User talk:StuRat/archive4

Wrong answers

Hi StuRat, i don't have time right now but will consider how best to put the wrong answer addition into the guidelines, in a way that all can appreciate and accept. When I have something written, based on the example you provided, I'll pass it by you before we take to the talk page for inclusion. If we can find wording that we both agree to i see no reason why the others can't be on board. David D. (Talk) 16:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I wasn't aware that you objected to anything in my wording, though. If you tell me what you object to, perhaps I can fix it and run it by you. StuRat 16:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No i don't object to your wording, but others obviously do. I was going to think of how to insert it in a way that is acceptable to all, if you see what i mean. Possibly add it to another related section rather than in a section on it own. David D. (Talk) 16:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think others object to the wording. Only EricR reverted me (twice). He is the one from the example who believes that he should be free to delete anything he judges to be incorrect. I doubt if any language would ever satisfy him. StuRat 21:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if adding it to the section as outlined below is the best way to go? Please review this text and make changes to improve it. Thanks. David D. (Talk) 19:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't edit questions or answers

...except to fix formatting errors that interfere with readability (like a leading space or unclosed markup tags). Do not correct spelling or presumed typos, or anything that might change the meaning of the question.

If there is no title to a question, add one. You may also add to a non-descriptive title (such as "question"), but it is best keep the original title as a portion of the new one, as it may be used by the questioner to find the question.

Don't add wikilinks to a question or the title; it may unduly suggest to others that the questioner was aware of the Wikipedia articles. Instead, if relevant, just include these links in your response.

A few wrong answers are inevitable. If you believe your own answer is wrong, please strike it out and explain why you no longer think the first answer was correct. If you think somebody else's answer is wrong, reply with your rationale, and providing evidence if you have any. Please do not remove what is perceived to be flawed text and allow the original poster to consider all the answers.

I found I had one more revert left, so put my version back in as a separate section. If it gets reverted again, then let's go with your idea. I do have a minor criticism though. In English the form "do not A or B" can be taken as either "do not do A and also do not do B" or "do not do A but do B". So, with that in mind, I'd change the last paragraph as follows (changes in bold):

A few wrong answers are inevitable. If you believe your own answer is wrong, please strike it out and explain why you no longer think the first answer was correct. If you think somebody else's answer is wrong, reply with your rationale, and provide evidence, if you have any. Please do not remove what is perceived to be flawed text but instead allow the original poster to consider all the answers. StuRat 20:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: Friday has now changed the last line to "The best way to avoid disagreement is to provide answers from a reliable source". This is obviously not the best way, as many sources disagree with one another. If you would like to remove his comment and replace it with yours (with my grammar fix): "Please do not remove what is perceived to be flawed text but instead allow the original poster to consider all the answers.", I would fully support that. StuRat 20:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

StuRat, regarding your comment "I found I had one more revert left, so put my version back in" above, please note that WP:3RR "does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique." Lets try and thrash this out on the talkpage rather than engaging in tactical edit-warring. I think there is general support for a sentence discouraging the removal of answers just because they are wrong, its just a case of finding the best wording for it. Rockpocket 22:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I only made two reverts, on two different days. I was discussing it, but EricR used his two reverts in one day to wipe it out, anyway. You also used two reverts (on different days) to wipe out my "What the RD is not" changes, without discussion. Since only Friday and EricR actually appear to support allowing anyone to delete anything they think is wrong, and there's over a half dozen of us who think adding language discouraging that is a good idea, shouldn't the supermajority prevail ? StuRat 22:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That is correct, but note I reverted back to the status quo with a plea to take it to the talkpage per WP:BRD. Its not a case of the majority prevailing, its a case of reaching consensus by discussion. Friday and Eric make some going points, as do you. I think we are all not too far off some level of agreement on this. Lets aim for that rather than back and forth reverting. Rockpocket 22:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite what I support. Funny how my actual opinions tend to be much less extreme than your characterizations of them. The talk page is that way - some of this would be better kept in one place. Friday (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we move this to the ref guidelines talkpage? The only reason i came here first was to see if StuRat and I had a mutually agreeable version to bring to the guideline talk page. David D. (Talk) 22:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Friday and Rockpocket, you two please shush. StuRat 06:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Block review

about this edit. Zoe left the project about 3 months ago - so don't expect a reply. --Fredrick day 20:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like to ask for an independent review of a block or the conduct of an administrator, the most efficient way to draw admin attention is through WP:AN/I. You can also encourage the blocked party to employ the {{unblock}} template; this is probably the fastest way to have a block reviewed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to post to AN/I, as any non-Admin posting there is immediately attacked by Admins and threatened with blocks. How about you, do you think Lewis did anything that could possibly justify an indefinite block ? StuRat 21:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That statement does not seem to be supported by evidence. I see many, many non-admins and even anonymous editors who are posting to AN/I without any problem. Frivolous, abusive, and vexatious complaints are likely to be met with censure, however.

A politely-phrased request supported by evidence (diffs) should – and will – be considered on its merits. I think that a request to unblock Loomis is very likely to fail because his conduct has been (and continues to be) deplorable, but you're welcome to ask.

I note that a request to another individual admin to reconsider the block is likely to lead to an AN/I discussion anyway; it is rare indeed for an admin to overturn another without seeking wider community input. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, the speed with which a long term user with no blocks (other than an accidental one) has been put on indefinite block seems inappropriate. More of an effort is supposed to be made before resorting to such a big stick. Also, I find it an appalling conflict of interest to have an Admin on one side of an issue block a user on the other side (here it appears to be Lewis on the side of treating all users according to the same WP:NPA standard and Friday on the side of "Wikipedia's unfair, get used to it", if that can be called a "side"). StuRat 22:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have washed my hands of the Loomis situation. Rockpocket is aware of the situation as well. Anyone who feels up to dealing with the situation is welcome to do as they wish- I'm obviously not able to effectively get through to him. Friday (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

On behalf of StuRat i posted to AN/I. David D. (Talk) 22:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh geez, now they're all going to attack me there. StuRat 22:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand, i did not mention your name. I just made a request to review the block. That's all you wished for right? Seems like a reasonable request, why would anyone attack you for that? (FYI) David D. (Talk) 22:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. You wouldn't think so, but they do. Whenever I submit evidence on behalf of another user I get threatened with a block, or, if I'm lucky, they just ignore me completely. A non-Admin on that board is like a mouse (or rat, in my case) in a room full of cats. StuRat 22:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a non-admin. No one has pounced, yet. David D. (Talk) 05:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider yourself lucky. I think your rather weak advocacy, if any, for Lewis is why. Had you actually mentioned the way blatant violations of WP:CIVIL, by the blocking Admin (and those who agree with him) are ignored while lesser violations by Lewis result in a block, I feel you would have been punished. Non-Admins are not permitted to criticize Admins there. StuRat 05:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try that next time I feel like a masocist, although, I'm not sure I had examples of Fridays blatant violations of WP civil toward Lewis at hand. My only goal was to bring his plight to a broader and impartial audience. I did post a link to Lewis' grievances. My weak advocacy is because I agree with his block, for his own sanity. For months now he seems to have been seething and this is not healthy. If he chooses to return after an enforced absence fine, but wikipedia does not seem like a good place for Lewis to be hanging out. He appears to recognise this too, nevertheless, he always returns. David D. (Talk) 05:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Imagine!

What if all editors were administrators as well? I'm sure that many people have had this same idea before... Maybe you have. Tell me whatever are the problems that you may have found in this idea! I'm so sure that it would be incredibly great for Wikipedia that I think I have the mental energy to try and disprove any arguments against this!

But, if I happen to be unable to convince everyone that it would be great if all editors were administrators, maybe we can try and make it happen as an "experience" for one month or so? I'm not completely sure that I'm able alone to disprove any arguments against it, but, as I said, I have total conviction that it would work and there would be no chaos at all! Not that there would finally be complete Justice and Fairness, but certainly there would be more justice and fairness. The opinion of the community would prevail. The opinion of the community as to what constitutes the opinion of the community at any given moment would prevail. People would have exactly the same power, and the system would self-regulate itself -a wonderful thing to see- just like if an invisible hand were guiding everything! A.Z. 05:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am an advocate of direct democracy, and feel that most political problems are due to the power given to "representatives" (power corrupts, after all). This also applies to Wikipedia, made worse by the fact that Admins are elected for life, so never have to worry about the opinions of non-Admins again. True, they can be kicked out, but other Admins would only kick them out of "the club" if they did something really egregious. Simply blocking people of the opposing POV while overlooking worse transgressions from people of their own POV won't even get them a censure, apparently. So, I'd first like to make Admins run for yearly reelection so they actually have to care about who they alienate by their abuses (then again, maybe they would just ban anyone they think might vote against them). I also wanted to create a level between a registered user and an Admin, perhaps called "trusted user", which would be anyone who has a certain number of edits and remains in good standing. These people could be given some Admin powers, like editing protected articles. One thing that pissed me off once was that I suspected Admins were sending sockpuppets onto the Ref Desk talk page to insult me and sway votes in the deletionists' direction, but when I requested an I/P trace to find out who the puppet master was, the Admins refused. Quite a little cabal they have going there. Trusted users should have the right to do the I/P trace themselves. StuRat 06:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You are not the first and certainly will not be the last to suggest this. A few points of information:

• Admins do not have the right to trace IP, you need checkuser access for that.

• I believe some Admins have that access, as well. If an Admin requested a trace on a user who was a suspected sockpuppet, I bet it would be granted, but a user checking on an Admin using sockpuppets, it's not going to happen. StuRat 06:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• There is no cabal: If enough people act independently towards the same goal, the end result is indistinguishable from a conspiracy.

• Adminship is no big deal. If you don't like how the job is being done, do it yourself.

• Right. Friday, you, and other Admins would ensure that I would be rejected. StuRat 06:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• There is nothing stopping your proposal but the opinion of the community. There are people who !vote to promote everyone who applies, irrespective of experience. Act, and it may become reality. Rockpock< font>et 06:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I would expect such people are ignored in the "consensus" count. StuRat 06:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am honestly amazed at how conspiratorial your outlook is. If ToaT and I are so close, why did he oppose my adminship?

I expect there are some editors with checkuser privileges that are also admins, true, but there are also some that are not. Even if Friday, ToaT and myself were to oppose a request from you (and who is to say we would?), that is three editors in opposition. I can think of three editors who would certainly support you to balance that out. Hell, if it bothered you that much, I would be willing to recuse myself from commenting. The community can make its decisions without my input. Actually, I'd quite like to see you as an admin, then you can see how ridiculous your conspiracy theorizing is.

Finally, explicit reasons for supporting are not required at RfC, therefore there is no mechanism for discounting those with liberal criteria from those without. Candidates with over 80% support almost always succeed, and it is unusual for those below 75% to succeed. There simply is no way any admin could stop you being promoted if there was enough grassroots support, irrespective of the support criteria. Remember also its 'crats that do the promoting, not admins. I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is and step up. Instead of complaining about the admins, do something about it. Rockpocket 07:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If I honestly believed I would have any chance I would run. But the deletionists here would all oppose me, and make sure that their friends did, as well, which would be more than enough to sway the vote. Too bad, because I wouldn't use Adminship to insult others, tell them to leave, then block those who disagree with my POV and overlook more serious transgressions from those who support my POV. StuRat 07:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My point was more an idealistic appeal for policing by the "opinion of the community" are somewhat pointless, because it is within the power of the community to apply just that. Instead of pondering what it could be like, one could actually !vote at RfAs, propose new policies or stand for adminship oneself and help make it happen. I don't blame you for being frustrated at what you see as injustices, but - despite what you might like to believe - it really isn't a closed shop. What frustrates me is hearing people criticize when it is within their own power to do something about it. I think the conspiracy theorizing is the easy way out. Which is a shame, because I think you clearly have the ability to make a difference, but its not going to happen when you have already decided a cabal of admins is out to get you. Rockpocket 08:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You really think "Admins for life" would yield to the opinions of non-Admins ? What proportion of Admins have ever been desysoped, anyway ? I'd wager it's such a tiny fraction that Admins need not be concerned. StuRat 08:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how many people have been desysoped, I'm sure it is a small fraction. My concern is not about being desysoped. If my actions got anywhere near that level of controvery, I would resign them of my own accord. My concern is about always acting on behalf of the community. That is why, whenever someone feels I have made poor use of the tools, I urge them to review it by opening an RfC. I welcome that because its the only way I can get independent feedback, learn and improve. I'm not perfect, I can only use my judgment, and there will be times that I make errors. If i'm making huge mistakes, I'd like to know about it.

The interesting thing is that no-one who has questioned me has ever acted on my request. This is because their primary motives are not to improve adminship of the project, but to scare me into acquiescence with their opinion or to punish me for not agreeing with them. Infact, whenever I encourage it, they always shy away from making an RfC. So, I guess my point is that instead of focusing on punishment (or lack thereof), why don't you offer admins some constructive advice instead? I, personally, am all ears. But that means treating me like an individual, not some deletionist-cabalist. Rockpocket 17:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to use the RFC mechanism because I've seen it so abused in my case, as when User:Hipocrite: [1] filed the first RFC. He was an extremely disruptive individual looking to pick a fight (he also filed another RFC against another inclusionist, User:THB, at the same time). He has since left Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Friday jumped on the bandwagon and endorsed that RFC. This was my first sign that something was very wrong with Friday's behavior. StuRat 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You may have a hard time believing it, but I'm one of the relatively small minority of admins who believes there should be a way to remove adminship about as easily as it's given. If folks knew their access could be easily removed perhaps they'd take more care how they use the admin tools. I'm also in favor of transparent deletion so that normal editors can see deleted content. There is too much a divide between admins and non-admins and we should look for ways to shrink this difference. Friday (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have lofty goals for what Adminship should be, but consistently fall far short of those goals (so consistently it's difficult to believe you are actually trying, like your near constant insults to other editors and telling people to leave). And I don't understand "transparent deletion". StuRat 15:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

We have different views on what's a personal attack. As for telling people to leave, I don't think I've done that much, but I do think editors should either be useful or get out of the way. See Wikipedia:Transparent deletion for a definition of that. Friday (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe calling people ignorant is an personal attack, yes. As for telling people to leave, you're not supposed to do that at all, don't you recall when the ArbComm told you that ? StuRat 16:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As for "transparent deletion", that seems to be a proposal for article deletion, which I would also support. We already have "transparent deletion" for individual edits, although it doesn't seem adequately transparent to me on high volume pages, like the Ref Desk, as any change is likely to be quickly buried in hundreds of other changes. If we had section level histories, that would solve this problem. StuRat 17:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Froth

When froth applied for adminship i believe the "deletionsists" were split. Check it out. By the way where did he go? Did he become disillusioned after the failure of the RfA? David D. (Talk) 16:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe I supported froth's nominination, which is hardly consistant with the existance of a deletionists voting bloc with Friday, ToaT et al. I really think lumping editors that you disagree with does yourself and your position a disservice, because it fails to acknowledge the nuances in other's positions, the result being that you miss opportunities to find common ground. For example, you have been calling me a deletionist from day one yet I have never expressed support for Ref Desk deletion in principle. Indeed, I support the the general thrust of your "don't delete the wrong answer" proposal. If you could find a way to stop painting editors in black and white and appreciate their many shades of grey, I think you would have greater success in acheiving your goals. Rockpocket 17:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My def of a Ref Desk deletionist is "an editor who supports the unilateral deletion of Ref Desk questions or responses, so long as they think that removal improves the Ref Desk". If that isn't you, and I've called you a deletionist, then I apologize. StuRat 17:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There are rare situations where I can envisage that I would, personally, choose to delete something without reaching consensus first and I would not oppose others doing that also if they saw fit. These would be in cases of extremly disruptive trolling, vandalism or personal attacks, the posting of personal information, or highly dangerously incorrect advice to someone who might not be in a position to fathom the risk (i.e. a self identified minor). I would not consider the primary goal of such removals to "improve the Ref Desk" - rather it would be a case of enforcing core policies that apply project wide and protecting the welfare of our contributors. The inherent value or otherwise to the reference desk would be a secondary effect.

Now, you might say "well, your opinion of what counts as those things could include almost anything, therefore you are a deletionist!" It is true there is a level of judgement involved, but that comes with doing anything on Wikipedia. I would say that, in the year or so I have been at the Ref Desk, I can only remember having deleted one such post for those reasons, and that involved a racist attack on another editor (I except the enforcement of bans from this, which I consider to be a completely independent issue). So, I don't know if your criteria includes me or not, but if it does it would probably include about 99% of all other wikipedians and thus is pretty meaningless as a descriptive term. Being totally against deletion of anything, anytime, anywhere is not a tenable position within the 5 pillars. I consider myself to be against deletion of good faith edits in principle, but - and we come back to shades of grey again - I would never rule it out completely. I don't believe you would either. You may well consider yourself a man of principles, but I know you would delete something from the Ref Desk if you believed there was a significant chance it could cause real physical harm to someone.

This is my major issue with your use of the word "deletionist" it does not - and cannot - capture the many subtleties in the positions of different editors. It encourages painting in broad strokes (to continue my painting analogy!), polarises the debate and forces people into unnecessary conflict. Rockpocket 18:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I realize it's not perfect, but some method needs to be usable for me to say I believe something (like RFC #1: [2]) is just a blatant partisan attack, versus a legit criticism of me. If all the criticisms of me are coming from people with a similar POV on an issue, with which I publicly disagree, and no criticism comes from those of my POV, I can't help but see it as a blatant partisan attack. This seems to happen quite often, with the active participation of Admins, no less. StuRat 19:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

But using the term "deletionist" as a proxy for meaning "those who disagree with me on a subset of defined issues" is a misnomer. Sure, I disagree with you over issues of WP:NPOV and WP:OR at the Ref Desk and I have tried to express those differences (including times when I have stepped over the line, for which I regret and have apologised). However, I don't appear to differ from your POV regarding deletionism and I have spoke up in support on that issue.

I appreciate your apology for using that term with regards to me, but thats not really the issue. Its not that I feel you are using it unappropriately with regards to me that is the problem, its the fact you chose to use it at all. Wikipedia:Words of wisdom: "When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you." In other words, beware the self-fulfilling prophesy: the more you force individuals into a grouping, the more group-like their behaviour will become. That can only impede your goals for the Ref Desk, not help.

The only way out of this spiral is to treat every other editor as an individuals who will agree with you sometimes and disagree with you sometimes. Friday, ToaT and I disagree over some issues (for example, Friday and I had differing opinions over how to deal with LC and - as I noted - ToaT did not support my RfA over concerns over my judgement), just as we disagree over some (but not all) Ref Desk issues. Thats fine, but it doesn't mean I hold a personal grudge, it doesn't stop me from working constructively with any of you on other issues and it certainly doesn't mean that I consider any of you to be in a different "faction" to me which I need to attach a label. Rockpocket 21:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed I've used the term far less, recently. Still, there are times when it is appropriate and no other term will do. EricR's recent unilateral deletion of an answer he believed to be wrong (the US Congressional question), despite evidence provided to the contrary, would be a good example. What would you have me call this ? Double-unplus-noninclusionism ? :-) StuRat 04:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed, as well as a collegial approach to resolving differences. Things are definitly progressing as we get to know each others positions more clearly. David D. (Talk) 04:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the incident to which you refer, but it does sound like an example of deletionism (within your parameters). Thats fine. I can't imagine anyone would argue with referring to that particular example as "an act of deletionism" or even suggesting that it "appears to be the action of a deletionist". What isn't particularly helpful is then using a single example to tar someone as a deletionist forever, and what is patently unhelpful is to call anyone else who doesn't support you on that particular example a "deletionist" by proxy. That is what appears to have been happening in the past and that is what I have been consistently concerned about (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/StuRat_2#Outside_view_by_User:Rockpocket). I acknowledge that - at least with regards to me - I have not noticed you use the term recently and I appreciate that. If you could take on board the wider reasoning I have highlighted here, I really think it would go a long way to fostering better relations (something I am making a concerted effort to do myself) and, in turn, further our common goals for the Ref Desk. Rockpocket 06:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the incident to which I was referring: [3]. You refer to things that happened back in early January. As I've said, I've tried to use the term more rarely and narrowly recently (even though there didn't seem to be a consensus that I should do so at the RFC). I will still use the term, however, where appropriate. StuRat 15:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

About neutral point of view and other core concepts

It would be really helpful if you'd come to the ref desk guideline discussion as an editor already well versed in core Wikipedia policy. The questions you keep asking already have well-understood answers. I can't recommend enough that you familiarize yourself with WP:V and WP:NPOV. I'm pretty sure I remember making this exact same suggestion several months ago, but I see no evidence that you've become more familiar with Wikipedia core policies in that time. Don't you think it would save all kinds of time if we could assume that people discussing the guidelines were already familiar with existing guidelines and policies? Friday (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You keep (mis)using the same argument, that all Wikipedia policies apply universally throughout Wikipedia, including the Ref Desk and other talk pages, without any difference in implementation, even when the policies explicitly say they are written for articles only (or don't say either way). This despite me providing numerous examples of where they clearly do not apply or apply differently. If you have something specific you want to argue about from policy, provide a quote from a policy, don't just say "go read policies X, Y, and Z". That's insulting, implying that I don't know the policy, and vague, in that many parts of a policy statement can be taken different ways, often in contradictory ways. That's a bit like saying "women are inferior, go read the Bible", without providing specific quotes. I suggest you go read all the policies and write down which are written for articles, and stop telling everyone they apply to the Ref Desk. StuRat 16:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Now you're inventing an argument that I have not made. I have never thought that we should apply the policies to non-articles exactly the way we apply them to articles- such a position is obviously ridiculous on its face. By inventing your own distorted version of my position, you're making useful communication more difficult for us.

What I am saying is this: If we were to have a productive discussion about how to apply policies to the ref desk, we'd want to start with the assumption that those involved in the discussion are familiar with the policies. Your questions and objections make it sound like you are not. Friday (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You constantly claim Wikipedia policies apply directly to the Ref Desk, and then tell anyone who disagrees that they should go complain on that policy page, as if the disagreement was with the policy rather than on it's applicability to the Ref Desk. StuRat 16:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Some disagreements have been with the policies themselves. The whole "But what if a source is wrong?" issue comes up all the time with articles. And, it comes up in the context of the ref desk, also, but I don't see why the answer to this objection needs to be different in those cases. I don't know if you've ever done any computer programming, but if so you may be familiar with the idea of separation of concerns. This is why we want to refer to other policies and guidelines in the ref desk guideline rather than recreating what they say. Questions about how to apply a policy to the ref desk have to start with an understanding of that policy- there's no other way to meaningfully address the issue. Friday (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the very first step in figuring out if a policy applies to the Ref Desk is to determine if it's written for articles only. If so, there is no need (from a Ref Desk POV) to study the policy any further, it simply doesn't apply to the Ref Desk. As for verifying sources, this certainly is done in articles, as bad sources and the info from those sources is removed from articles all the time. However, in the Ref Desk context, we don't want to remove the bad info and bad sources, but only point out why they are bad so the OP can evaluate them. A side benefit is educating the readers (that samples of only 5 people are useless, for example). If you want to put it in a computer programming context, a decision made for FORTRAN about whether to load an entire program at initialization (or only load modules as needed) might be reevaluated if the program is moved into C, due to different relative costs and benefits. StuRat 16:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. As I recall we've had disagreements on this tho- sometimes you say a policy is meant only for articles, but other people disagree. I don't know of any policies offhand that explicitly say they're only for articles, but any number of them are primarily aimed at articles. So what do we do if you say a given policy applies only to articles, and others disagree? Friday (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If the policy doesn't explicitly say it applies to all of Wikipedia, including talk pages, then we need to determine if it should apply to the Ref Desk, and, if so, how it should apply. This should be done using logical arguments, not by saying "go read the policy and complain there if you disagree with it" or "your ignorance of Wikpedia policies amazes me". StuRat 17:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

May I, an interested observer of this dialogue, just ask a question so I can continue to follow where it might lead to? Yes? Thanks. Stu, was "your ignorance of Wikpedia policies amazes me" meant as a paraphrase of Friday's "I see no evidence that you've become more familiar with Wikipedia core policies in that time"? Or was it by way of a hypothetical illustration of an unuseful kind of thing to say in situations like these? Or something else? JackofOz 03:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a direct quote, but meant to represent many of the personal attacks Friday has launched. Your quote is an extremely mild attack. A more typical attack was the recent "...you don't have a clue what you're doing here..." [4]. Then, when I complained on his talk page, he not only didn't apologize, but repeated the insult: [5]. This example also shows how Friday consistently uses the straw man argument that anyone who doesn't think a Wikipedia policy applies to the Ref Desk in exactly the same way as articles must have a problem with the policy itself, or be too stupid to understand it, and should go to that policy page to have more intelligent people explain it to him. I suspect that Friday says things like that to bait people into the same uncivil behavior, at which point he can block them or get others to do so. User:Loomis51 appears to be Friday's latest success with this tactic, as he is now indefinitely blocked and his home page is protected, eliminating his voice from the Ref Desk guidelines process. (While Lewis lashed out at you recently, as a result, I think you realize he isn't bad guy, but just couldn't handle the unfairness of the situation, where personal attacks against him were allowed, even encouraged, by Admins, while any he returned met with blocks.) StuRat 04:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As a point of information, Lewis' talkpage protection was because he was using it to launch explicit personal attacks on another editor, an act completely independent of the talkpage blocking. It had been explained to him time and again by different people (including, perhaps most eloquently, by Jack himself) that retaliation is no justification for personal attacks, yet he continued. I would not have blocked Lewis, but his subsequent refusal to desist the attacks leaves no grounds for unblocking. I have asked him to contact me if and when he is willing to stop retaliating to what he sees as attacks on him, and report them to me to let me deal with them on his behalf. That offer remains on the table. Rockpocket 07:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that the talk page protection is completely independent of the indefinite block. Lewis, and Light Current before him, both had their talk pages protected shortly after the indefinite block was applied. A predictable result of an indefinite block is that the blocked user will argue their case on their talk page. At least in LC's case, the arguments for protection of his talk page were quite weak, including that the volume of conversation on the page was too high (regardless of the content) and that LC would "burn himself out" by "talking too much". Incidentally, I do think Lewis was wrong on some issues, and have been trying to convince him of this. However, I don't think the extreme actions taken against him were justified. StuRat 14:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really believe in protecting talkpages myself, and don't believe I have ever done so, so I can't say for sure that it is unrelated. But ToaT was very clear on he why he protected Lewis' page. If Lewis indicated he simply wanted to state his case then I would unprotect in a second, but he has told me privately that he is "proud" of the attacks he made and will not agree to stop making them. So to spin this as "admins" (another example of lumping a group of different indviduals together, to better vilify them) silencing the pleas of an innocent man is completely misleading. I am very willing to work with Lewis to address his concerns, but there is no way I'm doing that unless he agrees to abide by the rules himself - that would be as hypocritical as the perceived bias he protesting. Rockpocket 17:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe his position is that he is willing to abide by the rules, but then expects others to do the same. Clio and Friday, for example, have issued personal attacks against many, including him and me, but have gone unblocked. Lewis would also be willing to accept it if personal attacks against everyone were allowed. What he is not willing to accept is personal attacks against him being allowed but personal attacks by him resulting in blocks. I, on the other hand, realize that since the majority of Admins at the Ref Desk are not inclusionists, then any inclusionist is likely to be blocked for NPA violations while those committing NPA violations against inclusionists will go unblocked. This is to be expected by Admins having power, and power corrupting, I suppose. StuRat 17:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ten's comment

StuRat, if you'd like to know why I took any admin action, the most efficient and effective course of action is to post a direct question on my talk page. If you feel that my response is inadequate, that wider consultation is required, or that a more rapid response is important, posting a request for review on WP:AN/I is a reasonable step.

In any event, I would appreciate it if you did seek clarification prior to ascribing dark motives to my actions. Loomis' talk page was left unprotected for four days after he was blocked. During that time, he was advised on how to request and unblock, and the conditions under which that would be likely to happen. His block was brought up for review on AN/I during that time. Loomis was allowed to discuss, to chat, to soapbox, and to vent as he saw fit.

His page was only protected after he resumed making the personal attacks about which he had been (repeatedly) warned before. I'm rather used to editors who from time to time cast aspersions on my character (it's part and parcel of being an admin, it seems) but when he decided to start beating his "Clio's a Nazi apologist" drum again, he was well over the line. I will unprotected his talk page if he agrees to stop using it as a platform for personal attacks. In any case, the protection that I placed was not permanent; it will expire after one month, and he can try then to work within the Wikipedia framework. (Note that I also placed a notice of the protection on WP:AN/I for review; it received no comment.) I hope that during that time away Loomis will reconsider his approach, though his decision to simply move his breathtakingly vile attacks to a new platform (Wikiversity) leaves me little cause for optimism. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

My objection isn't so much to your actions taken against Lewis as to the lack of action taken against others who have made similar personal attacks, such as Friday's insult to me. His "...you don't have a clue what you're doing here..." [6] insult was personal, and yet when I complained on his talk page, he not only didn't apologize, but repeated the insult: [7]. This is bad enough for a normal user, but I consider personal attacks to be totally unacceptable for Admins. The reason I didn't take this to your talk page is that experience has shown me that Admins protect one another, especially when the party harmed in an inclusionist and they are not. I've essentially given up on being treated fairly by any Admin. StuRat 18:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have an email that says he will "proudly" continue to call other editors "Nazi apologists" on Wikipedia because he believes that is an accurate description based on his interpretation of their analyses of historical events. This is not acceptable - and considering your concern about personal attacks (below) - I would expect you to concur. As for the accusations of bias: he attacked me, personally, for not dealing with those who - he says - attacked him in the Humanities desk. I had to point out to him I have never visited the Humanities desk, so how can I be responsible for ignoring attacks against him there? But why let logistics get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, eh? I have told him, if he reports attacks to me, I will deal with them in exactly the same manner I dealt with his attacks.

Once again, though StuRat, I have to ask note that using the term "Admins at the Ref Desk are not inclusionists" is no different to calling someone a deletionist, and we are back to the same issue of using the term to group diverse individuals together on a single issue. I can't tell you how frustrating that is. Rockpocket 18:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Saying someone isn't an inclusionist is no more calling them a deletionist than saying someone isn't a Republican means they are a Democrat (I, for one, am neither). StuRat 18:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that your statement that I have 'failed to take action' with others is entirely accurate. I admit that I have blocked very few other editors, mostly because they have improved their behaviour. (Exceptions include Light current and Hipocrite—and I note that Hipocrite, at least, seems to have learned something from the experience.)

In any case, Friday's comments – while decidedly curt and probably poorly phrased – were certainly much less obnoxious than those made by Loomis. I also note that you're certainly capable of giving as good as you get, and I admit a certain reluctance to dive into a dispute to defend someone who both lacks clean hands and who has taken every opportunity over the last several months to accuse me of incompetence, bias, and conspiracy. I have always treated you fairly, StuRat, but I'm certainly not interested in sticking my neck out for you. The one nice thing you ever said about my judgement lasted for just about thirty-six hours; there you managed to include an insult to Friday and you withdrew the compliment as soon as I gave you an honest opinion – which you had invited – about your conduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall accusing you of incompetence. Friday, of course, accuses me of that every chance he gets. As for bias, you're pretty much admitting to it right here, saying you "won't stick your neck out" for me, when you presumably will for others. A good Admin should make an equal effort to help everyone, not just their friends. I would also wager that nobody who Lewis has insulted has clean hands, either. The problem with your "honest opinion" was how one-sided it was, only taking me to task for my part of the argument with Friday and saying absolutely nothing to him about his side. And yes, this did permanently damage my perception of you as a fair Admin. Although, I still think of you as more fair than Friday (but this isn't much of a complement, if you realize how low of an opinion I have of Friday). And, if you're still wondering why I don't ask for help on your talk page, it's because I didn't expect to get any help, a suspicion you seem to confirm above. StuRat 22:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sheer coincidence, of course, but this comment made to another editor seems perfectly to express my feelings here. Incidentally, I didn't invite you to my talk page expecting you to seek 'help'—you've made your opinion of me abundantly clear for some time. Rather I invited you to politely ask me about any of my actions taken in my role as admin. I will gladly explain the reasoning behind any action I have taken. Surely you would prefer to actually hear from me about my decisions and motives, rather than speculate about my bad faith. Feel free to have the last word in this thread, I have nothing further to say to you on this. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That link just confirms my suspicions that you use your Admin powers to help your friends only. Do you think you'd have been voted in if you had been honest and said "I want Admin powers so I can help my friends only" ? StuRat 23:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack's comment

Hi Stu. It was never my intention to become the mediator here. But may I make some observations, without taking sides with or against anyone? Friday’s statement to which you took exception was "your statements make it clear you don't understand the policies you're talking about." I agree this is personal in nature, because he’s talking about you, not any particular post of yours. Whether it’s an attack is a matter for you to decide (and you seem to have done that). I just wonder whether discussing it with him, when he says he doesn’t see it as a personal attack, is wise. You’re expecting an apology, but it looks like he’s not prepared to give you one because he doesn’t think he’s done anything to apologise for. Where can this lead to but further entrenched opposition to each other? Have you considered taking this to a third party – Wikipedia has processes to resolve these sorts of differences. Also, you may want to consider that you yourself have said personal things to Friday like "You keep (mis)using the same argument". I’m not saying that was necessarily an attack on your part, but one could take it that way. If anyone claims to have been personally attacked, they have to be squeaky clean in any response to such an attack.

Since you’ve brought Lewis into the discussion, I’ve been ruminating about him for days now. What to do? Say something about his latest post? – but what, and to whom, and to what end? Say nothing? – but till when? and in the meantime risk him becoming even more convinced than ever that I’ve ceased to give a damn about him? I guess this is an opportunity to get some of my thoughts out on paper.

"I think you realize he isn't a bad guy" – The only way I can respond to that is that I simply don’t use that sort of paradigm about people, and I won’t. To me, nobody is a bad guy, and nobody is a good guy. And nobody is any other kind of guy. I’ve said this to Lewis more times than I can count. All of us like some people more than we like others, that’s all there is to it. The reasons are legion; and the reasons don’t even matter, because oftentimes we don’t even know why, or particularly care. Sometimes we’re drawn to associations with people whose behaviour might not be exemplary in our eyes (but then, whose behaviour ever is permanently exemplary?). Similarly, we choose to not connect with others, despite them never having done anything "wrong" to us. I make a total distinction between what people do/say, and who they are. I don’t even claim to know who I am, much less any other person in real-life, much less again other users on Wikipedia. If a friend of mine does a bad thing to me, that does not mean a "good person" has suddenly become a "bad person", nor does it mean that they’ve always been "bad" but are only now showing their true colours. All it means is they’ve done a bad thing, full stop. There are reasons for everything. It’s hard enough to divine what they are out there in what we refer to as “the real world”, but in Wikipedia, where we can only ever have access to a tiny, tiny fraction of the other user, it’s virtually impossible to know why people do the things they do. We cannot know about their lives, their relationships, their fears, their motivations, their backgrounds, their history – they might choose to tell us some things about themselves, but they can’t give us all of themselves. That isn’t even remotely possible in real life – much, much, much less here. So, that is something about my personal philosophy on these sorts of things – so that you can better understand how I operate.

Now to put that quote in its context: "While Lewis lashed out at you recently, as a result, I think you realize he isn't bad guy, but just couldn't handle the unfairness of the situation, where personal attacks against him were allowed, even encouraged, by Admins, while any he returned met with blocks." – I hope you can see the flaws in that argument, Stu. (I’m not getting into whatever was done to Lewis or whatever he did back, here – I’m just talking about general principles.) You seem to be suggesting that it’s ok to return attacks with other attacks. If that’s what you’re saying, I strongly disagree. You yourself don’t take very kindly to some admin allegedly attacking you in response to a rejoinder of yours – and why the hell should you? But if you’re saying it’s understandable why a person might respond in kind, then yes, I agree, it’s perfectly understandable. But that understanding can never be used as any kind of excuse for unacceptable behaviour. Do you ever extend to curmudgeonly admins the compassion and understanding you seem to be exhibiting about Lewis? Is it appropriate to have one standard for those we like, and a harsher standard for those we dislike? I’m just asking here, not accusing.

You also seem (again, forgive me if I’ve misunderstood what you wrote) to be saying that if A attacks B, then it’s ok, or at least understandable, for B to attack C. I hardly need to tell you what I think of that idea.

I know that you, Lewis and A.Z. chat on Wikiversity. I’m glad that Lewis still has an outlet to express himself in a healthy way, with people he’s familiar with from Wikipedia. I hope you all remain friends. And I sincerely hope that Lewis and I can re-establish good relations. I bear him personally no ill-will whatsoever, but he knows that I can't build the bridge, only he can do that. He's as good as acknowledged that his latest blast at me was utterly without any kind of foundation, but for now he's refusing to withdraw it or apologise; and for all the wrong reasons, ie. he wants me to suffer as he says he's been made to suffer by others. This can only end up hurting himself. I don't want that outcome, not for a second, but it's in Lewis's hands, not mine. There’s a lot of stuff on the web about the "Perpetrator-Victim-Rescuer Triangle" – here are a couple that may help him - [8], [9]. There's no way he'd look at them coming from me, but he might if they came from you. Best wishes. JackofOz 08:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason I expect more mature behavior from Friday is that he's an Admin, and I would expect Admins to hold to a higher standard or resign their Adminship. This is just like I'd expect a policeman who engages in crime (say petty theft) to resign or be fired. Unfortunately, I've been highly disappointed by many Admins (but not all) in this regard. As for retaliation against the original person or anyone else, no, I don't think it's right, but it does happen, and we need to understand the psychology a bit to explain it when it happens. My stating that Friday is deliberately misdirecting us when he says we don't understand the policy is to stop him from doing so. Friday's saying I am ignorant of Wikipedia policies doesn't seem to serve any purpose except to provoke a response he can use to justify a block. The policies themselves, like the Bible, can be interpreted to support or oppose just about any position you want, so saying "the WP policy supports my Ref Desk position and if you don't agree you're ignorant of the policy" is not a credible argument without quoting the specific portions of the policy which Friday believes offers some support for his position. StuRat 14:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

StuRat, for what it's worth, I still think it'd be useful for us to be able to see eye to eye. On at least a couple issues, anyway. I'm willing to take another stab at getting us to understand each other- maybe mediation would help? Seems to me like we spend lots time talking past each other instead of actually communicating. Part of where I'm coming from on personal attacks- I want people to be able to tell me "Friday, your judgment was bad when you did >whatever<" without fear that I'll be offended. This is a collaborative project- editors are meant to be a check on each other. We need honest communication in order for this to work. I can't remember a single time I've ever blocked an editor for making a personal attack on me, so I'm not sure why you're so afraid that this is what I'm trying to do. If I think someone did something wrong, I'll tell them and it need not be personal. I expect the same from other editors if they think I did something wrong. Friday (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Your "...you don't have a clue what you're doing here..." [10] insult was personal, and yet when I complained on your talk page, you not only didn't apologize, but repeated the insult: [11]. This is bad enough for a normal user, but I consider personal attacks to be totally unacceptable for Admins. StuRat 15:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you think of a way I can express this opinion without it being personal in your view? Or are you suggesting that it's always improper to tell another editor that their interpretation of policy is flawed? I'm not sure how the project would get along without that- editors are supposed to be a check on each other. Friday (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've already stated, you could say "I believe these lines '...' in policy X apply to the Ref Desk because of this text '...' ". In other words, you need to actually show what parts of the policy you believe support your position and show how it applies to the Ref Desk. If someone disagrees with you, don't call them ignorant. StuRat 16:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Your belief that npov requires we present all points of view of individual editors is so crazy wrong that I don't know where to begin. It seems to me like you must have not even read the policy. I remember trying very patiently to explain basic policy many to you many times and I don't remember it ever getting us anywhere. Am I to continue spending my time spelling things out for you if you won't do your part? Friday (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Right there, was it necessary to use the word "crazy" ? Do you really think I'm mentally unstable because my opinion of whether and/or how NPOV applies to the Ref Desk varies from yours ? You also continue to take my arguments on whether and/or how a given policy should be applied to the Ref Desk as arguments that the policy itself is wrong or I don't understand it.

Whoah, Stu, hold on. "Crazy" is a loaded word, to be sure, but it has plenty of other uses beyond "mentally unstable"! Why did you have to seize it and assume the worst?

One of the huge problems here is that you continue to take every argument by an admin who disagrees with you as either a personal attack, or evidence of some vast conspiracy by admins against mere editors.

The admins you dislike are not engaged in a conspiracy against you. If Friday were the ogre you'd like to make him out to be, would he be coming to your talk page yet again, after all these months of bickering, and saying utterly polite, reasonable things like "I still think it'd be useful for us to be able to see eye to eye" and "I'm willing to take another stab at getting us to understand each other" and "Seems to me like we spend lots time talking past each other instead of actually communicating"?

The problem with some admins -- Friday, at times, included -- is that they're blunt in a way that's frequently mistaken by new users as antagonism. This is, of course, not a problem that's new to Wikipedia; it's the age-old imperfection of bidirectional electronic communication, lacking in vocal or visual cues. I would very much like to figure out a way to teach Wikipedia admins to realize when their bluntness is being seriously alienating to new users, and to simultaneously teach new users how to come to a conclusion other than that the admins are out to get them.

As it happens, you are my "poster child" for this unintentionally-perceived antagonism. (Please don't consider my saying this to be an insult or an attack -- I say it with all sympathy, really.) The whole reason I got involved in the debate over RD policy was because of the problems you were having last fall. It became abundantly clear to me that you had perfectly good reasons for feeling as persecuted as you did -- but over time it also became equally clear to me that no persecution was intended. I never managed to convince you of this, and apparently no one else has, either. Frankly, I'm surprised that you (a) still haven't figured this out, but (b) are still here at all -- I was pretty sure you were going to leave, and with good reason, after all that (you felt) had been done to you. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There is some possibility to be misunderstood on the Internet, yes, such as when I once asked somebody their gender and they responded with "FU", which I later found out meant "I am female, and you ?". However, certain things said to me by Admins, like "it's clear to me that you don't know what you're doing", can't possibly be taken in any way other than as an insult. Friday, in particular, toggles between what appears to be reasonable statements and hostility. Based on an email with Friday, which also received a hostile reply, I must conclude, unfortunately, that the hostility is the true Friday and the "reasonable Friday" is the act. StuRat 05:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, by now, I've provided ample evidence that not every policy is applicable, or at least not applicable in the same way, on the Ref Desk and other talk pages as it is in articles. So why do you continue to imply that they are ? StuRat 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's an example: I wrote this in response to what appears to me to be a gross misunderstanding of verifiability and neutral point of view (a couple of "core Wikipedia concepts" as I've been calling them.) The whole "verifiabilty, not truth" thing won't make sense to you until you understand the perhaps subtle distinction I made there. We get new editors objecting to "verifiability, not truth" all the time because it sounds a bit odd until you understand it. It does not mean that we go out of our way to fill Wikipedia with verifiable lies. This is what leads me to believe you may not even be trying to understand core Wikipedia concepts- the facile objections you so frequently raise have already been answered many times. This is but one example. Friday (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If something is so frequently misunderstood, then we shouldn't repeat this confusing text verbatim in the Ref Desk guideline, we should come up with a better explanation. StuRat 21:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And, beyond discussing policy, here are the rude and polite ways to talk with people:

Rude way: "I believe X." "Then you don't have a clue what you're talking about."

Polite way: "I believe X." "I disagree. I believe Y because of A, B, and C."

If you want to give it more emphasis, you could say something like this, without resorting to insults:

Polite way: "I believe X." "I strongly disagree. I believe Y because of A, B, and C."

StuRat 16:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Corruption

StuRat, why do you support that JackofOz becomes an administrator and why do you support your own adminship? You said that power corrupts people. Do you have a plan to avoid being corrupt, should you become an administrator? It would be a shame and quite saddening if you became an administrator only to let power corrupt you! A.Z. 23:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm hopeful I could resist the corrupting influence of power, having suffered from it myself. One can never be certain, I suppose. I like to think that I can be honest with myself, though. One interesting question that once came up was "what exactly would you do to prevent genocide in your own country ?", with various options given:

A) Nothing.

B) I would speak against it, but only if I could do so anonymously.

C) I would speak against it publicly, but only if I could be assured of my own safety.

D) I would speak against it publicly, regardless of my own safety.

My answer was C. I think many would lie to themselves and say D (and a few brave souls would say D truthfully). StuRat 00:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Democracy

Do you think that the club would disappear when elections started to take place every year for each candidate? A.Z. 23:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it probably wouldn't disappear entirely, but it would be lessened, as Admins who abused their powers would know they would be subjected to the same thing as soon as the next election came around and they would be voted out. StuRat 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that the abusive administrators that you know would be voted out if we held elections today? A.Z. 00:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If the same requirement was needed to remain in as was needed to get in (75-80%), then yes, I do. StuRat 00:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Every user should be able to block other users

I think everyone should be able to block (and unblock) other users, including editors without an account. Do you agree or do you disagree that this would be good? A.Z. 23:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that would lead to endless blocks for no good reason. Perhaps if a certain number of people needed to agree to issue a block, that might work. I've often had the same thought about traffic violations. Cops, and people who cut off other drivers, rarely get tickets, while speeders do, mainly because they are so much easier for police to catch. If we had a computer system where each person could assign "a**hole points" to bad drivers, by typing in their license plate number, this could actually eliminate bad drivers. You might get 1000 a-points to assign each year, which you could give out 1 at a time or all at once to a particularly bad driver. If you accumulate 10,000 a-points in a year, they take your license. This way even cops could have their licenses taken if they are sufficiently poor drivers. While people could assign a-points to get revenge, etc., it would be unlikely to cost anyone their license unless they upset quite a few people. StuRat 00:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by endless blocks for no good reason? Could you illustrate your point? Can you give an example? Or many? If someone (a vandal) started to block a lot of people for no good reason, another editor would just block the vandal and unblock all the people that he had blocked. If someone attempted to unblock the vandal for no good reason at all, and without giving any explanation for doing so, this person would be blocked as well. All problems would be solved like this without any need for administrators. A.Z. 00:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if anyone suspected someone else might block them, they would do a "first strike" and block the other first. This is quite similar to the logic of why we don't want everybody carrying guns around. What now is a temporary spat could turn really nasty given adequate weaponry on both sides. Anyone who was blocked would also come back under a new name (sockpuppet) and block their blocker. StuRat 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If I suspected that, for instance, John might block me, I would just sit and wait to be blocked! If John really just blocked me out of the blue, for no reason whatsoever, without any explanation, dozens of other editors would be willing to immediately unblock me and block John for a rather long time. John would do no harm anymore, and whoever tried to just unblock John would be considered a vandal just as he was and would be blocked as well. Along with all the sockpuppets that could eventually appear.

I see now what you were talking about. You were saying that a vandal that suspected that someone else might block them would do a "first strike" and block the other first. Well, no problem here: the more people the vandal blocks without explanation, the more days he will remain blocked. Also, the vandal would not be able to guess who is going to block him. If, for instance, a vandal were to block you right now just because he doesn't like you, hundreds of other editors would be willing to unblock you and to block the vandal: Rockpocket, I, Friday, Lewis, TenofAllTrades, JackofOz: all of us would be willing to do that.

Guns are quite different. Those actually kill people and there's no unkilling. A.Z. 00:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt if Ten or Friday would help. Ten just as much as admitted above that he only uses his Admin powers to help his friends out, and he apparently considers me an enemy. I suspect the same of Friday. The problem with your theory above is that the vandal/blocker can just come back under a new name, so there would be no real punishment to discourage him from doing it over and over again. Requiring a certain number of days as a member before granting block abilities might solve this. StuRat 01:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So you might have solved the problem with my theory! A.Z. 02:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It certainly would be interesting to see how your system would work in theory, A.Z. It would probably turn into a model of game theory (along the lines of Prisoner's dilemma) with "block" / "don't block" replacing "cooperate" / "defect". The wheel-warring would probably spiral out of control to the extent that nothing would get done, but eventually things might mature enough to stablise.

However, the are a few fundamental flaws in the process as you describe it, due mainly to technical limitation of the software, that would make it a disaster. The first problem is, as StuRat suggests, that its not possible to stop, or even track, sockpuppets and vandals from non-static IPs. Consider our friend, Light current. As he well knows, he can create (and probably has created) as many accounts as he wants and there is nothing anyone can do to stop him. If each of those accounts had the ability to block anyone then he would be able to wreak havoc without anyone having the ability to stop him or block him in return. If you think the admins' very limited power corrupts, image what that sort of power would do! Secondly, we would have to ban all bots and scripts (which isn't technically possible, I think). It wouldn't be difficult for an enterprising vandal to unleash an army of bots that could block editors in less than a second, every second. Within a week of your proposal being active, human Wikipedians would be crippled as various bots fought it out with their new tools. It might sound like a glorious exercise in democracy, A.Z. but it would turn out to be a Brave New World indeed. Rockpocket 02:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket, it truly amazes me that most of the problems that you have spotted are only technical ones! Well, there could be a test to see whether the user is human or not. Everytime you wished to block someone, you would have to type a few letters that appear on an image that computers cannot read. I think you know those tests.

I had never heard about "wheel wars" between administrators. Blocking one of the administrators or both of them would end the war. In fact, the fact that someone would actually block an administrator that did something wrong would prevent a whole bunch of wheel wars, I think. A.Z. 02:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Yes, a standalone bot could probably could be stopped that way, however, it wouldn't stop script-assisted blocking (which would essentially have the same effect), nor would it help solve the non-static IP issue. This is the fundemental problem, and there is no techincal way around that. For this to have any success, there would need to be a way of making sure one person could only ever have one account.

As for wheel warring, well, blocking would only contribute to a wheel war, it would not end it. If I blocked you for wheel-warring, StuRat could simply unblock you. That in itself continues the wheel-war. Blocking admins are usually what starts wheel-wars, actually. Rockpocket 18:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what is script-assisted blocking.

Anyway, it is not needed that every user could be able to block other users. There could be an objective barrier between users that can block other users and users that can't. For instance, say that only people with more than 1000 edits would be able to block other users. With this requirement, one person would be able to have at most a few dozens of sockpuppets per year, and they would have to spend quite a long time making 1000 edits for each sockpuppet. They would waste a sockpuppet everytime that they decided to do outright vandalism, because the sockpuppet would be blocked forever. People would not make a sockpuppet and spend a lot of time making edits with the sockpuppet just to make one huge attack of vandalism one time and have the sockpuppet blocked forever. Even if someone did it, they would only be able to do it a few times a year, and this would not harm Wikipedia, since every vandalism would be quickly reverted and the sockpuppet would be blocked forever.

As to the wheel war thing: if there were a ridiculous wheel war that everyone agrees to be ridiculous, disruptive and purposeless, no one would block the guy who blocked both wheel-warriors. Indeed, if there were consensus that those two involved in the war were being disruptive, anyone who unblocked them for no reason would be blocked as well. A.Z. 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, A.Z., that is an ideal system. But here is the interesting thing: this is theoretically how administration works at the moment! A few years back, admins were made exactly as you suggest, if you had a thousand or so edits then you could say "I want to have the admin tools" and one of the 'crats would just say "OK" and make you an admin. Adminship is, and was, no big deal. Since the project grew so quickly, a centralised system was created where one would make a request (WP:RfA). Since this is a wiki, people began commenting on the requests and, in the wiki spirit, the 'crats began not conferring adminship on people when the community suggested that it was not what they wanted. This is how the system works today. The general idea - that adminship is no big deal - remains and theoretically anyone who has had enough edits to know their way around should probably be given the admin tools. Plenty of people (myself included) still comment on RfAs on that basis - if the person has not shown any reason to think they will abuse the tools (i.e. by being a vandal) then they should not be stopped from having them. So we have the system in place to realise your scenario, but why does it not happen in practice? A few reasons:

• Firstly not enough people put themselves (or other people) forward. Only about 20 people a week request adminship. If you want more people to be admins, more people have to want it!
• Secondly, the community doesn't speak up. You are telling me you would like this system, but do you ever go to an RfA and make that comment there? If everyone who thought everyone should be an admin said so at every RfA, pretty much everyone who wanted to be would become an admin! I try to comment at as many RfA's as I can. I usually support, occasionally remain neutral, but rarely oppose. So I - one of the so called admins who oppress the other members of the community - am the one helping to make your more democratic scenario happen. WHy don't you help?

There are a few other things that could be tried. One of these would be automatically giving people the tools when the reach a certain edit count, rather than have them ask for it. This is probably not a good idea, though, because bots and scripts could generate 1000 edits in an hour. If we allowed that, then we would have the same sockpuppetry problems I mentioned above. The other thing is to encourage those commenting to stop being so picky on judging those who ask for the tools. I don't know how to do that, since it is human nature to criticise. But if enough people spoke up in support, it would not be big problem. So, the bottom line is this. If you want to realise a system like you mention, then it can happen, but you need to get involved. Rockpocket 21:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna call people who have the power to block other people "blockers" instead of administrators. There are other privileges that the administrators have, and I don't know yet whether it would be good and possible to grant those other privileges to everyone. However, I'm convinced that the ability to block other people should be handed out to all.

There are a lot of things to talk about your last post, but I have a concrete real suggestion that I think would solve the technical problems. There could be one requirement for becoming a blocker: the vote of twenty, or maybe forty people who are blockers. Real people can recognize real people: it is easy to judge whether the edits are made by a real person or by a bot: that would be the job of the blockers before they vote. They would see whether the person has more than 1000 edits and they would check whether those edits were human edits. All 1000 edits would have to be "human edits" and they would have to be made during a certain period of time: for instance, at least three months. The "RFA filter" would end, because becoming a blocker would not require you to be popular and to have 80% of all votes: it would just require forty votes, no matter how many oppose you and dislike you and criticise you, no matter if two hundred people are disgusted by you. And basically any real person would become a blocker!

Some vandal sockpuppets would become blockers and would start to vote for other sockpuppets who would start to vote for other sockpuppets, so apparently there's no difference between just handing out the tools to everyone and requiring the votes of only forty blockers -who could even be just forty sockpuppets of the same person. However, if a blocker were perceived to be a vandal sockpuppet, he would be blocked by the other blockers, and would not be able to block anyone else anymore. If he were clearly a vandal, he would be blocked forever, and all the effort making the edits and making the sockpuppet look like a human being acting in good faith would be lost for good.

OK, the community of blockers would not handle thousands and thousands of sockpuppets appearing all the time: the sockpuppets would start blocking the rest of the community, it would be a war! But(!), if blockers were perceived to be always voting for vandals to become blockers, they would be blocked as well! People voting for people who only have edits made by bots would be immediately blocked. In fact, anyone who voted for someone who is clearly a vandal would be blocked for good and would have to give a really convincing explanation if they wished to be unblocked. If the person was to be unblocked and yet again started voting for people who only have "bot edits", they would be blocked forever. Remember: to be elected a blocker once again, this person would have to spend some time making edits to Wikipedia. Three months! One thousand edits! One thousand edits that could only be made by a person!

The system would be stable. Wikipedia would become more "wiki" and Wikipedia would improve. There would be no club and fewer decisions would be based on popularity. A.Z. 22:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, so you seem to have dealt with the vandal and election issue. Thats fine, though its essentially the same system as we have for admins except the oppose votes would be discounted. But what about disagreements over content, I don't see how these would be helped by giving everyone blocking powers. You say someone would be "blocked forever", but there is no way of doing that. This is a failsafe that is built into Wikipedia. No-one has absolute power to block that cannot be over-ridden. Since any block can be unblocked and once you are unblocked you can block someone else (often the person that blocked you): we will have perpetual wheel-wars. So it would never be stable because there will always be those who differ on opinion on any issue that invlved a block. For example, Loomis has been indefinitely blocked. I know StuRat disagrees with this, you may too. So StuRat may unblock Loomis, and promptly block Friday for misusing his tools. Now, if I saw that, I would probably unblock Friday and block StuRat for misusing his tools. If you saw that you may unblock StuRat and block me.... can you see where this is going? The only way it would stop is if everyone agreed to not use their block tools. Then what you have is a license to disrupt the project since there is no way stopping someone from doing it. The point is, nothing would ever get done as everyone would spend half their time being blocked and the other half blocking or unblocking people! How would you stop that happening? Rockpocket 22:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm really happy that we are over the technical issues now and we can finally discuss the good stuff! (I'm also really proud of myself because I solved both the vandal and the election issues.)

