Misplaced Pages

User talk:QuackGuru/Reform of - 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.
< User talk:QuackGuru

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Drcrazy102 (talk | contribs) at 09:41, 29 January 2016 (→Proposal: it's a proposal and if anybody is saying it isn't, they're kidding themselves harder than a homeopathic 'docter'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:41, 29 January 2016 by Drcrazy102 (talk | contribs) (→Proposal: it's a proposal and if anybody is saying it isn't, they're kidding themselves harder than a homeopathic 'docter')(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconMisplaced Pages essays
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Misplaced Pages essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Misplaced Pages essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Misplaced Pages essaysTemplate:WikiProject Misplaced Pages essaysWikiProject Misplaced Pages essays
Note icon
The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.
This is a subpage of QuackGuru's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

WMF board members

Quote: "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".

Thanks for your proposal, QuackGuru. I invite other Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages... 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages is not the place to fix that. Those discussions need to happen among the professionals in those fields. Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Biscuittin (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I've changed my mind. I do doubt the 97% figure. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages:Reform of Misplaced Pages#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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, is not crowd sources and no one can edit. Jbh 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages
  • 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 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 Misplaced Pages. If you do not want to reform Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is right now. I do agree that change within Misplaced Pages is doomed . . . the Cabal takes care of its own. --MurderByDeletionism 20:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
We do want to "fundamentally change what Misplaced Pages is and how it works", that's the whole point. Biscuittin (talk) 22:59, 23 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 so people are looking in. Jbh 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages by pushing POV/COI so fewer editors care when others trespass against them - social contract and group dynamics 101.) Jbh 21:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Village pump RfC

See Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RfC on Misplaced Pages:Reform of Misplaced Pages. If you have ideas please share them. QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 26 January 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 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."
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 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)
  • 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 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 "Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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 "Misplaced Pages 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 "Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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, Misplaced Pages: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 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)
There is no cabal. There never was. As a proposal for reform of Misplaced Pages, 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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
Categories: