Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ed Fitzgerald

Discussion of Outside View
User:Baseball Bugs asked if there had been edit warring in this dispute. There has been, e.g. and,  and ,  and. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverting for the sake of reverting is not necessarily a good thing. But this RFC is trying to condemn a user for violating a "rule" that isn't even a rule. It's a "guideline". This all strikes me as being rather petty. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The date-unlinking guy I referred to earlier is User:Lightmouse. Example: Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The RfC is not about condemning anybody. WTF. It is about discussing Ed's conduct, and determining how to go forwards when people (including Ed) are being wound up by it. And will you please desist from trotting out Ed's straw man argument. We do not rest on the MoS as rules. We look at his formatting changes, do not like them, and ask him to reconsider. He comes back with straw man arguments and dismisses our concerns as lame, whilst writing essays and edit warring in regard to his right to enforce his preferences over plural objections. This RfC is about Ed's refusal to compromise and determination to have his own way. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to advance any straw man arguments. I just don't want to see somebody get banned from Wikipedia over the issue of punctuation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * you have, perhaps inadvertently, advanced exactly the same straw man argument as Ed. Meanwhile, no one is trying to get Ed banned. RfC - at least for me - is not about that sort of sanction. it is about the community discussing an issue and seeking a resolution - which in this case might be to get Ed to recognise that he might be less dogmatic, more accommodating and less dismissive of the views of others. Getting Ed banned is, thus, another straw man argument :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You might consider it a straw man argument, but to me it was a legitimate concern. It appears you have now dismissed that possibility, so we're good. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

2nd Certifier view
There are for me two elements of the dispute:
 * 1) Ed's preferred format. It just does not work for me - specifically emboldening of things other than the title of the article.
 * 2) Ed's sanctimonious arguments in support of his position. In short, in an essay at User:Ed Fitzgerald and in Talk:A Matter of Life and Death (film) he sets out arguments in support of his actions and the importance of being allowed to act as he does; but he's quite prepared to seek to trash other's arguments against his actions by straw man assertions (we're mistaking the MoS guidelines for rules) and by stating that to argue against his position is lame . I find Ed's argument to be so much humbug - something that is important enough to write essays about & edit war over, is at the same time lame if raised for further discussion. How does that work? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ed Fitzgerald relocating clean-up templates
Ed got into the same type of trouble before with cleanup templates in July 2007. See:  July 2007 on AN/I. See these user talk page discussions where many users tried and failed to get through to him: . Note, I tried to help Ed, but he wouldn't listen to anyone. This is the same situation. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Off RfC discussion - Tagishsimon & SilkTork
For the record, there was an off-RFC discussion about this RfC at User_talk:SilkTork. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to Bzuk
I'm disappointed that Bzuk would consider me so immature as to use the RfC as a pissing contest. I had backed down about the italics, but when I found Ed expanding his horizons, so to speak, I felt I had to act. Admittedly, I didn't lose any sleep over any annoyance it might cause him, but that was just a perk, lol.

