Wikipedia talk:Advisory Council on Project Development/Forum

This talk page is intended for outside comments about the topics being discussed by the Advisory Council. General comments and inquires about the council can be made on the main talk page.

Community suggested issues

If you have an issue that you would like to be discussed by the Advisory Council. Please list it below. Write a short description (about a paragraph) that explains the issue and add links to any relevant pages. Please, this is not the place to start discussions about the issues that are listed. Start a new section if you want to start a discussion.

RfC

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

Is anyone/everyone free to comment on the "Forum" page, or is it limited to the members only? — Ched :  ?  18:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

See the note at the top; it's for the Anointed Ones only. Us plebs are "cordially invited to contribute comments or suggestions on the talk page". – iridescent 18:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Anointed? Iridescent, I do not use oil, or any form of lotion, on my hair. Now that I am very important, I would like a little more respect from you please, but I would like you plebs to remember that I am almost like a normal human being and completely unchanged in anyway. Giano (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

@Ched - anyone can use this page, I think the idea is ACPD are going to use the project space page. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• No offense to any of the members individually, but I wonder how long it will take before folks start referring to the ACPD as the "ArbCom Police Department". Hopefully there won't be too many folks following in the footsteps of old Boxer. — Ched :  ?  22:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah - my vote was for the Project Development Group, but I hope we have better things to talk about than a cute name. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I can understand the thought behind this idea. I can even envision some very positive things coming from such a group. I think that the membership should be ratified in some fashion though. Perhaps not even anything as formal as an RfX - a simple "20 approval votes" perhaps. If 20, 30, or whatever number of editors say "Hey, Editor X would be a good person to work in this area", then perhaps there wouldn't the backlash that we/you are seeing. I personally wouldn't even object to not having an "oppose" ability. If someone has x-number of people trusting their efforts, then at least there is some sort of "representation" there. Giano has brought up some excellent points in regards to this (elections) on the project page. The other item I have reservations about is a page that's closed to the community. Even ArbCom allows outside contributions in the line of "Comment by" types of things. The "you can edit on the talk page" type of thing just seems to me to be condescending. The members are already talking about setting "an agenda" ... what about the "agenda" that the community would like to see? It's not something that I'm going to sit and stew over, but I think you'll have better success with the community "behind" the operation - rather than a self-appointed end-run to what a select few people think is best for everyone else. Just my opinion, and I do wish you folks the best of luck. — Ched :  ?  03:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Openness of discussion

Can we get a clear endorsement from the members of this organization that they will discuss everything openly, here, or elsewhere on Wikipedia, and not in IRC or closed mailing lists? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am not interested in participating in something that works in secret, and will leave the group if it ever reaches that state. The whole point of the thing is ideas for bettering the project, and doing such work behind closed doors would not just be a violation of trust, it would be stupid. Steven Walling (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• The public discussion pages have already been initiated - I too, would not particpate in anything that was secret - I don't think that was ever the intention. Giano (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• I don't use IRC or closed mailing lists, and I can't see any reason why I'd want to for the purposes of this group, so yes you have my commitment. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• I never use closed channels either, and this would be no exception. DGG (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• I don't use closed channels either, and believe in full transparency. Absolute full disclosure: In the past I have met Jimmy Wales, Sue Gardner and board members in person several times (mostly at meet-ups), and we've discussed all sorts of things related to how Wikipedia runs. Does that make me a member of a secret cabal? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 23:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• Seems to me that it would be counter-productive to have backroom discussions. The whole point is to discuss the issues and present ideas to the community. Leaving open the question of how conclusions were drawn would not help in anyway. Transparency is of the utmost importance here. لennavecia 00:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• None of this should be allowed to be back-channel. rootology (C)(T) 00:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• As I recall, that was an express point in the emails we all received, and I am fairly sure we are all committed to such a course. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• There would be no point in closed mailing lists or IRC - we want a discussion of ideas that everyone can see all sides of. Awadewit (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • But not participate in. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• I agree too (If I am still around for the long run, that is) :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Ditto all the above. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Concur. Cla68 (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• I will only participate in this so long as it is on-wiki or in an a medium that is publicly archived.BirgitteSB 16:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• This was one of the preconditions for my acceptance of the invitation to join the group. --Dweller (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, I concur on this. MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Paths forward

The way I see it, ACPD is basically vacuous at the moment. With no powers and the active resistance of the community, it is little more than a waste of time. In my opinion, there are two basic way to change that.

1. Seek community approval for the goals and closed membership of ACPD in some form similar to what has been proposed so far.
2. Create an open forum for project development. I would envision such a forum to be forked from Village Pump (policy) with open participation but a mandate to focus on the development of new policy initiatives (while VPP maintains it's role to help explain and apply existing policies). I would also propose to imbue such a project development forum with a bit more formal structure than exists at VPP. For example, one could adopt uniform polling procedures and other rules to centralize the consideration of new initiatives.

Dragons flight (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's an alternative possible path forward... start talking. Propose good ideas. See what happens. If someone else wants to set up a competing talk shop, great. ++Lar: t/c 15:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

OK - as I mentioned above: Put up a page of the editors in the group - allow us to "sign" that we support the editors to function in that role. No questions, no opposes, no discussions ... just a simple show of support for the members. At least that way there is some sort of evidence that there may be some community backing for this. If someone gets 10, 20, or whatever number of ratifications (rather than votes or !votes) - we then know that they are representing a part of the community. It may not be "consensus", or even a true mandate, but at least it shows some "community" involvement. — Ched :  ?  16:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

mmm..hmmmm. yea. "talking" only works when there is someone else that "listens". Nice that we peasants have this little talk page to placate the masses, but it appears that the only way we get the masters attention is if we threaten to piss on the carpet. Ah well, I thought it might be worth watchlisting (for a bit), to see if this new "Cabal" would actually attempt to represent the community, but I see they are much too busy, to be bothered with such trivial tasks. Somehow though, I just can't envision "community support" for a "council" that's too busy to listen to folks it's supposed to be representing. "Back to the mines" comes to mind, but then again ... it's only a website, .... now isn't it? — Ched :  ?  14:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Verify that personal attacks are inappropriate as a standard

Since both Giano's ad hominem attack on me?[1] and User:Rootology personal attacked me because I voiced an opinion [2] have been condoned, I ask as a basic standard that this "committee" or body not condone personal attacks. This is important, as another member of your "committee", Joopercoopers, refused to respond to my concern, saying that the word "behaving" excused Giano's ad hominem attack that followed, then deleted my enquiry.[3] This is especially worrisome, as I recently underwent an arbitration that was the result of statements and behavior of approximately one third of the members of this new "committee" designated by ArbCom. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not the venue for those complaints, plain and simple. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you discuss coming here with this with your mentors first, as I gently suggested? Is this the result of that discussion? If it is then we'll talk.--Joopercoopers (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

My question is attempt to see if this body will address, or even acknowledge, issues of importance to the community as a whole. I was under the impression this is the type of issue this body is supposed to consider. Recently, a well-known editor ceased editing because she could not come to an agreement with Jimbo Wales over the issue of her language to other editors. Regarding the above, ArbCom has stated that baiting me and other forms of undesirable behavior toward me will be regarded by them as censurable. I made no personal attack myself. Are you going to answer my question? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As and when the Wikipedia:Civility/Poll concludes, yes I think that's an issue that should be looked at in general terms. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the Civility policy and the enforcement of it should be a topic we discuss along with the related NPA policy. لennavecia 19:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I would gratefully appreciate it. This is so important in creating a constructive working atmosphere free of fear. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a wiki

This is a wiki, anyone can edit any page with few exceptions. What authority is behind the notice at the top of this project page? Who has the authority to say I can't edit it? --Tango (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You could edit it if you'd like, but your edits will probably be reverted. This council was started at the request of the ArbCom and Jimmy Wales. The alternative to doing it here, in Wikipedia space, is for us to have discussions somewhere else, in a less transparent setting. I can't speak for everyone, but I believe we all think that transparency is important. We are just having discussions, and we have no official powers. You can consider this to be an experiment, to see if a select group of experienced editors, committed to discussing issues in a small group can come up with anything of value. It has become nearly impossible to resolve any contentious issue using traditional Wikipedia practices. I can think of alternative mechanisms to make important decisions with total community input, but the inertia to keep the status quo makes it nearly impossible to create meaningful change. Who knows if this council will do anything of value. If we fail, nothing is lost but our time and effort. I'm hoping that we succeed in creating some good ideas and proposals. Nothing will stop you, or anyone else, from creating a different council that was totally community driven, with membership open to all. But how can such a group get formed and gain the acceptance of the larger community? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I would much rather people contribute to Wikipedia:Governance review. If the community decides that we want some kind of council we can put it together then. Putting it together now without community support is just harming ArbCom's already poor reputation. --Tango (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Poor reputation? There are some problems with the ArbCom's charter, but that's not the current members' fault. This current ArbCom crew is probably one of, if not the most effective committees that we've had so far. They're sttempt to take this small step to address governance issues is evidence of that. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I made no judgement on their effectiveness, just their reputation. From the talk I've heard, the current ArbCom hasn't been able to entirely do away with the poor reputation the last lot built up for themselves. --Tango (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think that the current Arbcom is probably the most deep thinking of any we have ever had. I would not have accepted the invitation if I thought it was a dirty tricks department. Initially, I was deeply seceptical so quite understand the views that others are taking. However over the last few days, I have found that one can interpretate the founding of the ACPD in a number of ways; my take is that it was a cross between an olive branch to discontented editors (to have some of their own advising the Arbcom) - a reaction to the very recent and vocal discontent that there has been of late of which the Wikipedia:Governance review is part, while at the same time wanting advice on the way forward from a group of experienced editors from all walks and viewpoints of Wikipedia. The varied mix will certainly ensure that the "dicontents" don't get it all their own way. I thik this council is a way forward, perhaps less radical and less democratic than some of us would have liked, but it's a start, it's not a revolution, but it an acknowledgement of problems and it needs a chance. If it fails, and it may, then we are all still here with our views. I rather feel that the Arbcom have acted in good faith and now been wacked in the face with their own olive branch. Perhaps I have it all wrong, I dunno, but that's my view. Giano (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

  Oh, I don't doubt that it was done in good faith, I think it is just terribly poor judgement. They should have known what the reaction would be. --Tango (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Proceeding with business

As the existence of this council is opposed by a clear majority of the community, I think it's totally inappropriate to simply proceed with business and ignore the community's wishes. It suggests that the council does not respect the community, making its work even more suspect than it was at the outset. Everyking (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That's premature. The RfC is in its infancy, as is the Council. Users may get a clearer idea of what it is they are opposing or supporting by seeing the Council in action. Given that the Council has no "power" to do anything, there is nothing to be gained by not progressing. Heck, we may even achieve something, though I doubt we'll get that far before the RfC closes. --Dweller (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

People aren't opposed to what the council does, they are opposed to how it was created. I don't see how further observation will change anything. --Tango (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You're making an assumption that the latecomers to the discussion will feel the same way as the earlybirds. You may be correct in that assumption, but it's an assumption nonetheless. --Dweller (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The point of the group is to discuss the problems that face the community. One of those problems is the inability to either change anything or introduce anything. There is always a group wanting to shut down any attempt at change or improvement. No opposition to what we want to do, just opposition in the way we came together. I think everyone would benefit from a little AGF and some time to see what we're able to come up with. Sometimes ends justify the means. لennavecia 19:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how Everyking said "clear majority" - this suggests that Wikipedia operates as a democracy. I missed our transition to that form of government. :) This sort of problem for me is the crux of the issue - we say we operate on consensus, but then we make no attempt to ferret out what the real consensus of the RfC is. For example, many of the arguments presented both for and against the council were completely illogical and emotionally overwrought. Unfortunately, none of them are stricken in any way. Everything is counted equally - that is not classic consensus, that is democracy. If we are going to make arguments based on "the majority", we need to set up a systematic way for the democratic process to work. Awadewit (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that members of this committee or council or whatever it is are shrugging off the point made by Everyking is precisely why this is not going to end up working, and I'm truly sorry to say that since I would like something like this to work (personally I'd even be fine with all of you being the ones to start it off—the exact membership is not a big deal to me). Anything you propose, per your charter, needs community consensus in the "normal" fashion. Saying "meh" to 70 "very bad idea" comments in an RfC about the group is about as bad of a reaction as one could possibly have if you want to come back to the community later to get consensus on something, as I would assume you will do. I mean, you could at least pretend that you care about those comments. I am utterly astounded at the way some of those appointed to this are handling the objections (to take a particularly egregious example, it's hard to exaggerate how much a diff like this hurts your cause). Your biggest goal is not to actually come up with some terrific proposals, it's to make sure you can get "the community" behind whatever it is you ultimately propose. Please don't forget that before you even begin. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not shurgging it off - please read more carefully. I am pointing out that his/her reasoning is not what Wikipedia purports to use as a governing model. We do not claim to be a democracy. If we want to be a democracy, we need to found such a structure. We don't have one now. Awadewit (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about democracy. What I'm saying is that this council has no consensus support—in fact, there appears to be a consensus in opposition to it. Everyking (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What you said was "clear majority of the community" - that invokes democratic process. I am pointing out how we conflate consensus and democracy on the encyclopedia. We don't seem to know what we want - do we want to decide via democracy or consensus? I also pointed out how the consensus is not as clear as you make it (once you remove the illogical arguments, etc. as one must do in deciding consensus, which is not a numbers game). Awadewit (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave the consensus vs. democracy points to the side because that is a distraction and not germane to what either Everyking or I or are saying, regardless of EK mentioning "a clear majority" and then you seizing on that phrasing in your counterargument. The issue is not about how many people said thing X, so let's forget about quantifying !votes or talking about why that's a bad idea.

The problem I'm pointing out (and you're reinforcing it in my view—sorry but that's just how I see it) is an apparent willingness from some on this council and ArbCom to essentially ignore the strong objections and proceed apace with this business as though a significant, articulate chunk of the community had not thrown up a big, "stop, can we talk about this for a minute" sign. For example, when you refer to "illogical arguments" that alter consensus, I can only assume based on the context (i.e. your point that Everyking's view of the consensus is wrong) that you are referring primarily to oppositional arguments, and that you are essentially saying there are a number of arguments there which you think don't make sense and which you can therefore ignore. Ignoring a number of arguments then enables you to shrug off - I reiterate the phrasing because that's precisely how I read your stance and the stance of several others - the RfC as something which does not really have much bearing on what you are now about to do here. I think that's a huge mistake for reasons already described, particularly since you are in no particular position to judge what opinions do or don't count in this particular RfC. Indeed you are one of the last people who should be claiming to judge (without, so far, mentioning any specifics) what is "illogical" or not, because the arguments in question bear directly on a group of which you are now a member. I'm sorry, but you don't get to say what counts and what doesn't, or at the very least it's bad form to imply that you do. And it does seem to me that that is what you are saying.

Finally, you cannot know this so no worries, but I'll point out a pet peeve of mine. As a rule comments like "please read more carefully" come off, in my mind, as rather condescending. Like you I'm a doctoral student in the humanities and very much a careful reader here or anywhere else. If I come to a different conclusion than you do about some piece of your writing and its meaning (though my previous comment was not actually directed at you personally), it's probably because I'm approaching the text in question differently than you are, not because I failed to carefully read what you wrote. Feel free to say I'm still wrong in my reading of a given point, of course, but the implication that another editor was not really paying attention to what was already written before banging away at the keyboard is not generally helpful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I would like to post an equally thoughtful reply, unfortunately I am leaving town in about 36 hours. Could we pick up this conversation in a few days or at my talk page? I think the issues we are batting back and forth are at the root of the problem. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, no problem, and it's probably best to discuss here, so I'll check back or just drop me a note on my talk page when you get a chance to respond. However be forewarned that I might well participate in this in which case conversations like this one, even when constructive, would be verboten for me for a few days starting Friday night. Enjoy your time out of town—I've heard it's a great place to be, though I've never been there myself.  :-) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I love that idea. This is a Dramain for me since I'm a content editor most of the time. :) Awadewit (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

{outindent) One of the issues raised in your last post is essentially: what is consensus and how does it work? For example, you wrote that we on the AC don't have the right to assess the validity of the arguments at the RfC ("you are in no particular position to judge what opinions do or don't count in this particular RfC"). One of the questions we now have to ask is "who decides what the consensus is?" You seem to be implying that we cannot decide because we are involved in the issue, but so is everyone who commented. If you want to ask an uninvolved set of users which arguments are logical and illogical and should be used towards gauging the consensus, that would be interesting exercise. However, I didn't see that in your statement. (As a side note, please AGF when I say above that I found illogical arguments on both sides.) From the standpoint of consensus, as it is used on Wikipedia, I'm not sure who is supposed to sort through the mess that is this RfC - are you? How are they supposed to do it? If they are only supposed to count numbers, that is not consensus (as I explained above). In essence, I think you are making a political and PR argument, without that overt language. You are saying "It is politically unwise to push forward with this idea, when there is so much resistance (whether it be logical or illogical)." Awadewit (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Elections

I personally think that having elections to determine the membership would be less than useful, possibly counterproductive. I don't think it will necessarily break his heart at this point if I were to say that Giano, who is probably one of the best voices of opposition (for lack of a better term) to a lot of what goes on here, might have a slightly worse chance of winning an election than Cat Mandu had. John Carter (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Another idea is a mixed composition -- partly elected, partly "wildcards" appointed by arbcom. --JN466 19:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Or like this. 12 elected to 1 year terms, term limits of 1 year; every 3 months the 12 appoint 4 that constantly rotate in and out for fresh eyes; the 3 monthers have limits of 2 cycles. The entire initial batch of users steps off 6 months to the day after membership values are sorted out and/or the elections complete, whichever comes later. rootology (C)(T) 19:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think rotating positions would be helpful to the cycle of discussion in the long term, though the initial group stepping down after a set period could be good. Steven Walling (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? That would be the strength of this, I think. You get the core elected group, chosen because they clearly know what they're doing in the community's overall best interest, or for a given group--the writers, the RC guys, whomever--and they bring in specific people for special projects. Need a couple of BAG guys next quarter for something big bot related? Pull in X! and someone like that for 3-6 months. Need someone Commons? Pull in a couple Commons admins. Or whatever combo. That would be the strength of it--or if someone proposes a brilliant kernel of an idea, that isn't part of some other group, pull him in to see if it has legs. rootology (C)(T) 19:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The biggest problem with elections is that you will only get people who willing to put themselves through an election. If you are then saving the appointed seats for special problems, well that limits the pool.BirgitteSB 19:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That's the trick in the end, with this. If no one runs or is willing to run, and many people don't want a group appointed by the AC machine, then the group will eventually fade away, if that's meant to be it's ultimate fate. We could well see dozens of people throwing their hats in, or none. We won't know till we get there, but people will not be happy until this is totally turned away from the AC. rootology (C)(T) 19:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As with the Peter Damian proposed group - you have a series of community nominations, and then a general election...Modernist (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

People will be happy when it yields something useful. Competence excuses nearly everything.BirgitteSB 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Birgitte, which is why we shouldn't mess around with elections or any foolish business until it works. The whole point was to avoid unnecessary hoops and cut to the chase; if this actually manages to be a force for good, as it were, then I'm entirely for opening it up. But I'd rather wait for results; institutional momentum being what it is, it's a better plan, I feel. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes and just to be clear I am not opposing opening it up. But I don't think it is wise to draft the exact method of opening it up until we we have a better handle of where it will be useful. This sort of focused discussion cannot cure all the problems of Wikipedia, but it is more likely to useful to certain types of problems than others. If we can get some idea of what kinds of topics this most useful, then it will be easier to draft an effective permanent procedure.BirgitteSB 20:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

for a small group, representing a very varied constituency, it is necessary to be extremely clever in order to have the people optimally selected--or even adequately selected. I think we're varied enough--with perhaps the one common feature, that we like to express our ideas right out there--and that would seem an indispensable requirement. I do not think an elected committee would be likely to be broad enough unless it was at least twice the present size, and that would be too large for good discussion. But the community rightly wants a direct voice, which is critical; there are also some people who think they should be here instead or in addition to us, and some of them may be right. And there are also some opponents of the current plan who would make wonderful members. In any case, I am very uncomfortable being in a position where what I'm doing does not have the confidence of so many people whose views I rely on. DGG (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever confidence you have lost by accepting the position can hardly be redeemed by resigning now (if that is what you are contemplating). At least by standing firm you prove your disagreement to be a sincerely held difference of opinion rather than a whim. Their confidence will best be restored when worthwhile things developed here prove their doubts mistaken.BirgitteSB 22:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"DevCom" ("Development Committee") proposal

User:Roux has made an interesting proposal on how the transition from the present body to something perceived as being more separate from arbcom could be handled: Development Committee. Please take the time to have a look at it; I think it includes some worthwhile ideas. JN466 21:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the way forward is pretty clear - reform the committee with all new people and no arbs. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC's generally run for at least a month. I'm sure a lot of great ideas like Roux' will be forthcoming during that time. In the meantime, this council will be working on what they've been asked to do. Cla68 (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Unhelpful comment removed, Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Tom harrison: That seems like a not very helpful comment to me. ++Lar: t/c 15:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe it isn't at that. The Advisory Council on Project Development seems stupendously unhelpful to me. I'll remove mine... Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Simple proposal for the Advisory Council members

A longer rant of mine along these lines can be read elsewhere, but this is the quick and dirty version so you don't have to bother reading that.

A lot of people don't like this, obviously, and want to hit "pause" and talk some stuff out. Many of you, and some Arbs, want to press on ahead for right now. How about a bit of a compromise? What if the ACPD members hold off on "doing anything" (including discussion) for a set period of time—maybe 10 days or two weeks (something not too long is the point). During that time we'll have a community discussion about tweaking or overhauling this group. If we come to some agreement(s) about how to do that, we'll run with them. If the discussion goes nowhere and/or is just a disastrous mess, you folks pick up right where you left off, knowing you engaged directly with the community but that said engagement did not produce any workable results, so you're back to plan A. I think that could be a way forward, and I don't think you lose much of anything by holding off on your discussion for a little while, whereas you gain a lot from giving the community at least a chance to shape this group a bit from the inception.

Thoughts on this from Advisory Council and/or ArbCom members would be very much appreciated. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In a word? No. How does us continuing our discussion as a group impede in any way a RFC? It doesn't. In fact, for people to see how our work is developing is something that informs the commentary, rather than interferes with it. Steven Walling (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well that's obviously fine if that's your view, and thanks for replying, but just to be clear I'm not talking about the RfC per say. My concern is definitely not that this discussion impedes the RfC—as you say it doesn't (and I did not suggest that it did). I guess what I'm imagining would be a separate, start from scratch discussion (maybe clerked in a formal fashion), something in which you all (or many of you) would participate—i.e. you would direct your energies to a discussion with community members for a little while rather than to one among yourselves just yet. The idea would be to meet the concerns of a number of other editors at least part way by engaging with them first, and if that just did not yield concrete results you come right back here and pick up where you left off, no real harm done (I think). Finally with respect to Steven's last sentence, and as should be obvious from the RfC, the big concerns are with how the committee was constituted, how members were selected, etc. etc. As such many folks are not going to change their view simply because the see you are starting to have a fruitful discussion in this forum.

I'd still be interested in hearing comments on this idea from other ACPD people or Arbs. Even if this specific suggestion is not something to which people are amenable, I'm curious if there is any openness to the possibility of allowing the community some direct input into this right now before the process gets too far down the line. Obviously the lack of said input is the main concern for many right now, and maybe there are some workable ways to address that issue so there's a bit more of a unified front with this going forward. If that's possible I think it's obviously worth pursuing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point in stopping discussion. It just doesn't make sense to me at all. What harm comes from us discussing issues? I can see nothing but potential benefit. At worst, a waste of our time.
That applies both to this request and the controversy in general. Consider that my official stance of the broader issue and all the little ones that branch from it. Lara 18:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Surprisingly, given the extent of community unease, many council members still seem eager to get down to business. Surely you realize that the community will not take your proposals seriously because you are operating in opposition to the community's wishes? Are you still eager to do the work because you realize that the ArbCom will nevertheless be willing to consider your proposals, and because you would be content to see reform take place at the ArbCom's direction rather than the community's direction?

In any case, I support this proposal to halt the council's work for at least an interim period while everyone assesses the situation and considers the best way forward. Everyking (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

For my part, I cannot believe the community will fail to take any useful proposals seriously simply because of their origin. Nor do I believe that what is being done here is in any way in opposition to the community. Certainly there is unease about the whole situation, but the best way to remedy this is to replace what people may have been imagining might be done here with with concrete examples of our approach. Sitting tight and leaving everything to hypotheticals will not help the situation at all. I do not expect to present any proposals to Arbcom at all for their consideration. BirgitteSB 21:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Even if the council does manage to come up with useful ideas, those ideas may be tarnished through their association with this council. I personally would feel compelled to oppose any proposal that was presented by this council, even if I might support it according to its merits as an idea, on the grounds that the council has no legitimacy to function in light of its rejection by the community and accepting its proposals would mean accepting the ArbCom's attempts to direct project development. While some of its proponents are casting this council as the project's only hope for reform, I think scrapping this council would actually facilitate reform, because it would then be possible for the editors who support reform to get on the same page and work within a common process.

