User talk:Filll/AGF Challenge Multiple Choice

^{Removed personal attack by anon. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 16:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)}

time itself

The statement, "the Big Bang produced time itself, according to the Big Bang theory," is false. The big bang theory says nothing about whether there was or was not time before the singularity. 75.61.107.67 (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"My Wife is Not a Co-Author"

I'm curious, over what legal claim would the Husband threaten to sue Wikipedia? It's generally not libel to state (even incorrectly) that one co-authored books with his spouse. BrownHornet21 (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The husband had a fairly long list of complaints. One of them was about our statement that his wife was a coauthor. However, we also included some other descriptive information about him that he did not like, which was of a similar innocuous nature, but nevertheless he became enraged.

I plan to summarize the outcome of each of the corresponding real cases these stories are based on at some point in the future. However, I will still try to avoid identifying the actual article involved to help people retain some sort of privacy.

In the case of the husband who did not want his Wikipedia article stating that his wife was a coauthor, he sent several very long emails to OTRS. According to the OTRS volunteer, these were almost completely incoherent and incomprehensible. Eventually, we corrected some of what he complained about, but not everything. He continued to complain, but according to the OTRS volunteer the emails were so confusing that the OTRS volunteer could not decipher what the complaints were about. And so, it was dropped. And I gather no lawsuit has been filed in the meantime, although I am not sure any lawyer would be able to understand the complaints any more than Wikipedia could.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A question

In all of your scenarios, hard reality would easily state that the Wikipedia would be best served by simply deleting the articles in question (or removing the OR/unsourced bits added) and banning the authors. What good is AGF if it means we're seriously supposed to consider situations such as this?

There isn't a single situation where the proper answer is AGF, I'm sorry. I won't AGF against legal threats, or people willfully misrepresenting policy to new people, or people manufacturing evidence and driving off good authors simply to placate their own ego.

I do understand that you are trying to encourage discourse among those who think AGF and CIVIL will solve everything, but here's the larger question.

Why are AGF and CIVIL even in the WP culture? Much like IAR, in practice they are wonderful and in reality they are very simply always misapplied. Why does the culture need something like this?

If more people were banned over actual disruption of the project -- which is what I consider all of these to be -- and less were blocked over rockstupid political catfights, wouldn't WP be a better place? --Logical Premise (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)