Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Userfied, now at User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle
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 Userfy I see no major policy reasons as to why this should be deleted, kept or userfied. So, given the disputed nature of this essay I think that the least disruptive action is to userfy for now. However, that is not to say that I believe Born2cycle is trying to be disruptive and I think that he is acting in good faith to improve Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule

[edit]
Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page should be deleted, or at least removed from Project space if the author wants it userfied.

  • The title asserts a "rule" where none exists. It is a misleading title. Further, the use of ALLCAPS BLUELINK shortcuts, WP:YOGURTRULE and WP:YR intimidate and mislead as to the standing of the essay. The shortcuts should be deleted even if the essay survives userfied.
  • The author wants it tagged {{supplement}}, to be listed among these: Category:Wikipedia supplemental essays. There is no support at the related policy or guidelines for it to be considered acceptable supplementary material.
  • The author displays clear WP:OWNership behaviour over the page.
  • The author is formatting the talk page as a supporting essay, by adding an introductory lede section out of chronological order.
  • The page asserts facts that are disputed, and none but the author agrees.
  • While the yogurt title may represent an interesting precedent, and there is probably much to be learned, interest in this is dominated by the single author and he is not particularly open to discussion as to detail, nuance and attention to the facts of the precedent. Instead, the essay is a gross generalisation not supported by precedent. It is possible that the essay may be substantially improved, retitled, and improved in standing, but these things can and should happen in userspace, before anyone may be given the impression that its message is acceptable amongst the community.

SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I will comment later, but in the meantime I direct interested parties to the article's talk page, where I and several others have identified what we see as problems with the essay, and where B2C's ownership issues are in evidence. --MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or if required to acheive consensus, Userify -- Nbound (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Is there a new requirement on essays? That they are supposed to establish community consensus or be deleted? If so, then what's the difference between essays and policy/guidelines? Are any other essays ever held to this standard? --B2C 04:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing new here. Essays must be related to the project. User Essays have very wide latitude. Project space essay less so. Project space essays may represent a minority view, but are expected to be much more than an individual view. An essay may tll the story of a typical individuals experience, but where an essay asserts Contested essays are occassionaly debated at MfD. An essay need not have a community wide consensus, but it must not be capable of misleading. Your essay is capable of misleading on multiple points, and you seem committed to holding it to your particular view. It is more pressing to remove the misinformation from Project Space than to engaging in the long and difficult task of making this page acceptable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though some of this comment is pretty garbled, I agree with your general assertions like "essays must be related to the project", but I don't understand what point you're making in stating them here. Are you suggesting this essay is not "related to the project"? It's an opinion piece advising RM closers. How is it not related to the project?

      I've already asked below about the misleading aspect - but if anything is misleading, tell me what it is so I can fix it! In your proposal you assert the title is misleading, but you don't explain how. What is your support for your assertion that essays, or at least this one, should not be referenced with all caps blue link short cuts? --B2C 00:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete – This essay seems to just be B2C's bragging about finally getting his way with Yogurt. Yes, I can imagine situations where I'd like to get a move done this way, but the history of his fighting at Yogurt is so obnoxious that to memorialize it this way is contrary to any hope of more collegial work on such problems. He can take it back to user space, like the essay on his user page, or let it be deleted. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Like a few other stances taken by B2C, it doesn't pass the sniff-test. There seems to be a blurring between a self-styled program and what has been endorsed as consensus (not to mention common sense). Tony (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userify as wp:wes allows for the deletion of essays that "contradict policy (or other pages with established consensus)" or that "are intended to undermine, not just disagree with, those pages." Inviting — or, in its own words, "allowing" — move discussion closers, administrators, or editors to move without or against consensus blatantly undermines both wp:reqmove and wp:noconsensus. The disruption caused by this supposed "rule" being invoked isn't just hypothetical, as can be seen this current move review. user:j (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy to make its status clear.Omnedon (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy, and replace the {{supplement}} tag with an {{essay}} tag. It is clear that a lot of people do not accept this opinion as a valid approach to move discussion and move closure. This is not a "supplement" to Wikipedia's policies and procedures; it is an individual opinion, expressing an approach to move discussions which is not generally supported by policy. Also, I agree with the nominator that the shortcuts should be deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Striking one recommendation because it has now been addressed by B2C. --MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking "delete"; it should be userfied. BDD has convinced me that there is no valid reason to actually delete this essay. However, it should be removed from mainspace into B2C's userspace. As long as it exists in mainspace, it is too easy to mistake it for some kind of Wikipedia "rule". And B2C has made it clear that he "owns" this essay, by not permitting anyone else to modify it (he did allow one out of BDD's two edits to stand, but that's been it). Very well, let him own it - by taking it into his own userspace, where essay policy says it is all his. He can still link to it in userspace; indeed, his userspace is full of essays and FAQs and many other expositions of his opinion, and he links to them all the time, and that's fine. Let's just not pretend that this is something other than an exposition of his opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's an exposition of an opinion which was originally mine, but potentially shared by others too. I have no issue with people editing it who share the essential original opinion. This is the norm of essays in WP space. It is not appropriate to go to WP:JDLI and change it to say that opinions not based in policy should be given just as much weight as assertions based on policy when evaluating consensus. That may be your opinion, but it's not the essential opinion of that expressed at JDLI as laid out by the original author.

Similarly, it's not appropriate to go to this essay and make fundamental changes like SmokeyJoe did. I did not revert edits made by the two other editors who made changes to the essay anyway. And I'm still baffled by what your factual objection which we never resolved on the talk page because you dropped the discussion, so I don't know where you are on that. --B2C 01:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted both BDD and me when we attempted to make your statement of the situation more honest. You reverted Smokey Joe, three times. The only outside edits you have retained were BDD's nutshell and Calidum's "Boston". As for my "factual objection," I dropped it because it was pointless to say any more. No one can ever "explain" anything or "resolve" anything to your satisfaction, and no discussion with you ever ends except by the other person dropping out. I'm sure everyone else reading that page understands perfectly well what I was saying, but you had your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT ears on. --MelanieN (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're joking, right? Good one. Because of course the whole point of the essay is that the spelling "yoghurt" vanished from Wikipedia, (almost) never to be seen again. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who would joke about something of such monumental importance to the encyclopedia as whether to include the silent h in the name of a dairy product? Heavens. Jonathunder (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Sayre's law. --MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Melanie. Maybe that does help explain that fiasco of a naming dispute. I got dragged into it, on Born2cycle's side, as it happens, but later regretted having participated. Just remembering it makes my yog hurt. The only thing I would draw from that is we should never, ever, ever, use it as precedence for anything. Ridiculous cases make bad rules. Jonathunder (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The eight years of repeated "no consensus" determinations were ridiculous. There was nothing ridiculous about the final resolution that resulted in a stable uncontroversial title. Why, because there is no strong policy-based argument to change it again. If we can't learn from that, what can we learn? This is the point of this essay. --B2C 18:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I hope we can learn, if anything, is that the only sane response to pages and pages and years and years of discussion about a single silent letter is laughter. It's funny. Now go play outside. Jonathunder (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The intent of this essay is to go beyond learning to laugh at such situations... it is to advise RM closers how to help the community avoid them in the first place. --B2C 18:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...for which purpose it has less than zero value. I had no idea this was actually being cited in move discussions. Per Tarc's example that it has been, I am striking the word "keep" (to make very clear that was a joke) and changing it, not to userfy, but delete. Jonathunder (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No value. Yes, I believe that was a joke. Apteva (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Userfy. Either nixing or userfying this essay would be fine; either way, I strongly agree that it doesn't belong in the project space, for the reasons elaborated above. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Simply moving the essay to B2C's userspace actually does seem to be the most suitable solution. Since this is B2C's essay and is used to express his personal view, and that other editors contributing to it (in ways he disagrees with) is something that seems prone to conflict, this puts it pretty squarely in line with WP:ESSAY's description of a "user essay". Userfying would allow B2C to exercise whatever control he likes over the essay while (appropriately) removing it from the projectspace. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Almost all of the arguments for deletion here are quintessential WP:JDLI arguments. Clearly people don't like this essay. Dicklyon's speculations about why I wrote the essay are sad as well as irrelevant (not to mention 100% wrong). I'll get to the misunderstandings below. The point here is that not liking an essay, not liking why you think the essay was written, or disagreeing with the opinion expressed by the essay, are not valid reasons for deletion.

    I want to also point out that the essay is new, originally created on May 2, 2013, less than 2 months ago. It's not unusual for most if not all edits to come from the original author so early in its history. That said, two other users have already made edits to the essay consistent with its original intent. BDD (talk · contribs) came up with the nutshell text[1], and Hot Stop (talk · contribs) added to the examples[2].

    Notably, because he started this MfD, SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) tried to radically reduce the scope of this essay[3]. In reverting that change, a second time[4], I noted that Wikipedia:Essays explains that essays are opinions, and so editors who disagree with the opinion expressed in an essay should write another essay. This is even better explained at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_essays#Acceptance_of_essays.

    As to the factual dispute, that is discussed at length at WP:Yogurt Rule#Incorrect statement in this essay. Maybe somebody else can explain what the issue is, because I honestly don't understand it.

    Now, the only argument for deletion presented here that even mentions policy is from J (talk · contribs), who notes that WP:WES "allows for the deletion of essays that "contradict policy (or other pages with established consensus)" or that "are intended to undermine, not just disagree with, those pages.". But J omitted an important word, "overtly"... essays that "overtly contradict policy" tend to be deleted, though it qualifies that with saying "not just disagree with".

  • Writings that overtly contradict policy (or other pages with established consensus), especially if they are intended to undermine, not just disagree with, those pages. Such oppositional views are, however, generally tolerated within user essays.
It's very disappointing to learn that so many people apparently think that what WP:Yogurt Rule says "overtly contradicts policy" and/or "intentionally undermines" policy, when it doesn't even disagree with policy!

J claims that the essay "invites" or "allows" RM closers to move without or against consensus. Presuming others might misunderstand similarly, I've addressed that at length at WP:YR#Does this essay contradict policy?, but essentially finding consensus in favor of the move under the conditions described in the essay has always been well within the discretion of RM closers.

The claim that this essay disagrees with any policy, let alone overtly contradicts policy, or intentionally undermines policy, is entirely without basis. --B2C 20:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I just noticed that Template:Supplement specifies that that template is to be used only "when there is a well-established consensus at the relevant policy or guideline page to link to an essay in question". I was not aware of that and so have replaced the template with template:essay [5]. I note that incorrect template usage is a reason to fix the template, not delete the essay. --B2C 20:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • <humor>Delete per Wikipedia:Steamroll minority opinions. --BDD (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)</humor>[reply]
  • Keep In case anyone needs reminding, the existence of this essay does not create an actual rule that will bind us all. B2C is as free to cite this rule in arguments as you are to ignore it. As for its content, this is well within the accepted boundaries of an essay. WP:WPESSAY says "Essays may range from personal or minority views, to views that enjoy a wide consensus amongst Wikipedia editors." The only criterion of WP:NOESSAY that this even arguably fits is the "overtly contradict policy" clause. I see plenty of piling on against an unpopular editor, but I see no evidence that the Yogurt Rule contradicts policy, overtly or otherwise. Rather, it's an interesting idea. Especially with a severe lack of comments on content, I will stand against this witch hunt. --BDD (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It explicitly encourages and "allows" editors, closers, and administrators to close move discussions against or without a clear consensus in order to hypothetically prevent predicted future move discussions. It's been toned down slightly, and he's even added a disclaimer that disavows any such actions, but it's still the very essence of the essay. So, yes, it does undermine policy, although the "overtness" of that part of the essay has been toned down. The disruptive element of it its "allowance" has already been demonstrated, however, and I suspect it would continue to be used in that nature. So, no, this isn't a "witch hunt," it's an effort to stop a misleading and disruptive essay from being cited to encourage or enable future disruption. user:j (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not a witch hunt. This looks like a rule, but it's not, even though it is used as one. Omnedon (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • J, you make the claim that the essay "explicitly encourages and "allows" editors, closers, and administrators to close move discussions against or without a clear consensus". If it actually does that, that's an error that needs to be rectified. Please identify the specific wording that you believe does this.

    Okay, I actually searched for the word "allow" in the essay to figure out what you're talking about. It must be this, as it's the only occurrence of "allow" in the whole thing:

The intent of this essay is to allow admins to invoke the WP:Yogurt Rule (a.k.a WP:YR) in similar situations, and for involved editors to cite it as applicable when appropriate.

First, it should be noted that "in similar situations" refers to the Yoghurt/Yogurt "situation", so "similar situations" refers to situations in which (among other things) the support arguments are stronger in terms of policy. There is no explicit or implicit attempt to encourage "[closing] move discussions against or without a clear consensus".
Yes, it says "allow", but that term modifies "admins to invoke the WP:Yogurt Rule". Surely admins could not "invoke" a "rule" described in an essay that did not exist - hence creating it allows for it to be invoked! What's wrong with that? RM closers can already (and always could) apply the reasoning given in the essay in the situations described. This just makes it easier for them to do what policy allows. But I can see why you are confused by this wording, so I changed it to say this:

The intent of this essay is to remind RM closers that finding consensus in favor of a move not clearly supported by a strong majority of the participants in the RM discussion is within the closer's discretion as long as the support arguments are stronger in terms of policy basis, and to encourage taking advantage of this policy-supported discretion when the certain conditions listed below are present. This essay provides RM closers with an easy way to explain their reasoning in these situations by allowing them to "invoke" the WP:Yogurt Rule (a.k.a WP:YR), and also allows involved editors to cite the "rule" as applicable when appropriate. This should help resolve conflicts sooner than they would otherwise be resolved.

Is that satisfactory to you? Anyway, wouldn't it be more appropriate to work out this kind of stuff on the essay talk page, not here? --B2C 23:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There are very few "rules" on Wikipedia, but essays can propose informal ones and, again, can also be ignored. WP:NENAN is "just an essay" but other editors liked the sentiment and it's often used during TfD discussions. Some editors reject NENAN and argue against it, but no one is bound by what it says. I'm quite sure B2C understands how essays work, and does not operate under the assumption that this page represents an actual rule that anyone will have to follow. --BDD (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but the essay is abundantly clear (and was from the start) that it is entirely up to the closer to decide whether or not to invoke the rule. It never said or implied anything that even suggested anyone would ever be required to move in accordance with what the essay encourages. --B2C 23:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


BDD, The nomination is not a witch hunt. I am often in agreement with B2C. I consider him to be generally 80% right. He made an excellent, authoritative summary at Talk:Yogurt/yogurtspellinghistory, which on discover lead me to make the last proposal to move yogurt. I became aware of the yogurt history, and have followed it since. However, the project page discussed here over-reaches very far, and is misleading in intent, actual content, title, and shortcuts. As my initial attempts to correct were plain rebuffed, seen both in the edit history and on the talk page page, this course of action was correct. The project page is misleading, and attempts to fix it are unproductive, and so it should be deleted or otherwise forcibly fixed via MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your concerns are genuine and not personal, SmokeyJoe. But the others? I really don't know, but I can only AGF.

What I don't understand with you is why you won't address my repeated responses to your objections which I initially made in my edit summary remarks when reverting, then on the essay's talk page, and finally here.

To summarize, we disagree on the appropriate scope of this essay. That's clearly a subjective matter, and your opinion differs from that expressed in the essay (which has been reinforced since you first objected). Instead of changing this essay to be in line with your opinion, why don't you write your own essay? Why do you have change this one, or try to get it deleted if you don't get your way? Further, witch hunt or not, BDD's more important point is that there are no policy-based grounds on which to delete this essay. What do you say to that? --B2C 00:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what is misleading about the essay? Do you have any evidence that people use it to mean something that it doesn't mean? Or are you speculating? --B2C 00:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As I noted when I modified my comments above: B2C very clearly intends to own this essay. He firmly rejects any attempt by anyone else to modify it in any way, as can be seen here as well as at the essay's history and talk page. But the only way he can WP:OWN it is to take it into his own namespace, and that is what I believe should be done. B2C, you should actually support that; then it would be all yours. You can't have it both ways: you can't both own it and keep it in mainspace. --MelanieN (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not WP:OWN at all. I protect the essential basic opinion of the essay just as I would for any essay regardless of who originally wrote it, per Wikipedia:Wikipedia_essays#Improving_existing_essays:

However, disputes between editors writing an essay should be handled differently than when writing an article, because there's no need to agree on a single "right" version. When your viewpoint differs significantly from that expressed in an essay, it is usually better to start a new essay of your own to provide a rebuttal or alternative view, rather than re-writing an existing essay

--B2C 01:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi B2C.
I have rejected your responses in the edit summaries and on the talk page because for me, to meet you anywhere near halfway would be to implicitly agree to an essay that I consider unacceptable. As it stands, or for anything less than the edit I already made, I am unwilling to be considered a contributing author. If it were in your userspace, I might feel able to offer constructive criticism, but I do not feel comfortable assisting in the construction of anything like it if it sits in Project Space, purportedly representing its authors.
We disagree on the scope of the essay, yes. I disagree that the yogurt precedent says aything nearly as strong as you do, and I certainly disagree that it defines a rule that an unsuspecting other editor might read on its face value.
One step back, I see that others have problems with the essay, and that you alone claim it. For that reason alone, it should be at least userfied. Whether it is userfied or deleted, that is entirely your decision. Further, you have displayed definite OWNership behaviour that is incompatible with a ProjectSpace page.
"no policy-based grounds on which to delete this essay. What do you say to that?" I say that this view comes from an overly rules-based perspective. It is a perspective that respects rules above discussion. It is to wikilawyer. I say that the rules, as written, are far fuzzier, older, mistaken, and incomplete than this perspective allows for. I say that a consensus here, at MfD, can see the page deleted per consensus regardless of any rule elsewhere.
What is misleading about the essay? A. That is asserts that there is any such rule. Let alone a "Rule". You gave it a proper-name title!. The shortcuts WP:YOGURTRULE and WP:YR are also unacceptable because they imply regular wide familiarity and acceptance of whatever lies behind the shortcut. Also misleading it that what is written is supported by the yogurt page titling experience. The page is misleading because it implicitly asserts that doing what the page suggests doing is a good idea, or that it has any breadth of support. So many things. Too many to fix if it has an author who thinks he has a right to protect an essential basic opinion.
Is this a case for a pro and against essay pair? Like WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE? No. The assymetry would be ridiculous. Your essay is narrowly focused and out of left field. There are too many things wrong with it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for admitting that there is no policy based objection to the essay. That's quite an admission coming from the nom.

I wouldn't hang too much meaning on the term "rule" in the title. Like I said elsewhere, it's as much a "rule" as Murphy's Law is a "law". For another example, consider the Rule of thirds, which is also is not really a "rule". It's just something that photographers may follow if they choose that is supposed to improve their photographs. That is the same meaning I intend with "rule" in this title. --B2C 03:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of policy for this. It is against policy to mislead other editors. The incompleteness of policy documentation won't save you. I agree that the history of MfD action on essays is complicated. I've probably participated in more of them than any other Wikipedian, and should probably update the documentation, but not during the progress of this discussion.

You wouldn't, but I do read a lot into the term "rule" in the title. We could write an essay on the Wikipedia:Yogurt precedent, which would beg for coverage on the extent and limitations of the precedent. I could give you feedback on User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Rule. I am aware of Murphy's law and the rule of thirds for beginner's photography composition, but anything titled "Rule" in Project space is too much, and note that the ill-chosen title is just one of several issues with the page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Believing the title is misleading is a valid reason to start an RM discussion, not an Mfd. Believing the content is misleading is a valid reason to start a discussion about that on the essay talk page, not start an Mfd. --B2C 04:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bad title implies bad intention and your intention was elsewhere clear and consistent, and unacceptable. The essay advocates a new behaviour for closing, purported to be based upon the yogurt case. On examination, the connection between yogurt and the new advocated behaviour was false. You refused my corrections. You answered my talk page points with wikilawyering; that discussion was clearly not going to solve the problem. You very clearly want to WP:OWN the essay. In the meantime, you had been throwing around bluelinks to your essay as if it were policy. The page read as policy-speak. The page was misleading, and was being used disruptively. Nominating at MfD was entirely proper, suggesting otherwise is absurd. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. This is an essay that claims status within Wikispace – subject to "the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL", yet its principal author seems to be jealously guarding it from others' attempts to make any changes. Thus, this essay would seem to be the expression of personal view of one editor, and as such should stay in his own userspace. I'm hardly surprised to see the beginnings of a filibuster to keep this effort, for this is B2C's trademark to make his view the dominant view in any discussion in which he participates. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 00:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Filibuster? I'm just trying to make sure all concerns are addressed. I'm not doing anything that should discourage anyone from contributing. For example, you weren't discouraged, apparently. --B2C 01:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Discouraged, no, but that's not to say I wasn't taken aback. I am always on guard when I see such volumes of text continually generated to support any particular viewpoint. And I suspect the longer the discussion, the more will be scared away; yet paradoxically there will be others drawn to it for that same reason. I suppose I should have known that would be the case from your involvement as I was drawn here by your post at WT:RM. ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean Userfy Keep Honestly, I get that there are people that don't seem to like B2C. I get it. He can be very annoying. But I think that if he can address many of the concerns of the nominator, that I would be a "Keep". But given the concerns of SmokeyJoe, I am leaning towards a move to userspace. -Kai445 (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After reading more, I've noticed that there appears to be no policy based rationale to delete this, or to force it into userspace. -Kai445 (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


--SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also lots of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on your part. Calidum Sistere 05:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent. And "I don't like misleading essays". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is it misleading to call it a rule, especially when the first thing on the page is a disclaimer that says "consider these views with discretion,essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines?" And as an outside observer it's hard for me not to believe that this deletion request was only made because he refused to accept the changes you made. Go make WP:GOGURT to counter his argument if you wish. Calidum Sistere 05:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple factors leading to this nomination, and no single factor. Misleading title (a minor factor). Unacceptable taggery (minor factor, but speaking to intention). Misleading content (a significant factor). Intent to advocate a new behaviour on a exaggerated, ie fallacious, basis (highly significant factor). Essay OWNership outside UserSpace (significant factor). "refused to accept the changes you made"? "Refused" implies OWNership, which is not OK. And the strong refusal confirmed his intentions, which is to use his an inaccurate analysis to advocate, advocating to the point of misleading. It was not bad faith/personal/witch hunt. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought all of this has already been addressed or explained. Apparently not.
  • You keep claiming the title is misleading. Because of the word "Rule"? Seriously? At least you admit it's a minor factor. Anyway, if you're serious, this is an RM issue.
  • Taggery issues (I presume you mean the template at the top) once realized, have been rectified.
  • Please be specific about what content you find to be misleading. Again, ideally such concerns should be raised on the essay's talk page. I note that the string "mislead" is currently not present anywhere on that page, so no one has raised it there.
  • The intent is explained in the essay, and it is most certainly not "to advocate new behavior". And the behavior being encouraged is fully consistent with policy and leeway always given to RM closers in terms of determining consensus. Please stop ignoring this point.
  • Reverts are very common on WP, as you know. Just because a revert is done by the author of an essay or article is not necessarily evidence of WP:OWN. The reasons for the revert have to be considered, not who makes them. I would make the same reverts for the same reasons regardless of who was the author. Please address that. Again, ideally this would be discussed on the essay talk page, and only if there was no resolution reached then you bring it to a forum like this. The guidance for essays (in WP space, not just user space) is clear: if you disagree with the opinion expressed in an essay start a different one; do not change the opinion of an essay. Your changes were "refused" because they reflected a very different opinion, and "refusals" to such fundamental opinion changes would be appropriate in any essay, not just this one. Please stop ignoring this point.
--B2C 17:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's relevant to note WP:ESSAY's description of a user essay: "They are often authored by only one person, and may represent a strictly personal viewpoint about Wikipedia. You should not normally edit someone else's user essay without permission." It seems clear that this is indeed B2C's essay and is used to express his personal view, and that other editors contributing to it (in ways he disagrees with) is something that's prone to conflict.

Under such circumstances, it seems like moving the essay to the userspace would be a more reasonable solution than deletion, and one that might better satisfy everyone: it would allow B2C to legitimately exercise whatever control he wishes over his essay, grow it, refine it, etc., while also (appropriately) removing it from the project space. I'll follow MelanieN in formally changing my vote from "Delete/Userfy" to "Userfy". ╠╣uw [talk] 10:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huw, agreed. Omnedon (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very happy if B2C agreed to Userfy, and to give up the redirects, at least until several people agree that most of the concerns are address. Another is that the examples unhelpfully do not link to the final rename discussions, making reviewing them very tedious. Obviously fixable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never had the intent or desire to refuse anyone to edit the essay without permission. I want the whole community to feel free to edit it. But, like with any essay, those editing it should respect and reflect the opinion expressed in the essay; if they wish to express a different opinion they should do so in a different essay, starting a new one if necessary. The number of edits this essay has already had by non-author users is normal considering its newness. I see no reason to userfy. I don't want it userfied. The only reason there is to userfy it is if someone doesn't like it or disagrees with it. That's not a valid reason to userfy. --B2C 17:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
B2C: Note that if this is moved into your user space (as I think is appropriate), that in no way forbids others from editing it if that's your wish. WP policy simply says that user essays shouldn't be edited without the owner's permission, but nothing would stop you from granting either individual editors or all editors permission to have at it – it'd be up to you.
Userfication seems like a good solution since it allows the essay to persist and remain accessible, allows it to be edited both by you and by none/some/all other editors as you choose, and addresses some of the other legitimate concerns raised above. ╠╣uw [talk] 00:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the implication of a user space essay is that it reflects the opinion of only that one user. That's not the case here. BDD added the nutshell text, and Hot Stop added to the examples. It's unclear at this time how many others would like to contribute, but I expect more of that from more editors in the future. I encourage it and the type of improvements it's likely to get from that. Userfying it discourages it. If the essay was in my user space I very much doubt BDD and Hot Stop would have contributed as they did with it in WP space. Perhaps discouraging others who share the essay's viewpoint from contributing to it is exactly what those don't like it want, but that's not a valid reason to userfy.

Saying the concerns above are "legitimate" does mean they are policy based. None of the concerns policy based, and SmokeyJoe has admitted as much. Other legitimate concerns can be dealt with through discussion on the essay talk page, and editing the essay. None of them are valid reasons to userfy.

Above, when Hot Stop pressed SmokeyJoe on the "misleading" title claim, SmokeyJoe dismissed it as a "minor factor" and went on about other concerns, without ever explaining what was misleading about the title. The other "legitimate concerns" appear to be equally slippery, given the lack of response when they too are challenged. As far as I can tell, it mostly adds up to nothing but JDLI, certainly nothing that justifies userfication. --B2C 01:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User essays express a personal viewpoint (as this one does), but nothing suggests that other editors cannot or do not share that viewpoint. In browsing the list, I actually found some user essays expressing points I agreed with or found useful... but they're still user essays.
As for having other editors contribute, that's something you have the freedom to allow or control if it's in the user space. I must agree with the others (SmokeyJoe, MelanieN, et al) who have noted that ownership is a legitimate concern here, which I personally feel is in itself a compelling reason to userfy. Userfication still seems like a beneficial compromise that would allow the essay to be kept, not deleted, and remain accessible to all readers, while also removing concerns of ownership, etc. ╠╣uw [talk] 16:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or 2nd choice Userfy. If the use in the Hilary Clinton move review wasn't concern enough, the defence of the page in this deletion discussion demonstrates further that this belongs in a User sandbox or nowhere. Essay serves no purpose other than an open invitation to reopen a RM at Yoghurt... In ictu oculi (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have a whole set of essays proclaiming faux rules of this type, including WP:Jamaican Bobsled Team clause, WP:Snowball clause, WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem, and WP:Don't feed the divas. There used to be a really funny one, "take off the wig" or something like that. But I can't find it anymore. In any case, this one doesn't strike me as out of place. Kauffner (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I never thought essays had to reflect a majority belief. If B2C is displaying ownership issues, slap him with a wet trout or introduce real sanctions; you can't display ownership on articles outside your user domain, that's not allowed. But that's no reason to delete. We get lots of disagreement and worse on articles and we deal in a rational way. Don't delete this just because you disagree with it. The reasons provided and suggested as grounds for deletion are summarily uncompelling. (The worst argument is the redirect links heading to it! Holy snap, WP:RFD exists--don't take it out on the target page!) Red Slash 23:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's about point of view, isn't it? The POV we're supposed to have when editing articles is NPOV. When editing guidelines and policy pages our POV should be that of community consensus. When editing essays our POV should be that of the essay, essentially as established by the original author. Is it an "ownership issue" to insist on the latter when people with a clearly and significantly different POV from that of an essay try to edit it to reflect their different viewpoint? And what do you call it when their attempts to change the essay viewpoint are rebuffed, so they try to get it deleted or userified, partially on the grounds that the original author and defender of the original viewpoint has "ownership issues"? --B2C 00:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly what you say here is true in theory; nevertheless, you cannot bar people from editing "your" essay and refining it and changing its scope somewhat. Did your puppy-guarding cross the line into WP:OWNership of an essay to a point unsuitable for Wikispace? IDK, I am not examining that (hence the word "if" at the beginning of that sentence). I don't think the nominator has crossed any behavioral/editorial lines, by the way (not sure if you're implying that), despite disagreeing with the deletion request. He doesn't think the essay should exist in WP space. That's a valid position to hold and I think he's done nothing wrong so far. Red Slash 03:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to understand and appreciate that SmokeyJoe's edit would effectively totally change the meaning and intent of this essay. It would be the equivalent of changing BRD to apply only when the initial Bold move was done for the specific reason of enforcing ENGVAR.

What Smokey wants it to say is a small specific subset of what it says. He agrees the advice given in the essay in principle, but only in the specific case where not only is there a stronger policy based argument supporting the move in question, but that the "the first page move away from the first non-stub version... was done without demonstrated consensus" is necessarily part of that policy based argument. In terms of everything significant, meaning and impact, that's a fundamentally different essay.

When your viewpoint differs significantly from that expressed in an essay, it is usually better to start a new essay of your own to provide a rebuttal or alternative view, rather than re-writing an existing essay to say the opposite of what it has always said.

Smokey's edit demonstrates that his "viewpoint differs significantly from that expressed in [this] essay". Therefore, it is "better to start a new essay of [his] own". It is certainly not better to propose the essay he disagrees with be deleted or userfied. Obviously, as the original essay author, I might be biased, but it seems to me that his choice to start this Mfd instead of a new essay expressing his viewpoint is arguably unnecessary and even disruptive. Wouldn't WP be improved if the essay were to remain in WP space so other editors (besides myself), who agree with the basic viewpoint, could continue to improve it? --B2C 17:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not disruptive, and I'll leave to others as to whether or not it's unnecessary. Listen, we must have patience with one another and accept that people can make edits or write essays or propose pages for deletion when that might not be the wisest decision. That's why the community deals with consensus, to try to find the wisest decision. I do disagree with SmokeyJoe's proposal but he's got every right in the book to put it up for MfD. He hasn't edit warred, personal attacked, edited in bad faith--he's trying to improve the encyclopedia. We're allowed to do things that are incorrect here on Wikipedia as long as we do it civilly--you and I both have made a kajillion different move requests that the community has rejected. (Off the top of my head I proposed: Hawaii (island), Chile con queso, Visual perception, Limerick--and that one was ugly--and many more.) Now, of course, because I am a near-perfect editor all of those should have been carried out, of course, but they apparently wasted a lot of people's time, and were certainly all unnecessary. No children died because their mothers only fed them chile con queso thinking it was a main course instead of a sauce. smile I think SmokeyJoe's premise is flawed (leading to what I see as an unjustified MfD request--call it a mistake if you like), but he himself was completely justified in raising this request just like I was when I raised my requests that were judged to be against the spirit or even the letter of our guidelines and policies. Red Slash 10:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete utterly. This thing masquerading as an actual project rule or guideline is being cited by amateurs attempting to close move requests. Remove it from project-space and remove the confusion. --Tarc (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, can you provide more than one RM where this is being cited? I'm interested to see how it is used. Also, as an essay, people are free to simply ignore it... just as they are free to ignore any of the other essays. -Kai445 (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(tried to post this last night, but there was a series of Wikimedia errors. Saved in cache)
If you have the patience of Job, read through this move request closure, a bad close attempt by a non-admin who cited this yogurt essay as point #6 of his rationale. The move attempt was handily overturned at this move review. Born2Cycle, a contributor in this deletion discussion above, cited it frequently in both of those discussions as well. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edit; actually I misread that, that non-admin close cited this yogurt thing as a bad idea. So no, there does not appear to be an actual move closed on its basis that I can find now, though the point about Born2cycle using it as the basis of his arguments, then browbeating admins who (rightly) ignore it, continues to be troubling. Tarc (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not entirely sure that it didn't play a role, despite the closer going to great lengths to insist otherwise. He originally said it "more or less" wasn't a deciding factor and that it hadn't been used before in a close, but later clarified that he didn't "necessarily agree with its premise" and didn't consider it at all... Begging the question: which was it? Regardless, it was cited in the move review more than once as a reason to endorse an improper close, and it's hard to discount the loss of that article as the inaugural application of the "yogurt rule" as a key factor in B2C's ongoing efforts to harangue the move review closing administrator. user:j (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RE: other RM discussions: B2C cited it at Talk:Independence Day (1996 film). --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An essay is only as persuasive as the logic behind it. If there's actually something to the yogurt rule, other editors will recognize it, and it'll catch on. If not, then it doesn't matter how many times B2C cites it - it won't be persuasive and it won't catch on. But that doesn't seem like a reason to delete or userfy. I don't see the essay undermining any WP policies, as per WP:NOESSAY. I see B2C putting forward one way to determine consensus, that may or may not be found persuasive by RM closers. I do not currently have an opinion one way or the other about the validity of the essay's reasoning. But I think it's okay to leave it in essay space, and let the community evaluate it on its merits. If it gets cited and someone disagrees with it, there's nothing preventing them from disputing its premise, or stating that it's "just an essay". Dohn joe (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B2C repeated asks about what is misleading. I think it is obvious, and that he is trying to use verbosity to obfuscate, but let me try again...

