Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Duncharris

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 18:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC).

---

• (Duncharris | talk | contributions)

---

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

Statement of the dispute

Description

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

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

Harris has continued to contribute to an uncivil environment by being rude towards others, persistently referring to another editor's contributions as "crap", using unnecessary profanity during edit summaries, blanking criticisms on his talk page, and telling several people to "fuck off". In two seperate instances, Harris has explicitly told two different editors to "fuck off" after they had asked him to stop using abusive language. [1] [2]

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

On November 21, 2005, Duncharris again made offensive use of edit summaries [3] after another good faith contributor had marked an article for speedy deletion, telling them to "fuck off". As a result, Ed Poor blocked User:Duncharris temporarily to cool off. Rather than contact another administrator to work things out, Harris used his sysop permissions and unblocked himself, violating WP:BP. The Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Unblocking explictly states that: Sysops are technically able to unblock themselves by following this procedure but should absolutely not do so.

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

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

Evidence of disputed behavior

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

Privilege abuses

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

Personal attacks

1. [4] - Personally attacks Kookykman, telling him to "fuck off" after marking an article for speedy deletion.
2. [5] - Personally attacks CalJW, telling him to "fuck off" after being asked to refrain from abusive language.
3. [6] - Personally attacks Bahn Mi, telling him to "fuck off" after reiterating requests for civility.
4. [7] - After having been told that he should not remove others comments, he removed the warning, calling the warner a "troll".
5. [8] - Personally attacks Ben Aveling, calling him a "creationist troll".
6. [9] - Claimed that User:Kookykman was "then incapable of parsing simple English sentences".
7. [10] - Personally attacks Ed Poor, telling him to "fuck off moonie POV pusher".
8. Consistantly calls other people's contibutions "crap" or "bullshit", per the edit summaries when adding {{cleanup}} or {{vfd}} tags, needlessly biting newbies who had no idea of his crusade against school articles.
9. [11] Tells User:Benapgar "Don't launch your rattle out of your pram attached to an Exocet." with an edit summary of "I know I shouldn't feed this troll but". Elsewhere, he apparently said "Yeah, a good one. You're just a lowly troll." I don't have a link for that, though I'm sure it could be found if absolutely necessary. [12], [13], [14]
10. [15] Insulting edit summary: "rv anon's smelly brainfart".
11. [16] Edit summary begins "rv silliness by anon." (In the middle of a revert war)
12. [17] "Okay, I'll try to keep this simple for you." ... "You would have to be remarkably stupid not to realise this" Edit comment "It was silly, now it is becoming utterly stupid" (The revert war continues)
13. Calling Singapore a "third world country" on Mr Phor Hoay Guan's Rfd.
14. Gives uncivil opposition on Simetrical's second Request for Adminship, and responds to Werdna648's concerns with a hostile edit summary and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Simetrical_2&diff=61817849&oldid=61807244 personal attack referring to Werdna648 as a "stupid troll"

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Duncharris/archive8&diff=prev&oldid=23637879 - Request to refrain from abusive language by CalJW
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADuncharris%2Farchive8&diff=23345750&oldid=23304101 - Request to refrain from describing other editors contributions as "crap" by Kappa
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADuncharris%2Farchive8&diff=23852416&oldid=23772066 - Request to be left alone by Kingboyk
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADuncharris%2Farchive8&diff=22739029&oldid=22738548 - Harris substitutes the words of another contributor in an effort to taunt
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADuncharris%2Farchive8&diff=19226175&oldid=19225898 - Concern by Edcolines that Harris may be abusing powers as administrator
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADuncharris&diff=28930583&oldid=28930290 - Dmcdevit requests that Harris not mis-use administrative rollback in POV disputes
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADuncharris%2Farchive7&diff=17948838&oldid=17931545 William M. Connolley requests that Harris stop making "gratuitous insults" to his user page
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Duncharris&diff=next&oldid=24213260 Ed Poor requests that Harris maintain civility when making references to him
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Duncharris&diff=next&oldid=24310297 Sebastiankessel expresses concern regarding page protection abuse by Harris
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Duncharris&diff=next&oldid=24340226 Jonathunder expresses concern over rollback and page protection abuse by Harris
11. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADuncharris&diff=28832371&oldid=28790772 Thryduulf requests that Harris stop entering offensive edit summaries, 24 hours later Harris repeats the same attack 3 more times by tellling Ed Poor to "fuck off" while unblocking himself [18]
12. I first met Dunc during the Bengapser RFC [19] I asked him on his talk page not to taunt people [20]. He came to my talk page and agreed that he shouldn't do it [21]. When I went to his page, I found a new abusive message to another user [22]. So I left what I hope was another polite request to cease and desist [23]. A couple of weeks later I noticed that he has abused another user so I went to Dunc's page to leave a message. I found that there already was one saying what I wanted to say so I just added "+1" to it. Dunc blanked that, and came to my page, leaving a message abusing my spelling. I responded by asking if I needed to write a fuller comment on his behaviour [24]. He has not responded directly to me, though he has made disparaging comments about me elsewhere on wikipedia as already referenced on this page. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Thryduulf requests user:Duncharris not to use personal attacks or offensive edit summaries: [25]

