Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/StuRat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Question

  • Am I allowed to certify StuRat's statement even though I posted one of my own and certified others? -THB 13:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • My understanding is that you can endorse anyone's statement, but you can't edit the statement, which means that you can't "disendorse" or insert in-line comments into statements other than your own. Anyone else? TheronJ 20:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • May I also endorse the statements of others ? StuRat 21:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't seem to be getting any answers here, so I will assume that I can. StuRat 23:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bogus support from Friday

  • I see no evidence of User:Friday having tried and failed to resolve the dispute. Until such a time as he has provided such, his support for the RfC should be tabled. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Only one statment was given to support tha User:Hipocrite did, either, and I'm not sure it actually does. -THB 17:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think more dispute resolution could be done, but User_talk:StuRat#Howdy probably qualifies as DR by Friday. TheronJ 17:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Err, wow. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough or detailed enough, but I really think saying "Bogus support from Friday" isn't a reasonable way to ask for clarification. Combativeness is the problem here- more of the same is not the solution. Anyway, I added a bit under "trying to resolve.." in an attempt to clarify. Or is this "abandon all assumption of good faith, ye who enter here"? Friday (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Friday, I don't understand your comment fully, but if you're going to change things on the main RFC page at this point after people have commented on them it might be bettter to at least label it as an addition so the comments that have been made make sense. -THB 17:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
You indicate that you have tried and failed to resolve the dispute, but did not supply any diffs to support your contention. That's bogosity, in my book. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I have updated the page with pointers to a couple places. There's also the link mentioned above by TheronJ. Friday (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "same dispute with a single user" ?

This requirement in the intro doesn't appear to be met, to me, as this is a general complaint about my behavior regarding both User:Hipocrite and User:Friday. (Originally, it also included complaints about User:THB, but that was later fixed by splitting into two RFCs.) So, can we decide which dispute this RFC concerns, me versus Hipocrite or me versus Friday, and stick with that, as the rules sate ? StuRat 16:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a fight or a contest- it's not anyone versus anyone. This is to get comments from more people, hence the "request for comments". Friday (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

And now with his "Evidence of continuing disputed behavior since the start of this RFC", User:Friday is trying to bring in yet another dispute involving another user, User:Sam Clark, contrary to the rules. This has become a general "witch hunt", with Friday bringing up totally unrelated items. Should I bring up all of Friday's disputes, past and present ? StuRat 20:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The "single user" is you in this case. The disputed behavior, in my opinion, is that you tend to let things get personal when you have disagreements. Friday (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
... but different dispute. And I see nothing personal in the debate between StuRat and Sam Clark on RD Talk. However, since you have now flagged up StuRat's RfC on Sam Clark's talk page, perhaps he will contribute his own view. Gandalf61 21:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
And that would seem to qualify as "tilting the debate in your favor by calling in people to support your view". StuRat 21:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
So we have an RfC up on someone, not for genuine unavoidable disruption, but because he "tend[s] to let things get personal when [he has] disagreements." Do you not have the ability to not-respond to him? Is this really what these RfC's are for? If you're choosing to talk to him, then it isn't disruption. What a waste of everyone's time. Tragic romance 10:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on THB's view

Reference is made to my "provocative actions" and "methods and tactics" that are inappropriate. While I fully understand that I could have treaded more carefully here, I don't think THB's statement supports these assertions. I think what's happening here is that people are still mad over my block of their friend and fellow ref desk contributor, User:Light current, which was discussed extensively at AN/I.

I think, because people remember that block and my defense of it, they came to see me as the bad guy in all things reference-desk related. The only place I see where THB actually says something specific that I did was his link to a diff in User:Friday/Misc#Judgment_2. This is a page I use as a scratch-pad for miscellaneous thoughts. In summary, I will say that yes, I make mistakes, like anyone, but I do think I'm being unfairly demonized here. I assume this is largely due to the block, which, I said, was already thoroughly discussed in the proper place. Friday (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I also blocked User:Kjvenus, which may have something to do with this. However I stand by both these blocks- disruption is disruption, and just because it happened to happen at the reference desk, this does not mean that the reference desk regulars must approve the block. In short, I think different issues are being mixed up here. I did on several occasions tell people that if they object to any blocks I make, they can certainly bring it up at my talk page or AN/I. My standard blocking policy is "any admin who disagrees can adjust or overturn, as they see fit" so I'm really stuggling to see how these blocks attracted such vehement protest. I think once people saw me as the bad guy, anything I did looked bad to them because, after all, bad people do bad things. Friday (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
What is disruption? Disruption is someone making editing or reading the encyclopedia difficult -- such as maliciously deleting large blocks of text, flooding a page with blocks of random text, messing with system functions, etc. You (and other admins) are blocking people just because you don't like what they're saying, and you're "tired of arguiing with them." If you can choose to walk away, and their only "crime" is provocation, that isn't disruption. We're tired of people using the system to get their way. For example, this RfC. If you can choose to ignore someone, then there's no way it's disruption. Tragic romance 10:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here are my removals of reference desk questions or answers

