Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:17, 25 January 2016

This user page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this user page has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use. This page was last edited by James500 (talk | contribs) 8 years ago. (Update timer)

Reform of Misplaced Pages. This page is for the development of policies for the reform of Misplaced Pages. If you think that Misplaced Pages does not need reform then there is no need to tell us. We have already been told many times. This is a long-term project so please do not expect instant results. When some policies have been formed here, they will be published at Misplaced Pages:Village pump for wider discussion.

• WP:REFORMCOMMUNITY
• WP:REFORMWIKIPEDIA

Banned editors

I am banning the following editors from this page for ignoring my warnings about unconstructive editing. Any future edits made by them may be deleted immediately without notice or explanation. Please read Misplaced Pages:User pages for further information. Biscuittin (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• User:JzG
• User:Beeblebrox

I will add to this list if necessary. Biscuittin (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits

I have said many times that this page is for people who want to reform Misplaced Pages, but people who oppose reform are still coming here and writing speeches. I therefore give notice that I will, in future, revert any edits which I consider to be unconstructive. Biscuittin (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the WP:3RR rule does not apply to userpages Misplaced Pages:Edit_warring#3RR_exemptions so I will revert as many times as is necessary. Biscuittin (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Culture of Misplaced Pages

Misplaced Pages is a product of the computer age but, paradoxically, its culture is firmly rooted in a macho pre-computer age. The word consensus is widely used on Misplaced Pages but I see little evidence of it. Disputes are not settled by consensus but by shouting and bullying and the winner is the person or group who shouts loudest. Misplaced Pages has a page WP:Bullying but this is an "essay", not a policy. It seems, then, that Misplaced Pages does not have an anti-bullying policy and bullying is tolerated or even expected. I want to change the culture of Misplaced Pages to make it more co-operative and less confrontational.

True, and there is also WP:BAIT, which is a significant problem. The problem, though, is that the bullies are often the first people to complain that they are the one being bullied, and the actual victims get sanctioned and leave (for example, Gamergate...) Montanabw 17:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Good point, Montanabw. Biscuittin (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Progress report

We have made some progress in that useful suggestions have been made by several editors. Others do not seem to understand what this page is for. It is not just about bullying and it is not just about climate change. It is about improving Misplaced Pages in many different ways. This is what I intend to do and I believe I have a growing number of supporters. Those who resist change are not welcome here because they have nothing positive to contribute. They are just taking up space with their endless carping. Biscuittin (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm quite pleased with the way things are going because the change resisters are obviously worried about my success. If they weren't, they would just ignore me. Instead, they keep coming back here and writing speeches. Biscuittin (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

See Begging the question. Jbh 15:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Why do you come back here instead of ignoring me? Do you just want to clutter up the page and make it difficult to read? Biscuittin (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Because your desire to increase the level of civility at Misplaced Pages is admirable. If you are going to post a circular argument like 'I am successful because people are worried I am so successful so I must be successful and that is worrying people' please do not be surprised when someone points out the fallacy in your reasoning. You have gotten some good feedback here but you seem to be listening to those who affirm your viewpoint and discount those who challenge it. For instance you seem to be conflating the proper enforcement of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:NOR etc with bullying. That is coming off as you supporting not enforcing and/or changing our core content policies - that is a very different thing than addressing how editors are treated on Misplaced Pages. Jbh 18:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Aren't you also "listening to those who affirm your viewpoint and discounting those who challenge it?" Biscuittin (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply removed by Biscuittin per section 1 above. Jbh 01:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Subjects for discussion

Bullying

I thought Misplaced Pages had an anti-bullying policy at Misplaced Pages:WikiBullying but I have since been told that this is "just an essay". Let's have a proper anti-bullying policy.

Civility is not only a policy, but one of the Five pillars. Anti-bullying is but one part of being civil to others. So in a way, we do have a proper anti-bullying policy. The problem is that the civility policy lacks teeth. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 20:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ONUnicorn. I see you've already solved all the problems at User:ONUnicorn/The problem with Misplaced Pages... AND the solution. Biscuittin (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, Misplaced Pages has a muddled policy against bullying, however, most of Misplaced Pages does not appear to be able to clearly identify bullying and rarely (if ever) is anything done about it. It really does, like you've stated, lack teeth! --MurderByDeletionism 18:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:Civility is definitely enforceable, but taking it to AN/I has now become rather a nightmarish proposition given it has become a lottery dependent on the users looking at the page at that time and the complainant's ability to deflect boomerangs that are thrown at the slightest provocation.DrChrissy 23:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks DrChrissy. I agree. Biscuittin (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The biggest problem will always be accurate definition. There are a number of users who cry "bullying" as a line of defence during failed attempts to push a POV: "X rejects my edits, therefore X is bullying me, therefore X must leave me alone and I must be allowed to make my edits". In most fo these cases that I have seen, the rejection of the edits is 100% correct and the user should have dropped the stick long ago. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I wish you'd stop talking about "dropping the stick". I'm not a dog. Biscuittin (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

"Drop the stick" refers to the essay, WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, itself a reference to flogging a dead horse. There is no dog involved. In short, know when you've lost a debate and it's time to move on. Since so many editors lack a clue when it's time to move on, being unable to lose a debate gracefully, "drop the stick" is a necessary concept and the essay has widespread support. Often they persist so long that it's necessary to be very forceful in response, and that is seen as bullying by many of them. I don't know whether that applies in your case, but it certainly does make many eyes glaze over whenever one complains of bullying. We've all seen too many baseless allegations of bullying; there is a continuous drone of this at WP:ANI. One's only defenses against true bullying at an article are (1) to learn policy and behavioral guidelines well and try to use them to effect, at ANI when necessary, or (2) to move on, let the bullies win, accept any consequences to the article, and blame the community's failure to enforce a higher level of discourse. Being averse to fighting, I generally go with the latter. No Misplaced Pages article is worth an increase in my blood pressure. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me ask a very direct question - is there anyone who disagrees with the statement "Bullying exists on Misplaced Pages"?DrChrissy 21:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, DrChrissy. A sensible question at last. Biscuittin (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Do admins support bullying? If there is bullying on Misplaced Pages then admins support it. QuackGuru (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Well, that's just not true, Quackguru. Slavery certainly exists despite being illegal almost everywhere, right? Bullying will be around whether admins support it or not, because the right people won't always know about it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it varies. Some admins do and some don't. Biscuittin (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I think there are not enough admins, so they don't have time to deal with bullying effectively. Thus the suggestion of paid admins has some merit. Biscuittin (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I see the problem as being that some (very few) admins are themselves bullies.DrChrissy 22:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The other problem is that a lot of the new admins are selected more for being in a "sweet spot" of not being too new, but also not being experienced enough to have made "enemies." Sometimes there is also a lack of life/work experience in the real world. One of the things I see is that few have the spine to actually sort out the issues, more often they act like playground aides and just give "detention" to everyone. If anyone wonders why there are too few admins, my RfA was illustrative, and particularly the 2-3 people who sailed through after me, one of whom I understand was a minor. I truly miss User:Dreadstar who was one of the best, may he rest in peace. Montanabw 17:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Montanabw. Biscuittin (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:CRYBULLYING is the new WP:CRYBLP. DrChrissy, for example, considers he's been "bullied" by me. The facts tell a different story: two topic bans, one form ArbCom and recently extended. it is not "bullying" to resist problematic behaviour and edits. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

(E/C)I don't think I have ever seen a more blatant case of goading. Low, even by your standards JzG.DrChrissy 22:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

For those of you wondering what I was replying to, please see here]. How can this in anyway be considered as a constructive posting - shameful for an admin.DrChrissy 22:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

What was inaccurate? The fact that you consider me to have bullied you, or the fact of your two topic bans? Firmness is not bullying and no POV-pusher has ever appreciated being reined in. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

This page is about Misplaced Pages reform. Your posts above are a personal attack on me - nothing more, nothing less. You really should familiarise yourself with WP:FOC. I most certainly should not have to tell that to an admin. Your repeated attacks like this throughout WP really are doing a huge dis-service to other admins who behave in the appropriate way and are striving hard to keep the respect of other users.DrChrissy 23:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Bias

Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view is not enforced consistently. This must change.

