Should the proposed amendment to the arbitration policy be adopted? 11:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes[edit]

1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. The current wording means that Jimmy isn't accountable, while ArbCom is held accountable by elections—blindlynx 14:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Given the recent loss of tools needed for this role, revoking this clause is appropriate and necessary. Schwede66 16:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. 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]
21. 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]

22. 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]
23. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
24. 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]
25. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
26. I agree with the words of Ocaasi (#11). Doughbo (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
27. 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]
28. 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)
29. Fram's rationale is compelling. Also per Barkeep49. — Diannaa (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
30. 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]
31. Fram said all that needs to be said. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
32. 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]
33. 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]
34. Always seemed a bit silly and precious to me. Valereee (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
35. 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]
36. Yes, agreed Galebazz (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
37. 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]
38. 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]
39. 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]
40. Per Barkeep49.-gadfium 19:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
41. Obsolete provision. No need dictator's power in a well-established "wikilegal" framework. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is a perennial question of infinite recursion, which stops at the supreme power is wikipeople, i.e., the wikipedia community. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
42. Yes, it's an obsolete sentence and ArbCom should not be superceded by a single individual. Abzeronow (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
43. WP policy is (or claims to be) descriptive, not prescriptive. Jimbo has said somewhere that he would never overrule an ArbCom ruling, so this provision should be removed to match the facts. No sense in getting anyone's hopes up that they can run to Jimbo. In addition, I think we've reached the stage where Jimbo's power should be exclusively social power, rather than any de jure power. Jimbo is simply nowhere near active enough on this project to wield this kind of final authority. He still holds quite a bit of goodwill among many users; he can use that to persuade if he wants to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
44. It’s time we ditched the monarchy, constitutional or otherwise, and became a republic. — Trey Maturin™ 20:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
45. Utterly anachronistic. If this Jimbo-the-king throwback wasn't current policy, how much support would a proposal to add it get? I suspect that anyone making such a proposal would very likely get blocked for trolling... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
46. It's run its course. Intothatdarkness 20:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
47. Yes. Absolute power is never a good thing and could lead to misuse of it, intentionally or unintentionally as Barkeep49 eloquently expressed above. As Beccaynr and others have expressed, lacking the tools to evaluate fully issues in a case, clearly point to a serious reason that the authority should be eliminated. Further swayed by Caeciliusinhorto's statement. SusunW (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
48. Other safety mechanisms now exist that do not rely on a single person, and are staffed to deal with issues that arise. isaacl (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
49. Yes. I understand the idea of having a final authority for arbitration, but I don't think it should be in the hands of just one person. I think there are other solutions that would work better. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
50. Yes. Not needed, and other override mechanisms exist. →StaniStani 22:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
51. Yes. It's about time. -Asheiou (they/them • talk) 22:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
52. I sympathize with the "libertarian" (for lack of a better word) leanings of the opposers to provide a relief valve from ArbCom, but after more than 20 years it's finally time to pass this Statute of Westminster and modernize the WikiConstitution. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
53. Yes, per Fram, Stanistani, and others. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
54. Yes. A single user with a super-vote is not an appropriate method of checks and balances. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
55. There is no good reason for this policy to exist. ArbCom is already subject to the oversight of the WMF. Any attempt to actually use this power would result in a crisis of Framgate-level proportions. This isn't about "sticking it to Jimbo" or whatever, but simply having sensible policies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
56. Per my reasoning at the petition. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 22:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
57. It serves no purpose or use for the sentence to remain and it's good not to clutter main policies such as this with things that may mislead or misinform about how processes work. Silverseren^C 22:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
58. Accountability in governance is achieved by direct democratic control, not the arbitrary separation of power. Although in this case, it's also a dead letter and nothingburger, which makes all the political showboating somewhat hollow. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
59. Yes. A single man should not have final say on disputes within the largest encyclopedia in history. The opposition's argument doesn't make much sense to me. wikimannumberone 23:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
60. Yes, Per MrsSnoozyTurtle. SVcode(Talk) 23:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
61. Look, I'm of the opinion that Jimbo should be treated just like any other editor (although blocking would be rather tricky.) If he wants to run for admin, he can. If his articles need to be deleted, they can be. If he becomes an arbitrator, he could be. Jimbo has a lot of editing experience, but certain powers need not be granted because he owns the site. Look, if I say, bought Wikipedia and the WWF (even though Wikipedia is not for sale) it would be a bit unfair to the rest of us if I was given special privileges because of that. And although I respect Jimbo as a person, I don't think it'd be fair to the rest of the community to have these privileges. (edit conflict) Adding on. First off, I want to thank Barkeep49 for their excellent response, and I agree. No one person should have the power to overturn ArbCom-- it's part of what makes Wikipedia work better. If we need this power, there should be an emergency committee, but not one person. Wikipedia works off of consensus. Consensus could be ruled at ArbCom in one specific way-- and even if it's clear consensus, one person could overrule that. For those in the oppose section talking about a reserve plan, as I mentioned before, there should be a backup committee if there is large dispute over an ArbCom decision and especially if there's no clear consensus. They would only be used in this scenario, and the users on this backup committee would go about their daily editing lives, remaining dormant until they're necessary. And hopefully they wouldn't ever need to be. But going back-- no one person should have the power to overturn large decisions. Wikipedia has no "president". (Sorry, adding a bit more.) I wouldn't want anyone with this power, regardless of who they are. Bye-- ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 00:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
