User talk:Filll/AGF Challenge

Rename?

Would a better name be "contentious scenarios" or something similar? AGF seems a little narrow in some cases; misunderstandings happen. In some cases its irrelevant: whether or not an editor is editing in GF may not impact the direction needed in a particular circumstance to improve the project. The solutions would be the same either way.

Maybe there is a connection to AGFing that the author intended but that is not coming through. If so, that could be addressed in lieu of a rename. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, reading the page (which I think is a great idea, btw), it comes across as more of a DR challenge than an AGF challenge. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent page

Just thought I would note that I thought these questions were excellent, and definitely thought-provoking. (Though I'll have to admit that at least one of them appeared so obvious that I re-read it several times : )

As an aside, I vaguely recall more than a few of these (or perhaps situations like them), and am now wondering how each of these was resolved. (No need to answer my wondering, for the same reasons that the details were changed...) - jc37 22:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The first one sounds like a lateral thinking puzzle. Was the author in question a midget with an umbrella? - Bobet 01:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent e-learning, thanks, I enjoyed taking the challenge! --Sfmammamia (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm

1. list him and his wife as coauthors
2. propose it for deletion
3. accurately report what the sources say. am i supposed to feel sorry for a guy that lies about his credentials getting caught out?
4. block him
5. propose the article for deletion (on the basis that "the editors demand that no negative material or mainstream material be presented in the Wikipedia articles on CPP, since there are no mainstream reliable sources"). the topic sounds pretty unencyclopedic anyway. i would rather we didnt have an article on every stupid belief someone out there holds
6. block him
7. go with the published material
8. warn and then block if he persists

i didnt find them that thought provoking? maybe it's just me. -- Naerii 01:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Try following the directions. And the thought provking part is, a lot of people might disagree with you.--Filll (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, didn't notice the multiple choice link :) And people disagreeing with me is fine, that's why we have AFD, RFC, etc and don't usually allow people to act without consensus. -- Naerii 02:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

IF

If only I weren't so polite, I'd tell you what a bunch of promotionalism for your POV this is, and what an attack on other's POV this is. But I'm much too polite to quantify that. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So take the AGF Challenge. And tell me what you think. Tell everyone what you think. There are no "correct" answers. --Filll (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I might take it. But, I think if they were asked at requests for sysop, there would be correct answers. Just as with the question about SPOV at the ArbCom election. Which is where I found out about SPOV, BTW- you guys named it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As I am sure you have noticed, it was not originally intended as part of the RfA process. And to suggest that was not my idea, but User: Kim Bruning's idea. It might be a popular idea, or it might not be. If you do not want your name attached to your answers, you could definitely answer anonymously in essay form.--Filll (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say the RfA thing was your idea (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is my name down below under "Wikipedia Review?" ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Just random chance. I moved it so everyone is under the WR note now.--Filll (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok, it looked like a heading. Sorry. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Filll: I suggest you email Mike Godwin at WP Doug Youvan (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe I will eventually. But I do not think I want to bother him with such nonsense as this, frankly. I think he has enough to do already.-Filll (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Arrow of Time (moved from front page, with no comment)

Filll: I suggest you email Mike Godwin at WP Doug Youvan (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In the Young Earth Creationism article, an editor Doug Youvan (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC) with a total of 47 edits to their credit repeatedly inserts the phrase

Fundamaental to both YEC and cosmological / biological evolution is the concept of Time. Time itself, and its perceived or actual forward progress (Arrow_of_time) is a discussion topic that includes the Second Law of Thermodynamics and questions as to whether time existed before the Big Bang.

This appears to have little if anything to do with Young Earth Creationism. After all, the Big Bang produced time itself, according to the Big Bang theory, first advanced by Belgian Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaître. Discussions of whether time existed before the Big Bang have already discarded one of the main features of the Big Bang, and so are not about the Big Bang, and definitely not relevant to Young Earth Creationism, which does not have a Big Bang associated with most versions of it. It is a confused and somewhat nonsensical statement.

No sources or references are provided, although this editor is asked for sources dozens of times by several other editors. Other editors remove this phrase, and the new editor responds angrily that he is being censored. The new editor reinserts this phrase 38 times over the next 2 weeks, and never provides references or sources of any kind. When asked for sources, he states it is the responsibility of the other editors to provide them, not him.

On the talk page of the article, this editor posts vaguely obnoxious statements like

It appears that our problem in editing is more fundamental than I first thought: 2 Timothy 3 (Godlessness in the Last Days) 1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

He states that since the other editors do not want to include his statement about the Arrow of Time without a reference, they will be sued:

But, you are going to get WP and yourself sued if you continue to believe WP's rules supercede laws regarding defamation. They raise money, so there are real damages

This was in context to the article attacking principals of www.icr.org , and you know that can't be discussed further. As a result, the article is now closed to open editing.Doug Youvan (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is polite to this editor. No one threatens him. No one curses him. He is tolerated.

What should Wikipedia do in this case? What is fair? What is the journalistic thing to do? What is the encyclopedic thing to do? Could someone like this demand that Encyclopedia Britannica include this kind of statement in one of its articles? The New York Times? What sort of chance of success would they have?

Note: see Directions to answer these exercises

I regret the Biblical quote. However, when Science challenges Creation then one can't ignore science that is more basic than biology, such as physics and math. For this audience, I will repeat, there is no equation in physics that shows that time moves forward. PCW Davies is perhaps the most lucid physicist on this subject having written The Physics of Time Asymmetry ~ 30 years ago. He leaves us with the question of how the Boltzmann H-theorem may apply. Since then, we have string theory, arguments invoking mathematical beauty, and the attribution of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the initial conditions of the Big Bang. We have Stu Kaufmann arguing a new force in Nature driving complexity, and we have Prigogine describing irreversible and open thermodynamic systems that form dissipative structures. However, as a biophyscist, I cannot point to a molecular mechanism of evolution nor can I hand you a single equation where time is proven to move forward. (However, I did publish the genetic algorithm simulations of directed evolution and reduced these to experimental practice both at MIT and in industry.) Once we open a discussion about evolution, god, and creation, I do not understand why time would be taken off the table. You will also recall that the principle problem with the YEC article is that it singles out a subpopulation (such as the Amish) and declares them stupid by scientific standards. I doubt if you will find many educated physicists making such an assertion, because good physicists do not hesitate to say: "that is an open question, we simply don't know".Doug Youvan (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

{{help me}} Is this abusive by WP guidelines amongest fellow editors? Doug Youvan (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What is abusive here? You are not named as the editor (you have apparently chosen to identify yourself) and this is presented as a neutral example of a wiki-quandary. There is no suggestion to track you down and hold you up to ridicule or censure. It's an example of a difficult and thought-provoking situation. It does happen to be based on your GFDL-licensed contributions, but it is intended to improve the wiki, not harm you. Franamax (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Out of fairness, considering that this page became a bit higher, traffic-wise, due to recent linking at WT:RFA, et al., perhaps this whole thread should be moved to Doug Youvan's talk page. - jc37 21:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, however DY has some evident concerns which we must fairly address while not being seen to "hide the problem". Perhaps a hat on this discussion so that it is available on this page but not taking a large amount of space away from other threads? Franamax (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Invited participants

I would particulary like to invite the following people to participate in the AGF Challenge:

• Anyone from Wikipedia Review (anonymous if banned of course, since I do not want to do any proxy editing).

• User: Privatemusings
• User: DGG
• User: GTBacchus
• User: LaraLove
• User: Carcharoth
• User: Martinphi
• User: Arion 3x3
• User: Ferrylodge
• User: DanaUllman
• User: Alison
• User: Northfox
• User: Levine2112
• User: Relata refero

I will be adding more to this list of course.--Filll (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Battle hardened veterans of controversial articles

The following is a list of those editors I consider to be tested in the fires of combat on controversial articles. After a period of requesting responses from other editors, I will ask these experienced editors for their input on the Challenge.

• User: Durova
• User: Raul654
• User: Raymond arritt
• User: Shoemaker's Holiday
• User: Orangemarlin
• User: ScienceApologist
• User: KillerChihuahua
• User: Silence
• User: Jim62sch
• User: Hrafn
• User: JzG

There are of course many others, and I will be adding to this list.