This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) at 11:46, 3 May 2023 (→Arbitration Committee appeals: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:46, 3 May 2023 by Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) (→Arbitration Committee appeals: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
| Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
 | Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats are Rosiestep, Laurentius, Victoria and Pundit. The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is Jan Eissfeldt. |
| Sometimes this page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. In that case, you can leave a message here |
 | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
 | This talkpage has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Centralized discussion
- AI-generated images depicting living people
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
- LLM/chatbot comments in discussions
Axios advice for COI-editors
Misplaced Pages's influence grows
We've seen worse. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, we've definitely seen much worse, e.g. there were 2-3 articles in Entrepreneur that just seemed to be advice on how to slip in adverts without getting caught. This article at least has 2 sides given, on the pro-paid side, the CEO of a "Reputation management" firm. On the anti-paid side an unknown number of unnamed "current or former" Misplaced Pages editors. The article doesn't exactly spell it out, but there's a suggestion of a possible compromise between the sides or some common ground. I really doubt that would work for either side. What would be the result of such as compromise? Probably a really, really boring article. Paid editors would possibly quit pushing the really biased info about how great the company and CEO are. Wikipedians would probably accept a lot of the basic "news" about the routine operation of the business. Controversies would probably be avoided in order not to upset the delicate balance between the camps. Just boring!!! IMHO the stories of business are anything but boring. There may be a very good positive story (perhaps HP or Intel, at least during the first halves of their lives), or there might be horror stories (e.g. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC) or their stories might be mixed (e.g. Google or Facebook). But definitely, not boring. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee appeals
Jimmy, I hope this finds you well.
As you know, the English Misplaced Pages Arbitration Policy provides that remedies decided by the Arbitration Committee may be appealed to, and amended by, Jimbo Wales, unless the case involves Jimbo Wales's own actions
.
This provision has formally been in effect ever since you created the ArbCom in 2004. However, from my years of following the Committee's work starting in 2006 (including my years as a member), I do not recall any instance in which you overturned an ArbCom decision. There was one instance, more than ten years ago, in which you amended a decision (clarifying the terms under which a banned user might subsequently seek permission to return). Another editor recently searched the archives in detail and found the same thing.
In light of English Misplaced Pages's "constitutional" development since 2004, an editor recently opened a thread on the ArbCom talkpage, asking whether the Arbitration Policy should be amended to remove the provision for decisions to be appealed to you. Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee#Appeals to Jimbo. Some editors suggested asking ArbCom to propose a formal amendment to the Arbitration Policy, or alternatively opening a community-wide Request for Comment prefatory to petitioning for such an amendment, either of which could be a protracted and potentially divisive process.
At that point, I suggested that before pursuing this further, someone should simply ask you whether you even want to, or believe you should, retain this vestigial and seemingly moribund appellate role. Several other people agreed with this suggestion.
So as a follow-up to that discussion, I am asking. Your input here would be appreciated. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Jimbo, at least hold on to this one. People keep coming here asking you to give up your powers. You've given up enough. There is no way to tell what can happen 10 years in the future, and what odd ARB decisions will be made (i.e. see all of society from ten years ago to the present), and Misplaced Pages (both as a project and individual editors) will need someone to balance out what may occur. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- While I would prefer arbcom appeals be sent to the UCOC Enforcement Committee, once it is established, I would like to see Mr. Wales retain the ability to view deleted pages and oversighted revisions on all projects. To that end, Mr. Wales, would you support, oppose, or be neutral on a Meta RFC restoring those rights to the Founder Flag? Sandizer (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Would you both please consider putting your comments in a separate sub-section so that Newyorkbrad's question isn't buried by lengthy debate that would be more useful at the locus of the original discussion? Jehochman 03:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- I believe this rule provides a helpful safety valve in case of a rogue ArbCom. Currently if there were a massive community outcry about some seriously problematic ArbCom decision, there is no clear answer as to what might happen. My view is that given a sufficient outcry, I would call for a new election and a reconsideration of the controversial case by a new ArbCom, or choose some similar path in line with broad community wishes. Certainly the model of me accepting an appeal from a routine case is outdated and unnecessary, and so one possibility would be to update the rule so that my role is only in terms of giving an orderly answer in the event of a seriously new crisis in our institutional arrangement. This power could also be passed to the WMF, but I think that isn't a good idea for any number of reasons, not least of which is the important independence and power of the community itself.
- To say a bit more about how I view this, as it exists. Any formal appeal to me would not and should not be about me looking at the case and thinking, oh, I would have voted differently than the majority, so I should overturn it. That would be undesirable for any numbers of reasons. But if there's a serious injustice that is generating a full and proper RfC, and an ArbCom that is refusing to go along with it - these are all extremely rare and unlikely scenarios - does need someone to step in and say "No, we will now elect a new ArbCom who will be wise to act in accordance with community wishes." Currently, our extant rules make it clear that I could do that, even though it's very much an extreme rarity. I would be happy to consider alternative arrangements, of course, but I think there can also be mistakes in attempting to take out flexibility by pre-defining every possible circumstance.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- If I am reading this correctly, you feel that if there was a situation where
- There was very significant community outcry about some arbitration committee decision (or other action), and
- The will of the community was clearly expressed in the form of a full and proper RFC, and
- The arbitration committee refused to go along with the community's will
- It would be desirable for you to retain the right to dissolve the current committee and call fresh elections for a new committee, who could then re-examine the case/action/other circumstance.
- You also feel it would be beneficial to retain the right to give "an orderly answer in the event of a seriously new crisis in our institutional arrangement."
- However, you regard "the model of accepting an appeal from a routine case is outdated and unnecessary" and so would not be opposed to relinquishing the right to do so.
- Is that correct? Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- That's definitely a good summary of what I wrote, but it's worth considering that I just reflected for a moment when asked here, and I haven't given the whole matter a full and comprehensive analysis and don't want to be lawyered over every single word. But yeah, I think that sounds about right. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- It sounds like (just to avoid WP:CREEP, and other such stuff : ) - That you suggest that "Appeal to Jimbo" is done at the community level, and not at the individual level?
- If so, I would presume that should be easy enough to say, while still leaving room for WP:IAR as necessary. I'd like to avoid Wiki-lawyers trying to box you in a corner. Does that sound about right to you? - jc37 16:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- That's definitely a good summary of what I wrote, but it's worth considering that I just reflected for a moment when asked here, and I haven't given the whole matter a full and comprehensive analysis and don't want to be lawyered over every single word. But yeah, I think that sounds about right. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- Where do you see that you have the power to call new elections? Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal of decisions is the only section that mentions you, and only gives you the power to change individual remedies, which is precisely what you said you wouldn't do. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy#Selection and appointment is the section on elections, and only gives the power to call elections to ArbCom. Galobtter (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- If I am reading this correctly, you feel that if there was a situation where
- To answer Sandizer's question, I don't believe that I have any reason to have the technical ability to view deleted pages and oversighted revisions. If in some surprising instance there was some need for me to look at something like that, it could be shared with me without any need for the technical rights.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- Both of the following possibilities are highly unlikely, so maybe it isn't worth worrying about, but: It is much more likely that Jimbo would make a serious error in judgement and inappropriately try to dissolve ArbCom, than it is that a majority of ArbCom members (minimum seven to eight individual people) would go off the deep end and ignore a clear community opinion. This isn't a slam on Jimbo; it is also much more likely that *I* - or any single person - would go off the deep end than a majority of community-elected ArbCom members would. While both are unlikely, the safer thing to do is protect against the more likely thing, and remove Jimbo's power (or not give Jimbo a new power, depending on what actually turns out to be true) to dissolve ArbCom. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC) tweaked 22:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- I would definitely not be in favor of a power to dissolve ArbCom unilaterally, for sure. I personally think I do have the power to call for new ArbCom elections but that'd be a very interesting (and not in a good way) set of circumstances. To be clear, if the three part chain of events outlined above ever did happen, I would call for new ArbCom elections, and I think that would be the only right thing to do. Whether that would have any causative impact on proceedings is a perfectly valid mystery to ponder but it seems very likely that if the ArbCom decided to defy a community RFC on some case, and if the ArbCom refused to change, and I called for a new election, that a new election would happen and the community and WMF would proceed to simply ignore the old and dissolved ArbCom.
- The power of ArbCom is not in the software and I think that's important - it's validity rests solely on the consent of the governed. To the extent that I can use my words to protect the sovereignty of the community, I will. These things are fun to contemplate but yes, extremely unlikely in practice.
- As a side note, the more interesting and likely conflict that could hypothetically arise would be a conflict between the WMF and Arbcom and/or Community (remember FRAMBAN as a crisis in this regard). In this case, I would again strongly defend the sovereignty of the community (and the delegated power of their elected body ArbCom) and support the community. Remember how much of an anomaly we are. The WMF does not get involved in such matters except in some very carefully proscribed circumstances that make sense and have longstanding precedent. I think that's important. Every other social website has a very different governance model where the company makes all the decisions with only pragmatic constraints on their power. (For example, a strong degree of exodus from twitter based on people not liking how Elon Musk is running it.). Here, we strive to be more forward looking, more "constitutional" in our outlook. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Summary of possible WMF action ideas in recent scamming discussion
There was recently a discussion at WP:VPI#Why don't we have warning banners about scams? (permalink for inevitable archiving) spurred by your recent experience.
Some Foundation-side ideas were floated, summarized here:
- Talk to Google
- Downranking paid editing sites in searches like "make a Misplaced Pages article"
- Upranking Wikimedia messaging on the topic
- Some kind of special message to the same effect (like how Google will provide a crisis line phone number in searches relating to suicide)
- Investigate legal avenues
- Trademark infringement against scammers positioning themselves as "Misplaced Pages experts" or "Misplaced Pages admins"
- Complaints against US-based services (Zendesk, Cloudflare, etc) used by scammers / undisclosed paid editing rings
Since you're obviously passionate about the topic and this is a highly watched page, I thought I'd bring this summary here. Any mischaracterisation or elision of ideas is unintended. Folly Mox (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. I would support all of those ideas, although I think it very unlikely that Google would be willing to take those actions. It would just be highly unusual for them and I think they would view it as opening the door to all kinds of people asking them to do similar things to help them solve their own problems, whatever those might be. I could be wrong about that, I think there is a good chance that search is evolving from "here's some keywords, show me some webpages" to "here's a question, explain the answer to me" and on that front, I think that all of the new generative AI large language model platforms could be helpful in this regard. It's definitely worth some consideration.
- Just to illustrate what I mean, I just asked ChatGPT+ (4.0) "Can I pay someone to update a Misplaced Pages page about my company?" And it gave a pretty good and NPOV answer which correctly, for the most part, identifies what I think is too weak about our policies on this today. If our policies were more strict, the advice it gives would also presumably be more strict!
ChatGPT:
While you can technically pay someone to edit a Misplaced Pages page, it's important to understand the principles that Misplaced Pages operates on, which can make this a complex issue.
1. Conflict of Interest: Misplaced Pages strongly discourages people with a direct connection to a subject from editing articles about that subject. If you are closely associated with a company (like being its owner or an employee), editing the company's Misplaced Pages page may lead to a conflict of interest. This can result in biased or non-neutral content.
2. Paid editing disclosure: Any paid editing must be disclosed according to Misplaced Pages's Terms of Use. If you pay someone to edit your company's Misplaced Pages page, they must disclose that they were paid to do so. This includes being paid indirectly, such as through a company or agency.
3. Neutral Point of View: All content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view, meaning it cannot promote any subject nor can it be used for advertising or other promotional activities. If a paid editor makes changes that violate this policy, the edits may be removed.
4. Verifiability: All content on Misplaced Pages must be verifiable and backed up by reliable, independent sources. If your company is not covered in such sources, it may not meet Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines and any content added about it may be removed.
So, while you can technically pay someone to update a Misplaced Pages page, you must navigate these rules carefully. If you wish to improve your company's Misplaced Pages page, a better approach might be to work with the Misplaced Pages community. This could involve suggesting changes on the article's talk page or providing independent, reliable sources to Misplaced Pages editors.
- Separately, your question about legal avenues is equally interesting. Although I think this is a hard path to go down, I think it could be worthwhile for the WMF to invest some resources working on where there might be some leveerage points. I double very much that Cloudflare (for example) could be in any way legally liable for these kinds of things. But my understanding is that Visa/Mastercard do very much take an interest in the prevention of fraud, so there are definitely some ideas out there that might be helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)