User talk:Alex756/Writ of Wikimedius

For a September 2004 deletion debate over this page see Votes for deletion/Writ of Wikimedius

Fun name, but now that the arbitration policy has been ratified, I think it should just redirect to Requests for arbitration. --Michael Snow 18:59, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree. When the royal writs are abolished in common law jurisdictions it is by legislative acts. We have no legislature here and the "court rules" of the arbitration committee could hardly have so much force as to abolish this ancient writ created at the dawn of Wikipedia by Jimbo. The arbitration committee's rules are self-referential. This writ is of a prerogative nature. I suggest we leave it around, maybe it will be useful someday when the Board of Trustees becomes functional and someone decides to try and appeal a decision of the arbitration committee, the origins of the arbitration committee's powers are significant, even if not to them. &#8212; &copy;   Alex756   05:28, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I understood that Jimbo's referrals (i.e. this writ) were an interim procedure, and the now-adopted policy only provides for consultation with Jimbo in some instances. And it is generally accepted that courts in common law jurisdictions have an inherent right to determine their own court rules, so I see nothing wrong with the arbitration committee writing rules. Regarding the basis for the committee's powers, to me it seems sufficient to note that Jimbo appointed the initial committee, and that the arbitration policy was ratified by vote and approved by Jimbo. --Michael Snow 17:29, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you misunderstand the basic concept of what a court rule is and the source of a writ. Courts can make up their own rules, yes, but there are basic principles of justice that transcend those rules; writs are one of those principles. The courts cannot stop those overriding principles from being applicable to their deliberations.  Those rules cannot divest higher bodies or powers of exerting some influence over those subservient bodies. An arbitration committee is hardly a court, it has its authority only in consensual associational law, not in the laws of sovereign nations; and thus has even weaker powers. If someone wants to ask Jimbo if he will exert his influence on the arbitration committee, why should we prevent them from doing so? Erasing that fact from history is really something that should not be done in a group that prides itself on transparency and the documentation of what has gone on in the past in an effort to prove to new members that all decisions are available for review; many jurisdictions while codifying the royal writs under some kind of administrative procedure law have also recognized that they continue to exist in a somewhat parallel fashion to the enacted law. What is wrong with that? &#8212; &copy;    Alex756   20:48, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused, because I thought this was effectively incorporated into our arbitration policy - under that policy, if anyone requests arbitration, and four vote to accept, then the case is heard. The writ is included as a special case of that. Martin 00:49, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Which is why I think we could just redirect the page. Note that I'm not proposing to delete it, or "erase any facts from history". It's simply that at this point, there's nothing special about the writ that isn't covered by the arbitration policy. And certainly none of this has any ability to reduce Jimbo's ultimate authority over the project anyway. --Michael Snow 02:28, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The fact of the matter is that it is not clear that it is not only Jimbo's authority anymore. The bylaws call for that authority over Wikipedia to be granted to the Board of Trustees (including the supervisory role over arbitration powers), and it may have in fact already been so granted. Jimbo is definitely no longer the owner of Wikipedia, it is now owned by Wikimedia, most of the hardware has been purchased by donations that are not Jimbo's money. This is a significant change and something that should be pointed out to those who might later have issue with the development of "official" powers on Wikipedia. The article states that there is now a policy with a link so why should it just be reduced to a redirect? Let someone read the article and decide if they want to go to the next step or not. Just reducing it to a redirect is like saying that "President of the United States" be redirected to "George W. Bush"; He is the president, but the office of president and the history behind it are not the same thing as the current holder of the office.   I am sure that George W. Bush would be very happy if you just got rid of the office of the President of the United States and declared him to be the only holder of that office for all times hereinafter stated. Likewise any rules passed by the arbitration committee are just rules that can be changed anytime later on. They have no constitutional authority and the historical origins or precedents to such authority continue to have significance in regards to any future changes or modifications of said rules. &#8212; &copy;    Alex756   16:10, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)