Wikipedia talk:Role of Jimmy Wales/Archive 1

Archive 1

The reasons for this page

When I was a young Wikipedian, I saw references to Jimmy Wales exercising authority beyond that of an ordinary administrator. Wondering what the source and extent of this authority were, I checked out WP:JIMBO. To my disappointment, it led only to his user page, which did not include the information I was seeking. Therefore, the primary purpose of this page is to set out somewhere exactly what Jimbo's authority is. A secondary purpose is to provide a place to discuss changes to Jimbo's authority, if people should consider such changes desirable (since, as far as I can tell, the community and tradition are the sources of this authority - I haven't seen any indication that the authority is WMF-imposed, in any event). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's been a long while since anyone actually considered Jimbo to have any real authority. Naerii 06:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

My question is, when did we ever decide he no longer had any authority? Tiptoety ^talk

I have no idea. I just doubt that anyone takes seriously his hippie love-your-neighbour guff that he comes out with when he bothers commenting on community issues. Naerii 07:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Experience and trust often give a Wikipedian informal authority. And while it might be hippie-love crap, it's still good advice, and I do try to take it to heart. -- Ned Scott 07:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

To respond to Tiptoety: From what I've heard in interviews and such, it's really been Jimbo himself that has tried to depreciate his formal authority, to help transition to a more community run system. -- Ned Scott 07:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, he obviously still appoints Arb Comm, and Arb Comm's authority is Foundation-mandated, so there's clear authority there. And yesterday he claimed to have the authority to overrule Arb Comm, so that's something else. I just want to have some place that i. lists his authority, ii. specifies its source, and iii. if the source is indeed the will of the community, gives the community a place to discuss changing his authority. Obviously this is all separate from his role as WMF Trustee, which is clearly out of the community's hands. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea for us to try to clarify that, Sarcasticidealist. delldot talk 13:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful at some point to consider what should be done if/when Jimmy Wales becomes unable to continue his involvement with Wikipedia (I am not suggesting that such a situation will occur in the near future, but as far as I am aware he is mortal). DuncanHill (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing? - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Also worth noting point #5 at Meta:Foundation issues. This is, quite obviously, one of those "certain projects". - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Point 5 says (amongst other things) that "The Arbitration Committees of those projects which have one can also make binding, final decisions such as banning an editor.", yet my understanding is that Jimmy Wales can overrule Arbcom decisions, which means that such decisions are not binding and final. DuncanHill (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats not quite the point I was referring to, and is actually probably a separate discussion (about the authority of ArbCom). We've all seen Jimbo ban people, desysop people, etc... so he obviously has the authority to do so, on both a technical level, and a ... well, you know what I mean, and I can't think of a word to use. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Rjd - I've dropped a note at the meta talk page seeking clarification about what is meant by "by convention". As for your points about his ability to ban and desysop, I'll add them to this page (although, if memory serves, last time he desysopped somebody, the response was an RFC/U about his conduct, which suggests that he's somehow accountable to the community in his use of this power?). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This kind of authority has existed forever. It was not granted by some kind of edict, vote or what-have-you. It is a natural and obvious fact resulting from his having founded the project. It is not "community-granted", though -- as should be obvious -- if the community (however defined) were to reject it somehow, that would be possible. As far as I am concerned, it is a good system that doesn't need changing in any way. Your summary is accurate, though it undoubtedly could use some filling out. I may do so shortly. I agree that this is a useful page. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Sam - it's good to have an old-timer to provide us with some context. I was dimly aware that his authority had never been formally granted, but had evolved as, as you say, a natural fact of his having founded the project. I guess I wasn't so much trying to clarify who granted it as I was trying to clarify at whose pleasure he continues to wield it; I too was under the impression it was at the community's pleasure, though the link to the meta page that Rjd provided above complicates things somewhat, since that page opens with "The Wikimedia projects as a community have certain foundation issues that are essentially considered to be beyond debate...These issues include:" Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as far as I am aware, there isn't any way of answering the question of whence the continuing mandate comes. I very much doubt that, were it to be clearly demonstrated that people do not want Jimmy retaining this authority, he or the Foundation would declare that it should continue. However, I would be very wary of declaring that it can be withdrawn in any particular way. I shall put a new draft up shortly reflecting this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I added something

Sorry if that was improper, but I added my 2 cents on one of the topics. I was not sure if this was an open proposal or just something one guy was working on or what. JeanLatore (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No, anybody is free to edit this page. Could you clarify, though, where there has been a community discussion overruling a Jimbo-issued ban? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Desysopping

"This is one of the most commonly used reserved powers." Err... what? The last time Jimmy removed rights from someone, it was incredibly, incredibly controversial. It was also months ago. Most commonly used? Is that simply supposed to be 'uncommonly'? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If it is wrong, well, this is a wiki. Maybe I am confused... ;-) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The bit on bans

Jimbo banned Miltopia right off the bat - and a lot of people disagreed with it. A lot of people liked it, too, but it wasn't universally popular. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked the page a tiny bit on that, to make it I hope more accurate. Didn't he desysop and block Zscout previously? rootology (T) 23:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal tag

Policies and guidelines are useful because they are, to some degree, enforceable. As it stands, this page is purely descriptive -- it describes what Jimbo has done in the past and what authority he has asserted, but it doesn't prescribe how he is to or ought to act. There's nothing wrong with a descriptive page -- they can certainly be useful as explanatory resources -- but there's no point in giving official status to a set of observations.

