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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:11, 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 no 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 to seek a compromise, 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]
There are two points that need to be addressed here: 1) Does arbcom need a point of final appeal who can overturn their decisions, and 2) is Jimbo the right person to hold that position.
I think the answer to 1) is "no" - It is no longer the case that arbcom is an experiment that could fail at any moment, and at this point Wikipedia has well established, long used procedures for dealing with arbitration appeals. These powers have never been used, and it is hard to imagine a situation where they would be used that wouldn't simultaneously be a massive constitutional crisis resulting in a complete rework of the site's governance. The Wikimedia foundation is no longer a "3 people in a shed" type operation, and the trust and safety department routinely deals with matters that used to be handled by arbcom (e.g. child protection), and at the Croatian Wikipedia's they have shown that they are willing to involve themselves and take action in the event of large scale failure of a project's governance.
I think the answer to 2) is also "no". At this point Jimbo simply is not active in the governance or administration of the English Wikipedia. Arbcom deals with complex, messy cases that cannot be handled by the community - to review their decisions a detailed knowledge of policy, guidelines and how Wikipedia works on a day to day basis in 2023 are required. The fact that he is no longer a part of the arbcom mailing list and cannot access deleted/suppressed materials or make use of the checkuser tool also massively limit the range of decisions he would be able to to effectively review.
If it is decided that IP's can't vote here, you can move this to a comments section or something.163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get the opposition. We don't trust an elected, temporary group of our peers to always make the correct decisions, so we need an unelected single person, who has had all his other powers (admin tools here and at Commons, checkuser/oversight, ...) already removed because he caused problems with them, to be able to overrule them? When your solution is worse than your problem, then it is time to abandon that solution, no matter if you have another solution for the problem or not. Fram (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An obsolete process from the olden days. This has no functional use anymore and if actually used it would cause a much greater problem than anything it purports to remedy. Jimmy has long since ceased direct involvement in the day to day operation of en-Wikipedia and process should reflect this. Several "No" voters seem to be poisoning the well by insinuating all "Yes" voters have some kind of animosity towards Jimmy, which is not the case. Please remember WP:AGF. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 14:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we are worried about ArbCom oversight, the solution is not to retain a benign monarch (no offense meant, truly), but to ensure that the ArbCom elections systems can adequately respond to community consensus in the event of a crisis (recall mechanisms, referenda, etc.) Who ~~watches~~ Jimbos the ~~watchman~~ Jimbo? WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 14:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current wording means that Jimmy isn't accountable, while ArbCom is held accountable by elections—blindlynx 14:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe veto power over the entire community dispute resolution apparatus can be wielded by one person, even Jimbo. With respect to his immense contributions to humanity (and my own life in particular), Jimbo is fallible and I've seen periodic errors of judgement at critical times that make me doubt this is an appropriate remedy to the problem it purports to solve. Lastly, Monarchy ain't us. It's a bad look, and it's against our trend of maturation when everything else has a sophisticated committee and thoughtful process behind it. Ocaasi^{t | c} 14:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Graeme Bartlett noted in his oppose that he is quite often disspaointed with ArbCom decisions. Well I'm on ArbCom and I'm somewhat regularly disappointed with our decisions too. But I think Jimmy having this reserve power to overrule ArbCom would, in practice, be disasterous. What would be less disastrous is the community to exercise its powers under ARBPOL to dissolve an ArbCom and hold new elections (through the same process that led us here). I have a lot of good things to say about Jimmy (some of which I'll be saying in a moment) but I don't think hearing an appeal of an ArbCom decision plays to his strengths. I think we saw how this is the case with the event that kicked this all off. Someone caught Jimmy's ear and he was out of touch enough that he didn't recognize a common UPE scam setup - impersonation of an admin/CU/arb. So he decided to publicly accuse that admin, who was himself a victim of the scam through the misuse of his identity. This shows poor judgement. What would have happened if Icewhiz, in his Eostrix persona, had managed to catch Jimmy's ear with his appeal that was, on the surface level, compelling? Might Jimmy have been unable to see what a majority of the Arbitration Committee, as well as a handful of other longtime CU, saw and decide to overturn that ban? That's a hypothetical but it fits with Jimmy's penchant of sticking up for individuals who he feels have gotten a bad deal (as the vicitim of the UPE scame did). I lay it out because I truthfully don't trust Jimmy's decision making in that kind of scenario, not to mention in the future Jimmy could no longer examine the CU evidence behind it because he does not have the permission. And if, in a scenario like that, one where the community supports ArbCom's decision, Jimmy were to overrule it then the communtiy has no recourse to actually reverse the decision because unlike the community exercising its reserve powers where a new ArbCom could repeal that decision, under ARBPOL a new ArbCom could not overturn Jimmy.
I have lots of nice things to say about Jimmy. For instance, I am really glad for his recent high visibility comments about how the Wikimedia Foundation got the ban of Wikipedia in Turkey overturned. And a couple of people have made reference to Jimmy's role in resolving WP:FRAM. That too was great. He, and Doc James who was right there with Jimmy, were instrumental in charting a better course. But that was not Jimmy overturning ArbCom. It wasn't even Jimmy overturning the WMF - he can't do that. Instead he used his both his influence (which this change to ARBPOL would not change) and his access to the board and high level foundation leadership (which this change to ARBPOL would not change) to make good things happen. Jimmy continues to have a lot of influence and can attract a lot of attention. Were he to speak out against a decision of ArbCom it's going to matter. But letting him overrule a decision comes with a risk, would be hugely divisive in the community, and 15 highly experienced editors (or even the 11 that we seem to be operating with this year) are far more likely to be able to reach a good decision than 1 person. Let's leave in tact the community's ability to dissolve ArbCom and remove the highly volatile risk filled option of appealing to Jimmy by passing this amendment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this seems like a good idea. Not sure who would have the final word in this case though. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If arbcom were to go amok, the community can already overthrow or depower the committee through multiple means. Having the ability for one person to create and apply binding decisions on every other editor (via the unfettered "amend" power included) is excessive. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had referenced the recent resignation of tools in my comment supporting the petition [1], and as Barkeep49 also notes above, this lack of tools now appears to limit an ability to adequately review ArbCom decisions, but Jimbo still retains significant influence with this community and with the WMF. So this policy change seems reasonable based on the current circumstances, including because ArbCom is not left without any checks; I also mentioned an available check on ArbCom in my comment supporting the petition. We also can continue to develop policy in response to these changing circumstances; from my view, this is a removal of a part of a policy that no longer appears capable of working as originally designed. Beccaynr (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely false and misleading to say that there are no constraints on ArbCom without Jimbo Wales. I urge voters to avail themselves of learning the process by which the community can reverse an ArbCom decision. Knowledge is power. Moreover, "being disappointed" with ArbCom decisions has absolutely no correlation with Jimbo's power of reversal whatsoever. Under what circumstances over the past years would he have ever seen fit to use it to reverse an ArbCom decision? What would have been the reason for it? What would have been the remedy or proper decision? That's a non sequitur if ever I've heard one, and perhaps even an ad hominem. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the recent loss of tools needed for this role, revoking this clause is appropriate and necessary. Schwede 66 16:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Checks and balances are good, but giving one person this authority is contrary to our ethos. When that one person is not particularly involved in the daily functioning of our project, it makes this policy even less reasonable. It doesn't matter to me that the process hasn't been used; limited use cases are not a reason to maintain bad policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have given comments on this in the petition procedure. You really should go read those pages. Izno (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This policy clause reads like a relic of '90s open-source software development. I think Barkeep49's analysis above is accurate and well stated. I've nothing against Jimbo personally, and I think he makes a fine public face of the project when that is necessary, but this is not a role he should have the option of playing. XOR'easter (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've said more than enough on the petition page. I agree with Izno that everyone should read the petition page. Galobtter (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add though that one thing in particular that people should consider is that there still exists a safety valve through the ARBPOL amendment process - see Mz7's comment below for a good explanation of that. Galobtter (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Jimbo decides he wants to override ArbCom, then he can act through his seat on the Board of Trustees. RAN1 (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indignant Flamingo (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments at the petition stage as well as those of Barkeep49, Fram, etc. above. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the words of Ocaasi (#11). Doughbo (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This referendum is not about substantial change in our processes. I don't see much practical relevance for either outcome. And it is certainly not about judging Jimbo's contribution and commitment to the project.
What this petition is actually about is how the community regards itself. Do we trust the system of self-governance we have evolved or not? I say: Of course we do. Paradoctor (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd once again like to stress that I feel this is a problem with ARBPOL, not a problem with Jimmy Wales. This is a relic of an older era of this project, when the community was much smaller, Trust and Safety and the Ombuds commission did not even exist, and Wales was also called on to officially appoint the members of the committee. That era is long gone, except for this one sentence in the arbitration policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeblebrox (talk • contribs)
Fram's rationale is compelling. Also per Barkeep49. — Diannaa (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone not understanding the inside baseball: the recent issue that is leading the community to reconsider Wales' role is discussed in the Signpost. I would support this technical change regardless of which individual was named in the policy. ArbCom is elected but Wales is not. Wales has had a much more personal, communicative and important role in the community he started than most similar website (co-)founders. However, the recent scandal regrettably evidences that a benevolent dictator for life is not guaranteed to be up-to-date on the conditions of the project forever. This is why regular elections and activity requirements for privilege-holders are important. — Bilorv (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fram said all that needs to be said. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any compelling rationale to not support the proposed amendment. A lot of the opposition seems to be weighed on the "While I am not in favor of Jimbo in particular, I am against removing the veto as we need something to check ArbCom" logic which I just find unconvincing. Jimbo still having power is archaic, and while we may need something to check ArbCom I don't see a reason to keep Jimbo as that check. Just because the policy change isn't perfect isn't a reason to not do it. Flalf^Talk 19:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Largely per Fram's rationale and Schwede66's rationale, but also per Joe Roe's comment in that ArbCom is accountable to the community but Jimbo is accountable to nobody. I'd also like to explicitly and vehemently disagree with ValarianB's comment as being the last thing we need. stwalkerster (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Always seemed a bit silly and precious to me. Valereee (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thoroughly convinced by the nuclear option proposed by Mz7 in the discussion section. We've had our run with a benevolent dictator, but I think it's time to make the change (however uncomfortable it may be). EggRoll97 ^(talk) 19:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed Galebazz (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We elect certain individuals to ArbCom for a reason. Having a non-elected member suddenly superceed consensus and the community is in need of a re-education on how this community works. Jerium (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Letting one single person, without any checks to balance, overrule a collective (ArbCom) that's brought upon by consensus is dangerous. I trust in people who I support or those supported by who I trust. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 19:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JoeRoe cogently argues that everyone with power should be accountable to somebody else. Why he concludes that therefore the final court of appeal should be a single man accountable to nobody rather than ArbCom, who are individually accountable to one another and collectively to the community, I do not understand; his position is precisely why I support this motion. Other than that, Fram, Barkeep, and IP 163.1.15.238 have all made convincing cases. I understand the opposing argument that the provision has never been problematic until now and we shouldn't fix what isn't broken, but I still cannot conceive of a legitimate use of the power by Jimbo which would solve more problems than it would create. (The scenario proposed by Thincat at oppose #7 is irrelevant because the part of ArbPol at issue does not give Jimbo the power to override the WMF board.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Barkeep49.-gadfium 19:48, 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]
(Comment copied from the discussion on the proposal page). Call me a royalist, but the safety valve concept has value, somewhat similar to how WP:IAR provides a theoretically-all-powerful override, but which in practice isn’t used that way. Given that there is a process for removing our monarch should he cross a line, his power is in fact checked (perhaps we should say checkable). I think such a constrained sovereign adds to the pluralism of the process, and can actually strengthen a democracy, by providing an out-of-band alternative branch of power, even and maybe especially if it is never used. The threat of an outside force overruling ArbCom lends them a healthy humility, while posing no actual threat to the community due to the aforementioned process by which any heavy-handed behaviour could be reined in. If Jimbo did not exist, we would do well to invent him.
