en:wp has a vast collective of policies, guidelines and essays to navigate. Where once we had a philosophy "if the rule get in the way of making an enncyclopedia ignore the rules" now with so much of what we do the rules have become absolute. Acknwoledging BLLP, COI, and copyright need to be absolute. When new people come along we have expectations that these people can research, write, and produce content as post grad level from day, if they create a new article its expected to ready for at least a GA rating if not FA. we have so many processes that our precious volunteer resources are stretched thin which leaves us with small groups of contributors focused on discussion in isolation, that creates the power imbalance. 1. Articles for deletion 2. templates for deletions 3. files for deletions 4. categories for deletions 5. redirect for deletions 6. miscellany for deletions 7. speedy 8. prod each with their own process and rules, each with their tiny own group regulars responding to every request and doing the process gnome work. While it may make for bigger maintance pages the reality is these 8 processes can defined into two areas, - Content - Articles - Files - Speedy - prod - internal / administrative functionality - templates - categories - redirects - miscellany We then have deletion review, which also divided and into smaller parts depending on the deletion discussion process it went through. At the time dividing process because they were too big sounded like a good idea, the reality was what we did was also divide resources and create virtual fiefdoms. When you add into the deletion mix New page patrol with its various tools and Articles for creation each with their own processes its no wonder so many potential new contributors cant get their head around how we work. This isnt limited to deletion, it happens with everything Admin, Vandalism, renames, disputes, and everything else we do. We've made RFA a big deal once admins got the tools if on the balance of things they likely to work towards the benefit of the community, now if they are required to have a lifetime of experience, the personality of a saint, and perfection of master craftsman before they even get nominated at which the community tears there contributions apart word by word looking for the faintest reason to oppose, in the process veiled abuse and innuendo is accepted, praised, and speaker raised to the status of a god. In reality all we need to see is positive contributions, and a fair tone when participating in consensus building. We frown upon external discussions about policies and process, like the current Strategic direction discussions taking place maybe its time that the WMF do a similar process talking to as many people as possible , bring back to the community a way forward that not only refines our bureaucracy but also ensures that the Wikipedia communities out lasts the 25 year Strategic plan On 24 March 2018 at 09:27, Pine W &lt;wiki.pine(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here <https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8> .