User:Giano/The future

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 Wikipedia'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.

To keep this page at a reasonable length and easy to read, could people please limit their countering of other's points (in the agreeing or disagreeing columns). It's fine to do it, but please keep it to a sensible minimum and try to remember some people are more easily intimdated than others. If you really want to query a point, then please consider starting a section on the talk page and linking to it from the relevant spot here. Anything reasonable and worthwhile will hopefully be seriously debated elsewhere. This page is just to assess views not try and change them - that comes later. Thanks. Giano (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

View by Giano

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia has an erroneous idea of what constitutes a constitutional monarchy - this is mostly the fault of Wikipedia'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 - Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia were any another website. Amerique^dialectics 18:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
15. Even if this does not lead to direct change, the issue does need to be discussed. Nev1 (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
16. The admin system is clearly in need of a thorough overhaul, and has been for years, though I personally don't think that Jimbo's role is a problem. Giving people privileges within the system solely based on their ability to or desire to police it is a disaster (and why good editors like Giano become alienated). Thanks, SqueakBox talk 21:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
17. Long overdue. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
18. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
19. Sadly, long overdue. seicer | talk | contribs 03:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
20. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

    Pzrmd (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

21. No sure I'm much concerned by Jimbo's position or Arbcom; but I am very concerned by the random nature of Government by Administrators; they don't enforce policy - they make it up. In many cases strictly in accordance with their prejudices and mood. I think every Admin should be automatically up for re-election after the first year; or at any time if "x" number of established editors call for him to stand down; regardless of the contra-votes. Sarah777 (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
22. Agreed, we must dispense with the monarchy, this project is far too large and complicated for one man to rule. We need clearer guidelines, more effective elections, and a more obvious ruling body with more specialised subcommittees. Harland1 (^t/_c) 18:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
23. I agree with the goal, but strongly encourage baby steps here. What is being proposed looks like an ambitious revolution to me, and revolutions can fall flat on their faces if they are overly ambitious, and/or unrealistically threaten the existing power structures, and/or fail to instill the vast rank & file of Wikipedia’s content editors with an excitement of “Hey, this is a really meritorious cause and it is really possible to effect change!”

    I propose that we start with making administrators accountable to the community. Leaders should govern with the consent of the governed. Like me, I’m sure you’ve heard administrators declare that “Wikipedia is not a democracy” (a shortcoming this page is seriously trying to address), that they “don’t govern,” and that they aren’t “higher than regular editors.” Well, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… As I have, I’m sure you’ve run across your share of administrators who act like Wikipedia’s rules apply to others—not them.

    Currently, the process for de‑sysoping an admin is an absurd hurdle. Admins serve for life. They clearly do a lot of valuable work and I wouldn’t want to burden them and the rest of the Wikipedia community with onerous periodic re‑elections. However, admins also serve as a sort of police officer on Wikipedia and can cause harm if they turn out to be mean-spirited or severely lacking in judgement. It used to be that it was much, much easier to become an admin than it is today and few—if any—of the safeguards in place today were in place then. Many of the admins that were elevated to their adminhood under the previous process are still with the project today.

    I suggest an ombudsman committee be formed that would comprise three rank & file editors plus two admins. The five members would all be elected by the rank & file once a year. The ombudsman committee would be empowered to chose which complaints to hear, and they would be empowered to de-sysop an admin. The committee would also be empowered to develop their own processes, so such details don't have to be in an RfC over this.

    This should also greatly satisfy those here who would like to strip away powers from “The King.” Why? Because—and I’m not positive about this—I believe the current process for de‑sysoping an admin is a chain of command ultimately flowing from Jimbo. Frankly, I admire Jimbo and believe that his fiduciary responsibilities to Wikipedia can be properly discharged because his personal interests are sufficiently well-aligned with the interests of the project. There will be personality conflicts on occasion and hard feelings. I perceive no need to (attempt to) strip authority from him for the shear sake of doing so. Simultaneously, I think it is high time to get Wikipedia’s administrators more accountable to the community.

    That’s my 2¢. Greg L (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

24. Agree, there are some issues here that need exploring.98.210.96.67 (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
25. In rough sense endorse. Not sure I think the idea of a constitution etc. is going to work, but the basic premise of re-evaluating Jimbo's role is the right idea. I really have next to no confidence in his leadership. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
26. John Kronenwetter (talk) 23:01, 7 July 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Apathy. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   Comments on Ottava Rima's opinion is now here [1]

6. You are proposing no solution. We should not turn Wikipedia into some sort of democracy. The fact is that Wikipedia 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)

   I am deliberatly not outlining a solution. At this stage just assessing the extent or existance of any problems. please read the top of the page. Giano (talk) 19:46, 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 Wikipedia 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 [dilemma|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^Charge! 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)
11. I'll take Jimbo over a bunch of drama-loving career Wikipedians any day. He has never done me any harm, which is more than can be said of number of those agitating for a revolution (and, for the record, I don't mean Giano). Rockpocket 07:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    Comments on Rockpocket's opinion (above) are here [2].

12. Mr. Wales is increasingly irrelevant to the operations of Wikipedia. Even if the Arbitration Committee is ultimately appointed by him, he has yet to deviate from the popular vote. —harej (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
13. ArbCom does a pretty good job overall. Jimbo is pretty irrelevant to the project's mundane affairs (except for the occasional overhyped opinion on a debate, but his powers are purely persuasive, not substantive). Let's avoid WP:CREEP and WP:BURO; WP is "governed" fine as-is. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
14. While I do not support Jimbo's continuing in his former role, I can neither support the broad condemnation of ArbCom nor the call for a truly democratic polity. We need reform not revolution. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
15. Neither Jimbo nor Arbcom are the problem.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Meh. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Government is a rather tenuous thing on Wikipedia. I would not call it that at all. A power structure, maybe. But nobody is going around telling everybody what to do all the time. The rules are in place and for the most part, the entire community is enforcing them. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 02:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
18. Open-ness, fairness, equality, and democracy are all noble but meaningless on Wikipedia, as none of those actually apply to content. While this is an encyclopedia, even in that regard, we have many guidelines but no enforcement of fair and accurate representation of reputable sources, as all that matters is "consensus." And we all know how well that goes as soon as items of contention arise. Opening governance of WP to more such "consensus" is only a recipe to give lobbyists a whole new venue for their activities to extend their personal influence and to accelerate the downward spiral of WP from the ideals upon which it was created. And why? Because those most motivated to extend their personal influence are the most likely to succeed because there aren't enough who care about Wikipolitics in general, and even less who are willing to embroil themselves opposing someone bent on achieving their own little corner of WP:DOMINATION. Per the above, Jimbo and ArbCom are so not the problem. Unless standing in someone's way of course.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  20:37, 17 November 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)
4. Giano, you don't actually make a case that the JIMBO system is broken, just that you (and some others) dislike it philosophically. Everyone knows those arguments. In order for the Anti-JIMBO crowd to receive any traction, you actually have to start laying out examples of bad-JIMBO decisions. The problem with the JIMBO system is that Wales says things that he never actually does, which has hurt his credibility in the project considerably (IMO). Two examples? FlaggedRevs and 'I'll ban any editor who is paid.' You give no examples, and the ones I just provided effectively show that the JIMBO system is only hurt because it's not used enough to make tough decisions, or he makes empty threats. It's too bad a talented writer and thinker such as yourself was unable to be more persuasive. -->David Shankbone 19:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   Comments on David Shankbone's opinion are here [3].

5. The idea of an elected governing body is intriguing, but I'd like to know more about it before I could support it. I've read that the Hebrew-language Wikipedia has something along that line. A lot depends on the constitution. One complication is that this is a website with anonymous contributors, which makes it difficult to catch sock voting and may even attract too many irresponsible kids and irresponsible adults. Certainly, the current consensus-forming way of making new policy makes it too difficult to actually do anything. A large group of elected representatives could provide a good check on admin abuse by introducing actual accountability. In fact, I think that would be almost inevitable with nearly any kind of elected governing body. -- Noroton (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
6. I have yet to see any alternative that I think would be superior to that status quo. I think there are problems currently but I think any elected governing body would move us toward majority rule and would start involving itself far more than Jimbo or Arbcom currently do, (particularly in policy questions) which I would strongly oppose. Davewild (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Though I agree with you that in principle this form of government is bad, in our particular case it is still working adequately. I do not see it being used intrusively. Wikipedia is unique in its accomplishments. If we are to try something even better, it should be for another project rather than risk ruining this one. I am not convinced that added administrative layers actually help. DGG (talk) 02:20, 25 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 Wikipedia 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)
4. Geogre made an intriguing analogy up above by comparing Jimmy Wales to an absentee landlord; there's a lot of truth in that statement. Having been part of the Wikipedia community for many years, it's clear that Wales' inclination is to run Wikipedia in the spirit of laissez faire -- to let the community dictate how things should work -- except when there's an urgent crisis, when his course of action is to strike immediately. Back in the early days, when he was far more involved in the community, his instincts were far better & his actions usually did more good than harm. However as Wikipedia gained fame, Wales has been far more interested in "telling the Wikipedia story": getting in front of people & being the featured speaker. (Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that. I'd like to do that: it's great work if you can get paid to do it.) This means he is less involved in the daily grind of Wikipedia & forgets that, when all is said & done, things still break around here & Wikipedia often doesn't work even in practice -- & when he intercedes in disputes, he makes poor decisions. My point is not to bash him for this -- it takes a massive amount of time just to keep aware of, let alone understand, the many ongoing disputes in this one project, so anyone would make mistakes. My point is that if he were to limit himself entirely to a ceremonial role -- not a "god", not a "king", just a spokesman -- everyone would be happier: he would be happy just giving speeches, & we would not worry him making well-intended but horribly misinformed decisions. Further, once he was in a ceremonial role, we could develop a new, more-in-touch system of leadership: find someone who can keep informed & intervene appropriately when needed, & maybe even help with en.wikipedia-specific problems. (This is something I doubt the Foundation will ever touch, for various reasons.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Per llywrch; while content writers (or more particularly, their product) is what the community should focus upon, it is not necessarily those whose talents lie in that direction that should be those given the burden of accommodating their needs. The problem with WP, in the personification of Jimbo, is that those charged with the responsibility of making this place a great working environment for the creators of encyclopedic material too often are seen to be making the project an exercise in the privileges of those powers. The administrators, and other "technical" support staff, need to be shown to be the functionaries of the content contributors, and not their supervisors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
6. I agree with the statement - content editors feel undervalued and under-represented at the expense of those that concern themselves solely with administrative tasks and power building, and discussion might be valuable...On the other hand the place functions amazingly well and drastic changes and overturning the tables, and shredding the documents doesn't strike me as called for now...Modernist (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
7. (switched from support) Pzrmd (talk) 03:29, 17 July 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)
7. Agree. (former user) Shalom 20:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Jimbo currently exerts a large amount of control over the ArbCom results, in a non-obvious way -- he moves or redefines the cutoff so that he gets the arbitrators he wants. For an extreme example, see WP:ACE2005, where Jimbo re-appointed incumbent arbitrators who were far outside the top eight by creating new seats for them. WP:ACE2008 was a bit of a fiasco as well, when Jimbo shuffled around the term lengths rather than admit that he had confused "alpha" with "gamma".
   If we are to hold arbitrators accountable, we need to vote knowing what effects our votes will have. The rules shouldn't change at the end of each election. I think we should have elections where the number of seats to be filled -- and the rule for electing the winners to those seats -- is known beforehand. If Jimbo wants to change the results, he should do it by explicitly vetoing particular winning candidates, not by changing the rules when he sees the results. rspεεr (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Agreed in full: Set election rules with only a ceremonial selection by Jimbo. ArbCom has nothing to do with the WMF, it's our way of taking care of user conduct issues that can't be resolved in normal channels. I would however accept having the WMF review Checkuser and Oversight appointments under this plan.

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^Talk 18:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Jimbo shouldn't have any part of it. Cla68 (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
8. As long as Wikipedia's set of election rules is loose in terms of "voter registration", elections can (at least potentially) be manipulated with socks and be subject to irresponsible approaches by immature editors (not just kids). I'm not sure what the ultimate solution is, but Jimbo's role in affirming election winners introduces a certain amount of responsibility into the picture. Not everything needs to be fully democratic, anyway (it's a website, not a government). However, more exact election rules, including rules that Jimbo would be expected to abide by, would be useful. -- Noroton (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   Comments on Noroton's opinion are now here [4]

9. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
10. I think democracy was actually pretty much in action last time, and arguably failed us. Orderinchaos 18:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Per RDH, Iridescent. No need to have a meaningless torch ceremony. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Either make him the actual decider or don't bother with meaningless ceremoniousness. —harej (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
13. His role in the existing system works, and is a necessary safeguard. There are other aspects that do not work as well. DGG (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Straightforward elections to a committee that serves the editors and keepsin mind the interests of the readers whom we all serve; the present Iranian-style elections are not a feature of Wikipedia's future.--Wetman (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
15. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Beige

1. While I strongly agree that a transparent system needs to be established to elect arbs, I equally strongly believe that Wales should not have even a ceremonial role. What's the point of pomp and ceremony? For me, one good idea is cancelled out by one bad idea, but the two should be separated so we don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Nev1 (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Like it or, Wales is the public face of Wikipedia: no matter what his future role becomes, journalists will seek him out for comment. The fact he was a co-founder of Wikipedia guarantees that: Larry Sanger, the other co-founder has had minimal contact with Wikipedia for close to seven years now (I don't even know if he reads it), & he still is asked for his opinion on various recent developments. Better to acknowledge this fact, than to "depose" him, struggle with months of distracting WikiDrama, & suffer adverse public opinion fall-out. -- llywrch (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• No one is trying to stop Jimbo having an opinion, no one will try to gag him in the future and no one is suggesting he be put in a tumbrel and taken to the guillotine. However, because he is currently perceived as the "face of Wikipedia" does not mean his role is sacrosanct or unchallengable. The point is that Wikipedia has to constantly grow and develop - there is nothing for anyone to be afraid of in defining Jimbo's powers, or debating if he is the best man for the job. Giano (talk) 18:53, 29 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia is Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia is not Wikipedia 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^Talk 18:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Cla68 (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
13. He does some good work in promoting the project that possibly no one else could do, but I don't think he should be considered the ultimate authority on wiki with editors running off to him to circumvent community consensus. While he should be respected for what he has achieved, he should not be allowed to unilaterally make policies on wiki. That may have worked when wikipedia was much smaller, but having someone dictate policy seems to go against the whole consensus thing so many hold dear. Nev1 (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
14. As the project's founder, Jimbo does indeed hold special founders; there's really no doubting that. However I agree with Nev1. Wikipedia is a huge community, and at this stage, no individual should be able to unilaterally make decisions. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
15. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
16. --Cube lurker (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
17. seicer | talk | contribs 03:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
18. — Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 21:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
19. Kevin (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
20. Jimbo's special powers on the English Wikipedia (no individual has a comprable role on most other Wikimedia projects) are a holdover from a past time and should be removed by community consensus. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
21.  Skomorokh  18:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
22. Yes, we owe Jimbo a vote of thanks. Any directing Wikipedia needs in the future need to proceed by consensus.--Wetman (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
23. I'm not necessarily against one user having broad powers, and if I had confidence in Jimbo's ability to discharge his powers properly, I wouldn't object. Alas, his recent decisions and attitudes have left me with no such confidence. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
24. I often visit Jimbo's talk page. His observations are insightful, educational, and seem to have the well-being of WP and the community at heart. He will always be a special editor. However, having read much about his current role, from editors that I trust, I consider that he may have 'morphed' into our version of Henry VIII. The current monarch is ceremonial. Jimbo should consider the same. Modern Times! --Buster7 (talk) 07:30, 14 July 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)

   Comments on Chillum's views have been moved to here [5]

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)
3. Agree with Griffinofwales. Ruslik_Zero 18:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
4. In practice, some executive authority is needed in an organization, and I think he is more reliable in most things than just relying on the BoD. DGG (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Looking forward, I can forsee no substantial changes to the role Jimbo should play. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Until Jimbo starts doing things wrong, all is well with the arrangement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

View by Cla68

I believe that Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)
6. BigDunc^Talk 18:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
7. I strongly agree with all of this except the sentence about Jimbo (I haven't paid enough attention to Jimbo to have an opinion). The site can't seem to make policy now, and it's because we lack a governance system. It's the central problem, and it's creating the other, more specific problems mentioned. -- Noroton (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
8. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Broken is a bit strong. I'd go with "fractured". KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Agreed. We are too large a community for mob rule to work any more. Kevin (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
11. —harej (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Agreed; and if you've been a victim of random Admin decisions I say broken is an understatement. Sarah777 (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
13. Basically yes. "Broken" may be a bit strong, but gets the gist well enough. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Those who do not agree, sign below

1. Wikipedia 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)

2. Wikipedia's governance system is severely broken This statement needs a {{cn}} tag. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Would agree somewhat with some of what is said regarding admins but disagree strongly about any governing body over policy or content, where I think that lack of a governing body is a positive. Davewild (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
4. It works. By all logical arguments from the social scientists perhaps it ought not to work but it does. There is no other open sourcing project that has done nearly as much, and most of it is good. It might be desirable to try other structures, but we should not let the interfere with the continued operations of what actually does work better than most large human institutions. It has the specific faults of its structure , but others have the faults of their's. The one serious effort to try an alternative structure for an open content encyclopedia has not been notably successful. I am sure Wikipedia and perhaps the Wikipedia model will be superseded, but until we have something to supersede it we should improve itslowly, not make drastic changes. (In general political affair i tend to feel somewhat differently, but this works much better than most general political systems do.) DGG (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
5. — Ched :  ?  21:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC) I simply don't see anything as "broken". I'm not sure why it works, but other than a handful of disgruntled editors that may feel disenfranchised, I believe it works. That's not to say it is perfect, because I do see areas which can be improved upon.

   You think that there's only "a handful"? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

   I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that Ched is drawing a line out of the nearly 10 million accounts between people who are genuinely disgruntled and those (many of which are here) who don't think things are as good as they could be. Those in the former category are, I agree, a very rare breed - things do tend to just work around here, in some fashion or another. Those in the latter category may be relatively common, but I don't think they tend to agree with each others' proposals for a different system. That sounds to me like a Winston Churchill quote - "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried." ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 01:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

6. I'll agree with Ched here. That we have pages that provide a place for the disgruntled to congregate does not mean that those disgruntled represent a significant viewpoint in the community. Being the loudest does not make one the majority, even among active editors. Pages like this provide a sad example of confirmation bias; by providing a place for the angry to concentrate themselves, it gives the false impression that everyone is angry. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I agree we do need more admin presence and numbers in several contentious areas, as there has been burnout, but my perception is that admin actions are on the whole more consistent than a few years ago. I have advocated arbcom's role in scrutinising questionable admin conduct, but am not sure how much goes on which is not being reported to us. Not sure how I feel about the last two sentences. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   I answered this here. Admins are doing better lately, but it's still not good enough for a project that wants to be considered a credible encyclopedia. Cla68 (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

2. Per Casliber. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Except in some of the darker areas (e.g. nationalist disputes), Wikipedia continues to function – that is, the encyclopaedia's articles are improving. The conduct of administrators and of ArbCom is on the whole significantly better than in recent years – there is much less sense of a dominating cabal (at WP:AIN especially, though perhaps less so at WP:AE), perennially abusive administrators are less protected by their peers and mandarins, and it seems (though it is probably too early to tell) that we are electing far fewer abusive administrators. That said, the power structures remain on the whole dysfunctional, and as Cla puts it "administrative actions are often wildly inconsistent, unfair, arbitrary, and capricious". The lack of involvement of content editors in power structures may not be as big a deal as is being made out – the main downsides are the odd abusive incursion into articles by administrators and the great difficulty in getting controversial content to higher standards, while most articles see little intervention by the powers-that-be. To conclude, as undesirable a situation as Wikipedia governance is in, it may very well be that "keep[ing] the project lurching along" is enough to sustain growth in quality and quantity.  Skomorokh  19:00, 28 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)
5. I loved Heavenly Creatures!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Minus the bit about enforcing content policy, given the wiggle room those discussions tend to have. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Especially the bit about content policy -- at least we need a system that promotes more reasonable decision-making on content issues. -- Noroton (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Agreed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Ye gods, yes. Especially regarding fringe nonsense, BLPs, and somehow clarifying where "famous" crosses into "notable" in a manner the herd can comprehend. Puppy is damn tired of articles being kept on NN BLPs because there are a lot of news sources covering gossip on a slow news day. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
10. It will happen some day. Might as well start sooner. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
11. YES! The sooner the better, but a hard one to crack! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Remember EdCo! —harej (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
13. Our major lack. We need some way of reaching actual enforceable closure on these disputes. DGG (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
14. I agree, this is an area that could use some improvement. — Ched :  ?  01:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
15. Couldn't agree more. If a clear editorial policy is a no-no, then prepare to solve many disputes but please do it in time, before the conflict grows out of all proportions. NVO (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
16. Please. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Indeed. If anything needs fixing, it's NOT the situation at the top. What we need is a better system of lower-level dispute resolution and a better means of resolving content-level disputes before they get to ArbCom. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
18. Yes, this would be a Very Good Thing to discuss. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

• Part of making remedies at arbitration cases for me has been highlighting where content decisions need to be made, such as in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria case. I do hope that by pointing the community in the direction to make a community-based consensus, we can remedy some of these sore spots. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

Closed - Issues of misinterpretation raised by objectors and suggestions to review in other fora. Not the most pressing of issues. --Joopercoopers (talk) 07:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Those who agree sign below Giano (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC) --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC) 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) Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC) It is time we move beyond the mindset that when in doubt, the blocking admin is always right and banned is banned--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Without counting, I'd say it probably isn't one of the top 5 problems with Wikipedia governance, but it's in the top 10. -- Noroton (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC) The policy may well be sound, exempting the ludicrous and unevenly applied civiity policy of course, but very few administrators appear to be even aware of the existence of an official blocking policy, much less able to apply it fairly and consistently. And the new trend for insisting on apologies before blocks are removed just makes me sick. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Those who do not agree, sign below 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) I find it's mostly people who haven't experienced peremptory, rude, hairtrigger, no-warning blocks, or blocks that would better have been replaced with a short discussion, who don't recognize how widely blocking has been abused and how bad that is. A little more attention to professionalism would go a long, long way, and it really shouldn't be all that much more work to avoid some of these blocks. -- Noroton (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Per Chillum. --GRuban (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC) The policy isn't broken; the issue is that it's often misinterpreted. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC) I would have to agree with Juliancolton it is misinterpretation that cause a raft of problems. BigDuncTalk 12:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC) I would have thought that getting a better defined interpretation, might well be part of the debate. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Neutral My major gripe with the blocking policy is that older admins don't read it as it changes over time. Every time I see a circa-2003 admin announce "well I gave him a 12 hour block to cool down", I cringe since it means they haven't read the policy since mid-2006. That said, I'm not sure in a debate on project governance and Jimbo-ship we need to review the blocking policy; that seems to be a better task handled on its own. MBisanz talk 01:35, 25 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 of diverse views will be on arbcom

ϢereSpielChequers 13:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who agree sign below

1. Yep to 2,5 & possibly 3. thinking on the other points. Giano (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Not sure about 1; others, sure. Stifle (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Agree with 2, 3, and 5. Cla68 (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Agree with 1, 2 and 4. I don't think RfA is broken, but some fine-tuning in community standards and expectations would be very helpful. Regarding 5 - bloc votes and political parties? I do worry about the machiavellian overtones really. This just seems overkill for wikipedia (??) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   Hi Casliber - I've struck faction and replaced with diverse views as what I said was clearly open to misinterpretation. I'm not suggesting bloc votes or political parties, I'm actually suggesting shifting from an electoral system which rewards and encourages block voting and political factions to one which tends to do the opposite. If we keep the current system we risk electing an Arbcom where a large minority of voters find that none of the candidates they agreed with are elected. ϢereSpielChequers 07:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

5. Agree with 1. No view on the others. Peter jackson (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Strong agreement on 1. Withholding on the others. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
7. As an academic, I disagree with #1--academic encyclopedias require editorial control. DGG (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Agree, especially with the proposition that WP:CIVIL is a mechanism for giving random Admins vast arbitrary power to impose their ideological views and personal fetishes and dislikes. Not least their dislike of productive editors with whom they cross swords. Sarah777 (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
9. 1, 4, studying STV...--Buster7 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Agree strongly with #1. Cool3 (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Those who do not agree, sign below

1. No, not at all. We are an on-line encyclopaedia that is simply a readers' service. And not more than that. The idea that we should be aiming to become part of the academic establishment is at the root of all the irritating little pretensions that force content editors to cite a source for every commonplace of literate adult discourse.--Wetman (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. This view has too much to agree or disagree to it en masse. For example, I agree that civility issues need clarification AND better enforcement, however I disagree on the view of RFA and on the role of admins. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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)
4. Ruslik_Zero 18:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
5. I kinda agree, but there's no neutral section, so I'll place my sig here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Broadly agree. For a large majority of articles the current situation works in the longer term, for a minority of contentious areas there are problems. Any change must ensure that it does not affect the ability to contribute towards content. Davewild (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
7. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a model society —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs) 21:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
8. While Wikipedia needs mechanisms to deal with a whole bunch of issues, this discussion is more drama than substance. Rami R 19:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
9. We don't have, nor do we need, a WikiGovernment. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
10. As said above, this is a website, one that is owned by people, not a government. Anything that gets in the way of writing, especially bureaucracy, is a step backwards. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 20:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Yep — Ched :  ?  01:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Generalised further... As long as reasonable contributors can edit content, the rest of the place can do whatever it wants. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Partial agreement... good point in the end. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 03:00, 9 August 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)

   My comment was on the view that you expressed in this section, if you also post a view about the Jimbo/Giano conflict I may or may not choose to comment on that. ϢereSpielChequers 07:17, 24 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)

   Surely this wouldn't be anybody's idea of "just fine" would it? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   And yet here I am as a believer in the system. Remember, Ryulong was desysopped. The others are no longer in any real place of authority or respect. The system does actually work. Ottava Rima (talk)

   We'll have to agree to disagree then, as too many of the midgies I've been bitten by still have their magical mops. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   And I've personally kept quite a few of them off of you without having any admin tools myself. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   Editors shouldn't have to depend on champions. We should feel confident in an equitable and consistently applied set of policies that everyone is expected to conform to, and that includes Jimbo. I am confident though that it'll never happen; too many with too much to lose. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   If little ol me can be a champion, then the system works. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

3. Agree with both views above. There need to be better mechanisms for resolving content disputes. And the project has for some time got too large to deal with in the same way as when it was very small and every one knew each other and who mostly had a shared computing background. This romantic attachment to the past reminds me of those men of the nineteenth century who had grown rich on railway stocks, and made it a condition in their will that their heirs should invest in railways too. But railways are penny stocks now (or got nationalised - take your pick). You have to move on. (Ottava's view that he is 'one of the top content contributors here' makes me die of laughter). Peter Damian (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   Comment on the above post has been moved to the talk page here [6]

4. I used to think exactly like Ottava Rima, but experience has caused me to abandon that view. I feel that the dynamic which Wikipedia uses to gradually move in the right direction -- consensus built on discussion between equals -- has failed us more & more as the average Wikipedian more closely resembles, well, the average person. Instead of relying on arguments, for example, disputants increasingly rely on knowing policy & guidelines better than their opponents, which leads Wikipedians to insist on increasingly literal interpretation of both. Because of Wikipedia's increasing influence, the content of articles have become the prize of opposing ideologies (or nationalities) to enshrine their preferred material as The Truth(TM). And our titular leader appears to be oblivious or indifferent to these & other tensions, intervening only when his reputation is threatened. (Examples include the Mzoli Meats AfD, & imposing FlaggedRevisions to solve the BLP problem.) Wikipedia is drifting towards a crisis, & either we need to act or watch the community disintegrate on the rocks of ignored problems. -- llywrch (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   The community has already fractured along the lines imposed by an unaccountable and inconsistent system of governance. Some of the comments made here already lead me to wonder whether it isn't already too late. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   Even if it is too late to save the community, a large part of the encyclopedia will survive because of the licensing terms. And knowing that the content will outlive the community, I am willing to continue to add to it & improve it. -- llywrch (talk) 06:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

5. I mean ideally yes, but I one of the reasons I ran for arbcom was to examine and improve the environment to optimise editing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   With all due respect Cas, you recently discussed and voted in secret to overturn a community ban and neither you nor anyone else on the Arbitration Committee even provided a reason why you did so. Regardless of the merits of that particular decision, this lends little credibility to an argument that you are supportive of an accountable system of open governance. -->David Shankbone 04:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

6. The system works for some articles, but not as a general principle. Peter jackson (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
7. You can't just work on articles and avoid getting run over by edit warriors, POV pushers, rude policy enforcers on steroids, etc. unless you only edit noncontroversial articles (and even there, you may eventually come up against problems). And if you edit any articles on controversial subjects, you come up against the limitations of WP's current policies and procedures, and when you care enough to change them, you come up against WP's poor governing procedures. It would be great to be able to edit and collaborate without having to get involved in policy and politics, but WP's creaky governing structure makes that more difficult. It would be nice to be uninvolved like Switzerland, but there is too much Belgium going around for noninvolvement to work. Investing your time and effort into doing the best content work involves exposing yourself to the bad behavior of others and realizing that Wikipedia's governing system (where there even is one) can't really help you. Your remote little fishing brook is really Shits Creek sometimes, and Wikipedia has no paddle for you, and few effective ways to stop some other editor from drilling a hole in your canoe. -- Noroton (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
8. --Cube lurker (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Anarchy among the trolls and POV pushers, with no structure or remedies at all? I think not. View is "as long as I can edit..." - how long would that last if the entire rulebook and all DR were tossed? Not long. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Most of us edit with considerable difficulty, unless we work in obscure areas or have a confidence in successfully defeating the opposition and don';t mind the fights. Many of the areas I would really like to work in I find I cannot without more fighting than I could tolerate, because of POV and ownership issues. Unlike most of the dissatisfied people, though, I would handle this by improving, not rejecting, our policies. DGG (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Nev1 (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
12. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
13. Disagree; the problem is that you can't work in certain areas without hazard. Personally the fights are not something I get bothered about - it would be a North Korean encyclopedia if they didn't exist; its the fact some of the folk involved in the fights have the power to chose to ignore all Wiki policies except WP:CIVIL - which they use to hammer productive editors. Nothing worse than some doofus with a zilch editing record empowered to block or ban those who won't grovel before their "eminence". Sarah777 (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
14. I appreciate the sentiment here; I too want to work in an environment desrcibed by Ottava. However, we are clearly not there, and wishing for such an environment does not make it so. We clearly need means of resolving inevitable content disputes, and a means by which to remove disruptions from the environment, and we need consistant guidance on how to do so. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:45, 3 July 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^Charge! 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 | ^talk 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)
7. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
8. It cannot be considered irrelevant that this is taking place in the userspace of an entirely controversial editor. I myself do not judge the merits of the supposed controversy, but many others have. --Xavexgoem (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
9. I agree with this comment although I don't think the page is aspiring to do much more than vent. Orderinchaos 18:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Orderinchaos said it perfectly. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 20:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
11. I think the general observations are sound. — Ched :  ?  01:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Amen sister. See my comments about 3 questions back; merely providing a place for the few dozen editors with a beef to concentrate their rage does not make that rage a significant viewpoint within the community at large. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:46, 3 July 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 ^Talk 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^Charge! 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 Wikipedia 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)

    I don't think anyone is suggesting a deletion. I think it is simply being suggested that whatever the outcome of this page it will not be an accurate reflection of consensus. Just spinning of wheels. Chillum 22:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    On the other hand, those of of who can read will be able to see quite clearly that the intention here is to determine whether or not there is any support for the kind of changes that Giano is proposing. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    Chillum & Malleus, the point of this page is to assess if editors feel there are problems, not to start a debate and argement on the worthiness of those problems. There will be ample time to debate that later, hopefully in Wikipedia space. For obvious reasons, I want to keep this page reasonably concise and easy to follow. If you want to debate now, could you take your comments to the talk page. Thanks. Giano (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    Fair enough, I'll say no more here. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

11. Giano posted a notice of this on approximately 73 bajillion talk pages, so many that even I noticed. Even if it is as flawed as you describe it, so what? This isn't a petition to shove a pineapple up Jimbo's ass. We're just gauging opinions and seeing what needs to be discussed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
12. It's a discussion. We need it. -- Noroton (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
13. A Rigged game?! A Power play?! Ah You mean like Find The Sockpuppet! Fun:) While I don't think that where this discussion occurs really much matters (the important thing is that it IS ocurring and long over due IMO), I would not object to it being transferred, en masse, to an RFC discussion if enough of the participants here are cool with it.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    I wouldn't mind, either. -- Noroton (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

14. --Cube lurker (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
15. Disagree. This is a roundtable for views, which has been listed in several places. It is a "discussion to determine if a discussion should be held" and as such, does not pretend to be the final word. Per the verbiage at the top of the page, "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." A limited litmus test, if you will. It doesn't quite fit Rfc format, but if you think it didn't get enough public notice, feel free to post it on the Pump or whatever. I fail to see how those who cannot handle spirited debate could be of much use in this discussion, anyway. Your mileage may vary. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
16. I came here from Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, so while there's selection bias (where's the anon?) I don't think it's crippling. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
17. Any discussion is better than no discussion, regardless of the venue. Kevin (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
18. preliminary discussion of views is helpful. It will be easier to construct more lasting improvements in view of it. Nobody is suggesting we use this section to actually determine policy. DGG (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
19. Pzrmd (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
20. Disagree; something must be done to alter the system that provides crusading and/or power-crazed Admins with a tool, WP:CIVIL, that thanks to WP:WHEEL gives them arbitrary power to exclude editors they dislike for personal or political reasons. This problem has been highlighted for years on the "level playing pitches" available - result? Nothing. Sarah777 (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
21. Selection bias? Did he delete rival opinions? Did he disable alternative statements? What is this thread doing here, on the enemy-of-the-state turf? NVO (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
22. It mimics the format because the format works. Whats the difference where a discussion to have a discussion takes place? Sometimes the infighting is wearisome. Is the problem --->Where to discuss?...or is it--->Too many editors are discussing?....--Buster7 (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I wouldn't even say that Giano was all that interested in any outcome, pushed or otherwise. I don't think I've ever seen Giano have the necessary sustained interest to press home any of his campaigns to finally 'do something' about Wikipedia. These things done right take time, and he permanently retires scrambling his password every few months anyway, so that's a sure way it will get nowhere fast for a start, if it remains in his user space. If he was bothered in pressing it home, the first thing he should be doing is slapping down the fait accompli negativity and outright cynicism that is coming from the erstwhile supporters of change. MickMacNee (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   In the interests of space and clarity: comments on MickMacnee's view have been moved to here [7]

2. Sort of see what Durova is getting at but discussion has to start somewhere in the interests of expediency. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Agree fully with Casliber. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
4. What this page actually says at the top is that it's a discussion about whether to have a discussion. Given that this makes it 2 steps removed from any actual decisions, I don't think the question of bias is important. Peter jackson (talk) 10:06, 24 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." [Looks as though they must do this occasionally: does ArbCom request such advice from Mr Wales? Why? How often is "occasionally"?]
• "Arbitrators with multiple accounts on Wikipedia 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." [That one appears under "Transparency" ... <sound of loud giggling>]
• "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." [This is a hornet's nest: he can but he can't but he may but he won't.] But then —>
• "In April 2007, Wales confirmed that the Committee could overturn any decision he makes in his traditional capacity within Wikipedia." [Riiiight.]

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 Wikipedia'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)
3. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Nev1 (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
5. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Imperative. Giano (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
7. I was under the impression that multiple accounts were "illegal"? Agree, obviously. Sarah777 (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Absolument.  Skomorokh  16:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Those who do not agree, sign below

1. Roles at the top are clearly defined; however there is not enough teeth at lower levels of dispute resolution and disruption removal to allow for efficient exercising of those roles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Constitutional monarchy tends to be stable. If it works, it works, and the theory behind it is irrelevant. It's the ground level stuff that needs worrying about. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC) No objection to "honest and frank discussion as to Wikipedia's future management and administration". The constitution should be robust.

View by Cryptic C62

The primary and ultimate goal of Wikipedia is to serve the readers through good content. Everything else is secondary. The less familiar someone is with writing Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia community." If that's true, and if Jimbo doesn't really contribute to Wikipedia'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)
2. I don't necessarily agree that only content editors should be involved in administration. There are/have been some good administrators who don't write articles, but otherwise I agree with the spirit of what you're saying. Cla68 (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
3. I think that gnomes, reviewers and other editors also have some familiarity with content, not just writers. But otherwise dig. ϢereSpielChequers 09:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Dig, pretty much.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Completely dig. Pzrmd (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
6. He should be slapped for making that statement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 24 July 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)
2. No. Within every organisation there are different disciplines, and each discipline is inclined to be the best for a particular role - what works best in one area may not in another, and you need to be able to recognise that (you want your car serviced for the best value for money - you do not ask the garages accountant to strip your gearbox; what they may know about structuring the best billing of parts does not mean they can actually align the cogs correctly). In disagreeing, I support the notion that Jimbo's actions in realms other than founder and figurehead are often disruptive - but placing content providers in the role of project management is an equally a poor option. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Jimbo has founder rights here at enWP, Chair Emeritus has nothing to do with this. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it's also a project. We need people in every position, not just content builders. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
5. This view seems to confuse opinions regarding Jimbo and opinions regarding the community as a whole. Jimbo's lack of mainspace contributions is, I think, a concern, but giving power to content writers over other editors is a bad idea. — Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 21:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
6. In a community this large, there are roles to play by people with many different specialities; and not all of those are necessarily content based. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Switzerland

1. Do you honeslty think, if he was that way inclined and actually writes articles just like anybody else, that he would edit under his main account? I half think he of all people knows about WP:SOCK#LEGIT. MickMacNee (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, actually, if he was really intent on leading the building of an encyclopedia, he would be leading by example by building quality articles, in his name for all to see. That's one method of leadership, leadership by example. He doesn't do this, does he? Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   Couldn't disagree more. Leadership is about making decisions, not giving tutorials on good article writing. MickMacNee (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   I think you're wrong there MMN. No one mentioned tutorials, just creating quality content. There are different types of leadership, leading from the front is just one. "Do as I say, not as I do" isn't always effective. Nev1 (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

2. Apart from agreeing with MMN's contention, I am voting at least in part because I have never been able to vote "Switzerland" before. :) Orderinchaos 18:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Most definitely support "dig" but Editor:Orderinchaos makes a good point.--Buster7 (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Other

1. The problem isn't whether Wales writes content under his own name. (For the record, he has done so occasionally: I remember hearing about a fracas years ago when he made a comment on the Talk pages where he called Che Guevara a murderer -- but despite an hour searching I could not find the thread.) The problem is that he has almost no interaction with any of the day-to-day activities of Wikipedia: reverting vandalism, handling content disputes, participating in either AfD or RfAdmin, or editting articles. One can have a very positive impression of Wikipedia for quite a long time until one encounters the first interaction with someone who is intelligent, articulate, informed -- but dead wrong. One can't simply reason with this person, compromise with her/him, or ban her/him. (Dispute resolution may fail horribly because (1) no one gets involved, or (2) the other person presents an argument everyone else believes.) Further, Wales appears to get a lot of his information what Wikipedia from a select few, who being human are likely to only tell part of the story -- & most of the ones I believe he listens to are likewise not involved in day-to-day activities. Lastly, the vast majority of people who contact him about problems are the expected kooks, vandals & troublemakers, which results in a crippling noise-to-signal ratio causing anyone with a legitimate grievance to be ignored. Either he cuts back on the PR activities & gets more involved in en.wikipedia, or he removes himself in all practical ways from the leadership role. Being an absentee landlord isn't working now, & hasn't been for a while. -- llywrch (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yep, I think the phrase "absentee landlord" hits the nail on the head. I had not thought of it that way before, but that is exactly what he is. Jimbo takes the kudos for the labours of those of us here. Has a pretty nice and interesting life as a result, but only returns to wikipedia to crack the whip and receive homage. I think we need to dicuss how many of us are happy with that, somewhere official and pretty soon. Giano (talk) 19:45, 26 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

1. Tex mentions another example of Wales demonstrating that he is out of touch with the community. The incident he references could have been handled quietly in email far more effectively than announcing to one & all that a "toxic personality" had been blocked. While it might appear to less senior Wikipedians that their more senior peers have immunity to being blocked, the truth is that a block hurts us more: the longer a clean record is, the worst a penalty looks on it. -- llywrch (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
2. I think there's reasonable doubt Jimbo was specifically referring to Bishonen - but then again, if he was referring to a general 'toxic environment', caused by 'toxic personalities' it was the first I've heard of it and I'd have expected some elaboration. The potential for ambiguity was high and it was not communicated well. So yes he should think before writing - and elaborations shouldn't have to be prised out of him. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
3. If Mr Wales had simply warned and suggested that an apology and strike-through may have been in order, he would have set a fine example to all admins of how they can use their position to heal and calm for the good of the project. Talking to the party who may have had a hand in provoking the situation would also have been wise. That would have been leadership. Tony (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
4. --Cube lurker (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Per Tony. Blocking is preventative, and the blocking policy does not mention civility as a reason for blocking. The Civility policy is clear that one should attempt to discuss with the uncivil editor - NOT block, punitively, six hours after the event. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Obviously. Another example of Jimbo being complete out of touch. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Many of the random Admins we have under Jimbo's guidance hand out blocks for less than that toxic remark! Sarah777 (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Yup. Disgrace on Jimbo's part. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
9. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Those who do not agree, sign below

1. Acting in such a childish and incivil manner while abusing one's status simply to bully another user is an appropriate individual to label as a "toxic personality". Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Bishonen's miniscule block was more than deserved for what she did, both on face value, and considering the particular circumstances and editors involved. Jimbo has it spot on, the only reason he has to make such obvious blocks himself is absolutely down to "our having been too tolerant, for too long, of toxic personalities". MickMacNee (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   Perhaps, but I very much doubt that you and I would agree on who these "toxic personalities" actually are. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   I'm finding Mick a complex man, especially given all the stones he throws in that Schloss Gläserne of his. I think he might be keeping the seat warm for Sidaway? Where is Sidaway? --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not in the slightest surprised by the inconsistencies evident in the opinions expressed in this thread. It's always been one rule for thee and another for me. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   We should measure admin behavior against MickMacNee's? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

3. Per above comments. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Per above. Not Jimbo's finest moment, I'm sure he would admit, but hardly grounds for insurrection. Rockpocket 07:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
5. We need someone who can do exactly those sort of things, though I say this without any judgment on the old matter. That he has good judgment is evident from the length of the block. DGG (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Actually, I kinda agree with Jimbo's sentiment, even if he expressed it in an inappropriate manner. See my comments somewhere back there; we need a stronger enforcement of civility rules to prevent "toxic personalities" in general from making Wikipedia an unfriendly work environment. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
7. When I read that comment at Jimbos talk, I took him to mean toxic personalities in general, not Editor:Bishoven in specific. I still do.--Buster7 (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
8. A situation has arisen where content editors feel undervalued and under-represented I totally agree - Bishonen's action is a prime example of the arbitary insults & blocks doled out to contributors by Admins. More blocks for admins Please!!! Þjóðólfr (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Question by Casliber on size and scale of wikipedia and consensus-building

In terms of effecting any significant change to the way wikipedia runs, there have been concerns raised that the 'pedia is too big to actually acheive consensus (75%) voting on major issues. My question is this - do people feel we can achieve substantive change on wikipedia purely by consensus, or does the size and scale of the 'pedia preclude this, and should there be other means looked at (eg. working groups, policy committees, whatever). Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, major changes are still achievable by consensus

1. WP:PLAGIARISM recently achieved 80%+ support in an RfC about promoting the proposal to guideline. And I'd far prefer if this question were posed in a neutral setting, which this venue is not. Durova^Charge! 05:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Wikipedia regularly undergoes change, even significant change. You only have to hang around here for a couple of years to see everything change. Consensus is often found, and those ideas that regularly fail to gain consensus do so for good reason. Chillum 05:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   I see MBisanz making the same point, below. My impression was totally different. Recall that Casliber (and I) are talking about significant change. What are the significant policy changes that have achieved consensus in the past two years? I don't consider WP:PLAGIARISM a good example of a significant change. -- Noroton (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

