User talk:StuRat/redundant

= R E D U N D A N T _ N O T I C E =

'''Note that, if you actually have something new to say, rather than repeating the same old deletionist POV, I will be happy to listen and respond. However, any further repeats of the same arguments will be placed directly onto my "redundant" page and promptly ignored. This includes denial of my right to use the word "deletionist" to describe deletionists, telling me to not view deletionists as the enemy, calling my restores of non-consensus deletions a disruptive violation of policy, complaining about me adding rules to the guidelines page that were agreed to by supermajority, defense of deletionist sockpuppets/meatpuppets, blocks, etc. Notice that even things which sound friendly at first, like "why don't you take a break", become abusive when repeated dozens of times. To save time, you might want to post such negative remarks directly on my redundant page, from now on: User_talk:StuRat/redundant.''' StuRat 13:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

= Repeated attacks on our proper usage of the term "deletionist" =

Please stop saying "deletionist"
Furthermore, can you please stop using the term "deletionist"... it is loaded and inaccurate in this context, and it emphasizes a negative aspect of the views of those who disagree with you. It's not an accurate reflection of what we're trying to do, or what we would call ourselves. Can you please stop using the term? -- SCZenz 16:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There are many users who self-identify as "deletionists" (156), so it can't possibly be insulting: . StuRat 16:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But it doesn't mean what you're using it to mean, which is why I called it inaccurate. Deletionism is a position about quality and notability standards for keeping articles, not a position about editing guidelines. You're redefining a loaded word, and I find it insulting. -- SCZenz 16:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm using it exactly the same way they themselves have defined it (although they wrote it for articles, so I will change the word "article" to "response" in the following quote): "Some deletionists argue that allowing small, uninformative responses to remain promotes poorly-written "drive-by" responses, and that by deleting them writers will be more likely to make informative, well-written responses...". StuRat 16:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a substantial redefinition of the term, one that most Wikipedians would not recognize. And by no means would self-identified deletionists necessarily agree with my positions on the ref desk, or self-identified inclusionists disagree.  Furthermore, note that I am not a self-identified deletionist, and I have asked politely for you to stop characterizing me as such. -- SCZenz 16:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do, in general, try to refer to "the deletionists", allowing you to decide for yourself if that includes you. However, you simply don't have the right to restrict how other people characterize you, as long as that characterization isn't insulting or obscene, and "deletionist" is neither.  I've shown the utmost concern for your feelings by creating a separate list just for you of "people who refuse to be categorized", and then deleting the list from this page entirely when the complaints continued, but this point is non-negotiable:  "I calls 'em as I sees 'em."   StuRat 17:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have the right to express my concern when I feel you are using insulting, inaccurate terms and they are getting in the way of working toward consensus. We can disagree about what's civil and what isn't, but you do have an obligation to be civil.  There is no "right to free speech" on Wikipedia that trumps the civility policy; it doesn't happen quickly, but WP:CIVIL ultimately is enforceable.  I won't be the one enforcing it, but I (like any user) can eventually request a forum in which alleged incivility is evaluated and binding decisions are made.  -- SCZenz 18:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And, I should add, feel free to characterize me as an "inclusionist", I promise not to be offended. StuRat 16:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has an established culture, and part of this is a set of terms with Wikipedia-specific meanings. If you make no effort to understand these words, it's not surprising you have such trouble communicating.  I think we'd all be better off if you took some of the effort you put into insisting that your way is best and instead spend this effort learning about Wikipedia's established practices.  Friday (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You need to learn that your interpretation of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, processes, culture, meanings, etc., is not the only, and universally correct, interpretation. StuRat 16:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's true. We don't have firm rules.  I think I have a pretty good understanding of how my interpretations relate to accepted understandings of various guidelines and policies.  Do you?  Friday (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. StuRat 16:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I think many of our disagreements would magically go away if you simply started to demonstrate your understanding of policy with your editing behavior. Friday (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not helpful. Walk away. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there's a Starbucks across the street. I'll join you. --Justanother 16:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd join you, too, Just, but Hipocrite would no doubt pull the chair out from under me. StuRat 17:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you reconsider your remark?
Would you consider rephrasing, reviewing, and possibly rewriting this remark? I find it troubling on a number of levels, and I'm not sure it is the way that you want to represent your argument.

