Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  userification. This hasn't run the full time period I believe but the discussion is extensive and seems clear. The keep and userify voters have a better policy rationale in that proposals, even those that are expressly rejected, are not deleted but instead are marked as such. Nevertheless, even among a significant amount of the keep voters and among numerous of the deletion voters, the proposal to keep the page in its current place was somewhat rejected. The primary authors of this essay have expressed a concern that they be given more leeway and control over its contents and as such, I will be moving it to User:QuackGuru/Reform of Wikipedia. I will remind everyone that, being an userspace essay, there is less leeway given for what is considered disruptive editing on QuackGuru's work. If people disagree with the content, they can nicely and calmly make a suggestion but if it is rejected they have to move on or fork that content into their own userspace for their own essay with the proper attribution. Given the nature of the discussion, there may be numerous competing views on what "reform" is which is fair. - Ricky81682 (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Reform of Wikipedia


A thoroughly problematic essay which the WP:OWNers are determined must be in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia movement.  J bh  Talk  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 Wikipedia. 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. Wikipedia 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 proposal 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 a proposal in the proposal 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)
 * Per the request to comment on userfication. Since this page exists to oppose a range of Wikipedia policies and attempts to tie it into 5 pillars are reverted, I'm left with opposing userfication. There is considerable confusion perpetrated by the supporters over this being an essay or a proposal - they need to rethink and start over by writing one or the other. Legacypac (talk) 05:23, 3 February 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 Wikipedia. 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"bang!" 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 "Wikipedia 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)
 * No, it isn't. This MfD is toxic, and I would sooner delete this MfD. James500 (talk) 21:54, 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)
 * If other apparent authors consider the essay to be opinion primarily of one author, it should be userfied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The page is the work of a large number of editors. What QuackGuru did was to abridge a discussion thread contributed to by many editors, and many editors have edited the page since. I say this as someone who could be regarded as an "apparent author" since my sole comment in the thread was one of the many comments by many editors abridged. James500 (talk) 15:04, 31 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 "Wikipedia Reform" was the most un-Wikipedian process I have seen here. J bh  Talk  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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reform_of_Wikipedia&oldid=701638905#Banned_editors Banned editors] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reform_of_Wikipedia&oldid=701638905#Unconstructive_edits Unconstructive edits] on the project page, [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reform_of_Wikipedia#For_information For information] on the talk page. This diff with edit summary of reverted unconstructive edit and my favorite section [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reform_of_Wikipedia&oldid=700492745#Insults_to_Biscuittin 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. J bh  Talk  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)
 * To the extent that this page is or was a proposal, and there was a bit of that in the history, it should now be, or is doomed to be, tagged failed. The page clearly does not represent community consensus.
 * The page represents the views of multiple authors, it is supported by multiple authors, it therefore should not be userfied, which implies it is a single authors opinion.
 * If the page is considered offensive and intolerable, it should be tagged Closed down. The page is not too new to be so tagged.  However, in my opinion, the page is not irretrievably intolerable (next point).
 * The page does in fact contain minority opinions that happen to be strongly disputed by others. The solution to this problem is an application of honesty.  Where an opinion is a disputed opinion, openly acknowledge the fact, and link to any opposing opinions in other essays.  The best quality essays are NPOV.  It is possible, and desirable, to present any POV from an NPOV point of view.  A newcomer should not be able to read the essay and mistake it for a consensus statement about Wikipedia.  Where opinions are disputed, acknowledge it in the text.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not working many topics. Consensus has resulted in original research and other problems. The page shows ways to fix this blog website and convert it into an encyclopedia. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. You should learn to write in way that does not assert your opinion as indisputable fact.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * According to the RfC on this essay two editors confirmed there is original research in the lede of chiropractic. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR does not have bright line edges. There are examples of OR all though the encyclopedia, depending on interpretation of complexity of synthesis or level or interpretation of a primary source.  A little bit or OR in the lede of some article does not prove your opinions to be indisputable fact.