Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development

Threaded replies here, please

Leadership

I was considering making the following a statement, but it seems more argumentative.

Despite the hand-wringing about the lack of community involvement and consensus, ArbCom is in fact the de-facto leadership of the project. For better or worse they are answering a call for leadership that comes from the community. If we want ArbCom to be constrained to its formal dispute resolution responsibilities only, we collectively have to step up to the plate and work on solving problems, gathering consensus, and implementing novel solutions when we can.--Tznkai (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

A great idea, Tzn, but generally when people step up to the plate they get shouted at. Never have I seen the status quo defended more vehemently than on Wikipedia. → ROUX ₪ 20:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The leaders need to work on getting smarter about convincing them, and the rest of us need to learn how to shut up and give things a shot. I'm pointing fingers everywhere.--Tznkai (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If they showed great competence in what they are supposed to do (i.e. arbitrate cases), perhaps the task of convincing people that they can do anything at all to improve the situation on content would be a little easier. It's the biggest reason I can't trust them with this one. (I note that this is a collective opinion of the present ArbCom and not a reflection on my view of individual arbs - I have a huge amount of respect for several individual arbs who I think do their jobs admirably - including at least two who I voted against at the time they were put up for consideration.) Orderinchaos 05:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom is established as a judicial body, not an executive. And this new organization, an advisory legislature like the Tsarist Diet, has no support from the vast majority of the editors of Wikipedia. Otherwise it would not have been thrown out there full-blown without prior discussion. A judiciary has no right to establish itself as an executive and to create its own legislature. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No. ArbCom is none of those things, because it is not a government, it is not part of a government. If anything, useful parallels can be drawn against a corportations' Board of Directors, but De Tocqueville's theories can stay somewhere else.

Also I rush to point out that the community and Arbcom are not mutually exclusive entities, and I further point out that sometimes people do unpopular things because they think wrongly that they will be popular.--Tznkai (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, I respect you and your opinions in many areas but here we differ. ArbCom's mandate is conduct dispute resolution, period. What we need are better checks and balances upon it, not an expansion of its authority. I vote for arbitrators based upon trust in their ability to read and evaluate evidence in relation to existing policies. Frequently I vote for people whose wikiphilosophies and ideas about governance are substantially different from my own, if they bring good arbitration skills to the table. That is what they are elected to do and that is all they are elected to do. ArbCom is not a governing council. Durova²⁷⁵ 23:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This matches my very simplistic reason for wanting this advisory council to be set up: Arbcom is currently looked to for leadership, and that is wrong.

In order that Arbcom becomes less of a leader, we have set up this advisory council to look at how to improve project leadership and/or governance, and their recommendations will be subject to community approval and implementation. If they are going to have any success, they will need to gather and consider opinions from across the community. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, it matches the reason I opposed ArbCom's RfC on content dispute resolution. If the members of the Committee had only refrained from wrapping that in the mantle of ArbCom--if they had instead proposed the idea to the community in their role as editors that would have been quite persuasive. The danger of attempting this from the top-down is that it risks a site culture in which entirely too much of the important decisions get driven by arcane internal politics. And Vassyana was exactly right when he said this stepped outside the Committee's mandate. Durova²⁷⁵ 02:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, agree with Durova. If this was ArbCom's concern, the proper way to proceed would have been for concerned parties to make a proposal to the community, rather than presenting it to us as a fait acompli (and y'all know this; there's probably 30-40 years of Wikipedia experience on the current committee). Most people, from what I can see, are not opposed to the idea per se, they're opposed to Arb Com stepping outside their mandate by deciding on this and setting it up on their own, to the extent of appointing membership, without any consultation with the community whatsoever. And then you present it to us as a done deal and really expected everyone to fall in line? Even if you all thought this was a brilliant idea, I'm really quite shocked that the committee thought it appropriate to appoint membership to a body supposedly set up to make recommendations to the community; did you really think the community wouldn't expect to have some say in its membership and that there wouldn't be a huge stink for exactly the reasons Steve and Vassyana objected? And why did the committee proceed despite Vassyana and Steve's objections? It's not like you were all caught up and didn't have any sensible, "reality check" type advice. I fear that this is a manifestation of a very concerning attitude towards the community by many arbitrators. Sarah 06:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

While I understand where this opinion is coming from, I think that Arbcom was intending to short-circuit the inevitable "Well how do we begin? Let's have a pre-meeting to schedule the meeting for our round-table discussion on how to set up the meeting" stuff and the equally inevitable "NO HE SHOULDN'T BE ON THIS NO U" crud. With a fait accompli presented, we quite neatly avoid a whole bunch of the standard Wikipedia talking in circles while getting nothing done nonsense. Or that, I think, was the intention. It clearly has not worked. Wikipedia is so horrifyingly resistant to change of any sort that it will be dead in five years if something doesn't force change. → ROUX ₪ 07:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The committee could have done this in two (or more) phases. First phase being the announcement of its intention to create an advisory group and soliciting input into its goals and membership, and a second phase where they codify those goals and appoint members. No, I would definitely say dumping the whole thing on the community at once was unnecessary. On top of which the details of the project seem incompletely thought out or rushed. Dragons flight (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, anybody can make recommendations to the community, and they do so on a regular basis. Lots of good ideas end up lost in the noise. This group will hopefully pick up good ideas that are "too big" for individuals to realistically push, and help ensure that they are not dropped and that the discussions don't degrade into a constant lack of consensus. Often the "good idea" is wrong because it hasn't been framed well, safeguards have not been put in place, etc., and a consensus can be obtained if it is refined.

My reason for pressing on with this was that I fully expect that community concerns about the makeup of group will ensure that the group will be restructured before too long. I am not keen on this group being an elected committee, but I do want it to be more representative than Arbcom currently is, and more representative than Arbcom is able to create without concerns that it would flounder. For example, I would like to have included members from other wikis, especially German and French Wikipedia, who do not have many edits here, as they will provide interesting perspectives, and we have an enormous editor base whose main project is other than English Wikipedia. Representatives from other WMF projects would also be helpful, in my opinion. The core council will also need to actively find the right people to talk to for each project, probably resulting in working groups, in order that they can present proposals to the community that result in consensus.

All said I think the current membership is a good nugget; they are a fairly diverse group capable of kick starting this, and I fully expect that the structure of this group will undergo a lot of changes as it rolls on. I hope this RFC will help this group find its wings before it hits the ground with a thud. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"Sarah, anybody can make recommendations to the community, and they do so on a regular basis."?? Of course anyone can make proposals and recommendations to the community. I think that's rather the point, John. The committee didn't need to try to foist this upon us when the arbitrators could have recommended or proposed it in a personal capacity and the community could have run with the idea and implemented what it considered appropriate. What you're talking about when you discuss councils of multi-project people is a government and that is something the arbitration committee has no business forcing on the community. Unfortunately, your views here do not surprise me and they are in fact the reason why despite the fact I consider you a great personal friend away from this project, I was unable to support your candidacy for the committee. I think your ideas and visions are too violently progressive for the community and I would caution you against attempting to drag us kicking and screaming into the next phase of the project, lest you end up with no community to govern. Sarah 09:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC) I will also add that this is a community that as a whole is essentially autistic in characteristic and the way to introduce to change to such a community is not with a sledgehammer. I hope that those who have accepted positions on this council will decline on seeing the community reaction, thus forcing you to come back and engage the community at a basic level. I can't imagine there are actually many people who want to "serve" the community against the community's will, so here's hoping. Sarah 09:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no desire to govern the community, and I desperately hope that the arbitration committee has less of a "governing" role as it moves forward, for most sane definitions of "governing".

A council of this sort has part of my vision since July 2008, and my arbcom platform was to devolve responsibility away from the arbitration committee and promote participatory democracy within the community. While I do have strong views on better models for the governance of this project, it is my hope that the arbitration committee, inc. myself, are not major players in project wide reforms. We have enough to do without this. In the above comments, I have shared my views on where I think this council should go from here, however it will be up to the community as a whole to decide that. I am crossing my fingers that the nucleus of the council that has been selected is able to break away from the arbitration committee and find favour with the community.

There is no good way to introduce something like this. It became public before we had planned on it, but ultimately it is going to have to be thrashed out in public, and this is now happening on this RFC. Also, there are many previous attempts to create something along these lines, and they have all failed, resulting in plenty of opportunity to reject this one as well, rather than consider it carefully.

I will be dismayed if this group is rejected wholesale by the community, and it will be ironic if this "good idea" is rejected without the community developing a better alternative in its place. If that happens, the community may find that arbitrators are no longer willing to accept cases that are cluster-fucks caused by a dis-functional community of "senior" Wikipedians, many of whom have lost their passion for working together collaboratively. We need a more organised approach to solving divisive issues before they become political battles that land on medcom or arbcoms plate; when they arrive at the final stop, good Wikipedians get hurt, and that is something we need to avoid by being proactive.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Trying to move forward - my feeling is that if there is general consensus that there should be some group looking at leadership/bigger-picture issues, and that even if it is rebuilt from the ground up in a radically different model, then this will have been a step in the right direction. Okay, we knew there'd be backlash, but if we can agree on some common points all the better because there was pretty much nil happening before this point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Very simple, Cas. Scrap it. Mark the whole darn thing historical. And some of us differ strongly with the opinion that this was a step in the right direction: I certainly hope that supposition isn't an early hint of yet another attempt by ArbCom to expand its mandate. Durova²⁷⁵ 15:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - I agree it was a bad idea from the start - why is a club of favoured editors with direct access to the halls of power actually necessary? This is the exact sort of reason people (ironically with some of their loudest voices amongst this group) criticised IRC last year, and that wasn't even a group with implied authority or access beyond social connection. It seems sadly typical of the 2009 ArbCom - there seems a real issue with understanding their role in the community and responding appropriately to legitimate criticism of their exercise of authority, and this is actually just the latest evidence of it. Orderinchaos 00:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Casliber, with respect, if you knew there would be a backlash, this was a rather odd thing to have done. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, Slim, note that (1) I abstained, but that (2) I did feel ultimately that the benefits of such a body outweigh the negatives, and it needs to be discussed, and (3) We all make decisions that will be unpopular with someone, question is what proportion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say the same. Whatever comments I may make about the overall ArbCom, there are several people on it who have behaved with distinction, who I think are a credit to the thing and I think it's unfortunate that they're stuck with having to defend this beast. Like I've said before, makes me glad I didn't run. Orderinchaos 04:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Kirill Lokshin has resigned from the ArbCom as a result of the formation of the council

[1]. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful, NOT. One of the best admins and arbs we've ever had was driven away by the reaction to something he felt would help improve wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that sucks and I don't think a resignation was necessary, just some clarification and some time for the community to understand the purpose of the proposal. --Moni3 (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't blame him. Arbing is a completely thankless job. No matter what an arb does there's one or more groups out there that bitch at you about it. Maybe all of arbcom will resign. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia is a thankless job. We just do what we do because we find some kind of reward in it, and those rewards aren't consistently dominated by torrents of abuse. Only brief moments of really intense abuse. --Moni3 (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You've never been an arb, you have no idea. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate that Arbs become high profile to resolve disputes, which inherently makes them targets for criticism, I think it's unwise to assume what kind of ideas I have about such experiences, or attempt to legitimize one type of disillusionment/pain/rejection when compared to others. It's a human, social condition, not native to any single experience. This is what I believe Kirill Loshkin was attempting to address in part by this committee. People have genuine concerns about the future of Wikipedia and its direction, and I believe most of them responding to the RfC want to help and have each their own experiences with disillusionment/pain/rejection that they wish to prevent themselves or others going through again. This mentality that puts us in one group that is opposed by another is what keeps this from becoming a Wikipedia-wide priority. It's happening on all sides. I know it's painful to drop it, because it almost seems like a comfort to be suspicious, to accuse, identify with one group and note your differences from another. It's like rote finger-drumming, not realizing you're doing it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

“Maybe all of arbcom will resign”? — Aitias // discussion 22:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure why not, the community bitches no matter what we do, it's a totally thankless job. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to politics, if at least 20% of people aren't pissed at you then you are probably doing it wrong. Seriously though, ArbCom's work is important, and I would thank you and the other committee members for being willing to stand in front of that firing squad and trying to really get things done. Dragons flight (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well done. The torches-and-pitchforks have really helped improve Wikipedia today. Sigh. This sort of thing is precisely why Wikipedia is locked into this horrible zombie-like shambling monstrosity that is a distorted development of what it could and should have been. Someone tries in good faith to start something that can only serve to improve the project... and they get shouted down and harangued. → ROUX ₪ 22:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see where anyone had called for the resignation prior to Kirill's having tendered it. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    • A gentlemanly observation. Durova²⁷⁵ 01:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect Rlevse (and you're due quite a lot of that for all your work here), while I can at least partially appreciate your frustration (admin work can be similarly thankless, though I fully understand that being an arb is qualitatively different in terms of the crap you take), I think perhaps you are reacting too strongly (though your reaction is understandable and not an unreasonable one). Many folks are upset at how this was created and rolled out, feeling that the community ought to have had more input at the outset, which I also think is not unreasonable. But a lot of those stating opposition on this RfC also like the idea of an advisory committee along these lines to think through some big project issues (I'm one of those). I have a feeling those supporting this group as it exists now and (most of) those opposed are actually not that far apart about what we would want in the end, though perhaps the tone taken in some of the comments in the RfC belies that (unfortunately that often happens in big Wiki debates, obviously). Rather than turning this into ArbCom vs. the community or something similar, can't we try discussing this a bit and hopefully coming up with a solution that is workable for most folks? I think there's a strong possibility we can do that, even if we've likely gotten off on the wrong foot. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If this entire thing were disassociated from ArbCom and we did not advise ArbCom but rather just addressed large community issues, would this help alleviate some of the problems listed here? Am I right in saying most of us are interested larger, project-wide issues anyway? Awadewit (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Make it elective and give the community a voice in its remit, and we'll talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually the community needs to build this thing from the ground up if it's going to be done at all. Durova²⁷⁵ 01:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. We have the situation where an unelected group of persons is suddenly given huge control (whether it is actual control or merely unique access to the corridors of power) by a body which can dismiss it at any time. That is not a model for good governance - ironically the very thing it aims to promote project-wide. Orderinchaos 05:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's get this straight: nobody (publicly) asked Kirill to resign. This comes as the result of the Arbcom making ill-conceived decisions and not consulting with the community they affected. The decision itself was perhaps not a bad one, but for 8 people to decide for hundreds was clearly ridiculous. It is not even Arbcom's fault; without clear limits on their power, how were these people meant to know what is and what isn't their decision to make? – Toon 03:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that I do not oppose the existance of such a body per se as long as it is community built and community elected. I also think that Kirill and Rlevse have misinterpreted the rejection of this proposed council as a personal rejection of them. I think it is important that they reconsider staying on as arbitrators because their roles in the arbitrator position; insofar as dispute resolution goes, are still much valued. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 03:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when arguments are presented in extravagant ad hominem terms, people will decide they have had enough.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As in "skulduggery?"[2] Roger has not responded to my request for an example of any individual other than himself who used that extravagant term. Another arbitrator has alleged "So far it is not 'the community' as a whole, but a small sample - and many of the small sample have had recent adverse experiences (whether justified or not) which influence their opinion and prompts them to speak out."[3] See straw man and poisoning the well: arbitrators do not have the high ground here. Durova²⁷⁷ 16:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that. it is understandable to feel extremely annoyed when a potentially good project is understood wrongly, or is rejected for unforeseen considerations that may be valid. but, frankly, one should get over it quickly. Incidentally, previous to seeing this I had suggested to one of the relevant arbs that I would not want to remain on the committee if there was this much opposition to it. It wouldn't work if there were no confidence in it. DGG (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• While I think there are things that need to be addressed before this project/council could be effective - I would much prefer that Krill stayed attached to this vision. Sometimes things of value don't come easy, but they can be worth fighting/working for. — Ched :  ?  04:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't know how relevant this is but one of the interesting things about all this is that there now appear to be more people emphatically calling for Kirill's return to ArbCom on various Wiki pages, by email etc, than endorsed the statement that kicked off this RfC.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflating the two is not helpful - I for one strongly believe Kirill should return, yet I just as strongly believe this proposal is flawed at all levels and should not proceed. Orderinchaos 00:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't support the committee's actions at all but there's no way that I wanted anyone to stand down. I'm not aware of anyone calling for resignations and it's most unfortunate to conflate opposition to this announcement with opposition of individual arbitrators. Sarah 04:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I also have expressed a desire for Kirill to return, but that does not change the my strong opposition to the ACPD. The ACPD has a vague mission statement and clearly violates its own statement by having ArbCom members on it. The posts of many of the ACPD on this RfC have also left me with a profound lack of confidence in them, and thus the process that chose them in the first place. Edward321 (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there is some cross over here. More than a few of the comments left have implied that the arbitrators supporting the proposal and others were somehow out of touch, unwise, corrupt, or otherwise unfit to lead. I think it is ultimately unsurprising that eventually, the human being within the Arbitrator role gets frustrated and/or hurt enough to leave. Too much of Wikipedia internal discussions takes on the viciousness of real world (Anglo-American traditions of) politics - except that the stakes here are infinitely lower. We have in otherwords, been discussing this whole thing in very personal terms, and even the most measured of such statements will be colored by the more vicious.--Tznkai (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The dominant theme in my view from reading the comments is "arbitrators are massively overreaching their role in wanting to involve themselves in governance and setting up unelected advisory groups on matters not within their remit". The fact that the majority of ArbCom endorsed this shows that they are not by any means acting alone, we're not talking a cowboy or renegade situation here, and I think it would be grossly unfair to blame any one arbitrator for what I see as a collective lapse of judgement. I think they genuinely want to help the situation and are working in good faith, they see a problem and want to have a go at fixing it their own way, but have perhaps lost touch with the community who elected them (or perhaps lost faith in it, judging by some arbs' comments during this debate) and have failed to comprehend their own role in the process. That is a very good reason to *engage* with the community and *improve* what they are doing. People *do* make mistakes - we're human. Groups of people make mistakes too in conjunction. The measure of us as people is not that we don't make mistakes - that's just silly - but that we learn from the ones we do make so we don't make them a second time. ArbCom should have gone to the community first on this one, as it is not even remotely related to what arbitrators or the ArbCom itself is elected to do - they are the Supreme Court of Wikipedia in analogy terms, not a government. Orderinchaos 20:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A related thought: in the States we're going through a piece of political buffoonery called Supreme Court Justice Confirmation Hearing. It is a nasty, vicious process full of exaggeration, posturing, inflated rhetoric, red faced screaming and occasionally mean-spiritedness. Many, if not people who have gone through the proccess as a nominee have described it as one of the worst experiences in their lives and would refuse to go through it again. Here however, the stakes are actually rather high - SCOTUS is one of the most important decision making bodies in U.S government, many would argue the most. We have much of the same ugliness, over a damned encyclopedia. I want Kirill to reconsider quitting, but I do it knowing full well that it is potentially at the cost of his own peace and happiness. Sometimes I wish if we could just stop caring so much that we harm each other.--Tznkai (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Statement by Steven Walling

• Political structures evolve in ways that are sometimes foreseen, and sometimes not. For example the Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was envisaged as almost a clerical post, but then Stalin ... --Philcha (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• You're really going to try and paint this with the Commie/Soviet brush? While you're assuming bad faith, why don't you just cut to the chase and follow Godwin's Law? Steven Walling (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Treating "Godwin's Law" as some actual fallacy of thought is about as offensively anti-intellectual as it gets. "Those who cannot tolerate comparisions to certain parts of human history are doomed to relive them, hopefully in a manner isolated from the rest of us", to paraphrase. Badger Drink (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• Assuming good faith myself for a moment, perhaps Commie/Soviet isn't an insult here, but a valuable lesson from history - what is intended to be a meaningless post can become an important one. Perhaps a better analogy could have been made, but it isn't necessarily an insult.--Tznkai (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Tznkai got my point - apparently minor adminstrative changes can have major political effects. Like most unforeseen consequences, thse will often be bad unless there are already measures in place to counter such effects - for example accoutability. --Philcha (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• If the body is unrelated to Arbcom, then why was it established soley by the Arbcom without the community's input? Clearly the Arbcom is overstepping its remit, and electing a body comprised of two Arbcom members (alongside others invited internally) in private it is stupidly abusing the trust placed in it by those who elected them. ARBITRATION. Look it up. It definitely doesn't mean GOVERNMENT. Learn your place, don't think we want you to rule - you serve the community, the community doesn't serve you. – Toon 02:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(personal attack removed[4]--Tznkai (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)) I am not an Arb. I wasn't elected to anything, and I don't serve anyone. Like you, I'm a volunteer for a non-profit. In accepting the invitation to a discussion group, all I've said is that I'm interested in helping to solve the challenges our project faces. If all we're going to do is talk to each other and propose ideas for the community to accept or reject at will, then serving anyone or anything isn't my job. Steven Walling (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Question by Protonk

I'll go ahead and say it. Why is Giano on this invitation only advisory council? Protonk (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Answers?

Not sure if this should even be on this page--perhaps on talk--but I'll give it a stab. While Giano's method of making his displeasure known is unacceptable, and while he often misses the forest for the trees, buried somewhere in his verbiage is an understanding that large chunks of Wikipedia are seriously broken. And while I disagree with his methods, he is intelligent. I don't like him at all, but I see how his input could be valuable--and that may be valuable as in 'here's a good way forward' or as in 'wow, that would be a really bad way to work on this'. Either way, it's useful. → ROUX ₪ 22:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify the latter part of my penultimate sentence: stress-testing to failure is a really good way to examine anything. And Giano is, rightly or wrongly, extremely good at being very vocal about anything he disagrees with. This would be useful inasmuch as it would allow for previously-unnoticed problems to be displayed and addressed. → ROUX ₪ 23:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Token dissident, a bone to throw to anyone who'd accuse this group of merely representing the "Cabal". Fear not, gentle Wikipedians - out-numbered as he would be, there's little chance of his having any meaningful influence. See also: Cla68. Badger Drink (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, for the sake of argument let's say that Giano is a "token" representative. I've looked at the list a number of times, & while I can identify some usernames of people who might be identified as part of the "Cabal", they are nowhere near a majority of the group. (If anything, on reading most of these names my first reaction is, "Why was this person chosen?" Giano is one of the few I can understand why.) Who else would you want to see in this committee to give it the proper sampling of all schools of thought? -- llywrch (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

groan - is this inevitable ad hominem shit storm really going to help the discussion? Anyone brave feel like removing it? --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you willing to remove Giano's ad hominem attack on me?[5] Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I would be afraid to. He's got a pass to do anything he wants. Fred Talk 00:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been quite cynical about this and accepted with reservations, but having seem my peers on the council I realise that it had possibilities for good. I think this RFC is a travesty because the idea may have worked in time, but was never given a chance. It was born from a desire and need for change which was being strongly expressed on the project. Once its members had ordered and ironed it out, and arranged a democratic way for future members to be appointed, it would have served as a valuable link and lobbying place between the editors on the factory floor - the arbcom - and Jimbo - something at present sadly lacking. Where else on Wikipedia can you view deliberations and comment on the talk page? It could have become a fantastic and powerful forum. However, there will always be a group that want J Wales to remain omnipotent and keen to resist any change, that they have seemingly now triumphed is to be deplored and regretted. I have made Slim Virgin well aware of the stupidity in causing this RFC, what her motives were I won't speculate upon, but she has set back any hope of real change and improvement by about five years. Giano (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Good lord, I agree again. Barring the bit about SlimVirgin; I would say 'misguided' or possibly 'shortsighted'. → ROUX ₪ 23:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Giano, don't start stuff about "motives." You say yourself above that the Council would have become a "fantastic and powerful forum." That was precisely the worry. If people want to set up an Advisory Council, make sure (a) it operates entirely independently of ArbCom, and (b) that its membership is elected from day one. It's the combination of membership chosen in secret; ArbCom involvement; ArbCom members voting for it, and then being on it, that has caused the problem, together with the assumption that the community for some reason wouldn't mind. If we want to move toward good governance, we have to start the way we mean to continue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope it won't be five years, but I applaud the editors who are trying to make some chicken salad out of this. I still think it may be a good idea, but without clarification I can judge it neither for its wonder nor its epic failure. I hope this idea is not abandoned, but that the dozens of editors now involved can acknowledge the shortcomings of particular aspects of Wikipedia and instead of focusing on what or who is responsible for all of them, use such energies to devise solutions. --Moni3 (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not think Joopercoopers is an appropriate member, as he tolerates ad hominum comments by Giano. See his talk page.[6]. He defends Giano's personal attacks. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop screwing around with the indenting. And please take your grudges elsewhere. We are discussing this proposal, not your upset. → ROUX ₪ 00:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• The hell are we removing this for? This is a serious question. Why is someone who has ongoing civility issues and known antipathy toward a whole class of editors on a self selected review board for the overall project. I won't replace it myself, but it isn't a personal attack. It is a legitimate question. Protonk (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • But he said it would be a fantastic and powerful forum. That was all that i at least thought it ought to be--not a body to make decisions, and I am not entirely sure I would have wanted it even to make formal proposals. DGG (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I think if it is simply a rarefied forum for discussion, that has been poorly conveyed. The "council" has a weighty name, has been created by the arbcom and endorsed by jimbo. It advises arbcom...so I think that some implicit assumptions have been made (And frankly, aren't out of line) about its function. More to the point, I think implicit assumptions have been made about its composition, or at least its desired composition. If this group is by invitation only and we the community don't really have license to change it, then I think we still have the 'right' (as it were) to ask questions. My question was serious. Why is Giano on this committee? Protonk (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I can't speak for the other arbs, but we tried to get a wide range of editors - Giano has a long history with project, is mainly a content contributor, and has also been involved in arbitration cases, and has an interest in the evolution of wikipedia. We also acknowledge that coming up with a name has been difficult. I guess another reason that the question was not that helpful was that there is a bigger issue of the existence of the ACPD rather than concetrating on individual editors' presence on it. I'd not count myself in that as I see that as a biger issue of arbcom involvement, and if the general feeling is that my presence is a net negative, I will remove myself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Those are his positive qualities, and I won't deny them. He also has an extensive history of...shall we say...getting into disputes. When you say he has been involved in a lot of arbcom cases that is literally true. He has been a commenter in some and a subject in many. In some of those cases, the arbs messed up. In many of the subsequent blocks/unblocks/dramaramas, the community messed up. I don't want my question to be seen as a sign that he is a persona non grata. I also don't want to turn this thread into a laundry list of complaints against him. But obviously underlying my question is my unspoken position. I think he was a poor choice for this. I think that he is a poor enough choice that some explanation of why he was chosen is in order. And I'm kinda struggling with this. I don't want to shit on him, as it were. He has as much right to be here as I. Clearly he is placed in an unpleasant position of heightened scrutiny--I'm not asking for explanations as to why other folks have been chosen. I'm rambling. Tl;dr: He's a provocative choice for what looks very much like a royal court. That choice ought to be explained. Protonk (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention at all of resigning from this council until the first elections (so get that straight now) then you can get to have your say on me staying or going. This idea of an advisory committee may work it may not (it depends on how much notice the Arbcom choose to take), but it is better than what we have at the moment - nothing! We have had in the past (and for all I know, still do) secret committees/mailing list, so secret and off-wiki, than no one knew of their existence - (eg: the one where Slim Virgin, Jimbo & its other members were so disinterested that they failed to read Durova's "super sekrit evidence" - resulting in an editor being blocked for knowing German - do I have to go on because believe me, I can). The fact some people wish to rubbish those trying to rectify these gaping holes and failings in Wikipedia is to be expected. I have battled against them before - I expect nothing to change, but I'll bloody try. Regarding Arbs being on the committee, of course it needs a couple of Arbs - to say otherwise is ridiculous. It has to have representatives from the highest body or else it just becomes another group of editors opining to themselves - at least we will know Arbs are there and listening. Furthermore, it will need some intimation of how Arbcom view matter, how else is the committee supposed to gauge these things - clairvoyancy? Giano (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Giano, neither SlimVirgin nor I have criticized you personally. Our concerns are procedural and governance-related, and our grievance is with the Committee majority that instituted this thing in this way, not with the idea itself or the advisors on it. Yet here and at RfC itself you single both of us out over matters which are, at best, tangential. If one wishes to demonstrate leadership in governance, it seems better to frame discussions in terms of process rather than in terms of individual people. With the mutual agreement of the others who have posted to this section, would gladly collapse it. Durova²⁷⁵ 15:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait. Elections? What elections? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Durova, SlimVirgin has started this process, so it is impossible to discuss this matter without mentionng her. Additionally, this section begins by asking a question directly concerning me - so it is quite in order for me to answer, as I see best. Sadly, that means mentioning things that are wrong - you do not withhold yout opinions, neither do I, so neither of us should be surprised that our names crop up from time to time. I will always say exactly what I think, perhaps that is why I was asked onto this committee. There is no need to collapse. Giano (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well then, to answer on-point, anyone who is curious about signal to noise ratios is welcome to examine the only initiative that succeeded this spring: the promotion of WP:PLAGIARISM to guideline. Who was there, at the proposal and talk page, actually hammering things out? Check the edit history. Who else was posturing in other venues but never ever lifted a finger to really make it happen? The record speaks for itself. Durova²⁷⁵ 20:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Durova, we understand your natural resentment over the ACPD perfectly. Giano (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't even understand the acronym, much less the supposed resentment being construed. Please assume good faith, and to quote Jane Austen, "I would rather be paid the compliment of being believed sincere." Durova²⁷⁵ 20:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Advisory Council on Project Development. → ROUX ₪ 20:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that? Surely Giano didn't mean to dismiss a consistent history of principled stands on the scope of ArbCom's mandate. But if he meant to interpolate some kind of base motive this discussion has dead-ended. Durova²⁷⁵ 21:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Common Ground

Dear all, I am worried that the layout of RfCs in general generates polarised opinion, so I am trying to get us all to establish common ground - see the bottom of the page. Can we please try and find some? I will be offline for a while sorry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree with that, I think there's a good chance of finding common ground here, and that making some efforts at compromise and listening to others' concerns is the way to go right now for all concerned. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?

ArbCom's proposal to set up an Advisory Council on Project Development was a genuine attempt to get more editor input, but had some fatal flaws: its membership was nominated by part of the existing power structure, and hence its contributions were always likely to reflect the thinking of ArbCom an dother parts of the power structure rather than that of the community as a whole; and it would have advised the wrong group, as ArbCom is primarily a judicial rather than a policy-making group. I propose that we make this controversy an opportunity to create a constitution for en.WP - which WPs in other languages may adopt or adapt when they see how it turns out in practice.

Designing a constitution is not easy. I think we need first to establish the top-level principles and then work down from there.

My own thoughts on top-level principles:

• Power should ultimately lie with the community. IMO that means that something like policy Requests for Comment (RfCs) should be the source of authority on most subjects. RfCs can be instigated by anyone, including but not restricted to some kind of "Advisory Council". Effectively the ultimate decision mechanism would be rather like real-life referendums and citizens' initiatives. The "Advisory Council"'s function would be to prospose changes, not to impose them.
• Some policies will need special status that makes significant changes more difficult than for most policies. Most obvious are those whose purpose is to minimise the risk of lawsuits against WP - for example WP:Copyright violations and WP:Biographies of living persons (almost certainly not a complete list). IMO WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral point of view and very probably WP:Notability should also be "protected", as they are the basis of our attempts to provide high-quality information to readers.
• Members of the "Advisory Council" should be elected. Designing an electoral system will be difficult and will probably need a lot of research into real-life electoral systems. As in real life, we'd need to strike a balance between representing the major groups of opinions and avoiding fragmentation into groups that don't agree on anything. We'd also need to decide whether all members or only a specified fraction should be up for re-election at the same time.
• The "Advisory Council" will probably need to have a hierarchical structure, since too large a group will never be able to reach a decision and it would be hard to identify the contributions of individual members and thus to hold them responsible for their actions. On the other hand we can't expect all or even most of the members of a workably small "Advisory Council" to be experts in all policy areas. Hence the "Advisory Council" will need specialist advisory panels. We need to decide whether members of these specialist panels should be appointed by the "Advisory Council" or elected in some way.

Comments, please. --Philcha (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This RFC has been open for what, 24 hours? Give it some time before you pronounce it finished. Secondly, regarding your first point: the Council was never meant to be an authority. Your second point, please see WP:5. Third and fourth points... ENORMOUS bureaucracy creep, and the usual Wikipedian "Let's talk much and do little" attitude that has landed us at the point where Arbcom needed to do something like this simply in order to get something done about finding solutions for the project. The bottom line is this: the current model has not scaled, cannot scale, and is calcifying Wikipedia. Any move for change is met with enormous inertial resistance and hordes of people screaming about the sky falling and why $idea could never possibly work, all the while quite neatly ignoring history. → ROUX ₪ 07:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and let's be frank here: whether we like it or not, Arbcom is going to be consulting a group of people for ideas and input. Is it better to have that out in the open or not? → ROUX ₪ 08:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "the current model has not scaled, cannot scale, ...", which is why I've sketched out the beginnings of a constitution.

IMO although elected, ArbCom is the wrong body to form the basis of a constitution as its main function is judicial rather than researching and proposing policy changes. ArbCom always seems to have more than enough judicial work to do, so for practical reasons I suggest we need a separate body to research and propose policy changes. --Philcha (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Which all suggests to me that you don't really understand what is being proposed here. This isn't a body to decide policy, nor is this an Arbcom body; Arbcom just happens to be the only group on Wikipedia that can create something like this and have slightly more chance than a periwinkle's in a supernova that it wouldn't get crushed by the demons of inertia. This was explicitly created as a discussion group to tackle problems onwiki, not an attempt by Arbcom to govern. I suggest you read Roger Davies' recent comments on the main page of this RFC for further illumination. → ROUX ₪ 08:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, a lot of WP has become sclerotic. But in a lot of cases (flagged revisions as one example), this inertia can end up being helpful because it stalls or stops sweeping changes which aren't terribly beneficial. I see a lot of folks using FR as an example of how broken the consensus model is. And I (being on the other side) see FR as a case where the consensus model was trying to stop us from doing something brash and stupid because a washington post blog made a snarky comment. There is a lot of good in the basic model of WP and we benefit from being forced to hew to that, even when it appears as though some better solution has come along. Protonk (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a reasonable argument only if one ignores the fact that FR works perfectly fine on dewiki. Anything that makes this encyclopedia more reliable (i.e. more encyclopedic) and less prone to sensationalist nonsense because some famous person's article said they like to perform obscene acts in public places is a good thing. → ROUX ₪ 08:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to recapitulate the FR argument here, but there is more to the discussion than that. The point is that we have very different ideas about whether or not WP's model of consensus failed based largely on our priors about FR. It isn't simplistic. I'm not just saying that the two sides are justifying the mechanism based on the outcome, but it is a whole lot easier to create justifications for outcomes we agree with (or more accurately, mechanisms which result in outcomes we agree with). I actually don't think that WP benefits from a benign dicator of sorts, stepping in to make decisions where the community can't. So I am not terribly enthused at the prospect of this council. Protonk (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)I think Philcha's thread title hits the problem square on the head. I really wasn't quite sure what this "Council" involved and certainly didn't see it holding any power to decide stuff, so I'm still thinking on that. But as the thread title implies: How to we decide things? How do we know when an RFC is done? Sometimes it is clear enough a random person can wander in and give it the blessing of a {{Discussion top}} and a summary of what the outcome was, and everyone is happy. More often then not, at least one person continues on about how the RFC was flawed, or that the outcome violates some policy, or that it wasn't a representative sample. The discussion closer (usually an admin) will try to defend their decision, but lacking a formal enforcement policy, they really can't say "stop complaining, the discussion is over". And I refuse to believe that the solution is simply better RFC formatting, as this and that proved, it is frequently the case that both sides are entrenched enough or have enough admins on both sides of the argument, that no one has an incentive to accept a simple discussion closure. In fact, the only way I've ever seen these disputes resolved is when arbcom bans all of the original participants from having anything to do with the topic. So how do we decide things (like what an RFC means) when everyone's interpretation is as valid as everyone else's and no one has the ability to make a binding decision? MBisanz ^talk 08:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Good points. This may help sum up my views on the matter. → ROUX ₪ 08:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Per the date linking issue, where the entire community was asked to join in the discussion, I'm suggesting an RfC or general forum to get feedback on the issues that have been presented from the Advisory Committee idea. I envision these being yes/no→discussion questions. If a question gets consensus, the community further explores each idea to determine how it might be implemented.

• There are aspects to Wikipedia policy and governing that are becoming obsolete or need clarification from the community.
• The Arbitration Committee needs an Advisory Council to give them ideas about how to improve their operations.
• Wikipedians need a Constitution and a Bill of Rights.
• Consensus should be transitioned into a different system that is more efficient, not as easily swayed by off-Wiki canvassing, and takes Wikipedia-wide views into consideration.
• Arbitrators or those who have some power to affect policy, need to know how they are doing (i.e. a poll system or general feedback period/area).
• Wikipedia is fine the way it is.

That's my impression of the most general topics being discussed. I'm sure there are others. But this might be a way to proceed. --Moni3 (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Randomisation

Would anyone object to me resurecting the randomisation JavaScript that we used for the McCain/Obama main page articles to shuffle the order the statements are presented? I think, as a matter of principle, the process should be applied to all high-pressure RfCs. There is no question that statements higher on the page are more likely to be read and endorsed, and since that effect can't be quantified it's impossible to gauge accurately how to correct for it. Happy‑melon 15:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I would object, HM. I think it needs to be left as it was written. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course you do. You wrote the first part. However, randomising is a good way to help remove bias on the part of people reading and commenting. → ROUX ₪ 15:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would support this, HM. Immediacy and primacy are large factors in how people react to information.→ ROUX ₪ 15:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone changing the order would be changing the narrative, an unwise thing to do in the middle of any RfC, but especially one that's attracting a lot of input. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand the reason for this suggestion, but changing or randomizing the order would probably introduce too much confusion, as some of the threads cross-refer to the discussion above them and presume some familiarity with that discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well the technology is now available: MediaWiki:Common.js/shuffle.js. All we'd need to do is wrap each section in a <div class="shuffle-item">...</div> and the whole page (minus intro) in a <div class="shuffle">...</div>. Happy‑melon 21:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Constitution and Rights

A few people have commented that we need a Constitution and Bill of Rights (though of course as a Canadian I prefer the term Charter ;)). To that end, I have started a framework here; it seems to me that whatever happens with this RFC, we have here a passionate group of people here who are interested in these issues. If the ACPD moves forward, work on this can be presented to them. If a bottom-up development of the ACPD occurs, the people working here and on the proposed constitution can be the instigators of that development. Either way, this seems like something that should be developed and then presented to the wider community and WMF for review. → ROUX ₪ 16:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If we're not a democracy, I don't really understand why we need a Constitution or a Bill of Rights; I understand its an easy-enough comparison to draw, and is recognizable especially to US-based folks, but it's supposing that we're a country. We're volunteers that should be here to facilitate the construction of a free encyclopedia. Not to say we shouldn't have scope of powers and clear rules, but I think we've already got those anyhow. Putting them into a charter or whatnot doesn't change much (deck chairs analogy would be aft, if you're of the mind that we're all heading to a cataclysm, if you will.) Either way, it's sort of out of the scope of this RfC (same thing with Tony's attemtpt to change ArbCom policy). -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's more in the nature of gathering reams of policies and guidelines into a single place and nailing them down somewhat. And I think developing such a document will automatically help some of the major process issues that we face, and provide a trapdoor out of the handbasket. It is indeed somewhat tangential to this RFC, but several people have mentioned the necessity and this seemed to be the best place to find people interested. I didn't intend for this page to be a discussion of the concept. → ROUX ₪ 16:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Request

Cas, would you, or one of the other Arbs involved in creating this Council, please consider posting some details of exactly how it came about? I think some transparency is needed regarding how the decisions were made, and in particular who invited the members, and how they were chosen. For example, you said that "we" (by which I take it you mean the ArbCom) expected a backlash, so it would be interesting to know who decided it should proceed anyway.

