Section 4.2. WRITTEN RESIGNATION. Any member may resign from the Foundation by submitting a written resignation to the Secretary. Such resignation shall be effective as of the date received by the Foundation, unless said resignation specifies another date. The Board at it’s sole discretion may maintain or remove any such user’s account from any of its projects upon such resignation.
Wait a minute there...Why should resignation from the wikimedia foundation have ANY sort of relation with the fact of being allowed to contribute to Wikipedia ?
Are we writting here that the board may have the right to erase a user account from Wikipedia, just upon the argument that the user in question decided to resign from the foundation ?
Are we saying that the board of the foundation is having any power as to decide who is allowed or not allowed to have an account ?
Anthere wrote:
Are we writting here that the board may have the right to erase a user account from Wikipedia, just upon the argument that the user in question decided to resign from the foundation ?
Are we saying that the board of the foundation is having any power as to decide who is allowed or not allowed to have an account ?
The board of the foundation has the power to decide who is allowed or not allowed to have an account, just the same as I have always had that power, ultimately. That's all it means.
--Jimbo
Anthere wrote:
Section 4.2. WRITTEN RESIGNATION. Any member may resign from the Foundation by submitting a written resignation to the Secretary. Such resignation shall be effective as of the date received by the Foundation, unless said resignation specifies another date. The Board at its sole discretion may maintain or remove any such users account from any of its projects upon such resignation.
Wait a minute there...Why should resignation from the wikimedia foundation have ANY sort of relation with the fact of being allowed to contribute to Wikipedia ?
Are we writting here that the board may have the right to erase a user account from Wikipedia, just upon the argument that the user in question decided to resign from the foundation ?
Are we saying that the board of the foundation is having any power as to decide who is allowed or not allowed to have an account ?
Perhaps the problem here is with the words "at its sole discretion". Most of these accounts would be removed as a result of a request by the resigning person. Placed where it is, it only applies to persons who have resigned. Presumably the issue would be considered elsewhere if it referred to a banned user. It is also possible that the person may wish to return with a different identity. Thus someone who has been active in our internal politics may decide to come back with a less conspicuous identity and limit his edits to a few non-controversial areas without a lot of hassle.
Ec
Ray Saintonge a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
Section 4.2. WRITTEN RESIGNATION. Any member may resign from the Foundation by submitting a written resignation to the Secretary. Such resignation shall be effective as of the date received by the Foundation, unless said resignation specifies another date. The Board at its sole discretion may maintain or remove any such users account from any of its projects upon such resignation.
Wait a minute there...Why should resignation from the wikimedia foundation have ANY sort of relation with the fact of being allowed to contribute to Wikipedia ?
Are we writting here that the board may have the right to erase a user account from Wikipedia, just upon the argument that the user in question decided to resign from the foundation ?
Are we saying that the board of the foundation is having any power as to decide who is allowed or not allowed to have an account ?
Perhaps the problem here is with the words "at its sole discretion". Most of these accounts would be removed as a result of a request by the resigning person. Placed where it is, it only applies to persons who have resigned. Presumably the issue would be considered elsewhere if it referred to a banned user. It is also possible that the person may wish to return with a different identity. Thus someone who has been active in our internal politics may decide to come back with a less conspicuous identity and limit his edits to a few non-controversial areas without a lot of hassle.
Ec
But that is a bit problematic I think. Any wikipedian may be, or may not be part of the foundation, right ?
So, why is resignation as a foundation member confused with the resignation as a wikipedian ?
I understand the intent, but...why may the board decide to remove the account of a user upon the reason he resigned from the association ? A resignation is a voluntary act, not the act of a banned user or a vandal. So, it is up to the wikipedian to ask the deletion of his account if he wishes so. No ?
From: "Anthere" anthere8@yahoo.com
Ray Saintonge a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
Section 4.2. WRITTEN RESIGNATION.
<..snip..>
I understand the intent, but...why may the board decide to remove the account of a user upon the reason he resigned from the association ? A resignation is a voluntary act, not the act of a banned user or a vandal. So, it is up to the wikipedian to ask the deletion of his account if he wishes so. No ?
Who does the account belong to? It is something that is owned by the web site, not the user of the web site; like the credit card is owned by the bank or the passport is the property of the government that issued it. Only they have the right to take it back. Any user account does not belong to the user, this is why Jimbo was able to "freeze" the mediator role account. If Wikimedia turns off the servers and erases the user pages they are gone and so are the user accounts.
Also, all text on Wikipedia is released under the GFDL so the user cannot really request that any text that they have input on Wikipedia be removed, no? I know user talk sub pages are an exception to this and if someone posts personal information they can also get the page history blanked for privacy reasons, but isn't the information that users post done so under the GFDL?
It is really even a violation of the Board of Trustees to remove it (but let them get sued by someone for violating the GFDL, not the member). I am sure that if someone asked to have it removed for a good reason the Board of Trustees would remove it. It seems to me that what it is really about is to protect the user so that no one can accuse them of violating the GFDL, just my opinion though, maybe we should ask Jimbo to submit this to a panel of Florida judges and get them to figure out what it all means!
Alex756
Sorry, but I still do not understand why it is there at all (I mean under the paragraph about resignation as a member of the association)
What you say is that at any time, Jimbo (or the board) can just delete any one account. I agree with this naturally. But that is true of absolutely any user. Be it a trusted user, a new user, a bugging user, a banned user, or a vandal. And be him registered in the association or not registered.
This is true for everyone, for any user.
So, why is this only mentionned under the paragraph about those who are just resigning from the association ? Either this is mentionned for absolutely all users, or it is not mentionned at all.
Say, if I register to the association next month.
Then, for some personal reasons, I decide to unregister (for example, if I wish not that my name appear in the list any more), why should I have my account on wikipedia itself deleted ? Why more than right now as I am not a member at all ? What is the difference ?
Alex R. a écrit:
From: "Anthere" anthere8@yahoo.com
Ray Saintonge a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
Section 4.2. WRITTEN RESIGNATION.
<..snip..>
I understand the intent, but...why may the board decide to remove the account of a user upon the reason he resigned from the association ? A resignation is a voluntary act, not the act of a banned user or a vandal. So, it is up to the wikipedian to ask the deletion of his account if he wishes so. No ?
Who does the account belong to? It is something that is owned by the web site, not the user of the web site; like the credit card is owned by the bank or the passport is the property of the government that issued it. Only they have the right to take it back. Any user account does not belong to the user, this is why Jimbo was able to "freeze" the mediator role account. If Wikimedia turns off the servers and erases the user pages they are gone and so are the user accounts.
Also, all text on Wikipedia is released under the GFDL so the user cannot really request that any text that they have input on Wikipedia be removed, no? I know user talk sub pages are an exception to this and if someone posts personal information they can also get the page history blanked for privacy reasons, but isn't the information that users post done so under the GFDL?
It is really even a violation of the Board of Trustees to remove it (but let them get sued by someone for violating the GFDL, not the member). I am sure that if someone asked to have it removed for a good reason the Board of Trustees would remove it. It seems to me that what it is really about is to protect the user so that no one can accuse them of violating the GFDL, just my opinion though, maybe we should ask Jimbo to submit this to a panel of Florida judges and get them to figure out what it all means!
Alex756
(Catching up with my email...)
Anthere wrote:
Sorry, but I still do not understand why it is there at all (I mean under the paragraph about resignation as a member of the association)
What you say is that at any time, Jimbo (or the board) can just delete any one account. I agree with this naturally. But that is true of absolutely any user. Be it a trusted user, a new user, a bugging user, a banned user, or a vandal. And be him registered in the association or not registered.
This is true for everyone, for any user.
So, why is this only mentionned under the paragraph about those who are just resigning from the association ? Either this is mentionned for absolutely all users, or it is not mentionned at all.
Say, if I register to the association next month.
Then, for some personal reasons, I decide to unregister (for example, if I wish not that my name appear in the list any more), why should I have my account on wikipedia itself deleted ? Why more than right now as I am not a member at all ? What is the difference ?
It looks to me more like that section is there to state that it's the board's decision whether the account of a resigned user stays or goes and not the user's- which means that soemone cannot say "I quit, now you have to remove my account"... and thus documentation of what they did. Removing an account entirely is a messy thing, in terms of page histories and so forth. Retaining the contributions lists is important.
Or at least, that's what I see.
-- Jake
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org