If the ArbCom believes (as I do) that a council would be a useful mechanism for developing proposals on project governance, why doesn't it simply disband this deeply unpopular council and instead encourage the community to elect a council that would develop reform proposals? Why does it fail to listen to the multitude of voices saying that project development must be directed by the community, through a community-elected body? I can only suppose it is because the ArbCom wants to control the process and expand its own authority. Everyking (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the insistent behavior of Rootology and Casliber on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development bodes ill for the future of this project. The best strategy would be to lay low and let the community have their say, not force it down our throats by trying to control the RFC against precedent. Will this happen to the Advisory Council's ideas/suggestions also? It is worrying. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And the insistent behavior of people who have consistently gotten "pwned" by the Arbitration committee (which I may add, includes me--go read the MONGO RFAR #1 for textbook screwing of a user here)--shouldn't be taken into account? You, Everyking, and Slim and her friends Jossi, Jay, et al (sorry all, especially Slim & Jay, but this is beyond absurd now and someone has to say something) have gotten screwed by the AC in various forms and are livid about this proposal. The only one missing to show up is Shoemaker's, no offense to him either. rootology (C)(T) 23:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't take this the wrong way, but are you seriously and honestly saying that if I laid out a given formula and initially proposed it on this page via this system--even if it was an idea that would usher in a ten-year Golden Era for Wikipedia--you would permanently reject it because I suggested it via this system? And that the idea would be dead on arrival from that moment forward, and you could never back it's implementation? Are you seriously saying that? If so, this place has gone even more insane than I ever imagined possible, or people really and truly are against this entire operation simply because of their noted (but which can't be discussed!) biases and previous issues with the AC and this site's leadership. rootology (C)(T) 23:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not trust this group because of the recent arbitration brought against me. I am very uncomfortable regarding the membership of this group consequently. I did learn from the arbitration that intemperant and insistent behavior, such as you are engaging in, is considered disruptive. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No different than your own insistent behavior and broad strokes paint brushing of me and others in the group as some toadies of the AC part of a scheme to "get you". You are equally as disruptive by your own made up standard. rootology (C)(T) 23:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I would caution you that your language and attitude appear to be becoming intemperate. There is no reason for you to accuse Mattisse of being "disruptive", and indeed the the same charge might reasonably be laid at your door. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And no caution for Matisse, for consistently discarding AGF for days on end now by accusing us all of being shills, toadies, and hitmen for the AC in some grand ludicrous scheme to 'get her'? AGF has it's limits, and Mattisse accusing others of being disruptive considering her riotous actions here takes the cake. She's been nastily needling everyone involved for days on end. rootology (C)(T) 23:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's hope that your retirement will allow you to regain a sense of perspective. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course I wouldn't oppose it as an idea, or consider the idea permanently tainted—I'd oppose it as an advisory council proposal, as long as it was presented in that form. I tried to make that distinction clear. However, I am concerned that other people could associate certain good ideas with this unpopular council and thus develop a lasting bias against them. Everyking (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Would we truly want to do anything to encourage such utter cluelessness, as that sort of behavior? A lasting bias because of who presented it? It all goes back to politics there, and your answer is as clear an answer as is possible of why separating aggressively, by any means, politics and personalities from the encyclopedia is so crucial. It's almost amazing how quickly this entire affair has torn down the made up walls of discretion that people use to turn a blind eye to this sort of thing. I think it's time we forced the blind eyes to stay firmly open. rootology (C)(T) 23:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with several, replying to Rootology's 23:01 comments). At least from where I sit, you're not helping things with those kind of posts Root, and your wikilinked reference to AGF suggests you kinda know that. Incidentally, I started this thread, and I've never been sanctioned by ArbCom, and indeed don't believe I've ever been a party to a case. I've disagreed with a number of their decisions in the past, sure, but I have positive (or at least neutral) feelings about most all of the members on the current committee, and the only recent case I actually paid much attention to, the Obama one, was handled fairly well I think. I'm not an ally of Slim Virgin, or Everyking, or indeed really anyone (I have too many real world friends I don't get to talk to enough to bother with wiki ones). I don't run in a clique or participate in a list serv or in IRC or on Wikipedia Review or any other external site along those lines. A lot of the people who have a problem with this have a similar Wiki profile as I do (in terms of lack of affiliation/prior beef), and I think it is, to be frank, a bit disrespectful to those with opposing views to even imply that this this is all basically about Slim Virgin or someone else being mad (and, by implication, petty) about something. I think this council is a bad idea because I think it's a bad idea (at least as constituted)—period. Disagree all you want, but I'm not motivated by personal wiki-politics or any of that nonsense and do not care to be tarred with that brush (which is not saying I think tarring other, more prominent wiki-personalities with that brush is okay either—I don't).

I began this thread to propose a compromise and as a way to get a sense of what folks in this group are thinking with respect to getting community input at this point in the process—I'm trying to seek common ground which is something I often do during disputes. Several people have answered here, which I appreciate, and say they don't care for this idea and that's fine (though in my view basically every comment has ignored the key point that many people are unhappy with this situation, and that some kind of effort at outreach by both "sides" might be useful and/or necessary). I've tried to extend a hand here which has not gotten us very far as yet, but that's fine and I'll continue to try to do that if I can. Unlike Everyking, I would support a terrific idea from this group even though I'm opposed to how said group was created. My worry is that there are a lot of other editors who, rightly or wrongly, feel as EK does more than they feel like me. If that causes the work of this group to go up in flames, please do not say that you were not warned, or that folks who had a problem with the ACPD did not try to have a dialogue about how to make this workable from the beginning. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

My commentary about politics on this page, to be clear, was not aimed at you, but clearly at Mattisse (who has a present feud and grudge with the AC) and Everyking (who has a long-standing, never-ending feud and grudge with them). rootology (C)(T) 23:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A) You should not be aiming such comments at anyone, because under no possible scenario will that help anything, aside from you saying something you really want to say (and there are other places for that). It's also hard to tell who you were aiming it at, which is yet another reason to not say such things in the first place, as I think you would agree if you were not so invested in this issue. B) Why are you engaging with people you think should be ignored because they have a "grude," but ignoring the question/topic I brought up in opening this thread, which wa actually directed at you (and others)? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Rootology is taking a break. I'll respond to your initial proposal by saying that I don't plan on waiting around to see what will happen. I've been ready for some time now to roll up my sleeves and get busy with discussing some things with other, interested editors. That's what we have here. Since we don't have any formal authority, you don't have to worry about us ramming anything down your throat that you didn't have any say in. So, if the other council members are able and willing, and it appears that they are, I think we're going to get going on this right now. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not before time. Rootology's attitude is doing this initiative no credit whatsoever. I have no great faith in it, neither do I damn it, but for a member to make the accusations that Rootology has suggests that the selection criteria were flawed. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Since there's a consensus on this website against the existence of your council, maybe you should conduct your work on a different website. Or, better yet, refrain from doing it at all and direct your energies towards community-centered reform. Everyking (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I really do fail to see what there is to object to about the setting up of a think tank, other than that maybe you weren't invited. This group has no power, no authority, but perhaps it may come up with some good ideas. Why not not just wait and see? What's to lose? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks to Cla68 for the reply, that's obviously the consensus among members of this group, and I think it's at least good to have asked about this issue and received a definitive reply. I would say that, in my view, most of the replies boil down to "why wait?" or "that would be a waste of time" or "the community has nothing to worry about," and I continue to think that y'all are missing the boat here in terms of the real issue.

Rightly or wrongly, rationally or irrationally, much of "the community" is pissed about this right now (some in an admittedly over-the-top manner). Barring some change of course, you folks will talk for awhile, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if you come up with some good or very good ideas. Presumably you'll then bring them back to the community and they'll be implemented or not. If the answer is "not," and if they truly were good ideas, and if a big part of the "not" vote comes from anger (a good amount of which is legitimate—that fact needs to be acknowledged) over the lack of community consultation about this from the beginning, then that will be a major bummer—particularly if it could possibly have been avoided. I don't care whose "fault" it will be at that point, though I'm sure others will, it will just be an overall bummer. I truly hope I'm wrong to be concerned about this, but no one here has convinced me that there is not cause for concern. I'll leave off on this particular issue now if there are no further replies. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be a rather damning indictment of this "community" if it rejected ideas on the basis of where they originated from rather than their intrinsic worth, wouldn't you agree? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

For the most part (like 90%) yes, I would, though I can imagine an argument that sees this group as so problematic that ratifying one of their proposals would be a bad idea, because it could be seen as a de facto ratification of the group and of ArbCom extending itself into governance issues by creating the group (that's not what I would say personally, I just don't think that's a completely unreasonable argument—though I think most of the arguments expressed opposing a truly good idea from these folks would likely be unreasonable).

Regardless though, that kind of "screw these people and their idea, ArbCom created them" rejection could happen, and the very happening of it (huh?) would be shitty for a slew of reasons. A lot of times the "community" reacts poorly to things, and in that respect it's like basically every other decent sized polity in the history of the planet. I'm afraid that, for now, we're stuck with the community that we're stuck with—no matter how much many editors might wish that that were not the case—and community reaction (even if it's dumb) is something that anyone proposing a big change should take serious consideration of if they want the change to happen. "Politics" (broadly defined) on Wikipedia or in real life often suck and often force one to deal with people with whom one would rather not deal, but unfortunately human beings have not yet come up with another way to negotiate the spaces in between us as individuals in order to come together for collective efforts like writing an encyclopedia or setting up a goddamn traffic light on Main Street. Somewhat shitty but true I'm afraid, as you'd probably agree. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Remember also, that the Committee stated that it would like to use this council as an advisory board to bounce ideas off of for use in RfAR cases. So, if "the community" decides it doesn't want any part of anything we propose, we still have a mission to help the ArbCom out with anything they feel they might need our help with. Cla68 (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll have more success if you burn the bridge back to ArbCom and just say this is a standalone group with no ArbCom members or relationship to the committee aside from the fact that some Arbs brought the group together. Maybe that's a largely symbolic move, but I think it's a smart one, and I think the reasons for that should be obvious.

One final unrelated point and then I'm truly done as far as this thread goes. I have a friendly "public relations," so to speak, suggestion as you get going on this, odd as a friendly suggestion from me may seem since I'd rather this group was re-conceived before proceeding (since it is proceeding though, I don't want it to blow up in everyone's face). As an early order of business, consider picking a couple-few folks in the group to act as "community liaisons" (shitty name, can't think of better one) or something similar (or don't do anything that formal, but you'll see what I mean in what follows).

Even as you discuss, you're likely going to have to deal with talk page comments/threads (like this one) from editors who are not members. Some of those comments will be helpful, others will be more of the bomb throwing variety, some will be in-between. Probably not everyone on this council is equally equipped to respond patiently to comments from the community, but responding patiently and constructively will probably be key to your success (I'm sure you can ignore some of the outside commentary, but definitely not everything). Perhaps those who have a somewhat more abrasive style when it comes to talk page interaction (I don't mean that as a criticism—people just have different ways of communicating) should try to avoid posting a lot here or on other talk pages. There's necessarily going to be a bit of a PR element to your endeavor, and you'll have more success in the long run if other editors who try to engage with you feel that they were listened to and had a constructive dialog.

Please note that I had no problem with the direct responses to me here (the dialog was constructive, even though my suggestion was rejected), but poor communication with "outside" editors could be an issue in the future and it's a problem you could nip in the bud by being sure to put your best diplomats out there to engage with other members of the community. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand your intent, but we're all community members. We don't need "liasons" to act as a go-between because there is no go-between. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really - when you put up a WhitesMembers Only sign, you've kinda put yourself in a class apart from the rest of the community. The fact that people here seem oblivious to that problem seems like prima facie evidence that there's a need for someone who can "speak both languages". Guettarda (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for hinting we're racists?... I'm sure that's a most helpful insinuation. The members-only page is to allow members to be able to banter out ideas without it being cluttered up; if an outsider's comment on the talk page is relevant it can be brought to the main page. Simply a matter of cutting down on noise. ArbCom does it, and it works pretty well there too. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No David, I obviously wasn't calling anyone racist - after all, as far as I know there's at least one "non-white" in this august group, which is probably representative for positions of power in Wikipedia. But good move - when a procedure is criticised, make sure you (a) take it personally, and (b) do your best to turn it on its head. No, I was not calling this set-up racist. I was using a familiar example of discrimination as a metaphor. Only the select group is allowed in. The hoi polloi (and no, it's a figure of speech, I'm not calling you a classist) are seen as "clutter[ing] up" the attempt by the select to have an "adult discussion" (again, a figure of speech, I'm not saying that you think your fellow editors are immature, or childish, or children, or...). But from the time someone starts thinking of one's fellow editors as merely people who "clutter" the conversation, people who's opinions need to be be filtered through the judgement of the elite, then it seems likely to me that "go betweens" are needed. Guettarda (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Guettarda, don't take it personally. There's a checklist. It was leaked to me. Anyone who has misgivings about this undertaking falls into one of the following categories:

1. Bitter about a recent arbitration ruling.
2. Trying to get a new council set up so they can install themselves on it.
3. Deluded by the dastardly SlimVirgin-Durova cabal (the most secret cabal on the site--neither of us knew it existed).
4. Obstructionist.
5. Unclear. If uncertain, construct strawman argument and rebut on that basis.

A public service from the Wiki Witch of the West ;) Durova²⁷⁸ 02:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I will say that I agree with BTP here - we need to try and be as receptive as possible. Let's try and be welcoming and cooperative in our responses. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

My comments seem to be disparaged in the belief that I have "a present feud and grudge with the AC" as stated above.[4] This is not true. I feel my arbitration was handled in a fair and sensitive manner, and the outcome constructive and beneficial for me. I learned a great deal during the process and hold the Arbs in high esteem. Please don't disregard my comments because of this misunderstanding. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for future discussion

Here's a topic you chosen advisers can discuss, seeing as my invite got lost in the post. Have a think on whether our guidance would be better served written up as flow charts. See here for further thinking on the subject. Most of our processes on Wikipedia can be whittled down to a checklist, so it jumps out at me as a bloody good way forwards and a way to avoid the pitfalls of wiki-lawering. Hiding T 22:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• As an example, a good flowchart for the Wiki-Lawering cry of, "you haven't done x" would be: Has user x performed this action? -> No -> It's likely they forgot or didn't have time. Please perform it yourself in order to best assist Wikipedia. If unable to do so, ask politely for assistance. That kind of thing would work wonders, like the good old days of sofixit, when no-one took offence at the gentle nudge in the ribs. Hiding T 22:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"The forum is for members discussion only"

I have not seen any community consensus that grants this group the right to block users from editing the "forum page". User:Slrubenstein has posted remarks and twice they've been reverted, which does not appear consistent with any policy of which I'm aware. The ArbCom doesn't have the authority to create a policy governing this page unless the ACPD is subcommittee of it, but explicit remarks by ArbCom members seem to discount that view. Since the ArbCom can't do so, shall the community create a policy to govern think tanks and allow them to have private pages under their exclusive control?   Will Beback  talk  23:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, so long as Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development is only proposed, there is no restriction on who can edit the forum page although many editors would probably choose to honour the request that the uninvited should only edit the talk page. That being said edit warring is a pain in the neck wherever it occurs. CIreland (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If it is ever to have an editing restriction then that needs to be explicitly acknowledged in the relevant policy pages. While it's still a proposal, it seem inappropriate to treat it as if it were official and as if a special policy exists when there isn't one.   Will Beback  talk  00:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, but I also think there is nothing wrong with asking (rather than compelling) the uninvited not to edit the page. Also, it would have been better if Invitee David Fuchs had asked Slrubenstein to move his comments rather than simply reverting him. CIreland (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. There's no harm in asking someone to do something. Reverting as if there was a policy to govern this page when there isn't one is a problem, one that unfortunately plays to the concerns about the role and function of this committee.   Will Beback  talk  00:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have moved the comments myself, except that they (which I see the user has reinstated) were talking directly about membership and didn't seem to make much sense if spun off. I'm not going to force the issue either way. (ps, Clreland, I did say he could repost to talk in my edit summary; he ignored me, as far as I know.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone must have forgotten to tell Slrubenstein—that page is reserved for an elite, privileged segment of the Wikipedia community. Membership is by invitation only and they don't take kindly to outsiders climbing the fence to get onto the grounds of their exclusive club. In case anyone is concerned about whether this is legitimate, know that the ArbCom, composed of our highest and most esteemed users, has authorized the formation of this exclusive club so that it can determine how the project ought to be governed without any disruption from the riff-raff. Everyking (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Everyking, you're acting like a troll. We get your objections, already. Grousing at each and every thread does nothing to strengthen your arguments. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

So what am I supposed to do? This council has been rejected by the community and has no right to even exist. You might not like my "grousing", but I don't like the fact that you're operating against community consensus. Everyking (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Given your slavish adoration for community consensus, I'm surprised you went back to ArbCom for your admin bit after the community resoundingly denied them. :P At some point, your personal objections have been logged, and it's best to disengage. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If you feel 33% opposition (in my RfA) represents a "resounding denial", I can only imagine what you must think of your council's reception, as the opposition appears to be at least 75%. And yes, we've all made our objections clear, and yet this council continues to function. Well, I can't personally stop the council from operating, but I can remind you guys that you're contravening consensus in hopes that eventually you'll get the message. Everyking (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I would just let those selected edit the page, if only to establish a record for good or ill of what they do. I am particularly impressed by Giano's apparent good faith efforts. Fred Talk 20:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I know, who'd have thought it? --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

White Pride

One May 16, 3:25, 2008 bellaveccia admited she believes in White Pride. I have to say, i have serious qualms about such a person having a prominent role in invluencing the project. I realize that this council should have editors representing a wide range of views but White pride seems to me to be on the other side of some line. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

1) It's always best to provide differences so people can judge the accuracy of your statements. [5] 2) Your statement is clearly inaccurate. 3) I ask that the members of the ACPD not judge everyone who opposes your organization by this comment of Slrubenstein. Edward321 (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to provide the diff and neglected to. I regret that and appreciate your providing it. I still stand by my comment: she supports White pride which is at best naive. But to be clear: this is a concern I have against one member of the council, and not against other members of the council or the council in general. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, not everyone shares the same black/white worldview that you espouse on your user page. Arguing over white pride is not the purview of this channel, nor any other Wikipedia-space issue. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry David, I must have missed the section on "rules for editing this talk page," why don't you point them out to me? Please note though that I was not arguing about White Pride. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Slrubenstein. First of all, the name is Jennavecia. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone named Bellavecia who actually does support the white pride movement. I, however, do not. I already cleared this up more than a year ago. The fact that you are dredging it back up, inaccurately framing it, posting it across various user talk pages, then canvassing on article talk pages is not appropriate. Considering I've signed up to participate in the dramaout, I'll just leave my complaint with this message. And, of course, we all know a complaint made over this would be ignored anyway. Lara 15:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It adds useful perspective. Of course, the real issue here is balance in terms of perspective. There's nothing wrong with a White Pride supporter having a voice here (which is not to say that you are one), but rather, that the range of perspectives here are very limited. Guettarda (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

So lemme get this straight...you're an unapologetic repeatedly blocked race revert warrior and POV pusher who has come to a talk page to cast aspersions against somebody you don't like. Sounds like a real ironclad case you've got yourself there. Your bad faith is manifest and unwelcome. [6] Please restrict your comments to relevant issues or take it to talk pages. This isn't a venue for you to prosecute grudges. Bullzeye ^contribs 15:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's already been taken to many talk pages. Lara 15:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...Steve was blocked four years ago', back in the early days of the 3RR when the alternatives for dispute resolution weren't as well developed, for edit-warring with people trying to insert fringe perspectives into an article on race and, iirc, an editor who called others "monkeys". So yeah, he's cut his teeth standing up against racism, and raises a fair concern here. He's also got what - almost 8 years, I believe - of working to convert Wikipedia from a place where people wrote "what they know" (sources? what's that?) to a place where content should be supported by reliable sources. So yeah, his background makes him the perfect person to raise this concern. Guettarda (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Trying to recruit knowledgeable editors is a bad thing? Please don't take this too personally - I think Steve's agenda here is a bit broader than the suitability of your participation here. Guettarda (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Either way, he's got nothing on Lara. I suggest dropping this. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well of course you do. You've already made it very clear that you consider outside input unwelcome. Guettarda (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing with a negatively framed message that misrepresents someone is, in fact, inappropriate. Lara 16:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That might be true, but what does this have to do with most of the invitations Steve sent out? Guettarda (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Go find someone else with whom to play your games. Lara 16:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I am obviously returning late to the conversation. First, Jennavecia, I am sorry I got your name wrong. I am among other things the typo-king, and I have a bad memory for names. Second, I followed the link you povided and I appreciate that very much. I also take you at your word that you are not a racist. But I do have concerns about your understanding of, and sensitivity to, racism, and the reason this is an issue for me is because I believe that racism and racial insensitivity are among the gravest problems at Wikipedia, and any Advisory Council that is meant to consider problems at Wikipedia needs members who are equiped to analyze these problems effectively. Frankly, I still have some doubts about you in this regard but if I am wrong I promise you I will be glad. I have two reasons for having doubts. One is the fact that you did not know, as a Wikipedia editor, how "white pride" would be interpreted by others. This does not make you a racit, it just makes you sheltered, but if you had been so sheltered during your life that you did not learn what "white pride" meant to other groups of people, I fear you may have been too sheltered to be able to address race problems at Wikipedia. The second reason I am concerned is this sentence in your linked explanation: "I never intended to offend anyone. I was just too blown away by being called a racist to stop and see why there was a double standard on pride and how so many people believed that pride could ever be supremacy." There is a double standard from one perspective, a perspective in which you as an individual are set next to let us say as an example a black individual; I acknowledge that. But from a larger perspective "double standard" misses the point entirely. There are important reasons why "white pride" and "black pride" are not comparable and therefore cannot be held to the same standard. If you do not understand this, then I am as I said concerned that you will not be able to help us address our race problems. I have never interacted with you before and have no ill feelings towards you personally. But this "council" is being forwarded as something that will somehow address serious problems Wikipedia faces. The membership of the council moreover reflects the judgement of ArbCom. For both reasons, it is important to look at who is on the Council as part of making any assessment necessary for a well-informed comment at the RfC. My purpose is not to attack you but to appraise the Council an the judgement of ArbCom in light of the choices ArbCom made concerning the composition of the Council. Given my view of the major problems assailing Wikipedia, and your statements, I have concerns about ArbCom's judgement and about the Council. That is my point. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Think what you will. The group is to be comprised of enough members that any issue should be able to be discussed adequately. If we all have to be capable of well-informed commentary on every given topic that comes across our desk, then I find it highly unlikely that you will ever manage to find enough people to form a "group". That said, considering you're spreading my name across various user talk pages in the form of a link that does not give context to the situation and, in my opinion, frames me as a racist, rehashing an incident that ended over a year ago, I would appreciate it if you'd find some other example to use as your given example of concern for ArbCom's choices and revert your FYI sections from the aforementioned talk pages. It's not right to cast me in a negative light with other users for the purpose of illustrating your "assessment". Lara 19:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "tink what you will,"did you think I would ever think what I won't? Anyway, I added to my comments links where people would find the context that, as you rightly pointed out, was lacking. It is always nice to work with a Wikipedian who values transparency and disclosure. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #3

As an outsider I tend to think that BLP issues are deserving of a lot more attention than they get. If there would be any way to get a BLP parameter set up in such a way that BLP concerns appeared on the Wikipedia:Article alerts function many projects now use, so that interested groups of editors who, hopefully, know a little more about some of the relevant issues than a lot of outsiders would, that might be one way to get more attention to those articles. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be great. Could somehow connect it to the BLP noticeboard, which is in need of improvements itself. Lara 16:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Data?

"Wikipedia is failing" essays that people write every so often when they grow upset or frustrated with the project. People have been predicting the demise of Wikipedia for years. The consensus model hasn't worked since about 2003. Or has it? Wikipedia has been unable to retain experts since before Larry quit. And yet, they're still here. According to the one study I know of that actually tried to look at it, we've been falling off in recruiting new editors since 2007. And yet, quality continues to improve. BLPs were a concern before the Siegenthaler affair, they were going to be the death of us...are we surviving by sheer dumb luck, or have we gotten better at this? Fringe science has been a problem from the start - does anyone remember the Bogdanov case? People have been complaining about Jimbo's governance ever since he shouldered a larger role once Larry left. And yet, we're still here.

I'm not saying we don't have problems. We have problems. We have always had problems. The problem is that we've dealt with them in a piecemeal, ad hoc manner. Squeaky wheels get oil. Pet peeves get essays written about them. Assembling a group of squeaky wheels and "pet peevers" simply magnifies the problem.

Wikipedia is an incredibly complex organism. If you want to solve "the problem" you need to identify "the problem". If you start with the assumption that "the problem" = "my problem" then you're probably going to see everything through that filter. That's the way people work, we're all prone to confirmation biases. Of course, that problem is exacerbated by the insular nature of this group. When you build a wall around the group, when you only admit members into the clubhouse, you immediately separate the world into "us" and "them". When you have a community that's based on radical openness ("anyone can edit"), that situation is a recipe for conflict. And what happens when people are criticised? Of course they become defensive. When you've already arranged your wagons in a ring, you're bound to end up with a laager mentality (and no, David, by using words like "circle the wagons" I am not accusing anyone of wanting to displace American Indians from their land, and when I use the word "laager" I am not accusing anyone of fighting to retain minority rule. They're just useful figures of speech).

Yes, we need to look carefully at what's wrong with Wikipedia. Yes, we need to find a new way to come up with solutions. That requires data. At the very least, you need to test your hypotheses against data. But really, what we need to do is set our assumptions aside and look at what's out there. Ask a wide swath of the community what they think. Actually look at how governance works, how policy is made, how consensus works, or doesn't. Then, maybe, we can start to look at the problems and start to come up with solutions. Guettarda (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

BLPs were a concern before the Siegenthaler affair, they were going to be the death of us...are we surviving by sheer dumb luck, or have we gotten better at this? — No, we haven't gotten better at this. It's getting worse, actually. Lara 16:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Data? Guettarda (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Where's the data for your assertions that quality continues to improve? More than 800,000 of Wikipedia's articles are orphans, and thus most likely libel, gibberish, nonsense, or irrelevant minutiae, and that's an increase of more than 10,000 in less than a month. Around 45% of Wikipedia hasn't been assessed, and even the most successful wikiprojects have a low featured/good quality articles to B/C/Start/Stub class; 94% of WP:MILHIST, 92% of WP:VG, and 91% of WP:FOOD don't meet basic criteria for content and comprehensiveness. Roughly one-tenth of one percent of articles are featured quality, and featured still doesn't mean it's a quality article. There's my statistics to refute your claim that quality continues to improve. It's not. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

In the first two years of Wikipedia, most articles were orphans, an none of thm would have met good quality standards. As Wikipedi has grown, its own standards have become stricter and more demanding. That is a good thing, But it makes it hard to analyze "trends' at Wikipedia other than to say that we keep holding ourselves to higher standards. Without a doubt, Wikipedia has more better articles now than five years ago. Do you want editorial control? Go aske for a job at Encyclopedia Brittanica. Otherwise, lets work on soling Wikipedia's problems through the wiki way. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm presenting statistics. The interpretation is up to you. I'm not suggesting that the wiki is "failing". But I'm proving a point to Guettarda that before asking for data, you should provide your own. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Two questions for you: (1) What is the proof? I don't see it - how have you proved anything? (2) Are you saying that any claim you make should be accepted on your authority? If you assert a claim, why is it wrong for someone to ask for the evidence that supports your claim? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(1) Proof is what you make of it. I provided statistics that show our quality content is drowning in piss-poor articles, and the problem will only continue to get worse. That's a fact, given current article trends; GA/FA/FL etc. promotions will lag far behind article creation. The interpretation is up to you. Some might say that's evidence wikipedia is failing, others that we need to change how we do business, et al. I am not saying any claim I am making should be accepted "on authority", and I have said nothing about to that effect. I was simply telling G. that it's rather contrary to clamor for data that wikipedia is failing when he has provided none to show it isn't. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

