User talk:QuackGuru/Reform of Wikipedia

Please share your ideas to reform Wikipedia

If you have ideas to reform Wikipedia please share them here. The aim is to convert the blog into a high-quality encyclopedia. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Administration

Hello QuackGuru. When you first proposed paid administrators, I was sceptical. However, subsequent events have convinced me that it is a necessary reform. Wikipedia is very short of administrators so it can't afford to lose any. The result is that existing administrators have a job for life. They know they won't be sacked so they can behave as they please in using bullying, incivility and POV-pushing. Only a minority of administrators take advantage of this but this minority is bringing the whole system into disrepute. Biscuittin (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Paid super administrators can review regular administrators. Administrators do not do anything about disruptive administrators. That is encouraging disruption. QuackGuru (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Biscuittin (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Admins claim they focus on behaviour, not content. That is like a cop opening the door for a bank robber as long as the bank robber is being polite. Admins are like white-collar admins. Someone could start a humour page about this. But this is no joke. Content appears to be irrelevant to admins. QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking about admins ignoring bias in articles? Biscuittin (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Admins seem to be ignoring bias, OR and all the content. They go by behavior such as a revert and ignore the content. It is bad behaviour to add OR. But admins think it is normal. After spotting the OR there are editors who do not allow the OR to be removed. QuackGuru (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it is only a problem on certain pages. Some pages attract a highly opinionated group of owners who want the article to reflect their point of view. If any editor tries to restore neutrality, the owners bully him/her until they get their way. Biscuittin (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Bias/Democracy and consensus

The concept of consensus is being misused on Wikipedia. In practice, it means that a small group of people with loud voices decide what is consensus and claim to speak for the whole community. This is dictatorship, not consensus. Biscuittin (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Re: suggestion admins are resyopped every 10 years. I suggest it is more frequent, e.g. 5 years. If an admin is behaving themselves, and the vast, vast majority certainly are, this resyopping process should require minimal effort on their part. If there are concerns about an admin's behaviour, then the process should pick this up, but a bad apple can do a lot of damage in 10 years. Just a thought.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • An admin can do a lot of damage in 1 year. I changed it to 5. 1 year is too frequent because there is not enough people on Wikipedia to review the admins. I did some investigation on admins. Admins refuse to enforce OR and will ignore the disruption. Even if the information is blatant OR admins claim it is a "content dispute". Editors refuse to acknowledge the OR. They don't want to work together to improve the wording. OR has remained in articles for many years. When the citation at the end of the sentience does not support the claim I have seen editors add even more citations to the end of the sentence that still do not support the claim. Admins think this is normal. QuackGuru (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirects for deletion

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_5#Wikipedia:REFORMWIKIPEDIA. QuackGuru (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can edit

I want to explain something about anyone can edit (troll) and the problem it creates. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Consensus

What does consensus actually mean on Wikipedia? What happens in practice is that there is a bad-tempered exchange of views on a talk page and then the loudest shouters claim that consensus is in their favour. This does not seem to me like consensus. Biscuittin (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

RS confirms consensus is not really consensus. See User:QuackGuru/Reform_of_Wikipedia#cite_ref-Kamm2007_3-0. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Anti-bullying Noticeboard

There is a suggestion of setting up a noticeboard specifically for complaints about bullying. This could be one of the most easily enacted reforms. Just to kick off discussion about this, what about the following?

• Complaints should be raised in a similar style to ArbCom, i.e. diffs must be provided as evidence.
• Any complaint will be reviewed by at least 3 non-involved admins.
• Only the complainant and the accused will be allowed to comment. (To prevent any further bullying, harassment or intimidation.)
• If the complaint is about team-bullying, all involved editors must be named and they may also comment in their own section.
• Comments by the complainant and accused should be limited to a certain length and contained within their own section (the same as in ArbCom).
• If the complaint of bulling is dismissed, then depending on the reason why it is dismissed, the maximum sanction against the complainant in the first instance is a warning, in the second instance maximum of a block of one week, and the third is at the discretion of the admins dealing with the case.
• If the complaint of bullying is upheld, then depending on the reason why it is upheld, the maximum sanction against the bully in the first instance is a one (1) month block, in the second instance a maximum of a block of six (6) months, and the third is at the discretion of the admins dealing with the case.

All just thoughts up for discussion.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Biscuittin (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a high tolerance for bullying. The complaints of bulling are being dismissed at AN/I. Things won't change unless there is reform to override regular admins. A new noticeboard won't work unless there are super admins.

For now the text says "It is proposed setting up a new noticeboard titled Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incivility specifically for complaints about bullying and incivility. But first there must be super administrators for this specific noticeboard to work. There can also be specialty administrators for this and other noticeboards." QuackGuru (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I feel like we need a general critical mass of cultural change within Wikipedia. I don't see how a structural overhaul could really work and keep it a "people's encyclopedia" as it's really possible for it to be.

I could see a board of overseers who have powers to maintain civility and integrity, but then how would we ensure that the overseers would not be captured?

I see Wikipedia as largely captured by establishment forces, who are people with ideologies that elevate "mainstream" ideas (political and scientific) above other ideas that have reliable sources and are sound but are not in the "mainstream" wheelhouse due to agenda needs of the power elite. And this is not a tin foil hat conspiracy theory. This is a basic and sound analysis of power dynamics that can be expected reasonably to occur in regard to a knowledge source of this kind where people can edit articles. You would expect just what has happened -- an ideological capture by forces that are counter to integrity. The so-called Skeptics™ who are so well written about here and the strong-arming admins and other political sycophants of Wikipedia who enable things like abuse of those who dissent and topic bans against the most "threatening" people (defined as "threatening to establishment ideological needs")....... on and on. What to do? Act with integrity, everyone! Stand up for each other! Keep it simple, never use personal attacks, but call out bad behavior even if it's not against you but especially against others. We need solidarity and we can achieve a critical mass. SageRad (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I see that "SageRad has agreed to avoid Yvette d'Entremont, Charles Eisenstein and Bhopal disaster, and not to discuss Bhopal on other pages. He has been asked to make more effort in general to avoid pages related to GMO, including meta discussions". Wow! Wikipedia is becoming more censorius than the Chinese government. I'm scared to edit Feces now because it's an agricultural fertilizer. Biscuittin (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

SageRad, presumably, you're not even allowed to write the word "Bhopal" here. How's that for censorship? Biscuittin (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Should call it a civility noticeboard; "bullying" is a loaded word, and is innately WP:ASPERSIONS without proof being presented yet; it's an accusation that someone is a bully. Personally – and maybe it's just the parts of WP I frequent – every time I have encountered a claim of "bullying" on WP, it's always been psychological projection by someone, often in a tagteam, trying to do something against consensus and being denied, after the complainant has been tendentious about it for a long time, with behavior that uninvolved parties would probably label the actual bullying. I'm not exaggerating. I have never even once encountered a case that did not follow this pattern. The word "bully" or "bullying" flies from the keyboards of a few individuals who use it habitually when they don't get the PoV-pushing traction they want. I don't think we should encourage this in any way. All of our noticeboards should use stock WP terminology, so people know what policies and guidelines they pertain to. A single CIVIL / NPA / AGF noticeboard can probably cover all three. And, yes, we do need one. It needs to have the guts to examine internal as well as encyclopedia content disputes, which most noticeboards don't. Right now, we have no place for civility disputes on project pages other than ANI, which is a free-for-all, or ArbCom, which is like going court.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Well done

Well done to recent contributors. You have found some interesting and relevant references. This project is now developing into something really useful. Biscuittin (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions

User:SMcCandlish, do you have any specific suggestions for improving the essay? You have a lot of ideas. They can be included in a new section in the essay. QuackGuru (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

An actionable idea

I've been thinking of an idea, which is a kinda big change. The idea is that we create speedy drafting, where an article that meets certain criteria can immediately be moved to draft space. Speedy drafting would replace most of the article-specific speedy deletion criteria. So, A1, A3, A7, A9 & A11 would no longer be speedy deletion, but instead the page would immediately move to draft space, with a message along those lines placed on top. Once this draft-move happens, it would be treated as a rejected articles for creation and deleted after 6 months with zero edits. This would be a big change to a very long-standing practice, so needs to be well thought-out before a proposal to the community. It might make sense to first raise this at the idea lab to work out details.Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Oiyarbepsy, do you have a specific proposal for User:QuackGuru/Reform_of_Wikipedia#Deletion_of_articles? QuackGuru (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Question

Why should we allow CheckUsers to conduct "fishing expeditions"? Septrillion (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Socks are showing up on my watchlist for many years. There are also sleeper accounts and admins won't block because there is not enough evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

If there's "not enough evidence", how can you be sure they are socks? Septrillion (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I know the behavior. There are many of them. They have been following me. They will be reading this comment. I cannot go into detail for obvious reasons. QuackGuru (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried sending the sensitive details to a clerk via email? Septrillion (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't go into detail. They are listening. QuackGuru (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

If you email a clerk, the sock won't be able to see anything. Septrillion (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Use the Special:EmailUser feature to privately email a CheckUser. Septrillion (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

There are too many of them and I know no admin will block all of them. After they were previously blocked a swarm of new accounts kept on appearing. QuackGuru (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... What disruptive activities have these accounts engaged in? (e.g. !voting multiple times at AfDs, tag teaming to evade 3RR, etc.) Septrillion (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

There are at least three different people I know of. They delete content, add copyvios, add failed verification content, among other things. It is only one topic but there are several articles. I know one of them wants me banned and has tried to ban me. QuackGuru (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow! Looking through your contribs, I think I might know who you're talking about. But for obvious reasons, I won't reveal publicly. Septrillion (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: Why don't you restore the deleted content, tag the copyvios, and remove the unverified content? If needed, I'll defend you if they try and get you banned. I still don't think we should allow CheckUsers to check without evidence because it would create more false positives, such as this one which nearly lost us a valuable contributor! Septrillion (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I could get banned before a sock tried to get me banned. There are numerous people involved. Restore the deleted content? There are several pages. Even an entire article vanished in the edit history and they changed the name of the article. It was done via talk page consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Has discussion been attempted with any of them at any time? If you are blocked unjustly, I'll be the first to show up and defend you on your talk page. Septrillion (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I know what to do moving forward. I think the past is the past. QuackGuru (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

You still haven't answered the original question. Why should we allow CheckUsers to check with little evidence? How would that fix anything? Some of the users you think are out to get you are CheckUsers. Septrillion (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

See "Sock accounts have been used to edit war and to try to ban editors. As long as an editor must provide "solid evidence" of sockpuppetry there will be sock accounts that will remain unblocked and unchecked." If every new editor for a specific topic were checked for socking there would be no more socks. QuackGuru (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

If every editor were checked we'd have tons of false positives, like the case of WikiOriginal-9. Also, the invasion of privacy could turn away new contributors. Perhaps you could email me the list of suspected socks and I'll see what I can do with them as a cabal-approved "good editor". Septrillion (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

See "It is proposed administrators will run CheckUser requests for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations when there is only little evidence, especially for specific topics with a history of sockpuppetry." I slightly changed the wording. For topics with a history of sockpuppetry we don't need strong evidence of sockpuppetry. There are too many of them. Even if the socks were blocked there would be new accounts showing up. Therefore, there is no point to blocking the socks. The only long-term solution is running a CheckUser when there is only little evidence for topics with a history of socking. QuackGuru (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the problem of WikiOriginal-9. Septrillion (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

How would you tweak the text or add new content to address the issue? QuackGuru (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

If anything I would actually make changes in the other direction to address the issue of false positives. If you email me the sock evidence, I can present it to the CheckUsers as a cabal-approved "good editor" and it will be easier for them to believe. Septrillion (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to write. Maybe you can ask others for suggestions. QuackGuru (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have taken suggestions from others rather than deleting their comments. It has been explained to you here that your proposal would not work without fundamental changes. You chose to delete it. Why? Septrillion (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I wanted specific suggestions for improving the essay rather than saying things would not work without drastic changes. QuackGuru (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The best way to fix the essay would probably be to apply WP:TNT. We'll chime in with specific suggestions once that happens. Septrillion (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

	Sockpuppetry
		New accounts that aren't actually new users (i.e. sockpuppets) are a plague on the project, with sometimes dozens of socks for a single banned editor. Administrators refuse to block a new sock account unless there is "solid evidence" of sockpuppetry. It is proposed administrators will run CheckUser requests for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations when there is only little evidence, especially for specific topics with a history of sockpuppetry. Sock accounts have been used to edit war and to try to ban editors. As long as an editor must provide "solid evidence" of sockpuppetry there will be sock accounts that will remain unblocked and unchecked. It is proposed CheckUser can be used for "fishing expeditions" for articles with a history of sockpuppetry.

This is the current wording. One could argue to apply WP:TNT to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations if sockpuppets are damaging the encyclopedia. QuackGuru (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

That argument makes no sense whatsoever. Septrillion (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are continuing to make counterproductive edits and there is no signs anyone is going to block them. QuackGuru (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

If you want anything to be done about them, I strongly suggest that you email me account names and evidence so that I can resolve the issue. I have told you via my talk page that the email system is not "bugged" and that even CheckUsers cannot see email content. Septrillion (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I have already made arrangements for them. I got a far better idea. I am not going to say what it is. QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't try it! It will probably get you indeffed! Septrillion (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)