User talk:Cirt/Gutting/Possible motivations of nonconstructive Gutting

Created
Created as User essay in my user space as subpage of user space for User:Cirt. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

violation of WP:AGF
There are boatloads of crap articles on WP, created with poor or no sources at all. On coming across one, I commonly first clean it up (which means deleting lots of crap) and then look at it to decide if there is actually an article there, or not. If not, I redirect or nominate for deletion. There is no bad faith involved at all. Your essay makes it seem like this kind of very natural editing activity - which in GF I imagine is very common - is sneaky and intentional. Your essay is an exercise in violating the essential guideline WP:AGF. You should delete it! Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for expressing your opinion. Please keep in mind this essay specifically refers to the act of Gutting an article in the timeframe directly before or during an ongoing deletion discussion. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * and the natural editing sequence i described above would also fit in that time frame, right? Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As stated in the essay, it is possible, but not always the case, but possible and likely, that that sequence would mean a conflict of interest on the part of the individual who wants that article deleted. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * and like i said, throwing out charges of COI like this is a bad violation of AGF. terrible and sloppy. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'd welcome suggestions on how to improve my essay, other than deleting my essay, of course. However, I'm simply describing a generalized situation, and I'm not referring to individual users here. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * i work on a lot of health related content, and i cannot tell you how much complete bullshit this encyclopdia is full of. people, free to edit, start articles or expand them with no good sources and just their passionate POV.  wikiproject medicine works like crazy to get rid of this crap.  your essay and the assumption of bad faith is really destructive - i get accused of COI by new or POV-pushing editors all the time based on nothing.  this essay just fuels that fire. ugly. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way,, please understand I actually agree with the bulk of your statement about the importance of health related content and the value of WikiProject Medicine which I highly, highly respect. Please understand I'm not referring to any individual users or any particular situation here, indeed &mdash; I'm rather instead referring to the potential of future situations. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

yes write it so it actually includes an assumption of good faith! many times what some POV-pusher thinks is "a great article" fails almost all our policies and guidelines and should not exist, and editors should assume good faith and actually listen to what the so-called "gutter" has to say and actually read our policies and guidelines (!) and reflect on them and the content, and consider that they didn't know what they were doing. Reaching for BF and COI is such a common knee-jerk, reaction by new editors and POV pushers who cannot fathom that other people think differently, and that reaction is very destructive as it shuts down real dialogue and runs counter to the very foundation of WP - that we AGF and actually talk to one another. You should NOT fuel that. really! Jytdog (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC) (edited to include the full thought Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC))
 * I'm sorry,, what do you mean by "BF", above? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Bad Faith. Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The essay is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:AGF and a direct personal attack on contributors. Accordingly it has no place on Wikipedia, and I shall be nominating it for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , I made very careful care not to refer to any individual users. If you have suggestions on how to improve my personal user space essay, please let me know, I'd be happy to hear any suggestions short of deletion of this user essay about deletion. Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * maybe slow down andy - cirt may be willing to fix this. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am willing to fix this. I am willing to modify the page. The page was created 30 seconds ago. It is a personal user space essay about deletion and not a few minutes after being created this personal user space essay about deletion is being threatened with deletion &mdash; rather than helpful suggestions on improvement. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * @Jytdog: I can't see how one can 'fix' an essay that is based entirely on premises that run contrary to WP:AGF. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @Cirt: I'm not sure why you are emphasising 'personal user space essay' - you chose to advertise it on multiple pages, to create redirects to it, and to promote it in a way that clearly implies that you expect others to cite it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, suggestions are helpful to improve it. Yes, I want to modify the tone and get suggestions and show I'm listening to suggestions, short of deletion of this essay about deletion. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Problematic essay
I find this essay highly problematic, though I won't elaborate on the "lack of AGF" angle brought forward in the previous thread. It's just extremely one-dimensional and over-simplifying. First, the introductory definition is simply wrong: Gutting is claimed to be "the disruptive removal of sourced content". No, it isn't. In common Wikipedia parlance, "gutting" refers to massive removals made for all sorts of reasons, disruptive and non-disruptive ones, and of all sorts of contents, sourced, non-sourced and whatever else. The essay thus constructs a simplistic dichotomy, involving "sourced content" (whose removal is apparently ipso facto disruptive), and editors who wish to remove such content simply "because they don't like it". That is, of course, far from what the actual controversial cases out there are mostly about (if cases were actually like that, it wouldn't take this essay to identify the practice as obviously disruptive and get the culprits blocked). What actually happens is, of course, that people remove stuff for all sorts of reasons that may or may not be correct: because it's tendentious, because it's unencyclopedic trivia, because it's off-topic, because it's self-promoting, or because it's just plain old illegible. All of these situations are easily compatible with the contents being "sourced", and in each of them the removal may easily be thought as a legitimate editorial action.

Now, there might still be stuff for an interesting essay to be written about how to deal with potential problems if such removals happen in close proximity to an AfD, in what cases it might be strategically advisable to avoid an otherwise legitimate gutting until an AfD is over, and so on. But this essay as it is now ain't it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * By the way, for a taste of what's really going on out there, this wikisearch may be interesting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I added this to near the top of the essay: "NOTE: Gutting as an activity can happen accidentally, by people trying to help." I hope that's a little bit helpful, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I hardly see that as an improvement. When people gut articles, they very rarely do so "accidentally" but they know what they're doing; and it's not just "trying to help" (everybody on Wikipedia, except for the downright vandals, is "trying to help" all the time, even if it isn't helpful at all), but sometimes it really is helpful. If you have a hugely overblown article full of self-promotional marketing fluff or tendentious screeds or off-topic trivia, and you gut it in order to provide AfD commenters with the comparison ("this is the article as I found it, and this is what little would be left once we took all the nonsense out"), then that can actually be quite a reasonable basis for an AfD; I'm sure I've done it myself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) Cirt, I absolutely agree with you that people should not gut an article and then nominate it for deletion (or gut it while it is under discussion). I believe it is only fair to the discussants at the AfD, to let them see and judge the article as it originally was rather than in a truncated version. I have been known to restore deleted material, sometimes over the objections of the person who did the deleting (see here for example). But I also agree with the other commenters here that your essay is too one-sided and too negative. I think in most cases the people feel they are improving the article by removing problematic material, and this essay should acknowledge their good-faith motivations while explaining in a respectful manner why you believe it is better not to do that. --MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes,, I agree with what you said. You're right the tone was a bit too much at first draft in my userspace. Can you suggest specifics on how to improve its tone? And I will gladly modify the essay per your suggestions, please? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would probably say something like this (I did not try to adapt to your existing format, so I'm not sure where or how this kind of language would fit in):"There are times when masses of material SHOULD be deleted - namely, when they violate Wikipedia policies such as BLP or COPYVIO. The problem arises when an editor remove whole sections, or even reduces the article to a stub, based on their personal preference for what should and should not be in the article. In effect this is anticipating the result of the AfD, by deleting large portions of the article before any discussion occurs. And it is unfair to the discussants at the AfD, who should be able to evaluate the article as it was, rather than a truncated version of it."--MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, in general that's a good idea, can you please add it to User:Cirt/Gutting/Possible motivations of constructive Gutting ? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Not sure I put it where you wanted; if not, move it wherever you like. Couldn't find my way back here! Apparently the essay has been split into sections. --MelanieN (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much,, I've just preserved the other part helpfully suggested by , both are good additions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

some helpful language
here is some language i have developed that i use with new users who are combative, with which i try to calm them down and get them to consider that WP is not just any old blog. folding something like this into your essay with some advice about how to react if their content (which they may have really sweated over) is "gutted"...

drafty bit
It turns out that Wikipedia is a pretty complex place. Being an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means that over the years, Wikipedia has developed lots of policies and guidelines (PAG) to help provide a "body of law" as it were, that forms a foundation for rational discussion. Without that foundation, this place would be a wild west - a truly ugly place. But with the foundation, there are ways to rationally work things out - if, and only if, all the parties involved accept that foundation and work within it. One of the hardest things for new people, is to understand not only that this foundation exists, but what its letter and spirit is. (I keep emphasizing the spirit, because too often people fall prey to what we call "wikilawyering")  The more I have learned about how things are set up here - not just the letter of PAG and the various drama boards and administrative tools, but their spirit -  the more impressed I have become at how, well ... beautiful this place can be. It takes time to learn both the spirit and the letter of PAG, and to really get aligned with Wikipedia's mission to crowdsource a reliable, NPOV source of information for the public (as "reliable" and "NPOV" are defined in PAG!). People come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also lead to WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, which is really destructive. WP:ADVOCACY is one of our biggest bedevilments. Anyway, I do hope you slow down and learn. There are lots of people here who are happy to teach, if you open up and listen and ask authentic questions, not rhetorical ones. And really, good luck.

