User:Hcheney/Govern
I feel the current situation of Wikipedia governance is haphazard at best. I have a few proposed overhauls of our decision making process.
Policy making
[edit]Instead of conflicting policies being created with questionable support and legitimacy, I propose an English Wikipedia Policy Committee (Policy Committee or PC) composed of nine to fifteen members elected for concurrent 6 month terms by Single Transferable Vote (STV) or Cumulative voting. STV and cumulative voting give candidates with a minority viewpoint a reasonable chance of being elected, whereas with approval voting, only candidates with a popular viewpoint could reasonably be elected. If there should be a vacany on the Committee, the candidate with the next highest vote totals shall fill the remainder of the vacancy's term.
No policy issued by the Policy Committee should be binding beyond the term of the policy unless it is approved and endorsed by subsequent Policy Committees. Jimbo, or his proxy, should have the right to dissolve the PC at any time and call for new elections.
Policies passed by the Policy Committee should be available for public comment for two weeks, and passed by the Policy Committee again after the comment period. All votes of the PC should be roll call votes, and a member that misses three consecutive votes should be automatically removed from office. After the second passage of the policy by PC, Jimbo or his proxy will have the oppurtunity to grant or withhold assent for the policy.
Resolutions of the policy committee should require a 2/3 affirmative vote for passage. Astute committee members considering the next election should probably refrain from voting for policies that do not have a community consensus.
The existance of a Policy Committee shall not deprive any Wikipedian of the right to introduce new proposed policies. Any proposed policy that receives consensus approval from the community after one week of voting must be voted upon by the Policy Committee.
Arbitration Committee
[edit]The current arbitration committee (AC) is weak, does not operate in a timely manner, is not politically accountable, and is unrepresentative of the Wikipedia Community. I propose dissolving the current AC and replacing it with a nine member committee appointed for 1 year concurrent terms by the Policy Committee, but no Arbitration Committee member should be seated until they have received at least an 80+% consensus from the community at large. The Policy Committee may remove any AC member with a 4/5 vote. Also, since AC committee voting will be continous to ensure community support of the arbitration process, an AC member shall be removed if the vote for them holding office falls below 70%, with voters able to change position any time. Upon any vacancy, the Policy Committee shall nominate, and the community shall approve another user to fill the remainder of the term.
Decisions of the arbitration committee may be appealed to Jimbo or his proxy.
Magistrates
[edit]What is a troll? Should the troll be banned? Is User:X a Michael reincarnation? These questions are often answered in different way by different admins, and cause far more conflict than they should. The Policy Committee should appoint several magistrates that will have the authority to direct admins to block usernames, and reincarnations, for upto 30 days, or for an indefinite period until the Arbitration Committee hears their case and lifts the block. The AC may remove the block as a premilinary measure. Magistrates should serve at the pleasure of the Policy Committee for no fixed term. The decision of magistrates should be subject to appeal to the Arbitration Committee, or to a Head Magistrate.
Magistrates should also have the right to immediately direct conflicts into either mediation or arbitration, skipping other steps in the dispute resolution process.
Adminship
[edit]No user should actively perform admin duties while serving as a member of either the Policy Committee or Arbitration Committee, or as a Magistrate. To avoid any conflict of interest, admin powers will be removed upon taking office. Upon leaving office, any bureaucrat may restore admin status to the said user without first seeking a consensus again, unless the user was removed from office for bad conduct.
Alternatively, if software support is provided, office holders should be able to hold a reduced state of adminship that removes only the power to block users and protect pages. Or office holders may remain admins if they could pledge not to use their power to block and protect/unprotect. Office holders engaged in prohibited admin activities, that constitute a conflict of interst, would be subject to removal from office and de-adminship.
The Policy Committee should have the right to appoint brevet admins who shall serve at the Policy Committee's pleasure for a term not to exceed 6 months. Any user that wishes to continue admin service beyond 6 months must have their application approved at Requests for Adminship. Under this system, we can judge how well users work as an admin before giving them a permanent position.
Jimbo
[edit]Jimbo should consider appointing a proxy to act in his name for the English Wikipedia. Such a proxy should, for the present, serve solely at Jimbo's pleasure. Currently Jimbo's style of governance is similar to that of a constitutional monarch or a President in a parliamentary republic. The proxy should use their reserve powers very sparingly.
In the future, Jimbo may wish to consult the Policy Committee and/or the English Wikipedia community before appointing a proxy.
This is a work in progress