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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:21, 11 May 2023

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Wikipedia policies and guidelines

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

A petition to amend the arbitration policy to remove Jimbo Wales's ability to overturn Arbitration Committee decisions. Submitted by Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC) and Galobtter (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Background

Jimbo Wales's role

Jimmy Wales, who edits as User:Jimbo Wales, co-founded Wikipedia in 2001. He initially played a major role in the project's governance, but that role has gradually decreased over the years (see Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales). Following an April 2023 arbitration request (linked below), he voluntarily resigned most of his remaining advanced permissions. A provision of the arbitration policy, however, still allows Wales to unilaterally reverse decisions by the Arbitration Committee. He has rarely if ever exercised this power, although users periodically appeal to him (see comments by Thryduulf). Wales has made comments about the matter here. Some editors support removing the provision and have drafted this petition to do so.

If this amendment is successful, Wales will no longer be able to overturn Arbitration Committee decisions. Editors can still ask the Arbitration Committee to reconsider its decisions.

Amendment process

According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Ratification and amendment, the community can only amend the arbitration policy through a special two-step procedure:

First, 100 editors in good standing must sign a petition requesting the amendment. (Current step)
Then, the amendment is submitted for ratification. In this stage, it must receive majority support, with at least 100 supporting votes.

In short, 100 editors must sign this petition for the amendment to move forward to the ratification stage.

Related discussions

Discussion on the ArbCom talk page (2023)
Discussion on Jimbo Wales's talk page (2023)
Arbitration request concerning Jimbo Wales (2023)
Previous RfC on this topic (2022)
Previous RfC on this topic (2015–2016)

Petition

We, the undersigned editors, request that the following amendment be made to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy:

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.

Signatories

In any case that he would use such a power, it would cause massive drama, and likely trigger a constitutional crisis. Fundamentally, we don't need someone unelected to have the power to override our elected ArbCom. He himself says he would only use the power in the case of: Currently if there were a massive community outcry about some seriously problematic ArbCom decision ... I would call for a new election and a reconsideration of the controversial case by a new ArbCom. In such an extraordinary scenario, the community can simply amend the Arbitration Policy to dissolve and re-elect ArbCom as needed. Galobtter (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are basically two good reasons to support this petition. There's an abstract, philosophical reason: that allowing one unelected person to overrule fifteen elected representatives of the community is a bad idea. And there's also a more specific reason: that someone whose judgment has consistently been called in question (including but very much not limited to the recent arbitration request) should not hold extraordinary powers that could very easily be misused. Galobtter is right that there'd be a constitutional crisis if Jimbo were ever to overrule ArbCom, and when it comes to constitutional crises, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This provision seems like a relic from the ancient days of the project that has outlived its usefulness and is philosophically at odds with good governance. XOR'easter (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respecting Jimbo's fundamental influence and active guidance in the first 10 years of the project and beyond, we are not a monarchy (benevolent or otherwise). It's time for this to go.Ocaasi^{t | c} 19:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 19:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May have been a useful safety valve during the halcyon days of the project's genesis, but as the project has matured and many other processes are extant, this is not needed anymore. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)–[reply]
NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 19:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
– Edward-Woodrow (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ajpolino (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The power has caused problems for more than 10 years. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments previously, it is time to remove Jimbo's remaining roles on en.wp, formal or informal, written or unwritten. His role with the WMF is outside our purview.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If remaining unused, the provision does some harm by leading people to believe an avenue for appeal exists that in practice does not; and if ever actually used, would cause harm by triggering a constitutional crisis. That's not the safety valve it was intended to be, but rather a trap better gotten rid of. AddWittyNameHere 20:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The recent incident and arbritration request have left me very concerened - someone who has been rather disconnected from the community for a lengthy amount of time should not have this kind of power. Remagoxer ^(talk) 20:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have elected Arbitration Committee members for a reason, and should be able to trust them to make a decision on their own. As JuxtaposedJacob said, we are not a monarchy, and we shouldn't operate in a way that indicates we are. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 20:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CandyScythe (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Signed per my comments in the previous discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worth at least voting on. Courcelles (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per AddWittyNameHere and Galobtter (although I doubt overruling Arbcom will ever be simple) and noting that Jimbo no longer appoints Arbcom, even ceremonially. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
nableezy - 21:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indignant Flamingo (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The closest I can think of to Jimbo invoking this was the Skyring arbitration, and in that case it was very justified. At this point, however, and in light of the recently-declined case involving him, it seems to have outlived its purpose. The situation is such now that an emergency brake lever is not necessary, and if it is it should be wielded by WMF if they have a demonstrable need to do so, not Jimbo by himself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 22:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~# --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 22:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn per Boing! said Zebedee. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTMONARCHY. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BilledMammal (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A Jimbo-overturned ArbCom decision would make the recent case request look like a trivial dust-up. This provision is an archaic remnant of simpler times, and should be removed or at least seriously reconsidered. — SamX [talk · contribs] 01:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rs chen 7754 01:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As many above have already said Wikipedia should not be a monarchy. The idea that we should rely on some sort of Jimbo infallibility is not reflective of how Wikipedia is governed in this modern era, nor is it reflective of the important role Wikipedia plays in today's internet and world.Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
–lomrjyo^talk 02:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per my remarks below. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A relic of a bygone era. The community is mature enough to rule itself and no longer needs this provision. – bradv 03:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that it was ever necessary, but given the current state of affairs it is certainly anachronistic for Jimbo to retain such authority rather than the WMF as an entity. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the arguments in favour. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 05:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's putting way too much power in the hands of one person. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but it isn't a monarchy either. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 06:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Graham87 08:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
starship .paint (exalt) 09:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal seems straight forward enough that I don't see any issue letting it move on to a vote. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have not made up my mind yet if I am support this proposal itself but I do think there should at least be a vote. Regards So Why 10:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This should proceed to a vote. Additionally, I'm not convinced any such safety valve is required, and per Beeblebrox below I think in effect one does not currently exist anyway. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~# Not meant as any criticism of Jimmy Wales at all, but it's something that I think the community needs to be able to decide. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)~~ (withdrawn, will comment below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC))[reply]
DanCherek (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is to be a procedure for appeal from the ArbCom (and so for the ArbCom not to be a court of last resort), it should be some elected body and not one unelected person. Maybe it should be the UCoC, or maybe some other body, or maybe ArbCom should be a court of last resort. The provision in question is a relic. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without prejudice to a proposal worked out jointly with JW. I think the safety valve notion has value and is worth exploring. I just don't think that power should rest with one person, especially someone who is not involved in the day-to-day governance. It's actually significantly more likely that one person who is not regularly active in the community would make a bad decision resulting in a constitutional crisis than a dozen or so people with deep roots in the community and who were elected from it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the bizarre behaviour that he has exhibited recently then, if there is to be a safety valve, it should not rely on that one person. If this goes to a vote then we can decide then what form, if any, the safety valve should take. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I share the rationale exposed by Robert McClenon. Anyway, it deserves to be voted. Alexcalamaro (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would endorse the adoption of a more conservative interpretation of these powers, but at the moment, I support this. It is time to move on, and I think we've all seen recently Jimbo is not perfect, like anyone else. Thus, the shifting of the power dynamic towards a community discussion/ArbCom, recognizing that one unelected person, whoever it may be, can be much more dangerous than fifteen elected ones/a large selection of the community and multiple crats. Additionally, maintaining this would not be consistent with Jimbo's new "kind-of-just an everyday user" position. See also what Tamzin said on Jimbo's talk; I agree with that. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo's ability to modify or overturn the decisions of the elected ArbCom, is a complete degradation to ArbCom's ability to make the decisions for itself and a complete contradiction to the ideal of having consensus and a community. Jerium (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Jimbo has resigned from all other privileges, except the honorific "founder", this makes perfect sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clement robinson369 — Preceding undated comment added 23:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
casualdejekyll 23:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have my reservations about ArbCom. But I have greater reservations about BDFLs. Per Extraordinary Writ. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support the above request as it appears reasonable. I believe the current ArbCom operations are suitably well developed for it to be no need to overturn its decisions by the named individual. (Perhaps there are other things that could be improved to prevent cases from getting to ArbCom too often in the first place, but that's an entirely different subject.) --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 02:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated below, any governance system that relies on specific individuals by name is broken by design. Removing the dependence on Jimmy in policy is a sign of English Wikipedia's growth and maturity. Legoktm (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on Jimbo's talkpage, the current role he envisions for himself in this system is one where his role would only be extra bureaucracy. Perhaps that's to his credit, that he hasn't tried to claim a more expansive role, but either way, a change like this would be wise. I'd rather see it replaced with an explicit community dissolution option, but acknowledge that that could be enacted by this same mechanism if needs be. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This change doesn't drastically affect the status quo, and that's a good sign. Our processes have grown beyond the point where we need an arbitrary "safety valve." I think at this point having an un-elected layer above Arbcom is unnecessary, regardless of whether the power is used or remains ceremonial. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 03:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're not a monarchy, and Jimbo having the power to overturn the ArbCom undermines the entire point of the ArbCom, and places elected representatives under the (direct or inderect) influence of one person with the final say, even if he doesn't exercise that power. Chaotic Enby (talk) 05:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it probably will not happen, but there should be absolutely no possibility of it occurring in the first place. Aza24 (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 06:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see a reason to retain this policy since he no longer has any administrative function on the project. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

For anyone curious, this appears to be the only time he ever actually used the power, but considering all he does is recommend to ArbCom, he didn't actually need this power in that case. Galobtter (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course if ArbCom passes a motion then we don't need to worry about 100 signatures, just 100 people voting in support of this. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 19:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- We emailed ArbCom a couple days ago and were told that no motion was in the works. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon the recently outlined circumstances for use, the power is so narrowly defined it's never going to be used anyway. I suppose some may view that as all the more reason to amend, and others as why it's not worth the bother. This whole recent commotion is a rather curious case of the project's past colliding with its present, but with stakes so low it can't help but come across alternately both surreal and absurd. Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the above petition to remove a severe misrepresentation of my position. The original poster appears to want to turn this into a fight, when it is not. I recommend a reboot of this entire process, as this petition appears to me to be seeking a conflict where there is none.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no desire to seek conflict here. I and others simply believe that the provision should be removed—and that is regardless of whether or not you support or oppose doing so. The point of that sentence is just to note that you were asked about the provision and declined to simply resign that role. You mention on my talk page that I support changing our arrangements so that my role as a "safety valve" is much more clearly defined and circumscribed: my position here is that, with respect for the role you have played historically as founder, there is no longer a need for you or any other person to individually act as a safety valve. As I mention in my support, in any scenario where a safety valve is needed, the community can simply amend the Arbitration Policy to dissolve and re-elect ArbCom—the community holds the final power, as you and I both believe it should. Galobtter (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might well be a severe misrepresentation of your actual position, but it is certainly not a severe misrepresentation of the actual comment to which it links.

Said comment is, after all, a fairly lengthy response in which you describe the provision as a helpful safety valve, give a description of the kind of situation in which you believe it would be a benefit to have such a provision, and express a dislike of at least one alternative arrangement (giving the power to the WMF instead). While near the end of the comment, a willingness to consider alternative arrangements is indeed expressed, this is also immediately juxtapositioned with yet another argument in favor of keeping things as they are.

Summarizing such a comment as believes that the provision should remain in place is not unreasonable. It may not have been the position you intended to express, but it is a reasonable reading of your comment, and characterizing this summarization as [t]he original poster appears to want to turn this into a fight, when it is not seems to me to be at best fairly uncharitable. AddWittyNameHere 20:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @AddWittyNameHere. Also I think the comment [t]he original poster appears to want to turn this into a fight, when it is not is unhelpful to the situation as it could be taken as an attempt by Wales to criticise those trying to remove powers he holds. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What happens if 100 editors in good standing oppose this motion? 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. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Barnards.tar.gz it's a two step process. First it needs to get 100 signatures. Then there is a vote where people can support or oppose and it needs a majority to pass. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
100 signatures or an arbitration motion for the first step of the arbitration policy, though the latter is very unlikely. Note that the 100 signatures is for whether or not we should look at the case, not whether or not we agree or disagree with striking this line. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 22:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, this component is mostly to avoid frivolous policy votes in the dispute resolution process; unless 100 people agree that there should be a vote, it just goes away. If they agree there should be a vote we will advertise it and see what people want. This specific change is limited (remove one line) - but the same process would be used for major changes to the arbitration policy. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, although the "safety valve" role has to date been little used and arguably little needed, I would be a lot more comfortable with reassigning it from Jimbo to "a random Wikipedian chosen at each full moon" or whatever, rather than eliminating the role entirely. Voting is harmful to the project, but unchecked electoralism has the potential to be even more so, especially in a community that has low barriers to exit and high barriers to the effective exercise of voice, and which accordingly lacks any effective course-correcting mechanism. -- Visviva (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a safety valve-ish. We can sign and ratify an amendment that gives us power to override arbitration decisions or even instantiate a recall election; and we can disband the committee if we feel it is no longer needed. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 02:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to address the idea that we supposedly need this alleged safety valve. This is a very different topic than what was under discussion at the recent ArbCom case request. That was about Mr. Wales actions. This is not. This is about a process, recorded in policy, that clearly does not do anything. It is not a Jimmy Wales problem, it is a policy problem. We have a process that people sometimes try to use, only to find out that, basically, it does not really exist and has literally never helped anyone in any way. I actually believe that Mr. Wales has been very wise to not use it, and that if he ever had or did it would certainly cause far more drama that it would prevent. It therefore is not a real safety valve at all, just some leftover policy in a part of Wikipedia where it is intentionally difficult to change anything. That is actively harmful as it gives appellants a false sense that they might just convince him to go ahead and do it. This conversation should stay focused on the policy problem here and nothing else, not what other random person could do it better, not what anyone thinks of Jimmy Wales as a person, or what they think of the members of the committee for that matter. This is not about that, it is about fixing a broken policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be formally supporting this petition, since I think it's bad form to vote to aggrandize an institution I'm part of (outside of extraordinary circumstances), but I think this change is on the whole a good idea. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think for that reason too this needed to be done by community petition rather than ArbCom motion. Galobtter (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the same opinion as L235. As arbs we serve in the role the community has assigned us. We don't, as a general rule, expand our own role. Thanks to Galobtter for starting this discussion/petition. Cabayi (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see, at all, how this "aggrandizes" the committee. I see this as cleaning out an outdated policy that causes active harm by giving people false hope. In any event, I did sit here for a moment contemplating whether I should sign it or not, and my take is that, by going this route, this is a purely community-based process, not an arbcom process, and consider myself to be participating as a member of the broader community. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that I do not feel the role of the arbitration committee is expanded by removing one appeal mechanism that has been in essence supplanted by other appeal paths (and with the ultimate community-based mechanism still present). I respect, though, that arbitrators choosing to refrain from supporting the petition may prefer for the rest of the community to lead the initiative to alter the arbitration policy. isaacl (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - yes I know this isn't at stage 2 of the procedure yet. The existing status quo is fine. This is a good check and balance / reserve power to have, notwithstanding it's a solution in search of a problem and Jimbo has never truly used this provision in the history of the project, ever. See ya'll at stage 2. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 05:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a Final Authority Figure who is independent from Arbcom and has both (1) an insight into Arbcom's deliberations and (2) the power to dissolve a sitting Arbcom and call fresh elections. They need no other powers. That person doesn't have to be Jimbo but they should exist. We know from RFA that the community doesn't always elect the perfect candidates, so the possibility of some future Arbcom being poorly constituted is one we should take seriously. I suggest that each year we ask one outgoing Arb to take on this role.—S Marshall T/C 07:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We know from RFA that the community doesn't always elect the perfect candidates on the contrary, based on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship_by_year, I would say pretty much every successful RfA from 2020 onwards has produced a good admin, or at least not a problematic admin. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree. We elected an Icewhiz sock.—S Marshall T/C 14:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And ArbCom stopped that user from ever becoming an admin. I am also having trouble imagining how it could be possible at this point for the entire committee to just loose its collective mind and start ignoring the community, but whether that has happened or not is certainly not a decision that should be left to any one single person. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not envisaging the entire committee losing its mind! The plausible scenario is a high rate of arbitrator inactivity leading to a small number of arbs making all the decisions, and that small number being skewed or unrepresentative. Of course, the community as a whole would decide; all that my hypothetical one appointed former arb could do would be to call fresh elections. If the community still supported the sitting arbs, it would presumably re-elect them.—S Marshall T/C 21:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For this scenario to come to pass, the small number of arbitrators would have to be ignoring the community's calling for a special election. At that point, the community would have the option to amend the arbitration policy to force an election. Arbitrators can't do much without the support of the community, as the bureaucrats (and stewards, for bureaucrat arbitrators) can keep them in check should they lose community trust. isaacl (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The community doesn't know what Arbcom's up to because Arbcom (rightly) does its thinking behind closed doors. I'm wanting a person who's privy to those communications to be the one to blow the whistle.—S Marshall T/C 08:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why depend on a single person? Wny not just have a community process for calling new elections? Galobtter (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously because the community is working in the dark. We don't know what Arbcom is thinking so we lack the knowledge to challenge it.—S Marshall T/C 08:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: You take that back. /j -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see a couple folks above who seem to support giving this safety valve power to the WMF. I just want to state that I don't think that is a good idea, that I don't think that should be bundled into this petition, and that in general I think it'd be best if enwiki and all wikis attempt to stay as autonomous as possible. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there no option to oppose this petition? Why have the option only to support the proposal, but not oppose it? Why not give an equal opportunity for people to oppose the proposal? That seems like this is a foregone conclusion, and anyone that disagrees with it should keep their mouths shut. --Jayron 32 13:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is just a proposal to raise a proposal, and the rules say it needs 100 signatories, not 100 net supports. If enough people think we should move to a proposal for change, then we have a support/oppose proposal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32 see #Amendment process. Galobtter (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Over at his talk page, Jimmy has said "Let's come up with a proposal together...". That sounds like a better approach to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, certainly there's nothing stopping Jimbo from working with other editors to come up with his own proposal and running it up the flagpole and see who salutes. That is the collegial way that we encourage on Wikipedia, isn't it?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. I just think it might make things easier to come up with a proposal first, and then take it to RFC for community decision. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, maybe then go talk with Jimbo and work one up and see if it gets 100 votes? If it's good enough, people here may withdraw their votes as you did. Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing preventing Jimmy or any other user from proposing another appeal path and using the same process as G and EW have started to add that path into the policy. That seems like a lot of work and the discussion which caused this one was winding down after getting to this point.

