Trijnstel

talk

Note there are several polls on this page. See also Petition to Jimbo, commons:Commons talk:Sexual content.

Proposal [ edit ]

The following request for comments is closed.

I would like to propose and give the place to the Wikimedia community to discuss about possible founder rights removal. These rights were given to Jimmy Wales (was there any election?), the founder of Wikipedia, to act on Wikipedia as a steward forever. Unfortunately other communities (other than Wikipedia), were not informed about this fact, but Jimmy Wales behaves there like an elephant in china shop. He doesn't respect any ethical rules applied until this time by other stewards and simply disrupted and discredited Wikiversity. And I am afraid that other projects might be possibly injured in the future, as this was not for the first time Jimbo did it (in beginning of fall 2008 he came to English Wikiversity (at those times elected as a steward) and disrupted the project, which led to the exodus of people outside).

I would say, that such charismatic person as Jimmy Wales would not saw phrases such as „I am currently discussing the closure of Wikiversity with the board.“ (source: [1]) That is what discredits Wikiversity as a project. I think such smart guy as Jimmy Wales is, can't say such a phrase even in the case WMF would discuss about the possibility of closing the project!

The other problem blocking users (even administrators, who haven't been noticed as a "danger" by community), desysopsing administrators and deleting pages without a further discussion and based on a "simple" call on his Wikipedia discussion page leads to the exodus of people from the project. People who believed in community decision making are gone and may never come back. They can't swallow the fact, that community decision making is changed to centralized dictatorship from day to day, by the Wikimedia movement founder, the symbol of free thinking.

So let me open this evaluation. During the last 2 years Mr. Jimmy Wales showed he is not able to use the rights, which community (or someone ?) gave to his hands. For further reading about the current problem you can visit these pages: Talk:Wikiversity/Problems and v:en:Wikiversity:Community Review/Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments.--Juan de Vojníkov 00:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

For removal [ edit ]

Against removal [ edit ]

Yeah. Wikiversitians created Wikiversity. Hillgentleman 11:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutral [ edit ]

