The circus hits town, arbcom 2009 here we go Options

[everyking]

You'd be okay with ArbCom decreeing a mechanism by which the community would make a decision on a given issue?

(That's a sincere question, not SarcSnark.)

Sure. I think that's the most realistic way for reform to happen. I object to the ArbCom supervising and dictating a reform process, but I have no objections to the ArbCom using its authority to initiate a process that it would not control.

We didn't have control over the planning committee. In fact, Kirill resigned his arb chair to rebut such criticism. Unfortunately, that didn't satisfy you, Slim Virgin, or any of the others opposed to the idea.

What exactly would it look like for ArbCom to initiate such a process? A referendum on whether the community wants a governance structure? Then what? From experience, the community will reflexively oppose a principle referendum until the details are known. In most cases, the community then opposes the proposal due to the details. How would we avoid this problem without even a hint of ArbCom control?

The Advisory Council was appointed by the ArbCom and explicitly worked under its direction--it was intended an advisory council to the ArbCom. And the community wasn't buying what you guys were selling, no matter how much you argued that the control could eventually be turned over to the community. Was it just me and SlimVirgin and a few other loudmouths? No, the opposition was overwhelming--something like 75% of those who registered an opinion registered it in opposition. And what did the ArbCom do in the face of a community consensus against its decision? Did it acknowledge the consensus, reverse itself, and listen to arguments for a community-directed approach? No, it simply allowed the whole idea of reform to wither and die without any further statements or actions. But the RfC didn't just demonstrate a consensus against ArbCom-directed reform--it also demonstrated a consensus in favor of some kind of reform. The lesson is obvious: if the ArbCom can't use reform to expand its own authority, it just isn't interested.

I remember making a specific proposal at the time. It went something like this: hold a referendum on the creation of some kind of body like the Advisory Council, and then have an election for it. The council then formulates governance proposals and submits them to the community to be voted upon. The only step in the whole process where the ArbCom would decide anything would be step one, and that would only be a decision as to whether to formally ask the community a question.

This post has been edited by everyking: Sat 28th November 2009, 6:54am

[Sarcasticidealist]

The only step in the whole process where the ArbCom would decide anything would be step one, and that would only be a decision as to whether to formally ask the community a question.

And the decision of the new body's initial composition (structure, not specific members), mandate, etc., the threshold needed for the referendum to pass, the rules for the initial elections...can you honestly say you wouldn't rage against ArbCom's usurpation of authority if it tried that?

[MBisanz]

You'd be okay with ArbCom decreeing a mechanism by which the community would make a decision on a given issue?

(That's a sincere question, not SarcSnark.)

Sure. I think that's the most realistic way for reform to happen. I object to the ArbCom supervising and dictating a reform process, but I have no objections to the ArbCom using its authority to initiate a process that it would not control.

We didn't have control over the planning committee. In fact, Kirill resigned his arb chair to rebut such criticism. Unfortunately, that didn't satisfy you, Slim Virgin, or any of the others opposed to the idea.

What exactly would it look like for ArbCom to initiate such a process? A referendum on whether the community wants a governance structure? Then what? From experience, the community will reflexively oppose a principle referendum until the details are known. In most cases, the community then opposes the proposal due to the details. How would we avoid this problem without even a hint of ArbCom control?

The Advisory Council was appointed by the ArbCom and explicitly worked under its direction--it was intended an advisory council to the ArbCom. And the community wasn't buying what you guys were selling, no matter how much you argued that the control could eventually be turned over to the community. Was it just me and SlimVirgin and a few other loudmouths? No, the opposition was overwhelming--something like 75% of those who registered an opinion registered it in opposition. And what did the ArbCom do in the face of a community consensus against its decision? Did it acknowledge the consensus, reverse itself, and listen to arguments for a community-directed approach? No, it simply allowed the whole idea of reform to wither and die without any further statements or actions. But the RfC didn't just demonstrate a consensus against ArbCom-directed reform--it also demonstrated a consensus in favor of some kind of reform. The lesson is obvious: if the ArbCom can't use reform to expand its own authority, it just isn't interested.

I remember making a specific proposal at the time. It went something like this: hold a referendum on the creation of some kind of body like the Advisory Council, and then have an election for it. The council then formulates governance proposals and submits them to the community to be voted upon. The only step in the whole process where the ArbCom would decide anything would be step one, and that would only be a decision as to whether to formally ask the community a question.

I would agree with your proposal, so long as 51% approval was recognized as the bar for passing for the governance proposals. Anything else and it would be impossible.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I would agree with your proposal, so long as 51% approval was recognized as the bar for passing for the governance proposals. Anything else and it would be impossible.

51% seems kind of arbitrary. Is it possible you're confusing it with 50% + .5?

[everyking]

The only step in the whole process where the ArbCom would decide anything would be step one, and that would only be a decision as to whether to formally ask the community a question.

And the decision of the new body's initial composition (structure, not specific members), mandate, etc., the threshold needed for the referendum to pass, the rules for the initial elections...can you honestly say you wouldn't rage against ArbCom's usurpation of authority if it tried that?

You have a point, but the reality is that someone would have to design a proposal before anything could happen. Of course, it's possible to go even further into it and say that the ArbCom could give the community an opportunity to express its views beforehand, and then it would ideally design its referendum to roughly match the organizational details seemingly preferred by the community. If people still objected to such details, then they could vote in opposition, and if the referendum failed, then the ArbCom could look at the opposition viewpoints and consider what would need to be modified in a future proposal to enable it to pass.

I would agree with your proposal, so long as 51% approval was recognized as the bar for passing for the governance proposals. Anything else and it would be impossible.

I've long thought that contentious governance issues should be decided by something less than the generally accepted threshold for "consensus". I think anything from a simple majority to 60% would be reasonable and workable.

[Sarcasticidealist]

You have a point, but the reality is that someone would have to design a proposal before anything could happen. Of course, it's possible to go even further into it and say that the ArbCom could give the community an opportunity to express its views beforehand, and then it would ideally design its referendum to roughly match the organizational details seemingly preferred by the community. If people still objected to such details, then they could vote in opposition, and if the referendum failed, then the ArbCom could look at the opposition viewpoints and consider what would need to be modified in a future proposal to enable it to pass.

Fair points all. But none addresses the referendum threshold issue. We have people complaining that a gulf of 14% in favour of secret balloting was insufficient to make that change. If ArbCom adopts the requirement of a bare majority for this much more significant change, can you imagine the outcry? But if it goes much higher than that, any proposal will be doomed to failure (and there will be people who dispute ArbCom's imposition of referendum terms no matter what the threshold and no matter what the advance consultation).

In fact, what you're advocating seems to contemplate a much greater degree of decree than did the council: that involved ArbCom setting up a powerless body simply to advise it, while this contemplates ArbCom deciding to throw consensus out the window on a fundamental change to Wikipedia governance.

Now, that's cool with me. But do you really not see how so radical a proposal makes a mockery of your objections to the council? And if not, on what basis do you distinguish them?

I've long thought that contentious governance issues should be decided by something less than the generally accepted threshold for "consensus". I think anything from a simple majority to 60% would be reasonable and workable.

(The above wasn't there when I posted the beginning of my reply.)

I have my doubts that any proposal could ever gain 50% support, though in principle I agree that from 50% to 60% is a reasonable threshold for referenda to make fundamental changes. But what's the community reaction when ArbCom picks such a number itself (or even after an RFC)?

[MBisanz]

I would agree with your proposal, so long as 51% approval was recognized as the bar for passing for the governance proposals. Anything else and it would be impossible.

I've long thought that contentious governance issues should be decided by something less than the generally accepted threshold for "consensus". I think anything from a simple majority to 60% would be reasonable and workable.

Probably worth noting that under a 51% standard

[*]Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG3 - Nothing would have happened
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Friday - A ban or sanction of some sort
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Keepscases - Nothing would have happened
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Benjiboi - A ban or sanction of some sort
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody - A ban or sanction of some sort
[*]Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland/RfC - A ban or sanction of some sort
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka - Nothing would have happened
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Privatemusings - Closer than I recalled, but I suspect it would have met 51% if it had been a straight support/oppose sanction.
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface - A ban or sanction of some sort
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 3 - Nothing would have happened
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2 - I think this may actually be exactly 50/50

In summation, it seems that leaving things up to a community vote produces as random a result as leaving it to arbcom and is probably no more satisfactory to one side or the other.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I would agree with your proposal, so long as 51% approval was recognized as the bar for passing for the governance proposals. Anything else and it would be impossible.

51% seems kind of arbitrary. Is it possible you're confusing it with 50% + .5?

Probably worth noting that under a 51% standard...

Now you're just trying to make me angry.

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist: Sat 28th November 2009, 7:33am

[MBisanz]

I would agree with your proposal, so long as 51% approval was recognized as the bar for passing for the governance proposals. Anything else and it would be impossible.

51% seems kind of arbitrary. Is it possible you're confusing it with 50% + .5?

Probably worth noting that under a 51% standard...

Now you're just trying to make me angry.

Well that is because 50.5 is still as incorrect as 51, the correct value would be 50+1/∞

[Sarcasticidealist]

Well that is because 50.5 is still as incorrect as 51, the correct value would be 50+1/∞

I said 50% + .5, not 50.5%. And there's no need to go as low as 1/∞; because we're only comparing things to 1/2, that will suffice.

(If you're going to disagree with that second point, please provide a sample vote count in which a count of below 50% + .5 would make a majority.)

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist: Sat 28th November 2009, 7:40am

[GlassBeadGame]

I would agree with your proposal, so long as 51% approval was recognized as the bar for passing for the governance proposals. Anything else and it would be impossible.

51% seems kind of arbitrary. Is it possible you're confusing it with 50% + .5?

Good to see someone understands what a "majority" is. 21 of 41 is a majority although it s not "50% + 1." 501 of 1000 is a majority although it is not 51%. "50% + .5" covers it providing no fractional votes are allowed. Still why not just say any number > 50%?

[Somey]

Still why not just say any number > 50%?

When I was a young tyke, we had to say "simple majority" because they wouldn't let us use digits. And that was after we'd all walked 6 miles to school in a foot of snow, wearing nothing but Prada leather pumps and high heels.

No, wait, that wasn't school, that was that Soviet forced-labor camp. Never mind!

[Sarcasticidealist]

Still why not just say any number > 50%?

Less pedantic.

[Lar]

Still why not just say any number > 50%?

When I was a young tyke, we had to say "simple majority" because they wouldn't let us use digits. And that was after we'd all walked 6 miles to school in a foot of snow, wearing nothing but Prada leather pumps and high heels.

No, wait, that wasn't school, that was that Soviet forced-labor camp. Never mind!

Pumps AND high heels? Is that like a turducken ?

Now, that's cool with me. But do you really not see how so radical a proposal makes a mockery of your objections to the council?

That was a rhetorical question, right?

... I mean, you're asking Everyking to be consistent, and to engage in self-introspection... all in one go. You DO know better, don't you?

[everyking]

You have a point, but the reality is that someone would have to design a proposal before anything could happen. Of course, it's possible to go even further into it and say that the ArbCom could give the community an opportunity to express its views beforehand, and then it would ideally design its referendum to roughly match the organizational details seemingly preferred by the community. If people still objected to such details, then they could vote in opposition, and if the referendum failed, then the ArbCom could look at the opposition viewpoints and consider what would need to be modified in a future proposal to enable it to pass.

Fair points all. But none addresses the referendum threshold issue. We have people complaining that a gulf of 14% in favour of secret balloting was insufficient to make that change. If ArbCom adopts the requirement of a bare majority for this much more significant change, can you imagine the outcry? But if it goes much higher than that, any proposal will be doomed to failure (and there will be people who dispute ArbCom's imposition of referendum terms no matter what the threshold and no matter what the advance consultation).

In fact, what you're advocating seems to contemplate a much greater degree of decree than did the council: that involved ArbCom setting up a powerless body simply to advise it, while this contemplates ArbCom deciding to throw consensus out the window on a fundamental change to Wikipedia governance.

Now, that's cool with me. But do you really not see how so radical a proposal makes a mockery of your objections to the council? And if not, on what basis do you distinguish them?

Couldn't the ArbCom consult with the community about the threshold? I'm not sure there's any great answer the question, because in the end the ArbCom might just have to impose a certain threshold. I would have no problem with that, although I'm sure some people would.

My objections to the council are centered on my opposition to ArbCom-directed reform--a body composed of people appointed by the ArbCom and responsible to the ArbCom, making recommendations to the ArbCom about future steps. I don't see the comparison. My alternative proposal is a body composed of people elected by the community and responsible to the community, which presents proposals to the community to be accepted or rejected. It involves the ArbCom exercising a greater degree of authority at the beginning of the process (setting up a community referendum as opposed to appointing a council to advise itself), but beyond that it would have no further power over the process.

Imagine a king decrees a popular election will be held to create a parliament that will take over the business of running the kingdom from the king's appointed ministers and advisers. That decree involves a greater use of power than the alternative (continuing to appoint ministers and advisers who will be responsible to the king), but in fact it means less power for the king, because he won't control the way the country is run anymore.

[Doc glasgow]

I tend to agree.

I see many problems with wikipedia - most of which could be solved if it were not for the project's delinquent mechanism for changing policy.

70% consensus threshhold is fine, if the people involved in the discussion pay attention so that a strong argument for a particular change, or against one of the options being considered, can win out. But few will follow the discussion in depth and people will keep objecting to one possibility because "my idea is better" when they've missed the discussion of six days ago that demonstrated that it wasn't. The problem is not the threshhold of 70%, it is that the constituency one is trying to convince keeps changing and the discussion resetting. It is why most societies work with some form of representative democracy.

I'm pretty confident that if the community had some form of representative mechanism for decision making, that things like BLP reform and flagged revisions would be more advance - and that less time would be taken up by many with circular policy discussions.

But you can't introduce an acceptable mechanism for making policy changes without a policy change, and that;s the rub. Someone is going to have to "ignore all the rules" in order to do this. It is a coup d'etat that is needed - and only Jimbo or Arbcom have the position to do this.

But to succeed, and to give the change some legitimacy, what they need to do is to grab the power, make the change, and then lay the power down. Create an independent elected policy board by fiat, and if people hate the idea, they can elect people committed to scrapping it.

Personally, I'd give such a board power to make any high-level policy change (not the colour of infoboxes please) in any area providing that 1) there was a general consensus that change was desirable. 2) the community had tried and failed to agree a change by the old mechanism.

[GlassBeadGame]

I tend to agree.

I see many problems with wikipedia - most of which could be solved if it were not for the project's delinquent mechanism for changing policy.

70% consensus threshhold is fine, if the people involved in the discussion pay attention so that a strong argument for a particular change, or against one of the options being considered, can win out. But few will follow the discussion in depth and people will keep objecting to one possibility because "my idea is better" when they've missed the discussion of six days ago that demonstrated that it wasn't. The problem is not the threshhold of 70%, it is that the constituency one is trying to convince keeps changing and the discussion resetting. It is why most societies work with some form of representative democracy.

I'm pretty confident that if the community had some form of representative mechanism for decision making, that things like BLP reform and flagged revisions would be more advance - and that less time would be taken up by many with circular policy discussions.

But you can't introduce an acceptable mechanism for making policy changes without a policy change, and that;s the rub. Someone is going to have to "ignore all the rules" in order to do this. It is a coup d'etat that is needed - and only Jimbo or Arbcom have the position to do this.

But to succeed, and to give the change some legitimacy, what they need to do is to grab the power, make the change, and then lay the power down. Create an independent elected policy board by fiat, and if people hate the idea, they can elect people committed to scrapping it.

Personally, I'd give such a board power to make any high-level policy change (not the colour of infoboxes please) in any area providing that 1) there was a general consensus that change was desirable. 2) the community had tried and failed to agree a change by the old mechanism.

This approach is wrong. It is not a question of reshuffling power within "the community." No group, clique, warlords gang or confederation of any or all of these can bring about change for the better for more than a quick moment. Real reform will come by reallocating which types of decisions are appropriate for the community to make and which need to be imposed by WMF board (implemented by staff) after consultation with stake holders in the wider world. This is a deeper form of democracy and open participation. This also is not going to happen any time soon.

[Doc glasgow]

I tend to agree.

I see many problems with wikipedia - most of which could be solved if it were not for the project's delinquent mechanism for changing policy.

70% consensus threshhold is fine, if the people involved in the discussion pay attention so that a strong argument for a particular change, or against one of the options being considered, can win out. But few will follow the discussion in depth and people will keep objecting to one possibility because "my idea is better" when they've missed the discussion of six days ago that demonstrated that it wasn't. The problem is not the threshhold of 70%, it is that the constituency one is trying to convince keeps changing and the discussion resetting. It is why most societies work with some form of representative democracy.

I'm pretty confident that if the community had some form of representative mechanism for decision making, that things like BLP reform and flagged revisions would be more advance - and that less time would be taken up by many with circular policy discussions.

But you can't introduce an acceptable mechanism for making policy changes without a policy change, and that;s the rub. Someone is going to have to "ignore all the rules" in order to do this. It is a coup d'etat that is needed - and only Jimbo or Arbcom have the position to do this.

But to succeed, and to give the change some legitimacy, what they need to do is to grab the power, make the change, and then lay the power down. Create an independent elected policy board by fiat, and if people hate the idea, they can elect people committed to scrapping it.

Personally, I'd give such a board power to make any high-level policy change (not the colour of infoboxes please) in any area providing that 1) there was a general consensus that change was desirable. 2) the community had tried and failed to agree a change by the old mechanism.

This approach is wrong. It is not a question of reshuffling power within "the community." No group, clique, warlords gang or confederation of any or all of these can bring about change for the better for more than a quick moment. Real reform will come by reallocating which types of decisions are appropriate for the community to make and which need to be imposed by WMF board (implemented by staff) after consultation with stake holders in the wider world. This is a deeper form of democracy and open participation. This also is not going to happen any time soon.

Strangely, I agree with that also. The ideal would be as you say. But, as you say, that will not happen.

However, I do believe that a proper mechanism for the community to make changes would be better than what we have. The biggest problem with the Wikipedia community is that, even in those limited cases where most wikipedians are able to see what might make things better, the project is structurally incapable of making major change. The constitution has no realistic mechanism to amend itself. Even a Jimbo dictatorship would be better than total inertia - with a veto on movement by any clueless minority.

[One]

In fact, what you're advocating seems to contemplate a much greater degree of decree than did the council: that involved ArbCom setting up a powerless body simply to advise it, while this contemplates ArbCom deciding to throw consensus out the window on a fundamental change to Wikipedia governance.

This is the problem we saw with any other attempt (like suggesting a new governance policy for an up-or-down vote). Any proposal would require "consensus," which is impossible for relatively simple changes, let alone fundamental shifts.

My hope, at least, was that the advisory council would ultimately turn into a sort of constitutional convention, which would draft the framework for eventual governance. We deliberately picked a broad cross-section, many who would never win an actual election, but had enough friends to attract a constituency for when the council would finally issue referendums. I hoped that these people (a small group) would actually be able to come to something like consensus, and inspire enough confidence among Wikipedians at large to successfully vote it in. I don't think any arbitrators really wanted to control it--Everyking's claims of a powergrab notwithstanding. Literally any system of governance would be light years ahead of the status quo because it would be able to make actual decisions.

In retrospect, it seems obvious that most Wikipols who were not offered a seat would oppose it.

I believe that any effective governance body would make ArbCom relatively less powerful, not more--even if it were under ArbCom's auspices. A governance structure would free ArbCom to confine itself to dispute resolution.

At this point, I think the site's veneration of "consensus" makes internal reform impossible. Everyking says that he's cool with ArbCom ignoring consensus (really?), but I doubt that's true of other elements of the opposition. Some will oppose "on principle." Some oppose because they think they have a slightly better idea, and they prefer deadlock to losing. Some seem to actually prefer stalemate.

Even a Jimbo dictatorship would be better than total inertia - with a veto on movement by any clueless minority.

I agree. I have said several times (often to criticism), that the site would be better if Jimbo were as dictatorial as some imagine him to be. He doesn't have the political capital to be dictator anymore though, if he ever had the power.

The site would be better if anything were in charge.

[trenton]

Even a Jimbo dictatorship would be better than total inertia - with a veto on movement by any clueless minority.

I agree. I have said several times (often to criticism), that the site would be better if Jimbo were as dictatorial as some imagine him to be. He doesn't have the political capital to be dictator anymore though, if he ever had the power.

The site would be better if anything were in charge.

A benevolent well-informed dictatorship can be a good thing. Jimbeau, however, is neither benevolent nor well-informed. He is dictatorial when his personal interests are threatened (like how he has his own very special "founder" flag). Unfortunately those personal interests don't have anything to do with "writing an encyclopedia". As for being well-informed, Jimbeau doesn't really have the inclination. When he does exercise dictatorial powers, it tends to be because he listens to some crony whispering in his ear to further their own agenda, or to some random idiot posting on his talk page. This creates the impression of a capricious and arbitrary governance system.