I find it ironic that Ed objecting to UziBLASTER7 | doing exactly the same thing! And amusingly enough, I don't consider UziBLASTER7's edits as a violation of WP:MOSFILM. "award-winning" doesn't establish context, but IMO "Academy Award-winning" does. Be that as it may, I agree that Uzi7's methods are way out of line (remind you of someone?). Clarityfiend Clarityfiend (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's only ironic if you view my activity from (again!) an absolutist viewpoint, and think of me of someone who has no respect for consensus or interest in following the guidelines. In truth, that's very much not the case.  In the vast majority of instances, I want to know what the recommended format is, and I follow it once I know it.  There are only a small number of things (again, in the scope of things on Wikipedia, very minor things) in which I believe that the Manual of Style lags behind and does not represent the very best way for information to be presented. I think the impression may have been given that I'm some sort of wild man, following my own drummer come hell or high water, but a glance at some of the many articles that I've started or those I've brought from stub-status to somewhat-better-than-stub-status would show them to be prefectly normal articles, laid out in the same way as most other Wikpedia film articles, with a couple of very slightly different formatting choices regarding extremely minor matters.  I doubt most readers would even notice the differences, given the wide variation in Wikipedia articles, (which does not mean that the differences are not worthwhile to pursue -- readers in general don't notice most things about layout and formatting, but they can have a significant effect on their ability to easily take in the information in an article) and I would think that the majority of editors who did notice them -- although they might be tempted to revert them if they reconize them as differing from the MoS -- would find them to be the beginning of a slippery slope which ends up in Wikipedian editing anarchy! I find it extraordinary, in fact, that such a fuss is being made over such relatively unimportant considerations. What's important to me is not that my variations be recognized as being better, but that they be given the chance to fail or succeed on their own by not being squashed to death before anyone even sees them.  If they are given that opportunity, and, over a reasonable amount of time, are rejected -- well, I'll be disappointed, but that's fine, that's my idea of how "consensus" should work.  Not the immediate opinion of a small number of editors looking out for chances to rush here or there to comment on their hot button issues, but the collective opinion of editors who are exposed to various choices and, over time, make their choice of what the best option is.  That's the natural marketplace of Wikipedia ideas not sullied by a reflexive rejection of anything even slightly different. If the point of this RfC is to get me to acknowledge that the Manual of Style and other guidelines represent Wikipedian consensus as developed over time, I'm quite happy to affirm that belief, because it's one that I've held since I first started thinking about the nature of this project.  It would be nice, though, if in return I could get from Clarityfiend an affirmation that the Manual is a guideline and not a set of inviolate, absolute, and inflexible rules, and to acknowledge that consensus can change over time.  To me, these should be uncontroversial statements, because, in a sense, they lie at the core of what Wikipedia is about, and without them, Wikipedia cannot grow and change for the better. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  02:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Insufficient evidence
There is insufficient evidence of trying, and failing to resolve the dispute, as well as of the dispute itself. Therefore, this Rfc is likely to be deleted within 24hrs if there is no change to the evidence in these 3 sections. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the diffs. Viriditas (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok - I've looked at the modified version. I've thought about it, and maybe this Rfc may be worthwhile after all, despite it being somewhat premature (particularly with the very small quantity of evidence presented of the disputed behaviour). I've decided to have a look through it and give my view (or some of it) sometime soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The diffs that have been offered represent less than half of those available, and the dispute itself spans multiple articles and includes many editors who expressed their dissatisfaction with Ed's edits, so I have to disagree with your assessment. Out of curiousity, who are you and why are you acting like you have some kind of authority here?  I've been here for almost four years and I've never seen your user name before. Viriditas (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a pity if less than half of the evidence has been provided. I would think that an editor, after being here for 4 years, would be capable of foreseeing that an Rfc requires a fair amount of evidence, if not all, so uninvolved editors are well-informed of the dispute, and can comment. You'd be kidding yourself to expect entirely uninvolved editors not to dismiss an Rfc as premature, when the users certifying the basis of dispute are unwilling to provide enough evidence to warrant an Rfc in the first place. In effect, it defeats its purpose. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are really strange comments, but I'll chalk them up to immaturity. First, I've had nothing to do with the development and the creation of this Rfc.  I came here after seeing it advertised on a users talk page.  Second, you make the accusation that users are "unwilling" to provide evidence.  I don't see that at all.  I just see you, someone I have never seen before on Wikipedia, moving goalposts.   At which point will there be enough evidence to satisfy you, and why do you have to be satisfied?  Again, who are you and what kind of authority do you have here?  I'm guessing that you used to go by another user name, because your contribution history shows that you arrived here knowing exactly how Wikipedia works from day one. Viriditas (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll make myself more plain, though no doubt, it seems, you will keep chalking away when an editor disagrees with you. First, by being an editor certifying the basis for this dispute (or someone who forms the complaining party), you are as much a part of the Rfc, regardless if you had anything to do with its creation or development 4 days ago. I will not gain or lose anything (except time), if the complaining party failed to submit all relevant evidence to substantiate and verify the nature and extent of the dispute. Nor will any other editor, administrator or arbitrator - none of whom wish to spend/waste time going through an Rfc that appears meritless. Second, the point at which evidence will be satisfactory for me is when all evidence relevant to this dispute is given, and the evidence shows;
 * the user who is the subject of the Rfc engaged in a clear and continued pattern of disruptive editing and/or unseemly conduct and;
 * that the editors involved in the dispute have taken steps to try to resolve the dispute, and have failed in these attempts and;
 * the pattern of behaviour continued thereafter, at least, up until this Rfc was opened.
 * Third, I would suggest you take care to avoid making any further such remarks here concerning any uninvolved editors, such as myself, as there is no desire to be in a dispute with you, and I'm sure you don't want more trouble than whatever you may already have. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you had bothered to actually read the Rfc, you would have noticed that all three of your conditions have been met. If you disagree, then I suggest you bring your concerns to the appropriate place as I'm not sure why you think you are in charge here or why you think you have some kind of authority.  I have no evidence that you are "uninvolved", and most of your comments towards me have been completely off the wall, so your judgment is already in question.  Like I said, you just showed up here out of the blue, and I've never even seen your user name before.  Did you go by another user name in the past?  Oh, and don't ever threaten me again. Viriditas (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh it wasn't a threat - it was a first and final warning, but I will be explicit this time: stop with your unfounded (indirect and direct) accusations that you've levelled so far if you don't wish to be reported . An uninvolved editor in an Rfc or ArbCom case is one that showed up out of the blue (not being involved in the dispute), wondering if there appears to be a case (not at the time - hence this talk page note titled 'insufficient evidence') and whether it is worth commenting on (and then commenting on it, or not). As an editor certifying the basis for this dispute, it is curious that you have no evidence of me being involved - I'll give you a hint; the common sense explanation is the answer. You don't know me, I don't know you, and looking at your comments here, I prefer to keep it that way. If you feel otherwise, or that I am involved, then you are obliged to consult the Arbitration Committee prior to saying anything else that may also constitute incivility and/or assumptions of bad faith. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I can't take your insignificant threats, your dire warnings, or your childish demands seriously in any way whatsoever. Looking at your contribs, you seem to have a habit of going around claiming "insufficient evidence" on every page you can find.  Please go find somewhere else to play with your toys, as the "big boys" are busy here. Viriditas (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It is clear to me that sufficient evidence has by now been adduced on the RfC page. I note the preference for diffs. I also note that in this case much of the issue is best illustrated in a small number of talk discussions. Absence of diffs is not absence of evidence. I reject Ncmvocalist's view of the evidential situation, though accept that he or she is entitled to his or her own view. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The evidential situation has changed since 04:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC) and some more diffs have been provided. Absence of diffs is at the peril of the complaining party - note the original template that specifically states "provide diffs and links" . The Arbitration Committee, and/or the outside editors commenting on this dispute, are not obliged, or expected to read the entire talk page to find where attempts at negotiation have been made. The conduct of editors who have certified the basis of this dispute will be looked into as with any other Rfc or arbitration case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Playtime is over, so please put away your mask and the costume. You don't have any authority here, you don't speak for the Arbitration Committee, and you don't speak for the editors certifying the dispute.  Your transparent attempt to introduce this discussion into the Rfc itself shows that you are involved and are in no way neutral.  The diffs in question have always been present in the Rfc as part of the discussion originally linked by the parties that created it.  Based on the sum total of your comments above, I'm convinced you've never read this Rfc and you've been commenting on it out of ignorance.  I'm curious, is "Ncmvocalist" your primary account or do you just use it for fun and games?  The reason I ask is because I've never seen your user name before, but this account was created without any learning curve whatsoever and appeared to be fully cognizant with all policies and guidelines at the moment of its creation.  If "Ncmvocalist" is an alternative account of an established user who claims to be uninvolved in this dispute, then I would ask that Ncmvocalist label his account with the appropriate "alternative acct." template. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your clear lack of awareness of basic Wikipedia norms (regarding diffs particularly) was why I reminded you, again. I am uninvolved in every way, and pointing out the evidential situation does not make me 'involved'. If you feel otherwise, you are welcome to bring this, along with any other bogus accusations, to the Arbitration Committee's attention. Unless this is done, consider yourself (and your personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith) ignored, except where you are stating something worthwhile (in relation to this case). Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am aware that you came here impersonating an authority figure, and that you are still pretending to be an administrator, a voice for the Arbitration Committee, and any other costume you think matches your shoes and top-hat. You are clearly involved, as you came her making false accusations about evidence - evidence that you never read, reviewed, or analyzed - and then used the talk page discussion to make more false claims, this time about editors who certified the dispute, accusing them of "edit-warring, personal attacks, incivility or assumptions of bad faith".  As I said before, your judgment is unsound, and nothing you say can be given any credence by any rational human being.  But I admit, you are very good at playing dress-up, and I defer to your expertise in that matter.  If I need a fake administrator or phoney arbitrator, I'll be sure to contact you immediately.  Now, please, go brush your teeth and get ready for bed.  Children should not be up this late. Viriditas (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't help notice that Ncmvocalist's suggestions pretty much contradict RFC/How to present a case. Per this essay, the original case was presented accurately and effectively, contrary to Ncmvocalist's vocal threats to delete it. I am still curious where Ncmvocalist derives his authority from, as he refuses to answer this question. Viriditas (talk) 06:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just in case
Just in case the RfC is deleted, I wanted to say that it's been an interesting experience. When Clarityfiend told me that he planned on filing one, I was, to put it mildly, apprehensive, never having been through one before, or even participated in one. But, as a result of this RfC, I've found that...