So a decision needs to be made -- should we outline Jimbo's role in prescriptive terms and then seek policy/guideline status so that those prescriptions might become (to some degree) enforceable? Or should we get rid of the {{proposed}} tag and keep this page descriptive? I personally would have no problem with either, but let's make it clear which approach is to be taken.

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there is some thought to defining how Jimmy should act, that would be radically changing the fashion in which he interacts with the community and the project. As his main role (which I believe he does very well) is to fit in where the other procedures we have fail, I strongly feel this shouldn't be done.

This clearly isn't going to be a page that should be tagged with {{policy}}, {{guideline}} or {{semi-policy}} (!). If there wasn't the current obsession with tagging every page with a template to say exactly what it is ({{humour}}, for goodness' sake), I would suggest leaving it untagged. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

My intention as tagging it as a proposed policy was to bring it into Wikipedia policy, if indeed it is a matter for the community to decide. Right now, Jimmy Wales has the de facto authority to do things that aren't described anywhere in policy. He has this authority, as I understand it, because he always has had it and nobody taken it away. The scope of this authority and its source aren't set out anywhere, and I think they should be, if only for clarity. Starting with a descriptive page of what his historical authority has been seems like both a good start and consistent with the historic model of policy development on Wikipedia. From there, do I think that that should enforceable? Yes - once we're clear on what Jimmy's authority is, I think it ought to be enforceable that i. any actions taken by Jimmy in the scope of that authority are supported by policy, and ii. any actions taken outside of it aren't. And I also think that if the community ever wants to make serious changes to the scope of Jimmy's authority (assuming that doing so is within the community's power, which it appears that it is), this page would be the right place to discuss that. So essentially I'm proposing the creation of a prescriptive policy by first describing actual practise. Make sense? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I tend to feel that prescribing exactly how the authority is allowed to be used would reduce its effectiveness no end. Almost all Jimmy's actions tend to be (implicitly) invocations of IAR -- he goes around normal process because normal process either is making a hash of things or would take too long. As such, I feel to make this change is a fundamentally bad idea.

On the other hand, should we want to make this change, this is exactly the right procedure. Should we not want to make this change, it will still be a useful document. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On Arb Com rulings

I think a few of the editors here will find this recent comment from the Arb Com RfC to be of use in updating this proposal. Cheers. — _Maggot^Syn 14:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Jimmy_Wales#Desysopping

I assume the "The question of whether the community or Arbitration Committee can remove Wales' sysop or steward status has not yet arisen." refers to his Founder access here, not steward? While ArbCom is certainly a force majeure regarding situations on the English Wikipedia, I sincerely doubt its decisions would have any binding effect on another project (such as Meta). Kylu (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

He was desysopped on Wikinews recently. rootology (T) 00:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh? That certainly perks my curiosity. What was the situation like? -- Ned Scott 01:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Found it, here. Seems stupid to me, since it basically came down to "he doesn't really edit here". The same basic concept of community trust still applies, but whatever. -- Ned Scott 01:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Just mentioned it as it's precedent that a local project can do things like this under consensus, just like how the Italians just outright deleted their Arbcom. It wasn't a question of trust, yeah, but their inactivity rule. It just shows though that even Jimmy is under local consensus constraints like everyone else is. rootology (T) 02:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that Jimmy's role at Wikinews is a long way from corresponding to his role here. While it is interesting, we should probably be cautious before making too exact an analogy. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 02:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom can do anything related to Wikipedia, but Steward is a permission on Meta enforced by global consensus. English Wikipedia and its directly related functions are Arbcom's only bailiwick. Now, his local Founder right, on the other hand... Kylu (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The Steward permission is obviously a Meta thing, but Steward conduct on individual projects is largely within the purview of those projects. For example, Stewards don't promote admins at enwiki because the community has established other means of doing so. Stewards will only de-admin people at enwiki on the instructions of Arb Comm, because the community hasn't developed any other means of doing so. Unless the WMF mandates otherwise (and I haven't been able to get any answer, let alone a straight one, on that point), I think the community probably has the authority to preclude Jimbo's use of Steward powers outside of enwiki policy on enwiki. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I rather fancy that that would not be necessary. If there was consensus against Jimmy's continuing to use these permissions, I am confident that he would voluntarily cease performing them. I tend to feel the point is moot because there won't be such consensus... Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Pertaining to the proposal below, I came up with some critera for qualifying a community motion of no confidence. Actually desysoping would be another matter, of course. Presumably, if such a motion against Jimbo ever passed with wide support, it would have to be registered with the Foundation in some way, but I am not sure what if any action they could take to enforce it. They would probably be more inclined to terminate the user accounts of those who signed off on it, I would think. Amerique^dialectics 00:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Community recall process proposal in development

I'm working on a process for initiating community recall of problematic users from trust positions here: User:Amerique/Community recall. Haven't thought about including stewards, much less Jimbo, as I don't understand how stewards are elected on meta, and the page there claims there is already an accountability process in place. But so far as user access level privileges are concerned on this project, my proposal empowers the community to deal with it. Amerique^dialectics 05:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo policy?

Um, what? Firstly, how is this in line with other policy? What other policy has "policy" in its title?

Secondly, this is a particularly ridiculous name. There isn't a "Jimbo policy" -- there is a bunch of practices that relate to Jimmy Wales. Wikipedia:Jimmy Wales is obviously the correct name for this page.

