Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Policy/Petition (May 2023): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Policy Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:23, 9 May 2023 edit74.73.224.126 (talk) →Discussion: +← Previous edit Revision as of 20:32, 9 May 2023 edit undoJimbo Wales (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Founder14,538 edits →Background: - fixing misrepresentation of my positionNext edit →
Line 5: Line 5:
== Background == == Background ==
=== Jimbo Wales's role === === Jimbo Wales's role ===
], who edits as ], co-founded Misplaced Pages in 2001. He initially played a major role in the project's governance, but that role has gradually decreased over the years (see ]). Following an April 2023 arbitration request (linked below), he voluntarily resigned most of his remaining advanced permissions. ], however, still allows Wales to unilaterally reverse decisions by the ]. He has rarely if ever exercised this power, although users periodically appeal to him (see ]). Wales ], but some editors support removing it and have drafted this petition to do so. ], who edits as ], co-founded Misplaced Pages in 2001. He initially played a major role in the project's governance, but that role has gradually decreased over the years (see ]). Following an April 2023 arbitration request (linked below), he voluntarily resigned most of his remaining advanced permissions. ], however, still allows Wales to unilaterally reverse decisions by the ]. He has rarely if ever exercised this power, although users periodically appeal to him (see ]). Wales ], but some editors support removing it 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. 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.

Revision as of 20:32, 9 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: 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).

Background

Jimbo Wales's role

Jimmy Wales, who edits as User:Jimbo Wales, co-founded Misplaced Pages in 2001. He initially played a major role in the project's governance, but that role has gradually decreased over the years (see Misplaced Pages: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 is happy to consider alternative arrangements, but some editors support removing it 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy#Ratification and amendment, the community can only amend the arbitration policy through a special two-step procedure:

  1. First, 100 editors in good standing must sign a petition requesting the amendment. (Current step)
  2. 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

Petition

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

The final sentence of Misplaced Pages: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

Any "editor in good standing" may sign here. Other comments are welcome in the discussion section below.
  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. 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 19:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  5. I agree. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  6. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 19:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  7. 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)–
  8. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 19:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  9. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  10. – Edward-Woodrow (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  11. Ajpolino (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  12. The power has caused problems for more than 10 years. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  13. 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)
  14. 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)
  15. 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 20:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
Category: