On 2/7/06, Sam Fentress (Asbestos) <asbestos999(a)gmail.com> wrote: Slightly more complicated than that: 2a. Blocking admin announces said fact on AN. 2b. General argument over blocks ensues. 2c. Another admin blocks some people for expressing support for the original block. 2d. Said people are unblocked. 2e. One of them blocks the admin mentioned in (2c). And so forth. Jimbo arrived pretty late in the game, actually. Kirill Lokshin

Jimmy Wales wrote: That's simply factually incorrect. The user was blocked once (by Carbonite), then unblocked once (by Radiant!). You then blocked the user again, without discussion, thereby starting a "wheel war". That is not "well underway"---you were the first re-blocker. The usual procedure for a controversial block is to go through normal channels. A similar thing happens with speedy deletions---if I speedy-delete someone as non-notable and it gets undeleted by someone who claims otherwise, it's not appropriate to simply speedy-delete again without discussion. -Mark

On 2/7/06, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote: Like it or not, these rules don't apply to Jimbo. Did you forget that Jimbo retains the power to ban anyone from Wikipedia, and that there is no appeal or discussion if he chooses to do so? Everyone who edits is here because he and the board permit them to. And anyone who reverts his block of a user is wheel warring. By definition, Jimbo cannot participate in a wheel war because anyone who undoes his block is wrong. Personally, I like it, because I think there has to be /someone/ who can step into shit heaps like this and just flush the whole thing down the toilet where it belongs; and that's exactly what he did. Ryan

On 2/7/06, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote: There isn't much I can do here except flatly disagree. And suggest that you try to reframe yourself, because if you continue to have this expectation, you are going to continue to be disappointed. Ryan

OK, so Jimbo can do whatever he wants and if you don't like it you can fork off. Therefore, Jimbo should avoid pissing off enough people to cause a fork to happen. Are you going to fork over this? -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

Sean Barrett wrote: Note that this is conditional---Jimbo has powers that he is trusted to use rarely and wisely. If, for example, he blanked Wikipedia and replaced it with furry porn, probably people would not agree that was a legitimate use of his powers, whether legal or not. In between is a very large gray area, from "of course that's ok", to "that might to be ok", to "ehh...". My main objection is to equating Jimbo's legal authority over the Wikimedia Foundation with his role as benevolent dictator. The latter derives essentially from the fact that he acts, well, benevolently. People support that so long as it remains benevolent. I don't claim to speak on behalf of the commuity; I'm just pointing out that his powers derive in essence from the consent of the community, and are not somehow separate from that. He'll continue to be able to herd Wikipedia so long as the vast majority of its users agree that he's doing a good job; that's quite separate from his titular position as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Wikimedia Foundation. So, if I'm wrong in criticizing his use of powers in this matter, it's because the community agrees that his intervention was a good idea, not because he somehow has freedom to do whatever he wants without discussion. -Mark

Jimbo stepped in to defuse an unpleasant situation. He then quickly directed the ArbCom to investigate and act. While I wish that the silly situation hadn't got to the stage it did, I think he did exactly the right thing once it had, and it is now in the hands of the ArbCom, who have the direct support of both the community and Jimbo. The challenge is to find some way of minimising the necessity for Jimbo to intervene directly again. Few doubt that he should have the ability to intervene in emergency, but if he were to do so as a matter of everyday business, then wikiadministration would rapidly become complex and tense. Well, more so than it is now. Peter (Skyring)

I think it is fair to say that Jimbo should never be over-ruled in he blocks somebody. The main reason is that, although there is always the argument that a block may be unfair or that it may be 'uncalled for', Jimbo deals with a whole side of Wikipedia that not many of us are 'in the know' about. And that side is the legal side of things. If there's ever a legal problem with Wikipedia, he is the first to know, and I'm sure I'm right in saying that sometimes it just isn't possible for him to go into specifics about it all. He often steps in and blanks pages, and blocks users, and that's because he is - no matter how much of a Wiki system this is - the person who, along with the other board members, essential runs Wikipedia. He's at the top of the tree. If a serious legal threat ever comes along to Wikipedia, and he blocks somebody to eliminate that legal threat, we don't want to be put at risk by a sysop coming along and unblocking because the block is 'possibly unfair'. I'd say that, when Jimbo steps in, it's pretty important. He doesn't edit 24 hours a day and when he gets involved in using his sysop capabilities on Wikipedia, it's for a very good reason. Simply put, if Jimbo needs to get involved in a 'wheel war', he doesn't need his actions to be undone. He's busy enough as it is, I'm sure, and I'm absolutely confident, as many of us are, that he is always doing what is best for Wikipedia and its future. The moral of the story? Instead of talking about how immature the 'wheel war' is, we should be trying to move on from it, and we should be making it yesterday's news today. It was mentioned earlier in this thread that 'these rules' don't apply to Jimbo, and that is something I agree with. Without Jimbo, Angela and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation, there is no Wikipedia. We need to trust their actions, and get back to building Wikipedia, not questioning it.

On 2/7/06, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote: Rubbish like this should be killed as soon as possible. When "proper channels" hamper us, we should drop them. Administrators are expected to show commonsense and not dig in their heels inappropriately over the great god Process. On blocks, I've always believed in subjecting my blocks to review. I perform the block and write it up on Administrators' Noticeboard. In my experience it makes for firmer blocks, far less likely to be challenged. One or two reviews of this kind have resulted in blocks being extended as administrators pieced together more incriminating information suggesting a long term career of abuse, which was not immediately apparent to me or any of the previous blocking admins. --~~~~

On 2/7/06, Hedley <hedleyness(a)gmail.com> wrote: He is free list "legal reasons" in the block log. None of his recent blocks appear to have been for legal reasons. There are whole sides to wikipedia Jimbo doesn't see. The same is of course true for all of us. I doubt anyone would pull a block he put in place as long as he made it clear it was for legal reasons. I will of course accept he is trying to do that. However I don't think the position that he has never made a mistake is defendible. [mode=cynical] Probably the simpest way to do that would be to start another deletion debate[/mode] You know back when Jimbo was basicaly planning to outright apoint arbcom this year he stated that the community would still have control because they made policy. I'm sure you can see the issue here.~~~~ -- geni

Tony Sidaway wrote: I didn't mean to imply that any greatly-convoluted Process should be followed, just that a bit of discussion is better than wheel-warring (just like with edit-warring). If I blocked someone and another admin blocked them, I would definitely post a message on their talk page and not immediately reblock. An exception would be something time-critical like a vandalbot, but I don't imagine those get unblocked much anyway. -Mark