Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:03, 12 July 2009

Background

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

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

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

Statement by SlimVirgin

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

Editors endorsing this proposal

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

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

40. Agree with every single word Slim wrote above. Tony (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
41. Agree, and concur with Sarah's additional comments. --Stephen 09:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
42. Not sure - something is better than nothing, and this seems like something. Agree there should be a separation of powers. Peter Damian (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
43. --CrohnieGal 10:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
44. Absolutely agree There are precious few governments in the world where leaders or leadership/enforcement bodies enjoy the latitude to decide for themselves what will be the scope of their authority, how they will exercise it, and when. These forms of government have historically proven to be exceedingly unpopular with their citizens. As with governments, to private clubs (and everything between), leaders should govern with the consent of the governed—Misplaced Pages is no exception. Greg L (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
45. Strongly Agree The Advisory Council is already violating its statement of purpose. Members are supposed to be “not otherwise involved in its (Arbcom’s) work”, yet there are members of ArbCom on the Advisory Council. In effect the Advisory Council ends up looking like an attempt by ArbCom to add additional non-elected members to ArbCom. Looking at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Self electing groups, I fully agree with the statement “Any group of editors on Misplaced Pages that elects its own membership and has its own goals and objectives is fundementally against the open and collaborative spirit of Misplaced Pages, and is contrary to our five pillars, most importantly, what the Misplaced Pages community is not.” Members of the Advisory Committee should be familiar with that discussion, nearly 1/3 of them participated, with some saying they opposed self-elected groups. Edward321 (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
46. endorse JoshuaZ (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
47. Endorse - Every day this place gets a little weirder, and not in a way that's any fun. Tom Harrison 19:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:CIreland

From Misplaced Pages:Advisory Council on Project Development:

anything it recommends must achieve consensus normally, as any other proposal would, before it can be implemented.

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

Editors endorsing this proposal

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

Statement by User:Kww

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

Editors endorsing this proposal

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

Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by User:Moni3

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

Editors endorsing this view

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

Statement by Jennavecia

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

Editors endorsing this statement

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

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

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

6. Yeah. This is going to go down in flames for the same reason that something like it (I'd prefer the editors were elected) is needed. The consensus model has not scaled, and we're incapable of making hard decisions. Ideas for how to fix it are coming up frequently (CENT has two right now, I think) and never gaining consensus. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
7. This was/is the idea, a starting point for some focussed discussion. I can see the benefits, and ultimately feel they outweigh concerns outlined elsewhere on this page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Exactly. We are all basically bogged down in a myriad of individual issues, and we need some method of broader discussion. In practice, a relatively small group does this best. DGG (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Essentially what has happened is that we've been asked to get together and talk. Any group of Wikipedians can get together and talk. The issue is whether anyone will listen to what we have to say. If we come up with good ideas we will have the eyes of the community on us. If we don't come up with anything good, at least we tried. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
11. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
12. older ≠ wiser 02:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Doesn't it say “discussion is encouraged” around here somewhere? It used to and still may if some anybody hasn't gotten away with editing that out. Large-scale discussion does not work; see any one of many examples on teh wiki for proof of that. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Kevin (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
15. 'Established editors' went down in flames but there could surely be a way of allowing 'the community' to choose such a group. For example, a process of selection of suitable candidates by a smaller group who would then make recommendations for community approval. My experience of RfA suggests that most people do not take the time or trouble to do the necessary background research. Peter Damian (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
16. the wub "?!" 11:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Giano (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
18. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
19. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
20. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
21. endorse as written. ++Lar: t/c 15:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
22. --JN466 18:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Iridescent

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

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

Editors endorsing this statement

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

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

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

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

22. Agreed. It's a glass room with a steel door. Those inside are attempting to affect our future, and we have no voice. That might have been ok if we'd had some say in putting them there, but we didn't.--MoreThings (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
23. Agree. The ArbCom was elected as a dispute-resolution body. If we want a good-governance think-tank, we need to elect one separately, and its role should be to advise the community, not the ArbCom. SlimVirgin 15:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
24. Edward321 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
25. Endorse JoshuaZ (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Steven Walling

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

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

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

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

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

Editors endorsing this statement

1. Think of it as a wikiproject with a more abstract scope than most. Ideas emerging from ACPD discussion still need to achieve community consensus in the normal fashion, but having the project encourages the development of well-reasoned ideas considering the broader impact of any actions. If the Council diverges too far from community norms, becomes insular and arrogant, or fails to produce workable ideas, they will be ignored and reviled. If they display incisive thinking, clarity of purpose, and effective communication, they will ... well still be ignored and reviled by some, but may contribute to the long-term viability of this encyclopedia nonetheless. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Bigtimepeace

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

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

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

Editors endorsing this statement

1. If it didn't interfere in someway with normal processes it would be pointless. Normal processes have flaws the council is intended to correct. It may not be able to override community consensus, and the council may well be restrained in their actions, but if they don't interfere with the normal ways we do things, its pointless. Maybe there is more good than bad, and I wouldn't mind this thing dying in a fire and then rising again without any pretensions of formality with the same group of people sitting down to talk shop over tea.--Tznkai (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Durova 23:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Contend ArbCom has no power to create bodies that do anything but assist in dispute resolution, its core function.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Orderinchaos 01:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Sarah 02:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
6. The proposal is unconstitutional. Remove the word "Advisory", and it is no longer thus, in which case it would better have been launched by users in their capacity as normal editors. Tony (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Edward321 (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
8. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Question on scale of WP by Casliber

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, process needs tweaking

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment regarding the constitutional problem

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

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

EXISTING POLICY

Scope

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

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

DRAFT NEW POLICY

Duties and responsibilities

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

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

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

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

Question on arb presence on ACPD by Casliber

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

Net positive

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

Net negative

1. At the risk of validating objectionable premises by replying at all, yes. Durova 00:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
2. "Weak net negative". Nothing against you or Kyrill personally, but I think having serving arbs on a council like this opens a can of worms. What happens when a policy approved by the council is challenged and goes to arbitration? When the council is discussing an issue and you have the unfair advantage of knowing how the rest of the arbs will vote on it? Besides, if this ends up making (or recommending) policy decisions, your presence may have a chilling effect, as people may feel that your side is bound to win. We already have this problem in any contentious area – just look at the inevitable flurry whenever Jimmy Wales decides to opine on something. While the old hands can and do argue with the powers-that-be, plenty of newer or less active editors feel that it's somehow inappropriate to disagree with those in a position of authority. – iridescent 00:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
3. I think it arguably depends (could I hedge my bets any more!), but as currently conceived ArbCom member presence is likely a net negative, if only in the realm of public perception (which is not a small deal, obviously). If the remit of this group comes from ArbCom and if the group is supposed to advise yet be independent of ArbCom, then I think it inadvisable for there to be ArbCom members on it, simply because there would be the perception (rightly or wrongly) that it was the ArbCom's "pet committee" (to quote a famous musical). However if we, taking on board the obvious objections to this whole proposal here in the RfC, say that the remit of the Advisory Council ultimately comes from the community—i.e. if we hash out the specifics and come to some rough agreement about what something like this would look like—then having a couple of ArbCom members probably makes sense. If the Advisory Council is essentially answerable to/at the service of the project as a whole, unwieldy as that may seem and be, I think there would be less objection to arbs sitting on it. I do think we are putting the cart before the horse somewhat in even asking this question, as there is clearly significant objection to this entire endeavor as currently laid out and I think we need to deal with the larger issues first. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Clearly the involvement with and presence of Arbitrators on the Council is a net negative in the eyes of the community. If it's truly to be a community-sanctioned body to develop ideas for the project, it should come from a broader swathe on contributors, and less from judicial-type bodies like ArbCom. Steven Walling (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Arbs should be cordially invited to contribute comments or suggestions on the talk page but there is little to gain by having one more voice on the official page. The presence of an Arb will alter the internal dynamics and question the degree of the council's independence — that's a lot to sacrifice so one person can have a little more power. --maclean 02:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
6. ArbCom appears unclear as to the role of an ArbCom member. Casliber says, "I saw my place as a content contributor, wikiprojects person and also a liaison with the arbitration committee." This is in conflict with the statement by John Vanderberg "This group is not going to act as a liaison between the community and the arbitration committee." —Mattisse (Talk) 18:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
7. This is clearly a net negative. When ArbCom is selecting its own advisors that's already a COI. When they're selecting them from their own membership, that also blatantly violates the Advisory Council's statement of purpose. Edward321 (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement By RDH(Ghost In The Machine)

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

Editors endorsing this statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editors opposing this statement

• So we should just sit around and wait until such a time as things people are afraid will happen, actually happen? When this "policy advisory committee" issues a recommendation for a particular governance action, which gets endorsed by the ArbCom even though neither body has the right to make such recommendations, nor to enforce them? Is the ArbCom so afraid of the community that not only do they present these undemocratic actions as Star Chamber faits accomplis, but are unwilling to listen to the community when we object? The ArbCom presented this as having already occurred with no community input, nor even warning that it was going to happen, and now we should lie back and take it? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Or, y'know, you could assume some good faith that when they state their motives for why they created this, they're telling the truth. → ROUX ₪ 19:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:JoshuaZ

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

Editors endorsing this proposal

Comment

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

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

Threaded replies should be directed to the talk page.