Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Role of Jimmy Wales in the English Wikipedia

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

---

RFC: Role of Jimmy Wales in the English Wikipedia

There were five co-proposers of this RFC. The RFC was open for two weeks, and closed Monday 23:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC). The RFC started: 16:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as co-proposer Tony (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Support as co-proposer Dabomb87 (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Hipocrite (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Strongly support. Thanks in no small part to the nurturing and stewardship of Mr. Wales, the project is now mature enough for these roles to be devolved to the community.  Skomorokh  19:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Support While Wikipedia would not be what it is today without Mr. Wales, his recent actions have endangered both the neutrality and credibility of the site. The proposal tries to prevent this kind of situation from happening again. Mcools (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Support as co-proposer This is evolution, and not revolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Wikipedia has grown to the point where its governing bodies and decisions made by them should not be subject to the whims of one man. If Wikipedia were a government, that would effectively make Jimbo a dictator. Of course, I hope that this issue doesn't HAVE to through RfC and beyond, resulting in a long, drawn out battle. I hope Jimbo is man enough to realise that enough people are now so dissatisifed, that it is time for him to give up his power and do so with good grace, and not try to cling on to it until the end, like some sort of tyrant. The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Support. ArbCom is one area where reform is badly needed. This proposal is a good step in the right direction. I don't think a comprehensive reform should happen all at once—this is a great beginning. We are plenty mature enough as a project to have an election system in which editors know what to expect. --Laser brain (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Support not out of any real feeling that Jimbo is doing a bad job, but simply that the project needs to grow beyond one person. These are small steps to that effect. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Support the spirit of this proposal because I don't think Wales should have a much power as he does and more power should be left in the hands of the community. I think this proposal is too broad-sweeping to pass, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to make the project into what we think it should be. One of the opposers said something like 'he's given himself the power to veto this anyway'; I think this is exactly the problem. Just because he has the power to go against the will of the community doesn't mean that he should have that power. We should work to fix this problem if his role is making people feel so disempowered that they don't feel like they can effect change so they might as well not try. delldot ∇. 21:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Support as co-proposer--Joopercoopers (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Limited support:
    • Support 1a, removal of Jimbo's role in elections. Okay with changing his role to a purely ceremonial/honorary role, in which he will approve everyone whether he wants to or not. This could be done by having him add the necessary bits to the account. He deserves the honor of tweaking the bit, but not the theoretical rights he currently has.
    • Against 1b, size of the committee. This will change and evolve over time, there is no need to tie it to a certain size now. I have nothing against 17, I just don't think we need to settle this now.
    • Support for 2 but another alternative: Proposal 2 removes Jimbo's right to overrule the committee. There needs to be some check against a runaway committee in the unlikely event such a thing ever happens. Absent any other proposal, I would suggest that a unanimous vote of active bureaucrats OR possibly a unanimous vote of foundation trustees would serve as a stop-gap against a runaway arbcom. This needs much further discussion before it goes anywhere. In the meantime, yes, pull this right from Jimbo. If we do have a runaway arbcom before there is a procedure in place to handle it, I trust "mob rule" or the threat of it will result in an outcome that is good for the project. I don't see a runaway committee as even remotely likely any time soon, not with the current arbcom in place, so we have time to discuss it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
13. Limited support. I have additional comment though.
    • What function does Arbcom currently serve?
    • Wikipedia do not have a clear separation of power in Wikipedia like modern governments. For instance, the USSC is nominated by the POTUS and confirmed by the Senate. We don't have a Parliament. SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Limited support. Despite his generally positive record, Jimbo has made errors in the institution of certain policies against consensus, such as with CSD T1, that were later repealed. Despite the fact that he has never abused it, I think giving him the power to overrule the decision of the ArbCom committee is the rough equivalent of giving the President of the United States the power to overrule the Supreme Court. It creates an enormous imbalance of power that should not be preserved just because he elects not to use it. Likewise, giving him the sole power to appoint the staff of ArbCom annually empowers him to enact retribution on any members who voice disagreement, creating a chilling effect. It is true that the Wikimedia Foundation is not a nation, but the end result of the poor decision-making and corruption enabled by the current state of affairs would undoubtedly be destructive to our long-term goals. On the other hand, I advance no opinion on the proposed election system for ArbCom, due to limited experience in this area, and it may very well be that we need a new, alternate system for appealing ArbCom decisions. What I will say here is that far more important than limiting Jimbo's ability to appeal ArbCom decisions, is his ability to unilaterally and in the absence of a case create his own policy, which must be stopped at once. Dcoetzee 02:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
15. Support The proposal appears to be measured, and appears to be warranted due to the maturity of the project. Given Jimbo's conviction that the community's will, subject to the five pillars, be upheld, this proposal is fully consistent with that. The days of the benevolent dictator should indeed be numbered. Even if the king only has a ceremonial role, it does not mean we revere him any less. I have no views either way on whether it should be 13, 15, 17 or 19 arbs, but the change is highly symbolic of the transparency we strive to build upon. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
16. Support, we are large and mature enough to do without Jimbo in our governance process. I wish to add, though, that there seems to have been not much wrong recently with Jimbo's actions regarding the arbcom (last major mistake was appointing Essjay, and anybody could have made that mistake). In other words, I am not sure that taking away Jimmy's formal ArbCom powers will actually change much about the power that his words have (one of the bigger problems is that he does sometimes act, and so we don't develop mechanisms to change certain problems without his approval). Kusma (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Wikipedia needs an transparent and accountable system of governance. This is a step in that direction. Dalliance (talk) 08:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
18. Strong Support - I have always thought the project's administrative part needs to be totally different. We need admins, however their role should be minimized: Leave it for the community to write and interpret policy, while admins should only intervene when there is no clear consensus. Of course, a full democracy wouldn't work, as you could get anyone you know to vote. Jimbo's powers, albeit hardly used, are way too many. It shouldn't be up to him what is censored and what is not, it should not be up to him to decide on policy, nor should he be allowed to overrule ArbCom. I have great respect for Jimbo. However, the project has grown to a level where not everything could be kept at the top level. It has grown to a level where there are so many people who are regular contributors, that it is just not fair for them to be totally ignored at the administrative level. Guy0307 (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
19. Support As has been made clear over and over again, this community is driven by consensus, and to have one man ratify the elections of ArbCom members goes against that principal. I respect Wales for having the vision to co-found this project and for all the publicity work he has done, however I feel that his power on-wiki should be limited. Concerns have been voiced in the oppose section that Wales' role and details such as the period someone should serve on ArbCom are mutually exclusive. However since the proposal is to remove Wales from the process how it will operate without him needs to be clarified. Nev1 (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
20. Support as co-proposer – iridescent 14:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
21. Support -- As I said below in greater detail, I regard it as essential that any volunteer run organization should be able to survive the sudden unavailability of any volunteer. And for this reason no volunteer should possess the grandfathered powers Mr Wales has. Geo Swan (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
22. Support - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 17:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    In an RfC more than anywhere, blind assertions of support or opposition are completely useless. If RfA is the closest we come to straight voting, RfC is the furthest we get away from it. Why do you support this proposal? Please don't read this as a heckle: I'm sure you have reasons, but it is exceptionally important here that you ennunciate them. Happy‑melon 17:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks. I left it at just support because I have nothing to add to what's already been said. I support the proposal as it's written. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 19:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    Does that mean you understand what it means to appoint members by the "strength of their vote" then? Cool Hand Luke 22:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

23. Support per project maturity arguments above, as well as recent reports of Wales' personal efforts to censor Wikipedia to save a reporter's life. Jimbo has a conscience, and a worldwide encyclopedia must not be subject to the whims of one man, however noble those whims may have been in the past. Jclemens (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
24. Support This should be about ensuring ArbCom is responsive to community consensus and less about Jimbo-bashing. ArbCom has enormous powers and shouldn’t be able to act with what effectively amounts to impunity. Wikipedia is what it is largely due to volunteer editors, who comprise the vast majority of “the Wikipedian community”. It’s as simple as this: those with power should govern with the consent of the governed.

    I see that Jclemens, above, cited Jimbo’s intervening to self-censor Wikipedia to save a reporter’s life as evidence of why we don’t want Jimbo interceding in Wikipedia’s affairs. I see that as precisely the opposite; the man has common sense, doesn’t see the world in black and white, and can appreciate the shades of grey inherent in real life. A quote that is often ascribed to Winston Churchill goes like this: “A man of 20 years of age who is not a liberal has no heart; a man of 40 who is not a conservative has no head.” Jimbo obviously has a head. There will always be plenty of *highly* principled and older Wikipedians as well as young Wikipedians who will see “Freedom Of the Press™®©” as absolute and inviolate. Jimbo was wise enough to recognize that my right to know about the kidnapping was trumped by the reporter’s right to live; that much strikes me as a Well… Duh proposition. This shows why we need a good leader at the helm. So let’s separate all the Jimbo-bashing from the more important point: recognizing that Wikipedia has grown sufficiently to make ArbCom more responsive to the needs of the community by ensuring they serve with the consent of the community.

    BTW, I can see that unless there is a huge turnaround in the voting trends, this RfC is going down in flames. I think it somewhat unfortunate that its wording was cast more as “taking power away from Jimbo (thanks for giving the world Wikipedia)” and less about “making ArbCom more responsive to the community.” I nevertheless thought it best to vote my conscience, not hop onto the S.S. Wimp-out for a cruise, and make my point. Hopefully, my comments here, in a venue for the free exchange of ideas, will influence the minds of others the next time a similar subject comes up. Greg L (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

25. Support this necessary change to a very unsatisfactory status quo. It will either happen eventually anyway, or it will be wikipedia that we see go down in flames, not this RfC. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
26. Support, moral and otherwise for what little it is worth. Sadly there are far too many here who feel they still must have daddy around to fix the the water heater--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC) [Moved by Tony1 from the "Partial support" section below to avoid double counting. Reference is to Dragons flight's comment there: Well put! Despite my somewhat cynical comments above, I find it very encouraging we are having this discussion. I could not imagine it occurring here two, or even a single, year ago. The mentality and culture here are a changing. I embrace the metamorphosis!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
27. Fully Support. A striking mark of the very success of Jimmy Wales' vision and nurturing, is that directing the matured project— on the model of the open sourcing it reflects— can now be devolved to the community in democratic style.--Wetman (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
28. Support unconditionally. Giano (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
29. Support both parts of the proposal, as they are written.COGITO ERGO SUM (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
30. Support all parts of the proposal as written. An independent ArbCom is necessary to the continued healthy functioning of the Wikipedia community. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
31. Support - while consensus is currently against this change, I still think it's high time it happened. I respect the role Jimmy Wales has historically played in running Wikipedia, but we no longer need him to supervise us - ArbCom should be elected directly by the community, without having to get Jimbo's permission first. Robofish (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
32. Support. Jimbo should have no special role on this project at all. Everyking (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
33. Qualified support. I support 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d. I'd to see the community decide how to run the election (I would prefer a Foundation-style secret ballot). I'd also like to see the complicated tranche system abandoned and Arbs to run for a maximum of two years, after which they'd relinquish the extra tools. And I would prefer that people be elected according to whichever ranking system the community chooses, and not be chosen by Jimbo or anyone from the Foundation. The only role I'd like to see Jimbo and the Foundation play is to step in if someone truly inappropriate is about to be appointed; for example, someone who has seriously misrepresented himself, but it would have to be quite an extreme case. ArbCom apart, I do think there's a role for Jimbo in general; the recent situation described here is a good example. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Might need a few details worked on as people above have commented above. Verbal chat 06:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
35. Cla68 (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
36. Support TotientDragooned (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Xxanthippe (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC).

Support for reducing Jimbo's role, ignoring the other stuff

1. As other people have said, the title question about the role of Jimbo in arbitration is being muddled by conflating it with other proposed changes in the structure of ArbCom, etc. I generally think it is a positive sign of a maturing community if we can move away from the Jimbo as God-king mentality. While I don't intend any ill will to Jimbo personally, I think the benevolent dictator role is a throwback to our past and it would be better to eliminate it in favor of a fully democratic style of self-government. Hence I am in favor of eliminating Jimbo's role in appointing arbitrators and his hypothetical appeal powers in arbitration. Rather than having Jimbo vet potential appointments to ArbCom (which has largely been a rubber stamp anyway), I'd rather grant a supermajority of Arbitrators (say 75%) the ability to expel delinquent members, which deals with the private evidence problem. (A community recall process might also be a good idea.) Dragons flight (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Essentially per Dragon's flight and with the understanding that the community in deciding the format of the elections will provide a clear mechanism for handling disputed results. No strong objections to the other changes implied by the proposed wording but I don't think that they should be bundled. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
3. In particular I would tend towards leaveing arbcom size as an issue for arbcom itself since they have a far better idea than anyone else as to how big they need to be.©Geni 02:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Jimbo's role is ill-defined, and should be evolved away from; not everybody has the grace to be a limited monarch - especially without a constitution to follow. But the rest of this is a would-be political party's attempt to stack the deck. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I'm not sure what actual problem this proposal is intended to resolve. While I certainly don't agree with many of Jimbo's ideas about project governance, such as his opposition to paid editing, his role in the arbitration process has never to my knowledge presented a problem. On the contrary, it is probably preferable to have an official of the Wikimedia Foundation – which is ultimately responsible for the project – who is responsible for taking authoritative action in exceptional circumstances, particularly when for one reason or another the community or the Arbitration Committee is unable to act. His record in this capacity seems to be reasonably good so far, and he has used what authority he has with restraint, so I'm not currently opposed to him continuing in his role.  Sandstein  19:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

   Dig through Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006 although the date alone should make it pretty clear there was a problem.©Geni 02:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Per Sandstein. Ruslik_Zero 19:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Why fix what ain't broken? Can we go back to writing an encyclopedia instead of playing a game? -- Taku (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Reason 1: exercise in futility. Reason 2: Solution in search of a problem. — Ched :  ?  19:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose. A solution for which there is no problem. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Sandstein. A representative of the Wikimedia Foundation having authority in special circumstances is much better than the inmates running the asylum in such cases. That includes giving the final ok for Arbcomm elections, imo. Priyanath ^talk 20:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose - since there isn't much of any official role left, there's not much left to "revolt" against, IMO. (And: isn't whatever his un-official role is, is merely what ppl on their own decide to give him?) - ps I just made this userbox: User:Justmeherenow/ConMonarchJimboLoyalist ↜Just M E here , now 20:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose because it is still his project, simple enough, and he has given himself the power to veto this anyways. Plus, I disagree with the belief that Jimbo is doing a bad job; 99.7% of what he does for this project every person here agrees with, and we want to strip him for that .3%? psh, please. --CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 20:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

   it is still his project, since when? Since he co-founded it? --Tom (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose - there are problems with the system, but people are looking at the wrong end. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose - the arrogance of the co-proposers of this ridiculous idea is mind-numbing. This is ultimately the Foundation's website, not ours. Do you propose to go to Google's website and propose to throughout their founders now too? Just because Wikipedia gives its users more leeway in creating their own rules does not make this a democracy or anarchy. Get a life.Camelbinky (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

    There certainly is some quite staggering stupidity being displayed here, I agree. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

11. Per Binky. Daniel (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose. As per Sandstein. Jimbo Wales never interferes in content issues and actually tries to stay away from them.Actually does not involve himself to over 95% of the requests in his talk page asking him to be involved in various content issues or articles or disputes with admins.With due respect his respect his leadership is very good and yes he does get involved in arbitration elections, some rare blocks or specific issues like paid editing.But otherise it is the community which runs itself.Even in the paid editing he was emailed by an admin and later it was posted to his talk page.For an average editor over 99% of the users Jimbo Wales is non existent rarely do they come across him or are affected by any unilateral decision or veto taken by him(which he never does).Jimbo is true democrat watch this interview and has created the first open-source online encyclopedia truly by the people, for the people:Time. His overall leadership is outstanding and now to call for an examination of his role when there is no clear issue involved is like saying that one has climbed up hence they should kick away the ladder they used to climb up.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose, per Sandstein and Ottava. Any problems inherent with the Arbitration Committee are not really due to Jimbo's influence; and in general this entirely appears to be a solution to a problem that has yet to exist. I am absolutely happy for the status quo to continue as far as Jimmy Wales is concerned, he's generally done a good job of hands-off leadership. ~ mazca ^talk 22:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

    "Any problems inherent with the Arbitration Committee are not really due to Jimbo's influence" - I agree with the "not entirely". However, as the debate on the reform of Arbcom has been initiated, it appears logical to review its entire functioning, bearing in mind our spiritual leader has been known to appoint top-up Arbs to the committee, an act that an increasing number of editors feel to be anachronistic and that it ought to be formalised. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

14. Oppose - Fortunately we already have a de facto policy that say "Once a year some group of editors will initiate a histrionic "Death to Jimbo" campaign." Manning (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    I'm really struggling to connect the dots with that one. We've proposed that the community should select arbs - which they do anyway, but the rubber stamping role Jimbo plays should be removed, and we suggest he should give up his appeal powers which are never used, but are probably the source of 50% of the cruft on his talk page. How is that a "histrionic death to Jimbo campaign"? --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

15. Strongly oppose. I concur with the above opinions that this entire exercise is pointlessly unnecessary, seeing as how there is no problem to fix. But I also disagree with the proposing editor's underlying premise that Wikipedia needs more democratizing. It does not. Jimmy Wales' presence, and the stability with which it imbues our electoral processes, far outweighs any abstract touchy-feely benefits reaped by his absence. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose. Checks and balances are useful. Right now there are entirely too few checks and balances upon ArbCom. Durova^{273 featured contributions} 01:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    Checks and balances are indeed good things. But what checks and balances do we have now for Jimbo? Or, apart from the ArbCom, for the administrator caste?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

    One year ago the Arbitration Committee had to be RfC'd. Since that time there have been continuing problems, including after the newly elected arbitrators took office. Eventually Jimbo's role will cease; he isn't immortal. Yet this website is a groundbreaking project that frequently encounters new challenges. A better solution would be to devise a better set of checks and balances, which if it functions well will phase him out gently by handling situations without a need for his involvement. Durova^{273 featured contributions} 15:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

    Hmmm - so in a time of crisis for the Arbcom, it wasn't Jimbo who interceded it was the community? Jimbo as I recall, after some flip flopping failed to act other than by asking the committee to look at ways in which they could make themselves more accountable and held to higher standards. The only sensible conclusion is that Arbcom are already accountable to the community and Jimbo's role is redundant. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

    As I recall, Jimbo had an RFC filed against him a while back too. So if you are trying to argue being RFC'd means someone is problematic, then that would exclude most everyone, since youre nobody till somebody RFCees you:). But I agree with your conclusion, Durova; a better system of checks and blances must be devised in the long run.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

    As someone who has had a hand in over five dozen arbitration cases, and who brought the RfC on ArbCom live last year, I actually have more concerns about the Committee's direction now than a year ago. When the current discussion settles would like to run an alternate proposal past both of you, which might satisfy all our concerns. At present, unfortunately, am working on an intensive content commitment that cuts into other endeavors. The first part was restoring this to this. Have several more of a similar scale and difficulty to complete. So let's respect each others' philosophical differences and keep an open mind to touch bases in future. Durova²⁷³ 23:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

    Personally, I approve of the current ArbCom's direction. They have implemented a much needed Subcommittee system, which seems to be working out quite well. They are not afraid to make difficult decisions on complex cases, that would have sent previous ACs running for cover. And I think they have handled the scandals which have come their way pretty well so far too. But sure, when you have the time and inclination, I'd like to see your proposals, Durova.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

17. Oppose - This essentially makes ArbCom accountable to no one. Mr.Z-man 01:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    Not really - arbcom are currently accountable at election time. Mr Wales however.......--Joopercoopers (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    Maybe if the terms only lasted for one case, but with 2 year terms? That's longer than many users' wiki-lifetimes. Mr.Z-man 03:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    A full Arb term is 3 years--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

    And 2 years under this proposal. Mr.Z-man 06:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

    My point was: It currently IS 3 years, which is indeed longer than most wiki-lives. Many Arbs do not sit out their full terms, and many of the ones that do don't run for reelection. So it would be sensable all around to cut their terms of voluntary imprisonment. 2 years is quite reasonable, since it takes most arbs at least a year just to learn the ropes.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

18. I tend to agree as well with the comments of people staying neutral. Terms, number and rights of arbitrators should have no bearing whatsoever to this discussion. The only relevant aspect of ArbCom and Jimmy is the proposal convert ArbCom election results into a binding determination of the community's will, rather than as advice to Jimmy on who he should appoint. Moving to oppose, as I believe the opposition makes an excellent point about what this would do regarding the accountability of ArbCom. It is evident that the community does not currently have a level of trust in ArbCom sufficient for it to serve as the "Supreme Court" of Wikipedia. Lacking an alternative means of appeal, I can't support a change in Jimmy's status at this time. Resolute 01:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose Jimbo has done nothing to this point to lose the community trust, and as such, there is no compelling reason to take any of his powers away. This sort of change is arbtrary and pointless. If Jimbo goes rogue or something, then maybe we have a reason to do this. This is a solution in search of a problem, and unless and until Jimbo shows he can no longer exercise his special role as Fearless Leader, there is no reason to change anything regarding his role. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose In my experience Jimbo has been extremely evenhanded and fair. He's not perfect — no human is — but on the whole he is a big reason this project is such a success, and his role as the buck stopper is critically needed. Crum375 (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose Until such time as Jimbo does actually abuses his role, this is a solution in search of a problem.--Aervanath (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    Should there ever be an instance that Jimbo is deemed to have abused these powers, what then? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    Let's cross that bridge when it comes up then, shall we? If it can be shown that Jimbo has lost the community trust, then an appropriate and measured response can be tailored to fit the particular way that he has lost that trust. However, unless and until we have a concrete problem that needs to be addressed, there's no need to introduce any safeguards which presupose a future abuse that has not yet occurred. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

    ...but Jimbo owns the bridge - so we cannot cross it without his say so...;~) Perhaps we did not focus upon this aspect enough; this is not about deprecating Jimbo, but promoting the maturity of the community is directing its own affairs. We do not request these things because Jimbo is incapable, but because we are capable of doing it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

22. I'd be an enthusiastic supporter of reducing the terms of arbitrators (such as to two years), but the rest I cannot support at this time. Keeping Jimbo there as a safeguard in case something new comes up at the end of the election seems to be to be reasonable. He has not abused this power and trust he will not do so in the future. If he were however to reject someone for ARBCOM over something the community has already considered and rejected in the election then I would change my mind and I would prefer that he was clearer about the number of arbitrators to be appointed before the election starts. Davewild (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose If it's not broke, don't fix it. WP:CREEP is something we've forgotten in recent years, but it's not gone yet. Jimbo has the trust of the community. --M^ask? 11:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
24. Oppose. I am not particularly happy with Jimbo's admin actions, but I guess part of the problem is that he thinks they are not a big deal. This proposal seeks to remove unrelated checks and balances that he has not abused and that I think he will not abuse. Hans Adler 12:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
25. Oppose. It was a once in a lifetime situation, not unlike the dismissal of the Whitlam government. Paul Roberton Paul Roberton (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
26. This isn't a problem. The policy-by-fiat and/or ban-by-fiat roles of Mr. Wales could possibly be considered problems, but his role in relation to the ArbCom hasn't led to any issues. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
27. I agree with the above that this particular power of Jimbo is not a source of great concern, compared to others in need of discussion or reform. I have to oppose because it doesn't propose an independent mean of appeal for ArbCom decisions, which would be needed for checks and balances, if Jimbo were discharged from this role. I'm thinking on alternatives. Cenarium (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
28. Oppose. There is no problem that I'm aware of that this would fix. Kingdon (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
29. Oppose. Unless a suitable replacement of oversight of arbcom is proposed. I do not support the removal of Jimmy from his current constitutional role. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 17:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
30. Oppose Sandstein is absolutely correct here (except for the paid editing part). Jimbo has the community's trust. I see nothing wrong with the system as it exists currently. Aditya ^α _ß 17:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
31. Oppose. A coup is not the preferred method for dealing with issues; our 'supreme court' is wishy washy, frail, and prone to failures of judgment. Having someone whose authority to protect the project from legal issues, and who can make authoritative decisions where the ArbCom fails is a strength, not a weakness. ThuranX (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose I don't see a problem here need fixing. Eusebeus (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
33. Oppose A community can go wild, a committee can go wild, and Jimbo Wales can go wild. Having a requirement for 2 out of 3 to go wild before wild things happen seems to me like a Good Thing. (it might be interesting to replace Jimbo's role with a "house of lords" or "supreme court" - but I do not hold with with an Arbcom that is sufficient unto itself, with no place to go if they really do something silly) --Alvestrand (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
34. Oppose - per Alvestrand's comment on checks and balances, everyone's comments on this being a solution in search of a problem, and Happy Melon's comments on this being a poorly written wish list snuck in under the excuse of being an RFC on Jimbo's role. I would, however, support the proposed amendment granting every Wikipedian a pony. --GRuban (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
35. Oppose per Sandstein. Nathan ^T 19:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
36. Oppose per Taku. Tempshill (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
37. Oppose but not for the normal reasons. Arbcom is not equipped to handle everything that is needed, and consensus is unable to create a body that can. We need an elected body that can decide things in general, beyond arbcom's limited scope, and Wales is one of the few people who might be able to create such a thing. If he can create a democratically elected body that does his work, then his special position will be no longer needed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
38. Oppose. I too fail to see a problem that needs correcting. ERK ^talk 03:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
39. Oppose Years (decades? centuries?) from now, this may seem like a golden age for this place. Why not let the guy play out his role until he abuses it or grows tired of it? Flying Jazz (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
40. Oppose Nonsense! 209.244.16.221 (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
41. Oppose. I support an examination and community formalisation of Jimmy's role on the English Wikipedia in more general terms but I don't have any concerns about his role in Arbitration. However, I have rapidly increasing concerns about this Arbitration Committee and I agree with Durova's comment regarding checks and balances of this committee and I think it's very important that we maintain, rather than lose, any existing checks. Also agree with the comments by Sandstein and Ottava . Sarah 07:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

    "I have rapidly increasing concerns about this Arbitration Committee". It is true that its procedures and remit are in need of reform, but I would contend that the 'barrel of monkeys' which is Arbcom has is only remotely linked to its governing structure. I believe the proposers are right in suggesting making Arbcom members FULLY accountable to the community, rather than partially and indirectly accountable. However, if you feel in any way that the problem is due to governance issues, then the blame for your misgivings at Arbcom should probably rest at the feet of Mr James Wales. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

42. Oppose as a solution in search of a problem. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
43. Oppose per WP:UCS and IMO Jclemens (talk · contribs) ill-advised comments...Modernist (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
44. Oppose to this extraordinarily ill-advised proposal. JW has shown time and time again that he is extremely well suited to lead this project of his. The real problem is the arbcom election process which in spite of the best intentions of everyone involved necessarily tends to end up producing apparatchiks, per the iron law of oligarchy. The arbcom is the problem, and JW is the solution, not vice versa. --dab (𒁳) 19:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
45. Oppose. I'd prefer reform leading to a constitutional monarchy. PhilKnight (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
46. Oppose. The balance between effective leadership and fair leadership is always a hard one for any government to tread, which is why even the best democracies give a decent chunk of their power to one man - otherwise not a great deal gets done. Josh04 (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

    Which democracies are you thinking of? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

47. Strongest possible oppose - Why fix someething that aint broke? I see Jimbo as a important step in our dispute resolution procedure, he being the link between ArbCom and the WMF. If the ArbCom becomes corrupt, who will fix it? If ArbCom overlook something in a ban appeal, who will see it? Jimbo is a fair good guy. He is important to this project. For that, I strongly oppose this proposal, and suggest we leave Jimbo with the power he has got. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
48. Oppose Classic "baby and bathwater" proposal. I have not seen signs of abuse by JW, and I strongly suspect he asks others before taking any specific stances on issues. There are, in fact, valid reasons for reforming how WP is run, I am sure. Is this the answer? I am fairly sure it is not. Collect (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
49. Oppose - There isn't much evidence that I have ever seen that Jimbo has ever really abused his current power in this regard, and it is in the interests of wikipedia that the buck stop somewhere, which, right now, it doesn't. If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. John Carter (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
50. Oppose per many of the reasons above. The system works well for the time being--Jimbo is a good guy--and he is only as powerful as the editors allow him to be. —Pie4all88 ^{T C} 21:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
51. Oppose The people who propose this apparently think that arb com will work perfectly, and the result of an arb election will always be reasonable, and that no critical special circumstances will arise. Whether JW is the perfect person for the role is irrelevant, because he's the best available. He has the desirable characteristic that he accepts the idea that he can make mistakes, and he accepts being over-ruled by the community. No, I do not completely trust him, but I trust him more than I trust all arb coms past and future. DGG (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
52. Unfocused, unclear, and inappropriate for a policy page anyway. If his role changes, there should be a small update to his role page and the Arb page. Adding an essay-type page to try to change things is unworkable. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
53. Oppose. A discussion on Jimbo's role is appropriate, but jumping straight to a major policy revision is not the way to do it. Powers ^T 13:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
54. without further comment.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
55. OpposeJimbo brings a User friendly human touch to the Wiki, someone who is beyond the commitees. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC))

    A user friendly human touch??? Is that some kind of joke? I don't think even Jimbo's staunchest supporters would make that claim. – iridescent 22:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC) No it's not a joke, it is my considered opinion. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC))

    I agree as well. Jimbo is our Leader and a very good natured one at that. Baileyquarter (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

    He may be your leader, but he sure as Hell isn't my leader. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

    Proclaiming that Wales is "our Leader" without stating reasons why he is the suitable for the job sounds like mindless obedience to me and the phrase leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Good intentions and a good nature does not make one a good leader, so feel free to elaborate why you feel Wales is the right man for the job. Nev1 (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

    Because he obviously has quite an enlightened, noble, and humane view of the world. I'd take Jimmy over the proven nastiness and pettiness of most of the other Wikipedians any day. I was editing this site for all of 2 days before I was attacked mind you! Wales never did anything wrong to me. Baileyquarter (talk) 02:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    Are you familiar with the declensions of common English verbs? Apparently not, for all you can say with certainty is that "Wales hasn't done wrong to me yet." --Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    Mea culpa. Non, lingua Brittaniae mea secunda lingua est. Baileyquarter (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

56. Oppose. I don't see a problem with the current situation. Offliner (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
57. Strong oppose - It just looks like a few people are a little unhappy with how things have turned out recently and want to commit a mutiny for their own gains. I don't see a single valid reason past "I don't agree with him" for this policy to go through and consider it a bad faith attack on his credibility and rationality. Matty (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    Strenous second to that comment. "Commit a mutiny for their own gains." Well put! Baileyquarter (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    I find it quite telling that many in this oppose section appear to have trouble in stringing a sentence together. You don't "commit a mutiny", for instance, you mutiny. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    Just like you can't "commit a murder, you murder." Oh, wait... um... Baileyquarter (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    If I were you I'd consider the wisdom of not demonstrating any more of my evident stupidity, but I don't believe that you'll be able to take that advice on board, for obvious reasons. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    I didn't have trouble stringing a sentence together, I just had trouble making it grammatically correct. Thanks for pointing that out :) Matty (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

58. Oppose As said above, this is a solution in search of a problem. -- The Anome (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
59. Oppose Current leadership, management structure and demarcation are excellent. Strong, benevolent leaders should not be undermined by chirpings from below Little grape (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
60. Oppose Too often, Wikipedia structure, and how and why it works, is not understood, even by people who have been here for a long time. Absolutely, it is not the editorial community's job to control Wikipedia, except through controlling ourselves and voluntarily coordinating; rather, we need efficient structure to intelligently advise the Foundation, which has legal authority and responsibility, as it must. The WMF Board decides Jimbo's continued role, not us. If Jimbo makes bad decisions, as some claim, they pale besides the bad decisions that I see all the time, made by "the community," due to incoherent and unreliable structure. True community consensus is a different animal, and I seriously doubt that Jimbo would fail to respond to a true consensus, it would be next to suicidal, it simply would not happen. --Abd (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

    "The WMF Board decides Jimbo's continued role, not us."—I don't think that is correct. Mr Wales's role WRT ArbCom is ensconsed in ArbCom policy, as on the RFC page overleaf. Tony (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

    ArbComm may be considered authoritative by tradition, but that assumes the continued consent of the WMF Board or whomever the Board delegates that authority to, such as Jimbo. Policy pages have no legally binding force, in general. There could be a legal theory of detrimental reliance that might apply, but it would be highly speculative. Collectively, we'd have no more standing than any individual. We are volunteers, and we have not been offered any authority in exchange for our work, Wikipedia is not a membership organization. The WMF Board may seem to be elected by us, but, again, that is only with the consent of the Board, the legal elections are board actions, which normally ratify the election results. It's consistent with the non-coercive structure of the entire project: individuals act with whatever power they personally have, and it's best and wisest if they act consistently with consensus, but there is no power to coerce or demand compliance, only the power to pull the plug on any editor or the project if you have your hands on it. The WMF Board cannot coerce any editor into any action, all it can do is to withdraw editing or other privileges, and it wisely has delegated this power, subject to its continued consent, to Jimbo and ArbComm, and, beyond that, to the administrative corps collectively, and beyond that, to the entire body of editors, interfering only when deemed necessary.

    (Note that Board bylaws or procedures may provide for elections; but the Board may change its bylaws at any time, and it need not seek our consent for that. The Board is actually, for a corporation, a representative of the state of incorporation, and its duty, beyond the stated specific purpose of the corporation, which it is generally free to change, is to see that applicable laws are followed and that the corporation does not fail to satisfy its fiscal and other legal responsibilities.) --Abd (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

61. Oppose, a futile exercise. Royals don't quit. NVO (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
62. Oppose. I don't see any problem with the current arrangement. older ≠ wiser 17:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
63. Oppose In principle, the idea of slowly disengaging from Jimbo's traditional role has some attraction (as well as some problems), but there is no way that I would trust the vague wording of this RFC where the community (that is, the most fashionable faction) can choose how to vote in the favored few. It is likely that the people who love wikidrama (and who organize off-wiki) would be those who dominate the future utopian democracy, and without a firm constitution to keep them in line, I much prefer Jimbo. When Wikipedia has the power to tax and imprison me, I will want a firmer democratic foundation. Meanwhile, I am very happy with Jimbo who has proven to have judgment vastly superior to that of the herd. I also join the others who have noticed the absurdity of us voting whether or not to take over the WMF. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

    Very well put, thank you. Priyanath ^talk 17:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

64. Oppose I echo the many earlier comments about a solution in search of a problem. I'll also add that I have worked in the past for university department chairs and deans who have been incredibly hostile to even the mildest constructive criticism from faculty members. In happy contrast, the "ownership" here is commendably welcoming to editors who want to speak truth to power, and even editors who want to speak drivel. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
65. His role is still useful, and unique. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
66. Oppose I have six years' personal experience as basis for believing Jimbo has the insight and character to wield constructively the power he has kept for himself (and for those i assume he may have legally and/or in practice chosen to share it with). I have little or no reason to think the same of those (the roughly 10% of those expressing themselves on this talk page) who want a share of that power and bear IDs i recognize. Even if none of the power-seekers (roughly 30%) of whom i know nothing are mere "filibuster" adventurers, it is neither likely they will contribute to greater wisdom, nor efficient to increase the energy it would take to deal with their increased influence.
    --Jerzy•t 05:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)^{belated self-sig}
    
67. Oppose I seriously am not seeing the problem here, and I don't think we always be looking to other Wikipedias for guidance. LONG LIVE JIMBO! GREAT BENEVOLENT DICTATOR! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
68. Oppose I don't see that there is much of an issue. Jimbo doesn't try to take over or act all-powerful. He mostly lets the community work things out on their own. If something's important enough, he'll step in. I'm okay with that. hmwithτ 16:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
69. Oppose Jimbo is the pivot point between Wikipedia and the rest of the World. His range of action is constrained by consensus and by US law, and if he ever does anything truly wrong, he will have to answer to the media. Abductive (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
70. Mr. Jimbo still has a role here in wikipedia. There are occasional decisions that need swift action, and someone has to take them, and Jimbo has shown many times that he is good at taking them. Also, a comunity with no clear leaders is a bit of an utopy, eh? :P We are writing an encyclopedia here, not trying to build the ideal community based in some untested idea that a "real community" has no leaders. P.D.: raising the same issue every time Jimbo makes something that is perceived to be a mistake, but not raising anything when he makes something that is perceived as something correct. P.D.D: and per Tryptofish. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
71. Oppose Jimbo's current role is one of the checks and balances that keep Wikipedia, em, checked and balanced. I see no evidence that, in this role, he has acted in a way detrimental, or counter to the community consensus. Rockpocket 06:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
72. Oppose See absolutely no valid reason to remove him from his role in Arbitration, and per Sandstein, have yet to see what actual problem there is. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
73. oppose there is a theoretical problem here - it is undesirable to have a community unable to govern itself - but alas I think we still are at the stage where we can't govern ourselves William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
74. Oppose whenever someone has built a success, others will try to take it away from him. An organized minority can seize control of any organization, no matter how democratic its constitution. And, despite all of their talk of government theoretically by the people and representative committees, even the soviets, with their layers of bureaucracy and "consultation" knew that there had to be someone of last resort, who had the last word when necessary. It is a glory of the unritten British constitution that the sovereign has reseve powers, rarely exercised, but available in an emergency to intervene when the politicians go too far against the wishes of the country. Mr. Wales is the reserve power needed to intervene and set things right when speed and mature judgement are called for. Committees are fine for deliberation and routine, but at the end of the day, someONE has to be in charge and the final word. Mr. Wales created this, we are but grateful users, and when he is no longer available, a benevolent dictator will need to succeed him. --StanZegel (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

    IMO it's safe to say that the mechanism for Stan's plan is already in place: the WMF has a board (with perhaps a few editorship-elected members, IIRC, but probably basically self-perpetuating), that IIRC has the power to shut the servers down and, more to the point, modify the software as needed. And i have no doubt that a strong majority of the board deeply share Jimbo's vision, and that their successors will continue to do so.
    This poll has the valuable effect of demonstrating that there are quite enuf editors sharing the vision and trusting the b. d. (the b. g.-k.), to ensure continuing the trends of growth, maintenance, and improvement even if each dissident took their glove and went home. My casually checked conjecture is that the dissidents not only are a minority, but also by and large lack the contribs that it would take, even if they were a strong majority, to give their pleas for democracy any moral authority.
    --Jerzy•t 19:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    

75. Oppose I like the ideas Wikipedia was founded on and think the project could become biased if "control" fell into the hands of a committee larger than its founder and with more administrative power than most users. Frei Hans (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
76. Oppose. To avoid chaos, some individual or committee needs to be responsible for declaring who won an election. An unambiguous decision needs to be made when votes are close and there are disagreements over whether some votes counted or not. It's also important to have someone ready to put on the brakes in case an election is overrun by sockpuppetry, massive meatpuppetry, or massive biassed blocking or banning just before the election. Having some of Jimbo's current roles carried out by elected positions, committees or complex decision-making structures may be feasible, but not just having elections with no one in charge of seeing that they're carried out in a reasonable manner, or leaving any future changes in the number of members of the Arbitration Committee to be decided by no one but the Committee itself. Also: "most of his work in those respects is done" violates WP:CRYSTAL. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
77. Oppose Jimbo hasn't done anything wrong and if he commits a major blunder the community will overrule him. His powers are very limited anyway. He just adds a layer of legitimacy to an otherwise purely democratic election (which could turn into a populist popularity contest). Wikipedia's large community would mean that an oligarchy is more threatening than a moreorless symbolic monarchy. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 00:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
78. Oppose: For some peculiar reason, a lot of people out there feel that Wikipedia "belongs" to them. It does not. It belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation, which has ceded certain privileges and powers to the community. If the Foundation wants to change Jimbo's role, it can. If it wants to consult us on the subject, it can. Do I agree with everything Jimbo says and does? No, but then again, no one appointed me to be the dictator of Wikipedia ... and no one appointed the rest of us either.  Ravenswing  13:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

    Perhaps a quick read of this statement might disabuse you of your misunderstanding.--Joopercoopers (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I agree the role of Jimmy needs discussion, but as it is framed, this RFC seems to go in odd directions. For instance it changes the length of arb terms in office, which hasn't been a Jimmy-feature. Also, it ignores the founder userright, the Medcom veto, the ability to do Office Actions, and status of Jimbo's Checkuser/Oversight rights (Checkuser he granted himself, Oversight was granted before logs existed by Arbcom). I would probably support if the RFC was a bit more comprehensive in its approach to Jimbo's powers and may still yet move my comment elsewhere. MBisanz ^talk 18:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

   Well said. This proposal needs more thought and consideration before being presented to the community. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

   It is clearly a sensitive issue to suggest changes regarding Jimbo's role. For my part, I believed it was important to suggest modest change, rather than a sweeping manifesto. Granted, there may be other issues the community feels stronger about, and we may also find the community has no stomach for any change whatsoever. If that's the case then so be it. But before you make other suggestions elsewhere, perhaps it might be interesting to see if a tidying up of the role and the transfer of a small responsibility is possible, or make your suggestions here.--Joopercoopers (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

   A modest change would be removing Jimbo's MedCom veto, since he hasn't been involved in appointing MedCom members since 2004, another modest change would be removing his ability to do Office actions since there are other people who can replace him in that role (the actual office staff), both of those would be less sweeping than what is currently proposed. MBisanz ^talk 09:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

2. What has changing the number of Arbitrators, the length of terms, codifying an imbalance in tranche sizes (by picking a prime number, you guarrantee this no matter how many tranches there are!), and introducing almost incomprehensible wording (if someone would mind translating "Election to the Committee is on the basis of each candidate's ranking in terms of the strength of their vote." into coherent english I would be very grateful), got to do with Jimbo's role on the English Wikipedia?? This doesn't look very "carefully crafted" to me, certainly not as a way to resolve the title question. This is not about changing Jimbo's role (impossible, that's now how we make policy), or even updating policy to reflect a change that may have already occurred, but a proposed change to Arbitration Policy that happens to incorporate changes that affect Jimbo. I'm not necessarily opposed to removing Jimbo's codified influence over ArbCom, but such a discussion needs to take place in the correct context, and without involving piggybacked changes to other aspects of the policy. Happy‑melon 19:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
3. I agree 100% with MBisanz. There may very well be a problem, but this isn't quite the way to address it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

   @melon and julian. Would you elaborate on what the correct context might be or offer a better way to address the issue? I think this is a modest way of making some improvements to the relationship between the role of Jimbo, Arbcom and the community, but I'm in no way fixated on the detail - this is an RFC, please propose alternatives. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

4. I support reducing Jimmy Wales' role in a respectful way, but I don't support making hash of the arbitrator terms and election rules. See Happy-melon above for a partial summary of the problems. Vote is entirely premature. Scrap it now and launch some meaningful discussion. Cool Hand Luke 20:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
5. If this was an article, we'd call it a coatrack and start dissecting it into its true components, or deleting it outright. Conflating election rules with Jimmy Wales' role at Wikipedia is unhelpful. I think Happy-melon more or less has it right. Please separate out the issues you wish to discuss, and let's discuss each issue. Risker (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

