User:Giano/Findings of "The Future"

This page is intended (as described here [1]) to list those matters discussed at The future which the editors who contributed there feel are worth debating fully in Wikipedia space with a view to becoming policy.

Views By RDH (Ghost In The Machine)

Closed - Per user request - kept here for reference as it's referred to in the rest of the RfC --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here is a (very) rough draft of what I think a Wikipedia constitution could look like. I have deliberately left vague certain tricky or contentious areas of governance; such as the role of Jimbo or how admins are to be selected or held to greater account. That is for you to work out, I can't nor wish to do everything;). Of course you are more than welcome to write your own !Constitutions or suggest changes and rewordings to this one. This is primarily to get the balls (and brains:) rolling. Preamble Wikipedia is an astounding achievement. Over the course of its existence, it has become the largest single organised source of publicly available information in human history. It has become one of the top ten most visited internet sites in the world. It has been widely cited, quoted, praised and criticized. It has become important enough that its governance is a major issue. Many of the policies, institutions and practices which served Wikipedia well in its early days, are now inadequate due to to its rapid growth, massive size and increasing complexity. It is therefore necessary to adopt a more formal and centralize governing document which more clearly outlines how Wikipedia should be governed in order for it to better archive its goals, realize its true potential and serve its readers. Article I: The Role of Jimmy Wales 1: Jimmy Jimbo Wales has done much to further Wikipedia in the past. For this he is entitled to some level of respect and gratitude. However, there is a clear community consensus forming that his unchecked powers have become a hindrance to the project rather than a help. So long as he retains the ability to remove content, admins and members at will, he remains a de facto Supreme Leader. 2: A referendum should be held to determine his exact role; Kept as a part-time god king, be made into a mere 'figurehead with influence but no real powers, or turned into Just another administrator with no more extra buttons than any other. Article II: The Arbitration Committee 1: The Arbitration Committee ('Arbcom') shall remain the highest body for dispute resolution over issues concerning conduct. 2: ArbCom must become a truly independent function, elected in an independent way. It shall answer only to the WikiMedia Foundation Board of Directors and to the community of contributors (CoC) at large. Jimmy Wales shall no longer have any role in its selection. 3: Its role shall be limited to disputes arising over conduct. It may review policies which are brought to it and make suggestions regarding them, but it shall have no jurisdiction over policy. 4: Should a content matter arise that must be addressed, then it shall refer this matter to the WikiProjects Council, as outlined below, and/or to the CoC at large. 5: Except in cases where an overwhelming need for privacy is clearly demonstrated, all ArbCom proceedings and deliberations should be public and open to the CoC. 6: Only the ArbCom, or in extreme cases the WMF board, shall have the power to permanently ban editors. Article III: The Projects 1: Topic-level projects have become the workhorses of Wikipedia, generating much of its better content. Since the goal of Wikipedia is ostensibly to create a comprehensive and accurate reference work, it is only logical and inevitable that they should play a greater, formal role in Wikipedia's governance. 2: Towards this end, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council (WPC) shall have its role significantly expanded, from an advisory to a governing body. As such, the WPC shall be coequal in status to the ArbCom. 3: Each project shall elect two delegates to sit on the Council for terms determined by their respective projects. However, terms must be no less than six months or no more than two years. In order to qualify for seats on the WPC, a project must have at least ten, unique active contributors as members. 4. The WPC shall conduct its business with transparency and openness at all times. And shall be held accountable to the members of the various projects and to the CoC at large. 5. Each project shall remain free to organize itself as it sees best to fulfill its mission. However, all projects are strongly encouraged to emulate the structures and practices of the Military History Project. 6: The Council will have the power to make official editing and content policies and style guidelines. The WPC shall be the main body for resolving content disputes. 7: Beyond the WPC, the projects themselves shall have a much greater formal role as well. They shall be able to develop their own means for mediation, dispute resolution and standards of content. The projects will thus become the laboratory for Wikipedia governance. 8: While policies and practices devised by the member projects may influence those of the WPC, when they come into conflict those of the WPC shall take precedence. Article IV: The Community of Contributors 1: The CoC, consists of all members in good standing, defined here as having made at least 500, non-minor mainspace edits and 3 months of continual editing activity. 2: The CoC is vital to the continued health and growth of Wikipedia, without whose hard work it would not exist. Contributing members are entitled to to certain basic rights, and must accept certain basic responsibilities as well. 3: They shall have the right to participate in all open discussions and processes (IE to freely express their thoughts, opinions and ideas and to vote). 4: The right to be warned before any blocks or bans are imposed, and to be confronted with any evidence of wrongdoing by their accusers. 5: The right speak out in their own defense and to appeal blocks or bans they feel are unjust. 6: The right to be treated with courtesy and respect within reason. 7: They shall have the responsibility to treat others likewise. 8: They shall be responsible for helping to build the encyclopedia by providing clear, well written, researched and verifiable text, fair use or free images or other media and ensuring that all articles maintain an encyclopedic tone and balanced coverage. 9: They shall be responsible for their own actions, irregardless of whatever rank or titles they may hold. 10: Equal treatment before the law for all contributors shall be one of the new fundamental principles. However, the right to make mistakes must be balanced by the responsibility to get it right. Article V: Administrators 1: Administrators are the servants of the community, not its masters. They must be held to greater accountability. The abilities to block, ban and delete are a big deal and should be entrusted to as few hands as necessary. 2: Therefore, the powers that admins currently exercise, shall be divided amongst three access levels. 3: Rollbackers, shall also be granted the button to semi-protect pages, and will thus constitute a new class of Admin-lite known as Moderators. 4: Any member in good standing may request Moderator status, which will be automatically granted unless a compelling reason is shown to deny it. 5: Admins, shall no longer have the power to delete content and may only block a user for no more than a month. They may not extend blocks unless they can show a compelling reason to do so. 6. There shall be multiple ways to obtain Adminship. Likewise, there shall be multiple ways by which Adminship may be removed, temporarily or permanently. All of these processes must be open and transparent. 7: Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Bans are punitive and shall only be in the hands of trusted, high-level officials. 8: Bureaucrats, Stewards, CheckUsers and Oversighters shall be combined into a single, System Operator (SysOp) access level. This level shall be granted only to the most senior and trusted members of the community, via an open and democratic vote by the CoC. 9: Members eligible to perform the duties of SysOP must have several thousand mainspace edits over a period of years and/or at least one featured article to their credit. They must also meet the same age and disclosure requirements as ArbCom candidates. 10: SysOps shall have the power to delete content and ban users for up to one year. They shall not use Oversight and Checkuser abilities without clear and explicit authorization from the WMF, ArbCom or the WPC. They will be held accountable to those bodies and to the CoC at large. Article VI: Outdated Processes and Policies 1: Older processes and policies, such as Request For Adminship, Articles for Deletion, Feature Article Candidates, Featured Article Review, The 3 Revert Rule, shall remain in effect until they are replaced or superseded by newer ones. 2: The WPC shall organize an extensive review of each to determine their effectiveness and suggest ways in which they can be improved or replaced by new alternatives or scrapped completely. It shall also be charged with devising such new alternatives. Article VII: Amendments and Referendums 1: From time to time this document will need to be amended. The process for doing so should be difficult but not impossible. 2: Proposed amendments shall be vetted by the WikiProjects Council, and if approved submitted for a referendum by the Community of Contributors. A super majority vote, defined as at least 70%, will then be required for approval. 3: Referendums, as defined in this document, are major votes on issues a great importance. They must be prominently advertised and open to all members of the CoC in good standing. All due measures must be taken to ensure that they are fairly and transparently conducted. 4: In order for a referendum to be valid, a minimum number of 500 unique votes must be cast. Proposed Amendments Feel free to add your own here. Remember, wording is always vital! Yea I think this is an excellent first step. I had never thought of using the WikiProjects to form a council, but I think that's a great idea. Limiting admin authority as you suggest should help end some of the abuses and mistakes that have occurred. Cla68 (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Thank you, those are two of the main goals I was aiming for-How to give working editors a greater, formal voice and how to curb admin abuses.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Nay I'd keep governance and content projects separate because I think it injects too much wikipolitics into content building, something we should try to avoid. The editors who would do best under this proposal would be those who are savvy in POV fighting and in throwing a veil over that POV fighting. Those editors have the level of Machiavellian aptitude to move smoothly into governance issues. And editors more concerned with governance shouldn't be involving themselves in the Wikiprojects in order to use them as a stepping stone into some influential governance position. I think directly electing editors into a governance board creates accountability and avoids the kind of dishonesty I've just described. -- Noroton (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC) If governance and content were so easily separated, then there would be no need to have debates and discussions such as this one.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC) (ec) I really think this is a major case of the Internet as serious business. This is a website, a website that is owned by a group of individuals, not a government. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC) You seem to have completely removed the ability to delete articles or block people for more than a month, both necessary tools. Also, I think it is too soon to be writing a draft constitution. We should discuss whether we want one at all first. --Tango (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC) My bad. It has been corrected. This is one reason why we discuss these things--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC) OK, here we go, in no particular order: Absolutely and irreversibly opposed to "at least one featured article to their credit" as a criterion. Writing at FA level demonstrates nothing except the ability to comply with the arbitrary guidelines of the MOS; it has little if anything to do with either general writing ability, or common sense. Some of our best writers have never worked on an FA; some of our regular FA writers are cranks and crackpots.{fact}:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC) I also entirely agree with Noroton's comments about Wikiprojects. "Topic-level projects have become the workhorses of Wikipedia, generating much of its better content" is simply untrue. While some projects are valuable spaces for collaborations, many (I suspect most) are either moribund or dominated by two or three users. Many editors are not members of any project (or, like myself, members only in name but not active at any project). Plus, users who work in a variety of areas would be penalised compared to those who work only in a narrowly defined area, and become well known within that small field. If anything, the role of the WikiProjects should be reduced, not expanded. WP:MILHIST, which you cite as the example others should try to emulate, is a particularly bad offender of process creep at its worst, with its own UDI-style self-proclaimed independence from the Manual of Style and its granting of ranks and titles to its members (how exactly does "Jimbo the ceremonial god-king" differ from "Coordinator emeritus"?) Well for one thing, he would have no extra, special or unique buttons to play with. An Act of Jimbo would no longer have the force of absolute law and undoing one would cease to be a capital offense.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC) "Defined here as having made at least 500, non-minor mainspace edits" is insanely high. As a rough guesstimate looking at my early history, it took me over a year to reach that point, and I was probably more active than most. Tango is spot-on about the ability to delete. I'm not sure you appreciate just how much behind-the-scenes work is done by the admins in keeping back what we can of the flood of spam as it is; anything that would significantly reduce the number of users with the ability to delete would open the floodgate further. Oh I'm very aware how much goes on behind the scenes, with minimal oversight or accountability. And that is one major reason why I feel a document such as this one is needed.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Completely disagree with "The right to be warned before any blocks or bans are imposed". History of previous good-faith edits or not, if I see the dozen most recent contribs in an account's history are all "lol pwned u wikipedo faggots", as far as I'm concerned that account can argue their case from an {{unblock}} template. It would be simple, just say I'm going to block you if you keep [show diff|this] up. Then, if they do, even if it is a week or more later, block them. There was a time, back before 2006, when most admins did this. And everything worked a lot better somehow.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Absolutely oppose "Bureaucrats, Stewards, CheckUsers and Oversighters shall be combined into a single, System Operator (SysOp) access level". If anything, people should be prevented from holding more than one or two of these powers. The last thing we need is a new UserRight:Little tin god access level. Yet you say below that there are too few lil tin gods. And we already have way too many, even more petty, deities running around. How do you propose we hold THEM to greater account?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Oh, and "the largest single organised source of publicly available information in human history" warrants a [citation needed]. I think the Library of Congress might have something to say on that. – iridescent 22:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC) I may be missing something, but this proposal doesn't seem to reduce the number of people that can delete articles but rather make it so nobody can delete articles. Ditto for long blocks. --Tango (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC) The way I read the proposal is, admins can't delete at all and can only block for a month; the new "System Operator (SysOp) access level" will handle deletions and longer blocks. – iridescent 00:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC) In this case you read correctly. I have just corrected my oversight.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC) I guessed that may have been what was intended, but it doesn't seem to actually say that anywhere. --Tango (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC) That's the main reason it fails, imo - if only Oversighters, etc. can delete then deletion simply won't happen. There just aren't enough of 'em. If you think CAT:CSD can get backlogged now... ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 01:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC) If there are not enough Sysops, then the CoC could always elect more.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC) I agree. I disagree with some of the aspects for ideological reasons, but they aren't important - the proposal has to be rejected on purely practical grounds. --Tango (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Mostly ideological it seems. The main practical concern seems to be deletion, and that has now been delt with.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC) No, it is not dealt with. As I said in my comment, deletion is used more than any other admin tool. You've basically assigned a small group of people to deal with several major tasks. The people who are going to be tasked with deleting all the spam and other garbage are also going to have to deal with all the all the bureaucrat tasks and oversighting, as well as sockpuppetry, vandalism-only account blocks, username blocks, and open proxies, because they're also the only ones who can block for more than a month (which is probably about how long they'll last before getting burnt out from all the work). Mr.Z-man 17:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Then maybe they could use bots to carry out your precious mass deletions...have you every considered that idea...are you capable of proposing any useful ideas or just shooting down others' en masse? Really, just how much material is generated per day that absolutely, positively has to be deleted immediately?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC) We currently delete thousands of articles a day and I don't see that changing. That means we would need sufficient sysops to handle all that deletion. That is far more people than I want having checkuser and oversight rights. --Tango (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Again, bots can handle the deletions. This is already happening now, it seems inevitable. If there are not enough Jedis or Clones to keep the peace, then droids must be employed.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I'd have to say that Iridescent has hit the proverbial nail on the head on a bunch of points here. — Ched :  ?  03:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry, but I disagree with nearly every point. I echo Ched and Iridescent. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Ugh, no. Much of this is just totally impractical. For example, "Each project shall elect two delegates to sit on the Council" - do you have any idea how many wikiprojects there are? I'd say there's at least 1500. Even if only half qualify, a council of 1500 people who are appointed and removed at random times throughout the year is going to be worthless. Look at the number of members there are on the WikiProjects Council. Then, double it. That is way short of 1500. And we already have tracks with Arbcom elections to stagger their membership. This would be less formal. If it needs to be made moreso, then arrangements could be made. This is one reason why it is better to have flexable policies and practices than those written in stone.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Right now the WPC is a bunch of random volunteers. My comment is based on your proposal, which would have every active project elect 2 members, and my estimate of the number of projects. Mr.Z-man 15:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Not every project would be large enough nor active enough to qualify for membership in the WPC. Membership qualifications could be further adjuted as needed. Moreover, let's make WPC membership voluntary. Projects who do not wish to participate won't have to.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "Rollbackers, shall also be granted the button to semi-protect pages" - This would only work if the standards for rollback were significantly raised and current membership of rollbackers was manually reviewed against the new standards before this was implemented, as the current requirements for rollback basically just verifies the user isn't a vandal and isn't clueless. Well after 500 non-minor mainspace edits and at least 3 months of continual editing we would have a much better idea on their level of cluelessness.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC) And all of the rollbackers who've been given the rights who don't meet this criteria? Although, doing vandalfighting, you can probably get 500 edits in a couple days. Mr.Z-man 15:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Gee Irid, whose points you say you agree with, above seems to think it would take years to qualify. You only think days. A slight discrepency there. But irreardless, they would still have to work at it for 3 months.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "Admins, shall no longer have the power to delete content" - Besides the fact that this proposal doesn't assign the right to any other group, the project would be swamped with garbage within a week - deletions outnumber any other logged admin action nearly 8 to 1 "Bureaucrats, Stewards, CheckUsers and Oversighters" - The English Wikipedia has no control over steward elections. As the largest and flagship Wikiproject, the EN has a great deal to say over Steward elections. Besides, the WP:EN Sysops would be a separate level, whose extra buttons would be confined here.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Stewards' extra rights are global rights and things that affect other projects like the ability to global block IPs and change global groups. If you restrict it to only one project, then they aren't really stewards. Mr.Z-man 15:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC) You don't understand, or maybe it is my fault for not explaining it clearly. Sysop would be a NEW access level, on WP:EN only. IT would be a sort of Steward-lite'. It would have nothing to do with the project-level counterparts.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "They shall not use Oversight and Checkuser abilities without clear and explicit authorization from the WMF, ArbCom or the WPC" - Does this mean arbcom would have to have a vote on every oversighting? Oversighting and checkusers are frequently emergency situations. Arbcom approval may take hours. Protocols for emergency situations need to be established. In such scenarios only a single Arb's approval would be needed. In the meantime the offending user could be blocked and the dangerous material could be no-dexed, archived, or otherwise buried.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Most of that wouldn't help at all. Waiting for an arb's approval could still take hours, noindexing can take days to have an effect. If a comment needing oversight is made on a page like ANI, the only thing that can be done is to remove it from the page. If the problem is in the edit summary, there's nothing that can be done without oversight. If they have a steady supply of sleeper socks, a vandalbot could probably hit a few hundred pages in an hour. Mr.Z-man 15:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Once again, you are playing up extreme and hypothetical circumstances to justify your opposition, instead of reasoned arguments and evidence. So some kid writes alls joo adminz r retarded foos in an edit summary, or a spambot enlarge your penis now, ask me how! Big deal. There is very little on Wikipedia that really requires immediate oversight. Really, I thought this supposed to be an encyclopedia project, not a Homeland Security Database!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "Remember, wording is always vital!" - Wording of policies should not be important, that way lies wikilawyering, the reasoning behind policies should be the important aspect. Wording is ALWAYS important. In fact, wording is everything. It is vague wording which often feeds wikilawyering.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Additionally, I agree with Iridescent's points. Mr.Z-man 07:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Per Iridescent and Mr. Z-Man. --GRuban (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC) I think that some of this has some value, but presenting a full blown manifesto and hoping all will hop on and say "let's go" isn't going to happen. I'd hate for Ghost to be disheartened though, and I think that if the community does decide to take the issues further, at some point they're going need to be presented with a range of options, of which this should certainly be one (given a bit of ironing out the creases). --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Ok...but... I'm Swiss, Miss I'd agree with iridescent's view of the wikiprojects, namely that alot fewer are active than what appears. Also, many people involved in wikiprojects have little interest in general wiki activities as such, thus there will be problems about how a particluar wikiproject interacts with a general council (mainly a lack of interest I fear). I also wonder whether things are going badly enough to call for such a radical overhaul. I think that some tweaking of current practices may result in a significant shift in satisfaction. For instance, if arbcom is more proactive in reviewing admin conduct, then (hopefully) it will follow on that (a) voters at RfA are more openminded at giving candidates a go with the mop, and (b) that admins are more cautious with their use of tools. Obviously any reasonably complex procedure witll have editors who have had one or more bad experiences there and are critical of the process - RfA and FAC come to mind - but this doesn't mean they are broken. Policy is more interesting as it doesn't have discrete timely reviews but can change and evolve (or even degrade with some questionable decisions or lack thereof) as time goes on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Giano

