[WikiEN-l] Community Ombuds Department

[Wily D]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm not particularly convinced this is true.  It's very likely the
>  >  case that if some commanding mandate came from the community
>  >  requesting Jimbo step down that he would, but I don't think the mere
>  >  act of saying it would make it so.  Jimbo compares his role of QEII on
>  >  occasion, and it's definitely the case that in at least some of the
>  >  countries where she's Queen, she can only de jure be removed from her
>  >  position with her permission.
>
>  What de jure power does Jimbo have at the moment? His power is purely
>  de facto, so a de facto removal is all that's required. Wikipedia runs
>  of consensus, it doesn't run on rules imposed from on high (expect for
>  a few specific things like NPOV, non-free content, etc).
>
>  As for how you remove the queen without her permission - it's called a
>  rebellion and they happen all the time. If the law doesn't let you do
>  what you want, you make a new law and if you're the one with troops on
>  the ground (and the popular support, ideally), that law is the one
>  that matters.

Err, at the very least, on en.wiki, he's the sole member of the
"founder" class.  He appoints people to ArbCom, and determines the
number of members.  Jimbo made this statement:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/069100.html
which seems he's now under the authority of ArbCom too - seems odd.

Perhaps his only remaining 'de jure' authority is to appoint or
de-appoint ArbCom members.  But somebody here or there may be aware of
others.  As for open rebellion - not without the foundation's support.
 Can't just occupy the servers. ;)

>  >  That said, I think you'd be hard pressed to round up much support for
>  >  petitioning Jimbo to relinquish that authority to the community.  But
>  >  do feel free to open a discussion.
>
>  At the moment, I agree. There have been various scandals involving
>  Jimbo lately, but I don't think many Wikipedians believe a word of it
>  (I certainly don't), so I doubt many people would see much point in
>  removing him from power. It is possible that things will change in
>  time - already Jimbo's opinion doesn't always match community
>  consensus, and as consensus changes (or Jimbo's opinion changes), that
>  gap may widen to the point where people don't consider it appropriate
>  for him to have such power.
>
>
You could always run a strawpoll.

WilyD