   The nub here for me is 1. establish ArbCom elections as a direct expression of the community's will rather than as merely "advisory" to Mr Wales as now; and 2. acknowledge Jimbo's powers relating to appeals are obsolete. Arbs have conceeded that getting consensus on WP is extremely hard, in part because of our leaden inertia - so presenting a full manifesto for change would fail even amongst those who agree 'some' change is required but not 'what'. If we are not to stagnate as a community, the ability to change is vital. I'd love us to look at all of this in-toto, but not spend months mulling it over to come to a decision that nothing should be done....again. Better to try and find aspects that might find a broad agreement and work from there. This proposal seeks to do that in two small areas. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

   All well and good. They're two separate ideas and are not co-dependent. Discuss Jimbo's overall role at Wikipedia as just that. Discuss Arbcom election reform as Arbcom election reform. Both topics are worthy of discussion, but they are not the same thing, and conflating them this way guarantees that they will not get the consideration they deserve because they lack coherence. The preamble barely connects at all with the proposal; you'd insist the lede be rewritten if it was an article. Risker (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

   Well more simply put then - this RfC deals with Jimbo's roles in respect to arbitration, rather than trying to wrap all of his role (which is rather nebulous from what I can deduce) into a reform agenda. It's already broken down into a sufficiently small unit in my opinion. As to the lead.....any copy editors about who would like to take a look with fresh eyes? --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

   You're right - the page title wasn't helping. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

   The new title improves things, but you have still conflated a number of election reform issues with the Jimbo issue. Term lengths have nothing to do with Jimbo. The method of selecting "winners" has nothing to do with Jimbo, and the method included here is extremely ambiguous and poorly considered (what exactly does "the strength of their vote" mean?). If this is about Arbitration Committee election reform, call the page that and focus on that. If this is about Jimbo, then drop the other issues and start a new page for your other proposed election reforms. This is still a coatrack. Risker (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

6. I endorse the comments of MBisanz, Happy-melon, Cool Hand Luke, and Risker. While the "problem", as it were, is worth considering, the proposal so far doesn't present a good way to move forward. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 23:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Agree completely with those above. While I am with everyone who believes there are separate issues worth discussing here, this proposal conflates them. Those proposed changes not related to Jimmy should not be included on WT:RJW. The proposal, as it is currently worded, is not clear enough for me to support either. As Happy-melon noted, there is a need for clarification wrt "ranking in terms of the strength of their vote", for example. More discussion should take place, separating the issues appropriately and improving the wording, before presenting them for wider community input. لennavecia 00:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Not comfortable with devolving power to a committee that itself had to be RfC'd last year after the Orangemarlin fiasco, and after the numerous failures this year. Eventually, of course, Jimbo Wales' power will have to be reduced (on several fronts; see MBisanz' opinion), but for now, the system is not enormously broken. If someone comes up with an alternate process to appeal ArbCom decisions, that would be good. I remember something along the lines of WP:5Crat a while back, perhaps that could be a viable alternative to appealing to Jimbo? NW (Talk) 01:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

   That would be User:Casliber/Fivecrat - which I wrote several months ago and gained no traction. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

9. I agree with Risker, MBisanz, etc. This seems poorly formed and suffers from way too much conflation of issues and trying to solve problem a with solution b. If there is to be any meaningful discussion it should be on point by specific point. -- Avi (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
10. A wider discussion on Jimbo's role is required than simply reframing the Arbitration procedure. I agree he should be removed from Arbitration framework (and perhaps be replaced with the Board of Trustees), but a wider discussion is needed. Computerjoe's talk 13:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
11. From what I've seen, the elected members of our "Supreme Court" are more than capable of making decisions which every bit as capricious as the odd thunderbolt lobbed down from Mount Jimbo. While the present situation is far from ideal, we do need someone to guard the guards, and I'm not convinced that this would be an improvement.--MoreThings (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
12. I don't really disagree with the proposal, but this isn't the way to make the decision. There is a discussion going on here about organising a discussion with a rather larger scope that this one. I suggest people give their support to the proposal there, which is to have a big discussion regarding Jimbo and general English Wikipedia governance and consider all the possibilities. We can then vote on what to do (I'm assuming there is no real chance of getting a consensus, so a vote is really our only option). --Tango (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
13. I strongly agree that the role of Jimmy Wales needs to be changed. This point was hammered home by his latest comment [1] that goes completely against both policy and current practice. However i'm not convinced that this is the place to start. I'd prefer a more comprehensive discussion.--Cube lurker (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Agree with more or less everything, including the responses, in this section, apart from the eye-pokes aimed at ArbCom. - Dank (push to talk) 13:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Like Avi, I agree with MBisanz, Happy-Melon, Risker, et alia. This focuses on perhaps the least problematic part of Jimmy Wales' active relationship with the English-language Wikipedia: his confirmation of ArbCom members after the elections. The primary problem is that he has lost touch with the day-to-day of the project: when he intervenes directly in a given situation, he acts without a good sense or full knowledge of the problem or with how his action will be received by the community. This proposal, which was offered in good faith to improve Wikipedia, does nothing to address the more important problem -- except make Wales more suspicious & thereby less receptive to suggestions from the general of how to deal with his detachment from the community, from people who aren't part of his inner circle. I believe that is best handled by first determining if there is a general consensus by the community that he is out of touch, then offering him the choice of assuming more of a ceremonial role -- or making a determined effort to be more involved in the community. (For example, working to resolve one or more of the chronic ethnic/nationalist conflicts.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Whats the issue? --Tznkai (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Not a clear enough direction contained in this proposal for me to absolutely support or oppose (although I tend towards the oppose in terms of the general question).--VS ^talk 12:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
18. Per MBisanz, Happy-melon, Cool Hand Luke, Risker, Llwyrch, et al, seems conflated. I would support reducing Jimmy's role in ArbCom selection to a purely ceremonial certification of results, or ending it entirely. The changing tranches around, moving people from one tranche to another, mid year appointments, and the like, while carried out with the best of intentions I am sure, tend to reduce clarity and increase (slightly) drama. ++Lar: t/c 22:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments

• Shouldn't there be a set of {{seealso}}s to Wikipedia:Project Leader, Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee/Two_oppose_rule#Jimmy_Wales, m:Founding principles#5, and Wikipedia:Office_actions#Who_does_office_actions? MBisanz ^talk 18:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• In my view, 17 is too many. Perhaps 15 is a better figure. Cool Hand Luke 18:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • 17 is a prime number, making equal splits in opinion more difficult when polling the entire ArbCom. Also, under the system of procedures being proposed and adopted a larger number allows Arbs to concentrate further upon their rotating duties and possibly undertake less admin type roles within the Committee thus freeing them for their prime function. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • You think that picking a prime number for the number of members of a group that has to be divided into three equally-sized tranches is a good thing?? Happy‑melon 20:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I have a vague familiarity with Arbitration functions, and I think 17 is too many. 15 is probably too many, but it allows room to dwindle through the year. Being a prime number is almost perfectly irrelevant; we don't have any votes that require 2/3s. The number should just be odd. Cool Hand Luke 20:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Happy-melon's point about this proposal not actually being as carefully crafted as it claims to be comes to the fore again. Careful crafting would have involved reading about the difference between a prime number and an odd number. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The "tranche" system is deprecated by the proposal; the yearly elections are for the required number of members to bring it to 17 for the beginning of the next year - taking into account all those whose terms have lapsed and any others who are no longer members, this is also covered in that any extraordinary elections would be for the remainder of that year plus one other. This precludes the exchanging of tranche memberships of members, and the arbitrary lengths of service some members may be subject to.

        17 is not a Prime Number? Other than itself and 1, what other whole number divides into it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

        • Not sure how best to set the indentation here; things are a bit confused. The issue is that 17 is a prime number, but that for a tranche system to work at all, the total number of Arbs should not be a prime number, it should be an odd number which divides into the number of tranches to be used (which must, therefore, itself be odd). But LHVU's comment exposes the truth behind my comment above: what has deprecating the tranche system got to do with Jimbo Wales? Absolutely Nothing. This RfC has nothing to do with Jimbo's role on enwiki, it's about changing the structure and election process to the Arbitration Committee, which just happens to involve a few changes to how Jimbo interacts with it. Either be totally frank that that's what you're doing, or stop piggybacking in other changes to ArbPol and actually discuss what you claim to be discussing: Jimbo's role in ArbCom and other processes on enwiki. Happy‑melon 21:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Agreed. If this is just a grab bag of changes supporters would like, it's not going to pass. You might as well also ask for a pony. If you want to focus on Jimbo, then focus on Jimbo—don't glom random garbage onto an important step for this site. Cool Hand Luke 21:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
            • If Jimbo will no longer choose ArbCom, then it makes sense to decide how they are chosen. I believe the purpose here is to make ArbCom chosen directly by and answering to the community rather than to Jimbo. The other changes are just because it is a good time to change related faults, such as the too long terms and the increasingly breaking tranche system. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
              • Having a prime number or arbitrators has nothing at all to do with Jimbo. It's garbage. I agree that the right to appeal to Jimbo and his theoretical discretion in appointments should be deprecated. I want to support such a statement. But the changes to the structure of ArbCom are hamfisted and a COATRACK as Risker brilliantly analogized. Cool Hand Luke 21:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
              • I really don't want to be seen to be harping on about this, but it is apparent to me that providing an alternative to the Jimbo driven ArbCom election setup was the lesser of three evils. If we simply placed forward a policy that said, "Jimbo is history per ArbCom elections" we would likely have had a far greater opposition because we are perceived as attacking Jimbo and his historical relationship with the community, if we stated, "Jimbo is removed from his role as regards ArbCom elections, positions to be filled by popular vote margins but otherwise as before" then the opposes would likely to (further) question the need for Jimbo to be removed from the process if there was only that "minor" change, whereas it was decided to remove both Jimbo's role and the historical process to one which seemed to be one that had been previously promoted as an alternative - shorter terms, and popular vote only. There really is no point in advocating the replacement of an old system without providing a viable alternative. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
                • Can you articulate a reason that a prime number fixes anything? Was this hatched on IRC? Next time, have some dialog here first. I believe that our current election practices minus Jimbo's discretion are perfectly coherent and don't need fixing (although next time we should have a secret ballot). From the look of comments above, I'm not alone. Cool Hand Luke 17:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
                • "The lesser of three evils" or 'the version most likely to succeed'?? It is impossible to read your comment without getting the distinct (if unintentional) impression that you are "attacking Jimbo and his historical relationship with the community", and are "need[ing] for Jimbo to be removed from the process [despite] there [being] only that minor change", and are simply trying to hide that by framing it in the nicest possible light. I don't want to believe that, but that's a conclusion that can easily be drawn from that comment. I can't make head or tail of the phrase "whereas it was decided to remove both Jimbo's role and the historical process to one which seemed to be one that had been previously promoted as an alternative", could you clarify please? I roughly interpret it as being "we decided to go for the option that removed Jimbo's role, and changed the process totally in order to avoid leaving a Jimbo-shaped hole"; is that right? If so, why do you feel that it is necessary to 'disguise' the removal by altering the rest of the process? Are you really expecting people not to notice? Happy‑melon 17:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • One would never find me participating on IRC... I am starting to think that I am speaking for myself rather than the co-proposers regarding prime numbers, but they are an excellent way of diminishing the potential of voting stalemates in that there must be a f(r)action that has a majority or a minority - and the process can be moved forward by promoting or demoting that vote block as necessary. However, I am not so hung on that one aspect that it should be the deciding point for anyone supporting or opposing.
                  • The lesser of any number of evils is always going to be the version most likely to succeed. All it needs is for it to be agreed as being the lesser of those evils... Hmmm, what was that excellent concept that Jimbo came up with to promote the collegial editing and building of the encyclopedia? Oh, yes, "Assume Good Faith". Rather than leave a Jimbo shaped hole, this proposal is advocating a community shaped whole - Jimbo has a role to play as a safeguard for the interests of Wikipedia, but that role should be increasingly be determined by the community. In this instance, why should the opinion of one person who is less active than ever in the editing or day to day adminning of the site be the one that may still reverse the wishes of the community in the election of members of that community to the ArbCom?
                  • Reviewing the above, I see that I am starting to repeat myself. I see no useful purpose in doing that, since it is obvious I have not explained myself previously, and am going to withdraw from this discussion. Anyone tempted to have the last word is welcome to do so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

17 is definitely a prime number. Perhaps Uncle G thought Happy-melon was discussing 15? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

• I'm puzzled why these issues keep being discussed in terms of constitutional law. We are not a state and not a democracy, just a bunch of volunteers contributing to a privately owned website whose owners, the Foundation, have the right to impose whatever leader they want to if they believe it is necessary in the interests of the project. (Whereas we, of course, have the right to leave, or to fork the project.)  Sandstein  20:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It's something of a mystery to me too, but Jimbo does allude to it from time to time. It appears the project has a kind of mish-mashed constitution where the roles and responsibilities are unclear. I'm unclear if we are in a democracy, or working under management. You must admit there's confusion out there. Clarification of this 'unwritten constitution' or the management structure and intent would be a good thing. As to imposition of leaders, they've yet to feel the need to do so for any other wiki, we are the exception and I see no compelling need that justifies the role. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a social experiment. It is not a democracy; it is not a micronation; it is not a game of Nomic. One of the basic principles underlying our Wikipedia:Ignore all rules policy is that we aren't here to construct governmental systems. We're here to write an encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I'd like to agree with you Uncle, but we are given persistent nudges in the other direction by the man himself - see here for instance [2]. It seems Mr. Wales' view is that we are not principally a social experiment, but secondarily we are a 'grand' social experiment [3]--Joopercoopers (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
        • M. Wales likes to make this particular analogy. He's been making it for years. It doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is not a micronation. It's an analogy. Uncle G (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Amen brother Sandstein! You hit the nail on the head with that one. This website is OWNED by Foundation, not by its users. We are users. We dont own the website. If you dont like how our landlord's rules, move out and start your own Wikipedia-like website. The software to do so is easy enough to buy and getting a website up and running is easy, they work exactly how wikipedia works. Go start your own.Camelbinky (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • To the above comments: Wikimedia Foundation is a charity and thus, still responsible to its contributors, monetary or content otherwise. SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Nonetheless, Wikipedia is still not a micronation, a government, a social or political experiment, or a game of Nomic. We're volunteers, working on wikis owned and made available to us by a charity, for the purpose of writing an encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Do you have anything else to contribute to this discussion besides the same tired mantras Wiki-Authoritarians have been spouting for years? Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopedia project, it is a community and like any community it needs governance. If Wikipedia is not a democracy, then please tell us what the hell is it!?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
        • It's an encyclopaedia. And these things are repeated because the constant influx of novice editors need to learn these ideas. You should think about the fact that they are repeated, and all over our policy pages, not because they are "tired" but because they are right. Here is where "Wikipedia is not a game of Nomic" was first written down in the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy, incidentally. Uncle G (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I think they get repeated not because they are right(right wing maybe:) but because certain elements cannot come up with fresh arguments or slogans. There's also the old tactic of repeat something often enough and people will start to believe it. One fact that all the WP:ISNOTters seem to ignore and that is not repeated nearly enough is that without the community there would be no encyclopedia!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Right wingers?! EXCUSE ME?! Call me that again and we'll take this to the playground during recess! I am as liberal as they come and was born in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans 10-1 and no Republican has been elected to the Common Council or to a city-wide position for over 60 years. Just because you have liberal tendencies does not mean that everything you believe in is 'THE' liberal position, who's being authoritarian now?! You arent being liberal in your views, you are being ANARCHIST, which is the very antithesis of a true liberal view of Wikipedia's future, you are simply supporting those who would supplant Jimbo with themselves. To state the truth that Wikipedia is NOT a democracy does not make one a rightwinger. Apologize please. In any event it can not be disputed that Wikipedia is simply not owned by the people who volunteer here, there is a clear legal owner in the eyes of EVERY jurisdiction should Wikipedia be involved in a legal matter, and I assure you that YOU are not the one being served a subpeona in a legal suit involving this website. Yes, without contributors there is no website, you say "without the community there is no encylopedia". Without customers there is no Wal-mart. Customers therefore own Wal-mart based on your own logic. Do you see the stupidity of your argument? We keep repeating what is codified BECAUSE you keep repeating the asinine belief that this is somehow a democracy. This is not a government. This is a hobby. If you dont like the by-laws of the train collectors hobby guild then you simply quit and find some place else to talk to and be around train collectors. If you dont like the rules of your local Kiwanis club then you quit and you join the Rotary or the Lions or the Odd Fellows. There are other websites out there that use the same source code and have the same editing functions and look just like Wikipedia but arent, and you can start your own by buying the software, its not expensive, its not hard. Maybe if you set up your website as a democracy then everyone will edit there instead of here and you can put Wikipedia "out of business". But beware- as a democracy your website may move in directions YOU disagree with. How will you handle that?Camelbinky (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
              • First, you need to take a chill pill ok? Seriously. I did not accuse your mother of being a member of the John Birch Society. Second, when I said right wing parenthetically above, I meant it. Right, in the sense of (pick one) Authoritarian, Reactionary, Conservative, Pro Status quo. It is amazing how many self-proclaimed leftists in RL are Wiki-right wingers here. I shall not apologize for expressing my views. If I am a Wiki-Anarchists then you, sir, are a Wiki-Zealot. Even Jimbo is now being more open-minded about the possibility of devolving power to the community than you lot. Comparing a non-profit, volunteer project like this one to the corporate behemoth known as Walmart, only shows your passionate ignorance and illogic. Plus, who is to say I'm not already a member of one of those other websites? But I'm also a member here, and have at least as much of a right to express myself as you...indeed, based on edit contributions and time, probably moreso. Yes, Democracy is the worst system of governance yet devised...until one compares it to the alternatives.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
                • (back to the topic at hand) Dude, wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's all directed towards writing an encyclopedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

• Does the current Wikipedia bureaucratic structure (or "government") even allow the implementation of this proposal, were to pass? I'm not saying that as a maliciously intended debate-pointy-stick ... I'm just asking whether this proposal is even functionally possible under Wikipedia's structure, or, were this to "pass", if Mr. Wales would just then pat the person on the head and say, "Awww, that's cute!" 207.181.228.210 (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't conceive how any of this might happen without the acquiescence of Jimbo, but it's purpose is to ask the community what they think. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, then, IMHLayman'sO, this really is kind of a purposeless action. While not meaning this as an offensive statement against Mr. Wales, I've not really seen his prior actions as exactly being predisposed towards giving up power. 207.181.228.210 (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really - if the community decide change is welcome, then that's a basis for discussion with Jimbo, if not, we can all go about our business. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I just don't see this happening. If you look at Mr. Wales' history of actions, he doesn't give up his power, and he's not shy about making and carrying out unilateral edicts. At the risk of an inflammatory metaphor, this really feels as if it will be about as useful, and have as much likelihood of success, as a bunch of protestors going up to Iran's Supreme Leader and asking him very politely to give up his power over the country. 207.181.228.210 (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Has he ever been asked to give up power? He has previously devolved power to arbcom. I don't share your pessimism about him. I believe not only that he has encyclopaedia's interests at heart, but that he has made it his life. So I think it likely, if the community came to a conclusion that his role should change, that he would be open to it. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think we're just talking at each other, at this point. I think this will probably end up being bureaucratic "sound and fury, signifying nothing" (to borrow a line from Hamlet), because there's no inherent power of Wikipedians to do what you're proposing and I don't see it ever being done voluntarily by Mr. Wales himself. But it's not going to harm anything, aside from the wasted time and effort. So ... good luck. 207.181.228.210 (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The anon commenter here is simply mistaken about the historical facts, and certainly mistaken about my intentions. It is my intention and history within Wikipedia to steadily but surely help to bring about strong, responsible, responsive, ethical institutions within Wikipedia so that my role becomes more and more symbolic over a period of time. I think we are progressing toward that in a healthy way, and I intend to continue it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That is very positive and progressive of you, Jimmy! I must admit, you are handling this far better than I anticipated. So does that mean you would be willing to give up your extra buttons and become just another admin here on Wiki EN?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo doesn't actually have any extra buttons here on enwiki. He has admin, checkuser and oversight in their completely 'vanilla' forms, with no extra bells or whistles. He also has steward access at meta, but is not bound by the steward policy. The 'founder' group here on enwiki is purely a technical convenience to allow userrights actions that would normally be logged at meta, to be instead logged here. The 'buttons' are special not in that there are more of them, but that their actions trigger alarm bells in the heads of all the admins who might otherwise think of reversing them. It's not "it's a special action that no one else can do", it's "it's an action by Jimbo Wales". That's not something that can be removed by technical means, even if we concluded that doing so was desirable. Happy‑melon 15:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, is all this true? If so, do you feel that undoing an act of Jimbo should remain a capital offense?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales does not strictly speaking have steward access. He is a member of a special global group—founder (which have userights similar to those of stewards). Ruslik_Zero 18:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That's how it should be, but that's not how it is: Jimbo is a local steward at meta in addition to the global 'founder' permission. All three (global founder, enwiki founder, meta steward) give full access to en:Special:UserRights, which is something of an overkill... Happy‑melon 18:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not actually noticed that he is a local steward on Meta. I actually do not understand why stewardship on Meta is so important? Ruslik_Zero 19:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Jimmy granted himself the status of founder. I believe it was sometime in 07, since that's when it is mentioned on some cranky troll's blog.:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 3

• I see a mention of the french ArbCom on the page. I don't know if I can call it a consensus, but there is a large amount of voices that criticize it openly. Most of us try to avoid it at all cost (not only protagonists). It's terribly slow and somewhat pretty hazardous. I guess, it stay there because there is not that much else to do and that, one way or another, we need some sort of authority. I vote asking for myself "would they be close as good as Jimbo would be ?" and I hope I'm right... funny. What I mean is just : moving aside Jimbo because he's sometimes criticised might just give more occasion for the ArbCom to receive critics. I don't know what's happening on :en but I don't get the urge of this vote right now. My two cents. Iluvalar (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Welcome Iluvalar. I'd say it's worse than terribly slow and hazardous. Stick around. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• It is important to note that Jimmy has no official role within the Wikimedia Foundation, and that removing Jimmy's traditional role with the arbitration committee would not change the power that the Foundation has over the servers. Many of the comments in the oppose section don't seem to have a proper understanding of the relative relationships of the community, Jimmy Wales, and the Wikimedia Foundation in managing Wikipedia. — Werdna • talk 09:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that all these pages should be made into one that instead just defines who can actually do what. rootology (C)(T) 13:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • There's irony here, given the not having "a proper understanding" comment. Since January 2009, following a resolution made in May 2008, the official rôle within the Foundation of Community Founder Trustee has been dedicated to Jimmy Wales. It's either vacant, or him. He is currently Chairman Emeritus of the Board of Trustees. Uncle G (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Some years ago, when I was on the Board of my food co-op, I attended a workshop on managing food co-ops, where the workshop leader made a very interesting point I had never considered before. While acknowledging that volunteers who did a bad job, or didn't pull their weight, could be a real problem, he suggested that the opposite problem was just as serious, and could be even more crippling. The opposite problem is the volunteer who does too much, takes on too much, does too good a job. The reason this is a problem is that the volunteer run project should be able to survive the burn-out, the sudden retirement, or unavailability, for whatever reason, of any of its volunteers. People become unavailable. They burn out; they get married, and thus get too distracted to do their job; they have strokes; they get hit by busses. Other volunteers need to know how to do their jobs. No one should be so central that their loss is a crippling blow.

For these reasons I support this proposal.

FWIW, I don't think the English language wikipedia growing to the 3,000,000 article point is the key thing here. I've been fickle. I experimented with the Citizendium. I started four or five dozen articles there, and spent well over a hundred hours. And having done so I think the governance issues this proposal addresses are not really an issue that arises due to the Wikipedia's size. The Citizendium recently passed its 10,000 article. But I came to the same conclusion about its governance as I see here. Like the Wikipedia, the Citizendium had a clearly identified founder, who had the authority to make unilateral decisions to enforce policies, or to rule when policies weren't yet clear, or in areas where an issue came up that wasn't addressed by policy. Even though the Citizendium is about 0.003 % the size of the Wikipedia I think it too should graduate past the reliance on a key volunteer who could accidentally cripple it, if he were hit by a bus, or started to routinely exercise bad judgment.

Yes, FWIW, I think the decision of Jimbo and other insiders to covertly suppress well referenced, neutrally written material on the David Rodhe kidnapping was a bad judgment call. Geo Swan (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Which may have saved a man's life. This is why I think any proposal should cite specific instances of Mr. Wales's actions that the proposal supporters disagree with - I suspect half of them will be horrified by what the other half have as their reasons. --GRuban (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick comment, since it's off-topic: yes, may have saved his life, but to perform that entirely appropriate news-suppression, Mr Wales does not need power of veto over ArbCom decisions nor the power to overturn community consensus on who should be arbitrators. He needs to be a steward, and is indeed one. Stewards are critical for that purpose, since it's bound to be an inter-wiki issue. See Wikipedia:News_suppression Tony (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely off-topic, since he demonstrated the wisdom to make the right decision to possibly help save a man's life. When I see some editors saying he shouldn't have, it only confirms for me that we need an adult in the house with authority to make the right call when it's needed. There may come a day when that is needed around arbcomm. Priyanath ^talk 04:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wales did indeed exercise good judgement in this instance, but I think it's only relevant if you think that Arbcomm would have handed the situation differently or decided to release the information (if Wales hadn't been around at the time for example). I doubt they would as WP:BLP could be seen to apply in the situation (not to mention common sense which those who insist Wales was wrong seem to lack). "Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research" Nev1 (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• I support #1, along with a move to fair secret-ballot elections. I don't see a need for #2, since there has been, apparently, no abuse of this ability by Wales. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

<the following has been moved from oppose section with the original oppose listed again for context - If the user is improperly socking his oppose will be removed>--Joopercoopers (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose. It seems clear to me, as a new user having researched the recent controversies on Wikipedia that this RFC and the whole recent "dump Jimbo" movement is nothing but a faux-grass-roots campaign organized by the proponents of unlimited paid editing and Jimbo's longtime nemises, who coincidentally stand to gain financially from the normalization of paid editing. The recent timeline I see as this: 1) User:Rootology starts his request for comment seeking the legitimation of paid editing on 9 June 2009 at WP:RFC/PAID. 2) On 10 June 2009, Jimbo explicitly condemns paid editing and threatens to block any user engaging in paid editing and called paid editing a "disaster for our reputation." see [4]. Definately not the view that the proponents of paid editing were seeking from the top. 3) After Jimmy's view gained massive support and it appeared that paid editing had no consensus, Giano posted the prototype for this RFC on 26 June 2009 at User:Giano/The_future, which ostensibly was to discuss ways to strip Wales of his powers over Wikipedia. Giano, a prodigious and skilled writer, would stand to directly benefit if paid editing were normalized. 4) Very quickly thereafter, this RFC was born. Coincidence or not? Baileyquarter (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This comment has been discounted as Baileyquarter is the sockpuppet of a banned user. Those agreeing with him should perhaps consider his motives. Giano (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Sorry, I have to intercede here to say that the "paid editing" issue and any response Mr Wales made to it are unconnected with this bid to reform his relationship with ArbCom. Giano's initiative "The future" was symptomatic of the mood for change in the community, but the implication that he has engineered this RFC for personal gain is totally untrue. I believe that Giano did not know about this RFC until a few days ago. Please be more careful in publicly expressing hunches that might be damaging to other editors, especially when they turn out to be wrong. You may wish to discuss this with Giano elsewhere. Tony (talk) 09:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

   I have read in my considerable time on Wikipedia some ignorant and ill-informed comment, but none such as that of Baileyquarter (above) an editor of whom I have (unsurprisingly) never heard until he posted his malicious drivel here. Such is the extent of his ignorance it would be better if he ceased posting completely and did his homework instead. To write; "having researched the recent controversies on Wikipedia" proves nothing other then his research is seriously flawed; one can only hope that if he writes pages that there his research is more thorough. It occurs to me that perhaps he is merely repeating posonous tittle-tattle which is not the same thing as research at all. I know nothing of paid editing and knew even less of this RFC until it was launched. It is monumentally ignorant editors such as Baileyquarter, posting what can only be called "untruths" which are then believed by the gullible that cause half of Wikipedia's problems. I await a complete retraction and apology. Giano (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

   and what's more this Baileyquarter person announces on their page (created a few hours ago [5]) they are a new user - beleive that and you will beleive the drivel they post here; I think a checkuser on that account would make fascinating reading Giano (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

   I agree with Giano - something looks out of whack concerning new user Baileyquarter, please check it out...Modernist (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

   Was already being addressed for other reasons. An uninvolved checkuser is reviewing. Risker (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

   In no way did I mean to say that Giano was orchestrating the manoevres behind this recent campaign to normalise paid editing and to marginalise its opponents. I am pretty sure there are many people involved in these machinations, some of them being (as warned in the RFC/PAID) as being powerful corporations and business types. At most, I think the evidence shows that Giano has unwittingly lent himself and his skills to the service of those that have a financial stake in the overthrow of our leader, Mr. Wales. Baileyquarter (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

   You are quite ridiculous and naive, but as you are still here (albeit fleetingly, I suspect, before being banned), you might like to know that had I been consulted on this RFC, I would have advised it was premature, it is a discussion of Wikipedia's constitution and a definition of Wales' powers that need to be debated, and it needs to be debated in a good natured and non-confrontational spirit of camaraderie for the good of the project, as was happening in the pages I began expressly for that purpose [6]. Perhaps such pages set up by me and the way they operate do not suit you and your masters, so you start slurs here? Frankly, I don't care - your interventions and sockings have not helped those of your viewpoint in the least, but I can't be bothered to capitalise on it - I don't need to. Giano (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

   Good natured and non-confrontational? sure. MickMacNee (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Read what I wrote..duh..."On the pages I created" - the tone Mr Wales' sets on his pages is no concern of mine. If he wishes to run about like a bull in a porcelain shop then he deserves all he gets in the same vogue. By contrast, my world is a haven of peace and tranquility. Giano (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Giano, I am sorry you got so worked up over my analysis. But I don't think attacking me with flowery name-calling is really the way to go as I meant not to offend you. However I still have every right to express my feelings in a shared discussion as anyone else. Baileyquarter (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Notes, as a co-proposer, in response to Baileyquarter's original oppose !vote: 1)I am against paid editing because I feel it compromises the volunteer-driven nature of the encyclopedia (i.e. the only reason you would edit is because you want to improve the content, not gain personal benefit); 2) I have never interacted with Jimbo Wales and have no impressions of him as a person, and I am certainly not his nemesis; 3) Giano was not involved in this RfC (development) at all. I respectfully request you to strike your untrue allegations, or tone them down. Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've never had a problem with Jimbo & so I'm content with his current role (on the Project). PS: Someday, myself & a friend, hope to meet JW, to give him a Wayne's World salute -"We're not worthy, we're not worthy". GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Interim analysis at the half-way point

A detailed analysis of the comments reveals much stronger support than we had expected for the removal or rethinking of Mr Wales’s constitutional power over ArbCom. Thus far, among 114 !votes, the percentages in the simple categories have remained fairly stable. (The subsection “Support for reducing Jimbo’s role, ignoring other stuff” was counted as part of the “Support” category, which itself included users of that view.)

• Support: 37 (32.5%)
• Neutral: 15 (13.2%)
• Oppose: 62 (54.4%)

However, these three categories disguise the real support for removing Mr Wales’s constitutional role – or rethinking the arrangement – when discomfort at the proposals for other ArbCom reform is disregarded. To determine that support requires the subdivision of the !votes into finer categories to capture the basic attitudes on the basis of what the !voters actually write, rather than how the RFC makes them “label” their !vote.

Support for removing Mr Wales's powers: 50 (43.8%)

• Fully support the RFC proposal to remove Mr Wales's powers over ArbCom and adopt the proposals for ArbCom elections and terms: 28 are “Supporters” (24.6%)
• Support a reduction/rethink of Mr Wales’s role, but unhappy with the rolling together of this with the proposals for ArbCom elections and terms: 9 are “Supporters”; 11 are “Neutral”; 2 are “Opposers”; a total of 22 (19.3%)

Oppose the entire proposal: 60 (52.6%)

• “No problem in the first place”: 22 are “Opposers” (20.2%)
• “Distrust ArbCom” / “need checks and balances”: 7 are “Opposers” (6.1%)
• “No change until Mr Wales is shown to mismanage”: 4 are “Opposers” (3.5%)
• Miscellaneous reasons, including expressed loyalty to Mr Wales: 18 are “Opposers” (15.8%)

Unclear responses: 4 (3.5%)

• 3 are “Neutral” (2.6%); 1 is an “Opposer” (0.9%)

Interim summary: Most of the Neutrals want change in Mr Wales’s position, but are put off by the conflation of issues in the RFC. A majority of 52.6% in favour of retaining his current powers is inconclusive and needs further discussion and a poll. An update of the data and summary will be provided at the close of the RFC.

Necessary codification: I take this opportunity to explain why the RFC proposes a number of changes for arbitrators along with Mr Wales. Currently, Mr Wales:

• determines the number of arbitrators he will appoint after each December election, and thus the size of ArbCom at the start of the year; and
• manages the complicated system of tranches both after and between elections, and therefore, the duration of arbitrators’ terms.

To remove Mr Wales’s constitutional power over ArbCom would require that these matters be formally encoded in policy so they work automatically. That is why we proposed what we saw as the simplest, most obvious insertions into the text. We chose a top-up number of 17 at the start of each year because this was, indeed, the number chosen by Mr Wales at the start of 2009. We chose a two-year term because three years seems to be inordinately long (the equivalent terms in the German WP are 12 months, with staggered elections every six months, which we thought was rather too short). The community is free to decide on the final details, and we acknowledge it would have been better to leave this until a subsequent RFC; but decide we must sooner or later if Mr Wales’s position is to change. Tony (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• This rather seems like the Irish government's position on the Lisbon Treaty referendum; the result is going against you so you say that people's reasons for voting mean they actually support you. You will need a consensus to change the status quo, so a majority of 52.6% in favour of retaining his current powers (or 54.4%, or whatever) is conclusive and says there should not be a change at this time. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  That might hold water if I believed the !vote were "going against me"; but I don't. An RFC is about more than the broad categories; it involves looking into comments to determine the community's opinions. That is what I have done.

  Unless there is a sudden change of heart, this RFC provides a clear indication that a minority approaching half is in favour of reform. It is a strong platform for further discussion. If you disagree with the numerical or qualitative interpretation, please specify which part. I'll be pleased to provide details of which participants I placed in which categories. Tony (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  I trust your assessment, but disagree with the conclusions you've drawn. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  My assessment, thus far, is that the RFC is hardly a ringing endorsement of the current arrangement, and that a sizeable proportion of the community is unhappy with it. The RFC appears to open the way for further debate on the matter. Tony (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Tony's assessment is quite fair and balanced. An unignorable proportion of those who have commented want change. No one wanted or expected an all out deposition of J Wales, but it is clear that the community needs to debate, if only to quantify, his status and powers. Giano (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC).

I think the count shows nothing much at all, especially when you compare it to the likes of the Flagged Revisions poll (429 supporting some sort of trail out of 720 people who cared enough to comment). And that was approaching around 300 support votes in the same length of time this has been up so far. MickMacNee (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. You really can't claim this as any kind of mandate or support for change. It's barely even on the radar. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I am gonna go ahead and say that 34% is not enough support to consider this RFC's main proposal, that Jimmy Wales' position needs reevaluation, even in the most broad terms. Lets see what happens in the second half of the show, but it does not look like there is anything resembling community support for the basic premises here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Regardless of any individual analysis, I think the key item here is this post which seems to reflect a desire to see the community mature and evolve into the "self-governance" model that is suggested here. Perhaps the next step is more a "how to" than a "what to" item. Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  06:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

..but is J Wales the best person to know when it is time to drop the reins? Giano (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC).

Yes—Jayron, according to that diff, Mr Wales himself doesn't agree with you. Tony (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Mr. Wales' comment is unrelated to my comment. Mr. Wales implies that he's prepared for devolution of his role as Wikipedia leader. My comment says that 34% is not widespread support. These are in no way mutually exclusive statements. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Where does your 34% come from, Jayron? Tony (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, at the exact minute I did my calculation, it came to 34% rounded. The number will change slightly depending on how many recent votes there have been. My only point is that there has never been a situtuation at Wikipedia where 30-35% of people unambiguously supporting a proposition has ever meant that we change anything. Lack of consensus to change always defualts to the status quo. My only point is that, Jimbo's personal decision being his own, in no way can we say that the current proposal indicates that a change is advocated. Heck, 51% isn't even usually considered enough of a consensus for most things, and this proposal isn't anywhere near that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I address this below with a current tally. It's currently 31.3%. We could call that "widespread support," to be sure, but it is quite a bit short of a majority of non-abstentions, at 36.3%, and far short of a consensus. My assumption is that when Wikipedia has developed mechanisms for efficiently and reliably developing or predicting informed consensus, Mr. Wales will recognize that it has "come of age," and will retire from the executive position he now holds, or will otherwise follow what those mechanisms determine. The Foundation board will, as a legal requirement, maintain its executive privilege, unless Wikipedia becomes a rootless flower. --Abd (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Abd, but I really think it would be a more accurate reflection of community opinion if the subdivisions above were included, perhaps as a separate tally—i.e., those who support the both "parts" of the proposal, those who believe Mr Wales's position needs to be re-assessed (which includes all supports and a lot of the neutrals), and those who oppose. Tony (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

While I think it moot -- it's reasonable to classify the two "change" proposals, with the second of them not being well defined, together -- I did add the requested breakdown. I'm not, however, going to analyze the neutrals. That's way, way too subjective. I will note that even if every neutral is converted to a support, the margin of support is still short of opposition by 10.6% at this point.

The ambiguity introduced by shifting categories of response in midstream is a good argument for using good deliberative process to determine exact questions before presenting them. The tradition in standard process is that only questions which can be answered Yes or No are asked, and amendment process is used to determine the questions, and there is actually a supermajority required to declare that it's time to vote on a question (Robert's Rules of Order has 2/3). It's one of the ancient traditions we have neglected to our loss, and it's actually quite sophisticated in its power. What we do instead is to hold these monstrous discussions and polls, without adequate preparation, that almost never decide anything, wasting everyone's time, and we imagine we are saving time over what it would take to do it step-by-step. Not. --Abd (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Enough with the slicing and dicing. *THIS* proposal, *as written*, has clearly failed. There are hints in the discussion that indicate that it's possible that some other proposal, more carefully written, might win more support. OTOH, that proposal might also win more opposes; we don't know that until it's written and voted on. Let's move on. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is talking of "slicing and dicing", nor that this RFC has formally gained consensus: that was clear soon after it started. What does matter is that community opinion be accurately presented as a record. Because many !votes are arbitrarily placed, and make a distinction between Mr Wales's powers and the proposals to alter ArbCom electoral arrangements, the results need to be reported thus. Measuring community opinion is the whole point of an RFC. Tony (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• In hindsight, yes, different category names would have made things easier. However, the Neutrals are, according to their comments, mapped over support for the removal/reduction/further discussion of Mr Wales's role, genuine neutral/unclear, and in one case (No. 11), an oppose. These need to be factored in to reveal the community's range of opinion, which I will do later today. I see no point in distinguishing between the section titles "Support" and "Support without the other stuff", the second of which was added by a participant. Like the neutrals, they cross over in their clearly expressed intentions. Tony (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary !vote analysis

• Support 41 (30.1%)¹
• Oppose 77 (56.6%)²
• Neutral: 18 (13.2%)

¹Includes the four entries in the mini-section "Support for reducing Jimbo's role, ignoring the other stuff".

²Includes one oppose added after the stated close of the RfC.
However, the purpose of the RfC was to gauge community opinion on whether Mr Wales's powers should be reconceived in relation to ArbCom, and on this matter, the views of participants did not map cleanly onto the three sections. Many "Supports" were qualified, and most Neutrals were qualified supports, some of them more strongly supportive than those in the Support category. Here, "qualified support" is taken to refer to the views that Jimbo's role should be either removed, reduced, or re-thought; typically, there were qualms about the proposals to codify ArbCom's electoral rules. When users' comments were taken into account on the basis of this, the breakdown is:

• Support for at least the rethinking, reduction or removal of Mr Wale's' powers in relation to ArbCom: 54 (39.7%)³
• Oppose any change in Mr Wale's powers in relation to ArbCom: 78 (57.4%)⁴
• Unclear: 4 (2.9%)⁵

³All 37 in the Support categories, plus the following 13 in the Neutral category: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18

⁴All 77 Opposes, plus one from the Neutral category: 11

⁵The following four Neutrals: 5, 14, 16, 17

Please sign when correcting or updating:

• Abd (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Abd (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC) added breakdown for two support options, update per one more oppose.
• Tony (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Updated raw figures, added figures for supp/opp of at least a change to Wales arrangement; notified Abd. And corrected my glitches. Tony (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Procedural note: I will not be able to formally close complete this section of this RFC until a few hours after the nominated two-week cut-off for contributions. Tony (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't an RFC usually closed by an uninvolved party? MBisanz ^talk 18:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, cool. MBisanz ^talk 18:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposers

• ¹ The co-proposers are Tony1 (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Joopercoopers (talk · contribs), LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs), and Iridescent (talk · contribs).

Procedural comment

Shouldn't this be put forward as a proposed amendment of Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales? It seems sub-optimal to have two pages trying to do the same thing.  Skomorokh  19:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect, that is just an "information page", and a rather loose one at that. Mr Wales's role is articulated in policy, nowhere more critically than in the ArbCom policy. Tony (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You could simply incorporate this information into Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales, and hold this RFC on Wikipedia talk:Role of Jimmy Wales. I don't see the point of having a separate page.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this RfC (which could be more accurately described as aimed at reforming the election process, as opposed to just Jimmy's role in it) needs its own page in Wikipedia space, at least in this format. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration elections would seem to make more sense? Nathan ^T 19:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not really an RfC anyway, it's just a poll. --Tango (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Governance review

Further discussion about Jimbo and governance in general can be found at Wikipedia:Governance review. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Notes

As the consensus is not affected in any material way by the late comments, I see no need to exclude them for the sake of bureaucracy. --Dweller (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion/Decision/Etc

I close this RfC and it seems to me that consensus is against the proposals.

Tony has asked me to close this RfC and I am somewhat unfamiliar with closing RfCs; I therfore don't know if the following comments are poor form for the closer. If so, I apologise. I also recognise that there's a healthy pinch of speculative OR in the words that follow, but hey-ho:

I do get a real sense from the oppose comments that there is has been a strong reaction to the "Jimbo" element of the proposals. Wikipedians who elsewhere are clamouring against the apparent lack of democracy in establishing Arbcom's new advisory council, which has no power whatsoever, are here voting as a group against removing from Jimmy undoubted powers that are obviously far from democratic.

I would venture that if the issues raised here (even though the proposals were, it seems, carefully and deliberately framed fairly narrowly) were unbundled in a manner that seem more of a natural and limited progression of reform in Wikipedia and less of an effort to reduce Jimbo's role, some or all of them may garner strong consensus. To that extent, I suppose that the title of the RfC may have worked against it.

That's entirely speculative. What is clear is that these measures do not currently have consensus, though I am sure that both Jimbo and ArbCom will read this and note the issues that have gained greatest support. --Dweller (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I would add that I welcome feedback and if anyone believes I have made a significant error in interpreting this RfC or in my administration of the close, I'd be happy to be informed. --Dweller (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.