SirFozzie: Teetering on the edge... Options

[SirFozzie]

The more I think about things on Wikipedia, the more I'm inclined to use the old Branch Rickey line when after a poor year for his team, one of his top players demanded a raise....

"We finished last with you.. we can finish last without you just as well".

Why?

Because quite frankly, I'm tired of pushing against the status quo in so many things.

Ireland related editwars? Yeah. THAT'S gonna go away real soon.

"Fringe Science"? Dear god, I hope people won't be surprised that my first, second, and third thoughts when reading all the AE/AN/ANI reports since the ArbCom case closed ten days ago was "God, I wish I could ban them all". Not Argumentum Ad Nauseum, more like Argumentum Ad Insanium. (I know, bad Latin, I don't care)

Flagged Revisions? Again, the status quo will never change. there's too much inertia to ever get it into motion without something extra-ordinary (IE, Jimbo decides to take the PR hit and God-Kings something through)

Followers of (insert political party here) thinks Wikipedia is far too biased in favor of (insert political party here). (and usually, the people on that side think it's just as biased the other way).

Even when ArbCom does things right, they screw things up. ScienceApologist's topic ban is being flouted blatantly, and instead of letting a clear boundary be set, they demand it be done as an "ArbCom clarification", which means at least some folks on ArbCom sit and discuss things endlessly..) This thing closed ten days ago. A "clarification" on the wording shouldn't take another 4+ days.. they have everything at hand! But instead, the fire rages out of control. Same as it ever was.

I was talking with a person recently whose name gets bandied around here quite frequently (although not as frequently as it used to). We got to talking about ArbCom Enforcement and the situation on Wikipedia. And they said as a conservative estimate, there would need to be at least THREE times as many administrators to keep things under control. Not three times as many admins at AE (although that would help), three times as many administrators, period! Not to mention 80% of the admin class aren't doing much of anything to manage conflicts on Wikipedia

Anyway, I'm wondering if it's time to let someone else have fun with the mop, and drift away. Let all the articles on my watchlist go, and let the vandals at em.

[One]

Why not start a wikiproject about this? That is, make a list where users will pledge to walk out on some date if tangible steps toward improvement haven't been taken? I would make such a pledge.

What's a reasonable and appropriate date? I suggest the Seigenthaler anniversary: May 26. The four year anniversary of that former public servant being libeled by an IP address. If nothing happens before then, I quit.

[Kato]

Why not start a wikiproject about this? That is, make a list where users will pledge to walk out on some date if tangible steps toward improvement haven't been taken? I would make such a pledge.

What's a reasonable and appropriate date? I suggest the Seigenthaler anniversary: May 26. The four year anniversary of that former public servant being libeled by an IP address. If nothing happens before then, I quit.

Or better still:

(IMG:http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb311/Kato90125/revert.jpg)

So spread the word. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Wednesday is the official day when WP editors don't fix any problem that would long ago have been fixed, if the community didn't have so much free slave labor as to not worry their heads about labor-saving fixes to policy. Let's let the people who still believe in the policy, do the work themselves on that day-of-rest. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

[One]

Why not start a wikiproject about this? That is, make a list where users will pledge to walk out on some date if tangible steps toward improvement haven't been taken? I would make such a pledge.

What's a reasonable and appropriate date? I suggest the Seigenthaler anniversary: May 26. The four year anniversary of that former public servant being libeled by an IP address. If nothing happens before then, I quit.

(IMG:http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb311/Kato90125/revert.jpg)

Yeah. Actually, I'm thinking that May 26 might be a better date for civil disobedience anyway. FR seems to be dead, so I might as well try to raise the BLP semi-protection project.

[everyking]

Why not start a wikiproject about this? That is, make a list where users will pledge to walk out on some date if tangible steps toward improvement haven't been taken? I would make such a pledge.

What's a reasonable and appropriate date? I suggest the Seigenthaler anniversary: May 26. The four year anniversary of that former public servant being libeled by an IP address. If nothing happens before then, I quit.

(IMG:http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb311/Kato90125/revert.jpg)

Yeah. Actually, I'm thinking that May 26 might be a better date for civil disobedience anyway. FR seems to be dead, so I might as well try to raise the BLP semi-protection project.

You are on the ArbCom; please don't subject us to talk to "civil disobedience". Instead of planning grand gestures predicated on the actions of others, you could use your role as one of the most powerful people on the project to actually bring about some change. As far as I can tell, you have done absolutely nothing in that regard since taking your seat.

[One]

Yeah. Actually, I'm thinking that May 26 might be a better date for civil disobedience anyway. FR seems to be dead, so I might as well try to raise the BLP semi-protection project.

You are on the ArbCom; please don't subject us to talk to "civil disobedience". Instead of planning grand gestures predicated on the actions of others, you could use your role as one of the most powerful people on the project to actually bring about some change. As far as I can tell, you have done absolutely nothing in that regard since taking your seat.

Jimbo himself can't bring about change. Policy creation is basically broken, and I'm even more convinced that the only way to get anything is to go do it. That's what I'm proposing.

[Cla68]

Yeah. Actually, I'm thinking that May 26 might be a better date for civil disobedience anyway. FR seems to be dead, so I might as well try to raise the BLP semi-protection project.

You are on the ArbCom; please don't subject us to talk to "civil disobedience". Instead of planning grand gestures predicated on the actions of others, you could use your role as one of the most powerful people on the project to actually bring about some change. As far as I can tell, you have done absolutely nothing in that regard since taking your seat.

Jimbo himself can't bring about change. Policy creation is basically broken, and I'm even more convinced that the only way to get anything is to go do it. That's what I'm proposing.

I remember Kelly Martin said recently, if I remember right, that she would be impressed if the ArbCom, in a big power grab, made itself Wikipedia's formal governance committee instead of just an editor behavior court. I would support that if it brings more management control. One, if you're thinking of something along those lines, I would suggest that ArbCom establish, by fiat:

- A policy management committee with absolute power over policy governance.
- An article content Committee to be the final decision-maker in content disputes.
- At least three editor behavior adjudication committees to handle the way-too-high workload that the current ArbCom has, since the current one also has to manage desysop actions and manage oversight and checkuser actions.
- Make the current ArbCom the presiding committe over all of these, i.e. Wikipedia's configuration control board, but make elections to these committees independent of ArbCom control.
- Make adminship automatic for everyone with 2,000 edits or more and a clean block log, but then give Tony1's adminreview panel formal desysop authority.

You guys do have the power to do this. Remember, only Jimbo can remove one of you. That means that you can force editors to follow your will by blocking them if they refuse to, and no one but Jimbo can do anything to you for doing it. The teenagers and POV-pushers will go nuts if you do this, but more the better.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Lar]

I remember Kelly Martin said recently, if I remember right, that she would be impressed if the ArbCom, in a big power grab, made itself Wikipedia's formal governance committee instead of just an editor behavior court. I would support that if it brings more management control. One, if you're thinking of something along those lines, I would suggest that ArbCom establish, by fiat:

- A policy management committee with absolute power over policy governance.
- An article content Committee to be the final decision-maker in content disputes.
- At least three editor behavior adjudication committees to handle the way-too-high workload that the current ArbCom has, since the current one also has to manage desysop actions and manage oversight and checkuser actions.
- Make the current ArbCom the presiding committe over all of these, i.e. Wikipedia's configuration control board, but make elections to these committees independent of ArbCom control.
- Make adminship automatic for everyone with 2,000 edits or more and a clean block log, but then give Tony1's adminreview panel formal desysop authority.

You guys do have the power to do this. Remember, only Jimbo can remove one of you. That means that you can force editors to follow your will by blocking them if they refuse to, and no one but Jimbo can do anything to you for doing it. The teenagers and POV-pushers will go nuts if you do this, but more the better.

Do it. Be leaders.

The consensus process hasn't worked to get the change needed, because 60% isn't "consensus" and a minority stands in the way of many much needed changes. It's broken and has been for a long time. Something else needs doing.

Do it. Be leaders.

[privatemusings]

Do it. Be leaders.

Yes we can!

Go the revolutionary committee :-)

This post has been edited by privatemusings:

[everyking]

Do it. Be leaders.

Yes we can!

Go the revolutionary committee :-)

Unilateral assumption of absolute authority by people already in positions of authority is not the answer. I think part of the problem here is the failure to distinguish between judicial and legislative roles--Wikipedia doesn't have anything to function in a legislative role, and it suffers because of that, but the answer is not to simply invest the ArbCom with legislative power. It would be more sensible to have an election to produce a legislative decision-making body--its authority would be derived solely from the community, not Jimbo and/or the ArbCom, and such a governance structure would fit Wikipedia's values far better than ArbCom fiat.