That is very impressive Ghost, however, I wonder as such a complete constitution perhaps it ought to be on a sub page of it's own or do you feel that it is the result of the earlier discussion? - presented as such it - it does seem rather radical and overpowering. Giano (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Overpowering? Perhaps a bit, but I don't feel it is all that radical. It surprises me you would call it such Giano, I thought you would think it did not go far enough on certain matters:). Much of WP's current structures are left, at least for the time-being, alone. It is a rather moderate document, as I see it. But there could be room to make it moreso. It did indeed grow out of our discussion with regards to Jimbo and the ArbCom. But it went beyond that to address other important questions, which have repeatedly arisen- Greater admin accoutability, the rights and responsibilities of contributors, what constitues a contributor, who should have sufferage? How is the "community" defined? I'm not sure where it should go exactly. But it should be someplace where it can inspire learned debate and discussion. If you don't want it in your userspace, then that is your perogative, my friend.:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd put it on Jimbo's talkpage, but I bet you Vino to Guinness its lifespan would be measured in minutes, at best, there;)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

After EC: No, it's fine, if that is what you think needs doing then so be it, I'm sure others will have their own ideas too, I certainly have mine - I am formulating them now. There is nothing in your ideas that I find very shocking or unacceptable a little fine tuning perhaps - It was just a surprise to se it in black and white so quickly - interesting days! Giano (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine tuning definitely. All proper constitutions are living documents which are always in the process of being fine-tuned. They are the original Wikis in a way:). Again, I've been thinking about this for a while now. As a writer, you know that once you get the basic outline in your head the rest can flow quickly and easily. Thank you for giving it your consideration and a home, at least temporarily.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ghost, I have to tell you that concencus seems to suggest that your manifesto is not going to be debated with a view to implementation as policy. I would suggest you lend your support to one of the motions listed (or to be listed) below motion. We don't need a revolution, just some serious changes. I think having your manifesto at the top of the page is now detracting from the debate more likely to be had. Perhaps you could remove it, for now, or collapse it with a suitable message. Thanks. Giano (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I shall respect the wishes of Jooper's motion if it is adopted. But I will refrain from voting on it for now. I want to see what others have to say.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Llywrch

As much work as RDH has put into his proposal, I feel it is premature. What we need first is a summing-up of the different threads on the previous page. These are, if I may:

• Concerns over Wikipedia's governance These cover two areas:
  • creating, modifying, & implementing policy. There is a noticeable level of frustration with Wikipedia's reliance on using consensus, rather than voting, to determine policy. (Part of this lies in a lack of a clear & applicable definition of what "consensus" is.) A number of people also expressed dissatisfaction with the current Admin system. On the other hand, a number of people stated that they have no serious problems with the current system, because it does not infringe on how they contribute content.
  • the role of Jimmy Wales in relation to Wikipedia. This is one area where there appears to be a possible consensus. While no one seriously questions his role in creating Wikipedia, nor his role as a symbol of Wikipedia (if not the matrix of Wikimedia projects), he is no longer seen as playing a leadership role in this project in day-to-day activities & possibly not even in long-range ones. Should this be confirmed in a second RfC: is Jimmy Wales no longer relevant to Wikipedia?
• Concerns over Wikipedia's management. Simply put, there seems to be no one taking charge of improving Wikipedia. No one recruiting or working on retaining the expertise & knowledge Wikipedia needs. How can such a large group of people be managed: Wikipedia has become a city, with many of the problems & challenges any city faces.

I believe if we can agree that these are topics -- or a similar, defined set of topics -- are what we need to address, then we can catch up with where RDH is. -- llywrch (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree - Notwithstanding my person agreement of RDH's line in the sand, it's too great a leap to move from the initial sounding at The Future page, to a fully formed manifesto for change - consensus is unlikely in those circumstance. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• While I agree that discussion is good, I think this is putting the cart before the horse. — Ched :  ?  17:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Llywrch, you are right. It seems it is too soon to even begin informally discussing an WP:EN constitution. Although, IMO, such discussion is long overdue. But when the time does come, I hope what discussion we have had here, is not completely tarpitted and some good can come out of it.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Damian

I made a few copyedits and adjustments (I hope that is OK, feel free to revert). This is excellent. It lowers the bar from my previous proposal (2 years + judgment + election by peers) while still recognising the need for a bar. I support this 100%. Peter Damian (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Your edits were VERY OK with me. I appreciate your thoughtful changes.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion from Greg L

     (Copied from The future)

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) 02:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion by Tango

We need a discussion to answer the following questions (copied from my conclusion on the original page):

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 think we need to finalise the list of questions before we start trying to answer them. Does anyone disagree with any of those questions or have any additional questions to add? (I've tried to make the questions as neutral as possible, if suggesting additional questions please do the same.) --Tango (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Tango, it appears that you & I are thinking one the exact same lines. -- llywrch (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I too agree. I think Ghost's suggestions are a little too fast at the moment, and the four points listed by Tango are those on which debate should concentrate at the moment. Giano (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

We cannot have a constitutional monarch without a constitution. Not necessarily mine, but of some fashion. Power, like nature, abhors a vacuum. What, if anything, would replace Jimbo if he fails? The ArbCom cannot, nor should do it all. Tango's last two questions are the most important ones. A draft constitution could also go a great distance towards answering them.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't need an explicit constitutional document to have a constitutional monarch. Case in point, the UK. Wikipedia very much works on common law principles, everything is done by convention and tradition. --Tango (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The UK is an abhoration and historical mutation. And I say that with love, respect and awe. No other nation could maintain such a relatively free society, for as long as they have with such an unusual array of ancient documents and dated practices. The US would slip into dictatorship within a generation. Which is why if we are going to replace King James with an elected president, we WILL need a constitution.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone seriously suggesting an elected president? I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have a constitution, just that we shouldn't assume we need one. We should actually think about it first. --Tango (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Ghost, but that constitution needs to be formed from the debate to be held in wikipedia space, we are just here trying to agree on what foundation that debate should be based - it may be that we don't have a constiturional monarch at all, but a constiturional president - it may even be that Wikipeda confirms Jimbo as an autocrat - when we decide what we want, then we draw up the constitution to enshrine (is that the right word?) it. Giano (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Enshrine? I don't think so, G. That term is better used for Decalogues writ upon tablets of stone or gold.:) You're right, though, We must move on--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Motion

Archive Ghost's manifesto, RfC Tango's four points in project space?

Agree

1. --Joopercoopers (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
2. After consideration, I have come to the conclusion that Ghost's manifesto is too much, too soon and too sweeping. Tango's points are a clear and accuratly summary of the majority view so far. They will make a good foundation from which to move on. Giano (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
3. RDH's proposal is too broad and much of it is irresponsibly impractical and a lot of it seems to be personal opinion rather than based on the previous discussion. Mr.Z-man 15:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Agree, with thanks to RDH/Ghost for his work on this, but also agreeing with his observation that en.wikipedia has gone too long without a formal constitution or contract. I won't sidetrack this with a discussion of why this is, except to point out that this omission was, for the most part, in good faith: there was no demand from the community for this kind of formal document. -- llywrch (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Per Giano. Greg L (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Sounds good to me. Should we have a proposal for how this process will work first, though? RFCs have a tendency to result in lots of discussion and very little action. I suggest 6 weeks of general discussion where people can put forward ideas, debate them, improve them, etc. ("phase 1") followed by 2 weeks of more focused discussion where people can put forward final proposals and we can decide which ones to put to a vote ("phase 2") followed by 2 weeks of voting ("phase 3". The details of the voting process and what percentage is required for a proposal to be adopted can be discussed during the phase 1, hopefully we can reach a consensus on that (voting to decide how to vote is an excellent shortcut to insanity!). --Tango (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Tarpit the draft-i-tution to the talkpage, please. Might as well, there's nothing else there at the moment. As for the RFC sure. I will endorse. But based on my observation and experience, RFCs rarely achieve anything of consequence.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

   I dunno about the uselessness of RfCs. I've been thinking about submitting a poll to the general community about whether Wales has any relevance to en.wikipedia at present -- but haven't done it yet because I wanted to have the time to watch over it. -- llywrch (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

   Polls should come after discussions, not before. --Tango (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

8. OK, if this is where we are, it's a start. Cla68 (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Agree. Many users have expressed interest in creating an official RfC. Tango has provided us with a very clear summary of the points that need to be discussed. 2 + 2 = 4. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Fair. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree

I would say that these unanimous nine votes in favour are more representative of the minority appeal this navel gazing has. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC))

That's why this low publicity preliminary discussion was always, and is, intended to be followed by a much larger discussion in which we do everything we can to get a conclusion that is truly representative of community opinion. --Tango (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

It's been more than 4 days and we have unanimous agreement, so it seems this is definitely the way we are going. However, we really do need to work out how we are going to do it. Just starting an RFC will get us no-where. What do people think of my 3 phases proposal mentioned further up this section? --Tango (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, that the matters discussed here have been rather overpowered by the matters here. So we now seem to be a limbo land of confusuion. As the latter is in Wikipedia space it takes precedent over the debate here. I shall hold my tongue on the latter, rather, premature page. Giano (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I maintain that we should move forward with this. I saw a lot of comments there from people that liked the general idea of change but opposed that implementation, so they should welcome a chance to discuss alternative implementations. It's a little confusing, but two discussions starting about the same topic shows how strong opinion is about this. Not only are there a lot of people willing to express support for other people's idea, there were two unconnected people willing to take the initiative and actually do something. --Tango (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it is seemingly impossible to continue here, at present, because people naturally and understandably assume that Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Role of Jimmy Wales in the English Wikipedia was the natural progression from this debate here - which was, in fact, far from concluded and far less radical in its aims. Giano (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been following that discussion extremely closely, but I haven't seen many people mention this discussion. I think we have no choice but to push on. The momentum is here now, it may not be again for another year. --Tango (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob is sitting on his hands in an attempt to show your having no choice but to push on some respect. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC))

I don't understand - you said you were opposed to use pushing on... --Tango (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I saw this one from an obvious sock today [2] (I wish I was in it for the money, I would be a billionaire by now) which suggests they want to fight dirty and muddy the waters with confusion. Giano (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. It shows one person wants to fight dirty, hopefully they are alone (or, more realistically, in a very small group). I still say we have no choice but to press on. Perhaps it is now too late and it won't work, but if we don't try we know nothing will happen until sufficient harm is done to re-motivate people. I, for one, would like to change things before any more harm is done. (At the moment I think the harm has been pretty low, but I'm not confident that will remain the case. Each questionable act by Jimbo causes more controversy than the last and it is that controversy that is particularly harmful, even when the acts aren't too bad.) --Tango (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is this discussion not more widely advertised? Jack forbes (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it has been fairly widely advertised. There is no need for it to be advertised everywhere since it isn't intended to make any decisions, it is just intended to determine if there is sufficient support to warrant a big discussion on the issue of English Wikipedia governance. We have determined that there is and now we're discussing how to hold that discussion. That discussion will be as widely advertised as possible. --Tango (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

edit c. How have you worked that out? There is a lack of support for this as I see the voting at here (Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC))

That proposal was advertised through an RFC? Do you know how many people pay attention to RFC's? A tiny minority of the wikipedia community, that's how many. Why was it not advertised throughout wikipedia? Jack forbes (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a specific proposal that people object to. Plenty of opposers have said that they are open to some kind of change but just don't like that proposal. The idea being discussed here is to discuss all our options and come up with a good proposal (or maybe a selection of good proposals) for the community to vote on. The proposal you linked to went straight from one person thinking of it to a vote. --Tango (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

So you intend to halk it round and change the format as you go in a kind of forum shopping way, (Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC))

Any discussion is good if it is to improve wikipedia. I wonder though, will it be allowed to be discussed in main space and will it involve the whole community, at least those who are willing to take part in it? Jack forbes (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Allowed by whom? --Tango (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just a cynic. I'm thinking of JW and co. What do I know though, I'm just looking at this on Giono's sub page. Jack forbes (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we'll be ok. Jimbo isn't stupid, he won't want to start a fight he can't win and that will cause serious disruption to the project. Whatever people may think of him, I've always been confident that he always does what he thinks is best for the project. I don't always agree with him about what that is, but he has never given me any reason to believe he has any ulterior motives or malice. --Tango (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this has stalled, so if nobody tells me not to in the next 24 hours I am going to go ahead a start the process I proposed above. Hopefully there is still enough momentum to get something done. --Tango (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. Cla68 (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have started the process here: Wikipedia:Governance review --Tango (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)