Battlestar Wiki talk:Policy

Shane, what the heck is this about? "Policy Enforcement committee"? "Chairpersons"? What do you think is lacking in our current system that necessitates this draconian replacement? --April Arcus 15:13, 14 May 2006 (CDT)

just throwing my ideas out. I had to run before I could finsh the page. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 20:29, 14 May 2006 (CDT)

Can't you raise this stuff on the wikipedian quorum first? Putting it in the Battlestar Wiki namespace makes it seem like it's already been decided, and leaves the rest of us feeling out of the loop. --April Arcus 23:04, 14 May 2006 (CDT)

Honestly, I don't feel that chairpersons are really all that necessary... it just adds more felgercarb to deal with in the long run. On the other hand, since there's stuff on this page that hasn't been decided yet, it is best that you either move the current version of this page to your namespace under a subpage or bring this stuff up for discussion, as April suggests. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 08:12, 15 May 2006 (CDT)

Review

I am ready to submit this page of policy for review with the entire Wiki. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 21:03, 15 May 2006 (CDT)

The enforcement section seems unnecessary to me. We do not need a comittee to enforce our policies - all of the admin staff are familiar with them, and any user can file an RFC if an abuse has gone unremedied. The community here is very small, and in the few situations where a major dispute has come up (only two incidents come to mind), a full vote of the community has been sufficient to resolve the matter.

The centralized list of policies is useful, however, as are instructions on proposing a policy. However, I still think users should be encouraged to raise ideas on the quorum and see if there's any kind of community support before putting together a proposed policy page. --April Arcus 21:13, 15 May 2006 (CDT)

I agree with April. A committee is unnecessary for a small wiki such as ours. It only adds complication and bureaucracy where there doesn't need to be any. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 21:19, 15 May 2006 (CDT)

"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy." Even if a committee were necessary, I'm not sure if we would be able to properly staff it. Heck, we haven't been able to get a featured article for the front page yet. More formal processes might be necessary if we grow, but for the time being the peer-to-peer enforcement seems to do the job. I'd reccomend swapping out the "committee" text in the enforcement section to a short paragraph indicating that everybody enforces the policies (on everybody), and that in the event of dispute over enforcement that consensus (or Joe) rules. Mechanisms in consensus establishment might include discussion on the relevant talk pages, or an RFC if necessary. --Steelviper 08:54, 16 May 2006 (CDT)

Yeah. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 10:50, 16 May 2006 (CDT)

Reformated the page. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 07:27, 6 June 2006 (CDT)

I still don't support it. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 17:16, 25 June 2006 (CDT)

What changes do you suggest? --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 17:22, 25 June 2006 (CDT)

For starters, I do not agree with the bots or request for comment systems. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 17:32, 25 June 2006 (CDT)

The RFC system is already in place. You can Proposed it on it's talk page for removal. The bots section is a project anyway. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 17:36, 25 June 2006 (CDT)