The proposers should have taken Jimbo up on his offer to discuss alternative arrangements. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Graeme. --The Cunctator (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a compelling need to change a constitutional provision that has not so far proven to be a problem in practice, and indeed has never been used as far as I know. If it is ever abused or misused, then a change such as the one proposed here would be warranted. Sandstein 14:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Solution in search of a problem, especially given that Jimbo appears to know what invoking this provision would mean. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the problem with "majority rules" is that sometimes the majority is dumb. i like the of an Elon Musk-like benevolent dictator who could Right a Great Wrong, if an emergency truly arose. ValarianB (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am all for a variety of checks and balances in governance, and so a think it is still useful for Jimbo to hold this last-resort power. - Donald Albury 18:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe Jimbo's position as the potential safety valve operator should be removed. The current system is operating fine; we don't need to lose this balance of power. Nythar (💬-🍀) 18:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Joe has articulated my thoughts better than I could. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No per Joe. I have seen enough tenacious discussions that cannot solely be left to ArbComm or the community. I'd support other solutions if proposed. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an interest in removing this. I hold trust in Jimbo to reserve this power and be correct in his decision-making. SWinxy (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion

Procedural discussions can be found on the talk page. Discussion on the amendment itself should take place here.
I just want to thank Barkeep49 for their excellent, well reasoned, explanation behind their vote. I am not convinced to change my vote for reasons unrelated to their rationale, but I think if more people had that kind of things to say about this situation, it would make it feel less like a witch hunt. --Jayron 32 14:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: I'm curious, were you aware that Icewhiz did appeal his ArbCom sanction to Jimmy? (And didn't fool him – that was the appeal I alluded to in my vote). I realise it doesn't invalidate your hypothetical scenario of him appealing with his sockpuppet, it's just an interesting choice. – Joe (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware Joe. Esotrix, someone who was on path to be easily on track to be elected by the community to adminship, was far more sympathetic at the time of the appeal to ArbCom than Icewhiz was when he made his appeal to Jimmmy. And crucially I think Esotrix fit the profile of the type of person Jimmy likes to advocate for far more than Icewhiz did. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno about that – he was the same person, after all. Icewhiz-as-Icewhiz was also quite charming, until he wasn't. But thanks for the reply. – Joe (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that so far both supporters and opposers are focused on a hypothetical "rogue ArbCom" scenario, even though everyone seems to agree that is extraordinarily unlikely. A more likely scenario is that someone appeals a part of a decision they think is incorrect or unfair and, if he agrees that the committee made a mistake, Jimmy amends it. We know that this is the more realistic function of the appeals provision because that's what it's actually been used for (I have no idea where this idea that it is "never used" comes from). – Joe (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New ArbComs overturn old arbcom decisions all the time including because the new ArbCom disagrees with the judgement of the old arbcom. This normally is done subtly but one clear example of a new committee overruling an old committee is the departing 2020 ArbCom voting to open a Warsaw Concentration Case and the new 2021 ArbCom voting to close it by motion. But the substance of my support remains that the judgement of elected arbs is far more likely to lead to a good result, and crucially a result accepted by the community, than the judgement of a single person and in this case a single person who isn't as in touch with the community as he was when he exercised those powers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental logic of an appeals process is that even the most competent bodies make mistakes, and everybody with authority benefits from the prospect of someone looking at their working. In practice, the fact that Jimmy has apparently only amended an ArbCom decision once in twenty years suggests that he does defer to the judgement of the committee by default. And being detached from the community can be a good thing. We all know that we have a susceptibility to groupthink around here; ArbCom is no exception. Jimmy's (perhaps unique?) strength is that he has a deep knowledge of our norms and principles but is no longer engaged in day-to-day wikipolitics. I'm imagining an unpopular editor who is unfairly sanction by an ArbCom that was too overworked to properly look at the evidence. Are they going to be able to convince 'the community' to overrule it? Or the next iteration of ArbCom? They might have a shot in appealing to Jimmy. – Joe (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little galling but unfortunately not entirely surprising that one of the oppose !votes just boils down to "I don't like ArbCom, therefore Jimbo must have emergency powers". Reminds me of how some RfAs get opposed due to bewildering personal issues outside the candidate's control. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is also an ex-arbitrator, so he has some experience on the point. Izno (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the petition phase of this process, I was skeptical because I do believe some kind of "safety valve" or check on the Arbitration Committee is needed outside of annual elections. However, Galobtter made a convincing argument that the community possesses a kind of "nuclear option", if you will, in that it can overrule ArbCom or even completely dissolve ArbCom using the very same ARBPOL amendment procedure that we are using for the current discussion—I've written up a brief essay at User:Mz7/Nuclear option with a few examples of what such a "nuclear option" strategy might look like. After thinking about this, I have satisfied myself that this is indeed a sufficient "safety valve" that can replace Jimbo Wales in his current self-defined role of protecting the community from the unlikely scenario of an off-the-rails ArbCom. (In fact, I am now worried because, now that the community has discovered it has this ability, it might be emboldened to try it out in the near future on frivolous things. As I noted on the talk page of the petition phase, the ARBPOL procedure sets an inexplicably low bar for ratification—despite having more steps, it is somehow easier to pass amendments to ARBPOL than to pass amendments to other policies.) Mz7 (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad what I said made sense. I think frivolous appeals would fail at the petition stage, but I do agree that now that the community has actually considered and come up with this safety valve, that people might try. We do need to overhaul the amendment process, and having a higher bar than 51% of the community seems reasonable (but that's a conversation for later). Galobtter (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that the committee itself has the ability to call for a special election in the event that the total number of active arbs becomes very low, and has the ability to remove individual arbitrators. So, it is only in the incredibly unlikely case of the entire committee completely losing its way and completely ignoring the community that such a safety valve would ever really be needed. While I'm not personally convinced that we even need this, I am more than convinced that it obviously should not just be any one person. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is – since we're talking about incredibly unlikely scenarios – what if a hypothetical rogue ArbCom managed to get the WMF on-side? The Foundation has supreme power over us, from a technical point of view; they could shut down any discussion or petition before it got off the ground. Jimmy has more influence over the WMF than the rest of the community combined; if he personally overturned an ArbCom decision, the WMF would be unlikely to act against him. And contrary to what Barkeep said above, I think Jimmy's influence over the WMF, at least in matters related to en.wiki governance, will be diminished if we tell the WMF that we don't place any trust in him ourselves. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it comes down to who you think is more likely to "go rogue": 15(ish) elected arbitrators plus a substantial number of vetted WMF staffers/board members, or Jimbo Wales? And that's in no way a dig at Jimbo Wales himself. I think I'd trust the odds of the former against any individual. Ajpolino (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend reviewing groupthink. I personally trust some individuals more than any committees. Can you imagine if automobile traffic was steered by committees? Or if surgeries where led by group discussion and any given consensus or majority rule process? What if Congress was in charge of when to launch nuclear missiles? Would you like your parachute packing outsourced to a company? What if airline pilots had to get clearance from their supervisor before executing a go-around on a rough landing? If you are in the United States, then you probably know what it is like having your personal M.D.'s orders denied by your insurance company. Sandizer (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you imagine if automobile traffic was steered by committees? How do you think traffic planning decisions are made? Modern infrastructure works precisely because it is centrally planned and most people who use it agree to follow those central rules; most traffic accidents are a consequence of either individual screw-ups, or deliberate individual choices to ignore those rules. Individual autonomy is good in situations where split-second reactions are necessary (so cars are driven by individuals, and surgeries are carried out by individuals) but larger structural decisions where there is time for deliberation is better carried out by experienced groups (your surgeon is trained according to standards set by a licensing body; roads are planned by committee and traffic laws are set by committee). ArbCom's job isn't to drive you to work in the morning; it is to make decisions about how the rules of the road apply. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would choose a different metaphor. There are Supreme Court decisions I really dislike. But I can't imagine letting a single person (even one I liked and trusted) be able to overrule them. I instead prefer our current system where a bad decision can be overturned by a later court or by Congress passing a new law or, in some circumstances, by Constitutional Amendment. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think these hypotheticals are starting to get too wild to take seriously. The intervention of the WMF in community matters has been a hotly discussed topic for some time now, and we are already experimenting with a system of checks and balances on that front, see foundation:Policy:Office actions#Appeals. Mz7 (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you are primarily talking about the bounds of social dynamics in the status quo, but in the most vulgar scenario, the Board could literally just not reappoint him or throw him out and then use their unilateral control of the infrastructure to do whatever they want. In that light I don't really find this kind of in extremis argument convincing. InsaneHacker (💬) 19:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the community can't handle certain disputes that eventually end up at ArbCom, why should we believe the community is qualified to dissolve ArbCom when they disagree with ArbCom's decisions? We'd get caught in a circle of disputes with no foreseeable end. Nythar (💬-🍀) 19:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandizer: What relevance does the alleged disrespectfulness of the petitioners have for the normative merit of the proposal? InsaneHacker (💬) 19:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basic human decency and more importantly here, essential evidence of being able to work well with others in a collaborative environment. For the sake of argument, suppose Thanos had a compelling ecological reason for the destruction of 50% of all life -- is his lack of respect for those unfortunate individuals relevant to the normative merit of his choice? Sandizer (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowmanonahoe: Have you considered that some people might just consider a mechanism like this undesirable regardless of whether the person involved is Jimmy Wales or someone else? A good portion of the supporters are talking about the mechanism completely abstracted from Jimmy Wales as a person. InsaneHacker (💬) 19:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@InsaneHacker: I have considered that, and I disagree with it. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 19:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowmanonahoe: 'Disagree' in what sense? I stated that some people might just consider a mechanism like this undesirable regardless. I'm assuming you don't mean that literally no one is motivated by this? InsaneHacker (💬) 19:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@InsaneHacker: I mean that I personally find the mechanism desirable. All power needs oversight, no matter how trustworthy someone may be, no exceptions. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 19:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowmanonahoe: I completely agree in the abstract, but we quickly arrive at infinite regress.

P₁ — ArbCom has power, and power needs oversight, no matter how trustworthy they are, so we give Jimmy Wales the power to overturn their decisions
P₂ — Now Jimmy Wales has power, and power needs oversight, no matter how trustworthy he is, so we give n₃ the power to overturn his decisions
P₃ — Now n₃ has power, and power needs oversight, no matter how trustworthy n₃ is, so we give n₄ the power to overturn its decisions
Continue ad infinitum

