Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Membership guidelines

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Membership guidelines

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Membership guidelines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

While I understand this is only an essay, it appears like these "guidelines" are being enforced as an actual rule. This is a solution in search of a problem and the general vibe of this policy is WP:BITEy. What is the purpose of banning new editors from joining a WikiProject on tropical cyclones? Is there really any disruption that would be prevented by not letting people put their name on a list of people interested in a topic? It's not like AfC where the member list gatekeeps draft reviewing tools. These guidelines are bitey, cliquey, and serve no purpose other than to tell new editors they are not welcome at WikiProject Tropical cyclones. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 10:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete bitey as per NOM, and also The prospective editors must display a continued interest in tropical cyclones. is really off putting. Maybe you have an interest, but feel like editing something else for a while. We're all volunteers. Seems unnecessary. If folks are editing poorly, they can be dealt with through normal channels. Star Mississippi 17:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The Tropical Cyclone project is productive, but, as these guidelines indicate, is something of a club. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Not overly bitey, and this isn't even an enforced policy. It's an essay. Also, WP:CIR users should not be running around on the site, nor should likely socks. I see no issue with asking our own members do some some more quality control and vetting those whom they choose to invite. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @LightandDark2000: It is an "enforced policy" given that you're threatening people with bans/sanctions for violating it [1] and have warned other people about their violations of these guidelines. [2] [3] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chess: I can tell you that was written and implemented without the consent of the rest of the project. Almost all of us were unaware this existed. As this was not approved by the project and the wiki community at large, it can't be enforced. There is only one requirement to join our project... add your name to the list. NoahTalk 01:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikiproject tropical cyclones is in no way, shape or form a remotely appropriate place to be making judgments about who requires a CIR block or who is likely a sockpuppet. Those issues should be dealt with at an appropriate venue (i.e. the administrator's noticeboard or sockpuppet investigations) not by a wikiproject. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a bitey and rather nastily written set of guidelines that seem to have been written from a position of "assume everyone is incompetent, bad tempered and not really interested until they've sufficiently demonstrated otherwise". Wikiprojects are supposed to be open endeavours where everyone is welcome to participate - look at central guidance on this. From WP:WikiProject: "WikiProjects welcome new participants; please feel free to participate in any or all that interest you!". From the Wikiproject FAQ's "How do I participate in a WikiProject? Participating in a WikiProject is easy. Most projects have a participants list to which you can add your name.". The idea that someone should need to have 500 edits before being invited to join a wikiproject is frankly ridiculous, Wikiprojects can be great resources for newcomers looking for guidance. If wikiproject tropical cyclones wants to be run as a private members club it will likely end up with the same fate as Esperanza. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How many times do I need to tell people WE CANT DICTATE WHO JOINS A PROJECT? I have said it many times but it is falling on deaf ears. This is assuming bad faith on the part of prospective editors. How else are new editors supposed to learn except by joining a project and getting help? In the end, you are just alienating them and driving them away. I get that you want to prevent disruptive editing and sockpuppetry, but you have to deal with the people who cause the problems, not make a strict process to vet members. This isn't a government post that requires a background check. NoahTalk 01:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Changed to Delete below - Sigh yet more drama and another stick to poke at WPTC which stems from the pandemic and active Atlantic hurricane season. As a more experienced project member, I can understand why several editors felt like they needed to produce guidance on who to invite and who not to. I personally like the idea as we have a lot of younger editors join the project due to the pandemic/active hurricane season. However, the editor who decided to implement the guidelines just seems to have C&P'd the guidance direct from comments made in November last year made in a discussion last year by @LightandDark2000: which quickly gained consensus. However, it is poorly written and does not reflect the wider wikipedia policies. Jason Rees (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, largely per the well-written rationale of the 192 IP (who, I note, would be prohibited from joining this WikiProject). Allowing a cabal to arrogate power to itself is contrary to the fundamental principles on which Wikipedia is based. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per "what the hell is this?". Broadly speaking, if you find yourself using hard rules for tenure, edit counts, or their adjacents outside the situations that demand them for technical reasons such as protection levels, you're doing something wrong. (Yes, this means a fair few processes are doing something wrong.) I'm unconvinced of the merits of the wikiproject membership model (rather than simply watchlisting and phasing around things that are of interest to you) at all in Wikipedia's current state; rulings on who can be ~*~ A MEMBER ~*~ of such projects are beyond unconvincing. The need for this page at all strikes me as more a sign of issues with WPTC than anything. Vaticidalprophet 14:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vaticidalprophet: One person stated on a discussion last year that a guidelines page like this needed consensus before it was created. They then went ahead and created this + enforced it (one other person also enforced it) without consensus. I don't think this is a problem with the project at large since this was created without consent. NoahTalk 20:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Destroyeraa: What do you think CIR actually means? Because right now it looks like you're using it as a synonym for the adjective "incompetent", and if I read it that way your comments may be bitier than it intends to be. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In WP:CIRNOT there's something important to note: It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. Using CIR as synonym for "incompetent" is borderline reach towards... you can guess it. MarioJump83! 13:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete – These member requirements seem bitey and unnecessary. Wikipedia is for anyone to edit. The wikiprojects should remain the same way. I was invited after just making 10 edits (barely even autoconfirmed!!) and apart from a few mistakes that I made as a newbie, I wasn't a net negative to the project or made any dastardly noob-y mistakes (to my knowledge, except for a botched AfD, if I was, please drop me a note on my talk). I think that inviting people to WPTC can also help them become better editors, because they can find more experienced editors more easily and get advice from them. Basically, this page may scare some editors away. It also seems a bit BITEy. (also, I didn't come here because of an off-wiki discussion. I saw it on the WikiProject Weather article alerts.) codingcyclone advisories/damages 03:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Comment – I get and understand both arguments presented here, is there any way some sort of compromise can be created? 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 06:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CodingCyclone: I was thinking something along the lines of completely deleting this set of guidelines, and then write a new one from scratch with the concensus and the help of all the editors of our Wikiproject, not just a select few. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 16:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm going to admit this: I made this page due to premature invitations issue, which LightandDark2000 viewed as a threat to the integrity of WPTC, and BCNY2011 issue, which became a catalyst for the creation of that page. I did this BOLDly without consensus, because of what was viewed during that time.
Since then, it's clear that issue is becoming normal and isn't much of a problem it used to be. In fact, my mass invitations back in late 2020 seems to publicized this WikiProject off-wiki and popularized the idea of joining WPTC just some time after joining, leading to influx of new members that wasn't even invited at all in this year! I think facing off against CIR users shouldn't become too much of a burden as some new members of the WikiProject probably will not even be a CIR editor and will care about this issue.
The problem on this WikiProject, is in fact, is the toxicity between active members of this WikiProject, like the FDO TBAN proposal which led to nowhere, and this is the other reason why I decided to semi-retire from Wikipedia. I don't want to face this too much as the situation around me is becoming more restrictive and mired with personal conflicts, and I don't want to face the situation either on this WikiProject. It's like my conflict between me and parents, which if I put these things on WPTC, it is between the new members and active members that are trying to gatekeep. There are going to be unruly new members, as what I have said before, but even HurricaneEdgar, which can be considered as one of these CIR editors, is actively fighting against them! Don't be shocked by this as I have seen HurricaneEdgar's activities in regards to this in Wikimedia Commons and Meta Wikimedia.
Like Hurricane Noah, this WikiProject shouldn't dictate which one can join or not join. This is not WikiProject Articles of Creation, and it's fair that WikiProject AfC is quite restrictive due to WP:COI which had to be handled carefully. I'm sorry to be very harsh but this needs to be said. There's an idea of rewording this guideline, which can be an acceptable compromise, but it's still harsh to me. Any CIR editors can actually improve over time, like my mentorship of Chicdat which helped getting him out from possible blocks. I'll settle for invitation restrictions instead rather than BITE-ing newer editors. Holier-than-thou things and bullying is the reason why there are WP:IAR in the first place. I don't want to partake on this drama anymore, and this needs to end. I don't want to quit this project, but I'm losing faith for this project like JavaHurricane.
