Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Biscuittin (talk | contribs) at 23:24, 16 January 2016 (→New users: spelling correction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 Biscuittin (talk | contribs) 8 years ago. (Update timer)

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 you have nothing to contribute here so please go away. This is a long-term project so do not expect instant results.

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)

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)

Poor administration

The 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. (Suggested by QuackGuru).

And you would, what, fire over a thousand unpaid volunteers who do this now, who were selected by the community that they help administrate? Don't even bother answering that until you ask the WMF itself if there is any possibility at all that they would do this, because the answer is almost certainly "absolutely not" and there is no way to make them do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

Other

Suggestions welcome.

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)

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/

References

1. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/