Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Self electing groups

Responses to MickMacNee
(moved from main page)MickMacNee (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ??? I get your argument, but you lost me on the last sentence. Hi, I'm Pericles. I recently joined this group of User:Peter Damien's. Given that there is no precedent for such a group at Wiki, are you suggesting that the group be unconditionally terminated before a consensus about its right to exist is built? That doesn't sound like consensus at all. It would be as if you sent a suspected criminal to prison and then convene a jury to decide if he or she is really guilty or innocent. Let's actually go through the process of building consensus before making hasty decisions. I for one see only one real tangible benefit of having this group within the larger Wiki community: pressure on new editors to make quality contributions, knowing that sooner or later they'll be admitted into the group. Other than that, I simply view it as a means to mingle with other experienced editors and see if I can collaborate with others on articles that I have created or frequently work on.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 15:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the venue where that consensus will be shown (or not). I am not seeking a 'ban' before this Rfc runs its course, but the basic principle is already established and eligible for comment - a self elected group is being proposed on Wikipedia, is this a good thing or a bad thing or an indifferent thing? Judging by its current process, and prior attempts at resolution, there is going to be a self-electing group on wikipedia coming from this in some form, unless it self-terminates through lack of interest or lack of its own agreement on internal matters. This rfc is to solicit comments from people who are both currently involved in it, and are currently unaware of it. It is not acceptable to me that they simply just form, and declare their legitimacy. MickMacNee (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You may want to read some of the discussion that was removed before the project was "shut down." is particularly enlightening. Mr.Z-man 15:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your analogy doesn't work for me. It's more like person X proposes to go out and build a large block of flats, the people in the village convene, look over his plans and advise if there is permission to build. What would be totally unfair would be those with concerns let him build away and then after it's built get together, disapprove and have it demolished. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "pressure on new editors to make quality contributions, knowing that sooner or later they'll be admitted into the group" is I imagine a huge part of the problem. - Conform with what this group believes is the right thing or you'll be somehow a second class citizen, someone on the outside striving to get in. That's pretty divisive. Guess I ought to go join the Judean People's Front. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are no images on Commons corresponding to these. Peter Damian (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you equating the organization with Frankenstein's monster? Dekimasu よ! 16:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you equating it with Frankenstein's monster? Peter Damian (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Re all that stuff about not knowing of any self-selecting groups; I may be missing something but I think the name you're looking for is MedCom 92.39.206.153 (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A primary difference being that it is a formal part of the dispute resolution mechanism, setup by Jimbo Wales alongside Arbcom, which also isn't community selected. Both allow input of non-members but the decision is ultimately made elsewhere (by Jimbo in both cases it seems, though Medcom seem to provide the names for approval eliminating others). I don't think they are comparable to the groups under scrutiny of this RFC --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by them not being "comparable" to the groups under scrutiny in this RFC. They are possibly the best example of one of these groups (unless instead of self-selecting groups it's supposed to be about EVIL self-selecting groups or some such? That's not what it says at the top of the page). They make no secret of being self-selecting - follow the link above. 87.254.79.18 (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean they are mandated by foundation (or to all intents and purposes via Jimbo) and their purview is limited by such. This is quite distinct from arbitary groups of wikipedian's setting themselves up as groups for whatever reason. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be astonished if the Foundation were to agree that they "mandate" MedCom. Jimbo most of the times is just Jimbo; if the Board ever nominate him to speak for them on some matter then I'm sure he'll be clear that he's doing so at the time (and you can expect to see a published board minute backing it up). Otherwise he's just one Board member. Aside from that, however, if there's to be a discussion on self-selecting groups then it needs to cover the range which might well result in determining one (e.g. MedCom) is good and another, for whatever distinguishing reasons, is bad, but you're not going to get anywhere coherent if you just ignore one set or the other. It would be like people in that RFC on paid editing insisting that nobody can talk about 'bad' paid editors because that's not the ones they mean. 87.254.79.18 (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well we'll have to agree to differ on the scope and establishment basis of medcom and arbcom then, and to if the board accepts the structures Jimbo (as a one time representative of that board) set up and whose authority in certain manners they still continue to accept. It makes little or no difference to me and quite frankly it wouldn't bother me if medcom didn't exist. I don't see attempts to polarise the debate as a good vs evil to be a particularly useful way forward. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As to publish board minutes, remeber there is a difference between the non-excutive of the board stating overall direction and the executive responsible for implementing that in a day to day manner. i.e. not everything the foundation does is determined by the board and won't be recorded in board minutes. (edit conflict)--82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies if you dislike the colourful language "evil" etc, but I thought it was you who wanted to polarise between two sets of self-selecting groups, to the extent of excluding one from even being included in the topic of self-selecting groups at all. My mistake. I'll drop the subject here, if you want to have the last word or whatever. 87.254.70.218 (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Differentiating by mandate and function and polarising between good and evil are two different things. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that the election process for MedCom is somewhat problematic. What is their justification for not using a community oriented process? With ArbCom, while the final decision is technically made by Jimbo, historically he's always just ratified the community's choices. Mr.Z-man 18:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's hope that those endorsing this RfC realise what they may be getting themselves into if a consensus is established forbidding "self-selecting" groups. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite, would an RfA comprising support votes principally from Admins then be considered a self-selecting election? --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In principle it would be difficult to argue otherwise, but in practice the wikilawyers would find or invent some exemption for RfA/RfB/MedCom. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The main proposal (MickMacNee's) is to prevent "the formation and operation of any such group on Wikipedia without a clear consensus from the community" (emphasis mine). I don't see why requiring community consensus before establishing a self-electing group (of which we have a total of 2 right now) is such a bad thing. I also don't quite see how there's much of a difference between handling them on a case-by-case basis and requiring consensus for each one. Mr.Z-man 19:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr.Z-man: "I don't see why requiring community consensus before establishing a self-electing group . . . is such a bad thing." Catch 22? How can an entity that doesn't exist (and can't even be judged by its own participants) get permission (community consensus) to become something that it probably doesn't want to be? A debate about the name, scope, membership of the group was in progress. That debate — which might have produced a Wikipedia page that could have been scrutinized (community consensus) — was stopped by this Rfc.-- Klein  zach  08:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"It would be as if you sent a suspected criminal to prison and then convene a jury to decide if he or she is really guilty or innocent." Hadn't you noticed? That's actually the normal procedure for serious crimes. Peter jackson (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

OK that's enough
I've blanked the page in my user space. End of story Peter Damian (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that a larger issue is now being discussed. Collect (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Collect. This idea has been proposed before, and it may come up again. Since the RfC process has started it may as well be completed.   Will Beback    talk    21:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Quoting Jimbo
Jimbo Wales was quoted by Dekimasu: "There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers." I see the quote only being valid if the notional group "gets in the way of this openness to newcomers." A self-electing group could quite easily be welcoming to new editors. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Then you are able to see more clearly than many others, who have automatically assumed that this proposed new group would be inward-looking and self-centred. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking only for myself, I had no intention of being a member of a closed group. I wanted something that promoted creation of good content, and support for established editors -- being human, we do want some kind of recognition after many years on the project (recognition other than occasional "you bad person you uploaded a non-fair use image you scum" kinds of messages, or little shiny widgets left by people who hope their flattery will engender your support for their POV-push).  I admire people who are brave enough to try new things, even if they are poorly received, and even if they're misguided.  Anything else is conformity, stasis, and intellectual death.  I wish some of the critics were capable of realizing this, and capable of at least a rudimentary level of politeness, a quality rare enough on the internet and a severely endangered one on Wikipedia. Antandrus  (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your answer concerning a "rudimentary level of politness" is somewhat intriguing as some of the tension appears to arise from the fact that certain established editors sometimes aren't willing to show such a level of politness and get annoyed when called on it. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I find that your tactic of blaming no one in particular, and thus maligning everybody, reflects more poorly on you that on those of whom you are failing to speak.
 * If you have an issue with someone in the RfC, or someone named in the now canceled group, say so and give supporting evidence for your concern. If you are worried about someone not associated with this RfC, then your comment is probably misplaced. I'm having a hard enough time following the arguments here without people hinting at ambiguous concerns about unidentified users. - BanyanTree 08:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As it applies to each comment, did you mean this for Antandrus, 82.7.40.7 or both ? I agree with the sentiment. Cenarium (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If your comment was aimed at me, then there is a certain amount of deliberateness about it, looking around there appears to be existing factions, in my rather simplistic view each with their own responsibility for some of the problem here. So it's a degree vague since people need to look at themselves and see if they are part of the problem. Not everyone who would join the proposed new group is part of any current wikipedia problem (far from it), and joining wouldn't directlymake them become part of a problem, and those who would be excluded by lack of selection likewise. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Peter Damian
I clearly misjudged the mood on Wikipedia. I have blanked the page (which is in my user space). End of story. You can all go home. Peter Damian (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: This isn't just about your group. I'd say it's about self electing groups in general, to see what community consensus is on them, so we know how to act in the future.  hmwith  τ   21:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. This RfC and its preceding MfD are good exemplars of how to act in the future; tear them to shreds before they're even born. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely appalling. The idea that editors can be prevented from forming free associations with each other is utterly absurd--and if you ban it here you will simply drive it underground. This whole affair smacks of serious insecurity and a witchhunt, mob mentality. Is Wikipedia so insecure a community that it is unable to tolerate editors deciding to form their own associations? Really? Anyway, I am seriously considering moving this group to MY userspace if the nominated members are still interested. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that idea is absolutely appalling. Associations which prevent other people from joining based on things such as age, sex, race, US vs non-US spelling of colo(u)r, and things like time since first edit, number of contributions, areas of edit interest (tagging vs writing), or number of good/feature articles written have no place on Wikipedia. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. People who have common interests should be able to form groups, and the members of those groups should be able to decide who gets in. Freedom of association is an incredibly basic freedom, and you cannot attempt to tell editors who they may choose to associate with (or not associate with) without utterly crippling the encyclopedia. It cannot function without it, and even if it is banned from on-Wiki all you will do is drive it off-wiki, where I would argue it will be much more pernicious. This entire foufourah speaks of a sheer terror of any kind of counterbalance to the existing power structures. Stop trying to suppress it because you don't like it. If you don't like it, don't join. It's really that simple. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No one is stopping anyone from forming closed groups on other websites. Setting up a group in Yahoo groups takes just a few minutes, and no one from Wikipedia would oppose that. The only goal of this project is to create an encyclopedia. We're not here to associate with people. Peter Damian was never able to articulate how a closed group would further the goal of writing an encylopedia. If you can do so then maybe folks will change their minds. So, how wouold a closed group be more effective at improving the encyclopedia than an open group?   Will Beback    talk    07:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if that closed group were dedicated to working together to improve the encyclopedia, it would frankly be bad to host it on Yahoo. It's better to host it on Wikipedia in the name of transparency (which I believe is vital) and also for simple convenience. Now, why would we want a closed group? Well, consider a few editors who decided they wanted to work on improving NPOV and fighting inappropriate fringe content. We form a group, and we decide that we don't want to let in obvious, blatant POV pushers, as that would be contrary to the goals of the group, namely, helping to ensure NPOV on Wikipedia. Is that really so bad? TallNapoleon (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What if the POV pushers wished to form a closed group in order to fight for inappropriate fringe content? What if we have multiple groups set up to promote their competing views of NPOV content? I just don't see the the upside to this, but everyone is entitled to their views.   Will Beback    talk    14:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Will Beback has just hit the nail on the head (14:25, 20 June 2009). --Philcha (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As pointed out by Will Beback, self-elected groups if allowed could very well be working in the interest of Wikipedia, as viewed by the community at large, or against. Hence the need to remain united. And why would such a group be better at enforcing NPOV than the rest of the community ? Unless they had special powers with respect to content, which the community surely won't grant, even Arbcom has no authority on content issues, they won't be able to enforce policies better than the whole community. Except maybe if they were all admins willing to use their tools aggressively, but I don't think it would last long.. Wikipedia's strength in dealing with disputes rests in its vast community, a community with a common goal, common policies, united and open, with plenty of persons with various background and knowledge. (There's been an article on that, but I can't find it.) We do have internal disputes, but we can overcome them because we are united, and Wikipedia is big enough so that users can choose to work in the area they like most. Divisions will inevitably weaken the community, and a closed group of users will have less leverage to enforce policies than the whole community. We do have noticeboards like WP:NPOV/N and WP:FRINGE/N for certain content issues, and Peter Damian's idea has indirectly allowed the creation of a general noticeboard on content, WP:Content noticeboard, which was missing and is an excellent addition. Experienced users willing to help on those issues can participate there. Cenarium (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If a group turns out to be problematic (like Esperanza) you deal with it then. But saying some groups of people could start throwing rocks is not a reason to stop people from assembling. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * People can assemble, but here we're talking about self-electing groups, it's beyond simply assembling. Cenarium (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's association. Terrifying, I know. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I merely pointed out that a closed group would have less power to enforce policies than the community as a whole, except if they had special powers, administrative or over content, which I'm almost sure the community won't grant; and that this RFC concerns self-electing groups, not simply people assembling, so please don't imply I said things that I didn't say. Cenarium (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Napolean, nobody is stopping you from recreating this group, there are clearly people who want to continue its development. But if you propose it first and foremost as a self-selecting group, you quite clearly would be unwise to listen to the feedback in this Rfc. I am unclear as to what you mean by prevention of free-association, free-associating groups occur on wikipedia all the time, that is not the same as creating self selecting groups. MickMacNee (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's simple: Freedom of association implies the freedom to decide with whom to associate--i.e., to select. If members are unable to form groups of their own choosing (to self-elect, as it were), then they do not have freedom of association, anymore than we would say someone in a police state has freedom of speech as long as they don't say something the censors don't like. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, nobody has the 'freedom' to do a lot of things on Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Cenarium's view is that often the community can't be bothered. Peter jackson (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A conundrum
Wikipedia is widely believed to have a bias against expertise, and this RfC has raised certain issues in my mind which I think are germaine to that view.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that someone proposed to set up an association of expert copyeditors, inviting membership only from those who had proved their abilities over a long period by successfully authoring or copyediting articles at wikipedia's highest levels, FA or GA. Suppose also that the sole aim of such an association was to offer assistance to other editors who were being held up by the demand all too common at FAC in particular to find a good copyeditor to help tidy the article up.

