Wikipedia is one of a dozen projects of Wikimedia, ^[1] an organization owned and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. ^[2] The overall control is by the ten-member Wikimedia Board of Trustees of whom Jimmy Wales is Chairman Emeritus. The present membership is found here. Pursuant to this authority, the Board of Trustees promulgated New Terms of use effective May 25, 2012.

The contributors or editors of Wikipedia participate subject to a number of policies and guidelines governing behavior and content. These rules are supervised by various authorities: Jimmy Wales, nominally in a position of ultimate authority although he has deferred in most instances to the leadership of Wikipedia, ^{[3] [4]} the ~34 present Bureaucrats or Crats, ^[5] the ~700 active Administrators or Admins, ^[6] and another group called the Arbitration Committee or ArbCom with 15-18 members or Arbs, depending upon the rules adopted each year. The Wikimedia Foundation or its designated agents also have authority to impose bans against IP addresses for pages, topics, or the entire site. ^[7]

An up-to-date count of all Wikipedia participants in each functional capacity is maintained at Wikipedia:Wikipedians

Stewards

Among the functionaries of Wikimedia are the Stewards ^[8] of the Wikimedia wikis who have complete access to the wiki interface on all Wikimedia wikis, including the ability to change any and all user rights and groups, view user information in cases of abuse, and so on; and the SysOps of the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki, ^[9] who manage and maintain the Wikimedia Foundation servers. The tools used by the Stewards in exercising control over the wikis of Wikimedia are described in a handbook. ^[10] They are guided by the Stewards policy, and are elected. ^[11] Some indication of the control given to Stewards and System Administrators can be found on the Wikimedia web pages. ^[9]

Bureaucrats

Bureaucrats or Crats are a category introduced in 2004, and have only a few limited activities. Among these, they may remove Administrators if so instructed by the Arbitration Committee, and appoint Administrators and Bureaucrats following a selection procedure. Selection follows a discussion process, Bureaucrats decide what criteria constitute a "consensus" upon appointment, at the end of which a Bureaucrat reviews the situation to see whether there is a "consensus". For appointment of Bureaucrats, consensus must exceed ~85%, but final judgment is one of Bureaucrat discretion. ^[12] As a result, Bureaucrats have almost complete control over appointment of new Bureaucrats. The number of newly appointed Bureaucrats has steadily declined over the years, with only two successful candidacies in 2011. Bureaucrats serve indefinitely.

Administrators

The activities of Administrators or Admins are described in a how-to guide instructing Administrators on the use of their powers. One authority is the ability to block users' IP addresses or IP address ranges to enforce bans or to prevent disruption of the project. ^[13] Blocks by an Adminstrator "must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked." ^[14] Although a reason for a block must be given, there is no formal requirement for advance notice. A number of templates for common explanations are available, and further explanation by the Admin is not required.

There is a distinction between a ban and a block. One difference is that, unless imposed directly by Jimmy Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation, a ban requires "consensus", ^[15] while a block can be imposed by a single Administrator and prevents editing to some degree, large or small. ^[16] Another difference is that a ban is a formal warning outlining restrictions under which a contributor may edit without sanction but, unlike a block, does not impose such restrictions directly. Enforcement occurs should it happen that an individual Administrator judges the ban has been violated. Upon that conclusion, without further consultation, that Administrator can impose sanctions suggested in the ban to enforce that ban. ^[15] If such action results in a block, "Unblocking will almost never be acceptable when the block is explicitly enforcing an active Arbitration remedy and there is not ArbCom authorization or 'a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents)'" ^[17]

Another activity of Administrators is the granting of permissions to contributors to augment their editing capabilities.

The nomination and selection of Administrators is supervised by Bureaucrats, who decide whether, in their opinion, a candidate has garnered sufficient support in the discussion of a candidacy, a process like that for appointing Bureaucrats. A "consensus" exceeding ~70% is required, but the judgement of Bureaucrats is the deciding factor. A list of unsuccessful requests shows the number of refusals peaked at 543 in 2006 with 353 acceptances, and has steadily declined since as the number of applicants has dropped off, with only 155 refusals and 75 acceptances in 2010, and 88 refusals and 52 acceptances as of 2011 (about a 3.4% increase in membership).

Administrators serve indefinitely, but can have their administrative status removed by Bureaucrats if the Arbitration Committee formally requests it. ^[18] "Throughout the history of the project, there has been a convention that adminship may be removed only in cases of clear abuse." ^[19] A possible exception to the "clear abuse" criterion is the Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity, which appropriates to the Arbitration Committee the power to limit an Administrator's activities whenever the Arbitration Committee deems that Administrator "consistently make[s] questionable enforcement administrative actions", and to decommission the Administrator if they override another Administrator's actions without the Arbitration Committee's written authorization or "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors". ^[20]

As of 2009 there had been 47 removals during the history of WP, and following 2009 no public record has been maintained of these actions. ^[21] Of the approximately 1,526 Administrators empowered, 207 (or 13.5%) have declared themselves open to recall under circumstances devised by themselves. ^{[22] [23]}

There is a provision for possible removal of inactive Administrators, but "if the user returns to Wikipedia, they may be resysopped by a bureaucrat without further discussion". ^[24]

Although attempts have been made to implement a community-based removal of Administrators, ^[25] none has ever been agreed upon.

