Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development

Background

I've created this page so that people can express their views about the formation by eight members of the Arbitration Committee of the Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development. Those involved in voting it through were Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Rlevse, Roger Davies, and Wizardman. [1] Previous discussion here.

The advisory council describes itself as "an advisory body to the Arbitration Committee and to the community. It considers various issues facing the project and develops ideas, proposals, and recommendations for improving it; and serves as a forum for the sharing of best practices among the different areas within the project." [2]

Membership is by invitation only. It has a current membership of 18, including Kirill Lokshin and Casliber of the ArbCom. See here for the membership. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that Kirill has now resigned from both ACPD and the arbcom. The link above has the up to date list of members. the wub "?!" 18:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

My concern about this committee is that it's an example of the Arbitration Committee overreaching itself. The ArbCom is a dispute-resolution body. It does not lead Wikipedia, and I believe the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians do not want to be led by it. Indeed, one of the key points of the last ArbCom election is that voters wanted to see an end to the Committee assuming too much authority. It has the right to request advice from anyone as it sees fit, but it should be done informally. The formal creation of such a far-reaching Advisory Council needs community-wide input before being established, and its membership ought to be elected. As such, the current Council ought to be abandoned, and the matter opened up for community debate. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors endorsing this proposal

1. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Agree with SlimVirgin (no, really) – this looks like a step backwards whichever way one looks at it. If it works, it's an unaccountable, unelected Wikipedia version of the House of Lords; if it doesn't work, it's a powerless talking-shop which is going to end up syphoning off the time of some of our most productive writers. Either way, it represents a power grab by Arbcom into the field of general content guidelines, which up to now have been determined by the community, not by a Wikimedia Congress of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies. – iridescent 17:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Exactly. ArbCom is not a policy-making body and therefore has no need for a think-tank. --Philcha (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Agree with SlimVirgin. Ironholds (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Agree.—Kww(talk) 17:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Agree. Such a body should be independent and certainly Arbcom members should not be able to vote themselves into such a position. I see the time approaching when the community sets some limits on the power of the Arbcom that serves it. – Toon 17:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   Agree generally, from what I've seen (I'd say it looks more like the kind of House of Lords Labour would like than the current mix). Invite only is a huge problem. I should add I hugely respect several of those editors, though I'm surprised by one, and I'm willing to be convinced this is a "good thing". I thought it best to give my initial comments before looking at the membership so not to be swayed. If membership is opened, but with an admin type level (officer branch), it would seem better. Verbal chat 17:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

7. Agree. Exclusive clubs, even when appointed by AC, go against the spirit of WP. We are all volunteers here, we all donate our time, we all deserve an equal chance, equal input and equal vote. Crum375 (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Agree. The Arbitration Committee surely has the right to seek advice from any Wikipedians it wishes - subject only to Foundation policy and the community's ability to shape the Committee. The committee does not have the right to establish a privileged and elevated body of formal advisors without community approval. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Per Iridescent and Philcha. The current system may be broken in some people's eyes, but if you want a committee to help lead policy development, then get a consensus among the community for that. This advisory council is not authorized by the ArbCom's original remit, and so must be further authorized by the community. NW (Talk) 17:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
10. ArbCom's role is dispute resolution. It is elected to that role by the community. The Advisory Council is not elected, and should have no special role in dispute resolution. If ArbCom wants power beyond dispute resolution, it should talk to the community. If a group like this is to be set up, there's no reason it should be under the aegis of ArbCom, nor any reason why it should be appointed by them. --MoreThings (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
11. In theory I probably like the idea of a group like this, and I have great respect for a number of the editors who have been "invited," but, my god, what a horrible way to implement it. The reaction already being expressed here should have been entirely predictable since this is not the kind of thing that ArbCom, Jimbo, and a few select editors can set up without expecting a backlash from the community for lack of consultation. I think we would likely see pretty strong support for something along these lines, but SV is absolutely right that it "needs community-wide input before being established." I'll admit to being a bit flummoxed as to how the smart folks who put this together could possibly have thought otherwise. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
12. I think that without the affirmation of the community as a whole, there will be little faith, and no teeth in anything that this group would try to undertake. — Ched :  ?  18:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Agree. Nothing wrong with the core idea, but there should have been more transparency in the formation of the group, and the community should have been given a chance to opine on this. This smells strongly of the "Established Editors", which collapsed spectacularly from community backlash. I think that ArbCom is overstepping the their authority. Any "think tank" should be agreed on, developed, and authorized by the community. Also agree with comments by Iridescent and Philcha. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
14. This looks like an attempt to build a bureaucratic governance structure from the top without any discussion, in a community that has always insisted on discussing everything while resisting both bureaucracy and doing things from the top. In other words, a non-starter and an amazingly bad idea that should be abandoned post-haste.  Sandstein  18:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
15. There is a designated channel for policy and infrastructure suggestions already, which all editors can use - the village pump. Admittedly, WP:VP might not work as well as it ought - but it would be better to explore reforming and streamlining WP:VP, rather than rely on small advisory groups which the community may not feel representative without electoral input. Knepflerle (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
16. What purpose does this serve which an open (i.e. not self-selecting) wikiproject (like, say, the sadly-stalled WP:PROJPOL) wouldn't? And how does this not violate WP:CABAL? Just wrong, so very wrong. Frankly I'd consider de-selecting every ArbCom member who had the bad sense to get involved with this. Rd232 ^talk 19:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Agree. This is more of a legislative function, and if the community needs something like this then it should be created and selected with greater input from the community.   Will Beback  talk  19:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
18. Strongly agree. Everyking (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Let the community create this committee. Don't impose it upon us. --maclean 20:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
20. Agree. Wikipedia badly needs a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. This looks more like a Star Chamber. Groomtech (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
21. If Arbcom wants an Advisory Council, presenting a fait accompli with appointments made behind closed doors not the way to go about it. Discussion of the role and membership of such a body should take place on-wiki before it is created. Separation of powers is an important principle. For instance, if this Request for Comment proves inconclusive, where can we now go for independent arbitration? It shows incredible ill-judgement that ArbCom appears not to have appreciated this issue. Geometry guy 21:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
22. Strongly agree. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, ArbCom has no permission from the "governed" to expand their role from that of a judiciary to that of an executive, nor do they have permission to set up a leislature. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
23. Was created without substantial consensus. The RfC on self-electing groups also suggests its mode of composition is flawed. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
24. Endorse, Nakon 21:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
25. Agreed. — Aitias // discussion 21:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
26. Seems like a poorly thought out idea. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
27. Protonk (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
28. Per: "Exclusive clubs, even when appointed by AC, go against the spirit of WP. We are all volunteers here, we all donate our time, we all deserve an equal chance, equal input and equal vote." by Crum375 (talk · contribs) and "ArbCom is not a policy-making body and therefore has no need for a think-tank." by Philcha (talk · contribs). --Falcorian ^(talk) 22:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
29. Endorse. Durova²⁷⁵ 23:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
30. -Atmoz (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
31. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
32. Endorse Sounds like ArbCom members have too much time on their hands.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
33. Wholeheartedly endorse. I'm not opposed to an advisory body more generally, but it needs to come from the community. I also agree with everything Steve (Bainer) and Vassyana wrote and I'm astonished others went blazing ahead despite their (correct, IMHO) positions. We elected the arbs to, you know, arbitrate and some seem to have forgotten that or, perhaps, never understood what it means. When I was deciding how to vote, I was considering the candidate's dispute resolution skills, not their ability to govern this project. These are different skill sets and I'm sure the community would have elected different people if we thought we were electing governors, politicians or anything other than arbitrators. Meanwhile, we still have arb cases sitting around for months and frighteningly broad fishing net remedies. I've never been particularly critical of the ArbCom in the past but I've rapidly become one of your fiercest critics. Please either do what you were elected to do (dispute resolution) and if you're more interested in politics and governance, by all means, pursue as a member of this community, and don't try to shoehorn ArbCom into some kind of governance body. Sarah 00:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
34. Agreed. ArbCom is not an elected government, it is a dispute resolution body which is by necessity limited. Orderinchaos 01:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
35. Agreed, if Wikipedia does need a group like this, it should be developed from the community and open to elections, and not by invitation only. However I am also saddened that two arbitrators involved in this seem to feel this is worth resigning over. I ask those that two arbitrators reconsider, and don't consider the rejection of this proposal to be equated with a rejection of them as people or of their work as arbitrators. It would be a shame to lose them over this... --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 03:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
36. Endorse. Such an advisory body needs to be created some other way. Abductive (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
37. Endorse This idea should have been discussed by the community before it was given the go-ahead. I also object to the fact that the community had no say on the council's members. ThemFromSpace 05:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
38. Prodego ^talk 05:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

    General comment: I am one of the arbitrators who voted for the advisory council. I did not so do because I wished to create a structure of governance under ArbCom control (I don't). I supported because there is an aching void in Wikipedia for a forum for brainstorming and reflective discussion that is not crisis-driven and is not within the polarised crucible of support/oppose discussions. The easiest way to achieve this is to set up a group, with no powers whatsover, drawn widely, and leave it to go its own way and find its own directions. Any proposals would either sink or swim on their individual merits in community discusion. This is entirely consistent with the principle of boldness that informs Wiki evolution. Of course, other ways exist to set this up, and we might if we tried find as many counter-proposals here as there are days in the year, but that does not mean either the idea of the council or the approach is a bad one and it certainly does not justify either all the criticisms or all the mischaracterisations expressed here.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

39. Agree with every single word Slim wrote above. Tony (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
40. Agree, and concur with Sarah's additional comments. --Stephen 09:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
41. Not sure - something is better than nothing, and this seems like something. Agree there should be a separation of powers. Peter Damian (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
42. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
43. Absolutely agree There are precious few governments in the world where leaders or leadership/enforcement bodies enjoy the latitude to decide for themselves what will be the scope of their authority, how they will exercise it, and when. These forms of government have historically proven to be exceedingly unpopular with their citizens. As with governments, to private clubs (and everything between), leaders should govern with the consent of the governed—Wikipedia is no exception. Greg L (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
44. Strongly Agree The Advisory Council is already violating its statement of purpose. Members are supposed to be “not otherwise involved in its (Arbcom’s) work”, yet there are members of ArbCom on the Advisory Council. In effect the Advisory Council ends up looking like an attempt by ArbCom to add additional non-elected members to ArbCom. Looking at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Self electing groups, I fully agree with the statement “Any group of editors on Wikipedia that elects its own membership and has its own goals and objectives is fundementally against the open and collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, and is contrary to our five pillars, most importantly, what the Wikipedia community is not.” Members of the Advisory Committee should be familiar with that discussion, nearly 1/3 of them participated, with some saying they opposed self-elected groups. Edward321 (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
45. endorse JoshuaZ (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
46. Endorse - Every day this place gets a little weirder, and not in a way that's any fun. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
47. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
48. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
49. What the hell is this crap. --- RockMFR 21:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
50. Terrible idea. AniMate^draw 21:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
51. per RockMFR. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
52. This is a very bad idea at every imaginable level. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
53. Oh, where to start on this? One of the best good ideas I've seen that were really bad ideas. First, there's a new page which I'm not allowed to edit? Sorry, I'm the "anyone" in "anyone can edit" - you better have a good policy reason to remove my posts, ArbCom is a dispute resolution body comprised of elected members of the community doesn't really cut it. Second, how does a body of appointed members spring forth cut from whole cloth? (And why wasn't I included, that would solve the problem ;) Third, this is doomed to failure, after the first two or three times this earnest body produces its recommendations and finds them ignored, the members will drift away with just a little more bitterness because "they didn't listen to us!". I can produce more concerns on request. Franamax (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
54. Agree, particularly per Sarah above. There are evidently serious problems with Wikipedia's current governance, but this proposal would not be a good way forward. In a universe where this would be a valid proposal, Dick Cheney would be the next President of the United States[3]. Arbcom should try first to get at least moderately good at the job they were elected to do before attempting to subsume further authority in this community. This proposal displays unbelievable levels of hubris and shows a lack of awareness that is breathtaking. --John (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
55. I think a council is an idea we should consider, but a council hand picked by a group that's sole purpose is arbitrating disputes? I can't believe they thought this was a good idea. --Tango (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
56. Agree, in general, and especially with Geometry guy and with all the points Sarah brings up. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
57. Agree Goes well beyond the scope of ArbCom's remit. AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 00:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
58. Endorse - ArbCom does not need an advisory council on project development, because it does not have the authority to control the development of the project. As a free-standing council with an elected membership and a clear role, I think that it would be a great idea. However, in this form, it will just become another exclusive club.--Danaman5 (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
59. Endorse Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
60. Agreed, per SlimVirgin, Sandstein, Philcha and most people above: Arbcom doesn't have the authority to create a group with defacto power, only the community does. It's a good idea but the scope, power and members of the group need to be generated from discussion within the community. Ha! (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
61. Endorse Seems incredibly hypocritical on the part of certain invitees...Modernist (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
62. Endorse, although it's sad that a few respected editors have taken the backlash against this process to indicate their supposed incompetence (it does not). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
63. Endorse Completely unacceptable that ArbCom would create a group like this, without community input, let alone elections. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
64. Endorse wholeheartedly. This is way outside of what ArbCom is set up to do. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
65. Endorse - Such a council might work, but the way this has been handled is a PR disaster. Better to start over from scratch with more input. Garion96 (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
66. Endorse As others have pointed out, the ArbCom must needs to limit itself to being the final arbiter of disputes on Wikipedia -- nothing more. If they find they have copious amounts of time on their hands, they are welcome to participate in policy discussions -- or even make edits that improve the content of Wikipedia. (Now there's an idea!) -- llywrch (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
67. Agree. Without the community's input, it seems even more clandestine. The fact that the council's membership is by invitation only, furthers this appearance. Open it up to the community for discussion and for membership. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 18:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
68. Endorse Whether such a committee is something we need or not, it's far beyond ArbCom's purview to create. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:CIreland

From Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development:

anything it [the advisory council] recommends must achieve consensus normally, as any other proposal would, before it can be implemented.

This requirement for proposals also "achieving consensus normally" presumably also includes the implementation and continued existence of the council. If it does not (why would it not?), it logically ought to.

Editors endorsing this proposal

1. CIreland (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Yes, one would think. Though the second paragraph of this comment suggests that, while the community could shut down the advisory council, the ArbCom can still go talk to all of these people and get advice from them. That strikes me as more than a little bit of a contradiction and makes it all the more important to endorse CIreland's point here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Very good observation. Durova²⁷⁵ 23:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Orderinchaos 05:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Kww

I'm further concerned that even if people find a need to have such a body, the "invitation-only" nature of it amounts to a self-sorting selection that will take certain points of view and make them take importance beyond their prominence. The first thing I noted was the presence of both Casliber and DGG both on the council, with no one that I would classify as an ardent exclusionist to balance their extreme inclusionist views. I could be comfortable with that if I felt that these issues would never come before this council, but I can't find a specific charter that lets me believe that is true. It isn't just inclusionism/exclusionism either: it's highly unlikely that anyone that strongly disagrees with members of this council on any topic will ever be invited to join the council.—Kww(talk) 17:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors endorsing this proposal

1. Obviously.—Kww(talk) 17:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Yes, generally speaking “invitation-only” appears to be problematic. — Aitias // discussion 22:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Yes. I trust both DGG and Cas to moderate their views on inclusion and be very self aware about it, just as I trust implicitly their ability to understand that they may be on one side of the average. However this puts a great deal of weight on David's shoulders should some EnC 3 style issue come up. Protonk (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Endorse. Although both Casliber and DGG have my highest respect, both personally and as Wikipedians, it is important to include a variety of wikiphilosophies in anything that aspires to be consensus decision making. Durova²⁷⁵ 23:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Agree Arbcom should stick to resolving disputes. It should not be involved in policy. This does that. Through the back door, but it does it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Yes. I think the key to anything like this is the membership need to be elected by the community not appointed from on high. The idea that a small group of people would privately conceive the group, then select and appoint the membership of this group, without so much as a word of discussion with the community, is counter to Wikipedia culture and I'm really astounded they thought they could pull this off without a big stink from the community (and slightly impressed by the sheer Chutzpah). Sarah 01:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Agreed with most of the above views. I am seriously not seeing any balance in the membership, although I respect four or five of the nominees. To be frankly honest, ArbCom is struggling at the present to maintain the confidence and support of the wider Wiki community due to some recent decisions which show a lack of due consideration and consistency, exudes far too much confidence in its own abilities when seriously questioned, and doesn't at this stage have in my view the moral authority to impose solutions on problems it doesn't understand. Orderinchaos 01:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
8. I too oppose the invitation only nature of the group. --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Stifle (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Agree - the deletionist/inclusionist is only one example of the lack of balance. I believe that ArbCom is genuinely unaware of the narrow scope of its selections on a number of important spectrums. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Agree I'm still amazed at the hypocrisy...Modernist (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Although DGG is indeed an ardent inclusionist, and I find myself on opposite sides of him most of the time, he does appear to have the encyclopedia's best interests at heart, and his arguments are usually based on solid reasoning, although not always convincing (IMNSHO). Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

And please see my deletion log ; and, at AfD, my balance is 3:1, not 100:1. Like most people, I'm an inclusionist on some things only. I'm a mergist on fictional characters, and a deletionist on local institutions. In any case, my thoughts are that we would not be serving as a replacement for either EnC3, or for a possible content decision board. The fiction question is one for the community. How to settle long-standing questions in general might be a matter for the committee to discuss. I feel no weight resting on me at all, except to be imaginative, as we have no power to actually do anything. I would not have accepted being on an appointed board that had power over either content or policy. DGG (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If only all inclusionists were like DGG. Abductive (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I support this council and may offer a view to this effect. If there are concerns about too many inclusionists, someone please deposit my invitation here. I promise to not swear a whole lot and can also offer insights into the sockpuppet subculture. While I do not agree with DGG and Casliber on some inclusion issues, they are smart people who have the project's best interests at heart.

Cheers, Jack Merridew_{Sockpuppet, First Class} 05:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to be clear that I was not questioning either's integrity, simply observing that they represent one end of the spectrum without being counterbalanced.—Kww(talk) 14:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Understood. DGG (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

David Fuchs is someone who often votes on the deletion side at AfDs, BTW. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to classify everybody, I would fall into the "believes that if it doesn't meet GNG it should be merged/deleted" category most times, yes. But I'm not sure that we particularly have to worry about "balance" in this regard, simply because then it becomes a game of "do we have enough non UK/US/AU people, do we have enough non-admins, do we have enough females, et al" that we can't really ever settle. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's impossible to ever build a sufficiently balanced standing committe that is balanced on all things for all people. I don't have any objections to the idea of Arbcom building ad-hoc committees to study various issues, my objection is to a perpetual committee that grows only by its own choice. The committee that is balanced over BLP practices may not be balanced over issues of non-free content, and neither of those may be balanced over notability issues. As Kirill said, no one can keep arbcom from asking advice. All I ask is that they examine the issue before them, and make a specific decision about who to gain advice from on each topic.—Kww(talk) 04:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Moni3

I believe the confusion, questions, and negativity that are spawning from this is borne from lack of clarity and scope. I believe there is value in this idea, but without defined parameters regarding its purpose, how its run, its effects, and its reception, it logically leads to this RfC. The ArbCom Noticeboard announcement may have been premature until these issues are clarified, either by whoever proposed it, or the members who have accepted their invitations. --Moni3 (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors endorsing this view

1. Agree. When I first saw this proposal, my thought was that Arbcom had put the cart well before the horse. They've decided to establish a formal bureaucratic group, but they haven't quite worked out what it's going to do yet. Apparently it was just very important to have such a tranche of Arbcom-approved people around in case they should be needed. If there is an actual specific purpose to be accomplished here, Arbcom could answer many objections by stating it plainly; if not, well, we generally don't do privilege for its own sake. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
2. — Ched :  ?  18:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#What_is_this_Council_for.3F --Philcha (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
5. In line with many of my concerns. Sometimes, the wiki urge to omg-start-right-now should be constrained.--Tznkai (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
7. --JN466 21:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
8. True - the announcement did come out early, and many of us arbs were unsure (as seen by the voting), and hopefully this RfC can be steered in the direction of constructive discussion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
9. I agree. It's too vague and I'm not sure those appointed to it can have been entirely certain about what it will do. I can see the need for a sort of 'think tank' with no executive powers, separate from Arbcom, and only Arbcom could possibly have the ability to create it, but I think the priority in setting it up is to settle on its role and duties before naming the members. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Endorse with reservation: would replace premature with inappropriate. Durova²⁷⁵ 23:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Endorse in much the same terms as Durova. Orderinchaos 02:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
12. older ≠ wiser 02:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Agree - I think we need to work to get some clarity, but I'm holding back from saying 'immediately' - this needs to be considered, we'd also like the community view. (I'll add something below to illicit that). --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Agreed: the lack of clarity and scope (evolved from the community, rather than ArbCom) will allow those members of the group with the motivation to use it as a blank cheque for their own personal power aspirations. Ha! (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

    Hm. Well, I was asked to serve on this committee and you couldn't fill a thimble with my personal power aspirations. --Moni3 (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

    Apologies, I wasn't referring to you personally (or even current members of the group, necessarily). To clarify: Agree with your statement that negativity spawning from this is borne from the lack of clarity, scope and defined parameters regarding its purpose. Further comment: One of the reasons those things are required is that, without those things, the group as a whole or individuals within it will end up defining their own remit; with results ranging from ineffectiveness to megalomania (although "doing an amazing job" would also be a possibility in that range). Ha! (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

15. Endorse. The idea of such a committee has merit, and it could be seen as logically making sense that the people who would be involved in its creation might be the ArbCom. But I do think that it might have been better if there had been a bit more public discussion before the fact. The downside, of course, is that it might never have been created through that system, with the expected delays over phrasing, etc. John Carter (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jennavecia

This project is nothing if not broken, and there's no improvement in sight. This seems like a good opportunity for focused discussion by established editors with different focuses and experiences on the project. The possibility to see some viable proposals for change to then present to the community seems like something worth going for. What's the worst that can happen? Great ideas get presented to the community and shot-down in no consensus? Well, that's the best we can achieve right now, so we might as well hope for the best and see how it goes. لennavecia 19:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors endorsing this statement

1. In spades. Especially the bit about the project being broken and no solutions in sight. One has to wonder why so many people are opposed to finding solutions. → ROUX ₪ 19:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Steven Walling (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Yes. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
4. ArbCom doesn't have the authority, Nobody does really; SlimVirgin is right about that. This committee was designed in the hope that some group will be responsible for finding solutions. If it fails, we're no worse off than we are now. It's not intended to be a legislative body, but a thinktank for improving our processes. Cool Hand Luke 21:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
5. It's a discussion committee tasked with coming up with ideas, which wouldn't apply unless project-wide consensus was reached. Sounds like a good try to me. Don't like it? Create your own committee -- it will have just as much authority as this one. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   Well, last time someone tried that, this happened. And the time before that, this happened. See a pattern? – iridescent 21:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   It has a unique ear with ArbCom and can influence that body's decision making, and its membership is personally selected by ArbCom with no input from the community. It's a farce, basically. Orderinchaos 02:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

6. Yeah. This is going to go down in flames for the same reason that something like it (I'd prefer the editors were elected) is needed. The consensus model has not scaled, and we're incapable of making hard decisions. Ideas for how to fix it are coming up frequently (CENT has two right now, I think) and never gaining consensus. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
7. This was/is the idea, a starting point for some focussed discussion. I can see the benefits, and ultimately feel they outweigh concerns outlined elsewhere on this page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Exactly. We are all basically bogged down in a myriad of individual issues, and we need some method of broader discussion. In practice, a relatively small group does this best. DGG (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Essentially what has happened is that we've been asked to get together and talk. Any group of Wikipedians can get together and talk. The issue is whether anyone will listen to what we have to say. If we come up with good ideas we will have the eyes of the community on us. If we don't come up with anything good, at least we tried. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
11. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
12. older ≠ wiser 02:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Doesn't it say “discussion is encouraged” around here somewhere? It used to and still may if some anybody hasn't gotten away with editing that out. Large-scale discussion does not work; see any one of many examples on teh wiki for proof of that. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Kevin (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
15. 'Established editors' went down in flames but there could surely be a way of allowing 'the community' to choose such a group. For example, a process of selection of suitable candidates by a smaller group who would then make recommendations for community approval. My experience of RfA suggests that most people do not take the time or trouble to do the necessary background research. Peter Damian (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
16. the wub "?!" 11:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Giano (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
18. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
19. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
20. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
21. endorse as written. ++Lar: t/c 15:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
22. --JN466 18:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
23. Kusma (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
24. Modernist (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
25. John Carter (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
26. Without question. Thekohser 15:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
27. Agree, but I would like to see a larger committee. Possibly open to all who would want to join. I have been involved in enough committees outside of Wikipedia to know that even though you may get a lot of volunteers to sign up, very few actually show up to do any work.- Josette (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
28. As Jennavecia says, the project is broken, and we must face up to that. I'd also like to associate myself with the remarks here of Cool Hand Luke: Getting advice from a committee surely could not hurt the project. GreenGourd (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Iridescent

The statement that "The Advisory Council also advises the Committee directly, providing it with feedback and ideas from a cross-section of the community that's not otherwise involved in its work", quite aside from the hypocrisy of "not involved with Arbcom" being used to describe a group containing two Arbcom members, implies that despite any protestations to the contrary, this is the de facto creation of a group of hotline-to-the-president Power Users, with no prior discussion of the merits and disadvantages of such a sudden change to a hierarchical model of management and of Arbcom's expansion from a dispute-resolution committee into the Wikipedia Politburo. Even if this is a good proposal, the fact that it's been forced through as a fait accompli with no consultation, discussion or elections, and with serious problems in representation (where are the bot writers? the FAR reviewers? anyone under 18? anyone from outside the North America/UK/Australia en-wiki heartland?) has poisoned the well from the start, and no proposals emanating from this body in its current state, regardless of their merit, are likely to be taken seriously. This is a step backwards, as even good ideas will be tainted by having come from this source but bad ideas will have the spurious legitimacy of being presented direct to Arbcom.

And the "screw what you peasants think, we'll do what we like" mentality embodied by "the community can shut down the "think tank" aspects (i.e. by dissolving the body's public gathering) but it can't prevent ArbCom from coming to the people in the group for advice without shutting down ArbCom itself" represents the mentality of the old, top-down Arbcom at its absolute worst. – iridescent 19:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors endorsing this statement

1. Strongly. Everyking (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
2. I understand this idea was developed with the best of intentions, benevolent, benign, sincere, honest. But legitimacy is paramount. The Community Committee should come from the community, not imposed on the community by ArbCom. --maclean 20:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
3. As maclean said (20:05, 11 July 2009), "The Community Committee should come from the community, not imposed on the community by ArbCom" --Philcha (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Expresses the key concerns very well. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Wow, the quote provided above is shocking, and a little frightening. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Agree. We really need to find out ways to reduce bureaucracy and increase openness and transparency. This proposal goes backwards on both fronts. Crum375 (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
8.  Sandstein  21:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
9. "...the fact that it's been forced through as a fait accompli with no consultation...has poisoned the well from the start". Yes. Geometry guy 21:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
10. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
11. There are serious problems that aren't currently being addressed, but this isn't the way. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
12. This does seem like an attempt to establish that some editors would be more equal than others — Ched :  ?  22:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Endorse. Durova²⁷⁵ 23:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
14. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Agreed. Will become the home of favored editors. Horrible idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

    • Comment any editor active in the group will probably find themselves somewhat less active elsewhere-- I look on Kiril and Cas as basically liaisons. My idea of the proper relationship between myself and arbcom is to stay as far away from them as possible & I do not think my intended role here will affect that. It is unavoidably true that we cannot prevent arb com members from discussing and consulting as they please. Better that some of it at least be in the open. People who ask me questions do not necessarily get the answers they hope for. DGG (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

16. Orderinchaos 01:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
18. Endorse. Sarah 02:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Wow... That's quite a quote. --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
20. Endorse. Abductive (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
21. Agree, but I'm very upset that this has led to the resignation of a skilled, hard-working arb. Tony (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

    Two resignations so far actually: Rlevse has also gone.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

22. Agreed. It's a glass room with a steel door. Those inside are attempting to affect our future, and we have no voice. That might have been ok if we'd had some say in putting them there, but we didn't.--MoreThings (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
23. Agree. The ArbCom was elected as a dispute-resolution body. If we want a good-governance think-tank, we need to elect one separately, and its role should be to advise the community, not the ArbCom. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
24. Edward321 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
25. Endorse JoshuaZ (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
26. Stifle (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
27. Agree I hope that ArbCom is not so invested in this idea that they cannot quickly drop it. It does not seem to warrant an resignation. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
28. This just an patronage outlet for arbcom members to reward friends and in doing so increase the power of the institution. Yes, a few "populist" anti-establishment members of the chattering wiki classes can be brought in for credibility, but Arbcom members can already seek advice from anyone they like without the soft couches and 30 year old scotch of a gentleman's club. There is already a healthy class of chattering users who do advising and think-tanking; the only new thing this proposal introduces is the power for ArbCom members to confer extra status on users in their interest. Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development is another step in the evolutionary path taking ArbCom from being a group of reactive dispute solvers to being wikipedia's proactive interventionist patronage-orientated government. The reassuring line about community consensus is hollow if you know anything about how such processes work in practice, as all arbcom members do. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
29. Agree - A group or groups of discussion 'thinktanks' are needed, clearly, however the elitist spin on this one is deeply hypocritical from the get go; Orwellian in my opinion...Modernist (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
30. Endorse Yep. It concerns me that ArbCom are not apparently so big on a) establishing consensus before starting something so far out of their remit and b)following the community consensus that's forming right here. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
31. Absolutely. – Toon 19:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Steven Walling

The crux of the concerns thus far elicited seem to revolve around two points:

1. Concern: The Arbitration Committee's scope is strictly limited to dispute resolution, and does not in any way include strategic planning or community leadership of any kind, regardless of how such work is organized.

   Response: The Council is independent of the Arbitration Commitee in every meaningful sense, despite being called together by Committee members. The group does not "report" to ArbCom in at all, and is simply another volunteer group formed on an ad hoc basis. To say that the Council expands ArbCom's scope at all is to assign to it more importance than it gives itself. Unlike ArbCom, the Council has no authority whatsoever. No conclusion it reaches or proposal it makes is binding in any fashion, and any Wikipedian is completely free to contradict it, act in opposition to it, or even simply ignore it. It is, in short, a discussion and idea generation group initiated from within but not run by or instilled with the powers of the Arbiration Committee.

2. Concern: An invitation-only think tank of veteran Wikipedians is a cabal created without community input, and ought to be opened up to election.

   Response: An election is the democratic function whereby a group chooses their representatives and invests them with authority. Since the Council has no authority and does not purport to represent Wikipedians or Wikipedia, an election would be a waste of time, and would give the Council an artificial image of influence. What's more, there is no reason why the Council couldn't be opened up to membership by anyone in the future. Speaking for myself, there are those either invited to the Council or currently participating in it who would like to see open membership, in order to make the group more useful to the community.

Editors endorsing this statement

1. Think of it as a wikiproject with a more abstract scope than most. Ideas emerging from ACPD discussion still need to achieve community consensus in the normal fashion, but having the project encourages the development of well-reasoned ideas considering the broader impact of any actions. If the Council diverges too far from community norms, becomes insular and arrogant, or fails to produce workable ideas, they will be ignored and reviled. If they display incisive thinking, clarity of purpose, and effective communication, they will ... well still be ignored and reviled by some, but may contribute to the long-term viability of this encyclopedia nonetheless. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Endorse. The council, despite protestantions to the contrary, has no official status, and by definition only serves in an advisory capacity at best to the ArbCom. John Carter (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Bigtimepeace

There is one particular aspect of this group which I think needs to be addressed head-on apart from the question of whether we like this or not. Kirill has pointed out here that "We [the creators of this group] have tried to make it very explicit that the role of this body is not to decide, but only to discuss and develop ideas for improving the project..." (emphasis added). That sounds good, but in reality I don't think anyone could seriously claim that that's how things would work. A group of already "powerful" (loathe as I am to use that term) and well-known editors advising ArbCom is going to end up making decisions (or at the very least pushing the community in a certain direction), even if only "unofficially." We need to acknowledge that at the outset.

Similarly, the statement at WP:ACPD that "The Advisory Council is not authorized or intended to interfere with normal community discussion in any way; anything it recommends must achieve consensus normally, as any other proposal would, before it can be implemented..." strikes me as hopelessly naive, to be perfectly blunt. The claim that a group constituted by ArbCom to advise them (consisting of a couple of committee members and a number of admins) which brings a proposal to the community will not interfere with "normal community discussion" is inaccurate on the face. Such a thing has never existed before, and the response to proposals from the group (responses which could be very positive or very negative or anywhere in between) will be anything but "normal" for reasons that should be incredibly obvious. Again, let's acknowledge that right now.

Maybe all of that's a good thing, and one could think that and still agree with what I'm saying here. My point is that we can't pretend this is "no big deal"—that's it's just a little think tank with no particular decision-making power and which does not depart from existing community norms all that much. It likely will have some de facto decision making power and is a departure from existing norms in that the community has never in its history discussed a governance proposal which originated from an official body made up of people that ArbCom thinks are smart and helpful (because presumably that would happen at some point). We can debate whether that makes it a good or bad idea as currently constituted, but let's not downplay the fact that this is in fact a "big deal." --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors endorsing this statement

1. If it didn't interfere in someway with normal processes it would be pointless. Normal processes have flaws the council is intended to correct. It may not be able to override community consensus, and the council may well be restrained in their actions, but if they don't interfere with the normal ways we do things, its pointless. Maybe there is more good than bad, and I wouldn't mind this thing dying in a fire and then rising again without any pretensions of formality with the same group of people sitting down to talk shop over tea.--Tznkai (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Durova²⁷⁵ 23:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Contend ArbCom has no power to create bodies that do anything but assist in dispute resolution, its core function.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Orderinchaos 01:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Sarah 02:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
6. The proposal is unconstitutional. Remove the word "Advisory", and it is no longer thus, in which case it would better have been launched by users in their capacity as normal editors. Tony (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Edward321 (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
8. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Agree. And the fact they are pretending otherwise is disturbing William M. Connolley (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
10. This is indeed a "big deal". This proposal creates a new class of editor. Inevitably, discussions on editor behaviour will now contain the phrase "...member of the Advisory Council...". Plus the big red phone sitting on the desk, now we will have advice to run-of-the-mill editors to take their issue over to the advisory council and beseech the members thereof. This subverts the existing processes for change. Whether good or bad, this is a big change to our model of governance and should be considered as such. Franamax (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
11. --Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
12. SusanLesch (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Agreed: claims that the group will have no power are naive and unrealistic. Ha! (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Agree. most of the groups assertions of 'benign study' sadly sounds like Newspeak ...Modernist (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Question on scale of WP by Casliber

The key question I had during the genesis of the idea is this - has the size and scale of wikipedia meant that simple community consensus is unable to result in benficial changes as the project evolves. (This was polled recently but I can't forthe life of me remember where it was/is - a link'd be great!) I think everyone who has commented on this page needs to note yea or nay to this to see how we proceed.

Yes, scale is too big for changes to be effected by consensus only, and some organised group is necessary

1. Definitely. My objections are to having the ArbCom try to take on this role without the remit, and the creation of a bureaucracy meant to speak for the community without the community's input or approval. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Self-evidently. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Such groups already exist but on the basis of community delegated authority with community based selection, not on the basis of "by invitation". Moreover, the dichotomy presented here by Casliber tellingly misses all the contentious issues raised by the existence of this new group. CIreland (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Yes, but (as previously mentioned) not a self-appointed clique of you and your buddies. Sorry if that sounds blunt, but that is what this looks like. There are any number of autoconfirmation-style ways to create a group like this without the free-for-all that would result from open-to-everyone, but avoiding the popularity contest element of elections, if you think that's necessary, although I can't see why some of you seem so afraid of open elections. (5,000 non-minor mainspace edits? Two years presence on Wikipedia? Anyone who's written two GAs or FAs higher or written a bot that's been approved? Secret WMF-trustee style ballots, to avoid it turning into RFA-style shouting matches, with all candidates scoring over 50% passing?) Personally, I think it would make sense to fragment the project into cells (pour yourself a stiff drink and read this thread and the one immediately below if you really want my views on the future direction of Wikipedia governance), but that's neither here nor there as it would never be approved in the current climate. As an interim measure, advisory councils are a good start, but they need to have legitimacy from the outset or they'll become Diet Coke versions of the Wikipedia Review, filled with people grumbling about assorted problems but without the credibility to get anything changed. – iridescent 22:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
5. This is blindingly self-evident. → ROUX ₪ 22:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
6. The nature of Wikipedia is very decentralized. Discussion and consensus is accomplished everyday through a decentralized network of conversations (ie. Requests for comments, Noticeboards, etc.). Community consensus is centralized by nature (but there is nothing "simple" about community consensus). --maclean 23:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Per Roux, with the additional observation that the key problem in our case of 'boiling frog syndrome' is that it is almost impossible, and certainly very slow, for any policy or practice to be changed even when it is acknowledged that it needs change. (Note that frogs apparently do actually jump out of water that is slowly getting hotter, rather than stay in until they are boiled alive Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Yep - but with the comment that the solution may not be removing community involvment in consensus, if that's the concern. Just that the 200kb discussions that take 3 hours to read, really aren't an effective way to make or discuss change. I'd like to look at different ways of doing that whilst keeping the process open and accountable. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   Question for anyone: is this question referring to a possible voted legislature who makes decisions where consensus tried to do so now? Or something else? --Moni3 (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   No, it was more of a think-tank as described elsewhere. Maybe to look at what can't be decided by consensus. Sorry if not clear. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

9. For me the eye-opening event was a discussion at WT:NOT that challenged the validity of NOTGAMEGUIDE, which is something of a bedrock principle for the Video Games project. The structure of en.Wikipedia is such that WikiProjects have a relatively easy time coming to consensus and forming ad hoc guidelines within itself, but it's extremely difficult to affect any change at the level of, say, WP:FICTION, a subject area with a long and sordid history at ArbComm. Nifboy (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
10. The discussion about flagged revs is particularly illuminating in this regard. It was Jimbo who, in the end, I believe, asked for flagged revs to be turned on. We are lacking a process that allows the community to make large-scale decisions like that one in which there is going to be lots of disagreement and high participation. Anyone want to help develop such a process? :) Awadewit (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Yes, but it should take the form of a community-elected body that will present proposals to the community as referendums. Everyking (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Everyking's suggestion. What we need is a body with transparent proceedings that can present proposals to the community in a "vote yes for X, vote no for X, vote something else for X" sort of format. Ironholds (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
13. A big reason why consensus doesn't work here in Wikiland is because there is no real consensus on what exactly constitutes consensus. So what consensus is varies depending on where you go and who happens to be running it today. This is made even more unnecessarily complicated by the existence of such outdated, authoritarian artifacts as Voting is evil, Polls are evil and WPISNOT:Democracy. But regardless, I support this new animal, provided it lives on-Wiki with openness and transparency.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
14. older ≠ wiser 02:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Clearly. لenna vecia 04:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Yes. At some point committees are necessary, even in a direct democracy. DGG (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Yes. I agree that a body like this may be useful; I just don't like the way that this particular one came about. If such a body is to exist, it should be independent of ArbCom. Not that I disaprove of ArbCom. I appreciate what they do within the scope of dispute resolution, however this is outside of their jurisdiction. But if this same basic idea were to be seperated from arbcom and open to free elections, I could support it. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 06:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
18. Duh. This has been well understood since ancient Athens. *All* of teh wiki's core problems relate to poor scalability. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Stating the obvious. Kevin (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
20. I'm really tempted to use a diagram to illustrate this. MER-C 09:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
21. Yes. Obviously. In my RL world most things are done by committee or working groups - very painful and far from ideal, but something is better than nothing. Peter Damian (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
22. I have said as much for at least a year. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
23. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
24. IMO, consensus is the issue facing the community. But, to address it, we don't need an all-singing, all-dancing committee empowered to pronounce on everything under the sun. We need to look at finding alternatives to the currently damaged decision-making mechanism, and to move forward with whatever structure results from that.--MoreThings (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
25. Regrettably, it looks that way. The community fails to implement needful things supported by broad majorities on a regular basis. ++Lar: t/c 17:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
26. Yes, until we have mind uploading and unlimited time and patience, some discerner of the enlightened self interest is desirable for a smoothly running project. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
27. Frankly, about 20% will disagree with anything, and with just a little more opposition, the majority is repeatedly disenfranchised. We need a better way to make decisions. It was unclear whether this thinktank would have ever led to a better process, but repeating the mantra of "consensus" is not the answer. Cool Hand Luke 20:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
28. This has been the case for a long time now, that is why we rarely use consensus for anything other than basic content decisions. We use votes with a requirement for a supermajority, that is not consensus. The sooner we accept that we have already moved beyond consensus-based decision making the sooner we can work out precisely what kind of decision making we actually want. --Tango (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
29. SusanLesch (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
30. Kusma (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
31. The real issue is how does the community give needed input, express needed changes, to an elitist group that stiff arms outside input from the outset?..Modernist (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
32. Endorse. In response to Modernist, I seem to remember that the discussion page was already indicated as a point for non-members to make comments. Granted, that setup might give some the impression that this body does function like, and presumably have similar power, to ArbCom, but I don't think that was at all the intention. Some sort of way to perhaps limit the size of discussion on the main project or issue page does seem required, else it becomes unreadably long for anyone, and I can and do reasonably think that members would probably provide a link to a talk page comment they think particularly relevant. And, certainly, individual members could create separate subpages, either of the council page/talkpage or of their own pages, to receive input from interested community members. I don't think that problem is one that is likely to not be addressed almost immediately upon the group becoming active. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

    John, at the risk of being boring - the road to hell is paved with good intentions, I am aware of the request to use the Talk page for the rest of the communities input, and precisely as you suggest only talk page comments they think particularly relevant will be addressed, and there is the rub...Modernist (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

33. One of my favorite sayings is, "The masses are asses." Oh, and Casliber misspelled "beneficial". -- Thekohser 15:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
34. I have strong reservations regarding the applicability, reliability, and wisdom of the current consensus system. --Moni3 (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
35. Absolutely correct, and put more bluntly here. rootology (C)(T) 23:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
36. Indeed. GreenGourd (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, process needs tweaking

1. I agree that the current consensus process can be stubborn and frustrating. However, I don't want to prejudge the answer to that by saying a "group" is needed to fix it. Especially not a powerless advisory body. The inability to resolve conflicts that many people see as important, and the endless repititions of certain policy disputes are fundamentally a failure of process. One solution is to create a legislative body to make the hard choices for us, but that's only one solution, and it limits the power of the majority of editors. An alternative, and one I'd like to see considered, is to change the process by which major policy decisions are considered. I'd like to see a centralized forum created for discussing and disposing of contentious policy issues. And I think it necessary that we move in the direction of voting (or !voting, if you insist) on many of these issues that can't be resolved even after extended discussion. We already do this quite a bit in practice, but we call them straw polls, often consider them non-binding and scatter them throughout the site. Binding polls at a centralized forum, have the potential to overcome the limitations of parochial interests and provide closure to many problematic issues. To the extent that a "group" is needed to help move us forward, I would say that the right group is not a legislature or an advisory council but rather a cross between clerks and Wikipedia Bureaucrats. People whose job it is to organize discussions, to structure and oversee polling when necessary, and in borderline cases to interpret the results of those polls. Personally, I think the community's problem is not that we lack good ideas, but rather that we have a decision making process that paralyzes us, and that is what we most need to reform in my opinion. Dragons flight (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   I didn't think that the above was implying the advisory group was the solution. The idea, I think, is for the advisory group to generate ideas such as the ones you are listing and present them to the community. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Strong endorse! You nailed it once again my friend!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
3. I am somewhere in the middle of Dragons flight's and Protonk's opinions. I can't say I agree with either of them entirely, but they speak to my views more clearly than anyone else's opinions in this section. NW (Talk) 03:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, consensus and discussion are continuing to work to a satisfactory level

1. WP:PLAGIARISM made it from proposal to guideline this May with over 80% support. Durova²⁷⁵ 23:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
2. The Council is just another mode of discussion, and decision-making power would still rest with the community consensus. If anyone thinks our current deliberative process is broken at the core, then the Council isn't going to fix that. I for one have never seen evidence that Wikipedia is fundamentally broken. Frustrating and ineffectual at times? Surely. Irreparably damaged as a governance model? No. Steven Walling (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Quite possibly we need someone to write a practical guide to getting results from Wikipedia's formal and informal consensus-building processes - but it absolutely is possible to get reasonable results from those processes with a little effort. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
4. No...and I saw this with a great deal of reservation. I'm tempted to say yes because I watched the community simply make the wrong decision about PLOT and FICT over and over again. But I think that temptation should be resisted. We see large changes like flagged revisions seeing little consensus, and this infuriates us, because it appears as though FR are necessary for wikipedia to become a functioning resource. But I don't think that the folks who oppose FR feel the same way, just as I imagine the folks who feel differently about PLOT and FICT don't bemoan the outcomes of those RfCs. Wikipedia has some paralysis, even some paralysis beyond what might be expected for its scale. Wikipedia has some dysfunction as regards authority (maybe feature, not bug?). I also think the fundamental Hayekian principle behind Wikipedia is a little misguided. But these don't convince me that a creature like this commission is necessary or sufficient (though I don't think the proponents are suggesting that it is sufficient) to solve those problems. We are straight-jacketed by arbcom's mandate to steer clear of content. We do have a dispute resolution system that doesn't resolve disputes. The consensus model does break down when external interests are at stake or discussions are proxies for boundary maintenance among community members. But I don't think scale alone causes the traditional methods of consensus and DR to fail occasionally. Protonk (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Per Protonk. I don't see "bigger" as a reason that consensus can't work - rather the opposite I would think. I agree that there are things that can, and should, be improved; but I'd rather see that done on a community level rather than have it dictated from above. — Ched :  ?  04:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
7. It takes effort and requires that the present situation be identified as a problem, but that is not a bad thing. I suspect that the main issue is that in many specific areas there is no consensus that the existing situation is not right/broken. If there is no consensus that a specific area is broken then of course it is going to be difficult/impossible to get consensus to change it, as those who disagree that there is a major problem will not support a change. Get consensus that there is a problem first, then discuss how to change it - again I suspect that many of those who think consensus is failing all have different areas/reasons for thinking it is failing and would not agree on which areas/policies need to change significantly. Davewild (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• When communities grow too large for town meetings, the standard solution is representative democracy. --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

To ClIreland - I do realise this, and did have misgivings about the group's formation, but also recognised the need for this. What I am trying to do now is a step-by-step breakdown so we can all be on the same page. This RfC is not helpful if it is a polemic, but if we can clarify what there is consensus on, we can work a way forward through this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Philca: And with that comes a need for good governance, separation of powers, avoidance of conflict of interest, voters being allowed to elect people to positions of power, and knowing exactly who they're electing, all the things that are missing from this Council. We voted last time for ArbCom members who would turn their back on the old style of governance we had, with ArbCom assuming powers it didn't have and presiding arrogantly over the community, yet this idea, and the way it was put together, seems to be very much part of that old style. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

All of which is true. Not wanting to pre-judge things, I would not be surprised if the sort of thing Pilcha or SV want is what we talk about or recommend. Unfortunately, in practice, most -- possibly all-- volunteer communities are controlled formally or informally by a small in-group, and such elections as there are tend to be shams, because only the in-group gets itself organized. The usual real world solution is a split. We have already had one, and the existence of Citizendium has had positive effects on Wikipedia DGG (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

fwiw, I was hoping the advisory council would include someone who has significant experience with both Wikipedia and Citizendium. I spent a few hours looking for acceptable persons with this experience, and nominated two of them. The split cant be undone, as there are some intractable differences, however cross-pollination would be beneficial. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Disclosure: I am a member of the Editorial Council there, username DavidGoodman--though not very active. I expect to be more so now that the licenses are compatible. DGG (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the example of the Plagiarism guideline, it was imho a principle already well accepted in Wikipedia , that just needed to be formally accepted. It's been discussed in one way or another for years. DGG (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it was treated as a variation of copyvio, but wasn't particularly well enforced without the guidance of an actual guideline on the subject, so the creation and elevation of it is a positive thing. Wiki is in my view largely based on academic principles of writing (although a specialised kind as it disallows original research and synthesis) and those with a non-academic mindset/background do need that in black and white so they can work in an informed and academically honest manner (something it's easy to not do with the best of intentions - almost every first year undergraduate stuffs it up at least once). Orderinchaos 21:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• If this question/poll is related to this particular group then it presupposes that the group has power, which is contrary to multiple assurances that it doesn't. If it's not related to this particular group then the question needs to be asked elsewhere. In other words, one can't have one's cake and eat it too. Ha! (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Slim's comments..a thinktank elected by the community - large enough to reflect the size and scope of wikipedia; and small enough to accomplish something and ascertain proposals for change is front and center on the agenda...Modernist (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment regarding the constitutional problem

Further to Slim's comment above: This initiative cannot be seen as anything but an attempt to expand ArbCom's scope into the "House of Commons" role; to appoint and be advised by a body with a broad scope that would almost certainly include governance and content assumes that ArbCom has authority in those areas.

The odd thing is that this initiative comes just at the time when ArbCom's constitution (policy) is about to be changed to restrict ArbCom's scope. Take a look at the existing policy, which contains quite a bit of wriggle-room for exceeding the original conception of a judicial body that deals solely with behavioural matters: the wriggle-room is coloured. Compare this against the draft new policy, which removes the generalities, the exceptions, the vagueness.

EXISTING POLICY

Scope

The Committee reserve the right to hear or not hear any dispute, at their discretion. The following are general guidelines which will apply to most cases, but the Committee may make exceptions.

1. The Committee will hear disputes that have been referred to Arbitration by the Mediation Committee.
2. Where a dispute has not gone through mediation, or the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, the Arbitrators may refer the dispute to the Mediation Committee if it believes mediation is likely to help.
3. The Committee will occasionally request advice from Jimbo Wales on whether to hear a particular dispute.
4. The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes.
5. The Committee will hear or not hear disputes according to the wishes of the community, where there is a consensus.
6. The Committee will not hear disputes where they have not been requested to rule.
7. The Committee has no jurisdiction over official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation.

DRAFT NEW POLICY

Duties and responsibilities

The Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia has the following duties and responsibilities:

1. To act as a binding decision-maker for disputes concerning the conduct of Wikipedia editors;[1]
2. To consider appeals[2] from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users;
3. To deal summarily with urgent or emergency matters—for example, blatant abuse of administrator or other privileges, and threatening or malicious conduct—that presents a danger[3] to the project or its contributors;
4. To deal with issues that are unsuitable for public discussion because of privacy or similar concerns; and
5. To appoint[4] those functionaries granted access to privileged information, including the holders of the CheckUser and Oversight privileges

I welcome this removal of policy incentives for ArbCom to exceed its role as a judge of editors' behaviour. The Date Delinking Case, for example, contained motions that clearly went beyond behavioural matters, seeking to instruct the community on how the terms "must" and "should" are to be defined in the style guides, and making declarations on the status of developers. Fortunately, these motions failed, but under the new policy, would have been struck down before the arbs voted on them. The existing policy allows such extensions into what would be regarded as the normal realm of a government.

I believe the community should support this aspect of the new draft policy, and in a similar vein insist that the Advisory Council not be constituted as advising ArbCom. There's a fundamental constitutional problem here, quite apart from the likelihood that Kirill's expectation of a "high signal-to-noise ratio" will not be born out, given the size and diversity of the membership. Let's face it, in a wiki, politics is for the people, however they may bumble through with their squabbling and noise and the typical failure of initiatives to gain traction. IMO, arguments above that the size of the project makes representative government necessary fly in the face of the very advantages of an online wiki project: it allows many people to participate in decision-making. Tony (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The proposed changes to the Arbcom policy changes are an important aspect of this, so I am glad you raised it here. Please consider the combined effect of:

a) the proposed Arbcom policy changes that you have highlighted above, and

b) this advisory council.

The two are complementary changes which result in an Arbcom which has a reduced scope, and a new group established with the high hopes that it will step in to partially fill the vacuum. The design of this new group is intended to ensure it doesn't end up like Arbcom, as it is not based on private communications and enforcible decisions. Also, if the community doesn't find this council to be useful, they can disregard it, however Arbcom will still have a reduced scope if the proposed arbitration policy changes come into effect.

Anyone who thinks that this group of people will be subservient to the arbitration committee is insulting the people that have been selected. I am sure we could have selected a better nucleus of people, if given more time and community involvement, however the arbitration committee has gone out of its way to include a set of people who have different worldviews, including some who been ardently anti-Arbcom in order to prevent the council becoming an Arbcom sidekick. And this group will only survive if finds a way to expand or renew its membership without becoming a "self-selecting group". Maybe this group will only make one recommendation: a replacement for itself.

Perhaps we should have called it an "Interim Advisory Council..", as it was not the intention of the committee for it's membership or structure to become set in stone; there were many internal comments by arbitrators that it would likely need to reform itself within the first twelve months. This is similar in spirit to how we set up the audit subcommittee with a pre-determined membership, but our decision made it explicit that the community had to take ownership of the process of selecting replacements.

As an example of how this council may be able to counter-balance arbcom, I suggested to arbcom that this council should oversee the ongoing reforms of the arbitration policy. I don't like the arbitration committee being the caretaker of the policy which constrains itself, and believe a council like this will be more suited to coordinate changes to the arbitration policy. The arbitration committee should continue to improve our own internal processes, but the scope should be managed by the community.

Another reason for a council of this sort is to avoid another date delinking case. Or failing that, if one does happen (WP:FICT is likely to be the next one, but BLP/Flagged Revs may also rapidly turn into a bitter mess), and if this council does have some runs on the board, the arbitration committee could refer the matter to this council to be worked through as a "project" rather than the arbitration committee attempting to solely address the user conduct while leaving the underlying problem unsolved.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

John, I am delighted that my understanding of this change was correct—the proper definition of ArbCom's scope (a more restrained one) in the draft new policy. For the sake of community input, I believe it might have been better for all of the changes to have been supported by a summary that made explicit the strategy behind them; I only noticed this major change a few days ago while comparing the existing and proposed policy documents, and I do believe no one outside the Committee has been aware of it until now.

If "Advisory" is taken out of the name of the new body, and it is cast as independent of ArbCom (i.e., not advising it, but perhaps examining what it wants to as well as matters of procedure, constitution and content that are referred to it by ArbCom), it begins to present less of a constitutional problem per se. But I am still nervous about its ability to do anything but repeat all of the foibles—the squabbling, the circle-treading, the ultimate inaction—of much community discussion, except in a more concentrated, high-profile forum. There is, of course, a precedent for the establishment of authority, although it is rooted in the early days when the project was relatively innocent: the FAC process, with Raul as Director; in turn, more recently, Raul has anointed the FAC Delegates (his assistants), and the community-elected inaugural FLC directorate, both of which have proved highly successful. But no one elected Raul in the first place. It has turned out well, but it was a gamble. Tony (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you have identified the biggest problem: Communication of the vision or strategy behind the reforms. The message isnt always clear because the committee has been building it in an ad-hoc fashion, as time allows and needs dictate. The core of the problem is that we started off this year with 15 visions, and we only learn where those overlap gradually when proposals are made. The difficulty of obtaining consensus within the committee has often meant that some proposals take forever to make it out the door (such as the the arbcom policy reform), while others are quickly passed and sometimes arrive half-baked.

The "Advisory" aspect is quite crucial in my opinion (the concept rather than the name), however I think some people have read too much into it "advising Arbcom". My understanding is that this council will provide advice on large problems that face the community. There will be times when this advice is needed in a timely manner by Arbcom, but hopefully this council will be delivering advice that the community picks up, thereby solving problems before arbitration is required. If the arbitration committee does take advice from this council, it will be in lieu of a) soliciting advice privately, or b) trying to make sense of responses given to a public request.

I agree that this council needs to break free from ArbCom, and that this will be a difficult road in the current climate. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Question on arb presence on ACPD by Casliber

We discussed this on the arb mailing list. This shouldn't be too had to nut out. I saw my place as a content contributor, wikiprojects person and also a liaison with the arbitration committee. Do people see this combination as a net positive (eg. global view) or net negative (eg. COI) on such a committee as the ACPD? I was initially in favour of the ACPD as deciding whether there should be any arbs on the group. I am happy to work with consensus on this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Net positive

1. If it is supposed to be an advisory body to Arbcom, it make sense to have at least one member there to field questions and give background. If that position is one without say, voting rights within the council, then that might be a way to achieve the function without the worry. But, if the council is supposed to be representative of the community and include various constituent groups, arbcom would naturally be part of that and so a vote makes sense by extension. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
2. (nods at Joopers)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
3. If this is going to go ahead, I personally believe you would be a very solid person to have there and you would have my confidence. (I still believe it shouldn't go ahead, however.) Orderinchaos 01:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
4. I'm indifferent to the presence or absence of arbitrators on the council though having arbitrators (in their private capacity) involved would result in more informed feedback to ArbCom. I cannot see this as a net negative.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
5. I'm also indifferent to the presence of one or two arbs on the council, as long as the council is not advising ArbCom. ArbCom is not GovCom: it is a magistracy, not a broad-scope governing body. Tony (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Net negative

1. At the risk of validating objectionable premises by replying at all, yes. Durova²⁷⁵ 00:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
2. "Weak net negative". Nothing against you or Kyrill personally, but I think having serving arbs on a council like this opens a can of worms. What happens when a policy approved by the council is challenged and goes to arbitration? When the council is discussing an issue and you have the unfair advantage of knowing how the rest of the arbs will vote on it? Besides, if this ends up making (or recommending) policy decisions, your presence may have a chilling effect, as people may feel that your side is bound to win. We already have this problem in any contentious area – just look at the inevitable flurry whenever Jimmy Wales decides to opine on something. While the old hands can and do argue with the powers-that-be, plenty of newer or less active editors feel that it's somehow inappropriate to disagree with those in a position of authority. – iridescent 00:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
3. I think it arguably depends (could I hedge my bets any more!), but as currently conceived ArbCom member presence is likely a net negative, if only in the realm of public perception (which is not a small deal, obviously). If the remit of this group comes from ArbCom and if the group is supposed to advise yet be independent of ArbCom, then I think it inadvisable for there to be ArbCom members on it, simply because there would be the perception (rightly or wrongly) that it was the ArbCom's "pet committee" (to quote a famous musical). However if we, taking on board the obvious objections to this whole proposal here in the RfC, say that the remit of the Advisory Council ultimately comes from the community—i.e. if we hash out the specifics and come to some rough agreement about what something like this would look like—then having a couple of ArbCom members probably makes sense. If the Advisory Council is essentially answerable to/at the service of the project as a whole, unwieldy as that may seem and be, I think there would be less objection to arbs sitting on it. I do think we are putting the cart before the horse somewhat in even asking this question, as there is clearly significant objection to this entire endeavor as currently laid out and I think we need to deal with the larger issues first. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Clearly the involvement with and presence of Arbitrators on the Council is a net negative in the eyes of the community. If it's truly to be a community-sanctioned body to develop ideas for the project, it should come from a broader swathe on contributors, and less from judicial-type bodies like ArbCom. Steven Walling (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Arbs should be cordially invited to contribute comments or suggestions on the talk page but there is little to gain by having one more voice on the official page. The presence of an Arb will alter the internal dynamics and question the degree of the council's independence — that's a lot to sacrifice so one person can have a little more power. --maclean 02:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
6. ArbCom appears unclear as to the role of an ArbCom member. Casliber says, "I saw my place as a content contributor, wikiprojects person and also a liaison with the arbitration committee." This is in conflict with the statement by John Vanderberg[4] "This group is not going to act as a liaison between the community and the arbitration committee." —Mattisse (Talk) 18:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   That is incorrect. My statement is that the council as a whole would not be a liason between the community and the committee. Cas is saying that he sees his role on council consisting of liaising between the council and the committee. I can see some value in having arbcom members on the council, but I can also see the benefit of excluding arbitration committee members in order that they are more distinct. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

7. This is clearly a net negative. When ArbCom is selecting its own advisors that's already a COI. When they're selecting them from their own membership, that also blatantly violates the Advisory Council's statement of purpose. Edward321 (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Net negative: ArbCom advising ArbCom seems both illogical and against the purported aim of the group. Ha! (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Nothing personal about Cas or Krill as I believe both to be fine gentlemen but, yes, an overlap or blending of membership is, in my most honest opinion, a net negative. And honestly, having ArbCom members on their own advisory group seems like circular nonsense to me which would likely have a degrading, undermining effect for reasons mentioned above by Iri and Bigtimepeace. I don't have a problem with ArbCom taking advice from whoever they so desire for arbitration and dispute resolution purposes, but this is obviously much more than that. Sarah 13:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Net negative: Just because the arbs got elected to solve intractable disputes doesn't mean its ok or beneficial for wikipedia for such persons to establish another hierarchy of networkers and flatterers, independent of the community and dependent on them, to lord it over wikipedia's core users. They should stick to their role, and if the community decides it needs to give badges to some chatterers then the community can do it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

PS: I want people to be honest, as we are trying to forge something and move forward and I want to see how big a sticking point this is. My access will be on and off all day as I have some RL chores to attend to :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think representing all walks of Wikipedians is a good idea, though the inclusion of an ArbCom member might be blurring some lines a bit much, as the group is meant to be advisory. While 'separation of powers' may be overstating the issue slightly, it's the closest relevant phrase to describe it. The makeup of the rest of the committee is what's concerning; as it stands, the current membership of the committee is something like 85% administrators... a group that makes up 10% of the active editors. I think the problems with that are relatively obvious. → ROUX ₪ 23:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

We hadn't consciously intended that. We were more looking for people that had been around and had extensive experience in certain areas. Anyway, question is how to proceed really...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Never meant to imply it was intentional. That it was unintentional is arguably worse, and may be evidence that this was brought out before due time. → ROUX ₪ 00:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know what ArbCom members think they can learn from me, or anyone else they might seek or hear advice from. Before this proposal, I had not assumed my opinion was needed nor wanted. --Moni3 (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I know the feeling. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement By RDH(Ghost In The Machine)

This RFC is an exercise premature overreaction. The advisory council is at best a small step in the right direction towards an ArbCom that is more responsive to the concerns of the contributors. It is at worst an exercise in the Mostly harmless. Let's give it time...see how, and if, it works, THEN start throwing rocks or praise accordingly. If it is done with transparency, then there is no danger of it mutating into a Kitchen Cabinet. That would be an improvement over the unofficial, off-wiki, Smoke-filled rooms and backdoor channels which have been so often gamed and abused in the past.

Editors endorsing this statement

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Steven Walling (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
3. I tend to agree with this, it is a shame this RfC is happening so quickly, but hopefully we can find some common ground. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
4. older ≠ wiser 02:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
5. → ROUX ₪ 02:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Are we really a community so conservative to even try this toothless wonder? Rather than strangle us at birth, please tell us the problems and we'll try and fix them--Joopercoopers (talk) 03:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   If it is not toothless, it is dangerous. If it is toothless, it is useless. I don't see why we need to "experiment" in this way, especially given this push has not come from the community. Orderinchaos 03:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   It is toothless, but not useless - the community will decide whatever 'proposals' might arise from it. Getting some clarity of intent before the usual 100s of kb of discussion seems like a good procedural idea to me. --Joopercoopers (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   This is fundamental misunderstanding of the council's nature. It's always better to jaw, jaw rather than war, war, and you don't need teeth to jaw :)  Roger Davies ^talk 08:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   I stand by what I said above, that even trying this in its current form is a net negative. Because it seems pretty clear that it's going to be widely seen as illegitimate ("I'm not sure if any sort of binding consensus will come out of the RfC, and I fully intend on ignoring it, really" speaks volumes), any good ideas you come up with are going to be tainted by their source (in exactly the same way that a good idea suggested by Greg Kohs would likely be disregarded by many regardless of merit). Any bad ideas you come up with – and the last 24 hours have demonstrated that the most well-meaning committee can come up with bad ideas – will meanwhile be given a spurious legitimacy by virtue of having come from what will be broadly perceived as Jimbo's Illuminati. Nice to see that the (so far) 43 people opposed to this are being dismissed by you as "1) personal political reasons; 2) philosophical reasons; 3) the 'new thing' would minimize their 'power'", though – that makes me feel all warm inside. – iridescent 12:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   Don't use my words to try and smear everyone else, please. I'm sorry that 24 hours isn't enough for the restoration of the Kingdom, but some things take time. And this RfC was way too early to help matters rather than dividing discussion. Take to talk if you disagree. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

7. لennavecia 04:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Advice and consultation is not useless. DGG (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Let's not step on those who are trying to improve things. Kevin (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
12. I also think this RFC is premature. The 2009 ArbCom is the most radically reform-minded ever and this discussion has already precipitated two resignations from it, with perhaps more to follow.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
13. It's better and far more honest than the secret bodies, upon which such as SlimVirgin have served in the past. Giano (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
15. The RfC is premature, but it springs naturally from a badly thought-out and badly-presented idea. Quite how the ArbCom members involved in it thought that presenting a fait accompli like this to the community - especially when it was utterly unclear what the actual purpose and scope of the Council is - was a good idea completely baffles me. I am equally surprised that none of the 18 members who accepted positions raised any red flags either - if indeed they were informed that this is how it would be presented. It is a shame, as the actual membership of this putative body is a pretty good one, if somewhat admin-heavy. However, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater; Everyking's proposal in the section above is a good starting point, and would hopefully address most of the concerns about transparency and scope of those that have posted in the opening section. Black Kite 10:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
16. I believe that arbcom has the prerogative to set up whatever internal committees they wish. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
17. the wub "?!" 11:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
18. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
19. I can't believe some of the opposition to this, actually. Arbcom has the prerogative to take counsel from whoever it wishes, in whatever form and manner it wishes, whenever it wishes. Such input is not binding on ArbCom or anyone else. Nor is it governance. There has been much criticism of ArbCom for NOT listening... when it sets up something structured (and please look again at the names on the list... some very competent people on there) it's greeted with howls. There is no pleasing a mob, is there? Wikipedia may well be terminally ungovernable. Sign me disgusted... ++Lar: t/c 15:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
20. There is another angle to the democracy issue. The arbitration committee are representatives democratically elected by the community, right? It is not generally considered undemocratic if a democratically elected body appoints specialists to advise them, is it? Many democratically elected bodies, up to and including national governments, employ think thanks or consultancy firms composed of people selected meritocratically, for their insight and expertise. This council here is actually holding its deliberations in public, with an opportunity for others to make an input on a talk page, unlike the think tanks our governments employ, or the back channels used in WP to date. JN466 18:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
21. This is right. I for one hope that the council comes up with more representative ways to get things done around here. This project may some day deserve harsh criticism, but it's just an experiment right now. Cool Hand Luke 19:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
22. Yep. One of several steps made by the the 2009 ArbCom toward reducing or 'eliminating the Arbitration Committee's role in in governing the project. People who are painting it otherwise are very far off the mark. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

    Comment If the critics are off the mark, then perhaps the supporters should do a better job of explaining. Nothing in the page on the Advisory Council gives any indication that this will reduce or eliminate ArbCom's role. I recommend supporters provide clear explanations for why they believe this Council will reduce or eliminate ArbCom's role, why they believed it was a good idea to not discuss it with the general community, what the qualifications are for being selected for the Council, why they though it was a good idea to ignore forming concensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Self electing groups, and why they thought it was a good idea to repeatly violate the Council's purpose statement by putting multiple members of ArbCom on the Council. Edward321 (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

    The reason that the RFC is premature is because that we were in the process of launching the ACPD when the RFC was started. The Committee knew that the ideas about the new Council would need to be explained. We were just getting started. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

    The RFC came 38 hours after the APCD was announced at ArbCom, 27 hours after the APCD members were publicly informed. Obviously, the APCD and potential members were discussed before that. If ArbCom realized that the ACPD needed to be explained, that seems ample time for ArbCom and/or the ACPD to have prepared an explanation. It would still be helpful if the questions I asked were answered. Edward321 (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

    To my mind the RFC was started prematurely. Very soon after the ACPD was announced and before most of the Community had time to know that it existed and before the Committee had a chance to answer the questions that were coming in. If you look on the Notice Board, members of the Committee were answering questions. You need to remember that we are volunteers with full lives outside of Wikipedia. We live in half a dozen time zones around the world. We also had other Committee work to complete simultaneously. Thus my support of the statement in this section. You can disagree if you want. But it is my perspective.

    To answer a few of your question. Currently, ArbCom IS tasked with doing some types of work that fall outside of dispute resolution. Member of the Committee do not think that this needs to remain the same. But unfortunately, the Community has been lagging behind in filling the gap with stable alternatives that have good Community consensus. For example, selecting the people that have special access tools such as Oversight and Checkuser. The members of the Committee also have the tools. As well, ArbCom is responsible for monitoring these users use of the tools. Many members of the 2009 Committee want to move away from this model, so we started an Audit Subcommittee that includes three members of the Community. We started the process after the Community had several failed attempts to get something off the ground. In a few weeks, ArbCom will be holding the second cycle of Community election to select people to use the tools. At this time, the Committee is still completely responsible for running the elections. I think that ACPD could discuss alternative ways to hold the elections that would still meet the requirements of the Foundation for selecting users, allow vetting of the users for significant problems in their editing history, and allow for Community voting, and certification of the results by a election committee. Because the process that Wikipedia English is using is working pretty well, there has not been loads of support for altering the process from the Community. But since the task of selecting the people with special access is not part of dispute resolution, then it makes sense to examine this tradition to see if alternative scenarios will give as good or better results. In my opinion, this type of policy change discussion needs to happen after participants have time to do research into the issues. The ACPD could do the background research, make several alternative proposals, and offer them to the Community to review. Unfortunately, in the past, new Community proposals stall because there was not enough preparatory work done. Also, the several alternative that may be proposed are not offered in a way that lets one or the other gain full Community consensus.