Unless there are any objections, I shall move this back later today.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Many policies have "policy" in their name:

1. Wikipedia:Editing policy
2. Wikipedia:Protection policy
3. Wikipedia:Username policy
4. Wikipedia:Blocking policy
5. Wikipedia:Banning policy
6. Wikipedia:Bot policy

The reason I think "Jimbo policy" is better than just "Jimmy Wales" is that I think this was intended as a policy clarifying what rights Jimbo has/doesn't have, not just a list of trivia related to Jimmy Wales. SingWale (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As a page documenting Jimbo's role and powers, this page is a great idea, but as a "policy" or even "proposal", it's totally meaningless. We have no power to decide what Jimbo can and can't do, except through applying social or electoral pressure on the Board (which they might or might not respond to). The most sensible and practical thing to do would be to tag this page with {{essay}} (the usual tag for Wikipedia "documentation"), not {{proposed}}, and rename it to something like Wikipedia:Role of Jimbo Wales on Wikipedia. That's the best bet for making this page functional.

If you think this "should be policy" or even could be policy, your thinking is mistaken: {{policy}} is reserved for practices that are widely enforced by Wikipedian editors. We have no means to enforce anything we might write here -- we can only document what Jimbo does (or theoretically can do).--Father Goose (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it appears that Jimbo's powers do not stem from the Foundation, but from tradition. Presumably, since these powers exist only by convention, they're within the community's purview. Certainly nobody at the Foundation office has been prepared to tell me that Jimbo's powers within the community stem from the exercise of the Foundation's legal power, and Jimbo himself has said that his powers do not come from the Foundation.^{[citation needed, but definitely available if I can just find it]} In fact, he's specifically said that he regards his special role as being "purely a community matter". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that for the most part; Jimbo's powers and purview are a product of tradition. But I believe that if the community wanted to bindingly alter Jimbo's role or powers, there's only two ways that could actually be enacted: voluntary compliance by Jimbo, or intercession by the Board (either due to community pressure or to protect the interests of the Foundation).

However, Jimbo's stated intent is to progressively, voluntarily reliquish his powers, and so far, he's been doing exactly that. Unless a really dire financial or other scandal crops up (hypothetically speaking), I doubt the Board will ever get involved.--Father Goose (talk) 05:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree that, if the community spoke as one that it wanted to end Jimbo's special status, silence by the Board would be taken as deference to the community? In any event, I don't think now is the right time to abolish this special status; the problem with Wikipedia is that there isn't enough authority around, not that there's too much. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Silence might not be the right word. If the community resoundingly wanted to end Jimbo's special status, I wouldn't be surprised if Jimbo voluntarily relinquished his powers in response. If he didn't relinquish them... then what? A steward or a dev would have to step in. These are total hypotheticals, but it seems very likely that a steward or dev would want to get "permission" first, either from Jimbo himself, or from the Board. (I doubt ArbCom would touch it -- they're famously reluctant to act outside their established powers.) So as a practical matter, I think it's only Jimbo or the Board that can sign off on his de-Foundering. But I expect that would only be in response to community outcry, or, shall we say, an "emergency". (Or if Jimbo simply wished to retire his powers.)

I'm in no rush to defrock him, personally. We're just discussing hypotheticals.--Father Goose (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What about something that didn't require a Steward's intervention? Let's say the Arb Comm RFC emerged with a clear consensus that arbs should be elected directly (no such consensus is going to emerge, obviously), and editors starting editing WP:AC accordingly. If the Board was silent, could we then conclude that the community's will would prevail? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a few possibilities then, and I believe most of them would turn on just how upset the community got with the situation. If Jimbo didn't agree to the change but the community didn't get wildly upset over the rebuff, I think nobody else "in power" would be willing to contradict him. If, however, the community got truly upset over Jimbo's refusal (I'm assuming ArbCom itself wouldn't, for a variety of reasons), somebody would have to act, to keep Wikipedia from tearing apart over the matter. I assume that somebody would be Jimbo -- I don't doubt his dedication to the project, and I don't think he'd wreck it just to get his way over a comparatively unimportant point. And if Jimbo wasn't willing to act, I think the Board would vote to intercede rather than let the project be harmed by the incident. If the Board remained silent, as you postulate, that would by default support Jimbo, who can wield both technical rights and Board influence that the community does not have.

The worst case scenario would be that a substantial part of the community would leave Wikipedia over the incident. I don't foresee that happening -- both the Board and Jimbo have demonstrated too much dedication to the project to let it be damaged over something so preventable. It would reflect badly on them to let that happen as well.--Father Goose (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This page isn't going to control what powers Jimbo has, and that doesn't seem to be the goal of this page (which is to summarize the general idea of what Jimbo does in the en.wikipedia community). With that in mind, marking this as an essay seems the best idea to me. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If Jimbo's powers are in the community's purview, which I'm still of the (not unshakeable) impression they are, shouldn't there be somewhere for the community to set out what these powers are? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably in an RfC, or some equivalent process. Then we can update this page based on what is decided there. Since we can't enforce the decision directly, this page will still never be {{policy}}, just documentation.--Father Goose (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. The more I think about it, the more I think that WP:AC is probably the closest parallel to what this page should become. It's not tagged as anything; is that a reasonable compromise here? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably the best choice.--Father Goose (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

[1] - I take it you disagree with calling it an essay instead of a (potential/proposed) policy? I'm not trying to enforce my views on the issue -- I just don't see how this page could be turned into a policy, in terms of how policies actually work on Wikipedia. Jimbo will either change his role in an evolutionary manner, probably in response to informal community feedback (this is what's been happening so far), or one day we will all speak up and (try to) change things more directly, probably through an RfC. What role would a "Jimbo policy" have in that? Would we need one? And would it even work?

I think the most we could say on the subject is "This is Jimbo's traditional role on Wikipedia. We reserve the right to not honor it, as circumstances warrant. Jimbo's ability to ignore our wishes is indeterminate." That's still not a policy.

The last thing we want to do is put up a page that people think they can edit to spontaneously and bindingly change how Jimbo behaves. That is pretty much how people treat policy pages, so, please, let's not do that.--Father Goose (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Steward vs Founder usergroup...

User rights changes that "Stewards" make via the userrights interface at meta show up on the Meta logs. User rights changed by Jimbo as "founder usergroup" show up in the local userrights logs for this local project. The "Founder" usergroup is the steward function renamed. Make no mistake the Jimmy used the interface within the English Wikipedia with bedford, and his membership in the "Founder" usergroup permitted his use of the userrights on the English Wikipedia. Had he desysopped bedford via meta, using a steward membership, it would be in the logs at meta, and it is not. Its in the logs here, on this project. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Still, both usergroups give him the power to desysop, and he has exercised his powers as both, so I'd like to rephrase it as "the technical ability (as Founder and as a steward)".--Father Goose (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The "founder" group was added by Tim Starling specifically for Jimbo because people complained about Jimbo having steward rights here (which is what he had before founder) and on meta. Mr.Z-man 20:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Page title

This should be moved back to Wikipedia:Jimmy Wales. Simple, doesn't imply some kind of policy or authority, etc. -- Ned Scott 05:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the current title; it helps to distinguish it from Jimbo Wales and User:Jimbo Wales. Does the page discuss anything other than Jimbo's role and/or powers? Should it? If not, I think it's the best title, at least for now.--Father Goose (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

policy

I've tagged it as much, since it is telling how we do things anyway. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not ah consistantly how we do things and certian things such as how far jimbo would be able to get in removeing a functioning arbcom are questionable.Geni 19:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Please get a consensus before making something policy. That being said, I do think it is a good idea to codify this. Once the community looks at it, and perhaps the foundation weighs in we can make it policy. Chillum 19:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Since this is area is liable to shift without notice and is heavily based on balance of power issues (jimbo can de-syspo someone but he had better have at least a reasonably good reason) it is ah best not codified.Geni 22:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, an interesting point. Chillum 22:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Father Goose's points above. I just don't see how this can be a policy ever, so I don't think it should even be a proposed policy either. It is best as an essay or a "blank type". Deamon138 (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, instead of a policy that tells us what Jimbo does, lets have an essay showing what he has done. Chillum 23:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And what he hypothetically could do. Deamon138 (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean like fly and bend steel bars with his mind? Chillum 23:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You might need to source that... Deamon138 (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a page that merely documents what Jimbo has done, could hypothetically do, and what he claims he would do in a variety of special conditions. Since no aspect of it is enforceable, except through us communicating our views to Jimbo, it's not sensible to identify it as any form of rule.

For a page where we declare what role we want Jimbo to have on Wikipedia, best place for that, I think, would be an RfC or a user essay.--Father Goose (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It almost certainly can't be a "rule" because that would imply that it is a rule that Jimbo has to follow, when of course, all of the policies/guidelines on Wikipedia imposed by the community don't actually carry any weight against Jimbo. He only volunteers to follow the policies we adopt because I guess he's a decent guy. If we ever wanted to "punish", "ban" (or whatever) Jimbo, it could only ever be voluntary on his part, or come from the Foundation itself. It is naive of people to think we have any "power" over Jimbo, but so long as he's decent guy it works for us, just like Queen Elizabeth doesn't need to get involved in the politics of the UK, but still theoretically can.

It's an interesting hypothetical though: is Jimbo's position on the Board of Trustees one that he could pass on to others? I would vote (if there was a vote) that Jimbo's privileged position on Wikipedia be retired when he "retires". Deamon138 (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

His position is no longer a necessary part of Wikipedia governance, so I don't see why any aspect of it will be passed on to anyone else when he retires. He just doesn't want to relinquish his influence yet, and we haven't yet seen any need to force him to do so.--Father Goose (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposing

I'd like to bring up the debate on tagging this as a policy again, given that Jimbo does do actions like desysop users and having somewhere to document that this is part of the workings of wikipedia is a good idea. MBisanz ^talk 23:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Is the page policy as such? It seems more a commentary on the communal norms and operations of the project. Which, perhaps, is the perfect definition of a policy... At any rate, regardless of the likely answer to that question, I do indeed endorse Matt's proposal to slap the {{policy}} tag onto this. Anthøny ✉ 23:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree with making this a policy. I haven't got time right now to reiterate my points, but suffice to say that my reasoning for not wanting this as policy can be found on this page in the comments by myself, and previously User:Father Goose. Deamon138 (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• What is to be gained by tagging this as policy? This page does not say "what to do" or "how to do", but "what is done". That is not policy -- it's documentation. Wikipedia ties itself in knots because it tries to tag every project-namespace page as policy, guideline, essay or humour, and then rigidly applies those definitions. It would be far easier to have no "tag" at all and let the page speak for itself. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• The way I see it, read through the page, but put everything in the negative e.g. instead of "Wales retains the authority and the technical ability (as "founder" and as a steward) to remove user rights" read "Wales doesn't retain the authority and the technical ability (as "founder" and as a steward) to remove user rights". Now of course, the community might find a consensus for the first reading, or might find a consensus for the second reading i.e. some people might want to remove Jimbo's privileged status, but regardless of consensus for or against that (it doesn't bother me that he has those powers tbh), could the second reading ever be achieved? No, not unless we had Jimbo's permission to remove his privileged position. The consequences of this reasoning: consensus to change Jimbo's role can only be succesful through Jimbo's free will. This means that no "policy" on the role of Jimbo Wales can ever be prescriptive, and can only have be descriptive. But a page just describing the role of him is redundant as a policy. An essay is what this should be. Deamon138 (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Similar page

Wikipedia:Project Leader. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy

I made this more accurate with these edits, in line with policy, and fixed the omission of the loss of rights on English Wikinews. rootology/equality 13:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Succession

Jimbo's often described as a constitutional monarch or benevolent dictator, so I am curious about what would happen if Jimbo had to stop editing Wikipedia.

Would Wikipedia simply scrap his role, making ArbCom the highest authority, or replace him? Computerjoe's talk 18:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Traditionally, the right of succession would go to any heirs, of course. Amerique^dialectics 18:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wales has no formally defined role in Wikipedia, though his account has "founder" rights and he has various positions at the Wikimedia Foundation. If Wales stopped editing, nothing much would change I imagine. Arbcom would be appointed the same way it is now, only with bureaucrats or stewards pulling the trigger, and the general community would take over any other functions he might have held.  Skomorokh  18:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I know designations of political biases, etc.

on user pages is controversial, at least somewhat. Nevertheless FWIW I've adapted a "Constitutional Monarchist" userbox to read like this: "This user is a Wikiloyalist of Constitutional Monarchy under Jimbo Wales." (link).^{:^)} ↜Just M E here , now 20:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR

Is Jimbo's role here more an extension of WP:IAR? The recent David S. Rohde incident was in my opinion a justified use of WP:IAR (although some specified it may have been done in accordance with WP:BLP) and arguably demonstrated his role at its very best. So, basically, is Jimbo the head rule-ignorer? Computerjoe's talk 12:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo says he will no longer block

Per his message here on his talkpage, he says he's voluntarily giving up his right to block (though in the technical sense, he will still have the "block this user" button, just that he won't use it.) May I add this information under his blocking power section? Thanks. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 15:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Things to incorporate

The following pages might have content worth including here:

• Wikipedia:Governance review
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Role of Jimmy Wales in the English Wikipedia
• User:Giano/The future

 Skomorokh, barbarian  03:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-06/Userbox warring
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-05-29/Semi-protection
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-10-30/Board reorganization
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-05-10/Commons deletions

Skomorokh 12:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"The Porn Putsch"

This page hasn't yet been updated to reflect the whole Sexual Content Purge mess. Could someone a little more neutral try to summarize and reflect the what those events told us about Jimmy's role. This needs to be written by a mediator, not a partisan. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What are the main points worthy of mentioning? Deletion spree, backlash, alteration of founder rights...anything else? I was planning on updating the page to cover the last year or so. Skomorokh 11:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think it's at least one established precedent that yes, Wales's role is decided by community consensus. That is, members of the community drew up a bill revising Jimmy's user rights, that document found consensus, and the revision was thus made.

If I find the time, I may take a stab at some changes, just look over my shoulder, know I'm pretty biased, and feel extra extra free to revert if I make a change that you'd regard as controversial. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Outdated? info

The lead says "His current term is set to expire in December 2011, and the Board may continue one-year renewals of his seat through the approval of a majority of Trustees". Which is his current status? Has his term been renewed, or not? In either case, that sentence should be updated. Cambalachero (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't know, and don't know how to find out, so I slapped a dated info tag on it to encourage a clever person to fix it! ~ Kimelea talk 16:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser

This access group is mentioned in passing, but without any "backstory" to why it's there, or on what basis. The rights log seems to imply that this was (self-)granted for a particular task. Has it since become "permanentised"? I brought this up at meta:Talk:CheckUser policy#"Founder" CU(s) (where just a moment ago, while checking the link after notifying JW on his talk page, I noticed I was instructed to "Take it to enWP." Oh well.) 84.203.36.42 (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Role in Co-founding wikipedia

I changed "founding" to "co-founding". I was reverted saying that I used a misleading edit summary. I apologize if that was the case, and had no intention of misleading anybody and will not revert. Since this was talking about Wales' "role in founding" it isn't that big of a deal. Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for consideration of Wikimedia and legal staff, regarding possible misunderstanding of Child Protection

I'm an Information Assurance type. As such, I have long had to review content and consider items that might tend toward potential legal issues. Of note here isn't a deficit per se, but a potential misapprehension of an ill informed viewer of said policy. I related my concerns on the talk page on Child Protection, but I'll repeat them here for brevity. Considering the use of language on the page, one may reasonably misapprehend, especially if the viewer is a youth, that Wikipedia will also protect against "objectionable imagery", be it medical or even human anatomical imagery. As this may easily be a first stop and typically last stop by many, Wikimedia policy should be mentioned on such subjects. Examples are the image of a minor child afflicted with Smallpox, the female human breast, nipple, etc, male and female reproductive organs, various other disturbing images, such as imagery germane to understand the content, such as on various wars, the holocaust, etc. Content, context and understanding is primary in such instances, not being disgusted or disturbed, indeed, for horrific historical events, disturbed should be the normal reaction and that should be clearly understood to any objector.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Motto of the day

