Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Bureaucracy _ Advisory Council on Project Development

Posted by: Eva Destruction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development_convened, especially since it seems to be composed of 75% WR members. While I'm more than willing to be pleasantly surprised, this looks like a very peculiar idea to me. (My thoughts on the matter are http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMalleus_Fatuorum&diff=301428925&oldid=301428800).

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Fri 10th July 2009, 9:03pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development_convened, especially since it seems to be composed of 75% WR members. While I'm more than willing to be pleasantly surprised, this looks like a very peculiar idea to me. (My thoughts on the matter are http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMalleus_Fatuorum&diff=301428925&oldid=301428800).


I brought it up a minute after you posted on a different thread, http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=25223&view=findpost&p=182948. I agree with all your points in any case.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

1. The state of governance on Wikipedia is such that we must do something.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore we must do this.

It would be nice if this was a body that had some kind of decision-making authority (though in that case it would clearly have to be elected), but this is, well, something. Colour me cautiously supportive.

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Fri 10th July 2009, 9:25pm) *

1. The state of governance on Wikipedia is such that we must do something.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore we must do this.

It would be nice if this was a body that had some kind of decision-making authority (though in that case it would clearly have to be elected), but this is, well, something. Colour me cautiously supportive.


I don't follow that logic. We don't have to do this. This is just a front anyway.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Nerd @ Fri 10th July 2009, 5:28pm) *
I don't follow that logic.
That's because it's a famous comical example of fallacious thinking; it's just that in this case I think there's a grain of truth to it.

QUOTE
This is just a front anyway.
For what? The Trojans? The Tamil Tigers? The Trojan Tigers? The hounds with bees in their mouths, so when they bark they shoot bees at you?

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Fri 10th July 2009, 9:31pm) *

QUOTE(Nerd @ Fri 10th July 2009, 5:28pm) *

This is just a front anyway.

For what? The Trojans? The Tamil Tigers? The Trojan Tigers? The hounds with bees in their mouths, so when they bark they shoot bees at you?


It's a pretence that arbcom actually care about the community. They appoint a bunch of people into this ridiculous "council", that have no actual power or authority to speak of, simply to look good in front of the gullible Wikipedians. Nothing has changed here from yesterday, except there is more pointless bureaucracy. Why did people like Giano accept the invitation, when they could be better spending their time working on articles?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

If this group plans to conduct its business somewhere other than on Wikipedia itself, it might accomplish something. Doing it on Wikipedia itself will result in the discussions being continually disrupted by the peanut gallery.

I'd consider volunteering except that they'd probably insist that I use Wikipedia to volunteer, and I'm not about to actually log into Wikipedia (I'm not sure I even remember my password) just to do that. And I don't have an email address for Kirill.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Nerd @ Fri 10th July 2009, 5:35pm) *
It's a pretence that arbcom actually care about the community.
Ah yes, when all they're really interested in doing is lounging around in togas having grapes fed to them by attractive rollbackers.

QUOTE
Why did people like Giano accept the invitation, when they could be better spending their time working on articles?
Because Giano is at least as interested in causing/involving himself in drama as he is in editing articles (in fairness, his interest in both seems quite high).

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Fri 10th July 2009, 2:31pm) *

QUOTE(Nerd @ Fri 10th July 2009, 5:28pm) *
I don't follow that logic.
That's because it's a famous comical example of fallacious thinking; it's just that in this case I think there's a grain of truth to it.

QUOTE
This is just a front anyway.
For what? The Trojans? The Tamil Tigers? The Trojan Tigers? The hounds with bees in their mouths, so when they bark they shoot bees at you?


It might be worth something if ArbCom invited people in dispute resolution disciplines outside Wikipedia to provide advise in re-tooling their process. They could probably find some decent people with the relevant background who would help for free. This however will be a complete waste of time.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 10th July 2009, 5:35pm) *
I'd consider volunteering except that they'd probably insist that I use Wikipedia to volunteer, and I'm not about to actually log into Wikipedia (I'm not sure I even remember my password) just to do that. And I don't have an email address for Kirill.
I interpreted it as a request that you send the Arb Comm list an e-mail.

Also, why would you consider volunteering? To accomplish something, or to amuse yourself at Wikipedia's expense? I've no doubt you'd be successful in whichever of those was your true objective, let me make clear.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Fri 10th July 2009, 3:39pm) *
Also, why would you consider volunteering? To accomplish something, or to amuse yourself at Wikipedia's expense? I've no doubt you'd be successful in whichever of those was your true objective, let me make clear.
I still hold forth some hope that Wikipedia's core purpose could be salvaged with enough commitment from stakeholders. This is the best hope I've seen for that in a long time. Also, I've spent a lot of time thinking about what's wrong with Wikipedia and have many ideas (some good, most probably bad) on how to improve it, mostly unhampered by any involvement in the day-to-day drama of the ongoing site.

I'm sure they're not interested in my services anyway, so I won't bother with this further. If someone here wants to convey my offer to the appropriate parties, they're welcome to do so. My email address is well-known, and I can always be contacted via a WR PM.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

FWIW, I think Kelly (or Greg, for that matter) would actually be quite good at this. Part of Wikipedia's problem is that those at the top don't like listening to people who aren't positive about the project. Someone willing to say "this project is failing" and articulate enough to explain why – as opposed to some of the "Wikipedia is evil and must be destroyed" brigade – might be just what Jimbo needs.

Regarding my preliminary opinions of this particular proposal, to save people trawling through threaded discussions for them, my personal opinion on it is:

I'm sure everyone involved has the best of intentions, but this looks designed to become Wikipedia's version of the European Parliament; a meaningless, unelected and unaccountable committee with no formal powers, which ends up only existing to rubber-stamp and legitimise decisions. Maybe I'm being cynical, but the current list of members looks like a deliberate attempt to create sinecures for the noisiest critics of the current setup, on a "better inside the tent pissing out" principle. This just looks like Arbcom's revival of Jimbo's old arbitrary appointments without the need for anything messy like elections or selection processes.

No disrespect to the individual people who've accepted, but I really don't think this is a good idea from either angle; either you're a fan of Wikipedia in which case it's diverting your energy into a talking shop which Jimmy Wales will ignore, or you're an opponent of Wikipedia in which case the energies of critics are being syphoned off into this heat-sink page (as well as the blow to the credibility dealt by the critics of the system accepting an appointment to what looks like God-king Jimbo's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords.)

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Fri 10th July 2009, 5:50pm) *
FWIW, I think Kelly (or Greg, for that matter) would actually be quite good at this.
Oh, I strongly agree, provided they're acting in good faith. But I believe that Kelly has a self-admitted history of acting otherwise with respect to her involvement in Wikipedia.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Fri 10th July 2009, 5:50pm) *
FWIW, I think Kelly (or Greg, for that matter) would actually be quite good at this.

I agree with that too, even though I've clearly upset Greg's 10-year-old daughter by putting a naughty word on the main page. I'm content to sit back and see whether this new initiative can make a difference. I hope that it can.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Fri 10th July 2009, 3:52pm) *
But I believe that Kelly has a self-admitted history of acting otherwise with respect to her involvement in Wikipedia.
I've always acted in good faith with respect to Wikipedia; it's just that my goals have not always aligned with those of other Wikipedians.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 10th July 2009, 6:13pm) *
I've always acted in good faith with respect to Wikipedia; it's just that my goals have not always aligned with those of other Wikipedians.
And you've never knowingly allowed people to believe that you were pursuing the same goals as them?

I don't feel like doing any research, so I'll take your word for it if you tell me that I'm full of it, but I thought you'd characterized your motivations in being on Wikipedia -- at least at the end -- as "trolling" and "bossing people around".

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Fri 10th July 2009, 3:15pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 10th July 2009, 6:13pm) *
I've always acted in good faith with respect to Wikipedia; it's just that my goals have not always aligned with those of other Wikipedians.
And you've never knowingly allowed people to believe that you were pursuing the same goals as them?

I don't feel like doing any research, so I'll take your word for it if you tell me that I'm full of it, but I thought you'd characterized your motivations in being on Wikipedia -- at least at the end -- as "trolling" and "bossing people around".


Seems likely to me Kelly was better motivated than this but for all the good it did she might have seen very little reason to bother to defend her motives.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Fri 10th July 2009, 4:15pm) *
I thought you'd characterized your motivations in being on Wikipedia -- at least at the end -- as "trolling" and "bossing people around".
I've claimed to be a troll, yes, but that itself was satire based on Wikipedia's anomalous definite of "troll". I don't recall ever characterizing my conduct as "bossing other people around". I am a take-charge sort of person (comes from knowing that in any gathering of random people the odds are that I'm probably the smartest person there; please note that my intelligence is not tempered in any way by humility) and that tends to rub people who like to think they're smart, but aren't, the wrong way. Wikipedia doesn't deal well with take-charge types of people; people there care less about results than you'd expect for an encyclopedia project.

Toward the end of my activitiy on Wikipedia, yes, I did engage in some actions which had purposes other than that evident on their face: my second RfA, which I fully expected to fail, was agreed to for the main purpose of it failing and failing badly so that people would stop asking me to run for admin. The side purpose, of creating drama and slightly more general discontent with the RfA process, was not unwelcome. My second ArbCom candidacy was primarily intended to get under Geogre's skin; I knew I had no hope of being elected but felt that it was important that Geogre not be elected an arbitrator and deliberately crafted my actions to goad an outburst from him; in this regard I was successful.

There was a time in which I held forth some hope of rehabilitating my image within the Wikipedia community, but I realize that that is a foolish hope, and there is no point in trying. My goal now with respect to Wikipedia is to find ways to minimize the damage it does to humanity, by undermining its credibility and public perception, and by (to what limited degree I can) altering its community practices to curb its worst excesses. (Undermining Wikipedia's credibility also benefits me by making it easire to dismiss the defamatory material Wikipedia continues to publish about me, material which it has, to date, refused to remove, or even acknowledge exists.)

Wikipedia needs to pull itself out of the Cult of Jimbo. I realize that this is very unlikely to happen, but I remain the eternal optimist on this issue. Having a noncultie on their council would likely be of some benefit to them, even if they can't see it.

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

It's a move in the wrong direction, a futile attempt to regain some personal credibility rather than to solve the issues at hand.

Posted by: Cla68

Obviously, a council such as this one, without any formal, decision-making or implementing authority, is not as strong of a step towards a change in Wikipedia governance as I would like to see, but it's a small step, at least. We'll see how it goes. Perhaps they can create an on-wiki forum for the council, like the ArbCom noticeboard, where the council can have their discussions on the front page, with everyone else allowed to comment on the talk page.

Posted by: Cedric

Image Well . . . you know.

Posted by: everyking

This is junk. An advisory council to the ArbCom? While I freely admit that the ArbCom needs advice--and lots of it!--a toothless body working under an incompetent and wrongheaded committee, with its membership decided through "invitations", is not progress. I proposed a much superior alternative yesterday--a reforms committee elected by the community itself, which would formulate and present reforms to the community as referendums. Everyone who accepted an "invitation" should resign.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 10th July 2009, 7:34pm) *
This is junk. An advisory council to the ArbCom? While I freely admit that the ArbCom needs advice--and lots of it!--a toothless body working under an incompetent and wrongheaded committee, with its membership decided through "invitations", is not progress. I proposed a much superior alternative yesterday--a reforms committee elected by the community itself, which would formulate and present reforms to the community as referendums. Everyone who accepted an "invitation" should resign.
Didn't get an invitation, did you?

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 11th July 2009, 1:47am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 10th July 2009, 7:34pm) *
This is junk. An advisory council to the ArbCom? While I freely admit that the ArbCom needs advice--and lots of it!--a toothless body working under an incompetent and wrongheaded committee, with its membership decided through "invitations", is not progress. I proposed a much superior alternative yesterday--a reforms committee elected by the community itself, which would formulate and present reforms to the community as referendums. Everyone who accepted an "invitation" should resign.
Didn't get an invitation, did you?

Well, of course I wouldn't get one! I'm a Wikipedia felon, Kelly, as I'm sure you'll recall. With my record, it's a wonder I'm trusted to even fix a typo. laugh.gif

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 10th July 2009, 9:34pm) *
I proposed a much superior alternative yesterday--a reforms committee elected by the community itself, which would formulate and present reforms to the community as referendums.
That is a better system, but it involves granting powers that do not currently exist (i.e. the power to force a referendum). How do you think Arb Comm's more vociferous critics -- such as, to select an example purely at random, you -- react to Arb Comm creating a committee and giving it powers that nobody else currently has? Do you think there's even the tiniest chance that you'd be running around shrieking about its power grab?

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Sat 11th July 2009, 2:01am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 10th July 2009, 9:34pm) *
I proposed a much superior alternative yesterday--a reforms committee elected by the community itself, which would formulate and present reforms to the community as referendums.
That is a better system, but it involves granting powers that do not currently exist (i.e. the power to force a referendum). How do you think Arb Comm's more vociferous critics -- such as, to select an example purely at random, you -- react to Arb Comm creating a committee and giving it powers that nobody else currently has? Do you think there's even the tiniest chance that you'd be running around shrieking about its power grab?


If the ArbCom created such a committee itself, decided its composition, and retained power over its decisions, yes, I suppose so. But if its power was derived from the community and its composition was decided by the community, no.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Fri 10th July 2009, 8:03pm) *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development_convened, especially since it seems to be composed of 75% WR members.

If this is true, is this just giving them the benefit of all the good thought going on here with none of the pain and embarrassment of reading some of the more funnier or more acutely critical stuff?

If it is an enfranchisement of the spirit of WR, why not recognize it and call it "The Wikipedia Review Council"?

A promotion sideways, like the appointment of a diplomat to some far off region, is always a great way of disarming critics whilst getting back to 'business as usual'.

"Look, we done something. We are never going to credit you. Now leave us alone".

I would underline the need for external - professional - appointments. There are plenty real people of integrity, using their own names, putting their own careers at stake, in the ombudsperson/mediation world. The only way forward would be a clean sweep of the 'Cult of Jimbo' cronies, including Queen Jimbo himself, and the appointment of truly independent, professional and liable parties.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Malleus @ Fri 10th July 2009, 5:06pm) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Fri 10th July 2009, 5:50pm) *
FWIW, I think Kelly (or Greg, for that matter) would actually be quite good at this.

I agree with that too, even though I've clearly upset Greg's 10-year-old daughter by putting a naughty word on the main page. I'm content to sit back and see whether this new initiative can make a difference. I hope that it can.


She's not 10. But, no... you haven't upset her, you silly twit. You've upset me, in that you feel you are a better judge of what is okay for her to be reading about on a tax-advantaged website in a publicly-funded school, than I do.

Believe me -- in the short term, I'm delighted that this crap (humorous as it may be for us adults) is pushed to the front page of Wikipedia, while Jimbo jets around saying that Wikipedia is rightfully used in schools. I hope the Jenna Jameson article is in the queue. Then smotherbox, too. It presents, then, a clear example of how unaware of social mores that Wikipedia's "free culture" leadership is, which then makes it more vulnerable to attack.

At that point, it will be a piece of cake getting a national school policy movement going, to ban Wikipedia outright from public schools.

Posted by: sbrown

QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 11th July 2009, 2:15am) *

If the ArbCom created such a committee itself, decided its composition, and retained power over its decisions, yes, I suppose so. But if its power was derived from the community and its composition was decided by the community, no.

Im really looking forward to the elections. Theyll make the Arbcom elections look sensible. biggrin.gif

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 11th July 2009, 12:28am) *

Believe me -- in the short term, I'm delighted that this crap (humorous as it may be for us adults) is pushed to the front page of Wikipedia, while Jimbo jets around saying that Wikipedia is rightfully used in schools. I hope the Jenna Jameson article is in the queue. Then smotherbox, too. It presents, then, a clear example of how unaware of social mores that Wikipedia's "free culture" leadership is, which then makes it more vulnerable to attack.

At that point, it will be a piece of cake getting a national school policy movement going, to ban Wikipedia outright from public schools.

You realize they'll just use their phones, right? smile.gif Or use a proxy or ... whatever. This is, of course, if you can even get an encyclopedia banned. Until Wikipedia's usefulness can be replaced by a comparable site, it will continue to dominate, with or without permission from a school board.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 11th July 2009, 5:28am) *

She's not 10. But, no... you haven't upset her, you silly twit. You've upset me, in that you feel you are a better judge of what is okay for her to be reading about on a tax-advantaged website in a publicly-funded school, than I do.

I don't know why you're so surprised you silly twit. I feel that I'm a better judge of many things than you are.

Posted by: toddy

Am I the only one who finds the fact that this "Advisory council" is made up of two members of Arbcom? Surely the ony way such a group could be of any use is if it was actually independent? But then, Arbcom wouldn't be able to manipulate the consensus to ensure that nothing that they don't like actually gets recommended, could they?

Another excellent play from Kirill here, using his Arbcom vote to approve a council on which he will serve... frankly I wonder if any of the people in this Politburo have even heard the word "integrity" - although it is clear that it's not change they are after, it's legitimisation from a few outspoken critics of the system. Nice work.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Fri 10th July 2009, 9:15pm) *
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Fri 10th July 2009, 8:03pm) *
url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development_convened]Surprised this hasn't already been mentioned here[/url], especially since it seems to be composed of 75% WR members.

If this is true, is this just giving them the benefit of all the good thought going on here with none of the pain and embarrassment of reading some of the more funnier or more acutely critical stuff?

It's really more like 33 percent, not 75 percent, based on the list I'm seeing now. I've never even heard of four of them... Moreover, of the six who have been participating WR members, only Giano and (ex-member) Rootology have ever spent a significant amount of time being blocked or banned. Jennavecia (Lara) probably has the largest WR post count, but she's been known to disagree with the majority here on more than one occasion... hmmm.gif

I doubt anything like this could really going to do much good unless the members can help make technical decisions, i.e., drive the implementation of new software features, changes to the wording of disclaimers and templates, maybe even the UI itself - things of that nature. And it's clearly stated that this group isn't going to have any actual authority.

The whole thing is too vague anyway. If they're just looking to improve the way WP handles disputes, that's fine, but at the risk of sounding overly cynical, I've always believed that the two goals of "editor retention" and "better encyclopedia" are incompatible with each other on Wikipedia, and if they're hoping to change that they're going to need a specific mandate, and yes, outside expertise as well.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 11th July 2009, 10:22am) *
The whole thing is too vague anyway. If they're just looking to improve the way WP handles disputes, that's fine, but at the risk of sounding overly cynical, I've always believed that the two goals of "editor retention" and "better encyclopedia" are incompatible with each other on Wikipedia, and if they're hoping to change that they're going to need a specific mandate, and yes, outside expertise as well.
"Editor retention" is vague, and depends on them recognizing that not all Wikipedia "users" are "editors". I don't think they've made this realization yet.

Wikipedia needs to get rid of, or at least restrict the privileges of, many of its users, if it wants to improve either editor retention or encyclopedic quality. I doubt there is any will to do this, however.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 11th July 2009, 4:43pm) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 11th July 2009, 10:22am) *
The whole thing is too vague anyway. If they're just looking to improve the way WP handles disputes, that's fine, but at the risk of sounding overly cynical, I've always believed that the two goals of "editor retention" and "better encyclopedia" are incompatible with each other on Wikipedia, and if they're hoping to change that they're going to need a specific mandate, and yes, outside expertise as well.
"Editor retention" is vague, and depends on them recognizing that not all Wikipedia "users" are "editors". I don't think they've made this realization yet.

Wikipedia needs to get rid of, or at least restrict the privileges of, many of its users, if it wants to improve either editor retention or encyclopedic quality. I doubt there is any will to do this, however.

Amen. "Everyone can edit" and "Best possible information" are both worthy goals, but they're incompatiable. Personally, I think Greg's idea of separate namespaces (a neutral-and-well-written mainspace, and a separate crapspace for all the pet theories, spammers and obscure bands) is a good one if it could ever be made workable.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 10th July 2009, 10:15pm) *
If the ArbCom created such a committee itself, decided its composition, and retained power over its decisions, yes, I suppose so. But if its power was derived from the community and its composition was decided by the community, no.
Well, clearly that's not possible. What if Arb Comm created it itself, decided it's initial composition, but then released it into the wild to have elections and make its own decisions? Because it seems to me that that's about the best you can hope for.

Posted by: LaraLove

I'm to the point that I want to see change any way it can be brought. So I'm going to give this my best shot. I've put up BLP as the suggested starting topic. Shocker, I know.

I don't know everyone on the list either. Jooperscoopers is a name I haven't seen since my RFA, wherein he fabricated some reasons to oppose me then prophesied that I was, at best, the next Kelly Martin.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Cedric @ Fri 10th July 2009, 4:17pm) *

Image Well . . . you know.

For those of you who missed the joke, those are deck chairs on the Titanic. Had no idea there was a photo of them. Wonderful!

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Sat 11th July 2009, 8:31pm) *

I'm to the point that I want to see change any way it can be brought. So I'm going to give this my best shot. I've put up BLP as the suggested starting topic. Shocker, I know.

I don't know everyone on the list either. Jooperscoopers is a name I haven't seen since my RFA, wherein he fabricated some reasons to oppose me then prophesied that I was, at best, the next Kelly Martin.

I'm quite taken by https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FLaraLove&diff=169703123&oldid=169701582, though. If "you remind me of Kelly Martin" is really the worst insult he's ever heard, I pray for his sake that he never sets foot in any military or police building.

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

For those who haven't seen it yet, there is now a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development up on the group.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Sat 11th July 2009, 2:56pm) *

For those who haven't seen it yet, there is now a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development up on the group.
The "support" list of the lead opinion in that RfC would be a good first start on a list of individuals whose continued participation in Wikipedia should be disincented.

Posted by: Somey

Well, you can't please everyone, particularly if you're trying to actually do something useful in an environment full of people who can only be pleased by being allowed to directly participate in everything that happens.

I mean, the whole point is to get the curmudgeons and activist-types together and make suggestions, right? The only suggestion that would come from the anyone else among the WP-cult crowd would just be the usual "go away and let us do whatever the f*** we want and stop caring about who we piss off in the process" sort of thing.

The last thing you'd want to do is have the list of invitees determined by a popularity contest, because being popular on WP means not being a curmudgeon or activist. I'm not saying this is a worthwhile idea, but these people calling for the group to be "elected by the community" are probably just pissed that they themselves weren't invited in the first place.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 11th July 2009, 9:55pm) *

The last thing you'd want to do is have the list of invitees determined by a popularity contest, because being popular on WP means not being a curmudgeon or activist. I'm not saying this is a worthwhile idea, but these people calling for the group to be "elected by the community" are probably just pissed that they themselves weren't invited in the first place.

For myself, if they'd asked me I'd have declined (and I'd be shocked if Slim, the noisiest anti at present, wasn't invited). I don't see the problem so much being the "unelected" side, as the complete confusion as to what this group is actually going to do. Nobody so far has actually said what the purpose of this group is (the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development&oldid=301592155 seems to boil down to "bitch about things but with no powers to do anything about them"); as I've already said, this looks to me like an attempt to shut Jimmy Wales's noisier critics up by giving them posts on the metaphorical payroll. As far as I'm concerned, "https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee%2FNoticeboard&diff=301545793&oldid=301542901" sums up the "fuck you, if you don't like this we'll just take it to IRC and do it anyway" mentality quite nicely. The problem is, any legitimate criticism coming from this group's members will be tainted by having come from a source with no legitimacy (even in Wikipedia's own dubious definition of 'consensus'), while any shitty ideas coming from it will be treated with a seriousness they don't deserve, by virtue of having come from Jimbo's private corps of Illuminati.

I did not see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee%2FNoticeboard&diff=301591763&oldid=301591237 coming.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 11th July 2009, 4:36pm) *
I did not see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee%2FNoticeboard&diff=301591763&oldid=301591237 coming.
Protest resignation? Kirill was one of the few sensible people left on the committee.

Posted by: Nerd

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee&diff=prev&oldid=301599427. Let's hope they all quit.

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 11th July 2009, 10:51pm) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 11th July 2009, 4:36pm) *
I did not see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee%2FNoticeboard&diff=301591763&oldid=301591237 coming.
Protest resignation? Kirill was one of the few sensible people left on the committee.


You have got to be kidding me.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee&diff=301599427&oldid=301592021.

QUOTE(Nerd @ Sat 11th July 2009, 7:40pm) *
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee&diff=prev&oldid=301599427. Let's hope they all quit.
Just a stab in the dark, but do you have authority issues in your "real" life, by any chance?

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Sat 11th July 2009, 11:43pm) *

QUOTE(Nerd @ Sat 11th July 2009, 7:40pm) *
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee&diff=prev&oldid=301599427. Let's hope they all quit.
Just a stab in the dark, but do you have authority issues in your "real" life, by any chance?


No.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 11th July 2009, 9:51pm) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 11th July 2009, 4:36pm) *
I did not see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee%2FNoticeboard&diff=301591763&oldid=301591237 coming.
Protest resignation? Kirill was one of the few sensible people left on the committee.


Oh for crying out loud. Thanks SV, I hope the view is nice from the high horse you're riding on. Afraid that you're losing all hope of every asserting any control in Wikipedia again?

The thing you and everyone else needs to remember is that ArbCom is currently the only thing in Wikipedia resembling any kind of formal governance body, so if they take the initiative to try to get something going to improve Wikipedia's governance, it should be supported. This council may not have any impact since it doesn't have any formal authority, but Kirill and the others who proposed it probably intended it that way in order to try to escape any accusations of exceeding their authority. Unfortunately, however, someone elected to make such accusation anyway.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Why any group would want an "advisory council"consisting of the very people who are already endlessly inserting themselves into every dispute, policy discussion, gossip or miscellaneous wonkery that they happen upon is beyond me. The whole point of an advisory council is to provide new perspectives. Look outside yourself for once, Wikipedia.

Posted by: Somey

I don't think it's all that surprising that people who are increasingly in a damned-if-we-do, damned-if-we-don't situation are getting fed up with being bashed on all sides (in some cases, deservedly so of course). It's not like they're getting paid...

I can also understand the view that this is just another attempt to co-opt critics and make them part of the system, but like I stated earlier, these folks aren't really "critics" in the sense of really thinking Wikipedia is utterly hopeless, or even having all that serious a problem with the way they're doing things. (Though I suppose Giano may be like that, to some extent.) And I seriously doubt they would have asked SlimVirgin to participate - you might as well just pull out the gun, aim it at your foot, and fire repeatedly.

There really are many, many people among the Faithful who consider themselves serious "internal critics" of the system, and have done for quite some time. Unfortunately, their idea of "WP criticism" usually amounts to "I've been telling you people for years that you have to ban anyone who shows the slightest bit of attitude, particularly towards me, or whatever I happen to be doing at the time." If the ArbCom is looking to propose realistic standards for treating people how they ought to be treated, well... it's like Kelly Martin says above - the list of opposers has a lot of people on it whom Wikipedia would be better off without, if it really wants to do that.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 11th July 2009, 6:29pm) *
The whole point of an advisory council is to provide new perspectives. Look outside yourself for once, Wikipedia.
Indeed, it is traditional for an advisory council to be comprised almost entirely of outsiders. The people on this council, some of them at least, are outsiders in the sense that they're not Carriers of the Holy Blessing of the Almighty Jimbo. But they're still very much insiders of the Wiki-Experience.

Surely there are online communities with expertise they're willing to share? Oh, wait, I forget: Wikipedia is unlike anything that ever came before and cannot possibly learn anything from the experiences of these other places. My mistake.

Posted by: LessHorrid vanU

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 12th July 2009, 12:26am) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 11th July 2009, 9:51pm) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 11th July 2009, 4:36pm) *
I did not see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee%2FNoticeboard&diff=301591763&oldid=301591237 coming.
Protest resignation? Kirill was one of the few sensible people left on the committee.


Oh for crying out loud. Thanks SV, I hope the view is nice from the high horse you're riding on. Afraid that you're losing all hope of every asserting any control in Wikipedia again?

The thing you and everyone else needs to remember is that ArbCom is currently the only thing in Wikipedia resembling any kind of formal governance body, so if they take the initiative to try to get something going to improve Wikipedia's governance, it should be supported. This council may not have any impact since it doesn't have any formal authority, but Kirill and the others who proposed it probably intended it that way in order to try to escape any accusations of exceeding their authority. Unfortunately, however, someone elected to make such accusation anyway.


As I said in my comment to Kirill (I was observing WP etiquette in not referring to SV by name, but I trust it was clear) the most vocal opposition is coming from an editor who used to be part of an off Wiki but sanctioned mailing list who used it to influence not only policy but the day to day operation of the projects management.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 11th July 2009, 6:36pm) *
Surely there are online communities with expertise they're willing to share? Oh, wait, I forget: Wikipedia is unlike anything that ever came before and cannot possibly learn anything from the experiences of these other places....

Another very good point. What they really need, IMO, is an advisory group made up of people who were heavily involved in Social Web initiatives that actually failed, and figure out if some of the things WP is doing (or not doing) are similar to some of the things that caused those other sites to have problems. After all, many of the people who ran those sites have had considerable time to think about what they did wrong, or didn't do right, and it might even pain them somewhat to see others doing pretty much the same thing.

It's far more likely that WP'ers will want to consult only with people who run sites that are spectacularly successful right now, namely Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter, because this will make the WP'ers feel more special and muy importante. But they won't learn much from those folks that they don't already know, since the extent of their wisdom is likely to be "come up with a popular idea and run with it."

Posted by: taiwopanfob

Matisse bitterly complains that Kirill is acting in bad faith by proposing the idea, serving on the council, voting for it, etc, and then basically gives a hearty cheer when Kirill says "fuck it":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee%2FNoticeboard&diff=301596856&oldid=301595962

Curiously, he then goes to Kirill, post-resignation, demanding he be protected from that evil Giano guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKirill_Lokshin&diff=301603696&oldid=301602079

... even though Kirill was a participant in the discussion, and thus he could not do anything lest he violate the same sort of COI stuff Matisse was complaining about! Beyond stupid.

Kirill should scribble Matisse's name onto the "Acting ArbCom Member" list as a passing swipe at this entire spectacle. It's clear ArbCom needs the sort of thought processes only Matisse can bring to that table!

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Sat 11th July 2009, 7:06pm) *
Curiously, he then goes to Kirill, post-resignation, demanding he be protected from that evil Giano guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKirill_Lokshin&diff=301603696&oldid=301602079

... even though Kirill was a participant in the discussion, and thus he could not do anything lest he violate the same sort of COI stuff Matisse was complaining about!
Yeah, I saw that. Shit like that should lead to an immediate ban, but Wikipedia not only does not discourage, but in fact rewards such tomfuckery.


Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sat 11th July 2009, 3:07am) *

Until Wikipedia's usefulness can be replaced by a comparable site, it will continue to dominate...


Umm... you do realize, don't you, that Google gets seven times the page views of Wikipedia, and reaches nearly four times more people?

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 12th July 2009, 1:32am) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sat 11th July 2009, 3:07am) *

Until Wikipedia's usefulness can be replaced by a comparable site, it will continue to dominate...


Umm... you do realize, don't you, that Google gets seven times the page views of Wikipedia, and reaches nearly four times more people?


Google is a comparable site to Wikipedia?

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 11th July 2009, 3:56pm) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Sat 11th July 2009, 8:31pm) *

I'm to the point that I want to see change any way it can be brought. So I'm going to give this my best shot. I've put up BLP as the suggested starting topic. Shocker, I know.

I don't know everyone on the list either. Jooperscoopers is a name I haven't seen since my RFA, wherein he fabricated some reasons to oppose me then prophesied that I was, at best, the next Kelly Martin.

I'm quite taken by https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FLaraLove&diff=169703123&oldid=169701582, though. If "you remind me of Kelly Martin" is really the worst insult he's ever heard, I pray for his sake that he never sets foot in any military or police building.

WaltonOne is my gallant defender? And where did he or anyone else say it was "the worst insult" they'd "ever heard".

Ugh. Bitch and complain. That's all people ever do on this project is bitch and complain. If people would just stfu and take a seat once in a while, things would work much better. But it's not possible. It is literally impossible to change a damn thing on this sinking project.

I read the email and accepted the invite in less than 14 minutes. Why? Because I thought this one was set. I really, really should have expected the community to rise up with their pitchforks as they always do, but I suppose I was in a particularly good mood that night and totally overlooked the obvious.

How is it so hard to grasp "thinktank"? I really don't get it. I'm so over this project's bullshit. If it weren't for the BLP problem, I wouldn't have even gone back. Why do I even bother... I'm tossing water off a sinking ship with a tea cup, and there's no rescue in sight. The life rafts are being deflated. Maybe it's time to just give up.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Nerd @ Sat 11th July 2009, 11:40pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee&diff=prev&oldid=301599427. Let's hope they all quit.

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 11th July 2009, 10:51pm) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 11th July 2009, 4:36pm) *
I did not see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee%2FNoticeboard&diff=301591763&oldid=301591237 coming.
Protest resignation? Kirill was one of the few sensible people left on the committee.


You have got to be kidding me.


Glad to see them go. How about the remaining arbitrators acknowledge the overwhelming community opposition to this council and instead speak in favor of the community adoption of a proposal that would lead to the election of a serious reforms committee?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 11th July 2009, 8:24pm) *
How about the remaining arbitrators acknowledge the overwhelming community opposition to this council and instead speak in favor of the community adoption of a proposal that would lead to the election of a serious reforms committee?
The Wikipedia community will never elect a "serious reforms committee" because the Wikipedia community does not want reform. How many times do we have to tell you this before before you grasp it?


Looking back at the events so far, I'd say that the main mistake the ArbCom made was in announcing the Advisory Council. They should simply have established the council without announcing it, then let it do its work. Announcing it merely invited the community to throw spears at it.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 12th July 2009, 1:32am) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Sat 11th July 2009, 3:07am) *

Until Wikipedia's usefulness can be replaced by a comparable site, it will continue to dominate...


Umm... you do realize, don't you, that Google gets seven times the page views of Wikipedia, and reaches nearly four times more people?

Err, yes, and your point is?

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 11th July 2009, 9:55pm) *
The last thing you'd want to do is have the list of invitees determined by a popularity contest, because being popular on WP means not being a curmudgeon or activist. I'm not saying this is a worthwhile idea, but these people calling for the group to be "elected by the community" are probably just pissed that they themselves weren't invited in the first place.

Quite probably.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 11th July 2009, 10:01pm) *

Looking back at the events so far, I'd say that the main mistake the ArbCom made was in announcing the Advisory Council. They should simply have established the council without announcing it, then let it do its work. Announcing it merely invited the community to throw spears at it.


Yep, and they could have hosted their mailing list on a Wikia, Inc. list server.

I think the most spectacular thing to happen now would be for one ArbCom member to resign each day, in solidarity for opposition to the nasty, broken "community" bullshit, until there is no longer an ArbCom. Then we would watch Wikipedia quickly unravel.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 11th July 2009, 8:18pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 11th July 2009, 10:01pm) *

Looking back at the events so far, I'd say that the main mistake the ArbCom made was in announcing the Advisory Council. They should simply have established the council without announcing it, then let it do its work. Announcing it merely invited the community to throw spears at it.


Yep, and they could have hosted their mailing list on a Wikia, Inc. list server.

I think the most spectacular thing to happen now would be for one ArbCom member to resign each day, in solidarity for opposition to the nasty, broken "community" bullshit, until there is no longer an ArbCom. Then we would watch Wikipedia quickly unravel.


http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html.
H IV, IV, ii

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 12th July 2009, 3:01am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 11th July 2009, 8:24pm) *
How about the remaining arbitrators acknowledge the overwhelming community opposition to this council and instead speak in favor of the community adoption of a proposal that would lead to the election of a serious reforms committee?
The Wikipedia community will never elect a "serious reforms committee" because the Wikipedia community does not want reform. How many times do we have to tell you this before before you grasp it?


Looking back at the events so far, I'd say that the main mistake the ArbCom made was in announcing the Advisory Council. They should simply have established the council without announcing it, then let it do its work. Announcing it merely invited the community to throw spears at it.


On the contrary, I think the idea of reforming Wikipedia governance is broadly popular, and I think that comes through in this RfC. People either think Wikipedia needs genuine reform, and the council is contrary to that purpose, or they think the council represents an actual step towards reform...very few people seem to think Wikipedia needs no reform.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 11th July 2009, 9:43pm) *
On the contrary, I think the idea of reforming Wikipedia governance is broadly popular, and I think that comes through in this RfC. People either think Wikipedia needs genuine reform, and the council is contrary to that purpose, or they think the council represents an actual step towards reform...very few people seem to think Wikipedia needs no reform.
What I see in that RfC is a small but noisy group of people who persistently interfere with every effort to reform Wikipedia by claiming to be in favor of reform, but always acting to block it when it appears it might happen. It's very obvious that they do not want reform, but don't want to appear opposed to it, and so they make sure that no reform occurs except on their own terms, which are (of course) that no reform takes place. This is blatantly obviously SlimVirgin's position, for example.

When you combine that with all the different groups of people who think Wikipedia needs reform, but disagree profoundly as to what direction that reform should take, you have a guaranteed recipe for maintaining the status quo.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 11th July 2009, 9:43pm) *
...People either think Wikipedia needs genuine reform, and the council is contrary to that purpose, or they think the council represents an actual step towards reform...very few people seem to think Wikipedia needs no reform.

Again, for many of these people, the word "reform" actually means "ban more nasty trolls" and "stop questioning me."

Posted by: No one of consequence

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 12th July 2009, 2:54am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 11th July 2009, 9:43pm) *
On the contrary, I think the idea of reforming Wikipedia governance is broadly popular, and I think that comes through in this RfC. People either think Wikipedia needs genuine reform, and the council is contrary to that purpose, or they think the council represents an actual step towards reform...very few people seem to think Wikipedia needs no reform.
What I see in that RfC is a small but noisy group of people who persistently interfere with every effort to reform Wikipedia by claiming to be in favor of reform, but always acting to block it when it appears it might happen. It's very obvious that they do not want reform, but don't want to appear opposed to it, and so they make sure that no reform occurs except on their own terms, which are (of course) that no reform takes place. This is blatantly obviously SlimVirgin's position, for example.

When you combine that with all the different groups of people who think Wikipedia needs reform, but disagree profoundly as to what direction that reform should take, you have a guaranteed recipe for maintaining the status quo.


Top down reform is impossible because there will always be a strong minority, if not majority, who will object to any proposal that they didn't personally have a chance to debate on for 6 months and then vote on.

Bottom up reform is impossible because you will never get 75% of editors to agree on anything.

At least Arbcom tried something different, and it was strangled before it ever drew a breath.

The 2009 Arbcom elections are likely to be quite amusing. Pre-order your popcorn and avoid the rush!

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

Has there ever been a truly independent, external review of the Pee-dia?

(Except for the executive-search firm employed to find someone to run the Wikimedia Foundation which concluded that Wikipedia was "too immature" as an organization to hire a chief executive ... before they went ahead and handed Sue Gardner a $6,000,000 check to play with anyway AND allowed her on to the board's nominating committee, so she gets to pick her own bosses too).

Funnily enough, I am just an oft accused and banished troll but, personally, I would have employed a real life ombudsperson or conflict resolution expert, a consultant editor from the world of real encyclopedias and perhaps a public affairs consultant to review what was going on.

Pick some intelligent, educated and experienced individuals, drop them into the middle of the Wikipedia, see how they get on and then allow them to feed back.

It could have been fun. A bit like a special 'Librarian's edition' of Survivor ...

"and let's see how Manny Rothstein got on this week with his RfC and whether on not he is going to Arbcom for edit warring on the Balkan Wars again ... even if he is a Prof. Emeritus at Universität Leipzig we know that counts for nothing on ... Survivor Wikipedia".

Oh ... I can feel another 'toon coming on.

Being seen to pick "known offenders" from within "the community", despite their obvious good intentions, was always bound to be like pulling Klingons off butthole hairs in public ... the cause of pain and embarrassment all round.

Posted by: Orderinchaos

QUOTE(everyking @ Sun 12th July 2009, 10:24am) *

Glad to see them go. How about the remaining arbitrators acknowledge the overwhelming community opposition to this council and instead speak in favor of the community adoption of a proposal that would lead to the election of a serious reforms committee?


The most sound reason to reject the proposal in my view is the calibre of its selectors (en masse, not individually). I sort of operate from the general principle that if a body is performing its core duties effectively, it might then be trusted with other duties. The 2009 ArbCom is performing its core duties so poorly that it should focus on getting those right first without moving onto irrelevant sidetracks which will probably take their attention even further off the task. It's been my observation that they tend to "gloss over" cases, fail to read the evidence pages properly or properly investigate leads and are too willing to hit the nuclear option, and have driven several good apolitical editors off the project this way - broadly speaking previous ArbComs did an acceptable job at these things but too slowly and too conservatively for the community's liking.

There are plenty of frustrated editors and admins with serious questions about the current ArbCom's competency who'd like to see the decks cleared. However, that would likely not fix the problem as you'd have to replace them with other people, and the most capable volunteers we have are with some notable exceptions either gone, burnt out or not interested.

The process set up reminds me of a Sam Goldwyn quote: "I don't want to be surrounded by "yes men". I want people who'll disagree with me, even if it costs them their jobs." Creating a body which is then answerable only to it has slightly Tsarist-Russia connotations to me, although the whole notion of ArbCom having any real world parallel or significance is quite funny. That Colbert clip making fun of their names pretty much said where it was at smile.gif

Personally I think a *proper* advisory council would go well beyond Wikimedians and extend to universities and business and such things, so that we don't end up in a self-reinforcing circle of opinions of increasing irrelevance to the real world, but I could see the anarchists and conservatives in the Wikipedia community lining up to howl that one down and insist it was a takeover by Big Business of the people's enterprise or somesuch.

Posted by: LessHorrid vanU

QUOTE(Orderinchaos @ Sun 12th July 2009, 10:49am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Sun 12th July 2009, 10:24am) *

Glad to see them go. How about the remaining arbitrators acknowledge the overwhelming community opposition to this council and instead speak in favor of the community adoption of a proposal that would lead to the election of a serious reforms committee?


The most sound reason to reject the proposal in my view is the calibre of its selectors (en masse, not individually). I sort of operate from the general principle that if a body is performing its core duties effectively, it might then be trusted with other duties. The 2009 ArbCom is performing its core duties so poorly that it should focus on getting those right first without moving onto irrelevant sidetracks which will probably take their attention even further off the task. It's been my observation that they tend to "gloss over" cases, fail to read the evidence pages properly or properly investigate leads and are too willing to hit the nuclear option, and have driven several good apolitical editors off the project this way - broadly speaking previous ArbComs did an acceptable job at these things but too slowly and too conservatively for the community's liking.

There are plenty of frustrated editors and admins with serious questions about the current ArbCom's competency who'd like to see the decks cleared. However, that would likely not fix the problem as you'd have to replace them with other people, and the most capable volunteers we have are with some notable exceptions either gone, burnt out or not interested.

The process set up reminds me of a Sam Goldwyn quote: "I don't want to be surrounded by "yes men". I want people who'll disagree with me, even if it costs them their jobs." Creating a body which is then answerable only to it has slightly Tsarist-Russia connotations to me, although the whole notion of ArbCom having any real world parallel or significance is quite funny. That Colbert clip making fun of their names pretty much said where it was at smile.gif

Personally I think a *proper* advisory council would go well beyond Wikimedians and extend to universities and business and such things, so that we don't end up in a self-reinforcing circle of opinions of increasing irrelevance to the real world, but I could see the anarchists and conservatives in the Wikipedia community lining up to howl that one down and insist it was a takeover by Big Business of the people's enterprise or somesuch.


My eyes simply glazed over as soon as I read your second sentence; they then dropped from my skull when I read the second paragraph... You appear to be saying that SlimVirgin and Mattisse - surprising that they are on the same side in this one - are representative of the admins and editors of WP in decrying the current ArbCom, and that FT2 and Sam Blacketeer were the stars in the firmament of WP and are sorely missed for their integrity and incisive guidance (Deskanna being the exception, but then they did carry on in a differing capacity).

Are you certain you are posting on the correct website?

Posted by: Orderinchaos

QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Sun 12th July 2009, 7:14pm) *

My eyes simply glazed over as soon as I read your second sentence; they then dropped from my skull when I read the second paragraph... You appear to be saying that SlimVirgin and Mattisse - surprising that they are on the same side in this one - are representative of the admins and editors of WP in decrying the current ArbCom, and that FT2 and Sam Blacketeer were the stars in the firmament of WP and are sorely missed for their integrity and incisive guidance (Deskanna being the exception, but then they did carry on in a differing capacity).

Are you certain you are posting on the correct website?


Firstly I've never spoken to SV or Mattisse... I've heard from and chatted with a broad range of people with similar and increasingly converging opinions about the present ArbCom over the months. The fact that as you say two individuals who normally can't see eye to eye are agreeing is merely part of a bigger thing.

Secondly I said "acceptable". One wouldn't have to look far on the RfCs to find an essay length piece I wrote re FT2. I am saying *in general* they had the skills or competencies to do the job and demonstrated that - whether they used them wisely is another matter and I certainly had plenty of cause to disagree with the way 2007 and 2008 ArbComs did things. I just happen to find the present one far more objectionable.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Will it surprise everyone here when I say I am broadly supportive of this idea?

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 12th July 2009, 3:18am) *

Then we would watch Wikipedia quickly unravel.


The lack of an arbcom won't affect Wikipedia on that kind of scale.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Nerd @ Sun 12th July 2009, 8:12am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 12th July 2009, 3:18am) *

Then we would watch Wikipedia quickly unravel.


The lack of an arbcom won't affect Wikipedia on that kind of scale.


Good, then let's see it play out. Which ArbCom'er is the next to resign?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

ArbCom's disappearance would probably have some impact on Wikipedia, although I'm at a loss to determine which of several different possible trajectories it would describe. Descent into chaos is not one of them, no more so than Wikipedia is already a chaos.

Posted by: Tony1

The Advisory Council is unconstitutional, because it "advises" ArbCom, and ArbCom's constitution (policy) casts it as a judge of editors' behaviour. The draft update of the policy tightens this scope further. See my comments here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development#Discussion

Posted by: taiwopanfob

QUOTE(Tony1 @ Sun 12th July 2009, 3:30pm) *

The Advisory Council is unconstitutional, because it "advises" ArbCom, and ArbCom's constitution (policy) casts it as a judge of editors' behaviour. The draft update of the policy tightens this scope further. See my comments here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development#Discussion


You are one of the guys who got bitch-slapped by ArbCom for being a pure dick in the notorious date-linking fiasco.

Frankly, I think you got off lightly.

I remember reading the ArbCom stuff about that. Your squeals (above) about how they contain "Must" and "Should" and details on style are completely without merit: given the scale of the problem, and the intransigence of you and others, ArbCom was left with little choice but to try and fix the core problem, since without such a fix, it would simply resurface again when (at least) your probation period ends.

That they failed is a fairly good guarantee that when you and others are released from your cells the entire problem will restart itself. More fun for you, eh?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 12th July 2009, 4:37am) *

Will it surprise everyone here when I say I am broadly supportive of this idea?




Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Tony1 @ Sun 12th July 2009, 10:30am) *

The Advisory Council is unconstitutional, because it "advises" ArbCom, and ArbCom's constitution (policy) casts it as a judge of editors' behaviour.
"Unconstitutional"? You say that as if Wikipedia had a constitution. Wikipedia doesn't even have policies, in the proper sense of the word.

The ArbCom, like everyone else in Wikipedia, may do whatever it wants, as long as it can get away with it. That's the sole "constitutional principle" that governs Wikipedia.

Posted by: trenton

Meh, the typical wikipedia clusterfuck.

Special award to User:Mattisse for being a jester and making the "debate" more entertaining.

I'd also guess the Mss. SlimVirgin and Durova weren't invited to be "founding members" considering their vociferous opposition to this group contrasted to being members of secret cabals in the past.

Posted by: Eight

So Kirill and Coren have both resigned. Anyone else? This was really just a matter of time with that group of clowns.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(Eight @ Sun 12th July 2009, 10:00pm) *

So Kirill and Coren have both resigned. Anyone else? This was really just a matter of time with that group of clowns.

Coren http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration_Committee&diff=300589383&oldid=300489522. It's Rlevse (T-C-L-K-R-D) who resigned over this one.

Posted by: Eight

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sun 12th July 2009, 9:14pm) *

QUOTE(Eight @ Sun 12th July 2009, 10:00pm) *

So Kirill and Coren have both resigned. Anyone else? This was really just a matter of time with that group of clowns.

Coren http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration_Committee&diff=300589383&oldid=300489522. It's Rlevse (T-C-L-K-R-D) who resigned over this one.


I totally missed that! So that's three down, with two directly related to this, right?

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 12th July 2009, 2:37pm) *
The ArbCom, like everyone else in Wikipedia, may do whatever it wants, as long as it can get away with it. That's the sole "constitutional principle" that governs Wikipedia.
And in case you think that that's just Kelly being cynical, note that she's pretty much paraphrasing the fifth of Wikipedia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:5P.

Posted by: everyking

The most revealing aspect of the RfC, in my view, is in Casliber's question on scale: 29 people so far have endorsed "Yes, scale is too big for changes to be effected by consensus only, and some organised group is necessary", while only seven have endorsed the opposing view, "No, consensus and discussion are continuing to work to a satisfactory level". This is a momentous change from earlier years, when the idea of instituting a formal governance structure and recognizing the limitations of consensus in matters of project management was considered a laughable fringe proposal.

Part of the problem we'll have with reforming the governance system is that it can't be done in one step: we can't just create a body to act in a governance role, because it would be impossible to demonstrate a consensus for the details of any such body's role and powers. However, I think it is possible to demonstrate a consensus on the need to elect a committee to review the problems, make recommendations, and craft proposals as referendums. The rest would follow--probably with complications, but this would create a workable mechanism through which things could actually get done. The ArbCom could facilitate that by agreeing to scrap this advisory council and endorsing the creation of an elected reforms committee.

Posted by: Cla68

Like I said before, if the ArbCom really wants to get something done, then they should just do it, because no one can do anything to them because they were put in their positions by Jimbo. If the ArbCom decides they want this council to continue in operation and say so, then it will. Jimbo has publicly http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&curid=9870625&diff=301782335&oldid=301781069 the council.

Before SV's and a few other's strong reactions to this council, I didn't think it was that big a deal, because the council didn't have any formal authority. The people who have opposed it, some of whom participate here, like Everyking and Iridescent (sorry if I spelled that wrong), appear to have varying reasons for opposing it. Like I said before though, any ideas or proposals that come out of this council must be approved by Wikipedia's normal decision-making process. So, no one should feel threatened. If they are, I suggest they back off and see how it goes.

As Kato and others have said, a true governance reform council for Wikipedia should be by outsiders, or perhaps a mix of insiders and outsiders. That's probably not going to happen anytime soon, so this is a small step to get things going in a direction that hopefully might produce some positive results. In the meantime, it looks like the ArbCom is going to be operating shorthanded for awhile.

Posted by: EricBarbour

People seem to be missing the between-the-lines part:
SV is obviously canvassing like hell, off-wiki.

Look at the date stamps for the people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development#Editors_endorsing_this_proposal her initial bitch-off.
Amazing how quickly they came, every minute/few minutes apart.....
starting with her favorite meatpuppets.

Seriously, how often do all those people happen to be watching a given RFC at one time??

Henceforth, Wikipedia will slowly fall apart.

And I predict that SV, that Shrieking Madwoman, will be a primary contributing factor.

And since this committee was set up by some Arbcommers who are noted for not
voting for her pet revenge schemes (plus, don't forget that banning-for-six-months-bit),
she's apparently out to eliminate all of the Arbcom members who won't ass-nozzle her.
(And judging from this disgusting mess, she might pull it off.)

Peter Damian or Greg Kohs will not destroy Wikipedia, its insiders will.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 13th July 2009, 8:50am) *

Peter Damian or Greg Kohs will not destroy Wikipedia, its insiders will.[/b]


Funny you should say that

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Skomorokh&diff=prev&oldid=301819772

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 13th July 2009, 7:50am) *

People seem to be missing the between-the-lines part:
SV is obviously canvassing like hell, off-wiki.

Look at the date stamps for the people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development#Editors_endorsing_this_proposal her initial bitch-off.
Amazing how quickly they came, every minute/few minutes apart.....
starting with her favorite meatpuppets.

Seriously, how often do all those people happen to be watching a given RFC at one time??


Yes, one might understand why Rlevse was so upset. Although SV's behavior during her six months on probation was not completely above board, the ArbCom elected to return her admin privileges. Note that Rlevse was the one who http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlimVirgin&diff=292416606&oldid=292410355 the privileges.

Then, after dropping an RfC on the ArbCom with obviously canvassed endorsements for her opinion, SV proceeds to lecture the arbitrators on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARoger_Davies&diff=301806319&oldid=301771929. I imagine that the arbitrators who have chosen to post comments on that "RfC" must be doing so through gritted teeth.

SV doesn't seem to understand that causing all of this ridiculous bickering over a council which doesn't have any formal authority actually reinforces the ArbCom's stance that governance reform is necessary, and that it needs to start somewhere, somehow by just getting things going through unilateral appointments. To be clear, though, the ArbCom didn't necessarily initiate the council solely to look into governance reform, but to also be a think tank to bounce ideas off of in dealing with difficult arbitration cases. That's why it is so silly to say that this council is outside the Committee's purview and shows the fallacy of SV's opposition.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 13th July 2009, 8:50am) *

People seem to be missing the between-the-lines part:
SV is obviously canvassing like hell, off-wiki.

Look at the date stamps for the people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development#Editors_endorsing_this_proposal her initial bitch-off.
Amazing how quickly they came, every minute/few minutes apart.....
starting with her favorite meatpuppets.

Well, the first one to endorse her was, er, me, and I don't think even the most paranoid would consider me "one of her favorite meatpuppets". The reason you saw such a flurry at the start was because as soon as she put the RFC live, she added a link on the Arbcom noticeboard.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Mon 13th July 2009, 10:33am) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 13th July 2009, 8:50am) *

People seem to be missing the between-the-lines part:
SV is obviously canvassing like hell, off-wiki.

Look at the date stamps for the people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development#Editors_endorsing_this_proposal her initial bitch-off.
Amazing how quickly they came, every minute/few minutes apart.....
starting with her favorite meatpuppets.

Well, the first one to endorse her was, er, me, and I don't think even the most paranoid would consider me "one of her favorite meatpuppets". The reason you saw such a flurry at the start was because as soon as she put the RFC live, she added a link on the Arbcom noticeboard.


To be clear, I wasn't accusing you or Everyking of being part of any canvassing. Good point about the noticeboard post, but I still kind of doubt that that many people watch the ArbCom noticeboard. But, to be fair, if any secret canvassing occurred it might not have been SV, but others watching things unfold. The point stands though of the irony of SV lecturing the arbitrators on transparency, since we (or at least, I) know she was one of the main leaders in directing the secret cliques which basically controlled large portions of Wikipedia for about three years.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 13th July 2009, 12:10pm) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Mon 13th July 2009, 10:33am) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 13th July 2009, 8:50am) *

People seem to be missing the between-the-lines part:
SV is obviously canvassing like hell, off-wiki.

Look at the date stamps for the people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development#Editors_endorsing_this_proposal her initial bitch-off.
Amazing how quickly they came, every minute/few minutes apart.....
starting with her favorite meatpuppets.

Well, the first one to endorse her was, er, me, and I don't think even the most paranoid would consider me "one of her favorite meatpuppets". The reason you saw such a flurry at the start was because as soon as she put the RFC live, she added a link on the Arbcom noticeboard.


To be clear, I wasn't accusing you or Everyking of being part of any canvassing. Good point about the noticeboard post, but I still kind of doubt that that many people watch the ArbCom noticeboard. But, to be fair, if any secret canvassing occurred it might not have been SV, but others watching things unfold. The point stands though of the irony of SV lecturing the arbitrators on transparency, since we (or at least, I) know she was one of the main leaders in directing the secret cliques which basically controlled large portions of Wikipedia for about three years.

Regarding the noticeboard posts – normally I'd agree with you, but shortly before she added that link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giano#Recent_emails_etc: and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#Advisory_Council – two of the highest-traffic talkpages on Wikipedia – had just been created, so a number of people would have been following the links from those discussions to see what was being talked about, and stumbled across the RFC. As I've said on Wikipedia, I think Slim is right in this case even if it's for the wrong reasons. I agree with everything Vassyana said in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=301412863; because this looks like a return to the smoke-filled rooms of a couple of years ago, any good ideas this council comes up with are going to be tarred by the "it's come from the cabal" brush, but any bad ideas will get more credibility than they deserve by virtue of the "hotline to the top" arrangement.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Just a point of order: does anyone on Wikipedia have any experience in running a company or a nonprofit organization? I have never seen such a tragically mismanaged entity as this site. I can understand that many of the people who rise to the top on Wikipedia are either kids who are still in school or slacker adults who are sneaking in edits when the boss isn't looking. But in the absence of genuine managers, we will always wind up with this kind of shit. The one reason Wikipedia is constantly imploding with tiresome drama like this is the thorough lack of individuals who have any hands-on experience in building and maintaining a working organization.

Posted by: Obesity

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 13th July 2009, 9:47am) *

Just a point of order: does anyone on Wikipedia have any experience in running a company or a nonprofit organization? I have never seen such a tragically mismanaged entity as this site. I can understand that many of the people who rise to the top on Wikipedia are either kids who are still in school or slacker adults who are sneaking in edits when the boss isn't looking. But in the absence of genuine managers, we will always wind up with this kind of shit. The one reason Wikipedia is constantly imploding with tiresome drama like this is the thorough lack of individuals who have any hands-on experience in building and maintaining a working organization.


Jayjg is in his 40s and works "in management"

I know an admin who was assistant manger of a Foot Locker once....

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 13th July 2009, 8:47am) *
Just a point of order: does anyone on Wikipedia have any experience in running a company or a nonprofit organization?
We tend to get kicked out for expecting reasonable management strategies.

Wikipedia is not just unmanaged, it's anti-managed.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Obesity @ Mon 13th July 2009, 9:50am) *


Jayjg is in his 40s and works "in management"

I know an admin who was assistant manger of a Foot Locker once....


"In management" is not the same as "as management." There is a difference between those who set the rules and those who carry them out (good, bad or indifferent).


Posted by: Obesity

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 13th July 2009, 9:55am) *

QUOTE(Obesity @ Mon 13th July 2009, 9:50am) *


Jayjg is in his 40s and works "in management"

I know an admin who was assistant manger of a Foot Locker once....


"In management" is not the same as "as management." There is a difference between those who set the rules and those who carry them out (good, bad or indifferent).


Sigh. I was just making a funny.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Obesity @ Mon 13th July 2009, 10:06am) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 13th July 2009, 9:55am) *

QUOTE(Obesity @ Mon 13th July 2009, 9:50am) *


Jayjg is in his 40s and works "in management"

I know an admin who was assistant manger of a Foot Locker once....


"In management" is not the same as "as management." There is a difference between those who set the rules and those who carry them out (good, bad or indifferent).


Sigh. I was just making a funny.


I know, I am just being the equine from hell. Let me give you a big Horsey Kiss. wub.gif

Posted by: Obesity

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 13th July 2009, 10:07am) *

QUOTE(Obesity @ Mon 13th July 2009, 10:06am) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 13th July 2009, 9:55am) *

QUOTE(Obesity @ Mon 13th July 2009, 9:50am) *


Jayjg is in his 40s and works "in management"

I know an admin who was assistant manger of a Foot Locker once....


"In management" is not the same as "as management." There is a difference between those who set the rules and those who carry them out (good, bad or indifferent).


Sigh. I was just making a funny.


I know, I am just being the equine from hell. Let me give you a big Horsey Kiss. wub.gif


Go away, Ottava. I hate you.

Posted by: trenton

These http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development&diff=301808625&oldid=301806697, they are so sour, I wouldn't eat them even if you paid me to!

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Mon 13th July 2009, 11:27am) *
As I've said on Wikipedia, I think Slim is right in this case even if it's for the wrong reasons. I agree with everything Vassyana said in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=301412863; because this looks like a return to the smoke-filled rooms of a couple of years ago, any good ideas this council comes up with are going to be tarred by the "it's come from the cabal" brush, but any bad ideas will get more credibility than they deserve by virtue of the "hotline to the top" arrangement.


Well, the council has promised on the forum to not conduct any "business" off-wiki. The council's page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development/Forum#Problem_statements, and we've started to discuss things. We have no authority to implement anything that we discuss. It's up to others to take any good ideas we generate and run with them. We'll see how it goes.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 13th July 2009, 10:47am) *
Just a point of order: does anyone on Wikipedia have any experience in running a company or a nonprofit organization?
I do. In my experience, companies and nonprofits have governance structures that involve the authority to make decisions, making them entirely unlike Wikipedia.

I also don't think that "point of order" means what you think it means.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 13th July 2009, 3:12pm) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Mon 13th July 2009, 11:27am) *
As I've said on Wikipedia, I think Slim is right in this case even if it's for the wrong reasons. I agree with everything Vassyana said in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=301412863; because this looks like a return to the smoke-filled rooms of a couple of years ago, any good ideas this council comes up with are going to be tarred by the "it's come from the cabal" brush, but any bad ideas will get more credibility than they deserve by virtue of the "hotline to the top" arrangement.


Well, the council has promised on the forum to not conduct any "business" off-wiki. The council's page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development/Forum#Problem_statements, and we've started to discuss things. We have no authority to implement anything that we discuss. It's up to others to take any good ideas we generate and run with them. We'll see how it goes.


Surely the council is not going to just coolly proceed with business amidst the community outcry? The community has spoken and its voice is unambigious in its opposition. How can you justify ignoring that?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Obesity @ Mon 13th July 2009, 10:08am) *

Go away, Ottava. I hate you.


Oh, but I like you a lot. Really. You fill up my senses like a night in the forest, like the mountains in springtime, like a walk in the rain, like a storm in the desert, like a sleepy blue...oh, hold on, the phone is ringing. Hello? Yes, this is A Horse with No Name. Who is this? The John Denver Estate? Oh, how funny, I was just...I owe you how much in royalties? Uh oh. wacko.gif

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Mon 13th July 2009, 10:20am) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 13th July 2009, 10:47am) *
Just a point of order: does anyone on Wikipedia have any experience in running a company or a nonprofit organization?
I do. In my experience, companies and nonprofits have governance structures that involve the authority to make decisions, making them entirely unlike Wikipedia.


Well, you are something of an anomaly. You are one of the few guys on Wikipedia who actually looks presentable. Most of the guys on Wikipedia look like they were created by Jim Henson.

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Mon 13th July 2009, 10:20am) *

I also don't think that "point of order" means what you think it means.

It doesn't matter, I am just throwing words around recklessly.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 13th July 2009, 2:23pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 13th July 2009, 3:12pm) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Mon 13th July 2009, 11:27am) *
As I've said on Wikipedia, I think Slim is right in this case even if it's for the wrong reasons. I agree with everything Vassyana said in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=301412863; because this looks like a return to the smoke-filled rooms of a couple of years ago, any good ideas this council comes up with are going to be tarred by the "it's come from the cabal" brush, but any bad ideas will get more credibility than they deserve by virtue of the "hotline to the top" arrangement.


Well, the council has promised on the forum to not conduct any "business" off-wiki. The council's page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development/Forum#Problem_statements, and we've started to discuss things. We have no authority to implement anything that we discuss. It's up to others to take any good ideas we generate and run with them. We'll see how it goes.


Surely the council is not going to just coolly proceed with business amidst the community outcry? The community has spoken and its voice is unambigious in its opposition. How can you justify ignoring that?


Feel free to ignore us as we try to generate some ideas for improving things around the 'pedia. We have no formal authority to implement any of our ideas, so you have nothing to worry about if no one else likes what we come up with.

Also, I saw that you presented a good idea for some type of initiative along similar lines in the RfC. Please consider running with that idea, it may produce some good results. You won't know, though, unless you try.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 13th July 2009, 3:29pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 13th July 2009, 2:23pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 13th July 2009, 3:12pm) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Mon 13th July 2009, 11:27am) *
As I've said on Wikipedia, I think Slim is right in this case even if it's for the wrong reasons. I agree with everything Vassyana said in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=301412863; because this looks like a return to the smoke-filled rooms of a couple of years ago, any good ideas this council comes up with are going to be tarred by the "it's come from the cabal" brush, but any bad ideas will get more credibility than they deserve by virtue of the "hotline to the top" arrangement.


Well, the council has promised on the forum to not conduct any "business" off-wiki. The council's page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development/Forum#Problem_statements, and we've started to discuss things. We have no authority to implement anything that we discuss. It's up to others to take any good ideas we generate and run with them. We'll see how it goes.


Surely the council is not going to just coolly proceed with business amidst the community outcry? The community has spoken and its voice is unambigious in its opposition. How can you justify ignoring that?


Feel free to ignore us as we try to generate some ideas for improving things around the 'pedia. We have no formal authority to implement any of our ideas, so you have nothing to worry about if no one else likes what we come up with.


So you feel the community's opinion on this matter is irrelevant because the council is ostensibly powerless?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 13th July 2009, 8:23am) *



Surely the council is not going to just coolly proceed with business amidst the community outcry? The community has spoken and its voice is unambigious in its opposition. How can you justify ignoring that?


Yes, how can a small group of self appointed meddlers dare ignore a larger group of self appointed meddlers?

Posted by: Moulton

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold.

It's become increasingly apparent to sober observers that Wikipedia desperately needs a functional governance structure.

It's also increasingly obvious to many observers that Wikipedia is too far gone to be able to right itself and devise a functional governance structure.

This latest abortive attempt to take a meaningful step in that direction has further undermined and eroded what little governance the site has by way of ArbCom.

Posted by: Kato

QUOTE(trenton @ Mon 13th July 2009, 3:11pm) *

These http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development&diff=301808625&oldid=301806697, they are so sour, I wouldn't eat them even if you paid me to!

As sour as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development&diff=prev&oldid=301562574 grapes?

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 13th July 2009, 11:57am) *
It's become increasingly apparent to sober observers that Wikipedia desperately needs a functional governance structure.

It's also increasingly obvious to many observers that Wikipedia is too far gone to be able to right itself and devise a functional governance structure.

This latest abortive attempt to take a meaningful step in that direction has further undermined and eroded what little governance the site has by way of ArbCom.
Geez, Moulton, I haven't been paying much attention to you for the past few months. Have you been making this much sense the whole time?

Posted by: Moulton

I've said the same things many times before.

So I stopped for a while to wait for other people to become ready to read them again.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 13th July 2009, 10:23am) *

The community has spoken and its voice is unambigious in its opposition. How can you justify ignoring that?


So, is 63 to 26 an "unambigious" voice? I don't even think it's "unambiguous", either!

Posted by: trenton

I find this little http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=301782335&oldid=301781069 from King Jimbeau quite interesting. Whatever intentions arbcom may have had with this council, it's quite clear he saw it as an opportunity to co-opt his critics. Give them a meaningless title and surround them with sycophants to drown out their voices, and may them his "royal" subjects, directly working under his authority.

Also, isn't it contradictory that some of the same people who swore fealty to the king in the recent rfc are so against this council that has the blessings of the king?

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Jimmy Wales)
Yes. I think it's a good idea. It's an advisory body with no power, a more formal way to seek diverse input from a variety of sources. I think such a body should be composed of a fairly large number of people, including some who are generally regarded as difficult characters or agitants - those voices need to be heard, even if in the main their proposals would be voted down. I believe that a small working group, composed of diverse membership, could be quite useful to the ArbCom, to me, and to the community in general.--Jimbo Wales 01:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A small working group, composed of a fairly large number of diverse people (including difficult characters and agitants)?!?

I recommend that those who really care read the carefully crafted, peer reviewed, academic studies of Wikipedia's legendary dysfunctionality.

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Obesity @ Mon 13th July 2009, 9:50am) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 13th July 2009, 9:47am) *

Just a point of order: does anyone on Wikipedia have any experience in running a company or a nonprofit organization? I have never seen such a tragically mismanaged entity as this site. I can understand that many of the people who rise to the top on Wikipedia are either kids who are still in school or slacker adults who are sneaking in edits when the boss isn't looking. But in the absence of genuine managers, we will always wind up with this kind of shit. The one reason Wikipedia is constantly imploding with tiresome drama like this is the thorough lack of individuals who have any hands-on experience in building and maintaining a working organization.
Jayjg is in his 40s and works "in management"

I know an admin who was assistant manger of a Foot Locker once....
I work in restaurant management. Does that count? tongue.gif

QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 13th July 2009, 10:23am) *

Surely the council is not going to just coolly proceed with business amidst the community outcry? The community has spoken and its voice is unambigious in its opposition. How can you justify ignoring that?
I have no problem doing this. I think the whole controversy is ridiculous. People opposing a think-tank. It's just funny.

Shit needs to change. It's been pounded for years, but nothing has changed... not for the better anyway. People are complaining endlessly, throwing out straw mans (see Prodego http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&curid=9870625&diff=301782335&oldid=301781069#re_Kirill_Lokshin), and for what? Some people hate ArbCom and think their a bunch of incompetent morons. Well, check the list of members of the think-tank. Are we all AC supporters? Hell no!

Just a bunch of bad faith, sour grapes and typical whining. Nothing changes on this project because there is always a loud enough group to shut anything down. This situation is no exception. If we fold to the predictable mob, we're just back to being broken and without hope. Fuck that noise. At some point, the protesters have to be left to chanting and marching while whatever they oppose moves forward. Change isn't coming on its own. It has to be forced through.

What's funny is that this group can't even force anything through. We can only suggest changes for the community to approve. Will they approve them? Almost certainly not. See previous paragraph. But it's worth a try. And I'll be damned if I give up on what I think is a brilliant idea because people are bitter, crying sour grapes or bitching about what they don't understand.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Mon 13th July 2009, 12:34pm) *
I work in restaurant management. Does that count? tongue.gif


Only if you're on the menu! wub.gif

Horsey is happy! Horsey is happy! boing.gif

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

For what it's worth, I don't believe that Arb Comm's goal with this was to co-opt its opposition. But it certainly has been very effective at doing so: seeing Giano, Cla68, Greg, Peter Damian, RDH (Ghost in the Machine), the Fat Man, and Rootology all arguing basically on the side as the establishment...well, it makes my head explode in a most agreeable fashion.

Of course, Arb Comm seems to have alienated even more people with this, but you know the saying: "you can't make an omelette without sending a good portion of the Wikipedia community into a tizzy."

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Mon 13th July 2009, 2:34pm) *

For what it's worth, I don't believe that Arb Comm's goal with this was to co-opt its opposition. But it certainly has been very effective at doing so: seeing Giano, Cla68, Greg, Peter Damian, RDH (Ghost in the Machine), the Fat Man, and Rootology all arguing basically on the side as the establishment...well, it makes my head explode in a most agreeable fashion.

Of course, Arb Comm seems to have alienated even more people with this, but you know the saying: "you can't make an omelette without sending a good portion of the Wikipedia community into a tizzy."


But, wait -- you don't know if I'm on a counter-mission to disrupt the efforts of the Advisory Council itself!!!

Posted by: Obesity

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 13th July 2009, 12:46pm) *

Only if you're on the menu! wub.gif

Horsey is happy! Horsey is happy! boing.gif


You know, Ottava, in Venice they eat horses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Macelleria_equina_venezia.jpg

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Obesity @ Mon 13th July 2009, 3:32pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 13th July 2009, 12:46pm) *

Only if you're on the menu! wub.gif

Horsey is happy! Horsey is happy! boing.gif


You know, Ottava, in Venice they eat horses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Macelleria_equina_venezia.jpg

You do know that the WR mods have determined it is highly unlikely these two are the same as they are in very different places geographically, right?

Posted by: Mackan

I think the heart of the problem is that the Council is set up to advise ArbCom on project governance, without ever having decided that project governance is what ArbCom is for. I suppose that sounds obvious, but the point is that people aren't so much objecting to the council itself as they are to what it suggests about an increased role of ArbCom.

How else do you create this kind of panel? I also see an elephant in the room: when was it really decided that the community is responsible for governance anyway, aside from developing content? The reasons for using a community to develop content seem much stronger.

I get the feeling those behind this are partly saying oops, maybe when Jimbo created the ArbCom to resolve disputes, he should have also created a second group to head up project governance. Now we only have the first, while Jimbo's chance to establish the second in similar fashion has passed. So maybe we can just expand one into the other? Of course, ArbCom has always done some governance through its use of principles.

I might support this if I had some idea about the problems that this group is intended to solve. I gather one idea is that elevating a smart group of people to promote ideas that might otherwise have 50-75% support, is better than not having them do that. The problem is that the group should then really be counseling the community, or the bureaucrats, not ArbCom, to have this effect. But how do you do that if the community didn't ask for it, and the real power structures don't want to get involved?

Given the doubtfulness that the council will make the community itself any more organized, I presume its purpose is more to provide views separate from the community, that ArbCom has suggested it intends to give elevated consideration. Functionally, this gives the ArbCom one more place it can appeal for support if it wants to make a decision. Of course, the community could still reject ArbCom's actions, which would seem likelier the clearer it was that the council is an arm of ArbCom itself; perhaps that is where you notice some of the likeliest agitators are on the council.

I suppose ArbCom may be smartest to separate this council as far as it can from itself, assuming ArbCom has no interest in influencing it. What they seem to really want is a group, any group, to contrast with the general community. I'm just not sure how that addresses project governance, unless they just want to cede that role to ArbCom. Or at a much more basic level, maybe ArbCom only wants better advice in its role to distill "community principles." Surely that isn't all, though it's always been a bit curious how ArbCom was supposed to do this.

Posted by: One

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Mon 13th July 2009, 8:10pm) *

You do know that the WR mods have determined it is highly unlikely these two are the same as they are in very different places geographically, right?

Like Bassettcat and Mantanmoreland? What about Poetlister and guy?

Honestly, I don't suspect this is Ottava (or even care), but I take "highly unlikely" with salt and MSG.

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Mon 13th July 2009, 2:20pm) *

I do. In my experience, companies and nonprofits have governance structures that involve the authority to make decisions, making them entirely unlike Wikipedia.

Lord, true that.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Mon 13th July 2009, 5:34pm) *

QUOTE(Obesity @ Mon 13th July 2009, 9:50am) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 13th July 2009, 9:47am) *

Just a point of order: does anyone on Wikipedia have any experience in running a company or a nonprofit organization? I have never seen such a tragically mismanaged entity as this site. I can understand that many of the people who rise to the top on Wikipedia are either kids who are still in school or slacker adults who are sneaking in edits when the boss isn't looking. But in the absence of genuine managers, we will always wind up with this kind of shit. The one reason Wikipedia is constantly imploding with tiresome drama like this is the thorough lack of individuals who have any hands-on experience in building and maintaining a working organization.
Jayjg is in his 40s and works "in management"

I know an admin who was assistant manger of a Foot Locker once....
I work in restaurant management. Does that count? tongue.gif

QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 13th July 2009, 10:23am) *

Surely the council is not going to just coolly proceed with business amidst the community outcry? The community has spoken and its voice is unambigious in its opposition. How can you justify ignoring that?
I have no problem doing this. I think the whole controversy is ridiculous. People opposing a think-tank. It's just funny.

Shit needs to change. It's been pounded for years, but nothing has changed... not for the better anyway. People are complaining endlessly, throwing out straw mans (see Prodego http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&curid=9870625&diff=301782335&oldid=301781069#re_Kirill_Lokshin), and for what? Some people hate ArbCom and think their a bunch of incompetent morons. Well, check the list of members of the think-tank. Are we all AC supporters? Hell no!

Just a bunch of bad faith, sour grapes and typical whining. Nothing changes on this project because there is always a loud enough group to shut anything down. This situation is no exception. If we fold to the predictable mob, we're just back to being broken and without hope. Fuck that noise. At some point, the protesters have to be left to chanting and marching while whatever they oppose moves forward. Change isn't coming on its own. It has to be forced through.

What's funny is that this group can't even force anything through. We can only suggest changes for the community to approve. Will they approve them? Almost certainly not. See previous paragraph. But it's worth a try. And I'll be damned if I give up on what I think is a brilliant idea because people are bitter, crying sour grapes or bitching about what they don't understand.


Fine, let the record show that you have sided against the community and in favor of the ArbCom. This whole controversy raises the issue: how does the community, when a consensus exists in opposition to an ArbCom decision, force the ArbCom to abrogate that decision?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 13th July 2009, 5:02pm) *


Fine, let the record show that you have sided against the community and in favor of the ArbCom. This whole controversy raises the issue: how does the community, when a consensus exists in opposition to an ArbCom decision, force the ArbCom to abrogate that decision?


What community?

Hey, Everyking, did you ever got your mop back?

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 13th July 2009, 2:02pm) *
Fine, let the record show that you have sided against the community and in favor of the ArbCom. This whole controversy raises the issue: how does the community, when a consensus exists in opposition to an ArbCom decision, force the ArbCom to abrogate that decision?

Community? I don't see a "community" in this RFC, I see a gang of SlimVirgin
and Durova buttsnorkels, plus a motley gang of assorted malcontents, opposing for
assorted reasons (some valid, some not), plus some of WP's worst admins
(Will Beback, Aitias, Sandstein etc.) opposing because Arbcom might make it
more difficult for them to engage in their favorite on-wiki ass-munching....

69 malcontents, passersby and cranks is not the "community", sir.
Get 200-300 people in there. Get more ordinary editors, and fewer of
the reliable drama-generators. Then I'll call it a "community".

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 13th July 2009, 10:23pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 13th July 2009, 2:02pm) *
Fine, let the record show that you have sided against the community and in favor of the ArbCom. This whole controversy raises the issue: how does the community, when a consensus exists in opposition to an ArbCom decision, force the ArbCom to abrogate that decision?

Community? I don't see a "community" in this RFC, I see a gang of SlimVirgin
and Durova buttsnorkels, plus a motley gang of assorted malcontents, opposing for
assorted reasons (some valid, some not), plus some of WP's worst admins
(Will Beback, Aitias, Sandstein etc.) opposing because Arbcom might make it
more difficult for them to engage in their favorite on-wiki ass-munching....

69 malcontents, passersby and cranks is not the "community", sir.
Get 200-300 people in there. Get more ordinary editors, and fewer of
the reliable drama-generators. Then I'll call it a "community".



Oh, is this a "silent majority" kind of thing? laugh.gif

Posted by: EricBarbour

In fact, I'm tempted to add a statement of my own......demanding that the
discussion about this advisory committee be completely free of the usual
SlimVirgin and Durova manipulation. Ban those two from any such discussion,
then there will be a better chance of a fair hearing by the "community".

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 13th July 2009, 6:31pm) *
Oh, is this a "silent majority" kind of thing? laugh.gif
I'm not ashamed to admit that I am clearly out of step with the majority of the community on this. The majority of the community is wrong.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 13th July 2009, 10:39pm) *

In fact, I'm tempted to add a statement of my own......demanding that the
discussion about this advisory committee be completely free of the usual
SlimVirgin and Durova manipulation. Ban those two from any such discussion,
then there will be a better chance of a fair hearing by the "community".


OK, so if we exclude SV and Durova for no good reason, there's still 67 voices against the council and 27 supporting it (with the latter group's numbers inflated through the inclusion of actual council members). These are all people with individual minds, you know.

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Mon 13th July 2009, 10:45pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 13th July 2009, 6:31pm) *
Oh, is this a "silent majority" kind of thing? laugh.gif
I'm not ashamed to admit that I am clearly out of step with the majority of the community on this. The majority of the community is wrong.


What do you think should happen if you're right and the community is wrong? Whose will should prevail?

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 13th July 2009, 2:47pm) *
OK, so if we exclude SV and Durova for no good reason, there's still 67 voices against the council and 27 supporting it (with the latter group's numbers inflated through the inclusion of actual council members).

And their reliable, well-known supporters. Ironholds, Crum375, KillerChihuahua, etc..... biggrin.gif

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 13th July 2009, 6:50pm) *
What do you think should happen if you're right and the community is wrong? Whose will should prevail?
This is Wikipedia: nobody prevails.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(One @ Mon 13th July 2009, 8:32pm) *
QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Mon 13th July 2009, 2:20pm) *

I do. In my experience, companies and nonprofits have governance structures that involve the authority to make decisions, making them entirely unlike Wikipedia.

Lord, true that.


One, I hope the ArbCom has already started discussing what's going to happen next, because you know that someone will eventually take the Council forum to MfD, citing the "consensus at the RfC". What will follow will be another pile-on from the 60 or so editors from the RfC. ArbCom will then have to face a decision as to whether to defy that group and refuse to let the forum be deleted, or bow to it. The ArbCom can choose to defy that group if they want to, because no one can do anything to you because you exist by Jimbo's authority, which he has so far not reliquished.

I'm interested in seeing what will happen if the Committee chooses that course of action, which of course, I hope they do. It's time to take a stand, in my opinion, for the long-term.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Mon 13th July 2009, 2:55pm) *
This is Wikipedia: nobody prevails.

Beg to differ, sir. SlimVirgin and Durova are prevailing in this RFC, and Arbcom is
looking bad. It, in no way, looks like a "fair vote" or an open-ended discussion.

And given a choice between SV running Wikipedia "governance" (whatever delusional
nonsense that is), and Arbcom running it, I would tend to lean toward letting Arbcom
have a try. Because to date, SlimVirgin has been a disaster.

Posted by: Moulton

ArbCom is well aware that it receives conduct cases that arise from the absence of a functional content dispute resolution process. Any community that is obliged to make community decisions needs a functional conflict resolution process. For reasons unbeknownst to me, WP was originally crafted without any form of conflict resolution. This was partially solved with ArbCom to hear conduct cases. But nothing was done about the underlying problem of devising an orderly process for resolving content disputes.

It makes sense for ArbCom to propose a study intended to recommend a conflict resolution process for content disputes. But after 8 years without a functional decision-making process, the competing factions of WP cannot see their way clear to do what Jimbo should have done when WP was founded.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Mon 13th July 2009, 4:45pm) *
The majority of the community is wrong.
The majority of the community doesn't give a shit. Well, ok, that depends on how you define "community". Wikipedia has a lot of editors who edit away merrily on their pet topics, completely ignorant of all the idiotic wikipolitics. Are these people part of the "community"? They almost never vote or express an opinion on any of the usual drama pages.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 13th July 2009, 3:31pm) *
The majority of the community doesn't give a shit. Well, ok, that depends on how you define "community". Wikipedia has a lot of editors who edit away merrily on their pet topics, completely ignorant of all the idiotic wikipolitics. Are these people part of the "community"? They almost never vote or express an opinion on any of the usual drama pages.

And that's another longstanding problem with the present setup.
If MediaWiki was modified, so that logging in takes you to a voting section automatically,
there would be far more participation by ordinary editors. I really don't think it would
be onerous to make such an arrangement, and it would be FAR more democratic than
the present mess.

So far, the powermongers (like, say, the Virgin) have practiced the old security-through-obscurity
game to preserve what little "power" they have. And have gotten away with it.

I posted my comment in the RFC, if nothing else some people will have a giggle.

(oops, the bitch http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development&diff=301944327&oldid=301943867. Ha ha ha. Such a sensitive little flower. biggrin.gif )

Posted by: trenton

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 13th July 2009, 5:54pm) *

(oops, the bitch http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development&diff=301944327&oldid=301943867. Ha ha ha. Such a sensitive little flower. biggrin.gif )


She dissed you man. She dissed you bad. See that "minor edit". That's like giving you the wiki-finger.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

What I find really interesting in reading the comments on the RfC and its talk page is that Wikipedians in general appear to be remarkably stupid people. Does nobody in this entire pit of despair understand the utility of a discussion group or an exploratory committee? It's quite common for bodies corporates to establish a committee and charge it to "investigate options and report". Such a committee has no "authority" to do anything, and yet such committees are both commonplace and essential.

I assume that the main reason for this is that the Wikipedia community, or at least that section of it that participates in "community discussions", is overwhelmingly stocked with teenagers who have no experience with anything other than being bossed around by their parents and their teachers, and have no concept of someone having authority arising from any source other than fiat.

Oh, and in addendum I see that Slimmy is going after Flonight now. Two snakes going at it, that should be good for some lulz.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 14th July 2009, 12:05am) *

What I find really interesting in reading the comments on the RfC and its talk page is that Wikipedians in general appear to be remarkably stupid people. Does nobody in this entire pit of despair understand the utility of a discussion group or an exploratory committee? It's quite common for bodies corporates to establish a committee and charge it to "investigate options and report". Such a committee has no "authority" to do anything, and yet such committees are both commonplace and essential.

I assume that the main reason for this is that the Wikipedia community, or at least that section of it that participates in "community discussions", is overwhelmingly stocked with teenagers who have no experience with anything other than being bossed around by their parents and their teachers, and have no concept of someone having authority arising from any source other than fiat.

Oh, and in addendum I see that Slimmy is going after Flonight now. Two snakes going at it, that should be good for some lulz.


Kelly, I hear the ArbCom is now considering applications to join the council...it's not too late to sign up! laugh.gif

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(trenton @ Mon 13th July 2009, 3:55pm) *
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 13th July 2009, 5:54pm) *
(oops, the bitch http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development&diff=301944327&oldid=301943867. Ha ha ha. Such a sensitive little flower. biggrin.gif )
She dissed you man. She dissed you bad. See that "minor edit". That's like giving you the wiki-finger.

Ooohhh! Me so scared!!! yak.gif

Sometimes I wonder if she's another piece of AI software. Her responses are so
amazingly predictable and self-injurious.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(trenton @ Mon 13th July 2009, 6:55pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 13th July 2009, 5:54pm) *

(oops, the bitch http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development&diff=301944327&oldid=301943867. Ha ha ha. Such a sensitive little flower. biggrin.gif )


She dissed you man. She dissed you bad. See that "minor edit". That's like giving you the wiki-finger.


That was quite the bitchslap, Eric. laugh.gif

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 13th July 2009, 6:08pm) *
Kelly, I hear the ArbCom is now considering applications to join the council...it's not too late to sign up! laugh.gif
I just tried to email Casliber about it, but he lists a false email on the ArbCom page, and Newyorkbrad has so far refused to convey my interest to the Committee.

Posted by: Cla68

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARootology&diff=301922903&oldid=301902636 SV, while you're in the mood for "transparency", why don't you go ahead and post all of the emails froom 2006-2008 in which you asked editors to assist you in edit wars by reverting other editors, or asking for support at AfDs or RfAs in which you had taken a stance on, or asked for help in ramming through a change to a policy page? Your actions during that time are some of the reasons why Wikipedia's governance is so broken. Yes, you significantly helped create the problem, now a few people are trying to fix it. Why are you trying to stand in the way?

As Casliber just reminded you on his talk page, RfCs generally last for at least a month. I think you should relax and allow the RfC to flow for at least that amount of time. In the meantime, this council will try to get some work done. I think you have some more productive things to do than in engage in shrill advocacy for your position on the talk pages of the various arbitrators and Rootology's talk page?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 13th July 2009, 6:39pm) *
I think you have some more productive things to do than in engage in shrill advocacy for your position on the talk pages of the various arbitrators and Rootology's talk page?
What makes you think that? smile.gif

Posted by: Kato

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 13th July 2009, 11:31pm) *

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Mon 13th July 2009, 4:45pm) *
The majority of the community is wrong.
The majority of the community doesn't give a shit. Well, ok, that depends on how you define "community". Wikipedia has a lot of editors who edit away merrily on their pet topics, completely ignorant of all the idiotic wikipolitics. Are these people part of the "community"? They almost never vote or express an opinion on any of the usual drama pages.

In stark contrast to Durova and SlimVirgin, of course.

We're back to the "vested contributors" thing again. How does an online encyclopedia rid itself of two turbulent tyrants who have caused so much trouble?



Posted by: Casliber

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 14th July 2009, 9:17am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 13th July 2009, 6:08pm) *
Kelly, I hear the ArbCom is now considering applications to join the council...it's not too late to sign up! laugh.gif
I just tried to email Casliber about it, but he lists a false email on the ArbCom page, and Newyorkbrad has so far refused to convey my interest to the Committee.


Damn, have to fix that. I hate being in Australia and waking up to 100s of emails every morning...... blink.gif

Posted by: Cedric

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 13th July 2009, 6:05pm) *

Oh, and in addendum I see that Slimmy is going after Flonight now. Two snakes going at it, that should be good for some lulz.

I couldn't read that without thinking of this:

Image


Better keep an eye on that poisonous mercury vapor reservoir. It might blow up!

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 14th July 2009, 12:42am) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 13th July 2009, 11:31pm) *

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Mon 13th July 2009, 4:45pm) *
The majority of the community is wrong.
The majority of the community doesn't give a shit. Well, ok, that depends on how you define "community". Wikipedia has a lot of editors who edit away merrily on their pet topics, completely ignorant of all the idiotic wikipolitics. Are these people part of the "community"? They almost never vote or express an opinion on any of the usual drama pages.

In stark contrast to Durova and SlimVirgin, of course.

We're back to the "vested contributors" thing again. How does an online encyclopedia rid itself of two turbulent tyrants who have caused so much trouble?


"Turbulent tyrants"? The ArbCom announces out of nowhere that it's creating a new council under its control as a mechanism to direct project development, then ignores the overwhelming opposition of the community, and you're describing those two as tyrants? Seriously?

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 13th July 2009, 3:54pm) *
I posted my comment in the RFC, if nothing else some people will have a giggle.

(oops, the bitch http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development&diff=301944327&oldid=301943867. Ha ha ha. Such a sensitive little flower. biggrin.gif )

For those of us who like these things preserved, here is Eric's comment as a whole (Lar restored the first para only):
QUOTE
This advisory committee may be a good idea. It may not be a good idea. I can't say for certain, and it really ought to be under more community scrutiny than it received when first proposed. Arbcom may or may not do good for Wikipedia with added control over governance. There still is no effective or reliable method of resolving disputes over content, and pointless, wasteful arguments continue to occur every day.

However........I can say one thing with reasonable certainty. The original proposer of this RFC, SlimVirgin, has been a disaster for Wikipedia. She is a notorious manipulator, sock operator, and canvasser, and would naturally oppose anything that gives Arbcom more control over this wiki---and takes away any control she has. (Please remember, she was recently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Motion:_re_SlimVirgin. This RFC has the faint whiff of a revenge campaign against the Arbcommers who voted to ban her.) I have similar feelings about Durova, who has engaged in roughly similar edit-wars and manipulation, and been upbraided for it by Arbcom in the past. If people continue to vote the SV/Durova way, rather than according to their own opinions and consciences, there will be no valid discussion, just rubberstamping.

They are long-time, jealous, aggressive pursuers of control on-wiki, and have left a trail of destruction in many disputes they have been heavily involved in. Anyone who doesn't think this is valid is invited to examine the many discussions about, and criticisms of, them on Wikipedia Review: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=43 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=49

I feel that both SV and Durova should have no say in an actual, official-looking community vote on the existence of this advisory committee, because they have repeatedly proven themselves to be untrustworthy and high-handed. They have already made their opinions clear, and the canvassing going on here is toxic. I feel that if those two continue on their current path, they will cause further damage to Wikipedia's public image. Further, their most reliable and well-known supporters, such as Crum375 and Ironholds, also ought to be restricted from any such vote.


Amusing, to say the least. It lasted for all of three minutes before "the bitch deleted it".


Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(trenton @ Mon 13th July 2009, 3:55pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 13th July 2009, 5:54pm) *

(oops, the bitch http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development&diff=301944327&oldid=301943867. Ha ha ha. Such a sensitive little flower. biggrin.gif )


She dissed you man. She dissed you bad. See that "minor edit". That's like giving you the wiki-finger.


It was an NPA = No Personal Attacks:

QUOTE(EricBarbour)

However........I can say one thing with reasonable certainty. The original proposer of this RFC, SlimVirgin, has been a disaster for Wikipedia. She is a notorious manipulator, sock operator, and canvasser, and would naturally oppose anything that gives Arbcom more control over this wiki---and takes away any control she has. (Please remember, she was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Motion:_re_SlimVirgin recently banned for six months]. This RFC has the faint whiff of a revenge campaign against the Arbcommers who voted to ban her.) I have similar feelings about Durova, who has engaged in roughly similar edit-wars and manipulation, and been upbraided for it by Arbcom in the past. If people continue to vote the SV/Durova way, rather than according to their own opinions and consciences, there will be no valid discussion, just rubberstamping.


The first sentence reminded me a lot of Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer laugh.gif

It does bring up a question of what constitutes a personal attack. The question was whether SlimVirgin was a disaster for Wikipedia, not whether or not L.M. is a waste of space and disaster for planet Earth.

If invidious editors cannot be pointed out as such on WP without violation of NPA, then how is it to be done?

I think it can be safely said that Eric did rather badly violate AGF. wink.gif

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 13th July 2009, 8:00pm) *

Amusing, to say the least. It lasted for all of three minutes before "the bitch deleted it".


I do like the gratuitous slam against Ironholds. I don't know who Crum is, but I know that Ironholds is one of those dimwitted British teenagers who keep trying to run headfirst into RfA. Compared to Ironholds, our man Shappy is a junior version of Malleus. (That is a compliment, by the way.) biggrin.gif

Posted by: One

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 13th July 2009, 11:05pm) *

What I find really interesting in reading the comments on the RfC and its talk page is that Wikipedians in general appear to be remarkably stupid people. Does nobody in this entire pit of despair understand the utility of a discussion group or an exploratory committee? It's quite common for bodies corporates to establish a committee and charge it to "investigate options and report". Such a committee has no "authority" to do anything, and yet such committees are both commonplace and essential.
Well said.

Y'know, the main reason I voted in favor of this proposal was so that we could get a group of diverse folks to be repeat players for discussing policy issues. If such a group could make some well-supported recommendations, it seemed like there's a good chance that the community could bear it under an inclusive referendum.

There are two problems with "consensus" on Wikipedia. The first is that a small number of individuals can derail any discussion for any reason. The second is the super-majorities required to pass anything. We can do nothing about the second problem, but I think a committee could get a productive agenda-driven dialog going.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(One @ Mon 13th July 2009, 5:47pm) *

There are two problems with "consensus" on Wikipedia. The first is that a small number of individuals can derail any discussion for any reason. The second is the super-majorities required to pass anything. We can do nothing about the second problem, but I think a committee could get a productive agenda-driven dialog going.

Only to be squashed later, when it comes time to implement. Lucy holding the football for Charley Brown again.

Once at a conference I heard this dude from DARPA come up with this idea that development of drugs for space-use (antiradiation, antiweightless bone loss stuff) could be fast-tracked in the DARPA way. DARPA is the ultimate think-tank, inasmuch as they only pay consultants for two years, then send them back to whereever they came from, so there's always turnover and no entrenchment. And they can get very creative results in rapid time, when no biology is involved (see their robot car challenges). Anyway this guy said it "ought to be possible" for DARPA to get drugs "through the FDA" in a small fraction of the time. biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

Now, I knew the story of the FDA vs. the U.S. Military. The FDA made them throw away a million units of frozen stockpiled blood, because this method of preservation had never been approved by them. The FDA is even tougher than Iraq and Afghanistan, because your weapons are useless. The fighting is all done on paper, according to FDA rules. It doesn't matter who you are. Your best bet is to bribe them, and the military has a hard time with that, when it's agency of their own government.

So, I asked Mr. Astronaut Major DARPA Weenie if he'd ever actually gotten the FDA to fast track a drug, yet. One example. He admitted they hadn't yet, but they were planning to. I told him not to wear a spacesuit while waiting, or he'd need many a diaper.

That was years ago. DARPA never did get any drugs though the FDA. happy.gif

This has something to do with what you're trying to do there on Wikipedia, but I've forgotten what.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(One @ Mon 13th July 2009, 8:47pm) *


Y'know, the main reason I voted in favor of this proposal was so that we could get a group of diverse folks to be repeat players for discussing policy issues. If such a group could make some well-supported recommendations, it seemed like there's a good chance that the community could bear it under an inclusive referendum.


Yeah, but the only person you chose with a brain and a body was LaraLove. Nothing wrong with that choice, no siree. wub.gif

But the other choices -- Fuchs? Giano? DGG? JoopersCoopers? (Jooper who?) MBisanz? That's not diverse, that's dreary. Ridiculous. Uninspired. Zzzzz. Compared to those guys, Xeno is Mr. Excitement.

There are plenty of fun guys you could have packed into the council: Roux, ThuranX, Baseball Bugs, Neurolysis, Shappy, Ottava, Stifle, Thumperward (provided he isn't sober, of course) and that loveable lummox Tanthalas39. Hell, imagine what Wikipedia would look like if that gang got their hands on the keys!

You messed up, One. You had your chance and you Shankboned us. Ouch! unhappy.gif

Posted by: Cla68

Rootology just asked SV http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARootology&diff=301954782&oldid=301945425 about all of her secret communications in the past. SV http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rootology&diff=next&oldid=301954782 to address that request.

Anyway, I think the heat and drama are starting to die down now, in spite of SV's best efforts at keeping it all going. The council members are able and willing to try to make it work. The ArbCom appears to want to continue to give it a try. Hopefully, some of the other editors, such as Everyking and Roux, who presented alternate ideas in the RfC will have some success with their efforts to promote their ideas.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 14th July 2009, 12:30am) *
Anyway, I think the heat and drama are starting to die down now, in spite of SV's best efforts at keeping it all going.
The only people resisting this idea are the people who have power currently and stand to lose it in the revolution (e.g. SlimVirgin) and the idiotic ideologues who have irrational emotional attachments to Wikipedia's current (lack of) governance (basically, the assorted wikianarchists running about doing nothing of value otherwise).

SlimVirgin's motivations are obvious here: she has agendas to forward, and effective governance working toward a goal of writing an unbiased encyclopedia is almost certainly going to interfere with that. What amazes me is that, given all the evidence of this, nobody in Wikipedia's ostensible leadership has been willing to admit that this is the case and tell her where to stuff it. I suppose because they're all afraid that she'll rally her support base to manufacture a false consensus in her favor, just as she has so many times before. You'd think that people aware of this problem would realize the folly of consensus-based governance... and yet they don't.

I dunno. Wikipedians are amazing creatures, aren't they?

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 14th July 2009, 2:37am) *
The only people resisting this idea are the people who have power currently and stand to lose it in the revolution (e.g. SlimVirgin) and the idiotic ideologues who have irrational emotional attachments to Wikipedia's current (lack of) governance (basically, the assorted wikianarchists running about doing nothing of value otherwise).
I'd say that that's unfair towards, at the very least, Iridescent. Actually, I don't think Everyking, much as I've sniped at him, falls into either of those categories either. There are probably others, but I'm not going to go through the whole list.

Edit: Actually, Tony1's another one that doesn't fall into either category.

QUOTE
I dunno. Wikipedians are amazing creatures, aren't they?
We are. I have to say, though, I've noticed you taking rather a less detached tone to all of this than I'm accustomed to seeing from you -- almost as if you still had a little of the amazing creature in you yourself...

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 14th July 2009, 6:10am) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 14th July 2009, 2:37am) *
The only people resisting this idea are the people who have power currently and stand to lose it in the revolution (e.g. SlimVirgin) and the idiotic ideologues who have irrational emotional attachments to Wikipedia's current (lack of) governance (basically, the assorted wikianarchists running about doing nothing of value otherwise).
I'd say that that's unfair towards, at the very least, Iridescent. Actually, I don't think Everyking, much as I've sniped at him, falls into either of those categories either. There are probably others, but I'm not going to go through the whole list.

Edit: Actually, Tony1's another one that doesn't fall into either category.


I also agree that Iridescent, Everyking, and Tony1 don't fall into either category.

Posted by: Orderinchaos

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 14th July 2009, 3:10pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 14th July 2009, 2:37am) *
The only people resisting this idea are the people who have power currently and stand to lose it in the revolution (e.g. SlimVirgin) and the idiotic ideologues who have irrational emotional attachments to Wikipedia's current (lack of) governance (basically, the assorted wikianarchists running about doing nothing of value otherwise).
I'd say that that's unfair towards, at the very least, Iridescent. Actually, I don't think Everyking, much as I've sniped at him, falls into either of those categories either. There are probably others, but I'm not going to go through the whole list.

Edit: Actually, Tony1's another one that doesn't fall into either category.


I really don't either - I neither have "power" nor want it, I think a revolution might well be a good thing as long as the right ideas are behind it (i.e. it doesn't end up with paid advertising all over it or something), and I'm neither an anarchist nor a fan of slack governance (I worked in the public sector for a while and probably will for much of my future career). As for friends - one fellow pleb agrees with me on most of it but not on my intended solution, and two others are amongst its strongest supporters. It'd be really difficult to put my opposition into a convenient box.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Orderinchaos @ Tue 14th July 2009, 2:38am) *

I really don't either - I neither have "power" nor want it, I think a revolution might well be a good thing as long as the right ideas are behind it (i.e. it doesn't end up with paid advertising all over it or something), and I'm neither an anarchist nor a fan of slack governance (I worked in the public sector for a while and probably will for much of my future career). As for friends - one fellow pleb agrees with me on most of it but not on my intended solution, and two others are amongst its strongest supporters. It'd be really difficult to put my opposition into a convenient box.


If I knew that you were going to be so wishy-washy, I would've brought my laundry and a box of soap flakes. dry.gif

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 14th July 2009, 7:29am) *

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 14th July 2009, 6:10am) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 14th July 2009, 2:37am) *
The only people resisting this idea are the people who have power currently and stand to lose it in the revolution (e.g. SlimVirgin) and the idiotic ideologues who have irrational emotional attachments to Wikipedia's current (lack of) governance (basically, the assorted wikianarchists running about doing nothing of value otherwise).
I'd say that that's unfair towards, at the very least, Iridescent. Actually, I don't think Everyking, much as I've sniped at him, falls into either of those categories either. There are probably others, but I'm not going to go through the whole list.

Edit: Actually, Tony1's another one that doesn't fall into either category.


I also agree that Iridescent, Everyking, and Tony1 don't fall into either category.

While some of you will disagree, I'd put Durova in there, too. I'm no great admirer of hers, but she isn't the same character she was a couple of years ago; I read her opposition to this as the voice of someone who's seen from the inside just how much trouble a "we are the elite" star-chamber can cause.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 14th July 2009, 8:11am) *
While some of you will disagree, I'd put Durova in there, too.
I probably should have specified that I don't know enough about Durova's and Slim's (yes, really) motivations so say which category they fall into, if either.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 14th July 2009, 1:10am) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 14th July 2009, 2:37am) *
The only people resisting this idea are the people who have power currently and stand to lose it in the revolution (e.g. SlimVirgin) and the idiotic ideologues who have irrational emotional attachments to Wikipedia's current (lack of) governance (basically, the assorted wikianarchists running about doing nothing of value otherwise).
I'd say that that's unfair towards, at the very least, Iridescent. Actually, I don't think Everyking, much as I've sniped at him, falls into either of those categories either. There are probably others, but I'm not going to go through the whole list.

Edit: Actually, Tony1's another one that doesn't fall into either category.
I think the objection from the parties named above fall more into the category of "I don't object to governance so much as I object to how this governing body was selected". They're still being stupid, insofar as this isn't really a governing body, but I also think they're letting themselves be used by SlimVirgin by signing onto her nihilistic rant against any form of governance that doesn't give her free reign to do as she please. Everyking, in particular, is carrying a giant grudge against the ArbCom (no matter how justifiably) and is virtually certain to object to anything the ArbCom does no matter how much sense it makes; I don't consider him a meaningful critic in this regard. The ArbCom is no collection of luminaries, but it's the best y'all have got.

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 14th July 2009, 1:10am) *
We are. I have to say, though, I've noticed you taking rather a less detached tone to all of this than I'm accustomed to seeing from you -- almost as if you still had a little of the amazing creature in you yourself...
Hey, I just want to see you idiots fix your hate-spewing, defamation-propagation, idiocy-perpetuating website. Do that and I'll stop pestering you about it. I might even take a break from writing articles about ham radio to contribute something to your little garden (although don't count on it: your editorial standards leave a lot to be desired).

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 13th July 2009, 7:52pm) *

"Turbulent tyrants"? The ArbCom announces out of nowhere that it's creating a new council under its control as a mechanism to direct project development, then ignores the overwhelming opposition of the community, and you're describing those two as tyrants? Seriously?

Hey, Everyking, since you've got such a strong grasp on what's going on, how is the council to "direct project development"?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 14th July 2009, 11:04am) *
Hey, I just want to see you idiots fix your hate-spewing, defamation-propagation, idiocy-perpetuating website. Do that and I'll stop pestering you about it. I might even take a break from writing articles about ham radio to contribute something to your little garden (although don't count on it: your editorial standards leave a lot to be desired).


Ham radio??? Do they still have crap? Hey, if you really want to be retro, I'll spin some Moody Blues LPs on my phonograph and we can tie-dye Xeno into some groovy colors. rolleyes.gif

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 14th July 2009, 7:11am) *

While some of you will disagree, I'd put Durova in there, too. I'm no great admirer of hers, but she isn't the same character she was a couple of years ago; I read her opposition to this as the voice of someone who's seen from the inside just how much trouble a "we are the elite" star-chamber can cause.


Funny, I read her opposition as the voice of some nut who doesn't know what the f**k she's talking about. bored.gif

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 14th July 2009, 10:30am) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 14th July 2009, 11:04am) *
Hey, I just want to see you idiots fix your hate-spewing, defamation-propagation, idiocy-perpetuating website. Do that and I'll stop pestering you about it. I might even take a break from writing articles about ham radio to contribute something to your little garden (although don't count on it: your editorial standards leave a lot to be desired).


Ham radio??? Do they still have crap? Hey, if you really want to be retro, I'll spin some Moody Blues LPs on my phonograph and we can tie-dye Xeno into some groovy colors. rolleyes.gif

You're thinking of CB. Ham is hard. You can transistorize it all you like, but you still have to bounce a *&%$ing signal off the 8&^%^$ing ionisphere. So, due to the "weather" and the unpredictability of Ma Nature, it's always going to be like white-water rafting no matter how good the tech gets.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 14th July 2009, 10:40am) *
I probably should have specified that I don't know enough about Durova's and Slim's (yes, really) motivations so say which category they fall into, if either.


Well, you should invite them over to your place and get to know them better. Pour some Merlot, light some incense, get some John Coltrane music playing, put the leopard skin sheets on the bed, and start investigating their motivations. evilgrin.gif

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 14th July 2009, 1:37pm) *

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 14th July 2009, 10:40am) *
I probably should have specified that I don't know enough about Durova's and Slim's (yes, really) motivations so say which category they fall into, if either.


Well, you should invite them over to your place and get to know them better. Pour some Merlot, light some incense, get some John Coltrane music playing, put the leopard skin sheets on the bed, and start investigating their motivations. evilgrin.gif

I just threw up a little bit in my mouth. sick.gif

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 14th July 2009, 1:36pm) *

You're thinking of CB. Ham is hard. You can transistorize it all you like, but you still have to bounce a *&%$ing signal off the 8&^%^$ing ionisphere. So, due to the "weather" and the unpredictability of Ma Nature, it's always going to be like white-water rafting no matter how good the tech gets.


No, I am thinking ham -- I know the difference. I was surprised they still had ham radio today, considering all of the high tech shit on the market. Ham seems so old.

CB is (or was) fun. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 14th July 2009, 9:40am) *
...I don't know enough about Durova's and Slim's (yes, really) motivations so say which category they fall into, if either.

It seems relatively simple to me - it's just basic obstructionism. Any kind of proper "reform" in the WP context would probably involve a more government-like hierarchical structure, as opposed to the current setup which relies on "consensus" and endless discussion by whoever happens to show up that day. People with agendas will naturally prefer the way things are now, since the current system can be gamed and manipulated much more easily. Hence, they're anti-reform, unless of course the "reform" specifically suits them in some way, like making it easier to ban those with whom they disagree, for example.

There are probably also people who have a deep-seated mistrust of anything that resembles action-by-authority, those who are convinced that there's only one proper way to do what needs doing (which is usually theirs), those who just feel snubbed by the original selection process, and perhaps even those who fear change in general, though I expect most such people wouldn't involve themselves. There are probably lots of other reasons too, including someone saying something mean to someone else in an IRC session back in April 2007 that was actually intended for a completely different person.

IMO none of these things are mutually exclusive, right? In fact, all of those things could apply to any or all of those people.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 14th July 2009, 6:58pm) *

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 14th July 2009, 9:40am) *
...I don't know enough about Durova's and Slim's (yes, really) motivations so say which category they fall into, if either.

It seems relatively simple to me - it's just basic obstructionism. Any kind of proper "reform" in the WP context would probably involve a more government-like hierarchical structure, as opposed to the current setup which relies on "consensus" and endless discussion by whoever happens to show up that day. People with agendas will naturally prefer the way things are now, since the current system can be gamed and manipulated much more easily. Hence, they're anti-reform, unless of course the "reform" specifically suits them in some way, like making it easier to ban those with whom they disagree, for example.

There are probably also people who have a deep-seated mistrust of anything that resembles action-by-authority, those who are convinced that there's only one proper way to do what needs doing (which is usually theirs), those who just feel snubbed by the original selection process, and perhaps even those who fear change in general, though I expect most such people wouldn't involve themselves. There are probably lots of other reasons too, including someone saying something mean to someone else in an IRC session back in April 2007 that was actually intended for a completely different person.

IMO none of these things are mutually exclusive, right? In fact, all of those things could apply to any or all of those people.

You've missed out my motivation for opposing it, which I think is driving quite a lot of the opposition (at least, my explanation of it currently has over 30 "endorses"): that WP does need change, and some kind of council is a good idea, but the way this particular council has been presented de novo looks to an outside observer like Jimbo and Arbcom creating a Provisional Government of their buddies (and Jimbo's "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=301782335" makes it pretty clear that he intends this group to be a rubber stamp for his assorted Bright Ideas). Thus any ideas coming from this council as currently constituted, no matter how good, are going to be seen as The Will Of The Cabal and won't be taken as seriously as they should.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 14th July 2009, 2:07pm) *

You've missed out my motivation for opposing it, which I think is driving quite a lot of the opposition (at least, my explanation of it currently has over 30 "endorses")...


Yeah, but except for Malleus, the endorsements are from a bunch of idiots. I wouldn't be caught dead in a cheap motel with those characters. blink.gif

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 14th July 2009, 2:07pm) *
...but the way this particular council has been presented de novo looks to an outside observer like Jimbo and Arbcom creating a Provisional Government of their buddies (and Jimbo's "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=301782335" makes it pretty clear that he intends this group to be a rubber stamp for his assorted Bright Ideas)...


I am opposed to having this council "composed of fairly large people." Why should I be denied membership just because I stick to my diet and exercise regularly? angry.gif

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 14th July 2009, 2:07pm) *
Thus any ideas coming from this council as currently constituted, no matter how good, are going to be seen as The Will Of The Cabal and won't be taken as seriously as they should.


Say, does anyone on Wikipedia actually write encyclopedia articles anymore? wacko.gif



Posted by: endallbeall

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 13th July 2009, 10:31pm) *

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Mon 13th July 2009, 4:45pm) *
The majority of the community is wrong.
The majority of the community doesn't give a shit. Well, ok, that depends on how you define "community". Wikipedia has a lot of editors who edit away merrily on their pet topics, completely ignorant of all the idiotic wikipolitics. Are these people part of the "community"? They almost never vote or express an opinion on any of the usual drama pages.

The majority of the community is anon IP's, actually.

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 14th July 2009, 2:07pm) *

You've missed out my motivation for opposing it, which I think is driving quite a lot of the opposition (at least, my explanation of it currently has over 30 "endorses"): that WP does need change, and some kind of council is a good idea, but the way this particular council has been presented de novo looks to an outside observer like Jimbo and Arbcom creating a Provisional Government of their buddies (and Jimbo's "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=301782335" makes it pretty clear that he intends this group to be a rubber stamp for his assorted Bright Ideas). Thus any ideas coming from this council as currently constituted, no matter how good, are going to be seen as The Will Of The Cabal and won't be taken as seriously as they should.

This is how the community damns itself. Regardless of the value in an argument, too often more consideration is given to who is making the argument. I've done it before, too. Someone I consider a complete toolbox makes a good point, and my first instinct is to dismiss it. Luckily, I'm not a complete knob, so I read it again objectively, then I support it.

