Forum:Temporary forums/T:BOUND Reform

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Temporary forums/T:BOUND Reform

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

Opening Post

So for quite some time it has been the semiofficial stance of this wiki that T:BOUND implies some additional policy, something vaguely related to people "being bound by the way we currently do things". This informal broadening of the policy has never been precisely fleshed out, but has been alluded to quite a few times in admin decisions, including those that have had substantial discussion on the very nature of "community consensus" or T:BOUND itself. See, for instance, User talk:Shambala108#Community consensus and Talk:Hugh Grant.

It's been suggested in the past that our rules can be difficult for new users to learn, and this is certainly the case. But having a rule that simply isn't written down and only exists due to self justification, the ultimate bootstrap paradox of a rule, makes this situation even more frustrating for new editors. It's important that we codify this policy formally into our rules in order to make things more accessible for new users. As stated at Tardis talk:You are bound by current policy, it's not immediately obvious that a forum thread is needed for this, but I think it's reasonable to have one in order to hammer out the precise wording.

Two years ago it was stated that

it makes sense to have a policy that says "even if the current setup isn't codified by a specific policy, you shouldn't, on a whim, try and implement a change that would have ramifications on thousands of pages without starting a discussion".

And I think this is the correct approach to take. In the main body of the rule, that is the section with three paragraphs, I suggest that we add a fourth, between what is currently the second and third paragraphs. The current wording I'm floating is the following:

As a corollary, "policy" doesn't just apply to those decisions that have been officially enshrined through discussion, but also refers to operating procedures that apply to multiple pages over large periods of time with the express knowledge of admins, even if these procedures technically contradict the results of a previous forum decision. Do not make large scale changes to the wiki without opening a discussion about these changes first.

But obviously the purpose of this thread is to workshop the wording. With that said, given the nuances of the issue, I would like to bring up another option. Separating this policy from T:BOUND entirely. I'm not sure this is the right path forward, and historically it's not what we've done. But it's certainly an option I think we should consider in this thread. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Najawin (talk • contribs) .

Discussion

I support this policy change, but am unsure whether I'd prefer it to be its own policy or just a clarification on T:BOUND. Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ 17:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This one seems very simple to me, we're not changing policy we're just... writing it down. OS25🤙☎️ 17:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I mean, fair point, although I'd argue it's only policy if it's written down. Otherwise it's practice. But that's just semantics Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ 17:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I support this proposal to the fullest. Especially because we not so long ago did have major changes done to a large portion of the wiki that went through without discussion. These changes were luckily undone. (I will not go into further detail as it is past tense now and the user in question (who will remain nameless) seem to have learned their lesson; those who know, will know). Also, we need policy written down. The wiki's editors shouldn’t be expected to just follow some unwritten word of mouth. This isn’t "common sense of life". Danniesen ☎ 17:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I support this. I agree Danniesen about needed policy needing to be written down. Time God Eon ☎ 19:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Great proposal and great proposed wording. As I mentioned at Tardis talk:You are bound by current policy, I think this could have been added by an admin without a requisite forum thread, like how T:MERGE was created by summarizing existing practice – but come to think of it, that conversion of existing practice into policy is exactly what this proposal is all about! It's good that this forum thread will enshrine that practice and pave the way for admins to freely encode precedent as policy in the future. – n8 (☎) 00:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess the issue is that changing T:BOUND without consensus is a violation of... T:BOUND... and specifically the part we're trying to add. So adding this rule without a discussion would ironically be a violation of the rule itself. OS25🤙☎️ 03:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, sort of. I wouldn't say the creation of T:MERGE violated T:BOUND, but the action assumed the universally-understood "precedent as policy" approach which this thread will codify. – n8 (☎) 12:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that I am definitely against admins creating policy pages without forum discussion. Cousin Ettolrahc ☎ 16:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

While in general it's best practice for them to do so, they're not required, as per T:WRITE POLICY. Though the exceptions are usually supposed to be for more technical issues. Najawin ☎ 19:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with creating a policy page to describe current practice, as long as the admin doesn't use it to try to change the existing practice in any way. – n8 (☎) 20:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Coming back to this, I'm not entirely sure how okay I am with granting the ability of saying "That's not current practice" to shut something down. For example, pages like Eleventh Doctor's adventures with Alice Obiefune are not "current practice" by a certain definition, although this clearly isn't what the thread intends to codify. For fear of future abuse of this rule by future admins, I think we should phrase this as "don't contradict current practice" rather than "don't go outside current practice. This may seem painfully obvious and/or pedantic, but I just want to make sure this is how it I codified so as to prevent any possible future exploitative, however unlikely. Cousin Ettolrahc ☎ 15:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're explicitly not allowed to create that page under current policy, as it's neither an in-universe noun nor an out of universe discrete entity. Even if not, I'd say it's clearly a violation of T:BOUND, yes. I don't really see how such a page is even a question in the main namespace, there was a pretty heavy removal of "arc related" content a while back, as well as the discussion at Talk:Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration, so it should be clumped at their biographies and probably nowhere else in that density. It belongs in Theory or something. But even in the worst case scenario we have T:CHANGE. I mean, maybe another editor will disagree with me. (Modulo the usage of that talk page, which is somewhat controversial and I myself am not thrilled with how it was handled.) But that page seems to be very much the sort of thing that's disallowed either explicitly or implicitly under current policy. Najawin ☎ 18:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hold up now, I don't know how you interpreted my closure there, but I certainly did not preclude the creation of further "event" pages. The ruling specifically concerned the issue of two event pages describing essentially the same event, or at any rate events where one was at the very core of the other. Perhaps there is some other policy reason I'm not aware of by which Eleventh Doctor's adventures with Alice Obiefune would be inappropriate, but that decision is not it. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 18:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Not the closure, the discussion prior. I am very much aware that you didn't do that, hence why I haven't brought it up on all the new regeneration pages that have been popping up. But I do think the discussion prior to that establishes relatively sound reasoning to prevent needlessly repeating information. It's not sufficient on its own, certainly, since events in general are still kosher, which is why "arc" content is relevant. I'd have no concern on pages related to specific events in their adventures. But a blanket page discussing this I think is very much against current policy. Najawin ☎ 18:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It reminds me a fair bit of User Talk: General MGD 109/Powerful and godlike beings and races tbh. (Which was rejected.) It strays too much into other areas of the wiki, category or theory/timeline and is somewhat vague in how you can apply the terms. Najawin ☎ 18:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

OTOH, see the longstanding precedent of pages for notable periods of the Doctor's life, like Exile on Earth. – n8 (☎) 19:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Ettolrahc, that's a great point, which I think the other repliers have missed by fixating on your specific example rather than the question which you were using it to illustrate. "Current practice" and "precedent" are weaselly enough concepts that any new page could be objected to with the logic that "Current practice and precedent has been to not have a page at that name." The admin closing statement to this thread will hopefully draw some line between these two types of precedent (one might call them "active" vs "passive"). – n8 (☎) 19:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Najawin - I was totally unaware of any ruling agaisnt arc related IU pages, but if Eleventh Doctor's adventures with Alice Obiefune is actually agaisnt current practice/policy/whatever, I will definitely propose to amend that. n8 - thank you. Yes, you've outlined my concern perfectly, and I do trust our current admins to incorporate this into the closing post and subsequent T:BOUND update. Cousin Ettolrahc ☎ 21:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with updating T:BOUND with this. That's all I really have to say about the above, but...

I also want to note that T:BOUND is sometimes conflated with the closely-linked T:POINT, but this proposal fits neatly into the former, which is about policies in the context of being discussed. (I don't intend on expanding on T:POINT any more here but it might make a good discussion another time; I've been contemplating the differences with how things are done here and Wikipedia, inherent or not, and if anyone else is interested, Wikipedia:The rules are principles and the pages it links make good food for thought...) Chubby Potato ☎ 09:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Conclusion

Okay. A fairly straightforward closure here, as befits a change to policy that is, as was mentioned multiple times, sort of an application of itself: this has already been current practice for a while! It's just a matter of officialising it! As per broad consensus, some close variant of the wording proposed in the OP by User:Najawin will be implemented.

I also find myself somewhat sympathetic to User:Cousin Ettolrhc's concern that we “should phrase this as "don't contradict current practice" rather than "don't go outside current practice"”; this could of course be taken too far, but editorial paralysis is a concern, especially so long as we remain locked into the current T:TF system with only six available Forum slots at a time and a heavy backlog. As such, some clarifying language will be added to these modifications to T:BOUND, noting that the Wikipedian concept of "Be bold" does also have some sway. It is hard and probably counterproductive to articulate specific standards; editors should simply be aware of both policies and try and make an informed choice on a case-by-case basis, with the guiding light of constructive edits (e.g. introducing a new class of pages) being more likely to pass than disruptive edits (e.g. removing or renaming a broad class of preexisting pages).

This should not, however, be construed as endorsement of pages of the specific type Ettolrhc mentioned as an example, e.g. Eleventh Doctor's adventures with Alice Obiefune. Importantly, I don't think they're against policy for the reason suggested by User:Najawin. The past rulings to which he refer were largely about categorisation based on a perceived, real-world notion of "arcs". There is nothing subjective about the idea of an "event" page for such a period of the Doctor's life; its beginning and end are not inherently ambiguous in the same sense that "is XYZ TV story part of 'the Four Knocks Arc'" was ambiguous.

However, the thing about this proposal is that it seems to me to be redundant with the recent ruling authorising full treatment of recurring characters' biographical data at subpages such as Eleventh Doctor/Biography. At best, the suggested page-name could be a redirect to the relevant subsection of that page. It seems prima facie that the separage page would have the exact same contents as the question in section, in the same amount of detail, which would make the separate page redundant and thus make it fall under the vague precedent of Talk:Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration. There may be some subtleties that elude me, but I think the concern is great enough that this does fall under the risk of being "disruptive" if none else, and would thus need a community discussion to talk things out before any action was taken.

As always, thanks to everyone who participated! Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 19:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)