User talk:JzG/RfC

This is good. A lot of work, but good. I for one appreciate what you contribute here. And I hope you continue to do so. We need more editors and admins like you that we can rely on.--Filll (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

Why not read the RfC? Do you care about the community's opinion? It's not just trolling, there are arbitrators there who have commented on your behavior. Nesodak (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think I have answered that question. I have a good number of friends who have brought to me the well-intentioned constructive criticisms I need to hear, and that without the offence that is caused every time I even think about the RfC due to the breathtaking insensitivity of its timing. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

British use of the word fuck (and other insults)

Sorry Guy that excuse just does not cut it. I'm australian, we trade insults more than any other english speaking nation, more than you brits and more than the americans. I use the word fuck liberally in every day language as do many other people I know. However that does not mean i feel the need to use the word fuck on wikipedia, where it is likely to be misconstrued. Really Guy, I know you have been told a very many times that your language is unacceptable, yet you continue to parrot this pathetic excuse. Its about time that you learnt that there are people on the internet with different sensitivities to swearing and insults than you, and calling people names or swearing at them is nowhere near acceptable on wikipedia. Blue language and insults do not a collaborative working environment make. Viridae^Talk 12:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would add that my experience of British English is clearly very different from Guy's. Language one may use after a few beers and among close friends is not generally regarded as acceptable at work or amongst strangers. DuncanHill (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My experience in conversation with people from Australia, the UK, Canada and the US is that there is some variation in sensitivity towards many of these profanities. What does bollocks mean to someone from North America? Nothing at all. What does getting pissed mean? Well it depends on where you are. The C word? Quite a term of endearment in Australia, and one of the worst words on the planet in the US. The S word? Well it is quite common in some places and quite rude in others; I have had nasty arguments with Americans who tell me that the word "crap" is far ruder than the S word, but the opposite is true in Canada. Bastard? Rude in some places, not so offensive in others. Bitch? Same thing. Ho? Depends on where and who is saying it. Ass and arse? Again, depends on location. I have been around enough to have observed that these are not hard and fast rules. What is grossly offensive in some places, is really quite standard language in other places.

While I do not enjoy seeing someone say "f-off" on Wikipedia, or that someone else is full of "B.S.", I do at least have the maturity and education and experience to realize that my own personal standards are not necessarily the same as the standards others are applying. Where I live there is a huge sensitivity about the N-word, depending on who says it. You could be fined millions of dollars for saying the n word if you are the wrong kind of person, and say it in the wrong place. You could be killed for saying the n word. But your next door neighbor could say it and could even be celebrated for using the same word in the same circumstances as you.

When I was growing up, using the word "g*d" was taboo, under any circumstances. The same was true of the word "h*ll" or the word "d*mn". However, Americans, especially currently, are quite relaxed about using the word "god" in all contexts in all circumstances, without even realizing it might offend others. The same is true of the word "Jesus". No one gives its use a second thought, even in the public media.

When I was growing up, no one would use the word "Queer" to refer to someone homosexual without expecting to cause great offense. Now, some have seized this word to promote television shows etc.

So as irate as some are about Guy's language, I would ask that we try to nudge him gently towards slightly less inflammatory language, instead of calling repeatedly for his head on a stake. Let's make sure he understands that we appreciate the services he provides for us.

At some point, these repeated calls to sanction Guy become counterproductive, and verge into WP:DE and WP:TE themselves. And this sort of circus provides a platform for all kinds of malcontents with grievances to take potshots at Guy. What admin who is doing his or her job is not going to collect a trail of angry editors that have been blocked or banned or warned? I have even seen some advocate of unfettered child molestation who ran afoul of the community and JzG, using this as an opportunity to "get even" with Guy. Good heavens people! Let's use some common sense here...--Filll (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am striking the comment about the editor who wanted to promote child molestation who had used this RfC as a chance to get even with Guy, in response to this. I do not want to give offense to anyone with this, and I am astounded at how drastically my statement was misread.--Filll (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

DuncanHill says his experience of English usage is different from mine. So it might well be. I work in IT, most of my colleagues for the last ten years have been either programmers or salesmen, and before then mainly engineers. I'm equally sure that in a Geordie pub the language would shock even me (this from personal experience). Guy (Help!) 21:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Much of the language in Geordie pubs is incomprehensible to me! I would like to say that I think Guy's language has improved considerably lately, for which many thanks, and I am now much more confident that he will listen to editors on this issue. DuncanHill (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Reason?

Are the principle authors of the RFC a reason you are not reading it, or acknowledging you have read it, if you have? Lawrence § t/e 13:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have explained in detail to several people the main reasons, but they are probably evident from the text of the response. Part of the problem is that I would find it extremely difficult to take a dispassionate view of the comments of some people who I know or have been told are editing that RfC. The most likely result would be anger and hurt, and I suspect that some of the comments made might be deliberately designed to cause just that. The timing of its commencement was also an act of quite breathtaking insensitivity. Guy (Help!) 13:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Boneheaded

I have seen many on the RfC page trot out that old saw, "well Guy will scare off newbies and other contributors". It is true that some might be dissuaded from being Wikipedians or continuing to be Wikipedians if someone tells them their idea is lousy, or if they see an expletive.

However, we always forget that if an editor has to deal with legions of coddled trolls and POV warriors, they can get disgusted and quit too. And it has happened repeatedly. Look at the WP:Expert Rebellion essay and look at Raymond Arritt's Expert Withdrawl pages. But somehow, instead of responding to try to develop better methods to deal with a hostile editing environment because of coddling assorted malcontents, we have a large contingent of editors who want to do more coddling. This group of editors that favors coddling often are the same group that wants to continually broaden the definition of unCIVIL to a ridiculous extent. There are consequences for coddling. It is not something without its own costs, and this should not be forgotten.

I will also point out that as time has gone out, we have developed a larger and stronger contingent of deletionists as well on Wikipedia. They are increasingly aggressive in deleting material, sometimes within seconds of it appearing. Newbies particularly are likely to be bitten by this.

What do you think is more discouraging for a newbie, to see an admin like Guy say someone has a boneheaded argument, or to work hard on a new article they are excited about, only to have someone immediately delete it with no explanation? And guess what? We do not worry much about deletionists and their effect on driving away editors and giving us a bad image.

How many newbies even understand what an AfD is or a speedy or what to do in response? How many newbies know what a DRV is? How many newbies know you can undelete deleted material? I have talked to many who are heartbroken afterwords. Many who get disgusted and quit. I suffered the same thing when I started; I had no idea what I was doing. It seemed like a bureaucratic maze and I did not know where to turn. And I worked on things, and then they disappeared, right in the middle of the work.

Yet, we actually have a culture that at least in part, celebrates deletionists. We have a culture that at least in part, promotes the coddling of malcontents. Both of these will have an effect on the culture and atmosphere here, and both likely drive away their share of editors. Both give us a bad image.

So how do they compare to someone like Guy who sometimes calls a SPADE a SPADE? Well we do not know. But the politically correct group here on Wikipedia is glad to make assumptions about things they do not know, and parrot unproven nonsense that someone else said. I am therefore asking you to think for yourself instead of repeating some stale argument that has no data or evidence supporting it. I do not find it particularly convincing, and you should be embarassed dragging such foolishness out here to demonstrate "how awful Guy is".--Filll (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"we have a large contingent of editors who want to do more coddling." I think that's a misunderstanding. I've not seen anybody argue for more coddling; I've seen people argue that responding to spades by calling them spades makes problems worse, provokes and aggravates trolling, and makes it difficult for other Wikipedians to help out.

To describe the case for civility as "pro-coddling" is unfair to the debate, and not really in keeping with intellectual honesty. Quite the contrary, it is civility that enables us to deal with trolls and POV-pushers in a de-escalatory manner. I think we will have a better chance of coming to understanding if we try to fairly and accurately characterize each others positions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, with all due respect, you appear to be assuming collinearity among two concepts that appear at best to have only a mild correlation. I would claim they are much closer to independence and orthogonality than your response would imply.--Filll (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Collinearity"? I'm not sure I follow. You're saying that whether or not one is civil and whether or not one coddles trolls are independent? I would agree with that... just about 100% I thought you were "assuming collinearity" (if that means what I think it means). I was under the impression that your position was that "WP:CIVIL out of control" was the means by which we coddle trolls. I'm happy enough to have been mistaken about your position; if you wish to clarify further, I'm all ears. I'd like to know how trolls are coddled, and what we can do about that. I'm not aware of coddling any, but if I have, I'd like to know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well what I am suggesting is that the concepts of civility creep, WP:CIVIL abuse, increasing enforcement of WP:CIVIL and coddling of assorted malcontents are related somewhat, but are all separate phenomena that should not be conflated in anyone's mind. I am sure I have mentioned this before to you, but I am glad to repeat it to hopefully reinforce this issue.--Filll (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Um. I am not against a firmer line on interaction between editors, but as you note, the infuriating but polite obduracy of POV-pushers is, in my view, one of the pressing problems facing the project. You cannot fix the one without fixing the other, or at least not without risking serious detriment, to the point where the level of tendentiousness in some articles, and the ever-escalating frustration of the few editors defending core policy there, has been seriously advanced as a reason for giving up and allowing those articles to be hijacked by the advocates of fringe nonsense. That is clearly not a good result for the encyclopaedia. A case is ongoing now, on 9/11 conspiracy theories, where remedies for this exact problem are being discussed, and that is a good place to discuss the problem. As to celebrating deletionism, I have no idea. I nominated Badlydrawnjeff for adminship on the grounds that he was unlikely to delete articles out of process, fairly unlikely to undelete them out of process, as he was something of a process-wonk, and quite likely to use the deleted revisions to userfy and rewrite into perfectly decent articles - the Uncle G of popular culture, if you will. Turns out that the community was not ready for that, so maybe you're right. On the other hand, most inclusionists are off writing articles and don't actually need a mop... Sorry, I know I wasn't going to be drawn into philosophical whimsy on this page, but it's an interesting point. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Turdburglar

Could you give your explanation of your actions in the Turdburglar incident? Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware there was an "incident". It's an English slang term, and redirects are cheap. I'd probably been watching Stephen Fry, he makes great sport out of the many colourful colloquialisms for homosexuality. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap indeed, use of admin tools to protect them isn't. Is "turd burglar" a likely search term? Did you include any context explaining its offensive nature? I'd have no problem with an online encyclopædia that anyone can edit that was based on QI, but Wikipedia isn't it. And I don't know how to say this without maybe sounding uncivil, but you are no Stephen Fry. A 13-year old creating that redirect as a joke so he and his friends could laugh at it for a few minutes would be readily understandable, but one hopes for higher standards from an admin. DuncanHill (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh is that all? That's perfectly simple to explain: Special:Undelete/Turd burglar shows several deleted and entirely inappropriate revisions; a protected redirect probably seemed to me at the time an expedient way of stopping that happening again. We can protect a redlink now, of course. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well given you are so sensitive, should we start a movement to put all who use the word "Gay" inappropriately (as in the increasingly common expression "that is so gay!") in prison? Why not have those who produced and directed and wrote "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" arrested? What about having them horsewhipped or waterboarded? Oh my gosh, the outrage! --Filll (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll, as usual you are dishonestly mischaracterizing what I have said. I have not called for anybody to be put in prison, or horsewhipped or waterboarded. I have asked Guy to explain his actions, which he has done, and for which I am grateful. I responded by asking him a couple of further questions, and making a statement relating to what I believe to be acceptable behaviour by admins. I look forward to reading Guy's response, as it is very gratifying and encouraging to see him using this page to respond to questions from concerned editors. Please do not disrupt his attempts to address concerns by trying to wind me up. DuncanHill (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well DH, given this response and your posts to my talk page, it might appear to some that you have a certain penchant and propensity for a certain amount of obfuscatory and delusory polemical remonstration. Mathew 7:16. No pun intended I assure you.--Filll (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles?" I think that you Filll, Guy, and I could all benefit from considering that question. I may be being dense, but I don't see the pun, unintentional or not, tho'. Did you mean verse 20, "By their fruits shall ye know them"? DuncanHill (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll.... you said "given you are so sensitive, should we start a movement to put all who use the word "Gay" inappropriately in prison". This is an example of something. Did DuncanHill suggest imprisoning anybody? No. Is it fair to compare his argument to a desire to throw people in jail? No. Has he called for horsewhipping or waterboarding? No. Why say those things? You've exaggerated his position. Doing that is very unhelpful in a discussion, as it tends to derail the thread, and provoke the other person. Why do that? Why not, when you restate someone's position back to them, try to characterize it as fairly as possible?

In order to disagree with someone, it is not necessary, nor very helpful, to paint their position as an absurd caricature of what they're really saying. Does that make sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

But of course, he did not exaggerate or misrepresent my position for his own ends by claiming that I had maintained that all who had contributed to these talk pages were child molesters. Very reasonable of you to focus the attention on me, and ignore his behavior. Makes so much sense out of context, doesnt it?--Filll (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If he exaggerates or misrepresents your view, does that somehow make it cool for you to do the same? We've interacted a bit, and I've noticed you doing this on more than one occasion, with my views and with those of others. I think it's not a good habit. I don't claim that DuncanHill didn't misprepresent your position, but on at least one occasion, I have asked him to be careful about that, when he had misrepresented your view. I don't see an example of him misrepresenting you in this thread. So, if you want to know why I don't criticize others, the answer is mu. I didn't see him claim that you had called a bunch of people child molestors, but if I had, you can bet I would have said something. Point me to it, and I will say something.

All of that aside however, how many wrongs do you figure it takes to make a right? If someone treats you wrong, is it right to treat them wrong back? Why not rise above it? Is your only response really going to be, "he started it"? You're more grown up than that; I know you are. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, spare me the sophistry and tortuous argumentation. I never claimed he wanted to waterboard those who had produced the television program. I asked if we should, as a means of pushing something to its illogical extreme to expose its underlying weaknesses. However, I was accused of something heinous. I did not make my statement to "get even". I am only drawing an interesting analogy to your biased evaluation, which I think is quite illustrative. In fact, some might say it violates WP:CIVIL, might they not? And if you want examples, why not read what I posted above? Or do you just respond without actually having followed the exchange, going off half cocked as it were?--Filll (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Filll, I'm not going off half-cocked, I'm trying to suggest that your habit of exaggerating others' positions isn't very constructive. If you know he doesn't want to waterboard people, then showing that his position, taken to the extreme, might look like that, is useless. That is precisely sophistry. "Pushing something to its illogical extreme to expose its underlying weaknesses" only makes sense if someone is actually suggesting pushing it to the extreme.

In an extreme case, we would execute jay-walkers, and that's clearly absurd, therefore laws are wrong? That's not a good argument, right? In pushing his position to an illogical extreme, you're passing up the chance to discuss actual positions, in favor of caricatured ones. Why not criticize his actual position? If you do, you'll find that people don't reply with, "as usual you are dishonestly mischaracterizing what I have said". If enough people suggest that you're habitually mischaracterizing others' words, it might be because it's true.

I did read the entire exchange above, and now I've gone to your talk page and commented there. As for "going off half-cocked", I don't really think I'm "going off". I've been pretty calm and polite, and I've tried not to make any unfounded accusations or unconstructive comments. I do get the impression that you don't like me, and would like to refute any criticism I have for you. When I suggest that you might communicate more effectively, you get defensive. I dunno, do you think this is something you don't need to work on? Do you think any and all conflicts you run into here are purely the makings of others? Are you unwilling to consider that certain styles of argumentation might be more productive than others, or are you only unwilling to hear it from me? I find this very frustrating. I like and respect you, and I offer you suggestions precisely because I think you're big enough to see them for what they are. I'm getting a lot of static and spite in return. I don't know what's up, but I must have really pissed you off at some point. I'm very sorry. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, guys? One of the reasons I didn't visit the RfC is to avoid this kind of fist-fight. I won't remove it, but I'd be pleased if one or other of you would do so. I'm happy to provide clarifications on questions raised by the statement, but I have absolutely no desire to get involved in a to-and-fro of accusations of bad faith, I have enough trouble avoiding those elsewhere. Sorry, but I just don't think it's helpful here. Thanks. Guy (Help!)

I haven't thrown a punch, or accused anybody of anything, but I'm outta here, per Guy's request. I'm sorry for the intrusion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I will remove whatever Guy wants. I will not respond to such ridiculous criticism further. I think it is a fitting demonstration of the situation to leave the attacks on me here however.--Filll (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You were watching Stephen Fry (for those playing along at home Stephen Fry is gay) and you decided it would be a good idea to redirect the flagrantly homophobic term "Turb burgalar" to "Gay". At what point did this appear to be a good idea exactly? Viridae^Talk 22:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You've obviously not watched much QI, have you? He once asked one of the panel, in quite conversational terms, "and are you a chutney ferret?" Fry gives the impression of taking great delight in all the silly colloquialisms for homosexuals, and I seem to recall one occasion on which he enumerated them, including several that I had not heard of before. It's probably a way of robbing them of the power to hurt. If anyone's accusing me of being a homophobe, which I guess they might, given that some people also accuse me of right-wing bias, then I suggest they demonstrate evidence of it in my edit history. I'm quite sure several of my Wikifriends are gay (Wikipedia has a large LGBT community, after all) but to be honest I don't actually know because I've never been rude enough to ask. Maybe I'll ask Cary if he knows, Cary's good on people stuff. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The language of an out gay man among his friends on a comedy programme is one thing, appropriate redirects are another. That said, If it was, as you say, to prevent the addition of inappropriate material, then that is fine. (I am unable to view special:undelete links). It would have been nice, and saved a lot of words, to have had the explanation earlier, but better late than never. DuncanHill (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, Duncan? It's on the BBC. That's sort of public, really. I mean, it's not like he was at a dinner party with a few friends or anything. And it's not as if we are averse to discussing colloquial terms like cunt, fuck, wank, shit and so on. But I don't propose to debate it, because it was months ago and I can't even remember what prompted me to think of it. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's on the Beeb. It does have the atmosphere of a dinner party though - that is one of its charms. I didn't see your discussion of turd burglar as a colloquial term, maybe that is also in the deleted history. I have no problem with articles documenting colloquialisms, but bare redirects without context are not the same thing at all. Like I said, if it was to prevent disruption, then that is fine. It's a good explanation. I can accept that. Is cunt a redirect to vagina? Or is there an article there? I must confess I stopped looking up dirty words in the dictionary when I was about 14. Hey ho, I've said that I accept your explanation, that I would have liked it earlier, and I'll add that it may be a good idea in future to stop and think twice before making that sort of redirect & protection again. I hope you can accept that as being said in a spirit of constuctive comment, as I said elsewhere on this page, I am glad that you are using this page to respond constructively to concerns that have been raised - for me, that was perhaps my biggest problem with you. DuncanHill (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