Flatly stating that people you disagree with are lying about being offended – and claiming that they are using sockpuppets to do it – is a pretty shoddy thing to say when we're trying to have a discussion in good faith.


 * I didn't, I used the word "may", meaning it's a possibility, not a certain fact. StuRat 17:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It would also be greatly appreciated if you stopped using the term 'deletionist' to characterize the people with whom you disagree. I've mentioned it before, but I'll remind you again that a lot of people see that term as pejorative, and needlessly polarising. We'd all appreciate it if you didn't use it, because it doesn't accurately represent most of our positions (I can't speak for everyone, of course) and it is insulting.


 * I've already discussed this, and determined that it's not offensive, as may people chose to self-identify as such (see above), so I will continue to use this accurate term. It is less offensive than my views constantly be characterized as "I can say whatever I damn well please and nobody can ever delete it", which has happened repeatedly, yet I don't constantly complain on people's talk pages about that.  If I used the same language, instead of merely using the word "deletionist", I would call them the "I can damn well delete anything I feel like and nobody can put it back" side. StuRat 17:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

On the actual point of the tests we should apply to our remarks, I've commented on the /Guidelines talk page. (From a logistics standpoint, might it be best to condense this discussion to one talk page, rather than two?)

Lastly, I urge you to reread your remark here, that you made seven minutes after the one I've been discussing here. Please, look at your comment in that light. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should have said "treat people with all the respect they deserve". So, if there had never been a verified sockpuppet attack representing the interests of the deletionists, then I wouldn't accuse them of this.  But, since this has happened multiple times now, they no longer deserve the respect of assuming they would never resort to sockpuppet attacks.  StuRat 17:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * May be I'm missing something here. Who are all  these sockpuppets? Most of the discussion seems I have seen is coming from long time editors.
 * With regard to: "treat people with all the respect they deserve". This is a dangerous line to take since the deserve part is so subjective.  In my experience most escalations here develop due to the written format.  It is much harder to discern the little jokes or the true intent of comments without the body language. We tend to write on these talk pages as if we are talking, but we lose all the vital jestures that are required to develop a cordial dialog. It seems that on wikipedia it is common that attacks are often seen where none exist. Thus, a calm at all times approach is always best. Certainly discussing other editors in a bad light, rather than addressing the issues is something to avoid. David D. (Talk) 17:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm rather disappointed, David. You apparently felt it was appropriate to endorse the RFC against me without feeling the need to actually read my response.  It that response, I listed several of the sockpuppet attacks launched by the deletionists.  To take just one example, we have sockpuppet User:RDWarrior, who, from his talk page (User_talk:RDWarrior), appears to be a buddy of deletionist Admin:Friday and deletionist User:hydnjo.  Here is a comment the sock made to support the deletionist POV: .  Here is where the sock was permanently blocked by a good Admin, then unblock by his fellow deletionist buddy Friday, then permanently reblocked by the good Admin: . StuRat 18:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So you agree that there have been no socks involved in the recent deabte of the last few days? Yet, there are many different users contributing to the debate. David D. (Talk) 18:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I don't agree. We've had some anon IP's on the Ref Desk talk page (one quite abusive towards me), who seem like deletionist sockpuppets to me. StuRat 18:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We dont know how many socks are hovering about ATM. There certainly are a number of editors who have only recently appeared.--Light current 18:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you suprised, given the amount of noise? David D. (Talk) 18:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, you appear to be confusing sockpuppet with meatpuppet. And how is the term good Admin defined? David D. (Talk) 18:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That could be, but it's not an important distinction. StuRat 18:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the distinction is important. For example, are you discussing this issue with ten different people or two people with five accounts? Obviously an extreme example, but you get the idea. I have seen one anon ip contributing but had no sense that it was a sock puppet of another participant. Claiming sockpuppetry implies trying to sway consenus or vote stacking.  I have seen nothing to make me believe that is the case here. David D. (Talk) 18:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have. Every argument for the deletionist POV is an attempt to sway the consensus. StuRat 18:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So I'm a meat puppet? Whose? Are we going to go through every editor with a "deletionist" perspective this way? To parody Light Currents joke (in ref desk guidelines talk page). If you delete a comment that adds nothing to the answer, is it still a deletion? i.e. are we actually deletionists? David D. (Talk) 18:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Allow me to answer the bit about deletion: Yes its still a deletion. If its not neccessary to delete a post, it should stand.--Light current 18:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And this IS the crux of the debate. I disagree with that stance. Now here's the kicker, so do others debating here, and it includes admins, non admins, inclusionists and deletionists. Just goes to show that we need to discuss issues and stop using labels. David D. (Talk) 18:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you have a long edit history, so you're unlikely to be either type of puppet. Only new people who show up, have very little edit history, seem to know all about how to use Wikipedia and the Ref Desk, and then go on the attack are suspected of being puppets. StuRat 18:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I suspect that everyone but you is ignoring them, unless they say something particularly relevent or meaningful. Why don't you try joining us in that? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite, as you use everything I say as an opportunity to attack me via an RFC, I would appreciate if you would no longer make any comments on my talk page, and I won't on yours, either. StuRat 18:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop namecalling
StuRat, I've asked you several times to stop using the pejorative term 'deletionist' to label people with whom you disagree. If you've forgetten the reason why some people find the term offensive and unhelpful, I urge you to review the detailed explanation which I provided earlier here.

If you would like to discuss the Ref Desk politely and respectfully, you are more than welcome to. If you would prefer to call people names, I will ask for a neutral third party to review your conduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this redundant because people have asked you to stop this many times? If people are asking you repeatedly to change your behavior, perhaps it's wise to do so.  Friday (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please review my position above. None of us have anything new to say, so let's not rehash this all again.  If you actually have something new to say, please let me know. StuRat 00:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

= Telling us to view deletionists as friends, while they engage in non-consensus deletions, blocks, RFCs, AFDs, and TFDs against inclusionists =

AGF again
I'm not gonna argue, but this is an assumption of bad faith. Nobody's seeking vengance, nobody's acting against you personally, and you have no evidence of any such thing. There is a difference between people having persistent concerns about actions you've taken, and trying to address that, and people having a vendetta against you. There's a lot of disagreement on Wikipedia, but we all have to do our best to disagree without malice. -- SCZenz 16:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If neutral parties filed an RFC, I would listen, but not when it's filed by an opposing faction of deletionists, and endorsed by the same faction, with the vast majority (inclusionists) rejecting the RFC for what it is, a hollow and obvious attempt to tarnish my name so I will leave, or stay quiet, and the deletionists can "win". StuRat 16:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. Do you really believe what you're saying here?  This is exactly an illustration of the problem the RFC is trying to address.  You have a tendency to personalize things that don't need to be personalized.  Some see it as a set of editors concerned about your ongoing behavior, you see it as "hollow and obvious attempt" to tarnish your name.  Have you actually read the RFC?  It's a good illustration of why we don't generally use majority rule, too.  Some people there have made legitimate points, well explained, and some others have essentially just said "this is bad and unfair!"  This is exactly why we weigh the strength of the arguments rather than just counting votes.  Friday (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In other words, you're going to ignore any arguments from people who disagree with you, no matter how many people agree with me and disagree with you. There are some excellent, well-written responses there which you should read, especially since many more people agree with those responses than the charges.  And, if I'm being paranoid, just why is there the incredible coincidence that those who filed and endorse the side against me just happen to be deletionists ?   Shall we calculate the odds of that happening by pure chance ? StuRat 16:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but when you respond this way, it comes off sounding to me like you just want to fight, rather than wanting to reach some shared understanding or acceptable compromise. Fighting bores me, so I'll bow out now.  I invite you to read the section titled "Please stop saying deletionist". Friday (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're refusal to read, and learn from, the majority of responses, and especially how they've described your behavior, shows me you are unable to learn from your mistakes. This is not a quality that makes for a good Admin.  I have read, and responded to, the "Please stop saying deletionist" section. StuRat 16:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You may noticed that both Friday and I have endorsed an outside view that reads, in part "Hipocrite, I respect you a lot, but I think you are capable of more attempts at dispute resolution than the one attempt you listed." I have read every response fully. I have found that many of them have determined that RFCs are designed to brand people with scarlet letters - and I have promptly ignored those responses, because I did not file the RFC to brand you, I filed the RFC so that you would stop mistating my arguments, stop polling for consensus and stop treating everything like a battleground. If you're desparate to fight a battle against a purely evil antagonist, you'll have to find another Randal Flagg, because I'm not him. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've seen RFCs used as a prelude to a block, which is what this looks like, to me. If your faction was willing to compromise, as I am, instead of laying false charges in attempts to discredit the inclusionists, then we could work together to reach a consensus. StuRat 17:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To which RFC do you refer? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You can find them yourself. Go through the AN/I archives and do a search on RFC. StuRat 17:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm interested in which ones you've seen as a prelude to a block. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI
You may of course, believe me or not, but if it hadn't been such a sensitive situation, I would probably block on sight for such egregiously bad edits as what got THB blocked. I stayed mostly out in this case so as not to lend further fuel to the "certain admins are out to get the ref desk regulars" fire. Have you become so convinced of the badness of your enemies that you're making up unfair actions that you think they would do, if given the chance? Do you see that there's no need to think in terms of "enemies" at all? Friday (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's hardly hypothetical, you and SCZenz worked to get THB (an inclusionist) blocked, just yesterday. StuRat 17:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What we did was bring up discussion of disruptive editing at AN/I. Am I correct in understanding that you object to such activities?  I agree, in other circumstances I'd not have brought it up at AN/I- I'd simply have blocked the troublemaker rather than saying "I'm not touching this, someone else can do as they will."  Friday (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So, you're claiming that if, say Hipocrite, had done that to me, you'd respond with an immediate block ? StuRat 17:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (ec) Well, we can't talk about specific cases without an actual specific case, can we? I'm generally saying that if an editor purposely, repeatedly, changes the signed comments of others, this is disruptive.  And we do sometimes block for disruptive editing, yes.  Often times, we instead leave someone a note saying "Don't do that" on the first offense.  Friday (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say this was a single offense. Yes, there were two edits, but both were to the same post, and within 2 minutes of each other, with no warning for him to stop in between, which I call a single incident.  Unless he has a history of this, a warning would have been sufficient. StuRat 18:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Warnings are often used to educate editors. Did you see the bit at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents where Will Beback showed a diff making it clear that THB knew you weren't supposed to edit other's comments?  Did you see THB's continued lack of "getting it", even on AN/I?  Did you read the comments by the blocking admin?  Anyway, the right place to discuss this is on AN/I.  Feel free to register your objection there for the world to see.  Friday (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's pointless for a non-Admin to comment on AN/I, they are simply ignored. StuRat 18:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone with relevant things to say will be listened to. However you should be aware that most people reading there want substantive statements, using diffs or other links if needed, rather than comments simply saying things like "I disagree" or "this is bad".  Friday (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Only if from a non-Admin. If an Admin says those things, they are taken seriously. StuRat 19:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've probably already belabored the point, so I may as well continue. Here's one reason I dislike you trying to put me into a faction: I am on no one's side, and no one is on my side. I don't do sides. I find they get in the way of focusing on the good of the project. If I do something good, people may say "Hey, that was good." This does not make them my friend. If I do something bad, people may say "That was bad, would you cut that out, please?" This does not make them my enemy. We're all just editors- no friends, enemies, or factions are needed. Friday (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a different approach. StuRat, are there any admins whom you respect or trust? Why don't you ask them about this situation, and whether they believe the block was inappropriate? I know that you don't trust my judgement, but I will say flatly that if anyone were to change your signed remarks in the course of this dispute, I would block.

Changing the signed remarks of another editor on a talk page is a really bad idea; it's particularly unwise if those remarks belong to another editor with which one is involved in a dispute. (We have enough trouble communicating when a third party isn't rewriting our words and changing their meaning, wouldn't you say?) Taken with THB's failure to acknowledge that his behaviour was problematic, I am entirely unsurprised that he earned a block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, if you say that, I believe you. While not entirely neutral, you have at least attempted to act in an unbiased manner, unlike some of the other Admins in this debate.  Also, note that Friday did not answer when I asked him if I would be afforded the same respect, had the action been against me rather than SCZenz.  That speaks volumes to me. StuRat 20:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't respond? Where?  I thought I made it clear but I may have missed something.  Usually, my error is continuing to try to discuss past the point where it's fruitful, rather than bailing out too soon.  But, had someone changed your comments instead, my opinion would have been the same.  As I explained above, my actions may have been different- I felt a block was warranted in the THB case but I refrained from doing it myself, in order to avoid complaints of bias.  Friday (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My question:


 * So, you're claiming that if, say Hipocrite, had done that to me, you'd respond with an immediate block ? StuRat 17:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your non-reply:


 * Well, we can't talk about specific cases without an actual specific case, can we? I'm generally saying that if an editor purposely, repeatedly, changes the signed comments of others, this is disruptive. And we do sometimes block for disruptive editing, yes. Often times, we instead leave someone a note saying "Don't do that" on the first offense. Friday (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * StuRat 20:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, you took that as a non-reply? Sorry, but I don't know how to get very specific about a hypothetical like this.  I can talk about a specific case if you wish, but you'd have to show me a specific case you want to talk about.  Friday (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if you're still sure that this is all just me persecuting you specifically, rather than holding all editors to the same set of expectations, you may want to look at this. Around the time you were saying you were sure I would not have tried to defend you against your comments being changed, I reverted a rather rude comment about you, and complained at the editor who made it. Dunno if this will change your perspective at all, but FYI. This is typical of what I do here- I'm no great writer, so I focus on damage control, which does not require particular writing skills. Friday (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a good example. It was at least as insulting as what THB said, only much more public, but this guy didn't get blocked, or threatened with a block, nor mentioned at AN/I, nor have policy page links thrown at him, nor did you suggest that he was ignorant and "just doesn't understand the wiki process", nor did you investigate him as a probable sockpuppet.  I would say you did the bare minimum, whereas the absolute maximum was done against THB.  StuRat 20:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea who this person is, or what he knows. Maybe he thinks this is usenet or a forum where such things are acceptable.  So, I left a firm but polite warning.  As pointed out on AN/I, THB knew full well that what he was doing was unacceptable, and he did it anyway.  So, the circumstances are a bit different.  This guy was way too rude, yes, but he didn't change anyone's comments.  It's possible I was too lenient, sure- I tend to be fairly reluctant to block people.  If you really feel the guy abusing you needs a block, feel free to say so at AN/I.  But blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive.  If he gets the message and cuts it out, the problem is already solved, so I see little useful purpose to a block.  Friday (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said, there's absolutely no point in me saying anything on AN/I, as I'm not an Admin, so will be totally ignored. Now, if he had insulted you or SCZenz, his behavior would have been called "disruption", and he would have been blocked immediately. StuRat 21:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why would you think that? I've gotten worse than that, lots of times.  I generally ignore it.  I don't get where this distrust/dislike of admins (or, maybe, other editors too?) comes from.  I can't see where you've been mistreated particularly, so what's the deal?  If you'd actually gotten in a disagreement with an admin as abusive as you seem to think they ALL are, I doubt we'd be having this conversation- you'd have been blocked.  Friday (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * StuRat is in "debate-mode". Look at the length of this page! StuMan, consider a wikibreak. Nothing is going to change much here as far as you losing your "banter rights" if you take a couple of days off. --Justanother 21:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Look at the number of posts these guys put on my page each day ! It's truly mind-boggling.  I think they're trying to bury me in words. StuRat 21:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Only if you give them the shovels, help them dig the hole, and then climb in of your own accord. This is your talk page; you don't have to respond, and you can archive whatever you like (deletion being considered bad form). --Justanother 17:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been considering just that, stating that "Any repeats of old negative comments against me on my talk page will be immediately archived, and no response will be given, so don't even bother." Otherwise, it seems I will get the same tired old comments repeated from the deletionists, forever, just to waste my time. StuRat 18:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Admins out to get us
Don't you think this is a bit of a strawman argument? I have seen it implied by Loomis in the RfC and I see it reiterated on this page from you too. It seems that you are blowing this all out of proportion There are admins and non admins frustrated with you returning deleted material, of no apparent relevance to the questions, to the ref dessk. Can we focus on this issue rather than getting drawn into a them against us argument? We need to be deliberating on what kind of questions and answers are appropriate and useful for RefDesk. From you silence I sense that even you admit that some of the stuff you have returned is pretty useless stuff. Your only argument to date is you don't want to offend the original authors. But this seems a little restrictive given there will always be people who add flippant material. Is there no line you will draw for deletion criteria? David D. (Talk) 16:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't made it into an "us versus them" argument, those who delete things without consensus did that. And no, they aren't all Admins, and neither are all Admins on that side.  However, there are several deletions Admins. StuRat 17:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I definitely do have a line regarding things which can be deleted, which I've stated many, many, times now. Here are my views (and the views of the majority) on deletions, yet again: User_talk:StuRat. StuRat 17:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

= Complaints about restores of non-consensus deletions =

.

= Complaints about our use of straw poll supermajorities =

.

= Defense of deletionist sockpuppets/meatpuppets =

RDWarrior
Howdy. I see you're continuing to complain about RDWarrior as though it were the crime of the century. Tell me, was this editor disruptive in any way? Here's helpful links RDWarrior (talk· contribs· [ logs ]· block user· [ block log ]) Friday (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Fortunately this sock was discovered and properly blocked before doing too much damage.--Light current 18:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way StuRat, given the editors who you've annoyed, or even driven off, with your tiresome, combative, often completely-missing-the-point editing behavior, is it so surprising that someone might want to use an alternate account? Think about that one long and hard. Friday (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a bit of a personal attack on StuRat to me. Please be careful Friday WP:NPA! --Light current 18:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Friday, as an Admin, you should be aware of what sockpuppets/meatpuppets are and how they are used, to make it appear that the minority on an issue actually is the majority, and to form a consensus based on that, to do what the minority wants, over the objections of the majority. If you don't understand these things, then you should not be an Admin. If that sockpuppet had been left in place, I suspect many more would have shown up (a few have) to make the deletionist POV seem like the majority. StuRat 18:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I assumed good faith, and decided that it might just be an established editor who didn't want to get his hands dirty in the mess that the ref desk has become. Friday (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Which you wouldn't have done had the sock supported the inclusionist POV. The overriding of a block by an Admin not involved in the debate, by an Admin in support of somebody on their side of the debate, is a very bad thing to do, and a total abuse of your Admin powers. StuRat 18:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. I know it's a violation of WP:POINT, but please, go ahead and make an alternate account, say something rabidly inclusionist on the RD talk page, and see what happens. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be an excellent idea, an excellent idea to set me up for a block, that is. StuRat 18:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