Profane use of edit summaries

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

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Silensor 23:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Kookykman|(t)e 23:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Ben Aveling 00:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC) (moved to 'endorse' as explained below.)
4. Thryduulf 20:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC) [53]
5. Bahn Mi 00:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC) [54] [55]
6. Benapgar 12:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC) [56]
7. CDThieme 18:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Karmafist 23:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Nandesuka 00:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC). Duncharris's response to my re-applying the block he removed on himself was to suggest that I didn't consider who I was blocking, and that I should be worried about "the Wikipolitics of who you are making enemies with." I find the idea that a temporary block for violating Wikipedia policies should be a reason to "make enemies" is laughable and repugnant. That he would consider "Wikipolitics" to be a valid reason to selectively enforce policy or to treat some users as more equal than others is a clear leading indicator that he doesn't yet understand the responsibilities that go along with being an administrator.
3. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 00:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC). I have no problem with the vast majority of Duncharris's edits, but think that he repeatedly violates WP:CIVIL in a manner extremely unbecoming of an andministrator.
4. Dmcdevit·t 00:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) I asked him not to use his rollback in POV disputes (which he has done multiple times, even reverting other admins) and the response was unimpressive. Particularly "Anyone else got any pointless comments or criticism?" I expect admins to be able to maturely respond to constructive criticism.
5. AnnH ^(talk) 00:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Such behaviour is frankly disgraceful. The diff Nandesuka refers to is this which makes "I'm going to make implicit dark threats because I'm popular" language. If any small part of these diffs had occured before an RfA, we all know that they would have ruined it. Duncharris should bear that closely in mind. -Splash^talk 01:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
8. I simply ask that he takes this seriously. Some sign of that would go a long way. Sam Spade 05:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
9. This paints all of us with a bad image, especially considering this user is an ADMIN who should know better!  ALKIVAR™ 06:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Completely unacceptable persistant behaviour on the part of an admin who does know better. CDThieme 18:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
11. The evidence speaks for itself. Very disappointing, very worrying. Harro5 07:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
12. We expect civility and restraint from all our editors. Admins should set an example. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 08:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Dunc does make good contributions, and I don't want to lose these from the poject. However, there is no call for the breach of WP:CIVIL. Saying "Fuck off" once or twice should merit no more than a polite note on the talk page, but when that doesn't stop it then the user involved needs to be made aware how seriously others view this. Thryduulf 08:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC). It has been rightly pointed out that I cannot sign both here and above, but I feel my comments are still relevant. If someone can think of somewhere they would be better feel free to copy them there (including my signature, but an unstruckout version, please). Thryduulf 23:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
13. This sort of thing is horrible in an admin. A good review of WP:CIVIL would be a nice first step here. AKMask 12:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Some professionalism would be nice. — Dan | Talk 18:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Ral315 (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
16. People are not going to take Wikipedia seriously if our admins are swearing at them. Using civil language shouldn't be a big deal. Carbonite | Talk 20:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Civility is a key component to the success of Wikipedia. I hope that Dunc takes these comments to heart and modifies his behaviour accordingly. Hall Monitor 20:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
18. --Rob 02:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Bishonen is right. I have not attempted to resolve this dispute through discussion, rather I have demanded civility from Dunc. While I do believe that we have a right to demand civility, I agree that it does not constitute an attempt to negotiate the resolution that we all want. If I can have Dunc's agreement in this, I would like to invite Bishonen to mediate this dispute. Ben Aveling 11:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
    1. Cripes... very glad to hear you say that, Ben, and especially your remark on my talkpage, but sorry, no, I can't undertake mediation. I'm not anything like neutral in the conflict between Ed Poor and Dunc, for instance, and my well-known impatience and tactlessness get in the way too. But from what yoou say, and recent remarks by others on the talk page, it's looking as if you, Kookykman, Thryduulf, and Dunc (? I think) are all ready to regard the conflict as settled anyway, and the RCF seems to be gently self-closing. I hope that's the case, it would do credit to everybody involved. Bishonen | talk 18:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
20. It really shouldn't take long to decide to cancel this user's admin privileges, but I have no confidence that this procedure will lead to an appropriate outcome. CalJW 07:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Incivility isn't good (but it's commendable that he's apologised for it). — Matt Crypto 10:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Dunc has told me off about schoolcruft and gave me the cold shoulder even after this.--Tan Ding Xiang 陈鼎翔 09:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
23. I never experienced an insult from him but after reading the evidence I find his attitude strangely aggresive. He needs to kick it down a notch. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
24. The RFC is long overdue. He harrassed me in my userpage with demeaning comments. I do not believe he should be an admin. ken 21:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
25. Absolutely. Werdna (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Other users who do not endorse this summary

1. Guettarda 02:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC) - This collection of diffs are very misleading and needlessly prejudicial. There is no policy against "bad language". These diffs all bold the word "fuck", despite the fact that, in the vast majority of cases, there is nothing even vaguely wrong with the language used, even in the most broad interpretation of policy or guidelines. Has all the appearances of a witch hunt against an excellent editor who is inclined to using "bad language".

   If we were having a pleasant dinner with colleagues, and someone came out with something equivalent to those diffs, you and I would take two different approaches. I would consider such language entirely within the realm of freedom of speech but profoundly unWP:CIVIL by any measure of how one conducts oneself in a decent way. I would be unsurprised if the person instructed to "fuck off" was not a little offended. You would apparently tell the offended colleague that his offence was actually harassment intended to make the other party want to run away in tears. -Splash^talk 02:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   Life is not a dinner party with colleagues. Language use is coarse in the real world. You cannot censure people for failing to uphold middle class norms. Guettarda 14:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   I have removed the bolding. It isn't necessary to make the point. The problem is not just foul language, but that so much of it is directed at people. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

2. FeloniousMonk 02:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) - per Guettarda. Duncharris is an excellent and knowledgeable contributor who willingly takes on the thankless (and now apparently risky) task of POV Patrol for particular segment of articles that are POV-magnets, namely, those at the intersection of science/religion. I'll also add that EdPoor, who, for this very reason has run afoul of Dunc (and has his history of issues with civility), has been following Duncharris around looking for any opportunity to block him. Again, there is no policy against strong language, and Dunc's slip of civility is understandable looking the history of who and what he was confronting. FeloniousMonk 02:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   Are you accusing us of having raised this RFC because we have a different POV to Dunc? As one of those who Dunc seems to see himself as 'confronting', I'd like you to make clear why you think 'strong language' and a lack of civility towards myself and others is 'understandable'? Regards, Ben Aveling 02:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

3. This RfC seems very malicious. The editor is salty and let's people know when they are wrong. Most of the edits refered to above were justifiably good and I believe that people who are offended by the use of profanity should try to change Wikipedia policy to state that there should be no profanity used on Wikipedia. They might wish to start with AfDing Fuck. --Joshuaschroeder 21:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   Obviously it isn't malicious. But I'm interested in at whom you think the article Fuck is directed? -Splash^talk 21:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   What on earth do you mean by your question? All articles on WP are addressed to anyone on the Internet seeking information. KillerChihuahua 22:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

4. William M. Connolley 21:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC) - per FeloniousMonk. I've had my share of troubles with Dunc ("that's becuas eit Neo-Lamarckian bullshit rather than ID bullshit", above, was directed at me) but I can't agree with the tone of this RFC. Dunc, *please* be polite. But: I'll second Duncharris is an excellent and knowledgeable contributor who willingly takes on the thankless (and now apparently risky) task of POV Patrol for particular segment of articles that are POV-magnets, namely, those at the intersection of science/religion.. Ed Poor, I know to my cost, has strong opinions on climate change (all of them wrong); I would be reluctant to trust his views on the equally thorny subject of evolution/creationism.

   Also I'd like to draw peoples attention to this edit [57] in which Dunc has substantially reformulated his response to this RFC, to his credit. William M. Connolley 09:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC).

5. KillerChihuahua 22:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC) Per William Connolley, et al.

   Gateman1997 20:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

6. Arbustoo 20:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Rejoinder by Ed Poor

It might look like I was following him around, but that isn't correct. I first noticed the f--- thing pursuant to a request-for-userblock on the #wikipedia IRC channel. I did a quick review of contribs and found the WP:NPA violation.

I hesitated to do the block, since I have a history with Dunc. But when no one on IRC pointed out a conflict of interest, I figured it would be okay. And the sheer number of RFC endorsers seems to show that I guessed right. Uncle Ed 19:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you didn't see a conflict of interest yourself - that no one on the IRC channel brought it up is immaterial. And the "sheer number of Rfc endorsers" are not specifically endorsing your block, which has come under considerable criticism. KillerChihuahua 19:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You've used "oh, noone on IRC thought it was wrong" as a defence when you got things wrong before. IRC isn't the wiki, by the way. -Splash^talk 21:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Response

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

Okay, I shouldn't've sworn. sorry, I apologise.

