Jimbo's constitutional order

Discussions related to Wikipedia's co-founder, Jimmy Wales
Post Reply
User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Jimbo's constitutional order

Post by Auggie » Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:30 pm

What does Jimbo mean when he talks about Wikipedia's constitutional order? Does Wikipedia have a constitution? Maybe he means they have one in the British sense of the word?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... mmy_Wales)
Jimbo wrote:I can assure you that my commitment to, and support of, appropriate principles and our established constitutional order is far far more important than any personal conflict that I may have ever had with anyone. I'm not taking any position on this yet, because the reasonable thing to do is to listen to all sides calmly and come to an understanding of the issues.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
"I'd like to remind everyone that it is my long established view that all bans are appealable to me. I seldom intervene, even if I have some minor disagreement with a ban, because no major constitutional issues or errors are at stake. It is too early to know what is going on in this particular case, but please if anyone is planning to "fall on their sword" for principle, let it be me. But, I really don't think that will be necessary here. The WMF staff are diligent, thoughtful, and hard working. If an error has been made, I'm sure they will revert and work out procedures to make sure it didn't happen again. If the ban was justified, I'm sure they will find a way to make it clear to - at a minimum, if privacy issues play a role, to me, to the board, and to the Arbitration Committee. Therefore, dramatic action would not be helpful at the present time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I applaud those who have kept separate in their minds and words the separate issues here. The issue of Fram's behavior and whether desysopping and/or some form of block are appropriate is separate from the "constitutional issue" of process and procedure. Conflating the two would, I fear, only serve to raise emotions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
This is not about individual people, this is a question about our constitutional order. This is not about this specific situation, but a much more important and broader question about project governance.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2019

Proabivouac
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Jimbo's constitutional order

Post by Proabivouac » Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:27 pm

Auggie wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:30 pm
What does Jimbo mean when he talks about Wikipedia's constitutional order? Does Wikipedia have a constitution? Maybe he means they have one in the British sense of the word?
There are certainly expectations about how things should work which have been established over the years. Not that these processes were ever remotely fair, but the Fram ban violates even what sensibilities remained.

Perhaps the most pathetic aspect of this is the Arbitration Committee's reaction. Imperious and cruel to the weak, they now tremble in fear. Excepting only SilkTork, there appears to be not even one of them who values his or her integrity over the wikititles which have been bestowed upon them.

One of the things which has always been there but is now more salient than ever is the hope that an ArbCom gig will lead to a paid position with or in association with the Wikimedia Foundation.Some of these people bounce back and forth between ArbCom, Wikimedia chapters (especially WMDC or WMUK,) the WMF, etc. The senior member of "Trust and Safety" Karen Ingraffea-Brown is married to on-and-off arbitrator Courcelles. People in the minority faction which supports "Trust and Safety"'s action are for the most part connected to the WMF or one of its chapters. E.g. David Gerard, Gorilla Warfare (Molly White,) Gamaliel (Rob Fernandez,) Rosiestep (Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight,) Kirill Lokshin and the like. There isn't enough money to buy everyone off but there is enough to dangle about and tempt a good 20% of them, even though only a few of them will receive anything.

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Jimbo's constitutional order

Post by Auggie » Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:55 pm

Proabivouac wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:27 pm
There are certainly expectations about how things should work which have been established over the years. Not that these processes were ever remotely fair, but the Fram ban violates even what sensibilities remained.

Perhaps the most pathetic aspect of this is the Arbitration Committee's reaction. Imperious and cruel to the weak, they now tremble in fear. Excepting only SilkTork, there appears to be not even one of them who values his or her integrity over the wikititles which have been bestowed upon them.
I love it. :lol:

It's never been about processes. ArbCom is about power and dominance. Show trials and drama. There is nothing constitutional about any of it. The policies are a veneer that fools respect and crafty power users exploit. It's all pre-Hammurabi, as Moulton would say.

Proabivouac
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Jimbo's constitutional order

Post by Proabivouac » Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:06 am

Auggie wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:55 pm
Proabivouac wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:27 pm
There are certainly expectations about how things should work which have been established over the years. Not that these processes were ever remotely fair, but the Fram ban violates even what sensibilities remained.

Perhaps the most pathetic aspect of this is the Arbitration Committee's reaction. Imperious and cruel to the weak, they now tremble in fear. Excepting only SilkTork, there appears to be not even one of them who values his or her integrity over the wikititles which have been bestowed upon them.
I love it. :lol:

It's never been about processes. ArbCom is about power and dominance. Show trials and drama. There is nothing constitutional about any of it. The policies are a veneer that fools respect and crafty power users exploit. It's all pre-Hammurabi, as Moulton would say.
They've been going on for as long as I can remember about their "authority," and now they are skulking away denying that they have any authority at all.

Here's the thing: the "Trust and Safety" action as framed does not in any way preclude the Arbitration Committee from investigating the matter. At worst, they cannot force T&S to hand over private communications. They can reprimand or even ban User:WMFOffice and User:JEissfeldt for casting aspersions without evidence, even if they cannot enforce it. More importantly, they can add Fram, LauraHale and Fæ as parties and arrive at their own adjudication of the disputed matters. If someone has made allegations through back channels, they can be compelled to reiterate those allegations on Wikipedia. They can ask them to characterize their contacts with T&S and provide copies to the Committees if their representations are to be believed.

What is really needed isn't just some theoretical discussion about the separation of powers, but an informed and principled decision on the facst. Jan Eissfedlt and "Trust and Safety" have asserted that Fram is a "harass[e]r and abus[er]". If that's true, then let the ban stand. If that's untrue, Eissfeldt has engaged in defamation and should himself be banned.

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Jimbo's constitutional order

Post by Auggie » Sun Jun 23, 2019 1:33 am

Jan is speaking for all of Trust and Safety, right? And by extension the WMF? Is Fram's real name known? Are there any real damages to Fram's reputation other than his inability to volunteer on Wikipedia? I'm just trying to figure out the logistics of any kind of defamation lawsuit.

I'm loving this new meek ArbCom though. Typical bullies.

Proabivouac
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Jimbo's constitutional order

Post by Proabivouac » Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:09 am

Auggie wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 1:33 am
Is Fram's real name known?
Fram's real name is Pop Rocky Smurf:

http://bluecavern.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5878

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests