The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete. There is a very large numerical consensus to close this as Delete and I cannot see any argument put forward by the few editors who opposed this that are persuasive enough not to close it that way. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:G5 as WP:SANCTIONGAMING which is skirting very closely (too closely, IMHO) around the edges of a topic ban. Was CSD'ed but that was removed by an editor who has since gone on to post a long WP:BATTLEGROUND rant at ANI coupled with WP:ASPERSIONS on the talk page. Plus most of this is just bad advice that occasionally goes directly against policy and shouldn't be in project space (along with some broad-ranging but obvious ASPERSIONS against groups of editors, like for ex. Some editors go by an ultra-orthodox approach to implementing MEDRS, blanking articles and deleting text they consider to be in violation of the guideline and refusing to participate in subsequent discussions.). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This essay is random bad advice written by someone who has consistently found themselves in conflict with core policies. It is a place to bitch about editors they are in conflict with (conflict that has resulted in a topic ban which has just been widened). We already have a page that describes community consensus on what MEDRS covers and may be used for: Wikipedia:Biomedical information, which has long been the semi-official description of MEDRS's scope. -- Colin°Talk 15:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel this qualifies for G5 speedy delete, especially as editing occurred before the TBAN was expanded to all COVID. But in the context of this essay being part of the disruptive behavior that caused the TBAN to be expanded, I do believe the result of this delete discussion should be to delete. Particularly as almost all of the essay creator's edits involving MEDRS sourcing have related to COVID-19. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, my concern is not that the essay is merely incorrect or invalid advice. It's that it's indicative of being WP:NOTHERE. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but that tells us about a property of the author (not here), not of the essay itself. I agree though, it's rubbish - but Wikipedia has lots of rubbish essays. If things go the way they have with similar efforts, the essay will be allowed to stay but the project space shortcuts will need to go, which needs to be done via a separate process. O what a load of work this monkeying-around creates. Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent may dictate otherwise, but my comment remains that without a clean start from scratch, the provenance means it will continue to attract WP:NOTHERE editing. Can't build a stable house on a faulty foundation. I wouldn't be opposed to an inclusionist essay on this topic, but think the only way it will prove productive is a fresh start. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is good advice for editors trying to navigate the pitfalls and traps of MEDRS and FRINGE zealots pushing their POV in medical and political topics. Gimiv (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Help me interpret navigate the pitfalls and traps of MEDRS and FRINGE zealots pushing their POV in a way that isn't WP:BATTLEGROUND. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions about application and interpretation of policy and groups of editors who interpret policy in a certain way is not what battleground is about. This is just further attempt to shut down productive discussion. MarshallKe (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because re-writing it to say something sensible – something that would actually help editors navigate MEDRS and FRINGE, and not just set them on a path towards getting blocked and TBANned – would require blowing it up with WP:TNT and starting over. If we can't agree to just get rid of it, then I'd suggest as my second choice to stick it in the editor's userspace and to delete the shortcut, because (a) that kind of shortcut gets misunderstood, especially by less-experienced editors, and (b) we might want it to point to a section in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) or Wikipedia:Biomedical information. I am particularly concerned about the shortcut being confused with a section of the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - basically per WAID. It's an essay which is, at its core, three things: a statement that MEDRS is sometimes misapplied, an argument that we should include fringe or low quality biomedical information as long as it's attributed, and aggrieved finger-pointing. I completely agree that MEDRS is sometimes applied too broadly, but any attempt to address that is thoroughly undercut by the essayist's own arguments and behavior, which come out in the other two components of the essay. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There seems to be a pattern of this user making controversial essays in projectspace during disputes. Does WP:CRYNPA also need some eyes on it? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the order of events was CP added it to NPA, it was reverted, then CP made a projectspace essay about it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Important policy discourse. To the extent of it being (in parts) bad advice or wrong, that can and should be solved by WP:EDITCONSENSUS and discussion on the talk page. The discourse is very important noting that WP:MEDRES is a specialist almost credentialed authority that most editors are unable to engage with. Even if this essay is poor, suppression of an essay is more evil. I agree with deletion of the shortcuts. I don’t support userfication because multiple editors, including me, support its continuation in project space. I support renaming to add the suffix “(essay)” to the title. Essays are allowed to be wrong, but essays looking like policy, by url or linking, can be misleading. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t support TNT of the page, but I do support extensive editing to respond to the alleged wrong ideas. Use the current text as seed information representing what some people might think, and improve it, even to the point of a complete rewrite, but this does not require deletion of the original versions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:SmokeyJoe, the essay isn't so much a "poor" attempt at making a valid point, albeit perhaps a minority one on Wikipedia. What makes it irredeemably bad is that it purports to be a clarification of the scope of MEDRS, but is in that role a fork of the longstanding and semi-official essay Wikipedia:Biomedical information (which has more text dedicated to what MEDRS does not cover, than to what it does cover). If we are to discuss views of MEDRS scope then surely BMI is a better location than allowing topic-banned editors creating their own deviant variations. If there is a place to discuss how Wikipedia should handle fringe theories, then surely Wikipedia:Fringe theories is the place, and not a fork by an editor who pushes fringe theories and has got topic banned for doing so. The point about your suggestion that it can be improved is that editors who are here to build an encyclopaedia based on consensus policies and guidelines can already do that on other pages, without wasting their time fighting a battle on two fronts. If most editors feel the entire content of the page actively harms the project then what really is the point?
I'd support keeping a somewhat contrarian essay if created by an editor in good standing and which clearly indicated that it was advocating a viewpoint that did not currently have consensus in policy. But this is neither of those things. -- Colin°Talk 07:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You make the argument to redirect to Wikipedia:Biomedical information, aka WP:BMI. I wasn’t sure what the BMI stuff was about, Body Mass Index? I really dislike discussions with essential points in jargon.
Forks should be fixed by redirecting, not deletion.
I support a merge and redirect, but not “delete” and not “pseudo delete by redirection”. This essays raises issues that I don’t see addressed at WP:BMI.
For WP:BMI, I don’t think the fringe elements are valuable, but do think that MEDRES-interpretation disputes is an important issue to document.
I see that there is definitely a problem with the page as it stands, but I don’t agree that it is delete-worthy, and nor that the decision on how to fix is an MfD matter. If the page is continue, it most definitely should reference WP:Biomedical information. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That WP:BMI is the shortcut to Wikipedia:Biomedical information is mentioned in the lead paragraph of the essay we are discussing, and is highlighted at the top of Wikipedia:Biomedical information, the page I've explained already exists to document consensus on what MEDRS is or is not for. I don't know, I think indicating a lack of familiarity / careful reading of the subjects of the deletion discussion wasn't a good move.
Wrt whether the essay raises issues not at WP:BMI, you don't give specifics. What are they? Perhaps they could be included? Perhaps they are mentioned already on endless talk page discussions and they just seem novel to you. You now recommend "merge" but what would be merged, if most of the comments here are of the "nuke it" variety? Most of it seems to be an explanation of why the author has earned their topic ban. -- Colin°Talk 11:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hold MEDRES in very high respect, but have never engaged with it. Yes, “BMI” is throughout the page, I guess I expected it to be bluelinked, and I disliked the piping style that hides “WP” prefixes. I did read it through, but on a third read I note that I dislike it and can barely help skipping ahead. The writing annoys me in that is reads as self-asserting policy, and not as an essay. I see why it is nominated for deletion, but I think an effort should be made to capture the minority complain, not delete it.
What is in the essay that is not in BMI is discussion on editor disputes. I see some considered opinion there. I have no experience with such disputes, but it is this, editor’s opinion on editor disputes, is the sort of thing that shouldn’t be deleted.
If MEDRES editors can tell me that the author’s efforts are worthless, then maybe it should be userfied. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, for what it is worth, I created MEDRS, though am not the author of most of its content. And you already know WhatamIdoing, who created Wikipedia:Biomedical information in order to document the limitations of MEDRS scope (IIRC). -- Colin°Talk 21:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I now lean Userfy and delete the shortcuts. Userspace is exactly the right place for users to challenge guidelines and policy. I have read nearly none of the user’s TBAN history, but I don’t see anything in this page that is delete-worthy from userspace. I do agree that it does not belong in projectspace, where it is prone to mislead. It’s talk page looks like reasonable discussions can be had, and these can continue in userspace, subject to the scope and duration of the TBAN. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Colin, I have seen you in conversations with WAID, but I had you confused with someone else.
I've settled on my !vote being "userfy, delete shortcuts, subject to TBAN conditions". My decision is based on my general preference to allow users to complain about policy, and against policy experts being allowed to easily suppress dissent by deletion.
I do not mean to argue against others, who may know more about MEDRS, who are !voting "delete".
I think a good reason to delete includes the page representing the user disrespecting their TBAN. However, I prefer to not even read about their TBAN, but instead to let people who do know about, and especially the TBAN discussion closer, to comment more meaningfully. Has the TBAN discussion closer been pinged? SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The essay was clearly intended as a response to their TBAN. I have no opinion as to whether that triggers the G5 deletion rule. (I don't usually look at MfD.) IMHO, Nothing of value would be lost if it was deleted, to me it just reads like thinly veiled pro-fringe apologism. ApLundell (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (a) The essay includes multiple statements implying / imposing action on editors such as "editors must consult the WP:BMI page", "editors must consult the WP:FRINGE page" and " If a dispute persists, ... editors should escalate it to a noticeboard or seek arbitration." rather than using "should consider" and other more neutral phrasing. (b) I agree that having an essay / workflow on dealing with WP:MEDRS related discussions would be good but I think WP:TNT would be the best way of starting with it. (c) If it is kept then I like the removing of the shortcuts and adding "(essay)" to the page name sounds like a good idea. (d) We should remember that some people will use Wikipedia as one of the inputs for medical decisions which means that we should hold those pages to a higher standard than, for example, Harrods Christmas Bears which are unlikely to have peer reviewed articles about them (which is a pity). (e) At the risk of being tagged for WP:ORthis article talks to the impact of tv and newspaper stories on health topics and says "Studies of local TV coverage of crime, politics, and health, however, have typically concluded that its content suffers from sensationalism and frequently contains little substance". and finally (f) others are better placed than I am but I am not sure that I would agree that "The WP:MEDRS guideline was created to uphold the WP:NPOV policy on biomedical information (WP:BMI)" rather than talking about the importance of providing accurate information. Gusfriend (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just a note that WP:G5 does not apply, as speedy deletion criteria are only valid when they apply unambiguously and need no discussion. Specifically, "For topic-banned editors, the page must be a violation of the user's specific ban...", not "skirting very closely". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that I wrote this essay after an editor claimed that only MEDRS could be used to WP:INCLUDE allegations that the Chinese government was/is undercounting COVID-19 infections and deaths, despite the fact that those allegations are attributed to Chinese CDC and public health officials speaking off the record to Caixin. After the editor responded comparing these whistleblowers to "Dr Woo" and their allegations as "Woo pills" [1], I decided to write this essay and posted it on WP:VPP to get input, but instead this editor and others attacked me personally, labeling me a proponent of conspiracy theories [2]. This essay deals almost exclusively with a behavioral problem, and does not challenge WP:MEDRS, or usurp WP:BMI in any way. The accusation that I violated my TBAN in writing it is completely unfounded, just like the allegation that I am "anti-MEDRS" and it is telling of a personal vendetta against me. The persistent abuse of MEDRS is well documented on Wikipedia, and during the VPP discussion on this essay, the same editor claimed Havana syndrome is a conspiracy theory, despite the latest report providing very little certainty, just like the reports before it. I intend to write another essay as a guide for editors to communicate scientific uncertainty, and put it through the rigours of an ARBCOM case, if necessary. CutePeach (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More falsity. I gave an example about attribution of quackery, and it has nothing to do with any "whistleblowers". At this point, I am thinking this user needs a site ban because, either through intention or severe lack of competence, they are nothing but a blight on the Project. The promised new essay and arbcom drama strengthens the case further. Alexbrn (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you give an example of quackery? It was clearly in response to my post about the whistleblowers. If there is no behavioural issue here, then surely the case request would be thrown out and you would have nothing to fear? CutePeach (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I said. Your wheeze of "when attributed anything is allowed as it's no longer biomedical!" is something that's been tried (wrongly) in the past to try to inject quackery into articles. I am thinking of the good of the Project as a whole and not hyper-focusing on lab leaks, bioweapons etc. I guess you can't see that's a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read what you said. You were advocating for MEDRS as a sourcing restriction to delete political allegations, as you have in many topic areas, now including Havana syndrome. CutePeach (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More falsity (and I have opposed attempts to extend MEDRS beyond its biomedical focus - which was another stunt arising from the COVID lab leak mess). Alexbrn (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CutePeach: I see you are now topic banned from "all of COVID-19, broadly construed". Considering that this essay does specifically include Covid-19, it might be an idea to check with the admin who extended your ban (@Tamzin: courtesy ping) whether you are still allowed to discuss this. (I'm not saying you can't, just that it's possibly worth checking). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: it is traditional to allow a few days for a newly TBANNED editor to unfurl things. I am in the process of responding to Tamzin and preparing an appeal via WP:ARBCOM. Thank you. CutePeach (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CutePeach: Sure, and I think it is reasonable for you to be able to defend your own creations in discussions such as this - I just didn't want you to be caught out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs)
Delete as a misrepresentation of multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a good-faith attempt to improve policy understanding, it is a WP:Pointy essay that attempts to legitimize OPs personal views, which are in direct conflict with the community. Alternative is userify and remove the shortcut.Slywriter (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without userfication per AndyTheGrump. Essay space is not license to contravene standing policy with invective.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:POLICY, [e]ssays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval. I disagree with a number of editors who take the view that the only legitimate essay is one that explains the current policies and guidelines. It is the case that we should userfy essays the author does not want others to edit, or that contradict widespread consensus, but the former is clearly not true (I edited the essay without objection from the author) and the evidence given by delete !voters for the second is not persuasive. As such, I don't really see evidence that this meets WP:DEL-REASON#13. The arguments for deletion argue that the whole essay was written in bad faith, which I take some offense to given that I substantially edited portions of it. No argument seems to touch another deletion reason given in the WP:Deletion Policy, so the arguments from WP:TNT could only draw support from WP:IAR. And to argue that this is TNT-worthy, per the text of that essay, would require that all the content—including all edits in its history—be useless, which seems like a bit of a stretch. Editors are allowed to write essays that do not directly contradict policies; if other editors find the essay either unwise or poorly written (as I do for this essay), they are free to write a counter-essay or to improve the rhetoric respectively. But deleting an essay because we either do not agree with it or find the rhetoric to be imprecise lacks a strong policy basis. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody here has said the "the only legitimate essay is one that explains the current policies and guidelines". And I think if users edited the essay to effectively neutralise CutePeach's viewpoints, they would object. Your argument is not persuasive given that there exists a forum whereby essays can be deleted. If CutePeach had written an essay about why they think current policy and guidelines are wrong and how they should be changed, that might be fine. But they have written an essay that misleads readers about policy and guideline, which is meritless. -- Colin°Talk 09:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, came here via the ANI discussion and after looking at it all together, surprised this wasn't speedy deleted. Would support a snow delete, and also against userfying. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy if not G5 eligible: it is clear from this discussion that the essay does not reflect even a substantial minority view of the community, but the view of one editor. I am not seeing where this view, however, is so dangerous that it must not be expressed on Wikipedia. Perhaps I've missed something.The page has been almost entirely written by one editor, so it is not misleading to put it in their userspace (or, they can request deletion there if they feel it is). I understand that there is underlying context to the situation, but on the face of it there is nothing wrong with somebody expressing their opinion on the interaction between MEDRS, FRINGE and other policies and guidelines, whatever motivated them to do so. — Bilorv (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not userify. This user is TBAN'd from COVID-19, broadly construed, and that would unfortunately include a big chunk of this essay. The essay itself is clearly not fit for project-space, as it contravenes current policy with soapbox-level invective, rather than any policy-based argument of any kind. If the user were not TBAN'd, I would support userification. But a user essay that the user cannot themselves edit is probably not a good idea. — Shibbolethink(♔♕) 09:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Userfy per SmokeyJoe and Bilorv. Even if the user is TBANNED from COVID_19, it doesn't mean we. should retroactively delete everything they said on the topic. The delete !votes ironically prove how personal this dispute is for some editors. Francesco espo (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not personalise this dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am uninvolved in this dispute and unfamiliar with most of the individuals involved. The minute I saw this essay linked on ANI, I gave it a read... and it's very clearly a WP:BATTLEGROUND attempt at doing an end-run around MEDRS. The essay quickly devolves into labeling others as Inclusionist/Deletionist, terms I had hoped would be considered sorely outdated years ago. The essay also presents itself as rules, rather than suggestions or guidelines, repeatedly claiming editors "must" do as it says. Finally, it falls into trying to say WP:FALSEBALANCE is a good thing. There's nothing redeemable left in this essay once you try to pare it down to any useful advice, so it should be deleted outright. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contrarian advice can be useful but this is not. The only take-home message from the essay is that MEDRS can be ignored by wikilawyering. Sprinkling links such as WP:RECENTISM + WP:INCLUSIONIST + WP:DELETIONIST pads out the text but adds nothing other than demonstrating how to parry opponents while burying the issue. Some editors may refuse "to participate in subsequent discussions" after a discussion has been settled, while others would be encouraged by this essay to battle forever. Johnuniq (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is basically an antivaxxer manifesto on how to subvert MEDRS. ValarianB (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean that by saying that this is an antivaxxer manifesto? If you're referring to the Dengvaxia controversy, the attempt to tie "anti-vaxxer" to some sort of policy violation is a swing-and-a-miss; the CDC notes that the Dengvaxia is different from other vaccines in that it is only recommended for people who have already been infected with dengue virus. The reason is that children without previous dengue infection are at increased risk for severe dengue disease and hospitalization if they get dengue after they are vaccinated with Dengvaxia. There's quite a big difference between that sort of thing and the Wakefield-MMR-Autism quackery shebang, which this essay doesn't appear to advocate toleration of. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think anyone is going to engage in antivax rhetoric with you in this deletion discussion, you are mistaken. ValarianB (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness, you've missed the point! I don't anticipate that anyone will engage in antivax rhetoric by denying the well-documented safety of the MMR vaccine to favor fringe theories about an alleged association with Autism. And if you've noted my comments at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_355#CounterPunch_and_Al_Bawaba, the publication of that sort of garbage in the case of so much evidence is the sort of thing that contributes towards an evaluation that a source should be deprecated. My point is that the use of "antivax" in your argument where the U.S. CDC is saying that this vaccine is different from other vaccines in that it is only recommended for people who have already been infected with dengue virus owing to Antibody-dependent enhancement in people without prior exposure to Dengue is like saying that a person is "anti-chemotherapy" for not prescribing cisplatin to a pregnant woman because the cancer treatment is a teratogen. The shorthand of "anti-vaxxer", the connotation of which usually refers to the sorts of people who obstinately deny good science, is simply misused in your response. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also note that they are starting another draft, Draft:WP:UNCERTAIN, which by the opening and only line so far, will be similar to this one. ValarianB (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly as per User:Rhododendrites. Argues with usual interpretation of existing guidelines. An essay providing a less tendentious contrarian view of MEDRS would be in order, but this is not it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For those who are not aware, the author of this essay has been site banned by the community: [3] — Shibbolethink(♔♕) 15:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I somehow doubt that. That was unlikely to be the author's first, or last account. Anyone can get an IP or an "author" in the Philippines, for a few peso. 103.236.177.26 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Under the pretense of explaining what the acronyms mean, it's a diatribe against editors and a screed in favor of contentious editing. XOR'easter (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.