Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment (May 2023): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:07, 17 May 2023

Preamble

By May 16, 2023, 100 editors signed a petition requesting the following change to the arbitration policy to be submitted for ratification by the community. As per the formal ratification policy, this community referendum is a simple "yes" or "no" vote on whether the amendment is to be adopted. This amendment to the arbitration policy will enter into force once it receives majority support, with at least one hundred editors voting in favour of adopting it. Until this amendment is ratified, the existing arbitration policy remains in effect.

Proposed amendment

The final sentence of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal of decisions, which reads Remedies may be appealed to, and amended by, Jimbo Wales, unless the case involves Jimbo Wales's own actions, is removed.

Referendum

Should the proposed amendment to the arbitration policy be adopted? 11:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes

Certainly. A left-over from a previous incarnation of Wikipedia, no longer relevant, given Jimbo's disconnect from the community. Having someone to be able to appeal to is fine, but it shouldn't be Jimbo. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overruling ArbCom without community support would cause a severe crisis, and Jimbo is not longer sufficiently connected to the community to determine when that support exists. BilledMammal (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't be used without huge community uproar. Pointless to retain this obsolete provision from another era. As for the opposers saying that the proponents did not consult with Jimbo, I say what I said at the petition stage: Jimbo was free to propose whatever he wanted, and run it up the flagpole, and I think people would have given it serious consideration, whether or not they supported it. He did nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In an all-volunteer project exemplified and dictated only by consensus of its participants (and legal requirements), there is no place for a single unbeholden, unelected super-administrator for-life. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Largely per Beeblebrox's comment here, and with no ill will at all toward Jimbo Wales himself. The community has evolved beyond the need for its founder to hold emergency overrule powers. In some worst-case-scenario runaway arbcom scenario (which likely never happens) the community is perfectly well equipped to change the way arbcom operates if needed (indeed, look at us go right now). Ajpolino (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No

Besides the obvious "get Jimbo" sentiment of this entire recent process over the last few months that I have found distasteful, I still think we need an "emergency brakes" mechanism and Jimbo is uniquely positioned to be that person. --Jayron 32 11:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important that everybody with power is accountable to someone else. ArbCom is accountable to OmbCom in part of its work, and individual arbs are accountable to the community in elections, but the appeal to Jimbo provision is the only way the committee can be held directly accountable in its primary function (arbitration). Is it ideal that the appeal is to one arbitrarily-selected person? Probably not. But this amendment doesn't propose anything better, and indeed I can't think of an alternative appeals provision that isn't either equally arbitrary, or overly bureaucratic given how seldom it is used. Speaking as one of the few people who's actually been involved in one of these rare appeals (as an arbitrator), it seems like Jimmy approaches the task with seriousness and fairness, and I haven't seen any evidence that having this provision has ever caused a real problem. – Joe (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo has not abused reserve powers. I am quite often disappointment with ARBCOM actions, so good to keep a reserve to control really bad outcomes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Jayron32, Joe, and Graeme. Plus, it's disrespectful for the petitioners to have refused to cooperate with Wales on crafting an alternative proposal after he asked them to do so. Sandizer (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No change is good change. Pavlor (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This needed to go to VPIL first. The proposers did not consult with Jimbo as mentioned above, and with the removal of this clause it leaves ArbCom completely free of oversight. Let's take a few weeks, and consider whether this is necessary, or if we're actually just a mob with pitchforks who want to cast Jimbo aside entirely. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 13:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine this: the community gets into a state of outrage like it does every few years. Asked to review things Arbcom agonizes over whether the expressions (at WP:ANI or wherever) are really those of the community as a whole or just those of a considerable but unrepresentative vocal minority. The committee decides to leave things alone. WMF, for ethical or legal reasons, rightly or wrongly, decides to intervene. Expecting not to succeed by persuasion, WMF plans instead to use technical measures for mass blocking, page protection, deletion or whatever. In these circumstances, and as a last resort, it might help to still have Jimbo’s constitutional involvement. I hope nothing like this ever happens. Thincat (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am very much open to retiring Jimbo in favor of something/someone better suited for the role but am I in favor of allowing ARBCOM to operate without any actual accountability whatsoever in the meantime? No, as a matter of fact, I am not. Don't let your dislike towards Jimbo cloud your judgment; this proposed amendment is pure power play. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion

Some additional prior discussion can be found at the petition's discussion section which may inform the discussion here.
There doesn't seem to be any prescribed length of time for voting to stay open. Should we agree now on a reasonable time period, or just say we'll leave it open until it looks like everyone who wants to vote has voted? Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad - I would be inclined to say we'd treat it like a normal RfC's timing rules, except it has a specific early pass criterion. So 30 days, and if it's not getting votes then it can be closed, or if it is still getting votes, it can stay open for a bit longer? Nosebagbear (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The early pass criterion could be gamed by off-wiki coordination, so I'd recommend the full 30 days. Sandizer (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandizer my concern there is that that criterion is actually in WP:ARBPOL. It has to execute once 100 individuals have supported the proposal, if they constitute a majority. (I, of course, agree that we won't SNOW-close the process). Nosebagbear (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that minimizing the possibility off-wiki gaming by asking proponents to wait 30 days if they happen to reach a majority is more closely within the spirit of the policy than encouraging such shenanigans by adhering to its weakly drafted and somewhat vague letter across two paragraphs. Sandizer (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has a clear criteria for closing if successful; I would suggest leaving it open until it passes, or it is clear that it won't pass. BilledMammal (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it has a clear criterion for closing if successful, but there is some ambiguity, which is part of what I'm trying to address at this early stage. It is possible to read the policy as saying the voting closes instantly when the 100th support vote is cast, even if there are 99 opposes, but that doesn't strike me as a reasonable interpretation, and it certainly wouldn't be an uncontroversial one. Worse, if the voting is neck-and-neck as we reach 200 votes cast, that interpretation would suggest that the voting stays open until there is one more support than oppose, and then closes at that instant, a structure that would bias the result. I think the reference to a minimum of 100 votes is better viewed as a quorum requirement (we aren't going to change the Arbitration Policy unless a reasonable number of people care enough to do it) rather than as a closing-time criterion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per NYB above, policy does not actually say "the instant the 100th vote is made, the policy comes into effect". Instead, to me it only says that it cannot come into effect unless that condition is met. Wikipedia policy always defers to avoiding silliness, and under your reading, we could have a situation where the vote was 49-49, and if two supports came in, the vote would be required to close instantly and there could be no further voting; however if the vote was 49-49 and two further oppose votes came in, it would stay open until supports>opposes, and then it would be required to be closed instantly and implemented. Clearly, that's stupid. Instead, I read it to be "closure can come at some undetermined time, so long as there's at least 100 votes". And separately that a simple majority is needed to pass the amendment. If we keep with standard Wikipedia process otherwise, active discussions aren't arbitrarily closed; usually for a discussion of this magnitude, 30 days is a minimum, along with a week or so of being moribund (no significant contributions in a week). that 30 days/1 week no comments rough standard seems reasonable to me.--Jayron 32 12:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a minor note but you seem to have misread the ratification requirements and what NewYorkBrad was saying. What you're talking about could happen if we use a simplistic interpretation but it would be at 99-99 not 49-49. Also you'd only need one vote for support at 99-99 (or 100-100). You'd need 2 votes if it was 99-100 or 98-98/98-99. Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. The point is, we aren't going to play silly games with the numbers; the 100 vote limit (whatever it means) is not a way to shut down an actively-happening discussion early. --Jayron 32 13:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we're being precise the requirement is that amendments follow an identical ratification process to the original referendum that established ARPOL itself. That didn't have a time limit, as far as I can tell. – Joe (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was also not equivalent to a referendum on the community's trust in a single living person. Leaving it open forever seems needlessly cruel to me. Needless because if Wales ever does abuse the power, surely another 100 petitioners will come forward again but much more quickly. Sandizer (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the enfranchisement criteria? Do IP editors get to vote? Can we have the same voter requirements as an arbcom election? Sandizer (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandizer - there was some discussion on the petition talk page and the offshoot is - we have bugger all idea, as the only criterion is "editors in good-standing". Good-standing clearly rules out fully blocked editors. I closed the petition on the basis that any lesser sanction wasn't to be considered, and fortunately didn't have to judge on IP editors. However, a discussion here to resolve the question of IP editors voting would be very useful. It definitely does not require the same voter requirements as an election, as that standard is set by policy which simply doesn't exist with regards to arbpol amendments. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we go with extended-confirmed, that would make it impossible to enfranchise new accounts within 30 days. Sandizer (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know I started asking about the time period in this section, but it would it make sense to move the procedural discussions to the talkpage and leave this section for substantive discussion of the proposal? That would be okay with me as long as there is a prominent cross-reference here to the talkpage discussion so that interested editors don't miss it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was my preference - I'd suggest two discussions to start with - timing and eligibility. Happy for you to execute. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: I have to go offline for a bit; you can feel free to take care of it. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! Nosebagbear (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 # This needed to go to VPIL first. The proposers did not consult with Jimbo as mentioned above, and with the removal of this clause it leaves ArbCom completely free of oversight. Let's take a few weeks, and consider whether this is necessary, or if we're actually just a mob with pitchforks who want to cast Jimbo aside entirely. [[User:Snowmanonahoe|Snowmanonahoe]] ([[User talk:Snowmanonahoe|talk]]&nbsp;'''&middot;''' [[Special:Contributions/Snowmanonahoe|contribs]]&nbsp;'''&middot;''' [[User:Snowmanonahoe/Typos|typos]]) 13:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 #Imagine this: the community gets into a state of outrage like it does every few years. Asked to review things Arbcom agonizes over whether the expressions (at WP:ANI or wherever) are really those of the community as a whole or just those of a considerable but unrepresentative vocal minority. The committee decides to leave things alone. WMF, for ethical or legal reasons, rightly or wrongly, decides to intervene. Expecting not to succeed by persuasion, WMF plans instead to use technical measures for mass blocking, page protection, deletion or whatever. In these circumstances, and as a last resort, it might help to still have Jimbo’s constitutional involvement. I hope nothing like this ever happens. [[User:Thincat|Thincat]] ([[User talk:Thincat|talk]]) 13:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
+# I am very much open to retiring Jimbo in favor of something/someone better suited for the role but am I in favor of allowing ARBCOM to operate without any ''actual'' accountability whatsoever in the meantime? No, as a matter of fact, I am not. Don't let your dislike towards Jimbo cloud your judgment; this proposed amendment is pure power play. [[Special:Contributions/78.28.44.127|78.28.44.127]] ([[User talk:78.28.44.127|talk]]) 14:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 == Community discussion==