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 2 February 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 (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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&#x1F4AC; 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 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia norms it does not belong in project space. HighInBC 02:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also the use of the name Reform of Wikipedia coupled with project space gives the impression that it represents the state of reform on Wikipedia, when in fact it about the furthest thing from it. The essay is borrowing credibility from the project, and for that reason as well should be in the user space of someone willing to accept it. HighInBC 20:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If userfication does not gain consensus then I also support Deletion. HighInBC 17:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Surely that problem could be easily resolved by giving the essay a different name such as Suggestions on Reforming Wikipedia. DrChrissy (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually it would still be borrowing credibility from the project. Putting Wikipedia: before that rant gives the impression that it has anything to do with Wikipedia. Better to put the name of someone who actually supports it in front, because the project does not. HighInBC 17:26, 2 February 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * "Keep" and "userfy" are mutually exclusive alternatives. James500 (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, they're not. This can be moved to userspace without deleting it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:33, 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 Wikipedia namespace; however, they are often authored/edited by only one person, and may represent a strictly personal viewpoint about Wikipedia 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)
 * "however, they are often authored/edited by only one person". It can be Userfication. User essays commonly have more than one author. Perhaps "often" should be changed to "sometimes". — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 16:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Userfy per above. More similar to a proposal than an essay in some aspects. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 16:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note. Since when are draft proposals or formal proposals userfied? It can be market as failed if it is rejected. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:57, 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 Wikipedia 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 proposal 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 something 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)
 * Please discuss this on the talk page and not here. This discussion doesn't belong here. Mrfrobinson (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You want me to comment on a talk page you wish to delete, in the hope that you can delete my comments? James500 (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved editors should know what is going on at the page before they vote. That's why it is here. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Accusing others of ownership is disruptive. Are you serious? What is the point of establishing a Wikipedia policy if it's disruptive to "accuse" someone of violating it? You and one or two others here have repeatedly demonstrated your inability to think rationally about these issues. Your credibility is completely shot except in each other's eyes, and I'd suggest you stop digging. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete or Userfy. This was originally a userspace page to hash out new ideas, and it's fine if the user wishes to do that in userspace. In my opinion this page never coalesced into a coherent useful essay. We are fairly accepting of essays in Wikipedia Namespace, but that acceptance is premised upon an expectation that the community considers them to be sufficiently useful to keep as community-property. Alsee (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of the content was very useful. In fact, some of it was excellent, such as the passage that originally said, when I first wrote it: "Deletionism (in the sense of attempts to remove suitable information or topics for bad reasons, including wikilawyering ones, and including phenomena such as 'oversimplification') is by far and away Wikipedia's worst problem. Deletionism, so defined, is a vampire sucking the life out of Wikipedia. Aside from the actual damage caused to our content, deletionism is also the main cause of most of our other problems, including the editor retention problem. What we need to do is to reform our deletion criteria and process. We could, for example, make GNG less subjective, so that it can't be taken as an excuse to make arguments of the "no matter how much coverage there is, I won't accept that it is 'significant'" variety." What is wrong with content like that? That content is utterly brilliant. In fact, that content is one of the best pieces of writing ever to appear anywhere on Wikipedia. In fact, I think I can say, without exaggeration, and without any lack of modesty, that content is one of the most useful pieces of writing in the entire history of the world. That content is so good that we should put it on the main page in large block capital letters. In fact, that content is so useful that it should be placed on gigantic billboards everywhere in the world, so that no one on Earth will fail to see it. James500 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep in the hope that problematic editors will edit-war here and will be be distracted from editing the encyclopedia. Thincat (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy if this is a policy proposal, it's a very silly one with literally no chance of passing in anything resembling its current form, a wide-ranging rant with everything from muttering about secret cabals to proposing "a separate and new non-profit organization" which would pay people to edit Wikipedia (no, seriously, it really says that). If it must stay in WP space, vote on it so we can mark it as failed already. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy per HighinBC, Alsee, et al. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Noting that essays are not required to be "correct" and where an essay is edited by a significant number of editors (more than a dozen different editors making substantive edits in under two weeks), userfying is silly. In fact, some who wish to delete the essay have actively and substantially edited it. Does the essay violate any policies? Not that I can find.  Does it contain violations of copyright or other specific and proper grounds for deletion?  Not that I can see.  Do I agree with it?  No.  But disagreement with an essay is a horrid reason for deletion, indeed.  Absent any policy-based arguments for deletion, the default is to permit it to be kept and, hopefully, dramatically improved.  "Userfy" is really only useful for something which is primarily the work of a single user, and is, frankly, an absurd result here.  Too many editors have made substantial edits to this to find "userfy" to be a valid result at all.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Reading through this "essay" I find that it more closely resembles a club with a specific mission that is seeking members to implement that mission...
 * - "This essay seeks proposals…"
 * - "We want to change the culture of Wikipedia…"
 * - "This is a long-term project…"
 * - " If you are interested in joining…The Union…"
 * …etc. Maybe it would be better suited as a WikiProject? - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a thread on the talk page discussing that possibility. There have been similar projects such as "RfA Reform 2012", so "WikiProject (Wikipedia) Reform" wouldn't be unprecedented. James500 (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Attacking the authors' motives while not giving any clear reasons why the page itself should be deleted is insufficient. I don't see anything particularly outrageous with the content, and it has quite a few editors working on it. WP:NODEADLINE, let it take its course and see what comes of it. —Torchiest talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 15:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually some truly outrageous extreme pro-deletionism content has been added to the page recently. That problem, however, can fixed by editing, and isn't grounds for deletion. James500 (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - I created the page in my userspace. QuackGuru (with my consent) moved it to article space. I am not claiming ownership of it and I don't think anybody else is either. The restriction on editing only applied while it was in my userspace. Biscuittin (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * kill per nom William M. Connolley (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Obviously keep! Reform of the project is much needed for a new era. The bullying section particularly highlights the fact that Wikipedia needs a formal anti-bullying policy. And any talk of ownership is a misguided tactic to discredit the good faith underlying intentions.Charlotte135 (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Many Keep arguments seem to ignore the Userfy possibility, and should more properly be shown as "Keep or Userfy". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't try to put words into other people's mouths. If people say "keep", they mean that they do not want it userfied. Most of the editors here realise that proposals cannot be userfied. This MfD is clearly going to fail. In truth, I think the best course of action would be for this nomination to be withdrawn or closed early, as the outcome is obviously going to be that the page will be kept. James500 (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Keep" could mean what you say, or it could mean they simply failed to consider the Userfy option. Many of their comments do not make that clear at all. In any case, if I sinned as you say, who appointed you the local judge of what is in other people's minds? You chastise me for "putting words into other people's mouths" and then do precisely that in the next sentence. Bloody, head-shakingly amazing. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The idea that "keep" really means "keep or userfy" is wishful thinking. The closing admin will have to take those !votes at face value. There is simply no evidence for what you suggest. The wording of those !votes is not ambiguous. James500 (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The closing admin will do what they feel is appropriate. I gave an opinion, you gave an opposing opinion, and I suspect both will be considered fairly. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I haven't even read the essay in full yet, and don't need to to see that this MfD is a nasty abuse of process. —  Scott  •  talk  14:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you read the pump discussion where the proposal failed? That's why it should be deleted or userfied. p  b  p  05:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete or userfy- it seems to be in vogue now to write a lot of silly erroneous inclusionist propaganda and whack a "proposal" tag on it to try and immunise it from deletion or userfication. It's not a genuine proposal and this gamesmanship needs to be discouraged. As a proposal, none of its recommendations have the remotest possibility of being enacted because they are manifestly ridiculous. The relentless ownership of this wretched rant is also a problem- nobody but one or two of the essay's authors is permitted to edit the thing or suggest reforms of their own. This self-serving drivel should be deleted outright, or shovelled back into user space where its owners can be as wrong as they like as loudly as they like. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  13:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to be in vogue now to write a lot of extremely rude silly erroneous deletionist propaganda and call it an MfD !vote to try to immunise it from being deleted from the MfD page. Such comments are not genuine MfD !votes and that kind of gamesmanship needs to be discouraged. As !votes, none of their recommendations for deletion have the remotest possibility of being implemented because they are manifestly ridiculous. The relentless wretched ownership of pages that deletionists want to wreck is also a problem - nobody but a small number of deletionists are permitted to edit the things or suggest improvements of their own. The sort of self serving deletionist drivel that one sees at MfD should be deleted from MfD pages outright or shovelled back into user space where its authors can be as wrong as they like as loudly as they like. James500 (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Parroting and mockery. Nice. I would assert that's the last refuge of the scoundrel who's been found out, but in my experience it's almost always the first. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  16:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Saying that some form of criticism is in one's experience the first resort of a scoundrel who has been found out, without trying to actually answer the substance of said criticism, is, in my opinion, the reaction of a scoundrel who has been found out. It would not occur to someone to say that unless they were one themselves. I am also astonished that you fail to realise that complaining about "parroting and mockery" implies that your original !vote was mockery. James500 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You copied and pasted my delete vote and changed a handful of words. This is not "criticism", it's you being an annoying dick. You then criticise me for failing to "answer the substance" of criticism that we both know had no actual substance. The rest of your post is so batshit insane that I don't even know where to begin; it's like rationally debunking Time Cube. Suffice it to say that recognizing a scoundrel does not make me one, any more than knowing what an elephant is makes me an elephant. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  22:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your original obnoxious and hysterical 'vote' was an attempt to be an annoying jerk, like the rest of your comments here. It is again incredibly ironic that you don't seem to grasp that complaining of a lack of substance implies that your own 'vote' had no substance either. And of course your 'vote' didn't have any substance, your comments here being, from start to finish, nothing but a stream of snark, consisting of invective without argument, reason, ideas or thought. If your comments were not histrionic disingenuous nonsense it would not be possible for anyone to parody them. James500 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You just copied and pasted my vote, changed a handful of words, then called it "criticism" and "parody". It was neither. Parodies require intelligence and wit, and criticism requires- at minimum- an understanding of the issues involved. Going Ctrl-C Ctrl-V shows a complete lack of any of these things. Most of your copy-paste job didn't even make any sense after you butchered it. When, for instance, are votes ever deleted from an MfD page? That's just dumb. You're so anxious to score points that you don't even think about what you're writing. I'd be careful if I were you- your unique mannerisms and peculiar opinions are *very* easy to parody if someone had a mind to, and by your logic that would make your views "histrionic disingenuous nonsense". It's actually the content that does that. (now I wait for James to pick the adjectives out of my post and spray them around randomly like an epileptic with a garden hose) Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  00:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to have an inexhaustible fund of plausible sounding bull. I don't understand how anyone can come out with so much rot so quickly. The stuff seems to be churned out almost by machinery. The question "when are votes deleted from an MfD page?" is, for one example, a classic example of the 'red herring' tactic. You know perfectly well that I said your comment was not a vote. I could go on in this vein, carefully analysing the rest of your rubbish, but it is obvious to me that you will just respond with more, accompanied by a huge amount of snark that is in fact the raison d'etre and ulterior purpose of all your comments, and that is what you want. And the answer to your question is that your posts can deleted because they are trolling and because, if everything else fails, we have WP:IAR to get rid of this kind of nonsense. At least in theory. And many of your comments can't be rationally answered because they are meaningless blather that is basically just 'filler' into which you spray your snark randomly like an epileptic with a garden hose. James500 (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Userfy - I resisted jumping into this one, but I'm seeing merit in the claims of WP:OWNership by those who want to use it in part to advance personal opinions about the state of Wikipedia, stated as fact in order to create the premise for reform. This MfD (and the VP thread) look to have attracted attention from other editors who clean up parts of it, and yet the same users look to persist in introducing their own opinions, even sometimes writing in the first person. E.g. added just a few hours ago "The word consensus is widely used on Wikipedia but I see little evidence of it. Disputes are not settled by consensus but by shouting and bullying and the winner is the person or group who shouts loudest." That's fine for a user essay, fine for an argument in favor of a particular proposal, probably even fine for the project space if framed differently, but that's not the case here. At least for now, it shouldn't be in the Wikipedia namespace. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 13:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename - The essay should be called 'List of reform proposals'. This way it would record editors suggestions for improvement without implying it is some sort of Wikipedia Reform Roadmap..Jonpatterns (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Userfy or Delete. A consensus-free page lacking anything approaching a new and actionable proposal does not belong in Project space. If this is ever to amount to anything, it can be developed in user space. I expect one of this page's advocates will accept userfication if this discussion ends in Delete. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, some of the content on the page does reflect consensus, and some of the content is actionable. James500 (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep but move  to User spac  Essentially all of it are serious proposals that have been considered. Soe probably even have consensus. Some probably never will (for example, recognition of expert editors). But there is no reason they can not be discussed, However, the attempt to restrict what ought to be a page open to  general proposals to a fixed set of ideas is not suitable for WP space. Either it needs to stop being owned or be moved. I think moving might be more practical.  DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and userfy if needed as mentioned, this seems keepable and I see no serious needs for deletion. SwisterTwister   talk  19:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy. This reads as mostly a pile of random and contradictory musings by one or two editors about how they'd like to completely replace Wikipedia with something else, not a coherent essay. --Aquillion (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Userfy without prejudice to deletion or keeping. Right now this is someone's idea, not something that is shared by the whole community. epicgenius ( talk ) 21:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy. Ridiculous ownership of what is nothing more than a personal list of gripes. The constant flip flopping on it being a proposal or being an essay to suit the needs of the writers' arguments is particularly egregious. Capeo (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Userfy current content, without objection to different content in the future: This was a proposal. The proposal failed, nearly unanimously.  If people want to discuss reforms, that's fine, but there's no need to keep any of the current content.  p  b  p  05:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy essays shouldn't be in the Wikipedia namespace unless they are considered to have value for the project as a whole. From Policies and guidelines (which is itself a policy), Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace. This essay is an incoherent mess of ideas, presented under the vague banner of "reform". Most of them do contradict widespread consensus or have absolutely no chance of passing, and an RfC on the main points found very little support.  Hut 8.5  07:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Userfy to User:Biscuittin/Reform of Wikipedia. Suggestions have ranged from "close as bad faith" to "kill with fire", but from reading the comments, it seems that the most suitable compromise that will leave the most people satisfied, if not directly happy, is to userfy the essay. Since Biscuittin created it, and it originated from there, that would seem to be the most suitable target. I'd remind everyone that pages and pages of replies can make your argument weaker, not stronger, as less people listen to you, admins can block for disrupting conversations, and that some of the suggestions in the essay are available in other existing projects, including WikiProject Editor Retention and Today's Article for Improvement. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Biscuittin has requested that the essay, if userfied, should be moved to QuackGuru's namespace. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Userfy (or delete). Poorly written essay, posing under a neutral-sounding title that makes it appear as if it were a general overview of reform possibilities representative of community views, but in reality just a single group of editors' entirely personal and highly polemic position statement, without a chance of gathering consensus behind it. That's the classic example of an essay that should never be in project space. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments presented by . The article is a result of collaborative work and thus does not belong to any single editor's userspace. Not a single valid policy-based argument for deletion has been presented to-date, either. So whether we agree with the article or not, it has to remain, for good or for bad. That's the rules, folks. — kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  13:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Userfy. The authors are complaining that this proposal is being edited by other editors. Well, it's in the Wikipedia space and is thus open to everyone. If that's not quite your thing, then the best way to preserve the content and continue to improve upon it would be to userfy it. They get their proposal, and can spend an unlimited amount of time improving it, and the rest of us can work on something else. The fact that this has caused so many problems, just on this page alone, suggests that it meets the "Problematic" bar. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment — This page was never intended to be an essay and does not deserve the protection given to minority views expressed in essays. Here is the version from Jan. 22, less than two weeks ago: Reform of Wikipedia. This page is for the development of policies for the reform of Wikipedia. If you think that Wikipedia does not need reform then there is no need to tell us. We have already been told many times. This is a long-term project so please do not expect instant results. When some policies have been formed here, they will be published at Wikipedia:Village pump for wider discussion. — Some very extremist views on the matter of civility were subsequently inserted. I'm not sure if the answer is deletion of this "project" until an RFC is run to launch it or not, but that seems like the logical path forward. As it sits, it is a potential major disruption, as may be seen by the length and venom of this deletion discussion. Carrite (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This page was originally formed because of a Village Pump thread which was eventually moved to userspace at the request of many people. A RFC then popped up which had a consensus on these policies but was closed by the individual who opened it because they were not getting the response they wanted. This horse has been beaten to death multiple times now. Mrfrobinson (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Mark me down as delete unless there is an RFC authorizing creation of this "Project." If Buiscuitin or anyone wants to write an essay, they should start one in their own space and give it an explanatory title before moving it to mainspace. Alternatively, take the politics off-site to Wikipediocracy or elsewhere, or start a new Facebook group. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep If only to mark the failure of one one of the most ad hominem deletion arguments ever made. Didn't see on objective rationale for deletion. Fearing the thoughts of othre people is not rationll — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs) 17:26, 2 February 2016‎
 * Which specific argument do you find "one one of the most ad hominem deletion arguments ever made"? There have been rather a lot of arguments made here, many with basis in fact and policy. <b style="color:OrangeRed">HighInBC</b> 17:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The one at the very top by the nominator. 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 Wikipedia. That is nothing but ad hominem argument with no policy arguments at all.  He might have just said "I don't like who wrote it so it should be in his own sandbox."  --DHeyward (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. However arguing a point poorly does not invalidate its goal. Since the nomination there have been plenty of good arguments presented. <b style="color:OrangeRed">HighInBC</b> 00:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep From what I've seen, this page has several editors contributing to it, so it doesn't meet the criteria or definition of a user essay per WP:ESSAY. The nominator's reasoning also seems to be primarily based on I just don't like it.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  18:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Userfy clear that the community cant agree on the content. Ownership is very evident in this case. -- Moxy (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep --- keep, keep, keep -- i like the essay and even if i didn't that's no reason to delete it, and it seems that's the reason some others want to delete it. There are essays that i believe are horrible and totally wrong. This one at least i think is pretty right on target about some things. SageRad (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The most likely outcome is not deletion but userfication. How do you feel about it being kept in userspace? <b style="color:OrangeRed">HighInBC</b> 00:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How i feel is that as long as essay like Civil POV pushing remain essays, then this one should remain as well. Thank you for the question, HighInBC. SageRad (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well it sounds like you want it kept so I assume your prefer userfication over deletion. <b style="color:OrangeRed">HighInBC</b> 16:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that there is some support for the ideas behind the Civil POV-pushing essay, considering even ArbCom was going to have a go at dealing with the area; but didn't. This "essay-proposal" has next to no support for it as evidenced by the VP(Policy) RfCs concerning at least 2 or 3 sections of the essay and the main 2 or 3, not the puddly little "civil lack teeth to block users I don't like" sections. So considering the large difference in support, still wish to stay as "Keep"? Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 12:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not call it "next to no support" judging by this MfD poll, and by what i see around Wikipedia in meta-level conversations. I think that support or dislike of this essay is mainly correlated to an editor's disposition on a kind of spectrum of political outlook of sorts that i can't quite yet manage to define. I think this is an important conversation, though. The header does say Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. and WP:ESSAY develops this. I think it fits as an essay. SageRad (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that the RfCs I mentioned earlier (found here and closed within days of the RfC opening due to extreme snowfalls) would say that these are extremely small minority viewpoints that are held in the essays. Also, the editing to the essay has experienced various problems and should be userfied until the original authors/owners/creators can allow in other users without waging a edit-war and actually create a proposal that proposes ... something! At the moment the closest thing to a proposal the "proposal" (I claim "essay") has is "Introduce 'expert authorities' to patrol content" which was denied by community consensus based on the ethos of Wikipedia and the various legal problems with such a model as presented. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, with an option for another version in Biscuittin's userspace The right to edit without permission is a fundamental principle.  The competition between these two versions, one controlled by the community at large, and one with a more local viewpoint, I suspect, would strengthen the chances of Wikipedia reform.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note, that means Biscuittin and QuackGuru would need to agree to stop the revert war and ownership behaviour here. If you can't convince them to stop reverting outside contributors, then better just to delete this and let them admit that it's their own essay. -- Callinus (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, so this page could be a somewhat high-level discussion, with more-detailed discussion on those two user pages. Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and Userfy to one of the userpages of any of the top editors - if editors are reverting additions that aren't by their friends, then it should be on one of their userspaces (as argued above). -- Callinus (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per pretty much everyone who's !voted "keep". -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  05:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC); Moved !vote by  into correct section while gently trouting them. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Userfy (or delete if no one wants it). This essay was written from the viewpoint that Quackguru (at first Biscuittin) is so right about everything, it must be the complete failure of all of Wikipedia when he doesn't get his way. For example, Quackguru gets accused of OWNing the essay, so Wikipedia should reform in such a way that the accusers get one month blocks. Moving this to project space has caused nothing but problems. Quackguru clearly doesn't want anyone of a differing opinion to edit the page and the fact that he's lost the ability to ban people from it is causing him distress. I'm fine with this being in the userspace, but being in project space unduly legitimizes it as something more than delusion.--Atlan (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy Inappropriate essay for Wikipedia space. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy. Not fit for WP space. Alexbrn (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Collaborative, not a good candidate for userification. "thoroughly problematic"? What's the problem? It is not hurting anyone or anything. Let them talk. We are volunteers, when someone is doing something our first instinct should be to get out of their way. Who knows what will come of it? Minimally some of our colleagues might learn something, or learn something about each other. Our project could use a dozen more pages like this. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If it was collaborative, everyone would be allowed to edit it. One of the many problems with this page is that it is being owned by a small group of editors who revert any reform proposals they don't agree with. For instance, even mention that it might contain different or conflicting views, and you get reverted. That makes it the property of a small group of editors pushing only their own views, not a collaborative page, and a prime candidate for userfication. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  07:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Having a disclaimer in an essay in not focusing on the purpose of essay. I made a good edit. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Personally I don't think this is of any use to the project at all, It's more or less filled with basically someone ranting and moaning over how this needs changing and that needs changing ...., Anyway guess it can be userfied but personally think it's better off deleted!. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't agree with all of this, but it is useful in promoting discussion of reform. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment See this where the primary author is citing the very essay under discussion to try to claim another editor could be blocked for weeks/months for a comment they made. The claim has no basis in reality and could be used to bully naive editors who do not know it is utter, complete bullshit.  J bh  Talk  00:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or, failing that, Userfy - After reading the "essay" and the related RfCs, my opinion is that it should be deleted, per Atlan, Reyk, Alsee, etc. as useless drivel; it's very poorly written (structurally, grammatically, logically -- it fails on every level) and consensus can't even be reached among the authors regarding what this "essay" is supposed to be about. It doesn't deserve to be in mainspace. However, HighinBC and Doctor Crazy make good points and per their arguments, userfication is fine. Editors should be allowed to waste their time however they like in their own user space (and continuing to work on it would be a waste of time better spent on content creation imho).--William Thweatt TalkContribs 03:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments not directly related to Deletion discussion
I have moved several comment threads here due to their being only tangentially related to the MfD !voting discussion, or are considered as "bludgeoning" comments. Please do not revert without reason(/s). Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 23:33 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please note. An editor who wants to delete the page is now deleting an entire section. The same editor originally wrote in part was "...and highly opinionated material like this essay have no place in a useful encyclopedia.". QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In-fighting on the page's content probably belongs on Wikipedia talk:Reform of Wikipedia, not here. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Update. Editors are making a total mess of the proposals. Please do not judge the current version. People who want to delete the essay and kill the proposals are making outrageous extreme changes. This confirms there is a need for reforms. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This comment shows that there is still a serious ownership problem on this page. This is a wikipedia proposal and all editors have an inherent right to make a "total mess" of anything on it. If you have a problem with that, you should move it to your user space. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If someone disagrees with the essay they can create their own essay rather than contract and change the meaning of this essay. If they don't like this essay that should not give someone the right to make it into another essay. If they want it to be another essay then they should create another essay. They can write another essay which states that they think Wikipedia does not need reforms. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ummmm... you know this is Wikipedia right?? J bh  Talk  18:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You violated consensus, right? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh?? If you do not like what it says then change it. I have made one edit to that section because I disagreed with the change made. There was no 'concensus' there so right now you are just throwing words out there for some percieved rhetorical purpose rather than to express or communicate any version of reality. J bh  Talk  18:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You have no problem deleting the essay. You don't like the essay, right? You disagreed with the essay, right. You stated on the talk page it is a waste of time, right? So what are you doing editing the essay? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) You are exhibiting severe ownership problems over this [] is a great example. Secondly, there seems to be a flip flopping between it being an essay or a proposal depending on which provides more strength to the arguement. My suggestion is move this to your user space, work on it and bring it back as a coherent proposal. Mrfrobinson (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Note. Editors are trying to create a project and there is a discussion on the talk page. However, the editor who started this MFD does not agree it should be a project. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But you do not want any input from any dissenting voices. This is evident in the recent complete re-write you made of the page removing all contrary opinion. This is not a essay about Reforming Wikipedia it is a wish-fantasy of your own a pseudo-fascist vision - an anti-Wikipedia if you will. This is fine as a user space thing but if you want something to be part of Project space then you must stop trying to OWN the page and control its content . Of course in your world the new order described in the essay just making this observation would be, according to the New-Wiki-Order, be blockable for a month (Accusing others of "WP:OWN" at the talk page or in a revert is also disruptive. If it continues they may be blocked for a month.)From your last edit to the page . If the ideas expressed on the page are rejected by the community, such as in this discussion, on the talk page, at RfC, or by others editing the page to change what it says then you must accept that if it is in project space. That is how things work here. It is so very sad that what could have been a place to actually discuss reasonable and possible reforms has been destroyed by OWNership issues. The number of editors contributing here and there shows that there is quite a bit of interest in the general idea but your inability to accept the repeated rejection of input from anything but the fringe viewpoint of reform - and from the new rewrite nearly any but your own - shows that this does not belong in project space. Hell, just on this page you are telling people they shouldn't be editing the page, that is wrong on so many levels and that you do not get that makes anything you have to say about reform questionable at best. J bh  Talk  17:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC) ce. try to depersonalize my comments a bit.  J bh  Talk  20:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin. I created the essay on another user's page. I asked User:Biscuittin for permission to move it to my userspace. User:Biscuittin agreed it can be moved to my userspace. If the closing admin decides to move it to userpsace then please move it to my userspace since I created the essay. The editors who are against the essay can create another essay if they don't like this essay. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Several editors have claimed that QuackGuru's proposal is a waste of time because it has no chance of success. If they really believed that, they would just ignore it and wait for it to fail. The fact that these editors keep on voluntarily wasting their time on criticising QuackGuru's proposal suggests that they are afraid it might succeed and their wings might be clipped. Biscuittin (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Can editors stop bludgeoning this discussion with their comments? There are 3 or 4 editors that should stop commenting, or create a discussion section to talk in and move their prior comments. It's getting ridiculous, especially since we all know that there are two, non-existent cabals clashing with each other in the shadows of this, and related, pages. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion should be halted. Some editors who disagree with the essay are adding stuff to contradict the original essay. One editor wrote "By "Mess", you mean, of course, that it now no longer read like the drunken ravings of the world's most militant inclusionist :-)" One of the goals of the essay is to reduce uncivil behavior. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You realise that I was including you in the editors that I did not name who are bludgeoning this discussion? Take the incivility to ANI if it is that large a problem for you. Better yet, write a better section about the ways to improve WP:CIVIL's teeth, get it passed through and then slap 'em with a block! It can be read as "We want to change the culture of Wikipedia to make it more co-operative and less confrontational.... The issue is that the civility policy lacks teeth.... I see nothing in that section worth keeping at this stage since it is all sentiments, no proposed actions in an essay about reforming Wikipedia; an essay turned draft proposal that doesn't propose anything in half of it's sections. Get back to working on it, and ask for an Admin or two to keep an eye on disruptive edits. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 01:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Note. One of the editors who wants the page deleted has followed me to another article. This is ridiculous. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 10:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment anyone see a pattern of WP:BLUDGEON here? LibStar (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes. It has been raised above, I've been thinking it, and I suspect others have been thinking it as well. But disregard for BLUDGEON, which by the way suffers from OAE disease (Only An Essay), is so widespread that many editors think it's an appropriate way to behave in a discussion. In that sense, you might say the essay lacks widespread support. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment There are a lot of editors having a melt down over this article. I'm rather bemused by the Streisand effect it's created! --<i style="color:#B00000; font-family:Casual;">MurderByDeletionism</i><sup style="color:black;">"bang!" 17:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. There's broad consensus it doesn't belong in project space, and many comments showing the core claims to be wrong, unworkable, or previously rejected. If the WP:OWNers had simply left it in user space there would be no problem. It's only a problem when they try to pretend it's guidance, a wikiproject, or some other thing it is not. As a user space essay by a rebuffed group of POV-pushers (which is what it is), nobody cares. Guy (Help!) 01:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Biscuittin endorsed it will be moved to my userspace since I created this essay. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 01:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out several times, no, you did not. The first edit was by Biscuittin. Please stop repeating this false claim. Guy (Help!) 01:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about the page. I am talking about the essay. I created the new essay. It will be moved to my userspace if there is consensus to violate WP:ESSAY. A multi-authored essay is not allowed to be moved to usespace. It is against the rules. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 01:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Does it matter who created it? I am not claiming ownership. Biscuittin (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * QuackGuru perhaps I am a little bit slow. Could you explain to me why an essay in userspace authored by multiple people is "against the rules" like I am a child? I have drafted essays in my userspace with several authors, some eventually made it to project space and others did not. <b style="color:OrangeRed">HighInBC</b> 01:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought once it was moved to project space and edited by numerous editors that it can't be moved back. It depends on the interpretation of WP:ESSAY. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Frankly your ability to interpret things far exceeds my capacity. I can only pull meaning out of what is actually there, whereas you seem to have the ability to see so much further. <b style="color:OrangeRed">HighInBC</b> 03:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * From WP:Essays, I quote, "According to Wikipedia policy, "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." How on Wiki does that "depend on the interpretation"? The note for "problematic essays" even says "Miscellany for deletion (WP:MFD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces..." which means that MfD can decide to userfy if it wants to, or take the essay for a date; so don't try pulling our legs here. This has been one long debacle after another. You can quote me on that if you want; Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 02:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If the essay intentionally represents a single opinion, it definitely belongs in their userspace. This does not mean that others may not contribute to that essay, it just implies that the user agrees with their edits.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment- I see a lot of people claiming this essay cannot be userfied because multiple editors have contributed to it. There's no rule to that effect, and multiple passages in WP:ESSAYS imply otherwise. We don't have an issue with userfying mainspace articles at AfD even if they have contributions from more than one editor, so there is actually no reason why this essay could not be userfied. A lot of the arguments for keeping it seem similarly lawyerish: "oh, it's got a proposal tag on it, that immunises it from deletion", or "oh, it has two owners, it can't be userfied". Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  08:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment- Trying to bury the high quality essay in userspace will only further legitimize it. What is the problem with a little expert review? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 04:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely nothing. The problem is with the  OFF-SITE, OPEN CABAL OF EXPERTS  (yes, that is meant as a shout). Follow WP:GLAM's example, not Nupedia and Citizendium. I'm starting to think you might just be Larry Sanger in disguise (someone run and tell Jimbo we have a potential Larry-sock) Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The essay shows a step by step guide to removing WP:OR off of Wikipedia. No other proposal to remove OR has been presented. This confirms this is the only valid attempt at reform on Wikipedia. The proposals are different than other expert-driven sites. The experts won't take over Wikipedia. They will set the tone and help improve controversial topics rather than ban first and ask questions later. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 04:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Our existing policies already allow for the removal of OR. If that is all you want then go ahead and remove it. Is it that people are not agreeing with you what OR actually is??? <b style="color:OrangeRed">HighInBC</b> 17:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Editors are ignoring the OR. I explained this in the RfC. No administrative action was taken. People who know me know I focus on accurate text and removing OR. Now I can't edit anymore. There is a reason I created the essay. I want to help save Wikipedia from the craziness. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean the RFC where pretty much everyone disagreed with your interpretation? Perhaps they just don't think it is OR like you do. Show me an example of this OR that the community is ignoring please. I highly suspect this comes down to a matter of opinion. <b style="color:OrangeRed">HighInBC</b> 18:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The uninvolved admin who commented confirmed it was OR. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

While I would just love to take your word for that you really did not answer my question. Unless you provide actual examples of the community failing to enforce OR, then I pretty much have to give such claims zero credibility. <b style="color:OrangeRed">HighInBC</b> 18:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * When inaccurate and misleading text remains in the chiropractic lede along with unreliable sources it shows there is a serious problem with the current model. Admins will claim the usually thing, it is a content dispute. That's why we need super admins trained to enforce the rules. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again you state opinion as if it were fact. Just as a matter of interest, how many people have to tell you that you're wrong about that article before you change your mind? It's a rhetorical question, I know, since you never drop the stick until you're dropped or topic-banned. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Another editor recently agreed there is original research in the chiropractic lede. My proposal contains absolutely no original research. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 01:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Advice
For those who have given an opinion on keep or delete but have not given an opinion on userfication I suggest that you add your feelings about this to your !vote. Especially those seeking it to be kept. Keep in mind that a delete opinion goes against userfication but a keep vote does not necessarily go against userfication as the page can be userfied and kept. Userfication is currently the most popular opinion and if you oppose userfication you should say so specifically or you may not be counted as opposing it. <b style="color:OrangeRed">HighInBC</b> 00:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.