My question is this. What would be in wikipedia's best interest? An association of copyeditors that anyone could join or one open only to those who had demonstrated a competence in the field? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A better question would be, who is to judge who is better then who? An even better question is why does a group of editors need to be shown as better editors then others? Your argument is that because someone has more "expertise" then anyone else in an environment where everyone is equal, then that person should be treated better?  If a person has better skills, why need a group?  Why not take an editor who might not have developed those skills and educate/mentor them instead?  To do that, you don't need a formal group? You just need to help.  Brothejr (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you chosen to ignore my question and answer your own invented question instead, or do you simply misunderstand what I asked? Where did I make any judgement about "who is better than who", for instance? You are clearly far better than me at deliberate obfuscation and disingenuity, but I would not object if you elected to propose a group of equally reactionary editors. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the bigger question is, how do you prevent someone not 'in the group' from contributing? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A group of proven, veteran, content- and format-savvy editors, ones that were experienced GA and FA authors, would be a fantastic resource for other editors who wanted a bit of help or guidance. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ... and whose purpose was to support each in that endeavour ... but it'll never happen, because wikipedia is propagating a lie, one that was common in the hippie days, and even more so in the PC days we find ourselves in today, where nobody is allowed to fail. The truth is that we are all different, which means that some of us are better at some things than others, and none of us is good at everything. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen addressed anywhere why a laudable goal of helping new good editors requires a self-selecting group. There are various help mechanism's available on wikipedia and there is nothing stopping any experienced editor joining in with them. So far none of them seem to have required "membership" per se (i.e. beyond put your name down if you are interested in helping). Why does the gruop need to be self-selecting? Personally I'd have no issue with a certain objedctive bar (assuming it's fairly achievable and not designed to priimarily be a certain subset). That way no one is excluded on any basis other than basic ability to meet the objective test, which is something they can work towards. The fear with a self-selecting group is that they will be excluding on an arbitary basis, nothing to do with the persons ability to further the[public objective of the organisation. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you consider actually addressing the situation I hypothesised about above before simply repeating the party line? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't the time of those excellent copy editors be better served at copy-editing rather than in the creation and maintenance of that group with restricted membership ? I agree we have too few copy-editors, copy-editing FACs in particular, but I don't see how such a group could improve that situation. Specific help and guidance concerning content can also be requested at noticeboards (the new WP:CNB in particular). Users interested in copy-editing have plenty of articles to go through, Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit contains thousands of articles. There's a WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors by the way, with a requests subpage. Cenarium (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's clear that your mind is closed to any ideas but your own, so I will leave you to your misunderstandings. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What an uncalled-for accusation... I did try to give my views on your hypothetical situation, even spent some time on searching the subject; if you're in disagreement with my comment, bring counter-arguments, but don't despise me. Cenarium (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to anyone drawing up a set of agreed upon criteria by which we might create a list of 'experienced' editors that others can call on, they can then be listed or categorised as such. We can even have multiple lists, with different criteria. The current metrics such as list of editors by FA are woefull for picking all-round good editors. I simply don't then see why they need to be orgnised into an active association with goals and objectives. MickMacNee (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Responses to Rootology
Moved from main page. MickMacNee (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

No this absolutely wouldn't work. More power to the administrative community? One of the two fundamental ideas behing my proposal was a Separation of powers. Peter Damian (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Which again ignores the fact that administrators are also content editors themselves; there's no reason to separate them from anyone. Although I'll have to agree with you that there's also no reason to give them more power than anyone else over content. Dekimasu よ! 00:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Admin were included, not excluded, from the group. (please see the list of 119 names ) It's important to get this straight. -- Klein zach  00:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If admins had been excluded then I would never have supported this group. Some of my best wikifriends are admins, and some of them can write a pretty mean article. This group was never in my mind meant to be divisive, there's already enough of that with the widening gulf between admins and the rest, it was meant to be supportive. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Joopercoopers: "I'd personally be happy to see the established editors body widened to open voting, but excluding any admins, bureaucrats, checkusers, stewards, founders, gnomes etc." (emphasis mine); "I'm not exactly over joyed about being described as a self-serving, self-elected elite. For me a simple group of non-functionary, non-admins who can write a coherent paragraph will suffice." (emphasis mine); Peter Damian says that there should be "separation of powers" between administrators and content creators and suggests that admins who want to be a part of the group resign. Dekimasu よ! 02:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I'm mentioned in dispatches here, I'd like to explain my position regarding eligibility criteria - which was actually rather fluid and more related to sorting out what the purpose of the group was supposed to be.
 * "If this group is to support writers of significant prose, then to an extent, it needs to be closed to certain sections of the community. I feel we have a few options here - exclude all functionaries eg. admins, arbs, CU's, OS etc. even if they are good content writers and so concentrate on the needs of the powerless. In this instance we might think about including the holy gnomes. Alternatively we might include, as Peter suggests, anyone with two years experience who has made significant mainspace contributions involving prose regardless of other 'powers'. We might also simply make this a wikiproject which anyone can join. Are we to encourage descenting voices in our ranks, or seek a homogeneity? It's rather hard to talk about membership criteria before establishing the goals - for that it would be better to pick some common concerns."
 * I then set about reformatting all of the 'objectives' on the page as 'suggestions' and inviting further comment - it was all a work in progress, not a straight out of the box manifesto. I'm a democrat, so if the consensus view is this sort of association isn't allowed, then I'm happy to abide by that. This RfC however is founded on a false premise, - that a self elected group was established - it wasn't, it was up for grabs. I'm not sure there needs to be a formal association for editors discussion anyway and outside viewpoints are always welcome, I just saw it as a space where editors could chat about ideas without too much interruption. But then there is some quite high level endorsement of the idea that one can exclude others from one's talk page. If those ideas looked like they had legs, at that point they'd have needed the input of the wider community. This to me is just a new way of working that might deal with some of the scaling issues WP now faces. Anyone arrived at a page and found 200kb of text from everyman and his dog to wade through to get at the nub of the issue? Wouldn't it be more efficient to get a few people together to thrash out some proposals and then gradually get input from others as a process, rather than trying to make sense of all opinions at once? That said, I'm not keen on self-elected elites, and am still sceptical about how NPOV issues might be dealt with. But all that might well have come out in the wash through the discussion. So if anyone (from Jimmy Wales to IP) would like to pick up the substance of any of these discussions, you'd be welcome at my talk page (which is currently very well furnished). Kind regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Peter Damian is as entitled to express his view as anyone else is, just as you or I are entitled to disagree with it in this case. Perhaps your dislike of Peter Damien has clowded your judgement? I try to divorce the issue from the individual who raised it, I only wish others made at least a token attempt at doing the same. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't had any contact with Peter Damian outside of this topic. But as I was told it was important to get this straight, I pointed out examples of people on the association's page advocating exclusion of administrators. As this group was being formed in Peter Damian's user space, I don't think that's unreasonable. As for this statement itself, like I said above, I disagree with Rootology (and agree with Peter Damian) here. Dekimasu よ! 03:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, from my understanding, Peter advocates that users should be either admins or content writers, but not both, the diff above for one (where admins are referred to as 'thuggish security guard'); and a few other relevant comments I lost, to which I think Modernist referred to. There are so many users who are both excellent admins and content writers, this would be a great loss to impose that, see the famous list for reference, the first three active users are admins, and there are many others. I think that ultimately, the point was to create a group with special powers on content (see this for example), that this group should settle content disputes, by deciding on them. That's what I found deeply disturbing in those plans, that a group could establish itself, self-elect its members, and grant to itself special powers, without consultation and approval of the community. The community, by this I mean all enwiki users, with consensus as decision-making process, has never granted special powers w.r.t. content to a specific group, not even to Arbcom, and doing so would require a large and substantial consensus in the community at large. Concerning admins again, there is this comment, which is flawed because the vast majority of community decisions, through consensus, are done without admin participation. The admin corp has nothing or a ruling elite, and saying the community is nothing but talk made up by admins to hang on their power is plainly untrue. I don't want to be overly accusatory, and I won't comment on the motives, that's just my first impression on this. Cenarium (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't recognize that description of the discussions — which I covered carefully and contributed to. Some extreme statements may have been made from time to time but they were not endorsed by the other participants. 26 editors agreed to participate in forming the group, many of them conditionally on it being in line with WP norms, e.g. Joopercoopers: "This will be a meaningless institution unless it upholds the highest standards of policy compliance within wikipedia etc.". This was agreed by a number of others and contradicted by none, see . -- Klein zach  04:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the other members endorsed anything. I pointed out some comments made by Peter Damian and my interpretation of those. My comment was not meant for other members, just how I interpreted was the ultimate aim of this group for Peter, based on his comments. I know many users who have been proposed membership have turned down the offer for, I think, those reasons, it's an attempt to summarize them. Cenarium (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely whose motives, name names, are you impugning here? Every one of those who accepted the nomination, only some of them, or just Peter? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a summary of my interpretation of some of Peter's comments that I think were at stake when several users refused to participate in the group, I provided links to those and my interpretation. I didn't referred to anyone else but Peter for the comments I disagreed with. I was not meaning this for any other user and didn't want to imply anyone else shared those views. Apologizes if it was unclear. Cenarium (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For me Peter's comments about admins were the final deal breaker. I was prepared to resign over that issue when it all fell apart: Modernist (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are legitimate concerns. I would be interested in continuing a group along these lines, was self-elected to some extent (although I would loosen the length of membership requirements), and was focused on supporting and helping content editors and fighting POV. I don't believe an adversarial relationship with admins is a good thing at all, however. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Adversarial with admins? Preposterous. The proposed group could indeed include admins; I see no fight with admins. As far as inclusion criteria, I imagine that a one-year editor who has shown particular skill in content introduction demonstrated in GA articles could be admitted even though he or she was one year short of the original;y-specified two-year criteria. Binksternet (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the strongest supporters of having a content contributors group was an admin. Also note 'the two-year criteria' had not been agreed on, other arrangements were on the table — before the tablecloth was ripped away. -- Klein zach  04:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was in this case referring specifically to some of Peter's rationales for the group creation. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Excellent point. Except that simply proclaiming NPOV is insufficient. Enforcement needs definition of what NPOV is. Draw the line and choose your stand: it's either Jews or Arabs, no gray areas. Right now POVs from different sides prevent the contested topics from sliding into one-sided "consensus". Can you eradicate all POVs in any given POV-loaded issue? No, this is only possible through freezing and effectively culling the topic. The only choice left is suppressing one POV in favor of another. There's nothing wrong in having an editorial policy as long as it is clearly stated. NVO (talk) 05:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think WP:NPOV would be a great place to start. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Six years of polishing this top-level policy and it's still unenforceable. A distant target? yes, quite distant, but not a measure of daily operations. NVO (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And if all the I/P topics (curious that this was chosen as your example) by force were re-written to absolutely favor neither side, this would be a bad thing... why? We were never supposed to favor either side. rootology ( C )( T ) 13:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Responses to Voceditenore
Moved from main page. MickMacNee (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I hope Voceditenore (who probably, and understandably, hasn't read all the discussions) will note that:

1. At the time this Rfc was started (19 June), the term 'association' was being dropped and 'group' was to be used instead. This was supported by Peter Damian and PericlesofAthens, with no-one opposed to the change of name.

2. Calling the user-page group 'self-selecting' (yes, I did notice the additional 's' ) or 'self-electing' (? do you go out and repeatedly vote for yourself or something?) or 'self-appointed' (normal English?) confuses the issue. People just signed up in the usual way.

3. The majority of participants made it clear that they did not want to form an exclusive group, see acceptances, in particular: Joopercoopers: "This will be a meaningless institution unless it upholds the highest standards of policy compliance within wikipedia." (endorsed by other participants including myself) and my own suggestion (later repeated) to allow "all to join . . . to avoid exclusivity".

So — while I agree with Voceditenore's general drift — I don't think her statement is pertinent to the facts. -- Klein zach  02:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification. Sorry, I meant self-electing. In any case, I would have thought that the rest of my comment made it quite clear that I was talking about groups where membership was by "invitation-only" from existing members as opposed to completely open groups like WikiProjects. And yes, I did go to the histories to read the pre-blanking versions of the "Established Editors" proposal and its talk page before commenting here. The direction in which that particular group/association/whatever might have gone in is immaterial. The question at the top of this RFC page was a general one about the appropriateness and desirability of self-electing groups. My point remains, while a blanket-ban on such groups is probably inappropriate, they are not particularly desirable because exclusivity and a hierarchical structure (no matter how lofty the goals) lead to a loss of moral authority. Voceditenore (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Voceditenore: "The direction in which that particular group/association/whatever might have gone in is immaterial." Au contraire, it's the essence of the controversy. This is not theoretical. I think we're the only people talking what 'self election' might, or might not, mean. -- Klein zach  06:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Note. MickMacNee has removed this exchange from the Rfc. This is censorship. I don't edit war so I am not going to put it back. Since this text was removed one editor has endorsed Voceditenore statement, presumably without seeing my comment, or for that matter Voceditenore's clarification. -- Klein zach  00:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Responses to Peter Damian
Moved from main page. MickMacNee (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I hope you won't leave Wikipedia. New ideas and new challenges are needed here. I haven't agreed with many of your ideas — sorry about that! — but you've argued your case with integrity. -- Klein zach  09:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This comment should not have been moved off the main page. I am replacing it. Censorship is not acceptable. -- Klein zach  22:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not censorship, it is standard practice. MickMacNee (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: My comment (a minor gesture of human decency) has again been removed from the Rfc by MickMacNee. I'm not an edit warrior so I'm not going to put it back. Censorship undermines the legitimacy of this Rfc. As one editor has just written, "this lynch-mob mentality is not only deeply unappealing, but could have a lot of unwanted consequences." On the nail. -- Klein zach  00:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Repsonses to Allstarecho
Moved from main page. MickMacNee (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments:
 * 1) WikiProjects may invite, but they don't exclude. DGG (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Often times they do. I know of a few people, sadly, I've came across to invite into a wikiproject because of a single edit I saw of theirs only to decide the project would be best without that person's involvement after I saw many more edits by the same person and so I didn't extend the invitation. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 01:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Query: Allstarecho states: "Last I saw it, it had some requirement that essentially said "if one of our members gets blocked or in trouble, we all come to the rescue!"." I don't remember this — although I took part in the discussion. I've spent half an hour searching for members/block/trouble/rescue etc. here and here. All I can find is this talk page exchange between Peter Damian and two users, John Vandenberg and Peter jackson (who don't seem to have been otherwise involved) — obviously unendorsed by anyone else. Can Allstarecho please provide his main reference? Thank you. -- Klein zach  05:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It was there before the whole page got wiped. See User:Dekimasu's statement below, he mentions it as well. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 06:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Allstarecho: Please provide a proper reference. Nothing has been permanently deleted. The history page is here. Please tell us where there was a requirement that said "if one of our members gets blocked or in trouble, we all come to the rescue!". This is important because seven people have trusted you and endorsed what you wrote. -- Klein  zach  06:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * . First section, it says, The purposes of the association are to represent such content contributors in the Wikipedia community, to champion their interests, and to defend them where there is just cause. This may include the negotiation of blocks or bans, representation at arbitration, and support in content issues where the core neutrality policies of Wikipedia are at stake. which is, as I said, essentially them saying "if one of our members gets blocked or in trouble, we all come to the rescue!". - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 14:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also here "Tangible support in cases of blocking or banning by other users, where there is consensus among established editors.". Cenarium (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

MickMacNee: This should not have been moved from the main page. Removing comments and challenges to statements is censorship. -- Klein zach  22:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not censorship, it is standard practice. MickMacNee (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Note. I replaced this exchange on the Rfc and was attempting to answer Allstarecho and Cenarium, when it was again reverted by MickMacNee. -- Klein zach  23:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The passage quoted above explicitly says "where there is just cause". Peter jackson (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Censorship of this Rfc
I've queried the relevance/veracity of statements in this Rfc. Removing my comments (and others) from the statements gives the impression that they've been accepted by everybody as true and accurate. MickMacNee wrote the Rfc question and has tried to persuade other editors to endorse it. Only allowing supporting opinions, removing contrary ones: that's censorship. -- Klein zach  23:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. This isn't Arbcom, and I've never before seen an RFC with an "all comments will be removed" proviso (and in any event, the filer certainly shouldn't be deciding what gets removed). Show me where it says such a thing in the instructions for replying at RFC and I'll believe it. – iride  scent  23:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking through recent (user) RFCs, Requests for comment/Tennis expert,Requests for comment/Collect (with the exception of the proposed solutions part), Requests for comment/JzG 3, there are only statements and endorsements, responses are to the talk page. But the recent RFC on paid editing doesn't observe this practice, even though there's a note asking to do that, that note seems to be added to most RFCs. So it looks like it's an encouraged practice, but not uniformly followed. Maybe the responses could be linked from the main page. Cenarium (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussions relating to the subject in general should of course be here. Comments on the actual text of the statements (such as this one ) should be left on the talk page. I note that Mattinbgn has just agreed the Statement by Allstarecho, presumably without seeing my critical comments on the wording. If he had seen what I wrote he might not have signed up for it. -- Klein zach  00:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Re Cenarium – no mystery there, user conduct RFCs have their own set of guidelines. – iride  scent  00:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the people who refactor RfCs should form a defensive coalition. Durova Charge! 00:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you mean an 'association'. -- Klein zach  04:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, if you went to the bottom of the page, you would see a section advising editors to come to this talk page to discuss or make comments. Brothejr (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be that, as Template:RFC contains the note on this, but it's for user RFCs, and Rootology used it to open the paid editing RFC. More examples of non-user RFCs are needed to be sure. Cenarium (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They're all here. Search away. – iride  scent  00:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I had looked through this, but they're specific to articles, for the most part, and happen on the talk page. This practice can only be applied for RFCs of this specific form, and most non-user RFCs are not of this form. Those of this form are pretty rare and have undefined guidelines. The user RFCs have probably influenced them. Cenarium (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need an RFC of the RFC process... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's standard practice as far as I know, and has pretty obvious common sense reasons behind it. Kleinzach, restore everybody's comments if you feel that's best, but don't you dare accuse me of censorship, that is a personal attack, and utterly baseless. If anything, it is your selective restoration of only your comments, presumably on the basis that they are the most important, that is poor behaviour. MickMacNee (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tenuous NPA bingo......House! --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not selectively restore comments. I tried to put back two of my comments which MickMacNee immediately reverted. I don't edit war so I then gave up the attempt. IMO all comments germane to the statements should be included in the Rfc and not removed from it. -- Klein zach  04:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the difference in effort between you restoring everybody's comments, or just yours, was about two clicks of the undo button. So excues me while I don't take your concern seriously, while you continue to accuse me of manipulation. MickMacNee (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC) In fact, you took more effort to selectively make a note under each section above, but just the ones that you want restored by the looks of it. MickMacNee (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean by 'Mick wrote the Question and has tried to persuade other editors to endorse it'. That just doesn't make any sense at all. The question is perfectly neutral. MickMacNee (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Further evidence that the structure of RFCs are based on the previous ones. No mischief there. Cenarium (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

On the validity of this Rfc
The following text was written by MickMacNee on 19 June when he filed this Rfc. Everything below was written by this one editor.

We need to ask two questions:

1. Was MickMacNee's filing in accord with RFC guidelines? Or was it improper? See "In most cases those who brought the RfC do not post individualized views, since the initial statement already indicates their thoughts, but in some cases they may wish to post an additional individualized view to clarify their opinion."

2. Was MickMacNee attempting to be the equivalent of judge, prosecutor, and jury foreman all at the same time? The text he filed begins "Request for comments on self electing groups on Wikipedia". It ends with: "The formation and operation of any such group on Wikipedia without a clear consensus from the community should be prevented."

Thank you. -- Klein zach  07:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This smacks of wikilawyering to me. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you are quoting the guidance for User conduct Rfcs, which aren't excactly the same. It is fine in a user Rfc to give a partisan question and no statement, because by definition, you have a particular issue with a user. General feedback is quite different. For this Rfc, I simply copied the format I've seen used before for such centralised general issue Rfc's, the last one being on paid editting. The format of Question/Statements is logical enough to me (as is the need to keep all comments off the main page), and the necessary difference in presentation between my neutral question and my partisan statement is clear enough in what I wrote. MickMacNee (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There are no grounds at all to dispute the validity of this RFC. The essence of a General RFC has always been (1) - "Here's my opinion" and (2) "What does everyone else think?". That is precisely what MickMacNee has done here. Manning (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Responses to Shakescene
Shakescene, if anybody comes to a particualr Wikiproject in bad faith, then under our existing codes of conduct are (or can be) more than adequate to deal with them, without the need to close off the group. Act on the person, not the system. MickMacNee (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

On the topic of "Identity"
Without intending to disrespect the fact that User:Peter Damian has blanked the User:Peter Damian/Established Editors page, there is a single line in an Older version which intrigues me, and I'd like to discuss in a wider context. (I also wish to reiterate that this RFC has clearly moved beyond the original proposed group into a wider general discussion, and hence I'm not challenging Peter Damian's post, rather the general concept).

The line I refer to is :"The criteria for membership includes... Having an established identity on Wikipedia..." (My emphasis).

This alarmed and intrigued me. So what does an "established identity" mean? I am one of the longest serving Wikipedians in existence, yet I ruthlessly maintain a high level of anonymity and aloofness. I rarely engage in discussion, and I do not participate in Wikiprojects, or any other formal/semi-formal associations. I have a user profile yet I estimate that 90% of all of my edits are anonymous as I usually work without logging in. (I have my reasons for this aloofness, which can be discussed elsewhere if required).

So does that mean I do or do not have "an established identity"? If the answer is no, does that mean my value to Wikipedia is somehow diminished or devalued? Should there be any measure of a Wikipedian's value other than the quality of their work? Manning (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Peter Damian has moved his organization into Wikipedia space
See WP:AEE. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually copied sans edit history -- making the arguments about its original intent difficult for anyone to show now. Collect (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)