On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Anthony
<wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
Wow, so he's able to delete content on *one*
of the 200+ languages of
Wikipedia. I'd still say the statement is substantially correct. He
used
to have unlimited power on every project to do
anything. Now he's
administrator on one project, and has the ability to view certain things
that other people can't view on every project.
[snip]
This is absolutely no different than any of the several other
incidents where a sysadmin or the like had the technical ability to do
something, did it, then were reminded that having the technical
ability to do it doesn't actually equate to having the _authority_ to
do it, and as a result they resigned that particular technical ability
in order to end a perpetual argument that arises because 'okay I won't
do it again' doesn't satisfy a broad enough swath of people.
(I'll leave it to people to muckrake up these events for themselves,
but there have been a couple that I can think of, I don't think it
would be fair to the involved parties to remind people of them)
Well, it's different in that it's the founder of the organization, the
technical ability was the highest given to anyone, that it was used several
times in the past (even more boldly) with impunity, etc.
Probing the bounds of your actual authority in our environment is a
necessary thing that all of us do with every BOLD
action, it's a
consequence of the generally non-hierarchical nature of the projects.
So I don't think it's justified to flog someone forever when they
cross a line that was apparently obvious to everyone except them,
especially since these things tend to seem far more black and white
after the fact.
What was the line that was crossed? It wasn't unilateral deletion. Wales
has done that and more in the past, blocking and deadminning people who
deemed to question his asserted authority, and he's gotten away with it.
But this time, it was different.
In any case, I'd say it's newsworthy, in a way that no other deadminship
ever came close to being.
Keep in mind the history of the founder privileged.
It's a very recent
thing:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2009/Jimbo_Wales
For the longest time, Jimmy was just a steward— presumably with all
the rights and restrictions that being a steward entails, such as
having the technical ability to delete things anywhere but only the
authority to do so with the consent (or, equivalently, complete
indifference) of the involved community.
I'll have to check the records, but I believe Jimbo used his powers
"unilaterally", beyond that of a normal steward, before granting himself the
founder flag. In fact, I seem to remember the founder flag being invented
in response to some questions over whether or not he had the authority to do
certain things.
But I'll have to check the records, unless you can remember what it is I'm
thinking of.
"19:10, 14 September 2008 Jimbo
Wales<http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales>
(Talk <http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales> |
contribs<http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jimbo_Wale…
) blocked Moulton <http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton>
(
Talk<http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moulton&a…
contribs <http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Moulton>)with
an expiry time of
infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) (Incivility)"
That predates the founder flag, right?