Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Policy matters
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Radiant remarks
Warning: blunt honesty ahead. With a newbie's policy proposal I'd be happy to make a lengthy argument wrapped in soft remarks, but if this is to be a serious project about reworking policy, we need to cut to the bone. If you disagree with what I just said, ignore the rest of what I'm going to say.
- Propose reorganising WP:AN, eg by topic or function
- That's already being done on the AN talk page.
- Propose WP:AN/User sanction review - some kind of more organised way of reviewing user sanctions, without getting distracted by other issues on WP:ANI or necessarily going through the formalities of WP:RFC or WP:RFAR. In particular for dealing more systematically with controversial blocks. Possibly protected, so that discussions are amongst admins only.
- Such a board already exists and is barely ever used, mainly because the people subjected to sanctions go to ANI to get more attention. Circular reasoning, I know, but them's the works. Suggested split among "AN/del", "AN/block" etc is probably more useful.
- Suggest ways to improve/streamline procedure
- Always good but rather vague.
- Suggest constructive ways to modify/clarify policy
- Okay. Most policy should not be modified except after discussion (unlike it is now) and every single policy or guideline page should be rewritten to cut the cruft, clarify, and make it match what we're actually doing. Yes, that's ambitious.
- Such as giving policy version numbers, and requiring non-trivial changes to be discussed first, and if accepted to lead to an appropriate change in version number
- Version numbers = instruction creep. Other than that, good idea.
- Such as explicitly collecting precedents for guidance on interpretation of policy
- Sounds reasonable.
- Such as clarifying the distinction between essays, guidelines, policies and founding principles.
- Essays are entirely irrelevant. The distinction between the other three is intentionally vague. Founding principles are simply immutable policies.
- Such as reducing instruction creep and pointlessly duplicated guidelines.
- Yes, please. Merge all guidelines on the same topic.
- Such as trying to maintain a harmony between the policy on the books and the facts on the ground, sometimes by codifying existing practice.
- Good idea.
- Ask ArbCom candidates to comment
- Why? They're not a legislative body.
- Find ways to establish the same relationship between Jimbo and the community as exists on non-English Wikipedias: i.e. Jimbo leaves them to get on with it, and users don't bother him with the mundane and the trivial. The community needs his input above all on major policy issues and on the general Future of Wikipedia. Jimbo doesn't need quite all of this crap (User talk:Jimbo Wales) distracting him from the bigger/more important issues.
- Users will likely keep bothering him with the mundane and trivial, but he doesn't generally seem to respond to that (nor should he). Of course he also tends to ignore non-mundane non-trivial business. I haven't seen him involved in any major policy issues, except for those he imposes directly upon the community without discussion. This is a weird situation (kind of like management) but I don't see how it could be different.
- Perhaps develop an Admin Code of Good Practice and/or a Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights (the latter might be accepted if balanced by a Wikipedia:User Responsibilities).
- Not the UBOR again. That was a particularly badly written piece of irrational legalism and instruction creep.
- Propose Wikipedia:Admin policy forum - a place for admins to discuss small policy revisions/clarifications (as an intermediate between a major Proposal with its own page, and somebody deciding to amend policy of their own bat)
- Would be nice but not gonna happen.
- Transpose m:CheckUser Policy to en:Wikipedia (and possibly clarify circumstances when/how used)
- That's easy.
- Wikipedia:Limited administrators
- More instruction creep. Adminship is no big deal. Instead, create a workable way to deadmin.
- Use approach of Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions more widely (for non-Arbcom sanctions)
- I don't understand that.
- Okay, sorry if that was rather harsh, but I'm not too fond of being overly formal, and this project seems to be angling in that direction. With the WP:AAP, we know a bit of what the community wants. In particular, we need to (1) convince the ArbCom to take criticism of admins seriously, instead of rejecting it out of hand; (2) RFC needs to be redone to be actually constructive, and needs some way to impose sanctions; and (3) RFA apparently needs rework, but Alex is already on that. Radiant_>|< 18:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for those remarks. Two comments (I don't have much time): (a) you're critiquing the list of ideas as of each of them were meant to be implemented; but they were meant more as an initial brainstorm. (b) I agree with much of what you say, but I feel the form you've chosen isn't very helpful - it's a shopping list. Individual ideas that we want to discuss/critique/propose seriously need to be given the space to breathe - eg sections, sub-pages, whatever. These ideas may be problems, analyses, abstract solutions, specific proposals, whatever: but they need to be organised in some way. PS, I apologise for starting this wikiproject just before going on a break - but I hope others may be able to take it forward in the mean time. Rd232 talk 19:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- That sounds good, we can create new sections to discuss whatever we want at length. The reason I disapprove of version numbers is that it may lead to people saying "according to version 3.5 of the blocking policy, that wasn't allowed!" - "oh, but I was using version 3.61" - "oh, okay then". Radiant_>|< 20:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Is this project still alive?
After seeing a rather drawn-out, multipage edit war and talk-page fight on regional spelling variants (I was led to it through a user-conduct RfC), I decided the best way to approach a solution would be to invite all sides to join a new wikiproject. This project seems an obvious parent, but is it active? SB Johnny 10:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