And I shouldn't've tried to unblock myself. I lost my temper after Ed Poor (talk · contribs), who is not exactly known for his exemplary behaviour, blocked me. Not because I swore but because I've been one of the editors trying to keep his one-man religious crusade against science in check. In short this has involved creating POV forks and other editors have commented that the issue of Ed's behaviour also needs to be addressed. But this isn't about him (that's for another day), it's about me.

Please do not say that I am conducting a "one-man religious crusade against science". That is a personal attack, and if you saw another user un-strike-out this comment it's really the same as you making the comment again.

It is for your incivility, not your opinions, that this RFC was made. Please do not change the subject, or repeat the violations for which you are being called to account - otherwise I doubt that the community will accept your apology.

An apology, followed by a repeat of the offense, strikes me as insincere.

And in case you've missed my repeated explanations, I will clarify again: (1) I'm not a science opponent (not that it's any of your business should I turn into one). (2) I have not done anything to push an anti-science POV at Wikipedia - in any article; I have tried only to balance the descriptions of the pro-unguided evolution and anti-unguided evolution points of view in the relevant articles.

This is disingenuous and a false dichotomy. Or it shows that you have a profound ignorance of the scientific view of evolution. Science is NOT politics, it's that simple. Science formulates hypotheses based on evidence (NOT opinion). The hypotheses will change as the evidence changes. The current ideas with regard to evolution may change, but not due to religious opinion. Science does not consider opinons, science considers evidence. The concept of balance does not work in science, especially if there is zero evidence supporting such claims. For that reason I completely agree that Dunc is correct to revert your edits since they are made with the idea that science IS like politics. It is not.

I know this Rfc is not about you, but blocking someone who regularly patrols your edits on the science pages in unacceptable. It is no wonder that Dunc unblocked himself after such a frivalous block, which however, is also unacceptable. Dunc has apologised for that as well as being uncivil. You have recognised you should not have blocked him. That is all this Rfc could ever achieve. The fact this is still going on and some parties will not let this drop will inevitably lead to this spiralling into an acrimonious battle from what had appeared to be a civil truce. Why can't everyone just let it drop rather than continuing to chip away. It's pathetic. David D. (Talk) 16:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

And if you believe that seeking a balance between 2 points of view is equivalent to pushing one (which you seem to suggest), I still fail to see how that would justify abusive personal remarks such as "cowardly" or "ridiculous". Please phrase your objections to my administrative actions in civil terms. Uncle Ed 16:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Now, I wrote the offending words at 14:42 20 Nov 2005; I was blocked by Ed at 15:20, 21 November 2005 -- more than 24 hours later. This after I had been warned by another user, took this on board and considered the matter closed.

With hindsight I suppose I should have apologised to Kookyman who probably made a genuine mistake which I responded to unnecessarily. But I did not mean any personal offence to him; he will learn from his mistakes as I will learn from mine. I have since apologise to Kookyman and he has accepted this.

I was incensed by this ridiculous cowardly slight by Ed Poor (which I will state again was not for swearing). I lost my temper. I know I should have got someone to unblock me but I took it as a very serious personal attack and felt it was better I stuck up for myself rather than crying for help. This was wrong. In the end Snowspinner (talk · contribs) and Guettarda (talk · contribs) FeloniusMonk (talk · contribs) and others clued into what was really going on unblocked me. I thank them for having common sense.

There was then the issue of others wading in without a clue what was going on behind the scenes, which was infuriating since I was unable to defend myself properly since I was banned.

In addition, there is a lot of Wikipolitics going on here that I don't want to get into because it sounds like I'm whingeing, but everyone who I've ever offended (some probably without good reason) seems to have turned up to have their 2d.

Finally though, Ed Poor needlessly blocked another one of us who has been trying to prevent his POV pushing Joshuaschroeder (talk · contribs) today. A pattern is emerging and this will be addressed. — Dunc|☺ 21:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Please avoid personal remarks. I'm a bit surprised that you would feel free to attack me like this, in such a high-attention public place. Do you feel that repeating an accusation a sufficient number of times will convince others that it is true? No matter: a quick review of WP:NPA will tell you if your remarks are within web site policy. Uncle Ed 20:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Your vandalism of Duncharris's signed words has been reverted. Altering other people's signed words is forgery and demonstrates a lack of good faith. --FOo 01:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I think he was just striking out what he felt were personal attacks as per WP:RPA. [58] --Ben 03:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

It's still not appropriate, and he made his feelings quite clear in his response. Also, I'm not sure that this is the appropriate venue to hold the debate this is quickly developing. Can we please put a hold on it, gentlemen, or at least move it off-page? – ClockworkSoul 17:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view

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

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

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

Outside view by Doc

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

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

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

1. Right.--Sean|Black 00:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
2. David D. (Talk) 01:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Karmafist 01:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC) I do agree with both views. Dunc's behavior isn't acceptable under WP:CIVIL, but Ed Poor's block was questionable at best. However, unblocking yourself is almost as bad as the original action, and I re-blocked for a shorter period today until told that it was not a bad faith move on his part, with I AGFed considering the person who told me and the examples they showed me.
4. FeloniousMonk 02:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC) - Doc's right. Ed's been gunning for Dunc for some time now [59], and today he finally got his wish.
5. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC). I have added my view on my opinion on the block further down as well.
6. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC). I agree with Doc, and would have been happy to lift the block, certainly. But I'm troubled by one detail, which I wish Dunc would address: I was the one who convinced Karmafist (see his comment a few lines above) to undo his block, on the basis that Dunc had unblocked himself in good faith, from what I read on his talk page ("Dear Asbestos, I thought admins could unblock themselves"[60]). Now in Dunc's response above, he seems to suggest the opposite ("I know I should have got someone to unblock me"). Dunc, were you aware of the "never unblock yourself" principle, or not?
7. Agree William M. Connolley 16:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC).
8. Agree with all points - Tεxτurε 16:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Agreed. +sj + 06:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Yes --Jaranda(^{watz sup}) 20:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

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

1. No. As mounting evidence shows, Harris had been repeatedly warned not to use abusive language or mis-use his administrative powers. To put it another way, if three seperate users warn an anonymous vandal to stop making personal attacks, it is completely appropriate for another administrator to step in and block the offending vandal. The difference is that Harris is not an anonymous new user, he is a well seasoned administrator. Silensor 00:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Ed Poor did warn Dunc. Dunc deleted the warnings. [61] [62] Regards, Ben Aveling 00:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   So why didn't Ed go to Rfc? David D. (Talk) 01:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   Ben, for the sake of complete accuracy, I'd have to say that Ed didn't warn Dunc. He informed him that he had blocked him. I don't intend that as a criticism of Ed, but it's just that what seems to be under discussion here is whether or not Ed was right to block without warning. AnnH ^(talk) 01:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   Good point. And I think that Ed and Dunc have preexisting unresolved issues so. Dunc still shouldn't have blanked Ed's comments. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   Although Harris was notified after being blocked, there is no disputing that Harris was repeatedly asked by many members of Wikipedia to please remain civil. Silensor 01:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   Right, and I did not dispute that point. David D. (Talk) 02:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

3. I disagree to the extent that there is no need to go to RfC and RfAr before applying a block. Go to AN/I perhaps, but it's only a block. Indeed, blocks are often used as attention-getters and this one presumably did exactly that. I agree to the extent that there was not a micron of room for self-unblocking. -Splash^talk 01:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   I think Doc means to to RfC if the bad behaviour continues after the block. But otherwise, yes (to be frank, I think this whole thing could have been solved if Dunc had just apoligized, and allowed himself to be re-blocked. But whatever). --Sean|Black 02:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

4. He deletes his warnings, he deletes his critisisim, he is uncivil. - Kookykman|(t)e
5. Granted, I am not an administrator, but I have personally and politely asked Duncharris at least four times not to label the contributions of others as "crap". He responded by telling me to "fuck off" and then blanked out various parts of our conversation. If the consensus is that my request was unreasonable and that the response I received was even remotely warranted then we have greater problems than this RFA at hand. Bahn Mi 05:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   The idea that administrators are somehow deserving of more respect than editors without admin powers is poisonous and improper. An admin is just an editor with a few extra buttons. You are every bit as deserving of being treated with respect as the longest-serving admin. Nandesuka 05:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   • I think administrators, rather than deserving more respect, are obligated to give more respect. That's why I'm particulary hurt by the part of Dunc's defense in which he attacks me for not showing exemplary behavior. I *strive* to treat other Wikipedians with the utmost courtesy, and it's rare that fail to do so. The last time I can remember is when I gave an example of "how not to be courteous" but failed to put it in quotes and say what if I said that... - when taking FuelWagon to task for his multitudes of personal attack - a lapse, by the way which I apologized for then - and (hi, FW!) I'm still sorry for. Sorry, FuelWagon! See? All it takes is a sincere apology. We all must follow civility and neutrality rules; no exceptions. Uncle Ed 20:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

6. Ral315 (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC) - though I'm not sure whether the reasons behind Ed Poor's block are relevant at all.
7. Duncharris was rightly blocked. His persistant behaviour was completely and totally unacceptable. CDThieme 18:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Wikipedia is much too soft. Look at the amount of time we are wasting here because he hasn't been banned already, as he clearly deserves imo. CalJW 07:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Dmcdevit

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

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~): AnnH ^(talk) 01:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

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

   Good point. Same general idea, I don't think anyone would mind if I tweaked it. Dmcdevit·t 19:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

7. --Doc ^ask? 12:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Ral315 (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC) I could not agree more.
10. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC) The most judicious uses of never and always that I've seen in some time. It's past time that we started to live by WP:CIVIL a bit more.
11. CalJW 07:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Borisblue 06:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Guettarda

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

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

• [89] - "WP:CIVIL - the crap is of your own making dear boy"
  • What's the issue here?

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

2. Policy does not restrict use of rollback for vandalism

• See, for example, this diff [90]

3. Unblocking

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

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

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

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

1. FeloniousMonk 02:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
2. KillerChihuahua 04:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC) Dunc is impolitic in his choice of words, no doubt. However, the semantics of "fuck off" are radically different from "fuck you." Either is offensive to those more concerned with words rather than meaning. He should probably, in the interests of tact, refrain from "crap" comments. In short, Dunc is my poster child of incivility, to the point that I have used him as a 'bad example' - but this does not merit an Rfc.
3. Pete.Hurd 21:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC) He's incivil, but it seems clear that this process is not motivated by the incivility per se.

I've been asked by User:Bahn Mi to clarify: I mean that I agree with "This RFC is without merit. Dunc is one of our best contributors, and has made a huge contribution to Wikipedia. This RFC amounts to harrassment. I hope this isn't an attempt ot drive out one of our best contributors, because it is starting to look that way." Pete.Hurd 21:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

1. . 03:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC) I guess not many people would add a "support" to this particular notion of Guettarda. Common sense would have told this user to not edit with such vulgar comments as "fuck off," but I think it would be better for some users to see why: He is trying to edit an encyclopedia, and when I see some particular editor put a "{{db}}", withouting checking to see that he is a VERY productive editor would piss him off a bit. Again, telling someone to fuck off or whatever isn't the nicest thing: but it wasn't meant to be nice. I'm not saying Duncharris should get off scat free, but I think that Wikipedia's silly "censorship" policy is getting in the way of a very important factor here: that is, hey those editors were out of line to a degree. I have said before, and I say again, that I think silly actions shouldn't be expected to be welcomed, or be received with niceties. In other words, an action leads to an opposite, but equal reaction. So if you going around trying to delete someone's hard work without much warrant, don't be suprised if you get someone telling you to "fuck off." No, it wasn't the best thing to say. I am not looking at what he said. I am really, really looking at what the principle behind him saying it was. I, for one, am more than tired of the boundaries in which Wikipedia has decided to put me in, and I can say now that I have spent more time here than I intend on spending in the future. Totally unrelated, I know, but I have to say: this RfC had me rolling over laughing. People in the library were looking at me like I was crazy! Duncharris could be a stand up comedian - but he should do that kind of stuff there not here. Ha, Ha, Ha. I wish I could have audio of these comments when Duncharris was writing them (can you imagine what he was saying. It must have been WAY, WAY, WORSE!!!) Good luck, Duncharris - if I see that Duncharris truly is apolegetic, I say we blow the thing off, and give him, at most, a three day block - granted that he doesn't try to unblock himself (again). εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 03:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Change my mind, I don't think that a hardworking user like this should be blocked. : ) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 03:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse this view:

1. Not a word of it, I'm afraid, apart from the obligatory fluff about "good editor" etc. It's excuse making where there is no excuse. It's a request for comments, not harassment. It's what you get when you don't act up to the standards people expect of you. -Splash^talk 02:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   Not a word of it? It violates policy to complain about getting the preview pane when you try to save for the n_th time? That list of diffs appears to be deliberately misleading. I can't imagine how you can see it as anything else. Guettarda 02:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

2. While I concur that the mere use of profanity is not against policy, you lost me at your very first point, where you claim that it's understandable that Dunc told another editor to fuck off. That's not understandable. That's not good editing. It's not reasonable. It's not civility. It is, in my opinion, absolutely unacceptable. It's an insult to the thousands of excellent editors here — both admin and non-admin — who somehow manage to be active and fruitful contributors without telling other editors to "fuck off," to suggest that this behavior is acceptable. And, frankly, it beggars belief that you actually managed to write the sentence "Fuck off is not an attack" with a straight face Nandesuka 02:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   Is "leave me alone" an attack? The only difference between that and "fuck off" or "bugger off" is the shock factor. Guettarda 02:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   Obviously, I believe there is a world of difference between "leave me alone" and "fuck off." One word we use to describe that difference is "civility." Nandesuka 03:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   The meaning is the same. How is one an attack and the other not? It's only a matter of convention regarding "bad language". Guettarda 03:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   I encourage anyone who is incapable of recognizing that being told to "fuck off" is rude and insulting to endorse your summary. Nandesuka 03:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   The point is, both are incivil. One just has more effect (to some people) because it uses the taboo "bad awords". The diffs I commented on seem to focus entirely on the use of "bad words" in edit summaries - it's totally bogus to call swearing at the software either a personal attack or incivility. And all of the examples put together are less incivil than is filing a bogus RFC or blocking a user against consensus after a long discussion on WP:AN. Why is it so hard to understand that this kind of a witch hunt poisons the community far more than a few bad words? Guettarda 18:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   I believe that the lack of endorsements of your statement — one can practically see the tumbleweeds rolling by — indicate that most Wikipedia editors do not agree with your frankly unusual assertion that there is no significant difference between telling someone "leave me alone" and telling someone "fuck off." Nandesuka 20:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