StuRat, your continued assumptions of bad faith on my part are unfounded and counterproductive. Oh, and they've become quite tiresome. Please stop that. I've asked you repeatedly. Yet, you continue to invent bad things you say I WOULD do to support your belief that I'm a bad faith contributor. Do you see how utterly ridiculous this is? While anyone can feel free to disagree with things I actually do, this is a far cry from inventing evil imaginary things I might do. This is about like saying to me "I bet you'd kick a puppy if you had the chance." It's immature, it's counterproductive, and it's not very civil. Stop it. Friday (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you find it tiresome, I suggest you avoid my talk page. StuRat 18:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

= Defense of deletionist blocks on inclusionists =

Ten steps in
Cheers. I see we're talking about me here. If you have any questions about LC's reblocking, I'd be pleased to address them. Mostly the bit where LC started deleting large swaths of an article to make a point is what earned his reblocking; see User_talk:Light_current/archive10. StuRat, I'm tired of you beating this dead horse. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ten Id forgotten it was you who rebollocked me. I refute the allegations (as I did at the time) of


 * deleting large swaths of an article to make a point is what earned his reblocking
 * deleting large swaths of an article to make a point is what earned his reblocking


 * THat is not the truth, I deny it and there is no way you can prove that it is the truth. I was merely continuing to edit normal articles in my inimitable (bold) way. I saw an article that seemed to consist of jokes. Articles should be serious, even if about funny things. so i deleted the jokes as superfluous to the article. You and others saw it as point making vandalism. I state again that it was NOT. However, I have been (unjustly) punished for it so theres no point in going over it again and a gain. --Light current 20:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Who is talking about you ? StuRat 20:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an example of what I was talking about:

"Thanks for the feedback, guys! I've talked this over with Light Current, and he's on track to coming back as a productive editor in a couple days when the block expires. The almost 50 edits he made to his talk page during his block before the protection was pretty darn crazy and he might have spun a bearing without intervention. The page protection is the inanimate carbon rod that governs his fission reaction, and it'll drop shortly along with the block. Keep the shiny side up, and let's get back to work. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)"


 * Now why on Earth is making 50 edits, to your own talk page, during a week-long block, considered to be cause to have your talk page protected ? You will note that the contents of those edits is never mentioned in CHAIRBOY's statement, he merely thinks that making 50 edits to your own talk page, over the course of a week, is cause to have it protected.  I suspect that many, myself included, have 50 edits to their talk page just about every day, LOL. StuRat 20:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Err, sorry, but where's the harm in talk page protection? Sounds like it was intended to keep LC from digging himself deeper into a hole.  Ned Wilbury 20:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes stopped me from defending me agianst my unjust blocking!--Light current 20:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ned, you seem to have ignored my point. Should your having 50 edits to your own user page be used as a reason to protect it ?  This is simply not a valid reason, but once in "witch-hunt mode", it somehow becomes a valid reason. StuRat 20:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I meant to respond, not ignore. See the above where I responded to you?  Where's the harm?  Talk pages are here to serve the project.  Ned Wilbury 20:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ned, you again ignored my point. Should your having 50 edits to your own user page be used as a reason to protect it ?  This is simply not a valid reason, but once in "witch-hunt mode", it somehow becomes a valid reason.  I wonder what other "justifications" would have flown in that mode: "his insistence on using all lowercase characters on his talk page demonstrates a lack of respect for the English language, which shows he is not ready to yet show proper respect, so I will extend his block for a month".  A person can't possibly disrupt Wikipedia from their own talk page. StuRat 20:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? Please don't accuse me of ignoring your point- I'm really making an effort to do just the opposite.  You're making up bad things that COULD have been done to support your argument?  Huh?  Can we focus on what actually happened, please?  A block would prevent an editor from making productive edits- there's potential harm there.  If a talk page is not being used productively, there is no harm in protecting it. Ned Wilbury 20:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * StuRat, this seems like a poor analogy. LC's page was protected due to the content of his edits, not due to the number of edits.  I cannot judge as i did not see the edits. David D. (Talk) 20:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's just wrong. The number of edits alone was used as a justification (see the quote above).  The only other justification listed was him having a countdown until the block ends.  This hardly seems like a cause to protect the page, either.  If you can find some specific content reason which justifies the page protection, I'd like to see it. StuRat 20:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't read summaries too literally. The discussion leading to the page protection is more pertinent here.  I'm sure the count down was well received, NOT. Sounds like he was baiting the admins.  David D. (Talk) 20:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This shows your complete misunderstanding. I was looking forward to getting out of the cooler having been banged up unjustly thats all.--Light current 21:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do agree with you here. Nevertheless, it is easy to completly misunderstand and you're playing with fire when you do such things (count down). David D. (Talk) 21:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wheel! Let me just tell you some interesting things if youve never been blocked:
 * You can even be blocked when you are apologising for the alleged act to the person who is threatening to block you.
 * If you try to say anything to defend yourself on your talk page, your page may be protected or the block lengthened.
 * When your block is over, all eyes are on you. So, if you make even the smallest mistake, edit pages that Admins dont like you editing,try to carryon editing WP as normal, say anything remotely funny/antagonistic/defensive/or anything else (or even fart w/o permission), you can have your block reimposed.
 * Only complete abject, humiliating grovelling and admin ass licking can possibly save you from further punishmnent. As I dont care for the taste of ass, I dont do it! Hmm sad but true!--Light current 22:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hopefuly I'll only have to take you word for it. David D. (Talk) 22:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Its true. I should know with my block log! 8-)--Light current 00:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's take this one step at a time:

A) Should Ned Wilbury having 50 edits to Ned Wilbury's own talk page be used as the sole reason to protect it ? I do expect an answer here, this is NOT a rhetorical question.

B) Assuming you said no, and knowing that you endorse protecting LC's page for the same reason, why the difference in the answer ? I do expect an answer here, this is NOT a rhetorical question.

C) What it comes down to is that you have decided that different standards should apply to determining if actions should be taken against LC. This was the core of our entire argument, that once they get into the "Admins good, you bad" mode, virtually anything you could possibly do (admit to a charge, deny a charge, ignore a charge, delete a charge, archive a charge) will all be taken as reasons to take further actions against you. StuRat 20:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh BTW my normal edit rate was about 50 per day, so 50 per week on my own page hardly seems excessive.--Light current 00:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I think I know what it was finally got me bolloked: I farted in the wrong place and at the wrong time 8-(--Light current 21:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"irrelevant" remark by David D.

 * This discussion is irrelevant if we don't know the content of the 50 edits. From my perspective of ignorance, I see the admin trying to protect LC from himself. So does that make him a good or bad admin? Are parent who discipline their children bad parents? That is rhetorical. David D. (Talk) 20:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This discussion is between Ned and I, if you find it to be irrelevant, please don't participate. Also, your characterization of normal editors as naughty children who need to be disciplined is insulting.  StuRat 21:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * StuRat, you are putting words into my mouth. It was an example of how discpline can be good. To characterise admins as good and bad based on blocks is a fallacy. David D. (Talk) 21:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're in sink with the party line, which is that "blocks are not punishments, they are solely used to protect Wikipedia". StuRat 21:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I am in sync, persistent disruption is NOT good for wikipedia, so blocks or page protection in such circumstances are consistent with that philosophy. Consider if parents stop their kids fighting. Are they being punitive with time outs? If parents use timeouts to enforce social graces is it punitive? Clearly these are case by case decisions which is why they are discussed on ANI.  Any user whose behaviour becomes a time sink to other wikipedias IS harming wikipedia since the encyclopedia relies on volunteers. David D. (Talk) 21:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

= Telling inclusionists to leave Wikipedia or go on wiki-break =

Hey, StuRat, stop including things, and go on a wiki-break. And delete this page, too. -THB 18:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC) (former inclusionist turned deletionist)