When solving a dispute quotation of wikimedia pages, the respective established policies and guidelines are key to achieve consensus. In fact, such pages constitute consensus previouly taken in realted matters.
Few people acknowledge this, but consensus is actually an agreement on how to better approach consistency with Wikipedia's basic policies, principles and guidelines (WP:CON). Consensus is often confused with voting or determining the supermajority point of view. That couldn’t be more inaccurate: Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy!
When people discuss seem to forget in wikipedia voting is evil: editors take discussions as voting with virtually almost every single topic brought to a talk page. Hell, even I used to think so. Even some excellent admins have failed to spot this policy and mistakenly pointed to me consensus beats guides (which being myself the perfect idiot that I am, led me to stand against that and gain some banning, but nevermind).
I agree with every single point on the policies and guidelines, however, quoting them is very hard. And, lets face it, when somebody show WP:THIS in your face, it’s kinda obnoxious. The person using the WP:SOME-GUIDELINE card is always talking about one of the several guidelines included in the link. Nobody wants to read or scan all that in order to spot a line or two, which sometimes you could confuse with another one.
My proposal to you and any interested administrator is to start a WikiProject to propose a nomenclature system to catalogue the guidelines and policies. “Please, observe WP:CIVIL#S2 or you could get blocked”, “this article goes against WP:SUM#AA” or “we could use WP:BOX#33” would be much more helpful and specific than “please read WP:CIVIL” or “rv as per WP:NOT”. Each link would direct the user to the specific line pointing the guideline or expected behavior.
It would also be useful the other way around. Instead of copypasting the specific quote, the editors would only have to type the page (WP:PAGE) + something like # + nomenclature number (NN).
Another possible advantage is the possibility to make warning tags for the specific violation. That would eliminate the annoying mistaken warnings from inexperienced newcomers confusing terms like vandalism.
The problem would not by any means, impose the codification, replace or modify the current guidelines. I think that’d lead to failure and not being accepted. My idea is to design, propose and invite to design and propose the system to each policy article. Modifying the words chosen in these articles as less as possible. It should look like a list of quotes.
I developed the this first rough sketch of my Nomenclature/Code idea with genuine good faith interest in helping wikipedia and prevent situations like mine to happen over and over again and wipe ignorance of the wikipedia customs as much as possible. But I know my ideas could have flaws and are not perfect.
Once again, I remind you all that this I'm mostly pointong towards the problem and roughly proposing a solution. If you have a better Concept or idea of solution, or some modifications to my original concept you are all more than welcomed to propose it.
As I'm writing this, I do ignore if there is already a consensus, policy or guideline against the codification of the guidelines and policies. Thank you all for you time. --201 23:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The codes may be difficult to remember. It may be good to supplement them with more redirects, such as en:WP:CCC ---Hillgentleman | 書 |2007年03月01日( Thu ), 20:00:07