Point of clarification... does Jimmy Wales have the authority to impose a "global ban" on a user?
http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Community_Review/Wik...
Sincerely,
Gregory Kohs
sometimes things with broad community support don't really bear examination ;-) http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/internet-filter-survey-results
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Gregory Kohs wrote:
Point of clarification... does Jimmy Wales have the authority to impose a "global ban" on a user?
Yes, Jimmy has always had such rights, and he continues to enjoy broad community support.
-- Tim Starling
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, Your video is only viewable in Australia.. Aparantly filtering / censoring works in two directions; not only to keep things out but also to keep things in. Thanks, GerardM
On 25 March 2010 06:16, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
sometimes things with broad community support don't really bear examination ;-) http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/internet-filter-survey-results
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Tim Starling <tstarling@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Gregory Kohs wrote:
Point of clarification... does Jimmy Wales have the authority to impose a "global ban" on a user?
Yes, Jimmy has always had such rights, and he continues to enjoy broad community support.
-- Tim Starling
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, Your video is only viewable in Australia.. Aparantly filtering / censoring works in two directions; not only to keep things out but also to keep things in.
The video is just an animated version of the slideshow that they put up on flickr, with a voiceover that's a summary of the text on that page. So you're not missing much.
Or to put it another way, you're not missing anything which might be on-topic for foundation-l.
-- Tim Starling
On 25 March 2010 02:51, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Gregory Kohs wrote:
Point of clarification... does Jimmy Wales have the authority to impose a "global ban" on a user?
Yes, Jimmy has always had such rights, and he continues to enjoy broad community support.
-- Tim Starling
No he doesn't. However he didn't actually impose a global ban in this case but it is unlikely there are any significant wikimedia projects that would not block the individual in question on sight.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:49 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 March 2010 02:51, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Gregory Kohs wrote:
Point of clarification... does Jimmy Wales have the authority to impose a "global ban" on a user?
Yes, Jimmy has always had such rights, and he continues to enjoy broad community support.
-- Tim Starling
No he doesn't. However he didn't actually impose a global ban in this case but it is unlikely there are any significant wikimedia projects that would not block the individual in question on sight.
Both the "yes he does" and "no he doesn't" sides are asserting and assuming rather than reporting a known quantity.
There has been no organized or widespread attempt to either ask Jimmy to give it up or to take it away. I can name a number of individuals who assert that should happen, but there's no poll, no project, no policy proposal to do so.
We simply don't know what the community actually feels about it, in part because Jimmy uses the power so sparingly that very very few people ever encounter it firsthand.
On 25 March 2010 20:33, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Both the "yes he does" and "no he doesn't" sides are asserting and assuming rather than reporting a known quantity.
There has been no organized or widespread attempt to either ask Jimmy to give it up or to take it away. I can name a number of individuals who assert that should happen, but there's no poll, no project, no policy proposal to do so.
We simply don't know what the community actually feels about it, in part because Jimmy uses the power so sparingly that very very few people ever encounter it firsthand.
Well there isn't really any mechanism to carry out a global ban the various languages don't talk to each other enough for that.
A more realistic say english language project ban would be entirely dependent on how the various communities of admins felt about the individual in question. Certainly it has been shown that at the present time there is no project that considers Jimbo's word to be final.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 4:33 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
There has been no organized or widespread attempt to either ask Jimmy to give it up or to take it away. I can name a number of individuals who assert that should happen, but there's no poll, no project, no policy proposal to do so.
There is now: * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag*http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Founder/Proposal_to_the_rights_removal
I qualified it with "organized or widespread", and did so for a reason...
There is currently one upset individual, and perhaps a few mild supporters of the effort, but there is no evidence of widespread support.
Putting up a page on a wiki for an idea does not equal organization or widespread support...
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Benjamin Lees emufarmers@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 4:33 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
There has been no organized or widespread attempt to either ask Jimmy to give it up or to take it away. I can name a number of individuals who assert that should happen, but there's no poll, no project, no policy proposal to do so.
There is now: * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag*http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Founder/Proposal_to_the_rights_removal _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 25 March 2010 21:33, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Benjamin Lees emufarmers@gmail.com wrote:
There is now: * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag*http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Founder/Proposal_to_the_rights_removal
Putting up a page on a wiki for an idea does not equal organization or widespread support...
It's a great page, though. "Silly. The whole case is about a troll having been slapped properly and then crying manslaughter."
- d.
George Herbert wrote:
Both the "yes he does" and "no he doesn't" sides are asserting and assuming rather than reporting a known quantity.
There has been no organized or widespread attempt to either ask Jimmy to give it up or to take it away. I can name a number of individuals who assert that should happen, but there's no poll, no project, no policy proposal to do so.
We simply don't know what the community actually feels about it, in part because Jimmy uses the power so sparingly that very very few people ever encounter it firsthand.
Whether or not the use of the power is justified, it's use almost guarantees that drama will follow. That alone makes more diplomatic channels preferable.
Ec
Hoi. It is important that there is a method to puncture boils. It has already been remarked that Jimmy does not use his powers often. Given that there are ALWAYS people who have the opposite view, it is hardly relevant that there will be drama. There always is. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 March 2010 02:00, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
Both the "yes he does" and "no he doesn't" sides are asserting and assuming rather than reporting a known quantity.
There has been no organized or widespread attempt to either ask Jimmy to give it up or to take it away. I can name a number of individuals who assert that should happen, but there's no poll, no project, no policy proposal to do so.
We simply don't know what the community actually feels about it, in part because Jimmy uses the power so sparingly that very very few people ever encounter it firsthand.
Whether or not the use of the power is justified, it's use almost guarantees that drama will follow. That alone makes more diplomatic channels preferable.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Whether or not the use of the power is justified, it's use almost guarantees that drama will follow. That alone makes more diplomatic channels preferable.
Drama is not always a bad thing. Where we have one Wikimedia project supporting disruption of another, decisive action doesn't seem entirely uncalled for. The message sent is pretty clear: this sort of behavior won't be tolerated.
Is that a bad message to send?
-- Luna Santin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Luna_Santin
Gregory Kohs wrote:
Point of clarification... does Jimmy Wales have the authority to impose a "global ban" on a user?
http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Community_Review/Wik...
Until such time as there is created a body with greater legitimacy to declare such, he is pretty much the most qualified actor to look to in cases where global bans are necessary. So I would have to say from an effective point of view, global bans are expressed by Jimbo, more often than not. The question of authority does not arise; as it is recognized that Jimbo does so with the consent of the larger community.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org