Wikipedia talk:Schoolcruft/Archive 1

Archive 1

Buy a guide to wikifauna and stamp this humor

Your wikifauna references make little to no sense. The Ogre one--why is it the Aquinascruft editor who releases the Ogre?

And, while some of this may have intended to be helpful--this should be stamped as a humor page. If the final project is so veiled in coded language that it takes a reader going over sentences more than once, clicking on mulitple links etc--then whatever point you were trying to make is lost and this fails as a definition page. So you aren't trying to be a policy, guideline, essay or anything else--just a definition for a new word--well then manage the last one. If you want to put being funny first, then stamp this humor and forget its purpose. Miss Mondegreen talk  14:41, May 31 2007 (UTC)

wikifauna are now removed. Gnangarra 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you completely missed my point and this is actually less understandable now.

"Occasionally the sprawling vines within the garden jump the containment walls of mainspace, venturing into template creation, categories and even portals. Sometimes said categories are applied to articles which are only by the most tenuous and circuitous of logical reasonings connected to the school - even Featured Pictures aren't spared."

Featured Pictures aren't spared what? You removed the part about mass deletion, which is important, the overeacting to schoolcruft is just as bad as the schoolcruft itself, and I have no idea why you have an intro section explaining what the page used to be. That and a tag for an essay and a definition tag?

I'd edit the page to make it better, except that while I have an idea of what problems etc you're attempting to address, I don't know what you're attempting to say line by line, and I have no desire to rewrite this based on what I think you're trying to do.

In addition, the tone is incredibly condescending--"have no education or understanding in the ways of the wiki"?? What happened to WP:BITE?? You're biting in a "definition" which, btw, everyone should know about. Are you kidding? If you're attempting to address a real problem, that's good. But decide now if this is a humor page or a more content oriented page. I'm not saying that they don't overlap, but you need to choose a purpose and at points, you're really in the middle.

The page is snarky and rude and condescending and it's not only to your detriment in terms of the overall tone, it's to your detriment content wise as well. When you state or refer to things in an off-hand manner "even featured articles", "Sometimes said categories are applied..." or use coded language, "sprawling vines within the garden jump the containment walls of mainspace" people have no idea what you're talking about. The entire tone, though it's supposedly supposed to be teaching, assumes that everyone who reads the page knows in intricate detail all of the schoolcruft problems that exist. I know most of them and I still don't know what the heck you're talking about. I know overall, but you lose me on far too many individual lines.

Lose the tone, lose the attitude--don't try to tell people what they should know, especially when the page can't be understood. Just try and explain the problem, as factually as possible and as clearly as possible. Lay things out step by step, leave out unimportant information (aquinascruft) and try to define within the page all words that the average editor wouldn't know. There might be some which you're dependant on wiki-linking for but keep it simple. Assume that the person reading the page is a wiki-newbie or has no experience with school articles and just explain--but without all of the tone that exists now. Miss Mondegreen talk  13:13, June 9 2007 (UTC)

Re featured pictures (I own up to writing that particular part) - it was saying that the categories for the schools are applied to articles which have nothing to do with the school, and that even featured pictures (which have nothing to do with the school) are not spared (from having such categories added to them). If you feel this is unclear, I'm open to suggestions for wording changes. As for the no education/understanding (which someone else wrote), I don't think it's any secret you have to be here a while to know how the place works, same as any community really. I don't see the page overall as condescending or rude, although any suggestions to make it perceptibly less so are welcomed. Orderinchaos 15:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not an agreed definition