I'm sure Jimbo is a great guy but isn't referring to him as God a bit in the extreme? SlightSmile 19:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

This page says: "The members of the Arbitration Committee are appointed by Wales, following a voting procedure." Actually, unless I have missed something (and I don't think I have), it has been two years since Jimbo appointed any arbitrators. Following the 2014 and 2015 elections, there has been no message from Jimbo "appointing" or "announcing" the new arbitrators, "ceremonially" or otherwise. The people in charge of the vote count (the scrutineers and/or election commissioners) have certified and announced the results, and ArbCom has welcomed the new members on or about Jan. 1 of each of these two years, with not a word from Jimbo about it. (At least not on-wiki.) After the recently-concluded 2015 election, the election results were announced to Jimbo on his talk page, not announced by him.

So, what does this mean? I can think of three possibilities offhand: 1. Jimbo no longer appoints (or even "ceremonially announces") the arbitrators; 2. He hasn't really given it up, he just "let it go" for the past two years and might resume doing it at some point in the future; 3. He doesn't know, and neither do we. If #1 is correct, the quotation appearing above is out of date and should be changed. If #2 or #3 are correct... I don't know. Maybe it would be better not to even think about it... Neutron (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Diff link not working

In this section;

A storm of protest from the editing community over the initiative led to its abandonment and the resignation of the arbitrator primarily responsible.

That last link doesn't work, because it's been deleted. Can it be undeleted, or otherwise quoted, or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.205.114 (talk • contribs)

 Not done Editor's have the right delete of content in their userspace even if it's something referenced elsewhere. I have since removed the link. Mkdw^talk 19:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Lack of clarity concerning

I came to this page looking for a clear list of Jimbo's unique rights, or the permissions and policies surrounding the founder role. It is apparent to me from reading this page that no such clarity exists, especially regarding the Arbitration Committee, regarding which Jimbo appears to have changed his mind from time to time. This is deeply concerning to me. Is there a forum for proposing that a precise policy be written? I'm not even an administrator, so I don't think I'm the person to write it. However, without having clarity, I think future conflict is highly probable. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Umm, nothing at Wikipedia is precise. Actually, nothing in the real world is precise either. Jimbo's rights are listed here. Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Jimmy Wales' reserve powers over ArbCom

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing per WP:SNOW as there is a clear consensus against doing anything with regards to the sentence (or Jimbo's powers). I'd also remind the OP of WP:RFCBEFORE, which says "it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page." (non-admin closure) Isabelle ^🔔 17:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Should Jimmy Wales (continue to) have the power to overrule and dissolve the Arbitration Committee? Colonestarrice (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Background

Preamble

Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales is a co-founder of Wikipedia and the founder of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). He currently serves as chairman emeritus of the WMF Board of Trustees and holds the Founder's Seat there. He is the sole member of the Founder local user group, which grants him the technical ability to edit all user rights. He was a steward until 2009 and the sole member of the Founder global user group until 2010.

State of affairs

This page stipulates that Jimmy Wales has the authority to overrule and dissolve the Arbitration Committee.

This partially contrasts with the arbitration policy which grants Jimmy Wales much less power; the right to hear appeals and amend Committee imposed remedies, only in cases where he is not a party.

This page mentions that Jimmy Wales has made contradictory statements on the status and extent of his reserve powers.

Nature and basis

Jimmy Wales' reserve powers are not established by the WMF Terms of Use, its bylaws, any resolution of its Board of Trustees, nor any global or local policy.

The Terms of Use, the ultimate legal agreement between the WMF and the users of its services, expressly establish that "The community has the primary role in creating and enforcing policies applying to the different Project editions".

Previous discussions on this talk page appear to have ascertained that Jimmy Wales' reserve powers are not of legal or official but conventional and traditional nature.

Hence, as no Board resolution or global policy has ordained otherwise, the community has the right to decide if Jimmy ought to retain this reserve power or not.

Prior discussions

In the past, several editors on this page have voiced concerns that Jimmy Wales' (arbitration-related) reserve rights are opaque.

Two discussions on the Arbitration Committee's talk page regarding this, one in 2013 and an RfC in 2015, ended with no clear consensus. The RfC’s closing statement ascertained that editors either supported retaining Jimmy Wales' power to hear Committee cases and amend its imposed remedies, opposed it, or opposed it due the lack of alternative means to appeal.

Notes

In 2009, Jimmy Wales asserted the right to remove individual sitting arbitrators and in 2013, he asserted the power to call special Arbitration Committee elections.

Given the fact that Jimmy Wales has voiced his intention to intervene if truly required multiple times, arguments that clarification is unnecessary as he "does not intend to, and will never, use his powers" are rather meager.

The UCoC's planned Code Enforcement Committee will likely function as an appellate body in certain future cases.

This RfC can only change this page and not the arbitration policy.

Conclusion

This RfC exists for the purpose of clarifying the current status, nature, and extent of Jimmy Wales' reserve powers over the Arbitration Committee. It is not intended to expand or undermine his clearly established authority.

The power of the Arbitration Committee is substantial (to put it mildly), and the right to overrule and dissolve the Committee is even more so. Thus, powers like these should never be vaguely defined. I think it is in the best interest of all – including Jimbo, who himself appeared to be unsure of the current magnitude of his powers – that this be clarified.

(Please note that due to the depth of this subject, I might have missed or misinterpreted some things)

- Colonestarrice (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Notified: centralized discussion, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, User talk:Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Colonestarrice (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Leave alone. Status quo seems to work fine. Solution in search of a problem. By the way, if you don't choose to withdraw this RFC, you probably need to advertise this is a lot more places, since you're trying to change Wikipedia's governance/checks and balance system, which is a big deal and affects a lot of people. Someone informed WP:JIMBOTALK recently, but at a minimum should probably also inform WT:ARBN and WP:CENT. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  WP:CENT seems to be missed a lot recently. See the discussion on changing either WP:V or WP:BLP at the Village Pump policy (where even the policy talk pages haven't been told). Doug Weller talk 16:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Colonestarrice. I see you reverted this RFC's removal from WP:CENT. I think it was removed because this RFC is about ready to be WP:SNOW closed. My advice at this time would be to allow it to be removed from CENT. I had a feeling this would happen (as you can see from my if you don't choose to withdraw comment above). When making RFCs, one needs to keep in mind that they are time consuming, and that the community often prefers RFCs on something that is a demonstrable problem. This RFC strikes me as dealing with a theoretical problem rather than a demonstrable problem. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe that making clear the general recognition and acceptance of Jimbo's reserve powers – especially powers of this magnitude – is important. And I believe it is the right of any editor to be aware of such an attempt at clarification. No, this issue is not urgent and yes, it is largely theoretical but that does not mean that is unimportant. I personally think and hope that the outcome of this RfC can serve as guidance in the future, should it ever be necessary. Again, I apologize that my RfC statement conveyed these points poorly, and I understand that some editors doubt the overall significance of this RfC; everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Although I agree with you that this does look like snow, I would still give this RfC some more time; it's only two days old, votes are still coming in, and we just got the first vote in favor of abolishing these reserve rights. It is unlikely that we will have another attempt at clarification in the foreseeable future, so I do believe that it is better to clarify this now, rather than in a hypothetical state of emergency. Regardless, I took your advise to heart and removed the RfC from CENT. Colonestarrice (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Leave it alone, twice over. #1, I trust Jimbo as a fail safe for a lot of potential big issues, including where WMF would be the problem and certainly not the solution. Second, this is an INFORMATION page. We don't get to make up stuff or make decisions about this topic here. North8000 (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Leave this as is. I think what has been said above is what I would say in different words. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Leave alone. Like the Queen of the United Kingdom, Wales serves as a fail-safe should this project ever be in danger of losing sight of its core mission.Slywriter (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Leave alone, per my observation in the Discussion section. --WaltCip-(talk) 19:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• I genuinely don't care at the moment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Leave alone, per all of the above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Doesn't need to be changed at the moment. If there is ever a situation in which it is likely that Jimbo will actually invoke this power, then it would make sense to have this discussion. As it currently stands, this seems like a solution in search of a problem. Mlb96 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Jimbo has made different statements, the fact that this page partially contrast with ArbPol, and the fact that these powers are not rooted in anything makes it unclear if they still exist or not and if they matter (should anything happen) or not. The fact that it is unclear if the most powerful body of the EN WP can be dissolved or overruled based on the discretion of a single person or not, is a problem in my eyes. But yes, apparently in my eyes only. Furthermore, I have the feeling that if ArbCom should hypothetically turn into some kind of junta, the last thing we want or need is a frantic long-term discussion to ascertain if Jimbo can do something against it or not. Colonestarrice (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Leave alone per WP:BROKE. I don't see the harm of having a fail-safe option available as an option of last resort. Additionally, while I'm aware that this RfC isn't attempting to amend WP:ARBPOL, my view is that, if we're going to amend something about Jimbo's role with ArbCom, we should grab the bull by the horns and just amend that instead of this information page. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• Leave alone, doesn't seem broken so no need to fix. I thought his founder bit was pulled or turned in, guess not, but I don't think if he tried anything drastic it would actually stand, as the Board could reverse it and pull his bit or even expel him if they wanted to. Too bad, because for my part I trust Jimbo for many reasons, and getting rid of Jimbo would be like Apple getting rid of Steve Jobs: arrogant, stupid, and destructive (the trifecta!). Other organizations have prospered on the principle of their founders staying in power and leading them forward according to his or her vision. Microsoft did, Apple did, Facebook does, Amazon does, and I think Google and probably others such as Twitter etc. Granted, these organizations are amoral at best and some are evil, but that doesn't change the point: they are successful. Just because we are not evil doesn't mean we can't follow the same paradigm.

At any rate, Jimbo has stepped back and/or been pushed back, so it's not even an issue. The Board and CEO is who I would worry about, but on a purely *physical* level they can do what they want and there'd be no stopping them, so not worth worrying about. Herostratus (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Leave alone. Not a practical problem. The reserve powers are useful if for some reason ArbCom irreparably breaks down because e.g. Vladimir Putin buys off half of them and Xi Jinping the other half... Sandstein 10:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• Should be scrapped. There's no role for a king or some other kind of dictator in a consensus-based encyclopaedia, and even if there were there's not a great reason for why Wales is the ideal person to fill those shoes other than his role in early Wikipedia. But any amendment to the Arbitration Policy requires a petition of 100 editors and an RfC gaining consensus for the change; I think any change to ArbCom in principle should require similar levels of consensus. Even if there were appetite to make this change, and I doubt there is based on the above, that would be a significant waste of community time just to remove the provision off the books, given that it has no practical meaning to it.
  For the record, the arguments above that Wales acts as a failsafe are completely unconvincing; if there were truly a crisis in ArbCom, unilateral decisions by Jimbo clearly aren't going to be the calm way out of the sticky situation. If Russian agents took over ArbCom I think that falls into the realm of WMF intervention, not Jimbo rule. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• Not actually an RfC The OP has been unable to articulate any disputes, policies, guidelines or article content that outside input can clarify regarding the role of the founder. This is merely idle constitutionalist speculation and not something that is changeable through the RfC process. The pseudo-RfC question is founded on two parallel but equally fundamental misconceptions: that there is a question that editing community needs to answer and that there is a question that the editing community can answer. This is a privately-owned website and the illusion of democratic processes we enjoy is at the sufferance of the site owners. If role of the founder vis-à-vis ArbCom or, much more to the point, the WMF and the Board are ever in play in any serious way, they will resolve that question themselves without our input. There is nothing this or any other editor discussion can impose on those interests. This should be WP:SNOW closed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  Those are also very good points. This being a philisophical RfC on "constitutional powers" probably has no meaning regardless of its result. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know the Board of Trustees has never interfered with community processes, so it would be very unlikely for it to interfere in a hypothetical dispute between Jimbo and ArbCom. Intervening would always be a pollical loss for the Board, regardless of its decision, and I doubt that the WMF would want to risk a mass exodus of editors (like WP:FRAMGATE caused) because it intervened when it shouldn't have. Only resolutions of the Board of Trustees outrank (community-created) policy, so if the Board doesn't interfere, the decision on how to handle such a hypothetical case will be up to the community. Colonestarrice (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

You decided to interrupt the Village Pump Policy. Very unlike you, with all due respect. -47.196.35.44 (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I beg you pardon? Can you elaborate on that please? Colonestarrice (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

At the top, it is asked, Should Jimmy Wales (continue) to have the power to overrule and dissolve the Arbitration Committee? Then in Conclusion is stated, This RfC exists for the purpose of clarifying Jimmy Wales' reserve powers as well as their nature and status. It is not intended to expand or undermine his authority. Are these two statements compatible? 71.247.146.98 (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, different or contradictory statements by Jimmy Wales, local policy, and prior discussions have made the current status, nature, and extent of his reserve powers opaque. The purpose of this RfC is to clear this up. It is not indented however, to expand or decrease his clearly established authority. But I do understand that the current wording may cause confusion, so I will reword this. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

...The confusion being that if Jumbo does not continue to have that power, it could be thought of as a reduction of his authority, which is a bit more forceful than a "clarification". Not taking sides on this one, just pointing out an apparent inconsistency. 65.88.88.75 (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Of all the things to spend time on Wikipedia, this ranks about as unimportant as the Queen's role in Canadian affairs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with Headbomb there. If Jimbo ever were to exercise these powers, then we just would pull a Luxemburg and move on. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• How do you propose to actually modify that paragraph? Merely deleting that sentence blindly will put the rest of that paragraph out of context, where it then links to Jimbo's comments about it in 2004, June 2008, and then his contradictory April 2007 quote? Change it to "originally retained the authority", "originally asserted authority", or something else? Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of how this RfC ends, I don't think I would advise changing existing text at all. I would suggest appending a paragraph that mentions the RfC outcome, so that it can later serve as guidance should it ever be needed. Colonestarrice (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• These hypotheticals remind me of Mike Bartlett's wonderful King Charles III. Fortunately I just had a brief software-enforced break from Wikimedia in which I could focus my efforts on this iambic(-ish) tribute to that play:

  The day that Jimbo finds an ArbCom needs
  To be remade, or overturns a sanc-
  tion as no fair, he'll know the people will
  For sure say "No!", demanding he reverse,
  Resign, or both. Perhaps he will good rea-
  son have. Perhaps he'll make his case; we'll un-
  derstand. Perhaps we'll think it nonsense and
  Repeal his foundership. We've had no fear
  Of such to date.
  So.
  We'll know then, won't we?

• With apologies to Mr. Bartlett, to my various writing teachers throughout life, and to people in general. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  With apologies to Mr. Bartlett, to my various writing teachers throughout life, and to people in general. Hahahaha :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• I think Jimbo using his powers will be the absolute least of our problems if things ever get to the point where he feels that he needs to intervene.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Having read the entire discussion three times through, I have yet to understand why it is proposed. Why are the reserve powers an issue? Why is it an issue now? What threat to the project does the (never-exercised and largely-theoretical) reserve powers represent? This looks like process for the sake of process and not because there is anything going on that needs to be addressed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I tried to make my RfC statement as neutral and factual as possible but apparently the consequence of that, is that it fails to convey my point.

If one considers all the facts, it is unclear if Jimbo's reserve powers still exist or not, and if they matter or not should anything happen. Colonestarrice (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

If they exist or not, what is the effect of that? If they exist or not, why is that a problem? What is the impetus? This seems to be nothing more than idle speculation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for conveying my point so poorly. I personally believe that such significant powers should never be vague, even if the person who holds these powers ultimately never makes use of them. I cannot elaborate beyond that, but you are fully entitled to opine otherwise. Colonestarrice (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removing Jimbo's ability to overturn ArbCom

Hi all, please see this petition to amend the arbitration policy to remove Jimbo Wales's ability to overturn ArbCom decisions, which needs a 100 signatures as per the formal amendment process. Galobtter (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)