In a message dated 3/13/2008 8:18:02 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, thomas.dalton@gmail.com writes:
(I think it's still on the books that you can appeal to Jimbo, but that's only intended for exceptional circumstances>>
--------------------------
Can someone find this, so it can be removed? Thanks Will Johnson
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
On 13/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/13/2008 8:18:02 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, thomas.dalton@gmail.com writes:
(I think it's still on the books that you can appeal to Jimbo, but that's only intended for exceptional circumstances>>
Can someone find this, so it can be removed? Thanks
No, it's still the case for arbcom penalties.
- d.
The ArbCom claims to derive it's authority from Jimbo's authority, so such a "route of appeal" remains necessary until ArbCom gets some new mandate. Presumably, we could (as a community) seperately empower ArbCom (or a similar body), but it's unclear how we can remove Jimbo's vestigial authority apart from asking nicely.
WilyD
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 2:49 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/13/2008 8:18:02 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton@gmail.com writes:
(I think it's still on the books that you can appeal to Jimbo, but that's only intended for exceptional circumstances>>
Can someone find this, so it can be removed? Thanks Will Johnson
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
folk might be interested in; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OMBUDSMEN an idea driven by User:Bstone in a similar vein, and it's probably also somewhat relevant that the foundation are proposing to vote on the creation of a 'volunteer council' which may or may not have similar intentions - it's a big hard to tell! http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-March/039756.html
cheers,
PM.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 5:00 AM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
The ArbCom claims to derive it's authority from Jimbo's authority, so such a "route of appeal" remains necessary until ArbCom gets some new mandate. Presumably, we could (as a community) seperately empower ArbCom (or a similar body), but it's unclear how we can remove Jimbo's vestigial authority apart from asking nicely.
WilyD
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 2:49 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/13/2008 8:18:02 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton@gmail.com writes:
(I think it's still on the books that you can appeal to Jimbo, but that's only intended for exceptional circumstances>>
Can someone find this, so it can be removed? Thanks Will Johnson
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 13/03/2008, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
The ArbCom claims to derive it's authority from Jimbo's authority, so such a "route of appeal" remains necessary until ArbCom gets some new mandate. Presumably, we could (as a community) seperately empower ArbCom (or a similar body), but it's unclear how we can remove Jimbo's vestigial authority apart from asking nicely.
We remove his authority by simply declaring it to be gone. He only has authority because we accept that he does. If we want to, we can have a big on wiki discussion and if there's a consensus to remove Jimbo's powers over arbcom, then that's that. (I suppose there may be a need to get the "new" ArbCom ratified by the foundation so it can grant checkuser access etc., but I can't see that being a problem, I'm not sure if it would even be necessary.)
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/03/2008, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
The ArbCom claims to derive it's authority from Jimbo's authority, so such a "route of appeal" remains necessary until ArbCom gets some new mandate. Presumably, we could (as a community) seperately empower ArbCom (or a similar body), but it's unclear how we can remove Jimbo's vestigial authority apart from asking nicely.
We remove his authority by simply declaring it to be gone. He only has authority because we accept that he does. If we want to, we can have a big on wiki discussion and if there's a consensus to remove Jimbo's powers over arbcom, then that's that. (I suppose there may be a need to get the "new" ArbCom ratified by the foundation so it can grant checkuser access etc., but I can't see that being a problem, I'm not sure if it would even be necessary.)
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.
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.
WilyD
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.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Err, at the very least, on en.wiki, he's the sole member of the "founder" class. He appoints people to ArbCom, and determines the number of members. Jimbo made this statement: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/069100.html which seems he's now under the authority of ArbCom too - seems odd.
Perhaps his only remaining 'de jure' authority is to appoint or de-appoint ArbCom members. But somebody here or there may be aware of others. As for open rebellion - not without the foundation's support. Can't just occupy the servers. ;)
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.
You could always run a strawpoll.
WilyD
Err, at the very least, on en.wiki, he's the sole member of the "founder" class.
That's just a courtesy title, as far as I know, there are no rights associated with that user group.
Perhaps his only remaining 'de jure' authority is to appoint or de-appoint ArbCom members.
"de jure" under what law and enforced how?
As for open rebellion - not without the foundation's support. Can't just occupy the servers. ;)
We wouldn't need the foundations support, we would just need them not to object (and if they do, there's always the option to fork, but things would have to get seriously bad for us to even consider that). Jimbo has no direct power over the servers (he has a single vote in board meetings, that's it).
You could always run a strawpoll.
I have no desire to oust Jimbo, so I'm not going to start any polls on the matter. If anyone else does want to oust him, they are, of course, welcome to try.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Err, at the very least, on en.wiki, he's the sole member of the "founder" class.
That's just a courtesy title, as far as I know, there are no rights associated with that user group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels
This page says it enables his to grant and remove permissions. On en.wiki, Jimbo is listed as Founder, Oversight, Admin - he's also a Stewart on Meta (and Bureaucrat and Sysop) so the point's moot anyhow.
Perhaps his only remaining 'de jure' authority is to appoint or de-appoint ArbCom members.
"de jure" under what law and enforced how?
Of course, Wikipedia has no "laws", but the "WP:ArbCom" policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy notes "Remedies and enforcement actions may be appealed to, and are subject to modification by, Jimbo Wales. An exception is that if a case involves review of one of Jimbo's own administrator or steward actions, Jimbo has agreed to accept the committee's decision as final."
This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee acknowledges that Jimbo appoints people to the ArbCom, but maybe it's "de jure" impossible for anyone to get on ArbCom, and just "de facto" that Jimbo appoints them.
As for open rebellion - not without the foundation's support. Can't just occupy the servers. ;)
We wouldn't need the foundations support, we would just need them not to object (and if they do, there's always the option to fork, but things would have to get seriously bad for us to even consider that). Jimbo has no direct power over the servers (he has a single vote in board meetings, that's it).
Er, obviously one could fork. But the control of the website et al. rests with devs & stewarts & so on. Not mere plebs
You could always run a strawpoll.
I have no desire to oust Jimbo, so I'm not going to start any polls on the matter. If anyone else does want to oust him, they are, of course, welcome to try.
Err, I didn't mean to suggest that you wanted to. Merely that if you wanted to gauge the community, it could be done. Regardless of my or your personal opinion, if the community's unhappy, a strawpoll revealing that seems worthwhile. I don't believe it is, though.
WilyD
On 14/03/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
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.
His frequently-stated plan is to slowly divest himself of special powers on en:wp, basically because (a) Jimbo doesn't scale (b) there are other things for him to be getting on with. But the public-relations role of a royalty-style figurehead are in practice still very useful to us, and are part of the work under (b) (e.g. an obvious contact for BLP issues - although these are then handed to the same community members who answer info@wikimedia.org, hence stressing that emailing that address is every bit as effective).
That is, a British-style revolution, happening in a slow and orderly manner over a length of time. Although Charles I's reign ended somewhat abruptly, the changes in power since Charles II would be the sort of things that would happen in a revolution - the British royal family's job now being not the direct exercise of power, but mostly public relations and tourism, with the ear of the government of the day. I expect it will take Wikipedia less than 300 years to effect this, of course ;-)
- d.