Please do not say that "this is a definition that all users should know about". It is not. TerriersFan 04:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Here's a novel and earth shattering thought, why don't you help build consensus then instead of making mindless unhelpful edits if you so strongly feel that it's not an agreed definition? Everyone else even the current MfD participants and the project putting it forward agree, so either contribute to the discussion to build consensus, or find something more useful to do. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's a novel and earth shattering thought? Wow, that's harsh. That's also the kind of attitude that's really persistent on the project page. I'd suggest that you find a new a kinder one. "build consensus then"? You mean on the Mfd? So editors who disagree with you or think that the page needs work should go talk about it elsewhere and let you WP:OWN the page? "this is a definition that all users should know about" is problematic. An essay can be used to define something, and really, if you only want to define the term, you should go elsewhere. An essay on Schoolcruft would cover a much broader topic and it's something that's really needed. The definition is sorta obvious...cruft in school related articles. Points on how to spot it, types of things that happen, behaviors associated with it, backlash from more experienced editors--that sort of information belongs in an essay, not a definition. No one is going to miss that you're defining a term if there's an essay tag at the top of the page, and this page's voice will only be as authoritative as it sounds. A cute definition tag doesn't make the difference. And quite frankly, two tags makes this page look confused. Miss Mondegreen talk  13:36, June 9 2007 (UTC)
    • I have removed the unagreed comment, per Miss Mondegreen, and it should remain out pending an agreement here. TerriersFan 16:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Um, doesn't it all work the other way around in the land of consensus? there needs to be consensus to take something out which was originally there... or am I just doing my usual round of bear poking with another administrator who exists on an entirely different level to the rest of us? If you want to apply this logic here, go do it at WP:VSCA and any other essay which is using the exact same box, just don't pick on one single item which seems to be a common trait of the administrators I encounter. Thewinchester ^(talk) 16:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Unless I am missing something (not an uncommon occurrence) the tag to which objection has been raised doesn't appear on Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. On reflection, I think that Miss Mondegreen was right that two tags confuse matters so I have removed the whole tag. TerriersFan 17:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Are you kidding? That's not how consensus works. Something that "was originally there" needs to get talk page consensus to be removed? No. The only page types that get talk page consensus before changes are policies and guidelines. If you're making a major change to an article, or bringing up something again that had previously been shot down, it's a good idea to propose on the talk page, but you can be bold. It depends on the situation. I'd suggest that you read WP:OWN because you're doing some serious owning here. Also in this case, you reverted me and said that it was "needed information" but you haven't responded to my comment above or explained how it's needed. Miss Mondegreen talk  20:34, June 9 2007 (UTC)

rotating IPs of schools

You might want to mention that school editors often edit from school IP addresses which are often dynamic. If they are malicious, this is a real problem and even if they aren't, it's difficult too because contacting them through IP address talk pages doesn't work at all.

If they don't know much about Wikipedia, and don't know to do to the talk pages or about edit histories etc, this can be a real problem. Miss Mondegreen talk  13:42, June 9 2007 (UTC)

• Good point, will evaluate and come up with some appropriate language shortly. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Way forward with this essay

This essay is long on describing the problem but short on solutions. Lisiting policy documents is not particularly helpful. What I should prefer is:

• Reference to some good school articles as examples
• A template to guide authors to a correct structure

On dealing with poor articles the way forward should be:

