[WikiEN-l] The admin problem

[John Lee]

Kelly Martin wrote:

>I regret my involvement in the userbox situation.
>
>I've been away from Wikipedia for a while now, and have had time to
>reflect on recent affairs.  I've also been doing some reading.  The
>following paragraph jumped out at me from a book I was reading:
>
>Robert was surely aware of the early evolutionary development of
>parliamentary procedure in the English House of Lords resulting in a
>movement from "consensus," in its original sense of unanimous
>agreement, toward a decision by majority vote as we know it today.
>This evolution came about from a recognition that a requirement of
>unanimity or near unanimity can become a form of tyranny in itself. In
>an assembly that tries to make such a requirement the norm, a variety
>of misguided feelings--reluctance to be seen as opposing the
>leadership, a notion that causing controversy will be frowned upon,
>fear of seeming an obstacle to unity--can easily lead to decisions
>being taken with a psuedoconsensus which in reality implies elements
>of default, which satisfies no one, and for which no one really
>assumes responsibility.
>
>This paragraph really describes what I think is going on at Wikipedia.
>
>I think it's time we reconsider whether "consensus" is a valid
>principle of governance in as large and contentious a community as
>this one has become, and whether we need to make more of an effort to
>move to parliamentarianism as a method of governance.
>
>I'm not quite crazy enough to sign Karmafist's manifesto, but I am now
>convinced -- after reading the discussions here and in other places --
>that Wikipedia needs a strict rule prohibiting administrative "wheel
>wars": if an admin performs ANY admin action and any other admin
>objects to it, it MUST be reverted and the matter referred for
>discussion and decision amongst a proper deliberative body.  The
>current methods are yielding "pseudoconsensus" -- or sometimes
>multiple pseudoconsensuses -- and are magnifying disputes instead of
>tempering them.  Until something is done, things will only get worse. 
>Continuining on this course cannot be the best thing for Wikipedia.
>
>Kelly
>  
>
Am I the only one who thinks it's a shame only geni replied to this? I 
think this is a rather good point being made -- consensus isn't scaling, 
at least when it comes to policy matters and meta issues, like wheel 
warring. On nearly everything else -- hell, even AfD (as a once-regular 
AfD closer now taking a break, I think much of the problems with it are 
overhyped) -- consensus is working great. But on policy, things are 
moving at a glacially slow pace.

One should also bear in mind that Karmafist's proposed legislature will 
operate on [[sociocracy]], or consensus, not on the usual idea of a 
Parliament.

Anyway, IMO, consensus ain't scaling WRT policy, wheel warring, etc. 
It's time to find something better. For now, however, as there appears 
to be no prospect of change in the near future, we need to drum it into 
people's heads: DON'T WHEEL WAR.

John