3. Yep, definitely. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Where is "75%" mentioned? RfA normally passes at 70%, and considers the possibility of even less. See the lead to RfA. Tony (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
5. When we use proper formats and term definitions, it is frequently possible to achieve a definitive consensus in one direction or another, the failures of consensus usually involve external factors or poor communication by the proposers/responders. MBisanz ^talk 08:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Agree in principle. But one of the problems is the increasingly laborious nature of decision making needed to reach a consensus 'compromise'. A proposal will be put to RfC. Several weeks will need to pass to get a decent view of that - the decision is then a rather binary pass or fail. Tweaking the proposal as a result of the comments in attempts to form a compromise to allay some of the concerns then requires further RfC - to which the attitude is usually 'what? you're asking me again? I thought I told you last time" etc. If we're to get better at finding consensus, then working groups etc. might be the way forward. If it is, then it's of paramount importance that the composition of such bodies is 'cross party' and accommodating of polar viewpoints in a spirit of compromise for the good of WP. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Casliber raises some some very basic and important questions. Fundamentally-How should consensus be determined? By the simple math of a simple majority? By a super majority? Or by some subjective process whereby selected community elders weigh the strengths and quality of arguements and evidence? Perhaps some combination of all of the above. My short answer would be, it depends on the issue and context. The more people who are effected by a decision, the more their input and consent should be required. For more trivial or routine decisions, let the trusted, elected agents make the call. But should their calls be proven poor, then recall must be a recourse.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Yes, working groups with formal decision-making authority and elected committees are necessary in order to get some changes implemented and progress made. Cla68 (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   To clarify, is your suggestion that these decision making bodies use consensus to make decisions, and then apply those decisions to those they represent? Kevin (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

9. I think the current situation is fine for the most part and consensus does work. Being slow and gradual, making it hard to make big changes, is a good thing as it ensures that any changes are accepted (and acceptable). Davewild (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   This is an interesting point. Knowing that we need a consensus, people who propose things become more careful and probably more thoughtful, if only to broaden the appeal of a proposal. Anything that encourages thoughtful deliberating has some value. An alternate way of slowing down change-making to a good deliberative pace is to have various formal procedures, which are difficult to create and require some work to maintain, while consensus is simple. I still think the demands of consensus grind progress nearly to a halt, and it's vital to speed up the process. -- Noroton (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

10. Per above. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
11. To a certain extent. On the one hand, it is too difficult to achieve consensus if a few people energetically block it, and, on the other, it is too easy, if the matter stays obscure. And the question will always arise, consensus of whom? I'm not sure of working groups, though, because they have a tendency to form sub-encyclopedias with notably different rules, not always for the better. DGG (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
12. — Ched :  ?  01:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, we really need to look at other means

1. I was just thinking about this, so it must be a good question. This is one of the prime reasons why we need governance reform. Of course, it's probably the biggest reason why we're unlikely to get it. -- No, I take that back: We won't get an overhaul of the system, but we may be able to choose a ripe target and get consensus on that, then go on to the next target. Perhaps consensus-decisionmaking itself is the best target because it's pretty obvious that it's failing the website: We can hardly make any major policy changes at all because we need a ridiculously high approval percentage in order to do it. I'll be surprised if anyone asserts that this consensus method is working. (I'm not referring to using consensus in making content decisions, but in making policy changes, which seems to be what Casliber is talking about.) -- Noroton (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Wow -- I am surprised -- Noroton (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   It works all the time, just look in policy talk page archives and you will see policy is build off such successful consensuses. Chillum 05:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

2. Consensus works in some areas (eg areas of some specificity where there is only a small number of editors) but the size of the enterprise today in terms of both editors and articles means a true "consensus" can realistically never be determined. The mistaken belief that it is has led to gridlock and, not uncommonly, fights. Orderinchaos 18:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
3. There comes a stage where a consensus model is not feasible for an organisation of a certain size. Wikipedia reached that point some time ago. Mind you, I am not sure representative democracy works in an organisation like this either. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
4. It works occasionally, but the issues it doesn't work on linger forever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
5. There are many areas where consensus works fine, and is appropriate, however major policy decisions are not one of those areas. Defining which decision making processes are suitable for different areas is a discussion that needs to take place. Kevin (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
6. "Consensus" is undefined, and it's clearly used mostly as an excuse for doing nothing. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Important question, on which I have no view at present. A related question that might be looked at is enforcement of consensus. Peter jackson (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Consensus has its flaws. The supposed consensus for trialing the silver bullet that is Flagged Revisions for example, has a claimed 70% (or was it 60? I forget) consensus (and note from that, when it suits people desperate to push something through, they absolutely love WP:JIMBOSEZ acting as the casting vote). That reading of the poll pretty much ignored the fact that, much like Durova's description of push polling, the initial question was flawed, and the 70% includes contradictory opinions (how for example is it going to be implemented as a light touch anti-vandalism tool, and a comprehensive bar-level BLP libel-prevention system, at the same time? It cannot be of course, but the people who landed on the right side of 'consensus' on that poll conveniently look the other way when such things are pointed out, and basically game the polling system, hoping to push through their proposed model later when the support drops away as it dawns on people they've been conned by the militant faction. If there is a role for steering groups, it is in the proper drafting of non-contradictory community polls. MickMacNee (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
3. A 70% supermajority is not a consensus. --Tango (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Hate to point out that 75% (or 70%) isn't "consensus" by any normal understanding. It is a specified majority vote. I'm not keen on Orwellian Newspeak. Whether 75% can be regarded ever as "consensus" depends entirely on the context. Sarah777 (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
5. I agree with Tango and Sarah. One legitimate vote against and it's no consensus. Yes, major issues require supermajority voting (whether 70% or 80% is secondary issue), but it's not consensus. NVO (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Under a consensus model policy will lag behind what the supermajority of participants believe. There is no "major change", simply an acknowledgement that the winds have shifted in the past few years, and despite Wikipedia moving at the speed of the internet I don't believe opinions have shifted a great deal since Seigenthaler and Brandt led to the creation of BLP four years ago. Nifboy (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Simple View by Giano

Jimbo's powers need to be fully debated and then clearly and explicitly defined. Which at present they are not.

Agree

1. Giano (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
2. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Kusma (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
4.  Skomorokh  11:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Agreed, but I also agree with the neutral statement below - who has the power to change the powers is also something that needs to be clearly defined. --Tango (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Agreed. In response to WereSpeilChequers below - it may be that the clarification includes something like "power of veto over anything and imposition of any policy etc. felt necessary to improve the project." He seems to have those powers at the moment (albeit used with discretion). Debate might make it clear if there are limits to that. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Cla68 (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
8. We need a definition not because to the person, but because this lack of a clear role is now hurting us. I believe there are a lot of things that need doing, yet aren't being done because the community simply assumes that Wales or the WMF will do them -- if they are actually important. Knowing that no one is currently responsible will at least indicate to all that someone needs to these needs. llywrch (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
9. --Cube lurker (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
10. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Well, sure, but I'm not at all convinced this is a priority, because I don't recall seeing a clear case that he abuses his position in any way really significant to most editors. Other issues appear to be much more important, and Jimbo also has a unique value to the community as a founder. I'm about a micron away from "neutral" on this, and not much farther from "Oppose". -- Noroton (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
12. seicer | talk | contribs 03:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
13. Privatemusings (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Bing. Jehochman ^Talk 13:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
15. Who could disagree with clarifying and defining them? Sarah777 (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
16. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
17. Absolutely. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
18. --See Editor:Ched, below. Jimbo is less and less involved.--Buster7 (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree

1. Ideally, the system will work and the godking will have nothing to do. Try to define him, and find the devil to be in the details. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Happy with the idea of debating what his powers currently are, but concerned that explicitly defining them risks fossilising the status quo. Would be more comfortable if we also had a clarity as to how future changes to such rules would be made. ϢereSpielChequers 12:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   I appreciate the hazards of formalizing norms appropriate to one point in time that may later be sub-optimal. Perhaps, given Wales' stated intention to gradually ride off into the sunset, and the broad agreement with this sentiment that can be seen on this page, it could be useful to draw periodic lines in the sand as to what roles Wales formerly played but does no more, without straitjacketing the future.  Skomorokh  19:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

2. Agree with the thrust of this. However, producing a definition (in writing) of his powers (other than this) would prop him up, or hinder his disengagement, or be used as a crutch to justify actions. Perhaps if it included an exit strategy (regular elections for the God-King position?). --maclean 02:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Same concern as maclean. Pzrmd (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee

Arbs should be appointed solely by the editorship following an election. Jimbo should not have power to veto.

Agree

1. Giano (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
2. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Kusma (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Agree re. veto, but per Skomorokh - I think we need clear rules regarding elections and probably some kind of 'returning officer'.--Joopercoopers (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Cla68 (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Agree. Someone as disconnected as Jimbo should not be able to veto a matter such as this. In response to all of the people who disagree on the grounds that a simple majority shouldn't decide the matter, have you ever seen {{electoral systems}}? There are literally dozens of methods to choose from. We, as a community, can certainly figure out which one is best. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
7. seicer | talk | contribs 03:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
8. So far as it goes. Someone (I don't much care who) needs to be the final judge of returns, because confusing or unanticipated situation will occur. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Pzrmd (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Agree w/ Cryptic.--Buster7 (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree

1. Agree that Wales should not have a veto, but there ought to be some guard against populism/outright majoritarianism. Possible veto holders would be the WMF (as formal owners of the encyclopaedia, though this might have undesirable legal implications), some subset of outgoing/former arbitrators (have the experience required, but might use the veto for political purposes), or some subset of bureaucrats (highly trusted, generally conservative, institutionally distinct from Arbitration power structures).  Skomorokh  12:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   I agree, but the form elections take and restrictions of those eligible needs to be discussed elsewhere - not here. Giano (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

2. I agree with Skomorokh. There needs to be something other than just a straight vote, but that something shouldn't be Jimbo (at least, not without a community consensus that it should be - an elected president or something is an option [not my first choice, though, by a long way] and that could end up being Jimbo). We need some way to deal with confidential information that shouldn't be released into the public domain but still needs to be taken into account when deciding whether someone is suitable to be an Arb. I don't have a good suggestion for how to do that, so I'll leave that to another discussion. --Tango (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Wikipedia is not a Democracy. That is our basic concept, and the above goes against that belief. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   It's a basic concept, but it's hardly the most fundamental one. Consensus based decision making doesn't work with large groups, so we've had to move away from it. Whether Jimmy has a veto or not, ArbCom elections are still elections with a vote. --Tango (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   They are not elections with a vote, as there is no majority rule. There is a placement of opinion, but that opinion doesn't matter and is not controlling. There was also no mention of consensus, so your statements about such are moot. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   Of course the opinions matter. Jimbo has never completely disregarded the election results and recently has followed them almost precisely. Just because they aren't binding doesn't mean they don't matter. "Wikipedia is not a democracy" is a reference to consensus - see WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, consensus is mentioned in the 2nd sentence. --Tango (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

   Almost just doesn't cut the mustard. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

4. The community, back when the ArbCom was created, allowed Wales to have a veto because of fear that someone harmful to the project might stuff the ballotbox & get on the ArbCom. I think this possibility is likely more possible now than years ago: the troublemakers have gotten more savvy. That said, I'll admit this veto power does not need to be vested in Wales. -- llywrch (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
5. What Llywrch said, although I'm not aware of Jimbo abusing the role, I was a bit uncomfortable about him expanding the size of ArbCom after the last election. We're better off with more rules about something like that. -- Noroton (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
6. If more than 5% of eligible voters actually cast a vote, I would be voting yes. Otherwise we end up with oligarchy rather than democracy. Orderinchaos 18:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
7. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
8. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
9. A veto holder who doesn't veto is one sign of a working system. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No/Yes

1. There needs to be an omsbudsman/overviewer who can determine if a Bad Person has been elected through promises that will not be kept, or concealment of Bad Things. etc. That person cannot be Jimbo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   Agree with that completely. Giano (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

   there does need to be such a person, but I think we have one. This is turning into a referendum into Jimbo, and if so it should be moved somewhere specific to that. I think it would be necessary to both show that he is not fulfilling the role well, and that there is at least some possibility of someone who would do it better. I have the unfortunate impression that the referendum is being led by those with individual grievances, and (based on the general course of human affairs) some of them may well have been judged to be in the wrong because they were in the wrong. DGG (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

2. I don't think it makes much of a difference. The arbcom elections have never, to my knowledge, seated someone with less support than someone not seated. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

View by Noroton

Wikipedia needs a more exact policy on consensus for (a) policy (and guideline) proposals, and perhaps (b) other consensus decisions involving large numbers of editors (including, perhaps, content controversies) that would make clear on a standard (not ad hoc) basis, before a proposal is open for voting:

1. What percentage is needed
2. What behavior is acceptable in commenting and !voting/voting
3. Who decides consensus has been reached, who decides when it's been reached and what votes need to be discounted or behavior reined in. In New England town meetings, perhaps the nearest thing to Wikipedia's consensus (except that town meetings are usually majority-rule affairs), they call this job "Moderator"
4. What essential steps need to be taken to get from a hazy, general consensus to specific language
5. Maybe something else

This would avoid much wasted time, energy and drained morale.

Yep

1. Proposed. -- Noroton (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Yes indeed.,Too many things are stalled indefinitely because one or two people persist in blocking them. How exactly to handle this, though, will need considerable discussion. DGG (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope

1. What you are describing is not "consensus". There is no percentage for a consensus and there is no need for anyone to determine if it exists since it will be obvious to all involved if one truly exists. If we can't use consensus based decision making we should accept the fact and call a vote a vote. --Tango (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   Discussion on Tango's comment here. -- Noroton (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so, maybe no

1. There have been a number of cases where the idea of "consensus" has been abused. The cases which concern me are where a small group in some corner of the Wiki comes to an agreement & then announces that a binding decision has been made. I don't know if the solution are the points Noroton has proposed; I'd rather see us set a minimum size set on these binding discussions, & a period defined so that all involved are aware of the decision & other Wikipedians have the opportunity to add additional input -- or consent through silence. -- llywrch (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Feel free to improve Wikipedia:Consensus, or even the more problematic Wikipedia:What is consensus?. Easier said than done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

View by Rootology

Checks and balances are the key to success long-term. There must be a balance to everything.

• See: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Committees which I wrote previously and just revised, which addresses this.

Yeah

1. rootology (C)(T) 18:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Absolutely, but the devil's in the details of how you do it. -- Noroton (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Uh-huh! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Agree checks and balances should be discussed.--Joopercoopers (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
5. well yeah, put that way, joopers, I agree :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Giano (talk) 07:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
7. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Yes, and separation of powers, such that, for example, an uninvolved user determine conflict of interest in those entrusted with power. Tony (talk) 10:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Aye, hat-collecting, administrative tenure, closed-doors judgements and absence of oversight are recipes for abuse.  Skomorokh  19:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Ditto Skomorokh.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
11. --Buster7 (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Worthy to be listed a Law of nature. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No

1. Zoroastrianism died out long ago. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Checks and balances are inherently faulty. --WaltCip (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
3. No. This is a restatement of the "all viewpoints are equally valid" equal-treatment fallacy, in which "lone crank with an agenda" can serve as a "check and balance" against an overwhelming consensus in the name of a false notion of "fairness". – iridescent 11:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Pzrmd (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe

1. I don't know... checks and balances are certainly important, but are they universally required for success? --Tango (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   In the long term, I think so, because of that "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely" maxim Gladstone coined. If you don't check it, you're just waiting for it to be abused, and we do abuse very enthusiastically around here. -- Noroton (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

2. from my perspective checks and balances are a function of a good system, not something to try and set the rules by.... good principle though. :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Developments along these lines are unfolding anyway. Maybe not structured exactly how rootology maps them out but with some similarities. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
4. My check will improve your balance :) Sarah777 (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Too vague to agree or disagree. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

View by User:TakuyaMurata

No offense, but this seems like a completely waste of time. The governance of Wikipedia is perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned. Problems are not found in Wikipedia namespaces or user namespaces but the main namespace. There are many articles that require attention; topics that are inadequately covered; etc. -- Taku (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree

1. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree

1. Giano (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Sarah777 (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
4. The governance of Wikipedia is perfectly fine until you have absolutely anything to do with it. At that point, the whole creeking, shoddy edifice is exposed for the ineffective, inefficient, arbitrary mess it is. Disagree. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
5.  – iridescent 11:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
6. As Joopercoopers said. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
7. JC hits the nail on the head. Nev1 (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Really!? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

View by Ched Davis

Seeing this on WP:CENT, I thought I'd like to make an observation. First: I think it is a huge mistake to make drastic, vast, or sweeping changes to successful projects, or organizations. The history of companies such as IBM, AOL, Netscape, Excite, etc., has shown how quickly major changes can send something into an downward spiral; often unrecoverable. Evolution, gradual adjustments, and innovations are a different story, and I do see them as necessary to maintain a "king of the hill" position in any market. Second: I've always viewed Wikipedia as a concept born out of the collaboration between Jimbo and Larry, and as such it has certainly matured over the last 5-10 years. It appears (to me anyway) to have reached the "rebellious teen-age years" at this point. At the very least a vocal minority has voiced discontent for the current state of affairs. I'm not sure that the silent majority would concur that there needs to be a major change in direction for the future. Parents often continue to exert a certain degree of influence on their off-spring even once they reach adulthood. I can't find any reason to reject such influence in this instance. On a closing note I thought I'd do a little research into Jimbos logs, and I found an interesting item. Over the last 4 years, judging by a January - June sampling I found the number of items in which he takes direct involvement to be interesting:

• 2009: 11 log entries
• 2008: 32 log entries
• 2007: 54 log entries
• 2006: 106 log entries

My perception is that he has allowed, and continues to allow, the community to handle its own affairs on a day to day basis much more with the passage of time. I just don't see a need to "rush to judgment" here, and in a sense - run away from home at this point. Just my humble opinion. — Ched :  ?  17:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree

• (obviously) — Ched :  ?  17:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• The "running away from home" analogy is a great one. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 20:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with every word. Good job. I don't believe Jimbo is a saint, far from it, I just think this page is more about frustration and rebellion than it is about what Jimbo's done or what Wikipedia needs, and big changes borne out of frustration have been the death of many large and seemingly invulnerable companies. - Dank (push to talk) 23:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'd suggest that complacency has killed very many more. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree

• Jimbo is clearly out of step with the mood of "the community", as evidenced by his imperious and short-lived blocks and sanctimonious pontification on the contents of user pages. Indeed his belief in "a community" is a clear indication that he has lost touch. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Evidence you say? Do you have any diffs to demonstrate this? Chillum 19:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Can we see them? ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 20:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone can see them, you only have to look. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sooo, no then. Chillum 21:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I can only assume you didn't look very hard. Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree Jimbo's logs may indicate that he's gradually taken a step back, but events such as the controversy over images on user pages earlier this year show that Jimbo does not need to use his tools to act, but can work through proxy. And surely if, as Ched asserts, Jimbo is taking a step back we need to develop a way to replace him. If the silent majority really don't want change they need to stop being silent. By choosing not to voice an opinion, you are effectively making your choice to go with the flow. Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Nev has it absolutely right. If Jimbo's really taken a backseat, then why should he have the power to make "Consider this to be policy as of right now" rulings when by definition he's drifted out of touch with custom and practice? If he hasn't taken a backseat – and as (I presume) one of the Toxic Personalities, my opinion on this matter can be guessed – then why should one user have any kind of special power? The original 2001 Wikipedia, of a few thousand articles and a couple of hundred users who all knew each other, was indeed the child of Jimbo and Larry, but that's a site that hasn't existed for almost a decade. Jimbo's increasingly out-of-touch bolts from the blue are no more relevant to the modern project than a magically-resurrected Peter Minuit would be qualified to comment on the present-day governance of New York. – iridescent 21:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

• Your facts are correct, but you have drawn the wrong conclusion. Gradual change is, indeed, a good thing and Jimbo's direct participation has, indeed, gradually reduced. That means it is now time to take the next gradual step which is to stop Jimbo's direct involvement completely. The very numbers you provide show us that this is, in fact, a gradual step since his involvement is already very low. --Tango (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion by Tango

While there is clearly no consensus here, there is clearly a widespread feeling that it is time to do something. I think we now need to start a more formal process to answer the following questions:

1. Should Jimbo continue to have any unique powers on the English Wikipedia?
2. If so, what precisely should they be (or, should they be left intentionally vague)?
3. Either way, should some additional/alternative governance system(s) be put in place?
4. If so, what should it be?

I propose that process be one month of well publicised discussion (in which Jimmy and the WMF should be encouraged to take part) followed by a community vote on whatever proposals that discussion results in.

PS Before anyone says this discussion hasn't been going on long enough to be drawing conclusions: This discussion was only meant to determine if we should have a bigger discussion. There is no reason to take a long time over this preliminary stage. I think it is already clear that there are sufficiently many people wanting change to warrant that bigger discussion. --Tango (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree

1. Tango (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
2. This appears to be the way things are going. However, this page needs to stay open a little longer as other concerns may well be raised. Giano (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
3. GO for it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
4. I disagree with many of the more reactionary proposals here, but I maintain that more discussion on a topic is never a bad thing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC).

   If I may just point out, "reactionary" is not a synonym for "revolutionary". It actually means "against action", i.e., let's do nothing, which I'm guessing is you're position, and not that of those you characterise as "reactionary". --Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree

1. Discussion is good, but no top-down restructure is needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

• See my note on talk - I don't think the samples are big enough yet. The page is well structured to cope with more input without becoming a quagmire of text just yet, so I think continuing here for a while more would be valuable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Seem like a good set of questions that get to the crux of the issue, but per Casliber, maybe not quite ready to "conclude" yet if it is possible to get additional useful input... ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  There is no particular harm in waiting a little longer (so I'm not going to strongly object to delay), but I fail to see anything to be gained by it. The additional useful input can go on the more formal process. My list of questions can certainly be added to as we go along, it's just intended as a starting point. This is only a conclusion to this preliminary stage, not a conclusion to the whole process, so there is no need to make sure with have all the t's crossed and all the i's dotted before moving on, since we can fix any minor problems later. The only reason to delay would be if you think there is a significant chance that future input will lead to a conclusion that we don't need to have a further discussion. Do you think that? --Tango (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  Hmm... The problem with moving forward under the assumption that additional useful input can go on to the more formal process is that it's often hard, once a process gets started, to modify it in a significant way. It's only been 2 days and change, I'd wait a bit more I think, before moving on. But this is a relatively minor implementation detail, we're not diametrically disagreeing. ++Lar: t/c 18:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  Ok, shall we give it another 48 hours? (I'd like to move reasonably quickly so as not to lose momentum.) --Tango (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  In order for these type of changes to be successful (something that can be ratified by the whole Community), it will need to build slowly as people hear about the ideas and have time to add their ideas to mix and look at other peoples. The people that we want to attract to help develop the process might have other real life and wiki responsibilities that mean that they can't immediately provide their ideas in a well developed way. We need to give people long enough to get abreast with policy that are already offered and develop alternative ones if they see weaknesses that need to be addressed. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  I think you have some confusion about what this page is for. This page is just about deciding whether we need to start discussing governance ideas. Those governance ideas will be discussed elsewhere and plenty of time will be given for that. This page does not need to build slowly because there are no ideas for people to hear about, just one simple question. --Tango (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that rushing this ahead with the conclusion that there is a need to change will hurt more than helps. The more people that see it here and agree to move it forward, then there is a better chance the next step will go smoothly. Plus, as Giano says, the talk page or a subpage can be used here to start organizing a strategy/process for the next stage. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The conclusion isn't that there is a need for change, but that there is a need to discuss change. There is a big difference. --Tango (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• While the question about Jimbo is more narrow and might be able to be discussed and decided in one month. I'm not at all sure that the different ideas that have floated over the past few years about new governance can be discussed and refined in order to blend with existing policies and structure in one month.

• The Arbitration Committee with the help of the Community is re-writing the Arbitration Committee policy. The second draft of the policy was published today and is open for comment. I think that some people voicing their opinions here might find it useful to look at the draft. As well, other people (Rootology and Kirill to name two) have already done work on developing new policy and process for governance. Other people have worked on the issue of RFA reform. Many other people have other suggestions and ideas. I recommend seeking out the people participated in the prior discussions so that their ideas can be put into the mix. Also, I think that some more discussion here about how one or more of these ideas can be used as a seed and a guide for further discussion would be helpful, too. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  You're probably right - a month isn't likely to be enough time to reach a final proposal that can be voted on. Perhaps we should allow more time. I would like to separate the process into stages so that those parts that can be done quickly aren't slowed down by the rest, but I can't see a practical way to do that - people may well be reluctant to decide on Jimmy's fate when it isn't known what the alternative is. How long would you recommend discussing it for? Is 2 months likely to be enough? I'd say three months is the top end of what should be necessary. I would advise against getting too stuck down in various ideas for governance at this stage - Giano was very clear that he intended this to be purely about deciding if we need to have a discussion on it, and I think he was right to be. People that have participated in prior discussions should get involved with the main discussion, there isn't a great deal of need to seek them out at this stage (although they are, of course, welcome to express their views as is anyone else). If we're going to try and come up with a seed idea to focus future discussion (which is an approach I am usually very much in favour of and have used it in regards to Wikimedia UK several times) we would probably need this discussion to be significantly bigger. If an idea is presented after a fairly small discussion, like this one is currently, it will cause drama and claims of cabals and what-have-you. We should wait until the proper discussion before people present their ideas. --Tango (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this page needs to be open for at least a week, but this particular section needs to be moved to talk - I'l leave it here a few more hours - but really as we seem to be acheiving something here, there now need to be a firm plan about what when, where and the process of developing the ideas mooted here; the talk page is the place for it, but perhaps even a specific sub-page? Giano (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it makes any difference where this is discussed. What harm does discussing it here do? --Tango (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Because as you say: "This page is just about deciding whether we need to start discussing governance ideas. Those governance ideas will be discussed elsewhere..." and we seem to be discussing the "governance ideas will be discussed elsewhere" side of things, which is making this page unneccessarily long, when we need to keep it concise and on subject. Giano (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm thinking pretty much along the lines of FloNight and Casliber at the moment. Baby steps, time, and consideration. I don't see a need to rush anything here. — Ched :  ?  03:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Next stage

I think we can now begin to see emerging the chief concerns of those who have commented here - We need to begin discussing implemtation of the next stage, which should be a debate in Wikipedia space. However to plan this I have created a sub-page here User:Giano/ Findings of "The Future" to address which concerns discussed here need to be brought before a wider audiance. please feel free to comment there. Giano (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)