As we move into month 7 of the WP:OFFICE action on the [[Pacific Western University]] article, I'd like to raise this issue again.
My from-the-trenches suggestions:
1. Impartial admin(s) assigned to each OFFICEd article at the time it is protected (preferably someone with no edits to the article prior to WP:OFFICE and no strong POV about the topics it covers). 2. Perhaps they could be randomly chosen from an existing pool of volunteers with good track records on controversial issues who could confirm no WP:COI issues for the article in question, kind of like ArbCom. 3. That person would be listed on the talk page as the coordinator and would check back in each day and respond to proposed changes.
I like to work on controversial topics, but the current setup makes any attempts at resolution, especially by non-admins, an exercise in futility. In this case, it's never been clearly explained what the problem is, though most who have looked at it believe it has to do with distinguishing the Hawaii corporation from entities in other states. It appears they may also want something changed based on accreditation information that has yet to appear in a reliable published source.
At any rate, half a year under lockdown seems to indicate a significant problem that needs to be addressed. I believe this and the unilateral speedy deletion of controversial articles by admins are the two most serious procedural issues Wikipedia faces right now. Both waste a lot of time, cause a lot of animosity and generally drive away well-intentioned editors trying to help.
These edgy issues almost always end up shaping policy, so we should address these problems sooner than later.
Jokestress
A wrote:
As we move into month 7 of the WP:OFFICE action on the [[Pacific Western University]] article, I'd like to raise this issue again.
My from-the-trenches suggestions:
- Impartial admin(s) assigned to each OFFICEd article at the time it is
protected (preferably someone with no edits to the article prior to WP:OFFICE and no strong POV about the topics it covers). 2. Perhaps they could be randomly chosen from an existing pool of volunteers with good track records on controversial issues who could confirm no WP:COI issues for the article in question, kind of like ArbCom. 3. That person would be listed on the talk page as the coordinator and would check back in each day and respond to proposed changes.
I like to work on controversial topics, but the current setup makes any attempts at resolution, especially by non-admins, an exercise in futility.
As one of the people who spent subjective ages trying to sort out the Gregory Lauder Frost dustup, I'd second both the feeling and the suggestions.
My working assumption was just that those in the OFFICE were very busy, too busy to communicate status on the progress they were making. But it was hard to tell the difference between that and being ignored because they had bigger fish to fry. Spending a lot of time trying to understand and pacify agitated partisans was painful but necessary. But I was disheartened by the amount of time I had to spend tugging on the sleeves of people who drew enough water to get the attention of the OFFICE.
Having some admin like that directly involved would certainly speed some things up, and it would entirely prevent the will-sapping suspicion that one's case has fallen behind a file cabinet somewhere.
William