3. There's nothing wrong with profanity (free speech, and all that), but otherwise per Splash.--Sean|Black 02:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
4. I obviously disagree that comments such as "To Bahn Mi (cos I know you're watching) fuck off", "fuck off" ", "Abusive language - fuck off" could be considered anything but a violation of WP:CIVIL. I personally think that all the "This article is utter crap"-type comments are also in violation, both by the word and the spirit of the policy, as they are needlessly insulting the creators of the articles, who clearly meant no harm in writing "crap" articles about their schools (almost all of which were kept despite their being, apparently, "crap"). Since nearly all of the contributors who had had "crap" thown back in their faces after their effors were new users, this is also a pretty ugly demonstration of biting the newbies. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 03:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Foul language, even directed at machines, is disrespectful to those that have to read it. Directed at people, it is abuse. Nor does one have to be foul to be abusive. For example, Dunc once made a comment about the need to "save poor FM's sanity". There's nothing vulgar in the language, but it's still not a polite thing to say. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   There is nothing in policy or guidelines which forbids it. You cannot file an RFC based on personal taste. Guettarda 13:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

6. There is no excuse for edit summaries like this - by all means swear at your computer, but don't write it in an edit summary. I also disagree that comments like "Fuck off" directed at another user are not personal attacks - they're not the worst I've seen by a long shot, but that still does not make them right. Thryduulf 08:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Agree with those who don't endorse this, you cannot make these instances of incivility OK because they're not. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   It wasn't my intention to say that the three f-off's were ok. I just meant that I don't think they rise to the level of policy violations. And the rest of the diffs are just padding. Guettarda 13:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

8. The assertion that the phrase "To Bahn Mi (cos I know you're watching) fuck off" is not insulting or a personal attack is one of the most egregiously disingenuous statements I've seen in my brief time as a Wikipedia editor. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 12:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   And how would the meaning have differed if it had said "To Bahn Mi (cos I know you're watching) leave me the hell alone"? Only by degree, not by meaning. And it's just a matter of degree between "leave me the hell alone" and "leave me alone". Guettarda 13:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   You seem to be arguing for the narrowest possible interpretation of the meaning of civility — one which suggsts that swearing at people liberally is just absolutely fine and dandy. We should be arguing for the broadest interpretation. There is absolutely no means of suggesting that telling someone to "fuck off" is a polite thing to do. Period. It is a matter of degree, of course. And it is very plainly clear that "fuck off" is too high a degree to be remotely within the bounds of civility, politeness, friendliness, or any other mode of conversation that one should be using in decent company. -Splash^talk 13:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   To begin with, my point in that whole analysis, which people seem to have chosen not to see, was that, out of 27 diffs which the people who initiated this RFC found to be "personal attacks", only three were at all personal, and they do not make it to the level of "attacks" per se. The whole RFC is predicated on a lie. We can split hairs about whether or not we should award Dunc a "Rory", but that is not a matter for an RFC. As for "There is absolutely no means of suggesting that telling someone to "fuck off" is a polite thing to do" - I strongly disagree. I have been told "fuck off" in a friendly manner often enough. Use of language differs with culture - polite American culture never allows "fuck off" to be acceptable, but outside of that artificial, middle class envelope the phrase abounds. We aren't in "Pleasantville", we're in the real world. Step into a bar, hang out with a group of college undergrads, or simply talk to an Aussie. Guettarda 14:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   Guettarda, I am an Aussie. Now, if I go round the corner to the pub where my mate drinks, and during the course of a friendly conversation, suggest he "fuck off" it would indeed mean laughter and another round of drinks. But were you to go to the same pub and tell a random punter to "fuck off" the result would be more likely to be contact next-of-kin. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   Guettarda, first of all, those weren't the only personal attacks. There's a whole slew of them several sections up. This section was on profanity in edit summaries, which you seem to have chosen not to see. It seems that a large number of editors agree that such edit summaries contribute to a poisonous environment. Second, there are more personal attcks than just the "fuck off" ones. Making a habit of calling a newbie's first article "crap" or "bullshit" is both biting newbies and making attacks. And I don't even understand calling a pro-evolution article "patent nonsense, POV christian fundamentalist bullshit". — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   Nope, we are, or at least should strive to be, in Pleasantville. WP is not a bar brawl. -Splash^talk 15:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   Shifting goalposts. If there were other personal attacks, and this RFC was about personal attacks, then they should have been here. The diffs I saw were about use of the word fuck, and I commented on them. Most of the comments have been about "profanity". As for poisonous environments - witch hunts like this one are far more poisonous, as are pov-pushers and vandals. In an ideal world we would have none, of them. But when you have people like Kookykman saying "I don't particularly care if a user is highly respected or is an IP. If they make a one sentence substub that doesn't explain the subject's importance, it gets tagged as such" [91], you're going to have problems. Failure to AGF causes problems - what happens after you have looked into it carefully and figured out that someone isn't acting in good faith is another matter. Dunc's edit summaries didn't help, but this whole set of nastiness has poisoned the water far more than Dunc ever did. Guettarda 15:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   All words and phrases have connotation and denotation. The two are often, but not always, congruous. "Strong-willed" and "pig-headed" have the same denotation, but very different connotations. You are arguing that the denotation of what Duncharris said is not insulting, while disingenuously ignoring the insulting nature of the connotation. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 14:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   Sorry, I am unfamiliar with the connotation/denotation difference. Sure, your examples differ in terms of degree, as did mine. But your examples are both descriptors of people. "Fuck off" is not a descriptor, and thus cannot be construed as an attack. Guettarda 16:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   Which brings us back to my initial comment in this thread. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 16:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

9. I cannot do any better than endorse Nandesuka's, Sjakkalle's and Splash's words in this section. I must also say I'm quite stunned that the claim has been made, repeatedly, that the act of telling a Wikipedia editor to "fuck off" does not "rise to the level of policy violations" and that "there is nothing in policy or guidelines which forbids it." I would like to request those who hold this view to please click on the following link, WP:CIVIL, and tell us, what part of This page is an official policy on Wikipedia is difficult to understand? encephalon 18:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   And where does that include yelling at the software? Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our rule of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another (from WP:CIVIL). This witch hunt, which drags in all sorts of irrelevant trivia, certainly causes an atmosphere os conflict and stress. While Dunc doesn't win any awards for civility, and deserves, as Phil mentions below, to go to bed without a cookie, Kookykman's tagging of Dunc's article within one minute of creation, Ed's block, and this misformed RFC do far more to promote conflict and poison the atmosphere here. It's especially amusing when Kookykman has an Esperanza link in his sig. If people were offended by Dunc's comments there are many other pathways to solving the problem, but when the RFC is brought against him by people he has been in conflict with for a long time, when it is filled with inflammatory but irrelevant diffs, and when it fails to show attempts to resolve the problem, it's a bogus RFC. I see no reason not to call a spade a spade. Please explain how it is that irrelevant, inflammatory diffs somehow advance the cause of Wikipedia. Guettarda 18:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   • When Dunc told another editor "fuck off," he was not "yelling at the software." An RFC is not a witch hunt. An RFC is a way for the community to try to express its views on a given topic to an editor. Hopefully, Dunc will internalize the views that people are offering here, as constructive criticism, and modify his behavior in the future accordingly. Trying to claim that that opening an issue for community discussion is "inflammatory" and "causes an atmosphere of conflict and stress" while in nearly the same breath saying that telling people to fuck off is, in fact, a loving expression of camaraderie seems to me to be fairly laughable. I respect your desire to protect and stand up for your friend, but I can't stand by silently while you distort reality in order to do it. Nandesuka 20:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
   • Guettarda, can you put this in a comment so I can endorse it? KillerChihuahua 18:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   Oh and please be sure to add in the "poisonous atmosphere" paragraph above. KillerChihuahua 18:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   • Guettarda, with respect, Bahn Mi, CalJW, and Kookyman are not software. Nor is Ed Poor, or any of the many editors that Dunc has been rude to. Dunc seems to hold some perfectly tenable views on deletion policy. He seems to be a reasonably knowledgeable contributor to articles on the evolution-creationism divide and similarly contentious subjects. He articulates his views clearly. But he has also been—too often—extraordinarily rude. And lest it be forgotten, that rudeness is what this RfC is about. Whether this RfC will prove a useful instrument in improving matters is left to be seen—I do not take issue with your belief that it may not help. I also do not object in the least to efforts by some of our colleagues here to present a balanced view of the stresses that Dunc faced in some of those situations when he was uncivil; I support attempts at a fair representation of events. But I do object, strenuously, to suggestions that incivility may be brushed aside as something that is not expressly proscribed by policy and actively discouraged. That is both untrue and unhelpful. It is quite disquieting that a specific reference to policy apparently needs to be made for incivility to be taken seriously; that incivility on WP may be glossed over as "not ris[ing] to the level of policy violations." This shouldn't be the case. Manners matter. encephalon 14:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

   This is really the crux: incivility towards another user is always a bad thing and will generally prove counterproductive for those who engage in it. It doesn't matter who you are, how long you've been here, or how "good" and editor you are, there is an onus on all of us to behave in keeping with WP:CIVIL and to pull up others who we see doing otherwise. Of course it's tempting to yell Fuck off at those who annoy us, but all users, especially admins, need to be mature enough to resist. Filiocht | The kettle's on 15:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

10. Those edit summaries are obviously unacceptable. Does is really matter whether it violates policy or not? Other users agree that Dunc needs to be more civil and I urge him to heed that advice. Carbonite | Talk 20:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

    "obviously unacceptable" - do you hear how POV that is? Are the editors of WP so brainwashed by the middle-class memeplex that the mere useage of a "bad word" makes you light the torches for the stake? And yes, it matters. KillerChihuahua 22:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

    Yes, it is my POV that those edit summaries are obviously unacceptable. This isn't an article; comments don't have to be NPOV. To address your strawman argument that this is all about the usage of a bad word: This wouldn't even be an issue if it just was about a few instances of vulgarity. There's a pattern of profanity and violations of WP:CIVIL. This is about being respectful of other editors and creating a environment conducive to creating an encyclopedia. As for violating policy, this is the flip side of Ignore all rules. Namely "...some actions that are not expressly forbidden by rule may still be obnoxious and lead to negative consequences." Nobody is looking to "light the torches", they just want Dunc to be a bit more civil in his interactions. I don't think that's too much to expect from an admin. Carbonite | Talk 22:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

    I read this very differently. Looking at the way this was reported, looking at the way people responded to my analysis, it seems obvious to me that this is nothing more than a witch-hunt against Dunc for his use of bad words. The fact that more people dis-endorsed my analysis of the "bad words section" of the complaint seems to strongly support that view (of course, iirc, much of the other evidence did not exist at the time I wrote that). I find it hard to read the initial complaint, and the barrage of criticism of my analysis of it, as anything other than a gathering to light the torches. Guettarda 15:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

11. Guettarda should fuck off. Sorry, couldn't resist! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.87.165 (talk • contribs) November 22, 2005

    Thank you for your comment. I couldn't figure out how this advances the conversation? Why are you afraid to sign in? Guettarda 15:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

    You are right, Guettarda, the anon's comment doesn't advance the conversation — and neither do the "fuck you"s in Dunc's edit summaries. Paul August ☎ 03:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

12. Tεxτurε 16:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
13. --Kbdank71 17:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Delete. Wikipedia's policies are a muddle are irrelevant here. This user's behaviour is outrageous. CalJW 07:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Erm, an edit summary of "F*** off" is a pretty clear violation of Wikipedia:Civility. — Matt Crypto 10:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Telling an editor to "Fuck off" is never acceptable. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 14:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Kindness breeds kindness, tolerance breeds tolerance, understanding breeds understanding. On the other hand, anger breeds anger, hostility breeds hostility, contempt breeds contempt. Which kind of world do you want to live in? Paul August ☎ 03:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
18. To Paul August's response, I could not agree more, nor could I have said it better. Jonathunder 16:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
19. The remarks were inexcusably rude and can't possibly be seen as anything other than violations of the policy against personal attacks. Tree&Leaf 18:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Crystal clear violation of WP:CIVIL Borisblue 06:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Snowspinner

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

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

1. Phil Sandifer 03:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Guettarda 04:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
3. KillerChihuahua 04:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
4. FeloniousMonk 05:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
5. The Land 12:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
6. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 17:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Whoops, wrong debate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Carnildo 18:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Guanaco 00:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
10. roffle Mike H. That's hot 07:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Mark K. Bilbo 17:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Pete.Hurd 21:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC), aye.

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

1. Bahn Mi 04:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC) Biting newbies, abusive language, name calling, personal attacks, et cetera, are not things which should be taken lightly or encouraged.

   With all due respect, on the school Afd's there is a mob mentality that is part of the problem. I do not endorse how Duncharris deals with the issues but there are barbs on the other side too.David D. (Talk) 05:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   We are all responsible for our own actions, Duncharris is no exception. Bahn Mi 05:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

2. This is not a joke. Admin misconduct is a serious problem on wikipedia. Admins should be disinstated rapidly when their conduct is poor. CalJW 07:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

   I thought it was a pretty funny joke. I don't roffle to just anything. Mike H. That's hot 07:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

3. Incivility is NOT a trivial concern. Borisblue 06:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

   No. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Sjakkalle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Users who endorse this summary

1. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
2. David D. (Talk) 08:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
3. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 11:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
4. KillerChihuahua 12:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
5. The Land 14:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Guettarda 16:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
8. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Uncle Ed 20:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Pete.Hurd 21:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse this summary

1. I find it incomprehensible that anyone can think he is fit to be an administrator. If other administrators are so willing to turn a blind eye to each other's faults, it is time to abolish the whole caste. CalJW 07:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Rob Church

Reading through this, I'm quite disturbed at the idea that one of our users could use the word fuck more times than that infamous South Park episode. However, I'm also quite worried at Ed's blocking. While I'm one of those who, apparently, started people screaming for his desysopping (the Request for Arbitration, from which I later withdrew), I also know Ed tends to have the best interests of the wiki and the wiki community at large, at heart.

Nevertheless, I'm irked to see a bit of a block war here - as admins, we don't tend to block each other, since we're supposed to be able to pick up on each other's mistakes. For instance, if I had a problem with Dunc's behaviour, I'd tell him so on his talk page, at which, he would probably apologise, undo his mistake, and carry on. Then again, Dunc's behaviour was as a user, not as a sysop, so I'm wondering whether the unwritten rule doesn't apply here.

What does surprise me, perhaps the most, is that Ed blocked him directly. Knowing Ed as I do, I'm suprised to see he didn't try to mediate the situation. Nevertheless, I'm supposed to be commenting on the issues which matter here. Dunc, while you've probably grasped the ability to use profane language quite well, I'd advise you not to in future - it doesn't show a cool editing pattern. However, I don't see there's a real problem here. So he ballsed up once. He'll put it right, and that'll be the end of it. At the risk of sounding flippant - where's your f***ing problem?

Users endorsing this comment

1. Rob Church ^Talk 17:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   You might want to check the talk page - Dunc doesn't appear to win award for the most use - Guettarda 17:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   I know. Rob Church ^Talk 19:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

2. Guettarda 17:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Karmafist 17:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC) f*** yeah! I thought that episode of South Park was about the word shit, but I may be wrong. Somebody has to call in the FCC on this rfc.

   Yes, it was about shit - episode It Hits the Fan - but that's beside the point. Rob Church ^Talk 19:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

   Fortunately for those who are wondering (or not, I don't know) WP has a reference which may help. KillerChihuahua 19:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

4. Ral315 (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Thank you.--Sean|Black 22:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Me too William M. Connolley 00:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC).

Users who don't endorse this comment

1. Strongly disagree with the conclusion that there is not a problem when admins are abusive and unblock themselves. This was not an isolated incident of incivility or abuse of admin powers. Duncharris has done both before. CDThieme 18:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Strongly disagree with this outside view. This is not an isolated incident, Harris has a documented behavioral pattern of making personal attacks. When he has received requests in the past to cease and decist, he has either ignored them or escalated the problem further by telling them to "fuck off". The appropriate steps when trying to resolve a problem such as this are a) Talk pages, b) RFC, and then c) Mediation. Silensor 21:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Hipocrite

User's conduct in the school AFDs has been poor, doing little to solve an ongoing problem, and rather has demonstrably attempted to dodge consensus that there is no-consensus on deletions for verifiable schools. This RFC does not deal with this, so I decline to expand.

Users endorsing this comment

1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Ral315

Regardless of using the words 'fuck', 'shit', or otherwise, Duncharris has still violated WP:CIVIL. I'm not sure it's been stated, but Duncharris' use of 'Moonie' against Ed Poor. As our own article states, the term 'Moonie' is usually frowned upon by members of the Unification Church. In any event, its use as an insult, as Duncharris has done, is remarkably like those who would use 'Jew' or 'Catholic' as an insult.

While I'm not sure whether Ed Poor's block was in line with blocking policy, I think a bit of discussion would have helped a lot. Simply discussing the block with Ed may have been enough to get an unblock, or at least to understand Ed's reasons for blocking Dunc. And for Ed's part, the continued blocking may have been a bit much. But I find Dunc's actions certainly worse than Ed's.

Users endorsing this comment

1. Ral315 (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Splash^talk 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
3. I don't mind being called a Moonie - as long as people don't confuse me with Sailor Moon fans. :-) And if Dunc reforms, then it's a neglibile price to pay for a great Wikipedia benefit: long live civility! Uncle Ed 20:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
4. I agree fully with Ral315. I'll also add that I'm very unimpressed by the block log edit summary blocked by POV pushing Moonie Ed Poor because he doesn't like me [92]. Substitute "Jew" for "Moonie", and see how it sounds. AnnH ^(talk) 18:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Borisblue 06:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Completely agree with AnnH. CDThieme 18:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside View by Karmafist

Here's what I think.

Dunc: Next time you feel like you're pissed off, go over to Uncyclopedia, they encourage incivility over there if it's funny. And don't unblock yourself. That's a no-no.

Ed Poor: You've got a good reputation as an editor, but also a controversial one. Heck, they made an award for how contreversial you are. A lot of people see this, and alarms can go off if you step on a certain subject. Next time there's touchy subject and you feel like pulling the trigger, check with somebody -- trust me, that makes things so much easier.

Everybody else: This rfc is getting dumb. Let's close it and if we need to continue the premise of its contents, we can have a swearing contest.

Users endorsing this comment

1. Karmafist 23:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Thryduulf 09:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
3. William M. Connolley 11:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
4. This is good advice: I followed it before the block, and will follow it next time, too. Thanks. Uncle Ed 16:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside View by Bishonen

Ed needs to stop blocking people he's in conflict with. Duncharris is rather rude. RFC is not supposed to be a punishment. Punishment is against Wikipedia policy, therefore give Duncharris a retroactive cookie. I've put a specific proposal for closing this RFC on the talk page, please read it and comment.

Users endorsing this comment

1. Bishonen | talk 11:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Guettarda 15:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
3. KillerChihuahua 16:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Fredrik | tc 17:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Thryduulf 17:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
6. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 00:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
7. I didn't like the cookie talk before (it seemed to trivialise serious incivility) but now that he's had the guts to apologise, give him a biscuit and let's go write an encyclopedia (nicely) --Doc ^ask? 00:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Sticks and stones break bones, and it's possible to be extremely incivil while using all words of more than four letters. RfC is supposed to be commentary, so my comments are that Dunc behaved poorly, Ed behaved atrociously (again), and the RfC is way past useful (and I don't think a cookie should be baked for the occasion). Geogre 18:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Agree with Bishonen (but disagree with Geogre): a better way to enforce civility needs to be found than me suddenly stirring the pot. Uncle Ed 16:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Pete.Hurd 21:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Outside View by ClockworkSoul

Something in this RfC struck me as excessive, and prompted me to do a thorough analysis of all points presented in this case. Over the course of two illuminating hours, this contributer has reached the conclusion that Duncharris has violated some of the presented policies, but definitely not to the gratuitous degree presented. My (perhaps excessive) comments on each of the policies presented are as follows:

1. Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Unblocking – While self-unblocking is certainly unwise, current policy specifies that one should not unblock oneself, but does not indicate that one may not do so. While this may seem like splitting hairs, please understand that it is the difference between what one is expected to do and what one is required to do. Further, the block on Duncharris was without a basis in policy, and although the reason for being blocked has no relevance on whether an admin may unblock himself, the fact that he was blocked in such a manner at the crecendo of a POV dispute may be viewed as a blatant act of antagonism on the blocker's part. Duncharris' actions in this respect exhibited poor judgement, but did not violate policy.
2. Wikipedia:Profanity wasn't mentioned in the RfA proper, but it's clearly relevant. This policy, in its present form, doesn't explicity differentiate between profanity in articles, profanity in talk pages, profanity in user pages, or profanity in edit comments. The current wording of this policy, in my opinion, requires much to much interpretation in its implementation. That being said, however, this policy has most definitely been ignored. It is up to others to determine whether it has been violated.
3. Wikipedia:Etiquette – This is not a Wikipedia policy, but a guideline. Though clearly not followed by Duncharris, all of the actions listed above are covered by one or more of the three following policies.
4. Wikipedia:Civility – It is clear that Duncharris violated this policy: he has taunted other contributers, and has directed profanity at others numerous times. I am particularly struck by this edit, in which Duncharris rewrites another contributer's words; as clearly altered as they may be, such an act is in bad form indeed.
5. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers – In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit that I have always considered myself an advocate for newcomers: I feel that "biting" them is not only uncivil, but is doing a serious disservice to Wikipedia by running off potentially good contributers. That being said, it is obvious that Duncharris has repeatedly violated this policy guideline (correction added later). In my opinion, this tendency of Duncharris' to bite and possibly drive off newcomers should be dealt with harshly.
6. Wikipedia:No personal attacks – Discounting the days prior to the ugly block war of 21 November, it can be established that he used the word fuck a little more liberally than many are comfortable with, but the use of such language does not, in itself, constitute abuse (even "fuck off", in my opinion, is not so much abuse as a rather tasteless directive). A handful of edits, however, do cross the line into what might be considered abusive by some, such as the following (already listed) edit summaries:
   • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kent_Hovind&diff=prev&oldid=27761419
   • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poor_design&diff=prev&oldid=3830362
   • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Duncharris/archive8&diff=prev&oldid=23637879

Examining this admins edit history with a figurative magnifying glass, however, has shown me that of the thousands of edit made by this user, these kinds of edits are uncommon. Unfortunately, when Duncharris gets involved in some POV dispute, he will sometimes lose his temper and cross the line.

In summary, this user has has a checkered past. Although he has many positive contributions, his tendency to use harsh language and antagonistic behavior, as noted here and in his RfA, is indicative of a larger problem: his lack of willingness or ability to maintain control of his temper. Although it's clear to me that he's not the monster that he's being painted as here, he has violated Wikipedia policy. As such, I consider one of two courses of action to be appropriate:

• On the severe side: a de-admin may be considered, especially for his treatment of newcomers; a ban, however, is excessive in this contributer's opinion.
• On the lenient side: probation for a period of, say, three months. If this behavior is repeated at any time during that period, then the above "severe" actions would be taken.

– ClockworkSoul 05:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Users endorsing this comment

1. ClockworkSoul 05:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Silensor 07:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
3. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 13:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Agree, unless Dunc simply apologizes and promises not to do it again. Uncle Ed 16:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
5. rspeer 19:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
6. CDThieme 19:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Johnleemk | Talk 21:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC) I happen to agree with a lot of other comments, but I like this one best.
8. brenneman^(t)(c) 05:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC) - I have a new crush. Where has this guy _been_ all my wiki-life?

Users who don't endorse this comment

1. Point number 1 is, in my view, a serious misinterpretation of the rule against self-unblocking. See Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Self-unblocking. Thincat 14:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
2. In his first point, ClockworkSoul says that "current policy specifies that one should not unblock oneself", and hence there is no strict requirement for an admin never to do this. Actually, current policy says that admins "should absolutely not" unblock themselves. The "absolutely" doesn't leave much doubt about it. — Matt Crypto 15:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
   • I readily acknowledge that my conclusion is not the common one. It's a habit I carry over from my years in software development when our technical specifications had a very clearly defined distinction for the words "should" and "must" (as defined by RFC 2119): From the origins of my interpretation:
     • SHOULD – This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
     • MUST – This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement.

Yes, I know that our policy is not a technical specification, but under these widely accepted definitions (in technical circles, at least when I was in the industry), "absolutely should" has no more meaning, than, say, "absolutely recommended". For this reason I feel compelled to take a view that is alternate to the common interpretation of this policy, in large part to seek clarification, or at least a re-examination, of the wording of this policy as it is now written. Thus my conclusion that by these concrete definitions, it is possible to conclude that Duncharris may have had "valid reasons in particular circumstances" to unblock himself. – ClockworkSoul 16:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposals for remedy

Removed by Tony Sidaway 01:55, 25 November 2005 [93]

Comment on the 'remedy'

This is absurd. Remedies are for Arbcom. RfC's are for comment, not discipline. If anyone is disatisfied with Duncharris's response, they are at liberty to refer the matter to Arbcom.

1. --Doc ^ask? 22:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
   • Comment This is a non-binding vote. It doesn't actually inflict a penalty. It just gives people a chance to say what they think should happen. I think that's important. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
   • I've now added this to the description so people don't think the votes are binding. --Ben 22:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
2. I agree with absolutely everything Doc says, apart from his use of the apostrophe. -Splash^talk 23:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Can I add an AOL-style "Me too" to this? This whole thing smells worse of witch-hunt than ever. Ben Aveling, I do not consider your part in this to be in good faith at all, so it would behoove you to drop the disingenous act above. You clearly are (as are several others) using this as revenge for previous disagreement with Duncharris. Ben Aveling, I think you are continuing previous disagreement with User:Duncharris, which I do not think should be done. RFCs are too often used in this fashion. RFCs do not impose remedies. We do not vote on remedies. If anyone thinks that Dunc's apologies are insufficient they are free to take this up with the ArbCom, who are the only ones who can impose remedies AND the only ones who get to decide them. 00:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morven (talk • contribs)
4. Agree per Splash. KillerChihuahua 01:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Partially agree. It is ultimately up to ArbCom on what remedies to enforce, but RFC is a fine place to comment and propose what those remedies may be. Silensor 07:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Totally agree with Doc, and especially with Morven's comments. FeloniousMonk 03:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand why this is a problem. The poll is only intended to gauge opinion. It is non-binding. If you have any suggestions on how this can be stated more clearly, please edit the description. I've added some more to help clarify this for you guys. Note too that noone is forcing you to participate.--Ben 00:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added more to the description just to be clear, since it is apparently still not clear enough. --Ben 01:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Gateman1997

I vote we close this fucking RFC. Both users Ed and Dunc have been uncivil, indeed Ed attempting to circumvent this RFC by opening another one Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Duncharris2 is a sign of his continuing vendetta against Dunc in this matter, and Dunc has toned down his use of language significantly since this RFC was established. In addition I'm starting to doubt Ed's good intentions with the block that appears to have started this RFC in the first place as the two of them have been in the midst of a quite heated debate.Gateman1997 22:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

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