I'm not particularly convinced this is true.
It's very likely the
case that if some commanding mandate came from the community
requesting Jimbo step down that he would, but I don't think the mere
act of saying it would make it so. Jimbo compares his role of QEII on
occasion, and it's definitely the case that in at least some of the
countries where she's Queen, she can only de jure be removed from her
position with her permission.
What de jure power does Jimbo have at the moment? His power is purely
de facto, so a de facto removal is all that's required. Wikipedia runs
of consensus, it doesn't run on rules imposed from on high (expect for
a few specific things like NPOV, non-free content, etc).
As for how you remove the queen without her permission - it's called a
rebellion and they happen all the time. If the law doesn't let you do
what you want, you make a new law and if you're the one with troops on
the ground (and the popular support, ideally), that law is the one
that matters.
That said, I think you'd be hard pressed to round
up much support for
petitioning Jimbo to relinquish that authority to the community. But
do feel free to open a discussion.
At the moment, I agree. There have been various scandals involving
Jimbo lately, but I don't think many Wikipedians believe a word of it
(I certainly don't), so I doubt many people would see much point in
removing him from power. It is possible that things will change in
time - already Jimbo's opinion doesn't always match community
consensus, and as consensus changes (or Jimbo's opinion changes), that
gap may widen to the point where people don't consider it appropriate
for him to have such power.