We're done here. It was so long ago I can't even remember what I was thinking about at the time. Guy (Help!) 00:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I certainly find this to be a quite satisfactory response. As I mention on the RfC in endorsing your response (kindly linked by Lar), the general idea of user RfCs is to express the community's concerns to an editor and to have them respond appropriately. You obviously grok the issues and are taking steps to rectify the situation. My only real concern is that you paint the critics with an unusually broad and antagonistic brush, when a number of those supporting critical statements of varying degrees include those who openly respect you and ArbCom members. Regardless, it's admirable that you've undertaken a serious analysis of the situation and have taken so many steps towards reducing your wikistress (and therefore the behaviors that raised concerns). Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for that considered response. I hope I don't tar all opponents with the same brush; there are many editors with whom I disagree in some areas and agree on others. There are a very small number of people - a handful at most - with whom I have absolutely no interest in further dialogue, and I have made that clear. This is usually in response to a refusal to accept the validity of the basis of a position I hold; I am not too bad at agreeing to disagreee as long as both sides can accept that the other has at least the basis of a valid reason for holding their view. I find it very hard to accept arguments based on the repudiation of, say, the idea that some people have been harassed on and off Wikipedia. This is for the very sound reason that I have not only discussed such harassment in great detail with some of them, but I have also been harassed on and off Wikipedia for actions taken here which were unequivocally in support of policy (see Wesselygate for example; I am still being harassed over two years after I tried to tone down a blatant hatchet job which Jimbo himself finally deleted). I have also revised my opinion of several people over time. Ultimately, though, it's not that people disagree, it's how they disagree. And sometimes there's so much bad blood in the past that it would really honestly be better not to even start, which is why I am these days much more likely to simply remove comments to which I have no intention of replying. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for such a polite and detailed response. It's sincerely appreciated. The "broad brush" is simply the impression I received from the RfC response and some of your general comments. I can perfectly accept that it was not your intention or that I simply misunderstood what was stated. You have my honest sympathy for the harassment over "Wesselygate". Victims (of all sorts) are some of the most vicious and onerous opponents you can face, because they react in the extreme to any suggestion that they feel minimizes or ridicules their suffering. For example, try telling a Morgellons sufferer that they just need a mild dose of antipsychotics! As another example, try telling a "cult survivor" that their claims about the "cult" can't be used and that we only report what reliable sources report (and be prepared for howling accusations of censorship, hiding the truth and statements along the lines of it's unfair because the evil cult hides everything). That is, I understand where you're coming from on that point and I do think that Wikipedia needs more will to deal with unproductive and soapboxing editors of all stripes. Vassyana (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I've lost a parent. I'm convinced that the world is divided between those who have been there and those who haven't; those who get it, those who don't; those who are in that exclusive club, those who aren't. May I respectfully suggest that the RfC has run its course, JzG has responded, now can others let go and let JzG deal with the years of adjusting to life without Dad that are ahead of him? If you still have issues with JzG, give him time, see if they repeat, but just let him be for a bit. Please. Long after Wiki concerns are gone, real life goes on, and you only lose your parents once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I lost my dad when I was 13. And JzG will now have the time to adjust relative to the RfC material- though not by a long way as long as it takes in real life. But let's remember that this RfC is not a case of "he was fine before his dad died, then made some mistakes just after." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, but it's at least partly about community standards changing. The community has decided to be less tolerant of grumpiness. Fair enough, though the community still has to decide what to do about the people who endlessly, terribly politely, but nonetheless obdurately, refuse to accept that fringe nonsense does not belong in mainstream articles and advocacy of fringe nonsense doesn't belong anywhere. You may also have forgotten (which I have not) that this is not the first death in my family. My sister died, very suddenly, less than two years ago, and one or two people exploited that in a most cynical and appalling way. Guy (Help!) 16:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well as I never knew about your sister, I couldn't forget. I'd say a polite "I'm sorry" here but I hate it when people do that to me. I agree with what you say, depending of course on the basic notability of the "fringe" topic- stuff that is called fringe on WP is often much more mainstream than the topic of the article, as with Creationism and Evolution. There is also the issue of using threats and admin tools to get one's ideas into the articles. Also the issue of making absolutist statements about subjects- both going against the sources cited or acting as if there is no need to source- this also goes against basic scientific method, under which we cannot give negative proof. There is, in addition, the issue of owning articles. Then there is the issue of persecuting people who are believed to not be NPOV- even when they are acting in a peaceable and NPOV manner. There are other issues as well. Even if done in a polite way, POV pushing is still POV pushing, and an abusive and poisoned atmosphere is still such.

Let it be said openly- Guy chose this venue to attack me, when I was doing, and have been doing, everything I could to be fair and sympathetic to him (yeah, I failed last night at the RfC talk page, but I tried). I responded to the attack. Guy's attack wasn't necessary, and I rather think that the way Guy usually seems to come into a situation to make it more contentious is an issue even if he learns to do it without invective. That's what Kirill said- admins aren't here to make things worse. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Attack? I don't think so. And I didn't come into a situation here, you chose to come here. Yes, this is one of the reasons I'm not going to the RfC page - I have no interest in this kind of to-and-fro. Feel free to stop advocating fringe content, and I will no longer consider you part of that particular problem, but actually I was referring to the arbitration case currently underway at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice way to ruin what was intended as a nice thought, Martin. I try my hardest to avoid these kinds of scuffles, but you tried even my patience at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/Archive8, when I was trying to help resolve the issue amicably in a way that would satisfy all parties. You might consider trying to drop things every now and then and not wear out even the people who haven't taken a side, unless your goal is to needle people until you get a self-fulfilling prophecy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes two people can both be right in their own way, while seeming to conflict with each other. I read what Sandy said, and agreed with it, and read Martin's response, and agreed with it. No-one ever said the answers had to be simple. Carcharoth (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)