First of all: I know that no-one has the power to decide on their own that someone will be blocked forever! But that was not what I was implying when I said that a vandal would be blocked forever. If the vandal was a real obvious vandal, there would be consensus that the vandal should remain blocked. Anyone who tried to unblock the vandal without giving any explanation would just be another vandal and would be blocked as well and would not be unblocked because there would be consensus that the guy should be blocked. Anyone with the "blocker" status would have to go through the "human test" before having this status. No vandal would waste all their fake efforts to pass the human test just to unblock one obvious vandal. The obvious vandal would just be blocked again right after he was unblocked and the person would be blocked as well. So, it can fairly be said that the vandals would remain blocked forever. One or another vandal could eventually try to convince people on their talkpages that they want to be good editors and should be unblocked. They may be unblocked, but people will be watching them: if they do some outright vandalism (as JackofOz says) again, then what will happen is that... well, you already know.

You seem to think that people would just be blocking and unblocking other people all the time. That would most certainly not happen. On the first day, maybe. But soon people would realize that engaging in blocking people without a convincing reason would just get them blocked.

When someone is blocked, they cannot block anyone anymore, so people who always blocked other people for no reasons would just not exist: they would all be blocked.

If there is a strong consensus (say 99% of the community) that someone should be blocked, the blocked person will not do any harm any more and no-one will unblock the person because everyone thinks that the person should be blocked. If one, or two, or three, or any small number of people decide that the blocking is unfair, they may either try to convince a part of the 99% of the community of that, or they will go there and do the unblocking themselves. If they do it themselves without convincing other people, they will be blocked. They know that they will, so they won't even think about doing it.

If there was, say, 85% of agreement about a content issue, certainly the other 15% would just accept the fact that there's nothing they can do: there is just too much opposition, FAR too much in this case. They would have to use their persuasive skills, they would have to use arguments and try and convince other people of their opinion, before they even thought about changing things and engaging edit wars. They won't try to block other people who disagree with them. That would be the bad thing to do, plus they would be blocked: the more people they blocked without a convincing reason, the more time they would remain blocked.

Now, each single block would be judged by the community. By the entire community, by all people interested, not just by a few. Everyone would be equally entitled to revert the block, but at the end consensus would prevail. The community would decide!

I can't tell how it would be with Lewis. Obviously, if 90% of the community thought Lewis to be disruptive, he would remain blocked and I StuRat would not try to unblock him because we would know that, if we did so, we would be blocked as well.

But Lewis's case is a real case, and the above is just a hypothesis that does not apply here. To judge Lewis's case, we would have to go back to November, 2006, and see how everything that happened with Clio the Muse and Friday et al and all the discussions would have taken place in an environment where everyone had blocking powers. I'm sure things would be different. I can't say whether Lewis would be blocked by now, I really can't, I would have to speculate a lot. I don't know if someone would be blocked by now, or if someone would have been blocked before and would by now be unblocked, I don't know if maybe the problems would have been solved back then. But, if an editor were perceived by the community to be really disruptive, they would be blocked.

Disagreements over content would be solved just like they are solved now. Giving blocking powers to everyone will not be a magic solution to all problems. People will still have to discuss the issues on the talk pages, they'll still have to accept that their opinion will not prevail sometimes. I believe that the discussions would just be a little fairer because there would not be a group of selected few who can decide the result of it. Some sort of consensus will have to be reached. There are probably plenty of English mistakes above. Anyone willing to is invited to correct them so my post becomes more readable. A.Z. 00:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(reset)I don't know, A.Z. its certainly possible it could work out, but the evidence suggests it will not. I am a scientist by profession and when I test a wider theory or hypothesis, I will design a small scale experiment to model the situation then test my theory on that. You could consider the current admin corps as a model of of what you invisage. There are around 1000 of us who all the have the power to block and unblock each other. So, the question is does this system work well within admin community? Well, have have you ever spent much time at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and seen all the wheel-warring that goes on? Its stupid. Admins are supposed to "discuss the issues on the talk pages" rather than use their tools against one another, yet they block and unblock each other all the time. All the time. So, if you consider that our current admins are supposed to be among the most responsible and experienced editors and they still engage in stupid wheel-wars when they should be solving disagreement by debate - why on earth would the situation be any better when you expand the blocking system to include the entire Wikipedia community? It wouldn't. At the very least the amount of wheel warring would increase in proportion, and it could be a lot, lot worse. Of course, I realise that that is not a good advertisement for the current admin system either (though I should note there are also many, many admins - myself included - who have never wheel warred and never will), but I don't wish to replace one flawed system with another, especially if the other is much harder to control (1000 with tools vs 1,000,000 with tools). Rockpocket 00:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to think more about this post (and I'll do so), but my first impression is that it appears to be filled with fallacies (with all due respect). The first thing I note would be something like this: "There are 1000 powerful nobles in England today and things don't work quite well, so why on earth would they work better if one million people had power?" It must be because the nobles are not "a small scale" of all English people, but I can't quite explain why. I would like to know anything else that you'd like to say, Rockpocket, now that I talked a little about my first impression. If you think my analogy with the nobles was somehow fallacious itself, please say so. Any input from other users would also help. It's kind of hard to respond to the concerns now raised by you, but I'm confident we can solve them if we try. A.Z. 01:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I feel a bit bad hogging StuRat's talkpage with this discussion. If you want to move it, StuRat, just say the word. In reply, I wouldn't say my model is filled with fallacies (because I'm not suggesting it is exactly a perfect model, just that it is an example of your system that we can analyse). It does have flaws, of course, because it it was exactly the same it wouldn't be a model! But you are correct that there are a few reasons it might be flawed. The major reason - like you propose with the nobles example - is one of sampling. The nobles are not a representative sample of the English population. Are the Admins representative of the Wikipedian population? No. So that is a problem, but when trying to account for sampling flaws, you ask yourself: what effect would the sampling problem have on the model? Well, I already addressed that above (our current admins are supposed to be among the most responsible and experienced editors and they still engage in stupid wheel-wars). This is why I said things would be as bad, or even worse when you expand the system to all user. Because one would expect admins to be among those that should use the tools the most responsibly, so when you take the entire population, one would expect the situation to be worse than within the admin sample.

Of course, this relies on assumption that admins are among the most responsible and experienced editors. If they are not - and are just as good/bad as the average Wikipedian - then the model is even better and we would expect the wheel warring to be the same! However, for the expanded system to be an improvement, one would have to argue that the current admins are less responsible and experienced than the average Wikipedian. They are certainly not less experienced (you can see that from the lists of top contributers), so are the less responsible? Who knows, but I don't have any evidence for that, do you? I guess my point is that, based on this model, I see no evidence that your system would be an improvement over the current system, but some evidence that it could be as bad, or worse. That is not a good basis on which to move forward, in my opinion. Rockpocket 19:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I do believe Admins are worse than the average editor, because power corrupts. Now you say "but won't everybody then be just as bad when everyone becomes an Admin ?". I say no, because power only exists relative to others who lack power. In the case of Admins, they only can get away with abusing editors because those editors lack any effective means of redress. If everyone was an Admin, that would no longer be true. StuRat 20:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think StuRat has a good point and I also believe that the current process of electing administrators selects people who are more irresponsible and more stupid and more dishonest than the average of Wikipedians. I may look at some requests for adminship and find more evidence of this to corroborate my thesis.

By the way, I don't think that number of edits has anything whatsoever to do with "experience" (whatever that means) and I see no evidence that experience would be a good thing in itself... Hitler had quite a few years of experience being the leader of a nation! (yes, I think Hitler is a great way to better express my points) A.Z. 22:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't actually say that, when elected, Admins are worse than others, just that they became corrupt, later. However, now that I think of it, the RFA process, much like the electoral process, does favor those willing to tell the people want they want to hear, which is why we end up with dishonest politicians and, I suppose, dishonest Admins. Unlike politicians, however, there is no way to recall Admins whose dishonesty has become apparent. Had he been an Admin, Nixon would have continued to bug his perceived enemies for life. StuRat 22:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely my point: an honest, intelligent and good willing person would have quite a hard time becoming an administrator nowadays. Such a person would be disgusted just by looking at the RfA page. I know I am. A.Z. 22:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That is one way of interpreting the system. I can tell you personally that it is not the case with me. I had no driving desire to be an admin and declined a number of times before I agreed to be nominated. I also made it entirely clear during my nomination process that I would state what I believe and if thats not good enough for the community then I would rather not be an admin, because I would rather be honest and flawed, than a hypocrite. In doing that, a number of people !voted against me for things I said when I could easily have said what they wanted to hear. I can't speak for anyone else and there are some that certainly have abused the tools (in my opinion). But I can tell you that there are also plenty of admins who are honest and responsible, and I think you are making a grossly unfair generalisation in saying the process "selects people who are more irresponsible and more stupid and more dishonest than the average of Wikipedians". With respect, A.Z. your experience of admins is extremely limited. Making judgements on over 1000 people based on your interation with a few is not really that clever. Remember the sampling "fallacy" you mentioned? Well your judgement is suffering from the exact same problem.

StuRat, however, makes a very good point about how relative power can corrupt. Its entirely possible the an average Wikipedian could become "worse" in the very process of becoming an admin. I don't think I have, but then again, perhaps like the Dark side, its so insidious that I don't even notice. So the only way around this problem is to disseminate power to everyone or introduce more accountability. However, we have already discussed the fundamental problems associated with either of those two systems. No system is perfect, so the question then becomes, do we wish to trade the current problems for the new ones? None of us can know for sure whether a new system can be better than the one we already have.

By the way, number of edits do not equal experience. However, by having enough edits to judge quality of contribution one can make a decision on experience. If someone has less than 50 edits, how is anyone else expected to ascertain what that person's experience is? Have a read of Wikipedia:Editcountitis to see what I mean. Rockpocket 23:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Look at my talk page right now, Rockpocket: an administrator has just been abusive to me! (I'm going to answer the rest later) A.Z. 23:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What an absurd idea this is. Why would you want to block users? Majorly (hot!) 23:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

When someone started doing something really bad to Wikipedia and to other people, you would block them to protect Wikipedia and other people. A.Z. 00:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No, wrong yet again. You should research before you make comments about things that you clearly know nothing about. Admins can unblock themselves. Majorly (hot!) 00:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's very stupid, to let administrators unblock themselves.

But your statement is even more stupid! I don't have to understand every irrational little detail of a system utterly failed in its essence to be able to make a comment on that system. Do you think I should research how the Nazist decided who was an Arian and who was not before I criticise Nazism? Do you think I should know all little intricacies of the Apartheid regime to be able to say that it was a bad thing? Do you think that I should find out which American states had which specific segregational laws so I can say that segregation is wrong? A.Z. 00:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a more stupid idea to let everyone block. All I can say is, thank goodness you cannot block anyone, I can see the power being used most abusively. Majorly (hot!) 00:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So, you agree with me that your statement was stupid?A.Z. 01:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Majorly (hot!) 01:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess you disagree that the current system for electing administrators is utterly failed in its essence? A.Z. 01:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll make it a new rule of mine: anything A.Z. says, disagree with it. Is that OK? Majorly (hot!) 01:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, you two. There's no point in filling up StuRat's already overflowing talk page with bickering like this. bibliomaniac15 02:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So we should fill up my talk page with another type of bickering ? :-) StuRat 05:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack's question (moved from above as per A.Z.'s request)

(Half-joking here, but only half) Stu, when you said to me elsewhere that "like it or not, you're running for admin", did "I do believe Admins are worse than the average editor, because power corrupts" apply to me? If so, how do you reconcile these positions? Or do you think that I am somehow incorruptible and above mere mortals? JackofOz 23:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, as long as we are stuck with representative "democracy", in society, the best we can do is to elect the best people we can find, and hope the new "boss" won't be the same as the old "boss" (AKA, hope we don't get fooled again). The long term goal, of course, should be to bring down the whole corrupt system and establish direct democracy. The same applies to Wikipedia. StuRat 23:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

JackofOz, I kindly ask you to move your question and this response of mine to a new section. I like this section, I think we are getting somewhere here. Your question is interesting, but quite off-topic.

How's my fix ? StuRat 23:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Awful! Just create a new section using to equal signs! A.Z. 23:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I see some "2" confusion: "two" = 2, "too" = also, "to" = spelling to use for all other meanings. StuRat 23:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be a little afraid of what could happen to any person that I like if they became administrators. I already expressed my concerns above, in the section "Corruption". StuRat answered as to himself, but not about JackofOz. A.Z. 23:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Me after I become an Admin: "A.Z., you have been found to have corrupted the newbies, by teaching evil concepts like fairness and democracy, which is against official POLICY. Thus, you will be terminated immediately. An automatic appeal has been made on your behalf, to me, and I have ruled against the appeal. Your termination will thus take place immediately." :-) StuRat 23:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL! A.Z. 00:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Imagine! redux

With regards to the general subject of expanding adminship discussed above, there are some very interesting proposals afoot. See here. Of course, whether reducing electoral oversight will reduce abuse (or your perception of abuse) is open for debate. Still, if this is what you want from the community now is the time to make your voice heard. Rockpocket 00:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean increasing electoral oversight ? StuRat 00:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, decreasing. The system being proposed would be one where I could propose you for adminiship by placing a template on your user-page. If no-one expressed "serious objections" (whatever that means) by removing the template in the 7 days that follow, you would be given sysop tools without any type of electoral process. Personally I'm not sure it will have much effect other than simplify the process for the few outstanding candidates that currently pass unanimously. But, depending on how the community embraced the concept, it could result in a huge expansion on the number of admins. Rockpocket 00:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it couldn't be any worse than the current process, which gives us some truly horrid Admins, despite what appears to be a huge effort to avoid them. What I really think is needed is a way to remove them as easily as they get in, however. Any proposals on that ? StuRat 00:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That is discussed regularly, but it never goes anywhere because the community realises that it would turn admins into politicians and that would be a bad thing. There is the voluntary WP:RECALL (in which, I note, you are aware Friday is a participant) I haven't added myself to that simply because I see it as pointless, the very nature of being an admin means that you will piss some people off. You don't ask criminals to elect the police, so why look for support among those that break our rules? I take comments from the community not directly involved in decisions I make very seriously - which is why I encourage those who allege abuse to open a RfC. I have my own standards and I will resign the tools myself if I fail those.

I also note that adopting the friends-stick-together dynamic - that you seem so unhappy about when it works against you - wasn't beyond you when it came to trying to get Friday recalled. This appears no different to the "abuse" that you said would be used to stop you becoming an admin. Rockpocket 01:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you realize you just referred to the entire non-Admin user population as "criminals" ? Perhaps that's what being an Admin makes you think of the rest, as in the Stanford prison experiment. Any voluntary system obviously has the flaw that the truly bad Admins won't volunteer to be recalled or step down voluntarily. There's also the effect that almost nobody sees their own behavior as bad. As for the friends-stick-together dynamic, it's only bad when those friends are in a position of authority. Those not in authority need to stick together to have any voice at all, much as in unions. Otherwise the lone worker/lone editor would be completely trampled by the factory owners/Admins. There is no opportunity for workers to abuse management, or for editors to abuse Admins. As for turning Admins into politicians, a little fear of their constituencies might be a very good thing. What aspects of "being politicians" do you see as a negative that would occur for Admins ? I would expect that blocks could only be applied if there was near universal agreement, but I see that as a good thing. StuRat 02:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

He didn't call all non-admins criminals. Just like Ten didn't "admit that he uses the admin tools only to help his friends." You seem to have a very frequent habit of misrepresenting what people say. Either 1) you've got a huge chip on your shoulder so you insist on seeing everyone as an enemy or 2) you have very poor reading comprehension skills. We're certainly willing to cut editors some slack, and there's always room for miscommunication, but this is an ongoing thing with you, and it makes Wikipedia a less pleasant place on the pages you frequent. Why not forget everything you think you know about other editors, and just start assuming that most people here are reasonable adults who are trying to help? Friday (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

PS. That maybe sounds harsher than I intended. But, tell you what- I'll make you a deal: you forget about all the alleged past injustices done to you, and I'll forget about all your alleged past misbehaviors. First one to renege gets flogged with a wet noodle. We can accomplish more by moving forward than by dwelling on the past, don't you think? Friday (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me, so long as it includes you no longer calling me incompetent and/or ignorant as in saying I need to go study Wikipedia policies. And when I question the applicability of a Wikipedia policy to the Ref Desk, actually discuss that issue, don't tell me to go complain on that policy page. StuRat 16:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The comment about referring to the entire non-Admin user population as "criminals" is obviously a straw man argument. I was using an analogy to demonstrate why I think recall is flawed: since only those who feel wronged by admin action use it, it would be analogous to letting criminals to oversee the police. Its not a perfect comparison, but I'm sure you can see the point. You ask Friday to "actually discuss that issue", I would ask the same of you. Is it surprising that others are slow to engage in debate with you, when you simply misrepresent their positions then attack those? Straw man arguments kill good faith debate and are not constructive, please stop using them. Rockpocket 17:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone who feels wronged by Admin actions is a "criminal", you can't just start by assuming that or you will never listen to them. StuRat 00:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the meaning of my analogy. I'm not saying anyone who feels wronged is a "criminal", what I'm saying is that in doing the job (of an admin) people involve feel wronged, just as in doing the job of a policeman people feel wronged. The police deal with a lot of people who break the law who feel wronged, admins deal with a lot of people who break our laws, who feel wronged. Obviously the police get it wrong themselves sometimes (as do the admins), but we don't propose to solve this by asking those who feel wronged to elect the police, why should we ask these people to elect admins? Rockpocket 18:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe we do, indirectly, by electing the mayor, and, in some jurisdictions, the Chief of Police. The idea is that those mayors/chiefs who permit corrupt cops to remain will be voted out of office and replaced by those who promise to "clean house". "Those who feel wronged" are allowed to vote. In some jurisdictions, those who are convicted of a crime may not be allowed to vote, but the important distinction is that this conviction does not come from the cops themselves, it comes from the judicial system. Perhaps the rarely used ArbComm is the Wikipedia equivalent. If you want to exclude editors who have been banned by the ArbComm from voting, I'd agree to that, but everyone else, whether or not they've had trouble with Admins, ought to be allowed to vote on if those Admins remain. StuRat 20:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In "I believe we do" you are referring to the uniquely American system, of course. Most other countries do not have their police and/or judicial system under electorial oversight. The police are overseen by an independent ombudsman or commission that you can make a complaint to, not a politician who can get voted out. This is the equivalent of what we have with ArbCom. Both ArbCom and the commissions/ombudsman listen to complaints from anyone - including those who feel wronged - and their decision is binding for the admins/police. The reason for this is that most countries realise a fair and just legal process should be free of political influence (See the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal#District attorney's actions and Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy for examples of what happens when you politicize the legal system). This appears to be the consensus among Wikipedians too, which is why we don't re-elect admins. Rockpocket 07:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I would bet that other systems also have an elected official ultimately in charge of the police in some capacity. Are the commissioners/ombudsmen elected ? If not, are they appointed by someone who is elected ? Some level of political control of police is definitely needed, or they would just look out for their own interests, as they do in some third world nations, essentially becoming an armed gang. StuRat 07:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't honestly know for a lot of countries, but in Scotland there people who investigate and regulate the police are Procurator Fiscals under the ultimate direction of Her Majesty's Advocate. He (or indeed, since 2006, she) is appointed by, and answerable to, the Queen. Commissioners/ombudsmen are never elected, these officials are never "political appointments" like judges, mayors or chiefs of police are in the US. Infact, they tend to be highly apolitical and never indicate any political allegience. (Not entirely true, historically some had prior political connections, though today they are apolitical) Like the British Civil Service, they are employees of the Crown and not parliament, though they work for and with elected officials they are independent of them. Its an entirely different political culture compared to the US, and I don't honestly know why it works, but it does. Probably to do with being such a mature, stable system with a politically benign head of state or something (for example, the first of Her Majesty's Advocates was John Ross, appointed before 1483!) If you consider Jimbo to be the Queen (!), ArbCom and the 'crats to be the civil service and the admins to be the police, I guess you could say we follow the British system. Rockpocket 08:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Who hires and fires the police and Chief of Police ? StuRat 08:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Queen appoints them, since they also always get knighted as part of the process (and since they are there to serve the people and not the current administration, they never get fired. They usually just retire, though I suppose The Queen could probably fire them too). Her ultimate oversight makes sure it is not a purely political appointment. However, she doesn't choose them from scratch. Unless she has reason to believe there is politicking going on, she will usually appoint who is nominated by a particular body. In London, for example, the body is The Metropolitan Police Authority. The MPA has twenty-three members, twelve elected officials appointed by the Mayor according to the political make up of the London Assembly, four magistrates appointed by the Greater London Magistrates Courts Association and seven independent members, one appointed directly by the Home secretary, with the other vacancies appointed after being advertised openly. Note that it is balanced so that the unelected members can't generate a majority by themselves, and since 100% of the elected members can't be from the same party, no political faction can generate a majority either. So, you see, there are plenty of checks and balances to make sure the police is independent of political bias but still serves the electorate. You Americans should try and get yourself a Queen. It can be a bit rocky for a while, but after 600 hundred years or so, things settle down into a nice fair system. Rockpocket 08:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with admins being politicians is that it would hamper their actions. No admin would want to tackle complex problems, or close contentious XfDs because its a no-win situation. Here is why: 90% of the time I am asked to deal with a dispute between two editors, the dispute will end with one of them extremely unhappy, accuse me of making the wrong decision, and want to take it to a higher authority. If you assess this statistically, it either means I always make the "wrong" decision (which is unlikely, I am trying to do the right right thing and, if only by chance, I should be "right" 50% of the time) or it means that no matter what decision I make, a large proportion of the time one of the people in dispute will hold a grudge. Now, the other thing that is clear in my experience is that people who feel wronged on Wikipedia invest much more time pursuing the issue that those that are vindicated. That is human nature. The corollary to these is that any formal re-election system would result in all the people you have "wronged" (and remember, based on my experience someone gets "wronged" irrespective of the decision I make) being keen to !vote against, while all those who do not feel wronged get on with their lives and don't feel the need to record their support. If you boil that down, what it means is that with every action you take that has an editor who diagrees with you, you increase the probability you will be opposed. So, if I was a politician, I'd have two choices.

• I would only engage in uncontested actions

• or I would make sure that the person who contested it is not in a position to !vote against me for re-election

So turning admins into politicians would result in inertia (choice 1) or greater incentive for abuse (choice 2). Is that what you want? Rockpocket 17:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What's with the "!vote" ? Does that mean it isn't called a vote even though for all intents and purposes it is ? StuRat 01:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Its not technically a vote, its consensus decision-making. This is because 'crats discount comments opposing, in judging the consensus, that do not have a reasonable justification (such as WP:IDONTLIKEIT). But with that exception it is, as you say, for all intents and purposes a kind of vote, so the term !vote has evolved (the ! meaning logical negation) to refer to it. Rockpocket 18:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

And do they also discount supporting !votes without a good argument ? StuRat 20:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Good question. They don't discount a support !vote without any supporting argument, but may discount a support vote with an obviously spurious supporting argument (e.g. support because he follows the same football team as I do). However, they do discount an oppose vote without any supporting argument or without a good argument. This is because - since adminship is no big deal - the onus is on the community to justify why a csndidate shouldn't have the tools, instead of having to justifying why they should. This is why I have been telling A.Z. that the system is set up to be as open as he would like, it just needs people to want to give tools to any editor of good standing and it will happen. Rockpocket 20:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that's how we keep getting terrible Admins, the 'crats discount too many oppose !votes. This process of deciding on which !votes to count and which not to count is highly suspect, in my opinion. It basically allows whoever decides which votes to count the right to make the decision themselves, not based on consensus. This reminds me of Iranian "democracy", where the religious leaders get to decide who can run, who can vote, etc. StuRat 21:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Then problem comes down to deciding what counts as consensus. If you want to use this system then someone has to make that decision and, in our case, its the 'crats. They too are elected and have a much higher standard to reach before they are promoted, remember. There is often suggestions that the 'crats make decisions themselves instead of interpreting consensus (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny for example). I guess the way I look at it is that of we are going to have a system of decision by consensus, then someone has to be the arbitrar, it may as well be them (though there may be an argument for re-electing 'crats occasionally, I'm not averse to that idea because their only job is to judge consensus). The alternative is to have a straight out vote, where justification doesn't matter. I guess we could go that way, but it has its own problems. For example, if we allow that it will be much easier for those how frequent RfA the most (i.e. the current admins) to influence the votes for their own purposes (which is something you indicated that bothered you in the current system). Also, in having a straight vote you will have set a higher standard to pass (i.e. you will account all oppose votes). Then we would have fewer admins, giving them even more power. Note also the the 'crats aren't the ultimate level of influence here, ArbCom and the m:stewards have more power. Rockpocket 22:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ringo Starr and malapropism

Hi StuRat - a while back you expressed doubt at Talk:Malapropism that "ringoisms" such as "Tomorrow never knows" were malapropisms. I have provided documentary support for them being malapropisms, in the form of published references and a radio interview with John Lennon. Unfortunately, one editor doesn't think that published references are enough to satisfy those claims... is it possible for you to have a look at the comments on the talk page and the references I have added to the article (you may need to check the history, due to the ongoing reversions), to see whether what I have added is enough to satisfy your doubts? Cheers, Grutness...wha? 01:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a response, and, I must say, coming back with a source some 9 months later must be a record, you deserve the Barnstar of persistence, LOL. StuRat 01:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive?

StuRat--do you think it might be time to archive this page?

It's running at nearly 600,000 bytes of wikitext, and the better part of a megabyte of HTML.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was just thinking that myself. The irony is that I don't want to do so while it is being heavily modified, like now, since that will undoubtedly result in endless edit conflicts. But, when it settles down a bit, I will archive it. (My method is to archive everything, then bring back the parts I want to keep active, since they are far fewer.) StuRat 22:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The page takes quite a long time to load when I use slower Internet connections, though there is interesting reading material to spend the time. A.Z. 23:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but you might want to archive this massive page of yours. bibliomaniac15 00:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's down to 171 KB, which is tiny for me, is that better ? StuRat 07:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reverting

Please stop reverting other people when they remove off-topic content. You have not demonstrated good judgment on whether or not given content improves the reference desk. The people you're reverting generally have. If you disagree, take it up on the talk page instead of just reverting. Friday (talk)

Back to your old line that deletions can be done unilaterally, while reverts of said deletions require talk page discussions and consensus, I see. I will have to assume you're talking about the comment that 1500 watt speakers must put out a lot of heat, which seems to be correct, to me. If you disagree, show me some evidence that it's not, after that response, but don't delete it. StuRat 06:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

StuRat, the post about the 1500 W speakers is being reverted because – aside from not answering the question asked, which in itself wouldn't be grounds for removal – it was made by a banned editor.

Light current was allowed to post on Wikipedia, and even to use a new account, until he started to be abusive and obnoxious again. (Even then, in the interest of avoiding another meltdown, various acts of provocation by his 'main' SlipperyHippo account were ignored, and the acts of outright abuse and vandalism only resulted in blocking of his socks.) After a month or more of LC just not getting it, his main account was blocked, in accordance with the established community-endorsed ban. He then used a collection of sock puppets to engage in pagemove vandalism ([12]), and a shifting IP address to pile on abuse on a number of talk pages.

Reverting the edits of community-banned editors does not require prior discussion. Next time just ask Steve, okay? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC

If it's a revert because of a banned user, then for God sake put that in the edit summary and list the banned user ! StuRat 16:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That would help, sure. Another thing that'd help is if you didn't just reach for the revert button as a knee-jerk reaction. Don't understand why someone did something? Try asking. And, and using some automated tool to do the revert and leaving no useful edit summary? That's a bit rude- you should probably only do it that way in cases of vandalism. Friday (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not my responsibility to track down people and find out why they did things and failed to mention them in the edit summary. I do try to add a comment as to why an undo was performed at the end of each edit summary. Are you saying I missed one ? If so, please provide a diff. StuRat 17:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You do assume a certain amount of responsibility for your edits, including decisions to undo those of another editor. You're right, Steve should have been more descriptive in his edit summaries—but try to keep in mind that his omission isn't a good reason for you to behave badly.

He was probably assuming that all the Ref Desk 'regulars' knew by now that 88.108.* to 88.111.* or so was LC's IP range, but you may not have noticed that. (Consider yourself informed.) Steve's not a bad guy, and when he reverts an anon (twice—it's always a good idea to check the history when you undo another editor's edits) I would expect he usually has a reason. Please try not to jump to malice or incompetence as your first hypothesis. All I'm asking is for you to follow up with Steve next time, or post a question on WT:RD. Give someone a couple of hours to look in. I don't think that's unfair. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it should be reciprocal. That is, if the delator has taken their time, discussed the deletion on the Ref Desk, notified the authors, and listed a good reason in the edit summary, then I should do the same. On the other hand, if they don't do any of that, then it's not my responsibility to do that work for them, and I should just immediately revert a deletion which was apparently done without any care or effort. StuRat 20:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

StuRat, we have already had this discussion where I pre-informed you of the legitimacy of future deletions from that IP range and noted why continued reversions would be seen as disruptive. You deleted our discussion (does that make you a deletionist?) with the comment Message received, thank you ever so much. Received but not understood, apparently. Admittedly, it will help eliminate confusion if these deletions are noted as being from a banned user (something I'm sure Steve will take on board), but this is not about deletionism vs inclusionism as you are well aware and there is no justification for procedural reverting whatsoever. Consider this a second warning that further deletions from that IP range will happen and, should you revert them, it will be seen as disruptive behavior and a violation of WP:POINT. As I said before, please let this one go and focus on deletions that are from editors in good standing. Rockpocket 21:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even look at the editor and try to figure out who it was, because I had no reason to suspect the deletion had to do with it being a banned user. I believe I had said I wasn't going to allow automatic deletions of everyone within that huge I/P range you specified, either. If that was what Wikipedia wanted, they could block that entire dynamic I/P range. They haven't, so they decided that's not the proper action. I will abide by their decision, and you should, too. StuRat 02:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So you are telling me that you reverted the actions of another editor made on good faith without even checking who made the first edit? This procedural reverting is getting ridiculous. WP:REVERT is clear that:

1. Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
2. Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
3. If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.

I can assure you Steve considered each of these before he reverted the banned user, you clearly did not - otherwise you would have realised the purpose of his revert and the identity of the banned user. If you can't be bothered to take your reversions seriously enough to consider why they might have been done you shouldn't revert at all. I am absolutely serious when I say that if you continue to revert the actions of editors trying to limit disruption of a banned user from that IP range, you will be held liable for that disruption per WP:BAN. You have been warned twice, next time I will take action to stop these disruptive actions from you. Rockpocket 02:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no sign that Steve did any of those steps, and he most definitely didn't discuss it first. As for the other time, I was completely within the guidelines to put in material that I wanted included, regardless of the source, as you seemed to admit at the time. In neither case do I know it was a banned user, please show me some proof, like an I/P address trace. StuRat 02:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Steve didn't discuss it because he knew it was an appropriate revert per WP:BAN, I have had conversations with him by email and I can assure you he has given it much thought. You are free to replace the material under your own signature (that is not the same as reverting) but you are still responsible for that material. If it contributes to LC's disruption then, having been pre-warned about it multiple times, you are being disruptive. Rockpocket 03:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It didn't "contribute to disruption" (preventing Wikipedia from operating), in either case. StuRat 03:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You replaced a lame joke, which LC had tried to make, under your own signature. This was entirely non-constructive and directly resulted in a number of other trolling edits from LC as he attempted to indicate his approval of your actions. That disruption is your responsibility according to WP:BAN and there is a decent case of you proxy editing for him too. If there was something useful to the project in what you contributed then you may have an argument, but it was joke(and a terrible one too). The more often you do this, the more the case for proxy editing for a banned user becomes real. I don't see any point in discussing this further. I have twice told what will happen, and why it will happen, if you continue. Now it is up to you to decide whether this particular example is worth the cost in your crusade against deletionism. Rockpocket 04:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall his comments (I assume it was him) being something like "I wish I'd said that", which is hardly disruptive, as Wikipedia and the Ref Desk could continue to function just fine with that left in. What you call "disruption" is a serious exaggeration. Deleting an entire Ref Desk page, now that would be disruption; please learn the differentiate. StuRat 04:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you learn our policies. According to our official policy anything that "unduly distracts the attention of editors from the purpose of the project is disruptive." This explicitly includes "breaching the sock puppetry policy" which LC is doing and your actions clearly encouraged and, for that matter, "revert warring" which you have been doing as, by your own admission, you reverted on principle and "didn't even look at the editor and try to figure out who it was". LC has been extremely disruptive and your interference with efforts to deal with him once and for all is being viewed in that context. Now this has been explained to you, be aware that the next time you assist LC's sockpuppet's efforts to "unduly distract the attention of editors from the purpose of the project" you will be seen to be disruptive. You should also be aware users may be blocked for this. If you think that is unfair or abusive, I suggest you open a RfC. Those are my final words on the issue. Rockpocket 05:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Geez, calm down and have a cup of tea, OK ? I just put back what appeared to be a useful comment. There's no need to get so upset. StuRat 05:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

←(unindenting) StuRat, I'm not sure what you're asking for when you say 'I/P address trace'. It's already been established by checkuser (and by mounds of other evidence) that Light current operates out of the IP range listed above; the edits that Steve reverted were made by a logged-out individual, so we already have the IP from which the edits were made.

Please, please, please don't let your personal issues with some administrators lead you to take this sort of disruptive stand. Steve is not required or expected to start a discussion on the Ref Desk talk page before (or even after) he reverts the contributions of a banned user. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Section break for new topic

There appear to be two discussions going on here. The first relates to StuRat's restoration of edits by the banned editor Light current. Please keep that discussion in the section above. The second relates to the question of the circumstances (beyond those enumerated in the clear policy detailed in WP:BAN) under which it is appropriate to remove another editor's comments from the Ref Desk. For clarity, that discussion can take place below. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

We should be working together to provide accurate, sourced answers to ref desk questions. Thinking in terms of "I won't do your work for you" is not useful in an all-volunteer collaborative effort. Friday (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is useful, it prevents lazy editors from becoming dependent on having others do all their work for them. StuRat 20:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

We should encourage editors to not be "lazy" in the first place, by providing sourced answers. Friday (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's completely off topic here, as we've never said that lacking sources is a justification for removing a Ref Desk response. StuRat 20:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The conduct of user A.Z. and what you think about it

Someone wrote on my talk page:

You're aware that your conduct today has been nothign but detrimental to wikipedia, correct? Your rfa failed, instead of whining about it, improve yourself. Your attitude after it has basically cost you trust from everyone who you cam in touch with.

To what I answered:

OK, now I am going to ask my friends Lewis and StuRat if my attitude after my RfA failed cost my trust from them.

So, here I am. Did it? A.Z. 02:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't trust you any less, no, but I do feel that you're wasting your time trying to become an Admin, because it's not going to happen anytime soon (it wouldn't happen for me either). It would be more productive if you would concentrate on places where you could actually make a diff, in my opinion, like the current Ref Desk guidelines discussion. StuRat 02:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad about the trust. Now, don't you think that it is a productive effort to try and make every single one of us become a little more of administrators, as I am trying to do with my idea to make every user able to block and unblock other users? I think within some time I'm going to be able to bring up the subject at the village pump, though I definitely think we need to elaborate it just a little more before doing it. There's a link to an essay on the subject on my user page. A.Z. 02:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're setting your goals too high. That change doesn't seem very likely to be approved. StuRat 03:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not? A.Z. 03:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Because people are afraid of radical change, so only slow change can work. StuRat 03:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit hard to grasp. Do you think my effort will produce no results? It could start a slow change, maybe, in people's minds. Won't you help me?

I thought I could start asking editors who may be less afraid of this change to help making it happen: people like Chris is me and Froth. The first one wrote the essay saying that all users should be administrators. The second tried to become an administrator but had too much opposition for the most stupid reasons. He was also quite honest when he answered the first optional question: that was, in my opinion, the main reason why he wasn't elected: his honesty, that prevented him from trying to manipulate people by saying things that they want to hear.A.Z. 03:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually think we should go in the reverse direction, and make it harder to block people, by requiring a consensus of people (not just Admins !) to do a block. StuRat 05:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely my idea. If an administrator were to block someone without consensus, a crowd of editors would go and block him and block the people who tried to unblock him. Of course, the administrator would not even consider blocking someone without consensus, since he would know that he could be punished for this. Every single block would require a reasonable amount of consensus. A.Z. 05:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If we want to get to where blocks require consensus, why can't we do that directly, instead of risking block-wars ? StuRat 05:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The risk of block-wars is quite low: people who did stuff without consensus would simply be blocked, so few people would do it. Did you read the essay that I am writing?

I can't see any better systems -much less even more direct systems- of requiring consensus! Any and every single block would automatically generate a requirement for consensus (not that there would be any tool for that: any single block would only not be reverted if there were consensus). A.Z. 05:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What is your suggestion for a more direct system? A.Z. 05:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Require some number of support votes to issue a block. Any Admin issuing a block with fewer than that number of votes loses their Admin powers. StuRat 05:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to think about your suggestion. It seems like we want the same thing here! Only your suggestion seems at first sight so bureaucratic that it would probably degenerate to something like the current RfA "say-what-I-like-to-hear-and-get-adminship" contest. A.Z. 05:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I admit it that it's hard for me to figure out just what is wrong with your system. However, I can see how mine could achieve the same goals as yours. If a user (John) blocked someone without support, without a certain number of users agreeing with the block, the block could be undone. If other users asked "why did you block this guy?" and the user did not answer and did not take anyone's opinion into account and issued the block again, then the user would be blocked and would lose his block powers. It is clearly smooth! The problem would not continue from now on because no one would try to argue that John should be unblocked. If someone tried to argue, this person would be talking alone with no-one listening. If the person tried to unblock John and John started to do more vandalism, then the block time of John would be highly increased and the other guy would be blocked as well. A.Z. 06:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, StuRat! I don't seem to understand your objections to the new system... One situation that you may have in mind is the following: there is a great discussion about any given subject. There is no consensus as to what should be done, but there is consensus that editors should discuss the subject before anything is done. If someone abuses his tools and does anything by himself without consensus, most parties of the discussion will censor this editor and agree to block him: because there was consensus that they should discuss before doing anything.

You can suppose that the discussion is about content or about issuing or not issuing a block. A.Z. 05:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it working as smoothly as you envision:

1) How are other editors even going to know if user X has been blocked by Admin Y ?

2) If there are two factions, I see everyone in faction A blocking everyone in faction B and vice-versa. StuRat 05:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

1) If an user blocked someone without any support and tried to hide this fact from other users, he would be blocked for quite a long time as soon as people found out. And people would find out: people find about everything in Wikipedia. Some people may be reading this very thread right now. A.Z. 05:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

2) This question is a little bit more tricky, but it seems to be the core point of all the objections. I'll spend my time trying to figure out a proper way of expressing why the chaos would not happen. One thing I can say now is that, if you assume that everyone from both factions is a vandal willing to abuse the tools, then I admit that the system will really not work. And no system will. A.Z. 05:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it requires vandals to get into a block war. Say a person from faction A does something questionable, that nobody in his faction would think deserves a block, but everyone in faction B does. So he gets blocked. Then faction A thinks that was unfair, so block the person from faction B who added the block. Then faction B thinks that is unfair and blocks the person from faction A who added the new block. It continues to spiral until all but one person is blocked. StuRat 14:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Stu. Thanks for inviting me to help develop RD guidelines. I said something unfriendly at the desk's talk page, and helping out at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines would, without a doubt, be a more constructive contribution. I have strong reserves about getting involved in the guidelines process, but I will give it some thought. Thank you again, and take care. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I hope to see you there. StuRat 13:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Adminship requirements reform

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform - Do you know this page already? Thought you might find it interesting. You can write your own proposal (for direct democracy) there, and converse with other people to see whether they like it. Cheers. (I actually don't know what this word means, but I'm sure it's something nice) A.Z. 07:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I responded to your proposal there. StuRat 14:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

two different paradigms

I’ve read a few of your posts in Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines and am curious if you have read Trauma model and Biopsychiatry controversy?

—Cesar Tort 18:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to believe mental illness is caused by a combination of biological and psychological factors, and that treatment should therefore treat both (with drugs and therapy). I feel only taking one approach and ignoring the other is harmful to the patient. I have a personal interest, as my brother suffers from manic-depressive disorder. StuRat 02:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I also have a family problem. Please, don't miss the book Mad in America. —Cesar Tort 15:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation. StuRat 07:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

About the reference desks...

...why don't we just copy the whole source code and paste it on Wikiversity to create a fork? Really, no-one would stop us. Then we could start telling every OP to ask their questions there. I mean, I do like to discuss, but that thing is getting tireing! A.Z. 22:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think people would object both here and there if we did that. I prefer the approach of only redirecting questions there which can't be answered here (under strict rules), such as opinion questions. StuRat 02:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, everything on Wikipedia is under the GFDL. Feel free to lift as much structure, format, and content as you'd like any other GFDL-licensed site, including Wikiversity. You're in the clear as long as you give credit to Wikipedia's authors of the pages. I can't say what the response on Wikiversity would be, of course. The format of the Ref Desk here has been adapted to the much higher-traffic environment on Wikipedia, so it might be a bit bulky and cumbersome for Wikiversity. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That ain't bold :( You may not be taking into account that OPs will only ask "opinion questions" here if they feel this is a welcoming place for that. If we don't take a stand and make it clear that their questions are welcome, they'll just not ask them. A.Z. 05:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

18 changes...?

Between when Friday added the {{guideline}} tag and when you stated that 18 changes had been made since...well, here's the diff: [13].

There have been some grammatical changes, and I think someone swapped the order of a couple of paragraphs, but there hasn't been a change to the substance of the guideline. People are tightening up the language; that's about it. (I'm ignoring the half dozen edits by a banned editor.)

There's ongoing discussion about possible refinements, but the text has been pretty stable for rather a long time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the substantial changes by A.Z., which were then reverted. To me, this shows there are still major differences over the guidelines, which should be resolved before we call it a guideline. StuRat 14:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am ignoring the substantial changes made by A.Z. He slashed out a significant amount of previously-stable and agreed-upon text ("Replies do not need to be completely formal...", the importance of courtesy and good will) and added in his own unique interpretation of NPOV and reliable sourcing, all in a single edit: [14].

I haven't yet seen anyone, even A.Z., discuss that edit on the talk page, and explain why such a large chunk of noncontroversial material should be removed or how his changes actually improved the guidelines or addressed any of the issues at hand. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

These are the type of issues which need to be worked out, not ignored. StuRat 14:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

StuRat, please see my comment at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guidelines#Try_to_cooperate.2C_not_fight.. Your participation here is having the effect of trolling, whether you intend it this way or not. Friday (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling people trolls who are cooperating to develop guidelines (including a great deal of discussion on the talk page) is both disruptive of the process and an AGF violation. StuRat 14:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You may also be interested in Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guidelines#Do_not_feed_the_hand_that_bites_you. It's not just me who sees your participation as an effort to fight rather than an effort to reach consensus. You should be asking yourself what it is that makes people see things this way. Friday (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that they are not inclusionists and it's easier to call people with whom you disagree a troll and ignore them than to work in good faith towards compromise ? Why don't I see Jack there, for example ? StuRat 15:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're trying to work in good faith toward compromise, some of your methods are not very effective- the fact that others see them instead as an effort to squabble should tell you this. See Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic. Friday (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My comment above still applies. If I only see troll accusations coming from the opposing side, this indicates it's just a partisan attack, not an accurate charge. StuRat 15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Stu, since you mentioned my name above, all I would say is that I don't see myself as some kind of guru to whom everyone should turn whenever there's a difference of opinion. Nor should the absence of my involvement in any particular discussion be taken as agreement or disagreement with any one party to that discussion. I read a lot of debates that I choose not to get involved in. If I have something to say, I will say it. Others, I don't see at all, or maybe only later. Also, if I may say so, I think Friday went out of his way not to label you a troll, by explicitly removing intentionality from the equation. JackofOz 22:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Jack, but you appear to be the only inclusionist (sorry if that label offends you) that isn't blocked or ignored by the, well, other group. That makes you uniquely valuable as an example. StuRat 08:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've always known I'm unique, even "very unique", but not that unique. :) JackofOz 08:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll echo what Friday said above. I don't think you're a troll, but you do give every evidence of having a pretty large blind spot with respect to the ineffectiveness -- and actual harm to your cause -- of your fractiousness and polarization.

Me, if you forced me to choose a label, I'd unhesitatingly call myself an inclusionist, and I haven't been "blocked or ignored by the, well, other group" either. If the fact that I do agree that there's some content that should be deleted (and indeed have deleted some myself) makes me a deletionist in your book, well, in my book that's polarization. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No, merely deleting something doesn't make you one. It's the attitude that some people have that "I can delete anything from the Ref Desk unilaterally, and will, so long as I think it improves the Ref Desk", which qualifies them, to me. Now, would you say calling people trolls, who aren't, is an example of "fractiousness and polarization" ? I would. StuRat 17:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you say that two wrongs make a right? I wouldn't. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you, and others, would defend me when I am so attacked, I wouldn't feel the need to respond in kind. There are, incidentally, some cases where a provocation is best responded to, rather than take the pacifistic "high road" approach of just ignoring it. The Exclusionary Rule is one example where many seem to agree. Responding to the aggression of Nazi Germany and Japan in WW2 with aggression is another example where the world is much better off, as a result. StuRat 18:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay -- so if I don't have time to follow you around and defend you every time someone picks on you, you reserve the right to (a) duck my question, (b) change the subject, and (c) succumb to Godwin's law?

(But if it isn't obvious, I'd much, much rather talk about that blind spot than about trolling or Godwin's law.) —Steve Summit (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not because people often resort to nazism as an analogy that the analogy is always fallacious. To say so is to lie. A.Z. 21:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A.Z., I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because of your admitted lack of understanding of some English words. "Lie" means to state an untruth, knowing that it is untrue. To say somebody is lying is a very serious charge indeed. I'd strongly caution you to choose less inflammatory words. JackofOz 02:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I never meant to say that Steve Summit was deliberately lying. I only meant that there's no inherent problem with making analogies with nazism, as he seemed to believe, despite his good intentions and motives. A.Z. 03:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, is that what you were trying to say? And am I the one you said was lying? I guess I'll have to work on my comprehension skills. (And I wasn't insulted, because I had no idea who you were talking about.)

If "there's no inherent problem with making analogies with nazism", why did you say "the analogy is always fallacious"?

The problem with too-facile analogies to Naziism, and the point of Godwin's law, is... but no, never mind, I said I wasn't interested in talking about that here. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I never said it that the analogy is always fallacious! I said: "It is not because people often resort to nazism as an analogy that the analogy is always fallacious." I could have said: "It's not because something happened one time that this thing will continue happening forever" or "It's not because I like StuRat that I like his brother as well" or "It's not because I like Wikipedia that I like Wiktionary as well" or "It's not because stupid people often say stupid things that everything that someone stupid says is always stupid" I searched in Google to see whether I was right to use that phrasing in English, and the third website that came up had the sentence: "It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare", by Seneca.The sentence didn't mean what I thought it meant... Maybe the construction doesn't exist in English at all A.Z. 19:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that you were suggesting the analogy is always fallacious, but the reason for that is not because people often resort to nazism as an analogy (instead it is for some other reason). Rockpocket 20:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this was a confusion caused by the fact that I am a native speaker of a language derived from Seneca's; and I don't speak English so often. It is a much used expression in Portuguese "Não é porque X que Y", which translates "It is not because X that Y", meaning "X is true, but this does not mean that Y also is". A.Z. 20:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that probably explains it. Rockpocket 20:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindented) I feel there are times when using a comparison with Nazi Germany is appropriate, like when warning about the dangers of appeasement, while there are other times when it is not, like the argument that "Nazi's pushed gun control, so anyone else who pushes gun control must be a Nazi". (My objection has more to do with the logical fallacy than the reference to Nazis, however.) If we decide to never mention WW2 again, then we will have learnt nothing from it, which would be an absolutely huge tragedy. So, the next time someone mentions Nazi Germany, please look closely at the argument, and don't reject it out of hand. StuRat 20:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I often use comparisons with Nazi Germany and I think they are really, really useful to illustrate certain arguments. They are not inherently fallacious and, since they provide a better insight on what we mean, they actually allow for other people to more easily disprove our argument, should it be wrong. A.Z. 20:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

But the thing is, and as I said earlier, I'd much, much rather talk about that blind spot than about trolling or Godwin's law!

Yet here we are, 30 hours and 600 words later, blathering on and on about Nazis and Seneca and Godwin's law, and the blind spot that I was interested in talking about is almost completely forgotten.

Which actually makes the point rather well: one of the things people have been complaining about, that you two seem not to hear, is that people are annoyed at your continual minute discussion of every little tangential issue and point of definition that comes along, to the complete distraction from the central argument at hand.

It's actually a remarkably effective technique, because it's ridiculously easy to suck your opponent completely into the tangent, and when he's up to his neck in the alligators of your disputativeness, it's all too easy to forget that the original goal was to drain the swamp of some misconceptions.

So, StuRat, I put it to you (and to A.Z. too, if you like): why do you have such a blind spot with respect to the ineffectiveness -- and actual harm to your cause -- of your fractiousness and polarization? —Steve Summit (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, simple answer: I don't. Many others, like Friday, do just that, however. StuRat 01:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't... what? You don't have a blind spot? You don't recognize the ineffectiveness -- and actual harm to your cause -- of your fractiousness and polarization?

(I hope you don't mean to say that you're not being fractious and polarizing. When everybody says you are, there's a good chance they're right, and you're wrong.) —Steve Summit (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Everyone" does ? I don't think so. Generally only those who disagree with me on some issue accuse me of such things, to distract from my actual arguments. StuRat 01:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for fun, some day, when someone calls you a troll, instead of writing them off as an enemy who's out to get you, take a fresh look and try to find an interpretation of the situation in which they're a reasonable person, and are genuinely annoyed (with reason) at what you've been doing. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, there's only one way to lie, and that's deliberately. Saying something that turns out to be untrue is not necessarily lying, merely stating an untruth. JackofOz 05:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

StuRat, with respect (to both you and Lewis), you seem to be falling into the same mind-cast that Lewis recently exhibited. Provocation is never an excuse to attack back. That people don't spring to your defence the moment someone attacks you, says something about their confidence that you're more than capable of defending yourself and that you don't require being rescued by others. Ignoring an attack is but one of many positive ways to respond to it. JackofOz 02:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I do sometimes turn the other cheek, like when I ignored this apparent attack: [15]. StuRat 04:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well done. -- JackofOz 05:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. StuRat, a couple thoughts: 1) You see "attacks" where other people see a difference of opinion. 2) You also wonder why people don't defend you, yet your behavior suggests you're frequently going out of your way to be as difficult as possible. People see you as someone who can't be reasoned with. Why should they spend their time trying to help you? Your behavior is frequently indistinguishable from trolling. Fix that problem, and you may find that many of the other problems you see will magically go away. Friday (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way.. StuRat, are you going around spitting in people's soup? Friday (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not because "other people" see something, that something exists. It is not because "your behavior suggests to Friday something" that you should change anything. It is not because people can't distinguish a behavior from trolling that it is trolling. Friday, you have a serious problem. I don't know what it is, but it makes your arguments fallacious. (I'm tired of repeating repeating this word, but you don't seem to ever get tired of repeating your same old fallacious arguments, as I just showed that they are right above.) That essay of yours is yet another fallacy, as I tried to explain on its talk page A.Z. 21:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an example of an ad hominem attack. Rather than listen to and work with those with which he disagrees, Friday dismisses them as trolls or "indistinguishable from trolls" and ignores them. StuRat 02:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Friday is a male? A.Z. 04:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but I sometimes use "he", since "he/she" is awkward. Is there an easier way to say "the person of unknown gender" in Portuguese ? StuRat 04:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Accordingly to her RfA nomination, she is a female. Then again, someone who supported Friday said "Support our man Friday". Nine of the users who voted chose to refer to Friday as "she". Two of them chose "he". In Portuguese as well it is hard to refer to someone without referring to the person's gender.In Portuguese from Portugal it is possible to say "his" and "her" without referring to the gender, but in Brazil using the phrasing required to do that would look too archaic. Also, almost all adjectives and nouns reveal the gender: friend, enemy, beautiful, ugly, stupid, intelligent, white, black, tall, short, etc. I'll take a look at the Portuguese Wikipedia and see whether there are any genderless editors there, to see how they deal with that.

In Portuguese:

editor: editor, editora

user: usuário, usuária

friend: amigo, amiga

enemy: inimigo, inimiga

beautiful: lindo, linda

ugly: feio, feia

stupid: burro, burra

intelligent: inteligente (oops, that one doesn't change)

white: branco, branca

black: preto, preta

tall: alto, alta

short: baixo, baixa A.Z. 04:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL at "genderless editors"...had a little accident when using the chainsaw, did they ? StuRat 05:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Your English skills

Perhaps you wanna help me translating the page linked here that is written in Portuguese. It may be a little hard to find the link; just search for "Portuguese". I thought I could do the initial translation, and then you can make the prose flow better once I do that. I speak Portuguese quite well, but I can't say the same about English. So, I can translate things into Portuguese quite well, but I can't say the same about translating things into English. I'm also highly repetitive in this language... Anyway, cheers! A.Z. 00:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to give you a link to the place where I'll do the translation. User:A.Z./Translation. A.Z. 00:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to help. You might want to review it after I add my English fixes, though, in case the meaning has drifted from the original. Please let me know when it's ready for me to take a look. StuRat 00:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's ready for you to take a look. A.Z. 01:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added my translation. StuRat 06:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not a troll, quite the opposite

I left Rockpocket a message on his talk page about what he did on the talk page of the guidelines proposal. Rockpocket saying that you were trolling and telling you that he would stop talking to you was just disgusting. I hope you can cope with that. You are someone quite patient and brave, you are even special. You had to take all that opposition alone for quite a while. People went there and tried to have a decent and civilized discussion, but they eventually chose to leave (like Gandalf did) because they just couldn't take the irrationality of that place. Congratulations, StuRat, and I hope you never give up. A.Z. 18:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and I won't give up ! StuRat 02:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

So ....

You do a lot of RD questions. Are funny answers not generally accepted on the Science Reference Desk? I jsut got a pretty good dressing down for bringing a little levity to a homework question. I didn't think my answer was that bad. Was I out of line? --Tbeatty 05:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC) ^{Superscript text}

The reaction from User:Nunh-huh did seem to be extreme (I've mentioned this to him), I'm guessing he was having a bad day and took it out on you. You appeared to confuse neck pain for neck swelling, which was an innocent mistake, I assume. I think the joke was that "girls are a pain in the neck". This seems like quite a mild joke, to me, but some editors are extremely sensitive about gender jokes, it seems, so you might want to avoid those. StuRat 05:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My day was perfectly fine, thanks. The questioner can learn nothing from Tbeatty "prescribing" antibiotics for a case of hypothyroidism, I'm afraid. Ignorant, misleading answers given on the reference desk, even as an excuse for sexist jokes, are not helpful.- Nunh-huh 06:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, but please try to keep "unpleasantness" off the Ref Desk. Either go to the Ref Desk talk page or Tbeatty's page if you want to talk about things other than the answers (like whether a joke is sexist). That way, we don't look "unprofessional" by squabbling in front of the readers. StuRat 06:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's something to consider: we would have looked perfectly professional had you not restored the erroneous answers and sexist "joke" (which no one could possibly have gotten, since it was predicated on "pain in the neck" and the question involved none!). - Nunh-huh 06:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral deletions are quite likely to lead to edit wars. Also, put yourself in his shoes, what if you had made a mistake, would you want somebody to delete your entire contribution, or just to point out the mistake ? StuRat 06:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If there's an answer that's not merely wrong, but also ignorant, and incorporating demeaning humor, it should be deleted, no matter whose it is. Deleting it is pointing out the mistake. Restoring an ignorant mistake is not helpful. - Nunh-huh 06:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And how does one distinguish between an "ignorant mistake" and a normal mistake ? StuRat 06:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

by having some knowledge of the subject matter involved. If someone lacks that knowledge, they shouldn't be trying to make the distinction. - Nunh-huh 06:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What you describe sounds more like an "expert's forum", where only certified experts in a particular field are allowed to respond. That's not what Wikipedia is, however, and everyone is allowed to contribute. This may occasionally lead to a wrong answer, but that's no big deal, just describe the error, and move on. StuRat 07:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, what I describe is a forum where people recognize the limits of their knowledge and don't presume to exceed it. "Allowed to contribute" is not the same as "should be contributing guesses". If someone doesn't know the answers, they shouldn't present their guesses as correct, especially after it's been pointed out that they're wrong. - Nunh-huh 07:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Help?

