Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Self electing groups: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:12, 21 June 2009

This page in a nutshell: Request for comments on self electing groups on Wikipedia, and what your views on it are. A proposal for one such group is currently in progress, currently designated the Association of Established Editors in user space

A request for comment on the concept of self-electing groups on Wikipedia.

What's the question?

Are self-electing groups on Wikipedia appropriate? Are they against policy? Which policy? What should be the role of such groups in Wikipedia? What are the benefits of such groups to Wikipedia? What are the downsides to such groups on Wikipedia? Can self elected groups help us in our primary goals better than any of our existing processes?

Desired outcome

A consensus view on the issue of self-electing groups on Wikipedia.

Background

There is currently a proposal in Peter Damian (talk · contribs)'s user space, to establish an Association of Established Editors (located at the time of this posting at User:Peter Damian/Established Editors). Details are fluid at present, but the basic idea is as follows:

There shall be a defined group of Wikipedians within the project (the membership)
The members of the group shall be elected by its existing members
The members will be required to sign up to a set of common goals/objectives/principles

Related discussions

Feel free to add any relevant discussions you may be aware of, signing your addition

Statements

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

NOTE: For transparency, users who have already accepted a nomination to the The Association of Established Editors (located at the time of this posting at User:Peter Damian/Established Editors) should declare this in their statement.

Statement by MickMacNee

The community already has elections for some groups, such as administrators, arbitrators and bot approvers, but these elections are open to all registered Wikpedians (subject to certain restrictions designed to simply combat vote fraud). As far as I am aware, the community currently has no active self-electing groups of the nature of that proposed for the AEE.

The community already has a notion of defined membership lists, usually as a method of registering a common interest in a Wikiproject. As far as I am aware, none of these bodies have the power or remit to prevent good faith Wikipedians from becoming members, and member conduct and group activity within those projects falls entirely within the usual policies.

Any group of editors on Wikipedia that elects its own membership and has its own goals and objectives is fundementally against the open and collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, and is contrary to our five pillars, most importantly, what the Wikipedia community is not.

Any system that promotes the idea of vested contributors is fundementally wrong. Accepting the need to assume good faith about any new proposal for Wikipedia, a self-electing self-serving membership body is fundementally divisive by nature, and as such could represent a greater, and possibly unmanageable, threat to etiquette than the actions of individuals alone, and could be conducive to the fostering of an unwelcoming, or downright hostile, attitude in members and non-members alike.

The formation and operation of any such group on Wikipedia without a clear consensus from the community should be prevented.

MickMacNee (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Comment from Pericles moved to the talk page per instructions. MickMacNee (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'(Partial) endorse : I support the view that self-electing groups should be not encouraged. If anything, systems such as RFA have become too de facto self-electing already. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 15:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.Z-man 15:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shereth 15:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dekimasuよ! 15:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Davewild (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exploding Boy (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brothejr (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gigs (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Vickers (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hmwith</s%pan>τ 21:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cybercobra (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
⟳ausa کui ^× 22:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Them From Space 22:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The very fact that a proposal so obviously contrary to our core principles was seriously considered is slightly discouraging. Dlabtot (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that leads to an us-versus-them attitude is undesirable. JohnCD (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Juliancolton

As far as I know, this isn't a big problem at all. That said, I agree with PericlesofAthens. Further research/discussion should take place before blanket-banning such groups. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Endorse the view that blanket-banning is not the way forward here. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 18:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse While in principle I'm not keen on self-electing groups, I think trying to legislate against them would be a mistake. It would be difficult to phrase rules that had no unintended consequences, such as making it harder to form new Wikiprojects. And legislating would drive would-be members of self-electing groups underground on to email, IRC etc. --Philcha (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I think concern about such groups arises because the current group in question appears, in part, to be a forum for validation of inappropriate actions by some editors who, though they made notable contributions, were consistently rude and were (correctly) blocked for violating WP:Civil. A fair number of those nominated appear to be "wronged" editors (or their supporters) who feel admins used blocks based on WP:Civil and other guidelines unfairly. While in some cases they may have a point, a special interest group formed in part to support those involved in serious violations of WP:Civil is not appropriate. However, that does not mean all self-selecting groups should be banned. There may be some circumstance in the future when such a group could be useful/appropriate. All such groups should be judged on a case-by-case basis, not immediately squashed under a blanket ban. Otebig (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Quoting an important bit from what Jimbo wrote: “there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers.” It seems clear to me what he was after: to get away from what Wikipedia was first heading towards, where you had to have your posts vetted by a high-brow committee before one’s posts could see the light of day. Jimbo wants it so anyone can edit and that’s what we’ve got; Wikipedia is completely open to newcomers. What Peter is contemplating is an association of like-minded editors which has no special entitlements and privileges, nor any ability whatsoever to limit other editors’ accessibility to any portion of Wikipedia. They simply want to form a marketplace for the exchange of ideas and do so with those they prefer to associate with. But I can see why this would be objectionable to others. Those who would be excluded make arguments, that if you extend it to the real world, amounts to “there should be no clubs or associations where members choose their membership. I should be able to crash any club like the Masons, or the Elk if I please, and they shouldn't be able to limit who they like to association with.” I reject this attitude and find other editors’ efforts to oppose it using words like “cabals” and “dangerous precedent” to be distasteful and disgusting. Clubs like the Masons and the Elks aren’t about limiting someone else’s rights anywhere in the world on anything, they just want to socialize with like-minded individuals who share a common world-view; people they can relate to. It is understandable that some WWII vet who lived through the depression is going to find little in common with some spiky-haired punk with the loud radio on the bus. I can see that what Peter is doing is likely a lost cause because there are too many editors who, feeling excluded, would gang together and engage in what is epidemic on Wikipedia: mob rule and lowest-common-denominator mentality. Accordingly, I am pulling a “full wimp-out” and am withdrawing my acceptance of the nomination. Greg L (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, or WP will become even more like a police state. However, I think several aspects of the wording of the launch-page are unwise (piping to "union"; up-front aim to support editors in certain forums). As pointed out by several users here, self-electing groups come in a number of forms—some less and some more formal in their membership; saying yes or no to the concept will lead nowhere good. Treat each circumstance on its merits, and give it a chance to evolve into a positive part of the project. Nurture and encourage away from unfortunate directions, rather than drawing impossible distinctions and outlawing by category. Tony (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I am as uncertain about this group as anyone, despite having accepted a nomination to it, but I am very certain that I find these repeated attempts to suppress it to be completely unacceptable. An MfD failed a few days ago, now this RfC. What will the baying mob's next move be if this doesn't give them the "right" result? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Certain closed groups could be a problem. Insisting that all of them would have to be is fearmongering at its worst, especially when the group in question won't gain any special powers above any other editors. DreamGuy (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No big deal indeed. And if anything becomes a big deal ... when was the last time a formal group became a real threat? NVO (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Attempting to ban a group that has not yet formed because of what it might become? Perhaps this indicates how far Wikipedia has gone towards becoming an ideological organization, rather than a project to publish an encyclopedia. --Klein zach 21:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse--Joopercoopers (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Allstarecho

I'd be careful with this as it's broadly construed. Wikiprojects could be considered "self electing groups". Many of them go around inviting people to join a project. As for the particular "group" that brought this about, I'm against that one, just like Esperanza. If there ever was a real "cabal" on Wikipedia, User:Peter Damian/Established Editors is it. 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!". That's not acceptable. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 15:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Mr.Z-man 15:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shereth 15:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gigs (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hmwith τ 21:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cybercobra (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

WikiProjects may invite, but they don't exclude. DGG (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Dekimasu

At the risk of falling into Argumentum ad Jimbonem, Jimbo wrote a Statement of principles in 2001. It is prominently linked from Wikipedia:Five pillars. This statement of principles posits, in part, that

Newcomers are always to be welcomed. 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. [A]ny measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other.... [R]ather than trust humans to correctly identify "regulars", we must use a simple, transparent, and open algorithm, so that people are automatically given full privileges once they have been around the community for a very short period of time.

This principle is violated by the creation of any self-electing group that limits its membership based on length of stay, number or type of contribution, editing style, or having "established an identity" on Wikipedia. Creating any such group without a "narrowly tailored objective" is a further violation of the principle. Any group that intends to "negotiate blocks or bans, represent [its members] at arbitration, and support [them] in content issues" or engage in block voting is headed towards improper WP:TEAMWORK. Thus, the association under construction would violate long-established behavioral standards. Dekimasuよ! 15:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

As I said on either the MFD or the talk page before the discussion was removed, even a small group could effectively "win" every dispute it involved itself in just by overwhelming it. Mr.Z-man 15:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You nailed it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well-said. Groups that self-limit their membership are a dangerous precedent. Shereth 15:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had recently joined the group believing it would be a means to encourage novice editors to work hard and sooner or later be privileged with an invitation to a meaningless but prestigious club. Now I see how this sort of "club" could end up causing serious problems. I'll be content with WikiProject China for now (which will never interfere with editor disputes, ArbCom, blocks, bans, etc. on my behalf). I would be willing to rejoin the group if it made some serious changes to its purpose, however. That is, if it became all-inclusive and instead of just allowing in senior editors, have senior editors tutor newbie members on how to write sound, researched, and well organized articles. That way, everyone can join, and it turns into more of a tutor service with prestigious members than a cabal.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Davewild (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Collect (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Not even a close call.[reply]
Exploding Boy (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brothejr (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gigs (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Captain panda 19:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hmwith τ 21:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cybercobra (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, bad idea. ⟳ausa کui ^× 22:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Them From Space 22:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dlabtot (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Computerjoe 's talk 11:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Majorly

Last time I checked, Wikipedia was an encyclopedia. Gangs and other such nonsense are for kids and teenagers, not sensible people writing an encyclopedia. Majorly talk 16:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tim Vickers

Speaking as both an editor and a thuggish security guard, I don't like the idea of closed groups either. Wikiprojects are open to any interested editor, and the technical groups such as rollbackers and administrators were created through a process of community consensus, with entry requirements defined by the community. I'd recommend waiting until the 20-odd members of this "association" decide what exactly they are intending to do, and then open an RfC on that specific formulation, to see if this is acceptable to the community. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

endorse Attempts at a blanket ban are likely to have unforeseen consequences, mostly undesirable. Peter Damian has blanked the user page on which he proposed the group. If the proopsal doe snot resurface within a month, we should close this RfC. --Philcha (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cool3

Remember Esperanza? For those unfamiliar with it, take a look at its page as it exists now. Esperanza was conceived with the loftiest goals and best intentions, but it just doesn't work out, and now it's gone. To quote from the essay on its page: "existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times." We don't need clubs or cabals; it's not consistent with the ways things are done. Cool3 (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users endorsing this statement

Stifle (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Will Beback has just hit the nail on the head (14:25, 20 June 2009). --Philcha (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, it's association. Terrifying, I know. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Binksternet

The agenda of the proposed group, the list of "Membership commitments", is still in flux. Why are people expecting the worst from the group when it's not fully defined yet? I can imagine beneficial results from this association, including the development in each of its members a wider purview regarding previously unfamiliar Wikipedia content. I see the focus of the association as being centered on reliable content creation with appropriate weight. This is a fine goal! If it doesn't bog down in legalistic jockeying, the group could well become a project-spanning cross-pollinator, increasing the editing skill, wisdom and breadth of its members while adding materially to the value of the encyclopedia.

