Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/StuRat 2

message: Before people misunderstand, I want to throw this out there:  this RFC is not, in my opinion, about whether the term "deletionist" is offensive in some way.  It's generally not- many people self-identify as deletionists.  However, as we can see in StuRat's response, he's not using the term the same way self-described deletionists do.  In his own words, "deletionists" are "those which favor nonconsensus, unilateral deletions".   Some editors have told StuRat that they don't like being lumped together as "deletionists" this way.  That's what this seems to be about.  Friday (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they aren't deletionists, he doesn't call them deletionists. Maybe they should examine their behavior and change it if they don't like what it's called instead of worrying about labels.  They will still be deletionists even if nobody says it.  If they are so ashamed they should just stop. -THB 04:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except in my case that clearly isn't true. Rockpocket 06:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Am I a deletionist?  I don't think so. David D. (Talk) 06:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, I don't consider myself a deletionist either, and I dislike being categorized this way.  Friday (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every morning George W. Bush wakes up in the morning, looks in the mirror, and thinks about what an excellent leader he is.  He says to himself as he shaves, "I am the decider, and I decide things". -THB 00:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the term "deletionist" 

message: (moved here, as it was pretty long)
Yes of course I support him in his defence against victimisation. You are asking StuRat not to lump all his opposers as deletionists. So I would ask you not to lump US together! We are all independent thinkers. I happen to agree with StuRat about excessive deletions and censorship.--Light current 16:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This response illustrates the problem pretty well, I think.  If StuRat is "in a corner", it's because he put himself in one.  Friday (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but were not gonna help him out of it if we keep him surrounded and under attack. Do you see that>? The present course will lead to blocking and generate more bitterness. Sometimes a braething space can give everyone a chance to consider their positions and sometimes they may end up softening them (Like I have) 8-(--Light current 17:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I also feel its important for StuRat to have his proper say on the proposed guidelines. He has not been able to so far as hes busy defending himself. Im sure that if Stu Rat has a part to play in the guidelines then he will have some ownerhip of them and is likely to resplct them (as I will have to -- since I have rewritten a large part of them)8-|--Light current 17:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  If he were to not respond further to this RFC, but take these issues seriously and start working more productively with other editors, I bet this would please everyone involved.  I see no external forces preventing him from doing exactly that.  Friday (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, I see no "attack" here.  What I see is something I might describe as "a group of editors discussing problematic editing, and asking for a change in behavior".  It's seeing this as an "attack" and making things into a personal battle that is the problem here.  More of the same is not the solution.  Friday (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly!. Now, I know how StuRat is feeling at this time and I think the best course of action is for a 'ceasefire' to let things cool off. Is anyone else interseted in that idea? Give StuRat a chance to vent his feelings thro the Guidelines discussion. It worked for me!--Light current 18:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I follow you.  The guideline talk page is for discussing the guidelines, not for "venting feelings".  I'd suggest to any editor that if they're feeling attacked, or otherwise distressed, they work this out before editing, not by editing.   Friday (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect what LC is implying here is that s/he got in some productive editing and so got out of a rut and back to normal associations with editors at large. This got a positive feed back loop going that allowed him/her and others to move on. A time out is probably good at this point since i think we have all made our points.  I agree we should let the dust settle and focus on more productive work. Personally, i do not see this RFC as an attack, rather a place for opinions on all sides to be aired. RFC's should be contructive not negative. David D. (Talk) 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate you view here, but it WILL seem to StuRat like a massed attack. It would to you Im sure. It does to me (having been in similar ,but not so severe, situations). Especially distateful is every Tom Dick and Harry (who know sod all ablut the RDS or much else it seems)jumping on the band wagon to stick the knife in. This is not conducive to so called 'rehabiltitation'. Both RFCs were a mistake and a backward step guaranteed to provoke someone like me or StuRat into extreme defensive and maybe hostile actions. It worked. 8-(--Light current 18:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not seen any defensive or hostile actions, as yet.  I hope it does not come to that and even more reason to let the dust settle a bit. I agree with your suggestion to refocus on the discussion of your draft of the guidelines would be a productive way to go.  David D. (Talk) 18:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Sturats responses here that people are complaing about are plainly in his own defence and therfore defensive. I wouldnt say hostility has broken out yet , no--Light current 18:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe you could explain that. I have no idea what part of LC argument you are getting excited about. David D. (Talk) 05:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by the indentation, it seems to be in response to my original (unindented) statements above. --Light current 05:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would make more sense. David D. (Talk) 05:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy, and so frankly, I don't care about that question.  I do care about harm reduction on the wiki, though.  Whatever reduces that harm is good by me.  Friday (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally it shouldnt be. But we are dealing with human personalities here. Anyway - who's' normal? Did you look up Type A BTW? Everybody in the world has some sort of behaviour problem. everyones different. Should we ban everyone from editing?--Light current 18:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all irrelevant- it's not part of our mission to "fix" anyone, and even if it were, we're ill-equipped for such work.  What we do here is an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light current's response to Friday's view 

message: Sorry I dont think you understand Wikiholics or Type A personalities (although you appear to be slightly A yourself)! My personal view is that StuRat is energetic (like me!) and an intelligent editor. Now, unfocussed energy can sometimes be harmful (as it spreads out in random directions). So given a large source of unfocussed energy, what would you do to make it useful?--Light current 18:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy, and so frankly, I don't care about that question.  I do care about harm reduction on the wiki, though.  Whatever reduces that harm is good by me.  Friday (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally it shouldnt be. But we are dealing with human personalities here. Anyway - who's' normal? Did you look up Type A BTW? Everybody in the world has some sort of behaviour problem. everyones different. Should we ban everyone from editing?--Light current 18:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all irrelevant- it's not part of our mission to "fix" anyone, and even if it were, we're ill-equipped for such work.  What we do here is an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiholics or [[Type A]] personalities 

message: This kind of started when the removal of some unencyclopedic comments at the Reference Desk caused an outcry, especially among StuRat, Light Current, and -to a lesser degree- myself. We favored complete free speech like a web forum (with a couple of common sense exceptions like personal or legal threats, advertisements, and that sort of thing) and strongly felt that the reference desk wouldn't work nearly as well if answers were screened (and in some users' view) censored in any way. Now debate has gotten highly specific and intricate, over various issues like verifiability and some users are frustrated by StuRat's unwillingness to compromise his position with theirs. However, his original position actually is the absolute, that he will stand for no deletion of content, so compromise is impossible. It's unreasonable to expect compromise and you must deal with the debate at the top level; one or the other. ---⁪frothT 05:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So where is the line between the common sense exceptions and the legitimate questions (or answers)? David D. (Talk) 05:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess I'm still back at WT:RD; I'm talking about ref desk issues, not his behavior of replacing content. sorry --⁪frothT 06:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I follow you- I was talking about his replacing of content on the ref desk pages.    There've been cases where people have removed something and made their case on the talk page, and he's put it back on the grounds that there was no prior agreement to remove it.  This is disruptive editing.  Friday (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that's not the way to do things (provided you leave a link to the talk page so the OP can find his question) but I can see where StuRat is coming from and it seems a valid enough position to make. So it's more of an ambiguous issue that hasn't yet been codified than actual disruptive editing- he could call the original removal disruptive due to the curious open-format that we claim for the RD. --⁪frothT 06:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm missing the nuance here. What do you mean by "curious open-format" ? David D. (Talk) 07:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean the issue that makes all this RD stuff so difficult. Other project around wikipedia like AfD and RfA and FC all have very strict rules about behavior and formatting and that kind of thing. But the reference desk deals with an extremely high volume of very new users. Basically the only way to deal with it is to tell them to make a new section, and give answers as indented Talk-style replies. So we have a high traffic page with an unusual "anyone can post anywhere" guideline. That's what I mean; I'll elaborate after classes today, gotta go! --⁪frothT 13:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK so I guess I don't have much more to say, but I'd add that by open format I mean like Talk pages: anyone can add a comment and nobody should remove anyone else's comments. By "curious" I mean that it's unusual since it's a project page on which not all Talk page guidelines apply and on which we need special rules of our own. Rules that have to be decided on (In the past through common sense and convention, now codified through this debate) --⁪frothT 20:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand now. David D. (Talk) 20:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: ScZenz's view 

message: Froth, I was with you until the very last sentence, which seems like a non-sequitor to me.  StuRat's behavior is a real problem- this is obvious to an ever-growing number of editors. Otherwise, I generaly agree with what you said here.  Friday (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was afraid that I didn't make that point pervasive enough but the last sentence was really the crux of what I was trying to say. His behavior may be frustrating but his points (well his core ideas I guess) are very good IMO. And on such a sensitive issue it may be inappropriate to bring up his behavior when discussion on his points has been unsucessful --⁪frothT 06:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  froth's view 

message: ...since we now have StuRat's detailed description of what constitutes – in his mind – a 'deletionist', and since we've now established that I don't meet those criteria (and indeed find the behaviours he describes objectionable), can everyone now see why I find his persistent labelling of me in that way to be offensive? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidentally... 

message: THB responded to my addendum with:
:No.  That's not true.  Content inappropriately removed should absolutely be replaced.  One of the primary issues is what should be removed and how. I see no evidence of "growing feeling". -THB 12:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Inappropriately removed" is the issue here, is it not?  We can argue all day long about this, and still not agree.  But, repeating edits instead of working things out on the talk page is disruptive editing.  So, my only remaining thought is this: edit warring is not acceptable.  Nobody can make anyone accept this, all we can do is technically remove the ability to edit from whoever does not accept this.  Friday (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about working it out on the talk page first instead of disrupting the RD by removing it, then waiting a week to see if there's consensus on whether it should have been removed? .. And I hope we're talking about questions, not answers, here. If it's the latter, substitute my words for doubly strong versions --⁪frothT 18:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've talked about this, and your suggestion is frankly ridiculous.  Leave crap up there for a week, and there's no point removing it after that.  Friday (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling somebody's suggestion "ridiculous" isn't very helpful.  I could settle for waiting a day to get talk page responses, myself.  If there is a clear consensus for removal by then, OK.  Of course, if the consensus later changes, then it should be put back. StuRat 19:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting after a removal there is a days talk to reach consensus before it is replaced (assuming there is no consensus to delete)? if so I could live with that.  David D. (Talk) 19:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know perfectly well that I mean a consensus is required for deletion. StuRat 19:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see i thought you were proposing a compromise for questions that had already been removed to the talk page. i.e. rather than replacing on ref desk immediately you'd wait a day to see if there was a consensus for the removal. If not then it would be OK to replace the question.  Given your actual scenario, a disputed question should remain up for a day, how do you propose to stop it snowballing, especially for those questions that do get a consensus for removal.  It seems to me that most of the trouble has already occurred before the first day. At present there is not a culture on the ref desk to avoid trollish questions.  In fact they often generate the largest number of responses (and that is the issue that started this whole debate). David D. (Talk) 20:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Obviously we need to discuss what a consensus actually is (50%, 80% ?) David D. (Talk) 19:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no don't get radiant in here! :D --⁪frothT 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's important that until there are actually rules to point at and say "I am justified in removing this and if you revert you're in trouble" we don't do anything without the power of consensus at our back. Otherwise it's just "I think it's bad but move it back and apologize to the OP if it turns out there's nothing wrong" --⁪frothT 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those editors with common sense will use it.  If there are editors who want a rulebook saying exactly what to do in every case, I'm afraid they're not understanding how Wikipedia works.  Friday (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How wikipedia works is through flexible guidelines interpreted in the form of Consensus. Common sense doesn't seem to be working anymore at the RD; "obvious" trolls recently removed seem to me to be very valid questions (like the recent Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#.50_BMG_to_the_head). Nobody has any problem with their own common sense, but when common senses collide nobody has anything at all to back up their actions --⁪frothT 19:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  THB on Friday's view