I think too often the editors of articles suddenly have a bunch of people from here descend on them without having had a chance to put their point of view across or properly see what the concerns are, so I've added a bit in the header about informing about discussions on the original talk or a relevant project page. Dmcq (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. This noticeboard is to discuss when material is fringe and issues with articles. Much like how WP:RSN doesn't require notification I don't think we need it here either. If the sourcing is poor etc or the views fringe then people on the notice board can see, and they can also join in the talk page to see what the discussions are. It's a courtesy someone may give to interested people but it should not be compulsory. If someone has ulterior motives or the material is not obviously fringe it is usually readily apparent. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Well this is the one where I found a real problem with. If you really dislike telling editors that you're discussing things behind their backs then perhaps I should take it to VPP and perhaps we can have a proper talk about editors forming a cabal and mobbing on articles? Dmcq (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware of any content noticeboard that requires interested editors to be informed. That includes RSN, NPOVN, NORN and BLPN etc. This board is for discussing the content and not about user disputes so I fail to see the issue. Do you plan on discussing these at VPP as well? And seriously, don't edit war to change the header as you have done so here [6]. You were bold, I reverted, now discuss it. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Read the heading for WP:NORN again. Dmcq (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Also have another look at the heading for WP:NPOVN. Dmcq (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No mentions at all like your wording that I can see. NORN mentions if you talk about another editor, which is wholly different to "interested editors". IRWolfie- (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the reasons why we have noticeboards is to inform previously uninvolved editors that a potential problem exists... and to invite these editors to participate in resolving the problem. In other words... having a bunch of new editors "descend" on a problematic article is sort of the point behind having noticeboards. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Also called mobbing. Okay it sems you lot are unwilling to deal with your problem editing. Dmcq (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you stop with the battlefield mentality and discuss things without the edge. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

So how exactly do people collaborate when they're not told about discussions behind their backs about articles they have worked on and put an effort into? Or exactly what type of collaboration are you talking about? Why should you expect anything expect battleground mentality? Dmcq (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Any consensus reached about the article is still done through the talk pages so I fail to see the problem. If I boldly edit I still have to take it to the article talk page if I'm reverted. I expect no battleground mentality because I would hope they would assume good faith. If on the other hand a specific user is mentioned by name then it seems that a mention should be made on the talk page about the FRN section as a common courtesy. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I would assume that those who have worked on an article will have it on their watch list. They will see that a bunch of edits are being made to the article, and that there is a sudden flurry of comments being made on the article's talk page. At which point they should go to the article, and find out what the issue is... and talk about it. Everyone then edits collaboratively until a consensus is achieved and the problem is resolved. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me to unreasonable to expect us notify people who simply edit a particular article. And in practice we have not wanted to turn this into yet another place to discuss content of specific articles. I could consider some sort of article talk page notification for extended discussion. Mangoe (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Well... to be fair, we do sometimes discuss specific issues here... in addition to being a place to request third-party involvement, noticeboards are places where editors can ask questions and get advice as to how to interpret the relevant policy/guideline within the context of a given situation - advice that can then be taken back to the article talk page for further discussion.

I suspect that Dmcq is thinking this noticeboard is a place where disputes are settled and "rulings" are issued (like AfD). It isn't. It is simply a place where editors can ask questions and get answers from experienced editors, and a place to request that more editors get involved in an article's talk page discussion. The decisions are still made at the article. Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No I view it as a place where people WP:CANVASS a bunch of like-minded others and talk about articles without the editors who actually are doing work on the articles knowing what silly decisions they come to. Then a mob goes off and supports each other against the established editors in revising the article or sending it to AfD or whatever without ever properly listening to the other side of the argument. What I wanted in was a request

Please inform editors of any named articles about the discussion by putting a note on the talk page of the articles or an associated project.

so in most cases unless there was a good reason otherwise the whole business would be transparent. I believe something like this is needed to stop this happening. I am not asking for the fringe noticeboard to be removed or anything like that. I just want it to comply to some extent with 'Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner.' in WP:5P. Dmcq (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that WP:5P has been violated by the regulars here. What I have seen is you characterizing the editors here as a cabal and as "problem editors". Do you think that is a respectful and civil manner? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

One would expect that a sizable discussion on this page should have some input from editors on the article. Looking upwards the first big discussion is Monetary hegemony. The discussion there mentioned particular ips and a specific article. Looking at the talk page of the article and the ips I see no mention of the discussion here, nor even any discussion about fringe. This is the sort of lack of transparency I am talking about. People are coming to decisions about the article here based on one sided discussion. Exactly how much respect does that show for editors of that article? Dmcq (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the disconnect here is that I don't see a need for transparency. There is nothing to be transparent about. While we do sometimes discuss specific articles or edits on this noticeboard, we don't reach any decisions ... all we do is give third party opinion and advice. Any decisions still need to be made at the article in question. Blueboar (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

A decision is something people agree to. Decisions are made here. It may require consensus at the talk page of the article but when people make a decision they are unwilling to rethink. The rethink time needs to be before or during any discussion, not afterwards. You are simply fooling yourself if you think you can engage in a discussion here and then go off with an open mind to talk with the editors of an article. Dmcq (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It may seem as if we are not open minded... but that is because we are not being asked to be open minded. We are being asked to share an opinion give advice. Thus, when presented with a question about a problematic article, we each go off and examine the situation and reach our own personal opinion... we then come back, and share that opinion. Sometimes our personal opinions agree... but just as often they do not agree. That's OK... because the job of this page is to offer opinion, not to reach agreement. You say we reach decisions... I disagree. Can you give me an example of a decision that was reached on this page? Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I could see a line positioning it as an option and not a demand, e.g. "Consider adding a courtesy notification and link to WP:FTN to the Talk page of the article in question. Notification is not mandatory, however ensuing discussion may help clarify the undue weight policy to editors unfamiliar with it". - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I was phrasing it as a should rather than a must with the please, but I don't see the need for 'notification is not mandatory' as if it was some great imposition and people were wonderful to do it. I could live with that though. Dmcq (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It may be of interest to create a template to drop on an article talk page informing them that a discussion may be taking place on FTN. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI: I haven't looked too hard, but I see other boards such as WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN don't include any such advisories in the header. My guess is that 'courtesy notifications' on article Talk pages are considered to fall within the purview of the individual editor and not the noticeboard. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOVN says 'Give a link here to that discussion, and the final answer to your question will be posted there where other users can read the result.'.

NORN says 'If you mention specific editors, please inform them of the thread.'

The problem with this noticeboard is that unlike those noticeboards people tend to have a very strong viewpoint about any fringe stuff on this noticeboard. As one editor says here 'In other words... having a bunch of new editors "descend" on a problematic article is sort of the point behind having noticeboards.' But that is not what happens in other noticeboards to anything like the same extent. And this lot go in for wholescale revision or deletion not just looking at specific points in articles like some OR or NPOV problem. Dmcq (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

While it's true that people (myself included) occasionally verbally roll their eyes or make wisecracks about some of the marginal fringe stuff that's discovered being given undue weight in the encyclopedia, I don't think it indicates the presence of uniform mindset and coordinated group action you may be feeling. That said, I'd support the inclusion of 'If you mention specific editors, please inform them of the thread' in the header. That's only fair. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

What exactly have you against informing people if you are discussing an article at this noticeboards You said 'however ensuing discussion may help clarify the undue weight policy to editors unfamiliar with it'. That seems to assume this notice board is always right any editors who know about a subject are wrong. Ignoring that though, exactly why now are you coming round to thinking you should discuss things without informing the people who are most concerned? If it were actually true that this noticeboard just gave some advice I could perhaps see the point of having a quiet spot to ask a third opinion, but that is not what this noticeboard is at all. Just consider the first big debate on this page about some astrology business for instance. As usual no notification at anywhere relevant. However looking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology I see the noticeboard trying to tell them directly what to do about some earlier business and then accusing them of votestacking and meatpuppetry at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive729#WikiProject_Astrology_discussion_snowing. The accusation seems to me from that discussion to have been wrong, but what gets me is a crowd who go around discussing things and in effect canvassing behind editors backs going around accusing people on a project of votestacking. It always seems to be the people who are doing something who go around accusing others of doing it. The main problem I could see in that discussion was that people had not been involved in discussion to clarify policies - so why not involve them? What is so bad about that as the default action? Dmcq (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The cited examples of actions by 'the noticeboard' are nothing of the sort. They are actions of a single editor who happened also to have participated discussion here, and not of the group as a whole. For that matter, 'the noticeboard' is a forum and not a group at all. Agricolae (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The header says 'Editors may seek advice on whether or not a particular topic is fringe or mainstream (especially outside of the fields of science and pseudoscience).' and 'Questions related to articles on fringe theories may be answered here'. That is supposed to be the main way noticeboards operate with perhaps an editor going off occasionally. You may try and say the noticeboard is just comprised of individuals who give advice and some help to editors on problems with articles, but that is not what happens, it acts as a project to root out fringe in Wikipedia or try and ameliorate it with lots of correct thinking.. For instance I give another current example on this page with the notice about an AfD at the bottom. You don't give notice about AfDs to noticeboards, you give it to interested projects. Dmcq (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing against informing people if you are discussing an article at this noticeboard, but I don't agree it should be a compulsory condition of using this noticeboard. I do agree that if you discuss a specific user on a noticeboard it's fair to notify them of the discussion. And I didn't mean to infer that this noticeboard is always right. I'm sorry if you misunderstood. As for the Astrology article example, not being involved with it, I don't know much about what went on there, but I get the impression that problems were caused by individual editors behavior, not noticeboard policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't saying it should be compulsory, just something people should be encouraged to do. I fact I can see people wanting some quiet advice without dragging the editors from an article in. In NORN you quite often get people talking about a problem without mentioning the particular article and you get editors wondering what exactly the problem is because they are not explicit. If it was just the person asking the question who went back I'd be happy with them getting some advice, or if some people went to a discussion on the relevant talk page immediately without much noticeboard discussion that would probably be okay too even though it is tending a bit more towards canvassing. The real problems come when there is a lengthy noticeboard discussion without the involvement of interested editors of the article concerned and then people go to the article. Dmcq (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll try out the 'Consider adding a courtesy notification and link to WP:FTN to the Talk page of the article in question. Notification is not mandatory, however ensuing discussion may help clarify the undue weight policy to editors unfamiliar with it' you said and see how people react to that. Dmcq (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

After reading the links you supplied, I saw only the actions of one particular editor and no evidence of the noticeboard acting collectively, so I no longer feel adding my suggested admonition is necessary. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I was illustrating that this isn't a noticeboard, it acts more like a project whose members go out and do things to the articles. Saying discussion here just advises is false. Have a look at the end of another thing on this board just at the moment for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Siegel (2nd nomination) at the bit at the end with a complaint about the noticeboard and the reply 'it simply informs a large group of interested editors'. About what? That they should descend onto that AfD. That's what a project does. People from other noticeboards do go along to articles if requested and sometimes if not but normally to try an fix a particular problem, not in order to rip up articles or delete them. I don't see much cooperation or helping editors here, and how can it if it doesn't want to tell interested editors but wishes to keep things quiet till decisions are made? Dmcq (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the noticeboard to deal with undue weight being given to something. If material is undue a lot of the time nothing else can be done but remove some of the undue material and sometimes instead by providing more balance. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The point is that you are not in that case giving advice on a noticeboard. if you discuss something here and then go to the article after a discussion here you have made a decision. Reinforming a decision after people have made is is difficult. If the people discussing do not include anyone from th article then what has happened is that a number of people with a point of view have been canvassed and made an uninformed decision and mobbed the article.

I have no objection to people coming to a noticerboard for a quiet second opinion, but if the noticeboard is being recruited for action and does a big uninformed discussion than it is simply acting just like any of those noticeboards on the web with a POV recruiting people to go and cause trouble on Wikipedia. I know editors here have the wonderful idea they don't make mistakes and you go on that if a mob descends on an article it still requires consensus there, but this is simply not true, and even if it were true exactly how is Wikipedia served by annoying people at the targetted articles instead of involving them in the decisions? You are the battle mentality ones with not wanting to reveal your plans to the enemy and acting as a group. How about a bit more openness?

What exactly is your reason for not wanting to encourage involvement from editors interested in the articles that concern you? And while you're at it explain why Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rational_Skepticism is not used for recruiting people instead and this left mainly for discussion? They put a header onto talk pages declaring their interest at least. Dmcq (talk) 11:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This noticeboard has 3 main purposes, 1. To allow an editor to find out if a particular topic is mainstream or fringe. 2. so that editors can ask fringe theories related questions and 3. to report undue material. None of these things requires notification and consensus still must be reached on the talk page if any objections are raised there. The most prominent recent example of this that comes to mind is the discussions at Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming/Archive_25 which were mentioned on the noticeboard here: [7]. Notice that the editors who responded to the FTN also went to the article page and participated in the discussions, attempts were made to reach consensus on the article talk page and no "secrete consensus" or whatever was made or attempted at FTN, (have a look at RSN, a similar approach exists there too). RSN doesn't require notification either. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe that article is well aware of your efforts having survived six AfDs. I note fringe was not one of the grounds people tried even though that was supposedly the reason for bringing it here.Editors just went in for anything they could think of sensible or not. Here is where I discussed it on the OR noticeboard I don't get involved with that article itself. Wikipedia:NORN#List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming. My assessment of this noticeboard there was

You're quite right about that. The diagrams should go. Most of the lead should go. The notes should be made into footnotes. I believe you've got that lead there because you've got this Fringe project here that insist on plastering the correct science everywhere even though it is obvious an article is about fringe scientists. An the justifications on each scientist are because of people like the OP here disputing the inclusion of scientists even when it is as obvious as a punch in the eye that they are clearly correctly in the list. Basically a lot of public aggro politics and money makes it controversial rather than any of the facts. As to the reason the list is there i the first place, that's because such a list is notable - organisations like the Heartland Institute claim to have produce lists of such scientist and newspapers and books have commentated (not that all the ones listed in the Heartland Institute's list actually are so aligned!). Dmcq (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

So you can see another problem I have with this noticeboard. I guess they're connected to some extent in that who does plots action on articles and wants to keep it quiet except someone with a strong POV? Myself I support NPOV. Dmcq (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to, Fringe is mentioned repeatedly in discussions on the talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

While I also don't think it is necessary, I would not object to adding a request to "consider" notification. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Subject also apparently being discussed at WP:VPP#Link_to_noticeboard_in_article_talk_page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

And how did you feel about that? Suppose that was explicitly about this noticeboard and went on for a week without anybody here knowing and they were talking about MfD. How would you feel then? Dmcq (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this an admission on your part of being WP:POINTY? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No it is a straight question. I considered it a general problem but came to the conclusion that this noticeboard was the only one where it really was a very bad problem so no general thing was needed. There's no point in general stuff if particular remedies will do. And can I correct you yet again about your 'None of these things requires notification', I was not asking for notrification to be required, in fact I explicitly put 'is not madndatory' in the second version. I was wanting a prompt there to get people to consider notifying. I am fully aware there are circumstances where people might not want to and I have nothing against that. I would just like people to be prompted to do it if reasonable.

Anyway as to my earlier questions to you - What exactly is your reason for not wanting to encourage involvement from editors interested in the articles that concern you? And why is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rational_Skepticism not used for recruiting people instead and this one left mainly for discussion? That project put headers on talk poages declaring their interest. Dmcq (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way I also get the impression that some of the people are here just to help fringe products or aid industry by ensuring Wikipedia does not have an article about them giving a fairly neutral perspective by ensuring the articles are deleted or made unreadable. Don't you ever wonder if you are being used in that way? Dmcq (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think that attacking other users helps your case in the least. 86.** IP (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

How about actually giving a reason for your reversion? And who am I attacking that you'd like to defend? Dmcq (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's useful, it's rules creep, and it's not in accordance with other noticeboards. The change requires the case to be made, and I don't think you've made it. And frankly, conspiracy-mongering claims about trying to hide negative information should be marked with a ^{[citation needed]}. Demonstrate it happens before making claims we must change the policy of the noticeboard because of it. 86.** IP (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been showing the evidence from items current in this noticeboard for the problems without showing the worst cases because I wish to correct a general problem rather than accuse individual editors. Attacking individual editors is not my aim, helping this noticeboard to function better is. Dmcq (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want an example which raises concern but is not at the far end for this board and so not worth a formal complaint how about your one on this page of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Siegel (2nd nomination)? The discussion went on here for two days with no notice and people have gone there to vote on an AfD. This example is not too bad because most people would have gone there direct rather than fixing their opinions here first but I notice comments at the AfD of

• Comment per advertising this AfD. If we are canvassing editors from NB, only canvassing the Finge Theories NB hardly seems a neutral way to alert Wikipedia editors. I strongly suggest including other notice boards or removing the notice from the Fringe Theories NB.

• No problem with posting on the Fringe Theories NB, lots of concern with posting only on the Fringe Theories NB which targets a specific group of editors, which defines canvassing. I've posted on the BLP/NB and RS/NB. I have no attachment to this article at all, but this should be dealt with properly.

Does this not imply to you that this place is seen as a canvassing forum and that a bit mor openness might help? This noticeboard was not mentioned on the article talk page or the AfD before this nor is the article even under the rational scepticism project. Why had the projects who had expressed an interest not been notified and this one was? I then went to the BLP project and saw Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Bernie_Siegel and you might be interested in the comments there. Dmcq (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way that AfD should have been notified to those relevant projects deletion sorting lists as per the AfD notice directions by the instigator rather than leaving it to Gene93k to do it two days later. Dmcq (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

First, I notice you omit the comment that was given between the two you quote (which essentially notes that there was no problem with the notice posted here). That's called "selective quoting" and indicates your own lack of neutrality.

Second, there is no requirement that anyone be notified when an article is sent to AfD (projects are rarely notified of AfDs) ... yes, notifying people is a nice courtesy, but it is not a requirement. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

On your first point I was illustrating a person complaining, what was the point of the bit in between in that context? To reiterate that people on this noticeboard ignore complaints? And secondly as I have repeatedly said I am not asking for a requirement, I am asking people to consider the courtesy of informing people on the talkpage of the article they're discussing. Dmcq (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

And as for the courtesy at AfD what it says is

After nominating: notifying interested projects and editors

While it is sufficient to list an article for discussion at AfD (see below), nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. All such efforts must comply withWikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing.

....+ more about notifying projects and courtesy to main contributors

That is the kind of thing I want here. They needn't have the bit about canvassing. Dmcq (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

And if you look at the notification (a few sections below this one) you will see that it does comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvasing (WP:Canvassing)... the notification in question simply lists the AfD page and says "for those who are interested". That is not canvasing.

