User talk:Giano/The future

See also

• Wikipedia:Governance reform and its talk page - previous discussion on this subject
• Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales and its talk page

tuppence

I'm shying from contributing a view on the main page, esentially because I'm hoping this will be a valuable discussion amongst those truly enfranchised through the work they've put into writing / contributing content on wikipedia - I'm more in the gadfly / butterfly model, intrigued by the dynamics of a place which might think it's a meritocracy of sorts, but ends up being much more of a playground.

I see two key areas of useful positive evolution coming together here - I'd hope a sort of power shift can occur over time where content editors take the role of the kings of the wiki which it should be obvious is deserved. This is all a bit fuzzy of course, and difficult to legislate for - perhaps encouraging humility on the part of some sections of the community would be a good start?

The other aspect is to work on creating a functional governance structure - perhaps Cla68 will expound in greater detail, and I will likely wave a flag for all of his ideas - the situation is untenable at the moment, we really need a far more robust system than the fairly random outputs of the arbcom, which I think all would agree over time haven't really provided wonderful answers, the most charitable would likely be 'they made the best of a bad job'. We need to aim higher :-) I'll watch this with interest. Good luck :) Privatemusings (talk) 07:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Project namespace

A couple of commenters to my opinion appear to be missing the point: the structural flaws of this page cannot be solved by moving it to a different project namespace. As of this writing ten opinions have already been written, only one of which is openly critical of its premise. That frontloads a particular set of views in a manner that would continue to influence perceptions no matter how it continued. The supporters of this initiative, unfortunately, have forfeited the chance to discover how an actual RfC would have developed if it had begun on a level playing field. Obviously this page is not going to be deleted, but it is fundamentally tainted in ways that can only be fixed by abandoning it. Suggest waiting an appropriate time and restarting something similar in the conventional way.

Oddly, this is very similar to the criticisms I leveled at Kirill Lokshin over the recent ArbCom-led RfC. If critics of the establishment hope to gain the trust of fellow Wikipedians, then it is vital that the critics take the high ground. Durova^Charge! 16:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to see that happen. I disagree it's a meaningless exercise though, if only for weeding out proposals that will clearly have no legs or no discussion. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's be candid: not all good ideas are likely to get raised in Giano's namespace. He's obviously dedicated to the project; he's also a forceful personality who--rightly or wrongly--gets perceived to be one of the most political individuals at this website. When angered, he can be fearsome. His habit of interpreting matters in black and white terms intimidates people who have constructive and useful insights that don't fit within his paradigms. With that as the context, individuals who see merit in the substance of his views would serve them best by neutralizing the side effects. The most basic way to do so is to follow conventional practice and hold all relevant discussions on neutral ground. By conducting discussion here instead, you enhance the negative perceptions. It is not productive to wait until someone points out the discrepancy, then contend that those perceptions should not exist. Durova^Charge! 16:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Durova – you only need to look back a week ago to see what will happen if it either goes to WP space or to somewhere more high-profile. Of course, Giano's userspace isn't an ideal place to discuss this, but he's gone out of his way to publicise it on places like AN and Jimbo's talkpage, where he knows most of those reading it will be hostile to him. As I see it, this is a water-testing exercise to see if there are enough people with concerns to warrant taking it to RFC, and to determine what the questions on the RFC should be. I really can't see an issue with that. – iridescent 16:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[ec]Well if we're being candid - see discussion with Coren on G's talk page. The inertia of change is rooted in rock at WP. I'd love to see a system where jaw-dropping scandal wasn't a pre-requisite to action or reform, but the uncomfortable truth is far from this. I'm no firebrand, but I've watched Giano cut through the bull on so many occasions with possibly the only effective tactic - the revelation of scandal - and been pleased with the results. The unpleasant side effect is Giano's labelled a drama whore, which is far from his nature I believe. What's needed is a more grown up system to effect change, and a desire for our institutions to be as good as they can be, not gagging or discrediting Giano again. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent, ec) Some of us have our crosses to bear: Giano carries a baggage to certain types of discussions, as do I. We probably all know what circumstances those apply to. Yet if it were true that anything Giano tried to start along these lines would meet the response of prompt deletion, then why was I able to take the RfC on ArbCom live one year ago? Lawrence Cohen took a wise and slow approach during drafting time, and although ultimately the format was too diffuse it did garner broad participation. If I were to initiate a second RfC on the Committee (and yes, have considered that), then would narrow its scope to keep it focused. Lawrence's example would be a better model to study than Peter Damian's. Durova^Charge! 17:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure we can argue about 'good form' for RfC's and the like. Some are undoubtedly better than others, but I make the point about issues of scale. Some of these small localised discussions aren't without value in a broader community discussion - you can throw out a lot of the dross and get a feel for the wind. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about my baggage Durova, back-packing has never been my style - Remember the old adage: "A gentleman who travels lightly has lost his self-respect." This page is going to succeed, by the end of the week, we shall have some clearly outlined concerns that will need to be debated and then implemented. That debate can happen in my user space or, if permitted, in a Wikipedia page. Where is immaterial, but it is going to happen! The days of an admin or courtier just coming along and blithly deleting are already over, it is clear that the community will no longer tolerate such behaviour. I hope that the change can occur as the result of healthy debate rather than the presentation and exhumation skeletons. I think we are seeing something quite historic and remarkable here - a real momentum for change, those nailing their colours to the mast now are doing Wikipedia a great service - those standing on the sidelines (most Arbs it seems) run the danger of being left behind. Giano (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've asked for my opinion and you've received it. Unfortunately the timing coincides with another undertaking which--if all goes well--will have a strong positive effect upon content. It concerns media content, which due to the nature of wiki software doesn't tend to make much of a dent upon edit histories. The bulk of the labor at this point has something to do with eliminating thousands of dirt specks from a set of 400-year-old nautical charts, each of which averages 150MB. Will be checking in as time allows, but the deadline is tight. Durova^Charge! 17:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If there's a problem with this being in Giano's userspace, I am willing to have it moved to my userspace. I feel that the conversation here is an important one -- even if it does not lead to an immediate change -- & needs to be held. -- llywrch (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It will lead to change, but it will be very slow. It is in my user space because I was unsure how well it would be received, there was a risk it would be instantly deleted (I don't think anyone was prepared to bet on its survival) This is only the preliminary stage of what is going to be a long process. In a few days, we can assess what editors feels needs changing and what editors are content to let rest. As it has turned out, it's probably beter in User space as I can keep it a little more concise (see my last few edits [1] & [2]) The next stage in Wikipedia space may well become very long and confusing - probably Wikipedia's largest debate ever. We shall have to think carefully how to handle it in an orderly and clear fashion. Giano (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Make your own complaint, a la Durova:

"I am sorry, but this unruly mob cannot protest here. The official location for all unruly mobs is obviously King Fahd Street. All prior unruly mobs have been shunted onto the official Square of Official Speech and Petition, and this mob, by assembling elsewhere, is showing that it has no legitimate concerns.

"I say this, of course, without hearing any of the things said by the unruly mob, because the unruly mob has not operated in the proper manner. If they were to behave properly and simply act according to the rules and obey all existing regulations and honor existing perceptions of power and deference, then I am quite confident that someone would listen to what members of the mob had to say and might put it under consideration.

"Proper procedure for actual actionable matters is to take one's issues to the People's Hall of Petitions. There, petitioners may fill out their concerns on the pink paper that has been stamped by the People's Counselor to the People's Council to the People's Ombudsman for Representation to the Arbitrators. These are then filed for a 90 day comment period, individually. After such consideration, a reply will be crafted, based on merit. Failure to conform to such procedure indicates that the complaint is not serious or constructive.

"Inasmuch as what I see here is not conforming to these procedures, I feel it should be deleted immediately without further discussion, as all further discussion makes the failure to comply worse."

Feel free, folks, to copy this onto any talk page of any complaint you see anywhere. It will win every time. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

For readers who experience tl;dr from Utgard's post, a summary: straw man argument. Durova^Charge! 19:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever a "tl;dr" is (does one experience a thing that is not a word?), did Durova not say that this should stop because it's in the wrong space? Did she not say that Peter Damian's should stop because it was in the wrong format? Is there no pattern of avoiding discussions of underlying discontent by arguing that, "Well, these matters should be presented according to the procedure outlined at [ALPHABETSOUP]?" If not, then this is merely a satire of the sort of pettifogging that is "a la" Durova's comment. That is no straw man. Now, I believe that I shall go experience some random graphical marks with diacritics and acronyms. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Quantifying the role

Discussion of 'founder' contingencies or replacement by community bodies leads to a question of what we might be replacing. Can we quantify the role? --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Appointment of Arbcom members
2. Veto of Arbcom (ever used?)
3. Dissolution of Arbcom [3] "The arbitration committee, on the other hand, can impose a solution that I'll consider to be binding, with of course the exception that I reserve the right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve the whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster. But I regard that as unlikely, and I plan to do it about as often as the Queen of England dissolves Parliament against their wishes, i.e. basically never, but it is one last safety valve for our values."
4. Executive clemency [4] see above.
5. Removal of Arb members [5] (He talks of a 'constitutional right' here - is it written?)
6. Founder user rights:"The 'founder' group was created on the English Wikipedia by developer Tim Starling, as a unique group for Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. The group gives Wales full access to Special:UserRights and Special:Makesysop. As Wales is also a member of the global founder group since February 27, 2009 (Jimmy Wales was a steward before), he has the ability to change the user rights of any editor on any Wikimedia wiki from meta:Special:UserRights, making the local 'founder' group largely a status symbol. However, as "local founder actions" are usually of great interest to the local community, and are only relevant to the English Wikipedia, the local 'founder' right also has the benefit of allowing Wales' actions to be visible in the English Wikipedia rights log; actions performed with the global founder bit are not visible in that record, but only on the log at Metawiki."
7. Desysop - various. eg. the last one
8. Policy fiats
9. Spokesman and PR
10. IAR? Anything he believes will make the place better or more efficient? I think so, but checked by this "In the event that the ArbCom makes a ruling against me, overturning any decision I have made in my traditional capacity within Wikipedia, the ArbCom's decision shall be final." In the same post he announces this is a change in our policies.

A word of praise

When I first saw this page being created (I was linked to it four minutes after its creation), it really did have 'trainwreck' written all over it. With all due respect to a number of the people who have commented, the natural personalities who are drawn to these sorts of discussions are those who are, in my rather-insignificant opinion, often very brusque and one-eyed about policy discussions. This naturally inhibits useful discussion, especially on topics such as leadership reform, as the drama often drowns out the significant issues being discussed.

Therefore, reading this page more than a day into its existence, I must register my pleasant surprise at the nature of the comments and feedback that is being provided on the discussion page. Reading it I saw a lot of balanced, rational, and well-expressed opinions, most notably missing the combative and sensationalist rhetoric that normally graces pages such as this. If this signals a change in the attitude being taken to some of Wikipedia's problems by the more opinionated and, dare I say, passionate members of the English Wikipedia community, then all the best to everyone participating.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 03:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to second that sentiment. I say Giano linking to a debate about Jimbo's future and thought "Oh no, here we go again!". I have been very pleasantly surprised. --Tango (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

LESSON TO REMEMBER: Give an intelligent, boisterous contributor a somewhat responsible position (or just watch as he grabs it for himself), and observe how it can be exercised with dignity. Even when some others, whether or not they're in "dignified" positions in Wikipedia, disparage that person. You know, it's generally a wise move to have a certain care for the dignity of others, whether you're thinking of blocking them or even if you have blocked them, or, in this case, when you're commenting on them. Not that Wikipedia encourages this kind of behavior in poohbahs, that I'm aware of. These boisterous contributors that so many of you look down on just might not be your inferiors, whether or not you have to block them. By the way, Wikipedia aspires to be an encyclopedia. -- Noroton (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Message to Ottava

(placed from main page, as Ottava has now seen it)

I am chairing this page, and I am very tolerant and liberal. However, you seem to be having more than just a few little spats up and down the columns, one, two even three is fine, witty repartee is fine, but you are now making a habbit of it. I don't thing excess countering to other peoples comments is helping, in fact it makes the page long and confused - so would you mind taking future comments to the talk page. We are only trying to gain an opinion of people's feelings here, and we seem to be very aware of yours as it is. There will be ample time when we start to debate solutions to the problems for you to express yourself fully. Thanks. Giano (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:OWN. Or is this part of your new system in which you try to create yourself as some kind of hypocritical god emperor? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it is chairing a page to keep some semblence of order and clarity. If you wish to discuss this further, please do so on the talk. Giano (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have "chairs" of "pages". The talk page is for discussion of the idea of the page. The above is responses to individual statements. There is a major difference and WP:TALK makes it clear about the distinction between the two. Right now, you are making up rules as you go along while promoting yourself as some sort of God King. Jimbo isn't a problem, but you are right now exactly what you claim he is. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:OWN relates to articles. Considerable latitude is usually extended to a persons talk page. They may, for instance, 'disappear' comments without a "by-your-leave". Come on Ottava, we hear the point, well made.--Joopercoopers (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't his talk page. That should have been completely obvious. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Silly Giano! He's only gone and dun it on 'is user page!?! tsk, tsk. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Not user page, user space. There is a difference. Read your link and see the quote "However, pages in user space still do belong to the community". Ottava Rima (talk) 02:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct. The page (as do all pages) belongs to the community, not to Giano, not to you. However several people are telling you that you're being disruptive in your participation here. Take that on board. ++Lar: t/c 04:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And it was made clear that those same people were declared disruptive and that this is whole page is inappropriate. If you want to defend Giano, please, feel free. However, that will only mean that you are making it clear that you would rather aid a poisonous personality that seeks to disrupt in order to get attention then to actually edit content. Looking around here, I seem to be one of the few that is actually bothering to create content. Funny how that happens. It seems as if I am actually here to build an encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So your answer to "you are perceived by several folk as being disruptive" is "but they are too"/"I'm a content contributor", followed by casting aspersions on my motives? I make no comment on whether this page/idea is good or bad. I merely pointed out that you are, apparently as usual, perceived to be stirring things up by several people. That strikes me as not very helpful, although I won't go so far as to characterise it as the action of a "poisonous personality", as you have so blithely done yourself. Taking feedback from others doesn't appear to be one of your strong suits, does it? As for you being here to build an encyclopedia, I have my doubts. Regardless of your content contribution. Grow up. ++Lar: t/c 16:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No Lar, you grow up. Lets put our cards on the table. You are a long time member of Wikipedia Review. You have made a lot of dodgy moves while over there. You have also defended quite a few of their members while they disrupted here. You, as a Steward, are also not allowed to use admin powers on en since you spend so much time here. So what does that mean? You threaten, allude, and bully to protect people. You are a poisonous personality when you act that way. It isn't a coincidence that every time Wikipedia Review members have caused problems here over the past 6 months you butt in and join in. Why don't you make a real contribution to the encyclopedia sometime. Maybe then you will be more credible. And you can have your doubts about me being here to build an encyclopedia - my FAs, GAs, DYKs, and the rest sure show that you really don't have a damn clue. You contribute nothing but drama, attacks, and feed a Wikipedia Review agenda of hate. I actually contribute real content. It is clear who is here based on what Wikipedia is supposed to be and who isn't. Go harass someone else and try your bullying tactics elsewhere. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You disrupt things here at wikipedia on a fairly regular basis by getting in fights. When someone calls you on it, you attack them. This thread is a perfect example of it. There really isn't any more to say. If you seriously think the BS you spout about me has any validity, start an RfC. ++Lar: t/c 20:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so many fights. Like when I created a page attacking the founder and demanding that he be removed because of some petty desire? Lar, your perspective is really skewed. Now, do people actually care what you have to say? No, because when you start mouthing off in the above way to someone who is able to do this, you look like an idiot and no one really respects you. Lar, you can't create content so you bully others that can. No one respects that kind of person. And guess what? I had three people tell me to do that same thing about you already, and they weren't people that think that your actions in promoting Wikipedia Review are acceptable. You have really proved that you can't be trusted by the community, especially with your defense of blatant Wikianarchists and poisonous personalities while being completely unwilling to actually work as a real editor. You actions are disruptive and your benefits have become nil. You really need to reflect on why you are here, because you obviously aren't here to build an encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have moved this to the talk page because it does not concern the more weighty matters discussed on the main page. Countering points of others is fine, in moderation. Replying to points addresed to you is fine, in moderation. Continued countering is disruptive and makes the page confusing, disruptive and intimidating for others. In a debate, this size someone has to keep order, so as it's my user-space it may as well be me. The point of the page is to assess opinion and numbers with opinion; ie: state a view and then agree of disagree with it. We are now aware of Ottava's opinion.Giano (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The only one being disruptive here is you, Giano. This came immediately after Peter's attempt to do the same which ended up in a dramatic fit and a blanking of the page. Are you going to do the same? You seem to be doing that quite a bit. You haven't bothered to be a real content editor in a long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes but his earlier work entitles us to allow him a bit of drama. Much like Jimbo, in fact. :-) --GRuban (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• If we are going to boast about our content, then that list is meaningless, as other people always nominated the first few FA's I wrote - that was the custom in those days for some obscure reason. Anyway, that is hardly here not there, I am unsure why Ottava is referring to my content or lack it - I am merely trying to keep the main page a reasonable length so that people can follow it - we have all seen those interminable thread that become so convoluted mosy sane people flee or lose the plot. Ottava is quite at liberty to post on the talk as much as he likes - it is linked from the main page in the relevant parts Giano (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• I, for one, am talking about your content because you were actually one of the important content contributors. However, you keep spending all of your time with this kind of stuff instead of writing. I only respect those who write content, and I once defended you heavily when you were still bothering to write content. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Gentlemen please! Nothing is served by this spat. Ottava, doubtless you will require the final word. Please add it, and let that be an end to it. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Ah, the ole' "I'm heavily discussing this topic to say I disagree that we should be heavily discussing this topic" argument. As one content editor to another, Ottava, perhaps you should take a break and stop discussing. -->David Shankbone 18:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• By that standard, no one should be opposed to anyone else, which is utterly ridiculous. They have a stupid view, and I have the right to point out how their view is stupid. There is no hypocrisy or anything in it. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ottava's comments

The following has been removed from here [6]

1. Surely you've got lost on the way to the neutral section? :-P Nev1 (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   Eh. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   I assume you're opposing because you think wikipedia doesn't care enough to change, but just saying "apathy" kind of implies you're the apathetic one which would be more expected in the neutral section. Nev1 (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   I stated apathy because it summarized my feelings about this whole thing. The above by Giano read to me as "blah blah blah". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Further Ottava comment

The following is moved from here [7]

1. Really? Have you seen how many pages that I have created? How many FAs I have? Or anything else? I have shown myself to be a better provider of encyclopedic content than you have. However, you do have the excuse of retiring so often and not being around to even bother contributing. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   Give me an example of an article you wrote. You were the man who did not know Plutarch wrote in Greek, correct? Peter Damian (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   Did you forget about Samuel Johnson? Or how about the many others on my user page? I also hold most of the major DYK records. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   I was thinking particularly of Johnson. Peter Damian (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   And seeing as how it is one of the most perfect FAs that meets all standards and requirements, that one article alone surpasses anything you've done your whole career here. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Notice to Ottava Rimmer

Please note Ottava, we are now aware of your feelings. People are trying here to have a very serious discussion and exchange of views. Your views are now quite clear - thank you. Sadly, you have now become distracting and disruptive. Future posts from you will be removed. I'm not an Admin so cannot ban you from this page, but I can remove you; I don't think you will find any admins who disagree with me. Thank you for your input to date, please feel free to comment in the future debating stage of this process. Giano (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Rockpocket's comments

In the interests of clarity and keeping the main page concise, this has been removed [8]:

1. Please try to keep comments civil and short. We are trying to keep this page community friendly and happy. Thank you. Giano (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   Indeed, which was why I explicitly made the point that I not referring to you, our gracious host. Rockpocket 07:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   It's irrelevant who you are commenting on keep it civil. BigDunc^Talk 07:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   I don't see what is particularly uncivil about that justification, but feel free to refactor, Giano, should you consider it intemperate. Rockpocket 07:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

David Shankbone's comments

In the interests of clarity and keeping the main page concise, this has been removed from here [9]:

1. You've rather missed the point of the duscussion here, it's not about making cases more about discussing how established editors feel. Giano (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   ...and that's apparently that we should feel grateful for being allowed to contribute our unpaid labour while at the same time being ground under the heel of a corps of mini-dictators headed by an anachronism. Everything is clear now, I only wonder why I couldn't see before that wikipedia is the best of all possible worlds. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   I think you're trying to eat your cake and have it too. As the initiator of the discussion, you set the tone. Your tone is that there is a problem that needs to be fixed, but you haven't made a convincing case. I wasn't commenting on the idea of the discussion occurring across this page; I was commenting on your specific viewpoint. -->David Shankbone 21:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Noroton's comments

1. Surely the only was to ensure fair elections which cannot be influenced by sockpuppetry would be to run a check user on everyone who voted? I don't know how long a check user takes, and it might not be practical, but combine that with some form of minimum time spent on the project and number of edits and you're on your way to an equivalent of voter registration. Checkuser = signing your name at the polling station to confirm it's you and minimum time & edits would be the equivalent of being 18 or above. Nev1 (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   I haven't thought through what a solution might be. Of course, we're not even at the brainstorming stage yet. Just remember that democracies can be corrupted in many different ways. And the fact that this is a website means that voters may be even more irresponsible. -- Noroton (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum's comments

In the interests of clarity and keeping the main page concise, this has been removed from here [10]:

1. How is this an argument for the community not expressing a view on the issue? If what you say is true, it may well be the board/foundation would welcome the input. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   It is possible I misread the proposition, but I read "confirm in a kind and friendly way that in fact, Jimbo holds no special powers beyond the amount of respect many no doubt feel for him" as the community making some type of decision. We don't need a poll to decide to have a discussion, nor do you need a poll to ask for clarification. We can just do it. The lead to this poll is unclear and comments like "God king" give me the impression it is proposing something unrealistic. Chillum 15:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   Jimbo has whatever powers the community gives him. Inherently, the WMF has the power to turn off the servers, that's about it. There is no way the WMF can actually enforce any rulings of this nature, so it doesn't have the power to make them. The WMF's and Jimbo's decisions on things like non-free content and BLPs are only enforced because admins choose to enforce them. If this ends up as a community vs WMF/Jimbo fight, the community will win. (I don't think such a fight will ever happen, neither Jimbo nor the rest of the board nor Sue Gardner are anywhere near stupid enough to let it happen. They'll concede to the will of the community (unless there is a legal issue, which there isn't here).) --Tango (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   Perhaps by force of public opinion the community could demand something it is not entitled to, but I for one am grateful for the freedom the foundation has decided to give us and will not "fight" them for more. Chillum 20:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   Curious use of the word "entitled". Were the American colonies "entitled" to embark on a revolutionary war with Britain? Were they "entitled" to occupy land belonging to the native peoples? History is written by the winners. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   Are you suggesting a revolutionary war? Should we seize the server rooms? Chillum 22:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   Given? The community long pre-dates the Foundation. The Foundation exists to support the community-driven projects, not the other way around. --Tango (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   Sounds like wishful thinking. Wikipedia is owned by a private non-profit society. Any freedom the public has been given in their project was indeed given. People are entitled to take the content and fork it to their own website, beyond that everything else is a priviledge. Chillum 22:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   The WMF owns the Wikipedia trademark. That is its only valuable asset (it has some useful infrastructure too, but that's not worth anywhere near as much as the trademark). If the community decided to fork, the WMF would soon have nothing at all as readers moved over to the new site since it's the one that is up-to-date and vandalism free. That would not further the WMF's goals in any way, so they wouldn't allow it to happen. The power rests with the community, and I think the WMF knows it (although Jimmy seems a little confused on that point at times). --Tango (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

MickMacNee's comments

In the interests of clarity and keeping the main page concise, this has been removed from here [11]:

1. I think we have all progressed a little beyond: "let's all rubbish Giano and win the point." The uncomfortable fact is that one way or another I have been her since 2004. In that time I have learnt a lot and listened to a lot. I have never sought power, indeed I do not. Yet, I seem to have it and I don't care for it one jot - if I am banned tomorrow then <shrug> life goes on. However, tt appears I enjoy an almost unique position to comment on the state of affairs (debate that elsewhere) as I see it. And it seems to me, that quite a few agree with me - so take your rubbishing of me elsehwere because it holds no water here. Giano (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   You have never sought power? I seem to remember an ArbCom candidacy... ;) Durova^Charge! 21:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   Glass House meet Rock...;)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   Then Durova, you must be the only person on Wikipedia who thought there was the remotest possibility of King Jimbo ever appointing me - That incident was, however, many 100s of people it was saying "Oi!, we want a change - something's wrong." rather like now. Did you not realise that? It was worrying enough though to cause hysterical panic at court when the late Lady Catherine became in playful mood. Giano (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   I guess I'm a big sap because I wrote a spirited and rather lengthy argument for why folk should have supported you back then... which some folk cited in their votes. After the election, I wrote Jimbo an email arguing for your selection as well. ++Lar: t/c 21:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   I think it may be agreed that Giano was not "seeking power" for himself, but rather was wishing to use the office as a means to instigate certain changes in its influence. Not every admin, CU or Steward, runs for that position with the intent of the increase in prestige (...sorry, fit of coughing there - now passed), kudos (another little break...) or "power". Sometimes it is simple self agrandisement(shutup, Marky!) putting talent to work... (Oh, I give up!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   We have a Monster Raving Loony Party here in the UK, who put up lots of candidates each general election. I doubt though that many of them hope to do more than make people think about the political system. Seems like a worth-while enough goal to me, not at all "seeking power", and how better to get coverage? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   • Case in point; if this were in WP space both Durova and MickMacNee's points would be allowed to have stood - yet Giano's responses would likely have attracted comment, possibly warnings and even a sanction. This is why it must be held in these spaces, for we are Giano's guests here and we must not be so churlish to remove him from his own pages because we do not care for what he says (and if you really don't want to read Giano's comments - go edit the encyclopedia.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Giano: Not sure phrases like "King Jimbo" really help keep a cool atmosphere. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Jimbo was the one who referred to himself using monarchial language, thus, if we do it, we're just following precedent. Cla68 (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

He compares himself to a monarch, he doesn't refer to himself as one. There is a big difference. --Tango (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus discussion

Discussion from Tango's "No" on Noroton's proposal for more explicit procedures about consensus:

1. What you are describing is not "consensus". There is no percentage for a consensus and there is no need for anyone to determine if it exists since it will be obvious to all involved if one truly exists. If we can't use consensus based decision making we should accept the fact and call a vote a vote. --Tango (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   If it needs to be obvious to all involved then very small groups get a veto power by refusing to recognize it. There are too many ways that minorities have to derail consensus-building. -- Noroton (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   If there is a small group of objectors then there is no consensus to recognise. The idea of consensus building is that you find a solution that everyone is happy with. It's not quite the same as requiring unanimity, but it's closer to that than to a vote which just requires a supermajority. With a large group it is rarely possible to please everyone, that is why we don't actually use consensus decision making for decisions involving a lot of people, even though we sometimes claim we do (eg. RFA). --Tango (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   If the requirement for change is that everyone is happy with it, there can be no change, or hardly any. Am I correct in thinking that we seem to agree on how hard the present consensus-based decisionmaking is to implement change but disagree on whether or not that's a good thing? -- Noroton (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   Consensus based decision making simply does not work for something like Wikipedia, which is why we don't use it. We should simply stop pretending we do. --Tango (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   You were just making a semantic point, then? Now you sound like you were agreeing with me, other than on terms used. If you could pick your own wording, would you agree with what I proposed?-- Noroton (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   I guess it is semantic, but I think it is important. You can't ask your questions from the starting point of a consensus system. The first step is to accept we can't use consensus and decide on the general alternative (monarchy, oligarchy, direct democracy, representative democracy, etc.). We can then start on the details. --Tango (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

a note to the chair

(/me nervously coughs and attempts to attract Giano's attention) - It's been my observation that when a page hits roughly the length we're currently at, it's utility rapidly deteriorates - in short, the whole thing becomes bloomin' useless ;-) - Not that you need permission, of course, but I thought I'd note that I for one would strongly support the wiping / collapsing / reducing of current content with a paragraph or two of write-up - or maybe just a permanent link back, followed by some calls for concrete 'next steps' beyond some of the conceptual stuff we've covered so far (or perhaps another round of that stuff - it never hurts to reboot a page to see where it might go again?) - I'm a big fan of the concept of rather aggressive 'clerking' (and I take it we're all grown up enough to appreciate the risks of bias that might creep in, and parse accordingly.....) - whaddya reckon? Privatemusings (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Colapsing is fine (do you know how to do it - I don't). Writing up will be harder becaiuse of accusations of bias etc - and so is permanent links back. Do you want to do it? Giano (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see some more editors' votes at each section meself, hence the action below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

maybe a moratorium on new 'views' then? - we (as a community) seem to embrace massive redundancy at the cost of actually being clear about anything quite often! (I guess it's easier to type something pithy than it is to read someone else's thoughts... plus they get the 'credit' then, of course ;-) - my solution? Get in early!) Privatemusings (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think we should also agree a timesacale for the page - when to close it (2nd July?), and then where do we go from here. Already the likely chief areas of concdern are becoming evident - Who is going to place where the real debate in wikipedia space? I'm not too bothered about numbers here; I think we will have a lot more input once there is a serious chance the subjects discussed becoming policy. At present, I have a feeling in certain quarters this page is regarded as a few malcontents ranting in a distant corner of a muddy field. Giano (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(shuffles feet, whistles tunelessly and looks at ceiling) don't look at me I didn't say anything :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(shrugs shoulders, can't whistle - but will hum along) <* thinks: we're not exactly in well charted waters here *> — Ched :  ?  00:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Link now placed at Template:Cent

OK, I have placed a link to the discussion here at Template:Cent, so we can get some real numbers happening. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's such a good idea to link here as a 'discussion about governance issues'. This was a poll to see if such a discussion should take place and issues have been raised about whether user space is the place. Wouldn't it be better to to link to somewhere in project space to get the ball rolling properly? --Joopercoopers (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I added the word "preliminary" then. Why not get more people now? It is still a small sample to base any conclusions on so more the better. Can you judge any direction to take on the small sample thus far? There are some interesting proposals and ideas floating about and I think the page is structured enough to take more input before bloating. Judicious pruning and monitoring helps too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• The more the merrier as far as I'm concerned, so long as we can prune to maintain the page and keep it on subject and concise. The page has had an amazing amount of hits so far [12], but I have also had emails from people who are too timid/shy to post or waiting to see how things turn out. I can't honestly beleive people are afraid of reprisals. Howver, that's why I am trying to doscourage too much chalenging of those only voting. Those that post a view for others to comment on are fair game, those voting should be treated a little more gently. Giano (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed, I just didn't want people arriving here under false pretences and then complaining "Wait a minute - this is userspace! can't be having that, bring the irons........." - if it's clear, I'm fine and dandy. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) That is good - judicious management and pruning makes this alot more valuable. Hopefully more editors from all over will join in without fear of reprisal )which I can hopefully convince people is unwarranted). Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Casliber, it would be encouraging to see a few more of your colleagues aware of the page too. Giano (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

We're well aware of the page; but at least some of us are actively refraining from participating in the debate, since we don't want people to feel that we're trying to hijack the process.

Personally, I see quite a bit in common between the points you're making here and a proposal I made last April. My attempts were derailed in fairly short order; hopefully, you'll have better luck. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, as I was just about to post an amendment (for voting) to the Protection policy and realised this might be (in the long run) better regulated...good points Kirill. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Fear of reprisals

Giano's comment in the thread about fear of reprisals is a real fear: very few people are confident that they are actually allowed to edit Wikipedia. One reason is that every one has occasionally done something which led a troublemaker to be banned from Wikipedia. (Note: isolated bad acts are not good grounds for banning.) Another is that except for Jimmy Wales, a few of us who been here since the beginning, & those with a high degree of self-confidence, no one honestly believes that they have the authority to take actions on behalf of Wikipedia. After all, if "everyone can edit" then being an editor is nothing special: contacting a corporation or government agency for something & describing yourself as an editor at Wikipedia is not persuasive in itself. ("You edit Wikipedia? That's nothing special: so does my son/daughter.")

On the other hand, it is possible to feud with Wales -- or any of his "inner circle" -- & still remain a Wikipedian in good standing. Take me for example. I criticized Jimmy Wales, but suffered no reprisal that I have noticed. I'm still here editting, still an Admin, & haven't been blocked or banned. (Not to say I didn't expect some kind of reprisal for my comments to the time. I was truly scared that this would happen, despite having been part of the project for years longer than anyone else who has posted here.) But it didn't happen. Maybe the fact I have tried to stay out of controversy before that helped, but I honestly think that Wales & those of the "inner circle" can handle responsible criticism. (That is not to say that "wanna-bes", those newbies who want desperately to be part of the power structure of Wikipedia, might try something to seek approval from the PTB.)

In short, I urge those who want to have a say to speak up. The Wikipedia Revolution hasn't fallen to the counter-revolutionaries. There has been no White Terror or Thermidorian Reaction against the Levellers or Shay's followers. At least not yet. -- llywrch (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the current arbitrators (I don't have the time to find the diff right now) commented somewhere recently that he refrained from commenting during the Jayjg "watch my back" email incident at the time because it would have been "political suicide." While that's not the same thing as fear of reprisal, fear of political reprecussions is real within the community of committed editors. Those who desire positions of greater authority or privilege in Wikipedia I believe do temper their opinion-sharing, because of a fear that it will held against them the next time they're a candidate for some elected wiki-position. Cla68 (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I do think things are changing as time goes on, and constructive criticism is welcomed by us :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, back in the Zscout blowup of '07, there were many loud cries of foul play on the part of Jimbo. And many of those who were opposed to Jimbo's actions stood for the ArbCom elections, and I'm pretty sure some of them were elected. I've never seen any sort of reprisal against me or any other baseline editor. I sure as hell wouldn't presume to speak for Wikipedia, and frankly anyone who positions themselves as doing so is foolish, arrogant, presumptuous, or all three. Being here "since the beginning" doesn't really give you any more right either; we're all widgets in the great machinery, some moderately larger or more well-positioned, yes, but together we're the "community", not separate. Spot on with the criticism part, Llywrch. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've given presentations about Wikipedia in the past, & offered advice to non-Wikipedians on how to effectively edit, so I might be as many as two of those three. (I honestly can't see myself as arrogant. ;) This has led to several rewarding friendships -- I happen to know Ward Cunningham, for example. The reason I mentioned "those who have been here from the beginning" is that before Wikipedia became such a big thing, we all considered each other equals, more or less, & when someone encountered a problem that needed fixing that person felt empowered or responsible for fixing it. (I remember when Florence Devouard was just another editor on en.wikipedia, & we exchanged personal emails back in 2005.) Those of us from that time who are still around, continue to think of Wikipedia in the same way, as a place where things gets done only if volunteers step up to do them. Personally, I find it hard to think that Wikipedia has changed completely from those days, & am often disruptive for espousing such ideas as "Being an Administrator is no big thing." Then again, reminiscing about those early days reminds me of a passage from Darkness at Noon, where an old revolutionary gets in trouble for asking about colleagues who have become non-persons. -- llywrch (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Ched Davis Statement.

regarding the Disagree section: (copied with respect to the desire to keep conversation to talk page)

Disagree

• Jimbo is clearly out of step with the mood of "the community", as evidenced by his imperious and short-lived blocks and sanctimonious pontification on the contents of user pages. Indeed his belief in "a community" is a clear indication that he has lost touch. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Evidence you say? Do you have any diffs to demonstrate this? Chillum 19:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Can we see them? ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 20:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone can see them, you only have to look. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sooo, no then. Chillum 21:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I can only assume you didn't look very hard. Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest Burden of proof. But in fairness, do I think Jimbo makes mistakes? Sure, but last I heard - he was a human being, and there is that inherent possibility of mistakes in humans. I still don't see that as a reason to attempt a Coup d'état. — Ched :  ?  23:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is not a court of law, merely an exercise to determine whether there's any will for change. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's also not supposed to be an exercise in government Malleus, but if you want to present evidence to contradict something, I still think the burden of proof should be on you to present the diffs. You're saying that Jimbo "...has lost touch", without proper evidence, then it boils down to WP:OR. — Ched :  ?  00:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• The evidence seems clear enough to me, but this discussion can be had at the appropriate time and in the appropriate place, which is not here. Have you noticed, for instance, that I have not asked you to provide evidence in support of your hypothesis: "I'm not sure that the silent majority would concur that there needs to be a major change in direction for the future"? Why do you think that is? Because you think I agree with it? No, because it's a discussion to be had elsewhere. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough, link me up when the time comes. — Ched :  ?  00:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree Jimbo's logs may indicate that he's gradually taken a step back, but events such as the controversy over images on user pages earlier this year show that Jimbo does not need to use his tools to act, but can work through proxy. And surely if, as Ched asserts, Jimbo is taking a step back we need to develop a way to replace him. If the silent majority really don't want change they need to stop being silent. By choosing not to voice an opinion, you are effectively making your choice to go with the flow. Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Nev has it absolutely right. If Jimbo's really taken a backseat, then why should he have the power to make "Consider this to be policy as of right now" rulings when by definition he's drifted out of touch with custom and practice? If he hasn't taken a backseat – and as (I presume) one of the Toxic Personalities, my opinion on this matter can be guessed – then why should one user have any kind of special power? The original 2001 Wikipedia, of a few thousand articles and a couple of hundred users who all knew each other, was indeed the child of Jimbo and Larry, but that's a site that hasn't existed for almost a decade. Jimbo's increasingly out-of-touch bolts from the blue are no more relevant to the modern project than a magically-resurrected Peter Minuit would be qualified to comment on the present-day governance of New York. – iridescent 21:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

re: ...the controversy over images on user pages earlier this year show that Jimbo does not need to use his tools to act. As I recall (if we are talking about the "bush image" page) - a MfD ensued, but was closed after approximately 8 hours - boy that was quick. And the last I looked (Now), it remains completely intact; despite Jimbos objections.

re: If the silent majority really don't want change they need to stop being silent. Agreed, hence my contribution.

re: why should he have the power to make "Consider this to be policy as of right now". If we had a current policy that already addressed the issue, and Jimbo simply removed it and installed his own version - I might see that as a valid argument. But I am not aware of any policy or guideline that addresses "paid editing", so - I saw that as "immediate solution to an immediate problem". Granted, there was/is an RfC on the matter, but I don't see any "clear consensus" to overrule Jimbos statement.

re: the Peter Minuit analogy - I honestly don't mean to be smart, but Minuit died in 1638, I'm honestly not seeing how you draw that comparison.

Yes, Wikipedia has grown by leaps and bounds. I just don't understand the desired outcome of this, or what is to be accomplished other than some sort of radical revolution in an attempt to overthrow the current organizational structure. I agree that Jimbo makes mistakes, and I certainly believe that a recent "block" he imposed was an error in judgment, and outside the established norms. of our community. A "one-of" instance, with no warning? I certainly agree on the point that it was flat out wrong. I just don't see that as a reason for some "ousting" of the "Chair Emeritus" of the Wikimedia Foundation. Sorry, I just can't see it folks. — Ched :  ?  23:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You're correct, I was referring to the incident involving "the bush image", but I didn't want to name names. Eight hours was long enough for a snow close. Wales was one of the people who thought it should be deleted, demonstrating quite clearly that he is out of touch with the community. One swallow does not make a summer, but this is not the only instance of being out of touch. True, before the discussion about paid editing there was a vacuum and a policy did need to be created. A little thing called community consensus should have been sufficient, but Wales decided to descend and declare his POV law. That, as I understood it, is not how this community works. Even if a person is "right" they may not make unilateral decisions, they need support from the community. Also, correct me if I've misunderstood iridescent, but the point about Peter Minuit was that it's not relevant and neither is Jimbo. Nev1 (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... yea, OK - I can agree with that. I think it definitely would have been better all the way around to let the community work towards a guideline proposal. On the Minuit item, meh .. I don't really see Jimbo as being 400 years removed from WP, but I guess I get the point. — Ched :  ?  23:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you feel it was improper to mention "names", I have no objection to refactoring to "the bush image", and in fact, I apologize, and do refactor. — Ched :  ?  00:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Given there is hope for polling if conducted wisely.....

I started up Wikipedia:Civility/Poll. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)