Wikipedia:Requests for comment/THB
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: 10:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/StuRat
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 the 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
-
-
-
- THB is constantly trying to "win" arguments - instead of working with others to reach agreement, to try to beat others into the ground and shut them up. His remarks on my talk page, and that of User:Friday, are particularly illuminating - specifically, [1] - arguing that Friday has brought a spate of harassment on himself, and when I pointed this out in a slightly too caustic way, taking my retraction as a way to stab a spear in my side.
- A complete review of THB'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.
-
-
[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
[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.
- This is absurd, a RfC is completely inappropriate. If anything, you're the one who deserved the RfC for bringing up frivolous dispute resolution cases, apparently refusing to allow THB to post on your talk page, and being embarassingly rude to others in the RD talk pages and even the reference desk itself. You have little evidence that sturat or THB (but especially THB) have done anything RfC-worthy and you've acted with almost no civility in any of these disputes. --frothT C 19:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
[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.
- Regarding THB...well, it only seems clear cut on the surface; again, more evidence should be presented. Besides, these seem more like violations of WP:NPA than they do of WP:NOT. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 15:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
[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.
Discussion over hypothetical new guidelines and policies for the Reference Desks has suddenly gotten very heated. Furthermore, the current level of debate appears to be significantly nonproductive: editors are quibbling over (and calling votes on) individual points of policy without having first achieved any clear consensus on what problems exist that need to be solved, or what the vision for the Reference Desk is that is being striven for. (As a latecomer to the debate, I am personally still trying to discover what the underlying issues, and the perceived problems which prompted the entire debate, actually are.) In this climate, tempers have begun to be inflamed and a few, hasty and contentious, actions have been taken, but from what I have seen so far, User:THB and User:StuRat (the subject of a companion proposed RfC) have not been excessive or particularly objectionable in their actions; they are both trying -- against considerable difficulties -- to articulately describe their own view, and debate a consensus view, of what the Reference Desk should be. (If anything, based on what I've seen, User:Hipocrite's behavior during the debate has been the most problematical, although not to my mind yet worthy of an RfC, which is why I am enclosing this part of my comment in parentheses.) —Steve Summit (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
- Steve Summit (talk) 19:26, 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.
