[WikiEN-l] Oversized criticism sections and WP:UNDUE (was: Notability and ski resorts)

[Surreptitiousness]

Charles Matthews wrote:
> Surreptitiousness wrote:
>   
>> George Herbert wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Surreptitiousness
>>> <surreptitious.wikipedian at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>     
>>>       
>>>> Hmmm.  To do that I suppose you would have to create some rules on who
>>>> can run.  Maybe bar admins from running for starters, that might reduce
>>>> the risk of arbcom siding with admins. I don't think the community would
>>>> allow Jimmy to appoint as he sees fit anymore, but if the board mandated
>>>> a couple of seats had to be reserved fro picks, that might shake things
>>>> up.  That would involve the board getting down in the mud though, which
>>>> they try not to do.
>>>>     
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>> You can't just throw out a possible new arbcom membership requirement
>>> without considering the effects.
>>>   
>>>     
>>>       
>> You can't? Is this why nothing ever changes?  People are too scared too 
>> propose anything radical? 
>>     
> We're not short of proposals, usually.
Having just nullified a load of inactive proposals, I can attest to 
that.  I was wondering if there was a better way to organise historical 
and rejected proposals, but after a moment's thought I filed it away as 
too much work for too little return.
>  Progress could be made with 
> further functions being split off, in the way that ban appeals are now a 
> subcommittee function. There is no particular reason why socking or 
> civility cases shouldn't be handled in this fashion, where the evidence 
> is clear-cut enough (the usual case).
I actually thought socking was devolved to the community through 
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. 
Civility is harder to quantify.  The community clearly feels it si an 
important policy, there was a recent RFC which stood behind it.  I think 
there's a rewrite under-way regarding the policy itself.  I'd certainly 
welcome a civility board though as a move forwards.
>  The kind of radical change people 
> don't want to see is from something monolithic that works (despite 
> grumbling) to something else equally monolithic that is a complete step 
> in the dark and unknown quantity. And don't forget that proposals have 
> been howled down, in living memory - at least if you take a pile-on of a 
> dozen people to be an expression of public opinion.
>   
Having invested a large amount of time on a howled down proposal, 
WP:ATT, I need no reminder of that. I tried to poke some sort of life 
back into the Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development but it 
didn;t come to aught.  I think that one is going to die, no-one wants to 
take it forwards.