Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Duncharris

message: Guettarda, do not speak for me. Do not pretend you know wwther I was offended or not. And do not pretend that I think that "fuck off" means "Thank you, could you kindly leave?" Don't put words in my mouth. - Kookykman|(t)e
:I have no idea what you are talking about. Guettarda 03:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the "Outside view by [[User:Guettarda]]" 

message: Since some issue has been made over the use of the word fuck in his edit summaries, I thought it might be illuiminating to produce a list of users with sysop right set ordered by the frequency of the use of fuck in their edit summaries. My search counted summeries with at least one match of the regex .*[Ff][Uu][Cc][Kk].*. As such there is probably some other word I'm not thinking of which fuck is a substring of...  Use of the word in the actual edit isn't counted, but if a section heading contained the word it would end up in a section edit of that section. Article titles are not normally part of the edit summary. This is all namespaces but does not included deleted revisions. In any case... enjoy! --Gmaxwell 10:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid this isn't working. I went to find mine, and I came across 7 occasions when The Word has appeared in an edit summary of mine. Yet I appear on the '2' list. Note that every appearance of the word was in discussion of an article containg the word in it title, so in section headers or similar in edit summaries: , , , , , ,  -Splashtalk 13:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Titles are not edit summaries. Your examples are pointing out an article with fuck in the title. Yes the article title looks like part of the summary on diff pages, but it doesn't on the contrib page. It would be silly to count those in any case. The counting is absolutely correct, I'll make my post more clear about what is being counted. The room for mistake here is in the interpertation of the data here, not the data itself. --Gmaxwell 18:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm honestly not being difficult, but I don't understand. In this diff, for example, the article title is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Do you exclude the article title when it is a section title at the start of a summary? -Splashtalk 01:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Since meaning matters more than exact spelling, "wtf", "f*ck", "f***", etc., are all valid subsets, if' the point is that "Foul language, even directed at machines, is disrespectful to those that have to read it".  Guettarda 13:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right but looking for all the variations would be too computationally expensive and error prone. I produced the report because some people seemed upset about the mere use of the word rather than the incivility. We have users who've used fuck in a summary on the order of 300 times. If we're going to get upset about the use at all, we're a little late. --Gmaxwell 18:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeeees...my point was that Gmaxwell's script isn't counting right. -Splashtalk 14:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, understood.  Sorry - my comment was on his comment, not on yours (should have intented it one less, I suppose).  Guettarda 16:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of ''fuck'' in edits sums

message: RFCs are most commonly just left to linger, and when nobody has added to them for some weeks, they're removed to the User conduct disputes archive: compare comments there.
This practice doesn't seem very satisfactory to me, and in fact a few RFCs have been closed, as specified in the archive list. See for instance comments at the foot of /Cberlet & Willmcw and /DreamGuy-2. I propose that such closing should be considered here, and that it's up to the users who certified the basis for the dispute, namely Silensor,  Kookykman, Ben Aveling, Thryduulf, Bahn Mi, and Benapgar  (I'm including Ben Avelling even though he has already crossed out his certification). Guys, would you get together and consider whether/on what conditions you'd be willing to close this RFC as a group? In view of the comments made by some of you above, it seems worth asking. Bishonen | talk 10:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a very sensible proposition - I'd like to add, if all but one of the users who certified the basis for the dispute are agreeable to closing it, then perhaps this Rfc could be closed and that one person could attempt mediation (which tends to work better in a one on one basis anyway.) KillerChihuahua 10:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this is very sensible. I have stated above that the appology Duncharris has already given is sufficient for me to accept closure now. If Ducnharris were to copy the appology to the RfC page that would be icing on the cake, but not necessary. Thryduulf 12:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: In addition to this RFC, my feelings of concern are still lingering as well.  The response from Harris is not so much of an apology as it is more of the same.  If you will review the comments stricken by Ed Poor  you will see that Harris makes excuses and additional unnecessary attacks here within this RFC, nor has he apologized to two other individuals who he told to "fuck off" when they in good faith asked for him to make an effort to remain civil.  If Harris can make a thorough apology to those he has offended and maintain civility in the future, even with those he may fundamentally disagree with, then this entire process will have been worthwhile.  Silensor 05:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ed Poor is being rather over-sensitive in his strike out. "not exactly known for his exemplary behaviour" is a perfectly reasonable comment; Ed is in fact rather well known for random behaviour. "his POV pushing" is fair enough as a comment (I'm not at this point judging whether Ed has or not, but unless we want to encourage endless circumlocutions, its necessary to allow people to accuse others of POV pushing). William M. Connolley 12:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr. C., you know this is not true; please don't try to hurt my reputation by saying this. Everything I do, in the controversial articles, is to get all sides a balanced airing. Uncle Ed 18:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Science is NOT politics, it formulates hypotheses based on evidence (NOT opinion). The hypotheses will change as the evidence changes. The current ideas may change, but not due to opinion. The concept of balance does not work in science, especially if there is zero evidence supporting a claim. With that in mind why do you find it surprising that your efforts to bring balance to science articles are not welcomed?  David D. (Talk) 18:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: What is it that dictates when an RFC should be closed?  My reasons for keeping this open are threefold.   Editors, some of whom just recently discovered this RFC, are still making comments and expressing their views; material evidence is still being cited; and most importantly, there have been allegations of recent misconduct which need to be verified.  Silensor 20:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Duncharris was abusive in this very RFC, calling another editor a "moonie" and attacking his motives. Oppose closing. CDThieme 20:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Silensor, for the answer to your question, please see my first sentence above: most RFCs are never closed, they only fade away. I was hoping we'd be able to do it differently (IMO, more inspirationally) with this one, but I realize that would take consensus, or as KillerChihuahua suggests, consensus minus one, among the certifiers. Since several of them resist the idea, I would instead encourage everybody who feels that enough has been accomplished/said to simply stop posting, on the RFC and on this talkpage both. I herewith take my own advice. Bishonen | talk 20:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for closing

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

text: I agree. If Silensor doesn't think this RfC has resolved the problem, then he should perhaps consider an Arbitration case. For me, Duncharris' apology and commitment to learn from his mistakes seem quite sufficient. — Matt Crypto 12:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

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

text: However you read it, I agree with Ben's interpretation of Jimbo's words as words of caution, rather than reading them as instructions to the ArbComm or as instructions to file an RFAr.  Guettarda 22:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And Ben should also take heed that Dunc's misstep here in no way excuses his own personal attacks directed at admins which have resulted in his own RFC and have been removed from talk pages per WP:NPA. FeloniousMonk 19:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimbo Wales suggests Harris be desysopped

message: Hmm.  Another flare up between Dunc and Ed.
But I don't quite understand what happened?
Ed blocked Dunc, OK, that I understand.
Dunc made an edit and claimed that it was Ed's suggestion when it wasn't, I think I understand that.  
At the risk of dragging an ID debate in here, what's with the delete, undelete, delete, redirect? 
Regards, Ben Aveling 07:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW I didn't know that it had been deleted as part of the VFD and presumed it had been a leftover, so I deleted it, then noticed Ed's comment on the talk page, had a quick glance at what he said, failed to notice that most weren't proper pages and therefore pointed the page at the most appropriate article.  This was presumably what Ed meant, because the alternatives such as recreating the fork speak for themselves.  I only noticed afterwards that it had been deleted and undeleted by Ed before I stumbled onto it because deletions and undeletions aren't on watchlists.  — Dunc|☺ 20:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what happened here? 

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