On 9/18/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 16/09/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Quite a number of our policies were created by
consensus.
And almost all of our processes are quick hacks someone thought would
be a good idea at the time, and they're usually modified by putting
hacks on hacks on hacks, building into a rococo fractal mosaic of
prescriptions.
People see something quickly assembled out of gaffer tape and string
and assume it's an immaculate stainless steel construction of well
thought-out design. Then they follow it rigidly and unthinkingly.
My experience of managing policy suggests otherwise. You just need a
few people who are prepared to try and kill any changes to policy.
Anything that can get through that as well as any special interest
groups tends to be fairly solid.
Look at your response to Phil's posts in this
thread. You're zooming
in on utterly insignificant details as if to completely ignore the
point.
Perhaps but it was somewhat nicer than the full version.
Phil was attacking something he didn't know about. He doesn't block
vandals so he is unlikely to know what the process is thus he produced
an attack based on ignorance.
So what about other admin areas?
Deletion? other than a brief spell on the 14th not much and a total of
less than 100 a year.
going back to that spell on the 14th something odd about it. Now the
process is that you gave a reason for deletion normally something
cryptic like A8 or CSD A8 or orphan fair use. I suspect even the
"common sense" group would think that was something that should be
done. However if we look at Phil's deletion log what do we see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=50&offs…
Well perhaps it is the protection policy he is having problems with
but with only 21 protections/unprotections this year (including a
rather non standard use on [[Talk:2004 U.S. presidential election
controversy and irregularities]]) I doubt that is to big a burden.
Copyright then. Copyright is the ultimate policy/process nightmare
which in theory requires you to know and understand ~200 different
legal systems (in practice US plus the oddities of a few others is
enough most of the time and even that can be simplified by taking
images yourself). But other than a brief burst of zeal of deleting
userboxes based on what we is probably best described as an
interesting interpretation of policy I haven't seen much involvement
in that area on en (could be active on commons I don't follow that too
closely).
So that's the admin process areas out of the way.
Now one of the things process does is allow people to work together
who really don't get on. So lets see how Phil does in that area. 3
RFCs and only 1% more support than sam spade in the arbcom elations
suggest certain issues in this area. Perhaps he isn't the best
candidate for avoiding process.
There is a time for IARs as and admin but it is important to know why
the rules are and why they exist. Phil does not. That was why I
requested his resignation as an admin.
If you wish to take that approach as an editor it is useful to be very
good at getting on with people and the evidence suggests that Phil is
no Linuxbeak.
Has it ever occurred to you that the people saying "outside process"
are doing so in order to avoid have to launch direct attacks on
people's actions?
--
geni