User talk:The Community

User talk:The Community/Archive1

Prior talk has been archived. This includes a block notice, The Community remains blocked. As no need has yet appeared, and The Community only edits as a servant of consensus, according to rules on the user page, and no consensus has been expressed that he should do so, there is no need to create any fuss by requesting unblock. If it's needed, we can ask for it.

Meanwhile, the function of User:The Community is one which can be served by any volunteer, subject to long traditions for such things. I am the "puppet master" of User:The Community, but I expect that in process which will take place here, in this userspace, I will have a great deal to say, inappropriate for a meeting chair or process facilitator, so I am asking for volunteers or nominations for someone to serve that function. I have years of experience at doing this, myself, but the position would require me to mostly remain silent, or turn the position over temporarily, which could be cumbersome.

On the other hand, if User:The Community is unblocked, then I could "step down" simply by editing as Abd, and "return to the seat" by editing as The Community.

So, what is this about? This is, as I see it, an experiment to see what happens if traditional deliberative process, designed for efficiency, is applied to seeking consensus on Wikipedia. Given that this is an effort of mine, I've been working on this for many years, to explain it all would take far more time than to simply demonstrate it. This userspace was created for this purpose, and the only difference between this space and any other is that, because this is my userspace, I have generally unrestricted authority (by policy) to remove material I consider disruptive, not from the transcript (unless I get an admin to do it), but from the edited record, just as might be done by a secretary. Thus my current title should be secretary (or clerk).

There are various aspects of this, of exact procedure, that are unclear to me, and all of this is open to advice. One thing is clear: as an individual user, I can command no obedience, and no exclusive anything, except the limited authority users have over their own userspace. If I act oppressively or contrary to the spirit of a servant, any one of you, reading this, can propose a move to another userspace. There can be more than one "community meeting," and, indeed, this is part of the vision I have. Every Wikipedia editor is welcome and free to edit here, subject to normal policies. This is an open meeting, which I hereby declare so, meeting as a Committee of the Whole. I or others may present motions; discussion in absence of a motion may routinely take place, and remains in the full record we call History, but may also be routinely deleted (i.e., reverted or edited out) after a time. I will not do that, however, until there is a motion on the floor that has been seconded, or reasonable time has elapsed without a resulting motion and second.

(This meeting has no binding authority, and cannot represent itself as representing the community unless the community, independently, establishes some precedent allowing that, which is not proposed at this time. It can only represent the results of its own deliberations, verifiable by the record.)

I am not yet prepared to present a motion, so this is merely an introduction. I'm occupied elsewhere for a time, but I wanted to get this going. If you are interested, watch this page. --Abd (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2008

I've been experimenting with forms of deliberative process implemented in my user space. Results have been interesting. It's possible to do it, that is, to find conclusions with consensus even when there is initially serious and even uncivil disagreement. --Abd (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)