Since I think that some of what's happening is that people think I was too heavy-handed in removing what I considered nonsense from the reference desks, here are the removals I made. This question asks only for opinions, and I thought it was likely to start a long, rambling chat session. This one was fairly nonsensical, and seemed more like a joke than a serious question, as was this one from the same editor. This one is pure nonsense. I also removed a needlessly inflammatory answer here. I think that's all of them. I encourage any editor to make such edits, if they think that a question won't lead to a useful answer. The purpose of the reference desk (and the rest of the project) is, after all, educational. Friday (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Friday, I don't consider your actions listed above to be wrong, however, I don't believe the block was required and initiating this RfC was a mistake. Addhoc 18:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought twice about bothering with the RFC. And, certainly its possible that I still chose unwisely. However if it produces useful feedback rather than mere bickering, perhaps it will be a net gain. Friday (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The first question, while poorly worded, was on medical ethics. That's entirely acceptable on the Ref Desk. If nothing else, we could refer them to the medical ethics standards of various countries and organizations. It was wrong to remove this question. StuRat 20:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The third question, while itself "suspect", had generated many serious answers, so it was wrong for you to remove the question and answers. StuRat 20:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

For the remainder, I agree that they should be removed, but feel the authors should have first been given the opportunity to do so themselves. By removing the materail, you denied them the opportunity to clear their names by removing it, and have forever branded them as "troublemakers", instead. StuRat 20:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friday

Please use the discussion section for additional comments to the request for comment. You've gone back and altered the original statement after people had commented on it already and didn't mark it as such. Discussion should go in the discussion section.

If you don't like the way the RFC is going, you might be able to withdraw it. The instructions clearly state that the editors filing the RFC will have their behavior examined as well. You've written more about your behavior than I did. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. -THB 19:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? People add evidence to RFCs as they go- this is pretty normal I think. People said I hadn't shown evidence of trying to resolve the dispute, so I put that in there. Friday (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
As for me posting about my own actions, yep, that's what I did. The reason I endorsed this RFC is that I felt StuRat took a personal conflict between he and I too far. I made several attempts to bury the hatchet. So, an examination of my behavior as well as his is utterly relevant here. Friday (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Outside View by Tragic romance

This view is strange. It seems to be implying much but saying little specific. It implies that there were improper blocks given to users for "disagreeing", but I don't see that any evidence supports this. It also implies that someone took a disagreement as a personal attack. Some further evidence would be needed in order for this view to be more meaningful. Friday (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that Radiant raised this issue on Tragic romance's talk page, see User_talk:Tragic_romance#Block_for_disagree.3F. Tragic, I agree with Radiant's comment- if there is evidence that any admin has blocked an editor for disgreeing with them, please present it to AN/I. Such behavior is not acceptable, and I'm confident it would be dealt with. Friday (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It's never a case of somebody being blocked for absolutely no reason, but rather a case where the punishment would normally be less, or just a warning, but becomes much more severe because the deletionist Admin disagrees with the inclusionist editor, like in the case of your block of User:Light current, or Admin:SCZenz's block of User:DirkvdM. On the other hand, deletionist users can get away with far more serious "crimes", since they are on the same side as the deletionist Admins. Examples include User:Hipocrite (mass deletions and 3RR violation) and the dynamic anon I/P (abusive language). StuRat 16:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of signature and timestamp

Why was section one posted without four tildes to provide a signature and time stamp? Are we supposed to just guess or infer who posted the complaint, or slog through the History file?? Edison 21:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the time stamp the first user in Users certifying the basis for this dispute? i.e. Hipocrite on Dec 13th. David D. (Talk) 21:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nice cup of tea

This has all gotten a little out of hand, and perhaps a little out of proportion. The ridiculous amount of unnecessary talk on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk is testament to this, though this is in part due to a different dispute (users: 'loomis' and 'clio the muse')

I have been accused (as far as I can tell) of sockpuppetry by 'StuRat' which to my enternal shame responded in more than kind http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AReference_desk&diff=95524289&oldid=95518747

Quote "::Do I detect yet another deletionist sockpuppet ? This would be number 4, I believe. StuRat 00:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)" is not the way to gain consensus I believe.

I can only suggest that 'StuRat' think a little more before posting, and perhaps practice a little restraint and humility when choosing which questions to respond to.

I have no real complaint with him/her except that all this is counter productive and wastes time as well.

(I have no idea if this info is relevant to the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/StuRat page, I have no idea where to add it.)

I can only endorse the 'slow down, cup of tea, no confrontation' point of view.87.102.4.227 22:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)