User talk:Robert McClenon/Edit Intro

Introduction

User:Sdkb, User:Moxy - This page will be the forum to discuss the issue.

First statement by moderator

Okay. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements make the editor making the statement feel better, but that is the only good that they do. You may comment either on content or on contributors, but be civil. I expect each of you to check this page at least every 48 hours, preferably every 24 hours. Now, will each editor please state, from the beginning, in no more than 200 words, what they think the issues are. If you think that you need more than 200 words, keep it brief because I will ask for second, and maybe third, statements. At this point I am really trying to determine where to have further discussion conducted. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes. Address your statements to me, not to each other. If you want to engage in back-and-forth discussion, do it in the space that I have provided, so that I can ignore it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

First statement by Sdkb

Robert, regarding what the issue is, I don't really have anything to add to my summary of the dispute from DRN. I put work into making sure that was concise and included all the necessary context, and as I mentioned on your talk page, I'm happy to clarify anything that's unclear to you. Moxy's DRN summary was characteristically indecipherable and made no actual argument regarding the state of consensus so I have no response to it. Regarding opening this space, I'm dubious that it's really what's called for, as it seems intended for finding middle ground, and that's not something I'm trying to do. Consensus on Wikipedia doesn't mean that losing parties in a dispute can just pretend there's actually no consensus and force the majority to concede. Once it has been established (as I demonstrated at DRN), the losing party needs to drop the stick, and when they don't, others need to step up to enforce it. Robert, if you're prepared to step into that role, feel free to do so, but if you just see yourself as a distanced moderator above the fray, there's no point to this, and the next step is just for me to seek out others who are willing to fill that role. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Copied from DRN

There has been a long-running disagreement between Moxy and myself over the best general-purpose introduction page for new editors. Moxy, who was the main contributor to WP:Contributing to Wikipedia, prefers that page; I, one of several editors who has worked on the Help:Introduction (H:I) series, prefer it. We have clashed on several occasions, and it has become increasingly clear that Moxy does not have community consensus behind them. The link was changed from WP:Contributing to H:I first at {{Welcome}} in April (following an admin-closed VPR discussion, albeit one in which the focus was mostly on other changes), then at the top of the Main page in June following a small discussion, and (most compelling) adopted in the left sidebar following a well-attended WP:CENT/VPR/admin-closed discussion. Over the past month, H:I has averaged over 3,000 pageviews per day, compared to only ~300 for WP:Contributing. As all this has transpired, Moxy has become increasingly hostile (example: "village idiot", referring to me in an unrelated context where we crossed paths); I'm taking this here rather than ANI since I care mostly about the content outcome and to try to keep the temperature slightly lower, but it's context to note.

All this leads to the current dispute at {{Talk header}}, where there's been a discussion on various wording tweaks. I proposed that switching to H:I be among them and included it in the sandboxed changes as we moved toward implementation. Moxy objected and no one else took a side regarding the intro page, but I felt comfortable including it in the suite of changes because of the extensive precedent above. Moxy partially reverted back to WP:Contributing, with summary dont see anyone that agrees to this bad link, and followed up with a reply at talk that looks pretty transparently like an attempt to muddy the waters.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 168#Proposal to streamline the welcome template
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 199#that anyone can edit. 2
• Template talk:Talk header#Reverted wording changes

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I hope we don't have to have another large debate here about the respective merits of the different introduction pages. That discussion has already taken place: whichever link is best is best, and that doesn't meaningfully change whether it's the left sidebar or {{Talk header}} or somewhere else, so we shouldn't need to rehash a discussion that has already been held multiple times. But I'm tired of fighting Moxy dragging their feet at every turn. I hope others here can lay down clearly that the extensive precedent is sufficient justification for standardizing around Help:Introduction over WP:Contributing to Wikipedia wherever that dispute arises.

First statement by Moxy

Summary of dispute by Moxy

Simply needs to gain consensus for the addition in this case (not to all 500 other additions) as there is clear objection. (Perhaps let the ongoing talk continue as they have done a few times.) Sdkb seems to believe that a talk for one page allows them to add the 70+ page "Editing" tutorial on every page replacing many other how to pages that cover much more then just editing. As I have stated many times before a "How to Edit" module tutorial is not always best. Even after being shown how bad the intro is doing they still wish to add it all over. As someone who cares about accessibility I do have a problem with a link to our main help pages edited by many experienced editors replaced by a non-standard GIANT tutorial that the vast majority are not reading thru (Wikipedia adventure all over again :-( ). This would be the third time we have tried a multiple page tutorial and for the 3rd time its failed...so I will be objecting in some cases to its replacement... just a few here and there and not the mass change of links overall. As per Wikipedia:Consensus "The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process." Lets not get caught in a lie again.--Moxy 🍁 19:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

Based on what User:Sdkb has said, it appears that they are looking for something with more force than I can provide. I am not an administrator and cannot issue blocks. If you want blocks, you have to go to WP:ANI. So I will try to clarify whether they need a new RFC, which is binding, or enforcement of an existing RFC. I have copied statements from the closed DRN here for reference. So what I will ask both editors now is whether they think that a new RFC is needed, or enforcement of an RFC, or is there an article content issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

Second statement by Sdkb

Robert, Moxy below seems to be saying that the three discussions I cited above as precedent don't count because none of them were explicitly about {{Talk header}}. That's a pretty weak argument that I already addressed above: whichever link is best is best, and that doesn't meaningfully change whether it's the left sidebar or {{Talk header}} or somewhere else, so we shouldn't need to rehash a discussion that has already been held multiple times. There's also WP:CONLEVEL to consider: a template talk page clearly doesn't override the village pump. The rest is mostly regurgitating arguments about the merits of WP:Contributing/flaws of H:I (which again, I'm not looking to get into here; they were not able to sway consensus in the prior discussions) and alluding to a very messy separate dispute about the welcome templates more generally that is thankfully currently dormant and will hopefully stay that way.

To answer your question, I think enforcement of the existing discussions is what's needed. Holding another RfC would likely turn into another debate about the merits, which would further waste editors' time affirming a consensus that's already about as clear as it's likely to get at this moment. Trying to move toward wrapping this up, I think what likely makes the most sense is reaching out to Rosguill (the closing admin of the sidebar link discussion) to get their thoughts. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Second statement by Moxy

Its all about accessibility and readers behavior. Just need to let the talk finish not run to mom (rfc) when they are faced with opposition but instead take the advice of those that are aware of how to pages. Very simple the edit is disputed in the case (not 500 other edits to drive traffic to their one favorite page) so they need to gain conncesus.... this is how our community works. Conncesus at one place in time for one page does not equal a free for all to orphan our other help pages edtied by the project. We have had this problem before and they have been told this before. Lack of understanding of whats going on is a problem. A good example of not understanding is the " "village idiot" comment above that was talking about Trump and was not related to them in anyway. Stats dont lie and I wish they understood the damage that has occurred. Another example used above shows a lack of hearing others Template talk:Welcome#Dislike new template..this caused a loss of editing privilege's for them as they did not seem to understand there was a problem raised by many. Tom said it best. No RfC or any talk for that matter has said we should replace all instances of other help pages with this one tutorial.Moxy 🍁 12:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

It occurs me to that neither editor has stated in one or two paragraphs what the issue is in the first place. It has something to do with the introduction for editors, but that could be almost anything. If the editors want moderated discussion, then they need to explain to me briefly what the issue is.

If either editor says that they have decided that they definitely do not want moderated discussion, or has decided that they definitely intend to ask for an administrative remedy, then it isn't necessary to describe the controversy other than to say that you won't describe it. But if I am to continue moderating, I need to know what it is that you are arguing about. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

Third statement by Sdkb

Robert, to further boil down my DRN post, the issue is Moxy's false claim, made when they reverted at {{Talk header}} and in other similar situations, that there is no consensus around whether to use Help:Introduction or WP:Contributing to Wikipedia as the preferred link for a general-purpose introduction to editing. This is despite the discussions such as [1] that have established that the community prefers the former over the latter.

I appreciate your attempt to help moderate here, but I honestly don't see it going anywhere, so while I'm not definitely opposed to it continuing if there's something else you want to say, I don't really see much else to do here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion

.