Arbitration Committee

Members of the Arbitration Committee (referred to as ArbCom), or Arbs, act in concert or in sub-groups to impose binding solutions to conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve, mainly by imposing, or defining violations under which they will impose, bans and blocks upon users' IP addresses. The Arbitration Committee "has no jurisdiction over official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff". ^[26] In July 2012 there were 14 active arbitrators identified, all of whom were administrators. ^[27]

Aside from enforcing an end to disputes, the Arbitration Committee can expunge material from any form of usual access, or give specific users the ability to remove some types of edits from the revision history, for example, material considered defamatory. ^[28] These powers also can be exercised by Stewards of Wikimedia. ^[29]

The Arbitration Committee can request Bureaucrats to exercise de-Adminship under the circumstances described under Administrators.

Arbitrators are elected annually in one-year or overlapping two-year terms, and also can be appointed directly by Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation. The election rules are debated each year. Although nomination is subject only to rather broad criteria, in practice only Administrators have succeeded in being selected as Arbitrators. ^[30]

Adjudication

ArbCom has very wide latitude in adjudication, as indicated by the following freedoms: ArbCom is free to widen or to divert a case to any subject of their choosing. ^[31] They are empowered to rule preemptively based upon conjectures about the future. ^{[32] [33]} Rulings need not follow guidelines and policies; deliberations are not based upon the "rule of law". ^{[34] [35]} They are free to adopt opinion, ^[36] and are not required to assess "who said what in the past". ^[33]

Though disputes commonly arise over content, with the exception of topic bans the Arbitration Committee explicitly excludes all content issues from their deliberations and focuses upon disciplinary actions. ^[37]

The difference between edit warring as disruptive behavior and as an attempt to straighten out what an article says may depend upon who is considering the issue. ^[38]

Although edit warring in principle refers to Main-page editing, in practice it is considered disruptive to argue too much on the Talk page as well, and extended discussion may be viewed as tendentious editing, or refusal to get the point, or interfering with consensus, ^[39] all forms of misconduct and therefore subject to discipline.

Wikimedia Foundation

Wikipedia is one of a dozen projects of Wikimedia, ^[1] an organization owned and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, ^[2] non-profit corporation incorporated 20 June 2003 under the law of Florida by filing Articles of Incorporation with the Division of Corporations of the under the Secretary of State of Florida. It is stated in the Articles that direction is to be pursuant to the Wikimedia Foundation bylaws.

The current bylaws were adopted October 2012. Ultimate control is by the ten-member Wikimedia Board of Trustees of whom Jimmy Wales is Chairman Emeritus. The present membership is found here.

Pursuant to this authority, the Board of Trustees promulgated New Terms of use effective May 25, 2012. The Terms subject all contracting parties to a Choice of law provision for the law of California (and therefore the Constitution and law of the United States via the Constitution of California) and include a Forum selection clause restricting action "in a state or federal court located in San Francisco County, California", implying the San Francisco County Superior Court and the District Court for the Northern District of California (assuming a federal court is always "located in" the fairly small city).

Terms

The main crux of policy can be stated thus:

Certain activities, whether legal or illegal, may be harmful to other users and violate our rules, and some activities may also subject you to liability. Therefore, for your own protection and for that of other users, you may not engage in such activities on our sites. These activities include:

Harassing and Abusing Others

• Engaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism; and
• Transmitting chain mail, junk mail, or spam to other users.

Violating the Privacy of Others

• Infringing the privacy rights of others under the laws of the United States of America or other applicable laws (which may include the laws where you live or where you view or edit content);
• Soliciting personally identifiable information for purposes of harassment, exploitation, violation of privacy, or any promotional or commercial purpose not explicitly approved by the Wikimedia Foundation; and
• Soliciting personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18 for an illegal purpose or violating any applicable law regarding the health or well-being of minors.

Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation, or Fraud

• Intentionally or knowingly posting content that constitutes libel or defamation;
• With the intent to deceive, posting content that is false or inaccurate;
• Attempting to impersonate another user or individual, misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the username of another user with the intent to deceive; and
• Engaging in fraud.

Committing Infringement

• Infringing copyrights, trademarks, patents, or other proprietary rights under applicable law.

Misusing Our Services for Other Illegal Purposes

• Posting child pornography or any other content that violates applicable law concerning child pornography;
• Posting or trafficking in obscene material that is unlawful under applicable law; and
• Using the services in a manner that is inconsistent with applicable law.

Engaging in Disruptive and Illegal Misuse of Facilities

• Posting or distributing content that contains any viruses, malware, worms, Trojan horses, malicious code, or other device that could harm our technical infrastructure or system or that of our users;
• Engaging in automated uses of the site that are abusive or disruptive of the services and have not been approved by the Wikimedia community;
• Disrupting the services by placing an undue burden on a Project website or the networks or servers connected with a Project website;
• Disrupting the services by inundating any of the Project websites with communications or other traffic that suggests no serious intent to use the Project website for its stated purpose;
• Knowingly accessing, tampering with, or using any of our non-public areas in our computer systems without authorization; and
• Probing, scanning, or testing the vulnerability of any of our technical systems or networks unless all the following conditions are met:

• such actions do not unduly abuse or disrupt our technical systems or networks;
• such actions are not for personal gain (except for credit for your work);
• you report any vulnerabilities to MediaWiki developers (or fix it yourself); and
• you do not undertake such actions with malicious or destructive intent.

We reserve the right to exercise our enforcement discretion with respect to the above terms.

References and notes