Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Policies and Guidelines

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: speedy keep. WP:SK#1, no rationale for deletion actually given. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Policies and Guidelines

Previous discussion (2011)

This project was reactivated by Voorts on 4 October 2025. Its stated objective is rewrite our policies and guidelines, purportedly to 'simplify' them. Its members are currently plotting numerous changes to Wikipedia policies and guidelines on the project's talk page, indeed, in some cases they are making these changes without gaining explicit consensus to do so. This concept is, in and of itself, incredibly dangerous. Small cliques of editors should not be able to form an activist project to systematically change our policies and guidelines, per WP:CONLEVEL. This is reminiscent of Esperanza, and also WikiProject Conservatism, back when it was run by Lionelt, who proclaimed the project's objective as 'countering liberal bias'. Both Esperanza and Wikiproject Conservatism were forced to cease such activities, as the community was not able to abide their potential to subvert consensus across the encyclopaedia. In fact, the Policies and Guidelines project too was originally wound up precisely because the community believed that small groups of editors should not attempt to dictate policy and guidelines, per WP:CONLEVEL. I fear that history is repeating itself, probably because most editors that remember this past have vanished with the times.

As of now, members of this project are going around removing the guideline tag from various pages without discussion. Voorts has demonstrated gatekeeping behaviour, attempting to block new policy and guidelines proposals that do not pass through the project's idea of the correct process. Project members seem to want retroactively use procedural reasons to invalidate long-standing guidelines pages, in contravention of WP:NOTBURO, and without consulting editors in the relevant topic area. A good example is the attempt to change the status of Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions.

I have opened this MfD to determine how the community feels about the revival of this project. It is my opinion that it should be marked historical and closed down, for the same reasons that it originally became defunct. If editors want to 'simplify' our policies and guidelines, they should do so by holding discussions in the usual public spaces, not in Wikiproject backrooms. Wikiprojects should never, ever serve as a home for activism, especially where our policies and guidelines are concerned. This essential principle, which has held for as long as I have participated in this project, should not be abandoned now. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See ANI thread. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the ongoing personal battle - as I mentioned here at the WikiProject Council "just be aware there's going to be some pushback". Best we have a talk - as I'm sure you're aware was forthcoming. Perhaps you can outline the merits of the project and how it would involve the wider community be the intended changes substantial or not. As in is there intent to hold RFCs - notifying The village pump and talk page with post leading to these discussions? (Perhaps this is what project is already doing?). Either way I'm just glad to see that there is a group of editors looking to improve the back side of Wikipedia in this regard.... Let's just go about it the way the community thinks is best. I believe a discussion holds merit regardless of who's involved and if there's currently disagreements between a few editors. Moxy🍁 00:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy, I wonder if you would dig up a few diffs, as the history you related a couple of weeks ago is a little garbled. For example, you wrote "the reason the project was stop was the community felt and created the village pump proposals", but Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) was created in 2004, and the WikiProject didn't even exist then (it was created in 2006, and active for about five years), so there's no way that the group could have been stopped because of the creation of VPPR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Or maybe you were thinking about Wikipedia:Esperanza, which is an unrelated group that was shut down in 2007?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that wording was a bit off (it's one of the problems I have). I should have said it never really got off the ground because of the communities decision on where to have these conversations prior. Moxy🍁 01:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy, this is clearly retaliatory. If RGloucester wanted to know my or any other editors' intentions, they could have asked (as I invited them or anyone else to do at the first instance of "gatekeeping" they cited) instead of starting this MFD in which they cast aspersions against myself, WAID (for making bold edits that she thought was supported by consensus; RGloucster also omitted that after they reverted those edits, WAID started RFCs to seek consensus), and Femke (who, per RGloucester's own link, opened an RFC at VPP, which is the opposite of what a "backroom" cabal would do). To answer your question about my intentions, as I explained at WikiProject Council, my intent has always been that any suggestions from WP:PAG go to the community for consensus via an RFC. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shameless plug: Join us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Ireland Category Norms#RFC on moving or removing this guideline! WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

voorts - there was going to be pushback....yes this may seem and look retaliatory, but it doesn't change the fact that this was bound to happen regardless of reasoning. Best deal with this now and all can move on. As for Wikiprojects having their project pages marked as guidelines as we do with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles I would have no problem with calling these project advice pages because they should reflect the wider MoS with simple regional variations and should not conflict with other guidelines. (Old timers point of view) Moxy🍁 01:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn't change the fact that this was bound to happen regardless of reasoning: I don't think that's true. I would hope that editors would AGF and at least try to talk with the WikiProject before opening a community-wide discussion to shut it down, but here we are. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - right to deletion seems a bit harsh.... The village pump would have been a more appropriate venue. But claiming there's no merit at all when this has been pointed out to you before doesn't look good. Moxy🍁 01:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I AGF constantly with article editing. AGF'ing with a PAG-changing project launched without wide community support beforehand is a stretch. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 01:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that there are some misunderstandings about how the group does/will have to operate. Wikipedia:A WikiProject is a group of people, and groups of people are welcome to talk about what they think would be best. Any actual WP:PROPOSAL will have to happen elsewhere. But that thing about a {{WikiProject advice page}} getting marked as a {{guideline}} without a proper WP:PROPOSAL and staying in the WikiProject's "namespace" in violation of the WP:PROJPAGE guideline is just an ordinary problem that has to be solved through ordinary means. If you want those pages to be site-wide guidelines, then you need to move them out of the small groups' space. WikiProjects don't get to WP:OWN a {{guideline}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PAGs need to be simplified, they're a massive barrier to new editors. It'd be best if the project sought broad agreement from the community on that point, partly to counter this conspiratorial dysfunction. Kowal2701 (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kowal2701: Please read the above and the talk page of the project. That has always been the intention of this project. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

voorts, AFAICT its individual proposals that go to community. Has there been a community discussion on whether PAGs are too complicated/should be simplified? Kowal2701 (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kowal2701: I'm fairly certain that it's widely accepted that our PAGs are way too long and complicated, particularly for new editors, as you've pointed out. I don't think we need a discussion to confirm that point. Assuming we did, editors with that opinion are entitled to work together as part of a WikiProject to advance that position to the community. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that the only conspiratorial dysfunction that I've seen thus far is from a single editor who seems to have it out for me for reasons I can't really discern. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about testing the view that it's widely accepted that PAGs are way too long and complicated (my personal view is this is true in some areas but not everywhere and that organization/searchability of the material is a bigger issue than the volume or comprehensibility). An RfC would be good for that purpose, and it could help decide what process should be used to address it. Having a WikiProject deal with it is one possible track but a better idea may come forth from that RfC. No matter the personal back-and-forth, I think it's a good idea to freeze the WikiProject until we have results from a wide community discussion about "the problem". Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 01:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voorts, agreed, but it wouldn’t hurt to get some broad support, even if in practice the discussion functioned more as an advertisement for the project. Up to you though. Obv I wasn’t around then, but the way the MOS was built seems to have repercussions to this day (sometimes come across a user page of a long-gone editor maligning it), and this is arguably more important (depending on how much you guys intend on doing) Kowal2701 (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.