Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Davidruben
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC).
Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:
- protecting and unprotecting pages
- deleting and undeleting pages
- blocking and unblocking users
For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user.
- Davidruben (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Statement of the dispute
[edit]This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this administrator's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
Davidruben promoted WP:MEDRS to guideline over well-argued objections of several editors. He then took sides in the resulting dispute by reverting to the version of the page he prefers and protecting the revert.
Desired outcome
[edit]This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.
Davidruben should unprotect the WP:MEDRS page and excuse himself from the dispute.
Description
[edit]Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it.
Davidruben promoted WP:MEDRS to guideline against the well-argued objections of three editors.[1] This unwise action prevented a real consensus from forming and resulted in a bitterness and edit war. Davidruben then took sides by reverting to the version he favors and protecting the page.
Powers misused
[edit]- Protection (log):
Applicable policies
[edit]- {Davidruben clearly favors one of the opposing points of view. He believes that WP:MEDRS should be promoted to guideline.[4]] He has a dispute with me (PaulGene) and other editors regarding his decision to promote WP:MEDRS, see Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)#Rfc_Promotion_of_MEDRS_to_guideline and User_talk:Davidruben#Promoting_MEDRS_to_guidelines_question. He should not use his admin powers in this dispute.
- Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse_of_tools policy states:
- "Common situations where avoiding tool use is often required: Conflict of interest/non-neutrality/content dispute — Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools."
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
[edit](provide diffs and links)
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
[edit](sign with ~~~~)
Other users who endorse this statement
[edit](sign with ~~~~)
Response
[edit]This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}
 | Response in a nutshell: Proceedure and content issues been previously discussed at length elsewhere, my response in summary is:
|
This RfC/User seems continued forum shopping by Paul who was engaged in edit warring (see WT:MEDRS#Edit warring - page protected), and could have been blocked as an alternative to the lesser action of protecting the WP:MEDRS page. As for which version protected, I reverted (as had 4 other editors previously) the edit warrior and so restored to the consensus of the page's RfC. This RfC on my actions set up 12 hours after I had already sought comment at WP:AN/I (which is a correct venue to review edit warring and page block admin actions) of WP:AN/I#Re MEDRS guideline and my action in edit war where I see no criticism of my actions and instead a discussion re topic ban or block against Paul (which I had indicated was not best of options for very reason that he has not been the sole dissenting voice over status of WP:MEDRS). Seeking this RfC after comments at AN/I seems like sour grapes ?
Paul's objection to process of promotion of WP:MEDRS to guideline is that WT:MEDRS#Rfc Promotion of MEDRS to guideline was not unanimous. But WP:Consensus never absolutely requires 100%, and following discussion at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#RfC: definition of consensus on this (by another editor following their edits to WP:MEDRS being reverted), subsequent thread by Paul of Wikipedia_talk:CONSENSUS#Consensus_being_replaced_by_silence_at_Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_.28medicine-related_articles.29.23Rfc_Promotion_of_MEDRS_to_guideline which failed to change interpretion too. Paul has cited at WT:MEDRS from WP:PG as confirming that any dissent dooms a proposal to failure is a misreading, for the important part is "if consensus is neutral or unclear on the issue", and:
- I think the RfC at 84.2% was neither neutral nor unclear (RfA generally needs 80% and as previously pointed out WP:IAR policy was established on just 86.7%)
- Guideline header tag states "generally accepted" which is not an absolute nor obligation and so level of support for guideline promotion need only be "generally accepted".
Paul has also sought support in this dispute at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies ( here 13 September 2008).
Removal of the guideline tag has therefore been against consensus (of the RfC), and repeatedly so (x7 by Paul in one week) was disruptive content edit warring (AN/I review not disagreeing with this assessment).
Whilst normally page protect is upon the existing version, the RfC established a consensus version and hence I acted as per Wikipedia:PROTECT#Content disputes policy: "Administrators may also revert to an old version of the page prior to edit warring beginning if such a clear point exists." Now it will be noted that the end of the paragraph this is from, concludes "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute." (which is the basis of this RfC/User complaint). Whilst I do not no see closing a RfC as being the imposition of my "own position" (vs. the consensus of those who contributed to the RfC discussion), I have already welcomed review of what is possibly open to a judgement call. Whilst Paul's and Colonel Warden's response to my revert/protection notice garnished no support and attempt to use talk page for admin propriety review was felt to be an inappropriate venue ([8]), I have not been closed to review of the RfC closure, edit war termination and page protection decisions and so sought review at WP:AN/I – which has not critised my approach nor actions.
