Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/QuackGuru

Re: Statement by Threeafterthree

This RfC is about user conduct, not the cofounder issue. -- Ned Scott 21:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC opening says that Quack has been persuing trivial matters. I totally disagree with that. This does concern his conduct in that fasion. --Tom 12:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial to the subject of the article he is editing, not trivial in general. It's the equivalent of starting a protracted edit war and argument over Global warming (non-trivial to world as whole) on a page because it quotes Al Gore once, despite the article and the quote both having nothing at all to do with global warming (therefore trivial to article). --tjstrf talk 23:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who wrote the word trivial on here, and I probably could have used a better word, but the idea is exactly what tjstrf said. -- Ned Scott 03:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy should be a paramount goal for all articles, let alone this high profile article due to its high sleeze/gossip factor. As far as i can tell Quackguru has a point and consensus should never trump accuracy. If the founder issue is so trivial to the article then remove it. It takes two parties to edit war and taking the moral high ground because you have more buddies to form a consensus is not going to produce a better article. David D. (Talk) 07:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "co-founder issue" is not the issue. The issue is behaviour across multiple articles, at least some of which do not involve this little syllable. Risker 15:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get into the dispute here, but "cofounder" is not fact, because what is or is not a founder is all about perspective. It's just a label, one possible way to describe someone's involvement. Someone even pointed out that you don't call founding fathers of the US, like Washington, a "cofounder". We repeatedly suggested even using alternative wording altogether, avoiding using the word founder at all, but instead Quack made it an issue. So, no, this has nothing to do with facts. -- Ned Scott 02:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see any serious attempt to remove the problem (avoid using the term founder). David D. (Talk) 04:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]