User talk:QuackGuru/Reform of Wikipedia

WMF board members

Quote: "The WMF must hire people to edit Wikipedia to police article content and resolve disputes. This can be done with a separate and new non-profit organization to avoid losing Section 230 immunity".

Thanks for your proposal, QuackGuru. I invite other Wikipedia reformers to comment. Biscuittin (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The board members who want articles to improve will agree to this. Any board member who does not agree to this does not share the values of the community. They should resign or be voted out. Wikipedia rules are not enforced consistently. The only way to enforce the rules is for a new non-profit organization to be created where experts and neutral editors will be paid to edit Wikipedia. They can overrule consensus and bias admins. I think consensus is working fine for a lot of bias editors. They don't want the rules to be enforced. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru, lovely theory. However in practice all you are proposing is to have a small number of paid biased yahoos empowered to step on the Consensus of the entire community of unpaid biased yahoos. Humans are fundamentally flawed, and I say consensus is better than an overlord stomping on consensus. I think the best we can do is encourage generalist editors who value our mission, our ideals, and our policies.

Biscuittin, I see you're a longstanding editor who's done a lot of good work. It seems this whole thing started when you got involved in the Global Warming controversy. I haven't looked closely, so my apologies if I am mistaken about your position. You seem to be trying to improve balance by increasing inclusion of the skeptic side. In articles devoted to the controversy itself, there is abundant coverage of that side. In articles that cover the field as a science topic, the articles are going to cover it in accordance with the Reliable Science Sources on the subject. In Reliable Science Sources, global warming denialism exists with only marginally more weight than evolution denialism, which exists with only marginally more weight than round-earth denialism. Those topics are all going to be covered in a similar fashion. Reliable Source policy, NPOV policy, Due Weight, etc etc etc, it all says that those articles are going to accurately reflect the virtually unanimous mainstream science position. It seems like you are taking it as "bullying" and "personal attacks" when your edits get reverted by people citing policy to back up those reverts. If you think the global climate scientist community are wrong, then your dispute isn't really with editors at Wikipedia... your dispute is with the global scientific community. Neutral Point Of View means that fringe ideas get little or no coverage, outside of articles specifically devoted to the fringe position. Don't blame editors or "consensus" for accurately reflecting the mainstream science. I'm willing to look at any concrete proposals for improving things around here, but I'm not seeing any aside from Quack's idea above. I don't see any likelyhood that any proposal will fundamentally change Wikipedia's deliberate "bias" in favor of accurately reflecting Reliable Sources on a subject, and I especially don't see any likelyhood of change when it comes to Wikipedia accurately reflecting mainstream science sources on scientific topics. Alsee (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Aren't you then encouraging the creation of an active cabal? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Alsee, this is very interesting. You seem to be putting climate change scepticism (which I prefer to call loving CO2) almost on a par with evolution denialism and round-earth denialism. I would argue that they are completely different. We keep being told that 97% of climate scientists support the CO2 theory. This means that 3% either do not support it or are sitting on the fence. I don't know how big the sample was but, if it was 1,000 people, this means that 30 of them do not support the IPCC view. These 30 people are just as entitled to express there view as the other 970. Nobody has to listen to them but their views should not be excluded from Wikipedia. Biscuittin (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

"You seem to be putting climate change scepticism almost on a par with evolution denialism and round-earth denialism". I deliberately put them in a sequence, but essentially yes, for Wikipedia Due Weight purposes they are roughly on par. The percentages for scientists in the respective fields are ~3%, ~0.15%, and ~0%. However it's the weight in relevant Reliable Sources that matters here. The skeptics on the respective topics are often not writing any new research to support those positions, or their work is often rejected by editorial review of the relevant journals. That means the presence of those positions in those sources is even lower than the percentages listed here. Accurately summarizing those sources means that the dominant view gets the bulk of coverage in an article, substantial minority views may get minority mention, and below some vague threshold it is undue weight to discuss rare positions at all (unless that position is the topic of the article).

"These 30 people are just as entitled to express there view", correct. No one is preventing them from expressing their views on their personal websites, no one is preventing them from engaging in new research and submitting it for Science Journals for review and possible publication. However there is no inherent right that Wikipedia must publish their views. I will certainly support increased inclusion of their views if and when those views become more prevalent in the relevant Reliable Sources. If the majority of biologists are wrong about evolution, if the majority of climate scientists are wrong about global warming, Wikipedia is not the place to fix that. Those discussions need to happen among the professionals in those fields. Wikipedia can only reflect that shift after it happens. Alsee (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is an example of what I am complaining about at Climate change denial: "Climate change denial, or global warming denial, involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming..." I am objecting to only one word in this sentence - "unwarranted". Who decides that doubt is unwarranted? I suspect it was one, or more, Wikipedia editors expressing their own point of view. Biscuittin (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't doubt that 97% of climate change scientists believe in the CO2 theory. However, this is an opinion poll, not science. Biscuittin (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Have a look at this [1]Biscuittin (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I do doubt the 97% figure.[2] [3] Biscuittin (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I can dig up a video of a politician challenging evolution. It would be equally unhelpful. This is not a page to debate the science. In fact nowhere on Wikipedia is a place to debate the science. We try to force people to step back from issues and analyze sourcing instead. If you try and debate sourcing you're going to get buried. The percentage of Reliable Science sources disputing Global Warming is minuscule, and there are an abundance of sources saying so. Alsee (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"You're going to get buried". Is that a death threat? Biscuittin (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please, I do not mean this question as an insult or attack, but is English your first language? This is not the first time on these pages that you have misinterpreted common colloquialisms as personal insults or attacks. The statement above by Alsee is read "you will get buried in sources supporting the scientific consensus of global warming" meaning there are an overwhelming number of sources to prove the point. It is not a death threat and someone fluent in colloquial English would never consider anyone thinking it as such. You may want to consider placing some WP:BABEL userboxes on your userpage so others can avoid causing you inadvertent distress. Jbh^Talk 01:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Biscuittin there was a miscommunication. I definitely did not intend a death threat. May I ask, do you have a history of difficulty with metaphors? My sentence after "buried" repeated & implied the original intent: The percentage of Reliable Science sources disputing Global Warming is minuscule, and there are an abundance of sources saying so. If we imagine the sources in paper form, you can collect a sizable stack of sources for the anti-side. I was saying, again imagining the sources in paper form, someone could (metaphorically) drive up a dumptruck to "bury" you (and your stack of sources) in a sizable mountain of paper. It was mental imagery for the quantity of sources available. I was saying that attempting to debate the weight of sources would be futile.

1. If you basically agree that the overwhelming weight of reliable science sources are on the pro-warming side, then you should accept that Wikipedia is going to accurately reflect that extreme imbalance that does exist in reliable science sources. That is true even if the scientists are wrong. Debating the issue itself is off-topic at Wikipedia. Such debates are disruptively endless. If scientists are wrong then we can't solve that problem here. We won't try to solve that problem here.
2. If you do not agree that the overwhelming weight of reliable science sources are on the pro-warming side, then your evaluation of the situation is quite different from that of the consensus of other editors. I believe the other editors feel it would be an unconstructive waste of time to assemble a metaphorical-mountain of sources to metaphorically pour over your head. Alsee (talk) 08:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I want to reform Wikipedia and you don't. Can we not just agree to disagree on this? It seems that you want me to confess my "sin" and repent and pretend that I agree with you. I am not going to do this, so you are wasting your time here. Biscuittin (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That was not a very helpful response. I am open to improving things on Wikipedia, but the first step is to sort out where and how the current process is going wrong. I laid out some things I believe to be true, and why I think the current process reached the result it did. You didn't indicate where you agree or disagree with me, you didn't indicate where you think the process went wrong. I don't know if you agree that the weight of Reliable Science Sources is overwhelmingly on the pro-warming side. I don't know if you think both climate and evolution articles should include more coverage of the anti-side. I don't know if you think the outcome should be different in the climate and biology cases, and if so, I have no idea what you think needs to be fixed to achieve opposite outcomes. I can't read your mind. If you don't tell me where we agree or disagree, if you don't explain how you think things went wrong, then all I've got is that you seem to think scientists are right about evolution, that you seem to think scientists are wrong about the climate, and that you seem to want an unidentified unexplained change that will somehow write all articles the way you personally think they should turn out. If you want to get my support, if you want to get other people's support, you need to explain your case better. I don't know where we agree or disagree. I don't know exactly what you think went wrong. Alsee (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

How many more times do I have to say it? This page is not about climate change. Biscuittin (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Professional admins

I think the only way to enforce the rules is with the board members creating a new non-profit organization that would be run independently from the WMF. There can be new paid admins and experts improving article content. They would not be regular admins. They would be admins trained to police article content and block bias admins. See Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia#Poor administration. QuackGuru (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

How do you propose these 'super-admins' be prevented from pushing a house POV or bias? It is very unlikely they would be pulled from a pool much different from where editors come from now. In fact it would be from a more restricted candidate pool since they would need to be young enough to be able to live off their Wikipedia pay check, educated enough to be considered 'educated enough' but not so educated/experienced as to be 'over-qualified'. Likely they would be just out of university and not very familiar with the topics they would be asked to police. These 'super-admins' would then need to research the topic in enough detail to form an opinion on what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'.

There is then the question of who defined what you call "bias admins and what "unproductive edits" are. Are "unproductive edits" edits which are not supported by RS? Are UNDUE? Violate NPOV or present a False balance? If that is the case then the system we have does that. If not then who defines "unproductive edits"?

