Links are handy. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Draft policy

I'd like to see a project-wide vote of no confidence in the ArbCom. The ArbCom's fundamental problems are lack of transparency and failure to properly engage with the community or even with case participants. Unless those problems are fixed, the ArbCom will always hurt the project more than it helps.

See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Draft policy. I've already asked if they've considered removing the Jimbo role from the whole thing.

Has the comittee considered removing the Jimbo function from its charter? Hipocrite (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

While I'm somewhat sympathetic to this idea (build for a future without Jimbo, it will come eventually, if only due to natural causes) I think this would have the effect of provoking a constitutional crisis.--Tznkai (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Only if the Jimbo figure opposed removing the Jimbo figure from the policy. Is that the case? Hipocrite (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering he fights to keep titles on smaller projects he never edits, I think it can be assumed that he's not relinquishing the GodKing title without a fight. Ù„ennavecia 15:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Jimbo's the guy who got this thing up and running, and stopped it going down really bad pathways. He has not allowed advertising. He's a good PR person. These are good reasons for not changing this aspect—not yet, anyway. There are far more urgent aspects to get right before his relationship with ArbCom and the project were ever challenged. Tony (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

as part of the 2009 great re-jig, there's a draft policy up for discussion, which I think has gone un-noted here....

My first reaction was to wonder if the ten mentions of Jimbo are really necessary - I think they're not, and I think this may be a good opportunity to untangle some of the nonsense around what exactly the arbcom is, and how it works.

Here you go.

Are you proposing Jimbo should not appoint/remove "arbitrators"?

Are you proposing Jimbo should not appoint/remove "arbitrators"?

Perhaps some form of impeachment/recall process for Arbitrators would be better than relying on Jimbo and his judgment?

A steward then could implement the decision without Jimbo's interference.

Steward seems an unlikely call for that; they deal with technical permissions, which Arbitrator isn't. I'd expect somebody more English Wikipedia-specific to deal with it - Arb Comm clerks, maybe, if they weren't subordinate to Arb Comm.

Steward seems an unlikely call for that; they deal with technical permissions, which Arbitrator isn't. I'd expect somebody more English Wikipedia-specific to deal with it - Arb Comm clerks, maybe, if they weren't subordinate to Arb Comm.

Why not just go with the result of the vote?

Selection
Normal appointments
The members of the Committee shall be appointed by Jimbo Wales, in his role as project leader, following advisory elections whose format shall be decided by the community.

Interim appointments
Jimbo Wales may, at his discretion, make interim appointments between regular elections or extend the terms of sitting arbitrators to compensate for early departures or long-term inactivity.

Selection
The members of the Committee shall be appointed by Jimbo Wales, in his role as project leader...

Since when does Jimbo "lead" Wikipedia? This is certainly news to me.

He leads Wikipedia perhaps as much as the Queen rules England.

Jimbo as the ultimate authority
12) Jimbo Wales has ultimate authority on Wikimedia projects; as a foundation issue that is beyond debate. Though he is in many contexts an ordinary user whose edits and administrative actions are subject to change or reversal per normal community processes, when Jimbo acts with ultimate authority as project leader, every community member is expected and obliged to comply with his decisions, though discussion, criticism and request for reversal is permitted.

The Board of Trustees is empowered to review such decisions by Jimbo. Users who act in deliberate defiance of an authoritative action by Jimbo are subject to sanctions, including banning and desysopping, particularly temporary ("emergency") desysopping.

Passed 8-0 with 2 abstentions

You are correct. The notion of Jimbo as project leader is a historical artifact. In attempting to rewrite the arbitration policy without changing anything too important, the drafters have maintained the historical precedent of Jimbo as project leader.

Probably the best formulation of Jimbo's perceived authority comes from the infamous Pedophilia userbox wheel war case in 2006. The final principle was drafted primarily by Essjay, and reads as follows. (Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...imate_authority )
I can't fault the arbitrators for maintaining this language, or a variant thereof, in the 2009 policy draft. They can fry this fish at some later date.

There has been a significant change since 2006, however, in that Jimbo Wales has agreed that his decisions can be appealed to, and are subject to reversal or modification by, the ArbCom. (And in such cases, that the committee's decision is final, i.e., can't be appealed back to Jimbo.) I believe he first acknowledged this at the time of the Miltopia ban, and it has been clearly incorporated into the new draft of the policy.

The problem is if Jimbo is incapacitated or unable for some reason to continue his duties as "project leader," then there'll be a "constitutional" crisis.

I suppose the WMF could, but there are legal problems with doing that.

as part of the 2009 great re-jig, there's a draft policy up for discussion, which I think has gone un-noted here …

My first reaction was to wonder if the ten mentions of Jimbo are really necessary — I think they're not, and I think this may be a good opportunity to untangle some of the nonsense around what exactly the arbcom is, and how it works.

There's been agenda-led obfuscation in this area for too long, I reckon, and it's just a bit silly.

Doesn't this belong on the Boreaukrazy Bored, or some other snooze fest out of sight out of mind?

Jon

The problem is if Jimbo is incapacitated or unable for some reason to continue his duties as "project leader," then there'll be a "constitutional" crisis.

If Jimbo is going to have monarch powers, he needs a successor with the same technical powers he has. Otherwise, relying on solely Jimbo for major decisions such as ArbCom selection is a disaster waiting to happen.

Son of a Yeti as the ultimate authority
12) Son of a Yeti has ultimate authority on Wikimedia projects; as a foundation issue that is beyond debate. Though he is in many contexts an ordinary user whose edits and administrative actions are subject to change or reversal per normal community processes, when Yeti Jr. acts with ultimate authority as project leader, every community member is expected and obliged to comply with his decisions, though discussion, criticism and request for reversal is permitted.

The problem is if Jimbo is incapacitated or unable for some reason to continue his duties as "project leader," then there'll be a "constitutional" crisis.

If Jimbo is going to have monarch powers, he needs a successor with the same technical powers he has. Otherwise, relying on solely Jimbo for major decisions such as ArbCom selection is a disaster waiting to happen.

I suppose the WMF could, but there are legal problems with doing that. It would probably be someone like Raul654 or even Fred Bauder.

Wouldn't the only missing roles be appointing interim arbs? Arbcom has gotten by without interim arbs before.

Son of the Yeti:

I AM YOUR FATHER

Are you proposing that it's quite proper that he should?