John Lee wrote:
I think that's what those of us bitching about Jimbo's ostensible abandonment of involvement in the wiki have in mind. There's nobody on Wikipedia who can absolutely put his or her foot down on something and say, "Stop it you f*ckfaces, that's just wrong". Some members of the arbcom could theoretically do that, but at the risk of eroding what authority and semblance of impartiality they have. IMO, a number of major disputes related to the userbox wars, wheel warring, etc. could probably have been resolved with less acrimony had Jimbo, Angela or someone else with their level of authority stepped in. As things stand, there's a lot of confusion and ill-will within the community, still breeding and stagnating.
Hopefully this all part of the wiki process, and we'll manage just fine without Jimbo. Still, I have my doubts about how much longer we can continue to scale the old model.
I agree that having someone on hand who can make these decisions is important. Obviously Jimbo can't do it all himself, because he can't be everywhere at once or spend the time needed to fully understand the specific disputes. It's not at all a question of the positions that he supports or what articles he would choose to delete. When he only occasionally steps in it makes matters worse because those appearances are unpredictable, and it leaves offenders with the hope that he will somehow step in and take their side.
The authority of such a person would be separately determined for each sister project. The issue really breaks down to what kind of person would be suitable to the task. 1. The person must have the Jimbo's trust to the extent that Jimbo will not override his decisions without first discussing the issue fairly but not necessarily publicly with him. 2. The person must have the broad trust of the community even when he takes unpopular decisions. 3. The person must be seen as more a conciliator than one who insists that there is only one solution for every problem. 4. The person must be capable of finding a balance between public consensus and established policy. There are times when rigid adherence to policy is completely wrong, and other times when public consensus fails to consider the broader implications of that consensus. 5. The person must accept that he will sometimes make decisions that will incur hostile responses. 6. The person needs to be appointed rather than elected. The risk in an election is that it leaves a minority that may not feel represented by the person. 7. Etc.
Ec