Wikipedia talk:Process is important/Archive 2

New essay

User:David Gerard/Process is Dangerous

Not a contradiction of this essay, honestly. In fact, I was very sceptical of this essay but have been convinced of its basic message. But nevertheless, process is a means to an end. Suggestions, additions and disagreements are most welcomed - David Gerard 22:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Another perspective

Check out this page from WikiWikiWeb: WikiWikiWeb:ThreeLevelsOfAudience

I wonder if it's possible to see this essay as being for people at the first level, David Gerard's "Process is Dangerous" essay (see above section) as being for people at the second level, and Ignore all Rules for people at the third level. Sort of like Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon, y'know?

That seems rather condescending, actually. One could easily reverse it, as those at the "third level" being the children who think the rules don't apply, the "second level" being those who get in trouble now and then, and the "first level" being those enlightened folk who realize some order is preferable as opposed to chaos. Neither description would be accurate, respectful, or worth bothering with, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please be assured that I didn't intend any condecension. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I think the Wiki page I linked to above is insightful and important, and expresses something that's important in the kind of endeavor that I see Wikipedia as. I hope you'll consider that I'm not trying to look down on anyone, but that there may be some merit to viewing an activity such as Wikipedia in this way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And I didn't mean to accuse you of condescension either, and sorry if it came across that way. I'm really more commenting on the merit as well (or, in my view, the lack thereof). Anyway, yes, sorry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries. :) I still think it's an idea worth developing, but if and when I do, I'll be very careful about the pitfall you've pointed out - I don't want to give people the wrong idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Beginners go to English class, and learn grammar guidelines from a book. As time goes on, they learn when it's more appropriate to break the guidelines.

It's safest for newcommers to adhere to the rules. But rules exist for a reason, and an experienced person will understand the reasons behind these rules more deeply as time goes on. Unless the experienced people actively try to keep the rules updated to encompass all possible situations (which is something our community doesn't seem to think is the best way to go), eventually deep understanding becomes more important than fixed words on a page. --Interiot 02:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The link at the top of this section... it was talking about technique, for chrissakes. It wasn't intended to be applied to political organizations (== things composed of people). Good lord. Engineers. God save us. Herostratus 05:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there's something to be gained by applying it to Wikipedia. Just because that wasn't the original intent, doesn't mean nothing maps across. I'm just saying it might be worth thinking about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. You are right, it could map across. I don't think it does, but I didn't need to get shirty. It's an interesting link, and I thank you for it, and it is something to think about. Herostratus 08:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well... it certainly maps onto playing music. I play the bass guitar in a band, and the idea matches my experience of playing the bass. I first had to learn how to play the root, just supporting whatever chord the guitarist is playing, and basically stick to the 1 and the 5. Soon, I started learning how you can break out of those patterns and play different and more interesting things, but they somehow work in relation to the "rules" that you're starting to "break". Playing notes that aren't strictly in the key that the song's in - learning to do that is pretty cool, but when you're starting out, you'd better be careful. I'd say I'm at the second level. I haven't gotten to the point where I can just play by feeling, without thinking about some kind of rule, but I've had glimpses of it, and I know such a level exists.

Now, playing music is a partly technical, and partly social experience, especially in a improvisational setting. I'd say that making up music in a group and writing on a Wiki are closer to each other than either is to coding up a piece of software. Playing music involves paying attention to others, and not violating others' expectations too much, and occupying some kind of social "role", and all kinds of "political" aspects. The "three levels" idea certainly applies to it, so why not to a Wiki? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that's one way of looking at it and there's nothing objectionable about it. But often it may be better to think of this difference between the wiki-n00b and the wiki-veteran prosaically as "the n00b has to look up things on the policy pages a lot but the veteran doesn't because she mostly already knows what they say". Of course one of the points emphasized in your theory is that the veteran not only knows the content of the policy pages but also the general social expectations at the wiki. Absolutely. Also remember that once you've got the hang of a particular process you may consciously forget that you are following a process. When I go swimming I don't think thoughts like "okay, this limb should move next, all according to the swimming process" but of course that's what I'm doing. Similarly you can reach the state where you say "huh? I'm not following any processes, I'm just wiki-ing" but that doesn't mean there aren't some underlying processes you've learned and then forgot you learned but still follow. Haukur 23:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with that. There are underlying processes that the most experienced Wikipedian is following, and those processes are what our pages in the Wikipedia: namespace attempt to describe. The map is not, however, the territory, and the description that we've come up with so far, is not to be taken as the be-all end-all. The more tuned-in you are to the real process of Wiki-ing, the less you have to worry about what the written version says.

It's like, first you follow the written rules, and understand that they're pointing to the true rules (which are nothing more than common sense and civility, plus understanding what it means to write a neutral encyclopedia on a wiki). Once you've internalized the true rules, you stop thinking about the written rules, and at some point you may find yourself violating the written rules, by following the real rules. In such a case, common sense trumps what's written down, and you might consider writing down whichever piece of common sense you've discovered. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

essay tag

I removed the essay tag in the name of maintaining parellelity with WP:SNOW, which at the current time has no tag, due I guess to warring over the tag there. Maintaining parallelity with WP:SNOW prevents proponents of either essay from getting a leg on the other, e.g. by placing a Guideline tag at WP:SNOW, as has happened. This is in the interest of preventing, or at least trying to prevent, edit warring at either article. It protects both essay, but as a practical matter it probably protects this essay more, things being as they are. Herostratus 15:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering both pages are in the essay category but only WP:SNOW is kissed as a guideline, I guess Wikipedia is more complicated (less parallelified) than it would appear at first. Rfrisbie^talk 16:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:SNOW isn't exactly "kissed" as a guideline, as much as some would want it to be. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Put another way, changing message boxes without changing related category assignments appears to be an incomplete process. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 16:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The point of removing the tag from SNOW was that it's defined as a corollary to IAR, and isn't really an unofficial essay, but neither is it a separate/extra policy. Since this isn't a corollary to anything, I'd think it would need a tag of some sort. Also, if PI is parallel to anything, I'd think it's parallel to IAR. --Interiot 16:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think SNOW is self-evidently a corollary of IAR - you can easily agree with one and not the other. We could just as well define PI as a corollary of some other policy page :) Haukur 16:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, WP:SNOW is allegedly a correllary of one policy page - IAR. This is a corrollary to most every policy and process page out there designed to keep things moving smoothly and keep questions from cropping up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a slight misuse of the word "corollary", to say that PI is a corollary of all the process oriented pages. Having a process written down does not imply anything about how much weight the process should be given. The way I see it, WP:SNOW and WP:IAR represent an attitude one might take towards process, and WP:PI is kind of a reaction against that attitude, and has yet to gain wide acceptance among experienced Wikipedians. I don't see why SNOW and PI wouldn't both be called essays. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The first couple words of SNOW have long been The "snowball clause" is a corollary of "ignore all rules", but who knows what's up for grabs these days. At their core, they mean the exact same thing, that process is good, but when process should not be followed when says to do something that's not beneficial for the encyclopedia. --Interiot 16:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I just think it's a good idea all around to yoke the tags SNOW and PI articles. As I said, this makes slapping a Guideline or Policy tag on WP:SNOW less likely, as it conveys no real advantage, since it means automatically applying the same tag to WP:π. The converse is also true, of course. I do think that the two articles are near-complements. And WP:SNOW should (in my opinion) have an Essay tag, but whatever they're going on about over there has lead, at least for the time being their solution is no tag, so it won't hurt to have the parallel tag (that is, not tag) here until they get it sorted out. Also.. Interiot makes a fair point, that WP:π is the complement of WP:IAR rather than of WP:SNOW, as WP:SNOW is a subset of WP:IAR. Hmmm that makes sense, except that to slap a Policy tag on WP:π on this ground would accomplish the opposite of what I'm trying to do. Anyway, after hearing my explanation, if anyone wants to restore the Essay tag to WP:π, that would be OK. Herostratus 17:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If the goal is to stop edit-warring on SNOW, I don't know if that'll happen. There's a cold war (no pun intended) over SNOW, and regardless of what tag is on the page, one side is going to keep citing it for official purposes as they have for almost a year, and one side (one person?) is going to keep objecting whenever they see it being used. --Interiot 18:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

