User:Robert McClenon/Governance

Revised Statement by Robert McClenon to ArbCom
First, User:Sandstein is entirely correct that this is not a case that is within the scope of ArbCom. The ArbCom was set up by the WMF to deal with disputes between editors that the community cannot solve. It was not set up by the WMF to deal with disputes between the community and the WMF. ArbCom cannot open a case involving any of the issues about sanctions on User:Fram or any action taken with regard to any other administrator.

Second, User:Montanabw is correct that the English Wikipedia does not have an effective governance process. The WMF has sent a two-part message. First, the WMF has no confidence in the ArbCom. The ArbCom should have been the forum that dealt with issues involving conduct by an administrator, but the WMF found it necessary to take action without asking or involving the ArbCom. That was a finding of no confidence in the ArbCom. I do not know whether the WMF was right in that judgment. My guess, unfortunately, is that the WMF was right in ignoring the ArbCom. Second, the WMF recognizes that the English Wikipedia community is not governing itself effectively, either via the ArbCom or via the "community" process. The English Wikipedia is able to deal effectively with trolls, vandals, flamers, and other editors who are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. It does not deal effectively with harassment, misogyny, bullying, persistent POV-pushing, or intractable content disputes involving reliability of sources. The English Wikipedia has not been able to manage its own disputes, and the WMF has had to reassert control. Any effort by ArbCom at this point to open a case would be too little and too late, and would interfere with solving the greater problem of which this is a symptom, the lack of a governance process.

The current governance of the English Wikipedia has not changed much since 2006, consisting of the ArbCom, the "community" process, which, as User:Montanabw notes, is too often simply the loudest editors, and the WMF exercising reserve powers. This governance model did not include any effective mechanism for its own evolution or for orderly change or growth. Changes, such as the biographies of living persons policy, and the Terms of Use, have been mostly instituted by the WMF. The current events illustrate that the governance model of the English Wikipedia needs to be reformed.

Third, at this point, the arbitrators have a choice as individuals, which is whether to follow User:BU Rob13 and resign, either in protest, or as recognition that ArbCom is not effective, or for any other reason, or continue to represent the English Wikipedia community. Those arbitrators who continue to represent the English Wikipedia community should take a lead role both in explaining the current situation to the community and in working with the WMF to establish an effective governance system for the English Wikipedia.

Reply to User:BU Rob13
Thank you for the clarification. By the way, I was concurring with a similar point made by User:Sandstein. While ArbCom can consider the actions taken by the admins in wheel-warring against the WMF, either concurring with or fighting against the WMF Office at this point would be absurd. We appear to be in agreement that the arbitrators should recognize that the governance of the English Wikipedia has not been working and needs to be reformed.

Reply to User:SlimVirgin
Thank you for the clarification that the biographies of living persons policy was initiated by editors in the community. There have been very few significant changes in policies, because the community is not a workable mechanism for initiating policy changes.

Existing Problems
The governance of the English Wikipedia has not changed much in fifteen years, in spite of extraordinary expansion of the encyclopedia. It has significant institutional limitations both for dealing with conduct and for resolving policy issues.

The immediate cause of the current crisis is that there is no accepted confidential mechanism for reporting misconduct such as harassment without identifying the person, normally the victim, reporting the conduct. It appears that the lack of a well-defined and widely accepted mechanism for reporting harassment is the reason why the WMF found it necessary to bypass the ArbCom, acting on their own residual legal authority.

The ability to resolve issues of editor conduct is split between a low level, the ability of any administrator to block any user, and to unblock a user, and a high level, where either “the community” or the ArbCom can review and act on a case. There is no intermediate or middle level at which conduct issues can be addressed. This is compounded by the reluctance of the ArbCom to accept cases, typically to allow “the community” more time to address difficult issues, too often simply with more venting of anger. One result is that some editors are unblockable (that is, only blocked briefly and repeatedly unblocked) because once an editor is blocked, and then unblocked by a single administrator, a subsequent block would be considered punitive. The principle that blocks are preventive and not punitive, combined with decentralized blocks and unblocks, results in a "second mover advantage" for an unblocking administrator. The unblock is not subject to review, because reversing an unblock would be punitive rather than preventive. One result that high-profile editors who are considered “excellent content creators” can be uncivil without lasting consequence.

The community consensus model of decision-making is often unworkable for establishing or revising policy. It often results in status quo being frozen when there is widespread dissatisfaction, because no one alternative has consensus support and there is no practical means to resolve such issues.

The Way Forward
The action taken by the WMF against Fram should be recognized as a signal that changes are coming to the English Wikipedia that will be driven at least partly by the WMF. Mere railing against the intervention of the WMF in what has been handled by ArbCom in the past, or not handled by ArbCom, will not be productive. Arguments about free speech are not only unproductive but fundamentally wrong, misreading the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The First Amendment provides that the US Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. As A.J. Liebling observed, freedom of the press applies to those who own a press. The WMF owns the servers. It is true that a third party can fork the content of the English Wikipedia; the copyleft creates that peculiar public right of ownership of the content.

The members of the ArbCom first have a decision as individuals, which is whether to follow the lead of User:BU Rob13 and resign, either in protest, or in recognition that the ArbCom is not effective, or in preparation for a hard fork of the English Wikipedia to new servers with new ownership, or for any other reason. The ArbCom has been elected to represent the English Wikipedia community, and the remaining arbitrators will be the remaining representatives of the community, and will be responsible for coordinating the reform of the English Wikipedia with the WMF.

The WMF has shown that it intends to take a role in the governance of the English Wikipedia, for which it is ultimately legally responsible. It is unrealistic and naïve to expect that the action on Fram was an off-by-one that will not be repeated. The ArbCom and other volunteer editors need to work out a mixed form of governance, in which the WMF has final legal responsibility and can also provide professional resources, but in which the vast majority of decisions continue to be made by the community.

While the intervention of the WMF in the community is unwelcome and painful, there may be some positive consequences that can be worked out of this crisis (in addition to the obvious negative consequences). These include reviewing the blocking and unblocking policy, and possibly introducing some improved form of block review that mitigates the second mover advantage. More generally, the idea that blocks are purely preventive rather than partly preventive and partly punitive has utopian aspects, and should be revised so that blocks are acknowledged to be both preventive and punitive.

A few years ago, Jimbo Wales suggested that the WMF could provide the services of professional mediators to address a few otherwise intractable disputes. This would be desirable if it could be assured that the professional resources are the servants and not the masters of the community.