| Revision as of 03:47, 5 December 2011 view sourceBeeblebrox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators114,302 edits →Can we do without a Government?: again, reality -vs- fantasy← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:26, 8 December 2011 view source Count Iblis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers12,827 edits Rewritten. The core idea is the same, but the formal rules are removed. It now reflects current (informal) practice.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{Proposed}} | ||
| {{nutshell|A government is a group of editors who have the exclusive right to |
{{nutshell|A government is a group of editors who have the de-facto exclusive right to make certain types of edits to articles, policy pages, or administrative decisions for a limited time. Governments are always agreed to by consensus}} | ||
| ==Introduction== | |||
| ⚫ | Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project involving a vast number of editors. It is remarkable that disputes and deadlocks are a relatively rare occurrence. In many cases, disputes are due to bad editor behavior and adminstrative intervention can then be an effective tool to solve the problem. In some cases, however, editor behavior is not the fundamental cause of the problems; the topic itself may be too controversial for a clear consensus among editors to arise. | ||
| ⚫ | Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project involving a vast number of editors. It is remarkable that disputes and deadlocks are a relatively rare occurrence. In many cases, disputes are due to bad editor behavior and adminstrative intervention against such editors can then be an effective tool to solve the problem. In some cases, however, editor behavior is not the fundamental cause of the problems; the topic itself may be too controversial for a clear consensus among editors to arise. In case of policy pages, a high degree of consensus is required, making it more difficult for individual editors to make changes that will stick. | ||
| If this situation persist for a long time and the community is of the opinion that the status quo is detrimental to the project, elections for a Government can be held. The Goverment has the task to edit the topic for a limited time frame. Editors who are not part of the Government are barred from editing that topic until the Government's mandate expires, but they can edit the talk pages. | |||
| If a significant part of the community is unhappy with the state of an article, yet the situation cannot be corrected due to a lack of consensus, the deadlock can be broken by holding a formal RFC on how to proceed, or the local editors can hold an informal straw poll. A possible outcome of such a process is that only a few editors will work on improving the article or policy page. While other editors are always free to edit the article, typically such edits will be reverted if it touches on the issues that the selected group of editors are working on. | |||
| As part of dispute resolution, ArbCom can conclude that a topic should be edited by a Government. In such a case, ArbCom orders elections to be held. | |||
| When the group of editors have arrived at a conclusion, the other editors can accept or reject this. The reason why this works is not just that this process is more likely to lead to a better proposals, but also because it is easier to agree to disagree about a compromize if you know that a sincere effort has been made by a determined group of editors to find the best possible compromize. | |||
| ==Can we do without a Government?== | |||
| Misplaced Pages has never had a Government. So, in theory, Misplaced Pages can function without a government, but that would come at the price of having to live with disputes and stalemates that were commonplace in Misplaced Pages's ancient history. | |||
| A government can also be agreed to in order to close very contentious RFCs. A notable example of this was the 2011 closure of the ]. While in principle any univolved Admin is free to close an RFC, in this case it was decided that a group of 3 editors should have the exclusive right to do this. While no other Admin was formally prohibited from ignoring that decision and close that RFC him/herself, in practice any such closure would have been swiftly reverted. | |||
| ==Election procedures== | |||
| Any editor may start a RFC on whether or not a government should be elected to deal with a specific problem. If a simple majority arises in favor of appointing a government, a 60 day period of campaigning will start. Editors can form parties and advertise how they would solve the problem if elected. A party has to comprise at least ten editors. Part of the election statement will be the requested set of Misplaced Pages pages that would fall under the Government's authority and the time period after which the Government's mandate expires. | |||
| After the 60 days campaigning period, the election is held. The party with the most votes wins the elections. In the rare case of a tie, a run-off election will be held after one week. | |||
| ==Recall elections== | |||
| Editors who are unsatisfied with the editing by a Government can hold an RFC on recalling the government. The Government will be recalled if the number of voters exceeds the number of voters in the original elections and if at least 2/3 of the voters agree that the Government's mandate should be revoked. If the original election was ordered by ArbCom, then the relevant ArbCom case will resume. | |||
Revision as of 18:26, 8 December 2011
 | The following is a proposed Misplaced Pages policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. |
 | This page in a nutshell: A government is a group of editors who have the de-facto exclusive right to make certain types of edits to articles, policy pages, or administrative decisions for a limited time. Governments are always agreed to by consensus |
Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project involving a vast number of editors. It is remarkable that disputes and deadlocks are a relatively rare occurrence. In many cases, disputes are due to bad editor behavior and adminstrative intervention against such editors can then be an effective tool to solve the problem. In some cases, however, editor behavior is not the fundamental cause of the problems; the topic itself may be too controversial for a clear consensus among editors to arise. In case of policy pages, a high degree of consensus is required, making it more difficult for individual editors to make changes that will stick.
If a significant part of the community is unhappy with the state of an article, yet the situation cannot be corrected due to a lack of consensus, the deadlock can be broken by holding a formal RFC on how to proceed, or the local editors can hold an informal straw poll. A possible outcome of such a process is that only a few editors will work on improving the article or policy page. While other editors are always free to edit the article, typically such edits will be reverted if it touches on the issues that the selected group of editors are working on.
When the group of editors have arrived at a conclusion, the other editors can accept or reject this. The reason why this works is not just that this process is more likely to lead to a better proposals, but also because it is easier to agree to disagree about a compromize if you know that a sincere effort has been made by a determined group of editors to find the best possible compromize.
A government can also be agreed to in order to close very contentious RFCs. A notable example of this was the 2011 closure of the RFC on the "not truth" issue in the Verifiability policy text. While in principle any univolved Admin is free to close an RFC, in this case it was decided that a group of 3 editors should have the exclusive right to do this. While no other Admin was formally prohibited from ignoring that decision and close that RFC him/herself, in practice any such closure would have been swiftly reverted.
Category: