-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Yes, but the problem is people who try to enforce these policies are referred to as 'wikilawyers' and 'process wonks' - see the recent (pre-CSD T1) userbox flamewar, where the people seeking to enforce deletion policy (ie that there was no policy allowing speedying of userboxes) were treated as trolls.
I'm not seeking a reconsideration of the userbox 'issue' here (thank God/[insert alternative deity of your choice here] that's over), but it shows just how easy it is to ignore policy if you characterise those seeking to uphold policy as trolls, wikilawyers and process wonks.
Cynical
Steve Block wrote:
David Alexander Russell wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
So you basically want a group of admins with no experience in editing the article concerned to vote-stack any content disputes?
RFC generates plenty of interest, the problem is that it has no 'teeth'
- there is nothing to stop the party who 'loses' an RFC from ignoring
its conclusions.
No, I think what's being asked for is a group of people who will apply policy in a neutral way. The votes are already stacked, that's the purpose of having policy; policy is the vote stacking tool, not the group of editors. RFC provides no comment, at least not at articles I've listed on it. Actually, if I'm honest, I'm finding more and more that Wikipedia is imply broken. We've got clear guidance at [[WP:RS]] that message boards aren't acceptable sources, and yet we've got thousands of articles that are relying on just that. Either we need to rewrite our policies and have an anything goes policy, or we need to get a lot tougher in enforcing the key policies.
Steve block