Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:22, 18 October 2009

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Template:Archive box collapsible

WP:PROPOSAL

{{edit protected}} Please add {{shortcut|WP:PROPOSAL}} to Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines#Proposals, the section for WP:PROPOSAL. Thanks. 72.244.206.223 (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, that's helpful thanks. Perhaps also WP:DEMOTION for the section below?  Skomorokh  00:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've slightly weakened this part re tagging failed policy, as it also seems common to demote them to essays without the failure tag. I've changed it to "usually" shouldn't be removed. Verbal chat 09:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been stuck into a mediation with some people arguing about a 'usually' in the WP:RS policy. They say it doesn't apply in any particular article or project even if there are no other indicators. I think it's fine but just warning that some people seem ready to war over it. Do you know if something has come up before over what 'usually' means? Dmcq (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with any wording which doesn't imply an absolute, which doesn't describe practice and can often go against common sense or decency. I can see things can be more heated with RS as that's a content policy, but this just describes the tagging of (failed) policy. Verbal chat 13:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this revert, this edit, this revert and this talk page post may help to explain Verbal's concerns over the wording here. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also WP:OUTLINE and many other pages that were previously tagged as policy proposals are no longer so tagged, or tagged as failed. Policy is descriptive not prescriptive. Verbal chat 21:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Verbal should be editing this page at all right now. As described by Gandalf, he is in a dispute that directly relates to the change he has proposed, but he failed to reveal that fact. Ronnotel (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any objections to reversing the edit provided by Verbal? As shown by Gandalf, the "consensus" for the edit was obtained under false pretenses - Verbal failed to mention that he was involved in a dispute directly related to his edit. Ronnotel (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

We can take into account the fact that Verbal is involved in a dispute... can you express why it is necessary to explicitly note that a former proposed policy or guideline (one that is now marked as an "essay") failed to become a policy or guideline? I would think that marking it as an "essay" is enough. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That's obvious. It is a question of transparency and openness. It says "this isn't just an essay that no-one feels strongly about one way or the other; this is an essay that was once proposed as a policy". The real question is: what good reasons are there for not being open about the history of such a page ? Gandalf61 (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the history tab inadequate for your needs? (Not nescessarily a facetious question: I could imagine a good argument for flagging particular revisions, for instance) --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The previous status of a page won't be obvious from a quick glance at its history. Case in point - if you look at the history of Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is a mainstream encyclopedia, it's not immediately obvious that it was changed from a proposed policy to an essay. Similarly, it won't always be obvious from the talk page, where things get buried and archived. Yes, all the history is there somewhere, but it's not transparent. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor involved in a content conflict changes a Policy Page to support his POV! That should immediately disqualify him from furter editing on that Policy section and the Policy Page shoould by default go back to previous consensus. Is Misplaced Pages a lawless land? MaxPont (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Situation: An editor involved in a content conflict changes a Policy Page to reflect what he has learned.

Principles:

1. Trust policy pages like any other wiki (encyclopedia) page. (aka. verify everything)
2. This is how the wiki is intended to operate. People document what they have learned. (wiki process determines content)
3. The contributor of an edit is irrelevant. Only the content of the edit and the supporting logic is relevant. (We do not discriminate in favor of experts or against amateurs) (anyone may edit)
4. If content improves the page, it improves the page (WP:IAR, WP:COMMON, WP:BOLD). We do not remove content on the basis of process alone (WP:NOT a bureacracy).
5. If some existing process suggests an action and we van verify that the action improves the wiki, only then do we take the action. WP:WIARM
6. In this case we do not have a documented process to remove edits to policy from people involved in content disputes, nor does the suggested action (removing the edit) improve the wiki.
7. We do have a documented process that says one may modify the pages documenting our policy/guideline/essays , if that modification improves that documentation.
8. We do have a documented process that says we are not a bureaucracy, and must act on common ssense.

In consequence:

• AFAICT you *usually* don't remove {{failed}} tags. But there are exceptions (such as when you do a total rewrite and go in a different direction, for instance, or if consensus changes, or if you would like to test if consensus has changed). "Usually" is correct, I have re-added it.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC) ps: duh. ;-)