 * I am "a great editor [who] has a lot to offer this project."
 * I "have the good of the project at heart"
 * I "have excellent ideas"
 * I am "someone that people can talk with, and [I have] considered what people are saying to me"
 * I am "eminently challenging, demanding, refreshing ... [and] comports himself as a gentleman"
 * I am "a positive force for good"

...all of which is a definite jolt of egoboo! (Please note that I work in the theatre, and if there's one thing we know how to do it's extract the best possible remarks from mixed or negative reviews!!) On a more serious note, I'd like to address the question of compromise. I would have to say that two of the lowest points in my my Wikipedia experience were two times when I offered to compromise on something I felt strongly about, and my offers was roundly rejected. The first time was a discussion over the placement of tags that Viriditas has already referred to. Viriditas did indeed offer his services as a mediator in that discussion, and was helpful in a number of ways, including his convincing me to hold off on my activities while the discussion was underway. However, when I approached my main antagonist in that conversation with an attempt to find some kind of compromise, I was told that there was no compromise possible. Her way, in other words, was right and mine was completely wrong. Now, I was quite willing to admit of the possibility that I was in some respect in the wrong, hence the offer of compromise, but I did not think (then or now) that I was so totally and absolutely wrong that some intermediate position could not have been arranged, if only my compatriot had been willing to entertain the idea. The second time this occured was in my discussion with Clarityfiend about using italics for character names in cast lists. Once again, I was interested in short-circuiting what had become a wearying and worrisome debate, and I offered a compromise, and once again I was rejected. I was told there was no room for compromise, that I was just plain wrong, and Clarityfiend was right, absolutely. This time, despite the rejection, and the failure of my opponent to even talk about reaching some kind of mutually satiasfactory solution, I unilaterally instituted the compromise I had offered, and I have stuck to it ever since. Despite some of the claims made here, I do not put myself above the consensus of Wikipedia's editors past and present, but I do hold on to the distinct possibility that, at least on occasion, that consensus may not be serving the project in the best possible way. It could, in fact, be wrong, and it's possible for a single editor, having taken stock of the situation and put his or her best thought into it, to be right -- or, at least, less wrong. Even in the short 3 years I've been editing here, I've seen consensus shift, and that's encouraging, because it means the system is capable of self-correction, which is good. It can't do that, though, if too many editors continue to defend the current status quo as being absolutely right. I have no objection to compromise, I simply ask that my ideas be considered, seriously, and that they be discussed without prejudice. In turn, I try to do the same to the ideas of my compatriots, and, if I disagree, to give solid, substantial and intelligent reasons for doing so. I thank everyone who has participated here, pro and con, for sharing their thoughts and feelings. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  07:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
For the sake of the record, in 2 years, 10 months and 1 days on Wikipedia, in 12,772 edits, I have never knowingly performed any act of vandalism, and I do not take it lightly to be accused of it. Removing a "fact" tag that I found to be unnecessary is not vandalism. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  21:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Ed is not a vandal nor has he ever vandalized an article to the best of my knowledge.  I'm still not clear why the fact tag was removed, as it seems to be an unsourced statement, and from what I can tell from Ed's comments on the talk page, he still thinks that a source is not required.  I don't understand this position.  The claim was challenged by a long-term editor in good standing, and he removed it. Then, Ed restored the material.  The editor came back and added a fact tag, at which point Ed reverted him several times.  Why is this statement still unsourced in the article?  All challenged material requires sources. Viriditas (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Removing a tag of this sort repetitively without fixing the problem, and with that sort of reasoning, does constitute vandalism (you'll find a template message to that effect too, although it may not have been slapped on your talk page at the time). An editor questioned 1 statement in an article, and was well within their rights because it was unsourced. If it's something that should be on Wikipedia, then it has a source - removing the tag without providing at least a verifiable source, because you think it's 'unnecessary', is plain disruptive, and under such circumstances, can constitute vandalism. An Rfc tends to predict the progression of an ArbCom case - this is probably the closest you'll get, except you'd be subject to remedies probably involving blocks. Here, editors in the dispute are given one last chance to avoid being subject to any such remedy, except those that are self-imposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is true that Ed violated the letter of the policy, but he did not violate its spirit. You will not find anyone on Wikipedia who will go so far as to label Ed a vandal, and his good faith, but incredibly stubborn edits are vindicated by Vandalism.   It should also be mentioned in Ed's favor, that these edits are consistent with his editing philosophy.  Ed only follows the spirit of policies and guidelines, and that is precisely why this Rfc was filed.  This has nothing to do with vandalism.  Now, this is admittedly a very fine line to walk, and there are some editors who act in much the same manner as Ed, but do so in bad faith, and in such cases I would describe their edits as vandalism.  But Ed does not fit that pattern.  Characterizing Ed as a vandal misses the mark. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there is a different policy violation. I'll modify my findings accordingly Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate what you are trying to do, but if you have been following Ed's latest contributions, he is engaging in the exact, same behavior. My guess is that he is trying to get himself deliberately blocked.  Since I don't want that to happen, I have not added his latest disruptive edits to this RFC, but if he persists, I will begin to add the new evidence.  Ed, if you are listening, take this as a warning.  I defended you above because I think you are important asset to the project.  I have also not added your latest disruptive edits to the current RFC because I do not want to encourage your self-destructive behavior.  Stop going down this dark, but well-worn path, turn around, and take the road less traveled.  Start a new article and treat it like your baby.  Find new editors to welcome and help out.  There is absolutely no reason why you are continuing to do what you are doing except to see if you can get away with it.  Show us that you care more about the encyclopedia than these petty edit wars.  If you have a genuine beef, take it to the appropriate venue and make your case.  Ed, listen to me on this.  I'm watching what's going on, and you seem to want to be blocked.  I can understand that you are pissed off, but going around removing tags after Ncmvocalist just explained why you shouldn't is deliberately provocative.  Stop it. Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't gone through his latest contributions/behaviour, but I think the following is worth noting. There's not much point in adding any further evidence here from today. Perhaps due to his own views on how things should be done at Wikipedia, which (potentially) conflict with several policies, guidelines and norms, he didn't take this Rfc as seriously as he should have. But, if the behaviour does not change by the end of this week (or so), and he has not paid attention to the views expressed at the Rfc, then I'd recommend you go along the next step of the dispute resolution process - arbitration. Mediation is not going to be effective in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My time is too valuable to get caught up in arbitration, so I won't be doing that. I'm here to write articles, and not much else. Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please leave a note here if the behaviour has not changed by the end of this week (or so). An Rfc does most of the work for arbitration, except informing parties of the case, and recent evidence of the behaviour continuing after the Rfc. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

←I've read quickly over the RfC (front and back) and read Ed's Wikiphilosophy, and I've seen some of his work. I would be very disappointed if any action needs to be taken. I think that Ed, like a lot of Wikipedians, has learned to take a lot of what Wikipedians say with a grain of salt, and is making an unfortunate mistake in removing fact tags and edit-warring enough to get himself into trouble. From where I'm sitting, these are technical errors, not the mark of a madman run amok, and I have left a message on his talk page inviting him to discuss the matter. On the other hand, Ed is clearly willing to do things he's "not supposed to", so if he keeps removing fact tags even after we have a talk, I would have no problem with some form of swift kick being administered in the appropriate place. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)