Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Sunday 02 March 2008 19:20, David Gerard wrote:
On 03/03/2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Sunday 02 March 2008 18:56, David Gerard wrote:
The arbcom is quite happy to remove the admin bit from *bad* admins as needed, sometimes in a sudden midnight swoop.
Admins are servants of the community, not the Arbitrary Committee; thus, de-adminning is properly a community decision.
And the arbcom is the elected power of last resort in en:wp
Hardly.
Created not by community consensus but by the dictate of one user, who still maintains final control over its makeup.
Sure, that one user is the founder of the project. As you're well aware, I'm an Objectivist; I recognize that the WMF has every moral right to do what it pleases with Wikipedia. That doesn't mean it *should*, or that I'm obligated to *like it*. If Jimbo says this is a community project, then, on a personal level, I'm going to hold him to it. He shouldn't consider himself anything special.
No, I'm not going to sue him or the Foundation for exercising its natural inherent rights over the property it controls. But while these people have the right to be hypocrites with their own property, it's still wrong, and I'm going to do whatever I can, non-coercively, to get them to stop.
Please don't name call on the list.
More to the point, the community has what we call advisory elections, and the founder does, for the most part, hold to them. It is not unusual for collaborative projects to have a project leader step in from time to time in the cooperate world, as has been my experience. This is not always A Bad Thing.
./scream