I agree with Kim's reversion. {{failed}} tags should not usually be removed. The proponents of failed proposals often want to remove the tag, replacing it with {{essay}}, but it is better if essays are essays and proposals are proposals, and the two are not mixed. Ideally, an essay will lay out an argument, and a proposal will be a description (some mix of description of proven practice and prescription of ideal practice). The failed proposals should then be kept for the record, and not covered over by the essay that should have preceded the proposal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Lawks, someone could have told me about this brouhaha. My edit was made in good faith and I pointed people at the other page here. I agree with Kim and SJ above (who, I hope wont be offended, I hardly know). I stand by my edit improving the policy for the reasons given, but I will accept, as always, the consensus of the wikipedia community. I genuinely feel that the edit improves the policy, for the reasons given, and reflects practice. Full disclosure: I would love to stick the "failed" tag on WP:OUTLINE, but I feel doing so would be disruptive and only increase drama. I would expect similar effects as the contested tagging others refer to above. Policy should very rarely be absolute, and common sense should be applied. If this was absolute we'd have to have a new policy about when exactly is a policy proposal actually a policy proposal, etc. Verbal chat 11:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have retagged. I think {{failed}} is way too premature for that page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Respone to Kim Bruning: I'm afraid Verbal didn't change this policy page to "reflect what he had learned"; the truth is less noble. He weakened that line of the policy after it had been used in an argument against him, and then later in the same thread quoted back his new version to support his own actions, without disclosing that he himself had changed it - see Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_a_mainstream_encyclopedia#Against_policy_to_hide_fact_that_a_proposal_failed_consensus. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that he made edits that were in his judgment at the time to be in the best interests of the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept that the edits were made in good faith. However, the ongoing involvement in a dispute directly related to the change should have been revealed. I don't think that point has been acknowledged yet. Ronnotel (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In which way is that useful? --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I hope both parties in that discussion realize that when you quote a page (such as a policy page), all you're really saying is "here's a condensed version of what I think that I prepared earlier".

In that case, it's perfectly valid to alter the text before you quote it, after all, at the end of the day, you are held fully responsible for whatever you say; so it'd better say what you mean!

You are not really supposed to hit each other over the head with stone tablets (if only because then it would be revealed that they are not actually made of stone at all, but instead out of something fluffy and light ;-) ). Your engraving is not stronger than his engraving, and this is not a zero sum game . Your first, last, and only option is to negotiate, and form a consensus on how to cooperate. --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if WP is not a bureaucracy it sure doesn’t reflect in the ever expanding rulebook of Policies and Guidelines and special rules for unusual situations. If we allow editors involved in a content conflict to amend Policies to support their POV we open a can of worms and potentially move content conflicts into the policy pages. That should be discouraged. I propose the following rule:

If parties in a content conflict use a certain WP policy or guideline to support their POV, changes of the wording of that policy after the conflict started should be ignored (that is: the valid policy at the time the conflict started should be used as the reference framework for settling that dispute). MaxPont (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Then they would be sure to amend the policy just before the dispute starts... But anyway this is the wrong way to approach things; all "disputes" should be resolved in terms of what's best for the encyclopedia. If it turns out that the current wording of a policy page gives the wrong answer in some situation, then it's probably worth considering changing that wording (unless the situation is so exceptional that it's best thought of as a case of IAR).--Kotniski (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. However, I still find it very controversial if a party in a content dispute tries to amend Policies during an ongoing conflict to support his case. If we can have special provisions for 100s of unusual situations in the regulatory framework we can add something about this too. Right? MaxPont (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Policy description

Currently it states- "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are standards that all users should follow." That wording flies right in the face of IAR and the idea of consensus and common sense. Policy means "policy" as in "it is good policy to do such and such", policy does not mean "you must do it, it is a law". Policies are there to show what works in general and in typical situations. IAR and commonsense guided by policy and guidelines and being implemented by consensus is what rules the day, not the literal word of policy. Policies were not written by any Wikigod, and they dont cover every possible problem. That is why we have IAR. There are those who are vehemently opposed to IAR and the use of common sense, and they will oppose rewording, but I think we need to ignore them. A rewording I propose is "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are of great importance in helping editors come to consensus on issues and problems that my arise during editing. While the spirit of a policy should be adhered to, remember that policies are not cookie-cutter solutions to problems and conflicts that may arise. Common sense should be used in their implementation, what works in one situation does not always work in similar situations. Respect consensus where it deviates from existing policy." That of course is the farthest reaching rewrite I could accept, perhaps a middle ground rewrite that is not so extreme would be preferable to others.Camelbinky (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There already is 'ignore all rules' and 'follow common sense' as reasons to not follow policy. I disagree with adding any more. If you don't follow policy you are liable to be blocked. They are the law. Dmcq (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

@Dmcq: your statement is incorrect. To wit, wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Policy/guideline/essay pages document known best practices, they are not law. You are actually unlikely to be blocked for not following policy, provided you remain in discussion with people, show good cooperation, and all in all stay in line with consensus.

Of course, in theory, in a perfect world, policy/guideline/essay pages would document consensus perfectly, and your statement would be exactly true by happenstance. In practice, we do not live in a perfect world, so consensus and common sense will at times be at variance with what is documented on policy pages. In that situation, consensus and common sense (and "acting along the line set by consensus", which requires a bit of intuition), will do the trick.

When (not if) you discover discrepancies, please update the policy/guideline/essay page(s) to reflect the (new) state of consensus on-wiki. --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus, and the struggle get to the end of that rainbow provides much of energy here. Once it is declared that we *have* consensus, further edits are not welcome, then you'll know that we've entered the death phase. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's hope it never gets that far. Wait, what am I saying?

Let's work to make sure! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

So, other than Dmcq who has a very minority view on what policy is, what are the thoughts about rewording the paragraph on what a policy is to reflect that it isnt in fact what should be adhered to in all cases.Camelbinky (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken in your conception of what a law is. It does not have to be handed out by a god. As the law article says at the start "Law is a system of rules, usually enforced through a set of institutions". In democracies those rules are decided by some approach to consensus. The policies are enforced by the wikipedia administrators aided by the community in general, and removing any force from them means an administrator would have no rule to enforce. Their power would be without basis in consensus and capricious as far as anyone could determine, especially all the people trying to game the system. Is that what you would really like for wikipedia? That they do not straightaway block you for sticking in original research if you're willing to talk to people and not keep trying to stick it in does not mean it is not a law. If you keep sticking it in you can eventually get banned. Dmcq (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but you'd be being banned for keep sticking it in, not for what "it" is (unless it's particularly gross). The more I see people arguing about the philosophical nature of policies and guidelines, the more convinced I am that we shouldn't have them. We should have a (relatively) concise manual that tells editors what they need to know about editing on WP, including recommended behaviours ("best practices") for eds and admins. Nothing that implies that there are rules to be obeyed and punishments for breaching them (even IAR is guilty in this regard - why say "ignore all rules" unless there are rules to be ignored?) Well maybe we should have just one page of policy, setting out (but not elaborating on) the key points of our mission and how we treat people.--Kotniski (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec-ish) This is a common misconception: The Admin role does not encompass the enforcing of rules, at all. Admins are not policemen. Admins are allowed to be as capricious as any other user, within the boundries of consensus and common sense.

The "powers" that Admins do have are derived from PHP code, (and have been well and thoroughly nerfed at that.)

You get people to adhere to consensus in cooperation with your peers, just like every other wiki-activity.

If you refuse to cooperate, sure, you will eventually get banned. So once again, you are partially correct. The outcome is roughly as you say, but the premises are somewhat different. The premises are different because this is an online community, rather than a real-world community; and things do work a tad differently online.

There is no force whatsoever in the policy pages themselves. Counter-intuitively (to some), this is to prevent them from being gamed*.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC) *One way to look at it: Actually, real world law also contains quite a lot of flexibility, to give the wise judge room to be just. On wikipedia, every wikipedian could be said to be judge, jury and executioner, so you can imagine we need quite some flexibility ;-)

