Misplaced Pages

:Miscellany for deletion/Misplaced Pages:Reform of Misplaced Pages - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by James500 (talk | contribs) at 20:30, 29 January 2016 (→Misplaced Pages:Reform of Misplaced Pages: Answers.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:30, 29 January 2016 by James500 (talk | contribs) (→Misplaced Pages:Reform of Misplaced Pages: Answers.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Misplaced Pages:Reform of Misplaced Pages

Misplaced Pages:Reform of Misplaced Pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A thoroughly problematic essay which the WP:OWNers are determined must be in Misplaced Pages space not user space (where it began and IMO it would be fine, if pointless). The essay shows the unfortunate effects of having been written by someone who thinks we're terribly unfair on climate change deniers, someone under two topic bans who thinks this means they've been bullied, and someone who is determined that simply saying something is OR means that anybody who disagrees is actively trying to destroy Misplaced Pages. As proposals for reform these suggestions vary between quixotic and fatuous. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is a new essay where many editors are sharing new ideas and proposals. There are no own concerns that I am aware of. There is a discussion on the talk page to start a new wikiproject where editors and admins can sign up to help enforce the rules. According to this comment there are still ongoing problems with Misplaced Pages. A little reform can improve the editing experience and stop needless discussion. Essays do not have to represent the majority. The Essay clearly states "...others only represent minority viewpoints." QuackGuru (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Userfy but no objection to deletion. The page itself does not express any community consensus and the RfC associated with it roundly rejects the material. Overall it seems to be more of a gripe list than anything which may be of use to editors editing the encyclopedia. The only proposals, if they can be considered such, is creating some form of content oversight board which is antithetical to the Misplaced Pages movement. Jbh 19:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong delete my attempt to put a little balance in was quickly reverted ~ confirming to me this page is not a collaborative effort, but rather a pet project by some editors that are not interested in following consensus. Legacypac (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    • What you originally wrote in part was "...and highly opinionated material like this essay have no place in a useful encyclopedia.", but now claim it was because you got reverted? You also wanted to delete the redirect that matches the title of the essay. QuackGuru (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Edit warring over an OWNed essayed should be responded to by WP:BLOCKing. You must not own an essay in project space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
        • I do not believe everything I read in Misplaced Pages. There is no edit warring over the current text. There was a major rewrite, however. QuackGuru (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Legacypac's edit to that page looks like trolling. It was certainly very 'smart alec'. And BRD isn't edit warring. And blocks are supposed to be preventative, which precludes blocks based on 'stale' incidents, that are obviously not going to be repeated. I'm sure that if there was talk page consensus to restore his comment, no one would edit war to remove it. James500 (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
It is not trolling at all, it simply used this opinionated essay as an example of content that does not belong in main space - a point that I hope all responsible editors agree with. Misplaced Pages articles should be based on RS not editor opinions. Legacypac (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Except you know perfectly well that no one advocated that articles should not be based on reliable sources. All the essay said was something to the effect that GNG presently tells us that significant coverage is something less than a book several hundred pages long, and common sense suggests that range should be made narrower (we could start by replacing the full book with a full chapter of a book), as the upper limit is ludicrously high, and as such, a license for trolling at AfD. And we all know the sort of antics that take place there. In any event, including a mocking 'smart alec' comment about an essay in the essay itself looks like an attempt to annoy people, no matter how you try to explain it away. James500 (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Userfy. There is no consensus for the content, but a discussion can continue in user space. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    • User:Bduke, very few essays have widespread consensus for the content. That's not a reason to userfy this essay or all essays that don't have widespread agreement on Misplaced Pages. The essay is searching for ways to create a more accurate encyclopedia and retain new editors and newly created content. We are trying to find better ways for WP:LOCALCON to not overrule WP:V, and WP:OR policies. These are interesting proposals. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't exactly know what the fear is here, however, I refuse to partake in any such ludicrous fringe theories! --MurderByDeletionism 20:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, almost speedy keep, on grounds that this is vexatious. The page in question appears to be a (somewhat malformed and incorrectly marked) WP:PROPOSAL undergoing discussion. Our rules are very clear that proposals cannot be deleted, they can only be marked as failed. I should also point out that a "Misplaced Pages reform" wikiproject is on the verge of being created here, and that would be entitled to its own page. I don't agree with everything in this proposal, but I wouldn't dare suggest that a proposal be deleted or userfied just because I don't agree with. Nor is it even the case that the whole page contradicts community consensus from start to finish, which is the criteria for deleting an essay. What we have here is an attempt to bear down on a proposal with great force, to crush it before it can be discussed. It is just not appropriate. James500 (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think I should also point out that the middle sentence of JzG's nomination rationale above appears to violate WP:AVOIDYOU, and I would ask that it be struck through. James500 (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete If this was a coherent essay sure keep it where it is. However it is a collection of random, biased thoughts and complaints. This is toxic. Delete and salt. Mrfrobinson (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The fact that there is a discussion regarding the cabal on the talk page proves that this is nothing more than toxic conspiracy theories and ramblings. Mrfrobinson (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
(1) Those comments are about this MfD, not the essay. I don't think they are alleging an actual conspiracy either. If there is one, it certainly can't be very effective, since it is obvious that this MfD is going to fail for lack of support. (2) The fact those comments have remained on the talk page, and not entered the essay, indicate the essay is no such thing. (3) Your comments are ramblings. James500 (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Project related opinions do not get deleted. I quick look at the history indicates that it is multi-authored, meaning userfication may not be suitable. Multi-authored opinions belong in project space. If consensus is that the opinion is wholly toxic, it should be tagged {{Closed down}}, optionally blanked, as a form of archiving instead of deletion. Deletion of bad ideas dooms the community to repeat them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Ordinarily I would simply userfy it, but the WP:OWNers refuse to countenance this. Mark as failed would be acceptable too. Keep as is? I think not. And I believe you probably agree. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
"Keep as is"? AKA cement the current version in stone? Absolutely not. Am still reviewing the page itself, but I thing tagging "closed down" is an option, as is blocking the owners. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can see, no one has asserted ownership of the page in question, except possibly JzG himself. What people have done is to ask JzG to follow correct procedures, which he hasn't. No one has told JzG that the page cannot be marked as 'failed'. I expressly told him that it could be. What he has been told is that it is a violation of policy to userfy a proposal or to userfy an essay without an MfD. James500 (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Again, there are no owners. Userfy is not an option when it has been edited by multiple editors. The tag {{Closed down}} is not suitable for a brand new essay. QuackGuru (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I would say there definitely were owners developing that page. Unless you consider removing other's comments and page banning those who disagree to not be ownership. The whole process of putting together "Misplaced Pages Reform" was the most un-Wikipedian process I have seen here. Jbh 22:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
There were uncivil comments being made when it was in userspace. It is no longer in userspace. I removed the comments and created an essay based on the suggestions. Comments do not belong in the essay. QuackGuru (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I direct you to Banned editors and Unconstructive edits on the project page, For information on the talk page. This diff with edit summary of reverted unconstructive edit and my favorite section Insults to Biscuittin. - This is not behavior that we should accept in the production of something that is supposed to be a community essay and the document resulting from such behavior should not be in WP space. Jbh 23:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
That's not the essay page. That was when it was a discussion on a user page. User pages have different rules. You can notice a lot of signatures. That confirms it was not an essay at the time. It was not supposed to be an essay. It was a userspace for proposals. I decided with one major edit to turn it into an essay. Before I turned it into an essay I got permission from Biscuittin to turn it into an essay. QuackGuru (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
(1) As the 'Insults to Biscuittin' section is no longer included in the page, the fact that it once existed is not obviously relevant. (2) QuackGuru is correct about the distinction between user and project space pages. (3) Now it is in the project space, if you don't like what it says, you could just edit it. No one is stopping you. James500 (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Userfy this rambling and somewhat incoherent collection of personal gripes. If no user wishes to host it in their userspace, then Delete. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a young essay and clearly a project in progress. I do not understand the rather over-zealous posting for deletion, and the apparently personal attacks seem to be well out of order according to Wp:Harassment which states "It is as unacceptable to harass a user with a history of inept or disruptive behavior as it is to harass any other user."DrChrissy 23:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Of course the deletionists don't want to recognize that they are vampires sucking the life out of Misplaced Pages as the articele says, and of course they are afraid of a page that critizes them, but don't let them kill the voices of reason.—WinTakeAll💬 00:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 00:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and without any of the conspiracy lunacy from a lot of keep-voters. That said, the page needs to be seriously overhauled, to be more of a discussion forum than an essay. Most of the suggestions in this essay don't have broad agreement in the community at this time, and there is no clear common thread between these disparate ideas, but the value here is that someone might come up with some great idea that we do all agree to. So for now, it should primarily be a talk page for hashing out ideas. This can be addressed by normal editing, with no need to delete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The only point being raised by the nominator towards deletion of the page, is that it is "problematic". The rest of the nomination rationale is all about the authors. That's not a reasoned basis on which to delete anything, unless you want to delete the authors. If the essay is problematic, fix it. If you're reverted, then discuss it on the talk page. If consensus bogs down into behavior issues, follow Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. We don't go from problematic to delete in one step. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Userfy per WP:ESSAY which says Essays may be moved into userspace (or deleted) if they are found to be problematic. According to Misplaced Pages policy, "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace.". I seriously doubt that the authors would allow the community to edit it to no longer contradict widespread consensus. This is so far from Misplaced Pages norms it does not belong in project space. HighInBC 02:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    • It was previously explained that it can't be userfied when there are multiple authors. It is interesting editors continue to claim it is problematic without trying to improve the essay or explain what is the problem. No recent new proposals have been made to improve the essay. QuackGuru (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
      • it can be userfied and still allow multiple editors. You fail to app understand that this goes against community consensus and many editors have voiced disagreement with it. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
      • It says so many disparate things right now that it's impossible to say whether it does go against consensus or not. Some of it does, some of it doesn't. Not a good userfy candidate for that reason. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
      • (1) WP:ESSAY is an essay, so what it says carries less weight than a policy or guideline. (2) Some of the content of the page agrees completely with community consensus. (3) The page is a proposal, not merely an essay. (4) The authors of the present content cannot stop the rest of the community editing this page. (5) The opposition to this page, or at least to certain parts of it, is not very strong. It is already outnumbered at this MfD, and its position is crumbling fast. James500 (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep but Userfy - While some of the content agrees with some community consensus (e.g. Admins need to enforce the "rules" better instead of being pansies - no disrespect to those that do the hard job of policing this anarchic democracy - etc.) does not mean that the Essay should be allowed to stay as a main-space essay without undergoing severe and major rewriting and restructuring to better fit the community consensus for evolving Misplaced Pages. If that can't be done, and there are preliminary indications that it won't work, this essay should be userfied until it meets the proper standards of a serious and legitimate proposal seeking to effect actual change in the Wikipedian environs of Adminship/Cabal-ship, content expertise, new editor retention, etc. This Essay has not met basic standards for a main space proposal, regardless of the label of "essay" or not. Until such time as it can meet basic community standards for the purposes of a Policy RfC, it doesn't belong in the main space.
The essay can, and should, still be edited and worked on while in userspace - nothing in/on Misplaced Pages can stop an editor from editing a userspace article outside of an IBAN or being BLOCKed or BANned from Wiki. I highly support helping to make the spirit of the essay come alive instead of being rejected because an editor decided to make an essay, made it poorly (though kudos for making it in the first place) and had the proposals rejected (yes, even I rejected the essay - in its current form). Until it can meet basic standards, this essay should be kept as a user-essay. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 10:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Drcrazy102, proposals can't be userfied. You agreed it is a proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. The page has been marked as a proposal per talk page consensus that it is one. As such, it cannot be deleted, it can only be marked as failed. Strictly, it became a proposal the moment the RfC started at VPP. We are not going to delete a page that was basically the proposer's rationale in an RfC, because that would be deleting part of the RfC. James500 (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and userfy as a user-essay or user-proposal. If none of the primary authors are willing to have it in their userspace, mark as a failed proposal. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Userfy with oppose to delete The essay as it currently stands is a bit of a mess and unfocused, it's part essay, part proposal, all awkwardly shoved together, and shouldn't be in main space at this point. I would be against deletion and it seems to me that the nomination and at least one delete comment are unnecessarily rude and personal. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Please note. See WP:ESSAYS: These are similar to essays placed in the Misplaced Pages namespace; however, they are often authored/edited by only one person, and may represent a strictly personal viewpoint about Misplaced Pages or its processes (e.g., User:Jehochman/Responding to rudeness). Writings that contradict or subvert policy are somewhat tolerated within the User namespace. The author of a personal essay located in his or her user space has the right to revert any changes made to it by any other user. This page is a multi-authored page and does not meet the definition of a user essay. It cannot be converted into a user essay according to the rules. All the voted to convert it into a user essay should be ignored at this point. QuackGuru (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • They are never userfied. James500 (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Is this a proposal? It seems like a desultory list of gripes, most of which are already addressed at least by policy. Where is the actionable content? The problems alluded to (but neither linked nor explicitly described) on this page should be taken to dispute resolution, which might be a better use of these writers' energies. Project space proposals that administrators are "bias" and need "reform" are not helpful. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
First I tried to provide balance to the "keep everything" POV by calling out some examples of things that clearly don't belong in Misplaced Pages articles (including editor opinions, using this page as an example of something that is not article material). Since that was wholesale reverted, I decided to edit out the problematic text that I was not allowed to soften. It appears that WP:OWNership us in full force here though. Legacypac (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Accusing others of ownership is disruptive. There is no keep everything POV. QuackGuru (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Except of course, Legacypac, you know perfectly well the essay doesn't argue that we should keep everything. What it says it that we should resist attempts to delete everything. Hardly an outrageous suggestion; indeed, one closely conforming to actual community consensus. While we are at it, I think we should add another section to the essay about the phenomenon of deletionists telling lies in an attempt to win arguments. That is just a suggestion. James500 (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)