I think transparency is very important here, because the situation has caused a loss of trust, which is unfortunate and needs to be repaired. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 16:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not persuaded that this has created a loss of trust in ArbCom and suspect the lines on that were long drawn. Instead what I have seen is a mixture of reactions. Some people (some of them predictably) have accused ArbCom of skulduggery and a power-grab; others have taken a more moderate line and wished that community input had been sought; many others have actually supported the idea. If there is overall consensus, and it seems to be developing, it is that the idea is a good one but it needs fine-tuning and it might have been better to go about it in other ways. That doesn't strike me as catastrophic.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree that there has been no loss of trust. During the last ArbCom election, the community elected a dispute-resolution body, making it clear that most people really didn't want it to assume authority beyond that, which was the sense people had (rightly or wrongly) of the previous ArbCom. Yet, as several have pointed out, the announcement of the Council and the way it was presented seems to be an old-style ArbCom move. Cas himself said, "we knew there would be a backlash," which raises questions about why it went ahead anyway, and the issue of poor judgement. The membership is surprising; it's not clear how or why they were chosen; and no specific information has been offered to as why it was announced as a fait accompli with no community input. Transparency really would be helpful at this stage. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case, the loss of trust may have been a kneejerk reaction to an historic rather a current problem. (This baggage is a massive problem for ArbCom and is one of the main reasons arbs contemplate resignation.) The thinktank idea has been proposed in good faith as a transparent way of hopefully generating imaginative and innovative solutions from largely uninvolved people to the unsolvable problems that pop up regularly at arbitration. Strangely, this has been interpreted as an attempt at imposing governance. Yes, the announcement was rushed out, and could have been miles better expressed, but I cannot see how it supports at all the wilder allegations that have been made about it.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Without belaboring the obvious, is it not possible for you folks to believe that when members of Arbcom are saying (paraphrase) "This was not an attempt to gain power or move beyond our remit as a dispute resolution body" just maybe it's true? And that the perceptions are wrong? That being said, a summary of how this came about would be very helpful. → ROUX ₪ 17:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with you, Roger. Until this thing showed up out of the blue, I generally had a great deal of support for the ArbCom, and respected most of the members. The truth is, I still do, as individuals. However, the next ArbCom elections, I will vote against every single member of the ArbCom who voted for this atrocity. It shows a strong lack of good sense, and a horrible misreading of the community. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You may of course vote how you wish but basing it on that criterion is probably doing a massive injustice to the arbs who supported the motion. The idea is to improve and enhance the dispute resolution process and if that involves being bold from time to time, so be it.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course they thought there would be a backlash - there is almost always a backlash against forming something new on Wikipedia. That does not mean we do not try new things. It means we work through the issues that come up. I shudder to think what would happen if editors did not attempt to put forward new proposals because they feared the backlash on this site. Awadewit (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a clique. Pure and simple. For ArbCom to do this is ultra vires, so at the most we have a number of editors who happened to be ArbCom members (in two cases, not any more) setting up a private little clique. Suggest we treat it the same way we treated the Established Editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A year ago when ArbCom came out with the Footnoted Quotes case, Dan Tobias perceived it as an attempt to expand ArbCom's mandate. I wasn't as strident as Dan was. But in rapid succession these last few months ArbCom has opened an RfC on content dispute resolution--something explicitly outside its mandate--and the Committee didn't even consult MedCom. Five years ago MedCom was established as a peer and sister committee to ArbCom: the final step in content dispute resolution. ArbCom used to consult MedCom; the mediators say they haven't been consulted at all this year. And yet ArbCom appointed a content adjudication board for the Macedonia dispute, entirely shutting out both MedCom and Medcab. Now it presents this advisory board as a fait accompli. This isn't an isolated incident; this is a trend. And it appears Roger Davies's response is to construct a straw man argument out of the objections. Am I mistaken? Is there actually anyone other than Roger who is using the words "skulduggery" and "power-grab"? Durova²⁷⁵ 20:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I did use the term "power grab" ("it represents a power grab by Arbcom into the field of general content guidelines, which up to now have been determined by the community"). I stand by it, too; regardless of intentions, this group looks illegitimate, and any proposals coming from it are going to be tainted by that. – iridescent 20:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that this has the potential to hamstring good ideas. Was gnashing my teeth two months ago opposing that content RfC too. If only Kirill had initiated that thing on his own steam, rather than wrapping it in false authority; if only he had consulted the mediators--who of course would have the most experience and input on that subject. The BLP special enforcement board might have succeeded if Committee members had raised the idea as editors and sought consensus. What's puzzling is how stubborn most of the Committee has been about pursuing the top-down approach in realms outside their mandate. When people keep pursuing a method that keeps backfiring, one wonders whether their stated priorities can really be taken at face value. "Power grab" might imply too much deliberate intention. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that a critical mass of arbitrators have adopted an aggrandized notion of their role. One wonders how to convey that to them, without getting labeled as hotheaded or partisan. Durova²⁷⁵ 20:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[Placeholder for reply to Slim Virgin - Sorry but I'm due elsewhere now. I'll reply when I return.]  Roger Davies ^talk 17:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

OK (1) An idea for a groups such as this has been discussed on occasion by several people including arbs, e.g. Wikipedia:Governance reform by Kirill. One of the ideas behind arbcom 'seeding' it in a more advanced stage was that we feared that if the idea came de novo it would be discussed and argued endlessly without coalescing into a group at all. Yes, we also feared people would be annoyed that we had taken steps in pushing this, and these were the two major factors for me especially in deciding...and I ultimately couldn't make up my mind. Personally, I would be happy if it was allowed to continue as is (as a think tank) for a while (2-3 months) before independent elections were held and all the personnel were felt to be there on community consensus. At least there'd be something to build on. I would hate to see this descend into nothing before it even started, and people oppose just because of who (i.e. arbcom) set it in motion.

As far as individuals, we thought of people in various areas, content contributors, technical people, people involved in FAC and wikiprojects, and people who had been involved in discussing policy,bureaucrats and some cross-wiki people among others, to see what experience could be brought to the table, and also people who can and would negotiate with others. Yes some people declined. To people who haven't been invited and think/thought they have something to add, I am very very sorry we didn't think of you first up as well. It can be structured as some form of funnel with a talk page and subsidiary pages. Anyway, I will write a bit more later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm, Cas, I don't think that suggesting, if you are, that some of the people against this proposal (or project, I guess) are motivated by jealousy they weren't invited onto the council is going to be productive. Even if true, I doubt anyone will admit it. If there are "How dare they have it--without me!", it won't be admitted and everyone will deny it and the level of rhetoric will shoot up another notch!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's painfully obvious to most everyone that this is the reason for many of the vehement reactions, which is unfortunate as it cheapens the good faith concerns of the larger community. I agree that it doesn't solve any problems though. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Without belaboring the obvious, any sysop who really believes that objections are more about power than principle is welcome to salt this page. Durova²⁷⁵ 22:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this represents a power grab at all. I think it's closer to the fact that Wikipedia abhors a vacuum. I don't hear about MedCom, and assume they are not active unless you have a severe problem that the community is unable to solve. No single person or body of people seems to be in charge of what happens at Wikipedia. It is less of an anarchy than it used to be, but the lack of authority leads to confusion and conflict. I am not proposing that authority is installed somewhere, but rather I recognize that to clear up some confusion, the advisory committee was proposed to help address some inevitable disputes caused by lack of a governing body that can make unilateral decisions. It was quite a soft touch, in my opinion. Perhaps too soft. --Moni3 (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly the point: ArbCom is not in charge of Wikipedia. Its individual members have earned a great deal of trust, which was why they were elected. They are always free to propose ideas as editors. By attempting to extend a cloak of institutional authority over actions outside their mandate, they guarantee a backlash that diminishes their chances of success, as well as diminishing their own individual and collective standing. Durova²⁷⁵ 22:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

We may be splitting fine hairs, but the result of our individual perception is the argument, negativity, and disillusionment evident in so many comments and retirements. My above point there was that I don't perceive the advisory committee to be premeditated attempt to wield authority outside the scope of ArbCom. I saw it as Kirill, et al trying to address genuine concerns by asking a cross-section of active editors for their input. No one else was doing it (or it was being done poorly), so he took the initiative. The backlash is the result of unintended consequences. As I have stated from the beginning, I believe this was a good-hearted attempt to try to solve legitimate problems, but unclear and not explained sufficiently. I certainly did not expect some of the nuttiness and negativity that was spawned from the proposal. Truth be known, I had no idea what to expect. --Moni3 (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If it weren't the culmination of a pattern of top-down initiatives I would agree. Durova²⁷⁵ 22:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

How aware are members of ArbCom about this--is it a collective perception, or yours?--perception that they are gradually trying to legislate policy without getting input from the community? How has that been communicated to them? If it has not been done formally or in such a way that was obvious (e.g. not on Wikipedia Review or personal blogs that they may never come across), how might they know to avoid the appearance of such an issue? I am largely unaware of the finer details of ArbCom criticism. I already know what kind of hornet's nest that sort of thing can create and tend to wear blinders while I write. It seems some editors automatically assume power grabs are the primary motivation, when my greatest cynicism lies in the direction that people either don't know how, don't care, or refuse to communicate with precision and would rather operate on a basis of assumptions. --Moni3 (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Really have to get back to other things, so a few quick links: one, two, three. Durova²⁷⁵ 22:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec, re Durova) Exactly. I'm not opposed to the idea of a "Wikipedia Parliament" – we are suffering from lack of direction and focus – but that's not what we elected when we voted the most recent Arbcom in. Arbcom was elected as a dispute resolution body, not a provisional government. I'm sure all those involved were acting with good intentions, but the way it was presented looks like an attempt by Arbcom to expand their scope over the whole project. (Incidentally, since I assume the "jealousy" comments are aimed at Slim, Kww and myself, as the initiators of the first three "this is a bad idea" threads, I disagree with unelected groups on principle, Kww recently went through one of the most controversial RFAs ever and is unlikely to want to repeat the experience of being in the frontline, and given the history Slim is probably now the least likely person to volunteer to be in a prominent group being sniped at from all sides.) – iridescent 22:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I believe that Casliber really thinks that "we thought of people in various areas ..." which is what is so scary. A narrow group, ArbCom, selects what it considers, and really believes, is a diverse group of people representing the community, when it is obvious in going through the edit histories of those selected, that they represent a narrow band of mostly interrelated editors with circumscribed interests and wikipolitical leanings, with some areas overrepresented and others not represented at all. The two editors that I know of who declined would not have widened the scope. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a disgusting display of bad faith. Let's discuss the topic, and not individuals, please. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Back to the topic - one reason why I did feel arbcom was a place to start such an idea is that it is a place where one sees a breakdown of factors leading to some unresolvable conflict - hence there is alot of exposure to areas that are "not working". But anyway, maybe time to pop some more questions on the RfC page...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't misuse this further as a springboard to frame terms of discussion, Casliber. Durova²⁷⁷ 04:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be more prospective and not retrospective Durova. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Durova, you know I like and generally respect you.. so I'm not really understanding where a lot of this apparent anger is coming from, much less accusations about attempting to frame the discussion. Aren't you also attempting to do so? Aren't we all? → ROUX ₪ 05:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Casliber and the other arbitrators have had the advantage over the rest of us in conceiving this council. Now that a majority objects to its formation he is posing leading questions that steer discussion toward formation of a new council along similar lines. For the rest, pasting a message from David Fuchs's talk. Durova²⁷⁷ 14:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Casliber, you have never responded to the point that I for one (and probably many other objectors) would gladly discuss the matter if the current proposal were scrapped and a new one were started from the beginning without any attempt to leverage the power of the arbitration committee in its inception. Within the last week three of your colleagues on the Committee have resigned. Two more have marked themselves inactive. Iridescent has given up his sysop flag. I am acting in ways that endanger a matter before you. Very strange things are happening here. Yet you respond with begging the question, false dichotomy, and now poisoning the well. I voted you into your current position because I trusted your ability to reject informal fallacies; regardless of what good cause you purport to be advocating it is nothing but disappointment to see you employ them. Now that someone else has leaked the same material onsite, I can pose this question: why do you suppose arbcom list emails were leaked to me? Why do you suppose I sat on it quietly for months? Because under the present governance structure there is absolutely no legitimate option when an arbitrator believes that fellow arbitrators have acted improperly in private. Jimbo is a theoretical check and balance, but he is loath to intervene unless the community calls for it. So the only way to achieve that is to leak. I held onto it quietly because of instances (mostly before your tenure) where people had come to me for advice after being subject to offsite harassment: one of their foremost concerns is whether ArbCom communications are secure. Checks and balances are important, and it is very unlikely that a proper check and balance upon ArbCom would emerge from a think tank conceived and appointed by ArbCom, whose members serve at ArbCom's pleasure. Durova277 13:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Request: List of qualifications of "think tank" members

Having been through the edit analyses of each selected member, I am curious on what basis each was selected. Could the rationale for each selection be listed so the community may have of idea of the range and breath of expertise of "think tank" members who will be advising ArbCom as well as developing "topics"? What is the expertise or particular area of insight each is bringing? Further, I am concerned that the area of sensitivity to personal attacks is not represented. given that many of those selected have a well-known history of either personally attacking or defense of that editor when he does so. Further some choices are not responding well to inquiries on pages regarding this issue or their own pages e.g. via name calling in edit summaries.[7][8] I think this is an area of extreme importance. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, would you please take your grudges elsewhere? You have been explicitly told to stop personalizing disputes. → ROUX ₪ 20:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Although this steps near dangerous territory, she frames the question legitimately. Some of the other posts to this talk page have personalized discussion far more than Mattisse does here. Durova²⁷⁵ 20:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Legitimately? Only if you ignore her other posts here and in the thread(s) at the AC noticeboard. Also, nobody else here is under restrictions regarding such personalisation. → ROUX ₪ 21:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

And half the insults Mattisse has gotten has been because of her comments her in this regard, and no question or discussion any longer on this site will I take out of context of the larger whole of who is discussing it. Stand alone comments aren't given extra magic AGF juice; who is saying it, where, and why bears out as well. Why hasn't Mattisse been taken to WP:AE yet for going after the AC itself via the population of this group being "out to get her"? rootology (C)(T) 21:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If you truncate Matisse's comment at the first appearance of "Further", it is a valid question. 'No comment' on the rest of the post. Happy‑melon 21:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Will go ahead and strike the previous comment, based upon Rootology's commentary and the general potential of the subject to head in unproductive directions. The main focus of this RfC is procedural, after all, and questions of whether and how to constitute such a body precede questions about appointment. Durova²⁷⁵ 21:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I stuck that which offended. I remain concerned that the area of sensitivity to personal attacks is not represented. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The short answer, for my point of view at least, is that people were invited who might bring something to the table. It's a pretty eclectic list but then the qualifications for good potential brainstormers aren't very obvious. The other idea was to get sufficient articulate invitees together to form the critical mass necessary to make viable ongoing discussion possible.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Rootology

Comments removed from RFC page. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

   I feel angry, since we have too many chefs to ever cook anything meaningful, and our broken system is designed to have everyone imagine they're a chef, even when they're not. Until that is fundamentally changed, to move away from our current method of doing things, our kitchen will be a shambles. rootology (C)(T) 20:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   Root, it was a joke; see my edit summary. I understand how you feel and absolutely agree. (And am tickled pink by the chef analogy). → ROUX ₪ 20:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   And you feel you're the chef who can fix things? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   And I still don't see where anyone on the ArbCom was elected by the community to "fix our problems". That's not the platform they ran on, that's not the reason they were elected. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   Maybe they are and maybe they aren't, and don't take this the wrong way, but I look askance at such discussion of our governance from a "new" account formed in February 2009 that clearly appears to have been someone before. To discuss this with you, I'd need to know your history and biases, of who you were before if anyone. Our lax nature of such things, for example, is one thing that needs changing. rootology (C)(T) 21:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   Well, they weren't...there are no maybe's about it. This (or something like this) is a good idea but let's not start re-writing the past to make it seem like Arbcom's scope has always been wide enough to include this sort of thing. RxS (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

   Ah, I see. My comments are not welcome because I'm not a member of the power elite. Thank you for letting your biases show so clearly. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   You can't even begin to have it any more backwards if that's your take. rootology (C)(T) 21:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   How else am I supposed to take I look askance at such discussion of our governance from a "new" account formed in February 2009 that clearly appears to have been someone before.? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   Well, I'm not a member of the power elite by a long shot, and yet it seems my comments are welcome. Could it be that it's because they're not filled with vitriol and hyperbole? → ROUX ₪ 21:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   There's that, as well. rootology (C)(T) 21:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   I'd take it as curious the way we (in my opinion) inappropriately reward people coming back under 3, 4, 5, however many different usernames, and don't check up on folks moving in power circles that are inordinately knowledgeable about internal matters right off the get-go. It makes those users looked at askance because we have no way of knowing their history. New usernames for mundane work? Sure, all day, change usernamess daily if you want. For governance matters? It's skeezy, and hard to track the person speaking behind the name. And a casual inspection of my contributions would reveal that I am opposed to the power circles on this site, from the smallest to the largest, so your 'status' as an important person is irrelevant to me. rootology (C)(T) 21:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   Where am I moving in power circles? I don't even have rollback, I have never attempted to move in power circles. Just today, I declined an offer to nominate me for adminship. I do, however, have just as much right to comment about matters such as this as anybody else. And I have been here for several months, it's not like I'm a total newbie who just created an account to discuss this subject. If you think that only people who have been editing for years have the right to discuss this, just make your bias perfectly clear and just say it. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Maybe I am, maybe I ain't, but I doubt it. The fact that strong-willed people feel the need to assert themselves by tearing down any attempt to fix it sickens me, however, especially since it's transparent in some cases that de-powering "individuals" would be a required end-result of any reform. No one person should have any more power than any other, for this to work long-term, and I note that often the folks most opposed to solid reforms are those who have or once had "personal power" on this site. rootology (C)(T) 21:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

not "beyond its remit"

I have seen several times a claim to the effect of "ArbCom is acting beyond its remit." That is simply wrong. Arbcom is elected for a particular purpose, but the means that they take to achieve that purpose are intentionally not specified in the arbitration policy. In particular:

• Arbcom can set up their own criteria for which cases to accept.
• They can choose the format of the arbitration process and the voting procedure.
• They can set up mailing lists and decide the members of those lists.
• And they can set up ad hoc committees and choose the members of those committees.

These abilities are all given to arbcom by the elections each year, along with any other abilities arbcom feels are useful in pursuing its work. It's only counterproductive for random editors to try to micromanage the day-to-day operations of the committee after electing it. The elections are the means by which the community can decide the direction arbcom will go. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Their particular purpose is dispute resolution. [9]. Is there somewhere else that discribes other responsibilities? Maybe there is and I'm not familar with it. RxS (talk) 04:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether this helps in the heavily polarised discussion that's taking place but I only ever saw this as having an ancilliary role to dispute resolution. For example, asking the thinktank to brainstorm on experimental approaches to effectively resolving national naming disputes (which are probably the biggest single cause of arbitrations and which involve large numbers of editors) does not strike me as outside of ArbCom's remit.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that should have been in the announcement, then, and in any mission statement or other governing document for this body. Otherwise it all sounds a bit post hoc, I'm afraid.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't draft the announcement and was hardly around last week or over the weekend for a variety of real life reasons. So while it might sound post hoc to you, it is certainly the way my mind was going.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Would it be wise to put it in now, then?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That may be what you had in mind, but it clearly isn't what the your colleagues had in mind. Its purpose is in the name, "project development". If its purpose was dispute resolution the name would have had the word "dispute" in it somewhere (or a synonym). --Tango (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The adoption and deprecation of ideas and projects are the biggest situations where disputes and vindictive politics occur in this community. (user x oppose my good idea 12 months ago so I am going to oppose their good idea now)

If you want an example of a dispute that begged to for a well constructed "project", look no further than the date delinking case.

That needed an organised dispute resolution mechanism that could stay on top of the delinking "project" over many years until it was "solved". The RFC overseen by Arbcom (WP:DATEPOLL) should have been constructed years earlier. Tony1 did a good job of presenting a reason to delink many years ago, but there was no implementation strategy. It was only six months ago that this community had two polls running at the same time because there was no effective management or coordination of this project. Those polls were followed by each side reading the results of both polls differently. Ugh. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything about project governance here/ NW (Talk) 23:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Question for the ArbCom

Seeing as there are people on this panel whose past here and current activities on at least one other website does not indicate that they should be trusted with personal information about our editors and in view of the fact that anything e-mailed to the arbitration mailing list should not be forwarded without explicit approval for those same reasons would the arbitrators please state in simple and unambiguous words that this does not not under any circumstances now or in the future constitute a broadening of who has access to such personal information. Thank you. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe FloNight explained as much in the thread on the Arbcom noticeboard. It is sadly unsurprising how many people are ascribing such underhanded motives here. I can't believe anyone could think in good faith that Arbcom would create a think tank and give it access to private and confidential data that it is charged with keeping private and confidential. → ROUX ₪ 07:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I may have overstated slightly; FloNight stated clearly that the people invited would not be added to the functionaries-l email list. Of course, I would love to know what gives you any indication whatsoever that ArbCom was even considering giving the members of this group any access to private data. → ROUX ₪ 07:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) There has never been any intention whatsover for the council to be anything other than a forum for public brainstorming. The question of access to personal data simply doesn't arise.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I wanted to know. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No offense to anyone at Arbcom, but you might read the Announcement again while trying to imagine you knew nothing about this. It is rather too easy to read that and imagine a shadow cabal that deliberates in secret, has access to privileged data, and uses special access to ArbCom to enact its suggestions. I know that's not the intent, but isn't hard to figure out why some people could jump to that conclusion after reading the announcement. Dragons flight (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken here :) While I would probably have framed the announcement very differently had I written it, I suppose you might only form that conclusion if you haven't been keeping your eye very closely on the ball lately. ArbCom has produced a mass of initiatives since January specifically designed to open up its processes to much greater transparency and participation, with more in the pipeline. It has also acted decisively to reduce access to privileged information (by reducing the membership of the arbcom-l mailing list, closer scrutiny of CU/OS, and removal of tools from people that don't use them). It's a great pity that some people are unable to see the greater picture.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

With all respect, arbitrator, you admit the announcement was defective, and then you say that some in the community "are unable to see the greater picture"? Maybe if ArbCom hadn't blown its only chance to make a good first impression on this point, there would be fewer in that category, or it might be a red link. As it is, you've lost two of your own, this proposal is on life support, and people are already looking with great interest towards December and the next elections. Please do not blame it on us. As the Russians say, complain to the mirror.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely, this has a public relations disaster but that doesn't mean that (i) the basic idea is flawed or (ii) that the people behind it are acting in bad faith. Conversely, nor does it mean that some people haven't been milking it for all it's worth. The point, I suppose, is that it is demanding too much of ArbCom to expect PR surefootedness at every step. It's probably the high expectations, plus the unforgiving nature of some of the criticism, that leads to such a high attrition rate in arbitrators. Indeed, his perception that the job was utterly thankless that lead Rlevse to resign shortly after Kirill did.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll grant you there are some authority haters who have indeed been milking this hard. The question is, I guess, despite the "nightmare", is the idea of a Council useful as it stands? Frankly, if it were presented that the nominated people are only temps, there to draft a mission statement, governing (I know, bad term) document, and so forth, and then will stand down and elections be held (leaving aside the question of whether they can run again), then I think people will feel that ArbCom has given a little, the community has given a little, and this thing will move forward a lot more smoothly.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

First, it's probably much easier to modify what we have than try to set up something new, from the ground up. (Not everyone will agree with this but that's just my observation.) And yes, the invitees were there to set the thing up as they wished. Second, I'd much prefer it went by the name I originally proposed (29 May), "Thinktank", as that signals loudly and clearly that it is just for bouncing ideas around. There is a slight problem with this in that an essay exists at WP:THINKTANK but that is overcomeable. Third, I'd personally be happier if this found its own level in terms of "membership". Elections may be investing it with altogether too much gravitas. Plus, of course, electing people on the strength of their originality ain't easy (though their manifestos and recall provisions might be fun to read). Fourth, it needs some safeguards to avoid it being swamped by the self-serving. I don't know how to achieve that but it's not impossible.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm not an invitee, I've been bold and these thoughts and a few more to the WP:ACPD page to see where they go.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

My take on all this

I was sold this idea on the basis of it having no power and not being secret.

I think that its role should be to hammer out some problems and potential solutions and then float them at the VP, flagged at CENT and relevant talk pages for the community to assess and take forward as they please.

Thus the Council would be non-decision making. I have no interest in being part of a group of undemocratically appointed superusers, but am very interested in working with a small but diverse group of experienced users to bring forward ideas for community assessment and, where consensus is found, amendment/implementation.

The group really needs to establish its parameters before any meaningful elections could be run - otherwise, how would voters or !voters know what to look for in candidates? As I understand it, Arbcom chose what they perceived as a diverse bunch of experienced editors for that reason.

My take is that the Council should kick off, take on a project and then be assessed and reassess itself too. If it seems to have a role (I have proposed a potential project at Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development/Forum#Discussion (apologies for some overlap with my points here) the community could and should move it onto a democratic footing. If it fails, it should be abandoned swiftly as a well-intentioned idea that didn't work. --Dweller (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Last things first

Let's be real here. As currently constituted, this new group is not going to have sufficient community support to actually be successful—point blank (as we hip-hop heads are wont to say). In this RFC, "this is a problem" type comments are outpacing "good idea" type comments roughly 3 to 1, and the odds are that this ratio will not invert itself or anything similarly dramatic. I'm not trying to short circuit comments or discussion, but I also think it's useful to cut to the chase in terms of what the RFC tells us about the basic reaction to what ArbCom has put forward.

But it also tells us where consensus, dreaded though that word is in some circles, likely lies. A significant number of people like this as constituted, and a large number of those opposing are down with the idea of some kind of advisory council, just not this exact one for various reasons. So we probably already have a critical mass of people to create something a lot like this but with a different genesis, or to alter what is already here. Roger Davies said above, "If there is overall consensus, and it seems to be developing, it is that the idea is a good one but it needs fine-tuning and it might have been better to go about it in other ways." If other Arbs agree with that we are well on our way to coming up with something very useful but also much more amenable to many of the folks commenting on this page. Wehwalt has suggested a specific way to tweak this original proposal into something with which some of those opposing the current "ACPD" could likely agree, and Moni3 has proposed opening another forum to explore the issues that have been raised here (essentially broadening the conversation in terms of scope, but keeping the idea of an Advisory Council front and center). I'm sure there will be any number of other similar specific suggestions about how to move forward.

A lot of good can still come of this brouhaha, and there is more than enough room for agreement among various factions. By all means let's let people continue to comment here, however the sooner we recognize that the current ACPD is likely unworkable but that something quite similar is probably very much workable, and the sooner we head down that direction in terms of community discussion, the better. I would hasten to add that, referencing possible dark motives and/or casting aspersions on other editors (individually or en masse) is, as always, not helpful. But thankfully there has not been too much of that. The vast majority of the comments and participants here are constructive and thoughtful, so let's try to build on that and turn this whole fuss and fracas into ACPD 2.0, which rumor has it will be totally awesome once we figure out what it means. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Amazing. It's standard that any deliberative body may create committees to advise it.

It's standard practice that any deliberative body may create committees, entirely subject to its own discretion, to advise it. Were I on ArbComm, with all the flap over this, I'd have considered resigning too, or, in the alternative, challenging the notion that a pile-in of negative comment says anything about community consensus.

I've faced a 2:1 pile-on, 24 editors calling for me to be banned, stood my ground, and been confirmed. Local consensus is not community consensus. If there were truly a community consensus for me to be banned, you wouldn't have to block me, I'd be gone. But we have no ready means to determine true community consensus, instead what we see is, too often, the screams of the highly involved and highly motivated, or at least highly opinionated, and to hell with deliberation, evidence, careful consideration, and the seeking of maximum consensus.

If ArbComm assigns committee members in a poor way, it will get bad advice, perhaps. Advice, though, is not binding, and any committee report, if it's public, can be the subject of comment and correction if necessary. I urge ArbComm to go ahead with the Committee, and with other committees as needed, it is completely legitimate, and it is necessary for ArbComm to assert its independence, its right to determine its own process; without that right, the burden of serving would become too great.

I also urge arbitrators who have resigned over this to reconsider. By all means, develop methods to better assess community consensus, as a deep phenomenon, not merely as whatever the mob is currently upset about, and if the community wants change and it involves you stepping aside, then step aside.

And make sure that the mob is represented on the committee. I have suggestions as to how to accomplish that with little fuss. --Abd (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree: if you are responsible for something, then you must have the authority to achieve your assigned task. The alternative is called "being set up for failure."

But I don't think that the opposition is based on rational analysis, and you simply can't reason a person out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.

I also suspect that none of the opposition has ever held any significant authority (e.g., ran a business with more than one or two employees) or dealt with governance issues bigger than a small group (e.g., worked in a legislature). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Since this seems to be not getting community support...

Ok. It seems like the ACPD doesn't have much in the way of community support behind it. There's also been a lot of comments that an elected body would be more acceptable. So why doesn't someone actually write out a draft proposal for an elected version? I'm a bit busy right now but if no one has a version when I'm online again in about 6 hours I'll try to flesh one out. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That begs the question that an advisory panel is necessary. Shall the Committee force the community's hand in future via unilateral action outside its mandate? Durova²⁷⁷ 16:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the process of doing so right now, JoshuaZ. Durova: I think that the general feeling seems to be something is needed. → ROUX ₪ 16:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Voila. Rudimentary of course, but I think it addresses the concerns raised here, particularly the concerns about power. → ROUX ₪ 18:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be better if people contributed to Wikipedia:Governance review. At the moment it is a brainstorming session for different ideas. An elected think tank is an idea that would be good to propose there so it can be discussed. If people don't like the process I've started for the review please make suggestions for changes on the talk page. --Tango (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but given the extensive discussion here, we may as well stay.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this discussion would be better as part of the larger review, though. Splitting discussion discussion between multiple forums is rarely a good idea. --Tango (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be competing ideas for how to address issues... DevCom, a governance review, various other proposals, some failed already. Why is that? Should I draft up a proposal for a committee to evaluate the strength of all the other committee proposals? ++Lar: t/c 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, the Development Committee proposal is meant to narrowly address the concerns raised here. The general feeling seems to be think-tank-good, arbcom-created-bad. The Governance review seems to have a much broader scope in what it is attempting to do, as does the Wikipedia Committees one, which calls for several new bodies and a large rearrangement of how things are done. → ROUX ₪ 21:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

We should at least give the community a chance to evaluate the proposals before creating another body to do so. That is the whole point of the governance review process I've started. --Tango (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"A committee to evaluate all the proposed committees" was not a serious proposal, apologies if I confused anyone into thinking it was... but my point is that (in general, without comment on the merits of any particular proposal) we need fewer/better/simpler proposals, not more, as too much to evaluate at once causes analysis paralysis ++Lar: t/c 22:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think my proposal is relatively simple. I would absolutely welcome your input as to how to simplify it further. → ROUX ₪ 00:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And I think that Governance Review would be an excellent project for such a group to tackle. A small group of people engaged in focused discussion, and then propose to the community at large. → ROUX ₪ 00:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You need to get all the ideas before you can decide which ones are worth further analysis, though. My thinking with this governance review is that we'll soon find out which ideas people are interested in and can start to thin them out after a couple of weeks and have more detailed discussion. --Tango (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

One useful thing that could be done with all these proposals is to collect together the bits that do have broad support, such as the consensus does not scale idea from this RfC, and see if something can be made from them. Kevin (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: A system of chartered think-tanks

I like the think-tank idea very much, and it seems like a lot of other people here recognize the potential value in it. The main concerns about the ACPD announcement seem centered on (a) how its membership was chosen, (b) the sense that it would have some sort of exclusive privilege or influence, and (c) the authority of ArbCom to set up such a body in the first place. I'm hoping to find a way forward that will satisfy the most substantial objections.

So, instead of ArbCom setting up a particular body, I propose the following:

Let ArbCom put forward a system whereby any self-organizing and self-governing group of editors may receive a charter as an official think-tank. ArbCom decides in advance what standards such a charter must meet. Then, any group may formulate and submit their charter, and if it meets the standards it will be officially recognized. Membership will not be established from the top down, nor will any one group have an exclusive position of privilege.

What will it mean to be officially recognized as a think-tank? At the core, it jump-starts the process of gaining the trust and respect of the community, ArbCom, MedCom, Jimbo, various Wikiprojects, etc. for its analysis and recommendations. I think ArbCom ought also to assign one of its members to serve as a liaison with the think-tank, to provide feedback to them on ArbCom's behalf and to help oversee their adherence to their charter -- and to revoke their charter if the group fails to adhere to it.

I anticipate some objections to ArbCom's issuing of charters as being outside its remit. I acknowledge that it's not part of its mandate regarding dispute resolution -- but it does have authority to solicit advice and input from any source it likes; there's nobody else to do it; and I see little practical downside. (I expect the volume of charter-related work to be quite low once the initial flurry of think-tank formation has subsided.)

The biggest potential downside to this is that it might promote cabalism. I think this risk can be mitigated by a well-chosen set of chartering standards from ArbCom. I have my own thoughts on what such standards would include but don't want to make this proposal longer than it is already -- so I'll open it up for discussion at this point. alanyst ^/talk/ 15:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I object to ArbCom issuing charters outside its remit. Exactly so. I would have voted for different people if I had anticipated such a capacity. Simply put, no. This is a non-starter. Durova²⁷⁷ 18:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Hypothetically, if this were within ArbCom's remit, would there be other concerns, or is your objection solely that they don't have the authority to act in this way? alanyst ^/talk/ 18:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

See below. If the panel were constituted solely for the issue of content dispute resolution then there would be issues of what to do if any of the panel's members came under scrutiny in an arbitration case. Durova²⁷⁷ 02:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You're grasping at straws here, Durova. What is the procedure when an ArbCom member is named in a case? Why would this be any different? → ROUX ₪ 02:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Durova, my proposal was for a theoretically unlimited number of think-tanks, all of which have an arm's-length relationship with ArbCom, and none of which has more privilege than the others. I don't see how this would necessitate ArbCom recusals in a dispute, at least beyond the normal frequency. alanyst ^/talk/ 03:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The question to my mind is what sort of formal "status" all these groups would have. I can and do think that giving ArbCom access to individuals who have a particular knowledge of a subject might be useful in some situations, but they can already generally find such people. To my eyes, the terms required to establish a reasonably small number of such more or less officially sanctioned bodies would have to be fairly strict, in effect making the process kind of redundant. We already have less formal groups of one sort or another, like WikiProjects on any number of issues, which could form as a less formal but probably equally effective alternative. John Carter (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What I had in mind is in fact pretty close to WikiProjects and could perhaps be viewed as such. The idea of charters is so there's a consistent standard that the think-tanks are required to meet regardless of their internal self-governance—for example, that all their communications are done on-wiki for transparency, if that were part of ArbCom's chartering standard. alanyst ^/talk/ 03:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think the better way forward--to alleviate the concerns of others--is to create some sort of policythinky group, and let them strike ad hoc committees to investigate specific issues. ArbCom attempted to create this specifically to end scope creep and more severely curtail their remit. Having them 'charter' more and more groups would obviate that. → ROUX ₪ 18:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I get the scope creep concern—but I believe that chartering is a lighter-weight method of allowing independent advisory bodies to be created than having to conduct elections for a single, exclusive body. Wikipedia-wide elections are a huge drain of energy for all involved. alanyst ^/talk/ 03:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Alan, the situation we have now, unfortunately, is that if anyone says they support the idea of a think-tank in general, that statement is being used by the ArbCom and the proposed Council to show that their Council is wanted, but just needs to be tweaked. It's therefore hard to know how to proceed, except to say that this idea as presented, with a membership chosen in advance and in secret, and with ArbCom involvement, has no support. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Except that it does have support. I think it is not unfair to state that there is general support for some sort of working group, just that it needs to be community-driven and arms-length from ArbCom. → ROUX ₪ 18:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Roux and would like to add that the type of group needed should not be limited to the type of people that would win elections. - Josette (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we please reduce the level of absurd Wikilawyering and Wikipoltics around this entire proposal. Diversity of views is important so a few of think tanks would be better than one. NBeale (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That's my thinking; there is no single Think-Tank for the outside world; why would we restrict ourselves to one here? Get a diversity of groups, let them organize themselves, choosing their members and their scope, and charter them so they meet a certain level of expectation in the conduct of their business (transparency, no infighting, whatever). No elections, no exclusive ArbCom imprimatur, and no reason for anyone to feel left out -- they can create their own think-tank if they can get it chartered. alanyst ^/talk/ 03:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that idea has merit, and definitely eliminates the notion of an "official" or "special" view, which is the problem of having just one. Orderinchaos 04:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent proposal, Alanyst. I agree with all of it. It should get wider publicity. This should be the first proposal proposed by the new think tank. -- Noroton (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The situation now

The only thing that could make this situation worse would be for the ArbCom to continue with this Council in the face of the objections. Yet that is precisely what Roger Davies [10] and FloNight [11] are proposing to do. I've added the "failed proposal" tag to the Council page, [12] and I hope things are left that way. The community's trust is going to be even more damaged if this continues. We need some healing now, not more arrogance. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the proposal is still being commented on, I have to myself question whether marking it as "rejected" when, evidently, not all the comments are in, is really in keeping with the last sentence above. Considering that it is still, I believe, listed on the Centralized discussion template, I would have to say that it would to me make sense to wait until everybody interested has had time to comment, maybe at least a week of time, before marking it as "rejected", as you have perhaps precipitously done. John Carter (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This comment by David Fuchs does not help: Bluntly, I'm not sure if any sort of binding consensus will come out of the RfC, and I fully intend on ignoring it, really. ...Modernist (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that [13]. One would hope that ArbCom would reconsider the position on the Council of someone who has such little respect for the community voice, regardless of what their motives are. Black Kite 16:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed makes more sense to me right now. This is still pretty new and people above are talking about reform / replacement proposals. I'd let some of those ideas have time to germinate before drawing firm conclusions. Dragons flight (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I can live with that, and probably should have thought of it myself. Thank you. :) John Carter (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with proposed. It was the first tag I added yesterday, but someone changed it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin seems to be a lady in a hurry, she needs to slow down, that way her thoughts and action may be more logical. The RFC is far from over, and even if it were, it would probably take an act of Arbcom to destroy what Arbcom has created. SlimVirgin seems to be ignorant of the way Wikipedia functions. That she seems so keen to destroy what many consider to be perfectly normal occurance (an official body - requesting a panel to advise) suggests a certain ignorance of the ways of the world. Perhaps she has a thirst for vengeance which clouds her judgement - I don't know, but I do know that to destroy in its embryonic form something which is Wikipedia's first truly open and transparent body seems curious and certainly not the actions of one who is putting the welfare of the project first. SlimVirgin is not paranoid, so the fact that she sees a powerless committee as a threat suggests her motoves lie elsewhere. Giano (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Giano, why don't you tell everyone what you told me yesterday about the way this was set up? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's and Jennavecia's opinions are bellwether: 64:26. As things currently stand it would take a groundswell of nearly 150 supporters for Jennavecia to generate 75% community consenus support for the initiative. This is particularly unlikely to happen because a significant portion of those 26 supporters consist of individuals who have been appointed to the proposed panel. The principle of snowball closure is arguable: extending discussion risks embittering the participants; I have already been the target of profanity.[14] So at this point, while much of the community is willing to come together, the dignified solution would be to mark the proposal historical and initiate a new open discussion. Durova²⁷⁷ 17:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it makes no sense to continue the proposal for much longer. If some of the participants want to start a new idea for a committee, it would be less divisive to start from scratch. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the manner in which this was instituted that brought my objections, not the idea of an advisory board. Am not totally sold on the notion that such a thing is necessary, but would discuss it on fair terms if this began in the normal way. Durova²⁷⁷ 17:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Do either of you honestly believe that the broken revolving door nature of our consensus system would allow such a group in any form to actually exist? I'd honestly like to know your opinion. Yes, PLAGIARISM passed, but that was such an easy bullseye that there was no way for it not to. How many positive changes required literally wars to get passed, like Flagged Revs? rootology (C)(T) 17:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Root, the people who want this Council keep contradicting themselves. On the one hand, they say, "Hey, it's nothing to worry about, just a think tank, not really attached to ArbCom, just brainstorming, you know?" On the other, it's, "How on earth do you expect to get things done if we're not set up to push things through?" Well, which is it, because it can't be both. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a fair question. The "think tank" or "brainstorming service" I think has great potential; it could be a community service like mediation: "Bring your problem, and we try to think of a solution (which you can use or reject)." But it has to be clear that the think tank is there to think of solutions, not to implement them. JN466 19:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• It comes as no surprise to see Slim and Durova hand in hand together, the last time I recall that happening was when both were on a secret mailing list with Jimbo, so secret a list that no-one, outside of the secretly chosen list, was supposed to know of it's existance - it only came to light when its postings became so ludicrously and dangerously stupid and ill-informed that Durova had to be de-adminned. When I was given the opportunity to be on this "council" I agreed because it was so open and above board. Now, to have you two trying to destroy it, confirms how right I was. I note Durova signing herself up to be on the replacement committee, well tough luck, you weren't asked - and perhaps you should both be asking yourselves why that was? Instead of moaning and groaning here. Giano (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oh for heaven's sake Giano, SlimVirgin and I have been divided by professional rivalries for years. She's MI5 and I'm lowly FBI, remember? Durova²⁷⁷ 17:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Quite! I remeber precisely your skills in that departmen. Guten Abend und gute Reise. Giano (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

To reply more seriously to Rootology, the current composition officially has the ear of ArbCom. How likely are average Wikipedians to oppose its proposals, if aggressive accusations against their motives and integrity are likely to result? The mood risks becoming one of silent acquiescence, for fear of retribution. See Abilene paradox. Durova²⁷⁷ 17:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Durova, someone has to say this, when given the opportunity to act in secret you behaved so badly that I am surprised you even dare post. You were trying to have Wikipedians banned for life, with no source for redress, for the most fictitious ruminations of your imagination. That you have the nerve to even comment on this is truly astounding. Giano (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec, to Rootology) During this discussion the SlimVirgin:Jennavecia support ratio has gone from 64:26 to 68:26. Can we wrap this up and move properly? The reason the plagiariarism proposal succeeded was because it followed the model of other successful proposals that have been promoted in the past. In particular, I drew upon experience from coauthoring Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and bringing that to guideline status in 2006. A recent spate of diffusely crafted initiatives have failed, not because nothing can get done but because most of them lacked focus or appeared to carry wikipolitical overtones. Would gladly move forward in a cooperative spirit with all who have spoken here; I hold no grudges. Durova²⁷⁷ 18:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the plagiarism thing passed because it was already a de facto policy. → ROUX ₪ 19:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, WP:PLAGIARISM is still currently marked "disputed". It had lots of problems to begin with; but there is quite robust consensus for it to exist. Just the details need(ed) some work. --JN466 19:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Would love to raise it to policy, Roux, but I don't want to be accused of ownership and a small but very vocal minority disputes its guideline status. Your assistance would be very welcome ironing that out. Durova²⁷⁷ 19:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

←Giano, please let's quit with the personal stuff directed at Slim and Durova. I might think they're dead wrong about the Council, but that's not an excuse to try characterize them as a pair of conspirators hell bent on killing anything good. That's not exactly elevating the level of discourse about the issue at hand. Steven Walling (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought Arbcom was supposed to be resolving conflict, not letting it fester. --maclean 19:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Internal arbcom committees cannot be "failed" by this RFC. Arbcom established the committee on their own prerogative, and can disband it if they want, but it's not appropriate for other people to start adding tags to that page any more than it would be appropriate for random people to edit arbitration decision pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That comes very close to an argument that ArbCom is empowered to redefine its own mandate against community consensus. And if you wouldn't call it that, what is the use of an advisory committee that three-quarters of respondents don't want to be advised by? Durova²⁷⁷ 19:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It comes nowhere close to anything of the sort. ArbCom can explicitly ask for input from anyone it wants. Durova, you are not helping your cause with this hyperbole. Your input would be more valuable here. → ROUX ₪ 19:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how that is hyperbolic? If one supposes that ArbCom has overstepped their mandate, then isn't it entirely proper to request the opinions of the community? By contrast, if one believes that ArbCom has acted within its mandate then one can support them via RfC. But to contend that community consensus cannot check and balance ArbCom is a different argument entirely. The difference is worth noting, unless that is a misreading? Durova²⁷⁷ 19:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Even if a representative elected body has only 5% support in the community, they are still expected to faithfully perform their duties as long as they remain in office. That's the very point of electing representatives instead of deciding everything by community votes. If you dislike what this arbcom does, elect different people next time, but don't attempt to micromanage them in the middle of their term. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Durova, the committee is not advising you, it is advising arbcom at their request. Perhaps arbcom should have formed this as a publicly archived mailing list, simply so that no-one can wikilawyer about arbcom not being permitted to form a committee? I think it's quite clear arbcom is permitted to make invitation-only mailing lists; this is not particularly different. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The advisory board was constituted in part to be a think tank for proposals outside matters of conduct dispute resolution. Another point worth noting is that even if it existed solely to advise the Committee on conduct dispute resolution, there is no provision for what would happen if one of the advisory board's members becomes a named party to an arbitration case. When one arbitrator has a close working relationship with a particular editor, that arbitrator normally recuses from the case. There's something to be said for the current informal system where, of course, arbitrators can talk to whoever they want--and as a consequence they naturally draw upon the wisdom of different people. That leaves enough impartial arbitrators to review any situation fairly. Durova²⁷⁷ 20:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The "another point" seems to concede that it is within arbcom's mandate to create committees to advise them. You have not explained what would be different if arbcom simply renamed the "committee" into a "mailing list", when establishing mailing lists for discussion of matters of interest to arbcom is clearly established as within arbcom's mandate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution was not included in the explanation I received from Kirill about what the committee was supposed to do. While the focus was not clear, it was mentioned that most of those who were asked had no specific experience in dispute resolution or arbitration. I wish it was within the social and hard rules to post the series of emails I received. It might clear up a lot of confusion and conjecture. Or create more... --Moni3 (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Even though the UK parliament has no authority to pass laws for the country of France, they can still appoint for themselves an advisory committee about French law. That would not mean that the advisory committee suddenly had the power to pass laws for France. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If ArbCom instituted an advisory panel solely to advise itself, my objections would be different. No longer on a matter of stepping outside the mandate; more on a level of the drama that would result if one of the advisory panel members became the subject of an arbitration case. For example, if a panel member were wrongly accused of something, the Committee's ability to clear that person's name would be hampered because the other side would shout favoritism. Even if no favoritism occurred, the entire Committee couldn't possibly recuse. They may have the power to create such a body that way, but that doesn't make it wise to do so. Now I really must get back to other matters; this has taken up far more time than I anticipated. Durova²⁷⁷ 20:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently your objections have just become different, and we now agree that arbcom can appoint committees to advise it. The issue of recusal is a matter for internal arbcom procedures, and the official forum for second-guessing the wisdom of arbcom's decisions is the elections in December. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Durova, have you the foggiest idea what you are saying? Giano (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated elsewhere, SV is right: there is a consensus in opposition to this council, and it is totally inappropriate to continue with it in the face of that opposition. By any reasonable measure and according to all Wikipedia precedent, this is a failed proposal. This body is composed of people who intend to advise the ArbCom on matters of importance to the community, yet here they are disregarding the community's wishes and forging on ahead in isolation. What does that tell us? Everyking (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It tells me they think this proposal(?) is too important for outsider input. Perhaps their first recommended proposal (as inherently intelligent and needed as it may be) won't be as important so disenters won't be mocked (pitchforks and torches?) or ignored (implemented regardless of outsider input). --maclean 22:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

We're all missing the point now; Governance is totally failing

User:Rootology/Wikipedia is broken and failing. Until we change the things I listed there--all of them--we're done for long-term. rootology (C)(T) 16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

We are almost certainly done for. Only one thing can save us now: We must all of us go and edit articles. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If it were that simple we wouldn't even need the AC, our BLP problems wouldn't exist, and we wouldn't have almost all our most veteran and active users constantly pointing out our flaws. rootology (C)(T) 17:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Root, it often is that simple. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

How so? ++Lar: t/c 21:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Rootology. Something of this kind does seem called for, even if it is, as it says it is, unofficial. I can and do see how "Advisory Council" as a name might seem to confer to the group a more "official" status than it seems to be designed to have, although I'm not sure what other name would be better. But there aren't enough of us who are omniscient objective godlike editors to at this point seem to keep the existing problems from continually appearing here and being repeatedly hammered on elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Voila. Rudimentary of course, but I think it addresses the concerns raised here, particularly the concerns about power. → ROUX ₪ 18:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Not about governance

The ACPD committee is not about governance, as it has no authority to govern. I agree we need governance, which means community-appointed committees with charters that allow them to actually shape policy. There's no point in spending time on elections unless the elected gain some authority from being elected. This is why it makes sense for arbcom to just appoint a committee if they don't need the committee to have any special abilities. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The point of elections is validation of group to advise the community. A self-appointed group on this site is just another bunch of random anonymous talking heads, of no special value. An appointed group, by a sanctioned body, has more authority in that they ultimately traced back to some semblance of community endorsement -- for example, the Checkusers recently elected. The AC is nominally supported by most users since they're 95% community selected; that value will increase over time as Jimmy will no longer in the coming future control the AC, and the naysayers there will have less cause to complain. This group, if it goes through, is until it's community selected appointed, so without as much value. That's the value in elections; the community takes 100% control and ownership of it. That's how the AC should be; that's how RFx is. rootology (C)(T) 20:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the ACPD committee is a bunch of talking heads of no special value, because they have no ability to actually do anything. If we are going to talk about governance, we need to talk about electing groups that can do more than talk. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

For that you'd need a wholly separate thing with teeth and actual binding authority comparable to the AC. The users of this website have been consistently unable or unwilling to do that. This is the best we have right now. rootology (C)(T) 20:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with the first two sentences, but I don't know that the ACPD committee is really any improvement over the status quo. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still up in the air very much myself, but considering it's all but impossible to get anything new off the ground, no matter how trivial, without some goon showing up waving the CREEP or BEURO pennants, something has to be better than nothing, even if it ends as a failed experiment. rootology (C)(T) 20:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If we don't have a thing with teeth, then what we have is a WikiProject by fiat. I tend to agree with Carl on this one - I'd actually hope that out of this process we get something that will improve the situation, rather than see the entire impetus for change die because a dumb/unconstitutional idea failed. In my view if we are to have an advisory council, it should have experts and a fair few of them should be sympathetic non-Wikimedians with relevant expertise - I will note that jbmurray (a member of the present considered body) is exactly the sort of person I'd like to see on such a council and whoever thought to add him was on the right track. Orderinchaos 20:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The whole point of this new group is to form a transparent think tank that can investigate various issues and proposals, then lay them out for the Community to consider. One of several topics to discuss might be issues related to Wikipedia Governance. Another might be related to Dispute resolution. Another might be ways to make Wikipedia more inviting to females editors. Another big one is a better system to match volunteer skills to the work that needs to be done on the Project. These are all important issues that need research, lengthy discussion, proposals written and tweaked multiple times in order to get a the best outcome. A sitting group of people that help with the background work makes loads of sense to me because is the way that stuff get done well in the world as I know it. Attempts to paint this as power grab by ArbCom baffle me. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Rather than being baffled, why not accept that that's how it's being seen, and withdraw the ArbCom involvement entirely? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Like this maybe? How about we stop arguing back and forth and try to do something constructive? → ROUX ₪ 20:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that you know the intention, there's no reason to continue seeing it that way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) What he said, in spades. → ROUX ₪ 20:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the reason that a number of people are confused by the think tank is from the premature and flawed RFC that you started (and evidently attempted to prematurely close yourself). This reactionary and poor worded RFC is a good example of the reason that new proposals and policies fail on Wikipedia. ACPD was launched in an embryo stage so that it could grow transparently under the watch of the Community. But before that group could get started, the group was tagged failed. You bet that I'm going to ask for more time to let this badly needed group to have fair chance to work. It is a good idea, needed, and worth the effort to push back the people that want to prematurely shut it down. I was not heavily involved in designing the think tank. But I supported it and I'm proud to say that I did. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not tried to close the RfC, and there is nothing poorly worded about it; quite the reverse. It is a simple and straightforward description of what you're doing. You were also proud to support Poetlister for bureaucrat on another wiki, and to have him unblocked here, despite his rampant sockpuppetry and abuse of other editors. With respect, I see this as a similar initiative, and just as disrespectful. What those initiatives have in common, Flo, is that you want to pander to a certain crowd, and you seem to think listening to the entire community is somehow beneath you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been silent on-wiki about this entire situation to this point, but I have to say that I find SlimVirgin's gratuituous reference and analogy to Poetlister here to be unnecessary, the imputation of motives unbecoming, and the level of perseveration bizarre. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to stay away from personalizing it, but others have not, and it's becoming increasingly difficult, given the attacks we are under from these supposed advisers and their friends, on and offwiki (as usual). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it thus open season on every high crime and misdemeanor ever perpetrated (or alleged to have been perpetrated) by every participant in this discussion? Gosh I hope that's not where you're going. ++Lar: t/c 22:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd much rather see a debate about principles than individuals. The problem here was systemic, not individual. If this whole mess results in a bunch of people finding a good way to move forward and take Wikipedia with it, we will all have achieved something, irrespective of who has allegedly done what whenever. Orderinchaos 23:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The "think tank" is a good idea, as long as it has nothing to do with ArbCom. It seems to me that it is as if the U.S. Supreme Court set up an advisory body or "think tank" on policies to advise them and render opinions regarding how the other branches of the U.S. Government should operate. It is not the Court's place to be involved in setting policy if it is going to settle conflicts between parties based on laws or policies. It would erode its standing as a body of arbitration, if it also wrote the laws and set up policies of its own on the implementation of governing. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Except that Arbs over a dozen times now have said that's not what this is. My major beef is that something like this, if you or I or Durova or Slim had set it up, it would have been shot down 18 ways to Sunday by various people in the community for a variety of reasons, regardless of it's popular support -- we'd have all the various confrontation "wikiway" folks, the people that oppose anything new based on CREEP, the people that oppose anything on BEURO, the fanboys that oppose anything that may challenge someday Jimbo or the AC, and a dozen others for a dozen other reasons, who can freely filibuster till everyone else's heads explode. rootology (C)(T) 20:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If the Supreme Court set up a committee like that, it would not cause either the court or the committee to actually be able to pass laws. Actually, outside legal briefs do often have a mixture of interpretation of the current law and opinion about what the law should say to match other laws, including advice about what Congress should do to fix perceived problems with the laws. And court decisions often enough include statements about how laws should be changed by legislature. This does not cause people to be concerned that the Supreme Court will start trying to pass laws.

The wikipedia situation is no different: the ACPD does not have any authority to do anything except give advice, and creating a committee doesn't change arbcom's powers either. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, in an ideal world, Wikipedia would have no conflicts between the principles and in policy and the way that it is run for practical reasons. Currently, the 2009 Arbitration Committee is trying to reorganize itself so that it does the core work that it is elected to do and move the other stuff to the broader Community. In order to do that, ArbCom has set up processes (the Community election for Oversight and Checkuser access) and new groups (Audit Subcommittee, and this new think tank). We are making progress in that direction and I think by the beginning of next year we can have significant changes in place that will have the Community more directly involved. I ask you to trust us that we are not looking for more power, but rather attempting to engage the Community in more aspects of running Wikipedia. I don't know how to state it more clearly than I have. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not questioning the motives of ArbCom. I truly believe that ArbCom does not see the problem and the conflict of interest. I believe ArbCom thinks that the membership of the group represents a wide range and diversity of opinion and that somehow this group of editors selected by ArbCom will render independent opinions on policies that will be best for the community. But the first thing that struck me was the narrowness of the group's membership, aside from having ArbCom members on it, and the lack of representation of the variety of projects, interests, ages, etc. ArbCom is an exclusive in group, so it is not surprising that if it nominates people ArbCom members agree on, this is going to be a narrow group. Are younger, newer members of the community represented? If you are worried about membership attrition, it seems to me that there must be an attempt to enlist the views of younger generations. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

True. It's the pep club trying to pick a representative group from their school. Somehow, they'll never get beyond the cool kids.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I love that as a quotable. Orderinchaos 21:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the flaws of this RFC was that it gave the inaccurate impression that the membership list was complete. In fact, the second round of membership was for self noms. People are asking to be added to the group if they are interested in working on the new initiative and think that they have time and the interest. I made an announcement the day the group was launched to WikiChix in order to get more female contributors to request an invitation. It is hard call the group exclusive when asking for membership gets you in. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

So open door? You ask, you're in?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

My advice comes free—you don't even have to give me a title to get it. It goes like this: respect the wishes of the community and dissolve this council. Everyking (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If it comes to that, change the name but keep the group. This is an excellent group of editors to start a dialogue about ways to address project issues. I think there is room for more names to be added. - Josette (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally speaking I think it would be interesting and useful for the group thus formed to continue to meet and share ideas outside the auspices of this proposal - it'd then be no different to any Wikiproject or on- or off-wiki discussion group, and if it generates something useful that the community can consider, then great. It's only the status (or perceived status) and the explicit and implicit link with Wikipedia's structures that I'm opposed to. Orderinchaos 23:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! The group could pick and issue and work on it, and if the results seem useful, that could served sway the community's opinion by demonstrating the potential benefit. Couldn't hurt. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

FloNight, the RfC didn't give that impression. The not quite closed membership announcement did give an impression, though, of an attempt to buy off interested parties with the carrot of membership in a cabal. I haven't any intention of joining such a game. Really, sincerely wishing that you and your colleagues had taken off your arbitration robes when you came to the conclusion that this body was a good idea. Because we might have avoided a lot of drama if five or ten arbitrators had stepped forward candidly and said this is outside our official remit as arbitrators, but we've kicked around this idea and we'd like to present it to the rest of you as editors and colleagues... That gracious act would have enhanced our respect. Next time, if an idea like this comes along, please pursue that course instead. Durova²⁷⁷ 00:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Unhappily, FloNight has not answered my questions, no doubt she is busy in RL. But I have no intentions of asking to join a cabal.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Someone said above that the Supreme Court accepts outside briefs all the time. However, if the Supreme Court selected a side panel of attorneys to submit such briefs, I think the situation would be regarded as this one is. Any briefs from a self-selected panel of standing advisers would not have credibility, nor would any Court opinion based on them. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • You may be interested in [15]: "The most striking exercise of this broader authority involves appointing an expert as a technical advisor to confer in chambers with the judge regarding the evidence, as opposed to offering testimony in open court and being subject to cross-examination." Apparently this is an accepted authority of US courts. Courts are also free to consult, for example, papers in legal journals. The authority of the final opinion comes from the court itself, not from the sources cited. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I am interested as that is exactly my occupation. However, testimony takes place in open court, almost always, and is open to cross examination. In addition, both the prosecutor and the defense are empowered to hire their own expert witnesses, and the state will pay for the defendant's expert witness if needed. The judge appoints an expert for one specified case at a time. The expert witness has to be certified as such in the particular jurisdiction and subject matter at issue, and not just "someone" selected by the judge. The expert's testimony is limited solely to the area of expertise; expert witnesses do no render opinions on the law, nor on issues of how to run the court. Seems very different from this business here with the select committee. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that this committee was selected exactly to give expert advice about the interpretation and direction of WP policy, and best practices, so that arbcom would not have to divine these things for themselves. It is true the ACPD committee was not intended to be reselected for each case, but I take the general idea to be the same. Also, the "testimony" of this group was always intended to be public on their wiki page, where everyone can read it and post a rebuttal on the talk page if they like.

Re "just someone selected by the judge", there is also the lingering perception that some Supreme Court justices select their clerks to write opinions for them. In the end we don't worry about it too much because it is the judge, not the clerk, who signs the final decision. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What makes this group "expert" in WP policy and best practices? They are a select group that are pleasing enough to Arbs that ArbCom could agree on their selection. They may be expert in the way things have always been done, but is that what is needed? The bad humor, nasty behavior, groups of entrenched editors supporting each other, may be reflective of the way thing have always been done. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's arbcom's prerogative who to pick for their committee (and this would not change if they solicited opinions privately or by mailing list, so it's not really a criticism of the ACPD committee per se). — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Durova's carrots

Durova, do you think they bought me off with a carrot? I've been even more vigorous since they brought me into this on working to tear down and then repair what I see as flawed. By that analogy it would be like they gave me the carrot, and I promptly beat them in the face with it as a weapon. :) rootology (C)(T) 20:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

My comments

I haven't really said anything about this mess and it's probably time I made a few comments.

As an arbitrator, I followed the discussion about setting up an Advisory Council on Project Development on the ArbCom mailing list. I had no role in formulating the concept, and I didn't contribute much if at all to our internal discussion regarding it, because frankly I didn't have strong views one way or the other. The press of ArbCom business, between this year's actual arbitration cases (many of which have been sprawling multi-party cases) and the other commitments spearheaded primarily by this year's new class of arbitrators (CU and OS elections, creating the Audit Subcommittee, etc.) has been high, which has led to some informal division of labor. It seemed to be a reasonable idea to assemble some sort of group of experienced editors to talk through governance or other issues that might come up from time to time and make recommendations, and since the ACPD proposal seemed to be in competent hands I found myself with little to say.

(I think my most substantive comment was that it probably needed a better name, because "Project Development" could be taken any number of ways, but I had to confess I couldn't think of a better name, and neither did anyone else.)

In retrospect, I can see an argument that aspects of how the ACPD was created and announced could have been handled differently. Certainly, if anyone had a negative reaction to the announcement of the Council's creation or membership, he or she was welcome to say so and to offer reasons for that view.

Nonetheless, I find the rather extreme level of hostility and outrage that has been displayed by a few users on this page to be bewildering and regrettable.

The suggestion that creating an advisory committee was some sort of act of aggrandizement by the Arbitration Committee or by the individual arbitrators who supported it strikes me as, upon reflection, not a tenable one. The fact is that much of committee's program this year has consisted of avoiding unilateral actions outside the context of specific user-conduct disputes. The most obvious example of this has been the decision to select checkusers and oversighters by open election on-wiki from among qualified candidates, rather than the prior system of the ArbCom simply appointing people. (Frankly, I was not fully convinced that the gain in greater transparency in holding elections justified their downside, which is the collective expenditure of community time involved in holding such elections, but I did not feel strongly about it and I was glad to defer to the more-or-less unanimous consensus of my colleagues that the elections would boost confidence both in the ArbCom and in the checkusers and oversighters who were ultimately selected. Incidentally, have they?)

Nor is it as if the ACPD had been packed with sycophants, nor is it as if ArbCom gave it a mandate to take any action other than provide advice to the committee or the community, nor is it as if ArbCom could have given it such a broader mandate even if we had wanted to.

So I hope the idea that this was some sort of sneaky power-grab by one or more arbitrators should be forthwith dropped by all concerned. (I know that not all or even a majority of those who have posted to this page have made such a suggestion, but too many have.)

I regret the resignations of Kirill Lokshin and Rlevse from the Arbitration Committee as a result of this matter. I hasten to point out, as others have, that few if any of those commenting on this RfC ever called for them or anyone else to resign as arbitrators, and that this side-effect was unforeseen by all concerned. I will confess that my initial reaction to the resignations was that they were overreactions. But of course I cannot begrudge my two colleagues their own feelings nor can I stand in their shoes, any more than last year when I took my own break did they stand in mine.

In terms of where we go from here, I have no current suggestions to offer. It is unclear whether the currently constituted group, whether it continued under any sort of ArbCom auspices or not, would be permitted to deliberate on any issues in any kind of comfort, or whether its members would be subjected to persistent cries of cabalism.

People often say that Wikipedia needs more and better governance, because our consensus model has not scaled with the growth of the project and there are times when it is unclear whether any decisions on fundamental issues can be made at all (putting aside the increasingly rare occasions of Jimbo ukases, which of course raise issues of their own). I've never been able to summon up much enthusiasm for constitutional white-papers and study-groups, because some of what has led to the success of Wikipedia has been its sponenaity and informality, and some of our most ossified processes are the ones that have been most formalized and rigidified. But ... do editors find that the current system, or lack of a system, is working well? Once the current contretemps has died down, perhaps we can return to these issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for that. To your closing question, this editor does not find our current lack of a system as working well. I think, given the comments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development#Question_on_scale_of_WP_by_Casliber, that I am not alone in that view. ++Lar: t/c 23:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Correct; the current system is not working. For better or worse the governance of this site is only cared about by a small bit of our population; there are only even a few hundred editors that are high-volume editors that even come close to 1000 edits per month, and also do so on these back-end pages. Most people don't see this, but are all impacted by it, as it's all trickling down to them in various forms. Things are fundamentally broken in how we operate, in that Jimmy and Larry's original formulation doesn't work and doesn't scale for governance and policy matters. People have been saying that for years, and the whole thing is finally beginning to come home to roost. More bluntly detailed here, if you're morbidly curious. rootology (C)(T) 23:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Even if this council fails, which would be a shame, there are a clear majority who feel that consensus is not a suitable method for making large scale decisions. We need to make positive use of that general agreement and kill off consensus for non-editorial decisions. Kevin (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Brilliant way to put it. rootology (C)(T) 23:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hello Brad. Do you feel free to comment on what you think should happen if the existing levels of support are maintained over the next few days? I'm thinking specifically of the proposal that the Council be abandoned, which currently has a high level of support.--MoreThings (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• RfC's usually run for at least a month. Relax and let it flow to it's conclusion. Thank you NYB, for your well-thought-out comments. Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think something as serious as this would warrant a shorter process - if the community does not trust the legitimacy of the body, it should be disbanded and new ideas brought forward with a view to regaining the trust of the community. Indeed, ban discussions rarely run to a week, to give one example. Orderinchaos 01:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't see any need to rush. If you're sure that your "side" is going to win, then you shouldn't mind waiting longer -- the council isn't really doing anything at the moment, after all! IMO, the only rational reason to close the discussion after just 10% of the usual time is because the self-proclaimed "winners" are worried that if the discussion continues for more than three and a half days, then more editors might quit panicking and decide that perhaps having ArbCom's advice be received out in the open instead of in secret is an improvement. If that's the case -- well, I'm not really interested in closing an active discussion just because you're afraid that cooler heads might eventually prevail. I also think it's distinctly hypocritical to complain that ArbCom didn't fully discuss the proposal in advance while trying to cut off an active community discussion about the propopsal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the individual conscious motivations among arbs for forwarding or what they said to convince each other for this are particularly relevant. The vast majority of thinking done regarding such things is subconscious ... acknowledging that means that apparent accusations of bad faith are not such. What's more, knowing that makes the implicit assumptions being made by the proponents become more visible (for instance the assumption that ArbCom's role goes well beyond its intended role of reactive dispute settlement) Moreover, the consequences are far more important than the intention. In an non-hierarchical formal social structure like wikipedia's, as soon as you create hierarchies they drift into to the previously safe power vacuums around them. And while one might set up a group like this and make an effort to make it uncabalish, in the long run it will become so because that's just how humans work. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring "Editors opposing this statement"

Opposing statements is not part of the RfC process: such discussion should take place on the talk page. I have moved the statements made thus far here. Geometry guy 22:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I undid this, and will edit again to keep them in[16]. Equal footing, equal voices, equal air time, equal space. This RFC is not owned by those that came first. Oppose sections are standard on these massive site-wide RFCs, as was the case on the various Flagged Revs/BLP ones, and all other similar recent ones. rootology (C)(T) 22:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comments is not a vote and the final section of the RfC template (on this page) makes it absolutely plain that dicussion belongs on the talk page. The cases you refer to involved explicitly set-up votes. This case is utterly different: every statement made by an editor deserves to retain its integrity and be considered according to the depth of the support for it. That is the way RfCs operate. I hope you can understand this. Geometry guy 23:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand fully that nothing in this site exists in a vacuum. RFC as formulated and often deployed is a notoriously corrupt and broken system, where the initial framer wields tremendously disproportionate power. Let's fix Wikipedia by tearing down the bad old ways that got us into this ludicrous mess in the first place. rootology (C)(T) 23:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I oppose many statements, it seems OK to me to leave that section on the talk page, where people can express their opinion with fewer formal constraints. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a terrible idea, as it creates a false illusion that the statements with the politically purged Opposes have more support than they do. rootology (C)(T) 23:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You are now edit warring, and there is no historical consensus for your actions. Please stop. Discussion applies to you equally; you have no special standing here. Neither do the framers of this RFC. rootology (C)(T) 23:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, I reverted once to ask you to discuss before disrupting standard practice. You have now reverted twice. If you truly believe, as you note above, that RfC is a corrupt and broken system and that therefore you can contribute to it without respect for its standard practices, then you run the quite serious risk of facing a block.

Your suggestion (below) that I'm a supporter of Slim is way off base. You seem to believe it is political: I don't. That's fine, but you cannot disrupt standard practices at RfC for that reason. Geometry guy 23:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I will also note that as a supporter of Slim's positions on this RFC, you are grossly out of line for removing contrary viewpoints or opposition ones. This is political. rootology (C)(T) 23:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Root, people could argue that you have a conflict of interest because you're one of the invitees. Rather than arguing about who does, or doesn't, have the right to do this or that, we should simply do what is normally done in RfCs, whatever that is. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you want, I'll quit the thing on principle then, and the principle is that any of us that bow in the face of or play politics are contemptuous to the point they should be driven from this site before they destroy us whole? Considering the big RFC I began--on Flagged Revs--had real life importance, in the face of protecting BLPs, and I didn't raise a fuss about oppose statements, I don't see why a bunch of politicos should be so concerned about them here. rootology (C)(T) 23:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)