Wikipedia talk:Advisory Council on Project Development

This talk page is intended for general comments and inquiries about the Advisory Council. The Advisory Council holds its normal discussions on another page, and comments related to those discussions can be made on the associated talk page.

RfC

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the "By invitation only" idea is going to go over so well with the community as a whole. Just IMHO — Ched :  ?  18:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that much of the community subscribe to the old saw of "Anyone who volunteers for such a position should be disbarred from running for that office" - plus the fact that if it were by poll or vote or whatever, not only would most of the invitees not have got the nod but there would have been considerable amount of kB, likely mB, spent discussing it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Groucho Marx quote comes to mind...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean, "I have had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it"?  :-) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

More likely "Please accept my resignation. I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member". --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh I know, but there are so many Marx quotes (Groucho or Karl, really) that apply to so many situations. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

@LHvU - hmmm ... that might indicate ... dare I say it ... "prima facia" evidence. ;-) — Ched :  ?  16:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Invitation?

"Membership is currently by invitation." Invitation from who? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There's an example of an original invitation here [1].Judge for yourself who is doing the inviting. Looks to me like the Arbcom with the full aproval of J Wales. Giano (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing smacks of an even more elitist version of Esperanza... I'm a little sickened that the ArbCom pushed this through when the community decided to disband Esperanza not so long ago :( Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

January 1, 2007. In Internet time, that is a long time. This is also nothing like Esperanza. —harej (talk) (cool!) 01:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

O rly? The reason Esperanza was disbanded was due to the elitist nature of it. And this sounds exactly like that. Esperanza was trying to dictate the road that WP should take, and this does as well.

As far as a long time, some things never change. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Declining

I was among those invited to participate. I have decided to decline at this time. My explanation is here for those who are interested. Good luck to the rest of you. Dragons flight (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Endorsed by Jimbo?

I tried to clarify the source of the statement that this has been endorsed by Jimbo. KL says it is a private email but says he is now in no position to publish it [2]. Is anyone else? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty much the one I received, so I'm guessing the endorsement from JW must have been on the arbs mailing list. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[3]. Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

But only after I asked [4] and various people - oh look, you [5] tried to pretend it was already sufficiently signalled William M. Connolley (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Name

The name ACPD is provisional and it does seem to need some work. Initially, I confused it with OCPD which was being discussed elsewhere but we may hope that this body is rather different in nature. Now, to help me remember, I think of it as ArbCom Police Department but I don't suppose that's right either.

The term Brains Trust seems appropriate but I'm not sure we can do much with it. The name I like best so far is ACT for ArbCom Thinktank. This seems succinct and pronouncable and may help by reminding of the need for action rather than just talk. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

When ArbCom sent out the invitation to the first round of members, we people to suggest a new name because we were not satisfied with the name, but we did not have time to spend thinking of a better one. Suggestions for alternative names would be good. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Committee to Help Enable Discussions ... naaaa — Ched :  ?  15:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

We're (as in the group) not even entirely sure that we want to be associated with ArbCom so closely in the future, so including it in the name is not a great idea. I like something less bureaucratic than council, since we see it as just a discussion group. Perhaps something more informal-sounding would be nice. Steven Walling (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Book Club? --Buster7 (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Advisory Group is a common name for such bodies (rather than "council"). Working groups are more short-term, and task forces are more military. If there was any name change, I'd go for "advisory group" myself. Carcharoth (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Invitees or members?

The people listed are members, no? Ie, they were invited and accepted William M. Connolley (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

True, thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Roger's suggestions

Roger Davies, an arb acting as a private 'editor' has just added a bunch of suggestions to the project space. I think we should let these stand for now, but I've removed the signatures and will post the resulting discussions below. It's going to fragment discussion like hell if we've got discussions raging on talk and project pages. And I'd ask future commentators to use the appropriate sections described here. Cas, as our Arb representative here is free to add what she likes, so I suggest Arbcom channel through her. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Some possible agenda items

In response to requests, I have boldly put forward a few suggestions, in my private capacity as an editor, as possible agenda items.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Name change

There must be a better name than "Advisory Council on Project Development"! How about "Thinktank", as that signals loudly and clearly that this is a forum for bouncing ideas around. There is a slight problem with this in that an essay exists at WP:THINKTANK but that is not insurmountable. So what name?  Roger Davies ^talk 13:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I like the sound of Thinktank. JN466 13:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Think tank" sounds good to me, or alternatively I like "Brain Trust" :-) Almost anything is preferable to the current name though. the wub "?!" 18:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Think tank is at least simple and catchy. Claim WP:THINK? rootology (C)(T) 19:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The think tank. Cla68 (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Mission and Vision

How about something like:

"The group has neither executive authority nor special status nor any powers. Its remit lies exclusively in the realm of ideas: to chuck them about, to chew them, to digest them, to improve them, to develop them. Its focus will be providing considered or imaginative solutions to longstanding problems."

Does sound like governance? If so, please tweak it.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

How about: "Its focus will be to come up with imaginative solutions to longstanding problems identified by Wikipedians, and to propose these solutions to the community for adoption or further discussion."

A noticeboard could be put up where Wikipedians could advise the think tank of issues that they would like them to come up with a solution for. JN466 13:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Or they can just post to the forum talk page. لennavecia 14:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, though requests might easily get buried there among all the other discussions. A noticeboard listing the issues Wikipedians feel need solving might also help increase general awareness of these issues, and get other people involved in thinking about them. JN466 14:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I like it! Suitably informal, for what should be essentially an informal discussion group. the wub "?!" 18:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Just an idea: BRAINTANK (not on the internet as yet) Galoubet (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Membership

This is a highly controversial and very knotty problem. If the membership is vetted, accusations will fly of a self-elected group or a cabal. If the membership is elected, it will elevate the group's status to an elite. If membership is wide open, it may grow too large, or too prone to disruption, to achieve anything particularly helpful. How to avoid accusations of partisanship of selection? How to hit the right balance?  Roger Davies ^talk 13:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps: fixed overall number, with a mixed composition. One-half appointed by arbcom, the other half by the community? A bit like Wimbledon: ranked players and wildcards. A good mix with a few oddballs is essential for good brainstorming. JN466 13:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a mix could work well, but apart from being the initial catalyst it seems better that ArbCom isn't involved in appointments. How about half appointed by the members themselves, half elected? Obviously there are questions of term lengths etc. - keeping them reasonably short (3 months?) would be a good idea imo. the wub "?!" 19:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If this is going to be viable, the control factor needs to be removed from the AC and Jimmy, but there should be some longevity in it for long-term projects, hypothetically. Pick a number. We have 16 now. 10 elected to 1 year terms, the other 6 appointed for 6 month terms. Since current members were all appointed, the current members should get 6 months from the day membership standards are sorted out. Then, a full election cycle the first time for 10 elected to 1 year terms, then they pick out the 6 appointed. Then off it goes..o Or differing values, 12 elected, 4 appointed. Which is probably better than 10/6. Maybe even have them brought in, the four, quarterly, to always get fresh views on this constantly churning. Term limits should be in place as well; another flaw of Wikipedia is the foolish use of 'lifetime' positions in any capacity that has no parallel in the real world. Perhaps something like this:

1. Current members are 6 month appointments from the day membership standards are sorted out.
2. After the 6 month threshold, blind votes are held for 12 new members with 1 year terms.
3. The 12 will appoint 4 members on 3-month cycles to get fresh eyes and voices (should be harmless, since the group theoretically has zero power but to come up with ideas).
4. Term limits are simple, no one may serve consecutive 1 year terms or more than 2 consecutive 3 month terms (if you can't hash out a particular proposal in 6-12 months, you probably never will).

Make sense? rootology (C)(T) 19:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of key points. The members listed are not the only people invited. Several other people have accepted and need to be added to the list. Also, the Committee already opened up the group to self nom. We planned to add more people, hoping more females and people with technical skills to name a few areas where we felt the group was under represented. And other people that showed an interest. After the second round of invitations (the self noms), we were going to sit tight and let the the think tank decide what to do about alternating members, expanding the size, and the method of selection. What do you think about going ahead with this as planned for now? Or do you think that the group needs to set up a firm plan up front. I think that making decisions about size and selection of members might not be the best use of the groups time in the earliest stage. Maybe set a firm date to revisit the issue later would work better. Or not. What do others think. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

My main concern at the moment is that many people are upset about the fact that you guys picked the initial invitees, so I think it's in our best initial interests to 1) set up the scope and some initial items to hammer out and 2) even more critically, detach membership from AC control/influence to give it back to the commmunity. I am (beginning) to think of this like the Panama Canal. A group builds a tool to facilitate passage of things, lays the framework, and then gives it all away to the locals to manage. But I think that whatever else happens, THAT, as #2, needs to be defined ASAP, as it's the principle concern of the RFC. rootology (C)(T) 19:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make sense to me. This is getting insane, and frankly, I've got better things to do than keep watch on these threads just to appease. So here's again my first advise as advisor for everyone: drop the needless bureaucracy, read my first comment [6] and let's start real work. -- m:drini 21:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I really, really wish that FloNight and some others would do more to acknowledge the legitimacy of the (very large) resistance to this as currently constituted (rather than simply claiming to be baffled). Personally I, like FloNight and others, would like something like an Advisory Council to actually work. That is not going to happen by simply diving into this headfirst while looking quizzically at the non-support expressed in the RfC as a bunch of wrongheadedness that ought not be allowed to get in the way of a terrific idea that 20 (10? who knows) or so editors made up one day. Why not make some adjustments and get more of the community behind the basic concept before making up grandiloquent plans for how it will operate, who will be on it, and how they will get there? It's really not too much to ask, but I'm seeing a number of Arbs and members of the "ACPD" who seem to want to ignore objections, assuming that everything will come out in the wash and folks will be happy once the Council makes it proposals. Good luck with that, but to me it makes about a billion times more sense to simply address some of the issues being brought up right here and right now. Or at least try to do that and if it blows up in your face then go on with your original plan. The 70 or so folks who have signed onto the RfC as having a problem with this are not all crazy misguided fools—most have very legitimate problems with how this was constituted. I'm baffled as to why anyone would think casually tossing that fact to the side is a good idea if you want this to actually be successful.

Incidentally, if this is even remotely like the sordid and awful history surrounding the Panama Canal, then we are truly up a creek (or possibly canal). The historian in me finds that an infelicitous analogy to say the least, but no matter. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

We were talking on the Noticeboard where the announcement was made and are talking now. :-) What I don't want is the ACPD to be tagged as failed as it was earlier today, and the discussion to closed. I've watched sensible ideas and discussion be closed and tagged as failed or historical for years because they people involved in starting them were overwhelmed by the flood of incoming posts to the page that could not be replied to quick enough. Or no one noticed and took interest. In order for meaning changes to happen an Wikipedia, I know that the way that we draft policy and hold discussions needs to change. There excellent models available for Wikipdia to follow. But it take persistence to break down the barriers that have keep us from updating to a better system. I'm willing to step on a few peoples toes in order to go from where we are now to something better. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

With the last sentence we can get right to the heart of (part of) the issue, because we're coming at it from completely different directions. I'm saying that you are stepping on people's toes in a (as of now) completely unnecessary fashion, and that in doing so you are making it more difficult for us to go from where we are now to something better. There are dozens of experienced and highly respected editors who agree with me, and I'm distressed (literally distressed - I keep typing these long-ass notes!) that those concerns seem to have been cast aside. Even a couple of Arbs (aside from those who objected to begin with) have admitted that this was rolled out poorly, and no doubt this accounts for some of the opposition. I think we should try to address the concerns right here and right now before they become even more of a problem. I know we are "talking" which is of course good, but several members of the Council-thingy and some Arbs have now, repeatedly, made it clear that this thing is going ahead regardless, RfC and the like be damned. So this talking apparently does not involve a discussion of the one issue that people are concerned about—changing course with this asap.

Maybe this needed a dramatic, even faulty rollout to get everyone's attention—that's actually how I'm thinking about it right now. But why not put it on hold for a week or two while we discuss and reorient? Honestly, what harm would that do? If discussion is a complete disaster, go ahead and let the ACPD proceed with whatever business it makes up for itself. A week's delay (or 10 days, whatever) is likely not going to hurt anything. But maybe we'll come up with some things that bring more folks on board. For example, maybe we'll agree to sever it from ArbCom and remove ArbCom members, or maybe we'll decide this initial panel of folks is there only to decide on how to create a permanent body, or maybe we'll add a few more members (personally I'd like to see some more editors who aren't so well known and don't voice their opinions so prominently but are still active on the project) and that will placate some of the concerns about the diversity of the group. I don't know. But if we can talk for a week and the proportion of "jesus, what in the hell is this?" to "great idea!" comments inverts from where it is now, would that not have been well worth it? Should we not at least pause the council process and try to alter it so not so many folks are so unhappy with it? Again, if it doesn't work, go ahead with the original plan as is already happening. No one can really stop that at this point.

My comments here and elsewhere are more heated than they would normally be, but quite frankly this pisses me off a bit (and I assure you I blame no particular individual/individuals for the problems I see, and I'm 100% positive this whole thing stems completely from positive intentions, which is probably part of why I'm frustrated). It doesn't piss me off because I think ArbCom is power hungry (I don't), or because I have a desire to serve on the ACPD (I don't). It pisses me off because I've thought we needed to deal with governance and other bigtime issues for awhile, and I think the rollout of this and the reaction from some folks to the opposition being expressed is likely to make a hash of this whole thing in the end, which would truly WP:SUCK. We could well end up in a finger pointing contest with one side saying "you ruined this! you should have brought us in from the beginning!" and the other saying "consensus doesn't work! our proposals were solid but have been ignored because of dramamongering and/or general communal stupidity! YOU ruined this!" (or whatever, you get the picture). I hope that doesn't happen, and if the ACPD goes ahead in spite of all the objections here and then makes great proposals which are generally embraced and which help the project, no one will be happier than I. But rather than hope that the folks who are now unhappy are turned around in a month or two, why not try to bring them on board right now by stopping discussion among the ACPD members and opening a fortnight-long community discussion on how it should work? Honestly, what do we have to lose? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with much of that. This should be seen as a prototype, an initial proof of concept. It's time now to build the next version, taking into account the lessons learned here. My preference would be to wind it up now; it has become divisive and counter-productive. To continue with it is to answer the question "What do we do about the problem of consensus?" with "We hand power to ArbCom. We extend their remit. They decide what needs to done and who should do it. They push their ideas through with or without consensus, with or without community support". I don't feel that this was set up with that idea. I believe that the arbs who set it up did so because they wanted help the project. I believe you lot accepted in the same spirit. But this initiative is irredeemably flawed, and I think you all would see it that way, too, if you were not under a microscope at the centre of this shi controversy. If you're not going to wind it up, then you should at least go with BTP's idea of a moratorium. We should all be discussing this together.--MoreThings (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest that we agree on a maximum number of members, compile the names of those who want to join, then use a random number generator to pick from that list, in order to avoid any appearance of bias in who gets selected. Cla68 (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thorny problem #1

The Scientology arbitration contains the following remedy:

"The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing Scientology-related articles, especially Scientology-related biographies of living people, should carefully review them for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case."

What's the best way of getting these sort of remedies out to the community so that interested editors get to hear of it and perhaps act?  Roger Davies ^talk 13:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Part of a wider BLP problem. Off the top of my head: (1) Write a Wikipedia Review Signpost article explaining that the German Wikipedia for example was shut down for a day by a German court in 2006, because of a privacy complaint. ([7]Babelfish translation) Explain potential liability risk to the Foundation. JN466 14:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What? A WR article? I don't think that's a way to reach out to interested editors on this project. Also, I think we can all agree that the American court system would never shutdown the English Wikipedia for a day over a complaint.
Roger, other than the usual noticeboards, I'd say make it an expandable addition to the Scientology Arbitration template found on all of the related article talk pages. لennavecia 14:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Er, JN, I suspect that calling attention to the legal peril surrounding those articles is the surest way of scaring off knowledgeable and non-conflicted editors. Worked on me, anyway. MastCell ^Talk 18:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I hadn't looked at it that way. I assumed though that as long as stuff was properly cited to people who haven't got sued successfully for libel, and who haven't elected to forego publication in the UK for fear of being thus sued, WP would have done its duty. As for Jennavecia's point, firstly it is not just about the US – most of the readers of en:WP are probably outside the US – and secondly, even in the US, Wikileaks e.g. got temporarily shut down by a court injunction. Could happen to en:WP as well one day; I think it's actually happened more than once in Germany. JN466 18:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying, Germany is very different about these sorts of things than the US. And while many of our readers are outside of the US, the jurisdiction to shut it down are in the US, and I find it very unlikely that the US court system would shut down WP over a complaint. Believe me, as far as BLP goes, I'd love that to be a real threat! Would make my work here a lot easier, but it's really not. لennavecia 18:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sure you're right that Germany is different. For reference, the way this worked, according to the press report, was that www.wikipedia.de was blocked and no longer allowed to redirect to www.de.wikipedia.org. People in Germany were still able to access www.de.wikipedia.org directly. JN466 19:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Jennavecia, I understand your puzzlement now. I had meant to write Wikipedia Signpost article above. Must be getting old, my brain ain't what is used to be. :)) Cheers, JN466 20:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That makes much more sense! Thank you. :) لennavecia 20:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is broken and failing

User:Rootology/Wikipedia is broken and failing. Until we change the things I listed there--all of them--we're done for long-term. rootology (C)(T) 16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing

I've pulled out of this, at this time. I think Jimmy is mistaken about who the "agitants" are, and I am disgusted by what this seems to be saying about the ultimate purpose of this, based on this. I think someone has manipulating the Arbs here in a masterstroke. rootology (C)(T) 17:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, I don't see where he names those he said were "agitants", do you? Nor, for that matter, do I see how the word is necessarily meant in a negative way. I personally can myself see that some of what some would describe as the biggest "noisemakers" in modern society are among the most effective people in bringing about real change, and on that basis wouldn't myself necessarily see even a more clearly perjorative word like that one as being necessarily negative. John Carter (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The entire mindset and attitude by him, as well as his pretense that he is in control or in charge of anything, are inappropriate, and I will not service Jimbo. I'm here to service Wikipedia, not a self-appointed figurehead or bobblehead. rootology (C)(T) 18:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Rootology, don't worry, I have challenged him further down the thread - he is backtracking all the time, it was just another of his "toxic peronality" moments. Hold on and we can see this through - the first truly transparent body on Wikipedia. Giano (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please dont do this mate. Ignore Jimbo if you can. We are putting our faith in you. If you seriously think we are being manipulated, email me your concerns and I will try to rectify this perception. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Rootology, Jimbo had zero involvement in developing the ACPD. Jimbo was informed about it prior to it being announced. We asked him whether he would endorse it and he said yes. That was the full extent of his involvement with the new group. He will have no role in overseeing the group. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

and what would have happened had he not endorsed it? Giano (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

<shrug> I would have bet my bottom dollar that he would endorse it so I was not concerned about the alternative. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the thing that's ultimately concerning to me. There is so much opposition of this manner of formation, and Jimmy's nasty commentary not helping, that I wonder--why invest the time in something that he may claim the authority to kill or ignore, or that the community may kill or ignore? It's a lose-lose situation as currently deployed because of how the chips are fallen. What is the advisory group recommends that Jimmy be removed from the Arbitration process? Would he acquiesce? Would the AC honor our recommendation? Would the community, given the backlash to the formation method? Jimbo's dismissive attitude about "agitants" makes me wonder what the point is, if is in his own irrelevance he deems that he can ignore any group? rootology (C)(T) 18:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Rootology, I believe you are seriously misunderstanding my comments. I'm not even sure what you think I said or meant that was supposed to be "nasty". My point is that if the ArbCom had decided to form an advisory body filled only with "yes men" to approve of everything that they (or I?) say, I would be opposed to it. There is no dishonor in being an agitant (I wasn't even thinking of you, but if you regard yourself as an agitant for positive change, then I applaud you for it), nor in being difficult. I am in support of bringing together a diverse and thoughtful group of users, including some whose voices are typically not listened to due to a widespread view (not my view!) that they are difficult.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Rootology, please. You were asked to be a part of the group because your contributions will be valuable to the project. Who cares if Jimbo thinks you're an "agitant" or not? He didn't pick the members. Buck up, my friend; we'd like to have you stick around. Steven Walling (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

My opinion was that Jimbo should not have been involved at all, but the committee decided to ask him endorse what we had developed. He has endorsed it, but if he had not done so, he would be shirking on his ceremonial duties.

