Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:14, 12 July 2009

Threaded replies here, please

Leadership

I was considering making the following a statement, but it seems more argumentative.

Despite the hand-wringing about the lack of community involvement and consensus, ArbCom is in fact the de-facto leadership of the project. For better or worse they are answering a call for leadership that comes from the community. If we want ArbCom to be constrained to its formal dispute resolution responsibilities only, we collectively have to step up to the plate and work on solving problems, gathering consensus, and implementing novel solutions when we can.--Tznkai (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

A great idea, Tzn, but generally when people step up to the plate they get shouted at. Never have I seen the status quo defended more vehemently than on Misplaced Pages. → ROUX ₪ 20:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The leaders need to work on getting smarter about convincing them, and the rest of us need to learn how to shut up and give things a shot. I'm pointing fingers everywhere.--Tznkai (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If they showed great competence in what they are supposed to do (i.e. arbitrate cases), perhaps the task of convincing people that they can do anything at all to improve the situation on content would be a little easier. It's the biggest reason I can't trust them with this one. (I note that this is a collective opinion of the present ArbCom and not a reflection on my view of individual arbs - I have a huge amount of respect for several individual arbs who I think do their jobs admirably - including at least two who I voted against at the time they were put up for consideration.) Orderinchaos 05:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom is established as a judicial body, not an executive. And this new organization, an advisory legislature like the Tsarist Diet, has no support from the vast majority of the editors of Misplaced Pages. Otherwise it would not have been thrown out there full-blown without prior discussion. A judiciary has no right to establish itself as an executive and to create its own legislature. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No. ArbCom is none of those things, because it is not a government, it is not part of a government. If anything, useful parallels can be drawn against a corportations' Board of Directors, but De Tocqueville's theories can stay somewhere else.

Also I rush to point out that the community and Arbcom are not mutually exclusive entities, and I further point out that sometimes people do unpopular things because they think wrongly that they will be popular.--Tznkai (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, I respect you and your opinions in many areas but here we differ. ArbCom's mandate is conduct dispute resolution, period. What we need are better checks and balances upon it, not an expansion of its authority. I vote for arbitrators based upon trust in their ability to read and evaluate evidence in relation to existing policies. Frequently I vote for people whose wikiphilosophies and ideas about governance are substantially different from my own, if they bring good arbitration skills to the table. That is what they are elected to do and that is all they are elected to do. ArbCom is not a governing council. Durova 23:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This matches my very simplistic reason for wanting this advisory council to be set up: Arbcom is currently looked to for leadership, and that is wrong.

In order that Arbcom becomes less of a leader, we have set up this advisory council to look at how to improve project leadership and/or governance, and their recommendations will be subject to community approval and implementation. If they are going to have any success, they will need to gather and consider opinions from across the community. John Vandenberg 02:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, it matches the reason I opposed ArbCom's RfC on content dispute resolution. If the members of the Committee had only refrained from wrapping that in the mantle of ArbCom--if they had instead proposed the idea to the community in their role as editors that would have been quite persuasive. The danger of attempting this from the top-down is that it risks a site culture in which entirely too much of the important decisions get driven by arcane internal politics. And Vassyana was exactly right when he said this stepped outside the Committee's mandate. Durova 02:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Kirill Lokshin has resigned from the ArbCom as a result of the formation of the council

. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful, NOT. One of the best admins and arbs we've ever had was driven away by the reaction to something he felt would help improve wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that sucks and I don't think a resignation was necessary, just some clarification and some time for the community to understand the purpose of the proposal. --Moni3 (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't blame him. Arbing is a completely thankless job. No matter what an arb does there's one or more groups out there that bitch at you about it. Maybe all of arbcom will resign. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Everything on Misplaced Pages is a thankless job. We just do what we do because we find some kind of reward in it, and those rewards aren't consistently dominated by torrents of abuse. Only brief moments of really intense abuse. --Moni3 (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You've never been an arb, you have no idea. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate that Arbs become high profile to resolve disputes, which inherently makes them targets for criticism, I think it's unwise to assume what kind of ideas I have about such experiences, or attempt to legitimize one type of disillusionment/pain/rejection when compared to others. It's a human, social condition, not native to any single experience. This is what I believe Kirill Loshkin was attempting to address in part by this committee. People have genuine concerns about the future of Misplaced Pages and its direction, and I believe most of them responding to the RfC want to help and have each their own experiences with disillusionment/pain/rejection that they wish to prevent themselves or others going through again. This mentality that puts us in one group that is opposed by another is what keeps this from becoming a Misplaced Pages-wide priority. It's happening on all sides. I know it's painful to drop it, because it almost seems like a comfort to be suspicious, to accuse, identify with one group and note your differences from another. It's like rote finger-drumming, not realizing you're doing it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

“Maybe all of arbcom will resign”? — Aitias // discussion 22:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure why not, the community bitches no matter what we do, it's a totally thankless job. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to politics, if at least 20% of people aren't pissed at you then you are probably doing it wrong. Seriously though, ArbCom's work is important, and I would thank you and the other committee members for being willing to stand in front of that firing squad and trying to really get things done. Dragons flight (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well done. The torches-and-pitchforks have really helped improve Misplaced Pages today. Sigh. This sort of thing is precisely why Misplaced Pages is locked into this horrible zombie-like shambling monstrosity that is a distorted development of what it could and should have been. Someone tries in good faith to start something that can only serve to improve the project... and they get shouted down and harangued. → ROUX ₪ 22:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see where anyone had called for the resignation prior to Kirill's having tendered it. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    • A gentlemanly observation. Durova 01:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect Rlevse (and you're due quite a lot of that for all your work here), while I can at least partially appreciate your frustration (admin work can be similarly thankless, though I fully understand that being an arb is qualitatively different in terms of the crap you take), I think perhaps you are reacting too strongly (though your reaction is understandable and not an unreasonable one). Many folks are upset at how this was created and rolled out, feeling that the community ought to have had more input at the outset, which I also think is not unreasonable. But a lot of those stating opposition on this RfC also like the idea of an advisory committee along these lines to think through some big project issues (I'm one of those). I have a feeling those supporting this group as it exists now and (most of) those opposed are actually not that far apart about what we would want in the end, though perhaps the tone taken in some of the comments in the RfC belies that (unfortunately that often happens in big Wiki debates, obviously). Rather than turning this into ArbCom vs. the community or something similar, can't we try discussing this a bit and hopefully coming up with a solution that is workable for most folks? I think there's a strong possibility we can do that, even if we've likely gotten off on the wrong foot. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If this entire thing were disassociated from ArbCom and we did not advise ArbCom but rather just addressed large community issues, would this help alleviate some of the problems listed here? Am I right in saying most of us are interested larger, project-wide issues anyway? Awadewit (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Make it elective and give the community a voice in its remit, and we'll talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually the community needs to build this thing from the ground up if it's going to be done at all. Durova 01:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. We have the situation where an unelected group of persons is suddenly given huge control (whether it is actual control or merely unique access to the corridors of power) by a body which can dismiss it at any time. That is not a model for good governance - ironically the very thing it aims to promote project-wide. Orderinchaos 05:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's get this straight: nobody (publicly) asked Kirill to resign. This comes as the result of the Arbcom making ill-conceived decisions and not consulting with the community they affected. The decision itself was perhaps not a bad one, but for 8 people to decide for hundreds was clearly ridiculous. It is not even Arbcom's fault; without clear limits on their power, how were these people meant to know what is and what isn't their decision to make? – Toon 03:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that I do not oppose the existance of such a body per se as long as it is community built and community elected. I also think that Kirill and Rlevse have misinterpreted the rejection of this proposed council as a personal rejection of them. I think it is important that they reconsider staying on as arbitrators because their roles in the arbitrator position; insofar as dispute resolution goes, are still much valued. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 03:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that. it is understandable to feel extremely annoyed when a potentially good project is understood wrongly, or is rejected for unforeseen considerations that may be valid. but, frankly, one should get over it quickly. Incidentally, previous to seeing this I had suggested to one of the relevant arbs that I would not want to remain on the committee if there was this much opposition to it. It wouldn't work if there were no confidence in it. DGG (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• While I think there are things that need to be addressed before this project/council could be effective - I would much prefer that Krill stayed attached to this vision. Sometimes things of value don't come easy, but they can be worth fighting/working for. — Ched :  ?  04:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Statement by Steven Walling

• Political structures evolve in ways that are sometimes foreseen, and sometimes not. For example the Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was envisaged as almost a clerical post, but then Stalin ... --Philcha (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• You're really going to try and paint this with the Commie/Soviet brush? While you're assuming bad faith, why don't you just cut to the chase and follow Godwin's Law? Steven Walling (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Assuming good faith myself for a moment, perhaps Commie/Soviet isn't an insult here, but a valuable lesson from history - what is intended to be a meaningless post can become an important one. Perhaps a better analogy could have been made, but it isn't necessarily an insult.--Tznkai (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• If the body is unrelated to Arbcom, then why was it established soley by the Arbcom without the community's input? Clearly the Arbcom is overstepping its remit, and electing a body comprised of two Arbcom members (alongside others invited internally) in private it is stupidly abusing the trust placed in it by those who elected them. ARBITRATION. Look it up. It definitely doesn't mean GOVERNMENT. Learn your place, don't think we want you to rule - you serve the community, the community doesn't serve you. – Toon 02:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you slow or something? I am not an Arb. I wasn't elected to anything, and I don't serve anyone. Like you, I'm a volunteer for a non-profit. In accepting the invitation to a discussion group, all I've said is that I'm interested in helping to solve the challenges our project faces. If all we're going to do is talk to each other and propose ideas for the community to accept or reject at will, then serving anyone or anything isn't my job. Steven Walling (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Question by Protonk

I'll go ahead and say it. Why is Giano on this invitation only advisory council? Protonk (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Answers?

Not sure if this should even be on this page--perhaps on talk--but I'll give it a stab. While Giano's method of making his displeasure known is unacceptable, and while he often misses the forest for the trees, buried somewhere in his verbiage is an understanding that large chunks of Misplaced Pages are seriously broken. And while I disagree with his methods, he is intelligent. I don't like him at all, but I see how his input could be valuable--and that may be valuable as in 'here's a good way forward' or as in 'wow, that would be a really bad way to work on this'. Either way, it's useful. → ROUX ₪ 22:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify the latter part of my penultimate sentence: stress-testing to failure is a really good way to examine anything. And Giano is, rightly or wrongly, extremely good at being very vocal about anything he disagrees with. This would be useful inasmuch as it would allow for previously-unnoticed problems to be displayed and addressed. → ROUX ₪ 23:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

groan - is this inevitable ad hominem shit storm really going to help the discussion? Anyone brave feel like removing it? --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you willing to remove Giano's ad hominem attack on me? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I would be afraid to. He's got a pass to do anything he wants. Fred Talk 00:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been quite cynical about this and accepted with reservations, but having seem my peers on the council I realise that it had possibilities for good. I think this RFC is a travesty because the idea may have worked in time, but was never given a chance. It was born from a desire and need for change which was being strongly expressed on the project. Once its members had ordered and ironed it out, and arranged a democratic way for future members to be appointed, it would have served as a valuable link and lobbying place between the editors on the factory floor - the arbcom - and Jimbo - something at present sadly lacking. Where else on Misplaced Pages can you view deliberations and comment on the talk page? It could have become a fantastic and powerful forum. However, there will always be a group that want J Wales to remain omnipotent and keen to resist any change, that they have seemingly now triumphed is to be deplored and regretted. I have made Slim Virgin well aware of the stupidity in causing this RFC, what her motives were I won't speculate upon, but she has set back any hope of real change and improvement by about five years. Giano (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Good lord, I agree again. Barring the bit about SlimVirgin; I would say 'misguided' or possibly 'shortsighted'. → ROUX ₪ 23:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Giano, don't start stuff about "motives." You say yourself above that the Council would have become a "fantastic and powerful forum." That was precisely the worry. If people want to set up an Advisory Council, make sure (a) it operates entirely independently of ArbCom, and (b) that its membership is elected from day one. It's the combination of membership chosen in secret; ArbCom involvement; ArbCom members voting for it, and then being on it, that has caused the problem, together with the assumption that the community for some reason wouldn't mind. If we want to move toward good governance, we have to start the way we mean to continue. SlimVirgin 23:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope it won't be five years, but I applaud the editors who are trying to make some chicken salad out of this. I still think it may be a good idea, but without clarification I can judge it neither for its wonder nor its epic failure. I hope this idea is not abandoned, but that the dozens of editors now involved can acknowledge the shortcomings of particular aspects of Misplaced Pages and instead of focusing on what or who is responsible for all of them, use such energies to devise solutions. --Moni3 (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not think Joopercoopers is an appropriate member, as he tolerates ad hominum comments by Giano. See his talk page.. He defends Giano's personal attacks. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop screwing around with the indenting. And please take your grudges elsewhere. We are discussing this proposal, not your upset. → ROUX ₪ 00:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• The hell are we removing this for? This is a serious question. Why is someone who has ongoing civility issues and known antipathy toward a whole class of editors on a self selected review board for the overall project. I won't replace it myself, but it isn't a personal attack. It is a legitimate question. Protonk (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • But he said it would be a fantastic and powerful forum. That was all that i at least thought it ought to be--not a body to make decisions, and I am not entirely sure I would have wanted it even to make formal proposals. DGG (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Common Ground

Dear all, I am worried that the layout of RfCs in general generates polarised opinion, so I am trying to get us all to establish common ground - see the bottom of the page. Can we please try and find some? I will be offline for a while sorry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree with that, I think there's a good chance of finding common ground here, and that making some efforts at compromise and listening to others' concerns is the way to go right now for all concerned. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)