Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:28, 23 June 2009

The object of this page is to assess if there is sufficient feeling amongst editors, one way or another, to have a proper, honest and frank discussion as to Misplaced Pages's future management and administration. I don't suggest that debate is held here in my user space, but that we just see if there is sufficient support for such a debate. If you want to make a statement for others to comment upon, please do so below. Please try to limit statements to 500(ish) words. Hopefully, there will later be plenty of space elsewhere to fully express views and ideas.

View by Giano

Misplaced Pages is currently in the throes of a great deal of discontent at what is perceived as bad management and administration. A situation has arisen where content editors feel undervalued and under-represented at the expense of those that concern themselves sole with administrative tasks and power building in off-wiki sites.

A large part of the problem is that Misplaced Pages is led by Jimbo, who appears to see himself as King, and in turn, is often seen as a King who takes his advise from anyone who is not a content editor. This problem is further exacerbated because Misplaced Pages has an erroneous idea of what constitutes a constitutional monarchy - this is mostly the fault of Misplaced Pages's king (in truth an autocrat) convincing himself and his subjects that he is a constitutional monarch.

His Arbcom is no more than a chosen and appointed council of ministers who are hired and fired by the autocrat. There may be elections for Arbs, but it is always made very clear that the final say and appointment rests in Jimbo alone. However, as an autocrat, Jimbo appears easily lead by whoever is playing favoured courtier on any particular day. This has resulted in some extraordinary blocks, comments and behaviour. It's an intolerable position that needs to be halted. The project has grown beyond all recognition since it was founded, autocrats and absolute monarchs are now confined to history in all civilized corners of the world - Misplaced Pages should be no exception. I thank Jimbo for his ideas and contributions but, in my view, he needs to let go and allow the project to develop and mature and become a democratic place run by a council of respected and democratically elected editors perhaps even with an elected chairman/president who serves a term of defined duration.

So, there are two options. A: Create a constitution placing the real power in an elected body representing all editors; or B: Put up and shut up. Naturally, I favour the former and believe it is high time we had a proper debate on how to reform the project's administration and set up a democratic and representative council to run the show. We need to debate how best to achieve this. Giano (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who agree sign below

1. Time for a debate on change. Giano (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Yes, indeed: the question is, will debate be permitted?--Wetman (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
3. The only way to stop it from happening is if "they" shut down Misplaced Pages. Let's shake this thing up as Giano suggests. Cla68 (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Privatemusings (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
5. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Yes. Jimbo does do a lot of good in his "public face" capacity, but the current Jimbo→admins→everyone else model is outmoded. It was fine for a small project run by a group of people small enough that everyone knew everyone else and who mostly had a shared computing/techie background, but we're now eight years on from Nupedia and one of the biggest publishing outfits in the world in terms of readers. The problem with the current model is that, regardless of whether or not Jimbo and Arbcom are right or wrong, their decisions are seen as arbitrary and illegitimate. – iridescent 13:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
7. -- Let's see if debate will get stifled. BigDunc 14:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
8. The community needs to ratify Jimmy's formal position, whatever that may be. The unclarity of his position is what creates so much drama and disruption. Whenever he acts, we have a debate about his role. This matter should be settled so that it does not need to be debated each time. Jehochman 14:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Agree - appears to have the correct enemies. Peter Damian (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Iridescent is close to the mark. Tony (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Agree - even tho monarchy has comfort value. For me, it started when I saw his edits at Bonzi Buddy. I suppose the word drama will be used a lot to disparage this process, and hope that you will all discuss its usage as a one-word dismissal of community concerns. Novickas (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Would at least be a first step in the right direction. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
13. At some point in the life of a monarchy, the need for a Magna Carta becomes obvious and inevitable. Or there's a revolution: destructive, nasty and unpredictable. I'm in favor of a sweeping review and orderly changes. For this, you need the compliance, if not the cooperation, of the king. At sword point if necessary.--Nemonoman (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Nothing against Jimbo, he seems well-intentioned, but even without the "constitutional monarch/god-king" bit his activities here would constitute WP:COI if Misplaced Pages were any another website. Amerique 18:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who do not agree, sign below