I'm out. MarioJump83! 14:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of editors here keep on referring to how they need to stop "CIR editors" from joining the project, but I'm not convinced they really get what CIR is supposed to mean. The CIR essay describes a very small number of editors who are simply unable to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, regardless of how much help and advice they are given, e.g. because they lack some fundamental skill that cannot be taught through editing (like having the ability to speak English), they lack the editorial judgement to figure out what is or isn't a reliable source or what should or shouldn't be included in the project, or that they refuse to listen to instruction or advice from more experienced editors and keep making the same mistakes over and over again. If a "CIR editor" can improve to become not a CIR editor then they weren't CIR to begin with - they were new. It is entirely expected for newcomers to make the occasional stupid edit or to break things or to do something wrong, and as long as they are willing to listen and change what they were doing that is fine. Using CIR as an excuse to ban all new editors because you can't be bothered to deal with the mistakes they are making is a complete misapplication of the essay.
As an aside I've had a read through the "BCNY2011 issue" and it really does not show WPTC in the best light IMO. It look to me like a typical Clueless newbie who made some typical "good faith but useless" edits (pointless grammatical changes, a bit of editorialising in a FA, an article on a NN google doodle and making a user page/autobiography in article space) who was bitten very nastily by WPTC, was removed from the wikiproject and banned for 3 days for DE, and then globally locked at the request of a WPTC member over some relatively minor issues that in no way required a global lock. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that most of us, including me, had the wrong idea of what CIR means. I'd advise people to look through WP:CIRNOT and think on this. At this point, I'd say that newbies making not so helpful edits are "a bit clueless" when it comes to WP policy, whereas if we see an extended pattern of behavior which shows that the user is not that open to learning, then it is a sign that that person may need to be escorted out.
As for the BCNY issue, I think that we reacted too harshly, in retrospect. They did not know what to do, and other than being a bit stubborn, they were just new. The socking - they probably didn't know about the socking policy. I think we were a bit too harsh on them, and unfortunately, I have realized this much too late. I looked through their contribs. This issue was bigger than I saw it to be when I posted this comment.Thanks 192.76.8.91, for offering your opinion. codingcyclone advisories/damages 18:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am opposed to any sort of additional restrictions on invitation. If everyone is allowed to join, why can't everyone be invited to join? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No. The very fact it's still called "membership guidelines" is a non-starter. Period. Delete the whole damn thing, get with your group and rethink how you want to communicate to new users. WaltCip-(talk) 01:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I too am reaffirming my !vote: WPTC is not a private club. Anyone who is not blocked or banned sitewide already can join WPTC. JavaHurricane 08:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This. I've noticed that they came up with some proposals to change some things that WPTC members see as hurting their cause, but they did a bad job at communicating to some users about how the proposals can go and look like. MarioJump83! 13:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What?! Membership guidelines is a bad idea that should not had happened in the first place and anyone can join except obvious LTAs which had been blocked OR banned. WPTC, especially WPTC members that want to take preventive action against editors who could be blocked someday but obviously not now should back off. I'm not convinced that "guidelines" will make a good look, and probably even drive off some of these people. So no. MarioJump83! 13:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought about this MFD a lot over the last few days and it basically boils down to @MarioJump83, Destroyeraa-alt, and LightandDark2000: and others trying to protect the project from an influx of new editors because Hurricanes are suddenly cool again after the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season. However, by creating, recording and enforcing these guidelines, they are unintentionally breaking the basic principles of the website that hosts the project and allows it to exist. As a result I am forced to vote Delete to all guidelines or guidance about who is allowed to join WPTC since we arent a private members club. Jason Rees (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply that's where I land. Troublesome editors are troublesome and can be dealt with via normal Wikipedia procedures, not via project membership. Projects don't need a special set of guidelines, it's not a club where being an active member is of higher standing than an inactive member or a non member. Star Mississippi 14:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Umm...first of all why we even need this, Wikiproject is thing about people's interest whether you wanna take part of the project or not, we have no say who can take part and who cannot. I know User:LightandDark2000 created this guidelines because of rise no. of cases of sockpuppetry, but now there's almost little to no cases of sockpuppetry in this project. Experienced users CAN warn less-experienced users (like me) if they inviting the wrong users (people who have a history of vandalism or people who is sus of a sock). Anyways, my opinion is, it's better to delete this because it's scares newbies out. Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 14:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious and poor attempt at gatekeeping new users from joining the WikiProject. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't envy the admin who is going to have to decide on whether to relist or delete this page given the significant changes to the membership guidelines. I'd like to get it on record that I support a relist, given the lack of clarity as to whether editors opposed these specific membership guidelines or the concept of membership guidelines in general. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to clarify that I still support deletion even after the recent changes as my problem is with the concept of any kind of "membership guidelines". I also don't really support a relist anymore given that many people have clarified that they also still support deletion. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chess, Jason Rees, JavaHurricane, WaltCip, and Star Mississippi: I have factored in your concerns amd have removed most restrictions. However, please note that I have clearly stated that this page has not been ratified by the WPTC. Regarding the name, that can be discussed later, not here on this deletion discussion. Also please note that the page rarely has phrases such as "users should" "users will" "users cannot" but are rather comprised of suggestions. The only restrictions left are regarding vandals, trolls and Personal Attackers, which are in no way Bitey. The page no longer is a set of rules of a privaye club, but is raTher a proposed essay. Have a good day.Destroyer (Alternate account) 20:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's not even ratified, stop calling it "Membership guidelines". It's disingenuous and misleading. My delete !vote still stands. This essay was born out of a collective attempt at gatekeeping, and your community needs to do some serious soul-searching in terms of how it wants to be perceived by the rest of Wikipedia. WaltCip-(talk) 20:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @WaltCip:: @Destroyeraa: moved the Membership guidelines to Membership guideline proposal but was reverted by @Chess:.Jason Rees (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      For reference, Destroyeraa moved to "Membership guideline proposal" but then immediately moved the talk page back to "Membership guidelines" [4] with the edit summary "messed up". I assumed they intended to move the main page back as well as I didn't see any reason why the talk page should have had a different title than the main page. This is why I did the reversion for the main page. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Destroyeraa: We have all read it carefully but you have yet to explain why we need such guidelines, which break the basic principles of the website that hosts the project and allows it to exist. As a result, my vote as a member of WPTC to delete stands and will always stand. I also note that several other members of WPTC have also voted to delete it, which suggests to me that it would never get ratified by WPTC. In fact, I note that it seems to be only you and LightandDark2000 who seem to want to implement some sort of criteria.Jason Rees (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My vote still stands: I'm opposed to any form of membership guidelines as per my explanation above. JavaHurricane 04:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete even after the recent revisions. Alluding to any sort of restrictions on joining a restriction are a big no, and goes completely against the spirit that the whole of Wikipedia is founded on (WP:5P3). There's zero reason to have a page called "membership guidelines" even if it just says "anyone can join", simply because there shouldn't be any in the first place. To reiterate what's in Wikipedia:WikiProject:WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors. It's also highly disingenuous to have this in project space, ratified or not, despite it being extremely unpopular within the project (as can be seen from all the comments above). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 05:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respect to "protecting the project from LTAs/vandals and CIR editors": well, for the former I don't see why we need a special page telling people to not bother with them for the sake of WP:DENY. Just follow the standard operating procedure: revert, warn, and report to WP:AIV; there's really no point getting worked up about it. For the latter, please read WP:CIRNOT (particularly points 1, 2, 4, and 5) – a new user that makes mistakes isn't immediately unsuited for Wikipedia. Most of the time, they need guidance and mentoring to become more productive, and a WikiProject is meant to be one of the avenues by which they can obtain said guidance. 192.76.8.91 makes several very good points above about how we've been treating said "CIR editors", and I say it's time we changed our perception of these users. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 05:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As very bitey.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2021 (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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Membership_guidelines&oldid=1044070815"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Membership guidelines, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.