Does any of this resolve the dispute a few have against the majority ? - I suspect not. I think we need to hear from PaulGene & Colonel Warden what they currently feel consensus to constitute (perhaps on existing WT:MEDRS rather than directly here or on this RfC's own talk page?):
- If 100% unanimity - then no changes in Wikipedia could ever occur as any one editor would have a veto to any content, RfA, or -fD discussion and this clearly is not the case.
- If some high value under 100%, then this is creating a policy level requirement for all subsequent straw polls, yet WP:NOT#Democracy is a policy itself.
- If consensus requires a high (but not a stated specific value) as well as a consideration of weights-of-arguments, then this is the current status quo. The question then is how those on the unsuccessful side of such process then work with the majority:
- Disagreeing with WP:MEDRS seeking secondary sources over primary sources is a non-starter; for it exists in the parent guideline of WP:RS and, more importantly, is established in the policy of WP:Verify: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers." with further comment that "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science."
- Discussion on how best to offer some specific help and advice in WP:MEDRS for medical topics within this overall pecking order is of course suitable for discussion - indeed to again help explain WP:V's caution "Special cases may arise; and editors should be careful not to exclude a point of view merely because it lacks academic credentials."
- but how best to phrase points within WP:MEDRS does not seem reason to withhold guideline status as 1) all guidelines are further worked upon after their original promotion and 2) WP:MEDRS had been worked upon for 22months which is more than adequate when combined with the clear majority at the RfC straw poll.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
- David Ruben Talk 02:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Mostly agree. PhilKnight (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Paul's explanation is very clear. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Outside view
[edit]This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Involved View by Colin
[edit](if this is in the wrong place, please move it. I'm not "uninvolved").
People often make decisions and rationalise about them afterwards. If asked to explain oneself, it is easy to make mistakes, forget or not even realise what led to the decision. That doesn't mean we make careless or thoughtless decisions, just that we are often not good at articulating our decision-making process and that some of it is unconscious. I think David's rationale for promotion was better expressed in his RFC closing comments than in his response here, but even what he wrote there doesn't tell the full story IMO.
WP:MEDRS has widespread support by WPMED members and others. A quick glance at only some of the inward links reveals it being cited as a de facto guideline by Alterrabe, Atom, Colin, Coppertwig, CorticoSpinal, Countincr, David Ruben, Doc James, Eubulides, Garrondo, II, JFW, Lottie, MastCell, Mattisse, Nmg20, OhNoitsJamie, QuackGuru, Ratel, SandyGeorgia, Slp1, Steven Fruitsmaak, Una Smith, Vliscony, WLU, WhatamIdoing, delldot and no doubt many more. I don't recognise half those names. It has been around quite some time, is pretty stable, and until recently, has had few critics.
David is not some random admin, asked to review a poll and make a decision. He's an active member of WPMED and has been around longer than most of us. He's also a GP, and part of that training involves knowing how to read the medical literature, choosing what to read and what to regard as significant. Therefore, David will be aware of a wider consensus of opinion wrt medical sources than just what exists on Wikipedia.
The start of Paul's involvement was this discussion on the addition of a line in WP:MEDMOS that attempted to summarise a point from WP:MEDRS. I suspect that until that point Paul was unaware of MEDRS and certainly he appears to have underestimated the community's regard for it. Paul edit warred over this addition, before finally admitting "I see that I was wrong about there being no consensus on the secondary sources."
It is my opinion that David was already aware of community consensus wrt approval of WP:MEDRS and that the poll merely confirmed/reinforced this. In contrast, Paul was unaware of the existing consensus (and remains unaware, it appears) and is solely concentrating on that poll.
Paul's initial criticism of David's actions was to complain it was promoted "over the objections of significant minority of editors (3 vs 14)." This mistake by Paul of considering the poll as a vote or a hurdle to pass, rather than a very crude "measurement of the state of consensus at any given time" [KB, below], is the root of the whole consensus debacle. David's mistake has been to directly respond to Paul's criticisms that David has misinterpreted the poll. Interpretation of the poll is not the issue.
Paul's opening statement in this RFCu is misguided and logically fallacious. David promoted MEDRS because he believed it had consensus approval. That several editors objected to aspects of the page (and therefore felt it was not ready for guideline status), is something to bear in mind but not necessarily a reason to delay or abandon promotion. Rather than work with other editors in resolving the aspects of the page Paul disagreed with, Paul has chosen to edit war, forum shop, debate the meaning of consensus, and take the admin to court.