DF, you can't prove a negative. G is asking anyone who proposes to fix a problem to demonstrate using hard data that that problem actually exists. This is an excellent idea and part of the structure we have laid out here: "Preliminary work on an issue page should give a background summary of the issue: its history; a rough analysis and any relevant data; and first attempt at a definition of the problem." - I have just added "and any relevant data" to make this explicit. Thanks, G! Do you know of any data on the various problems we have laid out here? Awadewit (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. You made a claim. G asked you for your data supporting your claim. This is perfectly reasonable to do. Why should G provide any data concerning YOUR claim? It is the person who makes the claim that has the burden of responsibility to provide evidence, otherwise people might think he is just bullshitting - this is true here just as it is in academia or business. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Elections

<moved from project space> --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've decided I find the idea of this discussion group intereting, so I have decided to join. It seems to me that we are discussing three separate but linked issues; how we understand one will affect how we understand the oothers. The three issues are (1) agenda (2) membership and (3) remit. I'll start with (3), remit - we are an advisor board, but whom are we advising? Major decisions at Wikipedia are to be made by the community, so we are advising the community. This I think helps answer (2). If we are advising the community, it makes sense for this and similatr councils to be voluntaristic associations of those members of the commitee interested in the area of discussion. This leads me to (1): I think this gets at the crux of the issue. What are we advising the community on? This is what I propose: members of the community can nominate whatever they see as a current and pressing problem. If that person can attract say ten people to discuss th problem, then they have formed an advisory council on that question. That is, I do not think that any advisory committee should exist without there being a clearly defined problem it plans on advising the community about (the identification of the problem in short constitutes the council). If someone sees another problem, they can create an advisory council for that problem. I suspect very few Wikipedians are interested in or have th eexperience to handle ALL problems facing the community, and it makes sense that different councils concerned with different problems will attract different membership. I am not really worried about signal to noise ratio - at any given time the number of editors active in discussing a policy or an article is usually under ten. As long as each council has a clearly defined problem, I think the same will hold with the councils (if we need any rule, it should be that no council can function unless it has at least eight members, or ten, or twelve, or whatever. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

David Fuchs says that this project is by invitation only. How can that be? isn't Wiipedi the encyclopedia anyone can edit at any time? Since when has there ever been a project with exclusive membership? I want to join. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is accepting requests. Lara 22:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

My point is, it is not up to ArbCom. If ArbCom feels strained and is having trouble fulfilling its tasks, it can ask that the number of arbitraters be expanded, and ask for the election of a new tranche. But it has no brief over th kinds of things th council is supposedly for. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed the purpose of the council. Lara 03:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

How to get and structure an advisory council

<copied from user:Geogre's talk page.> --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What you will need for this project: One Wikipedia, an estimate of a representative sample of active editors, and several stewards. You will also need an Initiator. That's YOU, and hopefully you are plural, not singular.

1. Outline a set of criteria that would make a person qualified -- experience with all elements of Wikipedia, breadth of edits, calm, intelligence. Think about the criteria very, very carefully and word them even more carefully. This is the one place to be excruciatingly careful, to get a great deal of input, and to be sure that the end goal is always in mind. That goal is wise policy, nothing else.

Why: Criteria keep people from wandering, and most people will be more honest, if they're given qualities to assess than if they're asked who they think is best. It's one of those paradoxes of evaluation that's pretty well known in business and education. This is why, for example, most employee and educational assessments are structured.

2. Ask editors to recommend someone other than themselves according to those criteria, rating the person on a 1-10 on each. The recommendations go to a group of coordinators or the stewards. They are not posted openly, and any person advocating or discussing voting or canvassing for members to the council will be in violation of WP:CANVAS, including on IRC and e-mail. We will have to rely upon honor, but Wikipedia was founded on such principles.

Why: Obvious, really. The idea is not to be competing, but rather looking for elements of trust. This cuts down on some of the, "Oh, well, that person is evil" stuff. Obviously, it leaves big weaknesses, but step 3 can help forefend. Additionally, prior and future attempts stall because of politics and personalities and self-love and self-importance. Provided that alternate accounts are not involved, this should avoid that to some degree, and since these are simply sent in rather than posted publicly, it will help. We don't want cadres and factions and points of view trying to fight. We want wise policy and we want trust. Have people assess for someone, not against.

3. Get a list of the top 60 finishers and then make them candidates for consideration listed on a namespace page by the stewards. There will be positively no statements by the candidates, and no oppose votes. Instead, there will be a two week assessment period, during which editors will, again using the criteria, give 1-10 scores on the various criteria for the sixty persons listed.

3a. Selection will not be a balance of oppose and support or anything so compromised. Instead, the stewards will have determined a representative sample of the editing population and divided that by ten. No candidate will be successful without an aggregate score above that mark (this functioning like quorum).

3b. If a person sees a very serious reason for disqualification, he or she will inform the stewards and coordinators. Disqualification criteria are that the person will be likely to act in a private, national, or special interest rather than a wide, international, or community interest. Disqualification will have nothing to do with "conflict" or "drama" or even "policy violations" of the candidate, as it is not up to the stewards or coordinators to tell the project who it trusts. However, if a person has a vested interest or a conflict of interest or has evidence of a private desire that trumps the general, then that would be a reason for disqualification.

3c. The coordinators and stewards simply tabulate the scores. All parties are prohibited from revealing or discussing results on any medium until the final 60 are posted.

Why: This council will not have "power" to harm or help people, so the idea that a person on it will get to be important is silly. When matters are "tied" in the minds of the stewards and coordinators, the presumption should be for safety/disqualification, but the criteria must be solely oriented toward communal/private interest and wisdom/folly. A wise thought from an unpleasant person is worth a dozen banal platitudes. Secrecy is vital, because any hints about how things will going, especially on non-portable, non-transparent media like IRC and e-mail, will result in "votes" and hate fests.

4. The result of the assessment will be a council of TWENTY people. Of the twenty, five will serve at a time for one month periods. Membership will rotate every month.

Why: This may be the most vital part of the plan. By having the groups rotate, it prevents personalities from dominating, so no one person can bully or dominate the rest. Additionally, it keeps one person or five people from becoming "important" or thinking they have power of any sort. All of the anxiety about the council being a "government" or being "power" or being a "revolution" should be put to bed instantly by the knowledge that it will be a continually shifting set of persons.

5. Method: The council should appoint or seek representatives to speak for separate viewpoints on a given issue. These "champions" or representatives will present arguments for their position, arguments against alternative positions, along with careful rebuttals of claims against their position. They will not involve themselves in direct, interlined conversation with champions/representatives of other points of view on council pages. The council will review all cases, plus any volunteer cases ("amicus briefs"), and submit questions to champions. They will then fashion their own policy recommendation(s).

Why: Again, we've seen death by argument too many times to count, and we especially see the routine "forest for the trees" sort of argument that Wikipedia is famous for. No one gets anywhere when discussing policy because every single person needs to offer his opinion, even if it's almost identical to the twenty opinions just above. All of the "me too" and the "yeah but" stuff gets so thick that no one can support anyone or any thing. If the council wants to actually review and fashion policy recommendations (only recommendations), then it needs to basically research policy alternatives. They can find the passionate true believers of the sides and let them get all the best ideas from their side together and speak with one voice, and then they can also listen to anyone who walks by who happens to have thought about things. Additionally, many times our best thinking is not found among the advocates, because people have gone away from an issue in disgust. Open the issue of infoboxes, and you'll see hundreds of editors who hate them but gave up arguing. The point is that the "champion" method and the "amicus" system allows clear presentation and consideration for the council.

6. When the council concludes its deliberations, it makes a policy recommendation to Wikipedia that Wikipedia must approve. It is not automatically policy, but it is also not for arguing about. It is an up or down vote, with a presumption of approval. This means that any proposal that garners quorum and an approval rate of 67% or more will be adopted.

Why: If this is a thing where the council makes a big RFC, the result will be "no consensus" to everything. Instead, the council should get a bit of a break, so that a council recommendation simply needs approval (say a 2/3rds majority, with quorum in place). If it goes to Village Pump where every person gets a brand new opinion, then we'll have every person trying to speak for the novelty of speaking, and then we'll get reiteration, and then....

What to do with these?

Use 'em. Claim 'em as your idea, if you want. I don't care. I just think it's a good idea, and I think it's a damn sight better than ArbCom picking their favorite warriors or votes or some other rot. Tell me, honestly, if I haven't avoided the problems.