Do you think you can help me with my questions:

• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Family_Trusts.3F

• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Hostile_Takeover.3F

• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#NYSE_stocks_-_alternative_trading_methods.3F

--Goingempty 16:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I can help with any of those. However, at least for the first question, you might want to ask Lewis, who is a Canadian lawyer. StuRat 20:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Will ask him. --Goingempty 00:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot

Hi there. I see you're online. Check the RD TP and see what you think. A bot may allow for your daily ref desk pages to be implemented after all. A.Z. 03:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look. StuRat 04:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection

Such requests are made at WP:RfP. here is the specific request and here is the response. Rockpocket 17:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It was requested by User:Radiant!, who, contrary to what you said, has made at least 8 edits to the guidelines, so "is one of the admins here". StuRat 19:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

StuRat, you would do well to care much less about who is or isn't an admin. It's not relevant. Friday (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ, but when we are discussing the guidelines page being locked down so that only Admins can edit it, then the issue of who is an Admin becomes critical. StuRat 19:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. When a page is protected due to an ongoing edit war, except under some very narrow circumstances no one is permitted to edit. This restriction applies to all editors, whether they have an admin bit or not. The technical ability to edit fully-protected pages in no way implies permission to actually do so; the Protection policy specifically cautions admins against making any sort of remotely controversial edit to a protected page.

I would fully expect an admin who abused his privileges to edit a protected page for the purpose of prosecuting an edit war to be reverted and censured. Indeed, if an admin were to do something that blindingly ill-considered on the Ref Desk guideline page, I'd be first in line to revert and file a complaint on WP:AN/I. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the Admins don't need to edit it after protection, in this case, as it was reverted to the Admin version, by Friday (violating his own WP:1RR policy), prior to protection. StuRat 20:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

←(unindenting) Please see m:The Wrong Version. If you prefer the conspiracy theory, you may have it. I have nothing further to add to this thread. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if Friday had privileged information about the imminent protection of the page. If he had, then what he did was definitely wrong. A.Z. 02:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Or if User:Radiant! timed his request for page protection so that the guidelines had the version he preferred when the lockdown occurred. StuRat 03:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

... or if both of them are agents of a New World Order, whose sole mission is to stop StuRat from contributing to Wikipedia. Rockpocket 18:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That Radiant timed his request doesn't require a worldwide conspiracy, it requires only a "conspiracy of one" (I know, that makes about as much sense as an "army of one"). At any rate the, the page protection has now been lifted, so why are we still discussing it ? StuRat 18:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's now protected again after your latest round of reverts. But perhaps you'll be pleased to know that it's protected mostly still with the changes you made. So I guess you get it your way for a day or two. Friday (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The last change before the protection, not surprisingly, was a revert of one of my changes: [16]. StuRat 01:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That's terrible! It's still m:The Wrong Version. Why do those damn admins always protect it on the Wrong Version? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Its because all that admin power corrupts their fragile minds, resulting in them always making the wrong decision. Rockpocket 22:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you guys better not criticize admins (even though they deserve it) or the cabal will ban you. Friday (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Elliptical orbits

I thought your answer to the question on elliptical orbits was great! A.Z. 02:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ! StuRat 02:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Hi, again. Do you think I need a Wikibreak? Check my recent edits, please. I think I am sort of out of control. I seem to be having trouble staying calm and thinking properly about my edits before I make them. A.Z. 04:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

How about a Wikipedia break as opposed to a total wiki break ? That is, head over to Wikiversity and do some stuff there. StuRat 04:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

For how long? A.Z. 04:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Until your stress level drops to where you no longer want to tie your enemies to a hill full of fire ants and smear them with marmalade. Well, maybe a dab here and there would still be OK.  :-) StuRat 04:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take a break from Wikipedia. Except... that they're not my enemies, they're just confused ! A.Z. 05:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Your English skills 2

Could you correct all English mistakes that I may have made here? I would really appreciate that. A.Z. 19:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Are you sure you don't mind if I make the changes directly to the original ? StuRat 20:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read through it, and it's long and difficult to follow. I think a complete rewrite is in order. Here are what I think are the main points:

1) Allow anyone to become an Admin once they meet certain objective criteria, such as length of time with an account and number of edits. No subjective criteria, such as "quality of edits" or "difficult to work with" should be used.

2) Allow Admins to desysop each other, but only allow bureaucrats to grant Admin status.

As for your discussion of how it would work in practice, I think that would be better placed in the discussion section. What do you think ? StuRat

It looks fine to me. Could you do the rewriting and move the discussion? I won't ask you to do those things forever. I'm learning more English as time goes by (I hope!) However, my difficulty with writing will have to be improved as well (somehow), I guess... A.Z. 01:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

However, the criteria don't have to be completely objective. It's just that, if there's going to be any subjectivity, it shouldn't be to judge the person at all, it should be only to judge whether the person made some kind of "effort". People who made the "effort" don't deserve adminship: this system's sole purpose is to filter vandals-administrators, who would have to go through a lot, only to vandalize Wikipedia a little and be desysoped, and would thus be discouraged to try. A.Z. 01:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be better if you made the change, as we really aren't supposed to change what others write on talk pages. I changed the one below, because nobody is there but you and I, but I don't want to change your words on a page viewed by so many others. You are welcome to copy my words above, however. StuRat 04:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Essays can have many authors. Everyone can help writing that essay, as far as I'm concerned.

As to talk pages, I think it is pretty much OK for you to make the changes, as long as I allow you to. Rockpocket reverted an edit of mine on that same page after I requested it. He wrote on the edit summary that the edit was per my request. I will have to rewrite your words, because you didn't make it clear that the criteria don't need to be objective. A.Z. 04:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, rewrite them however you wish. StuRat 04:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference desk philosophies

Check out this essay! A.Z. 03:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, I fixed the English, I hope that's OK. StuRat 04:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Could anything be more besides the point?

And you wonder why people regularly complain that both your and A.Z.'s tangential debates distract from the issue at hand? Why don't you address the point ("wild guess"), rather than take a literary device used to illustrate the contextual absurdity and then hold it up as a straw man argument. [17] Rockpocket 01:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You're the one who implied that the contributions of younger editors are inherently less reliable and less valuable. If you don't want us to refute such implications, I suggest you refrain from making them. There also seemed to be an element of personal attack in it, since A.Z. is, if not 12, still one of our younger editors at 18. StuRat 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you stop inferring things, in the worst faith possible, that are not implied. Irrespective of who makes the wild guess, it is inappropriate, whether the person is 5 or 50. And this has nothing to do with A.Z's age whatsoever. In future, if you wish to clarify what I mean, ask. Don't just make wild guesses that are completely off the mark. Rockpocket 02:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What exactly was the point in including the "12 yr old" phrase in your reply if not meaning to denigrate such contributions based on age ? StuRat 02:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made that clear on thread. Rockpocket 03:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't make clear why you used a 12 year old as an example of someone who makes wild guesses. StuRat 04:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I chose to use an example of a Wikipedian to illustrate my point about reliability. What age would you have preferred for my example? Rockpocket 04:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason to refer to the fictional editor's age, unless you think it is somehow relevant to whether or not they make wild guesses. StuRat 04:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So what should I refer to create an image of some non-expert wikipedian in the mind of the person reading? Rockpocket 04:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Just say "some non-expert Wikipedian", that way you don't insult any group. StuRat 04:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't create much of an image. Moreover, I would be more tempted to address your concern if you didn't spend a significant proportion of your edits here insulting a group of Wikipedians yourself. However, I will afford your advice due consideration for next time, perhaps you might too. Rockpocket 05:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a diff. You could easily describe "some non-expert Wikipedian" without referring to any specific group. I can't complain about uncivil behavior from Admins without referring to that specific group. StuRat 05:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You guys are arguing to no purpose. Cut it out.

Rockpocket, the oblique point you made was confusing, regardless of the mention of the hypothetical 12 year old. After three readings, I think your point is, "Why should we give special dispensation to the wild guesses of anonymous 12 year olds from Iowa with too much internet time on their hands, as long as they're decorated with some special template marking them as such, when we've got plenty of reliable experts to provide verifiable information at our Reference Desk?". But before I figured that out, your comment looked even more beside the point than Stu's.

StuRat, the phrase "12 year old from Iowa" is what's known as a literary device. Obviously it doesn't refer to any specific person, so there's no insult implied. Rockpocket could obviously just as easily have said "Thirteen year old from Tennessee" or "eleven year old from Kalamazoo".

If someone made passing reference to a used car that was in great shape because it had only been driven on Sunday afternoons by a little old grandmother from Pasadena, would you barge in with both guns blazing, to assert that your grandmother is from Poughkeepsie, and drives only on Sunday mornings, in a car that's in terrible shape? Get a grip! People keep telling you not to go out of your way looking for things to take offense at or start new arguments about, but this is another point you seem just willfully unable to get. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The "little old grandmother" phrase is meant to convey somebody who doesn't drive very often or very fast, hence taking it easy on the car, just as the "12 year old" phrase was meant to convey an incompetent editor, and this is what I objected to. If it was just a random example, I'd expect a typical driver and average aged Wikipedian to be used, not one well outside the average. The only reason for such a selection is to make a point. StuRat 00:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And Wikipedia gets several metric fuckloads per day of tripe posted by anonymous users who are obviously adolescent males, so the device is apt.

But I really don't want to argue about that. And I don't want to argue about this next bit, either, but I can't resist observing: You were just complaining about people focusing on the negative and ignoring the positive. Yet in two separate postings tonight, I've defended (and criticized) you, and received no thanks or even comment from you on the defense, rather only further quibbling about my criticisms. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point, and thanks for the defense part. I still don't think it's appropriate the refer to contributions from 12 year olds as an example of crap, however, since many make excellent contributions. StuRat 00:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That is irrelevent, since I didn't use it "as an example of crap". Rockpocket 00:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is quite annoying when you just link to some article instead of actually telling people what you mean. And you, Rockpocket, seem to like doing that, for some reason that I ignore.

You offended me when you attacked 12 year old boys. You offended me when you deliberately decided that the boy was from Iowa. You offended me when you told me that the boy had "too much internet time on their hands". You offended every decent human being when you said those things! You did imply that 12 year old boys were a good example of the kind of contributor that would contribute with crap. Just imagine a 12 year old boy from Iowa with too much Internet time on their hands, how he would feel reading that. Either he would think "what a jerk!" and just ignore you and not bother with that anymore, or he could actually be upset by your remarks. Why do you have such a hard time getting that? Why does anything else need to be explained? A.Z. 03:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you keep bringing it up

I don't see that it's very relevant, but since you keep bringing it up: You may want to read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Friday_cautioned. I don't think it says what you think it says. Friday (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It says "Friday is cautioned to avoid suggesting to users who are the subject of Arbitration proceedings that they abandon Wikipedia". Are you suggesting that it's somehow OK for you to suggest to users that they abandon Wikipedia, so long as they aren't the subject of Arbitration proceedings ? That makes no sense at all. That was clearly just one example given of when you have made the suggestion in the past. StuRat 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Rant

I wanted to respond to your question at the reference desk, but decided against it, since, indeed, I don't wish to add to the negativity. To answer your question: No, "Gertrude Bell is a particular heroine of mine" is not a scholarly opinion on method, plausability etc, nor is it referenced at all, let alone properly. Nor did I say or imply that it was, not did I oppose its inclusion, or the inclusion of other non-scholarly opinions or anecdotal information. Nor did I say the newt reference wasn't "allowed".

I did ask for caution, as I have done before, and I asked to keep in mind that off-topic jokes and comments (the question was neither about politics nor even people) should be avoided when potentially offensive.

I don't care what you do with this, but I wont play the game. The thread was based on your comment, not Clio's. I explained why I thought the former might have been offensive, and while I don't remove other people's comments, you know that I advocate etiquette at the desks. Still, like Steve Summit pointed out, it's not a big deal, and I certainly wont lose any sleep over potentially offended readers.

I guess I just wish you could accept someone else's differing view without pointing out perceived logical flaws and inconsistencies in their argumentation. Neither of us is here to win a battle, Stu. We're users, communicating. We have a shared goal. We're colleagues. We listen to what the other has to say. We don't have to prove ourselves on the talk page. If anything, we should try proving ourselves by assisting the questioners the best we can, and by helping to build and improve an encyclopedia. Take care. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone says one of my contributions in inappropriate, and I disagree, I think it's entirely appropriate for me to present my case in that thread. StuRat 02:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, of course it is, and anyway, appropriateness isn't the issue. I'm complaining about you magnifying and focusing on my introductory side-comment on Gandalf's argumentation qua Clio, and completely ignoring the core of my post, which basically was that I think it's uncool to demonize living people at the reference desk, even if I fully understand the humorous intention of your comment. I'm complaining about you choosing the least scholarly item in Gandalf's list of examples, in order to point out how flawed my introductory comment was. I'm complaining about how "X and Y are alright" somehow becomes "Not-X and Not-Y are not alright. Hey, and I'm not done yet, look at these shoes. I've only had them three weeks and the heels are worn right through... ---Sluzzelin talk 02:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow what your saying in that last sentence, even though I've seen that Monty Python sketch. As for saying negative things about living people, I believe there are legal exceptions for comedy. For example, if Saturday Night Live did a story about evil snakes and then said "not to be confused with evil Newts", while showing a pic of Newt Gingrich, they wouldn't be subject to a lawsuit. StuRat 02:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a quote from the complaints department on his way out (see here.) Well I should rather hope SNL has nothing to fear; satire should be protected by all the laws and courts in the world! But this isn't satire, not primarily anyway. We'd like to attract and keep all sorts of readers who are interested in knowledge, facts, and trivia. We don't want to drive away sensitive editors or the occasional Gingrich fan. My concerns are definitely not legalistic, I just have preferences and expectations regarding conduct at the desks. I think they're reasonable and I expressed them. Peace. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

...and I don't give a flying philanthropist whether you offended anyone here, it almost made me spray the screen with coffee. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, maybe that will be OK, since he's dead. Apparently, it's OK to insult somebody, so long as you are careful to kill them first. :-) StuRat 21:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing section headings

I have reverted you edit of Friday's section heading for two reasons. Firstly, if you choose to offer others' advice - you should follow it yourself. It is inappropriate to edit the opinion of others on talkpages unless it violates a core policy like WP:BLP. More importantly, however, it is very bad practice to edit the title of subheadings that already have multiple postings under them. This is because it kills the links some editors may use to find their way back to it. Thanks for your understanding on this matter. Rockpocket 01:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a policy specifically against putting opinions in section titles, you should know this. StuRat 01:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Then why don't you police yourself in the same rigorous manner you police others? It amazes me that you are willing to wikilawyer over something like this, when you have done the exact same thing yourself. Moreover, you are the first to kick up a fuss others pull you up for violating policy yourself. Look, every time you pull something like this - clearly for no good reason other than you can see an opportunity to piss off Friday - then the next time you violate some policy you will be called on it. So, would you like to edit your "Ref Desk negativity" (in your opinion) section heading or will I?

Really, what is the point? I have plenty more important things to be doing, don't you? If you wish to disrupt others' navigation to make a point, the then you can do - I'm not going to revert-war over this. But next time, check out your own house before you start throwing stones. Rockpocket 02:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, as you can see the response your edit has drawn, i'm going to revert it back to the original avoid the most stupid edit war ever. Please consider whether it is worth all this drama. (btw, I like your compromise on the guideline. I'll support that version). Rockpocket 02:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Further still, Sluzzelin has beaten me to it. Lets take his advice. Rockpocket 02:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with telling people to "check out your own house before you start throwing stones" when they point out that someone did something harmful to other people, to Wikipedia, whatever. If Friday did do something wrong, then it doesn't matter who pointed it out, nor why, nor when, nor how. It looks to me that you're saying "if you are really going to point it out when Friday violates policy, then I will do the same with you." It does sound like a threat to me, but I'm not accusing you yet. I hope to hear an alternative explanation, if you have one. A.Z. 02:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The comment was in reference to the saying People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones [18]. In other words, if StuRat is willing to point out when others do wrong in future, he should ensure he hasn't just done the exact same wrong himself (like he did this time). Thats not a threat, it is an appeal to fairness. Rockpocket 03:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I do know the saying.

I don't know what is an "appeal to fairness". Anyway, it still sounds like a threat to me, especially the following part: "Look, every time you pull something like this - clearly for no good reason other than you can see an opportunity to piss off Friday - then the next time you violate some policy you will be called on it."

I can see many other good reasons besides pissing off Friday. But the point is: his reasons do not matter when it comes to deciding whether Friday did or did not do something wrong. Discussing StuRat's motives is a whole different subject. When analyzing whether to revert or not revert his changes, his motives are simply not an issue. A.Z. 03:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's very rarely a good idea to change someone else's section headers. Friday (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Just an observation: On article talk pages, heading titles such as "Oslo isn't the capital of Norway", "This article is proof that Wikipedia is Communism" or "Elvis lives" would never get changed, no matter whether a thread evolves or not. On pages such as AN/I, titles such as "Horrible admin abuse!" or "Blatant disruption at the Debate article by user:whodaman?" wouldn't get changed, even if consensually disproved. At the reference desk, titles such as "When did Shakespeare write the Canterbury Tales" or "Why presdient Angela Merkkel is not maried? " normally won't get changed either. Titles don't get changed on talk pages or related non-article mainspace. There are a few extreme exceptions, as usual, but this was hardly one of them, in my experience. --- Sluzzelin talk 05:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a policy specifically against putting opinions in section titles, you should know this. Rockpocket 18:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket, I have addressed this issue before, but here it goes again: StuRat's past behavior and motives have nothing to do with whether we should change Friday's titles or not. If StuRat did something wrong in the past, you go there and change it. If Friday did something wrong now, you go there and change it. If neither StuRat nor Friday did anything wrong, but now StuRat thinks that Friday did something wrong and changes his title, then just be clear and tell StuRat that "putting opinion in section titles is not wrong" and revert his changes to Friday's title. It looks really ugly to tell people thinks like "you do a lot of wrong stuff, so either you stop doing that or you let other people do wrong stuff as well!" A.Z. 19:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather than edit-warring, I prefer to inform the individual, so they can make the change themselves if they see fit, or can learn for the next time the situation occurs. A hypocrite holds others to standards they ignore themselves. Rockpocket 19:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is that reverting or not reverting StuRat's changes should be a decision made independently of whether he is a hypocrite or not. The merit of his changes does not depend on that. Do you agree that his changes, independently of whoever made them, have merits? Or do you think they have no merit and should be reverted? What are your criteria to decide which titles are good and which ones are bad? I would like to know that kind of information, so I can discuss and learn which titles are good and bad, and which should be reverted or not. To keep just pointing out what you think are StuRat's flaws or character is missing the whole point. Well, OK, you care about him and you want him to do the right thing. But you should better separate both issues, and you don't seem to be doing that, since, so far, I haven't seen you give even one argument either in favor or against the changes that he made, nor have I seen you say whether Friday's title is OK or not OK, and why. A.Z. 19:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, if Rockpocket or anyone else wants to change my section title to "StuRat's opinion of excess negativity here", or something like that, this would be fine with me. StuRat 20:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Individuals interpret the policy on section titles differently (see Sluzzelin's comments above). I have my own opinion on those headings, but they are not strong enough either way to justify the disruption it would cause to edit war over. I find it unusual that one might take such a strict definition as StuRat appeared to with Fridays heading, especially considering the disruption his reversions may cause for those using links for navigation (which I pointed out). There are two ways of interpreting such a position: either StuRat feels very strongly about adherence to that policy, or StuRat is disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT (with regards to Friday specifically). The first is an acceptable reason for his edits, the second is not. StuRat appeared to suggest it was the first reason with his appeal to the policy.

If StuRat does feel passionate about a strict adherence to having no opinion on section headings, why does he, himself, violate that twice himself in less than a week? Either StuRat has forgotten about it (in which case my comment should serve as a reminder) or, the real reason StuRat edited Friday's section heading was to make a WP:POINT. So, the merits of the headings themselves notwithstanding, my concern is the disruption associated with changing it. So either StuRat should show some consistancy in his interpretation of policy, or else any future selective changes like that will be deemed WP:POINTy and disruptive. This is why I am referring to a pattern of behaviour, rather than taking each instance in isolation. Finally, it might be worth reflecting on StuRat's own comments to Friday below: "your willingness to only enforce Wikipedia policies against people when it suits your own position, and completely ignore them when it doesn't, has led me to disregard pretty much anything you say." Can't you see that is exactly what he has been doing himself? Rockpocket 20:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

See my comment right above yours. If anyone wants to change my section headers to indicate that they reflect my opinion, they are welcome to do so. I, unlike others, do not insist on protecting highly opinionated section headers from change. Also, being a hypocrite is far worse when you're an Admin, as you can then do things like wait until the Ref Desk guidelines are the way you want them, during an edit war, then protect them in that state, or block people who disagree with you on an issue while ignoring the same behavior from those who agree with you. StuRat 20:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying that you are content for your "highly opinionated section headers" to remain, but not other peoples? If you wish to avoid bias - something you are quick to accuse others of - you should ensure all "highly opinionated section headers" are tolerated (or not) equally. You are the one that took issue before, so you should be responsible enough to make the change yourself and try and avoid the same thing in future. This isn't a competition to see how far you can push the envelope while censuring others. The fact that other editors haven't changed your heading is not because yours is any more or less acceptable than Friday's, its simply because they are above petty edit-warring over something so trivial.

Is are examples of "far worse" admin hypocrisy a reflection of someone in particular, or simply hypothetical? And just because you think someone else is behaving poorly, that isn't a good reason for doing likewise. The bottom line, for me and I imagine everyone else, is that everytime I see something like this, the complaints of bias against you become less credible. Its like I told Lewis when I unblocked him: if you wish anyone to take your complaints seriously, you have to put your own house in order first. Rockpocket 01:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't consider saying that there is negativity on the Ref Desk talk page to be a "highly opinionated section header" which people would disagree with. If, however, somebody does, then they are free to change it to "StuRat's opinion that the there is too much negativity here", just as I felt free to change Friday's section header, which was highly opinionated, to a neutral form. Why would you expect me to change my own section header, when you don't expect that from Friday ? That's hypocrisy in action. StuRat 01:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I was referring to a different section heading, one that clearly is "highly opinionated". Secondly, the reason I expect you to make the change this time is because you - not Friday - made the change last time. If you are unbiased, then you should treat all section headers the same, and not turn a blind eye to certain editors (i.e. youself) while enforcing your interpretation of policy on others (i.e. Friday). You regularly accuse admins of such bias, so why should anyone be sympathetic to your complaints when you display the exact same biased behaviour? Rockpocket 01:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So, again, you are expecting me to do something you don't expect Friday to do, so how is that not hypocrisy ? StuRat 01:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, that title was changed to "StuRat's opinion that Friday has locked the guidelines to win the edit war on "Ideally".", yet I don't see you fighting to put it back the way I had it, you will apparently only fight for that on Friday's section titles....yet more hypocrisy. StuRat 02:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent developments

8-))

Please stop edit warring

Please stop edit warring on Wikipedia:Reference_desk/guidelines. I think it would be for the best if you would seek consensus for your changes before making them from now on. It doesn't look to me like you're following our expectation that editors only make changes that reflect consensus. In particular, if you make a change and someone reverts you, don't just put it back. Discuss it instead. Friday (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As you know, it takes two sides to edit war, so can I assume you've also told those who are reverting the changes of myself and Lewis to stop edit warring ? As for making changes without first gaining consensus, I believe you admitted to having done this yourself. I also believe there is significant support on the talk page for the changes Lewis and I made. However, even compromise versions are being reverted. Edit wars are a predictable result from an unwillingness to compromise. StuRat 17:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I made changes without calling for a vote. These we changes that I believed already had consensus, they just hadn't been written yet. The reason your reverting stood out to me was that someone reverted your change and you just put it back. Also, your disruptive editing practices over the past months have made me more likely to look critically at your edits. Perhaps this seems unfair, but as it's a problem of your own creation, I can't have much sympathy. Friday (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And your willingness to only enforce Wikipedia policies against people when it suits your own position, and completely ignore them when it doesn't, has led me to disregard pretty much anything you say. If what you said came from a someone who didn't act in such a blatantly partisan manner, I might take it seriously. StuRat 17:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning

This is your only warning, StuRat. I will take administrative action against you for disruptive editing, if you continue to soapbox about an editor who has left on their own talkpage. Stop it now. Rockpocket 04:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not "soapboxing", and not "disruptive". You seem intent on violating the WP:3RR policy to delete my comments, however, and that is disruptive, and I will take action against you, if you persist. StuRat 05:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is disruptive. And I see below that radiant agrees too, although you will claim it is part of the conspiracy. During your block you need to take a step back and consider how your edits look to others. For example, as hard as it may be for you to accept, there is no conspiracy and your block is due to an agreement by the community that your edits are becoming more disruptive (addition: and in this specific case uncivil too (the straw that broke the camels back?) David D. (Talk) 16:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)). Ref desk is not your personal play ground and you do not have a consensus to support many of your opinons with respect to ref desk protocol. Yet, you are constantly on the attack and trying to undermine real efforts at reaching a consensus. You are really undermining your own standing on the ref desk by consitently rocking the boat. This does not seem to be a sensible long term strategy. David D. (Talk) 15:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for repeated incivility against several users, including Clio, Friday, and Rockpocket, as well as revert warring to repeatedly insert incivil remarks. Please read our policies on WP:CIVility, WP:AGF and Wikiquette, and try to be nicer to other people in the future. >Radiant< 14:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

StuRat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

See reasons listed below...

Decline reason:

I agree with the original block as the disruption is fairly clear cut. You are certainly not a new editor, and I suspect you realize what behavior is and is not acceptable. When the block expires, please return as a productive, civil editor. To be frank, I'm quite surprised the block was for only 12 hours. Radiant! was obviously in a forgiving mood. - auburnpilot talk 20:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

From WP:AN

I will respond to the block and list my reasons for requesting an unblock within the following section copied from WP:AN#Request_some_independent_assistance:

Request some independent assistance

Request some independent assistance

Could another admin have a serious word in the ear of StuRat (talk • contribs). He is a consistently disruptive editor who regularly accuses admins of abuse and cabalism. This evening alone he has been:

Accusing an admin of "an abuse of Admin authority" in protecting a page being targeted by a persistent banned user (whom, incidently, StuRat was an erstwhile colleague of and still occasionally adds content on his behalf).

Goading an editor who indicated they are leaving the project (after a run in with a new editor with a suspiciously detailed knowledge of the project)

Replacing the goading comment after three independent editors expressed disaproval (the aforementioned new user gets in on the act too).

I have already warned him, but he ignored me, and I am a bit too close to take any action without stoking the claims of abuse. Thanks. Rockpocket 05:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1) Note that RP did not request a block, is it normal to take a request to talk with an editor and ignore that and issue a block instead ? StuRat 15:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

2) I do believe that it is inappropriate for an Admin involved in an edit war on a page to protect that page when it has the version they support, and believe the talk page for that page, in this case Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guidelines, was the appropriate place to bring up that concern. StuRat 15:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

3) As I stated on RP's talk page, I was not "goading" an editor who said they were leaving Wikipedia, but merely stated that I believed they would be back, and why I thought so. I did object to the removal of that statement from User:Clio the Muse's talk page, by anyone other than Clio. However, once Clio removed the statement herself, I respected that, and had already told RP that I would respect that. Somebody else then put it back in (possibly a banned user) and I suspect that RP mistakenly thought it was me putting it back in, due to this edit comment: [19].

Does this have anything to do with User:Light current? —Kyриx 05:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

How did you guess? Rockpocket 05:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The names are familiar, and I commented in Friday's admin recall mess. —Kyриx 05:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Y'all are a pretty useless lot. Maybe try supporting deserving editors instead of coddling the disruptive ones.—eric 07:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Eric, I have discussed the matter with Clio privately, and I don't really think my actions today could be described as coddling. Rockpocket 07:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm, the user has a history of incivility and a talk page full of warnings. Looking through his recent edit history reveals many incivil remarks or attacks [101] [102], as well as complaints of abuse [103] and vague threats [104]. I think this is well beyond what we usually tolerate with respect to wikiquette, and have blocked him for 12 hours. >Radiant< 14:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

4) I don't believe a WP:3RR warning is a "vague threat", but rather a proper notice of a Wikipedia policy. StuRat 15:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

5) Note that, with the exception of User:Kyриx, all people responding, including the blocking Admin, have been personally involved in the dispute over Ref Desk guidelines. I would therefore request that this block be reviewed by an independent Admin, one not involved in the Ref Desk guidelines dispute. StuRat 15:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• (1) It is proper to investigate, not just to "do what is asked". (2) That you find fault with other people's behavior is not an excuse for your own behavior. (3) You were in fact revert warring ([20] [21] [22]) to insert nasty remarks on Clio's talk page. Irrespective of what you believe of Clio, such remarks are inappropriate. (4) "I will take action against you" is a vague threat. In general "reporting" people for edit warring when you are equally guilty of the same edit war is not constructive. And (5) it is simply false that anyone who ever expressed an opinion on a guideline that you have been involved in writing is "involved", since the issue at hand is your behavior and not the guideline in question. >Radiant< 16:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1) Investigating is one thing, but escalating to a block when none was requested doesn't seem appropriate.

2) It is proper to issue a complaint about a conflict of interest, when you believe there to be one, and not appropriate to be blocked for doing so.

3) The first edit listed is definitely not edit warring, as that was the first time that statement was added.

4) There is nothing vague about a WP:3RR warning, I believe this is even required by Wikipedia policy.

5) Again, we have a conflict of interest if parties on one side of a material dispute engage in blocking parties on the other side, for whatever reason they give. StuRat 16:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• (1) False. (2) Considering you were not blocked for "issuing a complaint", that is irrelevant. (3) Do you deny you were edit warring, in the face of evidence to the contrary? (4) As above. (5) Considering you were not blocked for "one side of a material dispute", that is also irrelevant.

Bottom line? You are incivil, attacking people, and ignoring wikiquette. I suggest you stop looking for excuses or smokescreens, and clean up your act. >Radiant< 16:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Addendum:

6) I believe the original complaint that I am guilty of "Replacing the goading comment after three independent editors expressed disapproval" is incorrect, I only replaced the comment after one editor, RP, expressed disapproval. The comment was later replaced by another editor, who RP apparently mistook for me. Here is my last restore: [23].

7) I was not notified that there was an AN/I discussion about me, and thus denied the chance to comment there before I was blocked, and am thus still unable to respond there. Is this the normal procedure, to block people without first hearing their defense ? In this case, much of RP's complaint seems to be based on him mistaking another editor's restore of my material as if it had been a restore done by me. StuRat 16:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• So you suggest that your revert warring to insert a nasty comment is excused because there were less than three independent editors expressing disapproval? >Radiant< 16:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There were zero independent editors, and only one editor total (RP) who disagreed with my edit at that time. Under such circumstances, reverting a deletion is appropriate. As I've already stated, once Clio removed the content, I promised not to restore it, and I kept that promise. Blocking me to prevent edit warring is thus completely inappropriate, as I long ago stopped restoring the edit in question. StuRat 16:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• You are repeatedly either missing or ignoring the point. You are incivil, attacking people, and ignoring wikiquette. You were not blocked for complaining, or expresing an opinion, or to prevent edit warring. You were blocked because you are incivil, attacking people, and ignoring wikiquette. This dialog here indicates that either you don't understand that, or that you are unwilling to change that. I suggest you stop looking for excuses or smokescreens, and clean up your act. >Radiant< 16:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• If I was not blocked for those reasons, they should not have been listed at the AN/I discussion and here. StuRat 17:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Stu, the comment of Radiant's above is crystal clear, and is the problem in a nutshell.

On the one hand, Radiant often bugs me, too. He's frequently harsh- and judgemental-seeming. But despite his lack of tact and diplomacy, he is 1000% correct here. You just don't get it, and I'm just about convinced you never will. (I'm not sure why I still bother with these pleas to you.) You've been around long enough to have learned how Wikipedia works, and you're smart enough to have learned how Wikipedia works, so I completely don't understand why you continue to engage in the namecalling, polarization, and argumentativeness that has gotten you in so much trouble in the past, that numerous people have tried to explain to you the folly of, that by all available evidence you're going to continue to engage in in the future, and (this is the kicker) that is not working.

Actually, I should maybe take part of that back. Something has worked. You are (as usual) so immersed in mountainous debates about the most trivial and tangential of molehilly side points that you have probably not noticed how significantly the tide has turned since last December. The Reference Desk that I was arguing with you for then, we have largely gotten. We can banter, we can joke, we can speculate, we don't have to source everything. All the outright prohibitions we were worried about, that some hotheaded admins seemed hell-bent on opposing, have not been enacted. The other side (and I really don't like referring to them this way, but since I'm trying to reach out to you, I'm going to cheat and use your language) has compromised on all sorts of points -- really all the ones we cared about. I don't think you realize how much we've gotten.

(To forestall a debate that I have zero time for and even less interest in having -- please do not come back at me here with a counterargument listing all the ways that this or that version of the emerging RD guidelines tries to discourage excessive banter, humor, speculation, and lack of sourcing. Of course the guidelines discourage those; we have all agreed, since day one, that any of those things in excess was harmful to the desks. My point is that they are not banned.)

—Steve Summit (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Again, I would like to request a review by an independent Admin, certainly not by the blocking Admin or any other involved in the Ref Desk guidelines dispute. StuRat 16:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As an independent admin (making my first proper admin-type edits in two months!), I would say that a 12 hour cooling period for repeated incivility following repeated requests to knock it off is deserved, and maybe even a little lenient. Neil (►) 21:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Neil. It's only twelve hours. How bad can it be? Sr13 01:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is I've seen that once somebody has a block on their record, that is then used as justification for future blocks. StuRat 03:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And as a justification for not getting admin tools. A.Z. 03:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A block on your record is no necessary problem at all. The reason Stu will be blocked in the future, and will never get admin tools, is not that he has one (or several) blocks on his record. The reason is that he is, by all appearances, incapable of assuming the tenor of civility and diplomatic compromise that this community insists on. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In case you didn't know who I am, I was Physicq210, who commented on admin Friday's admin recall thingy. However, you are correct: I did not comment on, will not comment on, and have no future intention to comment on, ref desk guidelines or be involved in its affairs. —Kyриx 03:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd prefer comments from people not involved at all, but at least you haven't been involved for quite a while, at least. StuRat 05:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Punishment

I thought blocks were not for punishment. What is the "forgiving mood" thing all about, and the "cooling" period? Why would anyone forgive anyone by blocking them for fewer hours? What would be the opposite of a forgiving mood, if not a punishing mood? A.Z. 21:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no-one answered yet... But I guess there's no possible excuse at all for saying that administrators have the power to forgive... A.Z. 01:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cilo_the_Muse.2C_Hipocrite.2C_Rockpocket.2C_StuRat.2C_Loomis51.2C_A.Z._.26_me_Eptypes

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cilo_the_Muse.2C_Hipocrite.2C_Rockpocket.2C_StuRat.2C_Loomis51.2C_A.Z._.26_me_Eptypes. --Eptypes 23:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back, StuRat. I, personally, was surprised to see you blocked this morning; that wasn't my intention in posting to AN/I. You were resolutely ignoring common courtesy simply because it was I who was asking you to stop, even after I noted that I was acting on the wishes of the editor whose page you were writing on. You left me little choice but to ask for assistance.

You probably don't appreciate it, but the admins you are so keen to demonize on the Ref Desk are actually relatively liberal with their use of the tools. As you found out, many of the thousands of so-called non-partisan admins that you were keen to involve take a much less tolerant view of tendentious editing.

Hopefully this block will have served as a wake up call, but if not, please be aware that I'm not going to engage in pointless, distracting and circular debate with you any further, next time you try something like you did last night, I will leave a warning then go immediately to AN/I. Its very clear to me from your comments above that the very real threat of a block is the only thing that gets your attention. Discussion, appeals to reason or warning are either ignored or dismissed. All you demonstrated yesterday was that blocking may well be what is required to stop disruption. You may remember a very similar thing happened with Light current, and that didn't turn out well for anyone. Please don't let things progress to that level. Rockpocket 06:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)