Shankbone knows this. As does Ottava and some others. I often agree with people I generally have little to no respect for. Where the argument or proposal or opinion comes from is of little relevance when your focus is on what's best for the project.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Tue 14th July 2009, 8:00pm) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 14th July 2009, 2:07pm) *

You've missed out my motivation for opposing it, which I think is driving quite a lot of the opposition (at least, my explanation of it currently has over 30 "endorses"): that WP does need change, and some kind of council is a good idea, but the way this particular council has been presented de novo looks to an outside observer like Jimbo and Arbcom creating a Provisional Government of their buddies (and Jimbo's "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=301782335" makes it pretty clear that he intends this group to be a rubber stamp for his assorted Bright Ideas). Thus any ideas coming from this council as currently constituted, no matter how good, are going to be seen as The Will Of The Cabal and won't be taken as seriously as they should.

This is how the community damns itself. Regardless of the value in an argument, too often more consideration is given to who is making the argument. I've done it before, too. Someone I consider a complete toolbox makes a good point, and my first instinct is to dismiss it. Luckily, I'm not a complete knob, so I read it again objectively, then I support it.

Shankbone knows this. As does Ottava and some others. I often agree with people I generally have little to no respect for. Where the argument or proposal or opinion comes from is of little relevance when your focus is on what's best for the project.

You don't need to convince me of that (hell, I'm the one up there agreeing with SV). A council produced by elections and a council appointed by Jimbo and Arbcom would probably produce the exact same agenda – and could possibly have the exact same members – but proposals coming from the latter will be slated as "products of the cabal", and the same proposals from the former as "refreshing and necessary insights". It's wrong, it's a pit Wikipedia dug for itself three years ago and only has itself to blame, it's a symptom of a fucked-up system, but it doesn't mean it's not true.

FWIW, if I were constituting a Provisional Government of Wikipedia council, my initial configuration would be:
Total of 24 members;
8 hand-picked (by whom doesn't actually matter – I'd suggest Jimbo or the WMF trustees nominate 2, Arbcom nominates 2, Raul and Sandy nominate 1, the Counter Vandalism and Bot Approval people each nominate 1 – I'd quite like to see Somey and Selina nominate one person as well, to give a genuine outside view, but I doubt that would happen);
8 elected;
8 "anyone who's interested put your names in the hat" and selected by lottery.

The element of appointment would allow people who really should be there but would never win an election; the elective aspect would give it some kind of legitimacy without swamping it in populism; the lottery aspect would allow ordinary people without the "recognition factor" to win an election to get onto the committee, and prevent it being the same squeakiest wheels again and again.

Of course, no way on earth this will happen.

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 14th July 2009, 3:14pm) *

You don't need to convince me of that (hell, I'm the one up there agreeing with SV). A council produced by elections and a council appointed by Jimbo and Arbcom would probably produce the exact same agenda – and could possibly have the exact same members – but proposals coming from the latter will be slated as "products of the cabal", and the same proposals from the former as "refreshing and necessary insights". It's wrong, it's a pit Wikipedia dug for itself three years ago and only has itself to blame, it's a symptom of a fucked-up system, but it doesn't mean it's not true.

FWIW, if I were constituting a Provisional Government of Wikipedia council, my initial configuration would be:
Total of 24 members;
8 hand-picked (by whom doesn't actually matter – I'd suggest Jimbo or the WMF trustees nominate 2, Arbcom nominates 2, Raul and Sandy nominate 1, the Counter Vandalism and Bot Approval people each nominate 1 – I'd quite like to see Somey and Selina nominate one person as well, to give a genuine outside view, but I doubt that would happen);
8 elected;
8 "anyone who's interested put your names in the hat" and selected by lottery.

The element of appointment would allow people who really should be there but would never win an election; the elective aspect would give it some kind of legitimacy without swamping it in populism; the lottery aspect would allow ordinary people without the "recognition factor" to win an election to get onto the committee, and prevent it being the same squeakiest wheels again and again.

Of course, no way on earth this will happen.

It's interesting to see you agree with me, yet confusing that you support the fucked up system by supporting what you say is wrong.

Your system has its merits, but it will never happen, especially considering that's a mighty big circus for a discussion group.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 14th July 2009, 12:40pm) *
No, I am thinking ham -- I know the difference. I was surprised they still had ham radio today, considering all of the high tech shit on the market. Ham seems so old.
At the risk of hijacking a thread, yes, we're still around. A lot of the high tech on the market today was developed first by hams, you know. smile.gif

For more on this topic, please see http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22531.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Tue 14th July 2009, 12:00pm) *

This is how the community damns itself. Regardless of the value in an argument, too often more consideration is given to who is making the argument. I've done it before, too. Someone I consider a complete toolbox makes a good point, and my first instinct is to dismiss it. Luckily, I'm not a complete knob, so I read it again objectively, then I support it.

Shankbone knows this. As does Ottava and some others. I often agree with people I generally have little to no respect for. Where the argument or proposal or opinion comes from is of little relevance when your focus is on what's best for the project.

We could fix this problem, with anonymous posting. smile.gif wink.gif

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 14th July 2009, 1:07pm) *
makes it pretty clear that he intends this group to be a rubber stamp for his assorted Bright Ideas
Jimbo hasn't had a bright idea in his entire life. Nothing he's done reflects an original thought on his part. Nupedia wasn't his idea; neither was Wikipedia. He takes the credit, but the ideas came from someone else.

No, Jimbo's intended purpose for this council is to give him ideas that he will then adopt as his own and run with, because he's incapable of coming up with them on his own.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 14th July 2009, 3:32pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 14th July 2009, 12:40pm) *
No, I am thinking ham -- I know the difference. I was surprised they still had ham radio today, considering all of the high tech shit on the market. Ham seems so old.
At the risk of hijacking a thread, yes, we're still around. A lot of the high tech on the market today was developed first by hams, you know. smile.gif

For more on this topic, please see http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22531.


Don't worry about hijacking the thread -- no one really minds. It adds spice to some mighty bland chatter. Really, can you believe these people would rather talk about some nonsense council instead of ham radio? rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 14th July 2009, 12:54pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 14th July 2009, 3:32pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 14th July 2009, 12:40pm) *
No, I am thinking ham -- I know the difference. I was surprised they still had ham radio today, considering all of the high tech shit on the market. Ham seems so old.
At the risk of hijacking a thread, yes, we're still around. A lot of the high tech on the market today was developed first by hams, you know. smile.gif

For more on this topic, please see http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22531.


Don't worry about hijacking the thread -- no one really minds. It adds spice to some mighty bland chatter. Really, can you believe these people would rather talk about some nonsense council instead of ham radio? rolleyes.gif

Really, knowing how Wikipedia works, this council idea just kills me. How am I supposed to think about it seriously?

Image

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 14th July 2009, 12:14pm) *
Of course, no way on earth this will happen.

Thanks for the cheery outlook. As I just told Acalamari, why are you here complaining,
when you could be on-wiki generating consensus for such a change? Or at least trying?

Personally I've given up. To me this isn't a subject for fruitful conversation.
That system is broken, because it's dominated by broken people.
Get rid of the broken people first, and there might be hope for Wikipedia.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 14th July 2009, 4:34pm) *

That system is broken, because it's dominated by broken people.
Get rid of the broken people first, and there might be hope for Wikipedia.


Yeah, but make sure you keep the good looking people -- and see about setting up a webcam for them, too. Do you realize the profits we could rake in if we created WikiHotties.com? wink.gif

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 14th July 2009, 6:07pm) *
You've missed out my motivation for opposing it, which I think is driving quite a lot of the opposition (at least, my explanation of it currently has over 30 "endorses"): that WP does need change, and some kind of council is a good idea, but the way this particular council has been presented de novo looks to an outside observer like Jimbo and Arbcom creating a Provisional Government of their buddies (and Jimbo's "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=301782335" makes it pretty clear that he intends this group to be a rubber stamp for his assorted Bright Ideas). Thus any ideas coming from this council as currently constituted, no matter how good, are going to be seen as The Will Of The Cabal and won't be taken as seriously as they should.


If you read NYB's comments on the RfC's talk page, you'll see that you and many others really jumped the gun on this. You should have waited a couple of weeks at least to see how it started, and then reacted formally. SV is trying to use emotion and drama to nip this thing in the bud because, as others have noted here and in Wikipedia, it really isn't a big deal and that would be obvious after it has operated for awhile. As NYB notes, it has been badly mischaracterized by SV, Durova, and a few others.

Jimbo did put his foot in this mouth with his "agitants" statement. After being questioned on it by Giano, he quickly backtracked. It is possible that he wants to use this council as a sop for the editors who give him a hard time all the time (that definitely includes me and you would know that for sure if you could see some of the emails that me and him have exchanged in the past). I'm willing to give it a try, however. Honestly, if I wasn't one of the appointees I would still be supporting this effort. I've been saying all along that the ArbCom need to start some more councils or committees to help them out with various aspects of doing their job. That these councils could, on their own, put out some ideas for the community to discuss or vote on for project management would be helpful.

Again, after this RfC runs for a few more days, I think someone, perhaps SV, is going to slap an MfD tag on the forum, and a new round of melodrama will erupt. I don't think she or some others want to let the RfC run for at least a month as is customary, because tempers will cool and people will notice that the sky isn't falling.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 14th July 2009, 9:34pm) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 14th July 2009, 12:14pm) *
Of course, no way on earth this will happen.

Thanks for the cheery outlook. As I just told Acalamari, why are you here complaining,
when you could be on-wiki generating consensus for such a change? Or at least trying?

I've been there and already said my piece on the thread – I've no intention of becoming one of those who checks it every minute for every little update, especially since I'm barely active on Wikipedia any more. This looks like it's going to go ahead, in which case I wish them all the best. I'm not going to waste my time arguing for a wholesale revolution if there's no chance it's going to happen, and eight years of momentum is a hell of a lot of inertia to reverse.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 14th July 2009, 3:04pm) *
I think the objection from the parties named above fall more into the category of "I don't object to governance so much as I object to how this governing body was selected". They're still being stupid, insofar as this isn't really a governing body, but I also think they're letting themselves be used by SlimVirgin by signing onto her nihilistic rant against any form of governance that doesn't give her free reign to do as she please.


I think it's possible that SV doesn't like the ArbCom because they have sent so many of her old friends packing and have slapped her wrists fairly hard. Jossi is banned, FeloniousMonk was desysopped, Jayjg has left, JzG and MONGO have been silenced, and SV was suspended for six months. She doesn't want to see ArbCom enlarge their role in Wikipedia because they are a threat. As usual, she's not seeing past the end of her nose and it will end up, in the long run, damaging further any credibility she might still have when the others who supported her on this thing realize that she was using them for her own personal vendetta.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 14th July 2009, 4:44pm) *

I've been there and already said my piece on the thread – I've no intention of becoming one of those who checks it every minute for every little update, especially since I'm barely active on Wikipedia any more.


Barely? Hmmm: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Iridescent

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 14th July 2009, 1:53pm) *
She doesn't want to see ArbCom enlarge their role in Wikipedia because they are a threat. As usual, she's not seeing past the end of her nose and it will end up, in the long run, damaging further any credibility she might still have when the others who supported her on this thing realize that she was using them for her own personal vendetta.

Exactly the point I was trying to make. If you say so in that RFC, she'll delete it,
therefore "free speech" does not exist there. The problem is not her, the problem is
the long list of damned fools who defer to her.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 14th July 2009, 4:04pm) *
The problem is not her, the problem is the long list of damned fools who defer to her.
Especially since they have some bizarre expectation that she will have their back when they need it. Except she won't.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 14th July 2009, 9:58pm) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 14th July 2009, 4:44pm) *

I've been there and already said my piece on the thread – I've no intention of becoming one of those who checks it every minute for every little update, especially since I'm barely active on Wikipedia any more.


Barely? Hmmm: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Iridescent

Yeah, that "replying to the occasional post on my talkpage" takes up all my time… (The flurry on 2 July was because Raul put one I'd written way-back-when on the main page, and I was on more than usual keeping an eye on it.)

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 14th July 2009, 9:53pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 14th July 2009, 3:04pm) *
I think the objection from the parties named above fall more into the category of "I don't object to governance so much as I object to how this governing body was selected". They're still being stupid, insofar as this isn't really a governing body, but I also think they're letting themselves be used by SlimVirgin by signing onto her nihilistic rant against any form of governance that doesn't give her free reign to do as she please.


I think it's possible that SV doesn't like the ArbCom because they have sent so many of her old friends packing and have slapped her wrists fairly hard. Jossi is banned, FeloniousMonk was desysopped, Jayjg has left, JzG and MONGO have been silenced, and SV was suspended for six months. She doesn't want to see ArbCom enlarge their role in Wikipedia because they are a threat. As usual, she's not seeing past the end of her nose and it will end up, in the long run, damaging further any credibility she might still have when the others who supported her on this thing realize that she was using them for her own personal vendetta.


This line of discussion is laughable and nothing but spin--this controversy is not about SlimVirgin. Isn't it past time for you and Kelly to let go of your grudges? I hope this isn't the kind of thinking that will go into your advisory council work! laugh.gif

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 14th July 2009, 10:06pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 14th July 2009, 9:58pm) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 14th July 2009, 4:44pm) *

I've been there and already said my piece on the thread – I've no intention of becoming one of those who checks it every minute for every little update, especially since I'm barely active on Wikipedia any more.


Barely? Hmmm: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Iridescent

Yeah, that "replying to the occasional post on my talkpage" takes up all my time… (The flurry on 2 July was because Raul put one I'd written way-back-when on the main page, and I was on more than usual keeping an eye on it.)


There's more than just replying to your talk page there. Not that it matters at all, but I thought I'd point it out anyway. I would be hesitant to call that "barely active", or even "semi-active".

Posted by: Orderinchaos

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 14th July 2009, 7:36pm) *

QUOTE(Orderinchaos @ Tue 14th July 2009, 2:38am) *

I really don't either - I neither have "power" nor want it, I think a revolution might well be a good thing as long as the right ideas are behind it (i.e. it doesn't end up with paid advertising all over it or something), and I'm neither an anarchist nor a fan of slack governance (I worked in the public sector for a while and probably will for much of my future career). As for friends - one fellow pleb agrees with me on most of it but not on my intended solution, and two others are amongst its strongest supporters. It'd be really difficult to put my opposition into a convenient box.


If I knew that you were going to be so wishy-washy, I would've brought my laundry and a box of soap flakes. dry.gif


LOL... I'm not wishy washy on my opposition to this proposal though. I must admit though I do find your commentary on me suitably witty and amusing (e.g. the "blunder from down under" line a number of weeks ago). biggrin.gif

I simply am of the view that if you put Wikipoliticians in charge of governance, you won't get governance, you'll get Wikipolitics. A heap of proposals that ignore the real issues but meet irrelevant priorities which are the focus of the "in groups" being invited to participate.

My proposal is : bring in experts (as in real ones from the field, not ones with some amusing screen name and a "I once worked in management but I can't say where and I can pontificate in impressive verbiage" credential) and see what they propose. If it's good enough for the world's largest companies to not trust their own and seek (or employ) expert advice, it's good enough for a large website, especially if it's trying to gain credibility in the wider domain. If money or domain is an issue (i.e. WMF won't pay for something purely en.wikipedia) then do a donation drive and those who care can raise the money to pay these experts to come in. Most people in professional and academic disciplines (rightly) see Wikipedia as some sort of bizarre experiment with less than rigorous processes to ensure legal and ethical responsibility (and rather scant compliance in so many areas), and it's pretty hard to argue them where they stand when they can point to so many examples.

Unfortunately I think that some of the people I find agreeing with that this proposal is bad would find my proposal even more frightening. However consider this - some people are saying (loudly) that they want this Advisory Council to be elected from the membership. When a Canadian or British election falls below 65% participation the pundits declare it a disaster. But what percentage participate in Wiki elections - is it even 1%? Is that 1%, going through the names, even remotely representative as a sample of those who either edit Wikipedia, rely on it or are affected by it (eg BLPs)? Does the electoral process have any credibility when Jimbo can change the rules after the election and pick who he wants? And how would the process that selected our present ArbCom, select an advisory council that could actually do its job?

Posted by: Moulton

Wikipedia is too far gone to be able to evolve into a 21st Century model with a functional governance structure.

Posted by: Kato

QUOTE(Orderinchaos @ Tue 14th July 2009, 11:38pm) *

My proposal is : bring in experts (as in real ones from the field, not ones with some amusing screen name and a "I once worked in management but I can't say where and I can pontificate in impressive verbiage" credential) and see what they propose.

You are right. However, I guess this "Advisory Council" is a baby step in that evolutionary progress, and should be allowed to be given a chance .

Wikipedios are an easily paranoid bunch, and they need to be shown that measures like BLP and Flagged Revisions are nothing to be scared of, but actually improve the place.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(Orderinchaos @ Tue 14th July 2009, 10:38pm) *
My proposal is : bring in experts (as in real ones from the field, not ones with some amusing screen name and a "I once worked in management but I can't say where and I can pontificate in impressive verbiage" credential) and see what they propose.

If it's good enough for the world's largest companies to not trust their own and seek (or employ) expert advice, it's good enough for a large website, especially if it's trying to gain credibility in the wider domain.

If money or domain is an issue (i.e. WMF won't pay for something purely en.wikipedia) then do a donation drive and those who care can raise the money to pay these experts to come in. Most people in professional and academic disciplines (rightly) see Wikipedia as some sort of bizarre experiment with less than rigorous processes to ensure legal and ethical responsibility (and rather scant compliance in so many areas), and it's pretty hard to argue them

I would 'third' that proposal ... it is absolutely clear and brilliant.

Could it be done from "the community" up?

If not, the next step would be to ask what action is necessary to ensure such a situation where it HAD to happen?

I could only suspect it would require some legal-financial crises set to threaten its very existence ... or some death (I am not suggest we actively pursue the latter, wtf.gif I am suggesting that if there was some sufficiently serious incident which threatened the cult, such as a stalking/murder/suicide, that the media backlash would bring about a 'something must be done about it' situation).

Sadly, even if there was some legal-financial crisis, I would be afraid that the Whacky Pee-dians would fall over themselves to throw their wallets at Saint Jimbo in order to save their Titanic before it sank. Good money after bad.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 14th July 2009, 9:15pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 14th July 2009, 9:53pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 14th July 2009, 3:04pm) *
I think the objection from the parties named above fall more into the category of "I don't object to governance so much as I object to how this governing body was selected". They're still being stupid, insofar as this isn't really a governing body, but I also think they're letting themselves be used by SlimVirgin by signing onto her nihilistic rant against any form of governance that doesn't give her free reign to do as she please.


I think it's possible that SV doesn't like the ArbCom because they have sent so many of her old friends packing and have slapped her wrists fairly hard. Jossi is banned, FeloniousMonk was desysopped, Jayjg has left, JzG and MONGO have been silenced, and SV was suspended for six months. She doesn't want to see ArbCom enlarge their role in Wikipedia because they are a threat. As usual, she's not seeing past the end of her nose and it will end up, in the long run, damaging further any credibility she might still have when the others who supported her on this thing realize that she was using them for her own personal vendetta.


This line of discussion is laughable and nothing but spin--this controversy is not about SlimVirgin. Isn't it past time for you and Kelly to let go of your grudges? I hope this isn't the kind of thinking that will go into your advisory council work! laugh.gif


I might be wrong, but I think that her motivation is at least one of those listed by Somey earlier in this thread. You remember, don't you, that it was her clique who primarily got you de-adminned originally? Your experiences in trying to seek re-adminship is one of the reasons that I think the admin structure of Wikipedia needs to changed and I'll be proposing that as a topic of discussion with this council sometime in the future.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Tue 14th July 2009, 8:00pm) *

Sadly, even if there was some legal-financial crisis, I would be afraid that the Whacky Pee-dians would fall over themselves to throw their wallets at Saint Jimbo in order to save their Titanic before it sank. Good money after bad.


That raises a rare serious question from me: how come Jimbeaux never charged admission to join? I would've thought that paid membership would (1) allow a revenue stream and (2) would decrease the level of vandals and slackers who hang out on WP.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Orderinchaos @ Tue 14th July 2009, 10:38pm) *

LOL... I'm not wishy washy on my opposition to this proposal though. I must admit though I do find your commentary on me suitably witty and amusing (e.g. the "blunder from down under" line a number of weeks ago). biggrin.gif


By the way, excellent work on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-07-13/Open_letter.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 14th July 2009, 8:52pm) *

By the way, excellent work on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-07-13/Open_letter.


Does anyone outside of WP actually read that? I always thought of Signpost as being like scribbling that you find on a bathroom wall -- something you look at when you really aren't on a mission for in-depth reading. But it is not as interesting as the bathroom stuff, of course.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 15th July 2009, 1:36am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 14th July 2009, 9:15pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 14th July 2009, 9:53pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 14th July 2009, 3:04pm) *
I think the objection from the parties named above fall more into the category of "I don't object to governance so much as I object to how this governing body was selected". They're still being stupid, insofar as this isn't really a governing body, but I also think they're letting themselves be used by SlimVirgin by signing onto her nihilistic rant against any form of governance that doesn't give her free reign to do as she please.


I think it's possible that SV doesn't like the ArbCom because they have sent so many of her old friends packing and have slapped her wrists fairly hard. Jossi is banned, FeloniousMonk was desysopped, Jayjg has left, JzG and MONGO have been silenced, and SV was suspended for six months. She doesn't want to see ArbCom enlarge their role in Wikipedia because they are a threat. As usual, she's not seeing past the end of her nose and it will end up, in the long run, damaging further any credibility she might still have when the others who supported her on this thing realize that she was using them for her own personal vendetta.


This line of discussion is laughable and nothing but spin--this controversy is not about SlimVirgin. Isn't it past time for you and Kelly to let go of your grudges? I hope this isn't the kind of thinking that will go into your advisory council work! laugh.gif


I might be wrong, but I think that her motivation is at least one of those listed by Somey earlier in this thread. You remember, don't you, that it was her clique who primarily got you de-adminned originally? Your experiences in trying to seek re-adminship is one of the reasons that I think the admin structure of Wikipedia needs to changed and I'll be proposing that as a topic of discussion with this council sometime in the future.


Once again, this isn't about SlimVirgin. It's about the ArbCom's unilateral decisions, its aspirations to expand its authority and direct project development, and its failure to heed the community's wishes after the community has voiced its opposition to your council. I guess I shouldn't be, but I am continuously stunned by this blithe "proceeding with business" attitude some of you guys have in the midst of all this opposition. How is anyone supposed to think your council cares what the community thinks now? How can you ever expect the community to respect your council and entertain its proposals when you have so blatantly ignored its wishes from the very beginning?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 14th July 2009, 8:04pm) *
It's about the ArbCom's unilateral decisions, its aspirations to expand its authority and direct project development, and its failure to heed the community's wishes after the community has voiced its opposition to your council.
Once again, everyking, the community has not expressed any wishes or opposition. The community, as far as anyone can tell, doesn't give a shit. You and your co-objectors neither comprise nor represent "the community".

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 13th July 2009, 11:17pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 13th July 2009, 6:08pm) *
Kelly, I hear the ArbCom is now considering applications to join the council...it's not too late to sign up! laugh.gif
I just tried to email Casliber about it, but he lists a false email on the ArbCom page, and Newyorkbrad has so far refused to convey my interest to the Committee.

Why do you think that is?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Tue 14th July 2009, 8:44pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 13th July 2009, 11:17pm) *
I just tried to email Casliber about it, but he lists a false email on the ArbCom page, and Newyorkbrad has so far refused to convey my interest to the Committee.
Why do you think that is?
Well, in NYB's case I'm sure he thinks that I have some nefarious plan to troll or otherwise disrupt proceedings. He is fond of reminding me of my "repeated admissions of intentional trolling", although I'm not entirely sure why he does this.

Posted by: gelugor

It's interesting how no non-member has yet posted to the forum page... evilgrin.gif

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 14th July 2009, 9:48pm) *
Well, in NYB's case I'm sure he thinks that I have some nefarious plan to troll or otherwise disrupt proceedings. He is fond of reminding me of my "repeated admissions of intentional trolling", although I'm not entirely sure why he does this.


The absence of carnal distraction might be a reason. Maybe he needs a hoochie mama to keep him entertained, to the point that we can run amok without him knowing or caring. evilgrin.gif

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 14th July 2009, 4:43pm) *

Jimbo did put his foot in this mouth with his "agitants" statement. After being questioned on it by Giano, he quickly backtracked. It is possible that he wants to use this council as a sop for the editors who give him a hard time all the time (that definitely includes me and you would know that for sure if you could see some of the emails that me and him have exchanged in the past). I'm willing to give it a try, however. Honestly, if I wasn't one of the appointees I would still be supporting this effort. I've been saying all along that the ArbCom need to start some more councils or committees to help them out with various aspects of doing their job. That these councils could, on their own, put out some ideas for the community to discuss or vote on for project management would be helpful.

Again, after this RfC runs for a few more days, I think someone, perhaps SV, is going to slap an MfD tag on the forum, and a new round of melodrama will erupt. I don't think she or some others want to let the RfC run for at least a month as is customary, because tempers will cool and people will notice that the sky isn't falling.

Ah, the "agitants" statement. Big deal. I freely admit to being an agitant. Personally, I prefer "bitch," but I can understand his hesitation in using that one. At least he didn't link it to WP:DICK. Of course, perhaps he would have taken less shit for it if he had. rolleyes.gif

Giano is the last person I would have expected to get pissy about such a comment. Seems a bit hypocritical to me, considering his propensity to throw insults. I also thought he had a little more self-awareness.

But whatever. Still a fan of Giano's. Just surprised me.

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 14th July 2009, 6:04pm) *
blah, blah, blah failure to heed the community's wishes after the community has voiced its opposition ... blah, blah, blah ... How is anyone supposed to think your council cares what the community thinks now? ... blah, blah, blah

Oh, fer crissake, EK, it's not a "community", it's a mob. And they don't "think" anything. Occasionally someone with ulterior motives stirs them up, but in general, whatever it is, they're against it. Wikipedia has way too much "community" and way too little leadership. Someone is trying to provide some (intellectual) leadership, regardless of how hopeless, pointless, and godforsaken that notion is, it certainly can't hurt. What exactly are you afraid of?

Posted by: Kato

QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 15th July 2009, 6:42am) *
What exactly are you afraid of?

...becoming irrelevant, and becoming just another cog in a mundane machine.

Causing drama in a chaotic Wikipedia makes individuals feel important. If Wikipedia adopts more thoughtful, measured solutions to problems, this power and quick thrill is taken from them.

Posted by: jayvdb

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 13th July 2009, 11:17pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Mon 13th July 2009, 6:08pm) *
Kelly, I hear the ArbCom is now considering applications to join the council...it's not too late to sign up! laugh.gif
I just tried to email Casliber about it, but he lists a false email on the ArbCom page, and Newyorkbrad has so far refused to convey my interest to the Committee.

Casliber has http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration_Committee&diff=301955820&oldid=301851448 his email address, but I've not heard from NYB about this. Self-nominations are better sent to arbcom-l unless you want a sanity check from an arbitrator. When I saw your post here, I added you to the list of self-nominations being discussed.

I am currently abstaining on your nomination; my reasoning is:

QUOTE(John Vandenberg @ 01:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

Kelly has proposed similar bodies in the past, and their failure to launch is a considerable part of her problems. I am leaning towards supporting Kelly here, especially as she is now an external voice. Her offwiki activities, like posting very old arbcom-l email, is the only thing that makes me think twice about this. If she is serious about this, and is willing to keep her onwiki contributions in line with community expectations, I think she would be a good addition to the council, and there is the possibility of healing a rift here at the same time. Also, there is no greater critic of Arbcom, so our addition of her to this council should help to distance the Council from the Arbcom.


I think I am well-informed about the http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22813, but I am not as familiar with the earlier issues that surround you, and would appreciate a refresher course from your perspective (preferably via email; cross-posted here if you like). My concerns about the (now closed) blog will be reduced if you are willing to put old disputes on the shelf, for a few months, in order to ensure that the positives you may bring to this council would not be overshadowed by drama. i.e. Please convince me that your self-nom is serious and sensible, because I am not convinced of either yet. tongue.gif That may be simply because I havent seen what you have sent to NYB and/or Casliber, so you might want to inform the rest of arbcom as it will take a majority of the committee to approve your nomination.

Posted by: EricBarbour

EK: either you're totally delusional, or SV is paying you to post on this forum.

She is NOT your friend, for the thousandth time.
She is crazy, manipulative and 100% selfish.
She would gleefully throw you to the wolves, to protect her own reputation.

Go ahead, keep ranting in favor of her schemes. She likely won't return the favor.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 15th July 2009, 2:22am) *
Self-nominations are better sent to arbcom-l unless you want a sanity check from an arbitrator.
I don't send things to arbcom-l because in the past things I've sent there have been either ignored or returned with a message that the "moderator has rejected your posting". At least when I send something to a named arbitrator, and no response is forthcoming, I have a specific person I can hold accountable. Frankly, I think the main reason the ArbCom has long requested that emails be sent to arbcom-l is precisely so that unwanted communications can be plausibly denied. Getting a Wikipedian to accept accountability for his or her actions, or lack thereof, can be tough, but you have to start somewhere.

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 15th July 2009, 2:22am) *
That may be simply because I havent seen what you have sent to NYB and/or Casliber, so you might want to inform the rest of arbcom as it will take a majority of the committee to approve your nomination.
My discussions with NYB were in private IRC chat, and I had no expectation that he would share them with anyone else as he never indicated that he would. (NYB has never made a promise to me that he has failed to keep. That puts him heads and shoulders above most other Wikipedians.) Casliber, on the other hand, indicated that he would forward my comments to the appropriate forum. So your comments are at odds with his. Perhaps part of the problem is that I believe that the Casliber may believe that the ACPD is empowered to name additional members on its own authority, without consulting the ArbCom, and thus forwarded my self-nomination to them, while you seem to believe that the ArbCom is the sole party empowered to name additional members. In any case, it's obvious that you're not all on the same page. Perhaps you should figure out what it is that y'all are doing and get back to the rest of us.

The only active "old dispute" I have with Wikipedia is your ongoing unwillingness to remove all references to me from your project space. I've requested this several times, but no action has been taken; I can't even get my old talk pages deleted. Perhaps you could show some good faith by executing this request (which I have made several times by several reasonable channels), instead of responding with some folderol about how I need to tag them with some unspecified tag that someone who has not been active in the site for three years would almost certainly not know.

Posted by: jayvdb

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 15th July 2009, 11:30am) *

I don't send things to arbcom-l because in the past things I've sent there have been either ignored or returned with a message that the "moderator has rejected your posting". At least when I send something to a named arbitrator, and no response is forthcoming, I have a specific person I can hold accountable. Frankly, I think the main reason the ArbCom has long requested that emails be sent to arbcom-l is precisely so that unwanted communications can be plausibly denied. Getting a Wikipedian to accept accountability for his or her actions, or lack thereof, can be tough, but you have to start somewhere.

You could email arbcom-l and cc: an individual arbitrator.

I don't know much about list management practices in the past, but I would be surprised if there are any emails sent to arbcom-l in 2009 that have been "lost", intentionally or otherwise. We did have a very brief problem that caused a few ban appeal emails to be lost in the works, but the sender was also copying in individual arbitrators, so we forwarded them to the list.

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 15th July 2009, 11:30am) *

My discussions with NYB were in private IRC chat, and I had no expectation that he would share them with anyone else as he never indicated that he would. (NYB has never made a promise to me that he has failed to keep. That puts him heads and shoulders above most other Wikipedians.) Casliber, on the other hand, indicated that he would forward my comments to the appropriate forum. So your comments are at odds with his. Perhaps part of the problem is that I believe that the Casliber may believe that the ACPD is empowered to name additional members on its own authority, without consulting the ArbCom, and thus forwarded my self-nomination to them, while you seem to believe that the ArbCom is the sole party empowered to name additional members. In any case, it's obvious that you're not all on the same page. Perhaps you should figure out what it is that y'all are doing and get back to the rest of us.

I think that you should back up your assertions about what Casliber has said, or wait for him to comment before jumping to "obvious" conclusions. It could be simply that Casliber didn't get around to doing what he promised to do, or that I had already beat him to it, because I did it as soon as I saw your comment here about having problems getting your nomination through to the committee.

The committee have published the first round of members, and are proceeding with the second round (which includes consideration of every self-nomination we have received; I hope we haven't missed any) as if it will go ahead, but that is on the back-burner at the moment due to the RfC.

My understanding is that the committee expects the community will decide how the council membership is to be maintained after the second round of appointments.

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 15th July 2009, 11:30am) *

The only active "old dispute" I have with Wikipedia is your ongoing unwillingness to remove all references to me from your project space. I've requested this several times, but no action has been taken; I can't even get my old talk pages deleted. Perhaps you could show some good faith by executing this request (which I have made several times by several reasonable channels), instead of responding with some folderol about how I need to tag them with some unspecified tag that someone who has not been active in the site for three years would almost certainly not know.

You want all references to yourself removed from project space, but also want to be a member of this council which resides in project space?

That makes me wonder if you are serious, as it would be very unorthodox for a person to have their past history in project side of Wikipedia wiped clean. That sai, I can understand that you may desire this as a prerequisite to involving yourself in the project side of Wikipedia again. If you do want this as a pre-requisite to being appointed, I think we can proceed with your nomination in round two, with the invitation not being official sent until you are happy with the outcome of the request to remove your name from the project namespace.

Requests like this have occasionally been sent to oversight-l, who then use a mix of oversight, ordinary deletion and page blanking to fulfill the request where they see fit. I suggest that you do the same as this request will likely require quite a bit of discussion between oversighters and yourself, and I expect there might need to be some compromise. For example, I recall that you participated in the most recent Arbcom election, and I doubt an oversighter would remove your name from there. If you have already sent requests about this using the typical channels, I am happy to look at the list archives if you will give me some indication on where I should be looking.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 15th July 2009, 8:48am) *
I think that you should back up your assertions about what Casliber has said, or wait for him to comment before jumping to "obvious" conclusions. It could be simply that Casliber didn't get around to doing what he promised to do, or that I had already beat him to it, because I did it as soon as I saw your comment here about having problems getting your nomination through to the committee.
You just asked me to post supposedly private emails, which I would assume if I were to do you would proceed to hold that act against me. I consider this disingenuous on your part, and as such does not foster trust. It's obvious to me that you and Casliber are on different pages. This might be because you haven't talked to one another, but if that's the case then it reflects poorly on you for making public statements without checking your facts first. If you don't want people to draw reasonable conclusions from your statements, don't make them. You're doing a terrible job of encouraging me to believe that you are acting in good faith.

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 15th July 2009, 8:48am) *
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 15th July 2009, 11:30am) *
The only active "old dispute" I have with Wikipedia is your ongoing unwillingness to remove all references to me from your project space. I've requested this several times, but no action has been taken; I can't even get my old talk pages deleted. Perhaps you could show some good faith by executing this request (which I have made several times by several reasonable channels), instead of responding with some folderol about how I need to tag them with some unspecified tag that someone who has not been active in the site for three years would almost certainly not know.

You want all references to yourself removed from project space, but also want to be a member of this council which resides in project space?

That makes me wonder if you are serious, as it would be very unorthodox for a person to have their past history in project side of Wikipedia wiped clean. That sai, I can understand that you may desire this as a prerequisite to involving yourself in the project side of Wikipedia again. If you do want this as a pre-requisite to being appointed, I think we can proceed with your nomination in round two, with the invitation not being official sent until you are happy with the outcome of the request to remove your name from the project namespace.

Requests like this have occasionally been sent to oversight-l, who then use a mix of oversight, ordinary deletion and page blanking to fulfill the request where they see fit. I suggest that you do the same as this request will likely require quite a bit of discussion between oversighters and yourself, and I expect there might need to be some compromise. For example, I recall that you participated in the most recent Arbcom election, and I doubt an oversighter would remove your name from there. If you have already sent requests about this using the typical channels, I am happy to look at the list archives if you will give me some indication on where I should be looking.
And again I get bureaucratic obstructionism instead of helpfulness from yet another Wikipedia beanpusher. "I can't be bothered to do this, why don't you send your request to this address, which is staffed by unspecified anonymous individuals, where it can be dutifully ignored." Congrats, you've just added yourself to the list of "Wikipedians who don't really give a damn." I'm not asking for a complete "memory-wipe"; I'd settle for courtesy blanking of the various pages that are dedicated to discussing what a terrible person I am. At first thought, that comprises both RfAs, the RfB, the various RfCs, and all pages related to the two times I ran for the ArbCom. While there's some choice assholery buried away in various noticeboard archives, it's harder to find that stuff and I'm not as concerned about it. As I also said, I would like all my user talk pages (including archives) deleted; I've made this request several times but nobody seems willing to do it, for reasons I do not understand.

Also, please note that this is not a "prerequisite" for my "return to involvement" in Wikipedia as I have no intention of returning to involvement in Wikipedia; rather it's an outstanding request I've been making for some time which a number of Wikipedians have said seems reasonable to them but which they have themselves refused to carry out out of fear of retribution from the community. This is an opportunity for you to demonstrate your good faith toward me, and perhaps do something to give me reason to believe that Wikipedia is not entirely the collection of spineless assholes it appears to be. This isn't a negotiation; it's an opportunity for you to prove your humanity.

I have no intention of participating in any sort of "on-wiki" process; I find attempting to participate in discussions on Wikipedia tedious and irritating, as much due to the technical shortcomings of the medium as anything else, and in any case I no longer know what my account password is and so cannot log into my old account anyhow. It's my hope that the ACPD will recognize that wikis are a terrible format for effective discussion and move their deliberations to a more practical environment; if not, then my proposed participation may turn out to be irrelevant. If so, then so be it.

Posted by: One

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 14th July 2009, 6:04pm) *
blah, blah, blah failure to heed the community's wishes after the community has voiced its opposition ... blah, blah, blah

Er. Didn't you ask ArbCom to give you back the bit after the "community" declined several times? I would think you knew firsthand how "community" decisions are skewed by self-selection.

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(One @ Wed 15th July 2009, 11:13am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 14th July 2009, 6:04pm) *
blah, blah, blah failure to heed the community's wishes after the community has voiced its opposition ... blah, blah, blah

Er. Didn't you ask ArbCom to give you back the bit after the "community" declined several times? I would think you knew firsthand how "community" decisions are skewed by self-selection.

Aaaaaaaahaha... good point.

Posted by: One

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 15th July 2009, 11:30am) *

My discussions with NYB were in private IRC chat, and I had no expectation that he would share them with anyone else as he never indicated that he would. (NYB has never made a promise to me that he has failed to keep. That puts him heads and shoulders above most other Wikipedians.) Casliber, on the other hand, indicated that he would forward my comments to the appropriate forum. So your comments are at odds with his. Perhaps part of the problem is that I believe that the Casliber may believe that the ACPD is empowered to name additional members on its own authority, without consulting the ArbCom, and thus forwarded my self-nomination to them, while you seem to believe that the ArbCom is the sole party empowered to name additional members. In any case, it's obvious that you're not all on the same page. Perhaps you should figure out what it is that y'all are doing and get back to the rest of us.

I assumed that ACPD would be autonomous in the future. We will appoint its first members, but they should select their own method for appointing new members. Maybe others imagined it differently, but I didn't expect ArbCom to meddle with its composition after this month or so.

I remember that at least one appointee was concerned that being a member would limit his or her freedom on the project--we reassured that it would not. In order to deliver on our promise, I think that only ACPD should be able to remove participants; otherwise members might be unduly afraid to advocate reforms that arbitrators might dislike. I don't think ArbCom should ever remove ACPD members; the ACPD should work it out on their own.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(One @ Wed 15th July 2009, 4:13pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 14th July 2009, 6:04pm) *
blah, blah, blah failure to heed the community's wishes after the community has voiced its opposition ... blah, blah, blah

Er. Didn't you ask ArbCom to give you back the bit after the "community" declined several times? I would think you knew firsthand how "community" decisions are skewed by self-selection.


It's incorrect to say the community rejected my RfA--failure to receive an adequate support percentage does not automatically equate to rejection. My RfA received two-thirds support from the community, and since the entire issue of desysopping/resysopping was originally generated and continuously influenced by the ArbCom itself, I figured I might as well ask them to fix what they themselves had broken. Your council has an almost anemic level of support, to the point that it appears there is a consensus against its existence. Are the two situations comparable? I don't think so. If I had gotten only 20% support, and then asked the ArbCom to give me back my adminship anyway, then you might be able to claim that I respected the community almost as little as the ArbCom does.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 15th July 2009, 11:00am) *
It's incorrect to say the community rejected my RfA--failure to receive an adequate support percentage does not automatically equate to rejection. My RfA received two-thirds support from the community, and since the entire issue of desysopping/resysopping was originally generated and continuously influenced by the ArbCom itself, I figured I might as well ask them to fix what they themselves had broken. Your council has an almost anemic level of support, to the point that it appears there is a consensus against its existence. Are the two situations comparable? I don't think so. If I had gotten only 20% support, and then asked the ArbCom to give me back my adminship anyway, then you might be able to claim that I respected the community almost as little as the ArbCom does.
This is a great example of why Wikipedia's notion of "rough consensus" is useless and divisive as a basis for government. Two people can look at the same discussion and "vote" and come to completely opposite conclusions as to whether "consensus" exists or not. To be fair, in this case at least one of them is a nucking futter, but still....

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 15th July 2009, 11:05am) *
I'd settle for courtesy blanking of the various pages that are dedicated to discussing what a terrible person I am. At first thought, that comprises both RfAs, the RfB, the various RfCs, and all pages related to the two times I ran for the ArbCom. While there's some choice assholery buried away in various noticeboard archives, it's harder to find that stuff and I'm not as concerned about it. As I also said, I would like all my user talk pages (including archives) deleted; I've made this request several times but nobody seems willing to do it, for reasons I do not understand.
I've courtesy blanked the RFAs, the RFB, and (I think) all the RFCs. I've also deleted your talk archives. Consensus, such as it is, seems to be against deletion of user talk pages on request, so I won't do that without an MFD because I'm a shithead who likes to adhere to what he sees as rules in a futile attempt to encourage some basic principles of governance over there; if you can find another admin willing to do it, I certainly won't complain.

Still looking into the ArbComm stuff.

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 15th July 2009, 6:06pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 15th July 2009, 11:05am) *
I'd settle for courtesy blanking of the various pages that are dedicated to discussing what a terrible person I am. At first thought, that comprises both RfAs, the RfB, the various RfCs, and all pages related to the two times I ran for the ArbCom. While there's some choice assholery buried away in various noticeboard archives, it's harder to find that stuff and I'm not as concerned about it. As I also said, I would like all my user talk pages (including archives) deleted; I've made this request several times but nobody seems willing to do it, for reasons I do not understand.
I've courtesy blanked the RFAs, the RFB, and (I think) all the RFCs. I've also deleted your talk archives. Consensus, such as it is, seems to be against deletion of user talk pages on request, so I won't do that without an MFD because I'm a shithead who likes to adhere to what he sees as rules in a futile attempt to encourage some basic principles of governance over there; if you can find another admin willing to do it, I certainly won't complain.

Still looking into the ArbComm stuff.

noooo.gif Steve, when you blank an RFx you need to remember to re-categorize it. Otherwise it breaks the system on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:RFA-CAT

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 15th July 2009, 2:14pm) *
noooo.gif Steve, when you blank an RFx you need to remember to re-categorize it. Otherwise it breaks the system on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:RFA-CAT
Huh. I have a good excuse, though: I'm incompetent.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 15th July 2009, 12:14pm) *
noooo.gif Steve, when you blank an RFx you need to remember to re-categorize it. Otherwise it breaks the system on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:RFA-CAT
Oh, horrors, we cannot possibly have any DISCREPANCIES in our CAREFULLY CONSTRUCTED system for categorizing GARBAGE!

Posted by: jayvdb

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 15th July 2009, 2:05pm) *
QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 15th July 2009, 8:48am) *
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 15th July 2009, 11:30am) *
...
Perhaps part of the problem is that I believe that the Casliber may believe that the ACPD is empowered to name additional members on its own authority, without consulting the ArbCom, and thus forwarded my self-nomination to them, while you seem to believe that the ArbCom is the sole party empowered to name additional members.
...

I think that you should back up your assertions about what Casliber has said, or wait for him to comment before jumping to "obvious" conclusions. It could be simply that Casliber didn't get around to doing what he promised to do, or that I had already beat him to it, because I did it as soon as I saw your comment here about having problems getting your nomination through to the committee.
You just asked me to post supposedly private emails, which I would assume if I were to do you would proceed to hold that act against me. I consider this disingenuous on your part, and as such does not foster trust.

You have taken the liberty to say what Casliber believes. You are now saying that it was private correspondence between you and him, so I am even more keen to wait for Casliber to confirm this. (if you look really closely at my last post, you will notice the word "or" mid-way through the first sentence)

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 15th July 2009, 2:05pm) *
It's obvious to me that you and Casliber are on different pages. This might be because you haven't talked to one another, but if that's the case then it reflects poorly on you for making public statements without checking your facts first. If you don't want people to draw reasonable conclusions from your statements, don't make them. You're doing a terrible job of encouraging me to believe that you are acting in good faith.

You keep saying it is obvious, but have not proven that.

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 15th July 2009, 2:05pm) *
QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 15th July 2009, 8:48am) *
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 15th July 2009, 11:30am) *
The only active "old dispute" I have with Wikipedia is your ongoing unwillingness to remove all references to me from your project space. I've requested this several times, but no action has been taken; I can't even get my old talk pages deleted. Perhaps you could show some good faith by executing this request (which I have made several times by several reasonable channels), instead of responding with some folderol about how I need to tag them with some unspecified tag that someone who has not been active in the site for three years would almost certainly not know.

You want all references to yourself removed from project space, but also want to be a member of this council which resides in project space?

That makes me wonder if you are serious, as it would be very unorthodox for a person to have their past history in project side of Wikipedia wiped clean. That sai, I can understand that you may desire this as a prerequisite to involving yourself in the project side of Wikipedia again. If you do want this as a pre-requisite to being appointed, I think we can proceed with your nomination in round two, with the invitation not being official sent until you are happy with the outcome of the request to remove your name from the project namespace.

Requests like this have occasionally been sent to oversight-l, who then use a mix of oversight, ordinary deletion and page blanking to fulfill the request where they see fit. I suggest that you do the same as this request will likely require quite a bit of discussion between oversighters and yourself, and I expect there might need to be some compromise. For example, I recall that you participated in the most recent Arbcom election, and I doubt an oversighter would remove your name from there. If you have already sent requests about this using the typical channels, I am happy to look at the list archives if you will give me some indication on where I should be looking.
And again I get bureaucratic obstructionism instead of helpfulness from yet another Wikipedia beanpusher. "I can't be bothered to do this, why don't you send your request to this address, which is staffed by unspecified anonymous individuals, where it can be dutifully ignored." Congrats, you've just added yourself to the list of "Wikipedians who don't really give a damn." I'm not asking for a complete "memory-wipe"; I'd settle for courtesy blanking of the various pages that are dedicated to discussing what a terrible person I am. At first thought, that comprises both RfAs, the RfB, the various RfCs, and all pages related to the two times I ran for the ArbCom. While there's some choice assholery buried away in various noticeboard archives, it's harder to find that stuff and I'm not as concerned about it. As I also said, I would like all my user talk pages (including archives) deleted; I've made this request several times but nobody seems willing to do it, for reasons I do not understand.

Also, please note that this is not a "prerequisite" for my "return to involvement" in Wikipedia as I have no intention of returning to involvement in Wikipedia; rather it's an outstanding request I've been making for some time which a number of Wikipedians have said seems reasonable to them but which they have themselves refused to carry out out of fear of retribution from the community. This is an opportunity for you to demonstrate your good faith toward me, and perhaps do something to give me reason to believe that Wikipedia is not entirely the collection of spineless assholes it appears to be. This isn't a negotiation; it's an opportunity for you to prove your humanity.


I am trying to learn what you would like, and recommending how to proceed. All the oversighters are listed on a page I expected you know how to find. A significant proportion of them are not anonymous. If you are not comfortable emailing oversight-l, you could email arbcom-l, which has an even higher proportion of people who are identified. if that doesn't suit you, you can email me, or you can continue to work with Newyorkbrad.

You are already on my jaded ex-users list, but it would be nice if you were a bit less aggressive.

It is good to know you are not asking for a complete memory wipe as that would be a very hard request. The selection of pages you have listed above sounds like a more reasonable request; I would need to look at those pages closely, and there may be times that we need an explicit explanation given for why you find the page objectionable.

If you haven't made this request to arbcom-l or oversight-l in the past, then I don't need to read the previous discussions in the archives. My preference would be to discuss the details of this request on a private list with yourself involved, but we could also take this to a different thread here on WR and ask a few arbitrators to participate along with everyone else. If there are existing WR threads I should read, I will be happy to do that.

If you don't initiate a request on either oversight-l or arbcom-l, I will start a new WR thread when I am back online, which will be on the weekend or Monday next week.

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 15th July 2009, 2:05pm) *
I have no intention of participating in any sort of "on-wiki" process; I find attempting to participate in discussions on Wikipedia tedious and irritating, as much due to the technical shortcomings of the medium as anything else, and in any case I no longer know what my account password is and so cannot log into my old account anyhow. It's my hope that the ACPD will recognize that wikis are a terrible format for effective discussion and move their deliberations to a more practical environment; if not, then my proposed participation may turn out to be irrelevant. If so, then so be it.

Currently the plan is for the Advisory Council to be entirely on the wiki. As a minimum, all members would be listed on a Wikipedia page. Are you OK with that?

I can't see any harm in using another public venue in addition, but that isn't my call. What do you recommend? public mailing lists? private mailing lists? a forum? perhaps here on WR?

Posted by: everyking

They http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development/Forum#Proposal_.232 laugh.gif We could establish a community-based council of advisers or "constituent assembly" before these guys ever presented a single proposal. (I hate to be giving advice to these would-be advisers, but you might want to consider having a rotating council chair to organize discussions.)

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 16th July 2009, 12:13am) *

They http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development/Forum#Proposal_.232 laugh.gif We could establish a community-based council of advisers or "constituent assembly" before these guys ever presented a single proposal. (I hate to be giving advice to these would-be advisers, but you might want to consider having a rotating council chair to organize discussions.)


Good suggestion. Otherwise, I'm not going to discuss council business here. It all needs to be discussed in Wikipedia on the council forum page as the members agreed to.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 16th July 2009, 1:15am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 16th July 2009, 12:13am) *

They http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development/Forum#Proposal_.232 laugh.gif We could establish a community-based council of advisers or "constituent assembly" before these guys ever presented a single proposal. (I hate to be giving advice to these would-be advisers, but you might want to consider having a rotating council chair to organize discussions.)


Good suggestion. Otherwise, I'm not going to discuss council business here. It all needs to be discussed in Wikipedia on the council forum page as the members agreed to.


Understandable--you gotta keep out the riff-raff, right?

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 15th July 2009, 10:14am) *
noooo.gif Steve, when you blank an RFx you need to remember to re-categorize it. Otherwise it breaks the system on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:RFA-CAT

Golly! I thought I had written the funniest post of the day....... hrmph.gif

QUOTE
Understandable--you gotta keep out the riff-raff, right?

They are the riff-raff. Riff-raff types never admit that they are riff-raff. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 15th July 2009, 7:00pm) *
You have taken the liberty to say what Casliber believes. You are now saying that it was private correspondence between you and him, so I am even more keen to wait for Casliber to confirm this. (if you look really closely at my last post, you will notice the word "or" mid-way through the first sentence)
And if you look closely at what I said originally, you'll perhaps understand why you've gone off the deep end. Are all arbitrators in need of remedial reading lessons, or are you exceptional in that regard?

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 15th July 2009, 7:00pm) *
You keep saying it is obvious, but have not proven that.
Another example of your fine reading skills at work, it would seem. I said that it seemed obvious to me. Are you asserting that I need to prove my own OPINIONS now?

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 15th July 2009, 7:00pm) *
I am trying to learn what you would like, and recommending how to proceed. All the oversighters are listed on a page I expected you know how to find. A significant proportion of them are not anonymous. If you are not comfortable emailing oversight-l, you could email arbcom-l, which has an even higher proportion of people who are identified. if that doesn't suit you, you can email me, or you can continue to work with Newyorkbrad.
I do not wish to send emails to mailing lists; as I've pointed out already, mailing lists like that have a very large element of plausible deniability, in that nobody on the lists is responsible to actually do anything with regard to any email that comes in, and so it's very easy for emails sent to such lists to be ignored. I prefer to deal one-on-one with specific, named individuals.

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 15th July 2009, 7:00pm) *
You are already on my jaded ex-users list, but it would be nice if you were a bit less aggressive.
My experience in dealing with Wikipedians, in general, is that being "less aggressive" is a recipe for failure. Your type appears only to notice when the volume is turned to 11 and the invective is loaded to the hilt. When in Rome...

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 15th July 2009, 7:00pm) *
It is good to know you are not asking for a complete memory wipe as that would be a very hard request. The selection of pages you have listed above sounds like a more reasonable request; I would need to look at those pages closely, and there may be times that we need an explicit explanation given for why you find the page objectionable.
Another example of posting without doing your research. The pages in question, at least many of them, have already been courtesy-blanked by one of your less officious and obnoxious fellows. Do all arbitrators leap before they look, as you have done at least twice in this thread, or are you unusual in that regard as well?

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 15th July 2009, 7:00pm) *
Currently the plan is for the Advisory Council to be entirely on the wiki. As a minimum, all members would be listed on a Wikipedia page. Are you OK with that?
I don't mind being listed as a member in some summary list, nor do I mind if comments I might make elsewhere are summarized on Wikipedia as long as they are summarized accurately. I categeorically refuse to edit Wikipedia, however, and if that is a requirement for my formal participation, then I would be a "silent member" formally. (Of course, you can still get my input by reading my contributions here.)

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 15th July 2009, 7:00pm) *
I can't see any harm in using another public venue in addition, but that isn't my call. What do you recommend? public mailing lists? private mailing lists? a forum? perhaps here on WR?
Public mailing lists are almost as obnoxious as Wikipedia itself. I think that a threaded discussion forum of some sort would be my first suggestion. I'm not going to be so cheeky as to suggest using Wikipedia Review, especially given how easy it would be to set up a threaded discussion forum dedicated to the purpose; surely the gnomes at the Foundation can accomplish that in a reasonable timeframe if asked nicely.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 16th July 2009, 12:24am) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 16th July 2009, 1:15am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 16th July 2009, 12:13am) *

They http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development/Forum#Proposal_.232 laugh.gif We could establish a community-based council of advisers or "constituent assembly" before these guys ever presented a single proposal. (I hate to be giving advice to these would-be advisers, but you might want to consider having a rotating council chair to organize discussions.)


Good suggestion. Otherwise, I'm not going to discuss council business here. It all needs to be discussed in Wikipedia on the council forum page as the members agreed to.


Understandable--you gotta keep out the riff-raff, right?


Nope, just make suggestions on the forum talk page, as you have already done.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 16th July 2009, 1:52am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 16th July 2009, 12:24am) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 16th July 2009, 1:15am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Thu 16th July 2009, 12:13am) *

They http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development/Forum#Proposal_.232 laugh.gif We could establish a community-based council of advisers or "constituent assembly" before these guys ever presented a single proposal. (I hate to be giving advice to these would-be advisers, but you might want to consider having a rotating council chair to organize discussions.)


Good suggestion. Otherwise, I'm not going to discuss council business here. It all needs to be discussed in Wikipedia on the council forum page as the members agreed to.


Understandable--you gotta keep out the riff-raff, right?


Nope, just make suggestions on the forum talk page, as you have already done.


You're going to besmirch my reputation with comments like that! I believe my suggestions were along the lines of "disband this sham council". laugh.gif

Posted by: Tennis expert

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 15th July 2009, 12:06pm) *

I've courtesy blanked the RFCs.


Interesting. Please blank the RFC about me as I am no longer on Wikipedia, which you can find here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tennis_expert

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(Tennis expert @ Thu 16th July 2009, 12:25am) *

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 15th July 2009, 12:06pm) *

I've courtesy blanked the RFCs.


Interesting. Please blank the RFC about me as I am no longer on Wikipedia, which you can find here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tennis_expert

Done by Kevin.

Posted by: Kevin

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 16th July 2009, 3:39pm) *

QUOTE(Tennis expert @ Thu 16th July 2009, 12:25am) *

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 15th July 2009, 12:06pm) *

I've courtesy blanked the RFCs.


Interesting. Please blank the RFC about me as I am no longer on Wikipedia, which you can find here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tennis_expert

Done by Kevin.


I probably should have protected it as well. wink.gif

Posted by: Orderinchaos

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 15th July 2009, 9:52am) *

By the way, excellent work on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-07-13/Open_letter.


Thanks, although my role in writing it was fairly minor. smile.gif My comments in another discussion were stored in a Google doc with my permission by others who then created the final product on a very short timeframe. My own priorities were not fully reflected in the final product, although I would only have cause to complain had I chosen to get actively involved in its preparation (I'm quite busy offline with college work which is urgently due) and my basic idea of "work with them not against them, they're the professionals, they have the materials/artefacts, we aren't and don't" was basically preserved in it so I was happy to sign it. Re AHWNN: Signpost was the venue because of its target audience, which was quite limited - we weren't aiming for a real world impact with it. Worth pointing out this is less a Wiki issue than a Commons/CC issue, too - most of those most actively involved are not substantial editors on WP but probably spend their time far more productively than many who are.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

By the way, jayvdb, I just noticed that I'm one of the people eligible to participate in a demand for your recall. I'm sorely tempted, especially since I expect you'd simply ignore it. Your conditions for recall don't seem to preclude organizing and calling for the recall here on WR, either, so I'd suggest that you pay more attention over here. smile.gif

Posted by: trenton

All that's left for this drama-fest to be complete is for Giano to get blocked and then "retire" rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(trenton @ Thu 16th July 2009, 4:17pm) *

All that's left for this drama-fest to be complete is for Giano to get blocked and then "retire" rolleyes.gif

there goes his clean block log =(

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(trenton @ Thu 16th July 2009, 9:17pm) *

All that's left for this drama-fest to be complete is for Giano to get blocked and then "retire" rolleyes.gif



Why do you give people ideas?http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Georgewilliamherbert&page=User%3AGiacomoReturned&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=

Posted by: Giano

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Thu 16th July 2009, 9:57pm) *

QUOTE(trenton @ Thu 16th July 2009, 9:17pm) *

All that's left for this drama-fest to be complete is for Giano to get blocked and then "retire" rolleyes.gif



Why do you give people ideas?http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Georgewilliamherbert&page=User%3AGiacomoReturned&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=


I only retire once a year or so, an imenent retirement is not due - anyway I don't feel inclinded to give Slim the pleasure. smile.gif

G

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Thu 16th July 2009, 9:57pm) *

QUOTE(trenton @ Thu 16th July 2009, 9:17pm) *

All that's left for this drama-fest to be complete is for Giano to get blocked and then "retire" rolleyes.gif



Why do you give people ideas?http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Georgewilliamherbert&page=User%3AGiacomoReturned&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=


It was inevitable, everyone knows that.

Posted by: trenton

I like how Durova makes a big deal about not making a big deal. She could have chosen to just ignore the purported "personal attacks" but instead demands "refactoring".

As long as attention whores like her are given a free reign I don't foresee anything productive happening over there.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Giano @ Thu 16th July 2009, 3:03pm) *

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Thu 16th July 2009, 9:57pm) *

QUOTE(trenton @ Thu 16th July 2009, 9:17pm) *

All that's left for this drama-fest to be complete is for Giano to get blocked and then "retire" rolleyes.gif



Why do you give people ideas?http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Georgewilliamherbert&page=User%3AGiacomoReturned&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=


I only retire once a year or so, an imenent retirement is not due - anyway I don't feel inclinded to give Slim the pleasure. smile.gif

G


Nice you can laugh at your hissy-fits. I know I do.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(trenton @ Thu 16th July 2009, 4:06pm) *

I like how Durova makes a big deal about not making a big deal. She could have chosen to just ignore the purported "personal attacks" but instead demands "refactoring".

As long as attention whores like her are given a free reign I don't foresee anything productive happening over there.
Yup, it would appear that between SlimVirgin's and Durova's combined efforts any hope that this "Council" will accomplish anything other than the Usual Drama is without basis.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 16th July 2009, 9:09pm) *

QUOTE(trenton @ Thu 16th July 2009, 4:06pm) *

I like how Durova makes a big deal about not making a big deal. She could have chosen to just ignore the purported "personal attacks" but instead demands "refactoring".

As long as attention whores like her are given a free reign I don't foresee anything productive happening over there.
Yup, it would appear that between SlimVirgin's and Durova's combined efforts any hope that this "Council" will accomplish anything other than the Usual Drama is without basis.


I think I'm going to start a separate thread on the Durova controversy, because it still seems to be an issue.

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(trenton @ Thu 16th July 2009, 5:06pm) *

I like how Durova makes a big deal about not making a big deal. She could have chosen to just ignore the purported "personal attacks" but instead demands "refactoring".

As long as attention whores like her are given a free reign I don't foresee anything productive happening over there.

I don't see the point of refactoring. It's still there. They still said it. How does strikethrough change anything? I'll tell ya: It doesn't. I can understand the desire to receive an apology, but refactoring? Don't waste the edit.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 16th July 2009, 7:36pm) *
I don't see the point of refactoring. It's still there. They still said it. How does strikethrough change anything? I'll tell ya: It doesn't. I can understand the desire to receive an apology, but refactoring? Don't waste the edit.
The whole point of striking through "offensive" conduct is to draw attention to them. Removing it entirely leaving no trace can sometimes quell disruption in the long term, but merely striking it through or replacing it with "(offensive remarks deleted)" or similar such teasers just draws attention to, and thus perpetuates, the drama.

Durova, of course, knows this, and does it (and encourages others to do it) for that reason. Plus, she doesn't want an apology. She wants attention, and playing the victim card is a great way to get attention.

Posted by: Casliber

Right then - my eyes have gotten bleary from catching up with this thread.

(1) Kelly did email me, which I got and acknowledged I had gotten the reply.

(2) I don't have authority to stick someone straight on the ACPD, but we have a list of folks interested and folks we think'd bring something to the table.

(3) needless to say, I can't 'approve' people by myself, but need a consensus to do so. That needs us arbs to ruminate over people and come to a consensus. Even getting 15 people to approve or comment is time consuming!

(4) For various reasons, my time over the past three days has been limited (Real Life stuff which puts food on the table etc.) and will continue to be so for the next week at least.

(5) I had reservations (and did abstain from running with it now) because I knew there'd be opposition, but I wasn't quite expecting such a..erm...reaction. Still, I strongly beleive in the benefits.

(6) I don't have the hours needed to read every single exchange on the subject of ACPD to enusre minutiae coincide between all arb commenters. I spent two hours before breakfast a couple of days ago reading and arguing...and then spent the rest of the day thinking, "WTF??????????????????"

(7) I really should be posting more over there, depending on which head of the topic, which has now become a wiki-Lernaean hydra WRT where the fuck I am going to start.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Thu 16th July 2009, 9:57pm) *

QUOTE(trenton @ Thu 16th July 2009, 9:17pm) *

All that's left for this drama-fest to be complete is for Giano to get blocked and then "retire" rolleyes.gif



Why do you give people ideas?http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Georgewilliamherbert&page=User%3AGiacomoReturned&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FAdvisory_Council_on_Project_Development&diff=302468026&oldid=302467686 sounded familiar, because it's exactly what the ArbCom has always said about me: "your judgement is so flawed, you comments on any subject should be disregarded". I suppose now that Giano has got an official ArbCom appointment, he's taking some pages from their playbook. laugh.gif

Posted by: jayvdb

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 16th July 2009, 4:46pm) *

By the way, jayvdb, I just noticed that I'm one of the people eligible to participate in a demand for your recall. I'm sorely tempted, especially since I expect you'd simply ignore it. Your conditions for recall don't seem to preclude organizing and calling for the recall here on WR, either, so I'd suggest that you pay more attention over here. smile.gif


I am sure someone will deliver your demand if I miss it.

I have no problem if the entire recall process happens here on WR, provided my criteria are satisfied, which would require that the WR identities are linked to the WP identities. Heck, I might even update the recall procedure to require that it is conducted here, just for shits and giggles. laugh.gif

I especially tailored my criteria so that it doesn't depend on "in good standing", or RFCs which are often silly drama and impossible to derive any decision from. Also, at the time I was writing it, one banned user was keen on deposing me, so I included a criterion that allowed banned users to participate in a recall.

I really don't care if I am an arbitrator, or even if I am banned for Wikipedia for sticking to my guns if I feel strongly about something. In either scenario, I will simply go back to focusing primarily on Wikisource, which is what I prefer doing anyway. tongue.gif

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Casliber @ Thu 16th July 2009, 9:04pm) *
I wasn't quite expecting such a..erm...reaction

This is what makes drama cultures so intriguing. For any gesture by a would-be protagonist, there will arise an opposing gesture by an antagonist. If you cannot reliably anticipate the antagonist's gesture, you can simply play the game and see what unexpected response pops up

This is the main utility of Wikipedia. It's a drama engine that virtually guarantees the startling appearance of your most unimaginable antagonist.

Posted by: Daxx

QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 17th July 2009, 1:46pm) *

QUOTE(Casliber @ Thu 16th July 2009, 9:04pm) *
I wasn't quite expecting such a..erm...reaction

This is what makes drama cultures so intriguing. For any gesture by a would-be protagonist, there will arise an opposing gesture by an antagonist. If you cannot reliably anticipate the antagonist's gesture, you can simply play the game and see what unexpected response pops up

This is the main utility of Wikipedia. It's a drama engine that virtually guarantees the startling appearance of your most unimaginable antagonist.


And it makes for such wonderful viewing.

Sometimes I wonder as a thought experiment what might happen if I jumped into the deep and muddy waters of wikipolitics. Then I remember that it's entirely impractical, since I simply don't have the time that the major players seem to put in (that's what makes it all so fascinating, of course - like reality TV in a way; people are dull but keep them in a box for long enough and entertainment happens). I don't need to poke sticks in to stir something up, since it happens regularly enough for my purposes anyway.


Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Giano @ Thu 16th July 2009, 5:03pm) *

I only retire once a year or so, an imenent retirement is not due - anyway I don't feel inclinded to give Slim the pleasure. smile.gif

G


You want to pleasure Slim, too? I was ready to set you up on a webcam with some hot Durova action...now you want to add Slim to the line-up? Hey, why not throw in Gwen Gale, while we are at it?

Giano, I never knew you were so passionate. laugh.gif

Posted by: Cla68

Well, I guess Giano and Rootology are off the council for now. They both feel that it's dead in the water. Perhaps it is, but I'm interested in seeing if it can keep going and generate some momentum. The "community" can't kill it, as long as the ArbCom refuses to let them.

Here's an interesting thing about it. As originally envisioned, the ArbCom wanted to set this thing up then immediately release it on its own. By challenging the ArbCom about it, SV and a few others are forcing the ArbCom to either support it or abandon it, which might end-up making the ArbCom stronger, depending on the Committee's decision. In the meantime, we'll continue to try to make it work.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 17th July 2009, 11:29pm) *

Well, I guess Giano and Rootology are off the council for now. They both feel that it's dead in the water. Perhaps it is, but I'm interested in seeing if it can keep going and generate some momentum. The "community" can't kill it, as long as the ArbCom refuses to let them.


"By God, we won't let the community tell us what to do! Full speed ahead!"

To defy the wishes of the community like this is contrary to Wikipedia's basic principles. You really ought to reconsider.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 17th July 2009, 6:10pm) *
To defy the wishes of the community like this is contrary to Wikipedia's basic principles. You really ought to reconsider.
I still haven't seen any evidence of any significant fraction of Wikipedia's community saying anything at all on this (or any other) issue.

Posted by: Robster

QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 17th July 2009, 7:10pm) *

"By God, we won't let the community tell us what to do! Full speed ahead!"

To defy the wishes of the community like this is contrary to Wikipedia's basic principles. You really ought to reconsider.


I haven't posted here in over a year, but I've been lurking.

I came back to make a prediction, and then probably fade back into the woodwork.

There is no "community" at Wikipedia. There's a few dozen drama warriors who feed their egos (and, one suspects, mask the pain in their lives) by brawling over "power" at the world's largest collaborative toxic dump (to be clear, I'm referring to the bureaucratic section of WP, specifically).

The WP concept of "community" is deeply flawed, and is not scalable. The WP concept of "consensus" is badly broken, and is not scalable. And as Kelly has noted several times, the real WP community -- the vast majority of editors who couldn't find ANI without a map and a flashlight, and who don't care to -- have not spoken at all.

This allows the drama warriors to do their best to render WP ungovernable. At some point, the toxic environment generated by the drama warriors will lead to an editing scandal that will make Siegenthaler look like a tempest in a teapot. At that point, unilateral action will come.

Thus, my prediction: Because there is no "community", and because the consensus model of site administration is irreparably broken, either the Wikimedia Foundation will take direct control of en.wikipedia by the end of 2010, or will direct the Arbitration Committee to do so.

I'm not sure if the storm over this concept is the first shot. But I can see the Foundation or ArbCom getting tired of rule by filibuster by a vocal and trivially-small minority. This would lead to one body or the other, or both, simply deciding that they've had enough. It would be simple to impose rules.

I'm just going to sit back and wait to see what event will transpire that will force this action. I'm not a big fan of popcorn, but I've got my Chex Mix and a diet soda. I don't think I'll be waiting all that long.

And now, back to cold storage...

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Robster @ Sat 18th July 2009, 1:28am) *
Thus, my prediction: Because there is no "community", and because the consensus model of site administration is irreparably broken, either the Wikimedia Foundation will take direct control of en.wikipedia by the end of 2010, or will direct the Arbitration Committee to do so.

I'm not sure if the storm over this concept is the first shot. But I can see the Foundation or ArbCom getting tired of rule by filibuster by a vocal and trivially-small minority. This would lead to one body or the other, or both, simply deciding that they've had enough. It would be simple to impose rules.

I'm just going to sit back and wait to see what event will transpire that will force this action. I'm not a big fan of popcorn, but I've got my Chex Mix and a diet soda. I don't think I'll be waiting all that long.

And now, back to cold storage...

Seems self-evident.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Robster @ Sat 18th July 2009, 1:28am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 17th July 2009, 7:10pm) *

"By God, we won't let the community tell us what to do! Full speed ahead!"

To defy the wishes of the community like this is contrary to Wikipedia's basic principles. You really ought to reconsider.


I haven't posted here in over a year, but I've been lurking.

I came back to make a prediction, and then probably fade back into the woodwork.

There is no "community" at Wikipedia. There's a few dozen drama warriors who feed their egos (and, one suspects, mask the pain in their lives) by brawling over "power" at the world's largest collaborative toxic dump (to be clear, I'm referring to the bureaucratic section of WP, specifically).

The WP concept of "community" is deeply flawed, and is not scalable. The WP concept of "consensus" is badly broken, and is not scalable. And as Kelly has noted several times, the real WP community -- the vast majority of editors who couldn't find ANI without a map and a flashlight, and who don't care to -- have not spoken at all.

This allows the drama warriors to do their best to render WP ungovernable. At some point, the toxic environment generated by the drama warriors will lead to an editing scandal that will make Siegenthaler look like a tempest in a teapot. At that point, unilateral action will come.

Thus, my prediction: Because there is no "community", and because the consensus model of site administration is irreparably broken, either the Wikimedia Foundation will take direct control of en.wikipedia by the end of 2010, or will direct the Arbitration Committee to do so.

I'm not sure if the storm over this concept is the first shot. But I can see the Foundation or ArbCom getting tired of rule by filibuster by a vocal and trivially-small minority. This would lead to one body or the other, or both, simply deciding that they've had enough. It would be simple to impose rules.

I'm just going to sit back and wait to see what event will transpire that will force this action. I'm not a big fan of popcorn, but I've got my Chex Mix and a diet soda. I don't think I'll be waiting all that long.

And now, back to cold storage...


There is a community that functions perfectly well in most respects--it is, however, hamstrung by the lack of structure that will allow it to make key decisions without requiring some kind of nebulous supermajority that cannot be consistently and uncontroversially interpreted. There's every reason to think that a system that allowed the community to express itself through referendums and an elected governance body would work well. Some people here having developed a fetish for decision-making by fiat; I can only be baffled by that, not only because decision-making by fiat is a highly suspect model in the first place, but because the ArbCom and/or the Foundation have proven themselves chronically incapable of reaching reasonable conclusions. You'd just get despotism without the "enlightened" part.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 17th July 2009, 8:15pm) *
There is a community that functions perfectly well in most respects--it is, however, hamstrung by the lack of structure that will allow it to make key decisions without requiring some kind of nebulous supermajority that cannot be consistently and uncontroversially interpreted. There's every reason to think that a system that allowed the community to express itself through referendums and an elected governance body would work well. Some people here having developed a fetish for decision-making by fiat; I can only be baffled by that, not only because decision-making by fiat is a highly suspect model in the first place, but because the ArbCom and/or the Foundation have proven themselves chronically incapable of reaching reasonable conclusions.
You are never going to get from where Wikipedia is now to what you describe above without someone making some decisions by fiat. You are never going to get a "community consensus" to accept a democratic form of governance because of the noisy minority (which you often abet, perhaps unwittingly) that will object to any change that might move Wikipedia toward democratic governance, in most cases because the people objecting realize that they'd lose power in any such system.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 18th July 2009, 2:19am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 17th July 2009, 8:15pm) *
There is a community that functions perfectly well in most respects--it is, however, hamstrung by the lack of structure that will allow it to make key decisions without requiring some kind of nebulous supermajority that cannot be consistently and uncontroversially interpreted. There's every reason to think that a system that allowed the community to express itself through referendums and an elected governance body would work well. Some people here having developed a fetish for decision-making by fiat; I can only be baffled by that, not only because decision-making by fiat is a highly suspect model in the first place, but because the ArbCom and/or the Foundation have proven themselves chronically incapable of reaching reasonable conclusions.
You are never going to get from where Wikipedia is now to what you describe above without someone making some decisions by fiat. You are never going to get a "community consensus" to accept a democratic form of governance because of the noisy minority (which you often abet, perhaps unwittingly) that will object to any change that might move Wikipedia toward democratic governance, in most cases because the people objecting realize that they'd lose power in any such system.

Kelly is quite right. There is no "community", only an entrenched admin corps who will obviously resist any change to wikipedia's governance.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

I gave a talk at Wikimania 2006 in which I argued that consensus was flawed as a model for governance in Wikipedia and urged the adoption of parliamentarism. The comments from dedicated Wikipedians were largely negative, but the comments from outsiders with interests in wikis more generally, and from other Wikimedia projects, far less so.

QUOTE
This evolution [from "consensus" to "majority vote"] came about from a recognition that a requirement of unanimity or near unanimity can become a form of tyranny in itself. In an assembly that tries to make such a requirement the norm, a variety of misguided feelings—reluctance to be seen as opposing the leadership, a notion that causing controversy will be frowned upon, fear of seeming an obstacle to unity—can easily lead to decisions being taken with a pseudoconsensus which in reality implies elements of default, which satisfies no one, and for which no one really assumes responsibility.
I saw elements of this in Wikipedia's community back in 2006; it's even more evident today. (Ten quatloos to whoever figures out where that quote is from.)

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 18th July 2009, 2:48am) *

I gave a talk at Wikimania 2006 in which I argued that consensus was flawed as a model for governance in Wikipedia and urged the adoption of parliamentarism. The comments from dedicated Wikipedians were largely negative, but the comments from outsiders with interests in wikis more generally, and from other Wikimedia projects, far less so.

QUOTE
This evolution [from "consensus" to "majority vote"] came about from a recognition that a requirement of unanimity or near unanimity can become a form of tyranny in itself. In an assembly that tries to make such a requirement the norm, a variety of misguided feelings—reluctance to be seen as opposing the leadership, a notion that causing controversy will be frowned upon, fear of seeming an obstacle to unity—can easily lead to decisions being taken with a pseudoconsensus which in reality implies elements of default, which satisfies no one, and for which no one really assumes responsibility.
I saw elements of this in Wikipedia's community back in 2006; it's even more evident today. (Ten quatloos to whoever figures out where that quote is from.)

Wikipedia is a great idea, but the way it's run is crap. It's difficult to understand why everyone can't see that.

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 18th July 2009, 1:19am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 17th July 2009, 8:15pm) *
There is a community that functions perfectly well in most respects--it is, however, hamstrung by the lack of structure that will allow it to make key decisions without requiring some kind of nebulous supermajority that cannot be consistently and uncontroversially interpreted. There's every reason to think that a system that allowed the community to express itself through referendums and an elected governance body would work well. Some people here having developed a fetish for decision-making by fiat; I can only be baffled by that, not only because decision-making by fiat is a highly suspect model in the first place, but because the ArbCom and/or the Foundation have proven themselves chronically incapable of reaching reasonable conclusions.
You are never going to get from where Wikipedia is now to what you describe above without someone making some decisions by fiat. You are never going to get a "community consensus" to accept a democratic form of governance because of the noisy minority (which you often abet, perhaps unwittingly) that will object to any change that might move Wikipedia toward democratic governance, in most cases because the people objecting realize that they'd lose power in any such system.

You are never going to get from where Wikipedia is now to what you describe above without someone making some decisions by fiat.

You will never get there with Jimbo in charge. For one thing, the first thing any functioning governance will realize is that Jimbo isn't needed, in fact he's dead weight who displaces real leadership. This wouldn't be good for Jimbo's speaking fees so my guess is that it won't happen.

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 18th July 2009, 1:48am) *
QUOTE
This evolution [from "consensus" to "majority vote"] came about from a recognition that a requirement of unanimity or near unanimity can become a form of tyranny in itself. In an assembly that tries to make such a requirement the norm, a variety of misguided feelings—reluctance to be seen as opposing the leadership, a notion that causing controversy will be frowned upon, fear of seeming an obstacle to unity—can easily lead to decisions being taken with a pseudoconsensus which in reality implies elements of default, which satisfies no one, and for which no one really assumes responsibility.
I saw elements of this in Wikipedia's community back in 2006; it's even more evident today. (Ten quatloos to whoever figures out where that quote is from.)

Robert's, yawn.

Posted by: Krimpet

QUOTE(Malleus @ Fri 17th July 2009, 10:17pm) *

Wikipedia is a great idea, but the way it's run is crap. It's difficult to understand why everyone can't see that.

A project governed and guided more strongly by a "real" organization, be it a nonprofit or corporation, with knowledgable editors and managers interested in compiling a quality reference work would probably do a much better job. Sadly, the WMF seems to be little more than an ISP, leaving pretty much everything to "the community" and its secretive ArbCom.

Posted by: taiwopanfob

QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 18th July 2009, 1:15am) *
There is a community that functions perfectly well in most respects--it is, however, hamstrung by the lack of structure that will allow it to make key decisions without requiring some kind of nebulous supermajority that cannot be consistently and uncontroversially interpreted. There's every reason to think that a system that allowed the community to express itself through referendums and an elected governance body would work well. Some people here having developed a fetish for decision-making by fiat; I can only be baffled by that, not only because decision-making by fiat is a highly suspect model in the first place, but because the ArbCom and/or the Foundation have proven themselves chronically incapable of reaching reasonable conclusions. You'd just get despotism without the "enlightened" part.


everyking, your spew reminds me of the odious filth from a politician who wraps himself in a flag as he castigates his enemies. "To oppose me is to piss on our glorious flag and history!" In your case, the flag is the word "community", which, per wiki (and politico) speak, doesn't mean the same as it does for everyone else.

Honestly, shove it. Hard!

As for "decisions by fiat", you of course misrepresent the situation. Only a few such decisions need to be made, and the rest follows naturally. The US Constitution was originally written by a small clique and effectively imposed by fiat (force, if I recall correctly). Most (all?) other such institutions were similar, and did not arise from a mass of "torch and pitchfork" yahoos fighting over a single pen and sheet of paper. Is there any historical example of such a thing?

Furthermore, your complaints about an entity that is "chronically incapable of reaching reasonable conclusions" are naturally quite hilarious, though not in the way you may find funny.

Jimbo, if he had half the brain everyone thinks he has, would simply write the Wikipedia Constitution -- probably with the help of a small committee (which might be called an 'advisory council' for all we know, and whose members be deemed the Founding Fathers (or Mothers?)) -- and say to everyone "my way or the highway". That is the fiat. Your personal choice follows.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Sat 18th July 2009, 7:34am) *
Jimbo, if he had half the brain everyone thinks he has, would simply write the Wikipedia Constitution -- probably with the help of a small committee (which might be called an 'advisory council' for all we know, and whose members be deemed the Founding Fathers (or Mothers?)) -- and say to everyone "my way or the highway". That is the fiat. Your personal choice follows.

This will never happen. I proposed the same thing two years ago, and then again last summer. The "Wikipedia Constitution" (also known as a Community Social Contract) is a concept that the core power structure has adamantly rejected in no uncertain terms. On one occasion, Jimbo declared such an exercise to be "beyond the scope of the project."

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Malleus @ Fri 17th July 2009, 9:37pm) *
Kelly is quite right. There is no "community", only an entrenched admin corps who will obviously resist any change to wikipedia's governance.
It's not limited to admins. It's simply the entrenched established, admin or not.

QUOTE(Malleus @ Fri 17th July 2009, 10:17pm) *
Wikipedia is a great idea, but the way it's run is crap. It's difficult to understand why everyone can't see that.
The people who can't see it are the ones who benefit from the broken model. The douchebags who exploit their power to do as they please. If Wikipedia moves to a more stable model, they lose their power. Kelly has explained this well above.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

To be fair, there are people who object to democratic governance on principle, instead of out of self-interest. Wikipedia is home to some small number of committed anarchists, and they see Wikipedia as some sort of anarchist utopia, where the rule of law is nonexistent and everyone really can do as they will. They will resist any attempt to impose the rule of law, not because it would actually reduce their power, but because it would move Wikipedia away from the ideological purity they so deeply cherish.

Posted by: toddy

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 18th July 2009, 3:15pm) *

QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Sat 18th July 2009, 7:34am) *
Jimbo, if he had half the brain everyone thinks he has, would simply write the Wikipedia Constitution -- probably with the help of a small committee (which might be called an 'advisory council' for all we know, and whose members be deemed the Founding Fathers (or Mothers?)) -- and say to everyone "my way or the highway". That is the fiat. Your personal choice follows.

This will never happen. I proposed the same thing two years ago, and then again last summer. The "Wikipedia Constitution" (also known as a Community Social Contract) is a concept that the core power structure has adamantly rejected in no uncertain terms. On one occasion, Jimbo declared such an exercise to be "beyond the scope of the project."


I think the problem goes further than that; yes, Wikipedia is in desperate need of a governance structure, but even if Jimbo recognised that, he has become such a polarising figure that it would garner far more opposition if he tried to establish it than if it were discussed by the community at large - and a government needs support if it is to function at all.

It does seem that he is clinging on to his status at the cost of the ability to actually make decisions. Flagged revisions was the only viable (semi-)solution to the BLP problem and if there was ever a need for decisive top-down governance it was then. But he feared the community wrath and let the opportunity for action pass, despite having tainted the debate by throwing in his two-pence.

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(toddy @ Sat 18th July 2009, 2:38pm) *

It does seem that he is clinging on to his status at the cost of the ability to actually make decisions. Flagged revisions was the only viable (semi-)solution to the BLP problem and if there was ever a need for decisive top-down governance it was then. But he feared the community wrath and let the opportunity for action pass, despite having tainted the debate by throwing in his two-pence.

Jimbo did not ease up on Flagged Revisions. They're being developed for the English Wikipedia and are said to be scheduled for roll-out around the http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Portal at the end of August. He says if they aren't ready then, he'll give a few more weeks before making noise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development/Forum&oldid=302762737#Who_can_get_the_Flagged_Revs_coding_done.3F

Posted by: toddy

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Sat 18th July 2009, 8:19pm) *

QUOTE(toddy @ Sat 18th July 2009, 2:38pm) *

It does seem that he is clinging on to his status at the cost of the ability to actually make decisions. Flagged revisions was the only viable (semi-)solution to the BLP problem and if there was ever a need for decisive top-down governance it was then. But he feared the community wrath and let the opportunity for action pass, despite having tainted the debate by throwing in his two-pence.

Jimbo did not ease up on Flagged Revisions. They're being developed for the English Wikipedia and are said to be scheduled for roll-out around the http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Portal at the end of August. He says if they aren't ready then, he'll give a few more weeks before making noise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development/Forum&oldid=302762737#Who_can_get_the_Flagged_Revs_coding_done.3F


Ah, I was under the impression that flagged revs had been rejected as an option in favour of the rather limited "flagged protection and patrolled revisions". If implementation of the former has been pushed through, then I give my heartfelt apologies to Jimbo.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(toddy @ Sat 18th July 2009, 4:25pm) *
Ah, I was under the impression that flagged revs had been rejected as an option if favour of the rather limited "flagged protection and patrolled revisions". If implementation of the former has been pushed through, then I give my heartfelt apologies to Jimbo.
The flagged protection and patrolled revisions business is generally considered a subset of flagged revs, I think, but you're basically right. Essentially, there are going to be some new technical capabilities turned on on the English Wikipedia. That won't do anything to protect BLPs, though, since what's lacking isn't technical capabilities but the will to use them properly. Since we never managed to use semi-protection properly to protect BLPs, I see no reason to believe that we'll do so flagged protection or any other configuration of flagged revisions.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Could someone explain the difference between 'flagged revisions' and 'flagged protection'?

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 18th July 2009, 4:48pm) *
Could someone explain the difference between 'flagged revisions' and 'flagged protection'?
The latter is an implementation of the former whereby flagged revisions could be selectively turned on for specific articles by administrators, in the same way that semi- and full protection can be now.

Posted by: One

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Sat 18th July 2009, 7:53pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 18th July 2009, 4:48pm) *
Could someone explain the difference between 'flagged revisions' and 'flagged protection'?
The latter is an implementation of the former whereby flagged revisions could be selectively turned on for specific articles by administrators, in the same way that semi- and full protection can be now.

I think that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagged_revisions could generally do that depending on how it is configured.

Basically, open editing fundamentalists proposed "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions" as an implementation of FR because it would allow more people to edit by practically eliminating semi-protection in favor of flagged protection. In theory, flagged protection policy will only allow it to be used where protection is currently, but it's assumed (even by the fundamentalists) that FP will be more permissively granted because it's not as restrictive.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(One @ Sat 18th July 2009, 5:03pm) *
it's assumed (even by the fundamentalists) that FP will be more permissively granted because it's not as restrictive.
Really? The under development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection for flagged protection says the following:

QUOTE
The scope of flagged protection is limited by the protection policy. The conditions for semi flagged protection should be the same as to what the current semi-protection policy allows. If the article does not meet the requirements for semi-protection under the current semi-protection policy, then it should not be protected with flagged revisions either. Likewise, only pages that would otherwise be fully protected under the protection policy may be put under full flagged protection. Intermediary flagged protection can be used for articles meeting the requirements for full protection when it doesn't involve a content dispute, or when there is consensus for using it.

The expiry date or the absence of such (indefinite protection) should be considered the same way as for normal protection.
I'm not sure that the assumption to which you refer is as widespread as you think.

Posted by: One

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Sat 18th July 2009, 8:09pm) *

I'm not sure that the assumption to which you refer is as widespread as you think.

You might be right (consensus doesn't work, after all). But at least when it's on, there's the option for civil disobedience. Hell, most BLPs should be semi-protected now, and that'll still be true after FP, right? wink.gif

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(One @ Sat 18th July 2009, 5:29pm) *
You might be right (consensus doesn't work, after all). But at least when it's on, there's the option for civil disobedience. Hell, most BLPs should be semi-protected now, and that'll still be true after FP, right? wink.gif
Yep. And most aren't now, as long as we're listing things that aren't going to change with the introduction of flagged protection.

Posted by: everyking

It's funny how someone can be a voice of opposition for so long, and then, once they get a title and a gesture of acceptance from the guys in charge, do a 180 and suddenly become a voice for iron discipline and blind obedience to authority. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development&diff=302849848&oldid=302849743 Giano telling the community (or, as Tony Sidaway used to label it, "the mob") to stuff it:

QUOTE
"The founding of the council is legitimate, this RFC is iligitimate. It is not for the mob to interpet the law to suit their personal wants of the moment. The Arbcom should issue a unanimous statement of support and until the next Arbcom elections,in December, the comminity has no option but to put up and shut up. The community elected the Arbcom to make decisions on their behalf. If they did not like it then the December ArbCom elections are the time to make that known. As a result of this maliciously brought RFC, in future, everytime some agitant does not like an ArbCom or wishes to seek revenge through disruption they will launch a similar RFC or something similar. The mob canot determine law contrary to the law or there is anarchy. December is the time to challenge this legitamately founded council. The community may discuss changes to constitution and policy, as I strongly advocate, but to challenge a sitting ArbCom's authority, no."


You heard him! Next time he gets blocked, he's going to peacefully and calmly serve out the block--no more screaming bloody murder and running to his pals for assistance. If people could just contradict authority at will and undo its decisions, why, there'd be anarchy! laugh.gif

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 18th July 2009, 5:36pm) *
You heard him! Next time he gets blocked, he's going to peacefully and calmly serve out the block--no more screaming bloody murder and running to his pals for assistance. If people could just contradict authority at will and undo its decisions, why, there'd be anarchy! laugh.gif

I wish I could get some humor from this situation.

More power to Giano. Because he's saying things that need to be said on that RFC.

Every time I post similar statements to the RFC, the Mad Bitch or one of her dependable supporters http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development&diff=302337414&oldid=302335937.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 19th July 2009, 2:56am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 18th July 2009, 5:36pm) *
You heard him! Next time he gets blocked, he's going to peacefully and calmly serve out the block--no more screaming bloody murder and running to his pals for assistance. If people could just contradict authority at will and undo its decisions, why, there'd be anarchy! laugh.gif

I wish I could get some humor from this situation.

More power to Giano. Because he's saying things that need to be said on that RFC.

Every time I post similar statements to the RFC, the Mad Bitch or one of her dependable supporters http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development&diff=302337414&oldid=302335937.

That's because you don't have special wiki-friends to back you up when you make personal attacks, Eric. But all that can change! You see, I understand the ArbCom is looking to expand the Advisory Council and is currently considering applications... laugh.gif

Posted by: Somey

Look, EK, Giano is an addict, and quite frankly, so are you. You can't expect logic or consistency in the behavior of an addict - to demand such things is tantamount to cruelty.

Nevertheless, it's not impossible for an addict to come up with a good idea or two now and again, particularly if it helps improve their personal access to the addictive substance, in this case Wikipedia and the general silliness that surrounds it.

It may well be that this Advisory Council thingy is a deliberate attempt to co-opt folks like him into supporting an ArbCom-led "reform program" that will, in all likelihood, never materialize (though to be fair, that's likely to be more due to lack of user support for any of it than anything else). But beyond that, I don't see what the problem is. Are you concerned that they're just going to waste time on dead-on-arrival "initiatives" when they should be spending time on some other initiative that you feel would work better? Because I can assure you that any initiative that would work better would also be dead-on-arrival, probably even more certainly than the ones this group comes up with.

Posted by: gomi

For added lulz, Slimey is now http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=prev&oldid=302878085 for her RFC in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&diff=prev&oldid=302877930 she does not normally frequent (the "Village Pump"), she being not normally enamored of the rank and file, except when rousing them suits her purpose.

Posted by: Giano

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 19th July 2009, 2:56am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 18th July 2009, 5:36pm) *
You heard him! Next time he gets blocked, he's going to peacefully and calmly serve out the block--no more screaming bloody murder and running to his pals for assistance. If people could just contradict authority at will and undo its decisions, why, there'd be anarchy! laugh.gif

I wish I could get some humor from this situation.

More power to Giano. Because he's saying things that need to be said on that RFC.

Every time I post similar statements to the RFC, the Mad Bitch or one of her dependable supporters http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development&diff=302337414&oldid=302335937.


Yeah well my posts don't get deleted, I just get called a "cock sucker" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development&diff=prev&oldid=302884219 which apparently is not enough to upset the civility police - that's one to remember. Shame, it's not in my vocabulary.

And Everyking, I am not on the APCD, I resigned days ago. Secondly, I have never asked a friend to unblock me, in fact most of the time I am unblocked by complete strangers - it just seems lots of people agree with me or, at least, disagree with the blocking Admins.

I do beleive the RFC was wrong, if people don't like the way the ArbCom behaves then they should vote them out in December. The sad fact is that Wikipedia is an autocracy, the founding of that council was countenanced by the autocrat. If he were to say "from tomorrow, no wikipedia article can begin with an A" that would be legal. We may not like it, we may think it bizarre, but it would be legal. What I'm trying to say is that RFCing the legality was addressing Wikipedia's problems in the wrong place - and do you think if Slim Virgin had been invited onto that council there would have even been an RFC?

Giano

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Giano @ Sun 19th July 2009, 10:49am) *

Yeah well my posts don't get deleted, I just get called a "cock sucker" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development&diff=prev&oldid=302884219 which apparently is not enough to upset the civility police - that's one to remember. Shame, it's not in my vocabulary.


That's disgraceful, Giano -- everyone knows "cocksucker" is one word, not two. Doesn't anyone know how to spell? mad.gif

QUOTE(Giano @ Sun 19th July 2009, 10:49am) *
And Everyking, I am not on the APCD, I resigned days ago. Secondly, I have never asked a friend to unblock me, in fact most of the time I am unblocked by complete strangers - it just seems lots of people agree with me or, at least, disagree with the blocking Admins.


Giano, you're the hottest Italian star this side of Marcello Mastroianni. We really need to get some beefcake photos of you for Wikipedia -- that will boost your popularity a hundredfold. Get yourself into a turquoise speedo and head down to the beach -- I'll call Shankbone and see about getting him to take some photos. (I bet Shankbone knows how to spell "cocksucker"!)

QUOTE(Giano @ Sun 19th July 2009, 10:49am) *
I do beleive the RFC was wrong, if people don't like the way the ArbCom behaves then they should vote them out in December.


Wow, that means we can kick out Newyorkbrad in time for Christmas? Ho ho ho! I want LaraLove on Arbcom. wub.gif

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(Giano @ Sun 19th July 2009, 3:49pm) *

I do beleive the RFC was wrong, if people don't like the way the ArbCom behaves then they should vote them out in December. The sad fact is that Wikipedia is an autocracy, the founding of that council was countenanced by the autocrat. If he were to say "from tomorrow, no wikipedia article can begin with an A" that would be legal. We may not like it, we may think it bizarre, but it would be legal. What I'm trying to say is that RFCing the legality was addressing Wikipedia's problems in the wrong place - and do you think if Slim Virgin had been invited onto that council there would have even been an RFC?


Wouldn't it be easier, in that case, for the ArbCom to dissolve the community and elect another? laugh.gif

Wikipedia is fundamentally based around the notion of community consensus, not rule by fiat or "might makes right". (If it were based on rule by fiat, that would be a poor system and we in the community would need to change that, so you still wouldn't have a point.) It's not the community's duty to shut up between elections and let the ArbCom do as it pleases--it's the ArbCom's duty to listen to the community all the time and respect its views. People with a fetish for top-down, command-oriented decision-making (in the real world we call them fascists or masochists, depending on the context) should go somewhere else, because all that is directly contrary to Wikipedia's principles.

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(everyking @ Sun 19th July 2009, 11:45am) *
Wikipedia is fundamentally based around the notion of community consensus ... blah, blah, blah ... It's not the community's duty to shut up between elections and let the ArbCom do as it pleases ... blah, blah, blah ... People with a fetish for top-down, command-oriented decision-making (in the real world we call them fascists ...) should go somewhere else, because all that is directly contrary to Wikipedia's principles.

What an astonishingly large and steamy pile of horseshit. What you are describing is mob rule -- what Thomas Jefferson called "the tyranny of the majority". And to contrast it with fascism shows a deep and probably insurmountable stupidity. Systems that have leadership do not automatically become tyrannies, while groups of more than 30 or so almost inevitably descend into anarchy. One of the reasons that modern societies elect leadership is to prevent mobs from acting with short-term or narrow interests in opposition to long-term or strategic ones. But you wouldn't understand that, you're like Jack in Lord of the Flies. Yeesh.

QUOTE(everyking @ Sun 19th July 2009, 11:45am) *
Wouldn't it be easier, in that case, for the ArbCom to dissolve the community and elect another?
Your only good idea so far.

Posted by: everyking

QUOTE(gomi @ Sun 19th July 2009, 8:46pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Sun 19th July 2009, 11:45am) *
Wikipedia is fundamentally based around the notion of community consensus ... blah, blah, blah ... It's not the community's duty to shut up between elections and let the ArbCom do as it pleases ... blah, blah, blah ... People with a fetish for top-down, command-oriented decision-making (in the real world we call them fascists ...) should go somewhere else, because all that is directly contrary to Wikipedia's principles.

What an astonishingly large and steamy pile of horseshit. What you are describing is mob rule -- what Thomas Jefferson called "the tyranny of the majority". And to contrast it with fascism shows a deep and probably insurmountable stupidity. Systems that have leadership do not automatically become tyrannies, while groups of more than 30 or so almost inevitably descend into anarchy. One of the reasons that modern societies elect leadership is to prevent mobs from acting with short-term or narrow interests in opposition to long-term or strategic ones. But you wouldn't understand that, you're like Jack in Lord of the Flies. Yeesh.

I'm not sure you've been paying attention. Time and again I've stressed the need for proper governance structures and leadership. But it all has to come from the community and be based in the community, otherwise it will do more harm than good. Accepting the need for leadership doesn't mean accepting the need for any leadership.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(gomi @ Sun 19th July 2009, 12:49am) *

For added lulz, Slimey is now http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=prev&oldid=302878085 for her RFC in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&diff=prev&oldid=302877930 she does not normally frequent (the "Village Pump"), she being not normally enamored of the rank and file, except when rousing them suits her purpose.

I've heard of this Villiage Pump. Pump, pump, pump. It's where a bunch of drips draw from a contaminated underground idea-pool, in order to cultivate new fields of perennials. dry.gif

It's the original gray water. sick.gif

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(everyking @ Sun 19th July 2009, 12:45pm) *

QUOTE(Giano @ Sun 19th July 2009, 3:49pm) *

I do beleive the RFC was wrong, if people don't like the way the ArbCom behaves then they should vote them out in December. The sad fact is that Wikipedia is an autocracy, the founding of that council was countenanced by the autocrat. If he were to say "from tomorrow, no wikipedia article can begin with an A" that would be legal. We may not like it, we may think it bizarre, but it would be legal. What I'm trying to say is that RFCing the legality was addressing Wikipedia's problems in the wrong place - and do you think if Slim Virgin had been invited onto that council there would have even been an RFC?


Wouldn't it be easier, in that case, for the ArbCom to dissolve the community and elect another? laugh.gif

Wikipedia is fundamentally based around the notion of community consensus, not rule by fiat or "might makes right". (If it were based on rule by fiat, that would be a poor system and we in the community would need to change that, so you still wouldn't have a point.) It's not the community's duty to shut up between elections and let the ArbCom do as it pleases--it's the ArbCom's duty to listen to the community all the time and respect its views. People with a fetish for top-down, command-oriented decision-making (in the real world we call them fascists or masochists, depending on the context) should go somewhere else, because all that is directly contrary to Wikipedia's principles.


Wikipedia has several centers of influence. These include Mr. Wales, the WMF Board of Trustees, Sue Gardner and other staff, Arbcom and of course "the community." These centers vary over time in the role they play. From the view on the outsider wanting Wikipedia to behave in an accountable and responsible fashion they are not static in their relative position as "progressive" (tending toward responsibility) and "reactionary" (tending toward irresponsibility and insensitive to outside concerns.) They have in the past vied for position as the worst and overall none are any great gift. But presently for reasons that include fundamentalist "freeculture," libertarian ethos and a insular notion that their mission is so special that they must have an ultra democratic form of self determination unimpeded by the concerns of anyone not in their number "the community" is the most reactionary and unaccountable of these centers of influence.

Mr. Wales wants to capitalize on the site's reputation and can't afford the harm to those outside to surface as an important part of the Wikipedian narrative. This accounts for why Wales has taken relatively moderate positions of flagged revisions, Virgin Killer, and protecting the hostage journalist. Wales might be the most unattractive and unsympathetic of the contending centers of influence but he is no longer the worst.

Gardner is, probably for blatantly careerist reasons, slowly assembling a level of staffing and resources that might someday permit the infrastructure needed to impose accountability. Gardner's worst mistake was to promote Moeller, who represents all that is wrong with the community. But she has also expanded grant activity into some mainstream foundations which will ultimately require accountability, the avoidance of scandals and embarrassments and normal operation as a non-profit entity.

Arbcom has become less concerned with being Mr. Wales' handmaiden and a few members, the most substantial without the "jury of damned" baggage of Bauder, Coren, FT2, and the like have become convinced that some form of at least meaningful structure if not accountability might finally be in order.

The WMF board showed some early promise of putting some distance between itself and Mr. Wales with Devouard at one point making some effort to stand up to Wales and reign in the worst aspects of "the community" found in Moeller and Wool. In the end Devouard lacked the substance and gravitas needed to carry it out. The WMF board has since become increasingly "community" dominated and is now mired in its insular and reactionary dominance.

The current incident in which a group of relatively progressive editors has attempted to forge links with sympathetic elements of Arbcom via the "Advisory Council" is further illustrative of the problem. This linkage was forged between these groups relatively free from the worst aspects of "free culture," libertarianism and the overriding aversion to accountability of the wider "community." Of course this effort has been drowned out once more by "the community." This has once again demonstrated that "the community" is the bulwark of reaction on Wikipedia.

Posted by: Daxx

QUOTE(everyking @ Sun 19th July 2009, 8:57pm) *

I'm not sure you've been paying attention. Time and again I've stressed the need for proper governance structures and leadership. But it all has to come from the community and be based in the community, otherwise it will do more harm than good. Accepting the need for leadership doesn't mean accepting the need for any leadership.


Aside your apparent inability to tell that the reactionary idiocy you generally churn out as an excuse for posting on this forum is a pile of shit and wank, does it not occur to you that you're missing an extremely fundamental flaw in your ideas?

The Wikipedia "community" is essentially incapable of deciding anything for itself. You cannot, as people have pointed out, get anywhere from A to B in terms of governance based on "community consensus", because at best the majority of the community won't care or notice and at worst those people that end up being defined as the community (due to turning up) will be the regular drama whores whose vested interests are opposed to most forms of change.

The community isn't flawless, and you can't pretend that it is. You're placing your hope in the wrong place, because this mythical "community" you invoke so often just doesn't exist as you wish it to. It mystifies me, since I think you know you can't justify it, but you nevertheless try to argue it anyway. Is it nice to believe, or simply convenient?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Daxx @ Sun 19th July 2009, 4:00pm) *

[quote name='everyking' post='184828' date='Sun 19th July 2009, 8:
The Wikipedia "community" is essentially incapable of deciding anything for itself. You cannot, as people have pointed out, get anywhere from A to B in terms of governance based on "community consensus", because at best the majority of the community won't care or notice and at worst those people that end up being defined as the community (due to turning up) will be the regular drama whores whose vested interests are opposed to most forms of change.


There is no "community" -- just the same 50-100 people who turn up over and over at the various drama whore festivals.

Posted by: Orderinchaos

Wikipedia is not so much "a community" as an intersecting set of communities and individuals - one only has community when people commune with each other, and Wiki has gotten too big for that so genuine community spaces where they exist tend to be local and settled. For example the part of it in which I normally edit has an unmistakable and established community that functions almost as intended and is focused on editing and generally runs by consensus and mutual respect, and when things are rough on the high seas I tend to retreat to it as a safe harbour. A few, but not many, bits of Wiki are like that.

Part of the problem too is that a few exceedingly controversial sections where people long ago entrenched their battlements and no longer have much useful to say seem to supply the overwhelming bulk of litigants to AN/I. A selection of these people stick around beyond their particular lolwar, and subsequently become participants in AN/I culture and policy development and pretty much give up on doing any productive work on the site, seeming more interested in debating theology political philosophy and enjoying some perverse sense of power in igniting the anger of the "masses" (many of whom are similarly minded editors from other areas). I'm fairly sure a psych check would not pass any of them.

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Sun 19th July 2009, 12:59pm) *

Wow, that means we can kick out Newyorkbrad in time for Christmas? Ho ho ho! I want LaraLove on Arbcom. wub.gif
According to some, I'm already half-way there. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 19th July 2009, 9:16pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Sun 19th July 2009, 12:45pm) *

QUOTE(Giano @ Sun 19th July 2009, 3:49pm) *

I do beleive the RFC was wrong, if people don't like the way the ArbCom behaves then they should vote them out in December. The sad fact is that Wikipedia is an autocracy, the founding of that council was countenanced by the autocrat. If he were to say "from tomorrow, no wikipedia article can begin with an A" that would be legal. We may not like it, we may think it bizarre, but it would be legal. What I'm trying to say is that RFCing the legality was addressing Wikipedia's problems in the wrong place - and do you think if Slim Virgin had been invited onto that council there would have even been an RFC?


Wouldn't it be easier, in that case, for the ArbCom to dissolve the community and elect another? laugh.gif

Wikipedia is fundamentally based around the notion of community consensus, not rule by fiat or "might makes right". (If it were based on rule by fiat, that would be a poor system and we in the community would need to change that, so you still wouldn't have a point.) It's not the community's duty to shut up between elections and let the ArbCom do as it pleases--it's the ArbCom's duty to listen to the community all the time and respect its views. People with a fetish for top-down, command-oriented decision-making (in the real world we call them fascists or masochists, depending on the context) should go somewhere else, because all that is directly contrary to Wikipedia's principles.


Wikipedia has several centers of influence. These include Mr. Wales, the WMF Board of Trustees, Sue Gardner and other staff, Arbcom and of course "the community." These centers vary over time in the role they play. From the view on the outsider wanting Wikipedia to behave in an accountable and responsible fashion they are not static in their relative position as "progressive" (tending toward responsibility) and "reactionary" (tending toward irresponsibility and insensitive to outside concerns.) They have in the past vied for position as the worst and overall none are any great gift. But presently for reasons that include fundamentalist "freeculture," libertarian ethos and a insular notion that their mission is so special that they must have an ultra democratic form of self determination unimpeded by the concerns of anyone not in their number "the community" is the most reactionary and unaccountable of these centers of influence.

Mr. Wales wants to capitalize on the site's reputation and can't afford the harm to those outside to surface as an important part of the Wikipedian narrative. This accounts for why Wales has taken relatively moderate positions of flagged revisions, Virgin Killer, and protecting the hostage journalist. Wales might be the most unattractive and unsympathetic of the contending centers of influence but he is no longer the worst.

Gardner is, probably for blatantly careerist reasons, slowly assembling a level of staffing and resources that might someday permit the infrastructure needed to impose accountability. Gardner's worst mistake was to promote Moeller, who represents all that is wrong with the community. But she has also expanded grant activity into some mainstream foundations which will ultimately require accountability, the avoidance of scandals and embarrassments and normal operation as a non-profit entity.

Arbcom has become less concerned with being Mr. Wales' handmaiden and a few members, the most substantial without the "jury of damned" baggage of Bauder, Coren, FT2, and the like have become convinced that some form of at least meaningful structure if not accountability might finally be in order.

The WMF board showed some early promise of putting some distance between itself and Mr. Wales with Devouard at one point making some effort to stand up to Wales and reign in the worst aspects of "the community" found in Moeller and Wool. In the end Devouard lacked the substance and gravitas needed to carry it out. The WMF board has since become increasingly "community" dominated and is now mired in its insular and reactionary dominance.

The current incident in which a group of relatively progressive editors has attempted to forge links with sympathetic elements of Arbcom via the "Advisory Council" is further illustrative of the problem. This linkage was forged between these groups relatively free from the worst aspects of "free culture," libertarianism and the overriding aversion to accountability of the wider "community." Of course this effort has been drowned out once more by "the community." This has once again demonstrated that "the community" is the bulwark of reaction on Wikipedia.


This is absolutely right.

Posted by: The Adversary

I am still utterly amazed about the storm this has created..firstly; I question whether this council would have been able to come up with any joint statement. A council with so many independent and opinionated people? It would be a minor miracle if they all managed to agree about anything. But if, if, they did manage to agree about anything, then I´m certain if would be very well worth reading. And the downside? None, as I see it. Whatever recommendations they could come up with, would be just that: recommendations.

So, in all: Possible downside: 0. Possible upside:??

As for SlimVirgin starting this, well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Palin is now an advocate for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence, so why not! biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

The one really sad thing here is to read some of Durova and SV´s statements... the lack of self-insight is almost painful to read.

Why is it that whenever someone argues for something that they themself will "profit" from, they always insist that they do it "out of principle"? ..."for the greater good"? ..or whatever.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Orderinchaos @ Sun 19th July 2009, 6:36pm) *

Wikipedia is not so much "a community" as an intersecting set of communities and individuals - one only has community when people commune with each other, and Wiki has gotten too big for that so genuine community spaces where they exist tend to be local and settled.


Did you make that up all by your little self? No offense intended, but it is an intelligent analysis and I am sort of surprised to hear it coming from you. smile.gif

Posted by: Orderinchaos

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 20th July 2009, 11:46pm) *

QUOTE(Orderinchaos @ Sun 19th July 2009, 6:36pm) *

Wikipedia is not so much "a community" as an intersecting set of communities and individuals - one only has community when people commune with each other, and Wiki has gotten too big for that so genuine community spaces where they exist tend to be local and settled.


Did you make that up all by your little self? No offense intended, but it is an intelligent analysis and I am sort of surprised to hear it coming from you. smile.gif


I did. Probably because I don't normally write like that when I'm online arguing about Wiki stuff smile.gif When not online I study politics (well, when I'm not doing working and/or doing college courses in things that get me jobs, so my chances of graduating it in the next 5 years are not high) and it's quite interesting looking at Wiki from that perspective. The actual Wikipolitics bore the crap out of me, but the more broad questions about the shape of it in the future and the type of governance that would be best suited to it are interesting.

For example - it seems to me that once an online project based on a participatory model passes critical mass and can survive without constant attention and nurture from its creators or the initial editors who show up, the mechanisms needed to keep it running become so complicated and detailed that most normal users develop only an understanding of what they need (if even that) and avoid the area while others become experts in that and forget about what the site was originally about. As the experts hammer out more policies and more laws in a desperate quest to find purpose and meaning in their real lives, the barrier becomes higher, excluding those only casually interested (unless they want to limit themselves to one or two specific ones). So ironically as the project grows larger, you end up with a shrinking pool of people willing to put themselves up for ArbCom or even adminship, and they are voted for by the group who haven't excluded themselves from participation in governance, who will of course only support people who agree with them and whom they know. This is not the talent pool. If these people have jobs, they're not important enough to be seriously busy - either that or they literally invest all their free time on the thing, which doesn't say much for their socialisation... (Most of the Wiki editors I know who are actually something in the real world are either very casual in their editing, or are excellent content editors who only wade into policy forums when clueless idiots are trying to interfere with their work or impose standards which don't make sense in the real world.)

As a result we now have probably the most representative ArbCom from the "community" that we've ever had (previous ones were decidedly more distant, and arguably closer to the Foundation - a relic of Wiki's original size) and yet they are at best amateurs. There are some on there with more focus and good ideas, but they're usually hopelessly outnumbered. And the thing is - it will continue to get worse, because the same "community" is voting for them or their replacements from amongst their own.

To be honest though I think the days of English Wikipedia as a single project are numbered (perhaps another year or two) and it'll probably end up as a series of independently owned forks which share content on a CC licence, making questions of governance moot.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Orderinchaos @ Mon 20th July 2009, 7:01pm) *

I did. Probably because I don't normally write like that when I'm online arguing about Wiki stuff smile.gif


I should say so! On Wikipedia, you come across as stupid and vindictive. I like the WR version of you much better! (Yes, I was tutored in tact by Guy Chapman.)

QUOTE(Orderinchaos @ Mon 20th July 2009, 7:01pm) *
To be honest though I think the days of English Wikipedia as a single project are numbered (perhaps another year or two) and it'll probably end up as a series of independently owned forks which share content on a CC licence, making questions of governance moot.


I agree that Wikipedia's days are numbered, but only because I suspect something else will come along and steal away the interest of the kids (who make up too much of the editing power) while the majority of the thinking grown-ups will get bored when they realize they are riding a carousel (I have already seen some of the better editors and admins drift off and I suspect more will follow them in 2010).