Requests for Comment/Use of Wikipedia policy on Miraheze


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Both proposals have failed to reach a majority in support and are therefore unsuccessful. Perhaps a discussion on the Community portal will be more fruitful in delivering consensus on this topic. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 01:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Right now, there is a convention of using Wikipedia policy (specifically, English Wikipedia policy) to justify actions on Miraheze. This was primarily an issue up until August of 2022 and has slowly been dying, but it is a good idea to establish a precedent going forward. Naleksuh (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Use Wikipedia policies
Proposed addition: Many Wikipedia users are also Miraheze users, and the project operates in a similar way, and often shares ideas. Therefore, in a similar manner to the Simple English Wikipedia, any English Wikipedia policy/guideline also applies on Miraheze, unless there is a Miraheze policy which contradicts it. Naleksuh (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Wikipedia policies can be seen as a supplement to Miraheze policies, clarifying vague areas that aren't covered by Miraheze policies. Tali64³ (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) I think this RfC presents a false dilemma: use or don't use. My belief is that Meta should have its own policies and conventions but given the fact that we're a smaller project it can sometimes be useful to refer to some common-sense Wikipedia policies. No I don't think we should "use" them and treat them as if they were our own, but I think it's perfectly fair to mention them if they make sense in our context. I support the status quo rather than the way this proposal is phrased. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I share a very similar view. Thank you, you've found a much better way to put it than I did. Collei (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) see my comment in proposal 2 (I oppose all of these "changes" right now). Collei (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) per above
 * 3)  Per our own official guidance, there is already a standard for how WP policy/essays should and should not be used and I see that guidance as sufficient.  If there are impactful decisions or actions being made solely by reasoning of WP essays alone, those decisions should be appealed through the proper channels. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 20:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  per NotAracham - CabraComunista (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 5)  since I think it's cleaner for communities to develop rules as needed rather than copying them. Pppery (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) The status quo is currently fine. This does not seem to be an issue that multiple users have raised concerns with. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  As it has been already said by others I do not subscribe to the view that these two proposals are the only options. Just because the proposer does not like the status quo that does not mean we should not be given the option to preserve it and be forced to adopt either one of these two proposals as the proposer would have us do. I do not have concerns about the status quo and wish to preserve it. I would create a Proposal 3 for this but I think the comments are sufficient to demonstrate support for keeping the status quo.  --DeeM28 (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) I'd like to be a little neutral on this policy. Best Regards,  Hey Türkiye  Message? 11:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  per DeeM28 and Reception123. --Átkýv L. (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Don't use Wikipedia policies
Proposed addition: Miraheze is not Wikipedia, is not associated with Wikipedia, and operates differently in multiple ways. While users may propose Miraheze policies that are also used on Wikipedia, Wikipedia or other wiki policies do not apply to Miraheze, and it is not allowed to warn or block a user based on a policy or guideline that only exists on Wikipedia. Naleksuh (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not the same as how things are now, as currently while policies do not officially apply, they have been used (cited like essays) and advanced tools have been used based on pages only on Wikipedia. This proposed policy would not allow that to happen. Naleksuh (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) see my comment in response to Nale, in the Neutral section. Collei (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) per above
 * 3)  Per my comment in Proposal 2, I don't think a ban on citing Wikipedia policies is necessary. Users should be allowed to cite common sense policies and essays where we lack our own. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  Per our own official guidance, there is already a standard for how WP policy/essays should and should not be used and I see that guidance as sufficient.  If there are impactful decisions or actions being made solely by reasoning of WP essays alone, those decisions should be appealed through the proper channels. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 20:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 5)  I do not think this is necessary and it is useful to be able to invoke Wikipedia policies as guidance where Miraheze lacks such policies. I agree they should not be invoked as official but invoking them and their arguments can be beneficial in some circumstances. This is in my view the status quo and it should remain like this in my opinion. --DeeM28 (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 6)  Wikipedia policies can be used when necessary, so I object. Best regards,  Hey Türkiye  Message? 11:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 7)  per NotAracham - CabraComunista (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 8)  The first sentence (Proposed addition: Miraheze is not Wikipedia, is not associated with Wikipedia, and operates differently in multiple ways is true. The remaining sentences do not follow from the first one, and instead try to set a black-and-white standard where there is no agreement one is needed in the first place. Pppery (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) The current status quo is fine. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you believe the current status quo is? As far as I know, there isn't one. That's what the purpose of this RfC is. Naleksuh (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia Foundation is the current status quo, the one that's been explained to you before. Wikipedia essays and policies, currently, are just as much of a policy as anything you'd find in Category:Essays. They're going to be "enforced" if people agree with them. We don't need to make such a black-and-white decision out of this. Collei (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really count as any type of "explanation" though. In that situation, the OWNTALK, EDITWAR, and INVOLVED policies were all violated, an RfC to contradict the first one was made and that RfC failed. So I think that link only goes against the point you're trying to make. In addition, this problem has been discussed before Requests_for_Stewardship, so don't act like it doesn't exist. Naleksuh (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, let's not argue about whether or not it was an explanation. Wikimedia Foundation is still relevant. Collei (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.