62. I am satisfied that the "nuclear option" is a sufficient check. It has the benefit of being a community-driven process, rather than being entrusted with one individual. The procedures for such an amendment are structured enough that I'm confident such a process wouldn't generate unnecessary heat. The vote (to some extent, at least) would limit ANI-style back-and-forth bickering, and the result wouldn't be subject to an expensive process like closure review because it would only be evaluated numerically. If the decision being reviewed involves private evidence, such evidence could be referred to functionaries for evaluation, who could opine whether or not the decision was reasonable in light of said evidence. I'm sympathetic to Visviva's argument that the community needs to kept accountable to the project and the movement as a whole, but the WMF already has that ability, which they've exercised on the Croatian, Arabic, and Chinese Wikipedias. The WMF is by no means perfect, but I'd still rather the community be accountable to an organization than a single individual. If this amendment is adopted, I'd support moving User:Mz7/Nuclear option to project space and designating it as an information page. — SamX [talk · contribs] 00:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
63. Yes. Wales has no special knowledge or wisdom to make him a good oversight on Arbcom; indeed, in the last decade his very rare actions have generally shown a disconnect with Wikipedia processes and policies. If we were to pick someone now to be the dictator over wikipedia decisions, we wouldn't pick him; as a result, we shouldn't leave him in that position just because he's already there. --PresN 00:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
64. CandyScythe (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
65. Yes. Ultimate authority with the community trumps ultimate authority with Jimbo. Leijurv (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
66. Yes. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
67. Yes. The community already has mechanisms to express dissent with ArbCom, and even to overrule it if need be. No one other than the editing community should have that ability. This is a relic of a bygone era. – bradv 01:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
68. Agree. I don't see a solid analogy among the No votes regarding "separation of powers" where a single specially designated person should be able to overrule a committee. A better preventive would be to emphasize the need for greater diversity of viewpoints among committee members, thus the "challenge/dissent" would be dealt with directly by them as part of their democratic mandate. Martindo (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
69. Yes, especially per 163.1.15.238, Fram, and Barkeep49. Ultimate veto power need not lie with a single person; Wikipedia has no need for such a nuclear escape hatch, particularly because of the downsides of keeping it: the possibility of incorrect decisions being made and the specific connection to Jimbo Wales as an ultimate authority instead of a community-based model that accurately reflects Wikipedia today. TypistMonkey (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
70. Yes, somewhat reluctantly. I believe that Jimbo being the appeal point is a bygone relic from an outdated era when he was the only major authority on the project. Would prefer that the WMF as an organization is explicitly mentioned as the appeal point though just as a check and balance against ArbCom and wish we could have had more options than just a blanket yes or no. --Thebirdlover (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
71. Absolutely. There was a time where this was needed but with a mature Arbcom, the presidential pardon from an unelected dictator is not needed and doesn't reflect community values. Ravensfire (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
72. Yes. Wikipedia should not be a monarchy, and we should remove his powers BEFORE we have our own version of The Dismissal (a highly analogous event from Australian government). The idea that we should rely on some sort of Jimbo infallibility or him acting 'super-arbitrator' 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) 03:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
73. Obviously. An outdated and unneeded exception that could either result in two things: a negative result or nothing. Aza24 (talk) 04:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
74. As I said to Jimbo on his talkpage shortly before Galobtter started the petition, the role he envisions for himself as entity-of-last-resort is one in which his power would be redundant with that of the community itself. Ironically, I'd be more likely to oppose if Jimbo envisioned a more expansive power; but if his view is that he would only exercise his powers at the request of the community, there is no need to have a middleman. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
75. an Elon Musk-like benevolent dictator who could Right a Great Wrong, if an emergency truly arose is the most cursed thing I've read today Hyphenation Expert (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
76. Mostly per PresN and Tomorrow and Tommorow. The English Wikipedia of today does not need a monarch, no matter how benevolent they may be. Llwyld (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
77. Yes. Nigej (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
78. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 06:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
79. Graham87 06:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
80. Frankly, the ways in which Jimmy Wales is or isn't out of touch with modern community norms and expectations aren't something that even needs to be considered for me to support this. Appeals to the big man upstairs? Please, people, we're not building a Tesla here. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
81. This is a holdover from a time when our other safety mechanisms were less robust. But at this point, putting all our trust in one person, no matter how much we may trust his good faith, is a weakening of our system rather than a strength. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
82. The provision has always seemed weird to me, and not needed (in agreement with many others above). DanCherek (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
83. 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. This is an acknowledgement of the success of what he helped build. Legoktm (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
84. Yes: it's an old-fashioned royal-like power and inappropriate in today's Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs) 07:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
85. Regretfully, thanks for all your work for free knowledge Jimmy. Also those Bomis babes Andre🚐 07:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
86. Without denying the profound(ly positive) role that Jimbo played to improve Wikipedia over the years, I support this the proposed amendment. Jimbo's reserve power is not "the only way the committee can be held directly accountable in its primary function" of arbitration; as repeated stated on-wiki, the ArbPol amendment process can be used to dissolve or overturn ArbCom if needed, ensuring that the Committee will always be "held directly accountable" to the wider community. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
87. It's not about Jimmy Wales personally, and my vote is not a reflection on him at all. But this bit of policy is an anachronism. It might have made sense in the old days, but it's long past time to move on from it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
88. Per above. A relic of a bygone era. -FASTILY 07:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
89. I deeply respect Jimbo (despite teaching his WikiKittens to bite his ass). But due to strong dislike to anything un-democratic, I don't think that such strong power as ArbCom-overturning-super-veto should be held by someone unelected by community. If some safety valve to check ArbCom is really needed, it should be someone elected, like President of the Wikipedia (POTW, lol). And if Jimbo will be candidate I would gladly vote (or !vote) for him. Jimbo for POTW! USS Cola!rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 08:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
90. Yes, per Barkeep. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
91. Yes, per my reasoning given in the petition. AddWittyNameHere 10:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
92. No longer appropriate. —Kusma (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
93. By all means another venue for final appeal but not a specific individual.Selfstudier (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
94. Yes. This worked in the older days of Wikipedia, but due to Jimbo's disconnect from the community, and the fact that one person being able to overturn a consensus is simply not democratic, this should no longer be the case. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
95. Yes, convinced by the argument of Barkeep. I think this change is beneficial. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 12:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
96. Yes, per Fram & Barkeep (among others). WJ94 (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
97. Yes, because it is undemocratic. One person, no matter who, being able to overturn anything is extremely dangerous. DrowssapSMM (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
98. Yes, per my previous comments, as well as Barkeep and Fram. 13:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jip Orlando (talk • contribs)
99. Wikipedia isn't some podunk dark web tech bro experiment in creating a website - maybe there was a time when Wikipedia needed a benevolent dictator to save it from itself, but we're a very long way past that if it was ever the case. The English Wikipedia in particular is a community ecosystem with hundreds of thousands of active participants, and has mature, stable, and democratic oversight through its elected Arbcom and other community-developed governance models, which we've been refining and improving for two decades. None of this is perfect, but we've shown time and time again that we're capable as a community of resolving our own problems rationally, and Jimbo's best moments in recent years have come from using his substantial influence and profile to help guide the community, not overrule it because he thinks our decisions are wrong. Retaining the ability of an individual (any individual, not necessarily Jimbo) to substitute community decisions with their own is actively harmful to our growth as a community, and it's high time for this power to be eliminated. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
100. This would basically end Jimmy's hard power in the community, while doing nothing to his soft power. And since using it would be a constitutional crisis writ large (we have the amendment process for anything that actually justifies using this clause), let's get rid of it. Courcelles (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
101. Yes, because no project with the breadth and (aspirations to) longetivity of wikipedia should have an individual name hard-coded in its policies. Abecedare (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
102. Jimbo has stated that he will only overturn ArbCom in the case of a "constitutional crisis" scenario, and in such a scenario, the community itself is likely to be able to dissolve ArbCom. The oppose voters' rationale seems to be akin to having the Supreme Court answerable to the ghost of George Washington: sure, you might not agree with some of their decisions, but what's the guarantee that one person will come up with a better decision than 15 people? AryKun (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
103. Long overdue. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
104. With reluctance, and after much hesitation. In real life, I've worked for some toxic bosses, and I know what that's like. Jimmy, in contrast, has actually been a truly outstanding leader over the time of this project. (Don't bother trying to argue with me about that.) So my vote is not a criticism of him. But I agree with Barkeep49 and others that his skill set does not match well, any more, with this particular task. And I agree that the de facto reality of practice today is that the one-person role is an anachronism, and that therefore the policy should be updated to reflect current practice. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
105. Agree with Fram and AryKun AdJHu 胡 16:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
106. Yes as per BMK, Fram, Fastily and PresN - He's been disconnected and out of touch with this place for a very long time (as evidenced here), Whilst Arbcom isn't perfect it's not the place it was in 2002, Bygone era. –Davey2010^Talk 16:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
107. Yes, per Barkeep49. Meanderingbartender (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
108. The idea that one person should be able to overrule an entity elected by the entire community is insane. If we need an alternative I think this process could actually serve as that, a petition for an amendment that the current ArbCom is dissolved and a new one elected that reaches 100 signatures and then a vote that gets majority support in the succeeding vote isnt ruled out from the amendment and ratification process afaict, so theres your accountability. To us, not to somebody who, for all the gratitude he is owed for helping Wikipedia get to a place it could succeed in the earlier years, really is not that involved as a member of this community anymore, certainly not to the point of holding lifetime veto power over decisions made by the elected representatives of the community as a whole. nableezy - 16:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
109. May have been useful in the past, but no longer necessary. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
110. Yes remove power, the false hope is harmful right now I was one of the organizers of the Wikimedia LGBT+ Queering Wikipedia conference which happened this week. As we have been doing for years, we discussed the intense LGBT+ harassment which wiki editors experience both for being LGBT+ and for editing LGBT+ topics. The very existence of "appeal to Jimbo" is harmful because it is a fake inaccessible procedure which everyone knows, but which no one can actually use, and its existence is a barrier to the creation of functional processes which can address problems. The "appeal to Jimbo" process is one piece of a series of options which people are supposed to be able to use if they get unfair treatment anywhere along the chain of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but in practice, the option of appealing to Jimbo is a threat and ordeal which deters victims of misconduct from accessing usable services. The typical case is that an LGBT+ editor encounters a homophobic/transphobic activist in Wikipedia who targets them for harassment. The victim goes to lower level dispute resolution which is an hours-long process for them and a bureaucratic mess for 5-20 other people processing the complaint. I do not wish to criticize the Wikimedia dispute resolution process directly, but I will say that Wikimedia LGBT+ observes and believes that LGBT+ editors who go through mediation tend to disproproportionately lose their cases as compared to other demographics. I believe that anti-LGBT+ sentiment is the reason for this. "Appeal to Jimbo" is harmful in this cycle because it gives the false hope that there is a fair process in reach if the wiki justice system fails; when LGBT+ people are repeatedly as a group found at fault, then seemingly they can appeal for additional opinions, then to ArbCom, then to Jimbo. The social conclusion that goes into circulation is that if no one is escalating issues to Jimbo, then there is no severe injustice in the Wikimedia community. In fact, there is injustice. The path to an appeal to Jimbo takes hundreds of labor hours from dozens of people. No one uses it, because it is not viable, and keeping it communicates that there is hope when in fact the entire process is hopeless. We have had so many LGBT+ editors experience harassment without getting relief. The Wikimedia Foundation knows this, as they always contact LGBT+ Wikimedians whenever they do harassment research, which they have done regularly for nearly 10 years. Jimbo should know this too, but the only contact he has made with the organized LGBT+ community of which I am aware is him wandering into transphobic promotion, presumably in inappropriate but tolerable ignorance, of the LGBT+ hate group LGB Alliance. It is possible that lightning may occassionally strike the earth in some useful way but we Wikimedia community members need to be practical and have demonstrably working processes than put faith in unproven miracles. It is not entirely Jimbo's fault that the LGBT+ community gets harassment, but at the same time, we are a vulnerable demographic and a community which needs working accessible appeals processes in place. For as long as "appeals to Jimbo" exists and is taught as a viable option not used, it is difficult for community organizers to start fresh and design processes which actually work. Get rid of it because the current process is not working and not protecting. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
111. The procedure has only been used extremely rarely. Although Jimbo is our founder, the community has clearly shown that he is no longer our leader. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
112. Per Fram and Barkeep49. No such user (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
113. Yes; see Mz7's comment on the "nuclear option." ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 17:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
114. This is a holdover from a very different time; the powers are theoretical in that they've never been used, and would cause more problems if they were used than nothing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
115. Yes, per the insightful arguments above.--NØ 18:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
116. Yes. The English Wikipedia is the only project with an "appeal to Jimbo" clause. This is a relic of the time roughly 20 years ago when everything was new and Arbcom was an experiment. I think we have outgrown that. Note that I do respect Jimbo and think he has a role and a voice in the project he founded, but I do not think court-of-last-appeal is or should be that role going forward. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
117. Yes, but I also agree we need a replacement and the Foundation may not be best placed. Perhaps we need an elected President of Wikipedia, whose job is advocacy for the project and a safety valve on key areas like this. For a fixed one-year term. And with our thanks to Jimmy for his service. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
118. Yes Very out of date sentence, has no place in modern Wikipedia. sovietblobfish (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
119. Yes. Antiquated clause. The elected ARBCOM should be the highest authority, not some unelected dictator-for-life, no matter how benevolent or important. I say this with appreciation and respect for Jimbo's accomplishments and hard work over the past two decades. 〜 Festucalex • talk 21:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
120. Yes. It's time. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
121. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
122. Yes - We need to consider whether there should be an appeal mechanism from the ArbCom, or whether the ArbCom should be a court of last resort. If there should be an appeal from the ArbCom, maybe it should be the UCoC, or maybe some other elected body. The appeal to an unelected Founder is a historical relic. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
123. Yes. The committee is accountable to the community, and I concur in the opinion of Caeciliusinhorto above. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
124. ✗plicit 07:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
125. YesThere are numerous ways I can think of he can fix an issue also without the phrase. To remove the phrase would encourage less editors to turn to his talk page with requests, he anyway isn't interest in. I'd say a Win-Win. The timing is a bit unfortunate though, we could have thought of it also before.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
126. Yes - aside from being an archaic holdover from the early years, I find the fact that this only exists on the English Wikipedia a bit weird and see no reason why it needs to exist here when all other Wikimedia projects manage without. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
127. yes just as most other monarchies lost their power to overrule the government long ago, so is it time to but this aside as a relic of the past. Mangoe (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
128. yes We may not be a democracy in terms of determining content, but I cannot see how enhancing democratic forms of governance is not in the general interest of editors. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
129. Yes. See Onceinawhile on the idea of an elected President of Wikipedia. - FenrisAureus ▼ (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
130. Yes Chris Troutman (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
131. Yes Wikipedia has grown beyond being owned/operated by one person, so this doesn't seem necessary. It feels very much like a relic of it being a "personal project". There is no problem with being more of a "thought leader" without some arbitrary authority. If there is to be a single person with veto power, they should be picked in a democratic way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
132. Yes. It's about as relevant now as trial by combat in modern law. Ann Teak (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
133. Yes: Aside from the many cogent comments above, I'd like to address what seems to be the leading argument on the No side: that Jimbo hasn't yet abused his reserve powers to overrule ArbCom. Quite aside from that as a citizen of the United States who's followed politics all his life I think anyone advancing a "But of course no authority figure would ever abuse tacit norms of decency and conduct!" argument has been sticking their heads in the sand the last decade, Wikipedia is far too important an institution to be governed by the premise that because nothing fatal has happened yet, nothing is amiss. Ravenswing 00:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
134. Yes It completely goes against the community driven ideals of Wikipedia to give power to one person indefinitely to override the highest level of community arbitration. Photos of Japan (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
135. Yes: as Photos of Japan said, it is an outdated structure that goes against the central pillars of Wikipedia. There's no need for Jimbo to have unique special powers. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
136. There is an argument that we need checks and balances in the system. But Arbs are only elected for fairly short terms, those who think a decision is flawed are never more than a year from an Arbcom election. ϢereSpielChequers 07:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
137. Yes: resting this power with one arbitrarily-chosen person who, like all of us, has bad days as well as good ones doesn't seem healthy. Furthemore, it's odd to rely on a perceived safety like this veto power even though I don't see any incentive on Jimmy's side to face such a process with the seriousness the community at the time may believe that it deserves. ~ lovkal (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
138. Yes. The sentence reads like a relict of a long-gone era. Time to clean it up. Gawaon (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
139. Yes We're not a monarchy, and putting the ultimate appeal power into the hands of one person is not the wisest of decisions. Even if things haven't gone wrong yet, that's no guarantee they will never - Jimbo is a human like all of us and might have bad days. Chaotic Enby (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
140. Yes GodzillamanRor (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
141. GMG^talk 11:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
142. There are some well presented views expressed on both sides but ultimately I am more convinced with the rationale presented by Barkeep49 (and others similar) who said what I generally think rather eloquantly. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
143. Per Barkeep49. ArbCom may or may not need a system to keep decisions in check, but it doesn't matter who the person is, no one person should have such overwhelming unilateral authority in that way. The project has long outgrown the need for that. A singular person is more prone to mistakes (evidenced by recent events) than a body of multiple people who can challenge each other and arrive at a better version of a decision than a lone unchecked person, so I don't see it in the best interest of Wikipedia for one lone person (no matter who it is) to be able to unilaterally amend ArbCom decisions and outcomes. - Aoidh (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
144. Yes No one person should have the power to reverse community decisions. Smallchief (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
145. Yes Atrapalhado (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
146. Yes reminds me old English laws that are still exist FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
147. Yes, long overdue, Huldra (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
148. Yes As recent events show (as well as patterns over the years), it's time to remove this. spryde | talk 23:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
149. Yes Shellwood (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
150. Yes. Alkari (?), 21 May 2023, 00:39 UTC
151. Yes. I am glad to see that Wales has relinquished many of his "honorary" positions granted to him by virtue of being the Founder. Removing this clause seems like the next logical step in light of his stepping-back, and I fully agree that no one individual should have the ability to reverse decisions made by the community. Patient Zero^talk 01:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
152. Yes I see no reason why he should retain this power. I find many of the above yes !votes compelling and the vast majority of the no !votes below to be lacking. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
153. The provision may once have made some sort of sense. It doesn’t now. KJP1 (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
154. Yes There has to be some sort of highest court in any system, and I would rather it be ArbCom than Jimmy Wales. Clay (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
155. Yes A hypothetical "rogue ArbCom" could be dealt with through office actions and no dictator-for-life, no matter how benevolent, is necessary. Stockmausen (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
156. Yes and it's a bit odd to say Jimbo is a safety valve when that has not been the case for a lot of situations WMF did in the past few years. – The Grid (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
157. Yes. I don't trust Jimbo to have this authority. If a safety valve is needed, it should be another person or group. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
158. Yes Honestly, Jimbo's judgement has gotten increasingly erratic over time. We probably should have an appeal, but not to him. I suppose that we could always have a petition and referendum in a pinch. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.4% of all FPs.} 05:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
159. Yes In the event that a "safety valve" is required there are probably more urgent and wider things to be fixed than a specific remedies being appealed so a different mechanism would be needed. And in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, Jimbo shouldn't (and indeed doesn't) overrule the elected community representatives . Scribolt (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
160. Yes, remnant of a long-past era. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
161. Yes Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
162. Yes ~Styyx^Talk? 12:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
163. Yes, barkeep summarizes nicely. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
164. Yes, I'm not anti-Jimbo but this looks like an anachronism. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
165. Yes: Per Barkeep49 and others. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
166. Yes. I was one of the arbitrators who helped to re-write the Arbcom Policy back in 2011. There was serious consideration of removing all mention of Jimbo even back then, but the timing wasn't right yet. It is more than right now. No other community has *ever* granted this level of authority to Jimmy Wales. I am very aware that Jimmy does many positive things for the Wikimedia community and the movement, but I think even he would admit that he isn't closely following the day-to-day activities of this or any other particular project. This proposal is part of the normal and healthy evolution of the project. Back in 2011, we quietly removed the bit that said Jimbo appointed the Arbitration Committee, and there wasn't a single negative effect of this. It's time to eliminate the uncharacteristic authority granted to Jimmy for no other reason than "it was like that in 2003". Risker (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
167. Yes, this is a relic of old times and WP:OFFICEACTION can take this job over if necessary. Jumpytoo Talk 17:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
168. (edit conflict) Yes, since Jimbo is no longer active in Wikipedia (focusing on WMF generally and WT Social) and Jimbo rarely overrides ArbCom decisions. Also even though Wikipedia is not a democracy, it also shouldn't be a dictatorship (should be best left to the community). 2NumForIce (^speak|_edits) 17:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
169. Yes. SpiderMum (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
170. Yes - when Wikipedia was initially created, Jimbo taking control of it was a necessary evil. It's now no longer necessary, but it's no less evil to give any one person this much authority. Animal lover |666| 19:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
171. Yes, of course. ɱ (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
172. Yes per Barkeep49 and others, with all due respect. Jusdafax (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
173. Yes. 1857a (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
174. Yes per Barkeep49. Single unelected human beings, no matter how experienced or well-intentioned, are fallible. lizthegrey (talk) 06:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
175. Rschen7754 07:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No[edit]

1. 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. --Jayron32 11:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. No change is good change. Pavlor (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. (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]
10. I agree with Graeme. --The Cunctator (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
14. 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]

    Yes, Elon Musk, famously known for his extremely wise decisions. AryKun (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I'm not sure Musk was the right analogy, unless you are going for irony. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear God, what a nightmare of a sentence. 〜 Festucalex • talk 21:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm new here, but do you really think something Musky should be Elon-gated? Ann O'Dine (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Joe has articulated my thoughts better than I could. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. No- We should not be removing the last avenue of appeal. 747pilot (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
21. No. A last avenue of appeal is needed for adequate checks-and-balances, just as Joe Roe notes above. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
22. Solution in need of a problem, nothing wrong with a constitutional monarchy, nothing wrong with having a last mechanism for a sanity check. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
23. Per Joe. The notion that Jimbo has dictator powers is incorrect. He knows full well that he cannot use it in all but the most extreme cases, without extreme community backlash. He's proven that he understands this, by having not used this power so far throughout several major crises, including FRAMBAN. The check on his power is informal, but strong. The notion that it would cause a constitutional crisis is also incorrect. Recently, on his talk page, Jimbo said that he would only call for new ArbCom elections if they disobeyed a clear and overwhelming community consensus. If we get to that point, it's already a constitutional crisis. Calling for new elections solves that crisis, rather than creating a crisis. Where's the problem? DFlhb (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
24. It's called 'check and balance' and/or 'piling on'. Wales gave up some powers and almost immediately was asked to give up more. Let's see the naysayers create something like Wikipedia and then we can talk. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
25. If Jimbo's ousted from this role, it falls to WMF. They will not allow you to operate without some sort of corporate veto, the trust isn't there. Jimbo has shown he understands and respects the best interests of enwiki. Even his recent gaffe had good intentions behind it. WMF has shown no such concerns, rather, they stymie us at every turn. They have repeatedly demonstrated both hostility and incompetence towards enwiki's values and culture. You know both devils here and Arbcom is not flawless. It remains to be seen if enwiki will even endorse UCoC, and if it doesn't the relationship will become even further polarized. Jimbo at least seems to see this as more than a cash cow. Remove Jimbo and id make a bet that next time you want to reject fundraising banners you'll lose the right to even have an Arbcom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.78.194 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
26. Jimbo hasn't abused powers; he has voluntarily given most of his additional rights up, and more should not be stripped from him. Trying to shame this website's founder is not the way to go about things; we shouldn't bite the hand that fed us. Moreover, even JW has said that he sees his role like that of the British monarch: subtly influencing some things, and in extreme circumstances, allowed a veto (and, much like the British monarch, would never use that veto either). So, if this is going to be the end of the Wales era on Wikipedia? it'll be a sad day. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
27. Per others, if Jimbo used his veto against the community there would be outrage. it is nearly impossible for him to use it negatively. I don't see a reason to take the power away now. it may come in handy some day. Clone commando sev (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
