User:TheGREYHORSE

TheGREYHORSE is a new editor making his first edit on November 20, 2022 for the article, Millett Field (Chehalis, Washington).

Who be me
Per WP:FAMILY, in advance I'll address for the sake of the rules that my spouse (as of May 2023) is thinking about rejoining Wikipedia after having been absent for some time. Since she is still unsure, I'll not be listing her Username right now but will do so when I have her permission which will be based on whether she feels safe and comfortable. I will avoid editing or engaging in any articles she created, previously edited, or shows an interest in.

Forty-year old Olympia, Washington resident since birth. Edit count of over 900 via anonymity for a few years in the early, early days but never created an account. Interested in Washington state articles, with a heartfelt affinity for western WA, primarily locations and parks along the coast, south Puget Sound, and the I-5 corridor. Other interests that I hope to help edit on a more broad basis are in sports, infrastructure, and certain hobbies and interests that are of personal importance. That's all I care to share, for now.

What can I work on to be a better editor?

 * Ask for help | using the talk pages and overall forums to learn a better sense of what's needed/missing
 * Places of local interest | improve article representation for smaller cities, towns, and communities by following the need for reliable sources
 * Proper dates | paying attention to the article date format via use dmy dates or use mdy dates tags
 * Spelling and Proofreading | seriously, iIstory -
 * Wall-of-text | keep it succinct

My conclusions as an editor and long-time reader to fight for a better Wikipedia
In my early days, and as a vast and avid reader since, I have come to a conclusion that there are a number of loopholes in the editing process here at Wikipedia. Despite the numerous Wikipedia policies written in the past two decades, there's vast vagaries and voluminous contradictions in such that easily convey cover for ownership/gatekeeper abuse, unfortunately seen in what we would often, and justifiably, determine to be considered the best editors of Wikipedia - high-edit count, long-term volunteers or expert editors on the article matter at hand.

This is not to say that it is rampant or to be a blanket statement but I have seen it enough to come to a conclusion that Wikipedia is becoming more exclusive, leading to less collaboration and more staid articles.

As such, active Wikipedia editing is stagnant and any growth that could be found in raw numbers are insignificant especially in terms of population growth and reader activity. It would be fair to make an assumption based on the evidence that Wikipedia is having a hard time recruiting or keeping "newbies" due to editor abuse. Thus the dominating control is shrinking faster by the year to a handful of powerful, and often unanswerable, long-term editors.

Areas of concern for editor abuse
Here are my thoughts on specific policy examples used for abuse, and thus the processes and outlooks I will use to help Wikipedia, at least in the articles I will participate in, to counter such negativity and help Wikipedia become more inclusive and varied.

Wikipedia Policy: Bold, Revert, Delete
The Bold, Revert, Delete process is critical but easy for editor abuse. A reverting editor, knowledgeable about the loopholes in BRD, can substantially change new edits without accountability as they know that they gain automatic and autocratic dominating "consensus" without proving or needing evidence that consensus actually exists.

By invoking BRD, an abusive editor can shirk collaboration and refuse to inform other editors what needs to be done to improve articles and substance.

Wikipedia Policy : Assume/Acting in Good Faith
A valid and utopic rule, WP:AGF can ultimately and easily be subverted similar to BRD. Your acts of good faith are superseded by someone else and at any time. It can be, and often is, as simple as that - their opinions, their wants, the way they wish Wikipedia to be dominates what's allowed.

By invoking AGF, an abusive editor can shirk collaboration and refuse to inform other editors what needs to be done to improve articles and substance.

Wikipedia Policy : Notability
To be considered notable or valuable, small cities and towns must use only non-local and/or national media sources as a requirement for an article, or an expansion within an article, otherwise it is not acceptable nor permissible at Wikipedia.

Reality -


 * News deserts | The Seattle Times | November, 2022 | New study documents Washington’s local news and democracy crisis
 * News deserts | The Seattle Times | December, 2022 | News deserts spread across Washington
 * Newspapers disappearing | The Washington Post | Newspapers are disappearing where democracy need them the most
 * Small town news reporting ignored | The Seattle Times via WaPost | A tiny paper broke the George Santos scandal, but no one paid attention

Preamble
First and foremost, during an overturned/revised edit of mine, I admit I may have missed something, did some work incorrectly, went against a WP or guidelines, or was out of my lane. Discussions initiated by me on a talk page over one of my own edits may more often be a request to become better, not anything defensive in nature.

Collaboration process
1. I will state my case on the article Talk Page - being factual, straightforward, passionate but without malice, encouraging other editors to voice their views, promoting compromise, and willing to learn and listen to other points of view.

I will request, if needed, the editor to explain their edit summary or to provide WP's and guidelines to back up their reversion or revisions.

2. The editor who reverted, deleted, or redacted the edit in question shall be given notice that a new Talk Page discussion is open

3. The editor will have 7 days to respond - on that article Talk Page not on a User Page.

If the editor refuses to engage in discussion and collaboration within that 7 day period, it would be fair to determine that their reversions or rewrites are not in Acting in Good Faith, are not using the BRD cycle correctly, may not be not adhering to the Five Pillars, and most importantly, are failing to abide by the necessary requirements of collaboration. Edits in question, due to lack of feedback, will be fully restored.

4. The conversation that takes place must be similar in context to my own - being factual, straightforward, passionate but without malice, encouraging other editors to voice their views, promoting compromise, and willing to learn and listen to other points of view - while responding to any requests for explanations for WP's and guidelines, or any summary information originally provided.

If not, then it would be fair to determine the editor is not acting in consensus, is not properly following WP's and guidelines, and the edits in question will be reinstated/reposted/reworked in an appropriate manner.

Any obvious attempts to abuse loopholes, will be determined as a failure of true collaboration, possibly a concern/issue with gatekeeper/ownership, and the edits reinstated/reposted/reworked in an appropriate manner.

5. Once true conversation is completed via the Talk Page, I will abide by the consensus reached via said collaboration. The idea of "true conversation" shall have no time limit nor requirements, as per life experience has taught, it requires none.

However, attempts of slow-walking or postponing collaboration will not be appreciated and as such, a mediator will be asked for to help facilitate a finality for an outcome. I will trust in the judgement of said mediator.

6. Any attempts to re-revert by the same editor who refused to engage in collaboration, will possibly lead to an open discussion at the resolution desk will filed with possible charges of ownership, edit warring, editor abuse, and failure to abide by and adhere to the basic core tenets of Wikipedia.

Calling out editor abuse
Bullying behavior comes in many forms. Despite our best intentions at Wikipedia, we are all still subject to the basic human needs of selfishness and power. Whatever the reason for such, it has no place here. Inclusivity demands it.

We must stand up here on Wikipedia if we want true collaborative inclusivity. Call out editor abuse. It will work.