end of drafty bit
you could try something including something like this, to get people to slow down, AGF, and really listen and talk based on PAG. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'll gladly add suggested text to my essay. Did you already write this somewhere else? Where do you think I should add it in to my essay? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I took a shot at addressing this more to people freaking out about their "baby" being "gutted". You can take that or revert it.  You can use the language above however you like. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:Cirt/Gutting/Possible motivations of constructive Gutting, can you please edit further at User:Cirt/Gutting/Possible motivations of constructive Gutting to have that page focus purely on the good faith possible motivations for Gutting ? Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Projectspace shortcuts
Cirt, would you mind removing the projectspace shortcuts you created (WP:Gutting etc.), at least until such a time as this essay might stand more of a chance to reflect some consensus? As I think I just showed aboved, the phrase "gutting an article" is currently used across the project in a much wider sense than in the starkly negative sense you are presenting it here, and such shortcuts lend themselves to unnecessary polemics. Otherwise I'd have to MfD them (or find a way to gut them first? Lemme see...) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I have a better idea that I think you'll like, that incorporates your suggestions,, unfortunately experiencing Internet interruptions and rolling blackouts at the moment, but will try to respond soon. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , hopefully, below, is the start of an acceptable compromise to you. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I was just in the process of trying to find out what policy is on such cross-namespace redirects - it seems misleading to me to be using the 'WP:' prefix for user-space essays. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd like to move it to project space at some point in the future, after further feedback. But if you find the policy,, please let me know? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Moved to sub page, now three different pages
I've moved this page so now there is one index page and two sub pages to discuss the possible different motivations of why some may wish to remove large amounts of content from an article.

I think that each different version has helpful information for users of Wikipedia.

I'm quite thankful to for the helpful edits so far to the version now at User:Cirt/Gutting/Possible motivations of constructive Gutting.


 * 1) User:Cirt/Gutting = now simply an index page. Just simply acknowledges Gutting means removal of large amount of content from an article, for various reasons in different cases.
 * 2) User:Cirt/Gutting/Possible motivations of constructive Gutting = needs more work but it's a start with most helpful changes by.
 * 3) User:Cirt/Gutting/Possible motivations of nonconstructive Gutting = toned down this version of the page a great deal. Emphasized to readers that this is only the possible motivations of a user who may be motivated by bad faith, instead of good faith. Index page and good faith version page provided for further education and reading.

