Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Undue weight redirect

I think this should be a redirect to WP:UNDUE Verbal chat 23:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

But this article is about no more regulations or policies. I can't see how this is connected to WP:UNDUE. Dr.K. (logos) 00:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
How about a redirect to Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep? That's almost exactly the same idea, but better stated, fleshed out, and more established. NJGW (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
My thought was that NOMORE is a good link for UNDUE - it doesn't matter what this essay was supposed to be about. However, NJGWs suggestion is good too. Verbal chat 17:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
NJGW's suggestion is a good idea. Maybe we can transfer this discussion to the deletion page. Dr.K. logos 05:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I put a note there. Hopefully we'll get a speedy close out of this. NJGW (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a really good match -- add this stuff there if there is to be a redir. Collect (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be specific about which "this stuff there" you suggest is neccessary? NJGW (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with WP:UNDUE, and has an idea that is not included in the WP:CREEP, namely a requirement for a broader input than was given during guideline/policy creation. 212.200.241.72 (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add that to wp:CREEP. Per NOMORE and CREEP, having both NOMORE and CREEP is not advised. NJGW (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
NOMORE is a policy proposal, CREEP is not. 212.200.241.72 (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Please, if you don't like what this page says, just say so. It won't be long before someone who dislikes this page puts it up for deletion. I wish editors would be more tolerant of the views of others. Ikip (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Propose redirect to wp:CREEP

(also from RfD) These two comments were made from before a redirect option was given

  • Keep.Properly marked. Edited within two months, hence not "too old" or ready to be "historical." Collect (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. per Roux. This can always be marked as historical or rejected without deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

212.200.241.72 (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(first 3 comments are from the RfD)

  • Support redirect. Verbal chat 09:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Changed to Redirect per my discussion with Verbal and NJGW. Dr.K. logos 18:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support redir, else historify/etc pending talkpage outcome. //roux   00:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • support NJGW (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep lets be a little more tolerant of other people's views please. Ikip (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

A third opinion was requested on this discussion. Third opinions are reserved to discussions between only two editors. As this has received input from multiple wikipedians, I have removed the request. I would encourage you to list this discussion in appropriate wikiprojects or follow alternate steps to dispute resolution. Thanks! (EhJJ)TALK 15:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

historical/rejected

this proposal needs to be marked as such and not redirected/deleted. or should i try some dispute resolution mechanism? 212.200.241.72 (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

why can't it just be redirected to an essay which covers the same material? Are you the original author of this piece? Verbal chat 16:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
why can't it just be redirected to an essay which covers the same material? your comprehension of this proposal is different from mine. although they are on the same topic, they do not cover the same idea. this proposal suggests a mechanism for accepting new policies, while CREEP doesn't have that. also, CREEP is an essay, this is a policy proposal, and as such, needs to be in the 'proposed policies' category.
Are you the original author of this piece? it's irrelevant.
212.200.241.72 (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Your comprehension of a proposed policy is different from mine. There was a tag placed, but no indication that procedures for proposal where initiated (see Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Proposing_guidelines_and_policies). If the original author thought it needed to be a policy, they should have followed through with it. At this stage it is an abandoned essay that wasn't ready to be moved from userspace. NJGW (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. I will be doing all those things listed now. 212.200.241.72 (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Please log in using your account. Verbal chat 17:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks to me as though 212.200.241.72 (talk · contribs) is intending to move this project forward. Wikipedia policy is that users are not required to create an account, so no user should insist that one is created. It seems reasonable to give 212.200.241.72 a few days to complete the process of nominating this proposal (even thought I think it will be declined). NB: there is no consensus, when looking at the AfD from a few days ago and the few comments above, that this article should be redirected. Furthermore, this is a policy proposal, not at essay, and should thus remain as a separate entity until it has gone through the policy proposal process or has remained inactive for a sufficient time. (EhJJ)TALK 18:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
This user does have an account. Verbal chat 14:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

policy or guideline

I'm not sure which one this should be, and hope other users will contribute with their thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.241.72 (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Redundant to existing policy-making procedures

  • Oppose making this a policy or guideline:
Existing policy-making procedures mean new policies don't come into force unless there is a consensus that they should. In most cases, these new policies reflect existing practice anyways, or at least, they should.
"There should be no more policies or guidelines unless a guideline or a policy is really shown to be necessary by a community that is wider than community of that policy's or guideline's editors." For new policies that are properly advertised on noticeboards, everyone who is watching the noticeboards is put on notice. I'm not sure how much of a wider community you want.
This would make a nice essay, and as an essay it should encourage wide advertisement of proposed policies and guidelines, but it should not itself be a guideline or policy, at least not yet. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

discussion at village pump

you can also share your views here: Village Pump thread 212.200.241.72 (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change the status of this page

Answer more than one if applicable.

Editors thinking this should be marked as a failed proposal

Editors thinking this should be marked as an essay

  • davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this page introduces a unique concept -- that consensus for guideline and policy implementation should not follow the standard "silence implies consent". Indeed, I think demonstrated positive support should be required for policies and guidelines. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:11, 4 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Editors thinking this should be marked as guideline

Editors thinking this should be marked as policy

Editors thinking this page needs more work

Editors wondering what all the fuss is about since WP:CREEP exists anyway

  • Yup, that would be me. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yup + 1 but nevertheless, please don't edit war or delete / redirect pages without a wide consensus to do so, particularly in the middle of a consensus discussion on the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs)
  • Yeah pretty much, plus the only editor wanting to change the status is a disrpuptive IP with many sockpuppets. Elbutler (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm no sockpuppet. In case that's what you were implying. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:42, 4 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  • yup yet again Seems redundant, and seems like the work of someone with a chip on their shoulder. Not particularly helpful, but neither are a lot of other essays. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • yep redirect to creep. (moved from above, similar section) Verbal chat 21:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • yuppers This feels so familiar... haven't we done this before... 5 times? NJGW (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This propsoed policy seems to violate itself.   Will Beback  talk  21:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It might violate itself if it were a proposed policy, but it isn't anymore. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:12, 5 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Redirecting is basically a cheap way of avoiding a deletion discussion. You don't get to just decide on your own what gets to stay and what doesn't. If you want a page gone, you'll have to nominate it for deletion. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:17, 4 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Well, some things, as we know, can not be deleted. If this is a proposed policy, for example, it appears to "have to stay". But your comment above does not assume good faith in the least. Please come back to assumptions of good faith. This "thing" is a storm in a teacup. It would be a shame to make it a tornado instead. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok then how's this: Kindly refrain from replacing pages with redirects in possibly controversial situations. Deletion discussions are necessary in such scenarios. Anyone who feels this page should no longer exist should nominate the article for deletion. I hope that was polite enough. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:27, 4 Feb 2009 (UTC)
Well, "Yes, sorry it sounded that way" would have been nicer, but your formal way works as well. It sounds a bit strident, though. This whole discussion seems to have got out of hand. Soft attitudes tend to work better, or they do for me. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Glad to have finally met with your approval. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:39, 4 Feb 2009 (UTC)
An MFD was opened, and closed with a procedural keep when most of the editors suggest redirecting to CREEP. NJGW (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

← From the closure: "...the discussion whether to redirect/merge or mark as historical/rejected does not seem to be conclusive..." There's been no further discussion on the merits of a redirect, except in having the same people who said so in the MfD list their votes here again. Also from the closure: "Since neither the individual keep opinions nor the closure imply support for the page in its currents state, the creator and other concerned parties may also want to consider alternatives to considering it a policy proposal." -- It's now an essay. And it's no longer in the state it was during that discussion. I don't see what the compulsion is to get rid of this... it's not hurting anyone, it's just an essay... but if you feel that strongly, the last nom was about a month ago with no clear decision, so you could just nominate it again now. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:14, 4 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Too many people mistakenly believe that we do not delete policy proposals... that they can only be accepted or rejected. That was a big issue in the MFD. This proposal was however "not ready for prime time" on so many levels, and the continued circles we're going in here are just a waste of time. Although no one was voting, there were six editors at the MFD opposed to keeping this in the wp:space, and two in favor.
All the essay currently says is that we should follow existing procedures to avoid a bureaucracy... pretty bureaucratic if you ask me. In any case, I MFD'd it (as the unhelpful mess it was) because I didn't know about CREEP, otherwise I would have suggested here to redirect it. Our anon friend is the one who keeps pushing to have this policy. NJGW (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Well he's not pushing for it as a policy anymore. Now it's just an essay. Crisis averted. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:31, 4 Feb 2009 (UTC)
It's been 10 hours since you made that change. Let's give him/her a while to see if they notice it ;) NJGW (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Name change

I think all this page is really saying is that new policies or policy demotions should require positive demonstrated consensus. It isn't actually saying there shouldn't be any new policies. It's still an interesting suggestion, but it doesn't quite fit with the title, and I think that's one reason there are so many people who want a redirect. That title (and the intro) does make it seem to have the same purpose as CREEP. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:43, 4 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Please suggest an alternative title, as well as improvement to introduction. Thanks! 212.200.243.174 (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I did some copy editing. Of the changes I made, I added a new section: "WP:NOMORE versus instruction creep". You should expand that section to clearly explain the differences between NOMORE and CREEP, so that everyone (myself included) can understand that better. Once we know the intention more clearly, I may be able to suggest a better title. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:38, 4 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this page needs a proper name like "WP:No more policies"... "NOMORE" should remain as a redirect. –xeno (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving to user space

In light of the discussions above, I propose to move this page to User:Lakinekaki/No more policies and redirect this page. Unless there are any good objections, I (or someone else) will do this shortly. Note that Lakinekaki is the original author and the multiple IPs that have been editing this page and forum shopping are also him. Verbal chat 17:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... Unless there are any good objections? I would ask for a good reason to make the move. According to WP:Essay, the only reason to put an essay in userspace is if the author doesn't want anyone else editing it. Barring some kind of name conflict or namespace policy violation, there's no reason it can't stay here. It's an essay, and we have many essays in WP space. The burden of proof doesn't lie on the people who would object to the move. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:17, 5 Feb 2009 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays: "Essays that are in the Wikipedia project space (prefixed by "Wikipedia:" or "WP:") should ideally represent a consensus amongst the broad community of Wikipedia editors. Those that reflect the beliefs of a limited number of editors should be edited to present a view more representative of the community. Poor candidates for broadening should be userified — relocated to a subpage of the user that authored them. Such "user essays" are categorized into Category:User essays." NJGW (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays is itself merely an essay, though. The policy states that "An essay is a page reflecting the views of an editor or a group of editors", with no mention of where they belong, except to say that if the author doesn't want anyone else editing it he may choose to move it to userspace. Ignoring the lawyer-y portion of my argument, in a general sense I don't see the harm in leaving it in WP space. Since policy doesn't require it, I'm open to considering any good reasons that the move is necessary, if anyone has one. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:43, 5 Feb 2009 (UTC)

1. Users might think it is consensus per wp:Wikipedia essays (regardless of your interpretation of the meaning of essays). NJGW (talk) 06:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Users know an essay is just an opinion, in contrast to a guideline or policy. Even the essay header template states, "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion." (emphasis added)
There's also a logical flaw to your argument: You're afraid that people will take one essay seriously enough to use it as a rule for judging other essays.
Which brings me to my final point: Who cares? Even if users did make the mistake you claim they would, I don't see the harm in that. You know, I hope his isn't considered bad faith, but I honestly think the real problem is that you and others are afraid that people might see an opinion that you don't agree with, see it posted in an official-looking namespace, and lend it more credence than it's actually worth. Well that's frankly tough shit. If the little "WP:" before an essay's name bothers you that much, you need to go propose removing all opinion pieces from Wikipedia space, lest one end up there that doesn't meet with your approval, as this one has. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:50, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)-
Do you actually have any objections? It's hard to assume good faith with your edit warring and wikilawyering. Verbal chat 08:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
It takes two to edit war. It's hard to assume good faith on your end as well, since you've avoided any actual discussion in favor of simply doing what you think is best. Again the burden of proof doesn't lie with me. The real question is, do you have any actual reason to want this essay out of WP space even though policy allows it to stay? Equazcion •✗/C • 08:07, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Village Pump (policy) to help sort out the larger issue at hand. I invite all editors involved here to contribute to that discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:30, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Forum shopping again? Great. Verbal chat 08:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
So much for good faith. You've now accused me of ownership and forum shopping. Anyhoo, there's a larger issue at hand here that I feel needs to be addressed from a policy standpoint. VP Policy seems to be the place to do that. Call it what you will. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:35, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Reminder

Wikipedia isn't a democracy. You need to have a good reason for doing things. 6 people wanting something one way and 2 people wanting it the other way doesn't mean we automatically go with the majority. This move needs to be backed up somehow. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:13, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Silence_does_not_imply_consent_when_drafting_new_policies/Archive_1&oldid=1136419373"