If these are common misconceptions, though, then (a) they end up being true, to some extent; (b) we ought to be looking at how to present the information to people in such a way as not to give them such misconceptions. (Removing or rewording the policy tags seems to be an obvious step to consider.) --Kotniski (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree Kotniski, though that proposal probably wont ever be implemented, its alot easier to keep out "instruction creep" than it is to actually rollback existing instructions. As for Dmcq, his opinion is in the very extreme minority regarding our policies and guidelines. He seems to imply that administrators are here to "enforce rules", they are here to administer and maintain administrative functions beyond that of regular editing; they arent here to police us or render judgements, though their opinions are valued they arent considered binding above opinions of regular editors, there are no class structures on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is very clear in that it does not have laws, you cant get around that no matter how much you declare them to be "rules" or "laws"; I believe Kim is the one that put the relevant page links that make that clear so I wont go and look them up again. Consensus blocks you, not the policy itself. An individual admin who blocks you but interpreted policy in a wrongful manner can be overruled by consensus using common sense that you shouldnt be blocked. Consensus using common sense, appropriately knowing when to apply existing policies and guidelines and when to use IAR to ignore them is what makes Misplaced Pages work. What Dcmq describes has never been our the way Misplaced Pages works and the declaration by Jimbo makes that clear, in fact I do believe IAR is the OLDEST policy we have, and it is indeed given priority and prominence above all others, by Jimbo, the Foundation, the community-at-large, and on all policy pages. So, again- is there a consensus (disregarding the minority view of Dmcq) that I (or someone who wishes to reword it for us) add to the policy description paragraph on this page to clarify policy's role and to mention IAR regarding its implementation. An admin recently said this on ANI- "policy is descriptive, not prescriptive", which is a good succinct way of putting what I am thinking. Perhaps if we dont want a wordy addition as I originally proposed we can just add that five word sentence.Camelbinky (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well since admins have no more power, what exactly is the thing I do to block a user? Saying something ain't so doesn't make it not so whatever about verifiability rather than truth. If it has the effect of law and works exactly like law it is law however you feel about calling it that. Dmcq (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As to the proposed change to this particular policy might I quote "maintain scope, avoid redundancy" from this policy itself. Not that you need take any note of such precedent, you can always quote "ignore all rules" ;-) Dmcq (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Dmcq I'm having trouble understanding your first post so I'm not quite sure I understand your point. The fact of the matter is that Misplaced Pages specifically states that it is not law, it is not applied strictly by the letter, and is the complete opposite of what you are stating. Please see the relevant links Kim provided above. Perhaps after reading them you will understand why your beliefs on WP are in the minority. I'm sorry if I have to totally disregard your views on this matter, but your views are extreme and fringe regarding the scope and use of policy, so I will ignore your views. Anyone have any comments on the changing of the words of the policy section? If no serious objections backed by already established views of what a policy is I will be bold and change the policy section to reflect that they arent concrete rules to apply strictly in every case, that in the words of an admin- are descriptive, not prescriptive. They do just that, they describe previous consensuses they do not prescribe that you MUST do the same in all similar cases forever. In a similar case the facts may be a little different just enough to require a different consensus using common sense and thereby ignoring the policy (through use of IAR). This is the standard operating procedure in Misplaced Pages. Dmcq most importantly seems to be ignoring Jimbo regarding what our policies are and the role of IAR.Camelbinky (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It is as much as I expect. One of the things big groups like this do when they organise is have some contrafactual thing the members must believe in. It is quite amusing I think. fairly typical too that because I have disagreed with a basic in-group identity badge my statement regarding avoiding redundancy is totally ignored even though it is supposedly a reflection of general consensus. Dmcq (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the contrafactual item you are referring to? Avoiding redundancy is always a good thing. What do you propose?--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I propose this proposal be dropped. I believe it is copying and emphasizing WP:IAR n a way that'll cause trouble. The contrafactual thing was the belief that the policies were not law or rules, and it reminds me of religious groups in that they quote their holy book to back up their contention rather than using reason. Dmcq (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way I note that on the IAR talk page I saw no consensus on this, instead there was talk of perhaps the difference with Camelbinky was semantics and people saying that there definitely are rules. Dmcq (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

break

Perhaps this may help from WP:NOTSTATUTE:

• "Misplaced Pages is not governed by statute: it is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice, but rather document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. When instruction creep is found to have occurred, it should be removed.

While Misplaced Pages's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy to violate the principles of the policy (see Misplaced Pages's guideline on gaming the system). If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus.

A procedural error made in posting anything, such as a proposal or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post."

• Obviously that specifically states that our "rules" arent LAWS ("Misplaced Pages is not governed by statute"). Policy is clear that policy is decided by consensus, consensus based discussion can override policy, and those decisions change policy and therefore policy evolves to meet those consensuses that have happened. Consensus shapes policy just as much as policy will shape our consensuses. This page regarding what a policy is should reflect what we have written on other policy pages. So, if no other objections within the next day or two I'll go ahead and change the wording. I believe I have put forth a strong argument based on existing consensus and on existing wording of policy pages themselves.Camelbinky (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Quoting bits of wikipedia saying not statute is only good for writing an article about wikipedia and establishing verifiability. Talkpages are not governed by WP:V. We're allowed to talk about what is fact and use straightforward logic just like a proper study of the truth in the primary sources we try and avoid using. We do not have to accept the hermetic reasoning that because somethings says it is so then it is so any more than we have to agree with religious groups about their particular beliefs written down in their holy books.

As to the change which, is the relevant part to this page, I oppose it. It should not be put in. It in effect duplicates ignore all rules. More than that it stops it even being a rule. What is the point of ignore all rules if you don't even have rules? It is an irrational and unnecessary change that would just cause trouble and dissention. Dmcq (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Again I cant understand the first part of your post. Second part- they arent rules, "ignore all rules" is just semantics regarding its use of the word "rules". The very essence of IAR is that THERE ARE NO RULES. Yes, this page duplicates other information, it already does. I think you arent catching the point of this particular page- it is to summarize (ie- duplicate in a short condensed form) what polices and guidelines already are. Since IAR is the overriding and most important and number 1 policy there is, it is going to be duplicated in what a policy is. All implementation of any policy requires consensus, and sometimes consensus requires IAR. We shouldnt put forth that policies are things to be strictly adhered to if they arent strictly adhered to (which is what IAR tells you). This change is going forth. I've asked around, have found no other editors who disagree, in fact have found an admin is the one that pointed me to wp:notstatute. It is a policy that completely overturns what you are saying Misplaced Pages policies are. I dont understand why you dont seem to think WP:NOTSTATUTE is important to this discussion. You stated your opinion on what policies are, I showed that the consensus of the Community is that they ARENT what you think they are. I find that very relevant, as it disproves your very theory. Is your problem really that you dont want it to duplicate IAR or is it that you dont want to see IAR mentioned because you have a philosophical problem with IAR in the first place? It sounds to me that you want policies to be enforced like laws, and strictly. We dont do that here in Misplaced Pages. Perhaps something like Compendium is more up your alley.Camelbinky (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You are quoting text saying something as proof of truth about itself. That is verifiability not truth. What is written is law whether people on wikipedia like to say so or not because it fulfills all the criteria of law. It is even statute if you read what statute says, not that law needs to have a statute, it can be by consensus if you care to read the law article.