The page needed to be protected; it would be hard to argue otherwise.
Paul has walked right into the mistake lampooned by Wikipedia:The Wrong Version in considering which version that got protected to be at all relevant in the long run. However, David should have been aware that even if Paul is wrong to be upset over which version got protected, he would have got upset and was probably more likely than "the other side" to escalate the issue rather than accept it. That David reverted prior to protection (rather than, deviously, waiting for someone else to revert first) would only have further inflamed Paul. Regardless, Paul should accept that in these cases it is impossible to please everyone and his loss need only be short-term if his case is sound.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
- Colin°Talk 20:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- The close of the discussion was correct, any other possible close, such as 'no consensus' would have been a mistake. I'm unconvinced by Paul's argument that by closing a discussion, David some how became an involved editor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Enric Naval (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Outside view by Kim Bruning
[edit]Abandoned view
[edit]David Ruben basically did what he was supposed to do in interpreting consensus. David halted a clear edit war using page protection.
On the other hand Paul Gene is correct that the RFC means nothing by itself. Polls are more likely to be the start of a consensus building process rather than the be-all and end-all. A subsequent discussion at WT:CONSENSUS showed that people had many points they still wanted to resolve.
As per the evidence, PaulGene and Colonel Warden did not attempt to negotiate with David Ruben. They merely stated their wishes. This hardly counts as trying to resolve a dispute. :-P
In conclusion: David Ruben acted correctly for the given situation, based on the information available to him.
PaulGene and Colonel Warden may well have legitimate concerns that need to be addressed, (and I intend to help address them), but they need to learn to go about thing in a much less ham-handed fashion.
As the prerequisites for having an RFC are only just barely met here, I don't think this RFC is going to go very far.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)On reading David Rubens reasoning, I now conclude he did the right thing, but for very wrong reasons. *sigh* :-(
New view
[edit]None of the participants in this dispute seem to understand consensus very well.
Neither party is even trying to point to any evidence of negotiation here (evidence provided by David Ruben against himself). Polls do not establish consensus, the existence of consensus, or even whether the sky is blue. They are worth exactly nothing, other than that they are a means of exploring where consensus lies.
David: There is no such thing as a consensus version. Seriously, the term "consensus version" is intended as a joke, it's coined on WP:WRONG. Maybe you meant something else?
David: Consensus is not 100%, it is not 50%, it is not 1%. It is not %. Is someone confusing consensus with democracy?
Both sides on this RFC must go back and learn Consensus 101.
If you want to reach a (negotiated) consensus, you must negotiate. On wikipedia we work together and try to discover common ground. The majority cannot dictate to the minority, the minority cannot dictate the majority. All sides of a case must be examined. (If there seems to be a strong link between NPOV and Consensus, this is no coincidence. The WardsWiki community recommended NPOV to Jimmy Wales, and I'm thinking it's for that reason.)
Neither side has shown evidence of where they tried to gain or show consensus for their actions. (Once again, a poll is not an attempt to gain consensus, at its very best it is merely a measurement of the state of consensus at a given point in time).
Therefore, both sides' actions are wrong, because wikipedians must always at least try act within consensus, find consensus, or build consensus. (Even in cases where it's a good idea to act first, and ask questions later, the questions are not optional!
Now I can sort of read what the community consensus is between the lines elsewhere, and yeah I figure MEDRS *might* be a guideline as it stands.
But both sides are embarrassing themselves here, unfortunately. They should all back off and sit down and think, and get some serious help understanding wikipedia.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
- --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry if a seem a bit frustrated, but this is more like blind people blundering about in the dark stepping on each others toes by accident, than that there is any real dispute. This seeming Gordian knot can be cut trivially by applying consensus 101. Perhaps the best plan here is to actually teach everyone consensus 101? ;-) )
- It is. not. personal Xavexgoem (talk) 05:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Kim's view that neither side made sincere attempts to compromise, and that makes both sides wrong. I should point out; however, that such a situation has resulted from Davidruben's unwise decision to promote the page to guideline instead of encouraging compromise as I proposed. (see my comments here [9] and here[10]) . David has not been involved in the discussion recently, and thus one of the remedies I asked for in this Rfc has been achieved. In the spirit of the goodwill I would like to withdraw this Rfc. I hope, this will result in the further goodwill on the WP:MEDRS page, and the page will be unprotected, thus achieving the second goal of this Rfc. Paul Gene (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
-->
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.