The UCOC enforcement body ("U4C") will have some powers of review over the things we do, whenever that body is instituted; among other items, that body retains review of "systemic failure to follow the UCoC". (I anticipate they'll leave us to stay in our lane because we are all volunteers and spending time on English Wikipedia things when we're mostly complying with the UCOC expectations sounds like a waste.) So consider whether that is a sufficient place to put your trust.

Separately, the community ultimately always has this same nuclear button if they really think ArbCom has lost the plot (possible, but quite implausible), ignoring that the community can remove half the users once a year in ACE (and that's ignoring the potential to whither ArbCom on the vine instead via ACERFC). If someone thinks they have been unfairly treated by ArbCom, those users almost always have the separate route of raising the issue onwiki with the community. Despite that we handle CUOS block appeals, it is the rare case where that block appeal itself actually touches on privacy-conscious quantities. That essentially leaves appeals of sanctions we make in public deliberations. Which the entire wiki public will often review, sometimes because they follow a case closely and sometimes because it shows up in the Signpost or other talk pages. Izno (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, because this is not a democracy, and also by doing so Wikipedia will be susceptible for abuses by the Arbitration Committee. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is the place to vote on the proposal. This is the place to decide whether we as the community should vote on the issue. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you, CSC, the fear of Jimbo is not what's keeping me from being an abusive arb. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, some kind of "safety valve" or check on the Arbitration Committee (outside of annual elections) is necessary as a matter of principle. As it stands, the Arbitration Committee holds an incredible amount of power. It has the ability to overrule community consensus (see WP:CONEXCEPT). If it makes a decision that is outside of the scope of their responsibilities or jurisdiction, the community has no avenue of directly reversing the decision. Instead, we must beg the Committee to overturn its own decision, or alternatively wait months until the next ArbCom election and vote for candidates that promise to overturn such decisions. Currently, Jimbo Wales correctly identifies himself as a distant last resort—intervening only if the Committee does something so rash and insane that the community is overwhelmingly against it. I am no fan of the brouhaha which led to Jimbo resigning his technical rights. However, at this time, I would not be in favor of removing his ability to overrule ArbCom decisions unless (1) an alternative "safety valve" is proposed to take his place, or (2) there is evidence that Jimbo Wales has misused or is likely to misuse this ability. Mz7 (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for evidence

Is there any evidence that the current system is broken?

I ask, because - as far as I saw - the recent actions by Mr. Wales which apparently led to this had nothing to do with over-turning arbcom. It had to do with being misled concerning someone's identity. And - afaik - that's been resolved with action already taken, at his request.

So, sincere question - what evidence do we have that something is broken that needs fixing in this way? - jc37 08:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think so. The main argument for taking this measure, as far as I can tell, is that permitting appeals to Jimbo reduces the gravitas of Wikipedia's formal judicial processes. Removing it would increase their gravitas, but I am not convinced that this would be good. What is the marginal utility of additional gravitas? Is there a sufficient level of gravitas, such that no further increase of gravitas is possible, or beyond which no additional increase in gravitas is likely to bring substantial benefit? And a large overall question: do we need gravitas? I am given to the opinion that we may, in fact, have too much gravitas. I am likely to be accused of joking, but this is a serious post. jp×g 09:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some evidence

For various reasons, the Foundation and some parts of the communities are stuck in an uneasy relationship where the Foundation admires but fears the communities’ power, like a beautiful but dangerous animal – the tiger might attack you – and the communities, not least English Wikipedia, distrust the Foundation." My experience so far has been that we have a very contentious relationship with English Wikipedia. The Foundation raises most of the revenue to support a global movement from English Wikipedia, and it’s often where volunteers raise most of the concerns and objections to the Foundation’s work.
— Selena Deckelmann, Reflecting on my listening tour, 13 April 2023, Wikimedia-l

Wiki volunteers and the public generally like Jimbo and few people want to list specific things he has done which are problematic. It is the same with many other WMF staff; when there are conflicts the affected community members often suffer the injuries in silence, while WMF people have more protection from injury due to being paid rather than being volunteers, and have institutions of support at the WMF, and also because if a community complains about the WMF then they can get cut off of Wikimedia Foundation grant funding.

Deckelmann here is describing missing missing reasons. She says there are problems for reasons, and she obviously heard the reasons, but neither she is restating them nor is she pointing to them published elsewhere. We all went through the meta:Movement Strategy and somehow in the end the paid staff who compiled summaries of community comment also noted much less conflict than what I observed in community statements.

The problem is not Jimbo exactly - it is just that he like so many other paid staff of the Wikimedia Foundation are casual about taking action that affects hundreds of our wiki volunteer laborers' lives. For the accusation here that Jimbo did I would estimate that several thousand hours of volunteer labor hours went into fixing the mess he caused, and no one wanted to spend their time doing that. For Jimbo it he had a casual thought that he felt like expressing as if he were chatting during coffee, and as if he was unaware that he is applying major media power without regard for the consequences. If the community had not defended itself from this accusation then WMF would have stepped in, assumed jurisdiction over the issue, and hired more staff to encroach and commandeer into a domain that Wikimedia community of volunteers had proudly managed with our own ethical system.

Other WMF staff do this too: they are building a culture among themselves that they can take action without regard to Wikimedia community harms and impacts, and that they do not need to tally labor hours or emotional grievances of volunteers because volunteers have little access to the donation money they collect anyway. If, for example, the Wikimedia community had a budget to manage public relations when someone like Jimbo makes an accusation, then the WMF would not be asserting this kind of power. And I do think that when someone like Jimbo makes an accusation against a community member, then that community member should get access to paid staff support, because it is harassment, and it seriously negatively impacts a lot of people's lives. When the reverse happens WMF staff get a lot of paid support to counter community complaints. I would estimate that the WMF spends millions of dollars a year to campaign for issues they choose which the community opposes, like in the case of meta:COLOR which was the biggest community petition ever and one opposed to a multi-million dollar WMF investment. It is really scary for the community to go against a corporation with full staff and a media machine, when volunteers have no such access to resources, and all the while the WMF is saying they support the community. It is colonization without representation, continuously, on countless issues.

And yes - Jimbo behaves as if this system is the way things are supposed to be, and this case is a prime example of that, and when the community protests against Jimbo the social context is Jimbo is doing something that lots of WMF staff also do. There are complaints about 100 other WMF paid staff and cases where the same thing has happened but no one wants to bring the brunt of community power against a random WMF staffer who is doing misconduct but also are underpaid, completely ignorant of wiki culture, and frequently vulnerable themselves. Jimbo can handle the criticism because he made himself larger than life and he consented to be a target. That is why we are here and why Jimbo now. Bluerasberry (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that we have run into situations where actions "by the foundation" (or more often, their employees/representatives) have been, let's say, "less than helpful", or at least seemingly contrary to the community's wishes. But User:Jimbo Wales isn't a foundation representative in that way, as far as I know. He has a seat on the board, but so too do community members. This seems to me to be painting with a bit of a broad brush. - jc37 12:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Society does not have social models in place which exactly fit for every situation, but the one that exists that is close enough here is to imagine Jimbo to Wikipedia as analogous to any tech founder for any company. Wiki community insiders and power users understand more subtlety, but that is a small demographic compared to the PR machine around Jimbo which has presented him as representative of "Wikipedia" for the past 20 years. Jimbo does not at all play the role of a typical user or even a typical board member. He wields power that just made 1000 wiki volunteer laborers jump and panic, and he derived that power from the WMF as an institution. The reaction here is because Jimbo represents the WMF and there is no other explanation.

I am aware of the contrived rules which nominally say Jimbo has no power but read the room and interpret the social context of what just happened and why people are organizing. This petition is about the social and emotional power struggle between the Wikimedia Foundation and the community as they express conflicting and divergent ethics and best interests. The rules you cite are not mapping on to real life and do not have the weight of community discussion behind them, whereas right here and now we have chaos as a crowd of people jumping on to the action of 1 person. The written descriptions you cite of Jimbo's supposed modest position are a WMF perspective or propaganda and not aligned with how the wiki community of volunteers are reacting to this. This petition is not about Jimbo. The emotions here are about community relations with the WMF. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're not a tech company. Not by any stretch of the imagination. So I don't think that analogy applies. A tech company has employees and middle managers and directors. It typically has an HR department and a legal department, etc. The structure and governance of a tech company are completely different than the Project.

If you see this as an "us vs them" struggle, I'll accept that that's your belief. But in my estimation, Jimbo Wales has always stood in the middle between that tug of war. Which is, as I recall, a reason why he has a seat on the board, and for that matter, has the abilities that this proposal would seem to want to remove.

So I disagree. I think this is more about mistaken perception, and also some people with torches and pitchforks looking for someone to blame and or punish, combined with a bit of a fear appeal, as well. Not to mention seeming opportunists looking for a way to change Wikipedia governance to whatever their preference is. Any enacted change can be seen by some as an opportunity to try to "seize the moment" to make more change.

This, to me, really seems like a situation of: "be careful what you wish for". - jc37 13:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

European Union Digital Services Act April 2023. There are 17 tech platforms which rule the world. 16 are commercial and 1 is Wikipedia. The annual reports show revenue that corresponds with Wikipedia spending 1-2 billion US$ in its strategic planning cycles, which is a lot of money. The WMF 2017 annual report said we have "billions" of users. We have an audience here of the same magnitude as global count of sports fans, people who participate in a religion, the population of Europe, or approximately the same number of people who have ever gotten a university degree. Wikipedia is powerful beyond what is easy to imagine.

Wikipedia is one of the largest and most impactful undertakings in the world right now, without qualification. This may not be a tech company and it may not be turning the revenue of one but this is not a small operation. I do not like chaos and disruption or disorganized protests but the stakes here are a billion dollars every few years and also significant influence over national government elections, consumer purchase decisions, and copy for journalists and policymakers to replicate. Any wild claim of Wikipedia power is usually accurate. I recognize your disagreement, and also, I will state my belief and estimation that you have the conventional view that most Wiki community members share, and my view is minority.

I agree with you - Jimbo is usually on the side of the community and we could do a lot worse than Jimbo. But something is wrong here, and either WMF participates in change or protests like this will happen opportunistically. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"7 tech platforms which rule the world ... 1 is Wikipedia ... one of the largest and most impactful undertakings in the world right now" WP has some kind of impact of course, hard to say what, in total, but this sounds exaggerated to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc37: I agree that the matter that was brought before the committee was adequetely resoved there. This conversation was certainly prompted by that one, but it is a (mostly) separate issue. As I stated above [1] this is not a Jimmy Wales issue, it is a policy issue. To my mind this is not a rebuke of Mr. Wales, it is an effort to remove a holdover policy from an earlier time in this project's history, a policy that has never helped anyone and may be doing active harm by giving sanctioned users false hope. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"...and may be doing active harm by giving sanctioned users false hope." - How? - jc37 17:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of repeating myself, by telling them there is an appeals process, when it is known that process has never resulted in anything actually really happening. I find that unfair. That isn't anyone's fault, I'm sure everyone who supported this initially probably thought it would be used at least every once in a while, but that clearly has not been the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not intentionally being obtuse, the "how" was a sincere question. It's not as if someone is sitting there just waiting ad infinitum for Jimbo Wales to hear their case. If someone is sanctioned by arbcom, and they decide to reach out to him, and he says no, what was unfair? "Gee, I wouldn't have done the disruption had I but known that Jimbo wouldn't have my back" ? I'm not trying to be hyperbolic here. I just don't see how anyone is being misled. - jc37 19:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editors who attempt to appeal to Jimbo often are seen as basically attempting to forumshop/adminshop, refusing to get the point, refusing to drop the stick, or more generally trying to circumvent the existing processes, based on the common, shared understanding among established editors that "Appeal to Jimbo" is not actually a viable route of appeal.

What is unfair is not that Jimbo will say no. It's that we're leading editors to believe they're following a valid, acceptable path of appeal, when there not only is an approximately zero chance of this actually working, but such an appeal may in practice work against them. AddWittyNameHere 19:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of the appeal is to address a miscarriage of justice. Editors behaving disruptively, who continue to behave disruptively, is not what this is for. And I think it's fair to say no one is confused by that. - jc37 20:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone here was talking specifically about [e]ditors behaving disruptively, who continue to behave disruptively. I certainly wasn't, in any case. If anything, I was talking about formerly-disruptive editors attempting to behave in a constructive (or at least non-disruptive) manner being painted with the brush of continued disruption due to a conflict between what ArbCom policy says and what the de facto norms are.

The sentence this proposal is looking to get rid of does not state anywhere that such appeals are limited to clear-cut miscarriages of justice by an out-of-control ArbCom. That Jimbo himself has made clear such is the only situation in which he would consider using the provision (which indeed makes addressing a miscarriage of justice the sole point of the provision) is not clear from the text or context, but rather from familiarity with en.wiki history and knowledge of how things are done here.

That makes it obvious to you and me and most long-term editors familiar with the wikiworld outside mainspace and article talk, sure—but nowhere near all editors sanctioned by ArbCom actually fall in that group. AddWittyNameHere 23:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where JPxG got the whole "gravitas" idea. It certainly isn't what I (or as far as I can see anyone else) wrote or thought above.
Speaking for myself, the evidence is the past drama caused by even the smallest of unilateral actions by Jimbo. We don't need to see Jimbo overturn ArbCom to know how much volunteer time will be wasted if he ever does. We can learn from history and not repeat it. Galobtter (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo, in the earlier days of Wikipedia, did directly intervene in or force some Arbitrations, however. UWW was forced on ArbCom by Jimbo, and he basically forced ArbCom to reopen SKR to bring the hammer down on a harasser that ArbCom initially gave more-or-less a slap-on-the-wrist to while admonishing the person they were harassing. WP:Requests for arbitration/RickK vs. Guanaco was effectively closed as moot as a direct result of Jimbo reversing a siteban that was the centre of the case. The one thing connecting all of these cases is that they all took place in the first couple years of ArbCom's existence, back when things weren't anywhere near as rigid, streamlined, and standardised as they are today. Jimbo's direct intervention is no longer needed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 18:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"...as rigid, streamlined, and standardised as they are today..." - I honestly am not sure how to respond to that except to say that I don't think any of our current dispute resolution processes are great by any means. But, they are the processes that we have. I just don't know that I'd be willing to hold them up as a rationale to say we don't need this any more. - jc37 19:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean what I said about being rigid, streamlined, and standardised, especially when you compare processes today to processes from 2004-06. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 19:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc37: To answer your question, I think any governance system that relies on a specific individual by name is broken by definition. Certainly it was fine and possibly even necessary when the project was still young, but today it doesn't make sense and would be a case of founder's syndrome if it were actively being used. I think it is a sign of growth and maturity that English Wikipedia no longer needs to rely on Jimmy. (Contrast with the situation going on at the FSF, where they've all but stated that they cannot operate without their founder, despite all the controversial/negative things he's done, which is pulling down the whole organization.) Legoktm (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 142: / Line 142: @@
 *:I don't think this is the place to vote on the proposal. This is the place to decide whether we as the community should vote on the issue. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] - [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Herrscher of Wikis]] ❄️ 18:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 *:I assure you, CSC, the fear of Jimbo is not what's keeping me from being an abusive arb. [[User:GeneralNotability|GeneralNotability]] ([[User talk:GeneralNotability|talk]]) 02:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
+* In my view, some kind of "safety valve" or check on the Arbitration Committee (outside of annual elections) ''is'' necessary as a matter of principle. As it stands, the Arbitration Committee holds an incredible amount of power. It has the ability to overrule community consensus (see [[WP:CONEXCEPT]]). If it makes a decision that is outside of the scope of their responsibilities or jurisdiction, the community has no avenue of directly reversing the decision. Instead, we must beg the Committee to overturn its own decision, or alternatively wait months until the next ArbCom election and vote for candidates that promise to overturn such decisions. Currently, Jimbo Wales [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1152794302 correctly identifies] himself as a distant last resort—intervening only if the Committee does something so rash and insane that the community is overwhelmingly against it. I am [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bradv&diff=prev&oldid=1148920830 no fan] of the brouhaha which led to Jimbo resigning his technical rights. However, at this time, I would not be in favor of removing his ability to overrule ArbCom decisions unless (1) an alternative "safety valve" is proposed to take his place, or (2) there is evidence that Jimbo Wales has misused or is likely to misuse this ability. [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 08:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 === Request for evidence ===