Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Race and intelligence/Current consensus

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: delete. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Race and intelligence/Current consensus

This is a page created in order to prove a point that a disruptive user is trying to make about whether consensus exists or not. Suffice to say, consensus is not determined via subpages. jps (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I made it. I think it's OK to make it, but I could be wrong. It's not trying to make consensus by subpage. Just trying to make things a bit more readable. It just links to talk page sections on the article, it doesn't really make any sort of consensus on it's own. Based on the same thing over at the Trump article.Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC) I edited my commment. Added the keep and fixed some spelling. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don' really care about this page. It can be deleted, or userfied, or whatever. Only takes a few minutes to recreate if we get some good consensai we want to document. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the citation to WP:POINT is, eh, off-point (the page isn't disruptive in effect or intent, so it doesn't qualify under that guideline), the thing serves no legitimate purpose. It's not even good userspace-it material, since it's not an essay or a workpage/sandbox or a sources list or anything else. I find the admin/ArbCom-style pronouncements like "Reverts to consensus as listed here do not count against the 1RR limit" especially inappropriate. (And it's almost certainly wrong; AE-experienced admins enforcing 1RR on a talk page under DS aren't going to care which thread it's in, or whether part of that thread is transcluded from a subpage. I gua-ron-tee.) To the extent this could have a negative, wikilawyering effect on consensus formation at the topic, see this pretty obvious deletion precedent as just one example.
- Something kinda like this, in a sense, could be developed as a page FAQ that points to previous consensus discussions and their conclusions, but it would need much clearer wording, and should be the result of (in turn) a consensus discussion about what to include in it and why. Various contentious pages do have these (even WT:MOS does, internally), and we have the {{FAQ}} template for this. That also works via transclusion to effectively be a permanent part of a talk page, but it's something that editors collaboratively decide is important to include, to wordsmith, and to update, primarily to prevent recurrent disruptive disputes over circular rehash. That article talk page in particular would almost certainly benefit from a FAQ.
- It would also be fine for a user, in userspace, to work up a discussions-and-results log of an issue/topic; e.g. I have a comprehensive one at User:SMcCandlish/Organism names on Wikipedia, and it's been very helpful. But it's also not masquerading as part of some article's talk page process. Some similar things that were in project or other namespaces have been userspaced in the past (e.g. here). But this particular sub-page doesn't have worthwhile content or any clear rationale to exist.
- To the extent this thing's only purpose might be "just links to [extant] talk page sections [about] the article", that's what the table of contents is already for. It's possible to create something like a pointers-only mini-noticeboard if the rest of the peeps using the talk page are on board with the idea (WT:MOS has one of those, too, as the first thread, and the variant at WT:MOSCAPS is also sectionally transcluded at WT:NCCAPS). But it serves no purpose if it repeats the ToC; something like that is only useful if it gathers directly related thread cross-references to other talk pages, to centralize discussion. And it needs to do it neutrally, like how to write a WP:RFC question, otherwise what you've got is a WP:CANVASSING billboard.

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC); rev'd. 20:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to create something that doesn't get archived. This page has 100 pages of archives, and probably has a bunch of well reasoned consensai, which I would love to be able to find, but I ain't reading 100 pages. That's how it's not a TOC. Also, it ins't very good right now because we're still debating the stuff that it links to. It's going to take time. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only !vote here has been stricken, the rest is unhelpful

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

~~Keep and close~~ due to the overt bad faith and unjustified nomination statement. jps has no credibility vis-à-vis Peregrine Fisher with regards to good faith and respect for consensus.

Encourage  User:SMcCandlish to have a side conversation with Peregrine Fisher about possibly better ways to do this. Article talk subpages may be used for talk page summaries. Alternatively, especially if the summary is contested, a userspace essays allows considerable freedom to do this. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How's that? What makes my credibility suspect? jps (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have a complicated history, a huge block log, you're making VAGUEWAVES, and the nom statement is an aspersion and contained nothing of substance. However, you've added something more below ... --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My history is not complicated and my block log is irrelevant to the question of this MfD. WP:KETTLE. jps (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at your block log, and I think that it's very much relevant. You apparently were sanctioned under the fringe science arbitration case for causing disruption in that area. You've also made it very clear that you think research about race and intelligence is "fringe" (although several editors disagree about that), so it's worth examining whether you're continuing the same behavior that you were previously sanctioned for. 2600:1004:B11E:E654:D915:3A5E:B89D:2D0F (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Start an account and we'll take you seriously, WP:DFTT, WP:DENY, etc. jps (talk)

It's not, as a general matter. However, you haven't provided any evidence of POINT disruptive intent, or that Peregrine Fisher is "a disruptive user" broadly (a rather sweeping and serious claim), so your statements about that editor do not in fact have any credibility; there's nothing backing them. I was avoiding this and focusing on content and how to resolve this positively for everyone; if you really want to make this thread be about you, that's probably ill-advised for WP:AGF, WP:ASPERSIONS, etc. reasons. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has been reporting himself to ANI for edit warring: [1], [2]. He appears convinced that only his interpretation of consensus is the correct one: [3] and has elsewhere bemoaned the fact that there isn't enough activity on Wikipedia anymore: [4] with "lunatics running the asylum". My interpretation of all this is that he is WP:Wikidragoning in hopes of reinvigorating Wikipedia to a state he remembers it being. I find that to be pretty disruptive. The creation of this page is just another instance of this campaign. YMMV. I might ask for WP:AAGF. Sheesh. jps (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. No reason to delete, but as an article talk subpage resource page, it appears to be single authored and objected to, so that means userfy (no redirect). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This might be appropriate for userspace, but an article FAQ should be written by consensus and link to substantial discussions. The linked subsections mostly discuss whether or not certain edits had consensus, rather than discussing the content on its own merits. I'm afraid that this will be used to shut down future discussions by citing prior consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 05:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - However innocent the intent might have been (to make things a bit more readable), the likely effect will be to make it harder for a new editor at a discussion to follow what's going on, and to increase the power of a small group of persistent contributors to the page. NightHeron (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't fully understand either the reason to delete or the reason that this was created. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I was trying to make a thing like Talk:Donald_Trump#Current_consensus. The issues on the R and I page have moved on a bunch since then and this page probably doesn't matter anymore. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the article isn't deleted, I think something like this page would still be valuable as a way to keep track of consensus going forward, as well as to record whatever consensus there's been in the past. However, I'm not sure whether it would work better in its current form or as a FAQ. It depends on what's considered standard for controversial articles. 2600:1004:B149:C585:44AA:BF9A:D694:61BB (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

WP:SOCK says "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project." I think this means that IP that geolocates from Nashville should not be editing this MfD. They should be using their main account, or at least disclosing their main account. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an account. I've been editing in this topic as an IP for about a year. See my exchange with Doug Weller at the bottom of this discussion: [5] 2600:1004:B149:C585:44AA:BF9A:D694:61BB (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have an account? Have you ever had an account? For project space editing, definitely include XfDs, long term accountability is important. You have a dynamic IP that makes it very hard to know your editing history, and long term, virtually impossible. I think IPs should be blanket banned from project space. WP:Register. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had an account, but much longer ago I occasionally edited from other IP ranges. My current IP range is the only one I've used after becoming more consistently active at Wikipedia in the past year. I've said what I have to say in this discussion, so I can stop commenting here if you object to my participation. 2600:1004:B149:C585:44AA:BF9A:D694:61BB (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please make an account? Thanks. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who aren't newbies but keep using an IP upsets people. (as you can see) People, not you, have abused the system that way. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IPs working on content is great. IPs are know to add the most information. This discussion is not about content. This discussion involved inter-editor conflicts. You have already commented on jps as an editor. As an IP in project space, you are likely on old disgruntled user editing logged out. Registering is easy, and is all benefits to you, including privacy if you wish. As you have shown a deeper interest in the internal workings of Wikipedia, I recommend that you register. You can still edit mainspace logged out, but stick to the accountable account in projectspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At present it isn't possible for me to use an account. For personal reasons I can't use cookies on the device I edit from, which are required to track logins at this site. 2600:1004:B149:C585:44AA:BF9A:D694:61BB (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The advice is blatantly wrong because the exemptions for edit warring are clearly listed in the relevant policy which, naturally, does not mention this newly invented rule. Johnuniq (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Usually userfication would be the preferred option in this circumstance, but the creator stated above that they don't care whether or not it's deleted. Given that, and the fact that there's so little on the page, deletion is appropriate. If there's a later change of heart just refund it. If the article itself is not deleted then there should be no prejudice against creation of something similar if actually policy compliant and reflective of, well, consensus. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.