anyone could see that was a stub, not trash. "How was I supposed to know"??? Check the History. If you know enough to know how to put a speedy tag on an article, you know enough to check history.

I like to assume good faith, always. In this case, it looks like either you could use some time reading policies and guidelines, or that this was a deliberate attack. On your talk page, Dunc asked you very civilly "Please do not add speedy delete tags to pages that do not qualify as such. It is considered vandalism. — Dunc|☺ 14:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)" and your reply was "So one-line gibberish pages..." and you're involved in an Rfc against Dunc being rude calling things crap? Pot calling the kettle black here. And his response to the "gibberish" was used as one of the complaint examples: "But you said gibberish -- are you then incapable of parsing simple English sentences? " Very selective here, I must say it does not impress me. You are using his rather witty sarcasm at your insult as an example of his bad manners. KillerChihuahua 13:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Whilst much of what you say about the speedy tag is true, it is tangential at best to the RfC. You will, however, have to explain the witty sarcasm part of "fuck off" to me, because I just don't get it. -Splash talk 13:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not have to explain the witty sarcasm of something I did not reference. Please read my posts more carefully before responding. "incapable of parsing..." was used as an example of rudeness. This would be the sarcasm.KillerChihuahua 13:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Dunc:"Please do not add speedy delete tags to pages that do not qualify as such. It is considered vandalism." (civil request)
 * Kookyman:"So one-line gibberish pages..." (direct reference to the sentence: "Sir Edward Bagnall Poulton (1856–1943) was a British zoologist.) Insulting and inaccurate.
 * Dunc: "But you said gibberish -- are you then incapable of parsing simple English sentences? "

Lies make you lose. You were engaged in a wiki-stalking harassment campaign, not walking down the street. 1 minute. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that items 1 and 6, both referencing this sequence as "personal attacks" by Duncharris on Kookyman, are misleading at best. KillerChihuahua 19:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * My line regarding "one-line gibberish pages..." was not referencing The Sir Edward Bagnall Poulton page. It was referring to an earlier page that I tagged. How about this: I drop the issue, and we all drop our personal vendettas against each other, although I still don't like the idea of an encyclopedia where someone tells you to f*** off for making a mistake. - Kookykman| (t) e


 * I apologise if I erred - I was going by the date stamps. Which article did you call gibberish?
 * I have no vendetta, personal or otherwise, against anyone. I trust you were not including me? Because I have no vendetta to drop - I don't recall us ever disagreeing on anything or having any direct exchange, however brief or polite, before this. KillerChihuahua 20:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Erm... Anyone who thinks accusing someone of vandalism (for putting a speedy tag while on NP patrol) is a civil response, seriously needs to take a look at Vandalism, and WP:CIV. Dmcdevit·t 20:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No one was "accused" of vandalism. Informing someone that putting a db on a non-db qualified page can be considered vandalism is information. KillerChihuahua 20:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * But KC, Dunc did not say "can be", he said "is". Regards, Ben Aveling 03:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * which IMHO appears to be a phrasing issue - not a specific accusation. If Dunc, blunt as he is, thought Kookyman was being a vandal, his post would not have been so polite and vague. Instead of "Please do not..." It would have been more to the point. This is surmise based on Dunc's apalling ability to be blunt to the point of untactful. KillerChihuahua 11:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Use of fuck in edits sums
Since some issue has been made over the use of the word fuck in his edit summaries, I thought it might be illuiminating to produce a list of users with sysop right set ordered by the frequency of the use of fuck in their edit summaries. My search counted summeries with at least one match of the regex .*[Ff][Uu][Cc][Kk].*. As such there is probably some other word I'm not thinking of which fuck is a substring of... Use of the word in the actual edit isn't counted, but if a section heading contained the word it would end up in a section edit of that section. Article titles are not normally part of the edit summary. This is all namespaces but does not included deleted revisions. In any case... enjoy! --Gmaxwell 10:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this isn't working. I went to find mine, and I came across 7 occasions when The Word has appeared in an edit summary of mine. Yet I appear on the '2' list. Note that every appearance of the word was in discussion of an article containg the word in it title, so in section headers or similar in edit summaries:, , , , , , -Splash talk 13:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Titles are not edit summaries. Your examples are pointing out an article with fuck in the title. Yes the article title looks like part of the summary on diff pages, but it doesn't on the contrib page. It would be silly to count those in any case. The counting is absolutely correct, I'll make my post more clear about what is being counted. The room for mistake here is in the interpertation of the data here, not the data itself. --Gmaxwell 18:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not being difficult, but I don't understand. In this diff, for example, the article title is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Do you exclude the article title when it is a section title at the start of a summary? -Splash talk 01:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Since meaning matters more than exact spelling, "wtf", "f*ck", "f***", etc., are all valid subsets, if' the point is that "Foul language, even directed at machines, is disrespectful to those that have to read it". Guettarda 13:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Right but looking for all the variations would be too computationally expensive and error prone. I produced the report because some people seemed upset about the mere use of the word rather than the incivility. We have users who've used fuck in a summary on the order of 300 times. If we're going to get upset about the use at all, we're a little late. --Gmaxwell 18:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeeees...my point was that Gmaxwell's script isn't counting right. -Splash talk 14:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, understood. Sorry - my comment was on his comment, not on yours (should have intented it one less, I suppose).  Guettarda 16:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 19 -
 * 18 -
 * 17 -
 * 10 -
 * 9 -
 * 9 -
 * 8 -
 * 8 -
 * 8 -
 * 8 -
 * 8 -
 * 7 -
 * 6 -
 * 6 -
 * 5 -
 * 5 -
 * 5 -
 * 5 -
 * 5 -
 * 5 -
 * 4 -
 * 4 -
 * 4 -
 * 4 -
 * 4 -
 * 4 -
 * 4 -
 * 4 -
 * 4 -
 * 4 -
 * 4 -
 * 4 -
 * 4 -
 * 4 -
 * 3 -
 * 3 -
 * 3 -
 * 3 -
 * 3 -
 * 3 -
 * 3 -
 * 3 -
 * 3 -
 * 3 -
 * 3 -
 * 3 -
 * 3 -
 * 3 -
 * 3 -
 * 3 -
 * 3 -
 * 3 -
 * 3 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 2 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -
 * 1 -

Most of these users have only used fuck when referring to content that includes the word, such as the finger fucking article. In any case, the occasional use of fuck is not a big deal. Guanaco 23:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

RFC moved from "Approved" to "Candidate"
I've moved this RFC from "Approved pages - have met the two person threshold" to "Candidate pages - still need to meet the two person threshold" on Requests for comment/User conduct, since the conditions for this "two-person threshold" are so far from being met. Here are the conditions, from the top of the page:

''In order to remain listed at 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.'' Here are the problems: Please don't move the page back to "Approved pages - have met the two person threshold" until a good faith effort has been made to meet the given conditions. I don't mean to lawyer the formalities here, but a real, bona fide attempt at dispute resolution, in other words mediation, might actually make a difference here. Please get a mediator. Bishonen | talk 17:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The ample-looking list of diffs under the heading "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" refers to "multiple disputes with multiple users", not "the same dispute with a single user".
 * The diffs given are evidence of disputes, i. e., they're examples of criticisms directed at Duncharris. We hardly need evidence that he's been criticized (duh). They're by no stretch evidence of attempted dispute resolution. If you're serious about "resolving" this, get a mediator!
 * Three people have signed in the section "Users certifying the basis for this dispute--Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute", namely Silensor, Kookykman, and Ben Aveling. Guys...? "The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts". No efforts of yours are mentioned in the section "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute"; none of the ten diffs offered are anything to do with efforts of yours.
 * I thought it was different for administrator RFCs. Not really a dispute, but a genereal misuse of admin tools. The RFC page says "at least two people must certify that they believe there is a legitimate basis for the complaint" for admin RFCs. Isn't that what this RFC has? Dmcdevit·t 20:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, that doesn't imply that it's different for administrator RFCs, as you'll see if you quote the whole sentence: "As with disputes over general user conduct, at least two people must certify that they believe there is a legitimate basis for the complaint" (emphasis added). It's confusing that that's different from what the templates themselves say, I know. There's a special admin action template which might have been used here, except that it wouldn't have been a very good fit, as it's explicitly to be used only for disputes about protecting and unprotecting pages, deleting and undeleting pages, and blocking and unblocking users. The usual "user" template should be used for all other matters. I don't know what happens when the complaint is a mix of admin and non-admin matters, as here. But it makes no matter, as the relevant instructions in both templates are the same. This is how the admin template puts it:
 * In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. 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: {insert UTC timestamp with }), the page will be deleted.
 * Bishonen | talk 21:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Bishonen, if you will review the history of Requests for comment/User conduct, you will see that User:Asbestos was the one responsible for adding this RFC to the General user conduct section of that page.  As this is a unique situation, where an administrator is breaching both general and administrator policies simultaneously, either section is applicable in my opinion.  Please feel free to place this RFC document where you believe it fits best.  Silensor 21:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't really care if it's listed under admin or general user, the important bits are the same. My point was that it shouldn't be placed under "Approved" until it actually has met the two-person threshold. If that condition means anything at all, it sure hadn't been met when I wrote the above; others can decide if it's been met now. Come to think of it, I'd quite like to see this made an occasion for clearing up those angst-making contradictions in the instructions, as between two people certifying that there's a legitimate basis for the complaint (Requests for comment/User conduct instructions) versus certifying that they've tried to resolve the dispute (admin and general user template instructions, which are presumably primary, sitting atop the specific RFC page itself as they do). Bishonen | talk 02:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

I am tempted to move the page to general user conduct. The unblocking issue is minor, and not contentious. The only other admin issue I'm aware of is that he has been telling other users things to the effect of "don't do that to me, I'm an admin". But both admin issues are examples of the general issue of incivility.

Regarding an attempt to 'resolve the dispute', I'm not sure what would count as an attempt to resolve the dispute?

Regards, Ben Aveling 08:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

A nice cup of tea and a sit down.
A long-standing Wikinews tradition, I think it's time that us disagreeing Wikipedians try it. Why don't we just drop the issue, on the pretense that none of us will ever want to get into something like this again? Personally, I'm never going anywhere near new pages again. - Kookykman| (t) e

Thryduulf's replies to Bishonen
This was added after an edit conflict, there may be duplication, etc. Thryduulf 20:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to move it, but here is my unreasearched (I don't have time presently for the leg work but hopefully will do tomorrow for any points that people feel I have wrong) view that it does belong in the "aproved" section. I will ask that the pages are not deleted until agreement has been reached here, as this does not prejudice either side of the debate.
 * "multiple disputes with multiple users".
 * My take on the diffs presented are that they are all related to the single issue of user:Duncharis behaving uncivilly (is that a word?) towards other users, particualrly with regards to personal attacks and edit summaries. user:Ed Poor seems to have been involved with this more than others.
 * With regards to the blocking - the issue over whether the block was apropriate is not relevant to this dispute, except that the reason given for it (whether it was right or wrong) is related to this dispute - i.e. uncivility. The act of Duncharris unblocking himself was wrong, in the opinion of almost everybody who has commented, but the fact that he did it is not directly relevant. What is relevant is the incivility he displayed when doing so - including a personal attack in the email he sent to me about it (I am not certain if/how this should be presented evidence wise).
 * The single issue is the incivility, the single user is Duncharris. This is not an user:A and user:B throwing personal insults at each other and getting into revert wars with each other. This is about Duncharris' interaction with the community. I cannot see how this is outside the scope of this page, at least the spirit of this page.
 * "You should have tried mediation first".
 * I admit that I am not totally up to date with the current status of mediation, my last interation with it was several months back and that system has since collapsed. However, my understand has always been that the stages in the dispute resolution process are:
 * Talk pages (article/user talk pages as apropriate to the situation)
 * RfC
 * Mediation if apropriate.
 * Arbitration
 * There are a couple of things to note here, firstly the obvious that the next step is taken only if the previous one has failed. Secondly the if apropriate against mediation - older users may remember the case of user:Iasson earlier this year, with which I was involved. This was a 1 vs many dispute, and it was agreed by (almost?) everyone, including the arbitration committee at the time, that mediation was not apropriate for such disputes. See Requests for comment/Iasson and Requests for arbitration/Iasson for all the details.
 * The relevance of this to Bishonen's comments is twofold:
 * that RfC happens before mediation, the intent being that the RfC brings attention to the case and makes the user aware of what the wider community feels about a certain situation, with the aim of making the minority party accept the consensus is not with them and change their behaviour or drop the issue as apropriate. Mediation works best when both sides agree that they want an end, but need outside help in doing so. As the ongoing sage with user:Pigsonthewing (entirely unrelated to this case) shows, mediation cannot work without the consent of all involved.
 * Mediation is not apropriate in one versus many disputes, as the process is just not workable when you have a widely disporporionate editorial mass on one side. Mediation works by negotiation, give-and-take and compromise between the involved parties, this does not work when one person is acting in a way contrary to the community-defined acceptable behaviour - it would require every member of the community to agree to redefine acceptable to appease one person.
 * Given the above, I feel that the multiple messages on the talk pages left by multiple users, and the debate on the adminstrators noticeboard, counts as sufficient evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute. Thryduulf 20:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * (Off-topic, moved from main comment page)
 * Well, we seem to be a bit at cross purposes: I didn't mean to suggest that the matter was outside the scope of an RFC, and only some of your post seems to be in reply to mine. I've already said what I wanted about the "certification" business and about mediation, so I won't repeat myself; you're engaging with larger issues. (Just noting that I disagree with your conclusion about the offered evidence being anyways adequate to the purpose, though.) Bishonen | talk 21:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Joshuaschroeder
It is my opinion that this RfC was done because User:Ed Poor dislikes having his poor edits removed/editted here at the place where this is supposed to happen. Today, Ed made some pretty daring maneuvers with respect to an AfD about the article he penned Aspects of evolution. He decided after I tried as a user (not an admin) to prevent this article from getting lost to block me for very tenuous reasons. I have since had my block unremoved, but it has made me realize that User:Ed Poor, despite being a "valued member" of the community cannot be counted on to act in a matter befitting a community member at all times. It is my opinion that his continued POV-pushing, argumentative behavior, and general inconsiderateness with respect to certain articles involving creationism makes this RfC in particular suspect. I suggest that this hand-wringing is discipline enough for User:Duncharris and that User:Ed Poor be stripped of admin status. --Joshuaschroeder 20:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In reply to your last sentence, in my view the perfect outcome of this RfC would be for Duncharris to make a clear public statement along the lines of "I understand that some of my behaciour and edit summaries are not apropriate, and I appologise and will do my best to keep to the WP:CIVIL guidelines from now on. I was wrong to unblock myself and will not do it again.". If he then keeps his promises this can become water under the bridge and everybody can get on with their lives and with writing an encyclopaedia.
 * If you feel that Ed Poor should be stripped of admin status then you need to start an RfC, citing clear evidence that he has misused his powers. Making such callas and presenting evidence related to it here is inapropriate as this RfC is about Duncharris not Ed Poor. Thryduulf 00:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, he actually made a similar comment on my talk page. - Kookykman| (t) e


 * That's excellent - and may I say, you were very gracious, Kookyman. Do you consider your part in this settled? KillerChihuahua 11:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Kookyman, but that is exactly the sort of thing that I was hoping for. I will ask Duncharris if would mind copying it to the RfC page so that others can see it as well. If others are happy with this outcome then I'm happy to consider the RfC closed. Thryduulf 14:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposals for remedy
I was thinking of putting proposals for remedy that could be placed on the main page on which people could vote. There would be no discussion or replies to people's votes. The remedies people could vote to support would be (but not limited to):


 * -1. Those who brought or supported this RfC should apologise&dagger;.
 * 0. No action was or is necessary
 * 1. An apology was warranted and Duncharris has apologized sufficiently in his response.
 * 2. Duncharris should write a more formal apology for his actions than offered in his response&dagger;.
 * 3. Duncharris should be blocked from Wikipedia. (give a period after which he will no longer be banned)
 * 4. Duncharris should have his adminship suspended. (give a period after which he his adminship would be re-instated)
 * 5. Duncharris should have his adminship revoked. (give a period after which he may re-apply for adminship)

&dagger; Content of any apology to be discussed pending support of this remedy.

These are the most obvious ones I could think of.--Ben 02:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all sure that this is really within the scope of RfC (or necessary since Duncharris has already responded). In particular, an RfC does not have the power required for #3, or #4 or #5. -Splash talk 02:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought administrators or ArbCom can enforce the decisions of an RfC? I mean, what if everyone asks for a full apology and he doesn't do it? What then? The other thing is that, regardless, if a lot of people support 3,4, or 5 then an RfArb can be filed anyway.--Ben 03:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is turning into a witch hunt. What kind of apology are you looking for, I thought he already did apologise? You made you point what more needs to be said? David D. (Talk) 04:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added "Duncharris has already apologized sufficiently in his response section" to the proposed remedies. You would vote for the first one (I'm assuming).--Ben 04:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Turning into a witch hunt"? Wasn't it one from the beginning?  Guettarda 04:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Guettarda, I've added another option for you in front of the previous first one. If you feel the option you want is still not present, you are free to add it.  Or to 'go away'.  Regards, Ben Aveling 05:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not saying Dunc is blameless - unblocking yourself is a bad thing, and incivility is never good. On the other hand, the origins of the RFC, and the initial focus on the use of bad language makes me doubtful the motivation of at least some of the people who brought it (but by no means all of them).  Guettarda 05:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I like to see his adminship revoked with no option to reapply for it, and also a serious ban from editing (at least three months). Wikipedia's attitude to misconduct is a joke. If people regularly use obscene abuse to colleagues at work and are sacked for it, they are not told to apply for a new position with the same firm after a period of reflection. Any lesser punishment means that the huge amount of time spent on this page has been wasted in my opinion. CalJW 07:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * CalJW, Wikipedia's attitude to punishment is that we don't do it. It's against policy. Bishonen | talk 10:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, that a lot of hot air has been wasted on this page does not in itself justify anything. Bishonen is correct; Wikipedia does not punish.  Even the bans and restrictions imposed by the ArbCom are not intended as punishments.  All that matters is that conflict is resolved, that everyone learns from it and hopefully is less inclined to conflict in the future, and that everyone gets back to what matters - editing and improving the encyclopedia.


 * User:Duncharris has apologised to the user he insulted, an apology accepted by that user. I believe he will attempt to moderate his anger in future, try and assume good faith more, and realise the lasting trouble a few harsh words can cause.


 * The matter of the self-unblocking is IMO minor. From what I have seen, the block was not justified and not necessary.  In such a case, the restriction on self-unblocking is a matter simply of avoiding the appearance of impropriety.  Dunc should not have done it, but no actual harm was done thereby.  Everyone should take the lesson from this that having someone else remove an inappropriate block looks a LOT better to everyone else. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 12:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added a place to vote for any of the remedies on the main page. --Ben 21:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that documented personal attacks have been made on at least the following users:
 * 1) Kookykman
 * 2) CalJW
 * 3) Bahn Mi
 * 4) Ben Aveling
 * 5) Kookykman
 * 6) Ed Poor
 * 7) Benapgar
 * 8) 212.135.157.226
 * 9) InShaneee
 * 10) Nandesuka

I believe that apologies have been made to at least the following:
 * 1) Kookykman

I would like to see every name in the first list in the second list before I'm completely happy to close.

And there is one more thing I want. Perhaps it happened, and I've missed it somewhere in the cross talk, but has Dunc has promised to change his behaviour?

Regards, Ben Aveling 22:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In his appology he promises to learn from his mistakes. I take this as an implicit promise to change his behaviour. Thryduulf 00:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I missed that. It's a good sign.  I think it's clear that Dunc acknowledges that Kookyman didn't mean any harm, and therefore regrets his behaviour towards him.  But he still refers to "unnecessary behaviour [of] other users".  So I think that he and I may still disagree over some issues.  In particular, I want a statement about how he intends to respond the next time he perceives that someone has made a bad faith statement towards him, or a bad faith edit of a page he values.  Regards, Ben Aveling 01:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If I were less civil, I'd sound like Dunc. Since I'm more civil, I'll just say you are obviously on a witchhunt to make people who disagree with you quiet, and that you should probably go fornicate solo. Please RFC me. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 04:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for closing
RFCs are most commonly just left to linger, and when nobody has added to them for some weeks, they're removed to the User conduct disputes archive: compare comments there. This practice doesn't seem very satisfactory to me, and in fact a few RFCs have been closed, as specified in the archive list. See for instance comments at the foot of /Cberlet & Willmcw and /DreamGuy-2. I propose that such closing should be considered here, and that it's up to the users who certified the basis for the dispute, namely Silensor, Kookykman, Ben Aveling, Thryduulf, Bahn Mi, and Benapgar  (I'm including Ben Avelling even though he has already crossed out his certification). Guys, would you get together and consider whether/on what conditions you'd be willing to close this RFC as a group? In view of the comments made by some of you above, it seems worth asking. Bishonen | talk 10:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a very sensible proposition - I'd like to add, if all but one of the users who certified the basis for the dispute are agreeable to closing it, then perhaps this Rfc could be closed and that one person could attempt mediation (which tends to work better in a one on one basis anyway.) KillerChihuahua 10:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree this is very sensible. I have stated above that the appology Duncharris has already given is sufficient for me to accept closure now. If Ducnharris were to copy the appology to the RfC page that would be icing on the cake, but not necessary. Thryduulf 12:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In addition to this RFC, my feelings of concern are still lingering as well. The response from Harris is not so much of an apology as it is more of the same.  If you will review the comments stricken by Ed Poor  you will see that Harris makes excuses and additional unnecessary attacks here within this RFC, nor has he apologized to two other individuals who he told to "fuck off" when they in good faith asked for him to make an effort to remain civil.  If Harris can make a thorough apology to those he has offended and maintain civility in the future, even with those he may fundamentally disagree with, then this entire process will have been worthwhile.  Silensor 05:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ed Poor is being rather over-sensitive in his strike out. "not exactly known for his exemplary behaviour" is a perfectly reasonable comment; Ed is in fact rather well known for random behaviour. "his POV pushing" is fair enough as a comment (I'm not at this point judging whether Ed has or not, but unless we want to encourage endless circumlocutions, its necessary to allow people to accuse others of POV pushing). William M. Connolley 12:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC).
 * Dr. C., you know this is not true; please don't try to hurt my reputation by saying this. Everything I do, in the controversial articles, is to get all sides a balanced airing. Uncle Ed 18:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Science is NOT politics, it formulates hypotheses based on evidence (NOT opinion). The hypotheses will change as the evidence changes. The current ideas may change, but not due to opinion. The concept of balance does not work in science, especially if there is zero evidence supporting a claim. With that in mind why do you find it surprising that your efforts to bring balance to science articles are not welcomed? David D. (Talk) 18:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * What is it that dictates when an RFC should be closed? My reasons for keeping this open are threefold.   Editors, some of whom just recently discovered this RFC, are still making comments and expressing their views; material evidence is still being cited; and most importantly, there have been allegations of recent misconduct which need to be verified.  Silensor 20:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Duncharris was abusive in this very RFC, calling another editor a "moonie" and attacking his motives. Oppose closing. CDThieme 20:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Silensor, for the answer to your question, please see my first sentence above: most RFCs are never closed, they only fade away. I was hoping we'd be able to do it differently (IMO, more inspirationally) with this one, but I realize that would take consensus, or as KillerChihuahua suggests, consensus minus one, among the certifiers. Since several of them resist the idea, I would instead encourage everybody who feels that enough has been accomplished/said to simply stop posting, on the RFC and on this talkpage both. I herewith take my own advice. Bishonen | talk 20:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales suggests Harris be desysopped
Jimbo Wales has reviewed this RFC and said that User:Duncharris "should be desysopped."  Silensor 05:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Quote from JW "I think for an administrator to behave in such a fashion is a terrific disgrace and that he should be desysopped. I'm sure the ArbCom will take care of the matter in due course, of course". So did he review this RFC or not? It looks like he is washing his hands of the affair and is replying to the scenario you presented. Time will tell but if he gets desysopped its more than the swearing itself.  Total overkill. David D. (Talk) 05:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You will have to ask him then, because I provided a direct link to this RFC and one would assume he read it. Silensor 05:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I really don't see the point in your appealling to Jimbo here. He is a court of last resort for cases that can't otherwise be sorted out. We are a very long way away from that. On a procedural point, if RFCs are to be decided (or even strongly influenced) by Jimbo, what is the point of having them? Jimbo is a benevolent dictator, but the aim is to minimise his intervention in day-to-day affairs. William M. Connolley 12:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC).
 * I agree. If Silensor doesn't think this RfC has resolved the problem, then he should perhaps consider an Arbitration case. For me, Duncharris' apology and commitment to learn from his mistakes seem quite sufficient. &mdash; Matt Crypto 12:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I personally read that Jimbo-message as a little on the sarcastic or ironic side. -Splash talk 12:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * A visit to confirmation bias may illuminate why you read it that way. You should ask him yourself just to be sure. I find sarcasm a very poor form of communication, especially text-based communication, and I don't think Mr. Wales would use it with respect to such a heated dispute. --Ben 22:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a good message to Duncharris: You are an extremely thin ice. Shape up NOW or have your admin privileges revoked. I'd still like to see a full apology and if anyone wants to start an arbitration case I will add my evidence. Duncharris' actions are unconscionable for a regular user, let alone an administrator. Those users, administrators included, who defend his actions with claims that "it doesn't matter" and other vaccuous reasoning should be ashamed of themselves. --Ben 22:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * However you read it, I agree with Ben's interpretation of Jimbo's words as words of caution, rather than reading them as instructions to the ArbComm or as instructions to file an RFAr. Guettarda 22:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And Ben should also take heed that Dunc's misstep here in no way excuses his own personal attacks directed at admins which have resulted in his own RFC and have been removed from talk pages per WP:NPA. FeloniousMonk 19:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

FM, I'll assume you're not talking about me, and let Benapgar respond to that himself, if he feels the need. I'll also remind everybody that not everything one dislikes is a personal attack.

Since everyone has their own reading of Harris's coments, I'll add mine. The first sentance is an observation, what Dunc did was wrong. I think the second was a prediction, not an instruction or a statement that he'd do anything. Just Jimbo saying, well, it looks like this is what is going to happen.

Back to the main issue, I know there are people who thing that Dunc has apologised sufficiently, and some who think it wasn't Dunc who should have apologised. And I know there are people who think he should be de-sysopped now. And I point out that the period of that doesn't matter - 1 minute or 1 year, there is no way that he would pass RfA again. Maybe in a couple of years.

As for me, I'm happy to forgo an personal apology. I don't care if Dunc thinks I'm a creationist, or a troll, or if he knows that I can't spell, or he thinks that I don't like him.

I just want Dunc to behave better towards people he doesn't like. So long as that happens, I'm happy.

Regards, Ben Aveling 21:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

So what happened here?
Hmm. Another flare up between Dunc and Ed.

But I don't quite understand what happened?

Ed blocked Dunc, OK, that I understand.

Dunc made an edit and claimed that it was Ed's suggestion when it wasn't, I think I understand that. 

At the risk of dragging an ID debate in here, what's with the delete, undelete, delete, redirect? 

Regards, Ben Aveling 07:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) "Unguided evolution" was nominated for deletion (see Articles for deletion/Unguided evolution)
 * 2) Page was moved to Relationship between evolution and divine guidance
 * 3) Redirect left behind was deleted by JIP when he deleted "Relationship between evolution and divine guidance" as per AfD  (16:58, 29 November)
 * 4) Redirect was restored by Ed, (01:08, 30 November 2005)
 * 5) Ed added a comment Talk:Unguided evolution (01:11, 30 November 2005) saying:
 * Many articles link to this redirect page...Please don't re-delete it without some discussion.
 * 1) Dunc re-deleted redirect (01:23, 30 November 2005)
 * 2) Dunc then recreated the page (01:24, 30 November 2005) with an edit summary of "#REDIRECT evolution per Ed's suggestion on talk", pointing it at Evolution'' rather than at the original target.
 * 3) Ed considered "as per Ed's suggestion" to be a lie (since Ed did not suggest that the redirect go to evolution, just that it be restored) and blocked Dunc for "disruption: said his redirect was "per suggestion" which was not actually made - dishonesty".  Of course the original target, Relationship between evolution and divine guidance, had already been deleted as per AfD; I'm not sure how else Dunc should have interpreted Ed's comment on Talk.  You can't have a redirect to a non-existent page.  Guettarda 13:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"Many pages link here" is a little questionable as well. Once Talk pages, User talk pages, this Rfc and such are taken out, the links from actual are a grand total of two:Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, and History of creationism. Not sure what the case was at the time that post was written, of course, it could have been quite a few more. However I checked within a couple of hours after the redirect was added, and found only those two. I'm going to fix them now. KillerChihuahua 17:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Ben Aveling 19:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * FWIW I didn't know that it had been deleted as part of the VFD and presumed it had been a leftover, so I deleted it, then noticed Ed's comment on the talk page, had a quick glance at what he said, failed to notice that most weren't proper pages and therefore pointed the page at the most appropriate article. This was presumably what Ed meant, because the alternatives such as recreating the fork speak for themselves.  I only noticed afterwards that it had been deleted and undeleted by Ed before I stumbled onto it because deletions and undeletions aren't on watchlists.  &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 20:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Enough.
Hi, I suggest we archive this RfC. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)