WikiIndex talk:Prohibited content: Difference between revisions

From WikiIndex
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
(→‎Policy drafting: new section)
Line 10: Line 10:
::::Sure. If. Not allowed to stand. Q.E.D. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Sure. If. Not allowed to stand. Q.E.D. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::So basically, it can be harder to promulgate a written policy than to impose the practices that create a de facto policy. Any user can revert a change to a policy page, but only a sysop can take the sysop actions that policies reflect. So we have a situation in which there are unwritten rules that don't give users fair warning of what to expect. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 18:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::So basically, it can be harder to promulgate a written policy than to impose the practices that create a de facto policy. Any user can revert a change to a policy page, but only a sysop can take the sysop actions that policies reflect. So we have a situation in which there are unwritten rules that don't give users fair warning of what to expect. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 18:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
== Policy drafting ==
This policy will need improvement before it could be considered.  While I like the idea of barring sicko material and self spam, the draft has been written in a stilted manner by L to indicate how ridiculous he thinks it is.  [[Special:Contributions/173.255.192.138|173.255.192.138]] 18:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:46, 5 January 2015

Proposal = bad idea. The proposal is trolling. Several of Leucosticte's wikis were deleted, I think inappropriately. This proposal is one of his standard moves. I.e., instead of actually negotiating, argue and debate. Propose something extreme in an attempt to win an argument.

I removed the policy template to make this a proposed policy. It would need a lot of change to be appropriate. --Abd (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It's descriptive, not prescriptive, of WikiIndex practice. Can you provide any evidence that this is not the current practice? Leucosticte (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict with above). Leucosticte reverted my removal of the policy template. Actually, he trained me on Wikipedia, I'm a student of WP:DGAF. DGAF allows me to implement WP:IAR, and I've done it with high success. Wikis are fun, if we don't care. If we care, well, that can get difficult
Needless to say, I reverted. It's not a policy because I Say It's Not, and the community will overrule me if it chooses. I trust communities, even when I don't.
Not worth providing proof. Waste of time. No documentation was provided of so-called "actual practice," a couple of deletions by a single administrator does not establish actual practice. --Abd (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
If they're advertised on the central community forum and allowed to stand, that pretty much establishes consensus. Leucosticte (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure. If. Not allowed to stand. Q.E.D. --Abd (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
So basically, it can be harder to promulgate a written policy than to impose the practices that create a de facto policy. Any user can revert a change to a policy page, but only a sysop can take the sysop actions that policies reflect. So we have a situation in which there are unwritten rules that don't give users fair warning of what to expect. Leucosticte (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Policy drafting

This policy will need improvement before it could be considered. While I like the idea of barring sicko material and self spam, the draft has been written in a stilted manner by L to indicate how ridiculous he thinks it is. 173.255.192.138 18:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)