• Remove the objectionable material then stub the article.
• If the school is notable then the article should be improved (best) or tagged for improvement
• If the school is not notable then primary (elementary) schools should be put up for deletion but middle/high schools should be merged (if there is mergable content) into the achool district or locality and redirected. TerriersFan 17:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there may be a mixup here between articles and behaviour/tendency. This essay addresses the latter - the former is a matter for policies and guidelines as is any other Wikipedia article and indeed it would probably be inappropriate for an essay to address grounds better covered by existing policies and guidelines. The need for this essay arose because of 30+ XfDs across every area (MfD, CfD, TfD, AfD, RfD), several hundred speedies, GAC and FAC nominations (all of which failed), countless hours of coaching, fixing and such things by almost every admin and active user in the local Wikiproject, and several blocks. These issues are far bigger than a school's article and extend to an entire concept that really isn't defined elsewhere - basically, well-meaning editors (i.e. we're not talking vandals here, or bad faith editors) who are so blinded by pride in their educational institution that they are incapable of seeing that their actions don't assist in building and developing an encyclopaedia based on inclusion criteria. They don't just work on one article - they can literally create hundreds in a matter of days or even hours. Then templates magically start appearing, and categories. Over time we have found that some do eventually come around or grow out of it and become productive Wikipedians, however, that takes a long time and a lot of patience for a mixture of people of various temperaments to achieve. We're all volunteers, we all have limited time, so hours taken out sorting out these mini-crises every couple of weeks eats into the time we can spend productively developing articles of our own towards FA/GA or collaboration within the Wikiproject or indeed with others elsewhere (I'm presently involved with no less than 8 public projects and 4 private ones, and I think many people here are similarly committed). As for the last suggestion, the Australian consensus has leaned towards (although not ruled) a view that large high schools (public or private) or the institutional high schools are notable on their own while primary schools and small private schools are not. Orderinchaos 17:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Some helpful thoughts, thank you. On this basis I have removed two sentences from the article that purport to guide how to deal with such articles. The first sentence encourages misuse of speedy tags and the second recommends deletion when, as indicated above, there are several better options. TerriersFan 20:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, that change makes a lot of sense. Essentially this whole thing should ultimately be 1. How did this come about? 2. What is the problem, and its identifying features (starting with the most humorous and ridiculous, as I think getting people to see the error of their own ways by laughing at obviously ridiculous/out-there examples moreso than their own at first can actually be helpful - speaking as a trainee teacher here) 3. What can admins do if confronted by such a situation, and 4. How can we educate or help these users to see the way forward into a new paradigm of editing harmony? I think somewhere we might need to more carefully note that it is a certain class of school aged editors - I have seen school aged editors who exhibit a maturity that is rare to see even in adults, and others who may not but are still capable of editing encyclopaedically. I think we're starting from a good base with what we have, but there is *always* scope for improvement of a community resource. Orderinchaos 05:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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 essay. As for asking for explanation of changes to the article, you've got some real cheek asking that so considering that half these edits have been caused by you going all WP:POV without you 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 that it if you'd bothered to spend even 15 seconds looking at the history). Your continued ranting about statements in the essay 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 matter, 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 somewhere else, and leave this issue the heck alone. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• The essay encouraged me to "Please update the page as needed", I did. In turn, you and your buddy reverted the changes without explanation or justification. The essay invited me to "discuss it on the talk page", and I have. I explained exactly why the wording was inappropriate, and I have pointed out that the version that survived MfD was far worse. I explained that the threat in the essay to take people to WP:ANI as part of a content dispute is uncivil, and you turn around and claim that by discussing the issue I am "crying out for spanking at WP:ANI"? Again, if you cannot tolerate changes to the essay -- the ones that you yourself have made and that editors are encouraged to do -- it's time to move this essay to a user page and stop with the bullying . You may disagree with what I have to say, but use words, not threats, to address your concerns. Alansohn 11:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• This has now been listed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Actions_of_Alansohn_in_relation_to_continued_WP:POINT_disruptions_on_Wikipedia_talk:Schoolcruft Eusebeus 13:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• What seems to be the problem here? Yes, essays can be edited, that's what we're a wiki for. That does not mean that they shall therefore be edited to reflect the opinions of one particular user, especially if there's a consensus to the contrary. Unless there are obvious falsehoods in an essay, people who dissent with the opinion expressed in it may be better off writing a new essay reflecting their own opinion. >Radiant< 16:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• I think writing a separate essay giving a different opinion is the best solution. Essays can be edited if there is consensus to make a change. However it is clear that this essay is particularly controversial and people can not agree on its content from its basic point to individual words used. Making two essays would be beneficial as it would help balance two points of view and hopefully stop all this edit warring. I personally don't really agree with this essay either - and I have considered making another essay myself. Camaron1 | Chris 11:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Who WP:OWN's this essay? Several editors -- including User:Thewinchester -- have modified wording on this article that we have previously been told was set in stone after AfD. Read the relevant Wikipedia official policy on the matter 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." I have no objection to this article in userspace; move it there if there is an issue with other editors editing the article. I don't say that; Wikipedia official policy does. Follow it. Alansohn 11:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I am aware of the policies and guidelines on the issue - I never said anyone owned the essay or there is a problem with people editing it. I was just saying that second essays showing different points of view can be written if there is demand for it - which I think there is here. Camaron1 | Chris 12:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the essay. Some parts were a bit unclear, while others unwittingly criticised other sections of the Wikipedia community. While I don't feel that the one-man POV campaign waged in here by Alansohn is at all justified, and really needs to stop, improvements are always possible. If I have misunderstood the point of the essay in my edits, I am happy for others to review said edits. Zivko85 23:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)