The point is, there are ways of doing these things, people, if we just stop thinking in terms of power and appointing ourselves demigods. Geogre (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting ideas. I have to agree one of the most basic problems this sort of a group will have will be the repetition factor. I want to say my opinion as my own dammit; I don't care and probably haven't read the existing discussion to find out that four other people have said the identical same thing already! I particular like the rotating activity idea, as that might be one way to help reduce the burnout problem, which I have a feeling will be a significant one. John Carter (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A nit, has to do with the use of "stewards". Technically, that sort of thing isn't the proper role of "WMF Stewards" (acting as stewards) . But I read it as " a group of folk who act impartially and make the process run along smoothly " rather than as WMF Stewards... certainly folk elected as such, especially folk who have other wikis as home ports, might be good candidates for members of such a group. ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• The biggest thing to me is the get rid of the bugbear of "I'm in charge." I loathe that, and I've never seen any good come from it. If we categorically change the concept, if we think about a body that just tries to look at the views, negotiate between them, and tries to come up with the best way forward for an international project, then we can get rid of the glory. That's why the "no self selection" thing and the "no public voting." If people really, honestly, had to say the name of someone else they trusted, I worry that many couldn't offer up a name.
• I also thought the quorum solution was ... probably wrong, as I'm a word guy, but... necessary. Suppose we say that there are 10,000 editors with names who edit in 2 months, on average (hence the need for Stewards to know that, I guess). Ok, so if a candidate doesn't get a "trusted" score by 10% of the active editors, then there's no point. That person isn't trusted enough. We'd either need to extend the consideration or realize that there's no mandate. Ok. If that's true, then that's true. We shrug. We go back to mess and chaos.
• I think the Steward thing would be volunteering on their part and not really part of their official duty. They'd just have to do it out of goodness of their hearts and interest of the good and all that stuff.
• The champion system.... I've longed for that for years. I've thought, for a while now, we'd see less "archived" stamps on AN/I and pump if we had team leaders get the arguments together and then present one monster argument. Also, when we don't do that, we end up with "so's your mother" interlining between camps, where "sides" turn into parties, and that's one of the reasons we end up with our stoopid politics at Wikipedia. It can't be helped, but if this council is really supposed to make sober recommendations, then it's got to avoid that.
• Finally, I think any group that "has been selected" is doomed. Seriously. I don't care that the persons are great people or not. The fact that a person "is selected" makes the person responsible for all the feelings attached to the person doing the selecting, all the feelings focused on the group the selector belongs to, etc. Plus, selection carries with it biases, and anyone selecting "for" a criteria will doom a group anyway, whether intentionally or not. A group selected "for" balance will be one selected "to" be paralyzed. A group selected "for" action will be selected "to" bully. The only way to avoid that is bottom up. Geogre (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Doing something

I've been pushing for us to start doing something, anything, discussing how to improve this Project. This seems to have been rejected, in favour of improving the project page. I do not agree with this course of action and it is doing nothing to win over the doubters. Or have I missed the discussion where we've taken on a project, because there's too much being written about the Council in too many different places? --Dweller (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been busy the past few days, and I've been observing the DRAMOUT. Maybe give it a few days in case others are as well. Lara 21:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"DRAMOUT"? I think giving it a few days is precisely what we shouldn't be doing. --Dweller (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:DRAMAOUT. Lara 05:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting project - I think including the ref desks in it was a bad mistake, but I like the thinking. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Dweller, I share your concern. I've been a participant in a lot of group projects, as I'm sure you have also, especially for my master's program, of which at least half of the assignments were group projects. Working with a group sometimes means having to go along with what the rest of the group seems to want to do, even though one may disagaree. Of the steps in group building (Forming-storming-norming-performing) we're still, in my opinion, in the forming stage, so feeling our way along at first if normal. Why don't we get the organization worked-out and then we can start discussing project improvement? Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, I understand the need for consensus - it's my mantra - but I don't see any consensus for anything anywhere. The conversations are split up in too many places and not a lot seems to be under way just now (other than endless discussion of whether or not this Council is A Good Thing) --Dweller (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We've invited everyone to start workshopping issue pages for presentation. There's no deadline, so while I understand the desire for rapid action, we're all volunteers working at different speeds. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've workshopped my proposal. I know we can all work at different speeds - I just think it's really important that we all start working at different speeds on a specific project as soon as possible. --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Dweller, where? Last I saw, you said "Our first project should be a fresh-eyes look at the deletion policy" and I (echoing others) asked "perhaps you could say more clearly why you think that the deletion policy is a problem that needs some kind of resolution?" Did I miss your answers there? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Workshopped it today - follow the blue link from the Council project page. But really, I don't care what we do, so long as we get on and do it. Currently, we're not doing anything apart from talk about doing something. And that's not good enough. --Dweller (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

My proposal is here, but, like I say, I don't really mind what we go for. --Dweller (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Winning over doubters

Would it be too bold of me to point out the best (and in fact only) way to win over the doubters—to suspend the council and hold an election? Everything you do as an "invitation-only" body will be irredeemably tainted anyway. Everyking (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Everyking, there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from trying to form a group along the lines of what you're proposing. You have some good ideas on how to address similar issues that this group is proposing to address. Please run with your ideas. Make them happen. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? Can Everyking also get a hotline to ArbCom, an endorsement from Jimbo Wales and the ability to designate a set of reserved pages in project space? CIreland (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This group has no formal authority, it is a think tank. Any ideas generated on anything outside ArbCom's purview will have to go through community review and approval. That's the same for any other think tank created in Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I pointed out before that this eagerness to develop proposals for the community's consideration is strikingly odd in light of the community's overwhelming opposition to the very existence of the council as currently constituted. It doesn't appear that the council cares what the community thinks, and it doesn't appear likely that the council and its anticipated ideas will ever get a favorable reception from the community unless the council's form is changed, so why would you be interested in doing this work? Everyking (talk) 01:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You are correct Cla68, a hotline to ArbCom is not formal authority. An endorsement from Jimbo is not formal authority. Reserved pages do not constitute formal authority. Yet they are still authority and they cannot be gained merely through an effort to "Make it happen". CIreland (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I would hope that any good ideas would be favorably received no matter what the source. There are several other forums that are discussing ideas about improving Wikipedia in addition to this one. Hopefully, some of the good ideas generated by any of these discussions will be implemented and will improve the project. Cla68 (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A comment on backlog stats

Regarding #Introductions => Birgitte SB.

The number of articles in August 2007, according to this, was 1,926,373. Since then, this number has increased 54% to 2,964,650. Also, articles to be merged, factual verification and probably some others are wrong as these categories had monthly subcategories whose members weren't taken into account by the old category tracker. MER-C 13:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you know what made them wrong? Was it just the templates that at the time lacked the double categorization scheme of a monthly subcat and "Category:All articles . . ."? BirgitteSB 16:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Motion archived

The Advisory Council on Project Development is not a decisional body, it cannot make motions like ArbCom, even concerning itself. Unless you are subsequently given that power, this is against standing policy, in particular on consensus. Cenarium (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Call it whatever you like, but people are perfectly entitled to make a motion, which is just a statement for moving to a discussion or vote. How is this against consensus? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

“ Elections to the council will be held on 1st August 2010. The intent, nature and details of the elections will be decided prior to July 2010. ”

(emphasis mine) It is evident that the motion is about establishing an election (it's even scheduled, and it says 'decided prior to', so either it says the council will decide it, or it imposes that the community should decide it within July 2010, unauthorized attempt to make a decision in any case), and not, as it should be, proposing to the community to establish an election. Per Wikipedia:Consensus (with the usual exceptions), the authority to make decisions is within the community and only within the community, no group can make decisions on its own unless it is given the special authority by the community. But anyway, I thought you were precisely not a decisional body, so you can propose something but can't do it. You should either archive the motion, or modify it to make of it a proposal to the community. Cenarium (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

How about no to both counts. We're not foisting anything on the community at large, we are part of the community, and segments of the community make their own decisions all the time. No one's even following up on the motion anyhow, so way to come late to the party and make a big deal out of nothing. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Segments of the community make their own decisions all the time indeed, but (generally) anyone can ponder in those decisions. The difference here is that it would be a decision of this group, and this group has no mandate to do so. If elections are to be held, it's to the community to decide. At least, the group should recognize that it was a mistake and move on. Cenarium (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added a short and discrete note indicating that the motion has been disputed and linking here. Advisory groups should welcome feedback, especially from those they are supposed to advice and that are responsible of them. There is no policy, existing consensus or ArbCom decision preventing me from editing the page. Archiving may have been bold and I understand you didn't like it, but this note is a very measured action and there is no reason whatsoever to remove it, this is a matter of communication between the group and the community. Cenarium (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ethics for editors and administrators

The essay, Wikipedia:Ethics/Seraphimblade, could be developed further and turned into a policy or guideline. Additionally, ethical principles could be established specifically for administrators. For example, administrators should be impartial when dealing with editors: no favoritism, no unfair blocking of editors with opposing views, etc. --Atomic blunder (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)