Hopefully this is a satisfactory compromise,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * To my mind, a 'satisfactory compromise' would entail using a less emotive term than 'gutting'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the idea,, but I've seen users use the term Gutting to refer both to something they brag about doing to improve an article and to say they gutted an article and critics of the practice. So it seems to have been used multiple times as an accurate descriptor of the practice. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay,, I've gone through another pass of the page at User:Cirt/Gutting/Possible motivations of nonconstructive Gutting and trimmed out repetition, toned down the wording a bit to be more matter-of-fact, and removed some parts here and there. I think it reads a bit better. Please let me know if you have other specific suggestions for how to improve the page itself. Thank you very much for your participation in this dialogue, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * An 'accurate descriptor' is 'content removal' - and we already have an essay on that. I see no reason why we need another one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Again,, aside from complaining that you don't want this page to exist, do you have any specific suggestions for me on how to improve it? For example, I've tried quite hard to respond to specific suggestions from both and . I hope you can see, , that I've put some time now into trying to respond to multiple suggestions from multiple users? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Cirt, please quit pinging me! If I have something to contribute, I'll contribute. I've already explained that I'm not going to rewrite the essay for you. --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, understood, no worries, and thanks for your help so far, most appreciated. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have just stated that I think your essays are unnecessary, and explained why. That is not a 'complaint'. If you wish for me to change my mind, you will have to convince me that the essays serve some useful purpose, and until you do, my proposal for 'improvement' will remain the same - deletion as unnecessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , there are many other pages and essays on Wikipedia that deal with content removal and deletion. To my knowledge you haven't advocated in the past to merge all of them into the one about content removal. Surely you must have some specific constructive ideas and suggestions to bring to the table on how to further improve this page, other than advocating for deletion of an essay about deletion? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but "the essay is about deletion so you can't delete it" isn't a very convincing argument. What specific purpose do these essays serve that existing ones fail to address? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , existing essays don't describe the pattern of Gutting during ongoing deletion debates. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, they assume good faith instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Great,, how can we improve this page to make it better in that vein, knowing that there are cases that are unfortunately the opposite? How to show users a better path? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not going to write your essay for you - if you think it is appropriate, you will need to write it yourself, and convince people that it merits retention. I think I have made my opinions clear enough, and this is getting repetitious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's fair, you don't have to write my essay for me., one more question: Are you of the belief that bad faith gutting never goes on, ever, in the middle of deletion discussions, anywhere on Wikipedia? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, lots of things are done in bad faith on Wikipedia. We have policies in place to deal with them. When something is done in violation of policy, we deal with it appropriately. I can see nothing in your essays that assists this process in any way. And please consider this my final reply - at least until the essays are substantially revised, in which case I may comment further if I think it is merited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Got it,, so you acknowledge some things are done in bad faith, but you feel we should be forbidden from writing essays describing them as such. That's weird, but now we understand your position, thank you. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't really see the benefit in splitting the thing up into two pages. That still implies an over-simplistic dichotomy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay,, but I felt this was the best way to help please everyone, which is difficult to do. It seems a few people are indeed happy now with the separate pages, but some are not. It's like a clergy member can only please fifty-one-percent (51%) of his congregation at any one time, I suppose. if you have specific suggestions on how to improve this page, like  and MelanieN have helpfully been doing, that'd be most appreciated. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Examples of essays on similar subject
Some interesting pages on similar subject matter. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Page blanking
 * User:Samuel Blanning/Blanking


 * And of course Content removal which details the many legitimate reasons for removing content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes,, agreed, you should note I also added that one to the See also sect. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

comments
those are some additional suggestions. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) the essay is kind of repetitive; i think sections could be combined
 * 2) it would be helpful to include signs of bad faith gutting, if they can be identified (never having seen this, I have no idea what they might be) But I have the WP:TENDENTIOUS essay in mind, which has a nice list of signs for that problem.  If you cannot identify signs, you might reconsider posting this essay at all, as it might just provide fuel to authoring editors whose work has been gutted, and leave them with no guidance about what to do, which leads me to...
 * 3)  likewise, it would be useful to provide guidance on what to do if you are confronted with a gutting editor whose behavior matches the signs provided.  this is really important, because this essay should help people get through a gutting without losing their heads, and appropriately using noticeboards and other dispute resolution mechanisms.  I added a bit to this essay parallel to what I did in the other, that all editors have a responsibilty to remain civil and use the mechanisms WP provides to manage problems.  nobody has an excuse to be a dick, ever...
 * 4) finally, including "signs" of bad faith gutting might be helpful when dealing with bad faith gutters - they can be pointed to those signs with a suggestion to ask themselves if see themselves in those signs.
 * Very helpful, thank you, I'll try to go through these one-by-one. Some of your suggestions above may involve adding material and adding sections. I guess after that, we can discuss what is repetitive and to remove, I'd be more than willing to remove repetitive stuff, in fact, I've already started to do so. Will update back here when I feel I've tried to address these helpful specific recommendations by . &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: Per suggestion above from, added new sect, diff, on "Possible signs of bad faith Gutting", with some wording drawn from WP:Tendentious, which was quite helpful. I've already tried to cut out repetition but it's a good idea and I'll try to remove some more duplicate info later. Also will get to advice about what to do if confronted by a Gutting editor whose behavior matches the signs noted above. Will update back here when that's added in. Again, probably will need to trim some duplicate info again after adding some of the suggested info as per above, but will get to that later. Thanks again, these are most helpful suggestions, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: Per suggestion above from, added another new sect, What do do if you feel you've been confronted with Gutting that matches signs above?, at diff. I think the next step is to work together with to cut down on repetition, while preserving the main educational content of the page including the new suggested sections. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Moved to "Possible motivations of nonconstructive Gutting"
Moved page to "Possible motivations of nonconstructive Gutting".

Removed all references to "good faith" or "bad faith".

Changed to "constructive" or "nonconstructive".

Hopefully, this takes away a bit of the assumptions of "bad faith" concerns, and improves the pages.

Thank you. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)