Could you elaborate? In what way is NPOV not enforced consistently? Remember that, on Misplaced Pages, neutrality does not mean giving every viewpoint equal treatment... it means giving every view its DUE WEIGHT. Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The most obvious example is Climate change articles, where any contributions which dispute the findings of the IPCC are heavily discouraged. I know that disagreement with the IPCC view is a minority view, but it is not so minor that it deserves to be censored. I believe that QuackGuru has similar concerns about censorship of alternative medicine on Misplaced Pages but I am not commenting on this yet because I have not examined it. Biscuittin (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that User talk:JzG is a biassed administrator. He displays on his talk page links to Misplaced Pages:Rouge admin and Misplaced Pages:Lunatic charlatans. These may be jokes but they are jokes which administrators should not make if they want to be taken seriously. Biscuittin (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

And yet you link a climate change denialist's blog as evidence that Misplaced Pages is "biased". Odd, that. WP:ROUGE is clearly humorous (as is WP:NCR and many other essays), and Misplaced Pages:Lunatic charlatans refers to a statement by Jimbo. I am biased in favour of rationality and empirically verified fact. In fact the whole of Misplaced Pages is biased in the same way. It's by design. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

This is the usual circular argument by CO2 haters that CO2 lovers are indisputably wrong, so anything they write must be regarded as unreliable. This is bias. Biscuittin (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That comment speaks volumes. Science does not give a fuck about CO₂ as a substance, but it clearly and unambiguously shows that concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing, this is causing the global average temperature to rise, and it's our fault. CO₂ is essential to life on Earth, but the concentration int he atmosphere matters and the Earth's homeostatic mechanisms are overwhelmed by the pace of release right now. In excess of 99% of active scientific authors on the field are in agreement about this. That is an incredibly solid consensus. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want to debate Climate change please do it at Talk:Climate change. This userpage is about improving Misplaced Pages. Biscuittin (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Another example of bias on Misplaced Pages is the use of the term Climate change denial. This term is inaccurate and pejorative because there are very few climate change deniers. The majority of so-called climate change deniers are actually climate change acceptors. They accept that climate change is happening but they do not accept the IPCC view that CO2 is the main driver. Biscuittin (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? You consider that NPOV requires that climate change denial is given serious consideration? I think that sinks your case right there. The IPCC is not some agenda-driven group, it is a scientific colloquium which is nonetheless heavily lobbied by oil-rich countries to be as cautious as possible. The IPCC is not actually a consensus document: the consensus is substantially more robust than the last IPCC report. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Lunatic charlatans refers to a statement by Jimbo, yet Jimbo is a talker not a doer. Does WP:NOTHERE apply to Jimbo? QuackGuru (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Jimbo is very relevant but I suspect that Misplaced Pages:NOTHERE is a weapon the anti-reformers will use against us. They seem determined to censor any criticism of Misplaced Pages, no matter how justified the criticism is. Biscuittin (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo is very relevant. Larry Sanger wanted to enforce all the rules, but Jimbo wanted to enforce none of the rules. Jimbo is a board member who does not want change on Misplaced Pages. QuackGuru (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Not as such, no. Sanger wanted credentialled editors and editorial review of content, as he instigated at Citizendium. That went... rather badly. Many of his peer-reviewed articles turned out to have been pushed through by "expert" cranks. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There was not enough expert reviewers on CZ. On the other hand, Misplaced Pages can have numerous experts. There are bias editors going crazy on numerous Misplaced Pages articles. If there is an expert review on Misplaced Pages it will be better than the current chaos. QuackGuru (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Poor administration

• WP:LEADERLESS
• WP:NOLEADER
• WP:EXPERTAUTHORITY

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) must hire people to edit Misplaced Pages 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. The board members who want articles to improve will agree. If any board member does not agree then they do not understand there is a serious problem on Misplaced Pages such as counterproductive edits by bias editors or it does not matter to them. Experts and neutral editors will be paid to edit Misplaced Pages via the new non-profit organization. They can eventually be funded by donations independent of the WMF. There can be elected members to the new non-profit organization via the Misplaced Pages community. They can overrule consensus and bias administrators when there is a consensus via the new non-profit organization. There can be paid administrators to improve article content. The new administrators would not be regular administrators. They would be administrators specifically trained to police article content and block bias administrators. Without gentle expert authority and review Misplaced Pages is committed to amateurism. If the WMF continues to refuse to allow expert authority to oversee content decisions then they do not believe in creating high quality content.

WP:Consensus is working fine for a lot of bias editors who do not want the rules to be enforced. Administrators claim consensus is what matters and ignore whether the change was inaccurate or was original research and refuse to review the change because they claim it is explicitly not the job the community elected them to do. Volunteers are not here to help administrators to enforce the rules. Administrators increase damage done by disruptive editors to article content when they refuse to enforce policies that would improve article content. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, yet the rules are not being actively enforced. Editors have replaced sourced text with WP:original research, yet administrators refuse to police article content and help fix the ongoing problems. Editors delete sourced text claiming the statement was not supported by the citation, yet administrators will agree with consensus rather than read the citation to determine whether the citation verified the claim. Administrators must be retrained to enforce WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR policies rather than continue to ignore the rules. WP:Consensus should not continue to overrule WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR policies. The Misplaced Pages community has no leader, but that could change when there is a new non-profit organization enforcing the rules. They can vote who is the leader or co-leaders. Misplaced Pages:Administrators and WP:ArbCom, and also other WP:WP processes such as WP:DR must actively enforce the rules, including WP:NPOV and WP:V policies. Currently ArbCom does not police article content. This must change to ensure editors do not continue to make counterproductive edits. (Suggested by QuackGuru).

Democracy and consensus

I think we need a policy for sacking bad administrators. A Recall election might be a way to do this.

This has been suggested again and again. At times there has seemd to be fairly strong support for something but what that something should be has been a continual sticking point. The primary concearn is usually that any admin who is actually doing a good job is inevitably going to have angered some people who might abuse such a process for revenge, rather than to get rid of truly abusive admins. This is why arbcom is currently the only way to do this, you actually have to present compelling evidence before they will even start sucha discussion.

It is possible to get abusive admins removed this way, it just isn't easy, nor should it be. I have done it myself and also voted to remove abusive admins when I was on the committee. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

Thanks Beeblebrox. I see that there already are Misplaced Pages:Administrators open to recall but the scheme is voluntary. I think it should be compulsory but I agree that some people might abuse such a process for revenge, so there would need to be some safeguards. What those safeguards should be, is a subject for discussion. Biscuittin (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Every single proposal along these lines has failed, for the simple reason that it is not possible to craft a policy immune to gaming by POV-pushers or off-wiki cabals. Why would this time be different? Guy (Help!) 21:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I ask you again. Why do you keep coming back here when you do not support our aims? I see your edits as disruptive. Biscuittin (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Disagreeing with your solution is not the same as not supporting your aims. I'm with JzG, I don't see how such an election would work properly. If you have an idea that addresses what went wrong with previous proposals, I encourage you to present it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Fairness

Misplaced Pages rules are not enforced consistently. Some editors are continually being banned while others commit the same offences and get away with it. This suggests bias on the part of some administrators.

I don't think this is just a problem with certain admins, there are in fact portions of the community who believe that highly productive content creators should be given much wider lattitude than others, and although they are a minority they are extremely vocal and honestly I think that through their drama mongering they manage to intimidate or wear down admins who would prefer to apply the rules evenly. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Biscuittin (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"This suggests bias on the part of some administrators." I think the sentence can make a stronger claim. I think it is obvious there are bias admins. Admins are extremely supportive of editors who replace sourced text with OR and white-wash articles and make disingenuous comments on the talk page. Admins don't police WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

New users

I think that new users are being discouraged by heavy-handed enforcement of rules for trivial reasons.

This is a real problem, mainly propogated by overzealous "patrollers" who lack a nuanced understanding of how to apply policies and guidelines and tend to assume bad faith when they see cluelessness. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Biscuittin (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't really agree. In my view, we've come a long way since the dark days of 2009 or so. The biggest problem with editor-retention, bogus deletions, has mostly been resolved. The next step is dealing with uncivil editors, which is snailing along but getting there. And, of course, remember that we recently saw an uptick in the number of editors, an encouraging reversal from a once-troubling trend. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Other

Suggestions welcome.

How about "incivil phrases"?

Should there be a section on phrases/words used to denigrate other editors. It seems to me that there is increasing use, and unfortunately increasing acceptance, of phrases such as "POV-pusher", "pseudoscience promoter", "fringe editor" etc. which are used to intimidate editors. It would be good to see a coordinated approach to having these words and phrases listed as "uncivil" and/or "personal attacks" and therefore actionable if used. Given that edits should be based on content rather than contributors, this should be relatively easy to change.DrChrissy 23:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. Like Unparliamentary language. Biscuittin (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I think "pseudoscience" is particularly relevant. Labelling something as pseudoscience on Misplaced Pages is clearly departing from WP:NPOV. Biscuittin (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

There is already some help here. Have a look at WP:POVPUSH. This is only an essay, but the statement that calling an editor a POV-pusher is incivil has been there since at least 2010, so it seems to be a conclusion that is widely accepted by the community. We could push for this and other phrases to be included in WP:Civility guidelines thereby making its use actionable.DrChrissy 00:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

See WP:SPADE. If someone is promoting pseudoscience, we should and do say so. To quote Brian Cox, "he problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it. The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!" Misplaced Pages is a reality-based project. It has also become just about the most important place for every crank to get their views reflected as "fact". The result is an endless tide of people of varying degrees of good intentions, coming here to "correct" our treatment of topics that are, objectively, bullshit. This includes things like psychokinesis, remote viewing and cryptozoology as well as the more obvious areas like the claims of climate change denialists and SCAM proponents. We do not give equal weight to science and bullshit. This is by design. Many of those who are lining up to cry for reform, are motivated by long-standing failure to get nonsense given equal weight with fact. Like the assault by creationists on school textbooks, the only result of their being allowed to get away with this will be that the world becomes more stupid. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to give credence to nonsense, we are supposed to document it and say why it's nonsense. So any reform that fails to recognise and protect the paramount importance of remaining reality-based, must and almost certainly will fail. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I am biassed and you are biassed. Most people are, but we have to avoid injecting our biases into Misplaced Pages articles. Piers Corbyn's theory (which I accept) that the solar cycle is the main driver of climate change is based on his research. It may be right or it may be wrong but it is not pseudoscience and it should not be labelled as such. Biscuittin (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The whole point of Misplaced Pages's content policies is that no Misplaced Pages editor qualified to have an opinion on the matter, while the scientists, who make these subjects their life's work, are. This goes even more so for people who wish to edit against scientific consensus. If they think they are right then go, get a PhD, publish and get feedback from your peers who also have a PhD or two. If the new view is supportable then others will duplicate and build on the research and a new scientific consensus may evolve. Then it can be put in Misplaced Pages. Until that, junk science is junk science and, if Misplaced Pages mentions it at all, it should be properly labeled as junk science.

Maybe that is harsh and "undemocratic" but reality is both harsh and undemocratic. No matter what, fire still burns and gravity works against you whether you believe in it or not. To give time to 'evolution deniers', 'acupuncturists', 'climate change deniers', 'homeopaths' etc. is just as foolish and irresponsible as giving credence to 'fire deniers' or 'gravity deniers' and Misplaced Pages's rules on fringe and pseudoscience properly recognize that. Jbh 20:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Thomas Edison had a PhD but that doesn't mean he should not be taken seriously. Biscuittin (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between engineering and basic science. Thomas Edison was, in any event, heavily involved in the "peer review" process of his time and in his field. Also you may want to consider that Misplaced Pages editors are not Thomas Edison and those who think they are and have been unable to demonstrate their genius to the satisfaction of their mainstream "peers" are more likely deluded (or politically/financially motivated nowadays) than they are to be enlightened with the truth that has escaped all others. Even if they have this great truth Misplaced Pages is not the place to inform the world of it.

Misplaced Pages is an easy place for cranks to try to validate their views to the ignorant, because the experts already know they are cranks and will have nothing to do with them. Misplaced Pages's sourcing policies and rules on fringe/pseudoscience recognize that. Misplaced Pages is not the place for people to get validation for their pet theories, it is to inform the general readership of the current state of scientific knowledge and consensus. Jbh 15:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

So now I am deluded, politically/financially motivated and a crank. How many more insults do you want to throw at me? Biscuittin (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ummm???? Unless you are trying to insert your own pet theory, of which I am unaware, or you think yourself an unsung genius with insights overlooked by the scientific community, which I have seen no indication you believe, nothing I have said was intended as a comment about you. Jbh 17:34, 18 January 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 by far and away Misplaced Pages's worst problem. Deletionism, so defined, is a vampire sucking the life out of Misplaced Pages. 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. James500 (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Who should we approach?

• Misplaced Pages administrators
• Trustees of the Wikimedia foundation
• Regulators (e.g. Ofcom)
• Other (suggestions welcome)

Union of Editors

I am thinking of forming a Union of Editors on Misplaced Pages to challenge the power of secret cabals. The Union will not be a cabal because it will be quite open about what it is doing and who belongs to it. If you are interested in joining, please say so here. I should warn you that we are likely to be persecuted. Biscuittin (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no cabal. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see my edit at "Bias" above. If there is no cabal, why do you give the impression, by a link on your talk page, that there is one? You are being provocative and this is another bad sign in an administrator. Biscuittin (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If the cabals are secret as you say, how do you know they exist? Your opening comment is magical thinking bordering on paranoia. I might be interested in joining a union for the purpose of elevating the level of discourse at Misplaced Pages, as I believe a large majority strongly oppose the status quo but choose not to get involved in the street fighting that is the only way one stands a chance of changing anything here. But you lost my support with your first comment. I have yet to see any evidence of "cabals", only groups of editors who have similar interests, generally see eye-to-eye, and thus support each other in debates. There is nothing wrong with that. If you can prove that these "cabals" are conspiring and colluding off-wiki, please do. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It is interesting that some groups are allowed and others are not. I am frequently accused of "canvassing" when I put a friendly message on another editor's talk page. Biscuittin (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You say: "street fighting ... is the only way one stands a chance of changing anything here". That sounds like an admission that bullying is acceptable on Misplaced Pages. Biscuittin (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Difference of semantics. Many policy discussions are allowed to devolve into childish, acrimonious, snarky, often downright hateful argument, what I call street fighting, but there is no bullying because no one is stronger than anyone else. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:RS, there is a secret cabal. QuackGuru (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks QuackGuru. That's fascinating. Biscuittin (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to point out two things:

• That was one incident seven years ago
• The Register hates Misplaced Pages and cannot be trusted to be accurate when reporting on it

I had just barely started editing when all this happened, so I don't know that much about it, but I know that since that time these secret mailng lists are not really a thing among "power users" and one of the few others that was discovered was dealt with harshly by arbcom, see WP:EEML. I've been an admin for nealy seven years, a functionary for nearly six, I've traveled to Wikimania on a full WMF scholarship and attended a dinner for functionaries and arbs where the WMF lawyers paid our tab, and I spent a year on arbcom itself. I am completely unaware of any such group operatiing at any point since the list referenced in that article. If there were a secret cabal of "power users" still doing stuff like this I guess I should feel pretty insulted that they still haven't invited me to join them. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Users who have been hounded off Misplaced Pages

Section under construction.

• User:MacRusgail
• User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz
• User:CrazyAces489

May I request that you don't list users here without evidence? I could see myself spending half an hour to find the story on this editor. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

See also

• Gender bias on Misplaced Pages
• Misplaced Pages#Systemic bias
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force

Possibly relevant sources

• http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/
• https://posthegemony.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/meltdown-at-wikipedia/
• http://wikistrategies.net/james-heilman-removed/
• http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/

References

1. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/
2. Schwartz, Zach (11 November 2015). "Misplaced Pages's Co-Founder Is Misplaced Pages's Most Outspoken Critic". Vice.