The Jimbo quote used earlier, "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" would only be violated if the notional group "gets in the way of this openness to newcomers." The group could conceivably offer help and guidance to new users. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The name of the group, the scope, membership, aspirations, aims and commitments of the group were all undecided. Many of the accepting nominees only agreed to participate conditionally, subject to the outcome. Now it seems there won't be an outcome at all. --Klein zach 14:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Seems obvious really, but obviously not to everyone. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter Damian

The system I proposed was not a 'cabal', which is a secret organisation. Those who have emailed me know that my replies were brief, and that the main proposals were on the page now deleted.
What I was proposing was a 'trust system' which is used in many human affairs. In banking this kind of system allows you to pay or receive money to someone you don't know or trust, via two banks that do know and trust one another. Another such system is the university, which self-selects its members. The university was an invention of the medieval period, a time when the human world emerged from the crudest superstition and 'point of view' to strive towards a world-view which was (approximately) neutral (we aren't there yet).
The question is whether Wikipedia can work without such a system.
I don't think it can. Someone asked above why a group couldn't be formed whose purpose was NPOV? This would never work. Fringe and POV-pushers do not work over a wide range of articles. They are obsessive about a single point of view. By contrast, those of us committed to neutrality work over the whole project, with the single aim of getting Wikipedia to reflect what is verifiable and neutral and which is reflected in other standard reference works. This gives a peculiar dynamic to the battle. The POV pusher will always outnumber the neutral editor in any one area. This is what makes the battle so frustrating and difficult. But neutralists as a whole will outnumber the POV pushers in any single area. This can be done only if (a) those who are neutrally commited combine and help one another (b) there is some sort of trust system so that experts in one area know it is OK to help an expert in another area. E.g. I would help someone committed to working on nuclear physics if I trusted their claims about what is in the scientific literature. But without being able to trust them, I will not be sure they are pushing some crank theory or not.
In summary, because of the dynamics of the POV vs NPOV (NPOV editors are committed to a wide range of theories many of which they do not understand at all, whereas POV editors have a deep but deranged understanding of a single area) it is essential that Wikipedia develop a trust system of some kind.
But this will never happen. The outright hostility I encountered suggests that 'Wikipedians' view themselves as members of a project with certain social objectives (complete levelling of expertise, antagonism to experts and so on) above the commitment to build a comprehensive and accurate reference work, accessible to all.
This is my reason for leaving Wikipedia. There are ways of correcting the distorted and inaccurate bias it is now presenting to the world, other than from working inside the 'community'. Peter Damian (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Statement by Voceditenore

A blanket-ban on self-selecting groups is probably ill-advised and may have unintended consequences. However, so is creating a separate tier of exclusive "associations", especially in project (as opposed to user) space. If thoughtfully named and formulated (definitely not easy, but possible), there's no reason why a Project cannot fulfil the same goals that an invitation-only "association" might legitimately have. It can be open to all editors provided they are willing to commit to its goals, principles, and code of conduct A project can also have lists (but not "ranks") of veteran editors amongst their members (arrived at by consensus of the members) as well as lists of expert editors with their area of expertise and qualifications. It would be highly unlikely that people would join a project where they did not share its goals and commitments and refused to sign on to them. The two groups that have "real power" in Wikipedia (Administrators and Arbitration Committee are rightly closen by a process open to all Wikipedians. An "association" which limits its membership via an exclusive process has no power, yet risks losing its most powerful attribute – moral authority. (The Mediation Committee is an anomaly and shouldn't be cited as a precedent for either pro or con. It's part of the formal dispute resolution process, has no powers of sanction and its remit and membership criteria are part of Wikipedia policy.) Voceditenore (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

MickMacNee (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'd rather hoped the association would have moved in this direction, before it's discussion were prematurely curtailed by this RFC. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Rootology

We have Wikipedia:Five pillars.

Two of them are: Wikipedia is free content and Wikipedia has a code of conduct. We routinely WP:BLOCK users who deliberately violate these, and WP:BAN users that habitually violate them.

Our two most important pillars are Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. We don't block block or ban people that habitually violate WP:NPOV, even though habitually violating that completely undermines our entire project.

If people habitually violating WP:NPOV were subject to sanctions by uninvolved admins, we would eliminate a lot of long-term problems simply since all the loud, abrasive, and endless battles surrounding them would be eliminated over time. Just a single one-sentence tweak to WP:NPOV:

+ Users who repeatedly create deliberate violations of WP:NPOV in articles may be subject to editing restrictions.

It wouldn't require a major new set of policies, self-forming groups, or anything silly like that. Would it ultimately require Arbcom to weigh in on content? Maybe, maybe not. Is it needed long-term, to do this? Absolutely.

Users who endorse this summary:

rootology (C)(T) 16:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. 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)[reply]

Statement by Erich Mendacio

Wikipedia is made of individual contributors. These contributors are either registered users with a user name or anonymous contributors that sign their edits with an IP address. The dominant ethos on Wikipedia is to refer to the aggregate of these editors as "the community" -- as an entity in itself, with its own mindset, health, and unique cultural practises. This concern about "the community" as an abstract obfuscates the reality that Wikipedia is made of individuals with their own motivations and proclivities, good and bad. Some of these individuals might desire to form their own groups within the community, as in the instance that touched off this discussion in the first place. The opinion that such groups are detrimental to the overall cohesion of "the community" has much support.

Of course this situation has eerie a parallel to the situation in Germany after the Nazis took over the government in 1933. The Nazi ideology was, above all, concerned with the welfare of the German "community" (as they defined it at least), and saw any non-Nazi groups or clubs as a dangerous counter-influence to the Nazi policy initiatives. So therefore, in the name of the German racial community, one of the first things the Nazis did was to ban or co-opt all traditional German social clubs or bunds, from trade unions to religious groups, using the same rationale that many of the posters in this RFC are using. Starting a non-approved, non-Nazi new social club after the Nazi takeover of power would, if discovered, lead to commitment to a concentration camp for the founder and its members. I myself have no opinion on whether these "clubs" on Wikipedia are good or bad, but I am intrigued by the historical parallels here. Erich Mendacio (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Endorse. Erich Mendacio (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Now you understand. The separation of powers, and the ability to freely combine are the essence of a non-totalitarian state. All this talk of the 'community' is just like the 'will of the people' - in reality just the will of a small ruling elite - the administrators - to hang on to their power. Peter Damian (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by $USER

Add your statement, leave one copy of the section at the bottom.

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

@@ Line 207: / Line 207: @@
 ===Statement by [[User:Erich Mendacio|Erich Mendacio]]===
-Wikipedia is made of individual contributors.  These contributors are either registered users with a user name or anonymous contributors that sign their edits with an IP address.  The dominant ethos on Wikipedia is to refer to the aggregate of these editors as "the community" -- an entity in itself, with its own mindset, health, and unique cultural practises.  This concern about "the community" as an abstract obfuscates the reality that Wikipedia is made of ''individuals'' with their own motivations and proclivities, good and bad.  Some of these individuals might desire to form their own groups within the community, as in the instance that touched off this discussion in the first place.  The opinion that such groups are detrimental to the overall cohesion of "the community" has much support.
+Wikipedia is made of individual contributors.  These contributors are either registered users with a user name or anonymous contributors that sign their edits with an IP address.  The dominant ethos on Wikipedia is to refer to the aggregate of these editors as "the community" -- as an entity in itself, with its own mindset, health, and unique cultural practises.  This concern about "the community" as an abstract obfuscates the reality that Wikipedia is made of ''individuals'' with their own motivations and proclivities, good and bad.  Some of these individuals might desire to form their own groups within the community, as in the instance that touched off this discussion in the first place.  The opinion that such groups are detrimental to the overall cohesion of "the community" has much support.
 Of course this situation has eerie a parallel to the situation in Germany after the Nazis took over the government in 1933.  The Nazi ideology was, above all, concerned with the welfare of the German "community" (as they defined it at least), and saw any non-Nazi groups or clubs as a dangerous counter-influence to the Nazi policy initiatives.  So therefore, in the name of the German racial community, one of the first things the Nazis did was to ban or co-opt all traditional German social clubs or bunds, from trade unions to religious groups, using the same rationale that many of the posters in this RFC are using.  Starting a non-approved, non-Nazi new social club after the Nazi takeover of power would, if discovered, lead to commitment to a concentration camp for the founder and its members.  I myself have no opinion on whether these "clubs" on Wikipedia are good or bad, but I am intrigued by the historical parallels here. [[User:Erich Mendacio|Erich Mendacio]] ([[User talk:Erich Mendacio|talk]]) 18:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)