Wikipedia talk:Social contract for higher powers

Comments by community members in opposition

 * Oppose. Avoid instruction creep. I think this is a bad idea. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  13:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that instruction creep is really an issue for 'higher powers', as this is probably the first document which really applies (specifically) to them. A1kmm


 * Creating new policy where none exists, and (in my opinion) none is needed, is indeed "instruction creep". --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  17:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I'm guessing this is a well-intentioned overreaction to Office actions and Wikitruth. The project is not in jeopardy, and the higher powers basically already follow the contract. When they stumble, they are yelled at enough. Melchoir 20:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is worth noting here that Wikipedia has been getting (perhaps mostly undeserved) bad publicity due to Wikitruth making major online news outlets(some of which are likely to be good sources of future editors for Wikipedia). I agree that 'higher powers' do currently follow the proposed social contract, and I think that is a good thing -- policies should not change the nature of Wikipedia, but rather, should be codifications of well accepted standards. Having a document like this means that 'higher powers' have something to point to and refute claims that they are 'censoring' Wikipedia or anything like that. A1kmm


 * If Jimbo thinks he needs something like this to refute claims he is censoring Wikipedia, he can ask for it. Personally, I think such a document would be virtually worthless for that purpose. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  17:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. On all levels.  The board is the board.  Someone has to be.  They can't be elected by the anonymous editors of Wikipedia, so they are chosen by one of the usual means.  They have the legal authority that they must have to run the thing.  That's how it has to work. WP:NOT.Robert A.West (Talk) 23:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Other comments
I have not made up my mind about this proposal, but I don't like the term "higher power". Perhaps there is another term that would not sound so hierarchical and omnipotent in a religious way. -- Samuel Wantman 01:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Any suggestions? A1kmm 01:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo is my god. All praise Jimbo. ;) --Mboverload 06:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

To whom does this really apply? Jimbo, Board Members, Developers and Stewards? To look at some of this in detail:
 * 1.1 This provision is both too narrow. The foundation only has unpaid legal volunteers - any requirement to consult the lawyers more should come with some way of paying them.
 * 2.1 What do you mean by "should not signal their status"? Should Jimbo use a sockpuppet account for all policy discussions?
 * 2.2 Jimbo's status isn't the same as other users, whether you think that a good thing or not. On the other hand, can you cite an example (outside of what is covered in section 1) where Jimbo has tried to influence policy decisions by saying "I am the God King"?  or something of the sort?
 * 2.3 For good or ill, Jimbo is the public face of Wikipedia, and he spends most of his time promoting it - in an unpaid capacity. Telling him that he can only speak from a pre-approved script is a terrible insult.
 * 3 Can you present some examples of policy violations by "higher powers"? In the absence of such violations, it seems a bit extreme to single people out and say "YOU must abide by policy".
 * 4.1 This seems too vague to be meaningful. To begin with "normal process" for gaining additional powers has changed and continues to change.  You need to specify what you consider acceptable process, and what you consider unacceptable process for grating various forms of database access.
 * 4.3 What do you mean by "process for removal of that access"? Right now, the arbcomm can de-admin, but there is no other process for removing admins (or bureaucrats, developers or stewards).  In what cases would you expect this to apply?
 * 5 I'm not sure how meaningful this provision would be. The arbcomm serves at the pleasure of Jimbo, so I can't see it investigating him and if they did, he could appeal to himself and overturn their ruling.  If you are proposing to change this, then say so.  If not, I don't see how this would apply.

Guettarda 13:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clearly expounding what I felt, but didn't express in detail. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  15:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The exemption is obvious and a little