1. that there is a "Yogurt Rule". No. There is no "Yogurt Rule". It is a concept recently made up by a single user.

2. That is is something worthy of project space. No. It is no a "valid opinion". It asserts things beyond the standing of opinion. This could be fixed, except that the author is a determined WP:OWNer.

3. That the rule stems in any rational way from the yogurt titling case. No. There is nothing in the essay honestly based on the facts of the case of the titling of yogurt. Yogurt was retitled to its original title per WP:RETAIN. See the discussion here: Talk:Yogurt/Archive_6#Move_page_to_yogurt. You only need to spend seconds reading the close. There is absolutely no evidence for the perverse interpretation that the close was decided on the basis of a weak reverse argument.

4. The current text, and the author's intent, encourages bold RM closing decisions that contradict clear policy that "no consensus" means "do nothing". We've discussed this recently, including Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Can_.22no_consensus.22_mean_.22move.22.3F, started by B2C, initially supported by myself, but where brief discussion makes it clear that default moves on "no concensus" are a bad idea and clearly not supported. Instead of accepting clear consensus, B2C has gone off and written this perverse interpretation of his past yogurt victory to producing consensus-affronting clear policy-speak encouragement to perform bold RM closes. The section "Consistency with policy" is bald assertion and fantasy.

5. #4 above is particularly serious given the high propensity of WP:NAC closes of controversial RMs. This essay encourages these non-admins (I'd expect any admin to know better) to make bold RM closes in cases where there is a history of contention and multiple previous no consensus closes. This means that this project page is disruptive. The case of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Request moved; Move review is demonstration of the disruption. Note that the disruption is lengthy and continuing.

6. The invented rule, if invoked, rewards continued agitation for a page move, where past RMs have failed to gain traction of either consensus or policy. The theory at work in the essay is that in the interest of stability, the community should acquiesce to the committed agitators. This in itself is disruptive.

7. The author's OWNership of the page is clear (apparently undisputed so far in this MfD). It is clear in the page history, the talk page, and the author's talk page, where non-rebuffed editors treat the essay as a user-essay.

8. The author is currently under a limited topic ban for this sort of thing. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard&oldid=539344973#Continued_tendentious_editing_by_Born2cycle This essay amounts to an attempt at evasion of the topic ban. In short, he has a problem with tendentiousness, verbosity, and exhausting his opponents. Suggesting that I should discuss each of the problems in the essay on its talk page with the author to his satisfaction is unrealistic.

This could be acceptable as a user essay. As a user essay, every reader would immediately realise that it is predominantly the work of an individual. However, it is not for MfD to force any user to host a page in their userspace. Whether the authors wants to userfy or not is not the issue here. If userfied, he may at any time WP:CSD#U1 it. The important thing is that such an outlandish, falsely premised disrupting page should not be in Project Space.

To some of the participants here supporting this page remaining in Project space:

  • I note that you support on principle, that essay tolerance is fairly liberal, and you are not supporting the message of the page.
  • On whether other essays proclaim faux rules, none of the other essays nearly so directly encourage disruptive bold non-policy non-consensus RM closes.
  • Essays never need to have majority support, but minority opinions do need to not hide the fact that they are minority opinions.
  • An essay is not only as persuasive as the logic behind it, because non-seasoned participants can't be expected to familiarise themselves with the background of every essay cited by someone else, and because ALLCAPS BLUELINKS on first glance look as impressive as a policy link. Especially if short, or self-asserting as a "RULE". If essays were only as persuasive as their underlying logic, then the author would feel no disadvantage to his cause if it were in his userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On point #3, the fact that RETAIN was used in the final move, basically tells me that every closer from the first RM back until the last one, basically did a shit job. Over and over again. This "we don't negotiate with terrorists" approach in point #6 is ridiculous. Look at yogurt. Different sets of editors got involved again and again and again, until action was finally taken. A closing admin needs to weigh the arguments and not just simply tally the votes. I think the yogurt rule, if it was to make that point more clear, would be a good essay. -Kai445 (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is why any objection to this essay is so puzzling. All this essay does is encourage something in certain cases that should be done in all cases anyway: weigh the arguments and not just simply tally the votes. The certain cases where this essay argues weighing the arguments and not just simply tallying the votes is especially important are in cases like Yogurt, where there is a history of closed "no consensus" RM decisions.

We all know that weigh the arguments and not just simply tally the votes is easier said than done. In practice, when the !votes are about 50/50, the natural inclination is to find "no consensus". But closers are not supposed to do that. They are supposed to weigh the arguments. This essay simply argues that in cases where there is a history of "no consensus" results, it's worth an extra look to make sure that consensus is determined by weighing arguments, not just tallying. And it suggests a way to do that is to consider what the arguments would be in reverse if the article is moved as proved (if after the proposed move the weighing of the arguments pro and con reverting the move clearly favor not reverting, then that suggests the arguments favor moving as proposed).

As to why this essay is called the Yogurt rule... it has nothing to do with RETAIN. While it's true that RETAIN was arguably the instrumental factor in that case in terms of weighing the arguments, the lesson this essay brings focus on is more general than that, applying to any case where there is a history of "no consensus" RM results, regardless of whether RETAIN happens to also be an instrumental weighting factor or not.

And yes of course it's a rule... a rule defined in the essay that anyone is more free to ignore than any other rule on WP... --B2C 21:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're joking please stop. If you're serious perhaps you're taking the title of an essay a little too seriously? Calling it a "rule" neither imposes nor implies an obligation on anyone. Does this really need to be explained? BDD explained it several days ago. --B2C 06:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Born2cycle, in my experience when someone says "this person doesn't get it" the response comes back "you're joking" that generally does not instill confidence. As regards "Calling it a "rule" neither imposes nor implies an obligation on anyone." Please see wikt:rule wikt:implies wikt:obligation. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per wikt:rule a "rule" is "a normal condition". It is a normal condition for RM closers to weigh the arguments, not tally the !votes, when determining consensus. This essay simply urges RM closers to make sure they do that especially in cases with a history of "no consensus", a "rule" that is already a "rule". What is the problem with them doing this even if they interpret it to be an obligation? --B2C 13:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I click it I get wikt:rule 1. A regulation, law, guideline. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and 5. A normal condition, or, even better, 4. A regulating principle, which I thought was obviously the intended meaning in this context.