As to the point of this page again and this talkpage which is to discuss improvements. I see no good purpose in your change. It isn't how a lot of people understand the policies. You don't have consensus for a change. There is no purpose in replicating one policy in another. The consensus expressed in this article is that policies should not overlap. Please don't mess around with the policies without good reason. Saying something flies in the face of IAL and common sense provides no evidence that they fly in the face of IAL or common sense. Those words simply indicate that you think they fly in the face of IAL and that you don't understand the thinking of the consensus that formed the policy before you. Dmcq (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Dude- seriously. I'm not going to take you serious anymore. Kim pointed out at the beginning the flaw in your logic, I have continued to do so. I have consensus. Just because YOU disagree doesnt mean there isnt a consensus. Replacing the word "rule" or "policy" with law doesnt make it a law. We have no judicial system, we have no legislative body, no executive branch, no police force. I am sorry your personal opinion is the minority in Misplaced Pages, but consensus and policy is very clear that we do not have laws here, we do not "obey" the letter of the law, only the spirit of what they describe. I really feel sorry for you as you seem to feel strongly about this. But your opinions are not those of this Community and are the opposite of what is done on Misplaced Pages. You seem to believe there is one truth about our policies and that they are what they are regardless of what the consensus is. The consensus of Wikipedians as a group is- our policies are not laws. That makes them not laws. Consensus is what matters, not that you think our policies are laws because they fit the definition of what the law or statute articles say. (which btw quoting our own articles is no different, and is in fact a worse debating tactic, than me quoting our own policies on what a policy is; the difference- mine is an actual debating tactic, yours is...well...just not.)Camelbinky (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Why exactly are you putting effort into trying to change this policy to a form that as far as I can see will lead to nothing but bickering and wikilawyering? Is there some sort of purpose or gain you can point to other than changing it to your conception of what policy means? Does your idea of consensus normally involve ignoring people who disagree with you? Dmcq (talk) 02:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my definition of consensus does mean ignoring a minority view, in this case a minority of ONE INDIVIDUAL. This actually wont affect wikilawyering because most wikilawyering is done by those who think policies are laws and can be applied by the letter. I'm sorry you cant see the consensus of the community already reflects what I am proposing, which is how it works. Policies are written, consensus sometimes goes against it (which is fine and good for the community), overtime as it becomes more and more obvious that consensus continues to ignore a policy the policy is rewritten by someone bold who has brought up the inconsistency. This procedure and way in which we do things is spelled out in numerous ways and has been discussed at the Village Pump many times, in fact its the very way the Village Pump (policy) and Village Pump (proposal) works regarding finding new wording for policies and new ways of doing things. In fact I'm a regular at both VPs along with the RS/N and OR/N. I had brought this up at the Village Pump before bringing it here, it found good consensus. I'm sorry, again, you are in the minority. Please dont take it personal. You really seem to have gotten worked up about this. Perhaps you should take a step back and relax and not worry about this so much. Nobody who has commented here has shared your opinion, no one who has shared your opinion has bothered to comment, in fact Kim and others showed that your view is in fact not what Misplaced Pages is about. Again- you seem to think there is one truth about our policies, our policies arent something that is what they are, they are only what we say they are and it is clear we say they arent rules or laws to be obeyed blindly and accepted and applied to the letter. In fact if you were to go around strictly enforcing them on everyone you would find yourself at AN/I and eventually blocked. My proposal simply clarifies and makes the language of this policy description consistent with consensus views of the Community on what a policy is or isnt, per WP:NOTSTATUTE and the various other policies out there (see Kim's first post). It does not open the door for anything more. If you have a problem with IAR (not IAL, dont be smart) then bring it up there, but any move to weaken IAR wont work, to paraphrase Jimbo (because I dont have the exact quote but this is pretty close)- "IAR has always existed and is the core of what Misplaced Pages is" its hard to fight the man who built this.Camelbinky (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could refer me to where the discussion on Village pump was. Maybe you have given some coherent reason for your proposal there but you certainly have not here. Dmcq (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously give it up. No one has commented here in support of you. Read everyone else's comments after you made your point about policies being law. They arent law. I'm not discussing this with you anymore. I dont know what your problem is, but I'm thinking it goes beyond the scope of Misplaced Pages or my ability to get across to you the core values of Misplaced Pages. I suggest you take some time to read the five pillars and get acquainted with our procedures and beliefs. At first your statements were quaint and cute in a naive way, now they seriously are annoying. Its you against the way Misplaced Pages works. If you think Misplaced Pages should work a different way then start your own competitor, its pretty easy to do Mediawiki software is inexpensive and easy to use; in fact one of the original people who created Misplaced Pages didnt like how it worked out and he created Compendium. Feel free to go there. They have a more stringent class structure of "editors" and "authors" and rules to follow. You might like it more. As for this conversation- my part is over, I will wait for a couple days, see if anyone else wants to put in their two cents, and if not then I will be bold and change policy wording as is my right. I have tried my darndest to be polite to you and let you have your say. You have had your say, you didnt seem to sway anyone or me. Have a nice night. I wont be responding to any further comments from you unless you have something new and novel (and correct) to say about Misplaced Pages structure and policy, per my own dear mother- "if you dont have anything to say, dont say anything at all". Therefore, after giving you plenty of time and alot of my patience (more so than I usually show people) I simply no longer have anything else to say to you.Camelbinky (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This has gone on far longer than it needed to.

Camelbinky, you're selectively quoting pages to promote your POV on the optional nature of "policy", and it won't wash. We all know that WP:COPYVIO and certain sections of WP:BLP most certainly are prescriptive, as in "handed down from the WP:OFFICE" -- and woe to the editor that even accidentally transgresses them, if someone happens to declare himself publicly aggrieved in the right quarters.

You might want to look up wikt:policy. I suggest paying careful attention to the definition, "A statement of commitment to a broad requirement, often used in an organisation to instruct personnel as to a required outcome." COPYVIO definitely qualifies as policy under this (very standard) definition, and the notion of "a required outcome" certainly indicates "you must do it", contrary to your odd assertion that compliance is optional. There are certainly a very few bits of policy on Misplaced Pages that editors must conform to, whether they like them or not.

However, this document doesn't actually tell editors that. The words used in this disputed sentence were very carefully chosen: This sentence says only that policies (including WP:IAR) should be followed. Note that this is critically different from saying that all policies must be followed at all times and without exception. Here, as elsewhere, Misplaced Pages follows the IETF conventions for the use of these terms. You can read a summary here. You may find it enlightening.

As I understand your fundamental goal, you would like to see this page indicate that there might be certain situations in which at least some policies should not be followed.

It should be clear now that this page already says exactly what you want it to say, and that it does so in a concise, carefully worded way that points total newbies in the correct general direction, which your emphasis on the optional nature of policies would not do.

