Jimbo's authority (on "global bans")

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Jimbo's authority (on "global bans")

thekohser
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/Wikimedia_Ethics:Ethical_Breaching_Experiments&curid=92825&diff=548143&oldid=548142

Sincerely,

Gregory Kohs

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jimbo's authority (on "global bans")

Tim Starling-2
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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jimbo's authority (on "global bans")

private musings
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 <[hidden email]>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
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jimbo's authority (on "global bans")

Gerard Meijssen-3
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]
> >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
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jimbo's authority (on "global bans")

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by thekohser
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/Wikimedia_Ethics:Ethical_Breaching_Experiments&curid=92825&diff=548143&oldid=548142
>
>  

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



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jimbo's authority (on "global bans")

Tim Starling-2
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
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


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jimbo's authority (on "global bans")

geni
In reply to this post by Tim Starling-2
On 25 March 2010 02:51, Tim Starling <[hidden email]> 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.



--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jimbo's authority (on "global bans")

George William Herbert
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:49 PM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 25 March 2010 02:51, Tim Starling <[hidden email]> 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.


--
-george william herbert
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jimbo's authority (on "global bans")

geni
On 25 March 2010 20:33, George Herbert <[hidden email]> 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.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jimbo's authority (on "global bans")

Benjamin Lees
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 4:33 PM, George Herbert <[hidden email]>wrote:

>
> 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jimbo's authority (on "global bans")

George William Herbert
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 4:33 PM, George Herbert <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
-george william herbert
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jimbo's authority (on "global bans")

David Gerard-2
On 25 March 2010 21:33, George Herbert <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Benjamin Lees <[hidden email]> 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.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jimbo's authority (on "global bans")

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jimbo's authority (on "global bans")

Gerard Meijssen-3
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 <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Jimbo's authority (on "global bans")

Luna-4
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> 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>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l