28. This individual can be trusted to use the power correctly.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
29. First, because the presumption should always be in favor of policy stasis, and it has not been shown that there is a problem that needs solving here. And second, because in general the community lacks means to course-correct (since those who disagree with major shifts in policy will typically leave the project) and it is a good idea to have some sort of external check to keep things from getting completely out of hand. Electoral mechanisms keep Arbcom accountable to the community, but that's only half the battle, and this clause is the closest thing we have to a mechanism of keeping the community accountable to the project. I would prefer to see a stronger mechanism for accountability-to-the-project, but we certainly shouldn't eliminate the mechanism we have. -- Visviva (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
30. No. Having reserve powers is useful. If it ever becomes necessary, he can be overruled by the invocation of the process currently being undertaken to remove him. Some "yes" voters above admit the need for some way to hold ARBCOM accountable, suggesting the creation of recalls, or what have you, but more bureaucracy is not the answer. This system seems to work well enough. --Jahaza (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
31. I don't see anything wrong with having an appeal to Jimbo. Banedon (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
32. No. It's better to give Jimbo the power. The person who loves reading (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
33. Jimbo's shown he won't abuse this power. Take it away, and it'll end up in the Foundation's and their Orwellianly-named Trust and Safety department's hands. However little trust I have left for Jimbo, it's considerably more than I have for them. —Cryptic 02:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
34. No. Read this. His own position during a conflict between ArbCom and the Wikimedia Foundation: "To be clear: ArbCom could overturn the ban. I will personally back ArbCom in whatever they decide. Any further action of this type from T&S will not happen without agreement from the community. There should be no fear here that T&S would defy the board, me, ArbCom, and the gathered best users in the community.--Jimbo Wales 07:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)" He has no recent history of meddling in the affairs of ArbCom, so the appeal is only likely to become relevant in the event of a conflict between the community-elected ArbCom and the community-independent Foundation. The specific conflict referenced had legal issues but the approach of the Foundation was unusual and differed from the approach that would have been taken by ArbCom, with whom no attempt to communicate was made even within legal limits prior to or immediately after the ban. As conflicts between the legal obligations of the Foundation and the policies of the community increase in frequency in the coming years, would you rather have to appeal to a single individual or to a corporate group? Ivan (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a good point, but what is the actual evidence for "increase in frequency"? Martindo (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

35. No. I would trust Jimbo Wales more than I would trust the worst possible group of people who could hypothetically be on ArbCom at some point in the future. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 03:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
36. I've always liked the constitutional monarchy kind of setup. Keep the final appeal power with someone who would lose it if they use it, helps keep people a bit accountable. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
37. No – The yes side relies on the assumption that Jimbo would be unreasonable in exercising this power, when his past behaviour indicates nothing of the sort. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
38. No. I don't know who is even going to be reading this far down the line, but I may as well pop off, since I started to do so during the petition and didn't really finish my thought. What I said then was that 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, and that removing it would increase their gravitas; but I'm not convinced that we are lacking for gravitas. Do we need additional gravitas? There is a bit of a half-hearted effort, whenever the newspapers write about Wikipedia, to reassure everyone that ArbCom isn't really the Supreme Court of Wikipedia. So why should we make haste to increase the resemblance? More importantly, why should we break stuff that works fine for the sake of increasing the resemblance? Some people who support this amendment have talked about how bad it looks, or how outdated the system is, or how silly it is -- as opposed to what? We do it for free. If it's absurd for this guy (some nerd who created the website and has been here for 22 years) to have veto over stuff that goes on here, it's just as absurd for us (some nerds whose hobby is arguing about policies on an encyclopedia for free) to do so. And, on a gravely serious note: if there is some serious problem with the balance of power that comes from having the unaccountable Jimbo (I don't know about that, he seems pretty accountable to me) be the final route of appeal, what are we planning to replace him with? The Trust and Safety department is not elected, and the Ombuds commission is not elected. Currently, six of the twelve trustees are selected from communities, but last year, candidates were required to submit applications to the board, and the board picked people to be candidates out of the applicants they liked (said application form requiring several college-application-style essays). I do not hate the WMF, and they certainly do a lot of good for the project, but for the specific purpose of serving as a final resort in outrageous situations where the shit has completely hit the fan, I have more trust in Jimbo than in a large organization that operates by often-opaque processes. While ceteris paribus I would prefer for ultimate symbolic authority to be vested in a democratic process, it's not clear to me that simply devolving Jimbo's role to the WMF works toward that end, and it seems to me like a step backward. jp×g 05:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, what Joe said: the scenario in which the shit hits the fan with such force that it requires the person or entity of last resort to overturn a decision is unlikely and hypothetical. A more realistic scenario is one in which some institutional incentive causes a stupid thing to happen, and a minor amendment is made by someone reasonable who is capable of observing without involvement. In this case, it seems even more clearly the case that I would rather have this entity be some guy who's had a leading role in the project for two decades than another large set of committee members following institutional incentives, which would likely have been the cause of the issue in the first place. jp×g 06:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

39. Not as written. I'd support this if it came with a workable alternative check and balance. I'm concerned that a high level of arbitrator inactivity might lead to a committee becoming skewed or unrepresentative. We wouldn't know until too late because Arbcom's deliberations are secret.—S Marshall T/C 06:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
40. No per Jayron, Joe. No evidence/indication this clause ever caused a problem. ResonantDis_tortion 06:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
41. Procedural No per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. We don't have votes on Wikipedia, we determine consensus. I see no evidence that that is being applied here. — Voice of Clam (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
42. No. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Maproom (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
43. No per Joe and Trust the judgement of Jimbo and we need somebody to appeal the judgements of Arbcom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
44. No per Joe. Solution in search of a problem. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
45. No this provision has never caused problems and very probably will never be used in the future. Honestly, it's a bit embarrassing how seriously some people are taking this – we're not writing a constitution here, it's Wikipedia, you're not the next Rousseau. – Teratix ₵ 10:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
46. No Uncalled for. Joe makes complete sense. ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
47. Per Joe, but noting the selection of Jimbo was not arbitrary. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
48. No, at least not until another last ditch appeals process is presented to the community. schetm (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
49. No, not yet, I just opened bio Jimmy Wales to read. On serious note, per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:NOTANARCHY. Bookku (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
50. In practice, there is no need for this change. I understand the support, but I'd like to see this be thought out more. Anarchyte (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
51. No. ~TPW 13:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
52. No Unless this provision results in an actual highly divisive controversy in the future, there is no reason to remove the last of Jimbo's constitutional powers. StellarHalo (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
53. No per Joe Sweet6970 (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
54. I thought about this for a while and I can see where the supporters are coming from but then again, even most countries with an independent judiciary have some kind of system on the books as a kind of final appeal if something has gone seriously wrong (e.g. pardons), so why shouldn't we? Regards SoWhy 15:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
55. No I was on the fence, but am unconvinced by the arguments supporters make. It's not democratic, true, but why should Wikipedia have to be? It's not needed? Not now, but I can envision a scenario where it would be useful. Jimbo is disconnected from Wiki processes? He may not know all the minutiae, but he is certainly connected to Wikipedian values that would lie at the core of any dispute requiring intervention. Simply put, I think Jimbo provides a useful, knowledgeable, and (largely) respected "third party" perspective that is separable both from us editors and from the WMF, and that's a worthwhile function. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
56. No I fail to see the need for this change.14GTR (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
57. No because I'm in a bad mood and want to see what happens if Jimbo ever tries to use his special power.  Tewdar  18:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
58. Don't see a problem that this would fix. Better to leave this provision in place for the rare occasion it may be needed.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
59. No No problem being solved by this. And the current wording contributes to Jimbo's soft power which we need to be strong. Excellent analysis by Barkeep but IMO I put less weight on those issues due to them being so far non-existent and more weight on him retaining soft power. Also as noted by others, if Jimbo is not in the role it could fall to the self-appointed ivory tower of WMF which I absolutely do not trust. North8000 (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
60. No; I second North8000. Panini! • 🥪 22:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
61. No because bureaucratic systems often fail; because this has caused no problems and seems well set-up for a worst-case scenario; and because Jimbo, having co-created this great knowledge effort and ceded control for 99.9% of it, should not be treated poorly for holding on to that one thread. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
62. No Sharing power is good. Is Wikipedia a democracy? -Bart Terpstra (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
63. No per Jayron32 and etc. This looks like a solution in search of a problem. And in this case, the solution to the nonexistent problem could inadvertently create a real one down the road. If this last, or close to it, reserved authority is actually abused; removing it will be a fairly simple process. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    See my comment in the discussion section for a slightly broader view of my reasoning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

64. No; checks and balances – there should be a means of reigning in the ArbCom when needed. Baffle☿gab 04:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
65. No - I tend to agree with many of the "no voters" above that this is more a solution in search of a problem. If Jimbo had asked to for the community to remove this power from him, like he has his other powers, then that would be different but as far as I'm aware he has not, so I see no benefit that comes from this change. If he were also to name a successor for the "Monarch of Wikipedia" role then I would support that also. Wikipedia is NOT a democracy and I have no issue with a single individual having the power to overrule some ill-conceived pile-on decision should the necessity arise. A7V2 (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
66. No I share the same view that a final resort emergency brake is a good thing, and Jimbo has been discretionary in staying out of community processes unless absolutely necessary. Curbon7 (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
67. No - The supporters have granted no real reason for how exactly Jimbo's role would backfire, just that "it may," which is not a really strong argument. As previously stated, this seems to be more of a solution in search of an issue. The argument that Jimmy will abuse the position is null by the fact that he's already not too involved in Wikipedia politics today, which is something that many of the supporters outright state. Essentially, you have two opposite camps in the support - those who support because they view Jimbo as a malevolent dictator who will override the community, and those who support because they view Jimbo as a barely involved individual whose absence has made the above proposal effectively de facto true. I also dislike how the support seems to believe that removing Jimbo would create some sort of utopia where the community is beholden to no one. If Wales is removed, you know whose finna be calling the shots? The WMF. Considering the vast majority of editors here have been here long enough to have at the very least heard of their antics, are you really going to swap out Jimbo, someone who at the very least views Wikipedia as more than a cash cow or a faceless de facto corporation who will wag the finger at you if you dare complain? Even if the WMF doesn't seize control (which is not going to happen), all this does is invite more bureaucracy, which from Medieval China to modern America, to corporations to governments, strangle their organizations via lack of imagination and parochialism. We are not a bureaucracy, nor are we a democracy, nor an anarchy, and I have yet to see a coherent or reasonable argument against the quasi-constitutional monarchy we have besides "maybes" and "well it won't really change anything in practice anyway anyway". - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 13:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
68. No: I think I disagree with a great deal of what Wales has said and done over the years but sometimes an arbitrary rule granting effective veto powers is a good check to have. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
69. No - basically per Jayron. It's a good idea to have a final stage of appeal from Arbcom. FOARP (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
70. No - The deletionists have wrought enough destruction over this site already. I trust Jimbo more with power than ArbCom Jack4576 (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
71. A method of overriding ArbCom is important to have. Frostly (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
72. No - this feels like a continuation of "GET HIM!" sentiment regarding Jimbo after the unfortunate allegations he made, instead of a meaningful update to the Arbitration policy. As far as I know, this is the only case he used this power, and it was not to "overturn" the decision but rather to humanize it. Removing this will not benefit the English Wikipedia community. Merko (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
73. A solution looking for a problem. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
74. No. This hurts nothing and has never been abused. It's good to have a break-glass-in-case-of-emergency backup plan if anything ever goes catastrophically wrong. And the simple knowledge that such an emergency power exists may tend to help a future ArbCom consider non-frivolous requests for reconsideration or amendments more seriously than they otherwise might. In the unlikely event this power is ever abused in the future, we can remove it at that point. Station1 (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
75. No Although a better mechanism is needed, this proposal is inappropriate. This mechanism was not involved in the incident in question. This is a personal slight on the basis of what ever excuse is at hand. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
76. No: This seems like a proposal to concentrate power, rather than a coherent proposal to distribute it with checks and balances, and I find that unappealing for a number of reasons (many of which have already been said above). I'm not saying never, I'm just saying there's no alternative being proposed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
77. No, mostly as per North8000. An emergency override is a good idea, and it is better for it to rest with someone is NOT enmeshed in the internal politics that often make Wikipedia a nightmare. Ingratis (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
78. No: Per Joe, North8000 and others above. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
79. No. I don't necessarily believe that all members of ArbCom can be trusted to make impartial decisions. We, on the outside, have no idea of how chummy some ArbCom members are with each other and how their solidarity influences final decisions. I prefer that there be an individual such as Wales to floor the brakes on ArbCom if needed, because he will have the access to investigate the who-what-where-when-why-how of ArbCom decisions. All guards need a warden. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 13:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
80. No - Ingratis says it well. - L'Maynerque - ("May you [insert query here]?") - 13:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
81. No Barkeep49 says above But I think Jimmy having this reserve power to overrule ArbCom would, in practice, be disasterous. But Wales has had this "power", and it hasn't been disastrous. There is no indication or evidence that he would use that authority to the detriment of the project. Not broke. Schazjmd (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
82. No. I've considered this carefully and wasn't sure which side I've come down on, but on balance I think it is important that there is some venue of absolute final appeal, that is independent of arbcom (and I speak as a former arbitrator here). I'm open to arguments that this role be taken by a person or body other than Jimbo (although he has done a good job of it, declining to even consider frivolous appeals, endorsing arbcom's decision when it is the correct one, encouraging clarification and moderation on the rare occasions where required) but I oppose removing him until we have an alternative in place. Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
83. No. A better proposal would have had a replacement mechanism on tap that was more palatable than nothing at all. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
84. No If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Also, I think we owe him this respect, lest we become like the creation who turns on its creator. Also, I think this is a pointy proposal. Debresser (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
85. No This power has rarely been used and it's cool that Wikipedia has a vestigial system whereby any decision can be appealed to its founder as a final recourse. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
86. A reluctant no. I am not opposed to this removal in and of itself, but we do need to slow down and figure out what to replace this with—pretty much what Thryduulf said. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
87. A reluctant no mainly per Thryduulf's analysis; I also agree with Joe's and North8000's comments above. VickKiang (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
88. No per Jayron, Sandizer, and Graeme.--v/r - TP 00:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
89. No per Joe Roe. The proposed amendment would give increased power to the arbitration committee. There needs to be a means of appealing ArbCom decisions to someone other than ArbCom. James500 (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
90. No. Locke Cole and others make a good point that replacing/improving the checks-and-balances mechanism is wiser than removing it. BBQboffin (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
91. No Jimbo should have the rare power like dissolving parliament as Elizabeth II, but seldom used. -Lemonaka‎ 11:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
92. No per Joe Roe, Maproom. Shotgun pete (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
93. No Classic case of a solution (and a poorly thought out one at that if there is nothing planned and agreed to replace it) in need of a problem.Muchclag (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
94. No per Jayron32, etc.Dobrichev (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
95. No, per Joe and Graeme. François Robere (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
96. No per Thryduulf. Also given the unintended messes that can be made by the bureaucracy around here some form of oversight should be kept. Deadman137 (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
97. No Gaming the system is far too easy. Painting17 (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
98. No per Jayron32 and Joe Roe. It could be replaced with something else, but I don't see a need to remove this. --Tristario (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
99. I agree with Jayron32, Joe Roe and Thryduulf. Also, referendums are a bad idea. Acalamari 00:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
100. No per all above. Jimbo is still a co-founder and should have this ability. I support the addition of others who would have this power, but stripping Jimbo of this power seems distasteful. WhichUserAmI 02:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
101. Oppose This should not be a direct removal of oversight, but rather a suitable replacement mechanism that deserves its own discussion and consensus. – robertsky (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
102. Opppose In his comments on the policy, Jimmy correctly notes that "Currently if there were a massive community outcry about some seriously problematic ArbCom decision, there is no clear answer as to what might happen." This is true. It's also true that appealing solely to Jimmy is an outdated escape valve for this possibility. Instead of just removing our only remedy for overturning bad ArbCom decisions, we should formalize a policy alternatives that allows for a snap election / vote of no confidence in ArbCom to be called for under limited circumstances (similar to how this amendment came to be under discussion) to enable overturning wildly unpopular decisions. Steven Walling • talk 05:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
103. No Per everyone above. Jimbo makes sense as a court of final appeal. – SD0001 (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
104. No Personally I think that as long as he is part of the Board of Trustees he can have that power. Nobody (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
105. No per others. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
106. No As a deeply committed Australian republican I didn't expect to post in support of a form of constitutional monarchy, but here I am. I'm actually in favour of this clause being removed, but it needs to be replaced with a better alternative which isn't the case at present. A readily workable mechanism for the community to over-ride ArbCom in the unlikely event it goes mad is needed to replace this clause. As ArbCom has been very sensible over its history, there's no need to rush this. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
107. No per the above. Constitutional reserve powers like this continue to exist for very good reasons. The fact that it hasn't been used means it is working. Unless there's an alternative in place, removing this gives ArbCom unchecked power, but leaving it in place reminds them that they can only wield their powers with the very distinct possibility of being overridden. The override helps to keep them from running amok. Imzadi 1979 → 13:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
108. No. Joe and Pyxis above reflect my sentiments. DigitalIceAge (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
109. No / not without some sort of replacement. Maybe Jimbo is too checked out to serve in this role, but find some other elder statesperson to do it then. SnowFire (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
110. No - This remedy has rarely been used, and there are limits on what Jimbo could do to amend or repeal a remedy. However, this catchall appeal, similar to the concept of pardon is useful to make sure that the Arbitration rulings continue to reflect the long term values of the organization. Finally,season has been provided as to why this rarely, if ever, used exception should be repealed. --Trödel 23:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]