1. If an editor feels he needs recognition for his writing, then he should write a book, not contribute to Misplaced Pages. Admin are necessary and - except perhaps in rare cases - their decisions seem sensible to me. I'm against a democratically elected "council" because then what comes next? Political parties? Laurent (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Both Jimbo and Giano do more good than harm. We need more leadership, not less. Leadership from both should be encouraged, but not blindly followed. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   Removing Jimbo won't create less leadership, it will just create a change in leadership. --Chris 10:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   Uh, providing a view, asking for views, gathering consent.... That is leadership. Now, as for Jimbo, so far as I can tell, he eschews using Misplaced Pages to express his views, to consult with people, to gather advice, or to work through his vision. Instead, he merely uses it as an announcement placard where his edicts may be marked for the rest to read. That isn't leadership. At best, it's an absentee landlord (which created a bit of a problem in other places, as I recall). Geogre (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

3. Disagree. Ruslik_Zero 10:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
4. I see only complaints, and no (real) solutions. Similary, it might be better if you provide diffs with your claims. If i would state User:Giano is a firm believer in anarchy that statement would be just as valid as anything above - and has possibly less of a libel edge to it. Excirial 12:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Apathy. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
6. You are proposing no solution. We should not turn Misplaced Pages into some sort of democracy. The fact is that Misplaced Pages is a private organization that just happens to take a lot of input from the public. Short of running for the board of the non-profit society there is simply no remit for the community to do this, nor would it benefit out goals. It seems you complaints about Jimbo amount to him not letting a certain admin be uncivil(he really has not done much other than block an admin for shocking behavior recently), no sense in changing everything over that. Chillum 14:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
7. B: Put up and shut up. Writing articles does not require a constitution, a representative council, or any other bureaucratic nonsense. If you're coming to Misplaced Pages to feel valued, to "fight the good fight", or to act as some cheerleader for change, you're coming here for the wrong reason. There are plenty of editors capable of contributing content without involving themselves in drama whoring, demanding representation, or expecting reform. This is beyond unnecessary. --auburnpilot talk 14:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Seems to be a sincere opinion, but unconvincing. The conclusion does not necessarily follow. Can't fully agree with the premise either: there are many useful ways of volunteering for this website, each of which contributes to its mission. Durova 14:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Per above comments. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
10. The only 2 options are to do nothing or create a miniature government? I don't buy that for a second. The main thing wiki-bureaucracy is best at is spawning more wiki-bureaucracy. I agree with AuburnPilot. Mr.Z-man 16:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm an anti monarchist by conviction, but a gradualist as a pragmatic response to experience. If Jimbo continues to move away from being an absolute monarch then I'm happy, if the process becomes stalled then it might need to be shoved forward. I belong here as currently I'm not convinced either that Jimbo has committed to a longterm solution, or that the process has yet stalled. ϢereSpielChequers 12:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
2. I think it would be good to have an agreement between Jimmy and the community that he won't block anyone—it never turns out well, ever. Beyond that, things are moving in the right direction (sort of), just slowly, with regard to Jimmy's role in the project. "Ripping off the band-aid" and all that. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
3. I'd like a list of Jimbo's actions (diffs) where people find problems with Jimbo's role. I suspect that no two persons will agree on the list - some will think he did the wrong thing in the exact same action that others think he did exactly the right thing. But anyway, come up with a concrete list of problems first, before looking for the solutions. --GRuban (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who agree with the case, but not the plan, sign below

1. I agree that the problem outlined is genuine, although I wouldn't mark it as content vs. non-content. I think the divisions coalesce along multiple lines. The factions have any number of groupings, and there are people, as we know, who port public domain fact compendia into Misplaced Pages and thereby think they are "content" folks ("I created over 900 articles today" = "I created almost 900 sentences with a -bot"), so this isn't really how it's going to crack. I also don't think that there is a sense of grief along those lines that's shared. At the same time, the selected-not-elected is absurd. I say this as an unselected person myself. The idea that any single point can decide is foolish. As those who objected to AfD and other projects used to say, "It doesn't scale." Well, the personal mother hen doesn't scale to a project that exceeds 5,000 articles and 200 administrators. When we're factors of ten past that, the single being's capabilities are gone, even if that person were a full time monitor with a heart of gold, a mind of platinum, and a soul of purest ether. The single point also doesn't scale, though, because the person who begins with good intentions and competence will, if human, lose them over time. Add to that the self-selection crisis that Peter Damian has properly noted (although perhaps taken to heart too much), and then add to that the commercial elements, and then add to that the personal failings of this person, and then add to that the fact that the person was never a mother hen but, instead, a CEO, which has a completely different archetype, and you have an impossibility. Geogre (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
2. It is a curiosity that a project founded on the principle of the wisdom of the crowds, should place such reliance at the end of the day, in one man. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Agree with Geogre. Kusma (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

View by Privatemusings - Very focused statement on arbcom elections

I believe a clearly established electoral system should elect arbs, with only ceremonial ratification by Jimbo / whomever.

Those who agree sign below

1. Details necessarily follow, but this is the principle I support. Privatemusings (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)and I've made a liar of myself, having just left a note on the talk page too.... ho hum... isn't the first time, won't be the last, I'm sure ;-)
2. It's practically this way anyhow. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
3. The ArbCom selections are intolerable and a sine qua non of change, but we can't let such an easy sop be the end, because, really, although it's the practical matter, it's not the principle matter. Geogre (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Agree apart from the ceremony bit. We're hardly raising a glass to 1,000 year old tradition in appointing Arbs - they're committee members really, less pomp more thought I say. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Absolutely - and probably best to have the declaration to the office before the election so that they can if necessary state thinks such as: "whilst not revealing which prison the candidate currently resides at the office does think it appropriate to mention that this candidate is currently in jail/has served time for fraud/does not actually have the academic qualifications which they clam on their user page". ϢereSpielChequers 13:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Yes, see also WT:ACE2009 where a proposal was raised to not very much of an audience. Kusma (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who do not agree, sign below

1. This still gives Jimmy too much of a role, I'm afraid. The WMF board should certify the winning candidates AFTER their real-life identities have been established.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Although eventually this will have to change, at this point I believe that the current system is the best. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
3. What RDH said. Why should someone with no significant input for the last six years be having any kind of role? We have a perfectly good board of trustees and this is just the kind of thing they should be doing. – iridescent 16:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
4. No ceremonies, let's have a grownup system along the lines described by R.D.H.. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
5. What is the point of a ceremonial ratification? --Tango (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Don't see any point in a ceremonial ratification. BigDunc 18:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

View by Privatemusings - The role of Jimbo

Looking back, this community owes much to Jimbo Wales our co-founder / founder / person who was there at the start. Looking forward, the concept of a 'god king', and the practical confusions this entails, are actually a hinderance to a smoooth community. Talk of 'traditional roles', 'constitutional monarchy' is all well and good, but it's probably time to draw a pretty clear line, and confirm in a kind and friendly way that in fact, Jimbo holds no special powers beyond the amount of respect many no doubt feel for him.

