Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Davidruben

Comment on Kim Bruning's view

 * Comment - did I not reasonably indicate awareness of these issues at User talk:Davidruben - perhaps I was moving about on a heavily overcast day rather than in bright sunshine, but I reject "in the dark" ? As for "stepping on each others toes by accident", get real and recognise the bottom lines of:
 * MEDRS developed over 22 months (40% of the time of your extensive experience at wikipedia), that was a consensus exercise and the RfC alone as you point out did not itself alone make the consensus, but seemed to confirm it.
 * WT:MEDRS full of other editors "try act within consensus, find consensus, or build consensus" - it just failed to settle things, but not for want trying by any of those involved.
 * 7 reverts in 7 days = edit warring = disregard of others' views = disruptive = needed stopping for all the right reasons (whether best done by myself is a separate and valid issue). As far as I can see from some of other views expressed here, my main mistake was in trying to justify my prior actions and/or letting myself get embroiled in a discussion that I perhaps failed to keep as narrowly focused as it should have been. David Ruben Talk 00:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * comment - Perhaps this case is not as clear-cut as Colin/Davidruben suggest. This case is an embarrassment to the adminship elite. How else is to explain that only one admin has so far commented here and one at AN/I David initiated? (Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents). Where is the admin uninvolved with either side? Why has he not stepped forward and offered to mediate the dispute? Why did not this happen earlier, either? It is a shame. Paul Gene (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * On this I'm in total agreement with you Paul - additional voices really would help here as that tends to ensure issues and queries get debated rather than what can all too easily become a pushme-pullyu between very small number of editors. Of course I appreciate most general editors or those at WP:MED have "better things to do" like the real world or their small areas of interest. Likewise workload for the relatively few admins can be high and if a problem not immediately needing a block/unblock/vandalism revert/-fD closure etc then editors tends to be left to get on with things themselves. Silence on AN/I or here can be interpreted as other admins glancing by and happy with how things going without the need to partake themselves, per WP:SILENCE "in the meantime then, you can assume that silence implies consensus", but where discussion has been what is/was consensus this is an uneasy tautology... oh well, we can't force people to comment... and nor does the following point in Silence help: "The more visible the statement, and the longer it stands unchallenged, the stronger the implication of consensus is." for if Paul you were to yourself promote MEDRS to full policy-status to see whether that attracted a crowd, Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point would apply and you'd have me racing you to demote that :-)
 * Paul given all that, where now for directing attention back to MEDRS. If I've followed your views correctly, I've not seen anything from you that you in principle don't think that MEDRS could/should be a guideline, just that it is not yet ready for this. I've personally not got involved in the more recent WT:MEDRS discussions on rephrasing for sections on newspapers - is that debate going constructively?, is it improving MEDRS to a better overall state where you feel guideline-status getting more-acceptable/less-objectionable ? David Ruben Talk 14:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (Just seen WT:MEDRS which seems a good start)David Ruben Talk 14:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

View by Colin on Kim's 2nd assessment
(Is this allowed? Move it to talk if not)

Kim has analysed what two people have written (and written under stress, no doubt) and, without further conversation, assumed that is an accurate reflection of what is going on in their heads. When surprised by David's response, rather than probe him for clarification, he has reversed his opinion and concluded he did "the right thing, but for very wrong reasons". Kim has made an assessment on limited evidence and come to the odd conclusion that both parties are wrong, embarrassing and don't understand consensus very well.

Kim has lectured established editors as though they were children and mocked their mistakes. "OMFG" on an edit summary is rude and deserves an apology. Kim should know that interpreting consensus isn't always easy (is What "Ignore all rules" means an essay or not, for example).

Kim states that "Neither side has shown evidence of where they tried to gain or show consensus for their actions." This is consensus-paralysis (for example, when someone does something you disagree with, you complain they didn't get explicit consensus for that action beforehand) and it is anti-Wiki. David did not need to expiclity "gain or show consensus" prior to making the page a guideline. What is required is that he (in good faith) believed there was consensus for making the page a guideline. I don't believe that Paul can make that claim for his demotion(s).

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Colin°Talk 20:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm not sure of what Kim understands by consensus :(  Enric Naval (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's my point. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I am an editor involved in the underlying content dispute. An attempt has been made at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) to come up with consensus wording to resolve that dispute. Eubulides (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out to Colin that A: technically, no you're not allowed to post 2 responses. B: If you post to an RFC it's probably a good idea to bring all the evidence to the table that you actually have. :-P

Of course, David *has* been providing additional evidence now, and it does provide some more nuance. So now I have to do some more thinking. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I don't hang around these mediation pages, so wouldn't know. Move it, delete it. Whatever. If there's anything you want evidence for, I'll supply a diff. Not that anyone seems to be watching/caring. Colin°Talk 21:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * *nodnod* Well, as long as no-one actually objects, it's fine, IMO. :-) Btw, the tone of voice you detect from me isn't a mocking tone; it's more the tone caused my poor heart sinking through my boots, into the ground, and well on its way to china :(. Still I'm going to try my best, and who knows, maybe things will turn around eh? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Two views
Colin,

There is no rule against presenting two views in an RFC. Neither is there any rule against amending your previous view to respond to issues raised by another person. As you instinctively realized, if your amendment would change something that others have endorsed, then it's clearly better to present it as a separate section.

The actual rules are quite minimal and can be found here and here. As a matter of optional convention, discussing others' views on the talk page can be recommended -- but it is not required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggest closing
I think it's generally agreed that the "well-argued objections of several editors" were based on a misunderstanding of the guideline, which has since been cleared up. Discussions about how to prevent other editors from making same mistakes are ongoing, but I think we can close this RFC/U whenever it's convenient for the next available admin. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)