Advisory Council on Project Development Options

[Eight]

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

[Eva Destruction]

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

Coren resigned before any of this. It's Rlevse (T-C-L-K-R-D) who resigned over this one.

[Eight]

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

Coren resigned before any of this. 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?

[Sarcasticidealist]

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 five pillars.

[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.

[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 endorsed 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.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Mon 13th July 2009, 7:12am

[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 endorsing 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.

[Peter Damian]

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=...oldid=301819772

[Cla68]

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 endorsing 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 restored the privileges.

Then, after dropping an RfC on the ArbCom with obviously canvassed endorsements for her opinion, SV proceeds to lecture the arbitrators on "transparency and secrecy". 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.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Mon 13th July 2009, 10:13am

[Eva Destruction]

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 endorsing 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.

[Cla68]

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 endorsing 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.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Mon 13th July 2009, 11:11am

[Eva Destruction]

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 endorsing 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, this thread on Giano's talkpage and this thread on Malleus's talk – 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 his original opposition to the proposal; 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.

[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.

[Obesity]

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....

[Kelly Martin]

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.

[A Horse With No Name]

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).

[Obesity]

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.

[A Horse With No Name]

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.

[Obesity]

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.

Go away, Ottava. I hate you.

[trenton]

These grapes, they are so sour, I wouldn't eat them even if you paid me to!