Wikipedia:Requests for comment/StuRat

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.

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 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. (The above language was added when this was Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ReferenceDesk.) StuRat in particular has exhibited the behaviors mentioned above, as well as a tendency to favor rules-lawyering over discussing the fundamental issue.

[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.
  1. Treating Wikipedia as a battleground
  1. StuRat seems determined to see the reference desk situation as a fight, sometimes describing it as "admins versus regulars". Several people have told him that this is not a good way to see things. He and I specifically got off on the wrong foot, and I recognize that this is at least in part my fault. I've tried several times to put the disagreement behind us, with limited success- see User_talk:StuRat#Howdy. I asked him specifically to stop leaving snarky little off-topic comments about me on various talk pages, see User_talk:StuRat#Please. This combative tendency is making it more difficult to make progress in already difficult situations. See also User_talk:Friday#Please_recuse_yourself_from_the_Ref_Desk where, after I gave up and stopped responding, a couple of other editors expressed the opinion that StuRat seemed to be stirring up trouble for no useful purpose. Some older history which may be helpful in understanding the current situation can be found at User_talk:StuRat#Reference_desk_comments.
  1. Editors need to excercise reasonable adult judgment
  1. In criticizing what he terms "heavy handed" removal of content from the reference desk pages, StuRat has sometimes defended the indefensible. See Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Where_I_Stand for an example. His belief that we needed to hold a vote in order to decide that crude off-topic humor was undesirable at the reference desk shows a lack of adult judgment.

[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]
(From Friday) See User_talk:StuRat#Please where I asked a couple times for him to drop the personal conflict, or at least keep in on relevant pages. See also User_talk:Friday#Please_recuse_yourself_from_the_Ref_Desk.


[edit] Evidence of continuing disputed behavior since the start of this RFC

I think StuRat is continuing to personalize disputes that need not be personal. See Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Chastising_opinion_responses_on_the_Ref_Desk, particularly this edit. Sam Clark is being quite reasonable and polite in my opinion, yet StuRat is referring to his comments as ad hominems. Also, StuRat made a number of assumptions about Sam Clark's opinions, which he is rejecting- however these assumptions are unwarranted and unnecessary. Whether it's on purpose or not, I cannot say, but StuRat's response in this case seems to be fanning the flames rather than reaching a shared understanding between editors.

Despite being asked many times to put the personal conflict behind him, he continues to take pokes at me (Friday) on irrelevant pages. An editor left an uncivil comment, so I left him a polite "please be civil" message. StuRat left a snide follow-up message, which added nothing to the civility warning and seems to be intended to annoy and harass rather than serve any useful purpose. See User_talk:Nricardo#Please_be_civil.

[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)
  2. Friday (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. David D. (Talk) 20:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC) I had held off endoring this whole RfC rather than a few of the comments below, however, after the latest fiasco it is clear that StuRat is using RefDesk to make a wikipoint and this is unacceptable. StuRat, please clean up your act this is wasting huge amounts of time on the discussion pages and causing a disruption.
  2. Clio the Muse In complete agreement with the above. This is turning into a farce, with the whole Reference Desk being manipulated for self-interested ends.
  3. EricR 02:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC) per David D..
  4. ---J.S (T/C) 05:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC) The reference desk's primary purpose is not the amusement of some of it's participants.

[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.

1. WP:CON
  1. I believe the portion of the quote he refers to said: "Likewise, the reference desk should not be used by 'regulars' as a way to get random questions answered. Unless you are truly unable to find the information you seek on your own, you should not ask questions just to spur jokes, conversation and activity." Now, I was working on a list of "items under dispute" which we could then debate and hopefully reach consensus upon. That any question should not be "a way to get random questions answered...Unless you are truly unable to find the information you seek on your own, you should not ask questions just to spur jokes, conversation and activity" seemed undisputed by anyone. The only portion of that statement which appeared to be in dispute, was the implication that the rights of Ref Desk 'regulars' to ask questions are somehow restricted. I therefore added to my list of "items under dispute", the question, "Can Ref Desk volunteers ask Ref Desk questions ?". Now, the answer to this, depending on the responses, might have been "Yes", "No", or something more nuanced, like "Only under the following conditions...". In this particular case, though, there didn't appear to be any call for different rules for which types of questions may be asked by Ref Desk 'regulars' versus the general population.
  2. I may have, indeed, been mistaken on my usage of the word "consensus". I have now revised my terminology and only refer to lopsided results of straw polls as "supermajorities".
  3. Please do take a look at all my contributions. You might also want to look specifically at my work here: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/rules, where I am trying very hard to incorporate all POVs to build a proposed set of Ref Desk rules, with the goal of gaining consensus to have them accepted.
2. WP:NPA
  1. I had put the wrong name in the edit summary, which I admitted, and apologized for here: User_talk:StuRat#No personal attacks, ever., and corrected (all within 13 minutes of being informed of the error) with a follow-up edit summary, here: [4].
3. Treating Wikipedia as a battleground:
  1. I've tried to assume good faith, but there have been repeated attacks by those who want fairly strict Ref Desk rules (mostly Admins) against those who want fairly lenient Ref Desk rules (mostly Ref Desk volunteers). Admin User:Friday did state, both on the Ref Desk talk page and on his own page [5], that he would like to get rid of the Ref Desk. He later retracted those statements, but this did leave the suspicion in many of our minds that his motives were unchanged. Actions by other Admins on the opposite side of the dispute have included blocking two of the Ref Desk volunteers (User:light current, still blocked by Admin User:TenOfAllTrades/Admin User:Friday and User:DirkvdM, who left the Ref Desk debate as a result of his block by Admin User:SCZenz [6]), deleting our side of the debate by Admin User:Radiant! [7], [8], [9] (who also deleted my comments from his talk page, without response, when I complained [10], [11]), deleting the summary of supermajority straw poll results, without consensus, by User:Radiant! [12], filing of an AFD request by Admin User:Rick Block [13] to delete the supermajority summary page (Wikipedia:Reference_desk/rules), and the endorsement of this RFC by Admin User:Friday. Note that all these Admins have been personally involved in the Ref Desk debate, all on the opposing "strict rules" side. There were also three sockpuppets User:Deskbed, User:ToadStoolYem [14] and User:RDWarrior which supported the (mostly Admin) side of the debate, one of which was permanently blocked as a sockpuppet, then unblocked by Admin User:Friday, then reblocked by an uninvolved Admin [15]. Thus, I do find it difficult, given the circumstances, to see their actions as fair and unbiased, instead of a conflict of interest and using their Admin status to bully those who disagree with them. Note that I am far from the only person with this perception. Many others, including a few Admins, see it the same way.
4. Editors need to exercise reasonable adult judgment:
  1. I do. The very case he lists as the worst possible example of my lack of judgment shows that when I realized I made a mistake (in this case, just on the definition of a term), I admitted the mistake and corrected it. I don't claim to never make a mistake, but I do claim to admit them and correct them. See Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Where_I_Stand for an example.
  2. "His belief that we needed to hold a vote in order to decide that crude off-topic humor was undesirable at the reference desk shows a lack of adult judgment." - No, this shows an attempt to build consensus. If some editors believe this is OK, and other's don't, then they need to be brought together to determine when humor is, and is not, appropriate.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. StuRat 23:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Light current 20:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Tragic romance 15:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. --Nelson Ricardo 22:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. -THB 23:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Edison 21:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Loomis 23:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional response to new section: Evidence of continuing disputed behavior since the start of this RFC

User:Sam Clark has absolutely engaged in ad hominem, as these quotes demonstrate: "You don't know anything much about philosophy, as you've revealed in your answers to a number of questions at the humanities desk. I therefore don't plan to get into any debate about the metaethical issue with you: you don't have the background or the particular skills to engage constructively in such a debate". Also, he said: "Stu doesn’t know anything about the issue, and that I don’t intend to waste my time on that kind of unbalanced debate". See those quotes, and more, here: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Chastising_opinion_responses_on_the_Ref_Desk. StuRat 15:26, 19 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.

{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.}

[edit] Outside view by Froth

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)
  3. THB 13:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Tragic romance 15:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. StuRat 23:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Light current 23:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Nelson Ricardo 22:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Edison 21:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Loomis 23:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Cernen

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)
  5. Concur, this is a little heavy-handed.. Addhoc 12:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Agree, tho' I would call it very heavy-handed. Gandalf61 12:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Have to agree - this whole ref desk thing is a bit of a hash, it doesn't need to get any bigger right now... Tony Fox (arf!) 21:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. I agree with Cernen. StuRat's efforts in this process allowed for structured inputs by editors who were perhaps turned off by the divisive debates ex rathole. It was legitimate to question these efforts and certainly legitimate to question the process, but this was done over and over again in a very unfriendly fashion, re-iterated on misplaced meta-levels with almost every new item in the process, and accompanied by spreading the concerns to various other places on Wikipedia. After reading up on the history of Hipocrite and StuRat's encounters, I find it difficult to understand the poster's reasons for asking for an RFC. Sluzzelin 06:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)---
  9. THB 13:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Light current 20:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Tragic romance 15:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. StuRat 23:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Loomis 23:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Ouro 11:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by THB

To clarify my own position, I am not a respondent in this RFC but I was named in a simultaneous RFC by User:Hipocrite. It, too, was unfounded and no one else would certify it within 48 hours, so it has been or will be deleted.

User:StuRat has not been directly accused of breaching WP:AGF but it is implied in the complaint so it should be addressed.

User:StuRat has clearly acted only in good faith in trying to obtain some kind of consensus to guide editors contributing to the Reference Desk. No evidence is presented to the contrary. He has tried to do so despite actions that could be considered provocative made primarily by User:SCZenz, User:Friday, and User:Hipocrite, although there have been other editors and administrators involved. No specific evidence has been given to try to show that User:StuRat has violated WP:AGF and a complete review of his contributions will absolutely reflect that he has assumed good faith and has never tried to "shut down debate". See: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guideline in particular. He should be commended for this.

User:StuRat is accused of violating WP:NPA because of one edit summary stating: "Reverted vandalism deletion by Hypocrit."

The undiscussed deletion of approximately 37 lines of text that had been discussed by multiple editors does look like the work of a vandal, with the clear intention of disrupting Wikipedia, and violating WP:POINT at the very least. However, the edit summary describes an action, not the person. StuRat did not call User:Hipocrite a vandal directly.

WP:NPA specifically states,

A comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is not a personal attack if it's concerned with clear vandalism, although otherwise it is. "Vandalism" imputes bad intentions and bad motives to the person accused.

I believe that a very good case can be made that there were indeed bad intentions and motives to the deletion of such a large chunk of text under the circumstances. See WP:DUCK#The duck test.

Following the history of the page in question [16], one can see that User:Hipocrite and User:Radiant! took actions that were intended to goad StuRat. It was actually User:Radiant!, an administrator, not User:Hipocrite, who deleted the text. Instead of assisting with WP:CON, they merely protested User:StuRat's efforts to achieve it.

No other evidence is presented for a violation of WP:NPA, so this "charge" is unfounded.

There is no evidence presented to support the charges of "character assassination".

However:

  • User:Hipocrite characterized another editor's selective deletions as "bad faith" a short time thereafter: [17].
  • User:Hipocrite has accused StuRat of advocating or insinuating child abuse: [18]. This is an extreme form of character assassination in that it alleges illegal activities.
  • User:Friday has characterized his fellow editors as "lovable idiots" [19]. In his defense, he did decline to name the actual editors he had in mind when asked to do so. However, this sort of name-calling is unacceptable nonetheless.
  • WP:NOT (WP is not a battlefield)

Finally, StuRat has not tried to make a battlefield of anything and has instead focused on issues and improvement. I would argue that it is instead User:Hipocrite who has used Wikipedia as a battleground. This statement by User:Hipocrite in response at an attempt at mediation is very revealing as a "declaration of war":

" I do not intend to hold my horses. I will fix this reference desk." [20]

Indeed, he asked me to point out when he was rude and then when I did so and thanked him for retracting it (even though I knew an administrator had asked him in an e-mail to do so: [21] and he had accused me of acting in bad faith), he accused me of trying to "stab a spear in (his) side", indicating that he views the discussions as war-like. See: here.

The accusation of using Wikipedia as a battlefield may indeed be psychological projection.

  • Summary

At a high level, everyone here is working in good faith to improve Wikipedia and the Reference Desk in particular. However, the methods and tactics being used by User:Friday and particularly User:Hipocrite are inappropriate. Wikipedia is not for crusades.

  • Frequently the tone of comments made by User:Hipocrite is inappropriate, violating WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE, and some of his actions are undermining one of the de facto functions of the Reference Desk, to welcome newcomers to Wikipedia. A quick overview of his edit summaries will hint at his curtness: Special:Contributions/Hipocrite and a close examination of his contributions, especially prior to Dec 14, will provide detail. He also could be more consistent with WP:AGF with editors who pose questions at the Reference Desk. He has shown unwillingness to accept input on these issues from a variety of editors, as shown at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk and its archives. (Unfortunately, from the jumbled nature of the discussions there, it is necessary to look at the actual page rather than diffs to see things in context.)
  • Particularly disturbing is the hint of *possible* collaboration with sockpuppets, such as the unblocking of a sockpuppet by User:Friday discussed by StuRat in his statement above, or at least the tinge that it is *possible* that User:Hipocrite knows the identity of one or more of the sockpuppets: User talk:Deskbed. I am also concerned that no administrator has sought to identify these three sockpuppets and institute sanctions against their creators, however, it has been pointed out to me that not all administrators have that ability. I do not know if it is even possible, but if it is, an attempt should be made to do so.
  • The only evidence given of efforts to solve the dispute is this one statement: [22].

Finally, WP:TEA, as above. -THB 13:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. THB 16:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Steve Summit (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Gandalf61 21:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Tragic romance 15:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. StuRat 23:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Light current 23:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Succinct and nicely phrased
  8. Ouro 11:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by TheronJ

[edit] General suggestions

  1. First, I should say that RFCs are just that - requests for comments, not disciplinary proceedings, trials, or anything else bad. I hope that everyone involved reads the community input carefully and thinks about whether there are ways to improve this dispute.
  2. Second, in general, everyone needs to try to start over and work together. If I could only give one piece of advice, it would be to let the past go, forgive everyone else for whatever they've done, say something nice about them, and try to reach some consensus about the reference desk.

[edit] Analysis of specific issues

  1. Dispute resolution Hipocrite, I respect you a lot, but I think you are capable of more attempts at dispute resolution than the one attempt you listed. Your comments in the battleground section are good, and I'm glad to see you're trying to move forward. Stu, you are also capable of much better dispute resolution than you have been doing. If you guys don't smooth things over with each other, there's not much that an RFC can do.
  2. Consensus Stu, the best outcome from Hipo's complaint would be if the two of you start working together constructively, and I hope you approach the RFC in that vein. With that said, I do think you rely way too much on surveys and votes. Surveys are one of many ways in which editors may attempt to move discussions forward, but in this particular case, I think they're counter-productive. A much better course of action would be to (1) ask Hipocrite to explain his concerns and (2) explore whether there is a solution that meets both of your needs.
    1. As an example, the survey discussed above was bound to inflame debate instead of developing it constructively.
    2. If I understand you correctly, you agreed with Hipocrite that the Ref Desk was not "a way to get random questions answered" and that unles ref desk editors "are truly unable to find the information you seek on your own, you should not ask questions just to spur jokes, conversation and activity." Your only concern was that Ref Desk editors should be permitted to ask legitimate, serious, questions. It would have been about 1 million percent more effective to say something like: "Hipocrite, my concern is that Ref Desk editors should still be permitted to ask legitimate, serious questions where necessary. Would you support adding the following language to the guidelines? 'Reference desk editors may ask serious questions on the Reference Desk themselves, but are cautioned not to do so unless they are truly unable to find the information they seek on their own, and should never ask questions just to spur jokes, conversation and activity'?" Making a proposal that attempted to meet both your and Hipocrite's concerns would have moved the discussion forward, while the poll just inflamed the dispute.
  3. Polling and "supermajorities": Even a lopsided straw poll does not necessarily establish a supermajority. In any event, supermajority voting is generally only used in cases where there are so many editors that consensus is impossible, and even then, it's controversial. If you try to use a survey so that six people can make two dissenters shut up, you are not working for consensus.
  4. Battleground: I do generally agree that your responses to Friday and Hipocrite have been unnecessarily confrontational. Maybe they have been confrontational in some places too, I don't know. Still, you all have the goal of developing a great encyclopedia - take a step back and work with them, even if you disagree.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Obviously. TheronJ 15:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Steve Summit (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC), with the qualification on point 4 that it's hard to say who in this debate has been more confrontational, or was confrontational first; there's been lots of unnecessary confrontation to go around
  3. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Friday (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. David D. (Talk) 04:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. EricR 02:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View by Tragic romance

Perhaps all the parties here share some responsibility, but the actions of Friday and Hipocrite do appear to be abuse of position. There are no ranks on Wikipedia. The fact that you have that "block" button and a "title" doesn't give you authority. People should be blocked for clear violation of policy, not for "disagreeing with you," no matter how insistent or frustrated they seem to you. And further, someone stating that they believe you are wrong, is not a "personal attack."
Tragic romance 16:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Tragic romance 16:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. StuRat 23:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Light current 23:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. THB 23:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Edison 21:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Rick Block

I generally agree with the statement of dispute and description, but I think WP:OWN and WP:CON have been the primary issues rather than WP:CON and WP:NPA.

  • WP:OWN - There are extensive discussions about this in the RefDesk talk archives, see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 13#Joke answers for one thread. In my view, a set of RD "regulars" had taken to treating the RD as a "jokes R us" page, would not stop despite numerous polite requests (on the talk page), and were completely dismissive of any "outsider" views. Sort of as an experiment, I decided to start unilaterally deleting what in my judgement seemed to be completely inappropriate responses. I deleted this comment and immediately posted this note on the poster's talk page, which led to this conversation. Somewhat later, I requested that StuRat delete this response, which led to this conversation. StuRat refused to delete the comment, so I did and he then re-added it. These actions were met with what I would characterize as a recalcitrant response (roughly "how dare anyone delete comments at the RD, it's ours and we'll post whatever damn silliness we want"). Other adminsusers including SCZenz, Friday, and Hipocrite have taken stronger measures to try to improve the situation, which have perhaps intensified the resistance of some RD responders. This has led to the current efforts to institute detailed rules for the RD that (IMO) are targeted mainly at protecting RD responders from unwanted "outside" interference in the workings of "their page". StuRat, in particular, has exhibited an unhealthy degree of ownership about the RD and the voluminous discussions about these issues, going so far as to fork a proposed guidelines page [23].
  • WP:CON - Despite many attempts to explain how things should (and should not) be done ([24] [25] [26] [27] [28]) StuRat has persisted in proposing guidelines/rules for voting and then recording "consensus decisions" (often determined the same day the votes were called).

I believe a contributing factor in all of this has been the rapid fire rate of comments on the various talk pages where this discussion has been occurring. For example, the main RD talk page has received 2000 posts in the last 12 days. To some extent, I think many of the editors involved are responding without thinking, which may indeed be one of the root causes of some of the problems at the RD.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Rick Block (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Friday (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. David D. (Talk) 04:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. hydnjo talk 20:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Edison 21:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. EricR 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. TheronJ 18:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Clio the Muse 23:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Subscript text

[edit] Outside view by Loomis

Forgive me for my ignorance. Although I've been a contributor to the Refdesk for about a year now, I still have no idea what the "admins" actually do, aside from deciding from their ivory towers who is and who is not worthy of contributing to Wikipedia.

Fair enough, they don't bother very much with the RefDesk. But for goodness sake, please show some respect for those who do. They don't seem all too concerned with "fact-checking" either. I can't blame them, it's a thankless job (as I've learned). Yet any proper Encylopedia requires a "fact-checker", to make sure that Wikipedia's articles and RefDesk answers are indeed factual.

But no, all I see here is some baseless attack on StuRat, surely one of the RefDesks most dedicated contributors. StuRat and I very often disagree on a myriad of subjects. Our POV's are rather different. I'm sure he'd agree our views diverge in so many areas. Just as an example, I fully support GWB as being one of the best US Presidents ever, whereas I'm sure he'd agree that it's his position that the guy is nothing more than a complete bumbling idiot. Another great example is our complete and utter disagreement in terms of Abrahamic religions. I'm a devoted Jew, whereas he, apparently, never holds back in pointing out that he feels that my devotion to monotheism is silly, yet always in a respectful fashion. Also, I'm probably one of the RefDesk's most ardent Zionists, yet Stu respectfully disagrees, apparently holding the opinion that the creation of the State of Israel was "a bad idea".

Yet, despite our many disagreements, he's always been completly respectful about each and every one of them. And, I'd like to underline, that NEVER, NEVER has he EVER resorted to pure fabrications to suport his point.

Nonetheless, despite our disagreements, I've never come across anyone more devoted to the integrity of the RefDesk. We disagree, but we agree to disagree. His arguments, though I at times disagree with them, are always logically valid, and always based on uncontrovertable fact. He never employs any "dirty tactics" to get a point across.

In short, I dare say, StuRat is the ultimate in RefDesk contributors. For me, I couldn't wish for a more honourable and intelligent adversary. Should any Admin DARE take any action against him, is terms of blocking him or whatever, I'm outta here too. And should we both be gone, what a sorry state the RefDesk will be in indeed. Loomis 02:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  1. Loomis 02:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. StuRat 16:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Tragic romance 21:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the admins do the same thing as everyone else. They are no more important than the non admin contributors. The bulk of this argument seems to be a red herring with resepect to the RfC here. This is about StuRats ownership issues on RefDesk including returning deleted material of no apparent relevance to the questions being asked. There are admins and non admins frustrated with his approach. The way things are currently progressing I can see no attempt being made to address such frustration. In fact, there is a lot of defiance in response to this RfC and certainly blaming admins for this RfC is not the way to go here. Deliberating on what kind of questions and answers are appropriate and useful for RefDesk should be the result of this RfC. David D. (Talk) 16:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We tried doing that, and the deletionists simply disrupted the conversation and deleted our arguments. StuRat 16:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree, David. You say, "...blaming admins for this RfC is not the way to go here. Deliberating on what kind of questions and answers are appropriate and useful for RefDesk should be the result of this RfC." But careless admins are the reason this problem resulted in RfC in the first place. And we're not here to "deliberate on what is appropriate for the RefDesk." We're here because two particular users want comment on StuRat. Tragic romance 21:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Question: Can you elaborate on what you meant when you said that "the bulk of this argument seems to be a red herring"? The best I can make of this whole RfC thing is that it's some sort of indictment of StuRat, and a claim that he is somewhow doing damage to the quality of the RefDesk. I couldn't possibly disagree more with that claim. Yes, there is indeed a serious threat to the quality of the RefDesk, and I'm sure you all know all too well what I'm talking about. The only "red herring" I see here is this whole RfC. There are far more important problems with the RefDesk that we need to address, rather than distract ourselves with this nonsensical little RfC.

Loomis 20:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read our statement of the dispute before commenting further - it is about the treatement of wikipedia as a battleground and disruptive arguing - not about the structure of the reference desk. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Certain users characterize any disagreement with them as "personal attack," "harassment," or "disruption." That's the real problem. Tragic romance 21:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very Outside view by Just H

I have not been involved in any of this, I just saw this RFC on recent changes. However, after reading this, I think the best measure to follow is this...

If someone is bothering you on the Ref Desk...Ignore them.

This RFC appears to be a waste of time other than that.

  1. Just H 16:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. StuRat 16:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Light current 16:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Yeah a complete waste of time and very disruptive to the smooth running of the Rds 8-(
  4. Grace 15:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Exactly. Tragic romance 21:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC) [Actual disruption results from one person. If others' arguing with him results in disruption, then it isn't disruption as defined by W:Policy.]
  6. Rainbowfanclub 14:26, 16 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] Summary

StuRat is one of a number of parties to a dispute over content and style at the ref desk. He may be regarded as a leading light in a group committed to retaining all questions, rather than removing those which are of no evident merit. His style in pursuing this agenda has led to friction. Other parties are not without fault. This RfC is largely superseded by Wikipedia:Requests for comment/StuRat 2 which covers much of the same ground. This RfC achieved nothing in reoslving the dispute but has served to clarify somewhat the positions of the disputants. All sides appear to be assuming bad faith. Overall, the dispute looks a lot like People's Front of Judea vs. Judean People's Front. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 24 January 2007 (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.