User talk:Wer900/Community Council of Wikipedia

{{rfc|policy|rfcid=FDB8A3B}} This is an update on the proposal WP:The need for coordination, and establishes bodies to set broad directions on the functioning of Wikipedia. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 17:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest, already. It was shot down a little over a week ago. The community is not interested in turning our processes into a microcosm of the already-broken and corrupt U.S. Government. --MuZemike 19:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any proposal that starts off with the notion that we should elect a president. We tried having a unitary executive once. His name was Jimbo. And the community has curtailed Jimbo-power after Jimbo-power over the years, because it just didn't work. No one person should ever be "president" of Wikipedia. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take the time and please read the proposal. The President doesn't have all of the power, and can only do things which have some basis in policy created elsewhere. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 20:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. Way too bureaucratic. --Rs chen 7754 19:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How? One to two hundred people being a part of this (at the very most) will only account for about 0.08-0.15% of Wikipedia's active editor population. Hardly bureaucratic. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 20:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

0.08% is 8 in ten thousand. 200 is 25 x 8 so 200 of our editing community being 0.08% of it would define our editing community as being in the region of 250,000 editors. The reality is that our active editing community is rather less than that. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said one to two hundred people. So we could work with half the active editing community you mentioned, more representative of the actual Wikipedia community. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 05:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already trouted the creator for proposing this yet again in such a short span of time, already delisted this from CENT as the entire underlying idea was explicitly rejected, twice, recently and overwhelmingly. Suggest this be moved back into userspace. The community has said that the underlying comcept is rejected. Therefore, changing the details and re-presenting it is not a constructive use of anyone's time amd we should not be discussing this at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As others have pointed out this sort of hierarchy is antithetical to the way we do things here. In case you want to reuse this elsewhere, perhaps as the constitution for a micronation, here are a few more specific points:

If you are electing one person don't require them to get 60% of the vote, especially if you are using first past the post elections. 60% might happen if you use the alternative vote and you have one candidate who is clearly more popular than anyone else. But if you have two very good candidates then don't be surprised if neither gets 60%.
Your suggestion that each Wikiproject is in complete ignorance of other Wikiprojects shows a lack of understanding as to how Wikiprojects interact and their membership and even articles overlap with each other. We don't have separate Wikis for vulcanology, mountaineering and biology, if we did and we made people choose just one to be involved in then a particular mountain could be covered differently in each of them and it would be possible for those wikis to be ignorant of each other. But our model is very different, we allow people to be involved in multiple Wikiprojects, and we have individual articles that are of interest to multiple Wikiprojects. So it would be difficult for anyone to be s focussed on one Wikiproject that they could be "completely ignorant of all other Wikiprojects.
You propose creating an elected President, then circumscribing their authority by limiting it to "administrative regulations", but without establishing what can be decided via administrative regulations. This is a recipe for wikilawyers and endless arguments as to who has authority to make what sort of decision. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a crazy person who would create the next Sealand. I intend this to be used on the actual Wikipedia project, to at the very least coordinate the project on a large scale and not be a symbol like User:Jimbo Wales.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wer900 (talk • contribs)

We're not saying you're crazy, Wer900. We're saying that the community has now twice told you "We appreciate your enthusiasm and effort, but this isn't an idea we'd like to implement", and rather than saying, "Sigh, ok. I guess I'll continue working on my own idea privately for now" or "Ok, it was worth a try, but I see the community isn't into it," you're instead carrying on along the lines of "Oh, but if I ask them again surely they'll change their minds!" At some point, continually trying to get the community to review a proposal that it's already turned down multiple times gets tiresome and borderline-disruptive, especially when the proposal doesn't appear to be all that well thought out.

We're also not saying you can never, ever again in your life float this proposal on Wikipedia; we're just saying that asking three times within 3(?) weeks isn't going to make people change their minds - it's only going to make them tune you out entirely. If you really, truly feel this is an important proposal, you should go back to your userspace, ask the opinions of some friends (or enemies!), and spend a significant amount of time re-working this proposal to address all the objections people raised to it in the three times you've asked the community to look it over. Maybe if, in six months, you come back to the community with a "new and improved" version that nullifies most of the objections, the community will be willing to re-review it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose More than sufficiently coordinated at the moment. CarolMooreDC 03:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that the community has rejected strict "government" here, and I don't see any signs of that changing. No matter how you phrase this proposal, it's going to fail because it is based on creating formal executive & legislative procedures. A good chunk of editors opposed the creation of ArbCom, and still call for it to be disbanded. Hell, some folks don't want admins. Trying to create a more structured hierarchy just isn't going to get accepted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess then I'll either have to make this proposal exceptional or wait until an existential shock for Wikipedia causes this proposal to recieve support. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 16:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]