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

165:

resolution has already been reached, the case is declined. If they decide that there is one, they take the problem on. Afterwards, there is a workshop phase that should normally last thirty days, but that time frame can be extended or abridged if a majority of the committee (50% and one) agree to do that. In the workshop, community members cast a cornucopia of proposals on how said problem could be fixed, and other community members discuss the benefits and drawbacks of each proposal. When the workshop phase is closed, regulators deliberate privately on the merits of each proposal and vote for the ones they think have the most merit, and the most probability to bring a long-lasting solution.

1281:

necessary evil. It's another thing entirely to create a committee to handle things just that the community can't reach consensus on at the moment: most things can wait until consensus be achieved, and setting up another committee will make things hairier, especially because it will amount to the community giving up some rights. . Moreover, now that I read others' comments, I strongly disagree because of A2soup's comments: we already have problems with Arbcom going beyond their authority and creating policy, but it would be worse if we actually had a committee whose job it was to make policy decisions, rather than just implementing them.

1541:, it is becoming more and more bureaucratic over the years. I think that is one of the reasons of Knowledge's decline. This proposal just adds to it. We want more new editors to join Knowledge, but we propose a "council of elders" that will decide matters for them. That is not a thing that would encourage editors to join. If we want to attract potential new editors, we have to show them that they will be equal to others and that their opinion will be taken into account. This proposal goes against it. Also, I think that we already have more than enough committees and similar groups. In the 1492:. While I understand the frustration and sentiment on which this is based and have both supported and proposed similar things in the past (focused only, however, on article content, not on policymaking, and I may also have Wiki-matured somewhat since then), this strikes at the heart of Knowledge saying, in effect, that the most central model upon which Knowledge is based — collaboration and consensus — is flawed and ought to be abandoned at least in the most difficult and controversial cases. It strikes at the heart because 1653:

entertainment. The self-selecting, account-holding population of this project generally average out to a higher education level, better collaboration skills, a more rational mindset, and a higher general intelligence level than average, and we are here for an overtly intellectual, long-range, public good, setting aside time from pleasure-center-related "hairless ape" pursuits. We don't need a congress/parliament to make our decisions for us here, even when coming to one takes longer than some of us would like.

147:

absolute inaction and stagnation. Also, "no consensus" closures happen fairly often, but the only option is more consensus. When the same crop of editors bring the same opinions to another discussion, no consensus is reached. Cf. "banging your head against a brick wall." This is obviously frustrating, and it would benefit us to have an alternative to go to when consensus has failed. I know a Regulation Committee would sound like bureaucracy, but sometimes bureaucracy, formality and

1650:

they're evenly distributed from among the community, or b) they'll be unevenly distributed, and favor one side vs. the other, both of which are failures to produce a result acceptable to the community. There is literally no other possible outcome. Representative democracy is something we've already dabbled in too much with ArbCom and with turning adminship into a "First Class Citizen" social statrum imbued with a politicized notion of "trust" instead of being based on competence.

1944:: Even 5,000 edits would be too few. (I oppose the general proposal, but am approaching this from a "what if" viewpoint). The requirements for this would need to be much more stringent than even for admins, and people would develop their own personal criteria for what was good enough, but at least 8,000 edits and a minimum of a year of regular editing (not necessarily contiguous) would probably be enough to weed out a lot of completely hopeless nominations. 114:

guideline changes in an effort to solve problems brought before it by community members, and would only come into play when consensus has failed. The usefulness of such a committee will likely be evident to anyone who has ever been involved in a contentious discussion on this site. Editors fight bitterly from what ever point of view they have, and sometimes this prevent consensus from being built properly. We have already understood the sensibility of an

93:

all will be affected, or than enough input is given to ensure that the resolution is lasting and has the support of a wide base of users. Combine that with the fact that if a person refuses to compromise, or take the view of other people into account consensus becomes unattainable, which becomes more and more likely the more people join into a discussion, and seeking consensus in such instances has as much effect as

193:: The Regulation Committee would only act if consensus has been sought out in two distinct locations (which isn't a very hard bar to reach seeing that there is practically a cornucopia of locations to seek out consensus), and in both cases, has failed to reach a solution. This is intended to diversify the opinions that are received, and perhaps keep issues in the community's court as much as possible. 1149:

candidates hold and voters electing candidates who agree with their policy positions (just look at elections to Arbcom). Remembering the turnout levels that the election would have, this body will become a way for a small majority on any controversial subject to try and impose their will even though they have no chance of gaining a consensus among the wider community.

1567:: Consensus is agreement. When there is no agreement, and a group pretends that there is agreement, and forces the crowd who tried to come up with the agreement in the first place to accept that there is an agreement despite such crowd not coming up with an agreement in the first place, chaos will ensue. 2296:

I strongly oppose this entire proposal, but if we are going to create a Regulation Committee then anyone who wants to serve on it should get at least 75% (and preferably 85%) of the vote. An editor with a 60% support rate would not pass an RFA, so I fail to see why the same percentage should get them

1649:

considerations, and for newer minds to approach the issue who were not part of previous rounds of discussion. The main problem with this proposal is that if consensus cannot be formed by the community (yet) about something, then some subset of the community will either a) also not form consensus, if

1405:

a vote, defined by a simple majority. So by that logic if this "committee" were to issue an edict that supported something the community had voted down, they've going against over 50% of editors. If they followed said editors, they'd fall into the same pattern and never get anything done. The fact is

1309:

group of them would be competent to judge content issues in all subject areas is simple fiction. If the sources do not support consensus then there should be no consensus. If the sources and our policies support a position and an editor does not drop the stick then it is a behavioral issue and should

866:

As Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time". I agree that consensus does not always work, but that just means that we need a mechanism to encourage editors to work more heavily towards consensus. I don't think that

175:

After regulators agree to hear an issue, Regulation Committee members (or clerks) will have a certain amount of time (7–10 days) to summarize previous discussions, proposals and ideas, and present them in a structured, orderly way so the community can view it and make an informed decision. This would

1977:

I'm not against self-nomination per se, but in my opinion the option to nominate others should not be taken off the table so quickly. As for the number of edits requirement, having such a low threshold could help in qualming the fears of this "committee" being out of touch with the community. Lowbie

1881:

Editors with only 500 edits would simply not have a broad enough understanding of Knowledge to make the type of decisions they will be expected to make. For full disclosure, I do not believe that any editor could possibly have the experience needed to make these kinds of decisions since there are so

1545:

where I'm clerking, we have a lack of clerks, and the process is heavily backlogged. Now, with this proposal succeeding, we would need more committee members and clerks, but we are unable to attract clerks to already existing committees. We have a definite number of editors that is steady, so more

1280:

It's one thing to say that the community can't come to consensus on a situation of disruptive editing: such a situation needs a committee to arbitrate, because such behavior always gets in the way of all other editing. A committee to overrule or ignore consensus isn't a good thing, but here it's a

736:

We do things here by consensus; creating a position that can just arbitrarily decide how thing are done on Knowledge will alienate our user base, prevent people who are experienced with the issues from having a say and ultimately result in solutions that do not reflect the day to day reality of the

364:

While the above statement is technically true, it fails to reflect the fact that consensus has been an overwhelming net benefit to Knowledge and that a major strength of this website is its ability to come up with good policy in a way that involves the editors most impacted and knowledgeable of the

82:

is the primary means of achieving change of the extant policies and guidelines. This has been a defining principle of this community for many a year, and our consensus-building model has gained us much interest from scholars who want to examine it, and normal people who are excited at the fact that

1853:

too low and I disagree with the idea of self nomination. If such a group were to exist they should be nominated by other editors who are familiar with how the nominee handles disputes and how they think about policy. Since the proposal has been changed to address policy rather than content I would

1496:

and saying that it does not work in those cases says that the model itself is flawed. That it is flawed may, indeed, be true and the wiki system may be too utopian and fail to take into account the baser side of human nature (especially in a project of this size), but I'm personally not willing to

103:

Knowledge's community to bang their heads against a wall, running in infinite loops to solve a problem, where, more than like, the same group of editors that participated in previous discussions will bring their same viewpoints, and nothing ever gets done. Meanwhile, the problem that consensus was

92:

Consensus can take a long time to develop. Now, the amount of time consensus takes is not, in my opinion, an issue in and of itself. I do believe that time allows for people to calm down, and creative solutions to be brought up. However, with consensus, there is no guarantee that any resolution at

50:

close--majority of commenters are solidly rejecting this current proposal at every level (headcount, policy, and anticipated outcomes). Alakzi's suggestions in the "general comments" section are well-taken and the proponents should take the advice on board if they want to develop a new version of