In the real world, the buck stops somewhere. To me it seems like your argument is that you are fine with the buck stopping at Jimmy Wales rather than abstract considerations about oversight. And that's fine, but the argument made by those in favor of removing this provision — or indeed hypothetical persons who might want to absolve ArbCom in favor of dispute resolution at AN/I — is just that the buck should stop 1 or 2 steps earlier, respectively. The central question should thus be the merits of stopping at each step. Those in favor of removal presumably trust the aggregate character of ArbCom in most cases or at least the hypothetical ability for the community to pull the emergency brake in really bad cases via the amendment procedure, while (some) of those against removal presumably put more faith in the character of Jimmy Wales or at least his ability to reason in these cases. Either are defensible for different reasons, but I think it's misleading to make it a question about the abstract presence or lack of oversight. InsaneHacker (💬) 20:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barnards.tar.gz: Given that there is a process for removing our monarch should he cross a line, his power is in fact checked. I realize this is quite ironic given my preceding two comments, but if the accusations that this whole thing is just the foaming mob coming for Jimbo are true, wouldn't that then make this a use of the very check you are mentioning? I realize that you might be responding to those who are against the current policy in the abstract, but if we assume this is in fact a reaction to recent events, is your argument that this situation is not one worthy of using the check for? InsaneHacker (💬) 19:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I’m saying is that the existence of a process to remove Jimbo makes the accusation of him being a king/dictator overblown. If and when he crosses a line, by all means remove him by this process. But until then, there is value in having an extra dimension of pluralism, even if it is only symbolic in practice. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: Is saying Wales "has had all his other powers (admin tools here and at Commons, checkuser/oversight, ...) already removed because he caused problems with them" (emphasis added) truthful or misleading? Sandizer (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 105: / Line 105: @@
 ::{{Reply to|Snowmanonahoe}} 'Disagree' in what sense? I stated that {{tq|''some'' people might just consider a mechanism like this undesirable regardless}}. I'm assuming you don't mean that literally no one is motivated by this? [[User:InsaneHacker|InsaneHacker]] ([[User talk:InsaneHacker|💬]]) 19:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 :::@[[User:InsaneHacker|InsaneHacker]]: I mean that I personally find the mechanism desirable. All power needs oversight, no matter how trustworthy someone may be, no exceptions. [[User:Snowmanonahoe|Snowmanonahoe]] ([[User talk:Snowmanonahoe|talk]]&nbsp;'''&middot;''' [[Special:Contributions/Snowmanonahoe|contribs]]&nbsp;'''&middot;''' [[User:Snowmanonahoe/Typos|typos]]) 19:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
+::::{{Reply to|Snowmanonahoe}} I completely agree in the abstract, but we quickly arrive at [[infinite regress]].
+::::* P<sub>1</sub> — ArbCom has power, and power needs oversight, no matter how trustworthy they are, so we give Jimmy Wales the power to overturn their decisions
+::::* P<sub>2</sub> — Now Jimmy Wales has power, and power needs oversight, no matter how trustworthy he is, so we give ''n<sub>3</sub>'' the power to overturn his decisions
+::::* P<sub>3</sub> — Now ''n<sub>3</sub>'' has power, and power needs oversight, no matter how trustworthy ''n<sub>3</sub>'' is, so we give ''n<sub>4</sub>'' the power to overturn its decisions
+::::* Continue ad infinitum
+::::In the real world, the buck stops somewhere. To me it seems like your argument is that you are fine with the buck stopping at Jimmy Wales rather than abstract considerations about oversight. And that's fine, but the argument made by those in favor of removing this provision — or indeed hypothetical persons who might want to absolve ArbCom in favor of dispute resolution at AN/I — is just that the buck should stop 1 or 2 steps earlier, respectively. The central question should thus be the merits of stopping at each step. Those in favor of removal presumably trust the aggregate character of ArbCom in most cases or at least the hypothetical ability for the community to pull the emergency brake in really bad cases via the amendment procedure, while (some) of those against removal presumably put more faith in the character of Jimmy Wales or at least his ability to reason in these cases. Either are defensible for different reasons, but I think it's misleading to make it a question about the abstract presence or lack of oversight. [[User:InsaneHacker|InsaneHacker]] ([[User talk:InsaneHacker|💬]]) 20:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 {{Reply to|Barnards.tar.gz}} {{tq|Given that there is a process for removing our monarch should he cross a line, his power is in fact checked}}. I realize this is quite ironic given my preceding two comments, but if the accusations that this whole thing is just the foaming mob coming for Jimbo are true, wouldn't that then make ''this'' a use of the very check you are mentioning? I realize that you might be responding to those who are against the current policy in the abstract, but if we assume this is in fact a reaction to recent events, is your argument that this situation is not one worthy of using the check for? [[User:InsaneHacker|InsaneHacker]] ([[User talk:InsaneHacker|💬]]) 19:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)