One person, really. Anyway, if that's the case, best to leave the Essay tag off this article also then. Having no tag on WP:SNOW leaves it more open to interpretation, one interpretation being that it's policy, while keeping the Essay tag on this article leaves it as "only some person's opinion". So in the interest of fairness I guess this article should remained untagged too. Herostratus 19:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This essay is not somehow at odds with WP:SNOW. SNOW is a special case of process: when it would be ridiculous effort.

By the way, I've renamed mine User:David Gerard/Process essay because it's not against process at all. I think it's about using process as a tool in itself. The process of process. Recognising that process is mostly formed by a series of ad-hoc kludges and should be treated as useful only until disposable. Etc. Etc. I'll let you know when I've finished it. It now includes a section on what to do about people who don't yet understand that IAR doesn't really mean "do whatever dumbarse idea occurs to you" - David Gerard 21:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're doing a great job here, David, in opening useful dialogue between the two 'camps'. And renaming the essay was an excellent idea - typically essays tend to get cited not so much for their content but for their single basic idea or even just their title. Having a title like 'Process is dangerous' will give you kneejerk reactions while a bland title like 'Process essay' forces people to actually read the darned thing ;) Haukur 21:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• While I have no particular opinion on the way to tag this page, I should point out that forcing two pages to always have the same tag (or lack of tag) is a rather weird idea. m:instruction creep and all that. If you feel two pages must have identical tags, merge them into one page. >Radiant< 14:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll take weird=delightfully different, as I don't think you meant it's outright uncanny. =) David Gerard is spot on... no one else has seen this before: both articles are true, even though (or perhaps because) they are opposites... Herostratus 16:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Should I have followed process?

I don't usually "Ignore all rules", so I don't tend to have examples at hand. I just now did it though, and since I'm already in one discussion here, I thought I'd toss this out as an example. I knew I was about to act out of process, and I did it because of common sense. I'm submitting to this page for review, instead of WP:AN or something, because I suspect I'll find a good, tough crowd here, and maybe the case will be instructive or illustrative in some way.

There's a big backlog at WP:RM right now. User A requested that Sea of Fertility tetralogy be moved to The Sea of Fertility, on the grounds that the correct title has a "The" at the front of it. Trouble is, User A put the {{moveto}} template on the talk page of the incorrectly named article, but didn't list a poll to gauge consensus. After 12 days, nobody had commented, one way or the other, and User B relisted the move request, on the grounds that process wasn't followed and we were thus unable to determine consensus. On the other hand, we're talking about some series of books that has a correct title, which anyone can confirm on Amazon, or whatever. It seemed pretty trivial, so I just de-relisted it, and went ahead and deleted the redirect which had prevented User A from just doing the move in the first place, and I completed the move, and corrected all 10 or so incoming links.

Now, is there any "Process is Important" kind of reason I shouldn't have done what I did? Did that article need another 5 days in requested moves, over an trivial name correction? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think consensus is the key, and probably this should be noted more prominently in the essay. My rule of thumb is "follow process unless you have consensus". —Ashley Y 06:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, if only people could similarly agree that IAR was conditioned by "where there's consensus to do so" (at least after the fact, in cases where speediness is crucial), and then we could practically merge the two...  :/ Not holding my breath. Alai 07:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought the reccomendations for IAR do say you have to try to get as close to existing consensus as possible, even when you can't get a perfect fit. Isn't this being made clear enough? In any case your actions need to get consensus post-hoc, else you've clearly made a mistake. Kim Bruning 09:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this being made clear enough? For a long time now the people who hang out at IAR have resisted all attempts to insert "but don't ignore other people!" or "respect consensus!" or something to that effect into the page. So, yes, it's not being made clear enough. In fact it isn't being said at all. Haukur 10:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I think it's safe to say that all complaints about IAR arise from situations in which it's done without consensus. The tendency to blame IAR for the problems that then arise, instead of recognizing that IAR wasn't used properly, is unsettling. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

IAR says nothing at all about consensus. Thus at present, your common-sense opinion that people should only apply IAR with regard to consensus and are otherwise doing so 'improperly', is overridden by others' common-sense opinion that "the mob's" consensus is bunk, and Gordian solutions are required. Ultimately this is only resolvable with regard to the express or implied authority of the person doing the overruling, so the oft-repeated "common sense" rationale is just an appeal to vague populism. I think the consensus qualification is being not "said" so loudly as to be strongly suggestive of the opposite. Suggestions on how to ignore all rules is an excellent... essay. Why would invokers of the policy-negating policy bother with a mere essay as a constraint? If that were folded back in as a qualification to IAR, we'd have something that was firstly, less prone to actual and rhetorical abuse, secondly, less of a logical absurdity than it is at present. (Which would make discussions of what IAR's "corollaries" more meaningful (given that falsity implies everything, "Regularly Climb the Reichstag Dressed as Spiderman" is as valid as WP:SNOW). It's hard to avoid the suspicion that there's more to this reluctance than simple parsimony. Alai 11:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Alai. The obvious example is an edit war in which both sides honestly think that they are improving Wikipedia, and can invoke WP:IAR in defence of each edit. Sure, edit-warring itself is bad, but without a reference to consensus, each individual edit in the war can be justified as "improving Wikipedia". —Ashley Y 17:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that this was not only acceptable but also perfectly within the WP:RM process - non-controversial move proposals are routinely just done without messing around with templates and polls. Haukur 09:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know; I'm new to WP:RM, and saw no documentation allowing for extra-procedural closings. If ignoring the process is perfectly within their process, then good job on their part. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The first two sentences of WP:RM (not counting the backlog notice) are: "Requested moves is the place to request article moves that are not straightforward, or that require the assistance of Wikipedia administrators. Normally, logged-in users can do uncontroversial moves themselves using the [move] tab found at the top of every page (see Help:Moving a page)." Alai 11:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

One reason for following process is to not upset or anger people. People in a minority position are likely to feel propiated if, even if they lose, at least their loss was according to a stated and previously agreed on process. If they are met with "your position has no chance of victory IMO so, per WP:SNOW, STFU" they are more likely to feel angry or upset - and if contributing to Wikipedia ends up making you feel angry or upset, you are less likely to want to edit contribute to Wikipedia, no? But in cases where no one would likely feel upset or disregarded, short-circuiting process is likely OK, per WP:NO HARM, NO FOUL. Herostratus 16:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well put. Now there's a tempting redlink... Alai 18:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

essay tag 2

I removed the essay tag. Please discuss before restoring it. I removed the tag for these reasons:

1. The parallelity argument above. I don't know if this has been decisively refuted or not. As long as it holds it can contain hostile edits like this with a minimum of effort, but if not we can go to the trenches, whatever.
2. User:Alphax's edit summary was "this is an essay, nothing more." That sounds like a hostile edit, that is, an edit by someone who doesn't hold with the basic idea of the article itself. Hey, we don't go over to your essays and remove your tags. Granted that partisans of WP:π are more likely to be even-tempered, patient, and polite than some other editors, this should not be mistaken for weakness. If you want to start a guerilla war, well, it only takes one side, so I can't prevent that.
3. On the merits, I would not say this is "only" an essay anymore. If WP:SNOW was also "only" an essay, them maybe. But partisans of WP:SNOW seem to have basically decided that it is oh so much more. But WP:π is invoked far, far more often than WP:SNOW. Because WP:π is invoked by inference every time process is followed. One doesn't post "Per WP:π, I am now closing this AfD in the normal manner" or "Per WP:π, I am allowing this DRv to run its normal course instead of closing it early in a fit of pique or impatience or just to get my way", and so forth. That would be unnecessary verbiage. (But, you know, one could do that. If necessary, I could start droping a WP:π reference into my edit summaries and encourage other editors to do the same, as well as dropping in on random discussions to note "Per WP:π, I won't be cutting this discussion short, bye!" or whatever. Hopefully that won't be necessary. Herostratus 17:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think both this and WP:SNOW are simply essays. However, I have restored the old messagebox as a compromise. —Ashley Y 18:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, that's the old message box from IAR, is it not? It doesn't really apply here. For one, this page doesn't have a long history (IAR was the first on our original rules page in 2001, this page is barely half a year old). For another, the first box this page got when written ([1]) was that of an essay in development. And for a third, '"process is important" is important' sounds kind of weird. Anyway, I'd be happy with {{essay}} or simply no tag or whatever, but this one is just not right. >Radiant< 19:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I added {{essay}} to the top then reverted myself when I realised the matter was under discussion here. The point of {{essay}} is to tell readers that this is the opinion of some Wikipedians, rather than widely agreed-to policy or guideline. The fact that this page is currently contentious makes it more important that this be flagged. I am strongly in favour of its inclusion. Snottygobble 01:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The tag needs to be restored. There are a surprising number of literal-minded people on Wikipedia who are uncomfortable with grey areas. (I have my suspicions that those who are not proto-trolls are simply overwhelmed with the size & diversity of Wikipedia & desperately need something to be certain about.) Without this tag they use this essay as ammo, go after the latest Wikipedia veteran to have invoked WP:IAR, shoot first on full auto & ask questions later (if at all). -- llywrch 19:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not too sure about the idea that this essay is "invoked by inference every time process is followed." We shouldn't mistake inertia for enthusiasm. Most of the time I follow process, it's because it's what's there. It's like, if you took an empty field, and criss-crossed it with some paved paths, then most people trying to cross that field would follow one of the paths, as long as it's going in basically the right direction. This doesn't mean that all those people are stating by inference that paths are important, or that it's better to walk on a path than across the grassy spaces. It's just that people tend to be fairly docile and go along with whatever seems to be happening. Most people, when presented with a formal way to do something, will just do it rather than question it, unless it's particularly absurd. That doesn't mean they've thought about the case, and decided that the process is better than the shortcut; it's just human nature to default to a pre-existing structure, whether or not it's actually a good one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That's true, it's difficult to distinguish between applications of "process is important" from "process just happens to be there", or indeed "I'm following process because I thought it was policy to follow process, and didn't realize policy was now/always had been self-negating in regards to process and everything else". But it's clearly the case that there's "underreporting" -- not to say, no reporting -- of "applications" of WP:PI for the reason H*r*str*t*s mentions. In my view, this and WP:SNOW should have equal standing, because it's fairly clear that people are equally partisan in favour of both, and equally, some people regard them as complementary. It's besides the point to argue that IAR grants SNOW automatically greater standing, since it's qualified by the state of belief of the person applying it as to what's good for the quality of the encyclopaedia (or the state of belief of the community, admins, arbcom, or applauding or sanctioning them for applying it "correctly" or "incorrectly"). (If it weren't so qualified, it would be immediately paradoxical, instead of merely so without reference to whose judgement "wins".) Alai 06:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I liked the original formulation: "If the rules make you nervous, depressed, or not desirous of participating in the Wiki, ignore them." When you apply that to itself, it just tucks itself nicely out of the way. "Fine," some may reply, "but the problem arises when someone else ignores other rules and causes trouble for those of us who were trying to ignore IAR and act civilized." I would reply to this that those problems aren't appropriately pinned on IAR, but are actually more difficult dispute resolution issues. It's true that, in a system with something like IAR in effect, clear, respectful communication and skillful dispute resolution become much more important than they are in a system where we can always run to process when we can't figure out how to get along with each other on our own. One might question if it's worth it to take on a whole raft of dispute resolution issues for the freedom of movement granted by a relaxed, IAR attitude. Me, I tend to think it is.

Regarding whether this and/or SNOW are tagged as essays or what... I think of SNOW as a de facto guideline, since it describes how people often apply IAR, and usually correctly. Good applications of SNOW are underreported, just like applications of PI. I've been clearing out backlog at WP:RM, and I cut plenty of corners. I just try to make sure nobody's standing on them first.

This page, on the other hand, reads more like an essay to me. It seems to be a persuasive piece, rather than a description of usual practice. I mean, the concluding paragraph (before the appendix), begins with "For all these reasons, editors and particularly administrators ought to..." A guideline should be couched as an "is", not an "ought". Someone could write a descriptive piece: Wikipedia:Working with process, or something. It could describe the status quo - there are a lot of more or less ad hoc processes, which were largely cobbled together through repeated applications of IAR and SENSE and someone finally writing something down. Most people use them, pretty much as directed. There could be lists of useful processes at Wikipedia, and tips on how we interact smoothly with process, including how and when we usually cut corners, and we amend process through skillful applications of IAR. A page like that, presenting a unified approach to the whole process question, sounds to me like it would be quickly recognized as the articulation of a true guideline, and tagged as such. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There has to be balance.

I see WP:IAR, WP:SNOW and Wikipedia:Process is important as both mutually complementary and contradictory.

Wikipedia:Process is important is there to remind us that without process, orderly discussion and community falls apart.

WP:SNOW and WP:IAR are there to remind us that without common sense in applying policy and knowing when to follow process, nothing gets done.

Process is there to make things work smoothly. We have to recognize that sometimes the process does the opposite.

These two contradictory views are probably also our most misused essays and policies, but without them, things couldn't get done here.

But these views complement each other... yes, process is important, it serves to stop conflicts, it serves to keep the wheels and gears turning however slowly, but it can also bog us down in red tape so high that we would never have time to edit. Thats why we need things like WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. They boil down to use common sense. When applied correctly, whether to editing or to administrative actions, they allow us to be more productive, and allow the processes to work as they should in the cases where they really are needed.

Defending process simply because its process doesn't help. For process to be successful, there has to be a point to it, otherwise you are just burning up energy that could be used elsewhere. Similarly, circumventing process blindly doesn't make things any better either.

It boils down to this. Defend process only when the process is a means to an end, not just an end in and of itself. Assume good faith when dealing with matters of process, and especially with matters of WP:IAR. meatball:DefendAgainstPassion when dealing with questionable cases... It doesn't help the encyclopedia to have a heated debate on whether or not process was followed in closing an AFD on day 4 with a 50 to 1 margin. Sure, not everything's that clearcut, but when you feel that it isn't, deal with it diplomatically rather than by increasing the temperature even further.

My two cents... - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 00:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. Just to note: it's the job of this article to generally promote respect for process; this article doesn't need to overly worry about times when process should be bypassed, there are the other articles for that. Herostratus 06:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  Huh... maybe presenting the issue in a polarized manner isn't the best way to persuade people to achieve some kind of balance. I mean, why pass up the opportunity to offer more perspective in one place? I like the idea of an essay having self-awareness of its own limits of applicability. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether you are blindly disregarding process in a controversial area or blindly citing this whenever someone doesn't follow process, you are still causing problems. Both are very much wrong attitudes, and both hurt our community and our encyclopedia. To those exercising WP:SNOW, be considerate that you the process you are circumventing really doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. To those that are picking apart every action here, lighten up. To those that see something take place that really shouldn't have, deal with it civilly, assume good faith, and it doesn't have to be a big deal. Everybody should remember that process and policy are there for good reasons, and not lose sight of those reasons - when we reach the point where we are following policy and process just because they are there, then we have a real problem. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 02:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a good rule of thumb is, before you cut a corner, please be certain that nobody's standing on it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Guideline

The folks over at WP:SNOW have put a Guideline tag on that article, so per the discussions above I've added it to this article also. Herostratus 01:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that appropriate? This isn't really a guideline, is it? WP:POINT etc. —Ashley Y 01:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Per above discussions. Anyway, it's been removed from here and from WP:SNOW, which is also fine with me. Herostratus 02:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As has been pointed out before, the assertion that two pages must always have the same kind of tag is m:instruction creep at best, and downright silly at worst. I think the tag warring on both pages should stop, but it's perfectly conceivable that the community decides some day to mark one as a guideline and the other as rejected. >Radiant< 13:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the main reason this page isn't a guideline is because it's written as a persuasive essay. Guidelines are simply descriptions of usual practice, or at least that's what they're supposed to be. WP:SNOW, for example, doesn't make detailed arguments for why we should follow it, it just describes a common practice, of speedy closing discussions where there's no question of controversy. It happens all the time, and WP:SNOW explains that custom, for the benefit of those who expect a more formalistic approach, and are surprised.

This essay, on the other hand, doesn't describe; it lobbies. The final paragraph before the appendix states: "For all these reasons, editors and particularly administrators ought to adhere to and use existing processes, and resist the temptation to act outside of process, other than in truly emergency situations." That doesn't describe common practice, it tries to change it.

It appears to me that this page simply is an essay. There's nothing pejorative about that. WP:SNOW simply is a guideline. There's nothing wrong with that either. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well said. >Radiant< 08:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Um. Would it help to see this as a guidline (whether so tagged or not) if this article had a nutshell tag... something like one of these maybe, although someone could probably come up with a better one:

This article in a nutshell:

Don't sow chaos by ignoring procedures.

This article in a nutshell:

Don't ignore process if this is likely to insult your colleagues.

This article in a nutshell:

Absent a compelling reason, follow agreed-upon process.

This article in a nutshell:

Process should be followed except when there is likely no objection

Herostratus 17:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't believe that the presence or absence of a nutshell tag can or should have influence on whether a page is guideline or not. That said, I rather like the fourth nutshell you suggest. >Radiant< 17:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I like it too. Let's install it! Haukur 17:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Herostratus, what would "help to see this page as a guideline" is if it were rewritten like one. Right now, it's a long persuasive argument as to why "editors and particularly administrators ought to adhere to and use existing processes, and resist the temptation to act outside of process." That makes it an essay; it's a persuasive essay. Rewrite is as a description of what's commonly done at Wikipedia, then we might have something to talk about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Practical process

The essay has been set loose: Wikipedia:Practical process. Note how it presumes to list this page as a sub-page. Hints and tips for it are most welcomed, as is disagreement minor or profound - David Gerard 21:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops!

Oops, somebody stuck the essay tag on this article, please don't tag this article without adding the matching tag to WP:SNOW, thanks! Herostratus 18:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Pages must stand on their own, the argument that this page's tag depends on another page's tag is kind of silly. >Radiant< 18:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. It's about time to give up that notion. Rfrisbie^talk 18:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Noooooo.... but whatever, then, it stands on its own as a not-an-essay, same as WP:SNOW stands on its own as not-an-essay. For the time being. Anyway please don't tag pages of which you are hostile to the central premise, thanks! Herostratus 20:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Don't be so presumptive of another's intentions. Either merge the pages or stop trying to yoke them. Rfrisbie^talk 22:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Herostratus, an essay tag isn't a punishment or diss of some kind. It's simply descriptive of the fact that this is a hortatory essay. Guidelines aren't that. Write it as a guideline, and then tag it as such. Right now, it's written as an essay. The idea of yoking this page to another of an entirely different nature is really arbitrary and unhelpful. You haven't responded to repeated explanations of why this is an essay, and until you do, you haven't got a foot to stand on. If you don't provide (or show me a link to) a substative reply to this point, I'm going to replace the essay tag for the reasons I've stated on this page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Please don't, the page looks good as it is without any tag. The essay template is essentially a disclaimer that the page it is on can be bonkers. Haukur 21:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I disagree about what the essay tag is. I don't read it as a disclaimer, but as a descriptive tag, telling us what kind of page we're reading. I think it's a good idea to classify pages in the Wikipedia namespace according to what kind of pages they are. This is especially helpful for newbies, who won't otherwise know what to make of them, and it's especially helpful in the case of a page that contains somewhat controversial exhortations. I wish Herostratus would bite the bullet and rewrite this page to sound like a guideline, then those of us who are trying to tag descriptively, and not as a cudgel, would be pretty amenable to calling it a guideline. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
            • The article in a nutshell: Process should be followed except when there is likely no objection. That sounds like a guideline to me. The whole point is this: the article is constantly attacked by a small group of editors who want to emphasize that this is only an essay == some guy's ramblings, in contrast to WP:SNOW which is no mere la-di-da essay but a rough-hewn yet manly understanding among manly men about how things get done around here. The two articles are complements. They are both true, and one is not more true than the other. Exalting one above the other leads to an imbalance in the Force. Herostratus 03:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Do you know the difference between "descriptive" and "hortatory"? Guidelines are supposed to be descriptive. This essay is hortatory. Does that make sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• If we're takling Force powers, I don't think your mind-reading skill is anywhere up to Yoda level yet. I am unaware of this small group of manly attacking editors you mention (although Extreme Unction's Law comes to mind), nor am I involved in adding tags to WP:SNOW, nor is {{essay}} derogatory to the page it's on. I simply wish to point out that the only meaningful way to ensure two pages have the same tag, is to merge them. At the moment the pages aren't even complements; the same nutshell would apply both. >Radiant< 15:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• The two are not in a pair, this is clearly an essay and the other one is a practical maxim on one aspect of process. Huh? - David Gerard 16:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Appendix: whuh?

The appendix makes this essay seem to exist only for defense of the deletion process. It's worth more than that and will still be if/when the salt has leached out of the ground where xFD/DRV/etc formerly stood - David Gerard 16:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I removed it. But the point about the deletion processes was actually an afterthought - I was mostly thinking about Kim Bruning's perpetually repeated point that most pages are edited peacefully by few people and there is usually no need for formalized process to keep track of that. Haukur 17:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That is an important point, though - we don't need process for everything. Hmm. One to try reworking perhaps, minus the xFD bits - David Gerard 13:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

Haukurth now claims that this is an essay but it doesn't need the tag [2]. I don't quite understand the reasoning behind that. Since we're agreed this is an essay, what's the point in removing an "essay" tag? Unless your opinion is that {{essay}} should be deleted (and there may be good reasons for that now that I think about it). >Radiant< 12:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I just find it odd that you fight to keep it here, and fight to remove it elsewhere. For once, you're absolutely right - this needs the essay tag. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't mind seeing that template deleted - though it doesn't rank as high on my hitlist as, say, Template:Spoiler. Haukur 13:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, then I suggest you nominate it for WP:TFD instead of removing it here. I don't like {{spoiler}} much either, but I have some custom CSS code that hides it. >Radiant< 13:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Jesus, Radiant. We've been over and over this before. Why stir this up now, eh? The reason this has no essay tag is to protect WP:SNOW from having an essay tag. No agreement can be reached over whether this is a guideline or an essay, therefore a truce was reached where no tag is put on it, thus saving us all from another cycle of sterile recrimination, pointless bickering, and the like, so that we can concentrate on articles. Herostratus 03:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, we've been over this before, and we found out that (1) this is an essay, and (2) the idea that two pages have "linked" tags is absurd (and, ironically, out of process). Therefore a truce was reached with an "essay" tag here. I'm not the one disputing that truce. >Radiant< 09:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• For what definition of the word we? Haukur 09:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• In my opinion, this and WP:SNOW should both have an essay tag simply for clarity sake. It's not going to stop people from citing them but at least it would make it clear to new or unfamiliar editors that neither of these pages constitute policy or accepted guidelines.--Isotope23 14:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Of course both articles should have essay tags; every reasonable person knows this. However, Radiant and other editors have categorically refused to allow the essay tag to be placed on WP:SNOW. Therefore in fairness this essay also should not have the essay tag. But Radiant wants a war. It only takes one side to make a war, so there you have it. Herostratus 03:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Lack of world war is disputed

Image caption: "Process. Painful to watch, but sixty years without a world war."

Says who? Some groups call the Cold War a "world war"; others call the War on Terrorism a "world war". The article World War IV describes the views of a group that does both. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 23:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Says me. Some groups believe in Time Cube. What does that have to do with anything? Herostratus 03:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What's actually going on here

Oh, OK, I get it. For those of you new to the drama:

• There has been a great deal of contention both here and at WP:SNOW over the correct tag for the two pages. A great deal of sterile, useless, energy-wasting, and frankly often childish contention.
• In order to settle this, some editors resolved to link the two essays. If WP:SNOW is just an essay, then fine; WP:π is also just an essay; that's fair. If If WP:SNOW is just a guideline, then fine; WP:π is also a guideline; that's fair. If WP:SNOW is an article with no tag, then fine; WP:π is also an article with no tag; that's fair. (This is also workable because the two articles are complements, which doesn't mean they aren't both true.)
• Thus there is no longer any reason to engage in sterile and pointless warring over the tags. After all, if someone wakes up with a hair across their ass and decides (say) that WP:SNOW desperately warrants tagging as guideline, knowing that doing this will also automatically promote WP:π to a guidline will (it is to be hoped) give him pause. And vice verso of course.
• This has worked pretty well, until now. Apparently someone woke up with a hair across his ass or something, because the {{essay}} tag was removed from WP:SNOW.
• Another editor then properly and correctly removed the {{essay}} from this article, per the above.
• But some people just can't leave well enough alone. Some people, I guess, find edit wars and wheel wars exciting or amusing or something. So now both articles are disputed and protected, again.
• And it worked. By gaming the rules, both articles are now protected in the state desired by certain partisans - this article as just an essay, with WP:SNOW no longer tagged as just an essay.
• Whatever. The childish small-mindedness of all this is risable, actually. Herostratus 05:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oh please. Haven't you seen m:The Wrong Version? Articles are always protected at the wrong version, it's traditional. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes I've seen it. Are you saying that the existence of m:The Wrong Version means that it is not possible to game things to get an article protected in a particular version preferred by one party. In fact, parties requesting protection should take care not to change the article to "their" version prior to requesting protection; just the opposite, actually - otherwise they are misusing the protection request. But in this case it doesn't matter that much, it'll all get sorted out sooner or later. Herostratus 04:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What's really going on here

Ignoring the many snide remarks and nasty personal attacks in the previous section, what's really going on here is that some people believe the tags on two pages should be "linked" or always identical. However, this notion (1) was only asserted, never discussed; (2) does not have consensus; (3) is not endorsed by any policy or guideline; (4) would allow for riders and similar unwanted legalism, in effect allowing a proposal to "piggyback" on another proposal; and (5) directly contradicts WP:POL, WP:HCP and WP:BURO. So the notion of "linking" it's really not an argument for anything. >Radiant< 10:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What's truly going on here

I don't know. This article is tagged as protected from editing "until disputes have been resolved." How is that wonderous and blissful state achieved? I don't know. Any suggestions? Herostratus 03:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk it through here? Viridae^Talk 09:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• A brief history of this page:
  • January 9th 2006 - page written by DESiegel.
  • January 11th - revert war between Rebecca, who calls it a proposal, and Haukurth, who calls it an essay. This ends when DESiegel concurs with 'essay'. Haukurth then makes a custom essay tag.
• Page is stable for two months.
  • March 20th - Locke Cole changes the custom tag to the regular one.
  • May 24th - Herostratus changes to "important essay", reverted three days later by Ansell
  • July 13th - Herostratus adds "this page is important" notice, which is reverted by Tony Sidaway
• Page is stable for two months.
  • September 11th - Herostratus removes the essay tag, reverted two days later by Karwynn
  • September 12th - Tony Sidaway deletes the page twice, which is undone by Haukurth and Xaosflux
  • September 13th - Herostratus removes the essay tag again, reverted by Ansell
  • September 14th - Herostratus removes the essay tag yet again, Ashley Y replaces it by a custom tag, the next day Hesperian restores the essay tag
  • September 22nd - Herostratus adds a guideline tag, reverted by Ashley Y
  • September 23th - Haukurth removes the essay tag, reverted a week later by The Land
  • October 3rd - Herostratus removes the essay tag two more times, reverted by Radiant and JzG
• Page is stable for three months.
  • January 5th - Locke Cole removes the essay tag twice, reverted by Badlydrawnjeff and Radiant
  • January 5th - Haukurth removes the tag, saying it is an essay but shouldn't have a tag; this is then briefly discussed on the talk page.
  • January 8th - Radiant replaces the tag thrice, reverted once by Locke Cole who did not cite a reason, and once by Herostratus who claims there had been a truce over this page with no tag on it, which is clearly false. Page is then protected.
• This shows that the page has been an essay almost continuously since two days after its creation, or January 11th last year. Herostratus attempts to change it into something else on a more-or-less bimonthly basis, but none of his changes have met consensus support and all of them were reverted quickly. This latest spat is just a reiteration of that perennial issue. >Radiant< 12:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I don't really care for the specifics. I would just like to see some sort of reasonable discussion on the matter not revert wars. It doesn't worry me who is involved, just as long as I am satisfied that the revert wars will not continue. However until then, until I see some sort of consensus between the disagreeing parties or at least an attempt at consensus rather than edit warring and accusations and counter-accusations the page will remain protected. Viridae^Talk 12:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Very well, here are some arguments... (1) I haven't seen anyone claim that this page is not, in fact, an essay, so it appears there isn't a dispute but a meta-dispute; (2) the notion that the tags on two pages should be (or even can be) linked is not backed by either policy or consensus, see section above; (3) calling something an essay but refusing to tag it as such is oxymoronic; and (4) there was never any sort of "deal" or "truce" over this page, but in the last stable period of three months nobody complained about the essay tag. In other words I have not, as yet, seen any solid reasons for removing the tag, and have seen several people agreeing with me that the tag should remain. >Radiant< 13:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Until we actually come together and have some sort of a large discussion on this and agree that process is important, it should be tagged as an essay. In the mean time, there are a significant number of people who don't think process is important; and don't forget the five pillars tell us that one of the five pillars of Wikipedia is "Wikipedia does not have firm rules", which seems to counter this claim that process is so important. --Cyde Weys 14:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Quote from ANI [3].
    • You are citing WP:5P, a page without a tag which some people consider important and others don't, in support of a proposition that this page, which some people consider important and others don't, must have a tag on it. In any case I don't think there's a contradiction between lack of firm rules and the importance of process. A process isn't the same as a rule and even if it were the page doesn't say "Firm process is important". Haukur 14:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Argh. Radiant, you cannot describe my or other editors tagging of this page out of context. As you know perfectly well, my addition of tags such as "important essay" and so forth were done in response to similar tagging of WP:SNOW. I added the "important essay" tag because the identical tag was added to WP:SNOW. You know this yet pretend not to. Grrrr.

Basically, here's the situation as I see it. There are two levels of discussion here. I'll call them Level II and Level III.

• At Level II, we have editors saying, basically: "[Article X] is fair and wonderful, while [Article Y] is base and despicable. Therefore [Article X] should have a tag both fair and lovely, whilst [Article Y] should have a tag loathsome to behold." This could be called the "partisan bickering" level or the the "I'm right and you're wrong and na-ni na-ni boo-boo" level of discouse.
• At Level III, we have editors who rise above this and understand that:
  1. The two articles are truly complementary, and
  2. The only way to avoid eternal torment in the living hell of endless Level II discourse at the talk pages of both articles is to treat them as such.

But anyway, you "win", I guess. You have arranged so that this article is protected as just an essay, while WP:SNOW is protected as not just an essay. I hope you're real proud of yourself. Herostratus 05:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's ironic to see that you consider yourself to "rise above" other editors while at the same time engaging in incivility and attacks against those others. At any rate, I do realize that you made most of those changes because you believe the two pages are truly complementary, but I also realize that those changes were all reverted in short order because many people do not agree that they are complementary. So there is no consensus for your view. It is left as an exercise to the reader to determine whether that means that (1) the people who disagree with you are stupid, or (2) you are wrong. >Radiant< 10:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, quite a challenging exercise for this poor reader. Here's one for you, Radiant: Will you re-elect the ruling party, or face nuclear holocaust? Haukur 10:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Please do inform me if you have any actual arguments to bring to the discussion. >Radiant< 11:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • • Maybe we don't want to argue on your terms. Maybe we want to call WP:SOUP. You broke the truce by pulling the essay tag from WP:SNOW while insisting that it remain on WP:PI. This led to an immediate edit war and page protection at both articles, as you knew or ought to have known that it would. The question is, what are you going to do about it? Herostratus 18:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Ah, but again you're assuming a truce was made - yet this alleged truce was not debated or agreed upon anywhere. The actual problem lies in the view that the tags should be linked. This view is not backed by consensus, contradicts several policies, and is the sole cause of edit warring here. Indeed, the several edit wars here in the past are between a small group of people (mainly yourself) who stick to this view, and a substantially larger group of people who realize this view is non-consensual and therefore not a good argument for changing tags anywhere. The debate is not you vs. me, it is the opinion of tag linking vs. policy and consensus to the contrary. Needless to say, Wikipedia works by the latter. >Radiant< 11:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm not assuming that there was a truce; there was a truce, evidenced by the fact that both articles were stable for many weeks if not months. Herostratus 04:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
            • This page in particular was stable for about twelve months with an {{essay}} tag. I've yet to hear a good reason for removing it (noting once more that the idea of "linked tags" contradicts policy and is not backed by consensus). Since I haven't seen anyone disagreeing that this is in fact an essay, how about we return to this long-standing truce? >Radiant< 09:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit break

• This is one of my favourite disputes, it involves so many editors I admire. My $0.02: The "snowball clause" is used in the real world, in deletions and in early closures of debates where the outcome is blindingly obvious. Maybe we need to improve it and make a Wikipedia:Early closure guideline. Process is important is a philosophical debate. I really don't believe there is anyone here who believes that process should triumph against policy, is there? This is about making it easier for the poor saps out there (including me) to work out what the hell is going on in this madhouse. It's an essay, albeit an admonitory one. It will never get consensus as a guideline (instruction creep, plus all us policy wonks would hate it). We seem to be using one of those arguments we keep telling deletion debate !voters to avoid, and discussing one article while seeming to discuss another. Of course we have to have processes (well, duh) but WP:IAR is ultimately more in tune with the founding fathers' philosophy than this essay is. Hell, I'm even discussing with Jimbo and Brad right now how we can come up with a whole new process! Processes are great for the guidance of the bemused, but let's not pretend they are an end in themselves, eh? Guy (Help!) 23:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Interestingly enough, if we could get consensus for early closures, there wouldn't be a problem. The issue? People don't want it. I've tried. I'd love to have something official in place to govern when it's proper, but people simply don't want it. The philosophy of the 'pedia has changed in 4 years, we've moved on and we need the firmer processes to operate - a firmer process doesn't violate the fifth pillar, either, because we can change them to make them reflect what the community wants. i don't get why people don't get that. A good help is that one of the main abrasive proponents no longer has the power to actually enact it. Now, if a certain few other parties (tellingly, none of which appear to be recently present here) would stop being dicks and actually try to cooperate with people in getting their desired ideals in place, we wouldn't have been fighting over this for however long we've been fighting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC) --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Clearly they do, or we would not have speedy deletion. Why would any sane person want to debate whether we should delete something patently made up in school one day? We have better things to do. The majority of such actions are uncontentious. I routinely snowball deletion debates that have attracted sufficient input to gauge the mood, in the (possibly vain) hope that folks will spend a few extra minutes looking aat the hard cases. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't agree with any of that, and I still wish you'd stop snowballing things. This is all part of that "not helping" thing that I've been pointing out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Disagree all you like, and vive la difference I suppose. I see WP:SNOW as legislating in favour of Clue, and this as going the other way. A Clue-based project is my ideal. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
          • It's good to know you're up for a substantive discussion, Guy. Geez. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
            • I am. I'm just not up for elevating process to anything more than something that informs, unless it's actually embedded in policy. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• I don't believe that people "don't want" early closure. It happens regularly on the various deletion processes, as well as RFA, and RFC also has an early closure mechanism. While I'm sure we get the occasional human mistake here, most of it is not at all controversial. >Radiant< 10:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There's nothing wrong with early closure (although, usually, no great advantage either, in my opinion). That's what WP:SNOW is for. However, if a reasonable editor reasonably feels that (1) a given result is not necessarily a slam-dunk lock, and/or (2) a reasonable editor reasonably feels that they (or a given article etc.) are not getting their full "day in court", then early closure is likely to lead to more work (deletion review etc.) in the first case, or bad feeling in the latter case. That's what WP:PI is for. Herostratus 18:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well?

Well, what is the procedure here? This page is in protection, and it's my understanding that pages should not remain in protection indefinitely or unnecessarily, and that unprotected is the preferred state. Is this not correct? The discussion on this talk page is desultory and sporadic and because of this not tending toward any consensus. So what need to be done to get this page out of protection? Should there be an RfC? I'd hate to bother people with one, but if that is necessary perhaps that could be done.

If there is no real lively discussion occurring and the page is unprotected, to what state should it devolve? I guess I would say that it should go to its default state, but there is not even agreement on what its default state even is. Some would say that the default state is Essay, since it held that tag for awhile; others would say that the default state is Whatever state WP:SNOW is in, since it also held that state for awhile. Then, a case could be made that, since no agreement has been reached on the proper tag, the proper way to reflect this is to have no tag.

It doesn't seem fair or right that this page should remain protected forever, but perhaps a case could be made for that outcome. Anyway, we have a bunch of high-powered intellects here, does anyone have a solution to this conundrum? Herostratus 18:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• To reiterate, your opinion that this page should always have the same tag as WP:SNOW does, contradicts policy and is not backed by consensus. Every single time you attempted to change the tag here based on that reasoning, you were reverted in short order. There have been exactly zero people arguing that this page is not an essay, so not using that tag boils down to misinforming our readers. >Radiant< 16:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. I hear you. Anybody else? Herostratus 19:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• The idea that this page and WP:SNOW must have the same tag is simply perposterous. They are not the same page and the issues are not identical (one might be supported by consensus and the other not, one might reflect practice and the other not, one might be a good idea and the other not, one might be written in the form of an essay and the other not). Since everyone agrees that this is an essay, and it is written in the form of an essay, it should be tagged as an essay (unless the essay tag is deleted). Whether or not WP:SNOW is tagged correctly or at all is simply not relevant to the tagging of this page. Eluchil404 09:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's try this another way: the fact that WP:SNOW lacks {{essay}} while this has it gives people the idea that process is, in fact, not important and that they can roll right over it whenever it's convenient for them. Keeping them as equals (which does make sense, as they complement one another) seems like the fairest way to address this until the community at large endorses one over the other. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Erm, well, it's not preposterous. I mean, I laid out a fair argument as to why (1) the pages are complementary and (2) addressing them as such prevents edit warring - at least, it did until the truce was broken. Wrong? Maybe, but not preposterous, that isn't fair. As the rest... between Radiant's "exactly zero people arguing that this page is not an essay" and your "everyone agrees that this is an essay" I think I need to pinch myself and see if I even exist. I never though of myself as zero people before, sheesh. Well hmmm this isn't making much progress to getting this page out of protection, so OK let's try it your way. In other words... Let the Great Partisan Bickering commence!

Zero People 03:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Perposterous is strong and I appologise if I caused any offense. The pages may be complimentary (they certainly address similar issues) but I don't think the arguments prove (or even really suggest) they are inextricably linked. You also keep refering to a truce, but what we really had here was a lack of fighting. A truce implies a formalized agreement where none existed so I reject it as an appropriate term in this case. I certainly think you exist, but my reading of the comments above was that you agreed that this was an essay, but that it shouldn't be tagged as one unless WP:SNOW was also. Eluchil404 05:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am the protecting admin, if you want the page unprotected and agree that you won't start edit warring, I will be happy to remove the protection. Viridae^Talk 04:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I've edited this page a total of one time since last October, so maybe I'm the wrong person to comment, but that's fine as far as I'm concerned. Herostratus 06:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  And yet, you've re-added the essay tag to WP:SNOW, thus continuing the slow edit war. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Complementary?

I disagree that WP:SNOW and WP:PI are "complementary". They seem very different to me. One is a description of a practice here; the other is a manifesto arguing that Wikipedia ought to be more rule-bound than it is. Therefore, emprically, one is a guideline, and the other is an essay. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Essay?

Whis is this page tagged as an essay? Some editors have said that this article should be tagged as an essay because it has the form of an essay. But is the first sentence of the essay tag (""This is an essay") even relevant? Is there a worry that editors coming to this page might not be able to figure out just what literary form it is? That they might take it for (say) a poem, and become confused as to why Wikipedia is featuring poetry in its project space? If this is the concern, perhaps a tag like this would help:

This page is an essay.

This is an essay. It is not a short story, book review, movie script, or other literary form. Please do not expect forshadowing, character development, a big production number, or other literary devices.

On the other hand, I think that the second sentence ("It is not a policy or guideline") is much more relevant and is what we are talking about here. Just wanted to clear that up before continuing. Herostratus 18:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the humor with which you make your point, Herostratus, but I worry that you've missed mine. When it say this page takes the form of an essay, I mean, as opposed to the form of a guideline or a policy. An essay, at Wikipedia, in an opinion piece, often expressed in hortatory ("should" and "should not") language. This is distinguished from a guideline, which is best expressed in descriptive language. (Many Wikipedians do the following...) A description is very different from an exhortation. For one thing, a description can lay claim to being factual, whereas "should" statements are necessarily opinion-based. A policy, different from an essay or a guideline, is basically a restatement of some part of Wikipedia's basic mission, and often takes the form of an imperative, with some explanation. ("Write from a neutral point of view; here's what that means.")

So, the differences between essay, guideline, and policy are basically a question of grammatical mood; hortatory versus declarative versus imperative. There are exceptions - for example, many of our guidelines lapse into the imperative, probably because people find strict rules comforting - but I think I've clarified what I meant by saying this page is, empirically, an essay. It expresses a plea, not an observation. "For all these reasons, editors and particularly administrators ought to adhere to and use existing processes, and resist the temptation to act outside of process, other than in truly emergency situations." See? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I don't agree, at all. First of all, basically all our guidelines and policies mix descriptions of desired behavior with explanations of why the behavior is desirable. Check it out. Wikipedia:Edit war, WP:BITE, and on and on are not significantly different from this page. This page contains a description of desired behavior (in the nutshell) with a discussion of the reasons for it in the body of the article.

Also, I understand the position that guidleines are, or should be, only written up to describe current practices that have spontaneously evolved. I understand it, but I don't agree with it, and I think we wouldn't have a lot of the good guidelines that we do have if we took that attitude. But anyway, this page is not being proposed as a guideline so that doesn't matter.

Anyway, I think you're splitting hairs. My point is that the purpose of the essay tag is to ensure that anyone coming to the page is informed that "It is not a policy or guideline, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of anyone other than its author". I think most of the people who find this article loathsome, silly, anti-wikipedian, or whatever, and want to tag it as just an essay are concentrating on this part. They want to be sure that no one thinks that the article has any status as a guideline to actual behavior.

I don't think that's appropriate, at all. I have a couple of essays out; lots of editors to; they are just something that that they wrote, for people to take or leave and learn from or ignore as they see fit. This page, on the other hand, has attracted a lot more attention and support then a typical essay and is frequently cited (if only by inference) as an explanation for editors' actions, and particularly as an antidote to overzealous application of WP:SNOW. So it shouldn't be tagged as just an essay.

My goodness, speaking of WP:SNOW. They've got quite the tag there now... Herostratus 05:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Cited by inference"? That's a nice one... >Radiant< 09:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Herostratus, you seem hung up on a very legalistic way of looking at Wikipedia. For me, it's not about pages having this or that "status" or whether an action is backed up by a "essay" or a "guideline" or a Bible quote. Wikipedia is not a moot court. As I said a few days ago on the SNOW talk page, "people do things that make sense, and sometimes, some of those things get written down, and sometimes people get excited and add 'tags' to pages where things are written." The whole tagging business is kind of silly, and implies that people aren't believing that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I'm interested, by the way, in which of our guidelines you're thinking of when you say that the whole "describing good practices" model is somehow incorrect, and not how we arrived at "a lot of the good guidelines that we do have". I'm also still waiting to hear of a single "overzealous application of SNOW" in the last month or two. I'm not convinced the problem you're describing exists anymore. (I agree that it did exist at one time, during the userbox wars.) -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

An afterthought - you say I'm splitting hairs, but it seems to me that you're splitting hairs to point out that explanations and justifications are present on most policy and guideline pages. The point is, what is the basic message of the page? Is it a non-negotiable statement of what our goal is at Wikipedia? Is it a description of some good habit that was observed and written about? Is it an exhortation or plea in support of some Wiki-philosophy or another? I think this page is, in its essence, the third of those options. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. Herostratus 03:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I considered this as an essay when i first started drafting the inital version of it. By that I mean it is not and does not aspire to be a guideline or a policy. What it attempts to do is to persuade people to take a certain approach to existing policy and process, by laying out reasons why different approaces are harmful to the project. If a significant number of Wikipedians find this essay persuasive it may influence who policies are drafted or amended, and more importantly it may influence the actions of peopel who can chose to respect policy by following process, or chose to ignore process for some percieved gain. This essay attempts to argue that such percieved gains are generally less important, albiet more visible, than the long term harm such actions take. Since this page makes an argument and is an attempt to persuade people, it is most properly tagged as an essay. Also, people who agree with it can cite to incorporate the arguements here by references, just as the schools page was often cited to incvorporate the arguements on including school pages. But it should not be cited in the way that policy or guideline pages are, as settling the matter. It is an argument, of no value if it fails to convince. DES ^(talk) 03:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh

I'm currently engaged with an editor (Picaroon)on the question of including the picture of the United Nations session with the caption "Process. Painful to watch, but sixty years without a world war." This editor believes that including the picture is at least potentially divisive, here's what he wrote to me:

"...I am, however, someone who recognizes that not everybody agrees that the United Nations has prevented World War 3, 4, or 55, and, in fact, you're going to find a lot of people who disagree with its helpfulness in resolving or preventing all armed conflicts - why provoke them? They're Wikipedians just like you.... I'll leave it be if you can name one legitimate plus about having a potentially divisive political statement in an essay about Wikipedia process."

Anybody have any thoughts on this? Herostratus 12:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Pica has a point. With that picture and statement, you could be seen to imply any of the following, (1) the UN are painful to watch, (2) we would have had a world war by now if it weren't for the UN, and (3) the multitude of wars involving UN members and those that have not been prevented by the existence or actions of the UN apparently do not count. Regardless of whether you mean it as such, people are offended by those claims. Political statements do not belong in Wikispace. >Radiant< 13:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand... the point could be made: grow freaken up. If one is of such tender sensibilites that one is subject to an attack of the vapors should one stumble upon, God forbid, an instance of the UN being presented in a favorable light, maybe one should not be using the intenet. Sheesh. Editors should be able to disagree with the points above and still be able to take the photo and caption in the sense that it was intended and understand the point being made without having a conniption fit. 17:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't care one way or another. I always saw this as somewhat cheeky rather than something very serious. Haukur 22:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Nutshell

An editor changed the nutshell with the comment "fixing broken sentence". But the sentence was correctly formed, and more succinct than the new version. I'm inclined to change it back, any comments? Herostratus 14:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The nutshell was changed by me, in this edit I changed it because i think the previous nutshell seriously misstated the intent of the essay. (As the editor who wrote the original versionb, much of which survives in the curent version, i think i have an idea of the intent of the essay, although of course I do not claim to own the page. The previous nutshell was "Process should be followed except when there is likely no objection." But a major point of the essay is that even if no one voices an objection, and even if the final result is quite possibly the same, ignoring existing process (as opposed to working through it, or working to change it, or comeing up with an easier alternative process) does harm to the project. Thus the old nutshell IMO seriously mistated the intent of the essay. My revised nutshell is "Process should be followed if at all possible -- not following it tends to harm the project, even if the result is unchanged." If anyone wants to suggest an improved version, feel free, or be bold and simply change it. i would prefer to avoid an edit war, however, so perhaps discussion would be better.

BTW I think you misread the history slightly. The edit you saw was this one which corrected a grammatical error in a different change I made in the same edit as the one that changed the nutshell. DES ^(talk) 15:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, I misread the history. As to the tag, I dunno. You're not going to get very many people on board with saying that one should follow a given procedure if everyone involved (or any reasonable person likely to get involved) agrees that it wouldn't make sense to do so; this is the domain of WP:SNOW. But the tag doesn't say that, so it's OK with me I suppose. Herostratus 02:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind either way, but I must say the assertion that "not following [process] tends to harm the project" is rather silly, considering our policies of WP:BURO, WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. >Radiant< 09:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Because only a "rather silly" person would disagree with policy? What are you trying to say? Haukur 17:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well i am on record as objecting to WP:IAR, I don't think i have yet seen it cited in support of an action I agree with -- no, let me clarify. i don't think i have seen a case where IAR is the main or sole reason given for an action, or even a major reason, where I approved of the action. But WP:PI is not intended to be an anti-IAR page, although if more people were persuaded by it there would perhaps be fewer uses of IAR, and particularly fewer highly controversial uses. As I understand WP:BOLD, it applies to editing pages, and there is very little process to that, except for discussing and getting consensus on a talk page when there is a dispute. Someone who ignores that process -- someone who edits in opposition to consensus or edits in a highly controversial way without trying to get consensus -- is often not well though of IME. WP:BURO I agree with, if taken to indicate that process should not exist for its own sake (there should be process only when process fills a need or is useful) and that process should not be more cumbersome than is needed (simpler is usually better if the goal is accomplished). But some people cite WP:BURO as saying that it is inherently good to ignore existing process, and i think that misunderstands WP:BURO.

As to the nutshell, I invite better ways to word it. I felt that the previous nutshell actively miss-represented the intent of the page. Franky, If I thought that the intent of the page could be well expressed in a single sentence, I would have written a much shorter draft. I often feel that "nutshells" over-simplify and thus miss-represent things. But people like them, so they should be as clear and accurate as possible.

I do think that ignoring process tends to harm the project, even when most or all of the people involved in a particular case are agreed -- if the process is not working well, it is better to change it than ignore it, IMO. But the real problem with WP:SNOW IMO is that it tends to favor the regulars who see discussions first over the people who do not log in as often, and it is not always the case that the regulars are a representative sample. That said, WP:SNOW can be a part of any particular process, but I could wish that there was a little more guidance on when and how it should be used, and when it shouldn't. That would IMO improve the transparency and consistency of the processes involved. DES ^(talk) 19:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• (resp to Haukur) no, people are welcome to disagree with policy, it's just that asserting that not following process harms the project is far too general, broad and sweeping. I agree that in some cases it does. But in far from all. >Radiant< 08:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Parliamentary procedure

Here are the beginnings of an analysis of Wikipedia's similarities to a deliberative assembly. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)