Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/StuRat 2

About the term "deletionist"

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)

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)

Except in my case that clearly isn't true. Rockpocket 06:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

Hippocrite's offensive comment

We are not discussing trolls. THat is an offensive word to use against any WP editor. THe implication here is that STuRat is a troll or disruptive or both. Would you consider removing it? 8-|--Light current 03:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that was her way of removing herself from the discussion. Hopefully any neutral admin who reads those comments will block her for WP:CIVIL. -THB 03:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Doubt it. But Im getting pretty fed up with people who bandy the words 'troll' trolling' and 'disruption' around without thought and direct them at anyone they cant agree with. It is only a sign of having no logical/rational arguments to present.--Light current 04:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It is trollish behavior to call people trolls, especially when you are one and they aren't. -THB 04:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I also question that definition of "troll". The definition I've heard is "deliberately inciting flaming". By the defintion given there, I could reasonably be considered a troll, which I really doubt I am. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. StuRat 05:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dare I say it.... If they aren't trolls, he doesn't call them trolls. 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 trolls even if nobody says it. If they are so ashamed they should just stop. _{this an attempt at parody, by the way}Rockpocket 06:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me try, seeing as I agree with you there.

If they aren't trolls, he doesn't call them trolls [because he is not a normal, and thus falliable, human, he is God]. Maybe they will examine their behavior [which is bad] and change it if they don't like what it's called [because I have an absolute right to determine labels and make people accept them, no matter how offensive they are] They will still be trolls even if nobody says it [because I think they are]. If they're so ashamed [of me insulting them for no apparent reason] they should just stop [disagreeing with me]. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Response by User:StuRat

_{... to David D.'s outside view (moved to talk page per RfC instructions.)}

• The "deletionist" link with the "quality of answers" discussion is the suggestion that unsourced statements should be deleted. As an inclusionist, I'm opposed to setting such a rule, and I describe those in favor as deletionists. This quote shows the deletionist POV:

Unsourced, disputed material can be removed at the discretion of any editor. Where's the problem? We should work together to ensure we're giving factual information in our answers. Friday (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

StuRat 05:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: but was your reference to deletions relevant at the time of discussion? Personally, I think it is easier to focus and have an open discussion without the baggage from other discussions. In this case it was a discussion on quality, and the deletion topic was an unnecessary tangent. Friday's comment was over a day and a half latter in the discussion, after you had brought up deletion and deletionist several times. David D. (Talk) 06:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Response: I was already well aware of this position by Friday and others, which I call "deletionism", before Friday added his comment to that thread. Is it necessary for me to pretend that they are inclusionists in each and every thread until each one restates their "deletionist" POV in that thread ? StuRat 14:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No. What is necessary is that you start treating other editors (even those you disagree with) as colleagues to be cooperated with rather than enemies to be defeated. Friday (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Those who refrain from nonconsensus deletions, ad hominem attacks, and argument from authority are treated as colleagues to be cooperated with. StuRat 16:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

So would you view asking for a source as an argument from authority? I sense that is where you are coming from although I don't see it that way. More an argument from ignorance. Wouldn't writing answers without sources be the argument from authority? David D. (Talk) 16:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the argument from authority is "I know you're wrong because I ... have a PhD, have been to North Korea, have many years of experience, etc.", without any actual proof being offered, just the implication that everyone should automatically believe everything they say, and disbelieve all others, because they claim to be an expert. StuRat 16:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Specific examples don't help here. Asking for a source is not an argument for authority, don't add all the bells and whistles to make the question into something it is not. Why didn't you answer my question "Wouldn't writing answers without sources be the argument from authority?", this is pertinent. David D. (Talk) 16:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(Note: I'm assuming you meant to say an argument "from authority", not "for authority", which is something quite different.) No, asking for a source, alone, isn't an argument from authority, and writing answers without sources would only be an argument from authority if also accompanied by "I'm an expert because ... so you should believe whatever I say". I don't think I've ever represented myself as an expert (even in fields where I am), and I've certainly never implied that I should be believed "because I'm an expert". I should be believed, or not, based on the logic of my arguments, not based on any status as an "expert". The same holds for everyone else. StuRat 02:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was a typo on my behalf. This sounds like a logical argument and i agree with everything you write above. David D. (Talk) 04:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In the context of the discussion on quality, deletion was not relevant, diverting discussion to deletion was not really helpful to the discussion at hand. I know I was not proposing to get your answer deleted. I was proposing restraint in restricting answers to sourced material or to your area of expertise (I am assuming you are not a biologist from your answers). Regardless of whether you think Friday is a deletionist or not (claims not to be at top), you also called me a deletionist because i was questioning the quality of your answer. part of fragmented post by David D.15:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant, as many people perform nonconsensus deletions, allegedly "to improve quality". You even seemed to be hinting at it with this statement below: "With a higher quality product deletions would not even be an issue". I see an implied threat there "do as we say or we will delete your posts". StuRat 16:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This perceived threat is exactly why discussion breaks down before it starts. Everyone agrees that some deletions will occur. But this is not a black and white argument and the line for deletion is clearly different each of us. Or are you saying that you would never agree to a deletion regardless of the content? I see nothing wrong with trying to improve quality have less issues with regard to deletion. This stance has no implications with respect to what i might or might not delete from reference desk. David D. (Talk) 16:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's just the flip side of what you're saying. If "improved quality", as judged by deletionists, means fewer nonconsensus deletions, then it stands to reason that "lower quality" as judged by deletionists, means more nonconsensus deletions. The "as judged by deletionists" part is quite critical here, since some members of this group also follow their own nonconsensus rules for judging "quality", which may include "no jokes", "no responses which aren't a direct answer to the question", "no responses from non-experts", and/or "no responses without links". In other words, a Ref Desk so dull nobody but them would volunteer. StuRat 02:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

First, let's put aside the idea of whether they are non consensus deletions or not, that in itself is whole page worth of discussion and should probably be addressed in the guidelines talk page rather than here. My stance is that a high quality of answer will result in less people calling for deletions.

Is there a solution? I think I know what does not work. Discussing each potential deletion to reach a consensus will not work and inevitably be divisive and time consuming. In the mean time the material will remain on the desk. Do you honestly think this will work?

I forget who proposed it but one idea was that material considered inappropriate be removed to a talk page. After discussion it would move back if or not depending on the views of contributing editors. This has the merit that the content is removed from public view, but it has the con that it is still potentially divisive.

In my opinion we need to have to avoid the divisive discussions, we need to come to a consensus on what is acceptable on the ref desk. Surely there is a line that can be drawn? Steve Summit has already drawn up a something on the ref desk talk page and there are embryonic guidelines being written. In my opinion to focus on the quality of answers and questions and find a consensus of what is acceptable is how to avoid all future arguments and it will have the bonus of outlining a ref desk culture that will have few if any deletions. It may well be hard to find consensus on which jokes or "troll like questions" get deleted but I believe it is possible find a reasonable compromise. For example, pun threads are fun and educational (dull?), I would definitely endorse such humour but penis jokes for the sake of shock value, not so much. Is it really impossible to have fun without pushing the envelope? David D. (Talk) 05:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling people that want to improve the quality of answers on ref desk 'deletionists' makes no sense. In fact, it is not even useful, or accurate, to label people who would delete blatant trolling or toilet humour from ref desk as deletionists. By doing this you miss the nuances in arguments that are being put forth by different editors. At times it appears that you revert to deletionist as a way to avoid the discussion. part of fragmented post by David D.15:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It is useful, as "tending to favor nonconsensus deletions" is exactly what I'm talking about, but that's too many words, it needs to be short. And, what some deletionists interpret as "obvious trolling" (like any sexual question) is really a legit question, they just can't see it that way because of their mindset. StuRat 16:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

An anything goes approach on ref desk does not make the product better. Limited editorial control or editor restraint (no toilet humour, restrict answer to sourced material or areas of expertise) would improve the desk. Much of this debate is about the quality of the primary questions and responses. With a higher quality product deletions would not even be an issue. David D. (Talk) 15:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a classic deletionist argument: "I wouldn't be forced into nonconsensus deletions if people wouldn't keep adding things which I disagree with." StuRat 16:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

O come on, this is just twisting my words beyond recognition. David D. (Talk) 16:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Not-so-Outside Comment by Steve Summit

I never know how RfC etiquette is supposed to work; I don't want to add an Outside Comment (like I usually do) because I'm mentioned in the complaint statement; but I don't want to add formal comments to the official complaint statement, either, so I'll just hide this here:

On the one hand, yes, StuRat is unnecessarily polarizing the discussion by continuing to refer to his opponents as "deletionists". (Indeed, he is unnecessarily polarizing the discussion by continuing to draw lines between himself and his "opponents" at all.) However.

There is something very hypocritical and unfair when someone complains that StuRat (or, as I'll show, any user in StuRat's position) is insulting them and must stop.

The whole Reference Desk imbroglio, as long and tangled and incendiary and idiosyncratic as it may seem, has actually followed a familiar, old, and tedious pattern:

1. A well-meaning, in-some-ways-knowledgeable but in-some-ways-naive user does something somewhat unwiki, and soon enough attracts the attention of various, more-experienced, defenders of the wiki way (often administrators).
2. These defenders advise the well-meaning, knowledgeable-but-naive user that he is misbehaving and must stop.
3. The w-m, k-b-n user is taken by surprise by the admonishment, and offended by its seemingly too-stern tone. He complains to the issuing defender, stating that he believes he has done no wrong and that the defender has been unnecessarily curt with him. He may even use language beginning to suggest that he views the admonishment as an attack.
4. The defender reiterates that the complained-about behavior is absolutely in the wrong, but explains that his admonishment should not be taken personally.
5. The WMKBNU again finds the defender's tone unnecessarily stern. He asks why the defender is continuing to attack him.
6. The defender reiterates that his admonishment was no attack, but rather a matter-of-fact application of policy. He suggests that the WMKBNU not take things so personally. He may remark that the WMKBNU is perhaps too thin-skinned for a rough-and-tumble online forum such as Wikipedia.
7. The WMKBNU is unconvinced. He begins seeking outside opinions on why the defender is picking on him. If the defender's admonishment included deletion of text placed on the wiki by the WMKBNU, the WMKBNU may begin referring to that deletion as "vandalism". He may decide to revert the deletion.
8. Several more experienced users (also often admins) arrive on the scene and agree that the initial defender has done nothing wrong, is only upholding longstanding wiki policy, has broken no wiki policies in doing so. Sympathizers of the WMKBNU chime in as well, saying what a nice bloke he is and asking why the mean, nasty admins are ganging up on him.
9. As the argument escalates, increasingly volatile statements are made and some intemperate actions are taken. Sooner or later, the WMKBNU or one of his supporters is blocked. Perhaps the cry of "vandalism!" in step 7 was viewed as a Personal Attack against the defender. Perhaps the revertion of the deleted text is viewed as edit warring.
10. The battle now reaches an all too familiar, deplorable and reasonably pathetic stage. The WMKBNU and his sympathizers (those that haven't been blocked) accuse the cadre of defenders of "ganging up" on them. They accuse the defenders of "baiting" them, by taunting them until they inevitably committed some blockable offense.
11. However, additional admins and highly-experienced users continue to support the defenders. They may concede, in a tut-tutting sort of way, that the initial admonishment might have been conducted more diplomatically, but they agree that everything done by the defenders has been according to policy. They also agree that the WMKBNU must change his ways, must not be so combative, must understand that policy is policy, must not take these things so personally.
12. The WMKBNU is now utterly bewildered. He has seen the wiki, which he used to think was a friendly, fun-loving, useful place where he enjoyed contributing, turn into some kind of Kafkaesque witch-hunt against him. Eventually, as the recriminations against him continue and as the defenders (who he now views as nothing but attackers) continue to receive no censure, he reaches the conclusion that there is a "cabal" that was out to get him all along, that was conspiring to drive him off the wiki. The rest of us know, of course, that There Is No Cabal, but there might as well have been, because at this point there's usually nothing for the poor WMKBNU to do but leave the wiki.

I suppose I've belabored the point somewhat longer than necessary just to support my simple conclusion, which is: if the WMKBNU in step 6 was supposed to have had a thicker skin and not taken things so personally, why in God's name can't the presumably more-experienced defenders do the same? Why do they, instead, act just as peevish and mercurial as the WMKBNU, by crying "personal attack!" at the WMKBNU's first mention of "vandalism"? Why must they find an excuse (any excuse) to block the WMKBNU so that he can "cool down" and so that the rest of the putatively kinder, gentler wiki can be "protected" from the WMKBNU's disruptive and increasingly spiteful behavior? Why can't they just ignore the WMKBNU's little tantrums, and go back to editing the wiki? Why must they do just as much to polarize and escalate the affair as the hapless WMKBNU does?

There are no winners and no saints in these sorry exchanges. Everybody comes out looking bad, which I guess is appropriate, because everybody has acted pretty badly, too.

—Steve Summit (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[P.S. If my point got lost somewhere in those thousand words, it's just this: while I have very little sympathy for StuRat in his continuing crusade to label people as "deletionists", I have very little sympathy with those who are getting all outraged at the perceived insult, either.]

I think that is a fair summation. As one of the "additional admins" who put in an appearance at Act 11, I couldn't care less - on a personal level - that I am being called a "deletionist". However, as others have stated on the project page, focusing on the "deletionist" issue in isolation is a bit of a red herring. It is simply the most obvious symptom of the greater problem (which you describe above). And, unless this problem is resolved here at RfC, experience dictates that your story would most likely end with the WMKBNU at ArbCom or blocked. Why? Not because there is some cabal out to get him, but because the experienced editors and admins usually have policy in their defence (thats what makes them experienced editors and admins) when the situation reaches a point where outside intervention is inevitiable, guess who suffers?

So, perhaps things we not dealt with in the best manner in the past, but we are where we are, and StuRat is absolutely clear on the fact that he will not stop with this divisive namecalling. I see this RfC as an opportunity for StuRat to realise he simply must fall in line with what is an essential part of being a Wikipedian - being civil to others. So it might not be a terrible crime - as some seem keen to excuse petty namecalling - but quite how are we going to move forward unless civility is readopted voluntarily, I don't know. I would take a guess that there will be a move to have it enforced. Rockpocket 03:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of a good way out, either. I'd love to find one, not just for StuRat's case, but for all the others which follow exactly the same pattern -- and I'm seeing more and more of them. (I know I'm not alone in observing that when the words "baiting", "conspiracy", and "cabal" begin to be used, things are about to get a whole lot worse for the person using them, no matter how right or just his cause might initially have been.)

My only disagreement with you -- and it's not actually even a disagreement, per se -- is those words "he simply must fall in line". Although I tend to agree (in that I agree there isn't really any other option), there are two big problems here:

1. It's difficult to read words like that and not get the impression that part of what's going on is just a plain old control agenda, that utterly independent of the alleged surface agenda, a subliminal but significant part of the motivation might be that someone in power enjoys bossing others around and forcing them to toe the line. (I'm not asserting that this is happening in this case, just that the rhetoric often ends up sounding uncomfortably like it is.)
2. Wikipedia (like any open, on-line forum) attracts some fiercely stubborn and independent people, and StuRat is clearly one of them. In the extreme case (and I say this with knowledge and all due sympathy, because I'm just like this myself) the person is just absolutely never going to do something just because other people say he has to. This isn't even about "saving face" or "not giving in" -- it's ensuring that everyone understands that I have always acted according to my strict internal moral code, that I have only ever done those things that *I* believe are right. So, utterly independent of the quality of the arguments being advanced in support of the alleged surface agenda (which might all be perfectly valid), I am not going to change my mind and do this thing until it's obvious that I'm doing it because *I* thought it was a good idea, not just because you told me to. So when you're dealing with such people, and if you care more about seeing the desired behavior in the long run than enforcing policy and justice in the short run, you don't want to escalate the situation all the way up to formal judicial proceedings, because not only will you expend a whole lot of heat during those proceedings, you still won't get the desired behavior. (But at the same time, you often can't help but escalate up to the formal judicial proceedings, because the stubborn disputant, if sufficiently argumentative, often forces you to.)

—Steve Summit (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC) [edited 13:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)]

Once again, Steve, I find myself largely agreeing with you. Your preceptive take on the use of the phrase I chose is valid, but let me advance an alternative view. Perhaps I should begin by making clear what I meant to be implicit in the phrase, that is:

"I see this RfC as an opportunity for StuRat to realise he simply must fall in line with what is an essential part of being a Wikipedian - being civil to others - [if he wishes to avoid inevitable censure by the community]."

The point being that irrespective of how stubborn or independent minded an individual might be, to be a valued Wikipedian one is required to adhere to some basic principles that guide participation in the project. So says the community consensus. When I, or any other editor, requests that this policy be adhered to and it sounds like a demand, well, to some extent it is a demand. Its what the Wikipedian community demands of us all in exchange for the privilege of contributing here. Taking offense at the request is pointless, because the very next Wikipedian you engage with in the same manner will request the very same of you. The project does not have a history of making excuses for those who - for whatever personal reasons - are unable or unwilling to look beyond their own unshakable sense of righteousness and accept that their opinion may be wrong sometimes. Perhaps we should be a little more tolerant in general, but there is nothing to be gained by indefinitely excusing certain individuals from the (simple) rules the rest of us play by, there is plenty to lose, however. I'm sorry if I sound unfeeling, but if an editor is unable or unwilling to accept their own fallibility, then Wikipedia is most certainly not the place for them, and bending the rules to accommodate their personality quirks is only postponing the inevitable (and possibly damaging the project in the meantime). 137.131.164.201 02:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (Yes, this is Rockpocket) Rockpocket 05:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. (I assume this is Rockpocket I'm talking to.) I'm not suggesting we bend or ignore rules to accommodate stubborn individuals, or tolerate their anticommunity spirit forever. But I am always -- ever the hopeful optimist -- trying to find the right words to use with an intelligent but currently stubbornly anticommunity individual to help them come to their own conclusion that "playing nice with others" is not only not a concession or a defeat or a galling compromise of their cherished principles, but will also help them get what they want at the same time it satisfies the masses who were calling for adherence to community norms. It's a win-win situation, if only they can see it that way. (A sudden vision of the denouement of Green Eggs and Ham just flashed into my head, where Sam-I-am's antagonist finally concedes, "Say, I do like green eggs and ham!") —Steve Summit (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and one other thing: while you're right that it's not our job to accommodate uncivil behavior forever, sometimes it seems as if we provoke or manufacture that uncivil behavior. And that shouldn't be our job, either, just as it shouldn't be the job of every other contributor to accommodate the less-than-civil-seeming behavior of some of our more brusque admins. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't argue with that, and would hope everyone would strive to embrace this spirit. We can all certainly learn something from this, I know I have, and hope to avoid such escalation next time. But with regard to this specific example, I guess it it really comes down to how long one is willing to excuse the individual from the community norms before you give it up as a lost cause. The mistakes that contributed to this situation can't be taken back. We are where we are. I feel I - and others, not least yourself - have tried to take a reasonable line time and again, but there is only so much you can do when the individual is interested in turning any communication into their another battle in their conflict du jour. Its clear from comments here that, even if there is consensus on the term "deletionist", StuRat will only abide by the letter and not the spirit of the community's opinion. That draws me close to my limit of my patience. Thus, in the spirit of tolerance, the best I can now do is probably to withdraw from the debate, in that I don't believe I can offer anything way forward that would be in the StuRat's ultimate interest. Good luck, but I can't say I'm confident this isn't going to follow the usual route. Rockpocket 05:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask point blank, then. How do we fix this? I agree with you that the problem I have with StuRat is not just the namecalling, and that there are other issues of civility and just plain intransigent rudeness as well. Polite requests and detailed, reasoned explanations have been met with contempt. StuRat is an experienced Wikipedian (more than seventeen thousand edits, here since August of 2005) who ought to know better by now.

On WT:RD, StuRat regularly inflames otherwise-productive discussions with accusations that the 'deletionists', 'admins', or 'cabal' are acting in bad faith. We've been going around this merry-go-round for nearly two months. I too know what it is like to stand on a point of principle, but how long do we ignore harmfully incivil behaviour in the hope that someone will get the point? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

How do we fix this? My answer is the quite unsatisfying: I do not know. I have two incomplete ideas so far:

1. The fundamental problem of the canonical WMKBNU in this situation is that he believes, absolutely, that there is a specific vendetta against him carried out by groups of admins. He may or may not use the words "cabal" and "conspiracy", but those are essentially what he believes. Moreover, based on what he has seen and experienced, I have come to believe that he is not so wrong to believe this. (Note that I'm not saying that it's true, mind you, just that it's an understandable trap for the WMKBNU to fall into.) Moreover, nothing anyone says, no matter how eloquently or compassionately, can convince the so-trapped WMKBNU otherwise. But if he can't be convinced otherwise, he's pretty much lost forever.
2. Though there is no cabal, and though the more-experienced admins (usually) are just looking out for the project and have no particular desire to taunt and abuse WMKBNU's, it is nevertheless the case that from the WMKBNU's position, they often really act that way. To my eye, the more-experienced admins in these situations (the ones I called "defenders of the wiki way" in the parable above) are often not acting as conscientiously in accordance with WP:BITE, WP:AGF, and WP:LOVE as they ought to. I am tempted to say that they often act like WP:DICKs, but the WP:DICK essay seems to have fallen out of favor; you can't even mention it any more without some prickly, thin-skinned defender accusing you of a Personal Attack. Nevertheless, the words "If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are being a dick, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right" which WP:DICK used to contain are very, very apposite. (And I'm inclined drop the qualifier "reasonable".) If people keep accusing you of being obnoxious or callous or vengeful, and even though you know you're not, and even though you know you're not attacking anyone and have only the good of the project in mind, and even though you know (and your fellow admins agree) that you haven't actually violated any policy, ask yourself: could you have raised your initial concerns more diplomatically, and when you met with some initial backlash from the WMKBNU who was the object of your criticism, could you have defused or ignored it, rather than helping the WMKBNU escalate it into a dragged out, emotional argument culminating in blocks and RfC's? Remember, every time these situations flare up, one of the later-stage admissions (as in step 11 above, and as in Rockpocket's response) is always that we suppose that things could have been handled more graciously. So when are we going to start handling them more graciously?

[Note that these two points, besides being incomplete, apply more to the general parable I spun than they do to the particular RfC we're discussing here.] —Steve Summit (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not too far off, except the end: nobody has blocked StuRat. If you're referring to specific things that actually happened, please provide diffs. Friday (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you're right, that was a little distracting. What I wrote is a parable, an amalgam of several cases I've observed or been involved in. WMKBNU is not StuRat. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough- these are good observations. However as discussed above, the time has come when we need a specific solution for this particular case. If we continue like this, I could see this going to arbitration, with a civility probation being a possible outcome. StuRat, is it fair to say you don't plan to change your approach until some external intervention forces the issue? Friday (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not fair at all. I would follow the consensus of a nonpartisan group of both inclusionists and deletionists. What I will not do, however, is be told what to do by a minority, especially when that minority is composed of deletionists almost exclusively. Too often my unwillingness to do what the deflationist minority demands is called an unwillingness to compromise. I am entirely willing to compromise with what the majority of inclusionists and deletionists decide is right (and have already done so on many issues). StuRat 13:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Friday, as an administrator, you could address User:Hipocrite's violations of WP:CIVIL in order to prove that you are not harassing StuRat because he disagrees with you. -THB 04:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I can help you: what, exactly, would you like addressed? If I can't be of assistance, you should report your concern at the appropriate noticeboard, as challenging an individual admin to use their position to "prove" themselves to you is inappropriate. Rockpocket 05:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Incivility?

So Friday, which ones of these has StuRat breached? (from WP:CIV)

• Rudeness
• Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling", "snipped rambling crap")
• Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
• Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another
• Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..."
• Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute.

• Taunting
• Personal attacks
  • Racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs
  • Profanity directed at another contributor
• Lies
• Defacing user pages
• Giving users derogatory names via Pagemove trolling
• Calling for bans or blocks
• Indecent suggestions

--Light current 02:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't obvious that he's been rude? I wasn't aware that was actually in dispute... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So its just rudeness I should look for?--Light current 03:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There may well be others; I think there are. I interpreted your comment as an implication that he did not violate any, which may not have been so. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I interpreted Light Current's comment as an implication that some of StuRat's detractors have engaged in several of those as well. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Im not implying anything yet. Im trying to find out how his actions are incivil. So for ruddeness which of the following applies

There is a spectrum of the severity of what one would consider rude.

• Impolite
• Faux pas
• Inconsiderate
• Offensive
• Obscene
• Taboo/a crime

--Light current 03:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

StuRat is absolutely not rude. In fact, he has shown a huge tolerance and good-naturedness in the face of what is turning into harassment.

If people are so concerned about rudeness, they can look no farther than User:Hipocrite as an example of extreme rudeness by someone who exists solely to engage in criticism and makes little or no contribution to the encyclopaedia content. Wouldn't it be better to address that than to harass valued contributors like StuRat???-THB 04:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I would argue it is certainly both impolite and inconsiderate, and possibly mildly offensive, to willfully and repeatedly refer to a fellow editor using a term inaccurately and without justification, especially when that editor (and others) have politely asked for the person to stop using the term because they believe it to have pejorative connotations. Does anyone dispute that? Rockpocket 08:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I may be obtuse, but I really cant see why people who like to see things deleted should object to being called 'deletionists'. I myself like to exclude crap before it gets anywhere near the page. I am therefore an 'exclusionist' in the case of articles. I dont mind being called that.

Anyway, the RDs are a different animal from the article pages. You cant predict what sort of crap is going to come in from OPs. We just have to deal with it (or ignore it). The Guidelines should perform the exclusion function for respondents.

Also I suggest we keep the convo restricted to StuRats behaviour on the RD pages themselves, and not include things maybe said in anger/frustration here (talk). After all, this talk is not our front page , is it? --Light current 18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the crux of the issue, he uses the term to describe anyone who he disagrees with, including those who don't "like to see things deleted". In other words, its not descriptive, its a pejorative label of convenience. Rockpocket 18:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Misnomers?

So hes called people deletionists when they are in fact inclusionists? IDKT--Light current 18:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, Hipocrite is very much an inclusionist. You should scan through his AfD contributions on schools. David D. (Talk) 18:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually.... I had an realization I was on the wrong side of that one when the deal you and I worked out to keep all schools except the ones that got merged was blown up by my "side." While I still believe in keepingormerging all schools (I bet it's a primary source of wikipedia interest for new users), it would be hard to classify me as the hard-core inclusionist I was back then. In the interests of honesty... Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not trying to suggest you are a hardcore inclusionist, clearly your stance on schools allowed a middle ground to be explored. But it is interesting from a historical perspective. The lesson is that we all grow as wikipedians. But you have not grown into a deletionist, I am sure ;) David D. (Talk) 19:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

(in response to LC). Does he, or you, have any evidence in support of attaching an "inclusionist" label to particular individuals? Calling me an "inclusionist" is as inappropriate as calling me a "deletionist", as there is no real basis for doing either. I, personally, have never stated an ideological position in regards to deleting or not-deleting material from the RD (or indeed from WP as a whole). Is it too much to as that, instead of moving me into a redefined group of "enemies" or "friends" then automatically treating me as such, I be engaged as an individual and my concerns be acknowledged unburdened by your prejudices? Rockpocket 19:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No I dont. But considering the nature of this argument about the RDs that is not surprising! The question is, as far as the RDs are concerned: are you more of an inclusionist thatn a deletionist. How many posts do you have to delete (or support deletion) before you are classed as a deletionist? Similarly, for how many posts do you have to support inclusion to be called an inclusionist. I am in the middle: I do not like deletion of any post on the Rds but I do like exclusion of crap from the articles. So where does that put me?

As I recommended to StuRat, it would have been better to have referred to the RD 'deletionists' as 'those with deletionist tendencies with regard to the reference desks (and possibly (but not certainly) elesewhere also)'

Any way if you are not an inclusionist not deletionist, WTH are you? Dont say 'normal'. Nobody is normal!--Light current 00:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What am I? I guess my answer to that is that I have never liked the idea of labeling myself (which is why you will find no userboxes or, indeed, hardly any information about myself on Wikipedia), so have never felt the need to consider whether I would be considered in either group. Calling yourself either seems very restrictive to me, personally I would like to judge each example on its merit, and I believe my record shows a pretty even balance. If StuRat (or anyone else, for that matter) could provide a convincing justification based on my record for calling me either, then I probably wouldn't protest. Its not the label itself that bothers me personally, its the fact that I am being attributed a position, then that position is held against me in a straw man argument. I find this offensive and obstructive behaviour.

This is a different argument than those that have expressed that they may favor deletion of some questions from the RD (in certain cicumstances). In their case, I concur with their reasoning on principle, though I personally wouldn't be too bothered. It appears to me, in reference to them the label may be based on StuRat's analysis of their record, but they believe the term is pejorative and dislike its use. To me, at least, it is lacking civility to continue to refer to a colleague using a term that person has expressed a dislike of. Let me give you an example, say you have a colleague who is of Mexican origin. You refer to her in conversation as being "Latina", but she says, "actually I really don't like that term, would you mind not using it to refer to me in future?" Even though you could argue she is "Latina", that many other women of the same ethnicity self identify as such and thus it can't be offensive, would any civil person continue to call that colleague a "Latina" time and time again? In my opinion, only a first class dick would, or someone who is purposely trying to offend her. That is why I believe WP:CIV is not being adhered to. Rockpocket 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Light current's response to Friday's view

(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)

Is it surprising for a lone editor to get slightly defensive when attacked simultaneously by about 10 Admins and others? If StuRats conrtibutions or comments bother you, just ignore them.

I beleive this whole 'RD editor bashing thing' is extremely disruptive to the smooth working of the desks and is actually making matters worse. And these RfCs are really just petty cowardly attacks trying to kick StuRat when hes cornered. We must try to avoid this all too prevalent hunting pack' mentality on WP. Its getting to be far too common.

Remember that constant attacks on StuRat are likely eventually to provoke replies that may be slightly incivil.(I speak from experience of similar attacks) This is not surprising. If you dont want StuRat to be incivil- stop provoking and taunting. REmember, cornered (Stu)rats are likely to fight. They need an escape route. Think about that!

In the meantime, Friday, perhaps you can answer the Q I asked about what exactly StuRat is accused of having done. I dont believe StuRat has broken any guidelines, but if you have evidence of that, Ill be pleased to lok at it.--Light current 17:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And to be honest Friday, considering recent history, it might be better for you to recuse yourself of this particular discussion!"--Light current 17:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Absolutely light current. Nail on the head, BAM you hit it. Wholehearted support, etc. --froth^T 05:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Judging by the indentation, it seems to be in response to my original (unindented) statements above. --Light current 05:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That would make more sense. David D. (Talk) 05:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiholics or Type A personalities

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)

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)

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)

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)

OK convo end (EOC)--Light current 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: ScZenz's view

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. ---froth^T 05:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

As far as I know, nobody's trying to insist StuRat remove content from the ref desks. But I do think most of us think he should stop repeatedly replacing content that other people have removed. Friday (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm still back at WT:RD; I'm talking about ref desk issues, not his behavior of replacing content. sorry --froth^T 06:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. --froth^T 06:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm missing the nuance here. What do you mean by "curious open-format" ? David D. (Talk) 07:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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! --froth^T 13:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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) --froth^T 20:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand now. David D. (Talk) 20:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

We are talking across multiple issues

I think the above thread says a lot about this whole sorry process. No-one really knows what everyone else is talking about. My interpretation of the reality is that:

1. Certain editors are in dispute with StuRat over the "top-level" issue regarding the very principle of removing questionable content unilaterally.
2. Others are concerned that he was (repeatedly) replacing content that had been (repeatedly) removed and thus a participant in a disruptive edit war. However, at least some of these were not involved in the ideological debate behind the removal/replacement.
3. Others (and this was my entry into the furore) are concerned with a couple of instances where - in their opinion - misleading, unsourced opinions were offered as fact, in response to questions. At least some of these editors have expressed no opinion on the above issues and were not suggesting removing content as a solution.
4. Others still are simply unhappy with civility issues, irrespective of their positions in the prior debates.
5. Some editors expressed concerns regarding some or all of the above

LC talks of elsewhere of editors "piling on", "attacking" and "cornering" StuRat, (per 5) but part of the reason that appears to be occurring is because, for reasons only he knows, StuRat has himself attempted to address all of these issues within the framework of debate 1 ("deletionist" vs "inclusionist"). Of course, it doesn't help that someone with concerns regarding debate 3, for example, decides to add their voices to other debates also. This meta-criticism simply re-enforces StuRat's view that all critics - irrespective their specifics concern - are coming from the same ideological position (i.e. are "deletionists"). Ironically, this is the worst possible tactic if StuRat is to have any success, because in clumping everyone together StuRat is himself creating "enemies" out of potential allies and thus "cornering" himself. For example, I happen to have some sympathy for StuRat's position in debate 1, but I have never had the chance to express it, because I was immediately attributed the opposite position by him (based on the fact - as far as I can tell - that he disagreed with my position on debate 3.) I've tried to make that clear, but its just not getting through.

If we could deal with 3 in isolation, it would get that issue off the table and not only remove one locus of the conflict, but StuRat's position on 1 would actually gain at least one additional supporter. However, in the current situation debates 2, 3 and 4 can never be resolved because in StuRats eyes, to compromise on those is tantamount to compromising on 1 (and his position on that, as David D notes, appears to be absolute). So how do we move forward? Well, for me there are obvious first steps for both StuRat and those on the opposite side of each debate:

• For StuRat: give up with the deletionist vs inclusionst rhetoric and deal with each issue, and each editor that expresses the concern, with a clean slate (with regards to their ideology). Rockpocket 09:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• For everyone opining on the above issues: We do need to stop piling on per 5. In other words, since my debate with StuRat was issue 3, I should refrain from commenting on any other issue but issue 3. This should greatly help StuRat from getting the impression he is being ganged up on.

With a little bit of good will to get it started, I believe these principles would make 4 and 5 moot, take all the heat out of debate 3 (leaving it highly solvable) and allow a fresh start for some kind of working compromise on 1, which in turn would lead to a cease-fire on 2. Or is that hoping for too much? Rockpocket 09:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

One comment: I may occasionally mischaracterize someone who opposes my position in one respect as someone who opposes my position on another issue. Sorry about that. There are many players involved, and I have a limited memory, so it's difficult to keep track of every editor's position on every issue. I would make a list so I could keep track, but was attacked the last time I tried to do that. I would also take straw polls so I know people's positions on each issue, but an AN/I was filed against me the last time I tried to do that. StuRat 12:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment StuRat, I sympathise with you, because many moons ago I was in a similar situation where I felt attacked by a number of senior admins who - I thought - all came at me from slightly different, but overlapping, positions. Because I disagreed with all of them, I saw them as having a combined goal, and I was even convinced that they were co-ordinating their "attacks" on me. After a long and, quite hurtful, debate, I withdrew and took stock about whether I even wanted to continue with the project. However, It turned out that some of these admins - that I saw as one entity - are at odds with each other most of the time over other issues and they didn't realise I was taking the rough and tumble as a concerted attack. Once I was able to accept that there wasn't any co-ordination and each editor was coming from their own uniqe position, it was much easier for me to negotiate with them, as it was longer an overwhelming attack, but just a number of separate one on one discussion. The upshot of this was that I became less defensive, the whole tone of the debate lifted and it was resolved. Remarkably enough, one of the main individuals that I was in conflict with then - and still do strongly disagree with on some issues - ended up nominating me for adminship and is now someone I consider a valued colleague. This, for me, was the ultimate realisation that putting individuals into labels as "friend", "enemy", "inclusionist" or "deletionist" and holding them to that position is unconstructive and unrealistic.

So while I understand that it is difficult to keep track of people's original concerns (and it hasn't helped when we wade into tangential debates), I would ask what is actually gained in keeping track of what position people have taken on issues in the past? After all they can change their mind - I know I often do if provided with a good argument I hadn't through of before - and since each practical example is slightly different, some people may appear to take different positions on what you consider to the the same basic issue. In other words, I would recommend trying to take other editors at face value. If they say "I wish to discuss X with you", don't think "well in the past he took an opposite position on Y therefore he holds a different ideology from me and X could be a proxy to acheive Y". Instead think, "Ok, we may have disagreed in the past, but here is a chance we can reach common ground". In doing so you increase the chance of a positive solution for Y (because there is no baggage clouding the debate) and also a move forward for X (because you will have both realised that your opinions are not polar opposite after all). I'd be interested to know what you think of this, because it has just occured to me how much this situation parallels what I went through, and I feel that was a really positive solution for me. Rockpocket 19:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, you do still keep such a list, and nobody has hassled you about it since you removed the pejorative labels and stopped flaunting it on your talk page. See User talk:StuRat/list. While unlabelled, you've still sorted it by whatever notional standard you're using to evaluate people's positions; you're even still moving editors around on it to reflect your changing perceptions of their opinions ([1]).

All that aside, the solution to concerns about mischaracterizing other editors' opinions is not to try to keep a very precise list of their opinions. The solution is to let other editors represent themselves, and not try to lump all the people you perceive as adversaries together. Reasonable people are apt to change their minds when presented with reasonable arguments and allowed time for reflection and discussion.

It would also help if you didn't deliberately misstate other editors' positions to create strawmen for you to ridicule. You've done it just up the page here to David D. (Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/StuRat_2#Response_by_User:StuRat).

Your use of straw polls was criticized because you attempted to create 'instant consensus' (often on loaded questions) to shut down or railroad a discussion. One such example is where you turned this issue into this patently absurd straw poll question.

I would be more sympathetic to your position if you didn't attempt to couch every single dispute you're involved in as a victimization of you by admins/deletionists/evil people. While I freely admit that people have sometimes overreacted to your behaviour – and I admit that you've been very effective on occasion at goading me into being less patient with you than I am with most editors – there is a definitely measure of responsibility that belongs nowhere but at your own feet. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I agree with Rockpocket's breakdown of this above. We should be clear about which of several issues we're talking about. Sadly, one recurring theme of this whole unfortunate debacle is an inability of certain people to separate one issue from another. Friday (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly i have quite similar views to rocketpocket. My primary issue has been number three but number one keeps creating too much noise to make progress. David D. (Talk) 18:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

froth's view

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)

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 --froth^T 06:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Differing views of acceptable behavior

StuRat thinks certain editors are out of line. Certain other editors think StuRat is out of line. Here's my guesses about why:

StuRat believes:

1. censorship is bad harmful to the ref desk
2. we all have the right to say what we want
3. putting back (even repeatedly) content other people have removed is acceptable
4. saying that a certain kind of behavior is expected on Wikipedia is arguing from authority and thus invalid

Certain other editors believe:

1. censorship is irrelevant - this is an encyclopedia, not a forum for free speech
2. we have the privilege to make edits that improve the project.
3. edit warring is bad- redoing an edit someone else has undone is generally not acceptable
4. Wikipedia has accepted standards of behavior for a reason, and we should adhere to community standards

Is this a fair summary? Friday (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd add more detail to the very first point- "Censorship destroys the important open format of the RD" and drop the 4th points entirely, they seem more straw man since such a position is obviously absurd. Also I think that the 3rd issue is more related to sturat himself than to the more important problem of the RD so I'd hesitiate to call this list applicable to WT:RD. But very good job on the 2nd point --froth^T 06:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not meant to be applicable to WT:RD, that's why it's here. As per the 4th, maybe I've misunderstood StuRat's statements but I thought that's where he was coming from. I modified the first point in hopes of being more accurate. Friday (talk) 06:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if you claim a focus on the RFC then drop the first and second points since those aren't applicable any further than background reading for the issue at hand (the use of the word "deletionist"). To me the RFC and WT are an amalgam of the same issue, and it's difficult to extricate points for applicability to specifically one or the other. --froth^T 06:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

StuRat's response

Inclusionists believe:

1. Censorship is harmful to the Ref Desk. Specifically, it drives off both OPs and responders. Censorship destroys the important open format of the RD.
2. We all have the right to say what we want, so long as it isn't severely disruptive or highly offensive. "Severely disruptive" means it prevents the Ref Desk from functioning. "Highly offensive" doesn't include thinking that somebody somewhere might theoretically be offended.
3. Putting back (even repeatedly) content that other people have removed, without consensus, is not only acceptable, but good for the Ref Desk. Nonconsensus deletions will not be tolerated, except for cases of severe disruption.
4. An Admin saying that a certain kind of behavior is expected on Wikipedia "because that's the way it's done here" is arguing from authority and thus invalid.
5. Edit warring is bad - and nonconsensus deletions are how edit wars are started.
6. While proof of factual claims is nice, it's not required. It is the responsibility of the challenger to disprove a factual claim, or at least make a logical argument for why it is wrong. Saying "I'm an expert, and your not, so I am always right and you're always wrong" is not a valid claim, and neither is "it doesn't ring true".
7. The goal when considering any deletion should be to "do the least total harm", with harm done by deleting people's posts being balanced against any harm done by the post.
8. The purpose of the Ref Desk is to answer questions, and this is best accomplished by provide a fun place for Ref Desk volunteers to work. If the Ref Desk also helps the rest of Wikipedia, that's great, but it's not required that every answer do so. Both Wikipedia and the Ref Desk serve the common goal of providing info to users. Wikipedia does so in a formal way, and the Ref Desk in an informal manner.

Deletionists believe:

1. Censorship is encouraged - this is an encyclopedia, not a forum for free speech.
2. We have the right to delete anything, without consensus, which we don't personally like.
3. Edit warring is bad - restoring a nonconsensus deletion is generally not acceptable. We don't require any consensus for deletions, but do for restores. Only those people with "reasonable arguments" are counted for consensus, which means only deletionists, since we find all inclusionist arguments to be invalid.
4. We can apply Wikipedia standards of behavior which were clearly written with articles and article talk pages in mind, not the Ref Desk, in such a way as to come up with the strictest possible interpretation for the Ref Desk rules. When we can't find any policies or guidelines to support our position, we can just claim "it's the wiki way".
5. Any democratic tendencies (such as straw polls) at the Ref Desk must be quashed immediately. Admins will decide the rules, ordinary editors have no input. Any rules developed by taking straw polls must be deleted wherever they are recorded.
6. Proof of all factual claims is required, unless you claim to be an expert. Anyone who claims to be an expert should be able to make unsupported claims and have them believed and retained, despite a lack of any proof. Anyone who doesn't claim to be an expert may have their posts called lies and/or deleted, without any need to prove them wrong.
7. The goal when considering any deletion should be to enforce our vision of what the Ref Desk should be, with no consideration given to how nonconsensus deletions will drive off volunteers.
8. The purpose of the Ref Desk is to serve Wikipedia. Whether answers are given to questions is irrelevant. Answering a Ref Desk question serves no purpose unless it somehow helps the rest of Wikipedia.

StuRat 11:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The last one is perhaps unfair, while I raised an eyebrow at some other wording, the last one isn't true. At least they believe that their posistion is to help the RD (even if they're not helping it). --froth^T 13:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're right, but think I've heard the sentence "The purpose of the Ref Desk is to serve Wikipedia" from at least one deletionist. Here is an old quote from the Ref Desk which shows that philosophy from someone who is an Admin and apparently also a deletionist:

"It doesn't serve wikipedia's purpose to answer random question. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. If it's relevant, then it has to do with our article on the subject. --Jiang 06:10, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)" [2]

StuRat 19:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've heard that once or twice but it seems to be an extremely minority opininon and not one taken seriously at all by any side of the issue --froth^T 19:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades' response

The above is precisely the problem here. StuRat is attempting to polarize the discussion as much as possible. It's absurd to believe that the only two options for managing the Ref Desk involve a battle to the death between potty-mouthed, uninformed edit warriors and black-marker-wielding edit warriors. If the groups StuRat describes above are really the only two groups that are participating in the Ref Desk, we ought to burn the thing to the ground and ban all the editors from Wikipedia before their ugly attitudes infect the rest of the project.

Loath as I am to get sucked into a policy debate on a user conduct RfC (this isn't the time, place, or format), here's a quick-and-dirty sketch of where I stand, shoehorned into the same order of points above.

1. 'Censorship' is a loaded word rife with connotations, and is best avoided in good-faith discussions. Once people start throwing 'censorship!' cries about, the discussion is only one or two steps from getting Godwinned.
2. Nobody believes that they can or should remove every comment that they dislike; by the same token, nobody believes that every edit to the Ref Desk should remain there. At Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#On_removal_of_answers.2C_or_even_questions, there is a short list of comment types that we can and should remove without question. Other types of comments may be removed, in my opinion, after discussion.
3. Edit warring is bad, whether to add or remove something, and particularly when one is standing on a stubborn point of principle rather than trying to improve the Desk or encyclopedia.
4. Admins aren't infallible, but they have been vetted by the community. Admins generally have a greater breadth and depth of experience with Wikipedia policy and practice than a randomly selected editor. Dismissing an admin's good-faith opinion on policy out-of-hand does both parties a disservice.
5. Straw polls are one method of many to attempt to assess community opinion on a subject. When used appropriately – allowing adequate time for discussion and alternate opinions, and accurately representing the issue at hand – they can be a useful tool.
6. Reference Desk answers with links to sources and background information are always preferred to answers without. Editors who present their own opinions as assertions of fact without providing references or any indication of their own qualifications should do so with extreme care, and should be unsurprised if other editors request clarification or references for unsupported statements. Editors should refrain from offering unsupported opinion after referenced answers have been provided. Like everything else on Wikipedia, Ref Desk responses should be treated as suspect until supported by citation.
7. The goal of any edit to the Ref Desk – or anywhere else on Wikipedia – should be to provide a net benefit, be it the addition of useful material or the removal of harmful stuff. This may sometimes be a complex judgement, which requires weighing the value to questioners on the Ref Desk, the sensibilities of readers and answerers on the RD, editors' histories, etc.
8. The purpose of the Ref Desk is to answer questions. Providing a positive experience to new editors (many people have their first Wikipedia experience on the Ref Desk) is a key part of that. We can best accomplish these goals by keeping the Ref Desk a friendly, civil environment chock full of detailed, descriptive, and well-referenced answers (with a bit of a sense of humour). Both Wikipedia and the Ref Desk serve the common goal of providing info to users.

The above list of 8 points has been copied to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines. You may want to comment there rather than here. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If StuRat genuinely believes that my position is that of the 'deletionist' bogeyman he describes above, then he has completely failed to listen to a word said, or I'm embarrrassingly and appallingly bad at using the English language. If there is anyone editing the Ref Desks or their associated talk pages according to the above-outlined 'deletionist' or 'inclusionist' philosophies, they need a good whack with a clue-by-four. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ten, that's huge. Your list of 8 points is about the clearest exposition I've seen of how the Reference Desk (or any wikiproject) ought to work. And -- with one or two notable exceptions -- I don't think there's anyone who would disagree with what you've said. So if we can just figure out how to accommodate those notable exceptions and/or bring them into the fold, we can all go home -- er, go back to answering questions on the Reference Desks, and otherwise improving Wikipedia. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

StuRat wrote inclusionist from his own policy perspective, it appears - he is, apparently, editing the desks and the talk pages according to the inclusionist philosophy he outlines. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I edit the desk according to the frothian philosophy:

1. Contribute as much as you can (even if it's little) to each question and provide further reading when applicable (it rarely is). No sources unless they ask (and they never do), in that case it's just a special request.
2. Don't remove individual replies from a discussion, similar to Talk page guidelines. If you don't agree with them (ie they're wrong) then reply to their comment and say so.
3. Don't remove any trollish questions from the RD without requesting comments at WT:RD. Ask first, remove after.

So I have my own little view, and so does everyone else, and I'm sure at least someone holds those views of mock-deletionism and mock-inclusionism.. and their views are just as legitimate as everyone elses --froth^T 18:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That's all quite reasonable, and I agree. StuRat 19:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

But to create a ref desk culture that works we need to incorporate all views. Stating yours here is a start to that process. You might argue that it works the way you do it and its fine for everyone else to do their ad hoc thing too. Recent history, however, would tend to disagree with this stance. For example, if it really did work smoothly we wouldn't have all this band width on the talk page right now. I am still researching the archives and thinking over the entapedes versus the metapedes (or what ever the're called) so only have embryonic thoughts with resepct to a way forward at present. David D. (Talk) 19:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No I don't argue that it would work if everybody did their own thing, I (like most everyone else) argue that it would work if everybody did my thing. But of course I don't expect anyone else to adopt my view. And I don't have any problem dealing with more extreme positions since they're all equally wrong, but pragmatically, I would be more willing to compromise with positions close to my own to expand my philosophy's influence. This is turning sociological x_x --froth^T 19:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Wikipedia is not a place where "any view is as legitimate as any other". Wikipedia has some guiding principles and even some policies. Editors who act in a manner contrary to the interests of the project may find that their opinions carry little weight with other editors. If they do this in a disruptive way, they may even be blocked from editing. We can't demand that Wikipedia change to suit us- we must act in a manner consistent with community expectations, or we may be shown the door. Sad, perhaps, but true. Friday (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Kinda of what i wrote immediately above, so at least two of us are thinking along the same lines here. David D. (Talk) 19:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh of course; I'm referring to his statement at the end that it's unreasonable to subscribe to either of the extremes instead of camping somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. I agree with what you said, and in my own spin I'd add that you're all wrong and I'm the one with the real solution - everyone thinks that (but hopefully good wikipedians are willing to compromise if they think it will still benefit the project). So IMHO you're all just as wrong as the extreme positions. We can't phrase things expecting that everyone will see it from the same POV, and I think Ten's statement is flawed in this way --froth^T 19:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually that is not what everyone thinks ("I'm the one with the real solution"). A real discussion involves an open mind and willingness to change ones opinion with respect to a persuasive argument. It happens all the time when we are editing articles. If it can happen on some of the most contentious articles in wikipedia (shool deletion vs inclusion and science vs pseudoscience come to mind) then it can certainly happen here (as you imply with "hopefully good wikipedians") . David D. (Talk) 19:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't discount consensus- it's a very valuable tool to merge all of these differing viewpoints into something workable. But for the time being, when barely anything concrete has been written, there's not much to go on other than what's right in your own eyes. Dangerous perhaps, but it's what gives immediacy to the debate. We need to respect other people's views and be extremely careful tiptoeing through the issues until we actually have something solid to back us up on decisions. --froth^T 19:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is expecting this to be solved overnight. What one hopes for is an open ear and mind from all parties. David D. (Talk) 19:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, but without care things are bound to dissolve into disputes (like this RFC) --froth^T 19:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This might be an entapede vs metapede thing, but i have never viewed this RFC as a dispute. Every one holds the majority of StuRats editing in high regard. However, this request for comment has helped focus the debate. And actually I think you would agree it has helped us all move forward. Unfortunately not everyone sees how an RfC can be a good thing too. It does not help that many are initiated as a first step to Arbcom, but that is only one model. David D. (Talk) 19:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this talk page has been very useful in focusing and catalyzing discussion, but the RFC it's attached to seems like a joke. I mean come on, who honestly can say that they're offended by the use of the word "deletionism"? I don't want to jump to conclusions but I have a hard time believing this is just somebody pusing their RD agenda, not actually someone with a real problem with StuRat.--froth^T 19:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not offended by the term but how it was used in a non constructive fashion during discussions. I think Rocket pocket summed it up best with his outline of how discussing quality was continually sidetracked by the "deletionist agenda". I am confident that TenOfAllTrades filed the RfC for the same reasons. But you'll have to get that from him since I am projecting that opinon onto him/her. David D. (Talk) 19:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There was plenty of non constructive discussion but that's not grounds for an RFC. Also I don't think sturat was being paranoid about "deletionist agendas" so much as he was trying to address multiple issues at once ("deletionists" and "verifiability-ists" seem to be the same group of people who think that the RD should be more encyclopedic/with stricter content control). --froth^T 19:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

With respect to "seem to be the same group of people"; only because the arguments were framed in absolutes. i will always reserve the right to delete a question, as will everyone here (even the so called "inclusionists"). But that does not make me a deletionist. Our discussion here needs to focus less on deletion more about what is a legitimate question, but that is a different debate. To continue, StuRat was misrepresenting my position as "if not verifiable delete it". I had never said this, other than to say, i thought some questions could be deleted. My actual argument was that:

"if highly technical answers are given, and its not your area of expertise, it would be wise to avoid the question altogether or at least provide a citation".

This seems like a sensible approach, and a responsible cutlure for the RD, or is this what you mean by the RD should be about free speech, that one is free to answer whatever they choose regardless of knowledge? If so, why is it OK for anyone to write any answer they choose, whether it is verifiable or not?

Actually, I would not really have had this as a major concern if it was a rare occurence, obviously people make mistakes all the time or misinterpret sources, but I have seen this issue crop up quite frequently. I, for one, think that there should be some kind of accountability, especially if one chooses to answer in areas where some research is required to answer a question. For reference, I would never have deleted StuRats answer, but it is important for the original poster to realise that there is no citation that can be used to verify an answer. David D. (Talk) 20:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

With respect, froth, I feel you are adopting the same nonconstructive mindset as StuRat with your seem to be the same group of people comment. While there could be some overlap, the two positions you mention are not inherently inclusive. In addressing them together you are making associations that do not necesarily exist in reality. As David D. notes, him and I shared concerns that plainly misleading answers were being provided on the RD and we were discussing ways which this could be minimised (without mentioning deletion once, as far as I am aware). This is a separate issue and one, as Wikipedians, that we all share a basic adherence to. If it was removed from the deletion issue, i'm very confident it could be solved relatively easily with some basic guidelines. Rockpocket 09:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

One group of editors seems to agree almost single-mindedly on a specific set of guidelines. Everyone else has diverse opinions. That first group also has a specific opinion on the deletion debate. Everyone else obviously has the other opinion because otherwise they'd be in the first group. (not exactly the situation but it works for the purpose of making my position tenable :p) Call that "overlap" if you want, to me it seems pretty polar on this level. --froth^T 22:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have totally lost me there. Are you suggesting the self proclaimed "inclusionists" have "diverse opinions" yet the so-called "deletionists" act "almost single-mindedly"? Not only does that seem a very biased interpretation, but where would you include, for example, David D. and myself, in this analysis? That is the concern I'm trying to illustrate - we are being labeled "deletionists" yet have never (as far as I'm aware) expressed any specific opinion on the deletion debate. How is that "polar"? Rockpocket 05:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That second-to-last sentence came off a little stronger than I intended. What I mean is that holders of those views are equally entitled to their opinions and definately don't need to get whacked with the clue-by-four. From an entirely objective observer maybe the extreme ideas would actually work better! Sure we have to work it out with consensus, but people with differing views aren't wrong, their ideas just aren't as good as mine (again, like everybody thinks). --froth^T 19:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally...

...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)

Impasse?

Looking at the lastest responses, I believe we're still stuck at an impasse here. If there are lingering practical (rather than theoretical) problems, such as edit warring, at this point I suspect they can only be dealt with "by force", rather than "by reason". If there are no lingering practical problems, let's just all agree to disagree, eh? Friday (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You're getting rather militant here. I take it you only accuse those who do replaces of nonconsensus deletions of "edit warring" and feel those who do the original nonconsensus deletions bear no responsibility for starting the whole thing ? Thus, you plan on blocking inclusionists only ? StuRat 19:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to put words on this page, please do try to follow along with the discussion the rest of us are having. The rest of us are actually having discussions, and you're just repeating the same unhelpful stuff you were saying a month or more ago. This is why I say we're at an impasse. I find it extremely difficult to believe you're making a good faith effort to come to an agreement when you behave this way. Friday (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It should never be solved by force! But he's right- why should he be the one to stop reverting and not you? Just get brief consensus before removing content, it's good manners and cools tempers all around, even if it's not exactly an accurate view of what everyone thinks. It's common policy on WP to reference a talk page link, however brief, in the edit summary when making a possibly controversial change. It makes users more likely to take your decision seriously instead of just deeming it unilateral action (which it is really unless you have something to back it up) and more likely to participate in the discussion. It also keeps the original OP in the dark until it's not just "1 vs 1" and still highly controversial. --froth^T 19:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I've seen that I'm objecting to. Editor A removes objectionable content and explains why on the talk page. Editor B agrees. StuRat comes along and restores the content, complaining that there was no prior approval for the removal. He should instead leave it alone and make his case on the talk page. If he started doing things this way instead, I don't see that we'd particularly have trouble here. Friday (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So we're right back to your absurd double-standard:

• Is consensus required for deletion ? No.

• Is consensus required for replacement ? Yes.

StuRat 08:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Did you read what I wrote immediately above? In the situation I described, there were already two editors supporting the removal, and no one objecting. To restore the content in this case, with no talk page comment, has nothing to do with "consensus". We cannot keep explaining basic editing etiquette to you- there comes a point where you either get it, or you don't. Consistent failure to get it can be disruptive. Friday (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Two people hardly constitutes a "consensus", and the OP was presumably opposed to the removal, as well. Thus, if the comment can be deleted without consensus, then it can also be restored without a consensus. StuRat 07:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Why do you think it's a one-way street? That you can remove things and they can't be replaced? You can't have it both ways. If you want it to function like an article page, it goes both ways. If it functions like a talk page, it goes neither way. You can't set up a one-way street in the direction you want it to go and then forbid traffic to flow in the other direcdtion. Sorry. That's not the Wikipedia way, it's not Wikipedia etiquette, and it's not going to work that way. And a veiled threat of blocking StuRat for being disruptive is NOT helpful. You should not be blocking editors with whom you are in conflict nor threatening (or implying a threat) to do so. -THB 17:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's true, in the abstract, that anyone can remove anything, and it's equally true that anyone can replace anything. Where it gets much more interesting, of course, is in deciding whether anyone was justified in the removal or restoration.

If someone removes something for a poor reason, someone else might well be perfectly justified in restoring it. But if someone removes something else for a perfectly good reason (and if others agree), then in that case, restoring it might not be nearly so good an idea.

[I am, however, arguing here in the abstract. I don't know what specific case you guys are talking about here; I don't know if the particular deletion was or wasn't justified.]

One thing that occurred to me about these contentions deletions is that it would probably be much better for the original poster to restore it, rather than some third party. If A posts something, and B thinks it's inappropriate, and if B deletes it and says why, then if A knows B's reasoning was incorrect (e.g. if A knows he wasn't trolling), then A can put the deleted text back. But if C comes along and wants to restore the deleted text, that's potentially a much more contentious act, because C has no a priori reason to know whether A or B was right.

(Someone's now going to claim that this is still a double standard, that B has no a priori reason to know, either. And that's true. But A does, which is my point.)

—Steve Summit (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. As soon as we accept that they are always right and we are always wrong then this whole issue will be resolved to (their) satisfaction. -THB 15:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys, look:

I know (really, I do) that from your point of view, this looks like an us-versus-them situation. It really does seem like you've been ganged up on and picked on, and that's too bad. But:

1. This is not an us-versus-them situation. It's a complicated situation, and most people are approaching it thoughtfully, calling things as they see them, trying not to take sides, agreeing with some aspects of some positions and disagreeing with others, trying to find a consensus or at least a decent compromise, trying to move forward, keeping the best interests of the project at heart.
2. Even if this were an us-versus-them situation, it would not help to keep referring to it as one. If this were an us-versus-them situation, the name for your side would be "the losing side". If this were an us-versus-them situation, everybody not on your side would be looking at your continual us-versus-them whining and saying, "those losers, when are they going to face facts, admit defeat, and go home?" If this were an us-versus-them situation, you would be very, very well advised to adopt some different and better tactics, if you were to have any hope at all of getting anywhere.

But as I say, this is not an us-versus-them situation. No one wants to "win", no one is asking you to admit defeat or go home. All anyone wants to do is come to an amicable, mutually-acceptable agreement. But continued us-versus-them polarization is mutually incompatible with that outcome.

—Steve Summit (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[P.S. I am commenting here on THB's "as soon as we accept that they are always right" lament. I have no comment on the alleged double standard; I don't personally understand that aspect of the issue yet.]

My comment was a direct response to Friday's comment. There absolutely is a double standard. It's a few deletionist administrators and their sycophants against the masses of unwashed editors. -THB 15:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

My comment was a direct response to your comment. Did you read a word of it? —Steve Summit (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

THB on Friday's view

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)

"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)

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 --froth^T 18:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

You know perfectly well that I mean a consensus is required for deletion. StuRat 19:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Obviously we need to discuss what a consensus actually is (50%, 80% ?) David D. (Talk) 19:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh no don't get radiant in here! :D --froth^T 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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" --froth^T 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 --froth^T 19:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

the way forward?

This is obvious, I'm sure this has been said multiple times already, but it seems to me that the essential point of the deletion debate is still this:

1. StuRat does not trust the "deletionists" not to delete things that shouldn't be deleted, so he wants either a policy that says nothing can be deleted, or a process that requires a certain amount of debate and consensus-building before anything can be deleted.
2. The editors who are concerned about unsourced speculation, excessive humor, and various other kinds of banter and "chat" do not trust the banterers and chatters to really tone it down. So they want to make sure that there's a pretty heavy stick to wave if/when the banter gets out of hand, and they don't want to face interminable debates (that might fail to reach consensus) any time they see something off-topic that they want to speedily fix.

So the question is, how can we convince StuRat that there aren't going to be rampant deletion pogroms on the Reference Desk, while simultaneously convincing the others that the problems they've been concerned about are going to get better? —Steve Summit (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody can convince him- he can only convince himself. It's out of our hands. As for the second point, if people want others to believe that chat and banter will be reduced, they should demonstrate this by cutting down on the chat and banter. I'd be satisfied if StuRat simply refrained from putting back removed content. Friday (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve—did you mean to put this over on the Ref Desk talk page? Your remarks, while reasonable and insightful, really don't seem to address the behavioural issues – the namecalling and vilification of his perceived opponents – that are the core of this RfC.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The namecalling and vilification, I think, are in part symptoms of the frustrating inability to find a mutually agreeable compromise as to how the Reference Desks should be conducted. As such, trying to get closer to that acceptable compromise (in the context of this RfC) will, I hope, help to resolve this RfC. (But yes, the same points certainly also belong over on the guideline talk page.) —Steve Summit (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

But a 'Superman versus Batman' discussion is not designed to encourage chat, banter and speculation? Is that correct Friday?--Light current 00:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I was kind of surprised at that too, but: instead of teasing him for it, why not rejoice in the fact that he's just acknowledged tolerance for some "fun", not-ramrod-straight-and-grounded-in-perfectly-sourced-facts discussion? Isn't that just the sort of middle-of-the-road compromise we'd all like? —Steve Summit (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well no. I cannot respect people who change their views like that. It makes a complete mockery of their previous arguments and tries to make fools of us (thier opponents). I shall therefore ignore any future arguments by Friday and point to this schitziod view repeatedly in replies to any further utterances by this person!--Light current 00:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I urge you to reconsider that stance.

I don't know what specific interactions you've had with Friday in the past, but in general, I'd say that a change of view should be celebrated:

1. Perhaps they were won over by the strength of your arguments. Hallelujah!
2. Perhaps there was some long-standing misunderstanding; perhaps their view was never so foreign to yours in the first place; perhaps we're finally having a meeting of the minds and discovering that we're in general agreement after all. Again, hallelujah!

If you can't agree with someone when they're in disagreement with you, and if you can't agree with them when something changes and they're in agreement with you, how can any of us ever get along at all? —Steve Summit (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I dont think its a change of view, its an exposition of a schitzoid view that has no place here.--Light current 02:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is a real lack of knowledge regarding the way Wikipedia works. If someone may remove material, someone else may replace it. -THB 00:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean by 'may'? : that it is allowed, or might happen?--Light current 00:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. -THB 00:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Which FGS?--Light current 00:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Light current, I don't don't what a FGS is so I can't tell you which one. -THB 00:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Which are you saying: that it is allowed, or might happen? For gods sake?--Light current 00:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see, I mean both. If someone is allowed to remove something, it is allowable for someone else to replace it. It also might happen. Then there will be an edit war unless the parties discuss and reach consensus. But the deletionists or removalists or whatever think they should be allowed to remove whatever they unilaterally decide to remove and then, as Friday says above, they don't want it put back. They want to change the Wikipedia process to one of unilateral action by an elite guild of administrators and their ass-kissers or sockpuppets. -THB 00:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Light current, as long as you see yourself as an "opponent" of other Wikipedians, rather than as their colleague, disputes like this will continue. We're all supposed to be on the same side here. Vowing to ignore all future utterances by any particular person and labelling them as "schizoid" is incredibly unhelfpul. It is playing the man, and not the ball. Anyone who never adjusts their view on significant matters shows no propensity for personal evolution. Do you still have the same views today as when you were 15? Changing one's mind is a demonstration of strength, not weakness - as long as it's not done too frequently and/or for the wrong reasons (such as merely wanting to please somebody). If you see such a change of view as them trying to make a fool of you, it's you who are arguing from a position of weakness, the weakness of a fear of being manipulated. If your position was sound, you would have no such fear. I say this in support of you, not as any kind of attack. JackofOz 05:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)