Wikipedia:Requests for comment/StuRat 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

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: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

This is an embarrassingly simple issue, actually, and I feel really quite silly that it's come to needing an RfC. What it boils down to is that I would like to ask StuRat to be civil in his disagreements with other editors – myself included – and to refrain from lumping any any all opponents (real or perceived) together under a what I consider a pejorative label: 'deletionists'.

StuRat, meanwhile, believes that by his lights the term isn't offensive, and that it is his 'right' to use it.

[edit] Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

This question comes down to one of mutual tolerance and respect. I hope that StuRat – normally an intelligent and helpful contributor to Wikipedia – will choose to treat editors with whom he disagrees over policy questions with courtesy and civility. I would like him to recognize that namecalling (particularly his use of the term 'deletionist') is unproductive and inappropriate.

In a nutshell, I'd like StuRat to adhere to WP:CIV. I'd like him to acknowledge that when someone tells him that his behaviour is offensive, he should consider modifying his behaviour rather than brushing it off. That's about it, really. I'm tired of being treated rudely.

[edit] Description

I apologise to the poor souls who have to plod through all this. The RfC template is overkill for a question of such narrow scope, and I'm afraid there's a fair bit of repetition of the summaries above.

There has been a dispute at the Reference Desk over the course of the last month or so over how editors should behave in answering questions there. Particularly hotly contested has been the question of when (if ever) it is appropriate to remove another editor's remarks. StuRat is strongly to opposed to removal of remarks under almost any conceivable circumstances, and has taken to calling individuals who hold other opinions 'deletionists'.

Some other editors had picked up the use of the term as well, but most (possibly all) have ceased to use it following a polite request and explanation of why some people find it offensive. For an explanation of why I find it offensive to use the 'deletionist' label, please see this discussion I had with Gandalf61 on the issue.

StuRat has been asked repeatedly not to use the term 'deletionist' to describe the editors whom he perceives as adversaries or 'enemies'. These requests have been made sufficiently frequently that he has collected them in a section of his user space: User_talk:StuRat/redundant#Repeated_attacks_on_our_proper_usage_of_the_term_.22deletionist.22. I don't know if he has collected all of the requests, but I count requests from at least SCZenz, David D., and me (TenOfAllTrades).

Since the start of the new year (and well after the abovementioned requests to cease his attacks), StuRat has described his adversaries on the Ref Desk talk page as 'deletionists' at least eight times—including such particularly insulting variants as 'shrill deletionists' and 'cranky deletionists'.

In the last three days, Steve Summit [1], Friday [2], and I [3] have all made additional appeals to StuRat asking him to stop using such loaded or polarizing terminology.

StuRat's response was Moving to redundant arguments page, please reread all my arguments there, as you seem to have forgotten them.

Obviously we are at an impasse. I would appreciate third-party opinions on whether or not it is acceptable behaviour for StuRat to lump me in with other editors under a pejorative label of his own devising.

[edit] Additional note

Additional note by TenOfAllTrades(talk) at 03:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC). Signatures added prior to this timestamp may not endorse the following comment.

For those who have endorsed Amarkov's statement below, please note that I am aware of the history of the term 'deletionist' on Wikipedia; I discussed it in detail in the linked conversation on Gandalf61's talk page above. For convenience and clarity, I'll now provide a copy of a small but relevant section of that discussion.

"...The second problem is that the term 'deletionist' has a history on Wikipedia. (See m:Deletionist, m:Deletionism, and m:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians.) It's generally used to describe an attitude towards certain types of articles (though even among self-identified 'deletionists' there is appreciable disagreement over where those boundaries are). Among people who voluntarily describe themselves that way, it's very much a tongue-in-cheek term; among people who use it to describe others, it's usually meant as an insult. It appears semiregularly as an epithet on WP:AfD and WP:AN, typically as part of a rant about how 'deletionists' are destroying Wikipedia or have run amok. Choosing to adopt a term that has a prior meaning – and a history of being used as a slur – just doesn't make good sense if you want to engage in a good-faith discussion. While you mean no offense by it, there are people on the Ref Desk who are apparently using it to jab at others, and it is best avoided even for that reason alone..."

When StuRat uses 'deletionist' as part of phrases like 'shrill deletionists' and 'cranky deletionists', it is not meant to be friendly. It's a cheap shot, aimed to caricature whatever person he disagrees with rather than address a substantive argument.

To be clear, I certainly have no objection to individuals voluntarily describing themselves as deletionists, and it's not my intent to engage in politically correct censorship. However, when it is used as an epithet, it is unwelcome.

Allow me to draw on a parallel concept for illustrative purposes. Among a group of frat buddies, the word 'dumbass' can be delivered as a term of endearment. Delivered with vitriol, it conveys only contempt and utter lack of respect. I believe it is reasonable to ask that StuRat not call me names and label me as being part of some notional bloc. He is welcome to call other people whatever they feel comfortable being called; I ask only that he respect polite requests not to lump people under arbitrary labels.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Diffs and links are embedded in the #Description.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. Wikipedia:Civility

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

(provide diffs and links)

Diffs and links are embedded in the #Description.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. David D. (Talk) 20:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Rockpocket 05:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC) (re-signing to indicate endorsement of the addendum)
  2. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC) No attempt made to resolve this dispute - I have given up on the user.
  3. Friday (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Having read through the comments and diffs, this seems to me (as an outsider) to be a fair summary of the dispute. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. hydnjo - I'm including myself among those endorsing this summary. StuRat has labeled me a "deletionist" and I find that to be offensive.

[edit] Response by User:StuRat

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 a frivolous complaint. We wouldn't have Category:Deletionist Wikipedians: [4], with dozens of self-admitted deletionists as members, if the term was offensive. To not be allowed to call those which favor nonconsensus, unilateral deletions by the term "deletionist" is political correctness run amok. I would suggest that if they find the term to be offensive, that shows that those actions (nonconsensus, unilateral deletions) are themselves offensive, and they should instead change their behavior so that term no longer applies to them.

The following bullet was added by StuRat 13:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC):

  • Perhaps I've never made the argument for why the term "deletionist" is needed. The obvious part is that some shorthand is needed for "those who tend to support nonconsensus deletions on the Ref Desk". However, why must people be labeled at all ? The issue is that when you have a bitter partisan split, it is very significant to know which side criticism comes from. Let me use the analogy of the US Congress. At present, it is highly partisan between Democrats and Republicans, with Democrats attacking Republicans for minor transgressions, yet completely ignoring their own, even major transgressions, and vice-versa. Thus, if you were a Republican being solely attacked by Democrats, it didn't mean much, it was more likely to just be a tactic to discredit Republicans, with no real meat to the complaint. Also, a Republican being defended by fellow Republicans was similarly meaningless, as they were clearly willing to defend the most egregiously unethical behavior so long as the person who committed the crime was in their party. If you reverse the parties the same thing was true. There was one way in which it was non-symmetrical, however, with Republicans being "in power" (until the recent elections). Thus, they could make sure that Republicans would never be charged with any crime, no matter how severe, while Democrats could be charged for even the most trivial matters. In the case of the Ref Desk debate, most of the Admins, who are "in power", happen to be deletionists. This gives them the power to attack inclusionists for the most trivial offenses and apply the most severe possible sanctions for each and every offense, while completely ignoring offenses by fellow deletionists. LC, for example, had his own talk page protected simply because he made a lot of edits there, not because there was anything wrong with the edits. This is perhaps the most absurd reason I've ever heard for a sanction. I, on the other hand, was attacked by an anon I/P who said "You are a totally time wasting twat - why don't you fuck off and stop wasting everyones time with your pointless words - I had doubts at first - but now am am absolutely certain - you are a total fucking twat - fuck off". This anon I/P was not blocked, however, because he was a deletionist. To pretend that deletionists don't exist, don't stick together, and don't attack inclusionists is dishonest, and serves the cause of those who would abuse their Admin status to roll over those with whom they disagree.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. - StuRat 02:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. - --Light current 02:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. - THB 23:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC) (endorsement updated to included addendums)
  4. — Vranak (Very ambivalent on this; deletionists is not a useful term even if it is fair and accurate)

[edit] Outside view by User:Amarkov

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.

The word "deletionist", by itself, is not incivil. If you are using it as a word synonymous with "closed-minded idiot", then it's incivil, of course, but it's not offensive otherwise. Many people self-identify as deletionists, which is a pretty fair indication that it's not inherently bad. And I do not see any evidence that StuRat is using it as a particularly derogatory term. He may be grouping everyone who disagrees together as "deletionists", but that is not something I see as really bad. Being wrong isn't really grounds for an RfC, unless you've actually done something really bad..

Note: "Particularly" and "really" added at 06:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
And last sentence added at 01:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC) to clarify what I meant

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. -Amarkov blahedits 01:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Myself included. Deletionist and proud. --Wooty Woot? contribs 02:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Partial endorse, I guess. It's true that the term "deletionist" is not by itself automatically derogatory. However, there remains the issue that it's a bad thing for an editor to be unresponsive to the concerns of other editors. It should be noted that StuRat is using the term "deletionist" to have a different meaning than those who describe themselves as such. Friday (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    Agree with this as well. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. As per Amarkov --Light current 02:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. -THB 03:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. - StuRat 05:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. - Gandalf61 12:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. -JorcogaYell! 12:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Steve Summit (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. -- frothT 05:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:Hipocrite

Users who are soley involved in discussions to score points and argue on the internet are called "trolls." Users whose goal in editing wikipedia is to get into the above fights are called "disruptive trolls." Trolls are ignored. Disruptive trolls are blocked. Pick one.

  1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Hell yes. There seem to be some individuals here who are being wilfully contrarian. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Administrators, the above is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and needs to be addressed. -THB 04:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • How so? Please explain. Guettarda 19:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hippo repaeatedly calls people trolls.--Light current 21:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If deletionists is unhelpeful, so is trolls. Could we abstain from both? Vranak
  • User:Hipocrite calls people "inclusionist process wonk" (diff) so I fail to see how he could object to the term "deletionist". t h b 12:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:Rockpocket

If the term "deletionist" was only used by StuRat to directly describe individuals in the context of them deleting content, his position may be justifiable. However I, Rockpocket (talk · contribs), with the exception of one example of obvious WP:SPAM [5], have never deleted anything from a reference desk. Yet, independent of any dispute over unilateral deletion of material, on two occasions I have been referred to by StuRat as being among "a bunch of highly vocal deletionists" [6] who were in consensus over concerns with his lack of sourcing and also among the "Only deletionists, not OPs" [7] who were questioning the merit of some of his unsourced answers. This demonstrates that the term is not being used in a purely descriptive manner, as those who embrace the term do. Instead it continues to be used as an unwarranted and unwelcome label with a clear pejorative implication, with the purpose of aligning editors with an ideology that is in direct conflict with his, to better attack their position.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Rockpocket 03:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. That's a fair summary. Friday (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Again including the qualification that, while bad, nothing you describe is terrible. -Amarkov blahedits 05:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. As per Amarkov. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. (1) if this edit[8] makes Rock a deletionist, then the term is probably too broad to have value; (2) I encourage StuRat to address individual issues on their merits; once you decide that complaints from "deletionists" don't matter because they are deletionists, then you are unlikely to resolve the issue. (Qualifier: I haven't followed the RefDesk debate closely. Stu may be addressing the individual arguments, in which case, good for him, and I encourage him to be careful to respond in a way that lets people give him the credit he deserves). TheronJ 16:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. As Amarkov. Joe 23:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Amrkov has the right of it. It is the underlying attitude rather than the word itself which is problematic here. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. hydnjo is in agreement with Rockpocket.

[edit] Outside view by User:THB

[edit] Deletionist attack

This is just another deletionist attack. What do deletionists want to be called? Anti-inclusionists??? They don't deny that they ARE deletionists. If they are ashamed they should change their behavior, not try to get people to pretend they aren't what they are. They just don't like being CALLED deletionists.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. -THB 03:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. - StuRat 05:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:David D.

From observing the interactions on the Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk it does appear that StuRat is preoccupied with the concept of deletion. Even in a discussion about the quality of answers on ref desk he brought up deletion.

"I do not, however, insult them [the person who answered incorrectly], remove their posts, or threaten to remove them if they don't immediately post sources. StuRat 05:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)"

Which was strange since no one had mentioned deletion until that point point.

This theme continued with StuRat injecting comments such as:

"... incidentally, what evidence do you have that any of my joke answers have ever "caused a problem" other than the constant complaints of shrill deletionists ?" StuRat 06:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

At one point I asked:

".....quite a few are questioning the merit of some of your answers." David D. (Talk) 14:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

StuRat replied:

"Only deletionists, not OPs, and those are the people whose opinions I most value." StuRat 22:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In the context of this section on the ref desk talk page the word "deletionist" does appear to be used as a debating tool to raise the hackles of those with whom he disagrees. Thus, regardless of the validity of the term, he appears to use the term as a calculated insult to win "debating points". Basically a form of ad hominem and not only a logical fallacy, but incorrect too, since many of the targets would not describe themselves or qualify as deletionists. diffs provided on request Users who endorse this summary:

  1. David D. (Talk) 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Endorse the letter, but not the spirit; logical fallacies and being wrong are not really that bad. -Amarkov blahedits 05:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Endorse. A more eloquent phrasing of concerns I share. Rockpocket 05:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Yep. Friday (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. StuRat is using 'deletionist' as a (sloppy) debating shortcut to avoid nuanced discussion, and to tar anyone who disagrees with him as a destructive influence. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. This is a good point. If StuRat wants to use "removalist" or something as a shorthand for the philosophy that at least some RefDesk questions should be removed without answers, that's presumably fine. However, (1) without prejudging the debate, the "removalist" philosophy at the very least isn't crazy and should be treated with respect, and (2) the "removalist" label certainly shouldn't be used as a reason to ignore comments by removalists, especially about other issues. OK: I understand that some people didn't like my responses, but I disagree. Better: I understand that some people didn't like my responses, but I disagree because . . . Worse: The only people who didn't like my responses are deletionists, and they don't count. TheronJ 15:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Per TheronJ. The whole deletionism thing is a canard, a distraction fallacy used to dismiss the views of people StuRat disagrees with. Which does appear to be quite a few people... Guy (Help!) 14:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. hydnjo is in agreement with and endorses David D.'s outside view.

[edit] Outside view by User:justanother

This whole issue is simply about the fact that there is a disagreement related to reference desk responses. The disagreement is over whether it is ever appropriate to remove, or move to user talk, another editor's response to a question because it is off-topic, in poor taste, unhelpful, wrong, off-policy, etc. A few users, StuRat among them, hold the position that it is almost never appropriate with the only exceptions perhaps being blatent trolling. Most (IMO) of the other interested editors feel that some deletion or removal to user talk pages is appropriate in broader circumstances. The question for those editors would be in hammering out some guidleines for such action. The question for StuRat and like-minded seems more to be whether such is appropriate at all. StuRat has chosen the term "deletionist" to refer to the editors that oppose his position. I do not think that he means it to be a pejorative though I do think that StuRat feels combative and that combativeness may be offensive to others. The term "deletionist" may be a poor choice as it already has a different meaning in the community. I think it would be better if StuRat chose a different term to refer to his "opponents", perhaps "removalists" will work. I also think it would be better if StuRat stopped thinking in terms of black/white dichotomies and stopped having "opponents". I also think it would be best if we would hammer out our consensus on this issue and if all concerned then respected the consensus.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --StuRat 16:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC) I partially endorse. I will continue to use the term "deletionist", unless there is a clear consensus against that term as a result of this RFC. If, however, there is a clear consensus that those who favor nonconsensus deletions should no longer be called by that term, then I will take your advise and call them "removalists". (Of course, they will probably just open yet another RFC against that term.)
  2. I partially endorse. However this view does not address the inappropriateness of using the term to refer to those who hold different views to StuRat on other issues, but who have never deleted anything and have never endorsed such an ideology. Rockpocket 23:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Endorse completely, noting that not all the issues are covered. -Amarkov blahedits 01:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Absolutely. This is a very good summary of one big aspect of the (larger) debate. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] View by SCZenz

I am very frustrated that the most-endorsed view thus far has missed the point. What is rude is to apply a label to someone that they have not asked for or endorsed, based on your view of what their ideas are. The fact that "deletionist" doesn't usually mean, on Wikipedia, what StuRat uses to mean makes this a an even more frustrating point. There have been many requests on this simple point of respect, and the fact that StuRat continually ignores them (and, indeed, never responds helpfully to constructive criticism of any kind from those he applies the label to) is a negative factor that has prevented the reference desk problems from being solved in a simple or cordial way.

As silly as it may seem to have an RfC over this, the fact that even small requests—in which a little improvement would make a big difference in finding solutions—are never listened to will sooner or later lead to an even sillier ArbCom case. I find this extraordinarily frustrating and undesirable. Usually people respond politely to polite requests, offering reasonable compromises, but this simply hasn't happened in too many instances; the conflicts at the reference desk are by far the most frustrating thing I have ever worked on on Wikipedia. They would be easy to fix with small adjustments, but it seems that not compromising one's rights is a higher value for some than working out imperfect agreements. As a result, polite requests are automatically viewed as "oppression" by a "vocal minority" of "administrators." I would like to ask StuRat, and indeed all users involved, to reconsider how they approach requests from other users. I'd like to think that I've been willing to make small changes to how I approach things that made people feel better, even if I didn't think it was really needed or entirely fair, and I'd like to ask them to do the same. -- SCZenz 18:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Yes, this is a very important point. This RFC is about a pattern of unproductive user conduct, not the term "deletionist" itself. StuRat's approach to discussion very often makes it more difficult to reach agreement at the ref desk. We need all editors to work to resolve disputes, not prolong them. Friday (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Well stated. A better summary of the problem than I wrote, really. Using labels to polarize discussions between people who are – usually – not really all that far apart is divisive and counterproductive. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Endorse. Rockpocket 23:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Endorse mostly, except the implication that having an RfC was necessary. I don't think I missed the point, it just might not be clear enough what I meant. -Amarkov blahedits 01:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. As per Amarkov. SCZenz is right that, absent better consensus-building and buy-in than we've seen so far, future RfC's are likely. I hope, however, that they won't be about name-calling or other such trivial matters, but rather, about actual violations to a reasonable set of Reference Desk guidelines to which reasonable people ought to be able to agree and follow. See e.g. here for some aspects of such a policy. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Right on the money. As silly as it may seem to have an RfC over this, the fact that even small requests [...] are never listened to will sooner or later lead to an even sillier ArbCom case. - that, I think, summarises the entire case perfectly. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. hydnjo is in agreement with and endorses.
  8. I would like to ask [...] all users involved, to reconsider how they approach requests from other users -- exactly. It's a matter of having respect for your fellow Wikipedians, even if you completely disagree with them on every major point. This could be called humility, and it goes a long, long way. Vranak

[edit] Outside view by TheronJ

  1. As an initial matter, I don't think using "deletionist" to refer to editors who advocate removal of questions that they consider trolling from the ref desk is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Although I agree with TenOfAllTrades that the term might be confusing because of its more frequent use in the context of AFDs, it seems like everyone in this case understands what StuRat means.
  2. With that said, StuRat should probably consider whether using a term that bugs people is really likely to lead to a productive resolution. (See generally the second half of WP:SPADE). Even if the "removalists" bug him, I encourage StuRat to be the bigger man and continue to try to understand their concerns and explore possible compromises. If several people object to the use of the term, why not just ask them (constructively) whether "removalist" would be less troublesome, or if they can suggest a term? If I was on a talk page and a couple people said "Theron, we hate your numbered lists," I would probably quit using them on that page, not because numbered lists are uncivil, but because we can't possibly resolve our dispute while we're arguing about things that (1) don't matter and (2) I don't care about.
  3. On the broader issue, and without prejudging the debate, this seems like a legitimate debate for the ref desk to be having. I tend to lean towards the "removalist" side, and think that questions like "If I inject a woman with toxoplasmosis parasites, will she turn into a sex addict" should just be removed as trolling, but I don't think it's crazy to argue that the Ref Desk should just give an accurate answer if it can. (e.g., "It won't work, it's a crime, and you will go to jail"). Reasonable people could take either side, so I encourage everyone to remember that the other side presumably wants to make a great encylopedia and try to discuss the issue constructively, as I am sure most or all of you are doing.
  4. I don't know if it rises all the way to WP:CIVIL, and there aren't enough links to judge whether it's still going on, but if is, I encourage Stu to quit characterizing people as "shrill deletionists" or similar things. Calling someone "shrill" may be true, but it pretty much guarantees that no one is going to make any actual progress on the dispute for a few days. Again, be the bigger man and just work on the problem. Try to say something nice about the other person, then explain your disagreement. (I am fond of "You're a great editor, and your ref desk answers have been great. However, I think . . .")
  5. Finally, Stu's characterization of multiple requests that he quit using "deletionist" as "redundant" is probably not the most constructive thing. If ten people object to the use of the term, then I think there's more reason to try out a new term than if only one objects.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Well, me at least. TheronJ 14:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Great reading and a rationale path for interaction that will lead to a resolution. (TheronJ, the numbered lists are not a problem. But, numbered lists within lists? Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif) Image:Smile-tpvgames.gif David D. (Talk) 15:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong endorsement. Excellent advice for StuRat and, when combined with the advice of Steve Summit (on the talk page) for those in dispute with StuRat, we should have a way forward. Rockpocket 19:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Yep. -Amarkov blahedits 03:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Steve Summit (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] View by Friday

Wasn't sure whether to call this an "outside" view, since I've been involved in this dispute. But here's a couple extra cents.

The fundamental problem with StuRat's behavior is not any one particular term he uses- it's his all-too-frequent tendencies to argue and wikilawyer rather than acknowledging or addressing the core issues. His behavior often fans the flames rather than works toward resolution. In some cases, this flame-fanning behavior is so egregious than I can only assume it's intentional. Once he's disagreed with another editor, he appears to be branding them as "the enemy". This is, in my view, the core problem.

Take a look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:StuRat/abuse- this MFD was about StuRat's creation of a user-space page called "abuse" which he created apparently as a way to label criticism of his actions as "abuse". Rather than responding to the real issue, he renamed the page and continued on his way. Compare this to this diff on this very RFC- where StuRat says he may start calling people "removalists" instead of "deletionists" based on this RFC. He again chooses to not address the real issue, preferring to focus on trivia (changing one word to another) instead.

See also User_talk:StuRat#Enemies, where, about a month ago, I tried to talk StuRat out of his us-vs-them view of Wikipedia. I don't see that he's changed. Sadly, I think some of what keeps StuRat from changing his approach is the support he gets from other editors- in particular, User:THB and User:Light current seem to encourage him. There's a ton there to wade through, but I think anyone who spends some time reading StuRat's talk page (and the now-renamed User talk:StuRat/redundant) will see many examples of him, and, sometimes the couple others mentioned above, repeatedly refusing to "lay down the hatchet", even when asked by different people. It's this unwillingness to work peacefully with others that is the big problem I see here. Friday (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

View addendum: Perhaps all the stuff I've said above is irrelevant. Here's what I think would help resolve this dispute. StuRat, I believe there's a growing feeling that you should not replace content that someone else has removed. If you would stop doing this, I think whatever lingering disagreements still exist would be things we all could live with. Friday (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] View by User:Froth

In the same spirit as Friday, I'm not really "outside" but whatever.

The term "deletionist" surprised me when it was first used (since it's easily confused with the meta term linked somewhere above) but was soon accepted at WT:RD and came to refer to the more extreme positions of heavily regulated content, and finally became a blanket term for positions which favor removal of non-serious answers and non-constructive discussion. I don't feel that it's offensive in any way, just a name for opposing viewpoints. It's unfortunate that StuRat's used it pejoratively, but that tends to happen when you disagree strongly (compare to "russian" being used pejoratively in America during the cold war) and if I was on the recieving end of a "shrill inclusionist" comment, I certainly wouldn't take offense or even chalk it down as a personal attack; that's my view and "I'm proud to be a russian" (it's not even an insult to me).

This is a high-tension issue and wikistress is high- everyone seems passionate about their position. Let's remember that in the meantime the RD rolls on and OPs get their answers- whichever way we work this, it's not set in stone and we can always revisit the issue. This whole project is a service to OPs. It's not like OPs will even notice any internal policy changes; the only impact this whole debate (which has resulted in personal attacks and multiple blockings) has had on the actual desks are some cosmetic changes and a brief experiment to survey demand for a more encyclopedic format. This is a trivial RFC that has no real substance or evidence against sturat as an editor.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. -frothT 06:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. --StuRat 11:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Endorse, although I do think deletionism matters. Specifically, if the deletionists get their way, many valuable contributors and posters will be driven from the Ref Desk, and p robably Wikipedia in general.
  3. -THB 23:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. --Light current 23:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Became accepted? Accepted by whom? Judging from the existence of this RfC it was not accepted by those against whom it was used, especially when it was used in certain ways. If you mean accepted by those who want to include frivolous questions and frivolous answers to serious questions then you may be right, but I don't see much evidence that this view is held by a majority and it certainly does not have consensus. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

By accepted I didn't mean that everyone was using it, I meant that it was just a word for people that disagreed with sturat; everyone knew what he meant and nobody complained until now recently --frothT 22:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

SCZenz has shown me that I'm wrong on one of my first points, I retract the crossed-out statement. --frothT 23:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your revision. You might also want to reconsider the bit about "nobody complained until recently" above. -- SCZenz 00:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More comments by User:THB

This RFC is a lump of administrators attacking StuRat for lumping together the administrators who are attacking him. I say call a lump a lump. If they dislike each other so much that they don't want to be associated with each other, then they should change their behavior. When will it end????????? -THB 21:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this comment:

  1. -THB 21:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. -StuRat 14:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

comment not all are administrators, such as David D. (talk · contribs) and Hipocrite (talk · contribs). —Preceding unsigned comment added by David D. (talk • contribs)

I apologize, so substitute "administrators & their sycophants" for "adminstrators". -THB 21:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm nobodies sycophant. How do your comments help the discussion? Or are you just trying to rekindle the "us against them" scenario? What is your motive for these comments, to drive in a wedge? David D. (Talk) 22:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • THB, in what way do you think you are helping here? Do you genuinely believe that be denouncing everybody who disagrees with StuRat as an administrator or sycophant is going to move towards resolution? You are aware, I take it, that an administrator is simply an editor entrusted by the community with the right to block, delete and protect? I suggest you simply delete this section before you are accused of trolling. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside opinion by Selmo

I think the term "deletionist" can be both a wiki-subculture and used as an insult. The same thing can be said about the word "nigger". While it is usually used an epithet, the African-American community frequently refers to each other using the word. At the same time, it is utterly impolite to call a back person a "nigger" without their consent. Calling someone a "deletionist" is uncivil because it implies that they are more interested in deleting pages, rather than building an encyclopedia. -- Selmo (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this comment:

  1. Endorse, per the difference between nigga and nigger. Rockpocket 08:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Endorse, with a giggle. - brenneman 02:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by JzG

Looking at it, this appears to be an example of a philosophical debate - whether to include frivolous questions and whether to allow friviolous answers to serious questions - being pursued through the medium of edit warring and invective. It would be much more productive to have a proper meta-debate and establish consensus as to what, precisely, the reference desk is for.

The header on StuRat's talk subpage is actively harmful to the resolution of this dispute, as it asserts, pretty aggressively, that he rejects the right of those he disagrees with to even dispute his terminology and approach. In Wikipediua terms, that amounts to a declaration of war. What would we say to an editor who made statements such as this about the removal of a contentious type of content? Links to blogs, say? For how long would we tolerate someone outright denying the possibility of compromise and debate, and even denying the right of anyone to object to being described in terms they consider insulting? That is, to my mind, almost the canonical definition of disruptive behaviour.

Thisa problem is not going to go away until both sides, and especially StuRat, learn to respect their opponents, and agree to at least consider their point of view. Would it really hurt so very much to find a less objectionable term? Or does StuRat really believe that attacking as deletionism any degree of support for the removal of any ref desk comment, however ridiculous, is a fundamental core principle without which he would be unwilling to contribute to the encyclopaedia? I rather hope this is not the case. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this comment:

  1. This nails it. I'm unaware there's been edit warring over this- that just makes it worse. Almost the canonical definition of disruptive is a very good description of this behavior. Many editors have tried, and failed, to reason with StuRat. Friday (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. TheronJ 14:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong endorsement. Rockpocket 04:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. I still stand by the opinion that people are taking too much offense at just the word "deletionist", but this is true. -Amark moo! 06:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (mostly to JzG, who appears to be new here): Don't worry, there are ongoing attempts -- bordering on the strenuous -- to have "a proper meta-debate and establish consensus as to what, precisely, the reference desk is for". But as you know, that process isn't always easy, either.

    It's also worth noting that, at least in the view of some, the initial attempt to address the question of allowing "frivolous" questions and answers was via the rather contentious summary removal of those questions and answers by a succession of concerned editors acting without very good consensus. The summary deletion has (a) for the most part stopped and (b) instigated the more proper and still-ongoing meta-debate, but its memory is still raw in the minds of some, who have been on the defensive ever since. (And, thus, this RfC.) —Steve Summit (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "get over it" springs to mind here. At WP:DRV we deal with baseless or vexatious cases by speedily closing them with a rationale. Nothing deleted. How about that as a solution? Replace the question with a collapsed section that contains a friendly note that Uncyclopaedia is thataway... Anyway, the problem here is that people are allowing past personal differences to spill over into interactions with other editors, and every new entrant seems to end up being royally trolled. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 24 January 2007 (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.

[edit] Closing comments

This RFC was archived after an extended period of inactivity with no additional statements of dispute. --Muchness (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.