Is that clear? Can we consider this resolved? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that glossary. I fully agree with what it says about 'should', I believe that is the common meaning and I think it is precisely the right word for the occasion in this policy. Dmcq (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree, and frankly Whatamidoing was a bit rude in his posting and I dont appreciate it, I have been more than accomodating towards Dmcq as he continued to put forth a POV that as Kim and I and others pointed out is just plain wrong. Dont go around saying I am pushing a POV when it is the other way around. Our policies are not laws, and they arent written in stone. The only thing I see as being Dcmq and WhatamIdoing's point is that there was a consensus on the writting of this, so keep it that way. Well, the consensus of every single policy out there says otherwise on what a policy is. So now we need to change the wording here. Just because What says "is that clear" doesnt mean you get your way. Ridiculous. Rude. And uncalled for. It has been pointed out in many discussions we DO NOT WANT NEWBIES TO THINK THEY HAVE TO GO BY THE LETTER OF THE POLICIES, FINDING NEW WAYS TO DO THINGS IS GOOD, PUSHING THE ENVELOPE AND IGNORING THE RULES IS GOOD AND ENCOURAGED, OUR POLICIES EVOLVE AND ARE RE-WRITTEN TO REFLECT NEW CONSENSUS. THE NEW CONSENSUS COMES BEFORE THE POLICY. POLICY WORDING LAGS BEHIND WHAT IS DONE. If you cant understand or believe that about Misplaced Pages then you are in the minority. I dont care if the strict constructionists suddenly pile on this discussion, minority views are often the held by those that yell the loudest. Try again, this is going forward, its not done.Camelbinky (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Addendum- and I didnt agree to this arbitrary break that moved certain comments from where they were to being behind comments that came later. The thread, if it was decided TOGETHER by all of us to break, should have been broken with no later comments added above the break, now I have basically two discussions to debate, plus this is being taken up in other locations splitting my time because now I have to go to other pages and defend my view. Bad faith when people take their issues to multiple locations trying to find more people who view the same as them and bring them here.Camelbinky (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You said "I had brought this up at the Village Pump before bringing it here, it found good consensus". Please point me to that discussion as I am unable to find it. Dmcq (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note that at WP:AN/I#Request for fair admin or clarification on wikipedia guidelines a discussion has just been closed out with the administrator's note being "Policies are not laws" and also I have started a poll at the WP:Village Pump (proposals) in which everyone and anyone is encouraged to vote on the question of- are policies and guidelines laws. Feel free to vote there. As of my posting this, three have voted against policies being laws (for the same reason I have given here) and all three are admins. For the purpose of deciding community consensus here on this talk page, I will throw Kim in as well, and I will throw in the admin that pointed me to wp:notstatute and whose quote I would like to use as a succinct way of slightly modifying the description of a policy on this page. So that would make it six people, of which 5 are admins (at least I think Kim is...) and at least one of them (MR ZMAN) has even higher qualifications and abilities than a mere admin, who say "Misplaced Pages policies are not laws and arent strict". I am not saying any of them endorse my change to this page only they can make that known. I am only proving that Dmcq and WhatamIdoing have a wrong interpretation of what a policy is. What more do I need to show I do have the consensus that WhatamIdoing says I dont have?Camelbinky (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As I have not asserted anything other than what's been in this policy for years, I sincerely doubt that you will find that the community consensus is different from my own personal position. A more careful re-reading should prove to you that I have not once asserted that Misplaced Pages's policies are laws. I have, in fact, provided you with information that conclusively demonstrates that this page already says that they are not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What I am concerned about is your proposed change to this page. I am against the change. What you believe is your concern. I am happy with WP:NOTSTATUTE and WP:IAR as they are. Using your poll method of deciding I see there was no discussion on Village pump of this proposal. You explicitly asked Kim and "the admin that pointed me to wp:notstatute" (User talk:Kim Bruning and User talk:LessHeard vanU) on their talk pages to support you on this proposal and they did not. And despite what you said about me touting it elsewhere I did not, though I think perhaps I should have in my comment on WT:IAR since it is very relevant. So that would make it two explicitly against the proposal and just you for so can we please consider it dead. And since "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Policies and guidelines page." the discussion is closed and you can talk about beliefs about law or not law on the Village pump instead. Dmcq (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

OMG! Have you read the village pump poll before it was closed out? Even the reason it was closed out said "Policy is not law"!!!!!! You were well outnumbered. This is not over! YOU lost, how many admins need to keep saying your view is wrong. Both of you please stop with your insane idea that you are in the majority. Admins with more responsibilities, experience, and knowledge have come forward telling you this is not LAW, none have said "btw I oppose Camelbinky's suggestion", you'd think if they did they'd also mention that. This is not closed because you say it is, how dare you imply you that the poll said something it didnt, or that you somehow have the community on your side, if anything it showed you dont, how many admins need come forward and say it isnt what you say it is? I will be changing the policy tomorrow. You've twisted everything and as Equizcon stated- you are either ignorant, or stubborn and refuse to see what our policies are". Deal with it, I dont need your permission to change policy, I dont have to have everyone in the world agree with me. Enough have put forth that policy is not what you have stated.Camelbinky (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If you had actually put your proposal onto village talk(proposal) then there might have been progress. Instead you put a poll that an admin closed down. I have added an Rfc to this talk page on this proposal. Dmcq (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again

I've run into another editor who seems to think that Misplaced Pages's policies, guidelines, and processes must comply with policies, guidelines and processes. This time it's about whether saying "This is important" complies with WP:NPOV. In the past, I've had editors complain that the these pages needed to cite WP:Reliable sources to prove that Misplaced Pages's advice to its editors really was its advice to editors. (I never did figure out how we were going to do that -- perhaps by finding a friendly journalist to write stories about the Wikidrama on policy talk pages?)

Can we add a short section to this page to directly address this point? Perhaps it would say something like this:

==Not part of the encyclopedia==
Misplaced Pages has many policies and guidelines about encyclopedic content. These standards require verifiability, neutrality, respect for living people, and more.
The policies, guidelines, and process pages themselves are not part of the encyclopedia. Consequently, they do not generally need to conform with the content standards. It is therefore not necessary to provide reliable sources to verify Misplaced Pages's rules, or to phrase rules in a neutral manner. Instead, the content of these pages is controlled by consensus, and the style should emphasize clarity, directness, and usefulness to other editors.

(I'd be happy to see improvements to this suggestion.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that this would help, but we'd have to get specific. I can't offhand think of any conduct, enforcement or deletion policy that we'd need to single out as not applying to project space. Even for the content policies, the BLP policy is clear on which parts apply where, we don't want non-free content in policies, NAME isn't a problem, and some of NOT is very applicable to project space. So regarding policies, we're mainly talking about the core content policies, V, NOR and NPOV. - Dank (push to talk) 13:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal as well. Seems strange that one would even come to the conclusion that our policies would need to be written with citations. As you mention, where would we cite from?!Camelbinky (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps what people are saying is that they want us to quote and link to the relevant policy section ... not "cite" it. Just a thought. Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No, Blueboar, you're assuming too much good faith. The "reliable sources" dispute was a professional journalist (and otherwise good editor) trying to get information critical of his industry removed from WP:MEDRS. The failings of the popular press when reporting, e.g., "new cures for cancer" are very well documented, and his effort to invoke the content policies was, I think, a bit of grasping at any straws that might advance his position against the firm opposition of other editors.

Another example: WP:TALK was invoked recently to justify refactoring a WQA complaint.

I think it's more commonly an honest mistake, but the breadth of the incidents suggest that a general statement might be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added the text, and invite people to improve it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, some sort of variant on NOR, V, and NPOV would do policy pages a world of good, for the same reason that they're good for the encyclopedia. :-)

• "NOR": Don't make things up, instead, document existing best practices
• "V": Link to where the best practice is being followed, show why it works.
• "NPOV": Sometimes people disagree on what the best practice is. Describe the differing opinions in neutral terms. Partisanship turns these pages into a political playground.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC) I can't believe it's not policy ;-)

I agree with Kim except on using the same terms we use for the article pages, even though her definitions of NOR, V, and NPOV for use on policy/guideline pages are similar to the "real" NOR, V, and NPOV. We should use different terms for those practices she has outlined because we dont want editors to get confused or intentionally confuse the use of V on an article with V on a policy page. The strict constructionists out there make things difficult for all of us. When there are editors out there that want the strict letter of the "law" obeyed we must be careful how we word things, lest it bites us in the ass later.Camelbinky (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't want to leave anyone with the impression that, e.g., determining that "Most editors use ==References== instead of ==Works cited==", on the basis of a survey of articles, is unacceptable because it violates "Original research". There's no way to crunch the stats yourself and call the results anything except original research, but this is a permitted activity on Misplaced Pages's project pages. This is the usual context for these problems: Someone erroneously thinks that you can look up the community consensus in a book or newspaper article, or thinks that since you can't, then editors can't figure out the consensus. I think that using the same terms is likely to result in significant confusion and no benefit.

I have no trouble with people providing reasonable documentation, and I favor not being rude to the "losing" side of any given subject, but I don't want to reach the point at which 'the friction owns the machine'. I'd rather have a clear, intelligible, and well-written policy with zero examples and zero links to a practice in use, instead of one that obscures the points through meandering examples. Our most carefully constructed content policies provide relatively few examples, and this is probably the Right Thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes agree with that, a guideline is more appropriate for examples, the policies are better off written as clearly as possible. As for justifications they should go in the talk page I think. I guess it is better to explicitly say, like the policy now does, that the general article editing policies for verifiability etc don't apply anywhere else. Personally a policy I'd like is a cap on the verbiage so one couldn't add bits to policies without having had at least that amount of verbiage removed somewhere else. That would concentrate minds! :) Dmcq (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfc: Have grounds been established for a change to the policy description?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There is a dispute in WT:POLICY#Policy description where a user wishes to change

"Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are standards that all users should follow."

to

"Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are of great importance in helping editors come to consensus on issues and problems that my arise during editing. While the spirit of a policy should be adhered to, remember that policies are not cookie-cutter solutions to problems and conflicts that may arise. Common sense should be used in their implementation, what works in one situation does not always work in similar situations. Respect consensus where it deviates from existing policy."

The poster says they will change it despite objections.

Have grounds or consensus been established for such a change? Dmcq (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that is not what I proposed. In fact final wording was never decided upon due to your insane rantings on policy being law and not respecting the many instances of individuals showing you that they arent. What was mostly decided on was ALOT shorter. This is premature and completely your POV to push your agenda.Camelbinky (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well then go ahead and write what your actual proposal is please. Dmcq (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

By combining the comments of Kotniski and Kim Bruning above, with the multiple comments in other places by Equizcon and Lessheard vanu at wp:ANI along with what wp:NOTSTATUTE describes our policies as being I propose the small section on this policy whose purpose is solely to describe what a policy "is" be changed to say: "Policies are descriptive of consensus, not prescriptive of future actions" I brought this proposal so others could decide on further or different language. The proposal was hijacked by this discussion on whether or not policies are laws. It never got vetted properly because of an individual's personal belief on policies being laws. I would like to start over and allow people to comment properly without Dmcq ranting about laws that dont exist, if he'd be kind enough to back off perhaps we can archive the above discussions and start over without his interference of bringing up red herrings.Camelbinky (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment