[WikiEN-l] Just what *is* Jimbo's role anyway?

[Oskar Sigvardsson]

On 3/21/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Well, Sheldon, this assumes that the Foundation has authority *over* the
> community, which the Foundation more or less denies.  So whatever
> corporate powers I have or don't have are likely quite different from
> whatever powers our community traditions give me.
>
> Several board members have made it quite clear that they don't intend to
> interfere with that one way or the other.
>
> The community predates the Foundation, and was created to hold certain
> legal assets and fulfill certain legal responsibilities.

Ok, I'm going to do something really filthy now and quote some
comments you made more than two years ago. I realise that's unfair,
and that I'm putting you on the spot here. I do think they are
relevant, but if you'd just like to answer with "That was two years
ago! I was drunk when I wrote that!", that's totally ok with me :)

My understanding of your role in wikipedia was pretty much formed on
this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Proposed_amendment_revote

Remember that? We wanted to change some arbcom-policies and we had
this big vote about it? Anyway, one of the issues that was voted on
was whether the arbcom should have jurisdiction over the board. If we
are searching for a policy-ruling in the vast lore that is the
wikipedia name-space, this seems to me to be the correct one to go to.
Anyway, these are some of the comments you made (again, I realise it
was 2 years ago, and I apologise. Still, this seems relevant to me):

(this is in response to the suggestion that the arbcom shouldn't be
able to be mean to people on the board)
"It should be noted that this is a simple fact, not a policy that can
be set by a vote. Any jurisdiction that the arbcom has over board
members has to be by tradition and convention, not based on a policy
vote. --Jimbo Wales 04:56, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)"

(in response to a comment)
"The arbcom is a delegation of my powers. If the arbcom ever did rule
against me, it is very likely that I would -- as a matter of courtesy
and convention -- abide by the ruling. But as a simple matter of fact,
any jurisdiction that the arbcom has over the board has to come from
the board not from a community vote.--Jimbo Wales 05:04, 16 Mar 2005
(UTC)"

(in response to a comment from Jamesday)
"Jamesday is just mistaken about this. The arbcom acts as a delegation
of my power. Jamesday may not agree with this, but it is the way the
arbcom was created.--Jimbo Wales 05:02, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)"

(in response to another comment suggesting that admins shouldn't be
beholden to the board)
"Admins *are* subject to the board's authority, make no mistake about
it. The board has the right to set policy, and this includes removing
admins, changing the powers of admins, etc.--Jimbo Wales 05:02, 16 Mar
2005 (UTC)"

These comments was always kinda informed me of yours and the boards
role on wikipedia. That the foundation has ultimate power over the
entire community since they own the servers, but they never exercise
this. Your role is that of an officer of the foundation, that you are
the ultimate arbiter of everything simply because of the de jure
nature of your position.

I may be misinterpreting this completely, but you have to agree that
it is a very different picture you paint now than you painted two
years ago. Has anything changed since then, or am I completely
misunderstanding you (then, or now)?

--Oskar