Wikipedia talk:Schoolcruft

This page was nominated for deletion on 5 June 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Dealing with Schoolcruft

While the article in general is in rather poor taste and an overall violation of our obligation to assume good faith, the statement that "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are always the most difficult to deal with, and sometimes action through AN/I is the only appropriate path when it has been clearly demonstrated they have not heeded the call, or simply fail to participate in attempts to help them learn more about the problems with the content they are contributing." is patently uncivil, in poor taste and derogatory. The fact that there are individuals who believe that material is useful and encyclopedic does not grant anyone the authority to specify AN/I as "the only appropriate path" to deal with a supposed "problem". No one has ever provided evidence that the material sneeringly derided as "Schoolcruft" has been added by those who are deliberately creating a "problem". These tend to be content disputes between individuals who believe the information about their school is useful and others who have decided that it's not. The suggestion that the AN/I process is the "only appropriate path" — even with the weasel word of "sometimes" — is a demonstration that this is entire article is far worse than a mere bad joke. The sentence has been modified to remove the offensive portion. Alansohn 14:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Alan, since you disagree in toto with the sentiments expressed in this essay, I hardly think you should be editing it. Why don't you simply pen a response on your user page to this essay instead of your usual prolix grandstanding, berating those who disagree with you. Stop vandalising the page. Eusebeus 15:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I see many people who disagree with the existence of school articles in toto, who nevertheless have no qualms about voting to delete each and every one of these articles and will never lift a finger to improve them. Unlike others who persistently refuse to accept consensus, I accept that this article may still be around for some time. Some of the damage can be addressed by removing the most offensive portions, and the deleted text is a step in the right direction. The claim that this is vandalism is false and knowingly malicious. If the statement cannot be supported and justified -- and no one has bothered to do so -- it will be removed, again. There is no consensus whatsoever that this statement is other than a WP:NPOV-violating rant in explicit contradiction of the most basic tenets of WP:CIVIL Alansohn 15:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There's that prolix grandstanding. Anyway, for the record, I disagree and think the text should stay as is. Eusebeus 15:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW I don't disagree the section can be worded better. However, revert wars usually incite stagnation rather than change as editors are forced into a battle between two inferior versions. It's a matter of finding a wording that better reflects what the author of the words originally meant, which doesn't assume that readers know anything about the situation which spawned the essay to begin with. The wording as it is, while not the best, captures the subtleties of the situation and behaviour and is comprehensible to many, so altering it by wholesale removal of one section may actually lead to an incorrect conclusion and ironically, from the removing editor's standpoint, an assumption of bad faith against about two-thirds of the editors whose edits fall under the essay's general ambit.

Having not seen the articles and debates in question, I can understand how Alan may have come to this conclusion, however there was no real "content disputes" at all in any more than a couple of the more than 30 AfD/CfD/RfD/TfD/MfDs - they were all straightforward and came down to clear policy issues, and several were completely unanimous (including the votes of several school editors). No issue of whether school articles should or should not exist - that is decided by WP:N and its conditions allow many to do so without impedance of any kind, which I actually agree with. The use of the word "sometimes" was not a weasel word, but can be boiled down to this - sometimes, editors behave as they should; sometimes, editors add content they shouldn't but broadly speaking still behave and may or may not end up contributing helpfully to a range of areas, while other editors go into, as the essay comments, "a self induced death spiral" and between 4 days and a month later after much WP:POINTing and disruption, or other clear offences against the community, end up with them blocked for a reasonably long period. The record I've seen personally is 11 hours. Orderinchaos 15:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And if I remember rightly, I believe that record was set on Trinity College, Perth that weekend about a month ago. That was four hours of my editing life which I want back, but i'll never get. Despite multiple attempts by multiple editors to try and help the user in question, they simply failed to heed the call of common sense and consensus, and by their own actions found themselves at AN/I and subsequently blocked indefinably after only five hours of having a user account (they were editing as an anon IP for 6hrs prior). Every local project editor now has to keep every single school article on their watchlist, and has to virtually check every single edit to them, particularly in the light of recent community service requirements at schools, where just 20hrs of hamfisted editing to WP gets them meeting their requirements. Thewinchester ^(talk) 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that no sources are provided to support the claim that AN/I is the only solution, no contrary opinion could be drawn. Even if there were instances where AN/I might have been justified, there is no evidence that it "is the only appropriate path" and an inevitable result of editors adding such material deemed to be "Schoolcruft" to articles. The wording is inherently in violation of WP:NPOV and makes the utterly bad faith assumption that anyone who adds material that offends a small band of Wikipedia editors means that these individuals must be submitted for appropriate discipline. I have made an attempt to remove this WP:CIVIL violation. You acknowledge that you "don't disagree that the section can be worded better". It's time to undo this inappropriate status and acknowledge that there might be possible good faith reasons to add this material. Alansohn 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Alan, I think you will find that an essay (essay, note) tends to espouse a point of view. This is not an article. Stop frothing. Eusebeus 17:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Essay, or not, this article violates WP:AGF, WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL. Can you point to the exception that grants permission to violate Wikipedia rules as long as the article is cloaked as an "essay"? Alansohn 17:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, we can. It's WP:IGNORE. You're taking your views to the extreme, and community consensus has already deemed this essay to be fair, balanced, and reasonable to the subject matter addressed, as it was kept after an XfD process. The essay makes reasonable observations about the problems associated with the issue of Schoolcruft on wikipedia, and gives logical advice consistent with policies and procedures as to the best action paths, particularly when dealing with Anon IP's making edits which despite reasonable attempts fail to heed calls for assistance and to follow policies such as WP:MOS, WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:COPY, WP:NFCC, etc. The fact is that it's hard to discuss problems relating to any form of cruft this without bordering on the issues you raise with WP:CIVIL (albeit your rather extreme definition of that policy), but there has to be a reasonable about of wiggle room there. As long as the comments are fair, balanced, and encourage helping the user first in an attempt to pull them out of a self-induced wikideath, both myself and the team from my local project I work with really don't see what the fuss is about. If you don't like the basis for the essay, may I suggest you join our local project, and put all the private school articles on your watch list. I strongly suspect that after 12 months of battling this form of cruft, I feel it safe to say there would be a significant shift in your viewpoint, where even someone such as yourself would be sitting atop the AN/I watchtower with your finger on the trigger. Thewinchester ^(talk) 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Compromise offer

The purpose of an 'essay' is to try to persuade other people to a point of view, or course of action; otherwise one wouldn't be written! There is a problem with this paragraph (and I hope that I am saying this without either grandstanding or frothing :-)) in that it does point editors to AN/I in inappropriate circumstances where, for example, no admin would be prepared to block (for instance, we do not block for bad editing). This wastes the time of all involved. I therefore suggest this compromise reworking of the paragraph that meets the core of Alansohn's objections while still conveying IMHO what the authors are trying to communicate: "However, articles created by anonymous IP editors are always the most difficult to deal with. When it has been clearly demonstrated that they have not heeded the call, or fail to participate in attempts to help them learn more about the problems with the content they are contributing, and the Schoolcruft crosses the line into vandalism then action through AN/I should be considered." TerriersFan 21:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• I still fail to see the blanket exemption granted to an essay to violate basic Wikipedia policy on civility, even if there might be some wiggle room on blatant WP:NPOV violations. Furthermore, there seems to be an implied WP:OWN issue that is blocking good faith efforts to address these WP:CIVIL violations, when there is no consensus whatsoever that this wording is justified under any circumstances. While less than ideal, the changes proposed indicate that there must be significant complicating factors to justify pursuit of an AN/I in such circumstances. As currently worded, the death spiral by those opposing "Schoolcruft" to open an incident for someone with what is at worst a content dispute would be almost automatic. Alansohn 21:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I accept that you will find this less than ideal (it is not worded as I would ideally word it either) and I expect that the authors will also find it less than ideal - such is the way with compromises. However, I hope that this can be accepted by all involved so that we can move on. TerriersFan 21:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Um, this is an essay that lays out a point of view. It does not require any course of action. Since User:Alansohn is one of those whose actions are enveloped by the critical analysis proffered by the terms of the argument, his objections, while understandable, hardly need to be taken very seriously. Alansohn disagrees with the entire tenor of the argument. Why accommodate his own tendentious pov-pushing when he could simply write a counter essay? Eusebeus 22:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for saying what I didn't want to be the first to, lest some user gets on their soapbox and claims WP:OWN again. To be perfectly honest, I'd love to see what a counter essay to Schoolcruft would look like. How would it be structured, what positive points could be raised about schoolcruft, let alone found? I challenge Alansohn to come up with such an essay, but I doubt very much it would even come close to the levels of levity and seriousness to sustain it's existence. Thewinchester ^(talk) 10:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• The claim that an essay allows editors to throw out Wikipedia rules is false. The claim that only the most sanctimonious extreme deletionists who oppose the addition of any school-related information on Wikipedia are entitled to edit this article is an explicit claim of WP:OWN. Every single editor on Wikipedia is entitled to edit every single article. As there seems to be a consistent problem with following Wikipedia policy, its about time that the two of you actually read the relevant policy at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc. which states that "If you do not want other people to reword your essay, put it in your userspace." Move this article to your userspace if you won't tolerate other editors removing the multiple WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF violations. Otherwise, it's time to move over and make room for some more participants. Alansohn 11:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• When it comes to replying to Alansohn (I see his rant continues unabated above), I can speak my mind since he knows my evil agenda to ruin Wikipedia one unnotable school at a time. User:Alansohn's theatrics, his tendency to wanton accusation and his officious and self-righteous policy waving as a mask for pushing his own rigid POV are well-known; when he gets into such a mood, he shouldn't be taken too seriously. Alan will now accuse me of personal attacks (or maybe remind me to be civil, but sadly the number of instances where he has crossed paths with editors in this fashion is all too frequent and well-documented. So: revert as necessary; take him to ANI if he refuses to abide by consensus. Above all, WP:DFTT. Eusebeus 11:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• I can't say I disagree Eusebeus, because to someone who's not come across the user before it's exactly what is comes across as. As for this continued POV pushing and how WP:IGNORE does not allow WP editors to bend the rules beyond their extremely narrow and misguided view is patently false. And what's this crap The claim that only the most sanctimonious extreme deletionists who oppose the addition of any school-related information on Wikipedia are entitled to edit this article is an explicit claim of WP:OWN, nobody ever said that, it's a patent misrepresentation of the subject to make a point, and quite frankly demonstrates the own users problems. I would suggest that the user goes back, re-reads WP:IGNORE, then come up with an essay to challenge the issues raised in this one. If you're not going to do that let alone anything constructive, then at least please stop wasting the time of others. The essay has been reviewed by the community, it has been accepted, and if you want to continue to chuck a wobbly, then take it to WP:MFD and be prepared to be laughed out of the discussion with a snowball speedy keep and a massive slap by the bad faith monsters who out you for the wikitroll you are. Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Well, that is exactly right, but Alansohn will always insist on having the last word (hence WP:DFTT) and I can safely predict that in his goulash of a reply that will inevitably follow, we will have healthy portions of policy self-righteously bandied around, including WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and (incredibly from such an incessant POV pusher) WP:NPOV. Moreover, as long as editors respond to him, he'll continue his attack since he is incapable of letting go. So, the best thing is to just let him have his last word, with the larger view being what you have iterated above: namely this has been through MfD, and consensus has been established to let the essay's arguments and language stand as they are. Revisions that run counter to that should be reverted and if the bad behaviour continues, the user should be reported to WP:ANI, which, given the issue at hand, is rather (dare I say) ironic. Eusebeus 13:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• The only thing that the MfD consensus means is that the article meets the bare minimum to exist. It says nothing that allows a screed that repeatedly violates WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, all as a WP:POINT violation that claims that those editors who disagree on school-related content issues should be sent to WP:ANI, simply because the "cruft"-patrol disagrees. The persistent refusal by both User:Eusebeus and User:Thewinchester to consider reasoned proposals that I and other users have offered to address some of the most disgraceful portions of this essay are further evidence of a refusal to follow WP:CONSENSUS. Again as stated Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc. "If you do not want other people to reword your essay, put it in your userspace." Move this article to your userspace if you won't tolerate other editors removing the multiple WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF violations under a process that follows WP:CONSENSUS to reach appropriate wording. Again, defend the wording or deal with revisions; anything else is a WP:OWN violation. Alansohn 14:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

<--- moving back

User:Alansohn you have made 3 reverts to this article in the last 24 hours please read WP:3RR, also where is this consensus you are talking about I don't see any section that has ask for opinions to find what the consensus is. I do note that User:TerriersFan proposed a rewording but you launched back into your attack on this article and acted in a troll like manner continuing this discussion with User:Thewinchester and User:Eusebeus. As you are the one proposing a change to the article please put your version of the wording on the talk so that it can be discussed properly. I also remind everybody of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines;

An essay is any page that is not actionable or instructive, regardless of whether it's authorized by consensus. Essays tend to be opinionated. Essays need not be proposed or advertised, you can simply write them, as long as you understand that you do not generally speak for the entire community. If you do not want other people to reword your essay, put it in your userspace

Ive highlighted to points one an essay is opinionated and two that other people can edit them, that while other people can edit them consensus still applies as does WP:3RR where as the fact that they are recognised as opinionated also means that WP:NPOV clearly doesn't apply , and WP:AGF is clearly expressed as the starting point for schoolcruft editing anyway, with;

• If they are a registered user, gentle coaching ...
• when it has been clearly demonstrated they have not heeded the call, or simply fail to participate in attempts to help them learn

There is nothing Uncivil in these comments, it shows that coaching, talking, helping are steps prior to any action being taken. The purpose is to help other editors who come across such an occurrence of rapidly expanding single school related articles what signs to look for when the expansion of the articles has gone beyond encyclopedic content, what policies to refer them to and where to get to help and further advice. It also is a way to full explain background at an AfD as to why article/category/template should be deleted. Gnangarra 16:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• The existing statement as worded implies that the only means to deal with those who have content disputes with the "cruft"-haters is to initiate processdings via WP:ANI. I reworded the article to remove some of the most offensive statements. Other users reverted the changes, without offering any explanation for why the wording should stay as is, despite the multiple WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF violations with the statement in its current form. User:TerriersFan offered a proposed compromise, that has also refused to elicit any movement to reach WP:CONSENSUS on the wording. All you have managed to do is show that fragments of this sentence really aren't all that bad. The fact that essays are opinionated may excuse WP:NPOV violations, but cannot justify WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF violations. As you have emphasized If you do not want other people to reword your essay, put it in your userspace. It seems that both User:Thewinchester and User:Eusebeus fail to understand this fact. If the those who think they WP:OWN this article refuse to allow changes, it should be userfied and moved out of Wikipedia. Alansohn 16:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have latched onto a misinterpretation of this one line as an excuse to WP:HATE the entire essay. I am failing to see how WP:POINT (which you keep citing) is being violated. WP:CIVIL is "a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions" and WP:AGF specifically states that "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary", so I'm failing to see how either of these are violated. Consensus *has* largely been reached on the wording - unfortunately it was your refusal to seek consensus (violating the terms of the very official policy you cited), instead risking WP:3RR and making some very incivil comments towards fellow editors, and not assuming good faith towards them, which led to this situation. I would ask respectfully that you reconsider your own actions and what you are actually aiming to achieve. If it's solely to get the essay moved to userspace or hacked to pieces and no negotiation is possible in your own mind, regardless of what we do, this itself may be a WP:POINT violation in itself. Orderinchaos 20:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to repeat myself, and you are quite right Orderinchaos in your comments, but Alansohn has no interest in being convinced or working towards consensus for an argument he fundamentally despises. So this is simply feeding the troll. His contribution here is disingenuous: he should be ignored. By way of fairness, I note that Alan has something like 30,000 edits and he is an excellent contributor when not behaving like this. But in these instances, nothing is gained by engaging in debate. He is not listening And now, **SIGH**, back to Alansohn for another pointless reiteration of his empty accusations and another listing of the supposed policy violations.... Eusebeus 21:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• There is no consensus on the wording of the sentence; at best, there is consensus that this article should exist, for the time being. Wikipedia:Be bold states that "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the wording is accurate, etc." The wording of this sentence stating that WP:ANI is the only alternative to deal with those who have had the nerve to add what the authors of this article have derisively referred to as "Schoolcruft", is inherently uncivil. WP:CIVIL itself states "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." There has been no discussion on the alternative wording that I boldly proposed or the compromise wording suggested by User:TerriersFan; in contrast, there has been no discussion at any point demosntrating that there is consensus on the sentence in question. The relevant policy for essays at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc. states that "If you do not want other people to reword your essay, put it in your userspace." Move this article to your userspace -- or that of any of the others who think that they WP:OWN this article -- if you won't tolerate other editors removing the multiple WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF violations. If this article is going to stay in the mainspace, it will be changed. Alansohn 21:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Now that Alansohn has enjoyed the last word, I suggest we archive this discussion so we can all move on to more fruitful topics. Consensus is in favour of retaining the essay as written. Eusebeus 22:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Will send in the Misabot to handle it. Thewinchester ^(talk) 22:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• We still need an explanation for the dozens of changes made to this article since it was set in stone after the MfD ended last week, when supposed consensus was reached on "retaining the essay as written". Though I must admit that the existing version is less bad than the previous version which read "However, articles created by anonymous IP Schoolcruft editors are always the most difficult to deal with, and sometimes action through AN/I is the only appropriate path when it has been clearly demonstrated they have not learnt, nor will they listen to attempts or offers to learn why nobody likes what they're contributing." The patently uncivil sentiment remains, but at least the words are a tiny bit less offensive than before. It is rather ironic that the big bold box at the top of this essay states "Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page." I guess that's another item that needs to be fixed in this essay. Alansohn 03:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• For heavens sake, have you not figured it out yet? Either take it to XfD and look forward to being laughed out of the room, write an opposing essay, or politely put a sock it in. Nobody here cares your your particularly annoying rants, which only serve the purpose of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and in themselves are just crying out for spanking at WP:ANI. This is not withstanding that you came within minutes of breaching WP:3RR on the article. As for asking for explanation of changes to the article, you've got some real cheek doing so considering that half these edits have been caused by you going all WP:POV without first discussing it at talk. All the other edits are simple language changes and addition of references to provide more clarity to it (and you would have seen it if you'd bothered to spend even 15 seconds looking at the changes). Your continued ranting about statements in the article have been asked, answered, and answered again. It's not uncivil, and accurately reflects all Wikipedia policies on dealing with vandalism. This is the end of the manner, and you have already brought up enough ill will for key editors to not only ignore your persistent ranting on this non-issue, but it's to the point where even a mild mannered editor with infinite patience like myself would like nothing more than for you to be permanently banned from Wikipedia. Please, for the sake of the wiki and for all man kind, please go back to New Jersey and continue create useless redirects for bus route numbers, troll someone where, and leave this issue the heck alone. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)