But even if someone interprets this essay as "a guideline" (the only possible interpretation of 1. that has relevance in WP, which has no "regulations" or "laws"), what's wrong with anyone thinking that "closers should determine consensus by weighing arguments, not by tallying !votes", since that is already the guideline? Do you believe the essay suggests any rule or guideline contrary to any actual guidelines? If so, what, exactly? --B2C 15:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As above "and suggests that Born2cycle simply doesn't get the difference between his opinions and a community-adopted rule" I'm sorry but every extra comment you make further makes the case for deleting or moving to userspace. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – None of the reasons provided b the nominator justify removing this page permanently from Wikipedia. By the way, I read the page and it makes perfect sense to me – we need more like it on Wikipedia – we need to emphasize that stability is important. XOttawahitech (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify I think the true value of this as a summary of he arguments would be just as useful in user space, and it would avoid ambiguity in the extent to which it expresses our practice. DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What ambiguity? Are you saying arguments should not be weighed? That consensus should be determined by whether or not there is a majority of !votes? --B2C 16:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This essay discusses the mechanics of long-running, contentious article title disputes, which (to me as an outside observer) seem like an important thing to document in project space. Perhaps the essay needs a bit of re-writing, cleanup, and expansion, but I see no reason to delete it. The fuss about calling it a "rule" seems moot now that the word "reminder" is being used instead. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The need for "re-writing, cleanup, and expansion" is precisely why I put it in WP space - to encourage others to help evolve/refine it in those ways (some of which has already occurred, by none other than nominator of this MfD[6]). --B2C 15:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Delete WP:YOGURTRULE and WP:YR shortcuts ASAP
  • Just to make sure this doesn't get lost - as per nom the use of ALLCAPS BLUELINK shortcuts, WP:YOGURTRULE and WP:YR "intimidate and mislead." SmokeyJoe. WP:YOGURTRULE and WP:YR need to go to a speedy AfD ASAP, yesterday, I would strongly encourage User:Born2cycle to be the one placing the delete template. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:SHORTCUT Shortcuts are presented in all capital letters -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would oppose the deletion of both such shortcuts. It is preposterous to say that either one of them are "misleading". Misleading who into thinking what? When you click on them, it goes to the essay. WP:IDLI if I've ever seen it. From WP:SHORTCUT: "Shortcuts are created for the convenience of editors. It is possible to create a shortcut for any page at all. The existence of a shortcut does not imply or prove that the linked page is a policy or guideline." -Kai445 (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as long as this is a projectspace essay. It's nearly universal for essays to have shortcuts. For example, out of 23 "Essays on building, editing, and deleting content - Philosophy," 21 have at least one (most have multiple). If people want to eliminate shortcuts for essays that purport to give guidance to editors, well, we wouldn't have any shortcuts to essays anymore. Of course, if the essay gets userfied, that changes the equation, and the shortcut issue can be revisited. Dohn joe (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kai445, Dohn Joe. I have said what I said. I do not think it is "preposterous" that a User seeing WP:DONTBITE BLUELINKED in a Talk page discussion might believe that it led to a formal page and there was such a rule such as Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. In fact WP:DONTBITE looks exactly to be a SHORTCUT to a guideline. Likewise WP:STONEWALL would lead Users to expect it led to a formal guideline about not stonewalling. Likewise WP:KILLTHEKITTENS leads the User to expect there is policy of killing kittens. And this is even without RULE. If you think it unlikely that anyone would read BIGBLUELINKEDBOLD WP:DONTBITE or WP:STONEWALL or WP:KILLTHEKITTENS as links to guidelines, so be it. I disagree. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu, the point is that 90+% of hundreds of essays have allcaps bluelink shortcuts. Any time any of those essays gets linked in a discussion, it has the identical chance of being misconstrued as a policy or guideline. If we don't want users to confuse essays with policies, we should ban all allcapped bluelinks to essays. There's no reason to single this one out - as long as it's in projectspace. Again, moving it to userspace would change that equation. Dohn joe (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dohn it's the compound effect of BLUE + BOLD + WP + RULE. Can you honestly say that WP:RULE doesn't imply RULE to you? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you expressly said above, "this is even without RULE". If calling it a "rule" is the objection, I proposed renaming it below, to which you objected. If having an allcaps bluelink shortcut to an essay is the problem, then that's a wider issue than this essay. Dohn joe (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename?

Much of the opposition to this essay seems to stem from the fact that it presents itself too much like one of WP's policies and guidelines, rather than an essay. The word "rule" in particular is the root of much of that feeling. I realize that this won't mollify everyone, but would anyone be more willing to keep this essay in projectspace if it were renamed "Yogurt Theory"? That would seem to remove some of the imprimatur that comes with the more "official" sounding "Yogurt Rule". Dohn joe (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not even remotely an accurate representation of "much of the opposition." There are many issues with this article, and the title is but one. If it survives, others might consider a move in lieu of a future deletion discussion. But given that it's running more than 2:1 for delete or userfy rather than keep, and given the serious disruption this "rule" has and will almost certainly continue to trigger, it really should simply be deleted. user:j (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm, No, that's not even remotely an accurate representation of "much of the opposition." There are many issues with this article, and the title is but one. Verbatim. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Running more than 2:1 for delete or userfy"? Is that computed by tallying !votes, or by evaluating the arguments? --B2C 15:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of the "many issues with this article" contradict or conflict with policy? No one has identified a single policy or guideline with which this essay conflicts or contradicts. So don't all of these "many issues" amount to simply having a different point of view from that expressed in the essay? --B2C 21:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see the discussion above. user:j (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't see it. Please name the policy which someone has named in a claim that this essay contradicts, or is conflict with, so I can search for it. Thanks! --B2C 02:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is the first explicit reference to that guideline in this discussion. The opinion that the essay is "disruptive" is stated a few times, but there is nothing substantive that ties anything actually stated in the essay to anything prohibited by WP:DE (or any other policy or guideline). --B2C 19:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that from the ownership perspective. But on the flip side, other users who disagree with the gist of the essay shouldn't be substantially modifying it... they should be making their own essay. -Kai445 (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, there's the implicit "allowance" for closers to consider closing a discussion as a move, even in the event of no consensus, by providing them with an "easy way to explain their reasoning." In other words: the "rule" purports to "allow" for an article to be moved, even when a majority of editors didn't support the move, on the basis that a future title might be more stable, regardless of the lack of a clear consensus for the move in the discussion. It then gives the closer a "get out of jail free" card for their disruptive close. user:j (talk) 05:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get the regardless of the lack of a clear consensus for the move in the discussion part? There might be a lack of clear consensus in terms of tallying !votes, but that's not how consensus is supposed to be determined. There must be a clear consensus in terms of weighing the arguments for the Yogurt Rule to apply, and that's what matters.

The point is, Yoghurt went through 7 RMs, each resulting in "no consensus" before it was finally moved. But the arguments were essentially the same. The only difference is that in the final/eighth RM a majority of the participants finally favored the stronger policy based argument supporting the move, so there was finally a consensus in terms of tallying !votes. But in terms of weighing the arguments, there was just as much consensus in favor of moving in the first RM as there was in the 8th RM, and the 6 in between. --B2C 16:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading of the essay, it does not sanction moving in the face of no consensus. If it did, then I would agree that it should be deleted or userfied. Instead, the essay seems to offer an alternative (unorthodox?) method to determine consensus in certain cases. Whether that method is valid or not is a separate question. As is whether the essay can be used disruptively. Any essay (or policy, or guideline) can be used to disrupt. But I don't see how this essay is inherently disruptive or counter-policy. Dohn joe (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it "unorthodox" to follow the instructions for closing discussions? Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Consensus states:
Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments...
This essay is completely consistent with this.

Also, on the theory that the word "rule" is causing much of the apparent misunderstanding about this essay, I've removed all references to it[7]. Hope that helps. --B2C 17:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also retitled the essay to WP:Yogurt Reminder accordingly. Hopefully it's less likely to be misunderstood now. --B2C 18:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: The rename. That's a major concession. Thank you.

The essay has been moderated. I no longer see it so boldly advocating bold, supervoting RM closing. The argument to consider validity of reverse arguments (assuming the page were at the other title) was fine, but is good advice to participants, not to the closer.

Lessons from yogurt need to include:

  • First non stub version is more important than a length of time of "stability".
  • A good close from a good closer is needed for controversial cases.

Do you pledge to give up the WP:OWNership, or do you want it to be a useressay? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you see a concession here that confirms my initial impression: all this objection is based on misunderstanding of what the essay was saying. It never advocated bold supervoting RM closing. Certainly that was never the intent, and never explicitly stated. If any part of the essay ever implied that, it was poorly worded and/or misunderstood.

I agree your bulleted items are potential lessons from the Yogurt situation. Another one is that "stability" is not very impressive when the title is repeatedly challenged by significant numbers of different editors. But perhaps these lessons and a discussion about them belong in a separate essay that is not focused on reminding RM closers to determine consensus based on weighing policy-based arguments rather than tallying !votes, especially when there is a history of "no consensus" results largely due to a lack of majority support? Perhaps WP:Yogurt Lessons? But I suppose this essay could be restructured to list all the relevant lessons in one essay, though my preference is to keep this one focused on this.

Please do not characterize efforts of mine or anyone else to maintain the integrity of the core opinion of this or any other essay as an WP:OWNership issue. I am fighting very hard to keep this essay in WP space precisely because I want others to improve it. But nobody with a different viewpoint from that expressed by an essay should change it to reflect their viewpoint instead. They should write a separate essay. --B2C 00:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you disagree that a recent close at Talk:Hillary rOdham Clinton was a bold supervote NAC close? Do you disagree that your call to WP:YOGURTRULE in that nomination was non-constructive?
You appear to have some awareness that your understanding of your own writing can differ to what others read. Can you acknowledge that your behaviour, defending an ill-defined "intention", may be logical and reasonable in your mind, but OWNership behaviour to others? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I disagree that the recent close at HRC was a bold supervote close (obviously it was NAC, which, until a month or so ago I would have thought was inappropriate - but recent decisions at ANI suggested a shift in community consensus about that). It was probably the most clearly explained RM close I've ever seen. It clearly explained how the closer came to determine, by weighing the arguments, that consensus favored the move. I think it should be held up as the quintessential great example of how to close - WP could only be improved with more closes like that! (the close of the review, in contrast, was a pathetic rationalization for tallying !votes in both discussions, which didn't give a hint of argument weighing).

Yes, I disagree that my reference to YOGURTRULE in that nomination was non-constructive. I'm confident that history is likely to show that that title will remain controversial and/or unstable (no, not due to actions initiated by me) until it is moved to the more concise Hillary Clinton, where it will remain stable because there will be no strong policy-based argument to move it. That is the core point of this essay. It's constructive, because it can lead to decisions that are stable, like the HRC->HC decision would have been had it not been overturned in the review.

Yes, I know writing in general can convey meaning to some readers not intended by the writer - my writing is not immune to that kind of miscommunication.

I am aware that just about any behavior by the creator of an article or essay, which is related to that work, may be misconstrued as an WP:OWNership issue, and that my situation with this essay is no exception. The point of discussion is to work that out. To that end, I've inquired as to your specific objections to the "intent" paragraph at the essay's talk page, which you deleted. --B2C 02:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B2C, Other aspects of the yogurt case, such as the above dot points, need some mention, as it is not reasonable to assert that the yogurt case absolutely leads to your theory. Of course, it is ok for that mention to be small and brief. An essay can focus on an aspect of something.

A project space should be primarily informational. It can present a theory. It can detail a typical experience. It can be an analysis or commentary on policy or practice. It can give a minority opinion on something, but there must be honest admission that the opinion it not universally held.

If you want a project page to instruct, especially to instruct discretionary behaviour in a process, then the page is a guideline and it must go through a proposal stage before being ratified by consensus. Your essay certainly read like a guideline for RM closers (a controversial guideline).

I think in this case it really needs to be distinguished as to whether this page is to be an essay (opinion/comment) or guideline (empowering action). I think you were trying to have both.

On project space versus user space for an essay: you can't own a Projectspace essay. The intent section, even if improved, implies ownership by the original author. If any intent section is to remain, it constrains editors to be true to your original intent, which establishes your ownership.

Fundamentally, I think everyone still sees the essay as yours. They see a user essay. I still think you should Userfy it. I think you should keep it userfied, not deleted, because it has elements of worth. At the moment, I think it wrong, but mostly through overextending its case. If in project space we wind it back to something you don't believe, then it may as well be deleted.

What do you really want this page to be? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the point of statements like this:
Other aspects of the yogurt case, such as the above dot points, need some mention, as it is not reasonable to assert that the yogurt case absolutely leads to your theory.
I mean, whether or not it's "reasonable to assert that the yogurt case absolutely leads to your theory" - since the essay does not assert that "the yogurt case absolutely leads to your theory", why is this relevant? What is the point?

I also don't understand why an intent section implies ownership by the original author. All essays are constrained informally to the original author's viewpoint - editors with differing viewpoints should write different essays. (how many times does this need to be stated?) --B2C 16:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As to whether this is to be "an essay (opinion/comment) or guideline (empowering action)", it's definitely the former. There is no power that comes from this or any other essay. That does not mean that essays don't provide utility. Essays like WP:BRD and WP:BLP zealot are very useful for referencing in discussions as a shortcut to having to explain all of the reasoning contained within those essays. That's how this essay is hoped to be used. --B2C 16:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The introductory structure asserts a connection from the yogurt case. It reads as: You were right about yogurt, it follows that you are also right in the essay below.

"All essays are constrained informally to the original author's viewpoint" - Absolutely not true, you are describing a UserEssay. The occasional essay pairs, like The Sky is Blue/Not Blue, should be read as pairs. Your essay is so specific in intent and advocation of action (to acquiesce to the agitating crowd even against policy and consensus) that to expect equal standing with an opposing essay is not reasonable.

I'll keep thinking on your last paragraph. It suggests that we could make a useful information/opinion/comment essay, but it will require a major change in tone, and more care to not encourage bold NAC supervotes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've quoted this before, and you seem to ignore it or dismiss it. WP:ESSAY references two separate links about essays, Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays and Category:User essays.

If you click on Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays, and specifically the section Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays#Improving existing essays, you will find this guidance about Wikipedia essays (NOT user essays):

It is important to keep in mind that like anything else on Wikipedia, essays are not owned by anyone, including their creator. Nothing is in stone. However, disputes between editors writing an essay should be handled differently than when writing an article, because there's no need to agree on a single "right" version. When your viewpoint differs significantly from that expressed in an essay, it is usually better to start a new essay of your own to provide a rebuttal or alternative view, rather than re-writing an existing essay to say the opposite of what it has always said. Essays putting forward opposing views normally prominently link to each other.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but my impression is that you're trying to handle disputes about content and tone in this essay, because it is in WP project space, the same as disputes in articles are handled. You don't seem to believe that "disputes between editors writing an essay [in Wikipedia project space] should be handled differently than when writing an article". Is that right? --B2C 04:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This one is not a question of mere right or wrong, but of misleading and disruption.
I think you should agree/accept userfication of this essay because you want it to say things that derive only from your opinion, and for it to conclude with actionable recommendations (specifically, bold NAC supervotes) written in absolute terms (an extreme of "tone"). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
B2C, what I'm seeing in this discussion only reaffirms my belief that this should be in the user space. Once that is done, most of the concerns about the essay evaporate. Omnedon (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would agree in general. My problem is I don't understand what these concerns are. Smokey says there are questions "of misleading and disruption". What, specifically, in the essay is "misleading" or "disruptive"? I still think most if not all of that was due to misunderstanding, and all of the misunderstood language has been fixed or removed since those concerns were originally expressed.

And I want to stress specifically. I mean, quote the actual words in the essay that you believe is misleading or disruptive. Or, stop claiming it's either. --B2C 17:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just a matter of specific words. Before moving forward, we need to know whether this essay will reflect your specific intents, ambitions, opinions of interpretation (in UserSpace), or an unOWNed line of analysis in ProjectSpace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saying it is not just a matter of specific words suggests at least part of the matter is specific words. Well, if so, please identify the specific words that you find to be misleading or disruptive. Otherwise, stop referring to this essay as being misleading or disruptive.

I'm not sure what you mean by my "specific intents, ambitions, opinions of interpretation", or an "an unOWNed line of analysis in ProjectSpace", but I assure you I will not treat this essay any differently than I treat any other essay in WP space, and how everyone is supposed to treat such essays, which includes respecting the opinion reflected in the essay, even if I personally don't happen to agree with it... --B2C 22:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe: My own take on this whole matter is that trying to keep this particular essay in the project space is a bit like trying to have one's cake and eat it too – that is, to keep the essay non-userfied despite its fairly singular authorship and POV, apparent concerns related to other author contributions, etc. B2C does correctly note that WP policy calls for changes to a project-space essay to be consistent with the intention of the essay; however, it seems like it'd possible to over-stretch that rule to allow any user essay to inhabit the project space, on the grounds that other editors must only contribute in a way that's consistent with the intention of the essay's author... and to me at least, this seems contrary to the spirit of a policy that explicitly recognizes the appropriateness of having certain essays inhabit the user space.

It does still seem like the "keep-but-userfy" path would be a suitable compromise between the deletionists and retentionists, one that would (hopefully) satisfy the concerns many editors have raised here while allowing the essay to persist. ╠╣uw [talk] 22:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The absurdity and personalization of these witch hunt arguments is becoming more and more apparent. Huwmanbeing says "fairly singular authorship and POV" as if there is something wrong with that in an essay in WP space (not to mention that it is far from proven that that is even the case here).

I'm still waiting to hear what exactly this essay says that anyone disagrees with. Anything? Anyone? An essay not shown to be inconsistent with community supported policy and guidelines in any way needs to be userfied? Why on Earth? Because of who wrote it? Any other reasons? --B2C 23:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons and disagreements have been given over and over. This is in no way a witch hunt. This is your essay. Put it in your own user space and the concerns largely evaporate. Omnedon (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're going in circles. What concerns? Specifically. What specifically does the essay actually say that concerns you? What are the supposedly concerning words? Why is it suddenly so difficult to copy/paste on a computer?

If you can't support your contention that there are substantive concerns with, you know, the substance of the essay, how is this not a witch hunt, as first characterized by admin BDD (not me) on June 24th!

And what other explanation is there for the fact that almost everyone (with the notable exception of nom SmokeyJoe) arguing this essay should be deleted or userfied happens to have an antagonistic history with me? --B2C 00:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B2C: It's neither absurd nor a witch-hunt to note that this essay is mostly one editor's work and opinion. I also don't say there's anything wrong with making such an essay – after all, editors write user essays all the time. I'm merely suggesting (as do a variety of other commentators) that it might be more appropriate for this particular essay to move to your user space, where it can still persist and remain accessible to all who wish to read it. ╠╣uw [talk] 00:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
B2C, I will not play that game. Why should I copy and paste for you? It is all there. I am not suggesting deletion, merely userfication. I am not sure why you are now becoming angry. Omnedon (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Huwmanbeing, it is both absurd and a witch-hunt to note that this essay is mostly one editor's work and opinion. If that were a relevant criterion in determining whether a given essay should remain in WP space within a few weeks of its creation (created on May 2, 2013, nominated for deletion June 23, 2013), we would have almost no essays in WP space!

Check out, for example, the history of the first essay listed under Category:Wikipedia guidance essays, WP:Academic bias. One single user has edited that essay, at least three fewer than have edited this one, and it has been around since March. Is that grounds for its removal from WP space? Of course not, as that argument would be absurd and would only make sense to someone engaged in a witch-hunt of that essay's original and sole author-editor. Why aren't you arguing for the userfication of that essay?

For the umpteenth time, I want this essay in WP space precisely so that others will improve it. --B2C 03:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omnedon, so backing up your argument with substance is "playing a game"? I'm not angry, but I am annoyed. How would you feel if you and an essay you originally wrote became a target of an absurd witch-hunt attempting to hold the essay to absurd fantastic standards that no other essay has ever had to meet to remain in WP project space before? --B2C 03:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
B2C: Certainly Wikipedia has many essays, and I think one has to examine them on their own merits. The line between what constitutes a project essay and a user essay isn't always a sharp one, so discussion as we've had here is sometimes necessary – and to me it indicates that the WP space is not the most suitable place for this particular essay. I know there's divided opinion among the commentators on deletion versus userfication; I personally feel userfication is the more suitable path, one that would allow your work to persist and remain accessible. I know you disagree that it should be userfied at all, and you're entirely welcome to that view. As others have suggested, let's not repeat the debate. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
B2C, various editors have expressed and described their concerns -- see above. I simply do not wish to repeat that for you. It's disingenuous to claim that unless someone will copy-and-paste for you, that therefore there is no argument. That's the game to which I referred, and I'm not playing it. Reasons have been given. And I would point out that several of us changed from "delete" to "userfy". I personally am not pushing for this to be deleted -- just to be moved to the appropriate space. I would, however, question your assertion that you placed your essay in the project space specifically so that others would improve it. I see no evidence of that. Omnedon (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Omnedon, I am not asking you to repeat the same so-called "concerns" expressed above; that would be even more of a waste of time. I'm asking for substantive justification manifested as actual quotes of what the essay actually says supporting the claim that it is misleading, disruptive, or somehow contrary to policy/guidelines, to prove this is not a witch-hunt. Absent such explanation, I'm asking everyone to stop making that claim. Is that not reasonable? --B2C 16:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You complained that we were not copying-and-pasting for you. I see no reason to do that. The discussion is here. The concerns have been expressed, including issues of how the essay has been used, what it contains, and so on. Omnedon (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I requested that you copy and paste the supposed parts of the essay that demonstrate it is misleading, disruptive or contrary to policy. What we have instead are unsubstantiated claims that it is all of that, which is of course impossible to refute (because it is unsubstantiated). If it is not a witch-hunt, it is indistinguishable from a witch-hunt, due to the objections all being constituted of pure unsubstantiated opinion. --B2C 22:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huwmanbeing writes: "[discussion as we've had here] indicates that the WP space is not the most suitable place for this particular essay". So now the mere existence of this "discussion" - in which not a single substantive reason (based on what the essay actually says) has been given for userfying - is basis for userfying? Do you really not see how pure of a JDLI witch-hunt this is? --B2C 17:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
B2C: No, I don't mean the mere existence of discussion is the basis for userfication – I mean that as the result of this discussion, I think it's appropriate in this case to userfy. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See? Unsubstantiated opinion. That's all you have to offer? --B2C 22:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you were joking, but you're clearly not. We have given reasons. Now you want them all to be repeated to you, and when we won't do it because it's all above for you to read, you claim there's nothing. This is getting offensive. Omnedon (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking for reasons that address the content of what the essay actually says. None of the reasons given above do that. This is a witch-hunt, just as BDD initially surmised. Oh, the irony. An essay extolling the virtues of evaluating discussions by analyzing the strength of the arguments is opposed by "reasons" that are not even related to what the essay says. --B2C 03:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I presume that the author of the WP:Academic bias essay put it in WP space for reasons similar to mine: so that other editors would improve it. I just tried to do some of that (it could use a lot more help). See how that works? --B2C 03:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand the witch-hunting and and general disharmony I observe in the RM-active community. I see many sensible things written by opponents lacking respect for each other. On B2C's part, it may be an over-reliance on the letter of policy and obliviousness to poorly-written spirit of policy, trouble with the lack of detail in Wikipedia:Essays for example. It comes across as wikilaywering, and IDHT when someone tries to explain policy spirit. Or there is something in the past that I am unfamiliar with?
I assure you that I did not do this as a witch hunt, but because ProjectSpace essays do carry a sense of officialness for ordinary editors, and for the reasons stated in the nomination.
B2C, you have responded well to my requests for pledges to not OWN the essay. I personally am finding your tone (to me) much more amenable than before. I think the essay, even as it stands at the moment, is a single author non-mainstream opinion with disruptive potential, but you appear willing to work towards improvement. There are some good ideas in it, such as advocating for examining rename arguments for symmetry if the case were reversed, but I think that must be advice for participants, not closers. I don't think you fundamentally oppose this refinement?
At this point, I would like to take you at your word, and see this closed as "no consensus, let's see how editing of the essay works out". The shortcuts need to go. I guess that if you disagree, we can debate it at another forum. I still think that the valid aspects of the essay have very little to do with yogurt. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I definitely think the essay needs to be renamed... but I think we are focusing on the wrong word. I think the problem is that the title includes the word "Yogurt" . Because it does, the essay appears to be completely about one specific article, and it's RM closures. If this is indeed the intent, then I would say it is a personal essay, and should be userfied. However, B2C has said that the intent is to highlight and discuss a concern with RM closures in general (using the Yogurt/Yoghurt RMs as an example of the general concern)... if this is the indeed the case, then I would suggest two things: a) broadening the essay by giving other examples of the concern (so that the essay no longer focuses entirely on the Yogurt/Yoguhurt RMs) and b) removing the word "Yogurt" from the title, and retitling the essay to something more generalized and appropriate (WP:Issues for RM closers to consider for example). Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is common practice to name general ideas based on something specific about how the idea was first formed. What happened at Yogurt is by far the most extreme example of the general problem the essay addresses. It makes perfect sense to name it after that page, no?

      There is already an Examples section at the end of the essay. But it's a good idea to incorporate what happened in at least some of those cases in the main text. As long as the essay remains in WP space anyone, including you, is invited to improve it accordingly. --B2C 22:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The biggest difference between your essay and these others is that your essay promotes actionable advice in an administrative sphere, and worse, actionable by non-admins who may not know better. Your essay initially written was very very different, and still remains different. It is beyond mere opinion or statements of analysis. Such actionable advice should normally carry the {{ Proposed}} template. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what you think is substantially different about what the original said and what the current version says. I think the current version says the same thing with more clarity. I still think you and many others misunderstood the original, probably due to poor wording. Ultimately, this essay does not (and never did) advise closers to do anything that Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Consensus doesn't already say. So why the objection?

      Anyway, this part of the discussion wasn't about what the essay said, but whether it's appropriate to name an essay in WP space per the original author's inspiration for the main idea in the essay. Why are you changing the subject? --B2C 01:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not changing the subject. I am supporting User:Blueboar statement, "I definitely think the essay needs to be renamed" [if kept in ProjectSpace]. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see, you're trying to justify why you believe this essay needs to be held to different standards than other essays in WP space? Like not allowing it to be named per the inspiration of the original author even though other essays in WP space are named that way? Because it addresses/advises admins (and non-admins closing RMs)?

      So now your objection to essays in WP space named per original author's inspiration is only with those that happen to address actions in the "administrative sphere"? Moving the goalposts? I mean, you do seem to be making up rules as you go along, and refining them so that you can use them to object to this essay without having to object to others. --B2C 17:49, 17 July 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt_Rule&oldid=1144426941"