Wikipedia talk:Government/Archive 1

Archive 1

Not a good idea

Wikipedia works on consensus. Things like ArbCom remedies only work as long as the community is willing to enforce them and abide by them. A policy made without community consensus is practically worthless. Here's how I see things working:

1. Someone decides to start an RFC to use a government, 30 days go by for the RFC.
2. Maybe we get a majority, 60 days of campaigning.
3. We hold an election, probably at least a week
4. The winning government "solves" the problem, spending a few weeks.
5. Everyone who supported the losing governments is unhappy with the result and starts a discussion to undo everything; we spend another 30 days discussing
6. The changes have the support of only a small fraction of the community so they're undone.
7. We've just wasted almost half a year.

The only way this may not fail completely is if the new policies or edits made by governments are essentially "untouchable" by the community. But even then, if the majority of the community doesn't support something, who's going to enforce it?

Also, "The Government will be recalled if at least 6000 editors vote" - I don't think 6000 editors have ever voted on any one thing ever. The last ArbCom election had about 850 voters in a 10 day period. 6000 is basically every single active user. Mr.Z-man 19:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, at the RFC people will obviously have to think hard about point 5. Only when you have a majority that values resolving an issue more than arguing over the smaller details, will the election be approved. However, without this set up and with RFCs only, the smaller details have to be dealt with at the community level. At that level it is very hard for people to agree to disagree and come around to one plan to move forward.

If you have ten people who agree on the basic outline of a plan, they can hammer out the details among themselves. Then, after the mandate has expired, you have a concrete result and then the majority will be able to go along with that. Even though many will not be 100% satisfied, they may be more satisfied than they were at the start. Then, just like you did not have edit wars at the start (otherwise adminstrative intervention would be necessary first), you wouldn't expect that after the elections.

I agree that the figure of 6000 voters may be inappropriate. Also some threshold for the RFC needs to be included. Count Iblis (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It'd help if you could explain the rationale for this proposal, especially by defining the problem which it seeks to address and by reviewing how other policies are insufficient.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, often when you get to the point where people are arguing over details, they're either satisfied or they don't like it at all. Often the details are black and white; you can only have something in one of a few distinct ways. That's why people have trouble getting to a compromise over the details, because often there is no way to compromise. And if you have a majority that would rather resolve the issue than have it their way, they could just have an RFC to pick one of the options and skip steps 2–7. Mr.Z-man 22:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback, I'll include a section detailing that. Mr.Z-man, yes, but what sometimes happens is that while the majority would rather resolve the issue, it still doesn't get done, because at the level of the smaller details, there is still disagreement. Often people belonging to the minority will step in when the smaller details are discussed so that consensus can't get formed.

So, you may well get 60% in favor of a de-adminship system within some broadly defined framework. But if you try to get into the details, which one ultimately has to do of course, you'll likely run into a brick wall. If instead one would appoint 10 like minded editors who have the exclusive right to work out the details, then the new policy would get a similar stability as the existing policies. The existing policies would not get consensus in their present exact wording had they not yet been policies. But because they already are policies, people will accept that. Count Iblis (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If there's disagreement over the smaller issues, then the majority doesn't want to resolve the issues. If they did, then they either wouldn't be disagreeing or they may not actually be the majority. The reason more people step in to discuss the smaller details is because that's really the only part that matters. To use an existing process as an example, imagine a proposal for a system to promote administrators where people ask questions and vote, then a bureaucrat decides. That's a completely innocuous framework of a proposal. It's not until details like the length of voting or passing percentage get discussed when things actually start getting important. The fact that people care about important details than a theoretical framework should not be seen as a bad thing to avoid.

Of course if only 10 users who all agree are allowed to edit a policy it will be stable. But it won't be stable for the same reason as existing policies (i.e. because the community accepts it), it will be stable because it's forced to be. People accept current policies because they all got consensus at some time. I highly doubt that a policy that never had consensus, or worse, may be opposed by the majority of the community, will be accepted like that. You have to consider the fact that if there are more than 2 options, the one that gets the majority may still have the support of less than half of the community. In an extreme case, if there are 8 significantly differing "parties", the winning party may have the support of 13% of the community, possibly less if people who supported that party disagree with the outcome. Mr.Z-man 03:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"The Government will be recalled if at least 6000 editors vote". Oh please. Over 9000 people think that's a bad idea. Fences&Windows 23:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

WHAT? 9000!?! –MuZemike 15:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the outcome of a recent village pump proposal, this page will be rewritten

I'll start rewriting this page shortly. Count Iblis (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:PROPOSAL: "If a proposal fails, the failed tag should not usually be removed. It is typically more productive to rewrite a failed proposal from scratch to address problems than to re-nominate a proposal". --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This case is an exception as it will be an essay to describe the current ArbCom system and the possible future. It's not a formal proposal, so the rejection of the previous version is irrelevant. Count Iblis (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You know what, i was wrong. I should have followed my own advice from the VP thread and just ignored this nonsense. I just forgot to unwatchlist this after that. Do whatever you want with this page, fill it with all the crazy nonsense you can dream up. It won't make a bit of difference to anyone but you, so . enjoy your playtime. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree with this page being allowed to be hidden under an essay, and for the discussion leading to its clear rejection being cleared. Rejected proposals have positive learning benefits. To delete (or obscure) failed proposals is to risk dooming repetition of the same. The failed proposal, and its talk page should be preserved on its own page, and any new essay should be on a fresh page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances, I would agree with you (like e.g. in case of my essay WP:ESCA), but in this case the drafting of the proposal was disrupted, the text of the rejected proposal was not the proposal I intended to put forward to the community. What happened was that someone who was opposed to anything like this ever becoming a policy, made a big deal about no edits being made for several months and nominated the page at MFD. At that time I had limited time for Wikipedia, and my primary focuss is always the ref desk. This perhaps gave the wrong impression, people can see me giving replies to ref. desk. questions and then think that I'm not interested in this page and therefore we can just examine what the current state is.

Thing is that on this talk page at that time, I had made it clear what I thought the way forward was, i.e. that there would be an RFC asking for input on developing this page further and later there would be an RFC to decide whether or not this could become a policy page. But this was cut short by the MFD.

I recently decided to rewrite the text; I had already asked at the village pump if this was ok. and there where no objections. I guess the correct procedure for me to follow would have been to go to deletion review and ask that the result of the discussion (the marking as failed) to be overturned, because the nomination was an improper one. However, at the time I didn't have much time and I don't see why I should participate in playing these tactical games. So, in this particualar case, I will just ignore any rules we have for dealing rejected proposals and go ahead with developing this essay. Count Iblis (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Please could you provide a link to the approval to go ahead at the village pump. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

See here. While Beeblebrox later invoked that this discussion is not sufficient to overturn the consensus at MFD, I think that is perhaps the whole point. It's a bit like how there existed a huge dossier about Saddam's WMDs before 2003, but when that was all debunked, you never had some larger dossier that would allow you to argue on purely procedural grounds to dismiss the original dossier without looking into the facts of the matter. Count Iblis (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

restored previous discussion that was not archived for some vague reason

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Progress report

This first section is meant to coordinate writing the policy page.

From the discussions below, it is clear that:

• The title should be changed, Instead of "government" we could use e.g. "task force". This will be done later.

• A section will be added detailing the rationale for this proposal, specifically why the existing policies are insufficient.

• More realistic figures on the threshold numbers of voters must be added.

Count Iblis (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"sovereign right"

• A government is a group of editors who have the sovereign right to edit certain articles or policy pages for a limited time.

I don't understand the meaning of "sovereign right" in this context. Does it mean that a "government" of editors would have an exclusive right to edit pages within their jurisdiction?   Will Beback  talk  12:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, that is what I mean. I'll change the wording in the abstract. Count Iblis (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Bad idea

We don't decide the content of articles be election, why would we decide it by indirect elections?--Damiens.rf 17:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Straw polls are often held on talk pages. E.g., take a look at the talkmpage of the Verifiablity policy page. In many cases this works, but in some cases you see entrenched positions that can last for many years. Then, one can present a case to the wider Wikipedia community via a RFC. But then you may get a lack of consensus.