Even if all of those questions are somehow satisfactorily resolved how do you propose these 'super-admins' prevent others from changing their 'approved content'? Lock the article? Block anyone who tries to change the article? The specific text? In that case you rapidly end up with either no articles which can be edited or no editors to edit them. This is why admins do not take part in content disputed as admins. Wikipedia is designed to be a crowd sourced encyclopedia "that anyone can edit". It does that fairly well. If you want to start locking down content - and I am not saying that, as a concept, is a bad idea - you will have something that is not Wikipedia, is not crowd sources and no one can edit. Jbh^Talk 20:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

A simple revert can work. No need for blocking article builders. Admins block and ban. Under the new system reverts can work better. QuackGuru (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

For information

I have banned unconstructive edits from the user page but not the talk page. If people want to go on writing speeches here they can. However, they are wasting their time and would be better employed editing Wikipedia. Biscuittin (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Just wondering, who decides what edits are unconstructive? -- GB fan 11:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I do. It's my user page. Biscuittin (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any criteria for what makes an edit unconstructive? -- GB fan 11:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Here are some examples:

• Personal attacks on me
• Covering the same ground over and over again
• Edits unrelated to reform of Wikipedia
• Debates about articles, e.g. climate change. These should be held on the relevant article talk page

I may expand this list if necessary. Biscuittin (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Biscuittin, I guess no one is banned from commenting any longer since this has been moved out of your user space? -- GB fan 19:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Dunno. You'd better ask QuackGuru. He's in charge now. Biscuittin (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Neither of you can ban editors from project namespace. For all the talk of "reform" and against "bullying" I would think that silencing those who disagree would be anathema. We saw that was not the case when this was a user space draft now it is disallowed by policy. Jbh^Talk 19:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The language problem

Is English my first language? Yes it is, but I am wondering about some of my critics. I have explained the purpose of this page many times but they still do not seem to understand. This page is for developing policies for the reform of Wikipedia. If you do not want to reform Wikipedia, there is no reason for you to be here and your edits look suspiciously like vandalism. When the policies have been developed, I will publicise them at Wikipedia:Village pump and then will be the time to criticise them. I have the distinct impression that my critics are terrified of change. I also find it hilarious that they see little old me as a (metaphorical) nuclear weapon threatening to destroy Wikipedia. Biscuittin (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

banning

All I endeavored to do here was keep things realistic, but if you want to ban anyone who doesn't support pie-in-the-sky ideas that would fundamentally change what Wikipedia is and how it works, and that the Foundation will never allow anyway, that just supports what I kind of thought anyway, that this alleged reform effort is really just a place for a small clique of hand-picked users to support each other's hopeless idea. With that attititude, this is doomed to never produce real reform. I'll just ignore it from her eon out, and I'm sure pretty much everyone else will too, no matter how many different discussions QuackGuru spams for it in. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• All I endeavored to do here was keep things realistic Are you sure about that? Because if you want to ban anyone who doesn't support pie-in-the-sky ideas is pretty much what Wikipedia is right now. I do agree that change within Wikipedia is doomed . . . the Cabal takes care of its own. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 20:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

We do want to "fundamentally change what Wikipedia is and how it works", that's the whole point. Biscuittin (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• I do believe you, Biscuittin. What I'm questioning is Beeblebrox's motives. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 03:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Cabal

If anyone from the Cabal has been watching this page, could someone send me an invitation please? It's been a pain in the butt trying to enforce existing Wikipedia policies working as an individual. Thanx! Alsee (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I second that. But I don't hold my breath!Charlotte135 (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The password is "New England Clam Chowder" but you didn't hear it from me...Mrfrobinson (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Background

What is the background on this page? Usually userspace pages like this are barely noticed by anyone, but this has got a lot of attention. I'm wondering why that is. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I assume it's because a lot of people are unhappy about the way Wikipedia is being run. Biscuittin (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Oiyarbepsy, as I understand it the origin is that Bisc was unhappy that our Climate-science article accurately summarize Scientific Reliable Sources. As best I understand it, the reason that's bad is because the scientists are Wrong. Anyone who cited policy to oppose his edits was a "bully". The dispute was dragged out onto numerous other pages, including a Village Pump request to crack down against the people "bullying" him. As far as I'm aware consensus went against Bisc in all of those discussions. A number of people consider Bisc's battle against consensus to be disruptive. I suspect the community was about ready to prohibit any further disruption, if this hadn't been moved to userspace. It's getting attention because it's been advertised in a number of places, and because anyone who has lost a content dispute can rally behind an undefined banner of "reform". The second group of people showing up are checking to see if there are any legit and viable proposals here.

Bisc interpreted an a simple innocent comment of mine as a death threat, and he appears unwilling to constructively explain what he thinks the problem is or how he'd want it fixed. He does not not appear to have any viable proposals. It seems he's hoping someone else will offer something that will help him win his content-dispute. I see little chance this attempt to gather a Cabal-of-victims is generating anything viable. Alsee (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Oiyarbepsy: This page came about after a long, rambling discussion at WP:VP (pol) where it was mentioned that there should be actual policy proposals rather than generalized discontent before it could be discussed there. The archived discussion is here -Consensus is not working. The large participation could also be because QuackGuru is dropping ANCHORLINKS/Redirects in many places [4] [5] [6] so people are looking in. Jbh^Talk 17:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I keep saying it, but my critics refuse to listen - this is not just about climate change. It is about a host of problems with Wikipedia which are detailed under headings on the Userpage. Biscuittin (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Another reason this page is so popular is that my critics like to come here and write long speeches telling me what a wicked person I am. I keep asking them to ignore me, but they won't. Biscuittin (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You're not wicked, you're just a bullshitter who failed to push a POV. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Providing evidence when name-calling

There is a considerable amount of name-calling on WP where editors attempt to present other editors in a negative way by categorising their editing behaviour. Examples include "POV-Pusher", "Pro-XXXX", "Anti-XXXX", "Advocate for XXX", "Apologist for XXX", etc. Such name-calling is very often uncivil, inflammatory and is very often intended as character assassination rather than as a credible, constructive edit to the thread of concern. This behaviour is extremely damaging, inflammatory and needs to be actively discouraged or stopped. What do other editors think about the suggestion that all name-calling must be supported by evidence (i.e. diffs showing repeated tendency of the behaviour). Name-calling with or without evidence should be sanctionable.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I have re-thought this and struck the above - It previously appeared that I was suggesting name-calling is OK if evidence is supplied. It is not - name-calling is absolutely wrong and should be sanctioned whenever it occurs, whether evidence is provided or not. I think "More enforcement" is what I am trying to say.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It already is per WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS. Sanctions, however, only seem to occur if 1) the target opens and ANI thread and others agree that the statements were not backed up or 2) if a passing admin thinks the statements are not backed up. In other words if the label is not a reasonable characterization of an editor's behavior, such behavior being both problematic and relevant to the discussion. In the examples you give it does not matter if the POV-pusher agrees they are a POV-pusher only that reasonable editors can characterize their behavior as pushing a POV and that the POV pushing is relevant to the discussion at hand. Jbh^Talk 20:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

See WP:FOC. Even with evidence naming-calling during a dispute should be met with sanctions. QuackGuru (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, actual name calling, however accusing an editor of POV pushing is not name calling, it is addressing a behavior issue that affects both content and discussions about content. Ex. An editor who has consistently been denying evolution and promoting a 6000 yr old Earth being labeled anti-evolution (not best practice but not an attack or aspersion) vs that same editor being called a "crackpot loon" or a "gullible bubble-headed moron" (which would be an attack which would be sanctioned no matter what diffs were provided to back it up) It would be best if no one were ever called a POV pusher but in reality that would require a project where no one tries to push a POV. Jbh^Talk 20:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you claiming it is okay to call others a POV pusher on the talk page? QuackGuru (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

(e/c)It may come down to what people believe is name calling and what is not, but interestingly, the example you use of "POV-Pusher" is already described as incivil "Calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil and pejorative" see WP:POVPUSHDrChrissy ^(talk) 20:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I use POV-pusher as a collective term for all the pro-x, anti/pro-x advocate etc terms you opened this thread with.

My preference would be to describe the behavior as POV pushing and say why but if I saw someone referring to an obvious POV pusher as a POV pusher in the middle of a protracted discussion there would need to be more than that before I would consider it sanctionable (note I am not an admin so I would not be making that call). I am, however, less concerned about the feelings of those who are trying to push an agenda, POV, COI or paid-COI than I am about the harm those editors bring.

Throwing out labels as a tactic to poison a conversation is not acceptable nor is mean-spirited dismissal. In Utopia-wiki everyone would be nice to each other and no one would try to manipulate content through COI, ideology or for pay (All of which are much worse than incivility because they damage the content.) but this is not Utopia-wiki. It is a hobby for people with a wide range of backgrounds with many motives for being here. No matter how much some people want professional or even "civil" levels of decorum about the best we have been able to get the community to agree on is not to refer to other editors by "anatomical" terms and that the occasional "fuck off troll" is frowned on but not prohibited. Calling a POV pusher a POV pusher is not going to be a blip on the radar because most editors simply do not like POV pushers. (My guess is that is because they are already violating the norms of Wikipedia by pushing POV/COI so fewer editors care when others trespass against them - social contract and group dynamics 101.) Jbh^Talk 21:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I hear you saying that it's ok if it's a label that you agree with, but i have the feeling you'd think it's wrong if it's a label you don't agree with. Keep in mind that who may be a "POV pusher" is entirely relative to your point of view. Everyone has a point of view. "Pushing" is a verb that can be described by some characteristics, but i would be willing to bet that you'd resist being called a "POV pusher" yourself. SageRad (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Whereas what you should be hearing is that WP:AGF is not a suicide pact and we are entitled to call a WP:SPADE a spade. However, there is one thing that could change which would IMO measurably improve the position, and that is to make wider use of clerking in areas which are subject to long-term POV-pushing. A lot of the frustrated outbursts occur in areas where legions of "brand new users" keep turning up to repeat demands rejected dozens of times, or areas where people with a non-mainstream view simply will not shut up (climate denialists, for example, who hate the term climate change denial and camp out at any article that states that climate change is real). Debate is good, but eventually the "JAQing off" passes a limit of tolerability. Civil POV-pushing is not, in fact, civil: it is an extremely rude and passive-aggressive refusal to accept consensus. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's what i'm really saying, Guy... (and i'm tired of this topic, so i'll pretty much stop commenting here, this curious page which i just found, and get back to real editing of articles about experimental evolution and such)...

• Yes indeed, "assume good faith" is not a suicide-pact -- you may also phrase that as "You can only assume until you have actual evidence, and then you can use the evidence" -- so we (1) assume good faith with any new editor, and we also try to assume good faith in the beginning of a new interaction with an editor that we may have encountered before, so that we have chances for "fresh starts" always... can you agree on that?
• Then, when we see someone acting badly in a pushy way -- pushing -- then we can call out the behavior -- note that i say "the behavior" -- this is different from labeling the person "a POV pusher" which makes it an intrinsic quality. The behavior in that context can be called out, i really want that to be ok. But in a non-biased way, a way that is simply descriptive, something like "I have repeatedly showed you very good reliable sources that this is indeed a valid scientific premise, and you continue to refuse to acknowledge this. I find this behavior obstructive because you seem to be willfully not acknowledging something very obvious" -- how's that? Can you acknowledge that this is an ok way to address a behavior? But not name-calling or "You're such a fringe lunatic, nobody likes you!" ?
• Lastly, it's not about the POV, but about the "pushing" part of "POV pushing". We're not to judge what's correct -- the sources are the arbiter for that. We are editors, we present and use sources, and discuss them. If someone's POV is that a chemical is probably harmful (or safe) or that veganism is probably healthy (or unhealthy) or that a diet is valid (or invalid) that's not the question. The question is, "Is this editor acting with integrity and using sources well and accurately?" or "Is this editor being pushy, and using weasel arguments and Wikilawyering and filibustering to get their way, damn the torpedoes and damn the sources and damn the other editors?" Can you acknowledge this, Guy? Is this sensible to you? Thanks for your time, and i really hope we can work on this fruitfully because it can be good to really discern what are the real core issues.
• By the way, i respect you and i acknowledge that there is a real problem with people who want to push fringe things into Wikipedia -- but i also have seen with my own eyes many cases of people who want to push a POV that is more conservative in a strange way using similar persistent tactics -- both the "mean and nasty" name-calling as well as the "overly polite but IDHT and persistent" filibuster polite POV pushing. I'm even seeing this now on ExxonMobil climate change controversy by one editor who sort of seems to have a hard time working with others and is very much on the right side of the question of climate change (that's it's real, like anyone who sees evidence knows) but still is being too pushing and grating on some people. No names, just observing. And i have seen similar pushing with IDHT and filibustering persistence (drown them in words tactic) in other realms on the "conservative" side that is not with science, but is more with a conservative agenda -- so it's not only fringe unicorn-riders, but also stodgy sticks in the mud as well, and even overly enthusiastic people who are on the right side of history. I like you Guy because you say it like it is, but i want to develop this further into the real nuances. SageRad (talk) 11:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@SageRad: I do see where you are coming from however, as I have said, this is not a professional environment and there is no consensus requiring professional - or even nice - behavior here. Best practice is to comment on behavior however, the vagaries of language and perception often lead to describing one who constantly pushes POV as a POV pusher or one who constantly inserts anti-vax material as an anti-vaxer etc. It is something which should be avoided but it happens and is part of informal discourse/imprecision of expression and generally is not subject to sanction unless patently abusive.

To your other remark, should someone call me a POV pusher I would be more inclined to check my contributions and statements than be offended. When different (or even one for that matter) people point out a behavior issue it is good practice to examine ones behavior rather than become defensive or dismissive. My advice to all of those who are being called biased/COI/POV etc is to go edit the material they are being accused of pushing POV on from the opposite view for a month or two, whether they think it 'right' or not. If they can not do that then either they are a POV pusher and need to step back or the subject area is so toxic they should step back. I guess Arbcom is always an option but if an editor can not see the other "side's" point chances are they are so invested they are going to get at least a topic ban and so, should have stepped back on their own.

POV pushing is a pernicious blight on Wikipedia and simply calling people on it making it harder to address is not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. That is not to say that from time to time editors step over the line but our existing processes have pretty well defined where that line is. Also, note, this is not a comment on civility in general or 'name calling' in general rather it simply is meant to recognize that editors may often be labeled by their editing behavior and the contributions they make - if they are disruptive we call them disruptive, if they are anti-this or pro-that they may sometimes be labeled as such but if they are ass holes we do not call them ass holes although, strangely enough, it seems OK to refer to them as WP:DICKs. Until that contradiction is addressed getting upset about being called a POV pusher seems a bit pointless. Jbh^Talk 15:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a work environment. We are not paid as editors but we're doing work. It would be good to have a respectful and decent environment. It is indeed a requirement as WP:CIVIL is one of the core policies:

Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates.

I fully agree that self-reflection is very important. But please acknowledge that sometimes it's a real difference of point of view and that accusations of a person being biased are really reflective of the person who's making the accusations. I've found that to be the case often. And people should not be able to maintain a lockdown on an article in a certain POV because they make the editing environment so pernicious or hostile or toxic that people just give up. I've seen that. I've also been the one who's given up. And it's not always (maybe not even usually) in the direction that some people here are making it out to be -- that there are brave "science people" holding the line against "unicorn riding dreamers" or something like that. I've seen it really pernicious in the general direction of a conservative interpretation of science or with industry alignment, to hold a line against other science that is truly genuine and worthy. I've also seen it in less science-related topics which are more political, in which there is one side or the other holding a line by calling the other person(s) really nasty names while i as a 3rd party uninvolved observer can see quite plainly that the name-caller is actually the one with the pernicious bias and they are toxifying the editing atmosphere. It's a problem and WP:CIVIL mandates against making an environment toxic. So i acknowledge your comment and that there is a problem of POV pushing but note that it goes all around regarding POV, and that often the name-callers are actually the ones with the strong POV pushing problem. SageRad (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Now would be a really good time to drop this, because you and I both know what area you are talking about and (a) you can't talk about it and (b) it ain't that simple either. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No, you absolutely do not know "what area" i am talking about -- and this is exactly the kind of know-it-all ascription of other people's motivations, as if you know what other people are thinking always, that causes problems, Guy. I am speaking about many, many topic areas that i have observed, and seen similar dynamics happening about. It's absolutely not about the two specific areas from which i'm topic-banned by an ArbCom case, but about many other topic areas. I've observed and i will speak my experienced observations on this. It ain't simple but it ain't exactly like you say either. So .... I'm getting back to work now. Tired of this tired conversation. I seriously have observed and thought long and hard about this, and so i will speak. Your comment is one more of those chilling comments telling me not to speak. Well i'm done here and out of here. More and more of the same with the same people, going round and round in circles, not acknowledging other people's points when i've been very generous in this dialogue and asked specifically for acknowledgement. No sense of any attempt to work it out with nuance or find any common ground here. Toxic environment. Gone. This is kind of emblematic the sort of behavior that i'd call "polite POV pushing" as it relates to meta-level concerns, and i cannot continue this dialogue going round and round and round and and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round..... SageRad (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Then name it and be specific, and avoid the risk. It is not "chilling" to remind you that you are under a topic ban. We seem to be in agreement on areas such as climate change denial, where there is clear consensus in favour of science and has been for a long time, to the assumption that you're alluding to The Subject That Shall Not Be Named is inevitable, not least because it has always, as far as I can tell, been your major interest on Wikipedia. Remember, the major problem with this essay has, form the outset, been that it appears to be a series of disjointed gripes and grudges by a small band of people who have failed to gain consensus for their POV. One of them, QuackGuru, has a POV to whihc I am sympathetic. Two, Biscuittin and DrChrissy, do not. It's not about whether you agree with a POV or not, the issue is that Wikipedia has never been good at dealing with POV-pushers unless they do something really blatant. Guy (Help!) 16:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy How ironic that the title of this thread is "Providing evidence when name-calling" and here you are calling people names without providing evidence. Please would you tell me what POV I have that you are not sympathetic to causing you to bring up my name.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC); correcting ping from Drchrissy so that it works; please use the actual username, not pseudonyms. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 23:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Ping Guy (JzG). The "ping-fix" above failed. Ping needs to link to User page or User_talk. It needs to be signed. The edit needs to be added text, not a +/- diff involving existing text, which is why the fix above failed. It must not exceed the max # of users, I think 50 but it could be 20. And I don't think it works if it involved multiple =sections=. Alsee (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Ummm, Alsee I fixed the ping (again), directed it to JzG's userpage (again), Alt-texted the ping to show Guy (again), and then placed a new signature (again) - all in the same edit. That is "the ping fix" that works and is what I did. Not sure if it 'pinged' per the non-existent user page, but I don't think the template uses talkpages, so it's a moot point. Anyway, I'll plain link Guy's talkpage and see if that works. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy, i'll be as specific as possible. It's not "The Subject That Shall Not Be Named" -- more like things like Paleolithic diet where i edited last month for a while and got really frustrated by a slow, semi-polite (though often not) POV railroading against actual evidence in the form of sources and clear reasoning... the immense effort to get the most extreme POV bias changed was a problem. That was one where i was involved. Others where i was not involved, i've observed -- some classic political conflicts, some things about Russia, about RT Media, etc. --- POV pushing tactics i've observed. Anyway no time now. Must write later. Cheers. Main message though from me is that POV pushing is about the pushing not the POV so it doesn't matter whether you or i agree or disagree with a particular editor's point of view, as long as they're not pushing it unduly by any means necessary (whether that be name-calling toxicity, or polite but unresponsive filibustering and stalling). SageRad (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Village pump RfC

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 124#RfC on Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia. If you have ideas to reform Wikipedia please share them. QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

For some unfathomable reason QuackGuru will not allow this canvassing to an archive where any new posts will be reverted to be either archived or hatted. He reverted both. Which is doubly inexplicable because the linked archived VP debate showed that the proposals here are not only stupid and misguided, but most of them have been rejected numeorus times int he past. Since QG is absolutely determined that everybody should read the archived thread where he was resoundingly spanked, I propose that everyone here have a good long look, then move this essay back to userspace where it can be quietly mocked until it rots. Guy (Help!) 00:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The aim is to convert the blog into a high-quality encyclopedia. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You already got the thoughts: the proposals are ridiculous, unworkable, in some cases legally impossible, most of them have already been proposed and resoundingly rejected by the community, and all of them would make Wikipedia less like the success it is and more like one or more of a small number of dismal failures, most notably Citizendium. Oh, and you've tied your banner to the mast of a climate change denier and joined forces with a quackery shill. It's hard to see how you could have made a bigger idiot of yourself, but feel free to keep going because all things are possible. Guy (Help!) 00:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Belongs in user space

This opinion piece is half written in the first person an does not really represent the community at large. What is it doing in project space instead of user space where this stuff normally goes? HighInBC 16:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Close to the top of the essay top it says "others only represent minority viewpoints." Essays do not have to represent the larger community. QuackGuru (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I originally created this page not Biscuittin. QuackGuru (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

From WP:ESSAY: Essays may be moved into userspace (or deleted) if they are found to be problematic. According to Wikipedia policy, "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace."

Essays that contradict widespread consensus belong in userspace. I get that you want to borrow the credibility of the project namespace but it does not work that way. HighInBC 17:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to dispute the term "widespread" here. No one really knows that. In fact, no one here knows what most Wikipedians actually believe. If anything, I'd say your comment is correct that this essay contradict's CABAL consensus and as such must be hid. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru, You did not originally create this page, Biscuittin did. You hijacked the page that Biscuittin created. -- GB fan 18:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I got permission to create this essay. QuackGuru (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You did not originally create this page. You moved it, which did indeed create the problem, but you did not create the page. Guy (Help!) 16:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, belongs in user space. All elements have been resoundingly rejected at the RfC. The RfC itself is malformed as there are no actionable proposals there or on this page. Continually adding questions, which are themselves not actionable, seems improper as well. Jbh^Talk 17:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Since it is proposing changes, the essay is a proposal which cannot be userfied. The proposal is for the WMF if or when they decide to recruit experts to review article content. QuackGuru (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I concur with this statement. There is also nothing to stop us having a "Wikipedia reform" wikiproject, and we have had reform projects before, eg the RfA reform project/proposal. James500 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• If it is a proposal then it should be marked as such with {{proposed}} (and quickly thereafter with {{failed proposal}} and a permalink to the RfC.) however it reads more like a declaration of complaints, is marked as an essay and contains no concrete proposals. Essays can certainly be userfied. Jbh^Talk 18:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is a brand new essay and there has been good feedback. It will take time to develop. It says "In the future if the WMF will be more open to expert authority steps can be taken for expert review." This is for the future if they decide to welcome experts and give them a little authority. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• • • There is something to stop us from having a legitimate "Wikipedia reform" wikiproject. They will MFD it. QuackGuru (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It has received good feedback?? I guess so, if you ignore the fact that it has received about many times as much negative feedback. I guess if you are selective in what you look at you can come to almost any conclusions. HighInBC 14:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject instead?

User:James500, what steps can be taken to turn this essay (proposal) into a new project or gel it with an existing project. QuackGuru (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, a WikiProject is just a group of editors working towards some end, or something to that effect, so the main thing you have to do is to produce a list of participants, I think. There is a notice board for advertising proposed wikiprojects, I think. There were projects for RfA reform and Deletion reform. The latter is inactive at the moment. I don't see why we can't have a "Wikipedia reform" project in the same vein. James500 (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

They are trying to shut down this page at the moment. It appears they prefer to WP:IAR. The way things are going, I think it might be too soon for a "Wikipedia reform" Wikiproject. They can shut down projects too. They will claim the project has failed before giving it a chance to succeed. There is not enough support to enforce even OR at the moment. Admins don't enforce the rules because it is considered a content dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Not as such, no. It belongs in userspace, but you refused to allow that so I started an MFD for it. If you'd left it in user space where it belongs, I would not have taken any action at all. We allow wide latitude in user space, even to state obvious falsehoods as if they were true. Guy (Help!) 01:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I knew you were going to MFD it before I moved it back. I wanted you to MFD it to bring in more editors to improve the essay. You did what I wanted. Everything is working fine. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Admins interested in policing article content

Is there any admins interested in policing article content rather than claim OR is a content dispute? We can start a new project for specialty admins to enforce the rules. QuackGuru (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

What is the problem with having experts improve article content?

A little expert oversight can help improve article content? So what is the concern? QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Dana Ullman is an "expert" on homeopathy. Citizendium recruited him to curate their article, which, obviously, became risible in short order. It had to be nuked and started over without Ullman's input. Guy (Help!) 01:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This essay says "On controversial topics such as chiropractic and homeopathy people such as chiropractors and homeopaths do not make good experts."

According to this essay experts can be vetted by the community too. QuackGuru (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Deletionism

There is a ready made proposal for deletion reform, or at least the beginnings of one, at WP:DELREF2015. This was an attempt to revive the deletion reform wikiproject, Wikipedia:Deletion reform, that I did not get round to publicising because I had a problem with a wikihound at the time. I wonder if anyone here would be prepared to help me improve it before it goes to RfC. It has been marked as failed, but the admin in question says that this is only due to almost complete absence of discussion, and that he is happy for the "failed" template to be removed if the proposal is presented to the community. There is also something similar at "RfA reform 2012". James500 (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Cabal shut-down?

It's just so amusing to me at just how insistent those in the Cabal (or those desperately wanting to be in the Cabal) want this page gone! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 22:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It is very strange what is going on at the MFD. There is discussion about blocking the owners. The owners of what? People are claiming there is a problem with the essay without explaining what is the problem. QuackGuru (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• And I have the oddest suspicion that it's only going to get even stranger! Brace yourself! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 01:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• OMG. They are trying to delete the redirects too. What is going on here? QuackGuru (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• To be fair, the redirects suck. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that at least two of those redirects could be better targeted elsewhere, but ... the nomination is still forum shopping. James500 (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no cabal. There never was. As a proposal for reform of Wikipedia, this was always a non-starter, and it should be re-userfied, but the WP:OWNers refuse. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There are no owners. I think the "cabal" comment was made in jest. James500 (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hell's, bells James! Ya busted me!!! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 20:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

In jest? The cabal comment was made repeatedly on the actual proposal, talk page and RfC. Mrfrobinson (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There Is No Cabal

There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that there is no cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that there is no cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the international cabal headquarters, and we show a disclaimer that there is no cabal at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that's not enough to convince people that there is no cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Didn't we decide that the first rule of the Cabal is you don't speak about the Cabal? We even put it at the end of every show on the Cabal Network. Figure it out @Guy Macon: or else you are out of the Cabal! Mrfrobinson (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess I have nothing to say... (smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no cabal. HighInBC 14:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I just got a !Message from @NotCabal. It says that they don't like this discussion concerning the Cabal's disclaimers that discuss the non-existence of a Cabal that is known and recorded as not existing but is being perpetuated by the discussion of its ongoing non-existence. They would like this to be shut down, completely rev-del'd and for us to all be mind-blanked about the Cabal that doesn't exist that started this discussion in the first place. It also says "Hi to everyone discussing us!" - their words. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this why there was a stuffed horse's head beside me in bed when I woke up? Mrfrobinson (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

They said something about "not horsing around anymore" in that !Message. Guess that was the warning then Mrfrobinson. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

What cabal? Guy (Help!) 01:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I think this page should be marked as a proposal or draft proposal, since it proposes changes to policy. I think this would be more accurate and it would deal with one of the vexatious deletion arguments. James500 (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine, then it can rapidly be marked as failed. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed on both points. As soon as this was published as part of an RfC(/s, arguably), it became a proposal that has since failed at least twice over with a third to surely happen at any time someone can be bothered to do so. QuackGuru, just put it back on a shelf, work on the proposals, create a WikiProject, etc. and come back in a few months with a more solid "essay" about reforming Wikipedia. I'd also like to see a technological reformation occur, though it is kinda nice learning the old technology. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 09:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Erledigt. The page is now marked as a proposal. It is up to the community to decide which parts should be marked as failed. I'm not conviced that everything was discussed at the RfC at VPP. James500 (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Since you have now opened the can of worms by moving it from an essay to a proposal I agree with @JzG: that this is failed based on the RfC alone. The problem that keeps coming up is the response the community keeps giving does not match yours and instead of accepting it you discount it. I move that this proposal is marked as failed. This would also mean the MfD could be withdrawn. Mrfrobinson (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think the RfC was sufficiently well drafted to draw that conclusion. Certain parts of the proposal were explicitly put forward. But the section on "deletionism", for example, wasn't discussed to any great extent. The MfD has to be withdrawn whether this is marked as failed or not. I would not support this being marked as failed unless the MfD is withdrawn, and those advocating deletion promise that there will be no further MfDs like that one. James500 (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You aren't serious right? You don't get to decide if a proposal failed or not, nor if a MfD can get closed as delete and neither can I. It is called consensus, the problem is you don't agree with the massive amount of opposing comments regarding this and keep trying to find excuses to discount or discredit them. Mrfrobinson (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Except that the village pump RfC didn't reach a consensus to mark the proposal as failed, so we would have to reach that consensus here. And we are not likely to reach such a consensus if I !vote against it. It is certainly arguable that the requisite reasonable amount of time has not elapsed. James500 (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus at the village pump. There was a clear one before it was userfied, at the RFC, here and at the MFD. What else do you want? Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The only consensus at the MfD is that the page should be kept in the project space. I should also point out that MfD has a strictly limited jurisdiction that does not extend to marking proposals as failed. James500 (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess we agree to disagree and will see what the closing admin decided at MfD. But that does not address BOTH of the village pump discussion or any of this page. Mrfrobinson (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• There's no proposal here. There's 7 or 8 proposals. Go ahead and create a page with one proposal and I'm fine with marking it that way, but this page is all over the place. There are too many proposals lumped together to even reasonable discuss the page's content. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think piecemeal proposals without centralised co ordination are a bad thing. James500 (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• But there isn't even a common problem that these proposals seek to solve. The massive RFA RFC had many disparate proposals, but they all had the single unifying theme of improving the RFA process. If there is a single problem or process that this page aims to improve, I can't figure out what it is. It's merely a disorganized collection of complaints, and some are valid and need to be addressed, but the page is a mess. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with Guy. It is a draft. Editors can improve the page and come up with ideas. If it is rejected then it can be marked as rejected. I am the person who created the draft. It is not for suggestion. It was meant to eventually be a formal proposal. Creating a new organization and having expert review is obviously a good idea. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

That idea was resoundingly rejected as both completely against the ethos and ideology of Wikipedia as well as the WMF simply never allowing such a thing. No point in rehashing it yet again when it has already been thrashe the other times it has been brought up this week. Ref the RfC question SNOW closed what was it, yesterday?? Jbh^Talk 19:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The initial RfC was to get ideas for the WMF to consider not the community. The community does not decide if a new organization is created. QuackGuru (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Then why propose it to the community? If you want the WMF to do something write a proposal for it on meta. I very much doubt the WMF will stick its nose into content against community consensus even if, for some outlandish reason, they decided to reverse a 15 year old stance on the way Wikipedia content is managed. -- And, yes, the community does decide if any organization is going to stick its nose into content. Your proposal simply will not happen and it is a waste of everyone's time for you to keep bringing it up. If you feel strongly about it go write an editorial somewhere or a letter to the WMF Board or, as I mentioned, put a proposal up on meta. I doubt it will get a warmer reception in those places. Jbh^Talk 00:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I wanted feedback. I got the feedback I wanted and the page improved. The community does not decide how the WMF runs their website. I previously explained when I will make a proposal to the WMF. QuackGuru (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

Currently listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion:

• Wikipedia:ARTICLERETENTION
• Wikipedia:BULLYFREEZONE
• Wikipedia:EXPERTAUTHORITY
• Wikipedia:LEADERLESS
• Wikipedia:NOLEADER
• Wikipedia:NEWUSERRETENTION
• Wikipedia:REFORMWIKIPEDIA

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Democracy and consensus

"Attempts to introduce such a policy have failed consistently for over a decade. No proposal along these lines currently has the remotest chance of success, as it would effectively empower small cabals of POV-pushers to pick off any admin who attempts to enforce policy. Dealing with GamerGate trolls alone would have decimated the admin corps if such a policy had existed." The text is not a proposal. See Wikipedia:Reform_of_Wikipedia#Democracy_and_consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

, it's the reason why that particular proposal won't happen, because it's been rejected multiple times even without being proposed by a small cabal of sore losers in content disputes. Guy (Help!) 00:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This page is about making proposals. It is not about explaining there are no proposals that are acceptable. QuackGuru (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Not even proposals that have been soundly rejected dozens of times already? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Or indeed those that are legally impossible, or those that have been tried by other projects and failed miserably? Wikipedia exists precisely because the entire "expert review" thing doesn't work. Nobody is going to write for free knowing that some nebulous expert - who may have a vested interest - will have right of veto over every word. Nupedia closed. Citizendium was hijacked by cranks and is now moribund. In what way is emulating either of those projects likely to improve Wikipedia? This is not explained, other than by repeating the assertions of Larry Sanger, which were subsequently proven wrong by the obvious failure of his own project. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Larry Sanger's creation and project. We want a little civility and expert review. No worries. QuackGuru (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Larry Sanger co-founded Wikipedia and left early on (2002). His views didn't match with Wikipedia. Expert review is not coming to Wikipedia any time soon, it would be costly and frankly impossible. Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

On some topics expert review can be free. There is expert review coming from BMJ for free. It is already happening. QuackGuru (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree on some topic you might be able to get an expert but they won't be able to look at every article or fact. Also this doesn't guarantee validity of the articles, only strengthens face validity. References to peer reviewed articles provide expert, peer reviewed, evidence based facts. Experts also don't necessarily agree with one another and most are experts in a narrow field. Mrfrobinson (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Deletionism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

JzG has made a complete mess of the section on deletionism. I see factually untrue statements (there are a large number of deletions for reasons that are not obviously valid), presenting known facts as doubtful (we know that excessive deletion is the primary cause of the editor retention problem), calling people who disagree with him "inclusionists" (which I am not), putting words into other people's mouths (the original version spoke of deletion for bad reasons (ie clearly invalid ones), not deletion for reasons that are not clearly valid, and he shouldn't be attributing those opinions to the author(s) of the original version), skewering the language used, and generally trying to make it sound like excessive deletion is a good thing. Can we please reach consensus to remove this rubbish he has written once and for all. I would revert this, but aside from the completely new material he added about the deletionist interpretation of SNG, I am not sure he has not already gone past BRD, the material he replaced already having been deleted and restore once. James500 (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• I notice that the deletionist interpretation of SNG has been restored to the page by Jbhunley, and is being presented as fact rather than the minority viewpoint, based on desperately twisting the words of the notability guidelines, that it is. Since there is an ongoing dispute, I think the section should at least be returned to its original version per WP:STATUSQUO until the dispute is resolved.
• What I originally said in the discussion thread that was rewritten into the essay has been distorted so much now that I think I will repeat it here:

Deletionism (in the sense of attempts to remove suitable information or topics for bad reasons, including wikilawyering ones, and including phenomena such as 'oversimplification') is by far and away Wikipedia's worst problem. Deletionism, so defined, is a vampire sucking the life out of Wikipedia. Aside from the actual damage caused to our content, deletionism is also the main cause of most of our other problems, including the editor retention problem. What we need to do is to reform our deletion criteria and process. We could, for example, make GNG less subjective, so that it can't be taken as an excuse to make arguments of the "no matter how much coverage there is, I won't accept that it is 'significant'" variety.

• I strongly urge that version, or a close approximation, be restored. James500 (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Re: "we know that excessive deletion is the primary cause of the editor retention problem", [Citation Needed]. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• It's interesting that you don't believe AfD's lower editor retention. The area of AfD's are an extremely harassing and bullying venue. Every single userbox on my user page was created solely from one particularly horrific experience in AfD. Oftentimes a new editor's first contact isn't "Welcome" but instead with an AfD notice or nothing at all. New editors aren't give any help or rules so it just becomes one confusing crapfest for them and they quit. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 04:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, new editors creating an article should have read WP:YFA (not to mention the basics, such as WP:HOW). It's even linked at the top of the article creation screen. There's no doubt some people are too quick to propose deletion when an article simply needs improvement, but there are plenty of resources available to new editors on what's appropriate for Wikipedia and how to write a proper article. It's not AfD's fault that they didn't read the guides before creating an article on themselves or their kid's preschool or the IT company their brother-in-law runs out of his garage. clpo13_(talk) 08:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Deletionism (in the sense of attempts to remove suitable information or topics for bad reasons, including wikilawyering ones, and including phenomena such as 'oversimplification') is a problem that does not, in fact, appear to exist. Most articles that get deleted are unchallenged - copyright violations, tests, bullshit, and other things that have no place here. A tiny number of contentious deletion nominations happen, and the default is to keep unless there are strong arguments for removal. We keep all manner of shit. Wikipedia has become, essentially, a directory, for some things (e.g. schools), so even the fact that you reject deletions of things always defined as out of scope is bullshit. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there appear to be a very large number of erroneous, questionable or undesirable nominations and deletions that invoke subjective criteria such as GNG or CSD A7, which are basically taking advantage of the vagueness of those criteria, and pushing those criteria to the absolute theoretical limit of what their very vague wording could be twisted to mean. The lack of challenges proves nothing except, possibly, that editors don't know how to challenge nominations or simply quit the project in the face of a massive flood of nominations and the streams of invective that such challenges sometimes elicit. Likewise there are many attempts to remove information from articles because it is too intelligent for the liking of anti-intellectuals who want to dumb down the encyclopedia to the intellectual level of a small child. One also sees pages inappropriately fully protected so that one cannot improve them at all. And so on. There is a serious problem. James500 (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• There are extensive citations including the MIT Technology Review "Decline of Wikipedia" piece, the "unbearable bureaucracy" piece in Slate and the related book (the bureaucracy in question being our processes for removing stuff), the WMF's research on the increasing average length of new articles, the piece of research mentioned in the Signpost that says rejection of AfC drafts is driving away new editors, the statement of a WMF person whose name I can't remember at the moment, that restriction of article creation to autoconfirmed users would kill the project, the Angwin and Fowler piece in the WSJ, Schott's piece on deletionists in the NYT and some other stuff whose location I can't remember right now. How is that for citations? Not to mention the fact that the editor retention problem started suddenly in 2007 and more or less the moment we made notability a guideline. James500 (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • That's not citing that deletions are the primary reason, just that they are one of the reasons. (I read the Slate article, BTW, and it is about bureaucracy, not deletion, and uses username changes as its primary example.) Other reasons mentioned include the technical difficulty of editing and talk pages, and an uncivil, sometimes sexist, atmosphere. These two other problems are enough to put the idea that deletion is the primary problem is serious doubt. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
    • It seems to me that those sources say that deletionism is the main cause. The vast majority of our "bureaucracy" is comprised in our processes for removing content, and the sources refer specifically to them. It seems to me that incivility is not a separate cause, because incivility is primarily caused by deletionism and perpetrated by editors who are trying to delete something. The technical difficulty of editing is a non factor because we are talking about the failure to retain editors who have demonstrated that they can understand how to make edits because they did actually make edits in the past, and then stopped for some reason. Likewise, sexism won't be the cause if the women never edited in the first place. Retaining existing editors is not the same thing as recruiting new ones. I am under the impression the editors who left were mostly male, because there were few women in the first place. Even the accusations of sexism are largely based on us deleting female editors contributed articles. In other words they are possibly mistaking deletionism for sexism. James500 (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
      • See Motivated reasoning. Jbh^Talk 23:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
        • No, sir, I have considered the sources and evidence in an entirely objective, unbiased, impartial, unemotional, dispassionate and scientific manner, with no prejudices or preconceptions whatsoever, and with a completely open mind: and I have come to the conclusion that they say deletionism is responsible, because that is what they actually appear to say. James500 (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
• By "Mess", you mean, of course, that it now no longer read like the drunken ravings of the world's most militant inclusionist :-) Guy (Help!) 00:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • By "mess" I meant, of course, that it read like the drunken ravings of the world's most militant deletionist. James500 (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is it so important for the critics to crush QuackGuru's proposal? If they don't like the proposal, why don't they just ignore it? Biscuittin (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Because the proposal relating to deletionism stands a very good chance of becoming a guideline if they can't delete quickly. James500 (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see the basis of this comment. You are very quick to jump to conclusions. Mrfrobinson (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly why extreme view points belong in user space and not project space. There is very little chance of collaborative editing when taking such an extreme view. Thankfully the Mfd looks like it will result in this page being moved where it belongs. Once out of project space there will be no need to balance the essay, which is good since it is clear the authors don't want it to be balanced. HighInBC 18:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The view expressed in the essay is not an extreme at all. I can name lots of editors who I think would probably agree with it. An extreme view would be arguing that editors should be able to write articles on unverifiable topics or that 'significant coverage' should mean a level of coverage much greater than the contents of a typical article in a reputable professional encyclopedia. The MfD is destined to fail, unless the closing admin decides to ignore clear consensus. An closing admin could not at this point userfy this page without casting a supervote. James500 (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Could we please quickly agree to replace the word "inclusionists" with the expression "anti-deletionists", at least where that expression is applied to material which directly quotes something I said. Inclusionism and deletionism are sometimes considered two extremes of a spectrum. Opposing one is not necessarily supporting the other. James500 (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Can we please change "climate change deniers" to "anti-climate change believers"? Similar question and the response to both answers is, (unsurprisingly,) no - since "inclusionists" are "anti-deletitionists" but with far more COMMONNAME usage and is a far more neutral term than "anti-deletionist"; I might even request the reverse wherein "deletionist" is changed to "anti-inclusionist". If you're writing an article about Wiki reformation then use WikiJargon, not biased synonyms that present editors as being part of a "negative". Sincerely, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why this page needs to die

This essay contains assertions stated as fact. Many of them are disputed, some are simply wrong, but any attempt to correct them, or even to note that this problem exists, are removed. That's why this belongs in user space, not project space. Essays on things like deletionism already exist, and are balanced and usually fair, in a way this essay simply is not, and as long as the WP:OWNers keep removing any attempt to balance their assertions with counter views or even note that counter views exist, the essay is a festering heap of shit and cannot be anything else. It's a positive feedback loop: it ensures that not only is the essay wrong, but it will remain wrong, and in fact get more wrong over time. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

According to the essay "Accusing others of "WP:OWN" at the talk page or in a revert is also disruptive." QuackGuru (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yet another reason why it is stupid. You want to ban people from even mentioning the many policies and guidelines that POV-pushers violate, in the hope that this will somehow make people who are not POV-pushers feel more welcome. And you do so in the context of a tendentious essay where a tiny number of people with long block logs and an impressive collection of topic bans revert any changes that introduce any hint of reality. At this point we'r ein point-and-laugh territory, but whatever floats your boat. Guy (Help!) 00:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I am with "the other Guy" on this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru, did you just try to use circular logic to attempt a slap at Guy ^{not Macon}? That is so (Redacted) stupid. Or are you talking about a different essay? You really need to learn how to wikilink if that is the case. -- Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 01:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

So the owners of this essay are now saying, in this essay that they own, that mentioning ownership issues is a disruptive personal attack. That is so shamelessly self-serving I'm almost speechless. No, you do not get to write rules to benefit yourself and expect them to be binding on everyone else. Reyk _YO! 08:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Reyk, you must have missed the owner's memo recent discussion over this being a "proposal for WMF", despite failing at the community level as a problematic essay. Some of us are just too stubborn to change our world views after having this essay evolve into a proposal. Certainly agree with your point of "no binding rules for others" in an OWNed essay. Though they seem to have backed a few millimetres away. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 11:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy you are of course correct, and the community seems to be agreeing. The MfD is clearly going towards userfication. In user space people are given some leeway to have radical opinions, as long as they are not WP:POLEMIC. As for the polemic nature of part of this page, that is something that I think is best addressed after the MfD ends. HighInBC 01:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I like this essay and i think it's a good one so far. It also seems to be still under development greatly. I like this essay and think it speaks to important things so far. There are some essays that i strongly disagree with but they remain as essays, and this one should too. Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it has to go away. Essays are not endorsed to speak for all editors of Wikipedia, are they? They are also not policy and not required to be followed by editors, right? SageRad (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

For instance, i disagree with Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing as stands for i see it as very biased in one direction, but it is locked down and seems "OWNed". Also, WP:MAINSTREAM is another essay that i disagree with strongly, as do many other editors, yet it remains. Viewpoints are what it's about, right? Tension between differing viewpoints. This is not an article but rather an opinion piece with a fair amount of endorsement (at least a sizable minority) it seems. SageRad (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If you really think either of those essays are unreasonable you can always seek a consensus at MfD to have them userfied or deleted. You see it is the community that decides these things, not individuals. If this essay is treated differently than Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing oder WP:MAINSTREAM it is because the community wants it that way. HighInBC 17:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It's strange how one group of people always claims to know what "the community" wants. Biscuittin (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It's more strange how one small group refuses to accept what the larger, established community wants. It is akin to moving to another country and complaining that they don't speak English then questioning why the small group you have interacted with won't speak English either. We have had discussions in the past about most of these subjects and the consensus of the community is clear. Mrfrobinson (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Who is this "larger, established community" and why do you claim that you can speak for them? Biscuittin (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"Wikipedia rules are not enforced consistently."

It could be that the rules are being enforced at random, which is frustrating, but fair. There might actually be some benefits to that, like making it hard to game the system. There are some nonrandom factors though, users with long block logs may be biased against, and new accounts are toast. Might there be logical reasons for that? But if people keep taking you to the boards, eventually your luck is likely to run out. There's no way to predict in advance exactly which instance will produce that result, this in itself isn't evidence of bias. Geogene (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but it is evidence of a dysfunctional system. Biscuittin (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

As evidence of the inconsistency of enforcement, I show below a table I presented to Arbcom during the recent GMO case. The enacted remedies matched the table.

• For any editors reading the table below, please note this has been substantially altered by user:JzG to be entirely misleadingDrChrissy ^(talk) 16:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I have undone the edit that changed the table below. It is back as DrChrissy originally added it. If there are concerns about the accuracy of the information make a new post and explain what the concern is. -- GB fan 16:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

	Potentially Actionable Behaviour						Proposed Remedy
EDITOR
	Incivility	Edit warring	Tag team editing	Misuse of DR	Forum shopping	Battleground behaviour
DrChrissy (me)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Topic bans (2)
Kingofaces43	-	Y	Y	-	-	Y	None proposed
Alexbrn	-	Y	Y	-	-	-	None proposed
Yobol	-	Y	Y	-	-	Y	None proposed

In the table, Y indicates evidence provided at the Workshop stage of the case, and - denotes no evidence was provided at the Workshop stage.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's all about you. Wikipedia was created in its present form specifically to oppress your POV. Guy (Help!) 01:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

What i see here is that JzG/Guy has edited another user's comment to distort its meaning. That table was part of DrChrissy's comment, and JzG edited it to change what DrChrissy appears to have said here. I think that's not good behavior. SageRad (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

And... the rules are not enforced at random. They are enforced by ideological disposition and by power cliques. SageRad (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

And here is yet another example of vexatious McCarthism. SageRad (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• @JzG: Please restore my posting above as it was originally. As an admin, you should know better about editing another users posts to change their meaning.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You do it if you like, the fact that you believe that your version is accurate is actually a very large part of the problem. You also forgot to include your repeated WP:STALKING, WP:IDHT, WP:POVPUSH, prior sanctions, frequent abuse of process to try to gain an advantage in a content dispute and so on. I also note your use of one of Wikipedia's irregular verbs: I have consensus, you collaborate, he is tag-teaming. Anyway, I'm bored with this. The page is unfixable without a complete rewrite, and the WP:OWNers won't allow that, so I have no further interest other than to ensure that innocent Wikipedians are not misled by this hogwash. Which is unlikely, frankly. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Why this page needs to live

Change isn't always scary. Maybe, just maybe, what Wikipedia needs is an essay to remind them that change is not only possible, but can also be a big plus. If Wikipedia continues to wade in the same pool forever, eventually all the water will evaporate! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 23:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Well said, MBD. Biscuittin (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes, Wikipedia does need change ... Wikipedia just doesn't need these particular changes

1. "create an open cabal of paid expert editors to enforce quality content in articles", otherwise known as the WP:REFORMWIKI#Administration
2. "A new noticeboard specifically for civility issues may help with the problems." - tried and failed - twice - first at WP:PAIN (ironic, yes?) and then at WP:WQA; both closed down only a few years in
3. WP:REFORMWIKI#Sockpuppetry - this is classic WP:ABF since IP editors can create accounts after years of editing and will of course raise the alarm bells of "scrutinising" editors that can "tell a duck from a rabbit"
4. The WP:REFORMWIKI#Abdication of the rule of law section is just ... what even is it? The only thing that seems to make any sense is the blatant lie "... plagiarism, which is a serious offense throughout academia, carries no opprobrium at Wikipedia." See WP:COPYVIO

Take it back, rework it, make actual proposals instead of a "complaint-list"/"wish-list" and then bring it back and editors will spend time actually considering the essay. Make a WikiProject in the mean time with different sections for discussion and you can garner more discussion and help with creating a better proposal-essay to submit. As I said in at least one of my !votes, I would like to see the spirit behind this essay come out into the open, I just don't want what this essay is saying - which is nothing but complaints for the most part.

Sincerely and hoping this actually helps the editors invested to improve the essay, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 01:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

1. "create an open cabal of paid expert editors to enforce quality content in articles", otherwise known as the WP:REFORMWIKI#Administration: The experts will problably work for free for medical and health-related topics.
2. "A new noticeboard specifically for civility issues may help with the problems." Wikipedia has not addressed the civility problem. When there are super admins the new noticeboard could work.
3. WP:REFORMWIKI#Sockpuppetry - there are long term socks on my watchlist. After they were blocked another one showed up. They are still editing.
4. The WP:REFORMWIKI#Anarchy section shows what the problems are. WP:plagiarism is not policy and lacks teeth. QuackGuru (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The bit about WP:PLAGIARISM is nonsense anyways, as Doctor Crazy points out. If the plagiarism is serious and blatant enough, it'll get nuked via {{db-copyvio}}. If it's close paraphrasing and detected, it'll get refactored or posted at WP:CP and the editor who added it warned (and persistent offenders can and will be blocked). Content guidelines don't need to have teeth to be enforced by other editors, especially when they're rooted in policy. To say that plagiarism is pretty much ignored or okay on Wikipedia is absurd. clpo13_(talk) 03:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed it for now. QuackGuru (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that WP:PLAGIARISM is a guideline (true), but what I linked to was WP:COPYVIO - a policy. Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The text was "But WP:plagiarism, which is a serious offense throughout academia, carries no opprobrium at Wikipedia." Do you want it restored or rewritten? QuackGuru (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO covers the offence of plagiarism quite well. "Don't copy stuff without attributing it" - same thing WP:PLAGIARISM says and is based off. So when you say that the guide "has no teeth", that is false. It does, in the form of COPYVIO and its supplement of WP:PARAPHRASE. So keep it removed as it is false unless there is an explicit loophole that editors are getting through? Also covering plagiarism is WP:OR and WP:V (to an extent). Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you think of a rewrite to that sentence? QuackGuru (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can't see any way of rewriting the sentence in question while maintaining any actual truth. A new sentence along the lines of While WP:COPYVIO, WP:V and WP:NOR require us to attribute sources to researched statements, this is a frequent problem that can often go unnoticed by other editors for weeks, months and – in rare cases – years before being noticed and removed. There is no current body that systematically overviews article content except for the Volunteer Corps known as the "Wikipedia Editors". <shrugs> Otherwise, it would be at least partially false if not outright. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The section is about anarchy and only the rule of law is enforced. I'd rather leave out the extra verbiage. I'll delete it again if it is not rewritten soon. There are problems that are noticed right away but editors ignore OR policy and ignore my comments on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Unscintillating, maybe you could try to rewrite the text. QuackGuru (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure:

On Wikipedia, plagiarism (and any other form of copyright violation) is grounds for blocking and, if repeated, banning.

That's accurate. Guy (Help!) 15:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism

"But WP:plagiarism, which is a serious offense throughout academia, carries no opprobrium at Wikipedia." User:Unscintillating, the wording is still in the essay. It is just commented out.[7] You can rewrite it to make it more clear. QuackGuru (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"Union of Editors"

The unionization of editors based on shared opinions, as opposed to reasonable avenues of collaboration such as like interests (i.e. WikiProject membership/participation) or expressions of ideology (e.g. inclusionism or deletionism userboxes), would only serve to facilitate meatpuppetry and canvassing. Group bargaining in general, and notifications to the group via this talk page or other means, would violate the aforementioned policy and behavioral guideline respectively. "Be[ing] quite open about what it is doing and who belongs to it" would only serve as evidence that the rules were indeed being broken, not to suggest that it be done covertly, merely stating a fact.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The union would only deal with issues like bullying, which are about behaviour, not ideology. Biscuittin (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Great idea: an echo chamber where rebuffed POV-pushers can combine forces to WP:CRYBULLYING and hopefully hound the tiresome reality-based editors away from the articles. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

There is another union of editors. QuackGuru (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It's time

It's time for everyone to listen to some Bach and take a chill pill. SageRad (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I prefer Beethoven. [8] Biscuittin (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Do we have to fight about everything? :) SageRad (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Ha Ha! Biscuittin (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually this weekend I am singing Bach's Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied, BWV 225 and Komm, Jesu, komm, BWV 229, plus Sven-David Sandström's Es Ist Genug (based on Dietrich Buxtehude's Eins Bitte Ich Vom Herrn, BuxWV24, also on the programme) and Komm, Jesu, komm, in a concert at Douai Abbey. Singet is one of my favourites. Next weekend is Gabrieli, Byrd, Tallis, Taverner, Lassus, Verdelot, Poulenc and Pizzetti at Buckfast Abbey. Then in March it's some Chilcott, Harris' Faire Is The Heaven and some Maori music, in Oxford, followed by Brahms' Ein Deutsches Requiem in Reading. Three concerts in April including a tour to Riga. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, Guy, you're into the Bach. Last night i was playing Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring and Sleepers Awake on guitar, but i need to learn the rest of them, and that's all i got. Good to hear we have some things in common, Bach and climate change awareness. SageRad (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

My son Pete plays the cello, he has a Bach cello suite he likes to play. But he plays it at A440, which is just WRONG! ;-) Guy (Help!) 15:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

J.S. or P.D.Q.? :) Seriously, though, just the other day, I spent the day doing some engineering work in a recording studio with a really good death metal band. When I got home I put on Pierre Hantaï's version of The Well-Tempered Clavier. It's like the difference between a fireworks show and looking at the stars in an area away from light pollution. Both are good, but in different ways. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Bullying is now allowed?

See here. This is sad. QuackGuru (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Amazing. Surely such changes should have been discussed at the Talk page prior to being made.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The whole bullying discussion is so loaded. When you say that there is bullying in Wikipedia, as i have done, some people find it a breath of fresh air to see what they've experienced being named aloud. Others, though, will attack you as if you've done something wrong, as if you're a problem for naming that there is bullying behavior. The nature of thing like this which have to do with unjust power dynamics is that those who name a problem are so often attacked, because it must not be spoken about. This dynamic includes gaslighting and it is related to dynamics of abuse, wherein a person who is abusing another person over time makes it known that to speak about the abuse will have repercussions. "If you tell anyone, i will hurt your family" is a threat made to abused children, you know. It's the same thing on a cyber level around here, where if you try to address a pattern of abusive behavior, you often get walloped in the head for speaking about it. That is a culture of silence, and that's also why this essay is getting so much flak for speaking about dynamics that are perceived by some people here. Compare it also to dynamics that arise around naming and calling out sexist or racist dynamics, or other systematized power hierarchies. SageRad (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The redirect WP:CRYBULLYING should be nominated for deletion. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that is a big deal. There is a use for "what bullying is not" but the problem is that the culture here, judging by my experience, is so strongly biased to allow mean, uncivil, abusive comments, as well as to be very biased in judging people's behaviors, as well as in judging what's POV pushing versus what's good editing, that the whole subjective question of what is bullying is unable to be judged well generally. It's luck of the draw by what admin or other editors see your request first, as to whether they will shove you off a cliff or actually hear you without prejudice. I do think that there's a problem in making people feel intimidated to even speak abotu bullying, similar to how it's very wrong to intimidate women against speaking about rape when there's already so much cultural bias against reporting rape to begin with. It is generally much better to listen to people who say they're experiencing abuse and not immediately go to "She's crying wolf, attack her!" There's a real problem with that here. SageRad (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • I've long said WP:BOOMERANG is used to bully editors or prevent them from seeking help when they are being bullied. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has become a haven for bullies. Sure, there may have been editors who thought it was a good concept initially, however, oftentimes implementing one rule creates new side-effects. The side-effects created with this rule are terrible. It's used most often to ban or block new editors and allows long-time editors or those editors with the in-crowd to browbeat other editors. Bottom line - It's used to victimize victims. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree. I've definitely seen it used as intimidation against seeking any sort of fair resolution at ANI or other such sites. I used to think there would be some reasonable outcome if a person went to ANI with a decent case, but have long since been disillusioned. Better not to go to ANI even if your case is very strong, because you risk blowback, especially if your editing is not in line with a house POV. SageRad (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I like the additions. We have rather a few people who think being bullied means not getting their way, or having policy enforced, this section helps explain to those people that this is not the case. It is like some people think "bully" is a magic word that protects them from being responsible for their actions. People need to stop taking attention away from actual bullying that takes place. HighInBC 17:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Supporting bullying is also disruptive, especially if it is an admin. QuackGuru (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ya well if you see one doing that bring it to my attention. Make sure it is actually bullying first though. HighInBC 17:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

We have people who think that bullying is bullying. Who see it and call it out. It requires human interpretation just like most things on Wikipedia, but the characterization that most people who call out consistent abusive behaviors are crying wolf is not correct in my reckoning. I'd say that would be about 10% of people who say "someone's being abusive" are crying wolf or don't understand polcy and need some education, whereas the 90% are actually someone being abusive and as a result, obstructionist and leading to bad articles. SageRad (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

And who is characterizing that "most people who call out consistent abusive behaviors are crying wolf"? I don't see anyone doing that. HighInBC 17:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I took it to be implied in your comment, but thanks for clarifying. I appreciate it and glad to know you think that real bullying is real, while crying wolf is not cool. SageRad (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course bullying is real. I also think it deserves serious attention. What I don't think is okay is people trying to steal that attention by crying bully when people are just responding to their disruptive behaviour.

The section title "Bullying is now allowed?" in my mind demonstrates that some people just don't understand what bullying is and seem to have an imagination that allows all manner of things to be bullying. These people may feel bullied, but they are not being bullied. HighInBC 17:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Well the edit referred to by the section title did change the meaning of the article significantly, and removed concern about blowback, thereby watering down and actually reversing in a sense the way the essay would speak to bullying. SageRad (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Not watered down, just brought a little closer to reality. It looks like people have been adding their own pet peeves to the essay because they think being disagreed with or having policy enforced is bullying. This misconception is being corrected. Frankly people have been misusing the term bully to try to attack people who are just enforcing the rules here. SageRad if you want to talk about this in further detail then you are welcome on my talk page. HighInBC 18:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The point of this essay is to express a point of view, and i think the thing here is that my experience and therefore my point of view about "reality" differs from yours. I think the original version before that edit was much-needed in this essay. I do not agree that the new version is closer to reality. It's interpretive and reckonings here, so we can disagree. It's not like "How many saucers are on the table?" where there is a "correct" answer of an objectively observable kind. I happen to think that the original version before that edit was much better and was the text needed in this essay. SageRad (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Naturally it is up for interpretation. I am just saying that the interpretation "Bullying is now allowed" is no more reasonable than the interpretation "Bullying is now a flying horse". The change does not support either interpretation.

While people are welcome to their interpretations they will no more get away with bullying based on that interpretation than they will go for a flight over the mountains based on that interpretation.

I think the reality is much more realistic. I think it is easier to argue against the false premise "Bullying is now allowed" than it is to argue the real premise which is far more nuanced. It is not a new trick, we even have an article on it: Straw man. HighInBC 18:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I see that the person who made this edit [9] is JzG. He has bullied me in the past and he seems to be trying to change the essay to legitimize his bullying. He is also an administrator and I think his administration rights should be removed. Biscuittin (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

When I see claims of "administrator abuse" it almost always turns out to be the administrator who is being abused. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reform_of_Wikipedia#Incivility: "Claiming it is not uncivil is uncivil and rude. It is proposed that an editor may be blocked for a period of one month after a warning by an editor or an administrator if they continue to be uncivil. If the uncivil behavior continues after being blocked then they could be blocked for a period of two months and so on." User:Guy Macon, do you agree to stop? QuackGuru (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This is starting to sound like a Sovereign_citizen_movement argument. You are now using a highly contested essay as grounds for bullying a user into doing something you don't like. Mrfrobinson (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The total lack of diffs showing my alleged wrongdoing is a nice touch. Anyone not familiar with my history (10 years, 30,000 edits, 0 blocks) and User:QuackGuru's history (10 years, 39,000 edits, 21 blocks) might assume that I have actually bullied him. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It is actually refreshing to read some of the criticisms of the overuse of the word bully on here. It has become a fad to call anyone who disagrees with them a bully. QuackGuru's behaviour has turned disruptive and is bullying people with his essay (see what I did there?). The fact that you are as common as dirt (don't take offence to that) should be indication enough that you didn't bully him, never mind your long history of being a voice of reason on here. Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

No formal proposals

The community likes anarchy. Without firm rules and without the rules being enforced there will be chaos. I am interested in improving the essay. I am not interested in making any formal proposals until things change at the WMF. We have to be patience. Things may change in 10 or 20 years, but not any time soon. QuackGuru (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I like anarchy as well, but unfortunately, not enough people here seem to be willing to step up the level of integrity to make the place work, culturally and by critical mass of good judgment, and therefore we're stuck with a version of "anarchy" that is Wild West rather than one that means "nobody's in charge but things generally work". SageRad (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, anarchy does not work well on this blog site. It works well for bias editors and bullies. QuackGuru (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you would be hard pressed to find an online community with more rules than we have, or spends more time governing itself. Wikipedia is not an anarchy. If we were an anarchy then you could put whatever you like in project space and not have it moved by the community. HighInBC 17:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

What is said and what is happening are two different things. The only rules that might be consistently enforced are the rules pertaining to law. If it wasn't for the WP:OR I would not of been motivated to creating this essay. QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If you see some OR that is not being allowed to be removed, let me know. Just make sure it is really OR first. HighInBC 18:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

According to the RfC involving this essay it was OR. QuackGuru (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@QG, you keep bringing up OR like it is everywhere and not being addressed. The one example you brought up, as near as I could tell from what you wrote, seemed to be a wording issue - 'some' vs 'many' or 'most' - rather than an actual WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issue. Could you please point out some places where this problem is displayed? You have not done a good job of defining the problem so I, and likely others, have a hard time understanding what it is you wish to address and how these so called 'experts' could address it. Particularly without committing OR of their own. Jbh^Talk 17:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

See WP:FOC. I did explain it very well during the RfC. Others chose to let the OR continue in mainspace. QuackGuru (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

In a sense, it's an order that arose from anarchy and is still anarchy in a sense (save for hierarchy like admin/non-admin), in that it's community enforcement of community-created policy. However, as QuackGuru says, the extreme inconsistency of application of said policy has allowed it to devolve into the Wild West meaning of anarchy, in my reckoning. SageRad (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: If other people agreed that it was OR then it would be removed. I have yet to see any real examples, and if I did I would just edit it to fix it. I think this has far more to do with a disagreement as to what is OR than a disagreement about allowing OR. HighInBC 18:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You have shown what the problem is. Admins don't enforce WP:OR. Admins like to claim it is a "content dispute". I think that is what you are doing.QuackGuru (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Disagreement as to what is OR is not the problem, that is how we figure stuff out. If people disagreeing is a problem for you then this is the wrong project.

Not sure if I have asked you this yet, but do you have any actual examples of this going on? I hear a lot of talk but no evidence. At this point based on your comments I am suspecting that you thought one thing and other people though another and... here we are. With examples I could make a more informed opinion. HighInBC 18:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The examples were mentioned in the RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The ideas in that RfC were widely rejected. Do you have anything that the community has not already looked into and dismissed? HighInBC 19:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I did explain at the top of this thread about no formal proposals. QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to this RFC so others can see what you are talking about? -- GB fan 18:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If this is such a widespread problem then it should be trivial to point to diffs of several examples of where this has occured. As I said before the example in the RfC was not convincing and looked like a wording dispute. Maybe you were right in the dispute maybe not but it does not illustrate the problem well. Better/more examples please, it will help to see where you are coming from. Jbh^Talk 18:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

See here. Also read User:Ricky81682 response to my comments about the OR. QuackGuru (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

What else?? I have said, now three times, that what you linked to in the RfC does not show a problem that would be addressed by the solutions you propose or at least I am not seeing it. Please either show better examples or say, using the examples you previously provided, what you expect these 'experts' or 'super-admins' would have done, specificly, in those cases. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 19:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I was not talking to you. Thanks anyway. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

User:GB fan, see here. Also read User:Ricky81682's response to my comments about the OR. The OR was removed last year according to consensus and without any disagreement on the talk page. See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive_37#Controversial_changes_to_lede. But the OR was restored again along with other problems to the lede. See Talk:Chiropractic#Too_many_problems_with_recent_changes_to_lede. QuackGuru (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

More uncivil words?

Are there more uncivil words that could be added to the essay?[10][11] Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Things are getting weird.[12] There is a new project. See User:JzG/WikiProject Self-serving bullshit. QuackGuru (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It does not surprise me. Biscuittin (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)