User talk:Jimbo Wales

Axios advice for COI-editors

Wikipedia's influence grows

We've seen worse. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we've definitely seen much worse, e.g. there were 2-3 articles in Entrepreneur that just seemed to be advice on how to slip in adverts without getting caught. This article at least has 2 sides given, on the pro-paid side, the CEO of a "Reputation management" firm. On the anti-paid side an unknown number of unnamed "current or former" Wikipedia editors. The article doesn't exactly spell it out, but there's a suggestion of a possible compromise between the sides or some common ground. I really doubt that would work for either side. What would be the result of such as compromise? Probably a really, really boring article. Paid editors would possibly quit pushing the really biased info about how great the company and CEO are. Wikipedians would probably accept a lot of the basic "news" about the routine operation of the business. Controversies would probably be avoided in order not to upset the delicate balance between the camps. Just boring!!! IMHO the stories of business are anything but boring. There may be a very good positive story (perhaps HP or Intel, at least during the first halves of their lives), or there might be horror stories (e.g. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC) or their stories might be mixed (e.g. Google or Facebook). But definitely, not boring. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee appeals

Jimmy, I hope this finds you well.

As you know, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Policy provides that remedies decided by the Arbitration Committee may be appealed to, and amended by, Jimbo Wales, unless the case involves Jimbo Wales's own actions.

This provision has formally been in effect ever since you created the ArbCom in 2004. However, from my years of following the Committee's work starting in 2006 (including my years as a member), I do not recall any instance in which you overturned an ArbCom decision. There was one instance, more than ten years ago, in which you amended a decision (clarifying the terms under which a banned user might subsequently seek permission to return). Another editor recently searched the archives in detail and found the same thing.

In light of English Wikipedia's "constitutional" development since 2004, an editor recently opened a thread on the ArbCom talkpage, asking whether the Arbitration Policy should be amended to remove the provision for decisions to be appealed to you. Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Appeals to Jimbo. Some editors suggested asking ArbCom to propose a formal amendment to the Arbitration Policy, or alternatively opening a community-wide Request for Comment prefatory to petitioning for such an amendment, either of which could be a protracted and potentially divisive process.

At that point, I suggested that before pursuing this further, someone should simply ask you whether you even want to, or believe you should, retain this vestigial and seemingly moribund appellate role. Several other people agreed with this suggestion.

So as a follow-up to that discussion, I am asking. Your input here would be appreciated. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Jimbo, at least hold on to this one. People keep coming here asking you to give up your powers. You've given up enough. There is no way to tell what can happen 10 years in the future, and what odd ARB decisions will be made (i.e. see all of society from ten years ago to the present), and Wikipedia (both as a project and individual editors) will need someone to balance out what may occur. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

While I would prefer arbcom appeals be sent to the UCOC Enforcement Committee, once it is established, I would like to see Mr. Wales retain the ability to view deleted pages and oversighted revisions on all projects. To that end, Mr. Wales, would you support, oppose, or be neutral on a Meta RFC restoring those rights to the Founder Flag? Sandizer (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Would you both please consider putting your comments in a separate sub-section so that Newyorkbrad's question isn't buried by lengthy debate that would be more useful at the locus of the original discussion? Jehochman ^Talk 03:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe this rule provides a helpful safety valve in case of a rogue ArbCom. Currently if there were a massive community outcry about some seriously problematic ArbCom decision, there is no clear answer as to what might happen. My view is that given a sufficient outcry, I would call for a new election and a reconsideration of the controversial case by a new ArbCom, or choose some similar path in line with broad community wishes. Certainly the model of me accepting an appeal from a routine case is outdated and unnecessary, and so one possibility would be to update the rule so that my role is only in terms of giving an orderly answer in the event of a seriously new crisis in our institutional arrangement. This power could also be passed to the WMF, but I think that isn't a good idea for any number of reasons, not least of which is the important independence and power of the community itself.

To say a bit more about how I view this, as it exists. Any formal appeal to me would not and should not be about me looking at the case and thinking, oh, I would have voted differently than the majority, so I should overturn it. That would be undesirable for any numbers of reasons. But if there's a serious injustice that is generating a full and proper RfC, and an ArbCom that is refusing to go along with it - these are all extremely rare and unlikely scenarios - does need someone to step in and say "No, we will now elect a new ArbCom who will be wise to act in accordance with community wishes." Currently, our extant rules make it clear that I could do that, even though it's very much an extreme rarity. I would be happy to consider alternative arrangements, of course, but I think there can also be mistakes in attempting to take out flexibility by pre-defining every possible circumstance.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Summary of possible WMF action ideas in recent scamming discussion

There was recently a discussion at WP:VPI#Why don't we have warning banners about scams? (permalink for inevitable archiving) spurred by your recent experience.

Some Foundation-side ideas were floated, summarized here:

1. Talk to Google
   • Downranking paid editing sites in searches like "make a Wikipedia article"
   • Upranking Wikimedia messaging on the topic
   • Some kind of special message to the same effect (like how Google will provide a crisis line phone number in searches relating to suicide)
2. Investigate legal avenues
   • Trademark infringement against scammers positioning themselves as "Wikipedia experts" or "Wikipedia admins"
   • Complaints against US-based services (Zendesk, Cloudflare, etc) used by scammers / undisclosed paid editing rings

Since you're obviously passionate about the topic and this is a highly watched page, I thought I'd bring this summary here. Any mischaracterisation or elision of ideas is unintended. Folly Mox (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)