Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Regulation Committee and alternatives to consensus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
WP:SNOW close--majority of commenters are solidly rejecting this current proposal at every level (headcount, policy, and anticipated outcomes). Alakzi's suggestions in the "general comments" section are well-taken and the proponents should take the advice on board if they want to develop a new version of the proposal. 173.228.123.193 (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Examining the alternatives Wikipedia editors have to consensus, and exploring the possibility of creating a Regulation Committee to solve issues when the community fails to come to a proper consensus. 04:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


Introduction

[edit]

On Wikipedia, consensus is the primary means of achieving change of the extant policies and guidelines. This has been a defining principle of this community for many a year, and our consensus-building model has gained us much interest from scholars who want to examine it, and normal people who are excited at the fact that even they can make great changes to one of the most visited and viewed websites on the planet. "The thing about Wikipedia," it is said, "is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work." Indeed. When consensus works, it's beautiful. But it does have a darker side.

Consensus can take a long time to develop. Now, the amount of time consensus takes is not, in my opinion, an issue in and of itself. I do believe that time allows for people to calm down, and creative solutions to be brought up. However, with consensus, there is no guarantee that any resolution at all will be affected, or than enough input is given to ensure that the resolution is lasting and has the support of a wide base of users. Combine that with the fact that if a person refuses to compromise, or take the view of other people into account consensus becomes unattainable, which becomes more and more likely the more people join into a discussion, and seeking consensus in such instances has as much effect as "banging your head against a brick wall". But on this site, we have no other choice. If a discussion comes to no consensus, editors have no place to go. Therefore, the current system forces Wikipedia's community to bang their heads against a wall, running in infinite loops to solve a problem, where, more than like, the same group of editors that participated in previous discussions will bring their same viewpoints, and nothing ever gets done. Meanwhile, the problem that consensus was suppose to solve in the first place remains. That doesn't help this community or our readers; in fact, it's insanity.

What I am proposing is a recourse for when consensus has failed to administer a solution to a problem, and the problem persists. What I am proposing is a Regulation Committee, an elected group of sensible editors accountable to the community, who would have the ability to issue binding policy and guideline changes in an effort to solve problems brought before it by community members, and would only come into play when consensus has failed. The usefulness of such a committee will likely be evident to anyone who has ever been involved in a contentious discussion on this site. Editors fight bitterly from what ever point of view they have, and sometimes this prevent consensus from being built properly. We have already understood the sensibility of an uninvolved editor making decisions, and the potential destructiveness of involved and intransigent editors and administrators making binding or serious decisions that affect many people.

Now, I do not question that consensus works in the vast majority of cases, and most editors are happy with it. But, when consensus doesn't work, it tends to not work spectacularly. An example, if you will: in August 2012, the community agreed that, "The current methods for removal of administrator rights are not sufficient and an additional community-driven method should be implemented." Three goddamn years later, what have we accomplished? Stone wall, after stone wall, after stone wall. Consensus can be heaven (to paint a rosy picture) but it can also be an echo chamber, a peanut gallery, and a battleground. Meanwhile, the problem that consensus was supposed to solve persists. And the bitterly ironic funny thing is, we have no other avenue to go to but consensus, but we can't be sure that consensus will bring about anything substantive other than more bloviating and time-wasting. This is not something we should aspire to. It is in no one's interest if this community has been consensus'd to absolute inaction and stagnation. Also, "no consensus" closures happen fairly often, but the only option is more consensus. When the same crop of editors bring the same opinions to another discussion, no consensus is reached. Cf. "banging your head against a brick wall." This is obviously frustrating, and it would benefit us to have an alternative to go to when consensus has failed. I know a Regulation Committee would sound like bureaucracy, but sometimes bureaucracy, formality and due process are necessary evils to provide for the furtherance, betterment and maintenance of a community.

How it might work

[edit]
  • Mission statement: "When consensus fails to bring a solution to a problem that Wikipedia's community experiences in a reasonable time frame, the Regulation Committee seeks to issue binding changes to Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and processes."
  • Possible process: Once all reasonable means of seeking consensus have been exhausted, the problem is brought before members of the Regulation Committee. Regulators then cast their opinions on whether there is a real problem that consensus can't or has not been able to fix. If there isn't, or a resolution has already been reached, the case is declined. If they decide that there is one, they take the problem on. Afterwards, there is a workshop phase that should normally last thirty days, but that time frame can be extended or abridged if a majority of the committee (50% and one) agree to do that. In the workshop, community members cast a cornucopia of proposals on how said problem could be fixed, and other community members discuss the benefits and drawbacks of each proposal. When the workshop phase is closed, regulators deliberate privately on the merits of each proposal and vote for the ones they think have the most merit, and the most probability to bring a long-lasting solution.[Note 1]
  • I cannot think of a reason for a Regulation Committee to take on a case without prior failure of consensus to solve a problem, therefore, the Regulation Committee should normally only act when consensus has not brought about a solution, but the problem persists. However, elected regulators should use their common sense and discretion when deciding whether or not to take on an issue.
  • After regulators agree to hear an issue, Regulation Committee members (or clerks) will have a certain amount of time (7–10 days) to summarize previous discussions, proposals and ideas, and present them in a structured, orderly way so the community can view it and make an informed decision. This would ideally happen before the workshop phase.
  • The workshop phase is vital to this proposal. Therefore, regulators should not have the power, even if a majority wills to do so the eliminate the workshop phase, where community members can discuss possible resolutions to an issue. Neither should the workshop phase to abridged to less than 15 days.
  • The Regulation Committee would not hear issues relating to user conduct. Such cases would be referred to the Arbitration Committee.
  • Added: The Regulation Committee would only act if consensus has been sought out in two distinct locations (which isn't a very hard bar to reach seeing that there is practically a cornucopia of locations to seek out consensus), and in both cases, has failed to reach a solution. This is intended to diversify the opinions that are received, and perhaps keep issues in the community's court as much as possible.

Principles

[edit]
To present another proposed principle, use the following format. Please ensure that your proposed principle is related to this proposal, or issues relating to consensus.
===Principle <put principle number here>: <put short summary of principle here>
{{Quotation|<give a brief description (a few sentences at most) of your proposed principle.>}}
====Support====
====Oppose====
====Neutral====

Principle 1: Fallibility of consensus

[edit]

Consensus is the primary way of altering existing procedures, policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. While consensus does work in a great many instances on Wikipedia, it gives no guarantees that a beneficial resolution to an issue, or any resolution at all, will surface.

Support

[edit]
  1. As proposer. --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Consensus more often results in a goddamn mess. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)i've made a huge mess 05:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I believe strongly in consensus, but everything has a downside, and we have no current means of remediating the many downsides of a consensus-based system. E.g., resistance to change, lack of progress, failure to follow through on the community's expectations. I strongly support this proposal, which would enhance the role of consensus and provide a means of guiding the community when other methods have failed. North of Eden (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This is true, both sentences of it. Even several of the opposers say it is. (But this doesn't mean that the proposal necessarily logically follows from this true observation.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I've seen cases where community member fail to reach a consensus. I think this is very reasonable. Sam.gov (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I generally support these two phrases, although Esquivalience and Vanjagenije also pose interesting notions below. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose While the above statement is technically true, it fails to reflect the fact that consensus has been an overwhelming net benefit to Wikipedia and that a major strength of this website is its ability to come up with good policy in a way that involves the editors most impacted and knowledgeable of the policy's subject. This statement just makes consensus sound like a generally useful thing that malfunctions frequently and could stand to be replaced with something else. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It's true, but not relevant. The Religious Society of Friends operates on a consensus model, exactly the same criticisms have been raised, and it's lasted over 300 years. It's done Wikipedia mostly OK for a decade and, most importantly, it is a core part of our everybody-is-equal ethos. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose "No consensus" is by definition both a resolution and a beneficial resolution in the context of the model on which Wikipedia is built. To say otherwise attacks that model. See my "oppose" to the Primary Proposal, below, for a broader explanation. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose this is a council of despair, which somehow assumes that any decision is better than no decision and which also assumes that a 'committee of Elders' will be preferable to present procedures.Pincrete (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. What is "beneficial" is, of course, a matter of consensus. So, if there is no consensus for a certain resolution, than the resolution is not beneficial. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose: When there is no consensus, there is no consensus, and a group should not pretend that there is. Esquivalience t 05:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose While this is a true statement of the problem but the proposed solution does not follow from it. Consensus is the foundation on which the WP:Five pillars stand. Change that and you change the character of Wikipedia and, in my opinion, not for the better. JbhTalk 00:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC) - Moved to Oppose section because this is where similar opinions are being expressed. JbhTalk 16:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose TransporterMan sums it up well. A no consensus ending is often the seeds for compromise or the spark that finds a third option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

