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

Talk:Race and intelligence/Current consensus

Talk:Race and intelligence/Current consensus (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The editor has been reporting himself to ANI for edit warring: [1], [2]. He appears convinced that only his interpretation of consensus is the correct one: [3] and has elsewhere bemoaned the fact that there isn't enough activity on Wikipedia anymore: [4] My interpretation is that he is WP:Wikidragoning in hopes of reinvigorating Wikipedia to a state he remembers it being. I find that to be pretty disruptive. jps (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

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