The thing is, I still think you don't understand the purpose of this page ... The purpose is to get input from people who have not previously been involved with a given article... people who understand the WP:FRINGE policy, and don't have an axe to grind. Having those already involved with an article get involved in such discussions can actually disrupt that purpose. Indeed, I would actually discourage notification. Blueboar (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

And I perfectly understand some people wanting quiet advice, that's why the wording was 'please consider' and 'is not mandatory'. And as I said in that particular instance people did go to the discussion without excessive discussion here beforehand. However if the purpose is not a quiet discussion and go back with some advice but to get action I believe it is a common courtesy to allow interested editors to comment rather than people discussing here and going with fixed opinions as a group to fix or delete an article. Dmcq (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

How about even more qualification by if the discussion lasts more than a day? I'm not keen on making things complicated but a bit of simple advice should be easy enough to do and it is the long debates which fix ideas that are the worry. Dmcq (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If any notification should be given, it should point interested editors to the talk page/AfD discussions, not to the discussions that take place here. After all... those are the discussions that really matter. A discussion here might inspire someone to send an article to AfD, but its the discussion at AFD that result in deletion or retention ... a discussion here might recommend a particular way to fix an article... but it is the discussion at the article that results in a given fix being implemented. Blueboar (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Just as a point of order, this whole debate should have been on the Talk page, not the noticeboard itself. I'll refrain from moving it, but please keep that in mind in the future. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You know as well as I do when people who are all united in something make a concerted decision it is difficult for an outsider to change their minds when they go off somewhere else. The interested editors need to be in the discussions early. They still might not be able to influence things much but just having a couple of people giving an opposite opinion can help greatly in avoiding problem decisions. Are you really saying that you think Wikipedia would be served better if this noticeboard was operated off Wikipedia and had some security on peoples questions so outsiders didn't get into deliberations like ArbCom does? Dmcq (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

That's right - we all meet under the dark of the new moon, and after exchanging the secret handshake we decide the fate of unsuspecting pages, then climb into our black helicopters and swoop in to wreck havoc on poor helpless editors that can't withstand the onslaught of such an organized and belligerent foe. As if! Contrary to this straw-man scenario you keep parading out, in the time I have monitored this noticeboard I don't recall once seeing the group reach a collective decision, or even act in such a way as to reflect a group decision-making process. Nor have I seen them head off, as a group, to involve themselves in page editing. What I have seen are editors already of like mind on a subject, who when learning here of a page that merits attention, each go there to edit in a manner consistent with their individual opinions on the matter, which happen to be in concert. While it might look the same on the other end, that should not be confused with collective action after a concerted decision, as you repeatedly portray it. A legitimate argument could be made that this noticeboard is sometimes used for canvasing, but your repeated assertion that it is acting in any coordinated manner is totally without foundation. The discussion that matters occurs on the given Talk pages. Agricolae (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Dmcq's analysis of what goes on here seems wide of the mark. Mathsci (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me there is agreement that

Editors here prefer not to have interested editors from an article come here after being informed about a page

The pages brought to the attention of this noticeboard are discussed here sometimes at length

The people here do tend to be of a like mind about fringe

Editors often do go off from here to edit or vote on an AfD on an article

Editors here see no need to inform interested projects even as a courtesy about AfDs

Editors think that after a discussion without interested editors their minds are still open to when they go off to an article and that they can take onboard input from interested editors there even if they didn't want it here.

Editors here see no problem with what they are doing

Is this an accurate description of the situation? Dmcq (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

1 is false. The entire point of the board is to get an outside view from uninvolved editors into the discussion & provide opinions on if the topic is fringe or not. Involved editors aren't unwelcome, but often just carry their previous dispute to this page (which is not very conducive to discussing the topic itself).

2 is true.

3 is too broad a generalization. Most folks watching this board tend towards a more skeptical bent, but that does not mean everyone here thinks alike "about fringe."

4 is false. More often, the person who brings the concern here gets a fresh perspective, and sometimes more policy-based reasons for their opinion. Sometimes editors here will visit an article Talk or AfD if they feel they can contribute to the discussion.

5 is not related to this board. If an article goes to AfD, then it's the responsibility of whomever files the AfD to inform interested parties.

6... is worded very poorly. I think you mean "editors here make up their minds before going to the page," which is not correct. Or, at least, it's painting with too broad a brush again.

7 is true. So far, the board appears to be working properly, just like the other Noticeboards.

Back to point 1 for a moment: Clarifications from the involved editors can be useful; more often than not, though, they tend to drag old arguments from the article Talk page onto this board. And I mean arguments, not discussions. Rivalries can be difficult to let go.

This board and its cousins (NPoV/N, NOR/N and the rest) are designed to be places where someone can visit and ask "is X appropriate for article Y?" It helps get an outside view on the subject, so you aren't just in an echo chamber that sometimes develops on an article's Talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

On #6... I have to ask what Dmcq thinks we need to be open minded about? Is he saying we need to be open minded as to whether the material in question is fringe or not? Is he saying we need to be open minded as to how to apply the relevant policies and guidelines? Or is he saying something else? Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I had a search around and there's a couple of articles on Wikipedia which correspond with my impression of what happens here. The top level one is group decision making] and I believe the noticeboard falls prey to groupthink and conformity. Particularly this bit from groupthink:

He went on to write:

The main principle of groupthink, which I offer in the spirit of Parkinson's Law, is this: The more amiability and esprit de corps there is among the members of a policy-making ingroup, the greater the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink, which is likely to result in irrational and dehumanizing actions directed against outgroups.

Janis claimed to have found eight "main symptoms" of groupthink: "invulnerability," "rationale," "morality," "stereotypes," "pressure," "self-censorship," "unanimity," and "mindguards." Among nine "recommendations for preventing groupthink" were "1 The leader of a policy-forming group should assign the role of critical evaluator to each member..." and "5 The group should invite one or more outside experts to each meeting...."

covers it as far as what I was saying I think about notifying interested editors before things got too fixed in a discussion here. You might like to read the section Groupthink#Causes as well. Dmcq (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a nice failure to WP:AGF while painting anyone who visits the board with a broad brush. ಠ_ಠ Is there any further point to this discussion? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict] This characterization is predicated on the misconception that there is any decision-making process going on here - there isn't. You put forward a suggestion. It was resisted by several editors. Repeatedly mischaracterizing the process here, accusing the participants of this noticeboard of wanting to run a star chamber or of failing to think independently seems an unproductive approach to sway that opinion in your favor. Agricolae (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that comes under the long one in my summary. Editors who believe they can engage in a long discussion and then have an open mind rather than having decided anything. What I want if there s an extended discussion is input from editors who are interested in and know about the subject. Perhaps I should have split that in two. Editors thinking they can egage in a long discussion and not come to an opinion about something. And secondly editors thinking that when they have come to an opinion after a long discussion they are still pretty free and open to new ideas about a subject when the people who actually are interested in the article discuss it with them. And from that bit I read in Wikipedia perhaps I should add editors who believe they are immune to psychological effects of talking with an in group because things like that don't apply to them.

Anyway as far as the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Siegel (2nd nomination) which I used as an example above though it didn't have too long a discussion #Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Siegel (2nd nomination) |here below]] on it. It looks like the AfD is being withdrawn after other editors got into the business. Since an editor said " That's called "selective quoting" and indicates your own lack of neutrality" for leaving this out out when quoting stuff from there I will now quote a reply from one of the noticeboard people there, Incidentally they raised the AfD and both they and the one who brought that article here and first responded to the AfD are the ones who reverted my proposed and alternate wording for the header.

It's perfectly acceptable to inform people on the FTN noticeboard as this is a way of centrally informing people (it's the primary board for dealing with undue and fringe material), it is not canvassing, the board isn't partisan, it simply informs a large group of interested editors (you can add FTN to your watchlist and be one of these interested editors). It's not put on other boards because there are no other relevant boards except maybe BLPN

They left out the courtesy AfD notifications to interested projects including BLP by the AfD sorting lists, another editor did that two days after the AfD was raised.

Now I can see people here grasping on this instance as an example where the system worked but really I would like you to consider if that really is the right conclusions or really you ought to notify an article in its talk page if a discussion here goes beyond somebody comes here, gets a bit of independent advice and then goes away with it. Do you really believe like people have said above that it is a bad idea to have interested editors from articles come here? Editors from this noticeboard go away with the idea of doing radical editing or AfDs. Do you really believe you listen properly to people whom you think you would be better off without here? Especially if they only get their voice in at the very end? Dmcq (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think editors go away with the idea of doing editing based on policy, which is hardly radical. This is all getting rather tiresome, one editor is upset. Let's move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay I don't think I am getting very far with the editors on this noticeboard. I'll go and figure out what to say and then set up an RfC, that'll get a decision one way or the other as best Wikipedia is able to decide disputes like this. Dmcq (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should there be advice to notify an article if discussion is extended or invites action?

The result is not done. This proposal clearly does not enjoy broad based support from the community. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like a statement at the top of the fringe noticeboard along these lines:

If a discussion on an article is extends over a day or invites action, please place a notice on the article's talk page, or an associated project page for multiple articles. This is not mandatory.

I believe having interested editors informing discussions here would lead to better decisions. The 'extends' is so that people can come here for a quick bit of quiet advice and then go away with that. Dmcq (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Editors on the fringe noticeboard are active in radically altering or deleting articles and yet make their decisions uninfomed by interested editors, they actively do not want interested editors on this noticeboard. I believe their decisions are quite often rather poor because of this. I fully appreciate that sometimes people want a bit of quiet advice and then go back themselves without other editors jumping in, that's why I'm asking only that others be informed when the discussion gets extended or it looks like people might be thinking of doing something like deleting the article. Once people get the wrong iidea in their minds it can be hard to change during an AfD debate for instance, and having a whole lot of like minded people here tends to consolidate that. You can see more about their opposition to interested editors above and examples from this page of what happens in the above debate. You can check the later additions to this page for yourself too and see what's happening. The thing that brought me here originally was Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 30#Global warming conspiracy theory when I checked up why a bunch of people had descended on an article wanting to delete it and just didn't seem to want to listen to anybody. Dmcq (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Simply put, you came at this with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and refuse to listen. Further, that you single out this noticeboard and no other indicates something personal on your end. The proposed wording is too vague to be useful (what does "invites action" mean?). You still seem to be under the impression that "decisions" are made here, which is incorrect and has been explained to you several times. Finally, you have been explicitly told we are not "opposed" to having involved editors come here. Given that, I see no point in your proposal outside your not hearing what you want to hear. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unnecessary instruction creep. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Addendum... Dmcq contends that a discussion here resulted in "a bunch of people descending on an article wanting to delete it" and that these people did not want to "listen to anybody". Given that the article in question was not deleted, I don't see what the concern is. Obviously, enough people did "listen"... because the article was not deleted. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I covered this point in the discussion before this in a similar case on this page currently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Siegel (2nd nomination) which was eventually withdrawn after other editors got into the act. There was a complaint there that the AfD had omitted notifications to the appropriate deletion lists but that was done two days later by someone unconnected. As I said about that "Now I can see people here grasping on this instance as an example where the system worked but really I would like you to consider if that really is the right conclusions or really you ought to notify an article in its talk page if a discussion here goes beyond somebody comes here, gets a bit of independent advice and then goes away with it." There are a number of people interested in climate change as opposed to some smaller articles, but there have been accusations against people like User:William M. Connolley for instance who are very anti the 'skeptics' in climate change that they are pushing fringe because they are happy to show what these anti science people are up to, but the anti fringe crowd want to delete or cover with 'the truth' anything like that so people can't easily read what's said about it. Dmcq (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

... I'm barely following your statement here, given the long run-on sentence at the end. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with Blueboar's statement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar said that there wasn't a problem because the AfD failed. I pointed out that there were a large number of people interested in climate change. I also pointed out that the the fringe noticeboard goes in for AfDs or smothering articles under caveats instead of being able to stand an article reporting on fringe things. For instance another article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is up to number 13 in the WP:Lamest edit wars list of deletion wars and people committed to the scientific point of view have been accused of being fringe pushers for supporting articles about climate change denial. That list is a good example of the truth being pushed too strongly in the lead of an article specifically about fringe, though I fully agree also that the quotes should also be removed from the main body of the article, it has just been turned into a mess by the battle. All that however does not apply to small articles which do not have a lot of others supporting them. How are the editors there supposed to get their words heard if people here think of them as a nuisance? Dmcq (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Every editor get's their words heard the same way, by discussion on an article's Talk page. Mythical dark conspiracies aside, your major objection seems to be that when too many individual editors who disagree with a particular piece of content show up and make a point of it, it is hard for the person who put the content there to maintain the slant they want the article to have in the face of this opposition. Well, yes. That is how the system is supposed to work. Agricolae (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq, nothing in your complaint above has anything to do with this board, so what's your point? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

My point is that if people have extended discussions they come to conclusions and they are resistant to new information from people who actually know about the topic when they go off to an AfD. An ingroup is formed of a like opinion which has little respect for any input from the people who have written the articles. I believe that having some input before attitudes are too fixed could help greatly in countering that. So fine about a bit of quiet advice but bring in the editors if it goes much further than that. Dmcq (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, with the unsupported assumptions. You act like everyone who posts here agrees in a hivemind. Hell, most people here don't even follow the articles to AfD. Your belief that attitudes are "fixed" after discussion here is nonsensical. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong SUPPORT. My philosophy is expressed well by Kebbede Mikael in a 20th century textbook for Ethiopian schoolchildren. "A wise man once said: Only two animals can ascend to the top of a steep cliff that cannot be grasped with the hands nor grappled with the legs: either a eagle flying on its wings; or a worm by creeping on its belly. And those individuals who can rise to a level of greatness in this temporal world, are either they who arise by their own merits and virtue, or else, base, deceitful persons who creep sneakily within - burying themselves underground, in morals that were reprehensible, while they root around in malice and low work." Blockinblox (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • You might want to make an actual argument, instead of just quoting a platitude. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Sure. This board more than any other single room is like THE closed "smoking room" where the "old boys" decide what the common people are or are not supposed to believe. This antiquated concept cannot survive long in today's transparent information society. Those who want to continue to keep this board as exclusive as possible, are presumably those who have some vested interest in keeping it as exclusive as possible. I'm not with them, I'm with those who want to make it more INCLUSIVE. If that wasn't clear enough, or if you need more explanation, I'll be glad to give plenty more at any time. Blockinblox (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
      • This characterization of how this noticeboard works is itself a fringe theory, and a rather reality-challenged one at that. Further, in speculating about the nefarious motivations of those whose opinion differ, it represents a failure to assume good faith. Agricolae (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
      • This user has rather suddenly reappeared after over a year of silence. Back in 2009 he was complaining that FTN was a conspiracy of "mind control freaks" Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Afrocentric_historiography. Obviously this board is not and never could be exclusive, as it open to anyone to participate in. Paul B (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
      • There is nothing "exclusive" about this page, so I don't know what you're ranting about. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
        • What other reason could there possibly be for opposing a commonsense proposal like advice of notifying an article's talkpage when that article is being discussed here? As the proposing editor said, it's like discussion conducted "behind the back" of interested parties by the know-it-alls. Instead of logical reasons, the only reasons offered for opposing the idea seem to be emotional, spite-driven reasonings against the editor who proposed the idea, attacking his "mentality". It's still a good and common sense idea no matter WHO proposed it, and the reasons offered for opposing it are most telling of all. Blockinblox (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
          • It's not common sense when it has glaring errors like the ill-defined "extends over a day or invites action" statement. Nothing here is behind anyone's back. It's a public page, anyone can read or post here. Pointing out errors in your and DMCQs assumptions about the people on this board is not "emotional, spite-driven reasonings." So what exactly is your argument aside from your belief in a cabal? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I might support a proposal like this for all project talk pages, but I don't see a basic difference between this and the project pages I visit most often. On those editors frequently ask for help with articles (or even editors). An example is the Wikipedia talk:Christianity noticeboard which even has an urgent button on it to get immediate attention. We shouldn't be singling out one board like this. Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Poorly thought out and poorly worded: "invites action" - so a simple and typical note saying 'this page could use some attention' should include a notification encouraging discussion here, rather than on the article Talk page (where the discussion should take place). The whole purported need is based on mischaracterization of situation, that there are extensive discussions here that decide the fate of nations, with minions going out to implement the will of the group - most extensive discussions occur when someone comes here to pursue an idée fixe, and the last thing that needs to happen is to encourage the spread of the discussion from its original Talk page (where it belongs) to here. This isn't the place such discussions should take place. Agricolae (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and as has been pointed out before, this really belongs on TALK:FTN and not the noticeboard itself. Agricolae (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, instruction creep and what The Hand That Feeds You and Agricolae said. WegianWarrior (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per arguments already given by The Hand That Feeds You, Blueboar, Agricolae. I'd also point out that Dmcq's 'support' arguments seem to be based on suggestions that existing policy has been violated. If Dmcq thinks it has, this should be raised at AN/I, rather than used as an argument in this RfC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. If there is a reason to raise an issue here because of an unresolved dispute on a talk page I think it is polite to add a comment on the relevant Talk page saying that it is being raised at FTN. I usually do so. But there are many other reasons why issues might be raised here. We may just come across a problem article, or want input about whether or not particular claims are fringe. The page is open to anyone. It's just a "meeting area" for discussion of one type of issue. Each board is different. WP:OR by definition involves particular editors, since only individuals can create "original research". It is only proper that an editor whose work is being debated should have a chance to engage in the discussion. So in that case, they should be notified. The Reliable Sources board, in contrast, is about a source, not an editor. The discussion is determined by policy issues and judgements of scholarship independent of any particular editor. As far as I can see, this board corresponds to the RS, not the NOR board in the relevant respects. Paul B (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You might think it polite to comment that way but I haven't found any articles where any such notice has been given for what's currently here. That's my complaint. I thought my wording would allow straightforward things, but exactly how can we hope for good outcomes if people here don't think interested editors are worth talking to even when discussions are extended? 17:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Enough with the ridiculous straw man, already. I think every editor here thinks that interested editors are worth talking to - on the articles' Talk pages. That is what they are for. It is not what this board is for and it is counterproductive to try to get more discussion here, away from the eyes of those following it at the appropriate place. Agricolae (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

What discussion on the talk page? That's the problem. If there was something saying that any extended discussion should be on the article or project talk page that would also be very satisfactory. Dmcq (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you asserting that no one ever goes to article Talk pages to continue the discussion? Because that would be careless of you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

So are we also to have a notice describing other basic aspects of Wikipedia? I mean, if we are going to remind people what Talk pages are for, do we also tell them not to engage in personal attacks, and to use reliable sources, and to not use sock puppets, etc. Centralized policies exist so you don't have to repeat them everywhere, and the idea that extensive discussions belong on the relevant Talk pages is just such. In the end, your problem is not the instructions at the top of the noticeboard, it is the (perceived) behavior of the participants, and given how closed-minded and conspiratorial you say they are, no change in the header is going to alter that behavior anyhow so this whole exercise is just a waste of time. Agricolae (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Don't see any need for this. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Not bureau, and per The Hand That Feeds, Blueboar and others. SÆdon^talk 20:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose pointless addition, and a rationale for the adding this is not provided.Curb Chain (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Arguments for this so far have been pretty nonsensical. See Dcmq's rationale above, for instance. Instruction creep. 86.** IP (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose No need for more rules, things actually work quite well as they are. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• It looks like everyone's pretty much staked out their positions and dug in their heels here. It also looks like as though a bit of a (false, in my opinion) dichotomy has been created, in that "supporters" are themselves fringe theorists, while "opposers" are the sensible, level headed folks. I think that something like this is worth doing though, personally; and it's worth doing for all noticeboards, not just this one. There doesn't have to be a huge production made out of it (no one ought to be blocked for failing to post a link on a talk page, fer cryin' out loud!), but a simple note to the article talk page that a discussion has started here seems obviously useful, to me. It's easy enough to craft templates with canned messages for the purpose, and plopping one of them on an article's talk page takes significantly less time than even starting a new discussion here takes.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  As this seems to refer to my comment, I must not have been clear, since your description only bears a superficial resemblance to what I meant to say. I was not calling the 'supporters' fringe theorists because they are supporters. I was referring specifically to their repeated mantra that there is a cabal at work here that discusses a page in secret and then all, as a group, descend on the page to wreck havoc and overwhelm poor hapless editors. It is this 'theory' of how the noticeboard supposedly works (which bears no resemblance to reality) that I referred to as 'fringe', not their opinion on notification - if we are going to have a discussion of the benefits of notification, it should be based on reality and not such a fiction. Thus the false dichotomy you decry is one of your own imagining. Further, you are conveniently ignoring that both of the other 'supporters' have been portraying themselves as champions of fairness and full disclosure and their 'opponents' as closed-minded conspiratorial bullies. To just single out the side with which you disagree is to fall prey to the same manner of thinking as that you are criticizing. It seems unfair to reject a developing consensus as nothing but 'staked out positions' and 'dug in heels' and a 'false dichotomy', and thus by implication to diminish all of the arguments that run counter to your preference. To reiterate, the goal should be to have discussion on the relevant Talk pages, not try to find elaborate ways to make it easier to draw the discussion away from there and bring it here. Agricolae (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  I'm confused here because I wasn't commenting towards you or anyone else specifically above. This reply strikes me as being a bit paranoid, but I'm probably just missing something (I'm really not sure how you could have thought that the above was a reply to your comment, which I'm not even sure where it's located...). As for the rest, maybe if the one group would actually try to listen to the other group, and vice versa, then there would be less of a problem with groups and thoughts of cabals, nevermind paranoid seeming replys to comments from otherwise uninvolved third parties. The funny thing is that I agree with your "the goal should be" statement, although I suspect that the conclusions that we each draw from that are somewhat different.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

  Where did my comment come from? I had earlier suggested that the straw-man portrayal of the decision-making process of this group being put forward by the supporters was itself a fringe theory. That is the closest anyone in this discussion had gotten to calling the supporters themselves "fringe theorists". If you weren't referring to my comments, then you just made it up entirely. I guess that makes it my fault for assuming you were referring to reality, but to suggest I suffer from paranoia, twice, is hardly civil. You quit being and uninvolved third party when you chose to distort the truth in this manner. I was unaware that there were multiple conclusions to be drawn 'from an article's Talk page being the appropriate place for discussion of that page'. It is the conclusion. Agricolae (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

  ...huh? Um, OK, if you say so. wow.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for the support but I don't see why you would think I support fringe stuff never mind being a fringe theorist! I support having articles about notable things including fringe but I most certainly do not support reporting wierdo things as fact. I do get the impression though that some fringe noticeboard editors think anything fringe must be smothered under a ton of science or deleted. I do not support that sort of thing - it makes me feel Wikipedia is tending to be like RationalWiki or a militant science version of Conservapedia rather than just an encyclopaedia reporting on the stuff with a neutral point of view and generally rational angle. And personally I feel such a stance is very counterproductive to helping get a rational point of view across. It is preaching to the choir rather than just presenting the facts dispassionately. Have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Siegel (2nd nomination) still on this page and especially the deletion debate it links to for instance and see the strong push to delete rather than trying develop a decent article and the way some other editors who weren't invited initially were able to help develop it. Do you want to turn Wikipedia into a RationalWiki? Dmcq (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  Did you look at the original Bernie Siegel article that I nominated? Here it is: [8]. No sources, and a search found nothing either. Also, it was Binksternet, who I think is a regular on these boards, who actually found the encyclopedia sources that helped establish notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  It's odd he isn't listed as having edited it but I'll take your word for that. But why exactly was it nominated without notifying the authors related list, or in fact any list, when the article listed seven books he had written? Didn't that sort of indicate to you there might be something there? That was left to somebody else to do two days later. In fact you defended not sticking the AfD onto a deletion list and you supported notifying the fringe noticeboard. Dmcq (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  He established it in the AfD discussion, I suggest you read it. And no, being the author of seven books which do not appear to be notable and have no corresponding articles does not make me think there was "something there". Can you also stop making stuff up, I did not "defend not sticking the AfD onto a deletion list" and I did not "supported notifying the fringe noticeboard", I just did not think it was improper although I would not have done so (and did not). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  Anyone who looks at the Seigel deletion debate can see that there is no substance in the accusation that there was a concerted campaign against the article. Where is this "strong push" to delete? Admittedly, 86.** IP may have wished to create one, but he failed miserably if that was his aim. He voted for deletion, and brought the issue up here, yes. But the only other deletion votes were from editors who have no history of connection with this board at all to my knowledge. One editor who has, later crossed out his initial delete vote. Other editors who are connected voted to keep. Paul B (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  Given that an AfD is a different process in a different forum than this noticeboard, I fail to see the relevance to the header of this noticeboard of whether or not interested parties were informed of the initiation of an AfD. Agricolae (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  @Agricolae. I tend to agree, especially since the AfD filing process itself automatically includes the suggestion to notify interested projects and editors. Putting a similar admonition in the FTN header, on the mere chance sending an article to AfD might be discussed here, strikes me as unnecessary.- LuckyLouie (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

  Again though, I wasn't specifically referring to anyone. I was only talking about the general character of the discussion here when I came across it (which has continued unabated, I've noticed). It's obvious that there was very little understanding of what I was trying to say, which is disappointing but not very surprising. I do agree that there appears to be a large block of editors who feel that anything that could be classified as "fringe" must be removed from the encyclopedia, which is hardly a helpful or constructive stance to have. I don't really see how that is relevant to this discussion, though.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

  In addition to being unhelpful and unconstructive, such a stance would also be in violation of Wikipedia's policy on fringe. That is why it, fortunately, represents nothing but another straw man. It sure is fun to use such accusations in order to blackguard those on the other side of the discussion, isn't it? Or have you failed to make yourself understood again? Agricolae (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

  lol. (SMH)
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: So far there is twelve !votes opposing this, and just two in support - one of which is from the user who tabled the suggestion. To me it's clear that the user who fielded this feels that his view of the world is being challenged and possible marginalized by reality, but since the operating mantra of Wikipedia is "Verifiability, not truth" (whatever truth actually is - a philosophical question to be sure) nothing is going to change by trying to game the system. We got strong policies and guidelines in place that help us sort out what's fringe and not... might it be time to just close this per WP:SNOWBALL? WegianWarrior (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

For me, the question under consideration is simply "Would it be a good idea to notify articles talkpages when they are being discussed here?". The other question that most, of the "objections" center on, is "What are the motives of the nominating editor, or what is their theory about how this board works?" The second question is a complete red herring to the one under consideration, and a case study in faulty logic and ad hominem. Even if the nom. has completely wrong motives, even if he is completely wrong about how this board works, INFORMING ARTICLE TALK PAGES WHEN WE'RE DISCUSSING THEM HERE IS STILL BASIC COURTESY, A GOOD IDEA, AND ONE THAT IS ONLY TO BE COMMENDED. Blockinblox (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

And you think that using BOLD ALL CAPS is helping your point any? ಠ_ಠ

If you think it's a good idea, feel free to notify people yourself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

QED My use of caps shouldn't make a difference to those trained in logic, recognizing the question on the table, and identifying red herrings. I will start working on a subuserpage template, feel free to anyone who wants to use it. Blockinblox (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm actually happy with people coming to noticeboards for a bit of quick advice without other editors crowding in, in fact I think that is a very reasonable thing to do, that's why I was explicitly not asking for it to be always done even as a courtesy. Dmcq (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Blockinblox, if the use of caps and bolds is irrelevant, why did you use them? You wanted to imbue your text with extra power by their use, but when such text manipulations draw a negative comment, it becomes a pointless distraction. Likewise, if focusing on the motivations of people is irrelevant, you shouldn't have based your original argument in support of the proposal on the motivations of those who would opposed the change. "This board more than any other single room is like THE closed 'smoking room' where the 'old boys' decide what the common people are or are not supposed to believe. . . . Those who want to continue to keep this board as exclusive as possible, are presumably those who have some vested interest in keeping it as exclusive as possible." Further, you started out with the suggestion that they these opponents were to be compared to "base, deceitful persons who creep sneakily within - burying themselves underground, in morals that were reprehensible, while they root around in malice and low work." And now you want the response to your baseless insinuations about the nature of the board to be dismisses as irrelevant, and you want any discussion of motivations to be banished from the discussion. Must be nice, having your cake and eating it too. Agricolae (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I am sorry if my use of that quote was misinterpreted the way you recast it, I meant to suggest we had two paths before us, that of encouraging letting people involved in topics know when those topics are being discussed here, or discouraging, and that it ought to be an ethical matter to choose the route of greater transparency. I did not wish to insinuate that any editors here would purposefully choose an unethical path. But then the attention to the nom's motives first of all rather than the proposal struck me as a typical smoking room excuse. As for worrying about things like my using CAPS, I am reminded of the Turkish astronomer in Le Petit Prince whose calculations suddeeny became "valid" after he had donned European clothes. So if this same proposal were to be made again, but with a more correct rationale, then it would stand a better chance? Blockinblox (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how else one could read 'you either agree with my viewpoint or else you are a worm'. Even now you maintain that those who disagree with your position are being unethical, you are just willing to grant that they may be doing so unintentionally. Mighty generous of you. At a minimum, had the same proposal been made with a better rationale, it would have stood a better chance of having a discussion that focused on the issues that are relevant. However, it is hard to un-ring a bell once the cat is out of the bag. Agricolae (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of bad faith in this proposal? Dmcq (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I wasn't. I was trying to do two things. First, explain that Blockinblox, by setting up a dichotomy with eagles and worms, and then claiming to be the eagle, was by implication then applying the unflattering characterization of the worm to those holding the other position. It thus represented an incivility. The same with the dichotomy between the 'ethical side and the side that disagrees with me.' I will have to take Blockinblox at their word that this was not the intent. What was directed at you (somewhat) was to suggest that in framing the proposal as the only way to counteract the functioning of a cabal, you tainted the process irreparably - it can never now be just a dispassionate discussion of whether or not notification is a good thing, even were this RfC to be cancelled and restarted with a more reasoned rationale, the proposal is now inextricably linked to this viewpoint (it probably was prior to it even being taken to RfC, given that you had already made it clear this is what it is all about). Since you asked, though, your continual mis-portrayal of what occurs here and on other pages, when you have been repeatedly set straight, makes it difficult to AGF. (For example, in the quote below, you state that when editors go from here to a page, they "make their decisions uninfomed by interested editors". This can only be concluded by assuming that they 1) leave here with closed-minded certainty, and 2) never look at the Talk page there, neither of which you can possibly know, nor can you assume either in good faith.) Agricolae (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You've assumed bad faith against everyone here by refusing to listen, constantly repeating that:

"Editors on the fringe noticeboard are active in radically altering or deleting articles and yet make their decisions uninfomed by interested editors, they actively do not want interested editors on this noticeboard."

That is the opening of your statement in support of your proposal. And it's blatantly false. Your entire reasoning is in bad faith. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

So do you disassociate yourself from statements like "One of the reasons why we have noticeboards is to inform previously uninvolved editors that a potential problem exists... and to invite these editors to participate in resolving the problem. In other words... having a bunch of new editors "descend" on a problematic article is sort of the point behind having noticeboards." and "Having those already involved with an article get involved in such discussions can actually disrupt that purpose. Indeed, I would actually discourage notification."? Dmcq (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If it's not obvious already, yes, I disagree with those assertions. (I believe I have explicitly said so in the earlier section.) Especially the "descend" statement. Involved editors can disrupt the attempt to get some outside views, but I do not believe in "discouraging" their participation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

So you 'disagree' with Blueboar but when I say the same thing it is blatantly false and I've assumed bad faith. Perhaps the two of you could duke it out amongst yourselves. And how about a bit of WP:AGF and WP:NPA thank you. Dmcq (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, for the love of... you made a blanket assertion about everyone on this board. You failed to AGF from the get-go by proclaiming everyone on this board as closed minded & wanting to swarm AfDs. You keep making that assertion. Get it through your skull that this is not the case. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Blockinblox, you've A) mockingly asserted "QED" when your debate technique was pointed out to be flawed, B) insinuated no one here uses logic, when your comments are not based in logic, and C) apparently expect others to be civil, while you are allowed to make any insinuations you wish. It's no wonder your views are being dismissed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no - you are STILL blatantly mischaracterizing my words and arguments like some kind of professional spin doctor, by running every single thing I say through your own filter of reinterpretation (when I can, will and DO speak for myself thank you) constantly setting up strawmen in the process that in no way reflect my actual position. It is becoming tedious, but you leave me with no choice but to come here one more time and try to explain to you what I have been saying one more time, and hopefully you will not misinterpret it. You see, the logical fallacy I am pointing out here is what we call "AD HOMINEM". It is a technique often used by those who aren't too logical, for distracting attention and creating a sideshow from the substance of the question at hand. Now the question at hand here, you see, is not "Do we wish we could give Blockinblox and Dmcq a smack on the butt for questioning the utility of this board". No, the question at hand here, that we are supposed to be considering, is "Would it be sensible to ask posters here to kindly let those who have contributed to the articles have a heads up when we are talking about their work." Get it yet? Because if not, I will gladly explain for ya it one mo' 'gain. Blockinblox (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Would it be sensible to ask posters here to kindly let those who have contributed to the articles have a heads up when we are talking about their work? ... the answer to that is: "Quite often, No, it would not be sensible". One of the goals of this page to get outside input on an article, from people who are familiar with the relevant policies, but have not contributed to the page and thus have no axe to grind in the debates that are taking place there. Input that can be taken back to the article and discussed there. Blueboar (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, finally someone gave me an on-topic explanation, thanks! Of course all the potential of what you said is IMO exactly why this page should receive much more attention from many more editors, not fewer, if it is supposed to serve that kind of important role. Blockinblox (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I understood your statements quite well, Blockinblox. And now, you're just projecting. You've been setting up strawmen this whole time (ie. this board is "THE closed 'smoking room' where the 'old boys' decide what the common people are or are not supposed to believe.") I call you out for it, and supposedly I'm the one putting spin on your words? Rich. Also, you have been making ad hominem statements, with your "those who aren't too logical" statements. Quit trying to claim the moral high ground while smearing everyone else. We've already debated the question about adding a notice to the board. You're just digging the hole deeper by being an absolute jerk to anyone who doesn't agree with you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As this conversation with HandThatFeeds is not proving to be productive to the question at hand, I shall henceforth be confining my replies to those of a less magisterial character. Blockinblox (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Although the request itself is somewhat innocuous, the rationale provided for it is based in extreme bad faith, e.g., "Husbands should let wives know what time they will be coming home from work" sounds like a basic courtesy and a reasonable request, albeit an unnecessary one, since many people do it already. But if the rationale given for the request is "Since all husbands are wife beaters, the advance notification can help wives avoid a potential beating" then most would agree that such a request was ill formed and based on an unfounded generalization. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well have a look at what I think is your most recent notification of article to this noticeboard at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_29#List_of_UFO_sightings ending with 'needs trimming'. Did you inform the article on their talk page? Did you even discuss the article on its page? I count you as a very reasonable editor despite your accusation of extreme bad faith against me but you didn't do this unnecessary thing of discussing things with editors there first or informing them that I can see. Dmcq (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"'Did you inform the article on their talk page", articles aren't living things. I don think there was any active editors on the page to inform, just a load of cruft that built up over the years. But that's besides the point, the page had issues with undue weight/fringe with notable events being mixed with non-notable speculation etc, the post at FTN attracted other editors to the article who then helped deal with some of the undue weight issues. The issues with the particular article were pretty straightforward and it was subsequently improved. It seems like the system works... IRWolfie- (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support If a discussion is likely to result in alterations in an article, then at least a notification on the talk page for interested editors is only courtesy. Indeed, for some alterations, one is called upon to notify the active editors on their talk pages - merges and deletions. And just because - allegedly, I'm not taking sides in this - the proposer may be doing so due to negative experiences (justified or not) relating to this page is immaterial. Allens (talk | contribs) 17:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What is material about the original proposer is that in suggesting that there is a decision-making process that takes place on FTN and is then implemented upon pages against the will of the contributors, Dmcq has created a straw man, which straw man you have just successfully slain. If there is to be a discussion about alterations to an article, why on earth would you want it to take place on FTN, and not on the relevant page's Talk page? So let's leave a note saying, 'Hey everybody, while any significant change to a page is supposed to be discussed on its Talk page, someone mentioned this page somewhere else, so everybody go discuss it there rather than where it is supposed to be discussed and where anyone with a vested interest is already following it.' Without the false-conspiracy by the participants of FTN that has served as its explicit primary rationale, the proposal is not just unnecessary, it is counterproductive. Every detailed discussion of page content that happens on FTN is a failure of the system, not a success. Agricolae (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Allens, why should this be done for discussions at this board and not at other similar boards, eg wikiproject talk pages where both editors and articles are often discussed? That's what bothers me most about this proposal, it singles out this board. I don't think it's a particularly good idea in any case, but if it is important here it's important at a lot of other boards where it isn't being proposed. Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The various noticeboards are about different things and do different things. One could have a longer list of recommended actions for all of them but it is better to have specific advice. For instance if you look at WP:NPOVN you'll find people asking for advice or help and normally they have already discussed the matter at the article. They are not requesting that articles be radically altered or deleted, they want them developed. And the editors on the noticeboards are interested in developing articles too rather than eliminating them. They say "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Give a link here to that discussion, and the final answer to your question will be posted there where other users can read the result.". The results aren't always posted but the advice is straightforward and sensible and waht they say is good for the noticeboard. But here often even straightforward request here like #Creative visualization you find things like "The article on Creative visualization makes use of some highly suspect sources. I'm not sure that this is suitable for an AFD since it refers to a not uncommon topic in the new-age belief-system. Is there anything else we can do to get this cleaned up a bit? " Note the first thought of AfD and the call to revise the article. And there's no discussion or notice on the article talk page. Dmcq (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Nor was there any discussion here. A single contribution from a single editor to which nobody even responded is insufficient justification for labeling this noticeboard as uniquely in need of being 'fixed'? Agricolae (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I was just showing it as a simple example without lots of extra wording of what this noticeboard is about. Same as #Classical Elements in Platonic Solids which was a complaint about something being bizarre. My attitude to something like that is why did someone put something strange in?, is it something reasonably notable and the article is just missing citations? In fact the information was extremely notable but in the wrong place, it was at the basis of a theory of the world for a couple of thousand years. This noticeboard is not about developing interesting articles about the notable things in topics but in deleting topics or putting in great swathes about why they are wrong. I can point to lots where the discussion has gone on if you like and have done before but these are just ones on this current page to show what the board is in aid of. 10:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about "extremely" but you'll notice that after you mentioned the previous, cited inclusion, there was no further discussion or change. If someone in the article in question had raised a complaint etc., it would have been argued out there instead of here, and then I might have notified you to join in that discussion and not this. Yes, sometimes discussions do go on here, and BTW, this particular discussion, as I think a couple of other people have mentioned, is also in the wrong place (it should be in Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Noticeboard). But the point of this noticeboard, as I won't be the first to say, is not to provide a centralized point of discussion; it is to serve as a centralized point for people who are interested in dealing with fringe theory issues to be made aware of possibly problematic articles. It seems to me that you implicitly object to such a group of people in the first place. Mangoe (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not objecting to this noticeboard as such. I am not against people getting some quiet advice about fringe without the other editors from an article butting in. I am not against people going immediately to the talk page of a mentioned article. I am against long discussions amongst people who are interested mainly in removing stuff without informing the editors of an article. What I was trying to show here with simple examples that people have a big interest in removing stuff, like another comment in yet another discussion below says when their AfD failed because of the evidence of notability "I've become more convinced that the issues current issues with the article are potentially solvable and the deletion isn't the only option." That is a big difference between this noticeboard and the NPOV noticeboard and that's why I wanted some extra advice at the top. Dmcq (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And no editor of an article can ever tell when an AfD has been started, of course. Seriously, AfDs find hidden evidence of notability regularly, which then has to be evaluated. sometimes it turns out the evidence is good, sometimes, people are just trying to find something - anything - that will justify keeping an article. But either way, AfD is a method of getting widespread discussion. 86.** IP (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This article has been brought to the OR noticeboard a few times and I've contributed there. You can see the latest discussion at Wikipedia:NORN#List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Have a good read of it anybody who cares and consider whether instead it is people are just trying to find something - anything - that will justify deleting an article and whether WP:LAME is right to list it in its deletion wars? I see this editor is trying to get people from here to charge forth yet again about something to do with that below saying there is something wrong with an article about climate change deniers mostly having stuff about climate change denial. Dmcq (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support This noticeboard is frequently being used in ways that are close to canvassing, or a project board, as opposed to being a dispute-resolution helper. There are at several examples of this on the talk-page right now. When we consider boards such as BLPN, ORN, RSN etc. then the discussions are directed at specific problems, and at solving these at the board, with the additional bonus of getting a few extra eyes/editors to involve themselves. This is not the case with this board - a look down the discussions active right now, show that people do not go here to resolve an issue, but instead to call to arms. Blatant example is the one by 86.** calling for people to watchlist a specific article with no metion at all of any problems, or giving any rationale for editors to do so... which translates into direct canvassing of likeminded editors. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If you must know, there's been some edits I consider problematic on State of Fear recently, but they appeared to be in good faith, so I saw no reason to draw undue attention to them unless it continued. Of course, you could have asked, instead of deciding WP:AGF doesn't apply to you, but then, after you claimed that WMC ha the right to make unfounded accusations against me, while throwing a fit I used a rude word, I know you have a vendetta against me already, so I shouldn't be surprised. 86.** IP (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry 86.** you failed to understand my problem with your particlar post. It has nothing to do with whether the article really needs help or not. It is the way it was done. It is the way of doing it, that is the problem, not whether or not i agree with you on problems or not. Do drop the Ad hominems please. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to engage with you further, since I honestly don't value your opinion after the incident mentioned and dozens of similar. If someone independent thinks it an issue, fine, but I don't really care what you think, since your judgement is inevitably "Anyone attacking 86 is right, 86 is wrong"86.** IP (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Setting aside whether or not a post saying 'this article could use some extra eyes' is canvasing, there is a bigger problem here. First we were told the header needed to be changed because of a cabal, which the change wouldn't have addressed. Then we needed the change because of failure of notification on an AfD, which it wouldn't have addressed. Now we need it because of canvassing, which the change wouldn't address. Really, folks, there needs to be something more than I don't like this noticeboard to justify a change. There has to be some actual connection between what you find fault with and the proposed solution. This isn't a referendum on the noticeboard itself. Agricolae (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