[edit]

Principle 2: Alternatives to consensus

[edit]

Currently, there exist few to no alternatives to altering procedures, policies and guidelines on Wikipedia other than consensus. The community would benefit from having an alternative procedure to consensus for solving Wikipedia's problems, and such a procedure should be implemented.

Support

[edit]
  1. As proposer. --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Someone should have said that long ago. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)i've made a huge mess 05:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per above. North of Eden (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. oppose The community would be better served if there were better avenues and support for achieving and determining consensus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is for when there are no purposes of consensus. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)i've made a huge mess 05:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The cure for "lack of reaching a consensus" is not to throw out consensus - it is to provide/create tools and forums and approaches to disputes that facilitate reaching consensus rather than the current "free for all chaos" approach of trying to reach consensus on difficult issues.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No if we don't use consensus we get simple majority rule or yet more bureaucracy - and wikipedia has plenty of bureaucracy already (and I'm not meaning the crats here!). Getting consensus can be hard but that is not necessarily a bad thing as it helps stop us deciding "something must be done therefore this is something" and ensures that changes have the support of the community. Davewild (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Consensus is the only way non-specialists have any chance of reflecting the actual current state of knowledge in a particular topic area. JbhTalk 13:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Oppose We do things here by consensus; creating a position that can just arbitrarily decide how thing are done on Wikipedia will alienate our user base, prevent people who are experienced with the issues from having a say and ultimately result in solutions that do not reflect the day to day reality of the issues at hand. Yes, consensus can be a messy process that sometimes results in gridlock, but it works. Just throwing our consensus policy away for an inevitably politicized bureaucracy insulated from the user base the moment consensus doesn't work perfectly seems absurd. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Consensus is how things are done here. If consensus cannot be achieved, then new policies shouldn't be implemented, and existing ones should not change. Supporting the things proposed in this RFC is embracing an idea intended to take power away from the community at large.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I do not agree with the principle, so I will be going no further with the proposal. Consensus is ground that the pillars stand on. We work as a community, we make decisions as a community. I would accept removal of consensus in very limited circumstances (such as those that Arbcom deal with), but a general alternative would fundamentally change Wikipedia. WormTT(talk) 06:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I do not think this is the first time something like this has been proposed, but it is a bad idea. Yes, consensus can take a long time to establish. There is no deadline. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. For the reasons stated in my response to the Primary Proposal, below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, whatever its flaws, regardless of how frustrating it might be, consensus is a cornerstone of WP.Pincrete (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. As Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time". I agree that consensus does not always work, but that just means that we need a mechanism to encourage editors to work more heavily towards consensus. I don't think that we need "an alternative procedure". Vanjagenije (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose: Consensus is agreement; it's a bad idea to have another process to bypass agreement. I do not trust a house of lords to fairly represent agreement. Esquivalience t 05:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - Simply no, and kudos to Vanjagenije for the quote. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose pretty much by what Spirit of Eagle expressed above. This is a very wrong step to take. Bureaucracy overriding bureaucracy, just what we need! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

[edit]
  • The first sentence is true. The second is an attempt at circular reasoning (the fallacy of assuming the conclusion). What is being proposed here is that there could be an alternative; we can't proceed to introduce this as a hypothesis on the basis that we already accept that it's true.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primary proposal

[edit]

An elected group of editors accountable to the community, who would have the ability to issue binding policy and guideline changes in an effort to solve problems brought before it by community members should be formed. This group should only act with the community's best interest in mind, and should only come into play when consensus has failed to solve a problem.

Support

[edit]
  1. As proposer. --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think such a committee is required as the editor community gets bigger. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)i've made a huge mess 05:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I fail to see the downside of this proposal, which ensures accountability and responsiveness to the community's expectations. North of Eden (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. oppose given how "successful" the ArbCom is in "settling" intractable issues that the community cannot handle, it is naive to think another committee set up on the same lines would have any better results. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is extra bureaucracy and means that a simple majority of members of a committee can impose policy changes. Anyone wanting to change policy would have no incentive to compromise or drop the stick as they will want to demonstrate how intractable a problem is if they think a majority on the committee will back them. Davewild (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Davewild: That all comes down to teh sensibility of the people who have been elected. If an editor has to "have a stick" in the first place, s/he must not be doing what the community wants him/her to be doing, or is violating some rule of decorum. I really don't see how an elected group of sensible editors would not be able to see when someone is arguing, however vociferously, a minority opinion. In any event though, I have added that the committee would only act when consensus has been sought out in at least two different locations. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 10:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how that addresses any of my reasons for opposing this proposal. I am confident that elections to this body will see either questions about policies (deletion, notability, BLP, RFA, etc.) being asked of the candidates or digging into their edit histories to find out what positions the candidates hold and voters electing candidates who agree with their policy positions (just look at elections to Arbcom). Remembering the turnout levels that the election would have, this body will become a way for a small majority on any controversial subject to try and impose their will even though they have no chance of gaining a consensus among the wider community. Davewild (talk) 11:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose: I worry about the authority of the Regulation Committee over content guidelines. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. From this founding idea, we derive the central principle that in matters of content, all editors are equal. Practically, this means that if a good-faith edit is made by an editor who is WP:HERE, that edit can only be reverted because the community of other good-faith, WP:HERE editors generally opposes it for good reasons. Consensus-based content guidelines are a convenient shortcut that allow us to track what a community of such editors think about common types of edits without having an RfC every time. The authority of the Regulation Committee over content guidelines would mean that good-faith edits by WP:HERE editors could be reverted because a few special editors oppose it for good reasons. The equality of all editors before content would be lost and the idea that "anyone can edit" would be subverted. A2soup (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @A2soup: That's a very reasonable point. I've said in the past that a guideline is a documentation of where consensus has gone in the past. Therefore, a group of special editors should not be able to change it. Further, being able to change "where consensus (i.e. the community's will) has gone in the past" goes against the "in the best interest of the community part." Therefore I have struck that portion of it. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 10:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much for considering my argument. I'm not sure striking "guideline" quite addresses it, though. I'm not entirely clear on the distinction between policies and guidelines (besides guidelines being occasionally open to common sense disregard while policies essentially never are), but there are certainly non-content-related guidelines, and policies may well contain content-related statements. So perhaps instead of striking "guideline", you could add some restriction against the Committee regulating anything with a bearing on content? I understand if there are reasons you want to avoid such a restriction, but I feel I have to stay in the "oppose" section unless it's there. A2soup (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. oppose It's one thing to say that the community can't come to consensus on a situation of disruptive editing: such a situation needs a committee to arbitrate, because such behavior always gets in the way of all other editing. A committee to overrule or ignore consensus isn't a good thing, but here it's a necessary evil. It's another thing entirely to create a committee to handle things just that the community can't reach consensus on at the moment: most things can wait until consensus be achieved, and setting up another committee will make things hairier, especially because it will amount to the community giving up some rights. [I wrote the previous sentences several hours ago, when TRPOD's was the only comment, but accidentally didn't save it]. Moreover, now that I read others' comments, I strongly disagree because of A2soup's comments: we already have problems with Arbcom going beyond their authority and creating policy, but it would be worse if we actually had a committee whose job it was to make policy decisions, rather than just implementing them. Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose This is a Utopian proposal that assumes Wikipedia can put together a willing group of editors who are qualified to make tough content calls. It also pre-supposes that they should make calls on content. We reflect what reliable sources have to say about a given subject. Often there is no consensus in the sources or an editor wants to put the 'latest research' into an article even if it has not been accepted by real life specialists in the area.

    Wikipedia editors have a very wide and variable range of skills but the idea that any small, elected group of them would be competent to judge content issues in all subject areas is simple fiction. If the sources do not support consensus then there should be no consensus. If the sources and our policies support a position and an editor does not drop the stick then it is a behavioral issue and should be handled as such. JbhTalk 13:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  6. Oppose per Jbhunley, Nyttend, Davewild, and A2soup. I don't have anything to add to what they wrote. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per the above. This also puts to one side the idea that consensus can change. Once a "committee" like this makes a "final" decision that is no longer possible. MarnetteD|Talk 21:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Any such body is going to be incredibly politicized due to its ability to affect policy. It will not solve longstanding dispute and disagreements but rather it will relocate them.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per everybody above me, this is just a disaster waiting to happen. You say that things don't get done, and that's true, but they don't happen because people don't want them to happen. When it comes down to it, no matter what you say about judging consensus, RfCs and the like are essentially a vote, defined by a simple majority. So by that logic if this "committee" were to issue an edict that supported something the community had voted down, they've going against over 50% of editors. If they followed said editors, they'd fall into the same pattern and never get anything done. The fact is if they voted with the community, there'd be no point in them existing, and if they voted against the communtity, there'd be no point in them existing. Therefore, there's no reason for it to exist, period. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - Same rationale as my oppose above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Becomes a hat collection exercise at best, and a politburo making decisions from on high at worst. Inimical to what Wikipedia is. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. This would essentially impose an editorial board, something that would potentially have legal ramifications and would undoubtedly act as a further deterrent to participation. And that's before you get into the inevitable politicking it would create. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. While I understand the frustration and sentiment on which this is based and have both supported and proposed similar things in the past (focused only, however, on article content, not on policymaking, and I may also have Wiki-matured somewhat since then), this strikes at the heart of Wikipedia saying, in effect, that the most central model upon which Wikipedia is based — collaboration and consensus — is flawed and ought to be abandoned at least in the most difficult and controversial cases. It strikes at the heart because those are the very cases in which that model becomes most important and saying that it does not work in those cases says that the model itself is flawed. That it is flawed may, indeed, be true and the wiki system may be too utopian and fail to take into account the baser side of human nature (especially in a project of this size), but I'm personally not willing to give up on that model yet. "No consensus" should continue to be an acceptable answer here at Wikipedia. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Endorse all the objections expressed by others above.Pincrete (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Ten years ago, Wikipedia was much less bureaucratic, but there were more editors, more administrators and overall interest in Wikipedia was much higher. Although our policy says that WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, it is becoming more and more bureaucratic over the years. I think that is one of the reasons of Wikipedia's decline. This proposal just adds to it. We want more new editors to join Wikipedia, but we propose a "council of elders" that will decide matters for them. That is not a thing that would encourage editors to join. If we want to attract potential new editors, we have to show them that they will be equal to others and that their opinion will be taken into account. This proposal goes against it. Also, I think that we already have more than enough committees and similar groups. In the WP:SPI where I'm clerking, we have a lack of clerks, and the process is heavily backlogged. Now, with this proposal succeeding, we would need more committee members and clerks, but we are unable to attract clerks to already existing committees. We have a definite number of editors that is steady, so more clerking and more committees means less article editing. I vote for less committees and more human interaction. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose: Consensus is agreement. When there is no agreement, and a group pretends that there is agreement, and forces the crowd who tried to come up with the agreement in the first place to accept that there is an agreement despite such crowd not coming up with an agreement in the first place, chaos will ensue. Esquivalience t 05:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per all the previously expressed concerns that this would amount to an editorial board. Moreover, what happens if the board makes a "wrong" decision, in the eyes of either side? What is the method of accountability? Consensus? BethNaught (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per above. What is this, Citizendium? Another committee will make us more and more like the aforementioned project, and we all know how well it's doing now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - We have enough problems with committees and specially bitted groups as it is, the last we need is a super committee with powers that will surely cause us all to violate Godwin's Law on a regular basis. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose: Yet another layer of bureaucracy, a proposal for a "content ArbCom", and another point of systemic weakness for PoV pushers to exploit. It's fine that some things, including what to do about our broken adminship system, do not settle out immediately. It gives us time weigh all the pro and con considerations, and for newer minds to approach the issue who were not part of previous rounds of discussion. The main problem with this proposal is that if consensus cannot be formed by the community (yet) about something, then some subset of the community will either a) also not form consensus, if they're evenly distributed from among the community, or b) they'll be unevenly distributed, and favor one side vs. the other, both of which are failures to produce a result acceptable to the community. There is literally no other possible outcome. Representative democracy is something we've already dabbled in too much with ArbCom and with turning adminship into a "First Class Citizen" social statrum imbued with a politicized notion of "trust" instead of being based on competence.

    Representative democracy is a seemingly necessary evil (and a definite evil, being rife with corruption and ignorance) in large national polities, mostly made up of half-educated, territorial, superstitious hominids with an IQ around 110, mostly concerned with eating, orgasming, and passive entertainment. The self-selecting, account-holding population of this project generally average out to a higher education level, better collaboration skills, a more rational mindset, and a higher general intelligence level than average, and we are here for an overtly intellectual, long-range, public good, setting aside time from pleasure-center-related "hairless ape" pursuits. We don't need a congress/parliament to make our decisions for us here, even when coming to one takes longer than some of us would like.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  21. Oppose per Esquivalience and BethNaught. Also, more bureaucracy is not what we need. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per Nyttend and Jbh mainly. There is no need for a Wikipedia-consensus-politburo. If all instances for finding consensus are exhausted then there simply shouldn't be consensus, and patience should prime. Like the great Yoda said, "Do...or do not. There is no try"; if there is no consensus, don't try to randomly impose some by simple quorum. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

[edit]
[edit]
To present a related proposal, use the following format. Please ensure that your proposal is related to the Regulation Committee proposal i.e. how it would operate, limits on membership, etc.
===Proposal <put proposal number here>: <put short summary of proposal here>===
{{Quotation|<give a brief description (a few sentences at most) of your related proposal.>}}
====Support====
====Oppose====
====Neutral====

Proposal 1: Committee membership

[edit]

Persons who wish to nominate themselves for a position on the committee must have made at least 500 edits to Wikipedia's mainspace by the first day of the month the nomination period begins. They must be in good standing with the community, and not be under any blocks or site bans. They must also have disclosed any previous or alternate accounts in their nomination statement.

Support

[edit]
  1. As proposer. --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is a "not too high, not too low" standard for this. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)i've made a huge mess 05:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Very reasonable standard. North of Eden (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose 500 edits is way too low and I disagree with the idea of self nomination. If such a group were to exist they should be nominated by other editors who are familiar with how the nominee handles disputes and how they think about policy. Since the proposal has been changed to address policy rather than content I would expect a viable candidate to have a couple years experience and well over 500 edits on policy discussion pages.

    This comment should not be read as an implicit agreement with the idea of creating such a committee. It is simply a statement that in the event such a committee is created the bar for membership should be very high in order for the candidate to have a proven record of understanding our policies and how we implement them. JbhTalk 00:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  2. Oppose Editors with only 500 edits would simply not have a broad enough understanding of Wikipedia to make the type of decisions they will be expected to make. For full disclosure, I do not believe that any editor could possibly have the experience needed to make these kinds of decisions since there are so many area of Wikipedia that one would need to understand. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose paraphrasing Douglas Adams: those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Even if you were to do this, this standard is so ridiculously low that it wouldn't be an improvement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose: Even 5,000 edits would be too few. (I oppose the general proposal, but am approaching this from a "what if" viewpoint). The requirements for this would need to be much more stringent than even for admins, and people would develop their own personal criteria for what was good enough, but at least 8,000 edits and a minimum of a year of regular editing (not necessarily contiguous) would probably be enough to weed out a lot of completely hopeless nominations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

[edit]
  1. I'm not against self-nomination per se, but in my opinion the option to nominate others should not be taken off the table so quickly. As for the number of edits requirement, having such a low threshold could help in qualming the fears of this "committee" being out of touch with the community. Lowbie editors also have valid points to make, in some ways quite refreshing ones, when compared to experienced editors who're used to the editing quagmire. All of this is of course argued hypothetically, given I'm against this proposal overall, along similar lines as SMcCandlish has stated previously. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2: Tenure of membership

[edit]

Persons who receive over 51%–64% support votes will be elected for one year terms. Persons receiving 65%–100% support will be elected to two year terms. Percentage is calculated using this formula: (Support / (Support + Oppose)) * 100 (rounded to 2 decimal places)

Support

[edit]
  1. As proposer. --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. because I think a majority is enough. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)i've made a huge mess 05:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Much better than the alternative below. North of Eden (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose A user who wants to be on such a board should have the support of an overwhelming majority of the community. I believe an editor should have to receive at least 75% of the vote (a percentage that would not even guarantee a successful RFA nomination) to serve on this board. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose paraphrasing Douglas Adams: those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose the whole concept. JbhTalk 16:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - On the face, you are giving them a lower standard of approval than an admin, yet infinitely more power. Even Arb should be higher than it is, but this has more power. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. I'd expect to see 75% minimum (for reasons others have given), and for terms to be 1 year, since potential for damage is high. (I oppose the general proposal, but am approaching this from a "what if" viewpoint).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Spirit of Eagle here and below. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

[edit]

Proposal 3: Tenure of membership (II)

[edit]

Persons who receive over 60%–70% support votes will be elected for one year terms. Persons receiving 71%–100% support will be elected to two year terms. Percentage is calculated using this formula: (Support / (Support + Oppose)) * 100 (rounded to 2 decimal places)

Support

[edit]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. 60% is too high a hurdle. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)i've made a huge mess 05:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agreed with User:Eat me, I'm a red bean. Maybe try a lower hurdle, a la the Arbcom elections. North of Eden (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So now, not only is consensus being thrown out the window, it is being thrown out the window by people who barely have the support of half of the electorate?!!!!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I strongly oppose this entire proposal, but if we are going to create a Regulation Committee then anyone who wants to serve on it should get at least 75% (and preferably 85%) of the vote. An editor with a 60% support rate would not pass an RFA, so I fail to see why the same percentage should get them placed on a board where they can create policy. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose paraphrasing Douglas Adams: those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose the whole concept. JbhTalk 16:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose See above. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. See specific recommendations in the subthread above this one. (I oppose the general proposal, but am approaching this from a "what if" viewpoint.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Spirit of Eagle. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

[edit]

Proposal 4: Primary proposal (II)

[edit]

An elected group of editors accountable to the community, who would have the ability to issue binding policy, procedural and guideline changes in an effort to solve problems brought before it by community members should be formed. This group would deal specifically with the internal operations of Wikipedia, as opposed to the content operations of the site, and should only come into play when consensus has failed to solve a problem or good-faith misinterpretation of a policy, procedure or guideline.

Support

[edit]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose per my comment below. JbhTalk 00:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Same rationale as my oppose above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per above. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I think I would vote for the primary proposal. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)i've made a huge mess 12:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose paraphrasing Douglas Adams: those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - Same rationale as my oppose above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Ditto above. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose for same reasons I gave regarding the original version, and even more so here because no one can sort out internal policy matters other than the community, and in particular the pro and con arguments of the most experienced members of it (whether anyone wants to admit it or not, this is precisely how it already works). The only way a committee like this could work as a "policy content ArbCom" would be if the committee automatically consisted of the top X number of active editors by edit count to the WP and WT namespaces. No one else would be experientially qualified. And even then it would basically just be some kind of good ol' boy cabal. So, no.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per SMcCandlish. Who wouldn't wanna be in that ol' cabal, eh? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

[edit]

Proposal 5: Advisory group

[edit]

A community-selected advisory group is established. This group will act and operate independently of the Arbitration Committee. They will scrutinize the issues that the community is faced with, collect and summarize where the community's consensus has gone previously on the issue, and present proposals before the community that attempt to balance past consensus with finding a solution to a problem. They will have no binding powers to change standing policies, guidelines and procedures, and their proposals must get the approval of the community before being implemented.

Support

[edit]
  1. As proposer. --ceradon (talk • edits) 07:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't have a problem with this but I wager the proposals would get mired in red tape. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Consensus, while it is what built us today, needs an alternative. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)i've made a huge mess 12:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Absolutely. North of Eden (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose paraphrasing Douglas Adams: those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose: We do not need another General Assembly; we're not the UN. Anyone can start "WikiProject Consensus" if they want to, but I don't think it will go very far. Esquivalience t 05:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I am firmly against any elected/appointed group/committee. JbhTalk 16:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Same rationale as my oppose above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - Ditto above. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose: "their proposals must get the approval of the community before being implemented" - then why propose this in the first place if you're gonna need the community at the end-stage? Go big or go home! Consensus Gestapo or nothing. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ The difference between this and consensus is that, while consensus grants no assurances, we know that a binding decision will come out of this. Beyond that, an assurance of a solution may invite editors who have been frustrated by the problem and lack of solution and chosen to forego the headache that stagnation and inaction brings, to re-engage and seek a fix, thus widening the pool of ideas and discussion.

General comments

[edit]
You really should not refactor the proposal that already has numerous responses. The posts so far were to one thing and now it looks like they are to something else. Rather you should start a new section regarding the new proposal. In any event I still Oppose the new proposal and the reasons are pretty much the same. MarnetteD|Talk 21:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MarnetteD. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above. It might be nice to establish something like WP:3O for policy disputes though. I dislike the idea of an elected committee since there is a big chance the editors on it would not be the ones who best understand policy. There are a few editors whose views on policy I would always give a presumption of being correct like NeilN and DGG but as much as I respect them I would not want to give them or any other editor or group of editors the ability to issue binding opinions on policy. JbhTalk 23:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
anything i say is of course an opinion and opinions are never binding, unless if consensus agrees with it. To a certain extent members of arb com have a COI here,but on the other hand present & former members know the problems involved. I think supporters are underestimating the problems and complications of setting up a new committee. There was a sort of lightweight process at RfC(U), & it proved so cumbersome & unproductive the community ended it about a year ago. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the comment on the effect to the idea that consensus can change: this can continue to be the case, even with the proposed committee. Should matters change and the community is subsequently able to reach a consensus on its own, the community view takes precedence. isaacl (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Regulation_Committee_and_alternatives_to_consensus&oldid=1142569605"