Since I doubt I can add anything to this topic that someone else probably hasn't said beter than me, I'd like to ask if this is the consensus that is emerging from the discussion on this mailing list:
1. RK had been rude & obnoxious.
2. The act of banning him, however, sets a disturbing president.
The banning tool could be abused quite easily, e.g. two Sysops get into an edit war, which escalates to where one bans the other.
3. To prevent abuses, we need to establish -- or acknowledge -- some kind of due process. (A few people have indicated that this was followed in RK's case.)
To this, I'd like to add a following point:
4. This process should not rely on Jimbo. That's for the simple reason eventually he won't be involved as closely with Wikipedia, & may be replaced by someone who is not as ``hands-off" or ``wise" or ``lazy" as Jimbo has been, & starts to push her/his own POV onto all of us.
Geoff
Geoff Burling wrote:
- This process should not rely on Jimbo. That's for the simple reason eventually he won't be involved as closely with Wikipedia, & may be replaced by someone who is not as ``hands-off" or ``wise" or ``lazy" as Jimbo has been, & starts to push her/his own POV onto all of us.
Well, I'm not going anywhere. I might die, of course, as might happen to any of us. But I have no plans to that effect. :-)
So, although I agree that we should devise processes that rely less and less on me, it isn't because I'm not going to be as closely involved as I am now. I'm here for the long haul, as far as I know.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Geoff Burling wrote:
- This process should not rely on Jimbo. That's for the simple
reason eventually he won't be involved as closely with Wikipedia, & may be replaced by someone who is not as ``hands-off" or ``wise" or ``lazy" as Jimbo has been, & starts to push her/his own POV onto all of us.
Well, I'm not going anywhere. I might die, of course, as might happen to any of us. But I have no plans to that effect. :-)
So, although I agree that we should devise processes that rely less and less on me, it isn't because I'm not going to be as closely involved as I am now. I'm here for the long haul, as far as I know.
It's a good idea, but for the wrong reasons. The reliance sounds more like little kids whining to daddy when their brother hits therm. It can be tedious. Sometimes those kids need to learn how to solve their own problems as part of growing up.
Ec
To this, I'd like to add a following point:
- This process should not rely on Jimbo. That's for
the simple reason eventually he won't be involved as closely with Wikipedia, & may be replaced by someone who is not as ``hands-off" or ``wise" or ``lazy" as Jimbo has been, & starts to push her/his own POV onto all of us.
Geoff
I agree that we shouldn't be too dependant on Jimbo because, eventually, wikipedia will grow to big and/or Jimbo will die and he won't be able to run it anymore, but I don't see anything wrong with his current leadership. I don't see why we need a leader that tries to push their POV on everything; that's kinda undemocratic. If Jimbo ever is unfit to lead wikipedia for some reason, I think the leadership will turn over to the developers because we won't be able to get a consensus on who to be the leader, but I also think that this would be the best outcome. In any event, we can't kick Jimbo out of power because he owns the servers. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Geoff Burling wrote:
- The act of banning him, however, sets a disturbing president.
With all due respect to your mature attitude in the message, I'm not a native English speaker either, and I sometimes produce the same kind of lovely results, but this is just too precious to go unnoticed.
Gutza