Those who agree sign below

1. Privatemusings (talk) 08:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
2. I agree, as the founder, we owe him our thanks. While, this debate is not merely about Jimbo, but the future on-site governance of Misplaced Pages. The fact remain, Jimbo does hold special powers and they are now hindering the project. Giano (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
4. If Misplaced Pages is Misplaced Pages, then he was always only supposed to be a user except in extraordinary circumstances that were purely organizational. In the earlier days, that's pretty much how things went, too. Over time, more and more fish began to hang from his gills and call for opinions on everything. Jimbo was wise enough to stay out, knowing that people would take his views as more than just a user's. The change has been since becoming whatever he is now. Now that he is not CEO of Wiki-Media, he should be just an administrator, and one who would be and could be overturned or demoted for bad acts, but he is being treated and is for a reason I cannot fathom treating himself as if Misplaced Pages is not Misplaced Pages and the organizational individual is an editorial power. I.e. the thanks are due to the degree that the project is honored. Geogre (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
5. I too can agree with this.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
6. I think Jimbo may have struggled with a confusion over his role - is it one of simple management? In which case ultimate authority for desyssopings, blocks, policy changes etc and any effective expedient for the good of the project may be ok. Or is it one embedded in our strange quasi-legal constitution, ie. bound by due process and to community approval? I think the community has been moving towards the later. Jimbo needs to decide if he'd like to give up the former. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Couldn't have put it better myself. --Tango (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
8.  – iridescent 16:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
9. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Kusma (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
11. BigDunc 18:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who do not agree, sign below

1. It is up to the board of directors to decide if Jimbo or arbcom have special powers. There is a level of authority above the communities opinion and that is the foundation itself. They have given us plenty of freedom to use their project, we don't really have the authority to demand the rest of the freedom be given to us. In short we are guests here. Chillum 14:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   How is this an argument for the community not expressing a view on the issue? If what you say is true, it may well be the board/foundation would welcome the input. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   It is possible I misread the proposition, but I read "confirm in a kind and friendly way that in fact, Jimbo holds no special powers beyond the amount of respect many no doubt feel for him" as the community making some type of decision. We don't need a poll to decide to have a discussion, nor do you need a poll to ask for clarification. We can just do it. The lead to this poll is unclear and comments like "God king" give me the impression it is proposing something unrealistic. Chillum 15:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   Jimbo has whatever powers the community gives him. Inherently, the WMF has the power to turn off the servers, that's about it. There is no way the WMF can actually enforce any rulings of this nature, so it doesn't have the power to make them. The WMF's and Jimbo's decisions on things like non-free content and BLPs are only enforced because admins choose to enforce them. If this ends up as a community vs WMF/Jimbo fight, the community will win. (I don't think such a fight will ever happen, neither Jimbo nor the rest of the board nor Sue Gardner are anywhere near stupid enough to let it happen. They'll concede to the will of the community (unless there is a legal issue, which there isn't here).) --Tango (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

2. Jimbo does hold special powers and we (editors) shouldn't be deciding whether they should be removed or not. That should be a WMF decision. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

View by Cla68

I believe that Misplaced Pages's governance system is severely broken. Most administrators try to do their best to keep the project lurching along, but have little institutionalized guidance and support to help their decision making. As a result, administrative actions are often wildly inconsistent, unfair, arbitrary, and capricious. The good administrators end up burning-out while at the same time it is almost impossible to remove the incompetent admins. Content editors have very little say in how the project is run. It is extremely difficult to implement any significant changes because there aren't any responsive governing authorities over policy, configuration control, and content. Jimbo, who barely participates in Misplaced Pages and provides little, if any, leadership or vision, is given too much formal authority to meddle in its affairs.

I have a few ideas that I hope might resolve some of these issues, and I believe others probably do too. So let's have a discussion about it with the intent of drafting an action plan to fix Misplaced Pages. Cla68 (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who agree sign below

1. Privatemusings (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Giano (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
3. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
4. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Not sure I agree about the severity of the fracture, but I'd welcome a debate to discuss the detail. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who do not agree, sign below

1. Misplaced Pages is useful and every year more useful. But the community processes that create it will always be as flawed as the humans that make up that community. All human governing processes have this flaw. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

True, but some are systemically better than others, shouldn't we debate how are our system might serve those aims better? --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

View by Peter jackson

I'll make no comment on the constitutional issues mainly discussed above, not having investigated them. What I want to see is an effective system for resolving content disputes & enforcing content policy, & I'd welcome a debate that includes this issue. Peter jackson (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who agree sign below

1. You may not comment on constitutional matters but I will, however I agree with you re content disputes. ϢereSpielChequers 12:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
2. I don't have any opinion about Jimbo, nor do I think his role is a major issue, but the system we (don't) have for settling content disputes - the disputes that matter - is severely non-functional, and thus I fully concur with Peter's statement.--Kotniski (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
3. I'd welcome the debate, but fear the problems are quite intractable. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Finally, something that's about writing an encyclopedia. Mr.Z-man 16:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who do not agree, sign below

View by Joopercoopers - Review of blocking policy and its use

Is the policy sound? Is the policy being applied? Should limitations be put on the use of the button by new admins? Is the current process for establishing persistent misuse acceptable and adequate? How can we improve the quality of decision making regarding its use? I'd welcome this debate --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who agree sign below

1. Giano (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
2. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Yes: desperately needs a re-think so the community gets good value from its admin system. Quite feasible, I think. Tony (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who do not agree, sign below

1. I find it is mostly people who violate policy and then get blocked who don't like the blocking policy. I am however open to consider proposed changes on the policy talk page. Chillum 14:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Chillum. --GRuban (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

View by WereSpielChequers

There are several areas that I think need attention, some more urgently than others:

1. We are an encyclopaedia and as such should be aiming to become part of the academic establishment; especially in contentious areas where public opinion and scientific knowledge are at odds.
2. The status, purpose and control of our offsite but internal communications needs to be reviewed with a view to creating a less contentious environment (I don't use IRC, and certainly don't auto oppose those who use it; But I see the concerns about it as a festering problem that needs resolution, and it may not be the only such channel).
3. RFA is broken. Adminship or whatever replaces it is a big deal to a lot of users, especially those who come from hierarchical societies. Personally I love the idea of flat structures, but to make that work on Wiki you'd need to move to a situation where almost all cluefull, civil longterm users were admins, and you'd need to explain the flat structure idea to many users who are only used to hierarchies.
4. wp:civility needs review, partly because we have some longstanding users who consider it broken, and partly because we have some users who think it underenforced and that in consequence the 'pedia can sometimes be an incivil and uncollegial place.
5. Regardless of Jimbo's role re Arbcom, we need to move from a first past the post system of election which could leave a large minority of editors unrepresented, to an STV system where candidates from several different factions on the pedia will be on arbcom

ϢereSpielChequers 13:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who agree sign below

Yep to 2,5 & possibly 3. thinking on the other points. Giano (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about 1; others, sure. Stifle (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who do not agree, sign below

View by Ottava Rima

Who cares? Not I. As long as I can edit content, the rest of the place can do whatever it wants. This is an encyclopedia, not a mock congress. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who agree sign below

1. Priority number 1 of the wiki-bureaucracy should be to not get in the way of writing content. Mr.Z-man 16:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Yup. For all the talk about Arbcom and Jimbo being "autocrats", there's no evidence that any other system would be better, and plenty of evidence that it would give disruptive types a lever to jerk the project around with, while crying about "fairness" and "democracy". Proper autocracies - and remember, we're not a nation-state, we're a project with a goal - are all the better for being able to shrug such things off. Show me a real problem that we actually have now, and a specific means that "reform" would use to fix it - or go back to writing an encyclopedia, please. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
3. MZMcBride (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who do not agree, sign below

1. An encyclopaedia has to have mechanisms to resolve editorial disputes, a website open for everyone to edit needs appropriate methods to handle vandalism and trolling, and any project with as many human actions as ours needs some organisation. On a website that gets ten million edits every 6 or 7 weeks those needs will be complex, and their resolution should matter to all active editors. ϢereSpielChequers 15:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   Um, your response is highly inappropriate. We already have a mechanism to solve disputes. This is a conflict against Jimbo started by Giano. Strawmen are rather incivil, especially when they show that they have nothing to do with the section. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

2. This project has, for some time now, been too big not to have any kind of structured decision making. This structure has arisen organically (we frequently vote on things now, rather than using consensus because we've realised we can never get a consensus on anything slightly controversial because there are just too many people involved) but it would be good to review it. Without an appropriate structure in place, the content will suffer. All of this is about content at the end of the day - we need things to work smoothly behind the scenes precisely so people like you can get on with writing content without having to deal with massive disputes getting in the way. --Tango (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   There already is a structure in place, so your comments are inappropriate. And guess what? I am one of the top content contributors here and I am able to get along just fine. The system isn't broken. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

View by Durova

This page, and any results it purports to produce, are structurally flawed and invalid. The discussion occurs on the home turf of one user, which creates a selection bias in favor of that user's views. The amount of participation that has already occurred frames the discussion to an extent that would continue to taint it even if it were moved to project namespace. Despite the RFC-like formatting, this is not an impartial request and cannot become one. It is more like a push poll.

Wikipedians need to conduct discussions on a level playing field when considering major changes to site structure. Both this page and a recent ArbCom-led discussion are equally invalidated by structural flaws in the initial setup. Which is a sad thing, because they attempted to open discussions that probably ought to be occurring. But a push poll on an interesting subject is still a push poll. Let's not play rigged games. Durova 15:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who agree sign below

1. Huh, when I first glanced at this this morning I wondered why it wasn't an RfC or otherwise somewhere in the project namespace. --SB_Johnny |  15:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Yup, that and some of the polls are very unclear and generally biased towards a particular outcome. I also object to the idea of having a poll without first conducting a discussion. What exactly are the charges against the system as they have not been made clear, nor has there been any opportunity to address them in debate first. Somebody let me know when these issues are going to be discussed so I can participate. Chillum 15:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Above two comments are correct. This is not the place to hold a participatory discussion. Page should be deleted or moved to mainspace.--WaltCip (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Of course. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Indeed. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Weak agreement. Publicized well, but ironic that a project to get rid of one user's unusual powers is held in the user space of another one user. If the idea is that "the community" can be trusted to rule itself without any oversight, even mostly symbolic, surely it can be trusted not to delete the discussion about ruling itself without any restrictions, even mostly symbolic. --GRuban (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who do not agree, sign below

1. I think "push poll" is a negative way to view this page. I look at it as a petition. People are free to conduct and sign petitions as they like. Jehochman 15:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
2. It really makes very little difference where a discussion like this is held, or how it's framed. The result is a foregone conclusion. as it is in every other discussion about the very serious flaws in wikipedia's system of governance. The result will be "let's do nothing, as it could be worse and we can't be 100% certain that any change would lead to an improvement". There ae too many organised vested interests who find their present positions quite comfy, and see no reason to rock the boat, and too few disorganised regular editors who care enough to waste their time with yet another meaningless debate the outcome of which is inevitable. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   As I told Kirill Lokshin at the other discussion, it makes all the difference in the world where it's held and how it's framed. Such variances are the lifeblood of political power plays, and if neither Giano's initiative nor Kirill's is such a power play then both Giano and Kirill failed in their ethical duty to set the right tone that guards against potential misuse. Durova 15:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

3. Disagree strongly. I don't see any selection bias, given of the people who are natural opponents of the idea have turned up in force. I do see evidence of considerable disagreement and polarisation in the 'community' which, if it really is the case, should be settled by discussion. Peter Damian (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Disagree. Scale is an issue now. Such polls, may well provide good 'initial soundings' from various groups, the fault lines of which can then be discussed on a larger stage. @Malleus. Actually the problem may be more acute than getting a 'bad' result. Push this to project space and see the mfd's fly. A compelling argument to keep it in user space with the attendant policy latitude that is usually extended there. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Disagree. Joopers has it. Except that I believe an MfD would fail to delete.Tony (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Giano's gone out of his way to publicise this, even places where he knows most of the readers will be hostile to him. Sure, having it in userspace isn't ideal, but if it goes to WP space it will be MFD'd in seconds by a Defender Of The Wiki leading to yet more pointless drama. – iridescent 16:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
8. No decisions will be made here, this is just a way of finding out if there is sufficient strength of opinion to warrant a full discussion and decision making process. I think it would better if this were moved to RFC, but it really don't matter where it is as long as people know it is here. --Tango (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
9. MZMcBride (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Had I created this in Misplaced Pages space it would have been deleted in seconds, probably oversighted and me banned. It is quite safe here, I am not influencing anyone's views or even arguing with those who have a contrary view to mine. Giano (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    Nothing is stopping anyone from nominating it for deletion here either; looking at the current WP:MFD, I count no few than 17 nominations for pages in user space, out of 37 total nominations, almost half, so don't see that user space provides much of any magic non-deletion cloak. As for banning Giano, the corpses of those who have tried litter our fora hip-deep. --GRuban (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

View by Tony1

The cloudy constitutional relationship that has been allowed to persist between Mr Wales, ArbCom and the project is looking increasingly like a transition. Smoke and mirrors pervade the relationship. Let's take a quick glance at a few highly problematic statements on the policy pages:

• "The Committee will occasionally request advice from Jimbo Wales on whether to hear a particular dispute."
• "Arbitrators with multiple accounts on Misplaced Pages will disclose the usernames of those accounts to the rest of the Committee, and to Jimbo Wales, but are not required to disclose them publicly."
• "Remedies and enforcement actions may be appealed to, and are subject to modification by, Jimbo Wales. An exception is that if a case involves review of one of Jimbo's own administrator or steward actions, Jimbo has agreed to accept the Committee's decision as binding." But then —>
• "In April 2007, Wales confirmed that the Committee could overturn any decision he makes in his traditional capacity within Misplaced Pages."

I have great admiration for Mr Wales's co-creation of one of the world's most significant information resources, and for many of the design features he has insisted on. However, most of his work in those respects is done. While he can be proud of his achievement and will continue to play a role in en.WP and the WMF for as long as he wishes, his relationship with the project needs to be set in concrete and much more constrained terms than the current dithering text. The community also needs to take the initiative in reforming the role, procedures and rules of ArbCom itself, and to set up proper procedures for improving the role of administrators. WP has become too large and powerful not to evolve a professional system of governance to match.

Therefore, I strongly support the proposal to conduct an "honest and frank discussion as to Misplaced Pages's future management and administration". Tony (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who agree sign below

1. Well put. Has anyone ever tried to list Jimbo's role? --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
2. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who do not agree, sign below

View by Cryptic C62

The primary and ultimate goal of Misplaced Pages is to serve the readers through good content. Everything else is secondary. The less familiar someone is with writing Misplaced Pages's content, the less capable s/he will be of making informed decisions regarding what will ultimately benefit that content. Therefore, those with power in Misplaced Pages should be those who are most familiar with content writing. This does not describe Jimbo. Less than 800 article edits. He may do great work with the Wikimedia Foundation (or he might not, I really have no idea), but as he himself said, "My honorary title of "Chair Emeritus" of the Wikimedia Foundation has no bearing of any kind on my traditional role here in the English Misplaced Pages community." If that's true, and if Jimbo doesn't really contribute to Misplaced Pages's content, then why on Earth should he be allowed to make such bold and sweeping statements as "Consider this to be policy as of right now"? Answer: He shouldn't. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ya dig?

1. Giano (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, girl

1. Strongly. A founder of an encyclopedia is part of the encyclopedia. There are plenty of alternatives if someone doesn't like this system. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

View by Tex

I don't much care what Jimbo does. I'm sure he does great things behind the scenes, but when the figurehead of this community begins to label long-standing and respected editors as toxic personalities, we have a problem. All one needs to do is look at Jimbo's talk page to see all the fanboy "thanks for creating wikipedia" messages to see that he has influence here. When they see him label someone a toxic personality, we now have a whole slew of people who believe it must be true. If he's going to continue in his role, he must begin to think before he speaks (or types). Tex (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who agree sign below

Those who do not agree, sign below