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)
This page should be deleted, or at least removed from Project space if the author wants it userfied.
SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
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? -- B2 C 00:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
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. -- B2 C 01:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
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.
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. -- B2 C 20:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
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.
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.
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? -- B2 C 00:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
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? -- B2 C 00:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
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
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. -- B2 C 03:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
-- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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. -- B2 C 01:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
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.
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? -- B2 C 17:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
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/?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:
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... -- B2 C 21:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
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? -- B2 C 15:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
"Running more than 2:1 for delete or userfy"? Is that computed by tallying !votes, or by evaluating the arguments? -- B2 C 15:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
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. -- B2 C 16:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
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. -- B2 C 17:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I've also retitled the essay to WP:Yogurt Reminder accordingly. Hopefully it's less likely to be misunderstood now. -- B2 C 18:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
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:
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)
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. -- B2 C 00:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
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. -- B2 C 02:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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?) -- B2 C 16:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
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. -- B2 C 16:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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):
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. -- B2 C 17:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
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... -- B2 C 22:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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? -- B2 C 23:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
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? -- B2 C 00:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
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. -- B2 C 03:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
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. -- B2 C 22:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
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? -- B2 C 01:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
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. -- B2 C 17:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
This page should be deleted, or at least removed from Project space if the author wants it userfied.
SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
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? -- B2 C 00:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
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. -- B2 C 01:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
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.
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. -- B2 C 20:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
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.
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.
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? -- B2 C 00:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
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? -- B2 C 00:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
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
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. -- B2 C 03:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
-- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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. -- B2 C 01:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
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.
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? -- B2 C 17:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
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/?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:
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... -- B2 C 21:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
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? -- B2 C 15:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
"Running more than 2:1 for delete or userfy"? Is that computed by tallying !votes, or by evaluating the arguments? -- B2 C 15:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
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. -- B2 C 16:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
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. -- B2 C 17:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I've also retitled the essay to WP:Yogurt Reminder accordingly. Hopefully it's less likely to be misunderstood now. -- B2 C 18:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
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:
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)
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. -- B2 C 00:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
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. -- B2 C 02:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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?) -- B2 C 16:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
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. -- B2 C 16:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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):
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. -- B2 C 17:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
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... -- B2 C 22:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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? -- B2 C 23:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
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? -- B2 C 00:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
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. -- B2 C 03:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
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. -- B2 C 22:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
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? -- B2 C 01:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
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. -- B2 C 17:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)