User talk:Kotniski/rulebook

Purpose?
Hey, I'm just wondering what's wrong with WP:Policies and guidelines that requires something to replace it.--Aervanath (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there seems to be a lot of confusion (which goes right up to the top) around a whole broad area, let's call it "rules and decision making", which takes in what's currently on the policies and guidelines page, but is not limited to that. (In any case, that page seems not attract a great deal of interest or attention.) I would like to get certain things agreed and clarified, so that newcomers can understand what goes on around here, and so that we don't waste endless time on fruitless discussions. From observation, the main problems with the way things are done at the moment are something like this (although it's mainly the first one that this proposal aims to address):

This is a bit vague and you probably don't agree with all of this, but the problems are real (I can see them) and I believe that with a certain amount of effort they can be greatly reduced. This proposal is a starting point - it will only have any value if more people join in the discussion and help shape it.--Kotniski (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In most areas there is no tidy process for deciding whether consensus has been reached to do/change something - this leads to potentially interminable discussion and meta-discussion where what's needed is for a wise and neutral judge to settle the matter, preferably after dialogue with the parties.
 * In those few areas (AfD etc.) where we do have such a settlement method, an adversarial atmosphere has built up where people are encouraged to rush to judgement rather than discuss, listen and then decide. And the adjudicators often don't explain their decision - and most absurdly are actually forbidden from engaging in dialogue with the discussion participants to reach a more satisfactory and well-reasoned outcome. All this leads to unnecessary ill-feeling and personalized conflict, and bureaucracy in place of reason.
 * Although in the area of policy and guidelines it is accepted that they should describe current practice and that they should remain stable (only changing if there is consensus to change them), there is often confusion as to what is the "stable" version to go back to if there is disagreement, and who has the right to decide that current practice is different than that described in the policy. This is another grey area where some method of quick resolution would be beneficial. Generally speaking, discussion should be about trying in good faith to reach solutions that will benefit the encyclopedia. Procedural wrangles should be settled quickly but intelligently by a neutral party. At the moment they often drag on and can get out of control.
 * Actually, I do agree with just about everything you've said here: there is no clear path to deciding on new policies/guidelines/conventions. The standard procedure seems to be:

But that's just the route to ADOPTING a new proposal; the path to agreeing to changes in a standing policy is, as you said, riddled with confusion. However, I'm still not sure why the page needs to be switched out completely; why not propose changes on WT:Policies and guidelines and just edit that page directly? Is it that much of a lost cause?--Aervanath (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) vague notion
 * 2) discussion
 * 3) preliminary straw poll
 * 4) more discussion about the results of the straw poll
 * 5) finalization of the proposal
 * 6) RfC to adopt the proposal
 * Well, not everything about decision-making is directly connected to policies and guidelines, so I'd like to see a page that deals with the whole issue comprehensively. (Perhaps merging in other pages like WP:Consensus and WP:Dispute resolution.) In fact WP:Policies and guidelines has been edited and improved, thanks largely to the efforts of User:WhatamIdoing, but it seems to be a bit of a backwater that no-one pays much attention to. I would like to get more interest so that what is decided is actually put into practice. --Kotniski (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So I think I understand what you're trying to achieve here, thanks for explaining. I think that even if this page is not eventually accepted as a replacement for WP:PG, you'll have achieved your goal of raising the profile of this page just by starting the debate and drawing other editors into the inevitable RfC.  Good thinking, and good luck.--Aervanath (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)