    Since the Community seems uncertain about how to get think tanks started, the Committee decided to jump start the process. I think that once the ball gets rolling, then the Community will see the value in changing the way that policy and processes are altered, and a new improved form of ACPD will happen. More later. Off line for the night. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

    Flo, no-one is questioning the fact that Arbs have actual lives outside of Wikipedia, and live in different timezones. The question here is that you guys already knew that, and unleashed this proposal as a fait accompli. You really can't object to community backlash on this, switch the shoes and imagine your own reaction from the position of a non-privileged editor. Franamax (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

    It's a fait accompli for something utterly innocuous. It's a talk shop not a government in waiting. This really is being blown up out of all proportion.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

23. Strongly Endorse. I am in total agreement with this statement. John Carter (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
24. Especially the part about responsiveness and transparency. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
25. — Coren ^(talk) 16:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors opposing this statement

1. So we should just sit around and wait until such a time as things people are afraid will happen, actually happen? When this "policy advisory committee" issues a recommendation for a particular governance action, which gets endorsed by the ArbCom even though neither body has the right to make such recommendations, nor to enforce them? Is the ArbCom so afraid of the community that not only do they present these undemocratic actions as Star Chamber faits accomplis, but are unwilling to listen to the community when we object? The ArbCom presented this as having already occurred with no community input, nor even warning that it was going to happen, and now we should lie back and take it? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   Or, y'know, you could assume some good faith that when they state their motives for why they created this, they're telling the truth. → ROUX ₪ 19:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   The road to hell is often paved with the best of intentions. Badger Drink (talk) 07:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

   As I have said elsewhere, I have a great deal of respect for many of the admins who supported this council. I just find the action wrongheaded, and can't see that it could possibly be of any practical use at this point in time, where so many people oppose its very existence in the current format. And I do not oppose the goals, I oppose the implementation. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   To WTWAG - do you really think that a different group is going to come up with a radically different view of what areas are troubled areas on wikipedia? if not, can you see the benefit of watchnig and advising, until such time as it becomes more community-led/chosen? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

   (I replied here but Cas has proposed this exact question as a separate proposal, so I relocated it there :) Orderinchaos 21:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

2. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:JoshuaZ

There have been many valid concerns laid out above but I'd like to bring up another one: This "advisory council" contains not only non-admins but people who have actively failed to gain adminship. That means the community does not have a consensus of trust for those individuals. Selecting them in a non-transparent, undemocratic process is at best extremely rude to the community as a whole. It still unclear how anyone was selected for this committee. At minimum, explanation is needed for how this selection occurred. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about this more. Given the circumstances this really isn't that big a deal. Although it does make me unhappy and is another example of how this really wasn't well thought out. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Could you provide links to the failed RFAs please. Giano (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Off the top of my head. The obvious one is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cla68 (the fact that I would probably support him if he ran for admin tomorrow and that there were serious problems with that RfA is really besides the point). JoshuaZ (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes, that RfA was basically not an RfA but an argument about Gary Weiss and Wikipedia Review, not to mention what we now know about one of the protagonists. To be honest, I can't really see how it's relevant anyway. Black Kite

Yes. Valid. After looking through the other candidates there aren't any other examples. Still, I'd feel much better if Cla68 ran for adminship first and then did this. The entire idea of the committee going over the community heads to the extent to include individuals that the community has actively said it didn't trust is pretty extreme. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for striking through. However, I am still confused - of whom exactly (you say individuals) has the community said "it didn't trust." I for one, think it is admirable that this council has members who are not Admins - what exactly is it about non-Admins that you have a problem with? Giano (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• • I don't have a problem with non-admins per se. The worry is that once someone has run for adminship and failed that's a statement that amounts to the community saying that they don't want someone to be a in a position of power. That's distinct from simply not running for adminship. It would indeed be a bit akin to my being put on this council. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry, you are not answering my question - which "individuals" (you use the plural) is ut that the community has said it does not trust? Giano (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Only one. Note how I struck out my remarks and clarified right above that "After looking through the other candidates there aren't any other examples." JoshuaZ (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Rootology

Wikipedia is functionally broken. Nothing ever gets done, and too many people are self-appointed politicians. Any positive changes require increasingly overwhelming and increasingly unlikely consensus due to persistent handfuls of users that scream all manner of nonsense from CREEP to BEURO to ABCD as reasons to shut down any change. Some feel that it's not needed, whatever "it" is, but clearly "it" is needed or more and more people wouldn't be screaming for It. Our public reputation is in tatters, Jimbo Wales for whatever reason is now unwilling to put his foot down on even simple things (Where are our Flagged Revisions?), and the Arbcom tries to do one thing to facilitate simple discussion of possible changes--not even possible changes--and everyone goes mental, leading to the resignations of two Arbs.

This site is getting increasingly fucked by various degrees of irrelevant politics and pointless cults of personality, and I fear that unless we do have some sort of sweeping, perhaps militant action, things are going to increasingly spiral out of control and South year over year. If this is the reaction to the creation of a panel to look into our problems, we're simply fucked.

More verbosely here: User:Rootology/Wikipedia is broken and failing

Editors endorsing this proposal

1. rootology (C)(T) 20:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
2. I'm not sure how you really feel about this, but I agree with it ;) → ROUX ₪ 20:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Pretty much, though I wouldn't have put it quite so strongly. Because I'm dry and boring. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   comments removed to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development#Statement by User:Rootology --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

4. I wouldn't say Wikipedia is functionally broken. The governance structure, absolutely. But Wikipedia continues to wander along, amoeba-like, assimilating good and bad information more or less indifferently, exhibiting little sense of overall direction, or, perhaps even attempting to move in multiple contradictory directions at the same time. older ≠ wiser 20:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   I must say, Wikipedia as an information hungry but ultimately unintelligent ameoba is one of the best visualizations I have heard in a long time. Time to give Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan some competition?  ;-) Dragons flight (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   So Rootology is proposing the solution to the problems he sees ("fucked by various degrees of irrelevant politics and pointless cults of personality") is a military coup? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   The power centers on this site (including Raul & FAs, BAG, AC, and Jimmy) are only there by the grace of the masses, so if that's how you want to interpret it, sure. rootology (C)(T) 21:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   If those were really the powers centers, wouldn't Raul and Sandy Georgia have been invited to join this council? Or perhaps they were, and declined the honor? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

5. I want to sign it twice! —harej (talk) (cool!) 01:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Kudos for trying something bold and new; I proposed such committees/think tanks when I ran for ArbCom. I should also confess that if I disliked the members the ArbCom had invited, I would be much more upset about this sort of thing, but they are all very sensible and thoughtful people, which brings me to another point.... Durova and SV are whining about this invitation-only stuff, but not so long ago they were the dual queens of behind-the-scenes clubhousing (remember the wiki-stalking mailing list? Those were the days). This council's actions appear to be public, and they can be held accountable for their good or bad findings. Methinks if the council consisted of fewer members with whom SV had quarreled in the past, her objections would be less strenuous.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Once again Rootology gets to the root of the problem. I fear what we are headed for without more formal, democratic governance and guidance, is an Eternal September. It destroyed the Usenet and it will destroy Wikipedia just as surely.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Agree with Root. And if TFMWNCB had posted his agree as a separate view, I'd agree with that too. ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
9. I would not put it quite so harshly - after all, articles are still being written and improved and this is one of the most-visited websites - but any decision that could legitimately claim broad consensus across active editors is TL;DR. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Correct but the statement is attacking a strawman. CIreland (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment

"Where are our flagged revisions?" - They are coming. The trial with 83% support has been approved by the WMF and will be implemented. However, whoever proposed the configuration either didn't know or didn't care that the existing flagged revision software was not designed to do that. So far no volunteer has stepped up to write the necessary changes and it hasn't become a high enough priority for any of the paid staff to spare the time to do so. Dragons flight (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Hmm. Interesting. Did not know that. Why don't we just accept one of the other simpler configurations then until that gets sorted out? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine, demonstrate that the community will accept one of the stock configurations, preferably while specifying exactly which configuration options to use. Dragons flight (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Pleasae open that discussion, explaining the alternatives for us. I think we need to try this to figure out whether it would work at all. DGG (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• I totally don't get the "Wikipedia is functionally broken. Nothing ever gets done" type of argument. What do you mean by broken? We are a website dedicated to writing an encyclopedia. The encyclopedia is being written, at a rate of dozens of articles a day, vandals are being blocked, and the website still runs. As far as I am concerned, Wikipedia works just fine and the work that matters is being done. Maybe the solution to any perceived problems is less wikipoliticking and more content writing?  Sandstein  06:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps you are right. :)) It's early days, but for reference, the think tank's own tentative list of problem statements to work on is developing here. JN466 13:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• It's mainly my view, as seen at User:Rootology/Wikipedia is broken and failing. Yes, content is getting made, but most of everything else is fundamentally broken. rootology (C)(T) 19:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Root, hopefully you know how much I appreciate your efforts, and admire the things you've done. There have been a LOT of "proposals" and discussions lately on things that could be changed for the better. From the separation of Jimbo and ArbCom, to the Civility poll, to "The future", to "Paid editing" ... well, let's just say there have been a LOT of those kinds of discussions lately. It's easy for frustration creep in, when things don't change overnight. Please don't let that cloud your judgment of the the good things that WP has going for it as well. The very fact that we have these discussions, out in the open, speaks volumes. We're growing as a community, maturing as a project - and just like a living breathing person, sometimes we need to look for "new clothes" when the old ones don't fit anymore. It's not always best to just "buy what's on sale", sometimes it helps to shop around a bit. Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  21:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hypothetical re. Clarity and Scope

If magic pixie dust was sprinkled over objections relating to the roll-out, legitimacy, elections and other complaints, ie. if it was a perfectly representative advisory body to 'the community' rather than 'arbcom', in what way does the community see a group like this being helpful or unhelpful? --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors endorsing the hypothetical endorsement thought experiment

• Outriggr (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment

See #Question_on_scale_of_WP_by_Casliber. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Question on selection of personnel and impact on their views of by Casliber

Okay everyone - do we really think that a group of editors elected by the community to be part of some form of think-tank to examine which areas of the 'pedia may be troubled or not working, would come up with a radically different view of what is wrong on the 'pedia? Do we think that the people on the ACPD thus far are non-approachable to the point they will ignore views from concerned editors?

Yes, I think that is the better solution to the current selection

1. Community input/ broader nominations and debate might produce a better expert committee, now that it seems a committee is called for...Modernist (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think there would be radically different priorities

1. Cas, you're asking straw-man type questions here, which serves no purpose. I'll post here what I posted on your talk page. I can't guess what an elected group would differ on, because I have no idea what the people you invited think is wrong, and that is part of the problem. The point is that the ArbCom is acting beyond its remit. It was elected to resolve disputes, nothing more. In fact, this particular ArbCom was expressly elected as a backlash against the previous ArbCom appearing to assume too much authority. Good governance can't simply be a goal. It has to be a practice and a state of mind too. Here, now, we have a chance to show that we respect good governance, not only in principle, not only for the future, and not only when it's convenient. If such a think-tank is to exist, it needs to be entirely separated from the ArbCom, the candidates must say what they want to achieve, and then they must stand for election. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Per SlimVirgin: Even if the two groups came up with the exact same list, an elected group's priorities would be made known during the election process, which makes a radical difference. Nifboy (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
3. A think-tank's purpose is not simply to define problems. Its purpose to suggest solutions. Different groups of editors would propose radically different solutions to the same problem. You can't argue that this group of editors is as good as any other so we may as well stick with it. It's critically important who is on the panel. If the previous ArbCom were sitting instead of the current one, would it reach exactly the same decisions as you do? Besides, I don't think the discussion should move towards who should be on the council when we haven't yet agreed whether it should exist at all. I don't think it should. At least, not until it has been given very clear terms of reference--MoreThings (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
4. A properly constituted group with legitimacy to fulfil its own aims would either be more broadly representative, or bring in valuable external feedback, or both. (It's worth noting that in Australia, Constitutional Conventions convened to discuss questions of public importance usually include a mix of elected and appointed members, with the appointed minority providing particular representation hard to get with a democracy or particular viewpoints/expertise considered necessary to assist the determinations.) As CC's are also talking shops and their proposals are only considered, not necessarily implemented, by the govt of the day they are probably the best parallel in the real world to this innovation. Most of the names I see on there, I see on AN/I every second day - they have a very particular view of the Wikiworld which the great majority of volunteers have no stake in and their perception of issues may well be very different to a content editor or an expert in the field (as in, someone who advises on this stuff for companies and non-profits and the like with a degree in it.) Orderinchaos 21:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Agree with Slim and MoreThings. (though with all due respect to the appointed Councilors as established and experienced Wikimedians, I must admit I find it hard to believe the community would elect a Councilor who isn't active on this project and has barely made 500 edits in the last two years and I guess that's actually the point of these appointments - the community isn't smart enough to consider recommendations and appoint their own members so it's got to be imposed by people who apparently know better.) Sarah 00:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No, priorities would have a lot of overlap

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
2. In general terms, yes. → ROUX ₪ 03:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
3. They'd probably come up with fairly similar lists. As per my previous comments, the difference would be that ideas coming from a council seen as having some legitimacy (whether it be elected, a delegate from each active project, or even an open-to-everyone free for all) would be taken more seriously than those same ideas coming from a self-appointing clique. As currently constituted, this effectively creates an in-house version of Wikipedia Review, which again often comes up with good ideas that aren't taken seriously due to the source. – iridescent 10:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I think many if not most of the problems here are fairly clear. So it wouldn't matter too much how the group was selected. But the value from a group like this would come from crafting solutions away from the noise that kind of discussion usually generates with lot's of people all talking at once. So in order to be effective (in proposing solutions) they should be elected/selected by the community in order to have some buy-in up front. As far as the current proposed membership and your second question, some of the current members attitudes are so bad that this idea is sunk before it had a chance to show any value at all. Some really poor choices were made when inviting editors to participate. There's a significant amount of venom, over the top rhetoric and disrespect already coming from some members of the group, enough that they are already way too polarizing to be of any use. RxS (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object to Casliber's entire line of questioning, here and elsewhere. See framing (social sciences). This smells like the sort of politics that makes me dig in my heels. Durova²⁷⁷ 04:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is a poor and suspect way to frame the issue. Everyking (talk) 06:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a framing problem here, but I'm not sure it's coming from Casliber, or at least not solely. ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the questions either but Cas is acting in good faith. Orderinchaos 20:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Per SlimVirgin. I don't think it matters right now if a community's choice of editors would have radically different views, because that isn't the issue at stake. Many people's objections to this Advisory Group are not that they disapprove of such a committee at all, but rather they disagree with ArbCom's right to create it. Even if such a group chosen by the community would have to be elected (which I think, for things like these, might actually be somewhat of a bad idea), the community could do some sort of system where it elects independent electors for this group, or something like that. NW (Talk) 04:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Coming at this from a slightly different angle, what would the effect be of electing "members"? I suppose my reservation would be that this would elevate an informal talking shop to a formal status which was never really contemplated and which would probably politicise the thing far more than is necessary. The idea was only ever to act as a conduit for ideas, and to explore where they went. I supported the idea of inviting a core of editors simply as a way of giving it enough critical mass to be viable from the off. Of course, once it was set up and running, it could go into whatever direction it chose.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors who refuse to serve upon the advisory panel created by ArbCom

An advisory think tank may be a good idea, but it was not workable for ArbCom to conceive it behind closed doors, hand pick a membership, and announce it as a done deal. That was not a legitimate way to establish a body whose mission includes governance. The editors who sign below pledge not to join it even if invited. We might consider serving on a similar body if established by the community, but not this one.

Editors endorsing this statement

1. Durova²⁷⁷ 04:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Everyking (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Orderinchaos 20:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• This statement implies that ArbCom is not part of the community. I would hope that it could be altered to suggest otherwise. Awadewit (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • When contrasted with ArbCom, community means "non-ArbCom wikipedians". This is standard usage, paralleled in non-wiki world by "government and people". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC
    • Except the ArbCom is really nothing like a government, which is why I have a problem with this. Moreover, to be clear that that ArbCom is a part of the community (which it is), I still think a rewording is order. Awadewit (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
      • It's not supposed to be like a government, though this proposal shows what ArbCom members think of that idea. At any rate, the point is linguistic convenience. As "community except 15 members" is too clumsy, "Community" is the obvious word to use and is natural usage. No need to make a big deal of it. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• This statement also says that the council's mission was governance. That is not the case and asserting it adds considerably more heat than light.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • • 'Includes, not is. Durova²⁷⁷ 14:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Roger, I have to disagree with you there – "considers various issues facing the project and develops ideas, proposals, and recommendations for improving it" (from the project page itself) clearly implies a governance role. – iridescent 10:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    • That's one possible read of it I suppose but it's not the way I interpreted it when I read it, especially since it doesn't mention policy or guidelines. I saw it as helping brainstorm imaginative solutions to long term problems such as country naming disputes.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
      • It's hardly a perverse reading of it; among others at least two Arbcom members (who presumably were privy to the discussions which set this up) have taken it to mean precisely that ([5], [6]). – iridescent 11:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC))
        • • All I can say is that it is not and was not my read of it, which is why I supported it. I would not have supported a motion that sneaked governance in by the back door.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
            • • I'm not sure why this is considered "governance role", as all such proposals would be put before the entire community for approval or rejection. Since it would be the editors deciding what they wanted for themselves, it would be the editors governing themselves, not this group governing them. Awadewit (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
        • It's a fairly reasonable read of it. The text clearly envisages a position for arbcom that takes its role far beyond its original function of reactive dispute settlement (not that ArbCom has been confining itself to that). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to be contrary, but quite genuinely, I want no part in an elected position and if asked to run for such a position would turn it down. Occasionally I have what I think are good ideas or more efficient ways to run something here or there. I have no problem passing along good ideas to people who are receptive to them, but it does not seem worth it to go through a charade such as what many RfAs turn into just to pass along what I think are good ideas. If this advisory committee morphs into a representative system of some kind, I won't be against it. I'm all for democracy where appropriate. One of my good ideas is to appoint a minority number of members who either refuse to run or clearly would epic fail an election, just so they can voice their opinion. --Moni3 (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sidaway - where are you? Giano (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll summon him here posthaste.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors who would be honored to serve upon the advisory panel created by ArbCom

Sure! The opportunity to come up with new ideas to improve the project, and to help my fellow editors to have their concerns better heard at the same time in an open, frank and consequence-free environment, does not come often. I would gladly jump at the chance. Thanks for the invitation and count me in!

Editors endorsing this statement

1. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Thekohser 16:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC). My formal request was already in their e-mail queue several days ago, and I bear no grudge against the Arbitration Committee for not having invited me in the first round of selection.
3. Disclosure: I actually was asked by an Arb (not sure if this was a formal invitation or an attempt to gauge my interest before putting my name before other Arbs) after I started commenting on this stuff. I said I'd consider it. So I'm not saying that I'd definitely serve on this thing, but if I declined to it sure wouldn't be for the reasons Durova et al identify. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Of course. Have indicated interest to ArbCom, though it looks likely this will not go through. → ROUX ₪ 18:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
5. My calming and reasonable nature will help the committee achieve great things. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
6. I don't expect an invitation, and I'm not sure I'd be able to commit the time, but I think that any editor that deals with policy-oriented stuff (instead of focusing exclusively on the more important work, which you'll find in the main namespace) would be happy to help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
7. I am probably far from being the ideal candidate for membership, but I would be more than happy to offer what input I could. John Carter (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Danaman5

I see a lot of statements here expressing concerns over how Arbcom unilaterally established this advisory council without consultation, and I agree with those concerns. However, let's not let our procedural objections stop us from considering the idea in principle. I think that there should be a full community discussion on this possibility. If most people believe that a think tank for solutions to project governance issues is a bad idea in any form, then the discussion will bear that out. However, if there is a way that this proposal can be separated from Arbcom and gain the community's support, it might have value after all.--Danaman5 (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors endorsing this statement

1. --Danaman5 (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Endorse, with the exception of everything in the last sentence before "it might have value". Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Steve Smith. → ROUX ₪ 18:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
4. I'm left wondering: Without "community support" ... how much of a community will there be left to govern. Many folks may not see this small sub-set of editors as any governing body right now; but, when an small elite group of people, (not chosen by, and unsupported by, the community as a whole), start "advising" how established policies and guidelines should be interpreted, defining agendas, and deciding what "our" project development should be - I'm sorry, the whole "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" phrase jumps to the forefront of my thoughts. As Danman5 says, there may be legs for some type of "Council", but if they fail to listen to what the community is saying, I'm not going to have much faith in any "advice" they may have to offer. Long/short? ... Good idea, poorly implemented. — Ched :  ?  18:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
5. I don't see anyone ruling out the possibility of some advisory council getting created. In the words of Mae West "It's not what you do; it's how you do it." Durova²⁷⁷ 20:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Endorse, noting my own stated position that such a body should contain expertise which is external to Wikimedia, which has the dual benefits of getting in advice for ArbCom and the community on project governance and development matters which is useful and best-practice, and at the same time distancing the new body from existing Wikipolitics and factions. The *idea* is fine, *this construction* of it is not, and I'd be sad to see the impetus for change killed by the death of a dumb/unconstitutional proposal. Orderinchaos 20:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by EricBarbour

This advisory committee may be a good idea. It may not be a good idea. I can't say for certain, and it really ought to be under more community scrutiny than it received when first proposed. Arbcom may or may not do good for Wikipedia with added control over governance. There still is no effective or reliable method of resolving disputes over content, and pointless, wasteful arguments continue to occur every day.

Editors endorsing this statement

1. Endorse - as I said above, community discussion may still yield a valuable proposal.--Danaman5 (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

Good governance does matter, and it is a good thing in its own right, but right now there are hundreds of Wikipedians who are working hard, getting stuff done, who couldn't give a flip about what we navel gazers are doing here. Whatever this vocal segment of the community decides, lets try to keep these folks in mind, and do our best to stay out of their way.

Or maybe even help out.

Editors endorsing this statement

1. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by WhatamIdoing

I simply can't believe the number of people that are invoking WP:BURO here and elsewhere to complain about Arb Com's failure to follow the "ideal" process in proposing this. Perhaps those editors need to read the bit that says, "A procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post." So ArbCom made a "procedural error" in the proposal: Who cares?!

I also can't imagine how creating a page for people to publicly advise ArbCom is worse than our current system, in which individual ArbCom members are forced to ask for advice secretly (because there's simply no other way to do it). If ArbCom wants new ideas, or wants outside opinions from people they trust, then why not have that happen on a page that we can all watch, instead of in e-mail messages or in quiet little corners where nobody notices? This proposal creates more transparency, not less. It might not create enough transparency to satisfy some editors, but it is clearly better than what we have now and should be celebrated as a step in the right direction.

Editors endorsing this statement

1. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

Threaded replies should be directed to the talk page.