This council will sink or swim based on whether your proposals are able to:

a) capture the concerns of the community and

b) be respected by everyone, even if not everyone can agree with the proposal.

If you can do that, you wont need to worry about interference from Jimbo, Arbcom, etc. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Come on people. More distraction is not what we need. If Rootology wants to find a reason to be offended by Jimbo's comment, let him. We've got work to do; and, personally, this agitant is ready to get to business. لennavecia 18:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be too, and happily, if I was assured our time was going to be worthwhile and that the group would eventually be opened to community control on a fixed timeline, with Wales having no control over it. rootology (C)(T) 18:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of quick elections much, but opening the group to complete community control is definitely something on which we all agree, as you can tell by reading the Forum page. Steven Walling (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree, but elections is not the way to achieve that. I say we go on with this. Demonstrate to the community exactly what we're here for, and then if they still wanna burn us at the stake, so be it. لennavecia 18:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Rootology, I understand your concern about wasting your time but I think that something good will come from the interaction of the different people involved. Information exchanged between the different people from the different parts of the Project will result in sparking new and better ways to resolve issues. I hope that you will stay involved. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

I notice that Kirill Lokshin removed himself from this group sometime earlier. I haven't seen precisely why, but I think it might have been at the same time he withdrew from the ArbCom, possibly for the same reason. If that is the case, then I would very much request that he be reconsidered for membership in this council. He is an extremely reasonable voice in, like, every discussion I've ever seen him involved in, and I would be very much in favor of our being able to keep his input somewhere. John Carter (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

See his talk page and Jimbo's. لennavecia 20:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I have proposed a wholly community-driven process here, due to the (depressingly misguided) overwhelming opposition to the ACPD at the RfC. Several people are involved so far. I think that process, or something similar, will be essential in avoiding the problems raised--rightly or wrongly--by the people commenting at the RfC. Or the short version: it needs to be free of ArbCom entirely. I would invite comment from everyone here. → ROUX ₪ 22:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Why?

I've not heard much explanation as to why this is needed. Clearly you [the arbs] in your private conversations have decided you want this, but you haven't communicated its benefit to the community. So what is the benefit of giving some users Arb endorsement badges to discuss and raise issues, besides obviously the endowment of patronage? Why does this body need to be independent of the community but dependent on you? To me this looks like an attempt, made consciously or unconsciously, to consolidate the hold of one peer group over the rest of wikipedia, to make it easier to shut out voices who don't fully hold the mores, values and prejudices of this group in the view to enforce this group's vision of wikipedia on the rest of the community. We elect an ArbCom to solve intractable disputes because we need this, and we give some power to these elected members on this basis. So why in the name of something great do you need another group with a "remit" which "lies exclusively in the realm of ideas: to chuck them about, to chew them, to digest them, to improve them, to develop them. Its focus will be providing considered or imaginative solutions to longstanding problems"? This is not your job. I realise with the powers you have you will drift into areas beyond your remit, but the current proposal is strong evidence that current arbitrators have lost all memory of what their remit is. You are not the government of English wikipedia. If you want to be that, ask the community and Jimbo for this new remit and then when elections come we can elect users on that basis. But as this hasn't been done yet I struggle to see this proposal as anything more than evidence that our current committee are either forgetful or contemptful of their intended role. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from arbs

• The 2009 Arbitration Committee is working to reduce or eliminate the the tasks that we do that that are not related to directly to Arbitration. While many users are not aware of the tasks that past and present Arbitrators do behind that scene by virtue to being elected to the Committee, there are quite a few. As we re-organize these tasks, we need to interface with the Community to discuss how to evolve and transition the work that we do. This new group will be asked to consider some of these questions by us. We are discussing them in other places too. Such as RFCs started by ArbCom. And on the discussion page of the new draft of the ArbCom policy.

• But this think tank is also free to discuss other broad issues that effect Wikipedia that do not have a good venue for discussion or could benefit from in depth research accompanying the discussion. Since the Arbitration Committee is the last step in dispute resolution, we hope that thoughtfully discussed ideas by this think tank will decrease the need for Arbitration Cases because better ways to deal with issues upfront will happen.

• I hope this explanation will reassure you that we understand our role on Wikipedia and in fact are leading the way towards reducing our involvement in matter not related to Arbitration. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• • I hope you'll understand that the way this was presented and came about ... well, how shall I put this ... it generated insecurity. Maybe you realise this already, but it carries the threat of overturning the social balance among users active in these power areas, altering it in favour of a group of hand-picked users. People are very sensitive about this kind of thing. If you create a proposal that says or seems to say "We're gonna chose who can have a role" in such important things, by implication everyone else will have to, at the very least, yell a little louder to maintain the influence they currently have. No-one has any idea why the ones picked were picked, and it is no accident that the major opponents here are users active in such areas, particularly those excluded and more particularly those who have been personally damaged by ArbCom in the past. They are most of all fully conscious of what ArbCom will and can do, of what they could lose, and so on. This you can be certain made them feel isolated. It's not that they are selfish; a threat perceived to oneself is just a threat, and is just as likely to be seen in general terms. As the proposal was unfocused in intent, it was open-ended in potential. And that's of course just the tip of the iceberg. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Not to be nasty, but if people are actually that worried about their "power" and the strength of their political standing over being here to write new content for our readers, they need to get over themselves and if they can't, get lost. The power gamers and politicos will be the death of this site. rootology (C)(T) 17:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Such concerns are mostly subconscious, and everyone has them. It's totally human to try to defend your status and uphold your ability to make contributions to the things you are interested in, and that doesn't mean these people are politicos and power gamers. The ones I'm referring to are no-more that, in fact less, than the ones appearing to gain at their expense. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Who on the initial batch of the advice group gain anything? We're half of us outsiders already, half of us are getting epic scorn or getting hit with attempted manipulation for taking this on, half of us have no desire for anything 'prestige', and the other half are intent on setting up the framework for this to work long-term and then leaving it behind, myself included--hell, I called for us to be gone six months to the day after our scope, aims, and methods to replace us were firmly set. And yes, I suppose it may be 'subconscious', but anything we do to facilitate, enable, or indulge notions of status or standing are wrong. Politics has no place on this website. rootology (C)(T) 17:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, whatever you think of it, that's what is certainly going on. And what's this about "Politics has no place on this website"? I suppose it would be great if it were true, but politics is just what happens when 2 or more people get together. No avoiding it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Of course not, but we indulge it on this website like bad parents indulge fat and spoiled children. We need to put a stop to it. rootology (C)(T) 17:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone can see if an editor is here to write content by looking at his contribution history. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Make sure you don't fall into the trap of only looking at the recent ones! We all of us ebb and flow in cycles. rootology (C)(T) 17:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see the demographics of the selected members e.g. length of time on Wikipedia, roughly the age, sex, areas of interest/contributions, areas of alleged expertise, nationality, and such. Are any "younger generation" editors selected? My impression is that membership is tilted toward older established users who are familiar to ArbCom, eg. members of the elite. This would be fine if the group's mission is to aid ArbCom in being more effective e.g. act as organizational consultations to ArbCom. But if ACPD is to advise on more general issues pertinent to the community, this may be too narrow a group to be representative. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll bite: On Wikipedia since 2005 with a 'hiatus'; in my 30s, male, American now but from Eastern Europe; primary focus is on articles related to local businesses and one particular major landmark which I intend long term to make a Featured Topic. Areas of expertise are information technology, across a broad scope from 15+ years of professional experience on everything from network security administration, Linux server farm deployment and administration, carrier-level and local-level ISP work (administrative side, both ILEC & CLEC side), backup & recovery systems, web and mail services administration, and also management and training related to all of the above. Some programming, too. History afficienado related to all of these, and also I'm an unofficial expert on all sorts of nonsense related to numerous areas of pop culture, blogging, open source technologies, video games, and gardening, but I don't bother with those articles much. I'm about as far removed from the 'elite' on this website as anyone comes, beyond being a persistent pain in their collective asses.

Keep in mind that for some reason a lot of the people on this group haven't been named yet, which I'm wondering about now today. rootology (C)(T) 17:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser. If I received auch a letter, I wouldn't know what to think. Maybe the unknown, unrevealed invitees are flummoxed. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, Flo, but I find it very difficult to give credence to that recasting of the purpose of this council. In reading your remarks, one could conclude that this council was set up to help ArbCom with some unspecified, pedestrian, admin tasks; and oh, by the way, it also has a free hand to recommend policy changes, if the fancy takes it. Well, looking at the agenda the council is writing for itself, not much of it looks like inconsequential, behind-the-scenes admin tasks to me. I really can't understand how you have become so far involved with policy creation while wearing your ArbCom hat. There is a huge conflict of interest here. You seem to be advocating ignoring the RFC. Can you make your position explicit on that? What will happen if someone starts an ArbCom case citing the disruption caused by this, citing ArbCom's inappropriate attempt to involve itself in policy creation and project governance, pointing to the RFC, and requesting that these pages be deleted? Which arbs would not be required to recuse from that case? How does the creation and fervent defence of a council primarily designed to influence policy and the future direction of the entire project fall within the orbit of the role to which you were elected? --MoreThings (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from other users

If you're going to just post your conspiracy theories and accuse people under the cloak of questioning, really, just go away or contain your comments to the RfC. By the by, using the same words over and over sounds clunky. Break out the thesaurus and change that "remit" up. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Erm ... that's not what I'm doing. Thanks for the advice on copy-editing, and although this isn't an article, in return I recommend you look up the term straw man in a dictionary, where your accusation of conspiracy theories will be adequately countered without any comment from me. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Deacon, the points you raise have been repeatedly and explicitly refuted by members of ArbCom over at the RfC. The most eloquent is probably NYB's. Please read it. → ROUX ₪ 01:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think so (but if you gave links I could be more sure). I'd actually like arbs to answer my questions and deal with my points, that's why they are the guys I addressed. While other opinions are useful for other questions in other places, that's not what I'm seeking here. Thanks, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"You are not the government of English wikipedia." isn't accusatory? Don't insult our intelligence. The group is exists for discussion and idea generation around the problems that the project faces. That's not a governance role. It's an exploratory one without any authority to make decisions or enact changes; that power still and always will lie with the community. If you're really as threatened as you profess, I would like to politely suggest that you review what we've been talking about and how the founders describe their vision for the group, because if you think we're out to take over any part of project governance, you don't understand what's going on. Plain and simple. Steven Walling (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not understanding what's going on has never been an impediment to people participating in discussions on Wikipedia. Indeed, a large percentage of the time it appears to be a requirement. Which is, in a roundabout way, exactly why this sort of thing is necessary. → ROUX ₪ 08:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it absolutely risible that you've concluded we're a coherent peer group, what on earth gives you that idea? I've yet to discover what we might agree on. --Joopercoopers (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Guys, all this simple-minded noise is doing is making it easier for the people addressed not to have to answer, which very well might suit them, but is useless to Wikipedia. These comments were not addressed to you guys, but to the arbs. Thanks, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Again... the arbs have already addressed all of your questions. All you have to do is read. → ROUX ₪ 09:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Roux, I've already been made aware that you think they have, but you've already been made aware that's not how I see it. So why post the same thing again? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually read the entirety of the RfC and talkpage? If you had, you wouldn't be asking again. → ROUX ₪ 09:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Main issue

My main issue with this is not the concept of the council (with which I am broadly in agreement) but that there is no community input into its membership. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Both are issues. As with so many proposals originating with ArbCom, they agree among themselves something is useful and most of the time after its introduced as a proposal is spent trying to go about it or overcome opposition. But actually there's been very little explanation as to why a body elected for reactive dispute resolution need to create an "advisory think-tank", or why it should be clothed in the status-conferring dress derived from formal institution. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The bureaucracy is expanding

The mission statement of this council can be summed up as "To do stuff". So, without any particular direction, focus, or intent the result is "the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy". This ArbCom already created the audit subcommittee without any analysis of the problems it was supposed to solve. Result? So far in 2009 there's been 9 inquiries into checkuser abuse, and all of them required no formal investigation. Fear not though, it's bureaucracy so it must be a good thing. March on! I wonder how much more bureaucracy this arbcom is going to create.

I'm beginning to have serious doubts about this ArbCom's ability. This is not an isolated issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• And now I've discovered yet another subcommittee of ArbCom. Wikipedia:ARBCOM#BASC. Sigh. How much red tape could an arbcom make if an arbcom red taper could make red tape. Or, how many edits does it take to get to the center of an arbcom roll. The world may never know. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the audit subcommittee, I suggest you take a look at the reports it has published. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the harm of groups of arbs taking responsibility for different tasks? Am I missing something? :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• They were never given remit to do so. They operate at the behest of the community, not the other way around. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• What were they never given remit to do? They do manage who gets checkuser, so it would make sense that they also monitor how it's used, in the event of abuse. And, rather than agree with the complaint of ArbCom just creating more committees, it looks to me like it's just trying to delegate authority within it's own membership, something it is clearly within its rights to do, to ensure that everything gets done. Is it "bureaucracy" to try to ensure duties actually get accomplished? John Carter (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• I don't see how Wikipedia:ARBCOM#BASC is harmful. It's just three arbs taking public responsibility for one part of the ArbCom's duties. Making it transparent who deals with what, and separating tasks, can only be a good thing, surely? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What may appear to be Bureaucracy is the Committee reorganizing the way that work is done. We are doing it in better ways that makes the work more transparent and effective. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hammersoft, the audit subcommittee is there to address specific and serious concerns. The less cases it has to deal with the better. I don't support this council idea because it makes me uneasy, especially since it's still very unclear who chooses the members and why the ArbCom chose those it did, but the audit subcommittee is one idea that the arbs deserve credit for. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Things need to scale; this isn't 2003 any more. :) rootology (C)(T) 15:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't mind new processes being created to respond to evolving situations. If we can't do that, we're doomed. What I do have a serious problem with is the creation of needless bureaucracy. All this stuff is supposed to make things easier, yet I've yet to see any analysis anywhere that any of this is needed. This new group's mission boils down to "To do stuff". If you can't have a vision of what the group is, what the heck are you creating it for in the first place???? Just for the hell of it? Because you can? ArbCom is for dispute resolution. On anything else, they can frankly take a hike and I will give them the same respect I give a brand new editor with respect to edicts they issue until such time as they are given the power they're trying to grab here by the entire community. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hammersoft, I think we are talking past each other. We largely want the same thing.

• The same as any other organization, Wikipedia has issues that need to be addressed related to the way that the organization is run. For better or worse, for many years the Arbitration Committee has been heavily involved in working on some of these issues. The present way of handling these issues was not working well in my opinion. Many other people on the Committee and in the Community agree, I think. The 2009 Arbitration Committee is addressing this through by reorganizing the way that we work, delegating more tasks to other people, and by having open discussions with the Community about some issues so that they can do the work instead of arbitrators. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• That's the thing I'm not getting. The AC has been adamant that once it's launched they don't want control over this group. We've said we don't want (and most of won't appreciate, or wouldn't even have joined) if we were under the AC's thumb. Jimmy has no control over this group. The group's role is come up with creative solutions to problems, as I see it. We're even slowly talking about how to give ownership of it wholly to the community; if it was up to me that'd be done like I wrote as soon as come up with the best and fairest way to do that which will scale. In all of that, what power does the AC have beyond tossing out the initial seed as a one-off action? rootology (C)(T) 16:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, none, although obviously things are still up in the air. And I still object to the oversimplification of the statement that this group exists "to do stuff". It seems to me that the group is being created to provide a centralized forum for interested and knowledgable editors to respond to problem situations that either have already arisen or could be seen as arising in the near future. Such sort of a "damage control" thinktank/forum, particularly if it is centralized, as opposed to being on the talk pages of various policy, guideline, and other pages, seems to me to be much more likely to be effective than the rather scattershot and disorganized system we have today. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I (think) rootology has retired? :-(

dropping like flies these wiki folk! - anywhoo, I'll adjust the council makeup accordingly (no big deal to revert if you know something I don't, or for any reason really...) Privatemusings (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Then he needs to be replaced, let's give him 7 days to change his mind, then takl about a replacement. I have been thinking about this, and here's an idea to toss into the court - some people seem to be against elections and others against input from the ArbCom. Now this is just an idea - What if the ACPD perpetuated itself by chosing it's owm members by open and public debate rather than leaving it to Arbcom or holding elections? Giano (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Certainly a better idea than the hoopla of an election. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Finally an idea that makes sense...kudos. Nominate or invite your own members in the open. I hope Root returns...Modernist (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Why does this council have to be determined by ArbCom anyway? Why don't you declare yourself an independent "think tank" of self-selected members, free to choose your own membership, and operate as an independent lobbying group? That would remove all my objections to the council. Then community respect would stem from the quality of the suggestions and ideas you put forth, and you would be free to operate as you want. Quality and useful input from the council would be valued, even sought after, under these circumstances. You could still conduct your proceedings in public to enhance your credibility. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That is something along the lines of the way my mind has been working. Giano (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, hopefully Root will be back in a few days, and he's just taking a breather to let some of the frustration relieve itself. Personally, I like the idea of the community having some input as to who the members should be. In fact, I mentioned not once, but twice; that allowing some sort of community confirmation might allow for a bit more faith and support - but it was met with a deafening sound of silence. But, maybe it was just a bad idea. While a couple of the members are willing to support our involvement (see here), other members appear to believe that our input is not needed at this time. I guess that until they can figure out amongst themselves exactly what they are, and what they should be doing; we're supposed to just leave them alone. I guess we can hope quietly in the background that something good will come of it all in the end. ;) — Ched :  ?  16:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there has to be a little more to it than a simple popularit contest, the council should have the last say in order that the cross section is maintained, thus I think people could put their names forward, but if no one listed meets the criteria of the vacancy then the council could invite or leave the seat empty until such time as their is a suitable candidiate. I see no harm in having an Arb onboard, in fact that could be part of the cross section. Giano (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Giano's recommendation above, expanded upon by Mattisse, seems like a good idea to me. I also agree with Giano that, as an independent group, there is no reason to exclude an arb from membership. Their experience, expertise and insight should prove helpful, just as with all the other members. Lara 18:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I beleive if we can become an all ecompassing group, then we can truly represent feelings throughout the encyclopedia to the ArbCom - with the ArbCom but apart from the ArbCom. I think this is the way forward to be an officially acknowledged group, but not a servant of the ArbCom. We have to be self governing while at the same time listening to the community through the talk pages, but eventually forming our own evaluated opinion. Giano (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This strikes me as the most sensible thread I have read here in a while. Go for it. (Look what can happen when Giano and Mattisse actually work together ...) JN466 19:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No objections to the proposals above. Cla68 (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • A fantastic suggestion. —harej (talk) (cool!) 01:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Are we agreed then, we have the start of the council's constitution. The ACPC goes forward as an advisory body to the Arbcom (as a think tank and place where the Arbcom can sound ideas), but independant from the Arbcom - the present members remain, but will select future members from a cross section of the encyclopedia. General editors may comment on the talk pages and this will be considered by the council. Giano (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This would be despite consensus of opposition from the community, and lack of support for this particular body as constituted? → ROUX ₪ 07:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As suggested elsewhere by someone else, a group that is solely appointed - whether by ArbCom or by its own members - can not escape the perception and risk of cabalism. The best solution, in my opinion, is to reserve some substantial fraction of the seat for elected members. Doesn't have to be all the seats (though that is an option), but if none of the seats are elected I expect that popular backlash will eventually kill the whole endeavor. Dragons flight (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting for readability) Giano, there is a problem with what you have suggested here: "the present members remain, but will select future members from a cross section of the encyclopedia". The original announcement said "We are still awaiting responses to several additional invitations. We are also looking for a few more members; anyone who would like to be a part of this group is invited to send us a note to that effect." To date, we have received several enquiries from people who are interested in being a part of this group, along with suggestions of people who would help broaden the experience of this group. Well over 20 people are now on this new list, in fact.

What is also needed here is a fuller explanation of how the original group was selected, including the number of people considered, the number invited, and the number of people who accepted and declined (one of the disadvantages of the approach taken is that names can't be mentioned unless people voluntarily disclose that they declined an invitation or responded to the initial announcement). I have collated these numbers, but want to get a full statement together rather than dribble information out in the wrong places where no-one sees it (like this post, possibly).

There was never any suggestion that the membership of this group would remain static, but, as mentioned above, one of the thorniest problems is how to decide future membership. This was discussed internally, and while the potential for this to cause problems was raised, I don't think it was ever fully resolved, unfortunately. The two main arguments are that some form of election is needed, and the counter-argument is that an advisory body needs to be selected in order to include those that wouldn't put themselves forward for elections. Maybe, as some have said, a hybrid appointed/elected body is needed.

I did also have a long list of areas of the encyclopedia that should be represented. Let me see if I can dig that out (list is very possibly woefully incomplete): content editors, bot operators, admins (remembering some specialise in different areas), various noticeboards, ArbCom, checkusers, oversighters, bureaucrats, stewards, media (images and sounds) contributors, copyright people, spam checkers, vandal fighters, diversity in location (nationalities), experience on sister projects, WMF experience, wikimedia developers, wikiprojects (maybe the Wikiproject Council could be useful here?), wikignomes, someone from the Manual of Style. Also, someone relatively new (less than a year's experience) could give vital insight into how new editors find things around here. Some of these could be co-opted, rather than be full members.

Finally, my view on how this was all launched is that it was not ideal, and could have been handled better (e.g. village pump announcement by the arbs who supported the proposal), but it is undeniable that ArbCom's announcement has reinvigorated the debate. Anything that does result from this should only be advisory in nature, and not have any authority beyond that, and should only advise on dispute resolution in generalities, and only advise the community on this and other matters if the community will accept the advice (but equally the community should not reject good advice merely because of its source). And the launch of other "think tank" bodies should also be welcomed (by a form of natural selection, only the most active and best ones will survive).

The only future input ArbCom should have (after it is decided what to do with the self-nominations and other nominations received) is to ask for advice, to have some input to future membership (if desired, and not if not desired) and to have started the ball rolling. And I've now posted a huge wall of text in the wrong place. Well, hopefully people will read it. Carcharoth (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well the invitees had until the end of last week to respond, I would imagine those who have not yet replied have gone wisely running into the hills. From what I can tell the Arbcom has lost its commitment to this and already some Arbs, I have spoken too, are trying to distance themselves. It seems the Arbcom do not know their ass from their elbow with this. So I am resigning too, forthwith - it has descended into charade and farce - both as forms of entertainment bore me. Giano (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

good luck :-)

Ok - prior to making the above post, and since too, I've been trawling through multiple pages trying to find the best spot for this note. I dunno if this is it or not, but this is where it's going!

Good luck to one and all on the council! - I sincerely hope enough of you chaps decide to give it a go to render the discussions about why the council came about moot. Begin it, and all else follows I reckon (eat your heart out Goethe ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)although someone seems to say that it's a chap called Murray who reckons there's genius, power and magic in boldness :-)

Thoughts on why community discussion might have been better

This is a great bunch of people, no doubt about it. Individually and collectively they've done fantastic things for the project. Yet the group seems to have been created using pretty loose criteria. There's talk of expanding its number by choosing at random from anyone who applies. So we have a fairly random group of good editors who are told, "Tell us what is wrong with WP, and tell us how to fix it". It's possible that that may lead to a novel solution to which the community will reply with a collective, face-palming "Of course, why didn't we think of that?", but I don't think it's very likely. If those kind of solutions did exist, they would have been found and implemented long ago.

The group has been identifying Thorny Problems. Let's take a hypothetical example:

Lara (for 'tis she): I know quite a bit about Thorny Problem x.

Most of the others: Really, I don't have much experience in that area, what exactly is the issue there?¹

And therein lies the problem. Lara will give a brief summary of the issue, its history, her own views, and a few possible solutions. The others, because they're smart, will ask questions and offer solutions. Lara will point out that those questions have been asked before, and the solutions have been tried before and have run in to difficulties x, y, and z.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the project, there are others who, like Lara, are all too familiar with Thorny Problem x. They have participated in the previous voluminous debates, perhaps have RL experience, and definitely have their own ideas. If they were here, their response would be "Hang on a minute, I don't quite see the problem the way you defined it, and you forgot this possible solution, and I always wondered if we might try..." And that's the debate that should be going on here. The group should have a small number of of generalists, and a large number of experts who are up to speed with the issues and their associated subtleties, nuances and thorns. In that situation the generalists are a Good Thing. As the group is presently constituted, too many generalists are a Bad Thing, holding debate back, not really helping.

Much more thought should have gone into setting up the group. And, crucially, the group needs to be given real power. If the community had been allowed to have a say in setting up the group, then it might have been possible to give it power. This one is neutered because of its association with ArbCom-- ArbCom need to be able to say "They have no power, they cant' do anything". Whenever this group comes up with a solution to a Thorny Problem that solution will have to presented to the community for approval, and we'll be back at square one.

An example

Here's one example of how we might have agreed to give power to a small group of editors. This is a sketch of one model. I'm sure there are others, no doubt better, but it illustrates the kind of thing I think the community should have been asked to discuss before the council was formed.

Three tiers:

• The Coordinating Council: permanent; sets up working parties; say 6 people. The NYBs of the world.
• Working Party: transient; ad-hoc; say, 6 to 25 people, clued up on a specific issue and representative of community opinion on that issue.
• Community debate: the starting point. If this succeeds, then job done, go no further.

Start with a debate about Thorny Problem x. It fails to reach consensus, stalls and degenerates. The Coordinating Council is now asked to create a working party. It selects the working party's members in conjunction with the community through discussion, perhaps elections and a !vote, perhaps a direct approach to certain editors. There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but the working party is formed. The Coordinating Council has the final say. The working party is, as near as possible, representative of the various viewpoints which surfaced during the community debate. The individual members might well have strong and opposing views, but they're committed to good rational debate within WP policy.

The Working Party debates the issue. It returns to the community with alternative solutions. These are in the form of virtually complete policy documents which could be put into immediate effect. Ideally, the working party will endorse one policy as its preferred alternative. The community must choose between these versions. There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth, a discussion, perhaps a !vote. The community can request minor modifications which the WP will make at its discretion. A deadline to end the debate is set. After the deadline, the working party, in conjunction with the Coordinating Council, determines the consensus and the policy is implemented. The working party is dissolved.

That's it. The idea is to temporarily transfer power to a group of editors who are expert in, and up to speed with, a particular problem and who, when taken as a whole, are representative of the various positions within the community. They build on discussion which was initiated in the community, and they do so in a high signal to noise environment Ultimately, they have the power to push policy through.

As I say, I'm not at all claiming the above is the solution, but I do think it's the kind of thing that should be discussed when setting up a group such as the ACPD.

1. light-hearted, of course. For a different Thorny Problem, it would one of the other editors who would be the expert and Lara would be among the generalists.
--MoreThings (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

For your first example, using me, the talk page can be used by anyone. Thus, in such a situation, I could bring up points on the forum page raised by those on the talk page and go from there. Ideas from those outside of the group can still be considered and discussed, but the discussion won't become overwhelmed with participants. Sort of like a representative on the issue at hand. Which, let's be real, in this example, Thorny Problem x would be BLP. :) Lara 16:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Well, I'm still of the opinion that teams containing the right people to address a specific problem should be assembled and given power. As currently constituted, the non-experts on any particular topic will be hindering rather than helping, and good people who should be involved will be left out. To have the group the way it is now is to waste the project's most important resource, which is the time of people like you and the other guys. I think you'll be talking around in circles and going over old ground. Solutions the group does arrive at will be sub-optimal, and you still have the increasingly insurmountable obstacle of consensus to tackle.

I feel that arguing to remove bad policy is a way of working to improve the encyclopedia. But it's unpleasant to always feel that you're pulling things down, so I wanted to offer something constructive. This whole thing seems to have become blown out of all proportion. I'm happy to sit back and see what happens. Good luck with it! --MoreThings (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think perhaps one of the other things to bear in mind is our method of working which is starting to evolve. We're starting by defining problems, that's going to involve slow research, looking at previous community discussions and presenting concise summaries and then debate. (Not just asking Lara!) Fresh eyes on a problem is a strength - it will take us some time to get up to speed, but the are many advantages - ultimately having editors who aren't carrying baggage of hard fought discussions and usually, let's face it, the sting of some of our bad debates means we can be more objective. Often people engaged in one corner of the project have vested interests in particular subjects, to have a wide group of us means that is less likely and we can just recommend what we see as the right course of action. Ultimately though, I think we are here, not to make decisions but present good, concise alternatives for others to make decisions about. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe something will come from it. Who knows? Opinion seems polarised. I hate to feel like I'm having a go at you guys when we're all on the same side. I didn't mean that you would ask Lara about everything! Just the stuff she knows about. The stuff you know about, you would be the one to ask. I just feel that this group is far too broad-based and has no real terms of reference. It's not really an initiative because there is no innovation. The way it is now, I can't see how this is any different than everyone meeting up at your talk page and chatting about what is wrong with WP. If you do stick at it and prove we doubters wrong, then good for you! --MoreThings (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much

In order not to flood, a subpage. -- m:drini 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, some interesting points. Sorry it did not work out. JN466 17:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I was with you completely up until "Wikipedia is not broken." Sorry to see you go. Lara 17:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not broken, but it's decaying. -- m:drini 17:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, and so graciously put on a subpage, so as "not to flood". They gave me pause to reflect. I am sorry. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Userfy

Discussion has been split between so many places I may have missed this suggestion having been already made, if so I apologise. I suggest these council pages be moved to someone's userspace. It isn't a body with community support, so it shouldn't be in the Wikipedia namespace, and also having it in the user namespace means restricting editing to certain people can be justified under existing policy (we've always given users a great degree of control over what happens in their userspace, so whoever hosts it can decree that only members can edit the forum page). An alternative is moving it to a subpage of the Arbitration pages, but that would require making it very clear that the council would restrict itself to matters within ArbCom's scope, which would reduce its usefulness. From what I've seen people don't really object to a group of people talking about how to fix various problems, the objections are to ArbCom taking "official" action outside their authority so moving it to the user namespace should fix that since it would no longer be perceived as anything official and would just be individual Wikipedians getting together to chat. --Tango (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Everyone seems agreed that this group has no particular authority. It's just a group of editors brainstorming. There's no reason for it be sitting anywhere other than userspace. --MoreThings (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. As much as I may disagree with it, community consensus has spoken extremely loudly: this Council is not accepted by the community. The only thing this group should be doing now is working out the process for holding elections, and then doing so. The community has spoken: these sorts of groups need to be built from the ground up (such as this shamelessly self-linking proposal here), and not imposed by ArbCom. Again: I disagree with this, but the community feeling is clear. → ROUX ₪ 20:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• No! What the ArbCom has created only the ArbCom can put assunder! Now, if the community wants to take this further to a vote of no confidence in the ArbCom then so be it. However, in the meantime, until dissolved by the Arbcom, I am staying with this council because it is the best idea for helping the project so far. Giano (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree this is the best. But the community has spoken in the RfC (sadly). → ROUX ₪ 20:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Bugger the RFC, it was the child of User: Malice Aforethought, who is best ignored. sometimes one has to go for what is right and sod the consequences. If the ArbCom dissolve it, then so be it, but they will have to resign as all confidence in them would be lost. Is that what the comminuity wants? Giano (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If RFCs are supposed to run for 30 days, what is the hurry? People are just now beginning to calm down enough to start thinking this through. The initial concept and presentation were faulty, but that doesn't mean the whole thing should be chucked. In 30 days, it may have evolved into something palatable that the community comes to see as a net positive. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This proposal will, hopefully, mitigate the complaints without doing any harm to the council's work. What is your objection to that? --Tango (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think people should be resigning over this. I can think of a case in which, imo, exceptional editors who had contributed hundreds of hours to the project, and who had bent over backwards to stay within the policy, were driven away. That was a case that I feel did merited resignations. But not this one. This just seems to be everyone gone mad for a few days. I say rewind and start again. --MoreThings (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• The Arbcom created this in Wikipedia space so until dissolved it can stay in Wikipedia space; it does not need to be shunted off to the sidelines. The ArbCom have implied that they need this "think tank" in order to better function - the commuity, so you say, have implied that they don't want it. If that's the case, then I see no option, but for the ArbCom to strongly consider it's position - as I see it, if the result of the RFC is as you say then that is also a vote of no confidence in the ArbCom. Those so vociferous on the RFC cannot have it all ways, otherwise they become the ruling power and the Arbcom impotent Giano (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  People keep saying this council is supposed to help ArbCom - just look at the name. "Project Development" - that has nothing to do with ArbCom. --Tango (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I must admit this quote from the original announcement, now on the project page, looks very pie-in-the-sky bad and a reason, I think, there is so much opposition:

"The Advisory Council acts as an advisory body to the Arbitration Committee and to the community; considers various issues facing the project and develops ideas, proposals, and recommendations for improving it; and serves as a forum for the sharing of best practices among the different areas within the project, The group can be regarded as a high-level think-tank, coming up with ideas that either the Committee or the community as a whole might choose to pursue. The Advisory Council also advises the Committee directly, providing it with feedback and ideas from a cross-section of the community that's not otherwise involved in its work."

I think it needs to be acknowledged as, to put it kindly , ambiguous, and to be clarified, as it almost sounds like this committee is more powerful than ArbCom. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, where does that quotation suggests that the Advisory Council has any power at all? It delineates its role as developing ideas and proposals (etc.) that the Committee and/or the community are at perfect liberty to pursue or not. Presumably, the notion is that if these ideas are good ones then they may be taken up; but it has no power to mandate that they are.

And let me repeat: that's as it should be. This Council should have no powers at all. Let's keep it that way. I'm concerned by the fact that so many at the RfC want to give it power, implicitly or explicitly, for instance by making it a representative body. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I am asking that ArbCom clarify what this committee is empowered to do, as it [arbcom] is asking for advice, feedback, representation from a cross-section of the community over a wide range of matters, many of them having nothing to do with ArbCom's duties (or only in so far as anything can come under ArbCom's purvey, via an arbitration request). Perhaps I am in error, but I am under the impression this is the only committee appointed by ArbCom and selected from the communuity at large by virtual of being an agreed upon group by those arbs voting in favor of this procedure. If they are the only committee appointed as such without community input, then they function as a cabinet with all the powers such cabinets accrue. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Again, as far as I can see, the paragraph you've cited empowers this Council in no way at all. It's very different from a cabinet, precisely because it's not part of any governance structure. Rather, as the wording explicitly states, it's more like a think-tank. It's been asked (not empowered) to come up with some ideas, for the benefit of both ArbCom and the wider community. If either ArbCom or the community don't like whatever ideas it comes up with, then there is nothing at all that the Council can do about it. And again, that's fine by me. --01:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Giano that these pages should not be moved by anyone except arbcom. I have said elsewhere: perhaps arbcom should have called it a "mailing list" instead of a "committee", but arguing about the difference is essentially just wikilawyering. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

At least one ArbCom member (not clear if he was speaking for the Committee or just himself) has said he wouldn't interfere if the community chooses to delete these pages via MFD. I would assume that the same applies if the community were to rename / relocate these pages. Ultimately you can't have it both ways, either you are independent advisory board serving at the pleasure of the community or you are an instrument of ArbCom. Most of the discussion seems to favor independence, but if that is the case then you shouldn't expect ArbCom to offer protection. Dragons flight (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still gathering my thoughts on all this (including the thoughts I had on this when it was originally proposed and discussed by ArbCom internally), and am hoping to find the time to say something at some point (I just read Drini's subpage mentioned elsewhere on this page, for example, links to which I think should be widely published including at the RfC). Part of the reason I haven't found time to comment extensively yet is because events moved a bit faster than expected, and Kirill's resignation caught many of us on the hop. Look at my last two posts (on other pages) for details on that, plus something on current composition of this advisory body, which is still up in the air due to the call for self-nominations (something the current members may have missed, though it has been mentioned by FloNight further up the page). Anyway, my posts are here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Record keeping

I'm still mulling this idea around my head, even though I accepted Arbcom's invitation, I wasn't sure what it involved and haven't yet thought out my participation. I do however realize I am the newest person on the Council in terms of being highly active on Wikipedia, so I have been trying to read up on past proposals and discussions. But trying to read up on things, I am struck by the poor recording keeping system Wikipedia has for such things. Between the various essay, inactive projects, and rejected proposal categories, it is hard to figure out what ideas have been proposed before and what discussion occurred in relation to them. Many times an important part of the discussion might have been split to a village pump or another talk page and it is hard to see what people were thinking when they came to a prior consensus.

This got me thinking about how we make decisions in general. The famous "consensus" model. When i started at Wikipedia, I was involved in a debate over the proper article name for the Hirohito article. Each side presented their points at Talk:Hirohito/Archive_4#Appropriate_Emperor_Name and there was a an !vote at Talk:Hirohito/Archive_4#Tally_11.2F24_-_1.2F31. Now in 2009 there was another poll on moving the article at Talk:Hirohito#Requested_move_-_Jan_2009. What struck me most of the first comment of: See above section for latest start of discussion. Orpheus (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

How is someone in 6 months who wants to move it going to know how to find the poll I participated at in 2008, the more recent 2009 poll, and the discussion that led to the 2009 poll, when it is spread across three different pages? Similar debates on things like WP:NOINDEX and WP:ATT seem to show that a big part of our problem is that people cannot find the past iterations of discussions and therefore re-argue the same ground time and time again.

When I first got the email from Kirill, this sounded like WP:WORKINGGROUP to me, but oddly I have not seen anyone, even the arbs, reference that as a similar model. Instead I've learned about things like Wikipedia:Governance reform, that I didn't know existed. If there was some way we could better track ideas on Wikipedia, it might help in determining why past ideas succeeded or failed and how to better discuss similar ideas in the future. Thoughts? MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're absolutely right. I myself have been wondering how to bring the corners of Wikipedia closer together. I have been achieve this with currently ongoing discussions, but what about discussions that came and went? —harej (talk) (cool!) 02:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If you look off User:Pixelface, there are links to subpages he has made documenting evolution of policies and noted who did what when. I envisaged something like this with many different themes - eg civility, socking, RfA, etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(Non-member post) After the recent situation involving AnyBot, I tried to figure out the history of the Bot Approvals Group and it took me a fair while between page histories etc doing so. Deleted revisions and historic redirects are one additional problem as they cannot be searched. Orderinchaos 01:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet another suggestion

Anyone who wants to can set up their own think tank or discussion group. They can invite anyone they like to join, and discuss whatever they want. Anyone who notices (perhaps there could be a central page where these disparate groups could be listed) can join in. But crucially, these groups would have the power to prevent anyone they found unwelcome from contributing. Perhaps the pages would live within the userspace of the think tank owner, or "chair", which would make the ability to remove unwelcome comments and prevent unwelcome use fit within the existing policy. Each group can have its own policy: the chair says who can / can't contribute, or the first ten founder members, or whatever.

William M. Connolley (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sort of hoping that's how the current mob may choose to proceed? (scared of my own shadow civility paranoia! - mob is a colloquial way of referring to a group of people in australia without pejorative connotations). I wonder if this is also the right spot to ask if there's space on the council for me to join? I'd quite like the 'giano' chair - I'm much better looking :-) (in all honesty, this is a most serious offer / thought - I think the 'facilitation' model being touted / led by Sam is very very strong, and I'd like to be a part of it - no worries if a black ball is forthcoming, but I thought I'd mention it :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Self-nominations from people interested in being part of this group are still being received by ArbCom (though not that many since the announcement, which was over a week ago now). I've suggested a cut-off point for these new nominations, but that hasn't been sorted yet (I'm thinking middle of this coming week). We can't be aware of everyone who has expressed an interest in this during the various discussions on-wiki, so if you are interested, it is best to e-mail us (this goes to those who added their names to that section on the RfC about being prepared to be part of this advisory body). My personal view here is that ArbCom need to disengage from this group as soon as possible, and let it go its own way - and let it be judged on what advice it gives, rather than how it was formed. But since the original announcement did invite self-nominations, and we have a list of those, we do need to bring that process to a conclusion before cutting loose. I was hoping to push (internally) for that to be done quite rapidly, but I misjudged how long that sort of thing takes, so I am thinking 1st August would be a good point to see where discussions have got to and where to go from there. Carcharoth (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. I would like to create a group about presenting black racial topics in a neutral manner. Another contributor in this group here is very clear that white supremacy and white pride are two different things and that white pride is not the same as white supremacy. Ok, very well. I wonder, are there any black pride people in this group as well? Considering that this group will likely impact articles relating to controversial articles like Ancient_egyptian_race_controversy, it would be nice to see a wide range of invitees contributing. It seems that black pride is confused with Afrocentricism, and that Afrocentricism is confused with "objectively viewing an ancient group as looking like, or being of the same ancestry as modern black people". There is a difference. I hope one or more of the accepted invitees will respect that and act to preserve that when necessary. --Panehesy (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This advisory council was not intended to address matters like that except at a very general level, possibly being asked to look at general editor demographics (or even do no more than identify editor demographics as one of a range of particularly pressing problems, or not, as the case may be), but in any case that is a problem that would need much more input than even an advisory council like this could provide, and I'd hope they would recognise that. Anything related to dispute resolution, or specific disputes, should still be dealt with through dispute resolution, and ultimately by ArbCom if all else fails. Carcharoth (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Relevant essay

I wrote this a few weeks ago then forgot about it. Wikipedia:Arbitrating on content. —harej (talk) (cool!) 06:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Where to go from here?

Please see the section I started on this here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume some good faith

Let's assume some good faith and see if the Council can do something useful :) That said, I'd like to point out that the iron law of oligarchy seems to be slowly raising its head in Wikipedia, with nontransparent organizations being on the rise. A year ago it was the Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars, now, this. Perhaps the secrecy is needed (just like inside ArbCom for confidentiality), but... :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Working Groups are intentionally short term and disbanded once they've submitted their report (as that one was, I think). If you would prefer this be a short-term entity, with a definite mandate and then being disbanded once it had reported, you could suggest that. Or you could set up working groups on specific issues to see if they could produce better advice. Carcharoth (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have elaborated here on why I feel a permanent body with such a vast topic cannot succeed in its mission. Instead, I propose we establish a process to appoint special advisory committees on more specific issues. Cenarium (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

neutral comment: One issue that might arise is that groups take time to work up steam and get on the move, and typically go through a number of stages (even repeated cycles): forming; storming; norming; performing; reforming, and eventual dissolution. There's also the question of experience having to be acquired all over again to some extent when new groups form, though this would add to the experience of more folk in the longer term. Esowteric+Talk 19:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

(As an aside, I dont know where requests should be made...so I am making it here)

With the current arbitration request regarding Bishonen and Jimbo, I have been looking for mediation options. MedCom might be an option, but they generally don't take interpersonal disputes that are not related to content. It would be nice to have a bit of a breakdown on how well MedCom (and MEDCAB) work for different types of disputes.

Usually interpersonal issues would be handled by an RFC, but sometimes the parties need a mediated chat, possibly even in private. Are there examples of interpersonal disputes being resolved well? What methods were used?

While wandering around, I came across Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation, which looked like it was going to succeed but failed to reach critical mass. (It might be an interesting study in a "good idea" that failed.)

Wikipedia:Arbitrating on content (mentioned above) suggests allowing the committee to make decisions on content until there is a community consensus.

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution reform suggests adding a lot more structure.

Do we need more methods of dispute resolution?

Just to make sure it is plain, I am looking for answers that come from the community, but I hope someone on the council can gather information that already exists, seek more information from the community where it doesnt, and collate it all.

Oh, and can I have the report on my desk by Monday? ;-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've found Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Content dispute resolution and I've grouped together a few users essays into Category:User essays on dispute resolution. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In this proposal, I explain why I feel a permanent body with such an unfocused objective cannot succeed in its mission. Instead, I propose to create a process to appoint special advisory councils with more focused objectives. A great advantage of a special advisory council is that one can choose the members specifically for the task at hand. They could be convened for all types of disputes or broader issues, but they should be facilitators, propose but not take party, especially not in user behavior, content or policy matters. 'Project development' is also too restrictive for dispute resolution. The central page for the process would be Wikipedia:Advisory councils. The agenda and objectives of the council should be predetermined by the community, as well as when and how it should conclude and be dissolved, or considered for reappointment. The appointment could be based on volunteering with endorsement. Any user could propose to create an advisory council, but it would have to be approved by the community, or convened by ArbCom (but ArbCom shouldn't choose the members beforehand, they should be chosen in the normal way), before starting the appointment process and creating the council when they are enough members. I think such groups could help in dispute resolution, between mediation and arbitration. And also for long-term policy issues, which frequently generate interpersonal disputes, some of them go to ArbCom, but the central issue can't be addressed through other means than RFCs and continued, endless discussions. The need for new processes becomes more evident here, I don't think the ACPD can do anything significant there, but in my opinion, special advisory councils could. And a form of organized RFC, community cases, as a new community decision-making process based on consensus, could have results. Cenarium (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A point of order

Advisory councils don't draft their mission, their mission is determined by those who appoint them. Advisory councils don't create their agenda, their agenda is determined by those who appoint them. Advisory councils don't assign functions to themselves, their functions are determined by those who appoint them. Advisory councils don't decide how to establish their membership, their membership is determined by those who appoint them. Advisory councils don't make decisions on how they hold their proceedings, how they hold their proceedings is determined by those who appoint them. I was surprised because I thought it was acknowledged that this body was not decisional. I was even more surprised because, based on the name, I thought it would be an advisory council, in the classic sense of the word. Though I should know Wikipedia has a tendency to deform the senses of a word, for example the sense of the word Arbitration Committee. Just joking ;) But seriously, advisory councils can request, propose but rarely, clarifications on their mandate, but it is to the body which made the appointment, or the body subsequently responsible of it, to ultimately decide those matters (and normally, they should be clearly defined initially), so ArbCom, or the community if they prefer to give this responsibility to the community, which seems to be the case as an arbitrator stated that ArbCom would cease their involvement after the second round of appointments. Cenarium (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Still viable?

Is this still actively being pursued or a dead duck? By which I mean does the tag on the page need changing? Little seems to be happening either here or at the forum. Hiding T 09:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been busy writing articles; I'm not sure if the others want to pursue it or not. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The acrimony of the discussion among the broader community has really put a dampener on things. We need to discuss somewhere but enthusiasm is somewhat dampened. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It ought to have been discussed before it was announced. Please do so in future. Durova³⁰⁶ 15:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We didn't have time to discuss it, because someone got all itchy and broke the news before we had time to even get together as a group and discuss proposing it to the community. Get off your high horse. Steven Walling (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Crying over spilled milk, is, of course, always useful :), although I do agree it would be a reasonable idea to have some sort of discussion before beginning some other group. One of the questions which comes to mind to me is whether this group would necessarily have to be active on a regular basis if it were working, or whether it would, basically, exist to function on an "as-needed" basis. If the latter, level of activity might not be expected to be very high in the first place. Another problem, of course, is that, based on my own, limited, outsider knowledge of the group, I don't see that anyone is serving in any sort of coordinator function to ensure the work of the group is handled expeditiously, which would be useful. Maybe, if the group is to continue, finding someone to fill that position might be a bit of a priority. John Carter (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If no-one is prepared to take it forwards, doesn't that kind of mean it is no longer active? And anyway, when you look at the page on the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, they don't have any fancy tags. Do you need any fancy tags? I'd say you should either just get on and discuss something, or fold it all up. The only way a thing like this will ever get accepted is by proving useful, and I can't see it proving useful if it just sits around providing scenery for tumble weed. I'd imagine all these people were chosen by who ever chose them for some reason. Did the people doing the choosing choose the wrong people, or was there some other problem? Hiding T 09:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point. I agree entirely about either getting something done or folding it up. Steven Walling (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I stopped participating because I got confused with what was going on with it. If someone could restate where we are and what open actions items we have, I would be willing to re-engage with this effort. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we need a leader to step in and start issuing decisive direction? Is so, please someone do so. I'm not volunteering for it, because, among other reasons, I just don't have the time. I want to be a dedicated follower on this effort, so please, someone pick up the reins and call "Follow me!Cla68 (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've left notes on the talk pages of all the listed editors, yes, Cla68, including you, Casliber, Steven Walling, and David Fuchs, sorry about that. :( A lot of them indicate that they may be less active for a while considering the academic year is starting, but I hope that they are able to respond rather shortly. John Carter (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I stopped participating because it was nothing but bickering and whining. If something gets coordinated and productive discussion takes off, I'll participate. I don't have time to coordinate. If I had the time, I'd be all about it, but I'm overwhelmed by my course load and schedule right now. Lara 16:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course this isn't viable. The community in its infinite wisdom soundly rejected it at the RfC. → ROUX ₪ 16:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

My feeling was similar to Lara's in that the levels of acrimony and antipathy, while expected (and hence why I was neutral in the first place), came from a wider array of people than I expected. I also have limited time and wikipedia is a leisure activity and getting involved in hostile circular discussions nearly led me into taking a break for a while.

I wonder whether we're going about this all the wrong way. I did start looking at the early talk archives for Esperanza and was struck by the bureaucracy that people seemed to launch into straightaway (I wasn't around at the time so I have no idea whether this is a true reflection). I was thinking that the problems (i.e. elected group --> election dramaz, non-elected (appointed) group ---> hostility such as already seen). Maybe taking a step back from this - have pages set up so anyone can participate but several editors are very active in organizing the pages structurally - really clarifying succinct key questions for the wider community to vote and comment on, and ensuring the message gets to enough people. Many many arguments suffer on-wiki through lack of structure, resulting in reams f text which drives off many readers and hence reducing participation and validity. I have seen some good results recently in Ireland and West Bank naming debates where ample structure is given.

Thus my thoughts, proposal or idea for a ACPD redux (I should add that this is not as an arb but an editor) is:

• Participation open to all
• Very very structured pages
• Patrolled to remove off-topic material to talk
• Divide proposals to discrete units - avoid voting on 'package deals' unless absolutely necessary
• Maybe conducted at the policy or page under discussion
• The polarising nature of RfC as it currently stands makes me question its utility as a model.

However several events are happening - the flagged revs elsewhere and some activity on direction on wikimedia somewhere I saw. Casliber (talk · contribs)

I would agree to your listed points above if someone is willing and able to take the lead and direct the effort. Cla68 (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel as Cla68 does. I have never really been one to be near constantly be online, which I think would pretty necessary in effective moderators of such a design. I am too slow a responder to reliably refocus anything getting much attention on en.WP.--BirgitteSB 02:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What exactly do you think is needed in someone to "direct the effort"? I'm on a fair amount, if not editing than simply watching and reading discussions, but I'm not necessarily the most active in terms of edits (and I've been deliberately limiting myself as of late.) I'm willing to try and step up, i'm just not sure I have the qualities you are looking for. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

All it needs is a couple of folks - I was musing on another trial run a bit later myself. Will give a heads up and show people. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

If the group is to be viable, might I suggest a few ideas:

• 1) Begin the effort of calling for new members and elections now. The existing members could be given a "grace period" of membership, with existing members service prior to the election not being counted against them for whatever terms they might serve.
• 2) Call for the creation or activation of other groups which would be directly relevant to most discussions. Right now I think it is somewhat evident that there are groups of editors who, on one side, favor having few if any additional rules and governance structure, and another who favor having more, if and when the situation requires it. There are other such groups of editors, including "special-interest" groups, and where practicable these individuals should be encouraged to band together as well. These groups can then serve as the forums for focused discussion among like-minded editors. Yes, God help me, I know that what I am basically proposing is political parties, but I think we are so big that, whether we like the idea of having them or not, they already exist to some degree, and their presence and involvement could make discussion easier, particularly in terms of bringing in involved editors.
• 3) Actively solicit input from the various noticeboards in particular, and other relevant pages, for "candidates" who would be able to knowledgably address matters of application of specific existing guidelines and policies, and what if any their current perceived weaknesses are.
• I'm sure there are other ideas as well, but my hair gets uncomfortably warmer if I start thinking too much, and there ain't a fire extinguisher really handy here anyway. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:DEVCOM for an attempt to do exactly that. As usual, the effort was torpedoed by aggressively clueless people who refused to read the actual proposal and kept whining about completely unrelated or already-addressed matters. Wikipedia is broken and the community will not allow it to be fixed. → ROUX ₪ 18:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

People can work on a limited number of things at a time. At present in Wikipedia, all issues are always simultaneously on the table, anything important related to policy is discussed at multiple places with any consensus reached at one place disputed by a different one reached at another, and -- regardless of what is or is not settled -- everything will need to be done again in 6 months or so. Additional forums will not be helpful. We may need more effective structures for reaching decisions--we do not more parallel discussions. If this group is to be viable, it must do something which is not otherwise being done. It should not be too ambitious: setting up as a general-purpose legislature or forming parties, each represent such a drastic shift in what people expect, that it will destroy any good will the rest of the community may have for this project. Any substantial amount of time devoted to this will decrease participation in the existing fora--it is essentially committing oneself to the belief that what happens in the rest of Wikipedia will not matter. Am I prepared to stop work at existing discussions in the chance that this may do better? yes if there is a decent chance, but not if half the community is opposed to us altogether. The best thing to do will be something self-contained and modest.

in the meantime, action seems to be being taken that may revise Wikipedia editing to the extent that most of the things proposed to be discussed here will be moot. Assuming I correctly understand the page Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions, we will be conducting a trial not just on BLPs, but on all pages, and a simultaneous trial of several different proposals, with multiple different levels at the same time, in much greater specificity than was understood at the time of the poll. I have not the least idea who proposes to monitor it. Possibly we might have a role there, since it seems the community in general is pretty much out of the loop. DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

... the effort was torpedoed by aggressively clueless people who refused to read the actual proposal and kept whining about completely unrelated or already-addressed matters. Wikipedia is broken and the community will not allow it to be fixed. And with that, my friends, we have come full circle. Lara 01:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd word the last part as "and the community will not allow others to dictate to it how it is to be fixed". (not that the proposal did that, bu ttoo many people thought that such was the intent) Had the proposers of this committee proposed it to the community instead of to each individually, it would have had a better chance. As for whether Wikipedia is broken, the question is to what degree. I keep remembering we are the one successful project of our sort. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The cynic in me (OK, that's all of me) thinks that these two proposals represent the double-bind that makes it impossible to move forward. On the one hand, you can propose a process to the community - in which case it will bog down in endless town-hall style dynamics where a few zealous objectors can shout down a mostly apathetic or vaguely positive majority. If you try to bypass this logjam by proposing a top-down solution (ACPD), then it will be rejected because it didn't go through the community.

I'm not sure that ACPD would have been the solution to all of our problems, or even that it was a good idea. I'm more concerned with the general trend illustrated - Wikipedia is fossilized. It's too big and heterogeneous for "the community" to agree on any new proposal of substance, and its culture of anti-authoritarianism is too ingrained to allow for its leadership to put a proposal in place. It's 2009, and this is the Internet - a fossilized organization that has lost its ability to adapt or evolve is doomed. MastCell ^Talk 16:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Starting an open project

Hello all,

I too have stopped participating here. I've been putting together a Wikiproject, open to all, to expand on some of the things we started here. I see a real need for some facilitation of the long-term difficult issues that face our community. It is very difficult to understand and participate in thoughtful productive work that addresses these issues. The project I'm starting, Wikipedia:Community facilitation will hopefully be able to help in the process. The project is open to all, and has no power -- expressed or implied -- to solve any issue. It's focus is three-fold:

• Documenting and organizing the discussions that happen elsewhere, thereby creating an NPOV "Issue page" about each issue that will function centralized resource (Wikipedia:Issues) for all Wikipedians looking to learn more about any issue and/or want to contribute their efforts.
• Linking the discussions that happen elsewhere with the centralized "Issue page" so that more people will see it and contribute to it.
• Organizing the content of "Issue pages" to help stimulate a creative problem-solving approach to the resolution of the issue.

This project is still taking form. I have been participating in the Strategic Planning process initiated by the Wikimedia foundation, with the hope that I can integrate the Community Facilitation process into the larger strategic planning process.

This project will need the help of many people if it is to be an asset to the community. If anyone is interested in helping getting this project going, please let me know, and/or sign up on the project page. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sam, I'm concerned that this will give too many places to discuss things. Almost everything proposed there duplicates discussions being carried on elsewhere. one of the virtues of the A.c. was that we were intending to focus on one (or a very few) issues at a time. Another, was that we (probably) intended to have time-limited discussions . DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The project is not intended to be yet another forum for discussion, instead it is meant to be a resource to understand and organize the discussions happening elsewhere. It is not intended to replace this council or any other forum for discussion. It is currently very difficult to understand and track the discussions and proposals about any issue. We need an concise, impartial resource for the community that summarizes and organizes the issues and links to the discussions that are happening all over the community. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me like a helpful effort. Cla68 (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Lara 12:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking about how much of an unorganized mess there is of all the various discussions RfC's etc. There should be an easy-to-search index of all past RfC's, proposals, polls, etc. not just current ones. Something like this has already been started at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive but it's not updated frequently enough and is missing a lot. Perhaps this new project should focus on maintaining that page. -- œ^™ 02:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)