User:Karmafist/manifesto

Main Manifesto

I am a Wikipedian.

I believe wholeheartedly in the ultimate goal of Wikipedia set forth by its founder, Jimbo Wales: a free and comprehensive encyclopedia of all human knowledge. I also wholeheartedly believe in the community that has sprung up around that effort, and the belief that anyone who wishes to assist that community should be able to do in one way or another regardless of their situation, and most of all, I believe that we are all equal under the policies and guidelines set by the community in achieving this goal.

Unfortunately, not everyone within Wikipedia sees things this way, a viewpoint that may have spread as far to Jimbo himself.

Wikipedia can no longer be ignored. It is already the world's largest encyclopedia and is one of the world's largest websites. However, its credibility will be in doubt if it cannot provide a full and balanced view, which cannot be done if certain people have control over it and can squelch information critical of them.

If we are to create a free source of information for all people, we must first make sure that the source is protected, both from outside forces who wish to pervert it and from forces from within who wish to have control over it. If we are to do this, I believe that these points must be addressed and adopted by Wikipedia as a whole.

1. A sociocratic (not democratic) bicameral legislature (with a lower house made up of all users and an elected upper house) to decide the projects' policies and guidelines.
2. An understanding that once these policies and guidelines are agreed upon by the community, that they must be followed until changed by the community.
3. An understanding that the role of the Arbitration Committee is judicial.
4. RFCs need to be more structured and better enforced. If people still agree with them after consensus has been met within the RFC, it is then sent to the Arbitration Committee, which will serve an appellate function.
5. The understanding that all people who wish to assist the Encyclopedia are free to do so as long as they respect others and understand that when anything conflicts with the accuracy and maintenance of the Encyclopedia, that the Encyclopedia must come first.
6. Admins are not infallible, I have seen too many times this statement: "They are an admin therefore they aren't doing something wrong". Admins are like cops, they do bad things they do great things, you have to view them with the same glasses you view editors.
7. Jimbo is not infallible, and his word shouldn't be taken as God's. It should be given the same amount of scrutiny as a registered editor. Why? Because like you, me and everyone here (except the bots) we are HUMAN, and humans make mistakes!

Please, if you agree with my beliefs, sign my manifesto. If you disagree with it, I ask you to do so in the true Wikipedian manner: in a civil and constructive manner, offering collaboration on the talk page of this document.

Sincerely,

Andrew Sylvia A.K.A Karmafist

Note:This document has been inspired by the 95 Theses of Martin Luther

Signers

1. Agreed --pquentinj 1 March 2006
2. Agreed in general. More comments to come later. --Aaron 20:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Agreed James S. 00:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Agreed without comment. User:Adrian/zap 00:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC) I have some deep concerns about methods you've allegedly proposed elsewhere, Karmafist. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Agreed —Locke Cole • t • c 02:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
6. jnothman ^talk 04:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Agreed but I would like to learn more about #1 Swilk 07:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Agreed especially the simpler version. Dr Debug (Talk) 08:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Agreed in general. talk to +MATIA 15:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Agreed KingKiki217 20:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Agreed Wudman 00:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Definitely agreed. NSLE_(T+C) 10:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Details need to be worked out, but clear support in principle. —Nightstallion (?) 14:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Completely Agree --Jake Wilhite 14:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Agree, Support Mike _{(T C)} 15:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Agree need I say more?--Acebrock 20:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Agree completely and without remorse pickelbarrel 19:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
18. Agree umm I don't know if I'm qualified to call myself a wikipedian yet but I totally agree. Freddie deBoer 03:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
19. Agree I completely agree....even though I'm a n00b. :P--silverhawk79 20:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Agree with vigor & horns.--The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 03:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
21. AgreeTan DX 08:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
22. Agreed Japanese Wikipedia should have similar one too. :) Yassie 15:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
23. Agree Arundhati bakshi 01:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
24. Agree in principle. --Colle 01:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
25. Agreed. zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
26. Agreed. User:Bachs 12 Feb 2006
27. Agreed. User:DarkShinigami4711 12 Feb 2006
28. Agreed. User:CarbonUnit 12 Feb 2006
29. Agreed. Riordanmr 23:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
30. Agreed. Sullenspice
31. Agreed. WhiskeyBoarder 12 Feb 2006
32. Agreed. MasTer of Puppets ^{Picture Service} 01:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
33. Agreed that something needs to be done to stop the Stanford Prison Experiment, but not sure this is necessarily it (see talk). ElectricRay 09:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
34. Agree with the proposal's intent and the sentiments of ElectricRay. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 01:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
35. Mostly agree. Suggest rotating admins to break the power structure before it breaks the encyclopaedia. Grace Note 05:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
36. Agreed, although I also agree with rotating admins. Zooey stoke 08:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
37. Agreed I agree too. That's a great idea. Jinchuu Crusader 06:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
38. Agreed. Analogdemon (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
39. Agreed. Lawyer2b 23:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
40. Agreed. Whilst Wikipedia generally seems to be 'ruled' by a benign dictator, Jimbo won't be around forever and he needs to take steps to protect the wonderful idea he has created. This proposal goes a long way to protecting it and I heartly support the proposal. Maustrauser 03:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
41. Agreed I to Agree Brian | (Talk) 07:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
42. Agreed. We are but voices in the wilderness now. But every scream must start with a whisper.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
43. Agreed. -- Tvaughn05_e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 22:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
44. Agreed anything that stops Jimbo/certain admins from being able to ignore agreed community policy and force out those who wish to uphold it, has to be a good thing Cynical 11:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
45. Agreed with the reservation that this is incomplete. An additional necessary point is that policy must be interpreted strictly as written or with leniency towards the individual whose actions are in question. One must be able to know beforehand whether or not an action is permitted. No more of this "Yeah, strictly speaking, you're fine, but common sense says that you're wrong so I'm going to block you anyway" bullshit Kurt Weber 13:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
46. Agreed. - Mailer Diablo 15:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
47. Agreed. --Dragon695 04:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
48. Agreed for the most part. The Ungovernable Force 09:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
49. Agreed, and gladly so. Rogue 9 13:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
50. Agreed, should of seen this earlier. WikieZach| talk
51. Agreed. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it shouldn't be a dictatorship either. -Branddobbe 04:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
52. Agreed. I say we overthrow the dictator and set up a true sociocratic community driven project. No more ruling by decree, deletionist admins (the Cabal). Эйрон Кинни
53. Agreed.--Susten.biz 05:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
54. Agreed --Terence Ong 15:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
55. As Nightstallion said - I would like a more clear cut sense of this, especially #1 but I strongly support you on principles. Noirdame 09:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
56. Agreed. If Wikipedia were a state, it should be a constitutional monarchy with Jimbo as its head, not as its dictator. I'm suprised Jimbo has not yet said "Wikipédia, c'est moi". --Thorri 13:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
57. Herostratus 09:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
58. Agreed Misza13 ^(Talk) 19:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
59. Strongly Agrees and you have my full support --Andy123 00:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
60. Agree The sociocratic idea could definitely work, but it would take lots of mainenance.La Pizza11 20:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
61. Agreed. And there's not much else to say. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
62. Agreed. Friendly Neighbour 16:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
63. I find myself in basic agreement with this. I wonder a little bit about the first point; I think that kind of detail about what sort of arrangement is best is unwarranted at this stage, and an arrangement should be settled upon by the community at a later date. (Personally, I'd favor a more democratic arrangement: a large, elected body of users, unicameral, that would reach decisions with something greater than a simple majority but less than what we presently consider consensus—somewhere in a 55%-60% range is what I tend towards.) Everyking 07:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
64. Good work. Sam Spade 20:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
65. I agree with the spirit of the manifesto, and agree that “the Encyclopedia must come first”. --Bhadani 13:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
66. Generally agree. Joe 20:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
67. Agreed. Clayrocks369 03:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
68. Coming out of my WikiRetirement to Agree ^juppiter bon giorno #c 02:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
69. Agreed so when does the coup begin?  ALKIVAR™ 19:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
70. Agreed - WarriorScribe 00:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
71. Agreed - jeffthejiff 10:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
72. Agree mgekelly 15:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
73. Agreed. I like this place, and discovering that it's not all mellowness and light is disturbing (especially having come from a very similar situation on everything2) Cammy 05:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
74. Agree in all particulars and I support a move to institute this system on Wikipedia. I share your feelings about the importance of Wikipedia. It can't continue without better transparency and accountability methods being implemented. Kasreyn 23:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
75. Agreed The people who make up the Encyclopedia, and the Encyclopedia itself are the first priorities, not squabbling for petty and meaningless positions. - RPharazon 03:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
76. Agree with principles, especially #7, which (it should be said) is not Jimbo's fault, but the fault of some of the people around him. Not sure about details of #1 - how exactly is this different from current system? TheJabberwʘck (Λυδαcιτγ) 01:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
77. Agree it's time for a change. CAPS LOCK 17:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
78. Good luck. Too late though. Better to fork. - Xed 12:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
79. Agree and if it's ever implemented I might consider returning to wikipedia Factoid Killer 13:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
80. Agree. Wikipedia is failing to live up to its mandate. — goethean ॐ 15:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
81. Agree, particularly with #6 and #7. I find that people are throwing their weight around more and more to make things fit their particular vision of what Wikipedia should be. The content of the encyclopaedia should be what we're all concentrating on improving. --Sanguinus 19:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
82. Agree,The question is, when and how would this actually get implemented? Things are going in the opposite direction from everything I've seen. If things turn around towards these goals, many good editors who have left will come back.Giovanni33 03:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

    And, many who are continuing but stopped real addition shall re-commence to add contents to the sum total of human knowledge. --Bhadani 13:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

83. Agree. Bravo _dk 13:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
84. Agree. Margana 10:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
85. Agree truth lies in his manifesto --Philx 11:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
86. Agree per Maustrauser. I almost left Wikipedia because of something Jimbo said.--Chili14 02:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
87. Agree absolutely grendelsmother 12:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
88. Agree Although some parts are more specific than I would think necessary. -- Anaraug 22:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagree

1. Disagree — While the premise of a need for a governing body is sound, the implementation suggested here is not stable. A governing system works only for those who consent to it. The implication that rules need the same process for repeal as for adoption means that half or more of a growing community could find the system of rules non-consensual. All of these people would be working, to some extent, against the system. We cannot maintain good articles in an environment where a significantly large percentage of the editors are working against the system, unless we have dictatorial control. The only system better than a dictatorship is government by consent of the governed, and it's an all or nothing proposition. Human history backs this claim without exception. --Rummie 22:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Disagree - Pretty much the same reasons as above. DNewhall 23:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Do we really want Wikipedia to be a forum of politics? If someone can give me a good reason of why it will not become a forum, I will wholeheartedly support this wonderful idea. (Jimbo IS mortal, after all) Please leave said reason on my talk page so I will see it faster. the_ed17 17:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Amendments

If you have changes or new portions that you think should be added to the manifesto, please feel free to add them below. Karmafist 05:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Amendment(s) by Mike _{(T C)}

Two things I want to amend are this–

1. Admins are not infallible, I have seen too many times this statement: "They are an admin therefore they aren't doing something wrong". Admins are like cops, they do bad things they do great things, you have to view them with the same glasses you view editors.
2. Jimbo is not infallible, and his word shouldn't be taken as God's. It should be given the same amount of scrutiny as a registered editor. Why? Because like you, me and everyone here (except the bots) we are HUMAN, and humans make mistakes!

Signers

1. Mike _{(T C)} 08:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Karmafist 16:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC) After around 10 or so, we'll add it to the main one -- this is a good point.
3. ElectricRay 23:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC) - very good point - Admins are janitors, not policemen. The Admin election process should be deformalised, to make it easier to become an admin.
4. I fully agree. I was in IRC the other day discussing Jimbo's powers. A lot of people seem to think Jimbo is the highest authority, when he shouldn't be treated than anything more than what his user levels (like any other sysop). NSLE _(T+C) at 00:32 UTC (2006-02-18)
5. I reworded/reformatted it, but agree, of course. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
6. I fully agree. --Dragon695 04:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Agree fully. The Ungovernable Force 09:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Agree. -Branddobbe 04:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
9. I agree completely, especially with #2. Sophy's Duckling 04:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Agree. zafiroblue05 | Talk 19:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Agreed. -- Tvaughn05_e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 20:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Agreed. Jimbo should be respected...but not worshipped. When he is wrong we should, respectfully, point this out and try and convince him of better alternatives. Both he and the admins need to understand that while the project does not exist for the community, it would not exist without it either. Hence, he should respect the concerns and wishes of the community as well, even if this means going against those of his lawyers, PR and YES-People. As a collection of fallible, human, "Meat bots", all parties should be willing to cut eachother some slack.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Agree. I agree to this generally, but I must also point out that the bots are made by humans, and the (GIGO) concept applies for them. So, they can err like the humans do. --Andy123 00:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
14. Agree. I have bad experience with WP admins. One of them banned my previous account for believing it was created to break Wikipedia rules. No proof of actually breaking the rules was needed and the ban was indefinite. Sigh. Friendly Neighbour 16:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
15. Agree. I am an administrator, but I am basically an editor building the Project. Yes, I have sometimes observed traits, which may not be conducive to the long-term credibility of the Project, and its possible de-generation into the largest blog ever created so far. We humans are infallible, and there is nothing wrong in accepting this fact. --Bhadani 13:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

    A rejoinder: I found that one of my friends in real life was blocked indefinitely after hardly 10 innocent edits, and the reason given was that he/she was a sock puppet of a particular user banned indefinitely. Had she/he been not so foolishly banned and allowed to edit, she/he would have been ten times productive than me. Having seen this, I found that many of my friends would never think to touch wikipedia at the cost of their self respect, and they think that Bhadani is mentally deranged to continue his association with the Project. It is really sad to say all these things. It is my considered opinion that on account of such foolish administrative actions, we may have lost a large number of sincere and potentially productive editors adversaly impacting our reliability to emerge as a true depository of "sum total of human knowledge". --Bhadani 04:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

16. I agree wholeheartedly. Too many times I see another administrator telling a user that what they're doing is not wrong, and when they're held to it they threaten a block. That needs to stop, and this comes from an admin as well as many others. SushiGeek 05:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Agree ILovEPlankton 01:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
18. Agree Cambodianholiday 21:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Agree completely per NSLE and RDH. Joe 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Kinneyboy90 Extensions

Karmafist made a number of proposals in his Manifesto, in order to make Wikipedia a more fair and sociocratic, community-driven project. I wholeheartedly agree. However, there needs to be some extension for his proposed Amendments, and I will introduce them below. So, these are proposed, and detailed extended amendments to better the utility of Karmafist's manifesto.

Extensions of Amendments

1. The bicameral legislature will consist of both admins and regular contributors. All regular contributors will be considered the lower house, and the community shall elect the upper house, which is, administrators. Collectively, the legislature will decide the projects policies, projects, and guidelines. They will also decide what gets deleted and what is kept, etc. per the aforementioned policies. However, all policies must be enacted beforehand, so as to make sure an abuse of power is not being instituted and the consensus to delete/keep/merge/etc. must be made by both houses, and executed by the upper house, admins. But only, and only, with the approval of the lower house shall an act be carried out.
2. The Arbitration Committee shall serve as the Judicial Branch of Wikipedia.
3. An executive branch, which oversees all activity over Wikipedia and carries out some functions, but only those that are within Wikipedia guidelines.

Remedies

1. Legislatures that violate policies and disregard the general opinion of hundreds of thousands of Wikipedians need to be punished. Therefore, for admins, there should be a process of impeachment, styled much like the VFD consensus process. For lower house members, temporary block will do, and if that doesn't work, a much longer block be instated.
2. For the Executive, he shall lose his position if he is found--by consensus and common held opinion--to be abusing it.
3. For the Arbitration Committee, they should get a warning if they are caught obstructing policies, as a first warning. When it gets out of hand, they should be denied the ArbCom position they had abused.

Questions to Consider

You are welcome to post additional questions by your own accord, if you feel them necessary.

• Should Jimbo Wales remain dictator of the project, or should we overthrow him and install a policy-following individual in the Executive position?

• Should there be term limits for the executive? If so, what?

• Should there really be an executive (director of Wikipedia) at all?

Conclusion

This is just a proposal to extend the Manifesto of Karmafist, and I don't intend anyone to agree with me. If you agree, go on to sign your name at the bottom, and if you don't post on the relevant talk page.

Support

1. Эйрон Кинни 19:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC). Of course I support it, I drafted it.
2. Karmafist 20:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC) I support the extentions.

   Clarification: The Executive idea is superfluous, in my opinion. I apologize for not making this clearer, earlier. Karmafist 18:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

3. zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Support, but some questions need to be answered - what exactly would the executive branch do that the administrators could not? And you mention an Executive - a single person? How is this person chosen? What function does he or she serve? "Out of hand," "by consensus and common held opinion" - vague terms, and potentially too-huge blocks to overcome. Why not term limits to simplify matters?
4. Cynical 17:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Jimbo has to either start listening to the community or step down/be forcibly removed in favour of someone who will Cynical 17:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
5. We aren't a democracy, however we aren't a cabal either, and the admins have lost sight of this. We need stronger and more sociocratic rules to foster pluralistic consenus as well as debate. I'm somewhat shocked about the autocratic blocking policies used by some admins, which will no doubt influence my support of this. Canadianism 01:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Terence Ong 04:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
7. ILovEPlankton 22:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Kasreyn 23:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Seems to make sense. I'm not an admin, but I've been here long enough to tell we need a better system.

Oppose

1. People who believe this should fork. It's unworkable, impossible and self contradictory. A policy following executive cannot exist; an executive has the ultimate authority. This will simply make policy the executive. Steve block talk 13:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And what precisely is wrong with that? Policy [when it's written properly, unlike T1] gives people a clear view of what is acceptable and what is not Cynical 16:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• For problems on using written policy as an executive, see the battle over gun control in the United States, which centres on interpretation of the Constitution. Contentious issues will always appear regardless of the system. And you make a huge and gaping statement when you assert that policy will always be well written. If policy is the executive, how can it be rewritten? If it is badly written, who decides that? Already you are moving away from having policy as the executive, but having instead those people with whom you agree on the interpretation of said policy as the executive. Steve block talk 10:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cynical. Why don't you fork? More users are here than admins, and it seems more often than not users support userboxes. Эйрон Кинни 02:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Where did I mention userboxes? And you'll find the onus to fork will be those that disagree with the wiki foundation, who own the servers and the legal identity. Steve block talk 10:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You are of course aware that the silent majority couldn't care less about userboxes? Johnleemk | Talk 03:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean the 95% + of accounts that are rarely (if ever) used (I read in an article, think it was on BBCi, that something like 2.5% of the user accounts make most of the edits). You could argue that against ANY proposal (how many of those people are likely to care about WP:NPA or WP:DEL? does that make them unimportant?) Cynical 09:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't you just love begging the question? Who said anything about those accounts? I'm referring, of course, to the ~700 (or fine, be pessimistic and put it at 400) admins who have never bothered with the userbox debates, and a presumably similarly proportioned chunk of active editors (~2000 accounts have made more than 1000 edits as of December 2005; how many have bothered with this userbox scandal?). Johnleemk | Talk 12:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting metric is the number of users who have edited in the past five minutes who have userboxes. Of the 258 editors I found (as of a few minutes ago), only 87 had any userboxes at all. Johnleemk | Talk 18:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Jimbo should remain the director of the foundation, and making the wiki more of a power structure/struggle is not good. Leave it as it is, but read my 2 points above, thats how I feel about the whole admin/Jimbo situation. Mike _{(T C)} 06:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

He should remain director of the foundation, but stop arbitrarily modifying policy in defiance of community consensus Cynical 16:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Amendment(s) by Karmafist

Note:Now that the petition has so many signers, it seems improper to add additional amendments without approval. The custom is 10, after 10 signers i'll add it on. However, unlike Kinneyboy, i'd ask instead of signifying opposition here, please indicate on the talk page why you disagree with it or how it can be modified to your liking.

1. All Wikipedians are entitled to as objective as humanly possible analysis of situations in regards to when third parties intervene in disputes (Rfcs, Mediation, Arbcom, etc.)
2. Policies and Guidelines should be as clear as possible to avoid confusion or loopholes.
3. Consensus should be decided in regards to certain issues in a centralized location, and with clear and consise language.

Signers

1. Karmafist 21:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
2. KI 23:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
3. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Although I have not signed the main manifesto, I will sign this BostonMA 04:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
5. --Thorri 14:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
6. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Agreed; part of the problem with many policies on Wikipedia is that they don't go into specifics but instead use vague terminology which just leads to frustration later when said policies are enforced. We should try to minimize instruction creep, but not at the expense of being impossible (or at least, really difficult) to interpret.
7. Cynical 16:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Friendly Neighbour 16:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
9. ILovEPlankton 01:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
10. jeffthejiff 10:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
11. --Philx 18:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments please make #2 stating ".. as clear and concise as possible ...". does making things clear in lengthy detail really help? we can find endless and often confusing policies in written law. cf. to what locke cole said
i for one stand for concise and clear guidelines instead of detailled policies. while the latter might make it clearer to those who study those policies, the former are easier to grasp in addition to stimulating discussions/dialogues that aim to clarify how those guidelines should be carried out or be implemented respectively. some may find it wearisome to explain the same things over and over, but i to me it is a vital process. firstly because there will always be new users who need to grow into the whole thing, and secondly because we need to reflect on why we keep doing the things we do. --Terrestrian 15:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (sorry in case this isn't the right place to add my thoughts; i'm new to user discussions)