Wikipedia:Requests for comment/StuRat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 13:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 03:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/THB


Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Numerous regulars of the Wikipedia:Reference Desk are disturbed by the actions of some users to attempt to redirect the reference desk to a more serious, scholarly and useful place. In their zeal to protect their page, they have run afoul of how we do things. This is an attempt to get community consensus on the methods they are using - NOT on the structure of teh desk itself.

[edit] Description

For several months, various users and adminstrators have attempted to change the reference desk to avoid off-color jokes, and the use of the project space as a chat room. This has been resisted by some - they argue that the jokes and chatting provides a valuable community resource. Feeling hounded, they have used a number of disruptive tactics to "win" their argument.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

  1. WP:CON
  1. Stu has attempted to form false consensus in a number of ways - he has redefined my arguments in ways that were transparently absurd (orig. argument -> [1]).
  2. Additionally, he has constantly called votes to attempt to determine consensus - while many participating have declined to participate in said "votes" (review Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote for my reasons), he has declared there to be "consensus". While some of the things he puts up for vote are perfectly reasonable, many are designed to shut down debate, not to gauge where debate has gone.
  3. A complete review of StuRat's contribution will allow contributors to determine if he is currently arguing in good faith, or if he is intentionally attacking strawmen and engaging in character assasination. I argue that he is.
  1. WP:NPA
  1. In edit summaries, [2] among others.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:CON
  2. WP:NOT

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

[3]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Outside View

This is uncalled-for, no policies have been enacted under this "false consensus", and the votes (though of limited actual usefulness) haven't actually hurt anything. Not to mention that you seem to have blatantly ignored the requirement of having at least 2 people try to work this out with him. And radiant's reminding doesn't count --frothT C 19:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. frothT C 19:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

  1. Personally, I think this is a little heavy-handed, and that just about every editor at the Reference Desk could use a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Ever since I "returned" to the reference desk (which, let's face it, literally happened yesterday), I've noticed that there seems to be a lot of dispute, frustration and aggravation over very basic procedures and guidelines, especially between Hipocrite and...well...just about everyone else. I just don't really feel that an RFC is necessary in this case for several reasons:
    1. I don't see any evidence to support his first argument about Stu warping his arguments into something completely different; there were a lot of different things leading up to Stu's eventual conclusion.
    2. I'd like to see more evidence of violations of WP:NPA. One edit summary doesn't do it for me.
    3. Not to mention the fact that I see no evidence of anyone trying to resolve anything. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 15:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 15:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Edison 17:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Steve Summit (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC) [see also my Outside View at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/THB]
  4. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_StuRat_88d0.html"