Take e.g. the de-adminship issue. You may have a sentiment on Wikipedia that the status quo is not ok. The disagreement is then simply on the small print of any particular proposal. Then, what you can do is have elections for a group of like minded editors who will write up e.g. the de-adminship policy.

I forsee that Government would be elected mostly to make new policies or change existing policies, not to edit articles. Count Iblis (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Comparing this with full protection policy...

The idea of restricting articles to open editing is not new - it is called full protection (as we all know). The way that works now is that changes (other than fixing obvious errors, spelling mistakes, etc.) cannot be made without a general consensus. That can make things unwieldy at times, but for all its problems (and like Wikipedia in general), it works well enough.

Look, nobody disputes that there are certain articles here that are eternal battlegrounds for POV warriors. Nonetheless, I think the system in place works well enough. Despite all our disputes, we still have good articles on topics dealing with heated topics such as religion, Barack Obama's birth, abortion, and 9/11. Taking this step would be widely circulated in the blogosphere/media as evidence that Wikipedia is going further away from its open-editing ethos, even if it were only applied to a small amount of pages. That could be damaging to Wikipedia in the long run, and any risk of that isn't worth it when, in my opinion, we're doing fine enough as it is now. Kansan (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this works well, certainly for articles. However, in case of certain policy pages, you can have stalemates that are unhealthy. This is particularly true when trying to make a new policy for which there may be majority support. Problems with the RFA system, with desysopping bad admins etc. etc. may never be resolved, simply because you never get the 2/3 majority for any particular proposal (there is always something to nitpick on). An elected government could get something started and then the community can more easily take over.

Note that this is just a proposed policy; I'm open to restrict this to only policy pages or that the RFA on holding the election has to have more support than a simple majority, etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I see how this would be implemented for policy pages, but could you clarify how you would see it working for, for example, deadminship pages (since this was the example you used)? As those are generally modeled as discussions, I don't really see how this policy would work for that. Maybe could you give an example of how you see this working in practice? Kansan (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

First someone would start an RFC on deciding this issue via electing a government. He/she would then put forward a convincing argument. Then, if this is accepted, different groups of editors will put forward detailed plans. Those plans would necessarily involve creating a few policy pages that regulate the whole de-adminship process. And then the community votes to elect one of these groups. The elected group has then the exclusive right to create and work on the relevant policy pages.

The big advantage here is that the wider community does not get involved in the small print. They put their trust in a group of experienced editors whose general ideas they like best. Count Iblis (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't agree with this. Why is it an advantage for the wider community not to be involved with details? Part of what makes Wikipedia great is the ability for all community members to have input at all levels (and voting for somebody at the beginning of a discussion doesn't count). Wikipedia's discussion ethos is to determine what is best, not what might be most popular to people who drive by and vote. I see absolutely no reason to cut off discussion - even if discussions get heated, the right thing generally ends up happening in the end. Kansan (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you may be right. But note that the community would have had to decide in the RFC that authorized the elections, that they would prefer not to get involved in the small print. So, unless there is a feeling in the community that they are getting bogged down in discussing ever smaller details and that they want to move forward, you won't have the elections for the government in the first place. Count Iblis (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Rename might help

I came to this page expecting a proposal for global project governance of much more expansive powers than ArbCom, but find it quite different. Seeing as what you're essentially proposing is a body elected to perform routine edits of designated topic areas rather than one tasked with setting policy or adjudicating important site decisions, "panel", "task force" or "delegation" might be better choices of terms. Skomorokh 18:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but note that policy pages can fall under the authority, as discussed above. Still, changing the name to e.g. "task force" looks a good idea to me. Let's wait a few days for more suggestions. Count Iblis (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

American vs. UK usage

A name change would help, as Americans have a totally different idea of what a "government" is. In the UK a "government" may collapse and it's no big deal, as power falls back to parliament, i.e., the representatives of the people (like the US congress). The "government" is just the temporary executive arm elected by parliament to deal with specific situations. By contrast, in the US, government means the whole shebang of the democratic republic. Collapse of goverment to an American would therefore amount to anarchy.

If I understand the purpose of this article, it is to appoint various executive committees to deal with specific problems in specific places, like appointing cabinet ministers. So it needs a word that doesn't carry false connotations for your US editors. SBHarris 18:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's another good agument for changing "government" to something else. Count Iblis (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Special Masters

Is likely more what the intent is? That is, to allow ArbCom to delegate specifical editorial control over a well-defined article or group of articles for a set time in order either to prevent "silly season" edits on political article edits prior to elections, or such other limited categories as it may determine - but not to exceed the period to the next ArbCom election? Collect (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it is then approved via elections. ArbCom can decide only authorize elections for a Government. Count Iblis (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

And again - I suggest that having interminable series of "elections" is precsely what is not called for really. Collect (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

just saying

If this was an actual article I'd make it look like this:

It is remarkable that disputes and deadlocks are a relatively rare occurrence. In many cases, disputes are due to bad editor behavior and adminstrative intervention can then be an effective tool to solve the problem.

give it a few days, then probably just remove it from the text.

I have no opinion (yet) as to the general merits of the idea.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No.

Just no. --Jayron32 05:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Flies right in the fact of WP:NOTBURO. Fundamentally flawed, and I foresee it never gaining acceptance. Don't waste your time. oknazevad (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a good idea and topic. I don't see much flaws in it, and sounds interesting. Wikipedia needs something interesting before people start dieing of boredom. Haha. Darkjedi10 (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Just no. Seconded and thirded. (And we need this because it's something interesting to stop people getting bored? Are you for real?) ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 22:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Darkjedi10 (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Fourthed. This is an astonishingly bad idea which doesn't actually solve any problems. To use an example, there are constant disputes surrounding Ireland/UK/British Isles/etc issues. There are far more editors from the UK than from Ireland. So... those editors will elect a 'government' to ensure that their point of view, right or wrong, gets implemented. No. No way in hell. → ROUX ₪ 22:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

But then the British position would already have consensus. :) Obviously, by holding an election in which some threshold has to be met, you can ensure that the voters are mostly non-involved editors. A typical voter would be someone like me who has absolutely no stake in this conflict. What I, and I guess most Wikipedians, would look at is if the group of editors has a proven record of being capable of editing in a non-partizan way. Also expertise would play an imporant factor.

A group of edit warriors makes no chance at all to win the elections. A group of experienced editors and some expert editors (e.g. history professors), would be far more likely to win the elections. The expert editors may not have been active a lot on the contentious topics like the British Isles disputes, precisely because of the uphill struggle they would face there. Most experts are too busy in real life to be engaged in constant disputes on websites. I think most Wikipedians would regard the combinations of experts who may not be very experienced editors, with experienced editors to be ideal. Count Iblis (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

So you propose enshrining in policy the idea that people who know nothing about a subject should be the ones deciding how that subject is presented? You do know that's one of the reasons Wikipedia is held in disdain, right? Not to mention an appallingly fertile ground for POV pushers and fringe theorists to push their agendas because nobody involved--or not enough people involved--know any better. 'Experienced editors and some expert editors' sounds an awful lot like vested contributors, and I think the last thing WP needs is yet another way for vested contributors to entrench and ossify. Do we need structural reform? Absolutely. We would very much benefit from a structured committee for looking at (and amending, creating, or removing) policies in a focused and directed way, and push Arbcom back to its remit of dealing with disputes, for example. A more structured way to deal with content disputes, particularly POV disputes, in order to listen to expert informed opinion over that of those who are uninformed would be a very good thing also. As in, disinterested parties who will listen to the experts and make a decision. It may be time for us to grow up from the hippie days and realize this commune needs some people to devote their entire time to leading, and disengage from the day-to-day in order to remain impartial. Maybe. But what I don't think we need is a way to entrench uninformed opinion in policy, nor a policy-directed method for assuring that simple weight of numbers can essentially win any protracted dispute. → ROUX ₪ 04:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the community would reject the initial RFC for elections to be held, if they didn't believe that the editing environment in that topic area is poisoned to such a degree that chosing a group of editors would e a net benefit. I'll think a bit about this and then I'll include an extra paragraph as proposed earlier detailing why this proposed policy is necessary. Count Iblis (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron. No. Even discounting the problem i foresee, i doubt this chance would comply with The third pillar of Wikipedia, that anyone can edit content. We have enough ARBCOM cases where two groups of editors stand against each other, held together by a common believe that they are right. By holding elections, you would essentially block off one of the sides, as the other side will band together in order to become the government. That side would then have free reign over the article content, and they would not even need to discuss it with the other side. In essence, i foresee major WP:NPOV and WP:POLE issues. And besides, blocking out a certain side entirely doesn't solve a problem. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 09:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Another agree. No; I see no merit in this vague, unrequested suggested policy Jebus989^✰ 11:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Excirial, as I replied to Roux, that won't happen, because the community would reject the initial RFC for holding elections in such a case. I'll add a extra section later today to explain that in the proposed policy page. You have to think of a situation were after a long period of stalemate or after an ArbCom intervention in which quite a few editors were topic banned, you still have problems. The way we deal with that now is putting entire topic areas under a general sanctions regime. That can work, but it can also lead to the articles not being developed. Also Admins would have to monitor closely the conduct of all the editors.

So, elections for groups of editors can then be a solutions, because there are always ideal editors out there who were not able to edit in the previous editing climate. NPOV is not a matter of letting "both sides" have a go at editing an article and edit waring until a stalemate is reached. Editors editing with a POV, who are not capable of presenting other POVs themselves with the correct weight is not a good thing. Uninvolved editors are capable of chosing those editors who can edit in a NPOV.

So, in summary, the whole issue of editors belonging to a "side" is a big part of the problem that you can eliminate using elections. Count Iblis (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Count, I appreciate that you are seriously trying to form a new method of dispute resolution, but this will never fly. The entire concept is in direct opposition to some of the most basic concepts Wikipedia is founded upon. This is not a democracy, nor is it a bureaucracy. I would advise you to focus your efforts elsewhere as this has no chance whatsoever of being implemented. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought this was a parody.

6000 editors for a revocation? (Have 6000 editors ever come together on anything?) Why should a panel of editors have exclusive rights? That's why I thought this was parodying how dispute resolution often pans out. This a baaaaad idea, if the proposer is being serious. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 15:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll suggest a more realistic figure. Count Iblis (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

While 600 is more realistic, it is still absurdly high. Even the biggest policy discussions don't draw even half that number. Not that it matters since this is never going to happen. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok., I guess a better condition would be for the turnout to be larger than in the original election. Count Iblis (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

In California, a recall election can be called by petition of 10% of the vote in the last election (with some restrictions toward the beginning and end of the term). I think, at a minimum, 10% should be able to require a recertification vote. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I would have thought it was a parody, also, except that I read the dicussion on VP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The comments here forced me to take very serious the fact that on Wikipeida we have a low turnout problem. What was not discussed on the talk page, but which I did think about, is that you would typically expect that a low turnout problem in the initial RFC and then if an election is approved, in the subsequent election. Wikipedians may not be interested in some obscure topic area where there is a problem. Suppose we don't set limits here (because it is difficult to agree on some limit), then you can have that Government is elected with a small number of voters. But then later, if things start to go wrong with this elected Goverment, the community could overrule the election results. Requiring that there are a larger number of voters in the recall elections would then be quite natural. Count Iblis (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, requiring a large number of voters in the initial election makes sense. If the requirement were to have over 6000 affirmative votes for the election to be valid, an equivalent number for a recall might make sense. On the other hand, if it were only 600, I would suggest a smaller number would be appropriate to hold a recall election.

This makes a little more sense than the "Sheriff" proposal, but I don't really see how it could work. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps 10% should be sufficient to watch-list the recall election, while more than the original vote would still be required to overturn it. It would be, after all, a restructuring of the way Wikipedia works on that article (or article set), and input should be sought from those Wikipedians who were happy with the article the way it was. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but not a good path to implementation

I think in this day and age the term "government" suggests people who do little and talk a lot, so perhaps a better term should be used, e.g. "problem resolution team" or something of the type.

Moreover, how about selecting people who actually knows a topic. In specific areas, having people with little knowledge act as decision makers is a hopeless idea.

Furthermore, for starters, how about letting these people be selected for a short (say 30 day) period just so they can do firefighting on an issue, resolve problems and then wait for the next fire.

The appeal of this idea is that Arbcom is like the supreme court - they have power, but going there is a major effort. So the idea of faster problem resolution is appealing, but only if the people involved know what they are doing. You do not want a dentist performing heart operations or a heart surgeon working on teeth. So a topic related focus is essential. I would suggest at least several hundred edits to articles in a topic beforehand as a measure of qualification. History2007 (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not mediation?

The circumstances that this proposal describes would seem to be best resolved using our existing process such as Wikipedia:Mediation. This proposal would formalise 'parties' on Wikipedia in a way I think we really want to avoid. We already have enough hardened POV pushers and edit warriors without handing them a process that would leave the best canvassers and meatpuppet recruiters as the 'winners'. So, no thanks. Fences&Windows 22:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

We should avoid the formation of "factions" and factional behavior. An editor who would like to use elections to get a licence to freely edit according to his/her POV would not succeed; obviously the Wikipedia community would not approve of elections being held for that purpose. The opposite can happen in practice. What you can have is an uninvolved Admin who has dealt with some problems on an article who reaches the conclusion that the current editors are not collaborating constructively. If they have entrenched positions, but they are otherwise behaving themselves properly, you can't issue topic bans.

Then AFAIK, mediation will involve trying to bridge the gap with the existing editors. The "Government" system would replace the editors by others who can collaborate with each other (for a limited time). So, the Admin could make the case at an RFC that elections should be held because one now has to intervene at the level of the content of the article and that preferably with other editors.

The only case of mediation that I have encountered was in the case of the Monty Hall problem article. I don't have that article on my watchlist, but one day I wanted to add an argument based on information theory, and then I saw that there was an ongoing dispute there. I decided not to add what I had planned; if there are heated arguments about trivialities, they would probably not welcome my planned addition :) Two years later I had another look at the article, and I saw that the mediation was still going on and they were still arguing. A year after that an ArbCom case started.

If we had a "Government" system and we had applied that to this case, I think one could have promptly resolved this issue. It would have brought attention to the problem to the wider Wikipedia public. Then that invites uninvolved people to think about forming a party. The regular editors would have had an uphill struggle to get elected, unless they are widely seen to have behaved in a constructive way. Count Iblis (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you are, somehow, unfamiliar with human nature. Please drop this very silly proposal before you embarrass yourself any further. → ROUX ₪ 23:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

At the very least move it to user space. This is a ridiculous idea and it should be clear to you by now that it will never have the broad-based support needed to become a policy. Roux is right, I'm embarrassed on your behalf that you seem unaware how out of touch this idea is and how poorly it reflects on you that you still can't see that. I don't mean that as an attack on you, although we have clashed a bit in the past you have always struck me as a thoughtful and unfailingly civil Wikipedian. You've just gone way off course with this idea and the smartest thing you can do now is abandon ship and leave it behind. Say the word and I'll delete the whole thing for you. It certainly does not belong in WP space as it is not being taken seriously as a proposal. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I accept that you may be correct and that this proposal may be rejected 100 to 1. However, as long as there are some people who think the idea has some merit, this proposal should be worked out in more detail and then later put to a vote. That will then lead to some discussions, that may be useful. Not going ahead with a proposal just to "save face", "prevent embarrassment", because it will likely not get accepted, is not a good attitude. Count Iblis (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This proposal has already been rejected. Are you privatemusings' sockpuppet now or something? You're behaving exactly the same. This has lead to discussion, all of which is saying NO. Literally nobody here has supported your idea. There is nothing you can say to make people support this idea. It is dead. → ROUX ₪ 18:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The proposal is yet to be written and discussed. The draft version that exists now has led to some discussions which will be taken into account. There have been positive comments elsewhere by editors who have yet to get involved here. The most useful comments are actually the negative comments here, as they must be taken into consideration to gain more support. Count Iblis (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear God, you are the second coming of privatemusings. Or indistinguishable from, anyway. Here's how conversations with him go:

P: Hey guys I have an idea! blahblahblah

Everyone else: this is a terrible idea because of XYZ

P: Oh good, now we're having a discussion!

E: No we're not. This idea is awful. It is rejected.

P: Awesome, now that we're discussing this, what do you think of $totally_minor_change?

E: No, we've rejected your idea.

P: I'm so glad we're having such a great discussion about this. Anyway, let's implement my idea!

E: No, your idea has been unanimously rejected.

P: You're right, this is such a great conversation about this idea. Don't you just love it?

E: Facepalm

...and so on, ad infinitum. You are heading down the exact same road here. You have written a proposal. it has been rejected. The mistake you are making is thinking that people are rejecting some of your wording, which we are not; we are rejecting the entire concept of what you are suggesting. Minor cosmetic changes aren't going to change our minds here. We are dead set against the idea, no matter how you gussy it up. You can't polish a turd. → ROUX ₪ 19:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm, quite a few people did not reject the entire "idea", there are constructive criticisms posted outside the "No" section. Take e.g. the criticism of the title "Government" by SBHarris above. Or does his opinion not count? But then, you are actually supporting a form of a "Government" that really is problematic :) Count Iblis (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

removed text

• I have removed the following passage from the page:

" Quality of content was given a far larger weight in the determination of page ranking and that ultimately led to Wikipedians establishing a Government system. The Government system led to many benefits for Wikipedia beyond just being an emergency tool to fix problems in an article or on some policy page. All Wikipedians had a meaningful say in the editing of some problem page by voting for a government. Without the government system, in stable stalemate situation, any attempt to break the stalemate would be futile. The de-facto situation is then that no one can edit. So, paradoxically, by collectively giving up the right to edit, one can achieve a lot more than by insisting on this right."

• I should think the reason is obvious. Seeing as this was just proposed yesterday and has very little chance of being implemented it should not contain statements abut how well it has worked out. There is a word for saying something that you know to be false, we call that lying and it is not acceptable on any policy page, even if it is just a proposal. If you want to userfy this you can add all the crazy bullshit you want to it, but as long as it is here that is not going to be ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

  Ok, I'll rewrite that in an acceptable way later today. Count Iblis (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no possible way to rewrite the future history of how this turned out that isn't based on just making something up. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

In case anyone else is still watching this, I have opened a thread related to it at the DR noticeboard. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes of Prime Ministers & First Ministers

It's been pointed out to me at Talk:First Minister of Scotland, that there's a Wiki-policy which backs using an individual rather then the office (only), as an appointer. Where's is this policy-in-question? GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a policy under construction about editing articles. Count Iblis (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal has been rewritten so as to reflect current practice on Wikipedia

The very strong opposition to the original proposal from some editors, suggests that the current practice is already controversial. So, I decided to simply focus on writing down the de-facto government system that already exists on Wikipedia. Opposition to this cannot be held against this proposal, although one could perhaps criticise the text as not accurately describing what the current practice on Wikipedia actually is. Count Iblis (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to RFC the new proposal? Gerardw (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the re-write of the proposal doesn't really describe a formal and ongoing process that isn't an "extraordinary means" for closing a RfC. I'm also reminded of Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011 where the issue was so twisted around that it took the extraordinary effort of Newyorkbard to determine what kind of consensus there was. Hasteur (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine why this would remind you of that. Consensus was perfectly clear back in May, nobody liked this idea, there is no controversy about it because it is so bizarre that nearly everyone who commented rejected the entire concept on basic principles. This whole idea that the Count has that re-writing it will change that somehow is nonsense. The practice is not controversial, because this practice does not exist and never has, it was rejected by the community. If it is being changed into a new idea, that is a new proposal. If it is the same idea with minor changes, that has already been rejected. I can't imagine why a seemingly intelligent person who is able to answer complicated questions at the science refdesk is unable to understand such a simple set of circumstances. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Marked as failed (again). If this is to be a new proposal an RFC should be initiated. Gerardw (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)