User:Ikip/Sausage

Wikipedia guidelines and policies are often created by a small minority of veteran editors. Very few guidelines and policies are vetted through a voting or consensus process. In fact, veteran editors often discourage voting, stating that it is not necessary.

In most cases, one user simply changes an essay template to a guideline, and if no one disagrees, this essay becomes a guideline. Once this essay becomes guideline, veteran editors then begin to more forcefully exert this guideline on all wikipedia editors.

Examples
{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" !align=left width=700px|

WP:WEB
Addition of "web pages" on the Criteria for speedy deletion page. Eight people on the talk page support this change, two oppose, four are neutral. In response to badlydrawnjeff oppostion, Radiant says that no strawpoll is necessary. Rule becomes policy.

12:24, 30 September 2006

MER-C after discussion on the talk page: Comment_and_question about A7


 * Support: Irongargoyle, Radiant (no straw poll necessary), Dragonfiend, JoJan, Kusma, Andrew Levine, Tyrenius, MER-C


 * Opposed: badlydrawnjeff, Deco


 * Neutral: BigNate37, nae'blis, Centrx, Glen

WP:CORP
On October 1 2006 at 11:16 am, Radiant added a sentence about corporations from User:Brad Patrick, Wikipedia's lawyer. The requirement was "blatantly commercial pages for non-notable corporations" can be speedy deleted. Forty two minutes later, at 11:58, Tizio had removed the "blatantly commercial" requirement. Neither edit was challenged. 11:16, 1 October 2006

Radiant:

11:58, 1 October 2006

Tizio (163 AfDs, 100 pages created):


 * }

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" !align=left width=700px|

Background
This essay was put up for deletion in February 2007.

The majority of editors felt that it should be put tagged or  or merged.

Two months later, an editor added a policy tag based on what was on the essay's talk page, despite opposition:
 * Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(films)/Archive_1
 * Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(films)/Archive_1
 * Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(films)/Archive_1

Edit history
{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" !align=left width=700px|
 * 22:12, 5 July 2006 Article created by User:Eluchil404: "Wrote essay discussing notability of films"
 * 21:22, 7 September 2006 User:Radiant! recat[agorized] as proposal.
 * 12:51, 29 November 2006 User:Radiant! , lack of recent debate and no apparent consensus on talk page; proponents of this proposal are advised to advertise it, e.g. at the village pump
 * November to February 2006, edit wars over historical tag.
 * 00:27, 27 February 2007 Kevin Murray puts the article up for deletion. Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Notability_(films)
 * Comments:
 * "tag as rejected. We don't delete proposals because they've been rejected."
 * "can be tagged as historical or rejected to avoid instruction creep."
 * "tag it appropriately."
 * "So tag it as or  "
 * "perhaps merge elements with with WP:FICT?"
 * "Mark as rejected."
 * "Keep, reject, and merge relevant content into WP:FICT, WP:BK"
 * "Keep but tag as rejected"
 * "Keep per above reasons and tag rejected per consensus."
 * "keep but mark as rejected as per User:Amarkov, User:TheFarix, User:Nifboy, User:Eluchil404, User:Centrx, User:Dr Aaron, User:Hiding, User:Seraphimblade above."
 * "Keep, tag is as rejected proposal"
 * 19:22, 27 February 2007 User:DennyColt "rejected per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (films)" adds tag, reverts "per history" in next edit
 * February to March 2007 Edit war over rejected tag, page protected.
 * 10:09, 16 March 2007 Radiant adds
 * Page protected again.
 * April 2007 - June 2007 Page has proposed policy tag.
 * 20:00, 3 April 2007 DennyColt Tagged as a guideline "seems to be at least a guideline based on talk page concensus".
 * 12:34, 18 June 2007 Radiant! Adds policy tag "per talk page, objections appear to be resolved"
 * }

GUIDELINE: Notability (please expand)

 * How did this page become a guideline?
 * How did this page become a guideline?

Created by Demi, User:Demi/Notability is the origin of the currentNotability. Created 07:37, 20 April 2005. "Deletion is a charged word that makes it sound like I want to destroy information. I prefer "exclusion." If I vote delete it doesn't necessarily mean I think the information shouldn't exist; just that it doesn't belong here and I don't (within the context of this project and its sisters) know where it should go."


 * Edit history

User:Neutrality, 05:03, 19 May 2005, 3 minutes after transfering the essay from userspace, makes the article a guideline.

User:Kappa, 06:02, 19 May 2005 "don't think this is an official guideline"

User:BlankVerse 09:25, 19 May 2005 Proposed as policy

User:Radiant 20:58, 14 January 2006 Recat as Essay

User:Radiant! 21:09, 7 September 2006 Proposed guideline

User:Radiant! 09:04, 23 September 2006 Changed to Guideline "per talk page; this page is simply a description of the status quo"

User:Radiant! 13:33, 27 September 2006 We don't vote on proposals. A description of actual practice is a guideline.

User:Radiant! 20:26, 1 October 2006 It is a well-known fact that we do not vote on proposals.

Centrx 21:41, 1 October 2006  Replace contentious form template with painstakingly created, non-tendentious message that accurately describes the status of this page

User:Radiant! 08:30, 10 October 2006  debate on talk has died down and there's general agreement with Pascal's statements

User:Dan100 19:08, 16 November 2006  Added proposed tag

User:SMcCandlish 19:46, 22 November 2006 Added Disputedpolicy tag

User:Centrx 19:15, 28 November 2006 Removed Disputedpolicy tag

User:Thivierr 04:37, 27 December 2006  rv - Actually there's lots of detractors. Call a straw poll, if you want to see how many. Note: this only became a "guideline" because you skipped that step

User:Radiant! 09:31, 27 December 2006 Removed Disputedpolicy tag "Guidelines are not created through polling or voting, but rather through describing actual practice"

User:Dan100 12:37, 5 January 2007 Proposal tag added "When on earth do people think consensus was gained for this??"

User:Vanished user 08:12, 21 February 2007 Added underdiscussion tag
 * }

GUIDELINE: Television episodes
{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" !align="left" width="700"|
 * Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters
 * Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 Case Closed 10 March 2008

Edit wars over content and tagging on main page
11:01, 16 April 2007 Radiant! Added Guideline tag Tagged as a guideline after 24 edits by Radiant, based on Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Television episodes (see below)

18:11, 16 April 2007 Kevin Murray removes guideline tag stating, "This page was never advertised as a proposal thus did not receive adequate attention from a braod range of editors. Can not claim to have consensus" Next edit adds proposal tag.

08:07, 17 April 2007 Radiant! Adds guideline tag back. "Kevin, that's incorrect. It was part of WP:CENT"

14:24, 17 April 2007 Kevin Murray adds proposal tag back "I think that we need a clearer measurement of consensus before rushing the change in tag. What is the hurry?"

14:43, 17 April 2007 Radiant! Adds guideline tag back. "Exactly, and that's why you shouldn't be changing a long-standing guideline into a proposal. What's the hurry to deprecate this?"

15:01, 17 April 2007 "I don't see a precedent for having the guideline tag. Please show consensus at the talk page"

15:04, 17 April 2007 Radiant! Adds guideline tag back. [What's so special about a tag? READ THIS REVISION: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Television_episodes&diff=39838875&oldid=38560294] In which User:InShaneee wrote: A consensus was reached to accept the guidelines below. --InShaneee 05:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

15:41, 17 April 2007 Page protected

18:53, 19 April 2007 Black Falcon "given the edit summaries of the previous three edits, this guideline is disputed"

18:55, 19 April 2007 PhilKnight "Revert - clear consensus on talk page"

16:06, 20 April 2007 Black Falcon "rm ... ok, then, let's just state that it's a guideline and leave it at that"

22:34, 10 May 2007 White Cat "not a "guideline" yet (I see no agreement (something like a poll in talk). Looks more of an essay to me."

22:39, 10 May 2007 Minderbinder  "since when does every guideline have to have a poll that can be produced on demand?"

22:46, 10 May 2007 Juhachi "Is a guideline: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Television_episodes&diff=39838875&oldid=38560294"

16:53, 11 May 2007 Sceptre "+under discussion tag"

21:12, 17 May 2007 Ned Scott rm odd tag.. since when are we not discussing these things?

15:16, 8 June 2007 Gwinva "under discussion tag: let people know we're working on expanding and enforcing it"

11:37, 12 June 2007 Gwinva removed own tag

02:27, 21 December 2007 Johnleemk  "{Disputedtag}} - discussion on talk is not indicative on consensus supporting this guideline"

02:32, 21 December 2007 Ned Scott "can you actually dispute anything said here? or are you mad about our existing policies that say that articles cannot be just plot?"

03:57, 21 December 2007 Stevage

06:23, 21 December 2007 Jack Merridew "rm disputed tag as there is no relevant discussion on the talk page by this user"

06:34, 21 December 2007 Ursasapien

08:54, 21 December 2007 Catchpole "remove guideline status per talk"

09:38, 21 December 2007 Jack Merridew "talk is far from concluded and there's an ArbCom case on this at the moment; restoring 'Guideline')"

09:59, 21 December 2007 Ursasapien "(add merge tag)"

06:32, 7 January 2008 Ursasapien "redirect per WP:BURO and WP:CREEP"

11:47, 7 January 2008 Maitch (Undid revision 182686699 by Ursasapien (talk) vandal)

11:52, 7 January 2008 Ursasapien Redirect per consensus on talk page

12:09, 7 January 2008 Bignole (first, I don't see consensus (seek an Admin if you disagree) second, you don't blank guideline pages like that you keep them as historical record)

18:04, 7 January 2008 Catchpole no consensus for this guideline per talk

18:11, 7 January 2008 TNN No.

05:31, 9 January 2008 Ursasapien "Change to disambig page with link to rejected guideline"

05:40, 9 January 2008 Collectonian "(Reverted 1 edit by Ursasapien; Rv; there was NOT a clear consensus there, indeed the majority of remarks opposed. using TW"

05:59, 9 January 2008 Ursasapien "Revert to revision 183122570 dated 2008-01-09 05:31:35 by Ursasapien using popups"

06:02, 9 January 2008 Paul730 (Undid revision 183125845 by Ursasapien (talk))

00:19, 12 January 2008 Torc2  There's no discussion about this being a policy. It isn't.

00:21, 12 January 2008 Wikipedical adds "the tag relates to guidelines too"

13:08, 13 January 2008 Pixelface " removed mention of WP:N. There appears to be no consensus that each individual episode must be notable on its own"

13:10, 13 January 2008 Pixelface "Dealing with problem articles: removed this section. this guideline is not a notability guideline"

13:22, 13 January 2008 Pixelface "Reverted 2 edits by Pixelface; Rv; do not edit without actual consensus. using TW"

20:10, 16 January 2008 Pixelface "adding merge tag"

22:09, 16 January 2008 Ckatz "Reverted good faith edits by Pixelface; Removing merge tag until discussion on talk page is complete - see appropriate section for details."

12:59, 6 July 2008 Sceptre  "RM; no consensus, talk has been dead for six weeks"

12:13, 9 August 2008 Colonel Warden "Section on scope to clarify the meaning of episode"

15:12, 9 August 2008 Collectonian "Undid revision 230797528 by Colonel Warden (talk) rv; no consensus for that addition and self-serving edit)"

23:19, 14 December 2008 Pixelface "added demote tag, see talk"

00:26, 5 January 2009 Kim Bruning "Since there's clearly no consensus on this, it's not a guideline. see talk"

00:32, 5 January 2009 Bignole "Undid revision 261994700 by Kim Bruning (talk) there was no consensus to demote, which means it stays where it is)"

00:37, 5 January 2009 Bignole "(there was no consensus for change in any direction, so it reverts back to its original state. The only clear idea from that discussion was that we can dismantle if FICT becomes official)" {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" !align="left" width="700"|
 * }

Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Television episodes

 * 38 editors commented, for a total of 150 edits. Between the 20th of December and the 8th of January, 18 days.
 * 38 editors commented, for a total of 150 edits. Between the 20th of December and the 8th of January, 18 days.

23 editors opposed, 13 supported the proposition, 3 editors I am uncertain of their position

By an almost 2 to 1 margin editors opposed this proposition.

Why did the closing editor close it accepted?

Although only 13 editors opposed, they were responsible for 76 of the 150 edits. The two largest edits to the page was two supporters, Ned (36) and Bignole (13).


 * }

Guideline: Notability (books)
46 editors contributed on the talk page, 28 editors on the main page, before radiant tagged as guideline in February 2006.

PROPOSED: Notability (fiction)
34 editors have edited page 342 times since November XX, before this date, there had been no activity since XX XX

Of the 34 editors:
 * 9 of these editors only added a single, one time edit,
 * 4 editors had only two edits.
 * 10 editors had 3 to 7 edits.
 * 5 editors had 10 to 14 edits.
 * Only 6 editors had 22 to 51 edits, a majority of 63.45 % of the edits

Combining those 11 editors with 10 to 51 edits, those editors were responsible for 80.11% of the edits.

Full Edit history of talk page
Edits on the talk page since 17 November 2008, (17 November 2008 is when activity started to pick up significantly (number of edits does not reflect the 28 acts of vandalism, and repair on January 14, and two on 8 December 2008)).

Full Graph

Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
Page created on 19:35, 6 August 2006 with section: What about article x? by Daduzi.

WP:OTHERSTUFF
10:44, 18 December 2006 JzG (coins?) the "crap articles exist" term, adding the term for the first time to the page.

07:20, 26 January 2007 Othercrapexists redirect created.

03:35, 7 September 2007 OTHERCRAPEXISTS redirect created.

Other stuff exists

 * 22:07, 19 December 2007 Now banned user VigilancePrime creates new fork article.

From User:Jorge Stolfi
Found here:

When the unreferenced tag was developed, straw poll was held *among the editors who had designed it* about where it should be placed. There were about 30 votes cast (out of a universe of perhaps 10,000 regular editors). These comprised 9 votes for for "top of article page", 10 votes for "bottom of article page", and 13 votes for "talk page". Needless to say, the obvious fourth alternative "nowhere" was not even in the ballot.

So, if that tag is now showing at the top of hundred of thousands of articles, it is because nine editors wanted it there, twenty-three did *not* want it there, and 9,970 editors did not have a chance to give their opinion.

A similar story applies to the Notability guidelines. I found a straw poll in the Notability talk page about a dozen or so specific questions. The questions were all in jargon (like "PROD" in this RfC) which I was unable to decipher, so presumably only the people who had been involved in the writing of the guidelines voted. There were less than 200 votes, and some of the items in the ballot passed with a tight majority — that is, less than 1% of the pool of active editors. Unfortunately I could not determine whether the final declared "consensus" honored these votes, or — as in the case of the tag — the minority opinion prevailedanyway.