3075:

anything i say is of course an opinion and opinions are never binding, unless if consensus agrees with it. To a certain extent members of arb com have a COI here,but on the other hand present & former members know the problems involved. I think supporters are underestimating the problems and

2923:

The difference between this and consensus is that, while consensus grants no assurances, we know that a binding decision will come out of this. Beyond that, an assurance of a solution may invite editors who have been frustrated by the problem and lack of solution and chosen to forego the headache

2441:

An elected group of editors accountable to the community, who would have the ability to issue binding policy, procedural and guideline changes in an effort to solve problems brought before it by community members should be formed. This group would deal specifically with the internal operations of

1772:

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

1258:

disregard while policies essentially never are), but there are certainly non-content-related guidelines, and policies may well contain content-related statements. So perhaps instead of striking "guideline", you could add some restriction against the Committee regulating anything with a bearing on

1186:

editors generally opposes it for good reasons. Consensus-based content guidelines are a convenient shortcut that allow us to track what a community of such editors think about common types of edits without having an RfC every time. The authority of the Regulation Committee over content guidelines

1148:

I don't see how that addresses any of my reasons for opposing this proposal. I am confident that elections to this body will see either questions about policies (deletion, notability, BLP, RFA, etc.) being asked of the candidates or digging into their edit histories to find out what positions the

1115:

That all comes down to teh sensibility of the people who have been elected. If an editor has to "have a stick" in the first place, s/he must not be doing what the community wants him/her to be doing, or is violating some rule of decorum. I really don't see how an elected group of sensible editors

113:

What I am proposing is a recourse for when consensus has failed to administer a solution to a problem, and the problem persists. What I am proposing is a Regulation Committee, an elected group of sensible editors accountable to the community, who would have the ability to issue binding policy and

1978:

editors also have valid points to make, in some ways quite refreshing ones, when compared to experienced editors who're used to the editing quagmire. All of this is of course argued hypothetically, given I'm against this proposal overall, along similar lines as SMcCandlish has stated previously.

277:

I believe strongly in consensus, but everything has a downside, and we have no current means of remediating the many downsides of a consensus-based system. E.g., resistance to change, lack of progress, failure to follow through on the community's expectations. I strongly support this proposal,

179:

The workshop phase is vital to this proposal. Therefore, regulators should not have the power, even if a majority wills to do so the eliminate the workshop phase, where community members can discuss possible resolutions to an issue. Neither should the workshop phase to abridged to less than 15

164:

Possible process: Once all reasonable means of seeking consensus have been exhausted, the problem is brought before members of the Regulation Committee. Regulators then cast their opinions on whether there is a real problem that consensus can't or has not been able to fix. If there isn't, or a

146:

funny thing is, we have no other avenue to go to but consensus, but we can't be sure that consensus will bring about anything substantive other than more bloviating and time-wasting. This is not something we should aspire to. It is in no one's interest if this community has been consensus'd to

2682:

A community-selected advisory group is established. This group will act and operate independently of the Arbitration Committee. They will scrutinize the issues that the community is faced with, collect and summarize where the community's consensus has gone previously on the issue, and present

1652:

Representative democracy is a seemingly necessary evil (and a definite evil, being rife with corruption and ignorance) in large national polities, mostly made up of half-educated, territorial, superstitious hominids with an IQ around 110, mostly concerned with eating, orgasming, and passive

3200:

This proposal has no chance of being accepted in its present incarnation. Its proponents could discuss this amongst themselves in a more casual setting, after having compiled and perused the literature on consensus-based decision-making. Though you make a good point that no consensus

672:

The cure for "lack of reaching a consensus" is not to throw out consensus - it is to provide/create tools and forums and approaches to disputes that facilitate reaching consensus rather than the current "free for all chaos" approach of trying to reach consensus on difficult issues.--

1641:: Yet another layer of bureaucracy, a proposal for a "content ArbCom", and another point of systemic weakness for PoV pushers to exploit. It's fine that some things, including what to do about our broken adminship system, do not settle out immediately. It gives us time weigh all the 2683:

proposals before the community that attempt to balance past consensus with finding a solution to a problem. They will have no binding powers to change standing policies, guidelines and procedures, and their proposals must get the approval of the community before being implemented.

1400:

per everybody above me, this is just a disaster waiting to happen. You say that things don't get done, and that's true, but they don't happen because people don't want them to happen. When it comes down to it, no matter what you say about judging consensus, RfCs and the like are

3096:

Regarding the comment on the effect to the idea that consensus can change: this can continue to be the case, even with the proposed committee. Should matters change and the community is subsequently able to reach a consensus on its own, the community view takes precedence.

2084:

A user who wants to be on such a board should have the support of an overwhelming majority of the community. I believe an editor should have to receive at least 75% of the vote (a percentage that would not even guarantee a successful RFA nomination) to serve on this board.

737:

issues at hand. Yes, consensus can be a messy process that sometimes results in gridlock, but it works. Just throwing our consensus policy away for an inevitably politicized bureaucracy insulated from the user base the moment consensus doesn't work perfectly seems absurd.

563:

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

3134:

The example I gave above was desysopping admins. The community concluded three years ago that it was necessary for a community-driven process to remove administrators should be enacted. As of three years later, all attempts to achieve that have been bogged down by what

3044:

for policy disputes though. I dislike the idea of an elected committee since there is a big chance the editors on it would not be the ones who best understand policy. There are a few editors whose views on policy I would always give a presumption of being correct like

1302:

make calls on content. We reflect what reliable sources have to say about a given subject. Often there is no consensus in the sources or an editor wants to put the 'latest research' into an article even if it has not been accepted by real life specialists in the area.

2614:

arguments of the most experienced members of it (whether anyone wants to admit it or not, this is precisely how it already works). The only way a committee like this could work as a "policy content ArbCom" would be if the committee automatically consisted of the top

2229:

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

2007:

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

757:

is how things are done here. If consensus cannot be achieved, then new policies shouldn't be implemented, and existing ones should not change. Supporting the things proposed in this RFC is embracing an idea intended to take power away from the community at

1224:

editors should not be able to change it. Further, being able to change "where consensus (i.e. the community's will) has gone in the past" goes against the "in the best interest of the community part." Therefore I have struck that portion of it. Thank you,

2992:

You really should not refactor the proposal that already has numerous responses. The posts so far were to one thing and now it looks like they are to something else. Rather you should start a new section regarding the new proposal. In any event I still

1471:. This would essentially impose an editorial board, something that would potentially have legal ramifications and would undoubtedly act as a further deterrent to participation. And that's before you get into the inevitable politicking it would create. 224:

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

121:

Now, I do not question that consensus works in the vast majority of cases, and most editors are happy with it. But, when consensus doesn't work, it tends to not work spectacularly. An example, if you will: in August 2012, the community agreed that,

784:

stand on. We work as a community, we make decisions as a community. I would accept removal of consensus in very limited circumstances (such as those that Arbcom deal with), but a general alternative would fundamentally change Knowledge.

160:

Mission statement: "When consensus fails to bring a solution to a problem that Knowledge's community experiences in a reasonable time frame, the Regulation Committee seeks to issue binding changes to Knowledge's policies, guidelines and

998:

changes in an effort to solve problems brought before it by community members should be formed. This group should only act with the community's best interest in mind, and should only come into play when consensus has failed to solve a

667: 1253:

Thanks very much for considering my argument. I'm not sure striking "guideline" quite addresses it, though. I'm not entirely clear on the distinction between policies and guidelines (besides guidelines being occasionally open to

66:

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

1583:

per all the previously expressed concerns that this would amount to an editorial board. Moreover, what happens if the board makes a "wrong" decision, in the eyes of either side? What is the method of accountability? Consensus?

383:

operates on a consensus model, exactly the same criticisms have been raised, and it's lasted over 300 years. It's done Knowledge mostly OK for a decade and, most importantly, it is a core part of our everybody-is-equal ethos.

699:

here!). Getting consensus can be hard but that is not necessarily a bad thing as it helps stop us deciding "something must be done therefore this is something" and ensures that changes have the support of the community.

1715:

per Nyttend and Jbh mainly. There is no need for a Knowledge-consensus-politburo. If all instances for finding consensus are exhausted then there simply shouldn't be consensus, and patience should prime. Like the great

123: 2166:. I'd expect to see 75% minimum (for reasons others have given), and for terms to be 1 year, since potential for damage is high. (I oppose the general proposal, but am approaching this from a "what if" viewpoint). 1091: 961:(the fallacy of assuming the conclusion). What is being proposed here is that there could be an alternative; we can't proceed to introduce this as a hypothesis on the basis that we already accept that it's true. 1406:

if they voted with the community, there'd be no point in them existing, and if they voted against the communtity, there'd be no point in them existing. Therefore, there's no reason for it to exist, period.

2442:

Knowledge, as opposed to the content operations of the site, and should only come into play when consensus has failed to solve a problem or good-faith misinterpretation of a policy, procedure or guideline.

1856:

This comment should not be read as an implicit agreement with the idea of creating such a committee. It is simply a statement that in the event such a committee is created the bar for membership should be

1075:

given how "successful" the ArbCom is in "settling" intractable issues that the community cannot handle, it is naive to think another committee set up on the same lines would have any better results. --

2744: 2055: 1820: 1046: 611: 2528: 2254: 272: 2878:: "their proposals must get the approval of the community before being implemented" - then why propose this in the first place if you're gonna need the community at the end-stage? Go big or go home! 2619:

number of active editors by edit count to the WP and WT namespaces. No one else would be experientially qualified. And even then it would basically just be some kind of good ol' boy cabal. So, no.

172:

when consensus has not brought about a solution, but the problem persists. However, elected regulators should use their common sense and discretion when deciding whether or not to take on an issue.

682: 1755:

To present a related proposal, use the following format. Please ensure that your proposal is related to the Regulation Committee proposal i.e. how it would operate, limits on membership, etc.

440:

this is a council of despair, which somehow assumes that any decision is better than no decision and which also assumes that a 'committee of Elders' will be preferable to present procedures.

3120:

Could you give some specific examples from the past where this "regulation committee" would have been involved? I'm struggling to think of specific examples where this would have helped.

3076:

complications of setting up a new committee. There was a sort of lightweight process at RfC(U), & it proved so cumbersome & unproductive the community ended it about a year ago.

1090:

This is extra bureaucracy and means that a simple majority of members of a committee can impose policy changes. Anyone wanting to change policy would have no incentive to compromise or

3234:" is an excellent dissertation on the problems with managing interpersonal interactions in online communities, and how they've all had to evolve mechanisms to manage decision making. 1537:

Ten years ago, Knowledge was much less bureaucratic, but there were more editors, more administrators and overall interest in Knowledge was much higher. Although our policy says that

1383:

Any such body is going to be incredibly politicized due to its ability to affect policy. It will not solve longstanding dispute and disagreements but rather it will relocate them.

168:

I cannot think of a reason for a Regulation Committee to take on a case without prior failure of consensus to solve a problem, therefore, the Regulation Committee should normally

2606:

for same reasons I gave regarding the original version, and even more so here because no one can sort out internal policy matters other than the community, and in particular the

292:

This is true, both sentences of it. Even several of the opposers say it is. (But this doesn't mean that the proposal necessarily logically follows from this true observation.)

3205:

be a dead end, you do not explain why an elected committee, composed of "sensible" individuals, would be the (only) workaround. A solid RfC must: (a) identify an issue; (b)

1298:

This is a Utopian proposal that assumes Knowledge can put together a willing group of editors who are qualified to make tough content calls. It also pre-supposes that they

1617:- We have enough problems with committees and specially bitted groups as it is, the last we need is a super committee with powers that will surely cause us all to violate 805:

I do not think this is the first time something like this has been proposed, but it is a bad idea. Yes, consensus can take a long time to establish. There is no deadline.

365:

policy's subject. This statement just makes consensus sound like a generally useful thing that malfunctions frequently and could stand to be replaced with something else.

2146:- On the face, you are giving them a lower standard of approval than an admin, yet infinitely more power. Even Arb should be higher than it is, but this has more power. 204:

To present another proposed principle, use the following format. Please ensure that your proposed principle is related to this proposal, or issues relating to consensus.

118:

making decisions, and the potential destructiveness of involved and intransigent editors and administrators making binding or serious decisions that affect many people.

2277:

So now, not only is consensus being thrown out the window, it is being thrown out the window by people who barely have the support of half of the electorate?!!!!--

85: 1120:

opinion. In any event though, I have added that the committee would only act when consensus has been sought out in at least two different locations. Cheers, --

2798:: We do not need another General Assembly; we're not the UN. Anyone can start "WikiProject Consensus" if they want to, but I don't think it will go very far. 3277: 3260: 3243: 3218: 3195: 3162: 3129: 3106: 3087: 3068: 3035: 3005: 2983: 2899: 2870: 2850: 2825: 2806: 2790: 2758: 2730: 2716: 2665: 2640: 2598: 2578: 2553: 2514: 2500: 2475: 2424: 2399: 2370: 2350: 2331: 2306: 2286: 2272: 2212: 2187: 2158: 2138: 2119: 2094: 2069: 2041: 1995: 1965: 1936: 1916: 1891: 1872: 1834: 1806: 1737: 1707: 1674: 1633: 1609: 1593: 1575: 1559: 1529: 1512: 1484: 1463: 1446: 1421: 1392: 1375: 1355: 1321: 1290: 1268: 1248: 1204: 1158: 1143: 1103: 1085: 1060: 1032: 982: 945: 920: 896: 880: 858: 841: 818: 800: 775: 746: 728: 709: 649: 625: 597: 546: 526: 486: 470: 449: 432: 397: 374: 349: 327: 313: 287: 258: 60: 457:

What is "beneficial" is, of course, a matter of consensus. So, if there is no consensus for a certain resolution, than the resolution is not beneficial.

1259:

content? I understand if there are reasons you want to avoid such a restriction, but I feel I have to stay in the "oppose" section unless it's there.

888:: Consensus is agreement; it's a bad idea to have another process to bypass agreement. I do not trust a house of lords to fairly represent agreement. 2378:. See specific recommendations in the subthread above this one. (I oppose the general proposal, but am approaching this from a "what if" viewpoint.) 1195:

editors oppose it for good reasons. The equality of all editors before content would be lost and the idea that "anyone can edit" would be subverted.

1538: 928:

pretty much by what Spirit of Eagle expressed above. This is a very wrong step to take. Bureaucracy overriding bureaucracy, just what we need!

99:. But on this site, we have no other choice. If a discussion comes to no consensus, editors have no place to go. Therefore, the current system 1174:

From this founding idea, we derive the central principle that in matters of content, all editors are equal. Practically, this means that if a

52: 124:

The current methods for removal of administrator rights are not sufficient and an additional community-driven method should be implemented.

717:

Consensus is the only way non-specialists have any chance of reflecting the actual current state of knowledge in a particular topic area.

3191: 2888: 2654: 2413: 2201: 1984: 1726: 934: 338: 83:

even they can make great changes to one of the most visited and viewed websites on the planet. "The thing about Knowledge," it is said,

2740: 2631: 2524: 2390: 2250: 2178: 2051: 1956: 1816: 1665: 1454:. Becomes a hat collection exercise at best, and a politburo making decisions from on high at worst. Inimical to what Knowledge is. 1042: 973: 663: 607: 497:

this is a true statement of the problem but the proposed solution does not follow from it. Consensus is the foundation on which the

304: 268: 534:

TransporterMan sums it up well. A no consensus ending is often the seeds for compromise or the spark that finds a third option.

1051:

I fail to see the downside of this proposal, which ensures accountability and responsiveness to the community's expectations.

3018: 1338: 148: 30: 17: 3287:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3155: 2976: 2709: 2034: 1799: 1241: 1136: 1025: 640:

The community would be better served if there were better avenues and support for achieving and determining consensus. --

590: 251: 3053:

but as much as I respect them I would not want to give them or any other editor or group of editors the ability to issue

1605:? Another committee will make us more and more like the aforementioned project, and we all know how well it's doing now. 126:" Three goddamn years later, what have we accomplished? Stone wall, after stone wall, after stone wall. Consensus can be 2736: 2520: 2260: 2246: 2047: 1812: 1094:

as they will want to demonstrate how intractable a problem is if they think a majority on the committee will back them.

1038: 659: 603: 380: 278:

which would enhance the role of consensus and provide a means of guiding the community when other methods have failed.

264: 1720:

said, "Do...or do not. There is no try"; if there is no consensus, don't try to randomly impose some by simple quorum.

2843: 2571: 2493: 1439: 768: 794: 332:

I generally support these two phrases, although Esquivalience and Vanjagenije also pose interesting notions below.

417:

To say otherwise attacks that model. See my "oppose" to the Primary Proposal, below, for a broader explanation. —

2924:

that stagnation and inaction brings, to re-engage and seek a fix, thus widening the pool of ideas and discussion.

2302: 2278: 2090: 1887: 1861:

high in order for the candidate to have a proven record of understanding our policies and how we implement them.

1388: 1077: 780:

I do not agree with the principle, so I will be going no further with the proposal. Consensus is ground that the

742: 674: 641: 370: 1854:

expect a viable candidate to have a couple years experience and well over 500 edits on policy discussion pages.

1546:

clerking and more committees means less article editing. I vote for less committees and more human interaction.

1506: 835: 426: 56: 994:

An elected group of editors accountable to the community, who would have the ability to issue binding policy

183:

The Regulation Committee would not hear issues relating to user conduct. Such cases would be referred to the

3187: 2894: 2754: 2660: 2419: 2268: 2207: 2065: 1990: 1830: 1732: 1056: 940: 692: 621: 344: 283: 3274: 2865: 2593: 2365: 2153: 1931: 1628: 1606: 1497:

give up on that model yet. "No consensus" should continue to be an acceptable answer here at Knowledge. —

915: 541: 498: 1924:- Even if you were to do this, this standard is so ridiculously low that it wouldn't be an improvement. 2628: 2387: 2175: 1953: 1662: 1553: 970: 874: 786: 696: 464: 301: 104:

suppose to solve in the first place remains. That doesn't help this community or our readers; in fact,

3231: 3125: 2298: 2086: 1883: 1762:=== {{Quotation|<give a brief description (a few sentences at most) of your related proposal.: --> 1589: 1384: 738: 501:

stand. Change that and you change the character of Knowledge and, in my opinion, not for the better.

366: 95: 3225: 3002: 1498: 1414: 1372: 827: 754: 695:

or yet more bureaucracy - and wikipedia has plenty of bureaucracy already (and I'm not meaning the

478:: When there is no consensus, there is no consensus, and a group should not pretend that there is. 418: 318:

I've seen cases where community member fail to reach a consensus. I think this is very reasonable.

211:{{Quotation|<give a brief description (a few sentences at most) of your proposed principle.: --> 106: 79: 849:, whatever its flaws, regardless of how frustrating it might be, consensus is a cornerstone of WP. 3254: 3235: 3210: 3178: 3098: 3066: 3024: 2884: 2823: 2800: 2750: 2650: 2473: 2409: 2348: 2264: 2197: 2136: 2061: 1980: 1870: 1826: 1722: 1684: 1569: 1525: 1344: 1330:

per Jbhunley, Nyttend, Davewild, and A2soup. I don't have anything to add to what they wrote. ···

1319: 1154: 1099: 1052: 958: 930: 890: 854: 726: 705: 617: 524: 510: 480: 445: 334: 279: 115: 151:

are necessary evils to provide for the furtherance, betterment and maintenance of a community.

3149: 2970: 2859: 2703: 2587: 2359: 2147: 2028: 1925: 1793: 1622: 1286: 1235: 1130: 1019: 909: 584: 535: 323: 245: 1305:

Knowledge editors have a very wide and variable range of skills but the idea that any small,

1216:

That's a very reasonable point. I've said in the past that a guideline is a documentation of

3239: 3214: 3102: 2726: 2622: 2510: 2381: 2169: 1947: 1656: 1548: 1459: 1264: 1255: 1200: 964: 905: 869: 459: 295: 184: 3249: 3121: 1697: 1688: 1585: 139: 2721:

I don't have a problem with this but I wager the proposals would get mired in red tape.

3266: 3171: 2998: 2955: 1408: 1368: 1188: 1183: 1179: 135: 47: 3083: 3058: 3011: 2951: 2947: 2815: 2785: 2779: 2548: 2542: 2465: 2340: 2326: 2320: 2128: 2114: 2108: 1911: 1905: 1862: 1618: 1542: 1521: 1479: 1473: 1364: 1331: 1311: 1175: 1150: 1110: 1095: 850: 813: 807: 718: 701: 516: 502: 441: 392: 386: 3248:

The concept of more committees without in-depth research on why we need to remember

1367:. Once a "committee" like this makes a "final" decision that is no longer possible. 514:

Moved to Oppose section because this is where similar opinions are being expressed.

3141: 3136: 3115: 3041: 3028: 2962: 2943: 2695: 2020: 1785: 1348: 1282: 1227: 1170:: I worry about the authority of the Regulation Committee over content guidelines. 1122: 1011: 781: 576: 319: 237: 131: 2939: 2722: 2506: 1773:

have disclosed any previous or alternate accounts in their nomination statement.

1602: 1455: 1260: 1211: 1196: 221: 142:. Meanwhile, the problem that consensus was supposed to solve persists. And the 3046: 2836: 2564: 2486: 1693: 1432: 761: 89:

Indeed. When consensus works, it's beautiful. But it does have a darker side.

1182:, that edit can only be reverted because the community of other good-faith, 2773: