User:Friday/samepage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit this however seems useful. Add sections or move things around as needed. (For now, we would prefer to keep this conversation solely between Friday and StuRat.)

Contents

[edit] Scope

This is informal mediation. This isn't anyone against anyone, this is just people trying to get on the same page. If the mediator ends up saying "Friday, you're a jerk, go jump in a lake", I don't have to go jump in the lake. Altho, I might think twice about why he said I was a jerk. Maybe we should seek someone who agrees to mediate, or maybe we just invite comment from anyone.

[edit] What Friday sees as disruptive

This restoral of removed content with the edit summary and this talk page explanation is, in my opinion, an example of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. It's also an reverting when not necessary. This objection that the authors were not notify could have been easily answered by notifying the authors, but instead there was a revert of a removal that people on the talk page had already agreed to. This is overly aggressive editing, against consensus.

I disagree that it is against consensus. Unlike you, I consider the wishes of the authors, not just those who can find and comment on the discussion at the talk page. I counted 7 authors, and believe that each of them would like to retain at least their own comments, and possibly those of others. Thus, unless you had significantly more than 7 people on the talk page argue for removal, I don't see that a consensus for removal actually exists. StuRat 05:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point is about priorities. What it means is, don't make an edit that you don't really think improves the page you're editing, even if by doing so you're illustrating some point you want to make. The project always take precedence over making a point. Make your point in words, on the talk page, instead. This is about putting the interests of the project ahead of our interests in winning a fight or proving ourselves right.

I am in favor of improving the Reference Desk, for which it is necessary to convince the editors to restrict themselves to proper deletions. The only way to get them to behave properly, is to revert improper deletions. StuRat 05:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If this had happened only the one time, I wouldn't bother much about it. However, I believe we can all agree that this has happened repeatedly. Obviously, StuRat doesn't see his behavior as disruption. Maybe I can get him to agree it was against consensus, though. The only objection raised to the removal was his own, on the grounds that the authors were not notified. This argument has nothing to do with the most important question of whether or not this content improved the reference desk. So, putting it back (and, doing a disservice to the ref desk) was inappropriate. Our top priority must be the good of the project, not our own desire to make a point.

I disagree that any particular edit is more important than getting editors to follow the proper process. StuRat 05:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] What StuRat sees as disruptive

I view deleting things from the Ref Desk without notifying the authors to be disruptive, in that the authors will likely have no idea what happened. They won't know who deleted their comments, or why they were deleted. This leaves them powerless to protest or correct their errors. Expert users who know how to read through the history to find the edit and know to look on the discussion page might be able to track down who did the deletion, and why, if they happen to notice the deletions, but not newbies. The suggestion that I commit myself to permanently following all of EricR's edits, and anyone else who engages in deletions from the Ref Desk without notifying the user, and clean-up after them by notifying all of the authors, is obviously unworkable. There is simply no way I could do that, even if I spent 100% of my time on it. It is therefore necessary that the person who does the deletions also do the notifications. Now the questions becomes how to get them to do that. I see only one way, undo deletions which are done improperly. This is like the exclusionary rule in US criminal law. For decades the courts told police not to abuse their powers, but the police simply ignored them. Only when the courts ruled that evidence obtained illegally by the police (such as without a warrant) would no longer be admissible in court, did the police ever even try to do things properly. If there are no consequences for improper deletions, then they will continue indefinitely.

Now, for your part in this, Friday. I would have hoped that you would have endorsed Rick Block comment that the authors of deleted material should always be notified, and made it clear to ErirR that this was what was expected of him. This would have been a constructive step, and hopefully would have solved the problem right there. Instead, you appeared to endorse ErirR's continued deletions without notification by attacking me for reverting those edits. I didn't consider this to be helpful at all. Then, when you called these reverts "disruptive", it really started to look as though you were looking for an excuse to try to block me. I have a pretty good idea of what disruptive behavior is, and a revert of an improper edit is nowhere near what is talked about under WP:DIS. StuRat 05:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As for the charge that I engage in "edit warring", I consider the war to start when the first improper deletions occurs. You, however, seem to ignore the improper deletion and accuse me of starting an edit war by reverting the improper deletion. StuRat 05:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Now for a more general observation. You appear to continue to overlook bad behavior from those who generally agree with you on the issues, while attacking those on the opposite side of the issues with very little provocation. An example is ErirR's very questionable deletion of statements he disagreed with (judged to be incorrect) on the issue of US Congressional authority to call witnesses. Many people seemed to both disagree with his interpretation of the opposing statements as incorrect and, more importantly, the concept that any one editor should feel free to delete anything they think is incorrect, as opposed to presenting their evidence and allowing the OP decide. You, however, were mute on this issue, presumably because you agree with ErirR on other matters. I find this type of bias in an Admin to be totally unacceptable. Admins should either behave in an unbiased manner or they should resign their Adminship. TenOfAllTrades is an example of an Admin who, while on your side of the Ref Desk debate, still seems to maintain a degree of neutrality which I wish you would try to emulate. StuRat 05:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is there consensus for demanding author notification on threat of reverting?

Can you demonstrate any consensus for the idea that anyone removing content must notify the authors? Can you demonstrate any consensus for reverting a removal on the grounds that this didn't happen? Also, note- if you can, please use the same notion of consensus that you'd apply to something I claim has consensus. Maybe this whole argument can go away if there's no consensus either way. Friday (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe consensus for this was formed when I called votes on such issues last year (backup copy kept here: User:StuRat/rules). Your side then rejected the votes, saying "this is not democracy" and such. There is also support from Rick Block, even though he is not an inclusionist. And note that, even if no consensus existed either way, that still leaves me as free to restore deletions I consider to be improper as ErirR is to make such deletions. Only if there was a firm consensus that authors should not be notified would it be me inappropriate for me to do so. StuRat 14:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Your last sentence is something I completely disagree with. Wikipedia is not a case of "that which is not forbidden is mandatory, that which is not mandatory is forbidden." There is all kinds of middle ground. So, there's no consensus on whether authors MUST be notified. Fair enough. I believe there's a consensus that failure to notify is not good grounds for reverting. Is there some way we can gauge this consensus so that we'll both agree on the results? I don't expect you to just believe my assertion that there's consensus on this. Friday (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe that WP:3RR means that we are allowed to revert that which we thinks improves Wikipedia, so I would need to see a firm consensus that notifying authors of Ref Desk deletions does not improve Wikipedia. StuRat 15:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You're mixing two issues. If you agree with the removal but not with the non-notification, reverting the removal is the last thing you should do to fix it. The less obtrusive fix is to go and notify the authors. This is why I called your revert a disruption to prove a point- there was a better way to fix what you say is the problem, but you chose not to do so. By reverting instead, this is seen as a "fuck you" to the person who removed it. Especially when the people on the talk page agree with that removal, revert it for the reasons you did is aggressive, non-harmonious editing. Every time you hit save you should ask yourself whether the edit improves the page. This is the basic behavioral expectation we have of all editors. If you find that you're doing it for any other reason, don't hit save. Friday (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I consider nonconsensus (including the opinions of the authors) deletions, without notifying them, like giving them the finger. ErircR, in particular, deletes with brute force and then posts notice of the deletion to the Ref Desk talk page, so there was absolutely no consensus when he did the deletion. He also fails to take conversations to the authors, politely request that they reword things, etc. He also fails to move "meta-discussions" to the Ref Desk talk page. For example, the discussion of whether the term "mentally retarded" is insulting could have been moved there. Undoing this damage is a good thing. And, I believe "Every time you hit save you should ask yourself whether the edit improves Wikipedia". I do. StuRat 15:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As a point of comparison, and not because the ref desk is a talk page, I offer WP:TALK#Editing_comments - this says "Editing others' comments is generally not allowed. Exceptions are: (among other things) Removing prohibited material such as libel and personal details". To me, removing off-topic soapboxing from a talk page is a no brainer- people do this all the time, and it's not generally controversial. I see no reason why removing off-topic soapboxing from the ref desk ought to be different. Friday (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that what constitutes "soapboxing" is purely opinion, there is no objective standard. This, I believe, is why "soapboxing" isn't listed in that guideline. StuRat 14:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a pillar issue. I think we mostly know soapboxing when we see it. (and yes, I understand this answer may be completely unacceptable to you.) Friday (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Being a "pillar issue" but being excluded from the talk page guidelines, to me, means that it is only meant to apply to articles. You are also correct that I find the completely subjective standard "I don't know what it is but I know it when I see it" to be unacceptable. This leaves deletions open to use as petty attacks. Don't like somebody ? Just call everything they write "soapboxing" and delete it. StuRat 15:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a problem we already have. If someone went around doing this unreasonably, they'd get all kinds of complaints. We count on the wiki process to deal with such problems- we don't make rules about them. Friday (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The "wiki process" is people making whatever changes they think improves Wikipedia, which includes me restoring materials I believe to have been improperly deleted. I also find it difficult to see why we would make rules against libel and personal info on talk pages but not against soapboxing, if we meant to ban all three. StuRat 15:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep. Also part of the wiki process is other editors asking you to please not revert due to a procedural objection. Friday (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
As is those editors continuing to do so because they see the "procedural objection" as far more important than the actual edit. StuRat 15:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Excessive reverting is disruptive editing. The relative importance of procedural objections over the actual edits is a pillar issue- we should not debate it. Friday (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Please direct me to that statement in the WP:5P which prohibits reverts of improper deletions. StuRat 15:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
No such statement exists. The pillars are general, not specific. Also note that these deletions are "improper" in your opinion- many disagree. If we wanted to be neutral maybe we should call them "disputed deletions". Friday (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I find your argument that "The relative importance of procedural objections over the actual edits is a pillar issue" when no such statement exists in WP:5P, to be illogical. I do agree, however, to refer to deletions which I consider to be inappropriate as "disputed deletions". StuRat 16:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If you read the entire talk page guideline, and pretty much any other fundamental policy, it makes it very clear that Wikipedia is not for soapboxing. This includes articles, talk pages, everything. People may draw the line in different places in different namespaces, but the core concept is project-wide. We don't really need to argue about whether talk pages are for soapboxing, do we? Friday (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "articles are not for soapboxing", and that "soapboxing on talk pages should be kept to a minimum". Where I disagree, however, is that "anyone can decide that other people's responses on the Ref Desk are soapboxing and remove them unilaterally, without notifying the author(s)". I would require a consensus for removal (and remember, I include the opinions of the authors in such a consensus) and would also require that the authors be notified before any deletion occurs. StuRat 15:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answer to content you added then deleted

Apparently you've been adding and then deleting things. I wrote a response to something you said about not needing to consider the opinions of the authors because they "obviously included inappropriate material":

You're undermining the entire concept of consensus by using circular logic: "We have decided that we are right and the majority is wrong, so we can ignore their opinions, because we've already determined that they are wrong, and that means their opinions don't matter". Surely you can see that inclusionist could do exactly the same thing, in reverse. Ignoring the opinions of those with whom you disagree is not the way to solve problems, that's the way to cause them. StuRat 14:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I understand- I figured it'd be hard to get agreement on this issue, hence my removal. Friday (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you deleted your statement, that might mean you decided it was wrong on your own, in which case you can delete my comments, since we are in agreement on this issue now. StuRat 14:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was hoping to focus only on one thing at a time- one thing that's hurt is in the past is that discussions end up going all over the place. Friday (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, but it makes it difficult for me to track changes if you keep adding and deleting things. Maybe you should create another page for "nascent thoughts", before you're ready to present them here. StuRat 14:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harmonious editing

We expect harmonious, non-disruptive editing. Just because the rules say you CAN do something (or, because they don't say you CAN'T), this doesn't always mean it's a good thing to do. Yes, you CAN revert a removal due to a procedural objection to how it was done- it's just that it's a spectacularly bad idea. This is what I've been trying to get across. Friday (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree there, I believe having editors treat each other with respect is perhaps the single most important issue on the Ref Desk, and enforcing author notification of deletions is an important component of that respect. StuRat 15:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not surprised to hear this- it explains a lot. I would suggest that anyone who's here for respect is in the wrong place. This is an encyclopedia. Yes, we should treat editors with basic respect, but this is slippery because it means so many different things to different people. Some people see anyone changing "their page" as disrespectful. But, this is a wiki, so obviously this notion of "respect" can't work here. Friday (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You seriously don't think it's possible or desirable to treat Ref Desk contributors with the respect they deserve ? I'm shocked to hear that. StuRat 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
No, no- misunderstanding. What I'm saying is, if you see other people editing "your page" as disrespectful, you'll have a hard time with Wikipedia until you get over it. Pages get edited. This is how it goes. You could make an argument about pages in your own user space- people will see them a bit differently. But article pages, talk pages, project pages- these are fair game for editing. Friday (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand, I have no objection to others adding their comments to the Ref Desk. By "editing", do you mean nonconsensus deletions of the Ref Desk contributions of others without notifying the author(s) ? If so, yes, I find this to be highly disrespectful of the authors and I don't think "pages get edited" is much of an argument for why such disrespectful behavior should be tolerated. StuRat 16:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

More on this- a revert due to a procedural objection is the core issue here, I think we can agree. You say it's OK, I say it's not. Can you think of a case where anyone has agreed with you that this is a good reason to revert? I can see cases right now where people are saying it's not, and my memory tells me this is not the first time. Standard editing practice says that a revert is "brute force" editing- the LAST thing we should consider. If there's a way to fix it instead of reverting, this is preferable. I've suggested a way to fix this instead. Friday (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We have a definite disagreement here, I consider nonconsensus Ref Desk deletions to be "brute force" editing, and reversions to be "undoing the damage". StuRat 15:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine, we'll look for input from others. Can you think of a case where anyone has agreed with you that reverting a removal on the grounds of non-notification is a good thing? Friday (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
See below. StuRat 16:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

To me, this is the still the big issue- do you believe there's consensus that your reverts on the grounds of non-notification is a good thing? I see people saying it's not, and I don't see people agreeing with you that it is. Friday (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your methods here, everyone has the right to revert a deletion if they think it helps Wikipedia, and, unless there is a firm consensus that authors should not be notified when their contributions are deleted from the Ref Desk, I am being reasonable in thinking that reverting such edits improves Wikipedia. I would like to explore more why you think deleting the contributions of others is not "brute force", but reverts of such deletions are. StuRat 16:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with that too- and that's not what I'm trying to say. Let's look at specifics instead of generalities in this case. Someone removed content- there was support and no objection on the talk page about this issue. You came in and reverted. This is what I think is inappropriate. If you want to make your case, do it on the talk page. But please don't unilaterally override what people are already agreeing with. You've done this before- you obviously think it's ok, and this is the disagreement we must resolve. What I'm saying is, if the removal already looks noncontroversial from the talk page, don't just revert it. This is why I call it brute-force editing. Reverting is a blunt tool and should not be the first thing you reach for.
We can have all kind of differences of opinion that we don't need to resolve. However, I consider your editing in this case to be disruptive, so we do need to resolve it. I'm willing to let slide your (in my view) polemics on the talk page. It's only a talk page. But I'm not willing to let slide what I see as disruption of the ref desk itself.
In my view, it looks like you're reverting in this case not because you honestly think it's an improvement to the page, but rather to make a point about what you consider the proper process for removal. Whether or not this is your intention, you should consider how your actions will be seen by others. Friday (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
First, my reverts are never unilateral, in that I and the author(s) appear to be in agreement that the content should remain (otherwise the author would never have added it or would have removed it himself). And why is it that you think "Reverting is a blunt tool and should not be the first thing you reach for", yet you apparently don't agree that "Deletions are a blunt tool and should not be the first thing you reach for". That is exactly what EricR does, and you appear to support, as he never discusses anything with the authors, never moves meta-discussions to the Ref Desk talk page, and never even waits for a consensus to do the deletion, he only reports the deletions, after the fact, on the Ref Desk talk page. StuRat 16:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
An edit had support on the talk page. You, knowing this, decided to revert it anyway. I don't care whether you use the word "unilateral" or not, but surely you don't dispute these facts? See the bold v reckless bit below. You've been reckless. Friday (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I object to your use of the term "edit" to describe a deletion. The term is intentionally vague, to make it sound not as bad as it really is. StuRat 18:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Call it what you like, but it was accomplished by hitting the "edit this page" section. Normally on Wikipedia we refer to such actions as edits. Friday (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You're just be difficult now. Should I also call my reverts "edits" just because I hit the edit button to do them ? StuRat 21:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I have to object. From where I sit, you are "being difficult" by responding not to the real issue, but rather nitpicking a certain word I used. How does this help us reach an agreement? I stand by my assessment above: An edit (which removed content, yes) had support on the talk page. You knew this and reverted it anyway. These are not the actions of a harmonius editor. This is why I say you're editing too aggressively. This is disruptive. Friday (talk)

Fine then, using your terminology, I also performed an edit (revert) which had the support of 7 people (the original authors). StuRat 00:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
You're not being reasonable. Did you look at what these folks wrote? Pure crap, most of it. Of course they didn't show up on the talk page to defend their right to spout off this crap. What else did you expect? Consensus doesn't involve assuming reasonable arguments- it involves reading what actual editors have actually written. Friday (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't all crap. And they weren't even given the opportunity to "amend or defend". StuRat 03:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should or should not be notified

I think we can put this issue to rest- I don't think anyone has argued that people should NOT be notified. All that's happened is that some people remove content without notifying. Anyone who feels notification is important is of course, free to do so. What we're really disagreeing on is whether or not a failure to notify justfied the reverting of a well-supported removal, already being discussed on the talk page. Friday (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll give in on this one: If there is consensus for removal (including the opinion of the authors), and that this removal should be allowed without notifying the authors (including the opinion of the authors), then I may be persuaded to let the removal stand. StuRat 17:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
But notification is a separate issue from the removal. We don't need to tie them together. Whoever feels notification is important can go around notifying people. Friday (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not a separate issue. Did you completely ignore the reasons I gave for why they need to be linked (the exclusionary rule example) ? StuRat 18:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Replied on the talk page about why comparisons of Wikipedia to a system of law are inappropriate. Friday (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I am disappointed by you abandoning our attempt to talk things over here. StuRat 20:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

See, it's statements like this that make you have such a hard time with other editors. I've gone out of my way to resolve this. I deleted the RFC. I asked it you wanted mediation. I set up this page, and I've very patiently explained to you where I'm coming from. You describe this as "abandoning our attempt to talk things over"? Are you trying to get me to give up on communicating with you? I hate to think I'm wasting my time here, much as I was hesistent to try again to explain where I'm coming from. Whether you intend it or not, it's this kind of statement that makes people think you're just trying to score debate points instead of trying to reach some agreeable solution. Friday (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully understand all of your positions, I just don't happen to agree with them, especially those positions where you refer to Wikipedia policies which either don't actually support your position or are clearly written for articles. Do you understand my positions ? You keep mischaracterizing my providing evidence to support my position as "trying to score points". StuRat 21:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pillar issues

When I say it's a pillar issue, I might be talking about the WP:5P page itself, or maybe even one of the important guidelines or pages that it links to. WP:IAR is now very brief, but if you look into the history you'll see all kinds of historical support for the notion that product is more important than process. Also, the first pillar, driving home the point that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox, also supports this interpretation in my view. I don't know that there's anything I can say to convince you. But, rest assured- any editor who went around reverting edits on the grounds of procedural objections would find themselves getting hit with complaints from all over. We don't revert every single thing we disagree with - sometimes we make our point on the talk page, and that's that. There needs to be a middle ground- there's plenty of room for "I disagree, and here's why" without needing to be "This is unacceptable! I've reverted and will continue to do so!" This is why I described your actions as "holding the page hostage until you get your way." It's disruptive, and also disrespectful to other editors. Friday (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't rely on deleted policies, they were likely deleted for a reason. And I have an example of where a revert of a deletion for procedural reasons is encouraged. If an article is entered into AFD, it should be retained until a consensus is garnered for deletion of that article. Anyone who deletes that article prior to consensus for deletion may very well find that their deletion would be reverted on "procedural grounds". The person who did the revert would also not be called "disruptive" or threatened with blocks. StuRat 16:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is a good example. Who says when consensus is reached? We have no magical instrument for detecting this. What happens is, someone comes in and decides that in their judgment there's consensus one way or another. If it's seen as an obvious case, the AFD might get closed in a hurry. Or, someone may decide it's speediable and go ahead and delete it. This happens all the time, and it's not controversial. Friday (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
There are some pretty clear indications of when a consensus has not been reached. If nobody but the person who filed the AFD agrees with the removal, then there is definitely no consensus. I don't believe the revert of a speedy delete done at that time would be at all controversial, nor do I believe the person who did the revert would be called "disruptive" or threatened with a block. StuRat 18:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Being bold but not reckless

See WP:BOLD. Bold is doing what you think is right, usually without "asking permission" first. Reckless is making a revert on an edit that already has support on the talk page. Do you see the crucial difference? Friday (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No. I notice how you said "support", and not "consensus". Reckless is doing a deletion based solely on your opinion that the answer given is wrong, without consensus, and without notifying the authors, as EricR did on the Congressional subpoena power question. StuRat 18:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why you're using the term "without consensus" over and over to refer to a situation where everyone who'd discussed it on the talk page agreed with the removal. What further evidence of consensus would you like? Friday (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Because you are excluding the authors, who didn't even know there was a discussion on the talk page, so had no opportunity to participate, but can be assumed to have wanted their contributions to remain. This is a core issue, you seem to assume that the authors have no vote unless they can manage to track down the discussion and give their input there. StuRat 20:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Similar issues get brought up all the time- some people think those who created (or, even, everyone who edited) an article should be notified if it's up for deletion. Proposals to require this have not gotten traction- this is what watch lists are for. The thing is, the best tool we have for getting consensus is the talk page. The closest we get to a "consensus of everyone" is "a consensus of those who participated in the discussion." But, the simple point remains- those who feel notifications are important are certainly free to do so. Demanding that everyone do this is quite another thing altogether. I don't see what problem you're trying to solve with such a requirement. Friday (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I've already explained that it would be impossible for me to follow everybody around to see if they do any deletions, then notify all the authors. You try doing it for a while if you think it's so easy. StuRat 21:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. The particular case we're disagreeing on was brought up on the talk page. No need to hunt for it, it's right there. Friday (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but how about all the future cases ? Can you guarantee that they will all be mentioned on the talk page ? StuRat 00:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disappointed by your actions

You have now started moving this discussion back on the Ref Desk talk page. I will now have to answer there, as well. I thought we had agreed to talk things over here, not there. This was not a constructive step. StuRat 20:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to see if I could get a consensus on the issue of reverting a removal on the basis of an objection to how it was done. So far, everyone but you agrees it's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Friday (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
No, A.Z. clearly misunderstood the way you phrased the question, which was intentionally deceptive, in my opinion. Of course, nobody should do a revert "just to make a point", but they should do it to improve Wikipedia, which is what I did. The fact that A.Z. did a revert you consider "just to make a point" demonstrates that he didn't understand what you were asking. I could just as well ask if people should do deletions "just to make a point". The only person so far who has supported your misleading question is Rockpocket. StuRat 21:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I see that now. My question was not meant to be misleading, and I don't see how it is. You are not helping by asserting that it was intentionally deceptive. However, I'm not sure I understand A.Z., as he seems to be talking about something other than a reference desk. Certainly it's true he does not appear to understand the question. Friday (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We can give it more time and hope that most people who respond do understand the question. I suspect that many people may refrain from responding because they believe the question is a no-brainer, not worth rehashing. Here's a question tho- what would show, in your opinion, a consensus on this issue? I think that WP:POINT already shows that there's consensus on this issue, but we tend to have different ideas on what consensus means. You're arguing that you're improving Wikipedia in the long term- this could be a good reason for a particular course of action. But rather than accomplishing it by making short-term harmful changes to the ref desk, you're expected to argue your case on the talk page and change people's minds. Have you read WP:POINT? It gives examples. Friday (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

They won't understand it as long as it retains your misleading phrasing. StuRat 21:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you consider it no longer misleading if instead of "We should never revert a removal simply to make a point about how it was removed" it said "We should never revert a removal due to an objection about how it was removed"? This is basically what I intended. I thought about changing it, but people have already responded. Friday (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
That's better, yes. StuRat 00:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption

A few people have described the restoration of the removed content as disruption. You don't agree. What would it take to get you to stop? Do we need to convince you that it's disruptive, or do we only need to convince you that many people consider it disruptive? I was hoping it was the latter, but I figured I better ask. I want to know what exactly I should be aiming at. Friday (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is firm consensus that "reverting a deletion, where you think the revert helps to improve Wikipedia, is disruptive", then I would go along with that. However, I would not go along with your misleading "is reverting to make a point considered disruption ?" question. StuRat 21:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. You already made it very clear, multiple times, that you reverted because the authors were not notified rather than because the content improved the reference desk. You invented your own rule for how content can be removed, and you're enforcing it by reverting. Other people don't agree with your rule, and they don't agree with your reverts- this much we already know. What will it take to get you to stop? Friday (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You don't understand. I revert so that in the future editors will learn to notify authors of deletions, which will, in turn, improve Wikipedia. StuRat 00:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there's a simple solution. Are you willing to get consensus for the rule you invented, before continuing to enforce it by reverting? Friday (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, if there's no consensus either way, that leaves it up to the individual to decide. StuRat 00:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Are you saying you're defending your right to revert to get your way, as long as the rules don't explicitly forbid it? Friday (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Not to "get my way", but rather to improve Wikipedia. If I turned it around, would you say you have the right to delete the contributions of others to "get your way", as long as the rules don't explicitly forbid it ? StuRat 03:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
In this case, I'm not the one using reverts to get my way against the objections of other editors. You are, so you have explaining to do. Let's stay on topic. Friday (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly my point, I consider deletions to be far worse than reverts of deletions, while you don't seem to see any negatives at all in deletions and think reverts somehow meet the severe standard of "disruption". StuRat 03:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
My point is, I'm trying to get you to see that Wikipedia has a code of conduct. It's not what you say it is, it's what the community expects. On Wikipedia, reverts are considered a blunt tool, to be used sparingly. In particular, reverting something that already has talk page support is not a good way to collaborate peaceably with other editors. I'm trying to get you to see that collaborating peaceably with other editors is more important than always getting your own way. What will it take to get you to stop with these reverts? Friday (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Again you completely refuse to see the other side. Deletions are also considered a blunt tool, and the deletions EricR does are always unilateral, he only reports them to the talk page AFTER he has done the deletions. So, if he deletes the contributions of 7 editors, that's one against 7, yet you never have anything to say about that, do you ? Instead, you only complain when I undo the damage, with majority support (the 7 authors versus the smaller number on the talk page who support the deletions), and ask that the authors be notified. In fact, you not only complain, but threaten me with a block. StuRat 23:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't remember threatening you with a block. Do you think a mediator would help make this discussion more productive? Friday (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it would definitely help if you would stop taking the argument back to the Ref Desk Talk Page. StuRat 02:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As for not threatening a block, this seemed to be just such a threat, to me:

We've been through all this before. Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines. My point was not to suggest that the ref desk is a talk page, but rather to point out that even on talk pages we should still observe the basic editorial policies that make Wikipedia an encyclopedia rather than a forum. Personally I think the term "reference desk" tells us what we need to know about its purpose, but we still have no shortage of people who read this to mean "chat desk". I suppose we could start seeking community bans from the ref desk for whose who make a habit of misusing it. Friday (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've described what I understand to be your view on removal of content. See View 3 at User:Friday/RD. Friday (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's reasonably close to the original deletion process guidelines agreed to by supermajority and stored here: User:StuRat/rules#Deletion, so it would be good to include a link to those or copy them over. StuRat 23:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forward?

Any hope of a useful way forward here? I'm less optimistic now. Given your recent posts, it sounds like you're not willing to accept community consensus unless you get to pick who's allowed to participate. I think we're at an impasse- you won't stop your reverts, and you won't recognize community consensus on this issue as legitimate. If there some option I'm not seeing? Do we just have to put up with you coming by and reverting removals due to them not following your unilaterally declared process? Friday (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hardly unilateral. It was one of many rules agreed to by supermajority, until you and your fellow (fill in the blank) deleted those rules and put your own there, instead. Apparently, you won't recognize Ref Desk consensus as legitimate. StuRat 22:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say we're at an impasse then. You see anyone who criticizes you through very unrealistic glasses, apparently. Despite your claim, no reasonable editor is calling whatever they disagree with "disruption". Several reasonable editors are calling some of your behavior disruption, though. Friday (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

...and by some amazing coincidence these people all happen to be deletionists. What a coincidence ! StuRat 00:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)