No, i actually do like the fact that we have this noticeboard, what i find problematic is the "concealed" nature and the way that it is used. Most of these aspects can be ameliorated by being open about raising issues here. In most cases when you comment on BLPN or any of the other boards, it is common courtesy to notify the editors (or the talkpage) about raising the issue - the same should be the case with this board. It is also a dual benefit... Ie. Both the article and the board would win by this - some editors will stay around and help (on both). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I must be just slow, because I fail to see how a complaint about 86* having said, "Can people add this to their watchlist?", and receiving no response and engendering no discussion is in any way addressed by the statement being proposed, which suggests notification in the case of discussions that have gone on for more than a day or are proposing changes to a page, neither of which applies. Canvasing by definition is not intended to engender discussion at the location canvased (else by definition it isn't canvasing). How do accusations of canvasing justify a change in something having nothing to do with canvasing? Again, you think there is a problem with the way issues are raised here, but the proposal has nothing to do with the way issues are raised, but what happens long (a day) after they have been raised. "I don't like the way this board is used" is only a legitimate reason when the proposed remedy addresses the misuse, and the examples you have given of misuse are not so addressed. As to being 'concealed', no attempt is being made to conceal anything (only an idiot would try to conceal something by posting it openly to a public forum). Agricolae (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Asking a board to put some article on their watchlist is very close to canvassing, and is one example of the use of this board that isn't particularly productive - it solves no problems. Other examples have already been given in the RfC discussions. If this board, as i infer from the discussions above, is supposed to be an editorial help in dispute resolution, rather than a wiki-project trying to police articles, then the board should have such a notification system. And i also think that such a notification system automagically will have the added benefit of actually steering the board towards this purpose. By engaging editors that actually work on fringe articles, to also engage in helping other articles and this board. As for your last point - i deliberately put conceal in scare-quotes, since it is not hidden by other than obscurity, and it is the obscurity that the notifications are supposed to help with. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Tell me what 86* was canvasing for? Looks to me like 86* was trying to bring more openness to the page in question, rather than it being 'concealed' - for it to be less obscured, but that can't be it because then it would be a good thing, right? There does seem to be some confusion about what the function of this board is. As defined at the top of the page (rather than infer it, go look for yourself): 1) Editors may seek advice on whether or not a particular topic is fringe or mainstream (especially outside of the fields of science and pseudoscience); 2) Questions related to articles on fringe theories may be answered here; 3) Report instances where undue weight is being given to fringe theories. It would seem that #3 is exactly what you are characterizing as 'canvasing', as 'policing'. If you don't think this is appropriate, the solution is to propose it be removed from the purview of the noticeboard, not to promote a proposal to add a suggestion that if one does 'canvas', and if this unexpectedly leads to a discussion, and if that discussion ends up lasting for more than a day, then one should think about telling people, with the hope that goodness and light will break out in this dank evil place and nobody will canvas any more. It is like having a problem with the way a maitre d' seats people at a restaurant and addressing it with the proposal that a waiter should think about including an after-dinner mint when bringing your desert. Agricolae (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Double standard?

I note that Dmcq has not practiced what he preaches... he neglected to leave a courtesy notice about this current RFC discussion at the talk page for WP:FRINGE, which is exactly the sort of thing he is complaining about, and thinks should be done. That policy page is, after all, where many editors who would be "interested" in this discussion are likely to be found. Personally, I don't think it is needed (the editors there do tend to follow this page), but it does show that his concern is selective. He wants everyone else to do something he does not think to do himself. Blueboar (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I put the RfC on the list for people interested in policy RfCs as directed at WP:RfC and as you say I assumed everyone directly interested in WP:FRINGE would have this page on their watchlist. What would you say about me advertising this on the Village Pump as well?, if I had put it on the talk page of FRINGE I would have put it on a few other places like that too. Dmcq (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

After putting down Blockinblox for his reliance on fallacies, it'd be pretty hypocritical of me not to point this out as a tu quoque argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Tu_quoque#Legitimate_use. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I put this on the appropriate RfC lists for people interested in such things as directed by WP:RfC. You did not put an author with seven books listed in their article on the deletions list for authors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Siegel (2nd nomination) as prompted by WP:AfD and said about it "It's perfectly acceptable to inform people on the FTN noticeboard as this is a way of centrally informing people (it's the primary board for dealing with undue and fringe material), it is not canvassing, the board isn't partisan, it simply informs a large group of interested editors (you can add FTN to your watchlist and be one of these interested editors). It's not put on other boards because there are no other relevant boards except maybe BLPN". You didn't inform BLPN either. Since in this case you seem instead to think that the lists given in WP:RfC are inadequate I shall go ahead and list this in WT:FRINGE, WT:NPOV, Wp:NPOVN and WP:VPP as well. Dmcq (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't add the Bernie Siegel to any boards, FTN or other, or lists etc (with lists I was not sure of the mechanism for doing so). I don't see why you are criticizing me for not adding something which is optional and is not listed in the WP:AFD instructions from what I can see. So please stop inferring stuff from something which I didn't even bring to this board and has no relation to this RfC. I also didn't comment by saying your listing was inadequate, as it happens I do not have an issue with it, I was pointing out that the argument is not always fallacious, it seems once again you are being WP:POINTY by going over the top to make a point by posting on tonnes of boards. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

An uninvolved editor at the AfD said it looked like canvassing with 86.** IP immediately sticking it on the FTN and neither of you doing anything about informing anyone else, and that was your reply. For the advice for AfDs see Wikipedia:AFD#After_nominating: notifying interested projects and editors. For the advice for an RfC see Wikipedia:RfC#Request comment through talk pages. Now I have informed more people like you said you accuse me of being WP:POINTY. Which of the FRINGE NPOV NPOVN or VPP notifications are over the top? Dmcq (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A person may have thought it was canvassing but that is irrelevant as it was not canvassing. If you wish to accuse someone of canvassing without substantiating it take it to ANI or else I suggest you drop the issue. In what world is someone who was involved in the AfD discussion and who voted "uninvolved"? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This "No problem with posting on the Fringe Theories NB, lots of concern with posting only on the Fringe Theories NB which targets a specific group of editors, which defines canvassing. I've posted on the BLP/NB and RS/NB. I have no attachment to this article at all, but this should be dealt with properly" is what I mean by uninvolved here. It isn't as strong as what WP:UNINVOLVED for an admin means but it hardly qualifies as someone with a strong interest one way or the other. Dmcq (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Have now added a notification at WT:WikiProject Rational Skepticism as well, seems a reasonable source of interest. Perhaps I should add to the Astrology, Occult and suchlike project talk pages too? Dmcq (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, IRWolfie-, I just don't see this fitting that example. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What? You disagree with a fellow FTN Cabal Member? Have you lost your connection to Our Hive Mind? : ) -LuckyLouie (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Could anyone kindly give me an explanation as to the origin of the usage of the term "FRINGE"?

Would I be incorrect in assuming that it is derived from the 70s phrase "LUNATIC FRINGE"?

Would I be incorrect in assuming that the term was originally a disparaging one?

Would I be incorrect in assuming that choice of such a term incorporates an inherent Point-of-View? I.E. it is highly subjective?

Would I be incorrect to state that, in any major controversy where people are roughly divided 50-50 into two opposing camps, one can usually find people on BOTH sides each loudly accusing the other side of being the "FRINGE", or "LUNATIC FRINGE"?

Thank you in advance for your explanations, they will help me to understand what's supposed to be going on here. Blockinblox (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

In all seriousness, a discussion questioning the basis of a Wikipedia guideline is best held on the Talk page of that guideline, in this case Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. Cheers, - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hm, BLockinblox's dislike of FTN go back over 3 years, see User talk:Blockinblox. An old edit summary of his/hers: "Wikipedia's ominous, behind-the scenes "fringe" project is watching!" Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, there's nothing happening over there and all the discussion is taking place here, so now I really feel like the Turkish Astronomer... But to continue, it seems the word FRINGE is at best a synonym for margin, but if we were to call this WP:MARGIN it might seem to some like what goes on here is all about marginalizing. And of course there are no margins on a globe, only on a flat view of the world.Blockinblox (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want to get the word "fringe" redefined on Wikipedia, the WP:FRINGE guideline page is the logical place to start. This Noticeboard cannot change policy guidelines. As for this RfC, I had no idea this issue was a three year old battle. I'm not sure you can put an entire noticeboard on trial. If you wish to call attention to the conduct of individual users, you might try taking your case to AN/I or maybe pursue a request for arbitration where you can provide diffs of exactly who did what. Otherwise, it's just blowing off steam in front of an audience. It may feel therapeutic, but do it long enough and people will tend to get pissed off. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not too surprised you would want to rummage for comments I made when I was four years younger, but that's okay - I have nothing to hide from anyone. I was actually only looking for an explanation and answers to the specific questions I have posed (as long as we are discussing the true purpose of FTN), as I stated up front - but once again, splendid job of redefining my intentions for me. Still rather not answer those questions that are too tough, but at least if we can't see them, then maybe they'll go away because therefore they can't see us, eh? But, if I manage to expose this process to a few more open minded people, then I will have considered my efforts a success, right? Blockinblox (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Policy RfC?

How is this a policy RfC? This is a specific proposal for just one noticeboard - which is one of the reasons I object to it as it singles this board out in a way I don't see as reasonable as there are many similar boards where articles and editors are discussed without notification. Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I explained why above and I don't think a long list of things so every single different noticeboard is covered without distinguishing between them is a good idea. There is no reason anyone should feel offended for being asked to consider notifying people if something major about an article they are interested in is going on. People stick articles on their watchlist ifthey are interested and putting a note on the talk page is the normal way of informing such editors. As WP:RfC says "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input". If the people interested in policy and registered as being willing to give advcie on RfCs aren't a good target for an RfC about something like this then who exactly is? Dmcq (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way I did look around for some policy or guidelines about noticeboards but did not find any. Perhaps such a policy or guideline would be reasonable if people really feel that putting something into an individual noticeboard is picking on them personally. It isn't the sort of thing that naturally occurs to me, I tend to just consider how something would improve the articles. Dmcq (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

On the business of 'Double standards' which Blueboard accused me of in the previous section, I just put the RfC on a couple of lists for people interested in RfCs rather than stuck notices everywhere I thought that there were people with an interest in this as I felt that I really ought to be notifying projects like Astrology as well if I put in special notices to FRINGE and rational scepticism, but if I did that there would be immediate accusations of canvassing which I could see the point of too. So the easiest way was just to inform the straightforward ones WP:RfC prompted. Dmcq (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Motion to close

It's a bit obvious that consensus is firmly against this proposal and at this point the discussion is mostly argumentative. Is there support for an early close? SÆdon^talk 08:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Support. I believe I suggested this a couple of days ago, before the discussion derailed again. WegianWarrior (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Support This is obviously not going to be implemented in this manner. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Support The conclusion isn't in doubt, and this is only causing more strife. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Support The pixel to usefulness ratio is approaching infinity. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose What's the big hurry? The debate is still active, two of the four supports came in the last two days. It is hardly a case of WP:SNOW. I must admit I have felt the issues were not being dealt with properly and the aggro was over the top, but I normally try to avoid complaints as they take up time. I guess some place like ANI is the right place to go if you feel there is too much heat and too little light, perhaps some admin could issue a warning and quiet the discussion down. Dmcq (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As of now there is 13 !votes against and 4 !votes for... by your logic, should we simply let this circus run until there is more !votes in support than in opposition? Sounds almost pointy to me... WegianWarrior (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What I was saying was that most of the opposes came in very quickly and were probably from this noticeboard. RfCs are for also soliciting outside advice, as it says at the start of WP:RfC 'Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input'. Dmcq (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I support it too, I was just waiting until everyone went hoarse. K2709 (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Pointless. 86.** IP (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I was going to boldly close but then I realized I have no idea how to close an RFC, can someone who knows how to do so do so? SÆdon^talk 22:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

How about reading WP:RfC? Dmcq (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

How about not being condescending? Since you obviously know how to do it why not help enforce consensus by doing so? SÆdon^talk 23:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

<blink> how in the world does someone "enforce" consensus? (Note: this is more or less a facetious question, to those who are "irony impaired")
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It was already stated how; by closing the RfC. (also facetious) IRWolfie- (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support There doesn't seem to be any consensus for a change and this discussion has passed its sell-by date. Mathsci (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't a reasonable 'sell-by' date have been waited for? I don't see any need to wait the full period of the RfC but I'd have thought that if by tomorrow there wasn't any more input that would be fine for checking so you can do it with my support then. However don't you think there is something just even slightly thought provoking about proposing an early close while people were still contributing on a request for outside comments about a proposal that the noticeboard try a bit harder to get some outside input from interested editors when discussing things at length or calling for action. Dmcq (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No. First of all, this RfC is malformed. It's on the wrong page. Secondly, an AN thread on the same topic was just closed, with a finding of no action being required against the noticeboard. Thirdly, it's been two weeks since you began this, and have only served to stifle any productive discussion by randomly attacking people. Any productive discussion will need to happen after some time, begun by someone who's not throwing random false accusations of fake wrongdoing everywhere. 86.** IP (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support close on April 1, as the responses indicate no consensus in favor of the proposal at this time. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Anyway: Support since there's really nothing going on here other than statements that contradict each other (at best) and some name calling. This obviously seems like the wrong venue for this sort of question (in hindsight), although I think that the central question is still worth addressing (in a much more general way, and hopefully with a much more constructive tone).
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)