I am not going to vote but merely point out that there will always be the "Staff" flag, which Jimbo could fall back on and this flag is utterly necessary in many parts to the function of WMF related projects. This seems more to be focusing on the wrong matter; if people want a change in action then there should be civil discussion about matters and ramifications to various approaches. A system that benefits all concerns would need to be created before there wouldn't be such problems on either side. Communication is key. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Jimmy is not a member of staff, so I'm not sure why he would get the staff flag... --Tango 22:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC) With his vital position regarding the WMF, I am sure there would be some kind of arrangement worked out if necessary. After all, they created the Founder title for him last time. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC) The staff flag does not include certain functions such as blocking and rights management that are included in the Founder flag; placing these rights on staff members creates a undue expectation of community management from the staff. The "Founder" rights are rightfully separate, given Jimbo's unique role with the Foundation and its projects. User:Bastique 23:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC) No block function? That's surprising. Oh well, the scratch the above as being unlikely because the Staff function is even more trimmed down than I thought. It is hard to keep up with what has which abilities anymore. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC) "They" didn't create the founder flag, that was done unilaterally by Tim Starling, if memory serves. At the time, it wasn't controversial (at least, not significantly, I haven't checked the archives to be sure nobody complained). --Tango 23:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Uh, no. I did. The reasons are here. DarkoNeko 20:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC) This is premature. Jimbo represents the critical interests of the WMF, and there is no adequate body or mechanism or person in place to replace him in this function. If the community wants him to go, the community must first demonstrate that it is capable of governing itself, of coherent action, which would include negotiating any disputes with the WMF board. It's an error to focus on Jimbo and his errors (from one POV) or his trustworthiness (from another). This isn't really about Jimbo, it's about the Wikiversity community and how it finds consensus and supports itself. Freedom and responsibility cannot be separated. --Abd 23:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Second to Abd. Is Jimbo a sovereign? The definition of "sovereign" is to pass down the law, ad finitum. Jimbo is apparently very little risk to the freedom of WMF which could not be said for this abusive dictatorial sovereign he is occasionally claimed to be. Jimbo is a head of state of sorts and so long as he has his senses, even he should have little say in removing that. The duties of a head of state are to review the law and to approve defense or intervtion. I would have almost inexhaustable patience for Jimbo even if he was vandalising pages because I am appreciative of the sites. If he wants out of it he should just have to wreck the place in a manner which cannot be contained. No rest for the wicked! ~ R.T.G 02:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC) @RTG: If Wales is the head of state of Wikiversity, well, we didn't know about it before. @Abd: What you said doesn't reflect the true situation. If you view Wikiversity through the lens of Wikipedia, everything will look wrong. I can discuss it with you in another time, or you may participate actively in Wikiversity and you will see the difference. Hillgentleman 07:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Wikiversity is not a state, it is just a county. It is an autonomy, not a republic. You tell Meta that Wikiversity is going to choose its own head of state and have the finality in all of its affairs. I hope you can afford the redundancy for Meta and Wikimedia then because that is all they are based on. The WV Village pump is discussing moving Wikimania to WV because it belongs there, right? Cya bye bye Meta. ~ R.T.G 09:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC) wikimania: everyone can read here themselves what the situation really is: v:Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/March_2010#Migrating_the_2005_Wikimania_proceedings, ----Erkan Yilmaz 09:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC) The Board represents the critical interests of WMF. When acting unilaterally without the stated support of either the board or the community, Jimbo is representing only himself. Resolute 23:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC) I think Drini makes a very good point up under the support section. However, this proposal is doomed from the start. It was brought up during some fairly major disagreements, and is unlikely to generate the consensus cooler minds would find. I do in fact think the bigger questions of Jimbo's continued role across Wikimedia as 'Founder' could merit some discussion, but to do so now and under these pretenses isn't going to be productive. ^demon 11:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC) I imagine that a decision to remove this flag would have to come from the Wikimedia Foundation itself, not from a handful of a users on Meta. A Stop at Willoughby 19:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Whilst there are valid grounds for removing the founder flag, a discussion - not vote- should be held after everyone cools down. Removing the flag now would be like a punitive block, which is never the desired effect. As it stands, I think that whilst we may be uneasy about having an imperfect godking, we also need to acknowledge that without this "benevolent dictator" role we have no anchor. People have come and gone and Jimbo is still the public face and voice of Wikimedia. At a turbulent time like this more than ever, overbearing leadership is better than no leadership. I feel he has a few things to answer for but it will be beneficial to us all to delay this. People will not forget the recent issues- our memories are too long for that- but we will be able to see them in a clearer light. talk| {{ Sonia simpleWP }} That's what the foundation is for. I think that history has clearly shown that there is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. We have a foundation for a reason. /Grillo 09:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Before asking of removing his founder flag, you should propose to remove his sysadmin statut. He has used it many times to remove sysop flags on Wikiversity users, and the sysadmin statut is not here for such acts. I understand he is founder, but he shouldn't be sysadmin -- Quentinv57 15:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Changed to "for removal" -- Quentinv57 10:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC) I doubt people are talking of removing the title, but rather the administrative power coming with it. esby 22:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks for having removed it -- Quentinv57 10:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Jimbo obviously cannot follow and adhere to rules which evolved within wiki-projects independently. Even though I am a rather experienced pl-wiki user/admin/bureaucrat, it took me a little while to learn en-wiki rules. The problem is that Jimbo apparently doesn't realize this problem and, seemingly, jumps in whenever he wants. If he was just a regular steward, he would be removed for sure. On the other hand, he IS the founder of the project. We do owe and will owe him. Thus, for now, I think I would rather wait until Jimbo decides himself that the project has grown adult and does not need parental intervention anymore (hey Jimbo, if you're reading this - resigning from all privileges would be the most zen and cool thing to do, people would respect you even more, not to mention the PR positive buzz it could create). Pundit 07:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC) I add myself to this list because I am not well informed enough to stand on one side or the other. After I am better appraised of the facts I will move my name to the appropriate section and explain. My initial inclination is against removal as I can hardly imagine an action so egregious as to warrant removal. If on the other hand such a malicious act has occurred my thoughts would be reflected in the section with those who believe removal is appropriate.My76Strat 12:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC) I do not agree with your assessment of Jimbo's actions in general. He is misguided at times, and he makes mistakes, but he is not acting maliciously or callously, as your proposal seems to imply. At the same time, I think that the fact that he, as a mere mortal, DOES make mistakes and gets things wrong is a good argument in favor of him stepping down from his special role. Having a benevolent dictator may well have been a necessity in the past; these days, I'm less sure it is. That said, some overall guidance is not a bad thing, and the communities (at least the one on the English Wikipedia) are not functioning as well as they should (or could); having someone who has the power to make important decisions, rather than these decisions being left to those with the most spare time and willingness to argue endlessly until everyone else gives up in frustration, could be a good thing, too. All in all, I'm neutral: I am not a fan of god emperors in general, but let's not forget that the Wikimedia projects are not a social experiment. They only exist to facilitate the creation and dissemination of free knowledge. -- Schnee 20:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm far from being satisfied with mr Wales actions (or inactions when actions are requested), but in the venue I mostly editing during the last half of a year, I have seen total collapse of WP guidelines and sysops who heavily used their tools out of authority and with proper violation of WP guidelines. There, WP failed time and again to stand for what it declare it's. So, if Jimbo goes (even he waved any complaint and didn't do anything to make things better) where things will go then? Therfore I'm neutral.--132.74.99.84 11:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait and see [ edit ]

Wales appears to have understood (even though he hasn't acknowledged it - see v:user talk:SBJohnny) that he was rash in that he has since reversed some of his actions. We should wait until all parties concerned have had a chance to answer all the questions (here, e.g. those by University of Canberra[11] educator User:Leighblackall , and here). Hillgentleman 05:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is best to have to discussion when tempers aren't frayed. If we have it now, it's going to be about Jimmy's actions on Wikiversity when it should be much more general than that. I keep a close eye on Jimmy's activities and have seen him make lots of questionable decisions, but I do understand the merits of having some kind of safety valve. That means that if we're going to take these powers away from Jimmy, we need to give them to someone else (or perhaps a small group). Therefore I propose that we put this discussion on hold for a month while everyone calms down and then have a big discussion about governance. We can't discuss Jimmy in isolation: we need to discuss the whole problem. If we can't find an alternative to Jimmy, then Jimmy is probably better than nothing. --Tango 09:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC) (Thogo) Tango: Would a safety valve carelessly utter the words like "I am discussing the closure of wikiversity..." ? For safety valve, we have the foundation (as the host), the office (for legal problems), etc. The problem that concerns a lot of wikiversiters at this point is where Wales stands and on what ground did he do what he did. Was he community member ? No, even he himself admited that. Was he representing the foundation? May be, but did he get authorisation or consent before or after the event? Was he doing it as the "host" of the wikimedia server? Was he simply representing himself? This has to be clarified. It may not be important to you, or to Wales, but it is important to Wikiversity, especially if we were to establish stability. If you still don't see why, visit Leighblackhall's blog or check out his various comments in various places). Hillgentleman 10:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I'm not saying we shouldn't have this discussion: I'm saying we shouldn't have it now and that it needs to be a larger discussion than just a vote on Jimmy's powers. And it's "Tango", not "Thogo". --Tango 12:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Having visited Leigh Blackall's blog, I note his strong support from Wikipedia Review readers, who I'm sure will be just the people to make a fork strong and working - David Gerard 12:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC) What a surprise - Wikipedia Reviewers supporting someone who is upset about Wales' behaviour :-). But is that all? Mind you, Leigh Blackall is an academic who works on Eric Moller's wikieducator, too, and so he actually doesn't exactly need Wikiversity. Hillgentleman 13:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC) If this was strictly about the actions on Wikiversity, and on Commons, perhaps it wouldn't be enough. But I've seen this kind of "act now, debate later as it is 'reversable'" attitude on other projects like Wikipedia and Wikibooks too. I can't even remotely begin to describe how disruptive this is to the various communities where this has happened, and nearly every action that I've seen like this could have gone to some sort of community discussion page to achieve the very same result. Actions of this nature are driving significant contributors out of the projects... contributors who in all seriousness were not sources of the problems either but for some reason chose to stand up for unilateral action without consensus and push back a little bit. --97.117.72.210 09:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)



I think it's not fair to "vote" here, unless Jimmy gave a comment and explanation on this. Maybe you (Jimmy) should explain, how you think you are supposed to use your rights (I mean which guidelines/policies do you think you need to follow and which not) and how you plan to use the rights in the future. Best regards, --თოგო (D) 12:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC) (this time the real one :p )

It is in the interest of Jimbo to please the community but even if there is consensus to remove the flag, the community does not have the authority to do it. Sole Soul 13:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Authority, maybe not, but we certainly have the power. Jimmy doesn't have any powers that the community is unable to reverse. If the community choose to remove Jimmy's powers and he decided to fight it, he would lose. (I don't think he would be foolish enough to fight the community if there really was a clear consensus.) --Tango 18:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Tango, I'm afraid you are simply mistaken about this.--22:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimbo Wales (talk) NB: The above post is from Jimbo. Oh? And how exactly would you enforce your will against a rebellious community? Or are you saying I'm mistaken about you not being foolish? --Tango 22:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC) The community has the authority to do anything. Jimbo is given the ability to jump in, take drastic actions and cause an uproar without having to worry about possible repercussions to himself because it generally yields good results. The community supports his "benevolent dictator" role because it is extremely helpful. As for the specific actions taken in Wikiversity recently, the community will likely come out of it with better understanding of how to deal with certain situations, and clearer policies. --Yair rand 19:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC) There seems to be a deep misunderstanding here. The role of Wales in Wikiversity is simply a Trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation, and he has never been named as benevolent dictator. He wouldn't even pretend to be one himself either since he hardly contributes or participates in the project. Wikiversity is founded by our fellow members like Cormaggio, Sebmol and John Schmidt. In fact, the most important thing that Wales did to Wikiversity was the decision to kick it out of Wikibooks. Hillgentleman 20:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

to do it. Sole Soul 13:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you might be the one with the deep misunderstanding. If the Wikiversity folks want to go around telling people how to undermine Wikipedia then, as Jimbo says, they can do it on someone else's servers and someone else's dime. Pretty simple, really, and not actually that controversial. JzG 13:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Mind you, it only takes two or three Wikipedians to throw Wikiversity into turmoil, twice. Wikiversity undermining Wikipedia!!! How much are you overestimating us ;-). Whatever - may be you have the **reality**, and power and glory on your side. Hillgentleman 13:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)







Discussion [ edit ]

Founder policy, role and responsibilities [ edit ]

Where is the WMF policy, rationale and mandate that says a founder can and should bypass local policy/process? I'm not seeing much at Founder. The lack of clear WMF/meta policy about this seems to invite the kind of problem that has arisen on Wikiversity (i.e., strong action about controversial content by a founder on a local project without particular regard to local policy/process/community). The key problematic statement in founder is:

"Its [founder] roles in various Wikimedia projects are not yet defined.".

This is clearly problematic and unsufficient - and needs to be addressed for Wikiversity and other sister projects to move forward. Greater clarity and detail is needed about the founder role/responsibility in WMF projects. -- Jtneill - Talk 19:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

See also w:Founder's syndrome Collect 20:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I Second. Hillgentleman 07:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo's position as Founder pre-dates the WMF, which explains the lack of a mandate from them. I do think some clear definition would be good, though. Personally, I don't think being founder should put someone above the community, so I think that definition should come from (or at least be ratified) by the community, but I accept that the WMF has the authority to decide otherwise. --Tango 10:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, defining would help. We don't know when the next incident may be + I guess not everybody wants again a discussion on meta about this. ----Erkan Yilmaz 13:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Why open the door to Wikilawyering? Everybody knows who Jimbo is, what he can do, what he actually does do (which is usually let the community decide and only very rarely push it in the right direction, as with promoting the importance of the biographies policy). There is nothing to fix here, the proposals will do nothign other than give succour and false encouragement to griefers.. JzG 13:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Dismissing genuine concern on community stability [12] as wikilawyering? This is not English Wikipedia, mind you. All right, let's play that English Wikipedia game. Now which one of the following "wikilawyering" are you talking about? 1. Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Wikipedia policy; 2. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles; 3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express; 4. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions. -- Hillgentleman 13:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Probably the fourth one, mostly, with a little of the second and third every now and then to keep things interesting. I'm fairly sure JzG meant that if there were a formal definition people would wikilawyer about it, not that creating a formal definition would be wikilawyering. --Tango 23:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems strange to have sysop, bureaucrat, CU, steward etc. roles quite clearly described on the projects, but to have such a vague description of the founder role. -- Jtneill - Talk 04:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

04:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC) It would be better if the "founder" status was simply eliminated. What purpose does it serve? Through what mechanism was it created? Everyking 04:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not a matter to discuss here or now. Cenarium 22:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Where and when should it be discussed? -- Jtneill - Talk 22:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was noted by several contributers that Jimmy Wales was appointed by WMF. But I think the community have a right to say if they disagree with something as it have a right to support WMF. Also we have a right to propose some founder policies to wmf.--Juan de Vojníkov 22:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Jimmy Wales wasn't appointed by the WMF, it was the WMF what was appointed by Jimmy Wales. That perhaps is part of the problem as their legitimacy comes from him, not the other way around. Jimmy Wales serves as an unelected and self-appointed member of the WMF board of trustees due to historical reasons. That is what is being argued here. --Roberth 17:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Contra We don't need a "founder policy"! The whole wiki project wouldn't have grown to what it is today, if founders used to act too indiscriminately. It's their spiritual child and IMHO they are responsible to ensure the project remains what they intended it to be! a x p de Hello! 08:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't need a "founder policy"! The whole wiki project wouldn't have grown to what it is today, if founders used to act too indiscriminately. It's their spiritual child and IMHO they are responsible to ensure the project remains what they intended it to be! 08:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC) The sky is falling, the sky is falling!. BOLDness and Ignoring All Rules are as old as the Founder status itself. Scope had crept beyond the core mission, Jimbo gave it a much needed kick back on track, the Commons community can now fix the balance of the problem itself, having been given a clear steer by Jimbo. In other words, this is a Wikimedia project working as normal. JzG 18:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC) No, the policy to restrict on porn not used in any project was already being crafted as Jimbo intervened, he created havoc by deleting images used on local projects. Such negligence is unacceptable, an affront to commons which handled the issue and a disregard to all local communities using those images. Cenarium 13:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC) That is just like what happened in Wikiversity two months ago, except that the impact is felt only on Wikiversity. Hillgentleman 13:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Not really, because the Wikiversity community had not been able to deal with the disruption of the project 'Ethical Breaching Experiments', the goal of that project was to disrupt wikimedia wikis and it had been permitted to stay, Jimbo was right to shut it down. There's not much parallel with Commons. Cenarium 14:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No, but you are entitled to your opinion. Hillgentleman 14:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC) I completely share Cenarium's opinion. Wikiversity had plenty of chances to police itself and utterly failed to do so. Jimbo's actions regarding Wikiversity were completely appropriate. Kaldari 18:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)





As a related development, all are welcome to participate in or comment on the Wikiversity open letter project. Hillgentleman 14:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Now in Commons [ edit ]

And again Mr Wales abuse of his Founder flag in a wiki where he's not admin by community consensus 190.94.66.212 21:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Contra No abuse observable to me a x p de Hello! 08:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearly there is. Those images have been deleted in total contradiction with the Commons policies (media files legitimately used in WMF projects cannot be out of scope). This user is just enforcing his own censorship rules here. As a Commons admin I'm really astonished by this log, I had no prior opinion about the Jimbo case but now I have a very strong one. --Eusebius 08:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC) You are begging the question of whether the use is legitimate, and also ascribing malice where a simple mistake may be the better explanation. For shame. JzG 18:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Did you see the logs? Do you really think wheel-warring to delete the same file (19th century erotic art) three times is a simple mistake? Please inform yourself before you comment. Kusma 18:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Closing and next steps [ edit ]

What do people feel is a reasonable amount of time for this poll? If I was a steward willing to do my duty to enforce consensus, when would be an appropriate time to take action? --Alecmconroy 03:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a day without votes? Right now we're getting one every few minutes. What happens after closure is uncharted territory. Pohta ce-am pohtit 06:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC) I agree with Pohta, a day without votes sounds reasonable to me. Because of the recent situation, however, new votes will be coming in rather frequently for a while yet, I would think. Silver seren 07:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC) I guess that many projects haven't seen what happened yet. --Matthiasb 08:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Obviously Commons and English Wikipedia already know about it. Dutch/Netherlands Wikipedia knew about it as well and were going to start a proposal such as this one for their Wikipedia, but Jimbo voluntarily removed his powers there. I've also heard something about German Wikipedia doing something, though I don't have much information on that. As for the other language Wikipedias? I have no idea. I haven't heard anything as of yet and it's not like I have the ability to read them to find out (sadly). Silver seren 08:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC) The French Wikipedia was informed through their local village pump. About 35-40 of them came here to vote. Dodoïste 11:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC) The Portuguese Wikipedia was also informed at the local village pump, and the community was asked to come here and give their opinion.--Darwinius 11:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC) The Polish Wikipedia too: pl:MediaWiki:Watchlist-details + Announcements. "The biggest problem of Wikimedia Projects". Heh :) Przykuta 13:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

For myself, I'd say give it at least a week without significant addition to the discussion or "substantial" number of additional votes. This is a significant decision here and has long-term impacts upon not just this but all sister projects. Indeed one of my own personal gripes about the Wikimedia "consensus" process is that some folks are too quick to act when major decisions are being made. Waiting a few weeks or even months to resolve this issue may in fact be healthy for everybody. Any sort of decision, based upon the sheer numbers as shown above, is going to offend some substantial block of Wikimedia users regardless of what that decision may be. Even sheer inaction is going to get several folks upset. Please, don't be so quick to force a decision here, and as has been suggested that it needs to work its way through the rest of the Wikimedia projects and the larger community. --97.117.72.210 10:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Polls on meta take longer to wait for cross-wiki contributions, and last for at least two weeks. This poll has lasted for over two months. Hillgentleman 10:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

but it got its main momentum just after jimbos one-man-on-a-mission-cleanup so we should at least wait 1 or 2 weeks after that incident--178.25.53.197 13:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)





New founder flag permissions [ edit ]

The founder flag permissions have been changed to include only 'viewing' rights. (this change was done incompletely at first, but as of 1900 UTC it was done properly.)

Re: globalgrouppermissions [ edit ]

What is the point of removing most of his priviledges now if he can give it back to himself any time? Hillgentleman 10:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. As long as he can re-grant himself access, the removal of some rights from the Founder group does not change the problem that he has technical access to full rights on all wikis. Kusma 10:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be possible to cool down a bit and to continue an objective talk later this afternoon or tomorrow? Regards, -jkb- 10:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This poll has been on for two months and you are calling for cool? If a simple, straightforward and reasonable question doesn't look cool to you then it is time for you to cool down a bit and continue an objective talk later this week. Best, Hillgentleman 10:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

But we've only just started getting all of the torches and pitchforks from the basement! On a more serious note, Jimbo was asked this question on the Foundation mailing list after he said he'd be back tomorrow. So I hope we'll see tomorrow whether he actually intends to give up rights. Kusma 10:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC) This was resolved later, and he did. SJ +

The problem is still pending. The request is about removing the founder flag, not only some powers linked to this group. And there are still less than 24% contributors to support Mr Wales remaining in this status, while more than 76% have expressed the need of his removal. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 11:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr Wales : “I've just now removed virtually all permissions to actually do things from the "Founder" flag. I even removed my ability to edit semi-protected pages! (I've kept permissions related to 'viewing' things.)” If he has really done what he says, where is the log of it? Or does it mean that 'virtually' is only a clue for his intentions? Hégésippe | ±Θ± 12:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC) What he said has been done. (He didn't do it properly the first time; a steward helped a few hours ago). See the infobox at the top of the page. SJ +

earlier discussion (after the incomplete removal):

No no.. He still has access to every single tool he had yesterday. He pretended to deprive himself of those powers, but kept a "power" that gives him the power to give himself whatever power he wants. IE NO RENOUNCED POWERS YET, just a nice show. --Alecmconroy 13:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC) According to this log entry, It becomes obvious that holding globalgrouppermissions is intentional. And Jimbo has sysadmin flag also. So regardless of founder flag, he will still have the right by using sysadmin flag. – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC) He requested that his sysadmin flag be removed, and it was. See [13]. In addition any special bits that go with the founder flag that are not related to viewing have also been removed; check [14] and [15]. So this is not instantly revertable or what have you. Hope that's clear. -- ArielGlenn 23:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC) People need clarification, though: if he asks the devs to reinstate the rights (from a shell or otherwise) will you do that, or would you be reluctant to until a public discussion has been held on meta? 193.109.254.19 15:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC) A steward or someone in the wmf can do it, and if that happens the steward (perhaps Cary Bass) should say no and instead do the job for him. Devs access the database directly, perhaps without public logs, and that is a bad idea. Hillgentleman 16:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I know not everyone will feel as strongly about this as I do, but here goes.

Given the overwhelming consensus against Jimbo, I find it difficult to imagine myself continuing with the foundation. Wikimedia is the greatest thing on the internet, but if Jimbo somehow keeps control of the projects, I can't imagine continuing here at WMF.

Many of you may feel similarly. Perhaps expressing this sentiment will help the foundation understand the gravity of this issue. Perhaps expressing this view will prevent such a boycott for ever becoming necessary in the first place.

See Boycott Wikimedia. --Alecmconroy 13:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a wrong idea. The best place to fight autocratism is inside. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 13:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC) I'm staying to fight. I'm just saying-- if autocratism ultimately wins, I'm outta here. --Alecmconroy 13:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Fully agreeing with Hégésippe Cormier, a boycott will only make things worse. That's the same as resigning from position, if you resign of your power, that means you cannot use it anymore possibly to go in the appropriate direction, supposed there is one to be decided. That's letting the path free for those who don't agree with you esby 14:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

At least wait a little bit to see how the community feels about this issue, and try to see what is going to happen first. I know there are some hurt feelings here, but the issue hasn't been completely resolved yet and there still is more to be done even if this motion to remove the "founder flag" fails. For myself, rather than a pointless boycott, a forking of some or all of the Wikimedia projects may be more in order and setting up a separate non-Jimbo influenced foundation to help with maintaining those forked projects. That at least is a pro-active response to the situation that can have a real impact.

Mind you, I'm not even suggesting that a fork is necessary at this time, but that would at least do something to keep a community together and bring in perhaps many of those who have been alienated by some of these disruptive actions to get something positive out of the whole mess as well. A successful fork is something that would likely get the attention of the WMF board of trustees too, even if it is likely Larry Sanger would pour gasoline on the whole thing as well saying "see, I told you so". --Roberth 16:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to believe that breaking even further an already-fractious community is a Pyrrhic victory in itself. Competing projects, even without Jimbo's influence, only serve to undermine whatever base the projects have, especially when we have people defecting in droves. While that may be the intention of some here to catch the Foundation's attention, it has the potential of damaging not only the reputation of the WMF and the projects, but of the community as a whole, and we cannot afford anymore negative publicity. In any instance, some effort must be made to salvage whatever reputation all the stakeholders here have left, and not go gallivanting around and making hasty decisions which could have a potentially very damaging outcome. Boycotts and project forks are far from what I call productive for either side. -- Sky Harbor ( talk ) 17:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we can afford bad publicity much better than we can afford panic reactions in anticipation of possible bad publicity. That Jimbo apparently thought about PR is what led us into this mess; we should be working to create encyclopedias and other research and education tools, not worry about the press. Kusma 17:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Internet libertarians of course understand far more about encyclopedias than the press. Peter Damian 17:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Are you honestly saying Fox News could write an encyclopedia? :P 193.109.254.19 15:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Other proposals [ edit ]

Compromise Proposal [ edit ]

As a possible solution within wikilaw and wikiprecedent, I suggest the following:

Jimmy Wales should make a similar statement regarding Wikiversity as he has done regarding English Wikipedia, to wit:

"Upon my own private reflection, I have decided to simply give up the use of the block tool permanently. I don't need it, it isn't important, and it is too widely viewed as a "nuclear option". I simply can't use the block tool normally, because people over-interpret it. No problem, I just won't use it at all."

This cannot reasonably be deemed a fantastical troll idea, as it merely re-iterates what has been done before on the most prominent project.

And in his own words, for a rationale:

"I have rarely done routine blocks of that type, and there are always more people around. It's not hard to find an admin if something needs doing quickly."

Again, it can hardly be unreasonable to ask what he has himself declared.

Moreover, this was in a context of a similar dispute over abuse of power, and such a result has been officially accepted

"The Committee acknowledges ... (ii) Jimbo Wales' permanent abdication of the use of the blocking tool."

This would preserve the legitimate use of such powers for emergency cases, while acknowledging that they should not be invoked for arbitrary and capricious reasons.

-- Seth Finkelstein 00:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal only lacks a demand that Mike Godwin resign - David Gerard 01:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Restoring comment; please don't remove it again. Seth, the general applicability of "assume good faith" fails in your case due to your past attempts at trolling for material for your Guardian column. Including attempted deliberate libel that took a strongly-worded letter to your editor to avert. Any suggestions you make about Wikimedia cannot be taken in good faith, and casual readers need warning about you - David Gerard 10:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC) This is the second time I've had to restore the above. Seth really doesn't want you to see what he's here for. Removing others' comments you don't like is exceedingly obnoxious; stop doing it, Seth. It's not like your behaviour isn't on the public record. - David Gerard 11:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC) No David, I want you to stop trolling via turning this page into a personal attack. Now you're using the I'm-being-censored troll cry. Sigh. Sorry to put readers through this, but: The events you describe above are completely false. The editor basically told you to bugger off, and your bluster in fact made publication more likely. The other person eventually convinced me by making a rational case. Dragging it out further will only hurt a third-party, but you obviously are willing to do that, while I am trying not to - and that should make it clear which of us is in the right (and, frankly, why are you giving me such a hard time, when the contentious material was eventually published by another journalist, who, note, you did not sue for libel?) -- Seth Finkelstein 11:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Finkelstein, Gerard may be ad hominem, but everybody has his right to speak. Hillgentleman 11:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC) OK, he wins - he gets to turn this page into personal attacks, and so hijack the discussion. I tried to avoid that, but it didn't work :-( -- Seth Finkelstein 11:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Seth, your "substantive" arguments are in fact complete bunkum. Jimbo's actions on Wikiversity were not routine, but were specifically *designed* to be interpreted as emergency measures and a "nuclear option". And thus your whole slew of "remedies" fall like a house of cards. (Reserving judgment on how surgical they were in scope.) -- Cimon Avaro 02:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously - what was the emergency? I just don't see it. Indeed, recent analysis seems to suggest that Jimbo was successfully trolled, which is quite bad. I believe there is much merit to the argument that someone needs to be able to take emergency measures. However, best practices then indicate there should be a "separation of powers", and so that person should not be involved in routine disputes. Otherwise, they're tempted to use their god-power to avoid losing face or admitting they've made a mistake, which looks to have been the classic situation here. Note this last is not a personal criticism of Jimbo, but it's just human nature. Thus, their actions should be restricted to "clear and present danger" (and again, let's be realistic, I cannot see the disputed pages as being any such thing). -- Seth Finkelstein 04:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The emergency was not "the disputed pages". It was the entrenched culture within the English Wikiversity (and let us not lose sight of the fact we are only talking about the English here) that was not only enabling but in some respects fostering teh inclusiveness of trolling behaviour within their "big tent"; the scale of the emergency can be clearly be seen from the fact that such behaviour got support from a level which in any other project would as a default have applauded Jimbo wading in to scoop out the muck. This is systemic malaise within the project, not an isolated trolling project we are talking about, let us be crystal clear about that. And I decline to comment on your blatherings about how the wikimedia community should be run. Amusing how you claim we should listen to your advice while you are not a member of the community, but think Wikiversity England should run its own affairs without outside interference. Could you take your own advice and just butt out? -- Cimon Avaro 14:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not see where "the entrenched culture" can be termed an "emergency" in any reasonable sense of the word. One can always use a meaningless definition, but that leads to meaningless results. Note, on culture, in general giving people a fresh start, and being willing to talk through any problems strikes me as laudable, not malaise. Moreover, again, consider the negative aspects of the apparent manipulation of Jimbo which took place here. Now, I carefully considered what might be termed in-group/out-group issues before posting. But pointing out how a similar situation was handled elsewhere looked to be defensible against the inevitable ad hominem. Perhaps it wasn't, because I underestimated the overall effects, and it certainly hasn't been pleasant on a personal level, but, well, let me just say that it seemed like a good idea at the time. -- Seth Finkelstein 15:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

For [ edit ]

Support - That would also work. We want Jimbo Wales to contribute to Wikiversity, but we don't want a dictator. Hillgentleman 19:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as per a recent paper published by the journal First Monday, Identifying and Understanding the Problem of Wikipedia's Peer Governance: the case of Inclusionists vs Deletionists - where it concludes that the problem is deletionism, I would also like to see Jimbo become involved in the Wikiversity project without deleting or blocking anything, but by turning situations into teachable, learnable, researchable moments (ie edit and discuss). I think Seth's proposal and Hillgentleman's support comment are good proposals and I hope Jimbo (a potentially very valuable contributor) will accept. --Leighblackall 21:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

- where it concludes that the problem is deletionism, I would also like to see Jimbo become involved in the Wikiversity project without deleting or blocking anything, but by turning situations into teachable, learnable, researchable moments (ie edit and discuss). I think Seth's proposal and Hillgentleman's support comment are good proposals and I hope Jimbo (a potentially very valuable contributor) will accept. --Leighblackall 21:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Pro would be great and I think Jimmy Wales' activity in regards to learning resources/policy/helping newcomers/... would be influential. I wonder which learning resource he could boost with his interest? ----Erkan Yilmaz 13:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

would be great and I think Jimmy Wales' activity in regards to learning resources/policy/helping newcomers/... would be influential. I wonder which learning resource he could boost with his interest? ----Erkan Yilmaz 13:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Everyking 04:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Note to the folks abovesigned: Does anyone of you realize that not only is Seth just trolling, but his suggestions would explicitly have allowed Jimbo to excercise the actions he in fact recently did? Do not let his rhetoric fool you to thinking that what Jimbo did recently was a routine action of the kind which Seth "merely" wants to exclude from Jimbo. And as the actions that are the proximate cause of all this fuss would still be explicitly permissible for Jimbo even after "agreeing" to Seth's "compromise", the only effect of it would be to humiliate Jimbo without actually stripping him of any power whatsoever. If actually Jimbo had done the things that Seth's actual suggestion would *pretend* to proscribe from him, the whole wikimedia universe would pretty likely be screaming for his head at this point, so the only reason for Jimbo to say anything like that publicly would only serve as a form of humiliation excercise, and formally Jimbo could still do tomorrow what he did just recently, and be formally within his customary rights. -- Cimon Avaro 14:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Against [ edit ]

No compromise is needed. There is nothing to fix. JzG 13:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

^^^ PeterSymonds 13:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No, not only the abdication (nice ArbCom rhetoric) of the blocking tool was of Jimbo's own volition, not a constrained action (which seems to be the intention here), and Wikiversity demonstrated they were not able to deal with disruptive users, so badly needed Jimbo's intervention and may need it again in the future (that is, if not closed). Cenarium 22:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

of the blocking tool was of Jimbo's own volition, not a constrained action (which seems to be the intention here), and Wikiversity demonstrated they were not able to deal with disruptive users, so badly needed Jimbo's intervention and may need it again in the future (that is, if not closed). Cenarium 22:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC) ~ R.T.G 15:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

15:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Unnecessary. Adambro 09:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As noted, there's nothing in need of repair here. Gavia immer 01:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

^ Tiptoety talk 06:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

06:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC) There is nothing to fix. --Cinik 08:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No compromise is necessary. The co-founder must let the projects live their own lives. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 10:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No need. Xic667 13:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No compromise should happen. He needs to apologize and take the title of founder as purely an honorific and nothing more. --Roberth 14:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There is indeed nothing to fix. Jim Wales is Wikipedia , a first among equals if you will. Although he is still wrong in some of his mobocracy notions. :P ṬK-CP /Talk 21:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Although he is still wrong in some of his mobocracy notions. :P 21:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Jimmy Wales has a poor track record of keeping his word, written or otherwise. He also has a history of preaching love and trust while practicing intimidation and manipulation. If such were not the case, then I'd gladly support this reasonable and fair proposal.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

For future reference [ edit ]

Even with or without the best of intentions everyone makes mistakes and there oughts to be checks and balances to minimise the damage and put the projects back on course. I really want to treat Wales like any other contributor but it is plain it is impossible. It is not the first time J. Wales has been told that he has overstepped the line of respect and it is a waste of community resource to reopen an ad hoc RFC or poll every time he does that.

Whether or not Wales ever get to keep his bit, or remains to be called "(co)Founder" as an honorific, I think it would be beneficial to have something more permenant than ad-hoc RFCs. At the very least the founder priviledges should not be used until the role of the so-called founder has been clarified. We may also have some page with a funny name like Wales watching or simply keep this page open and unarchived to serve as a future reminder. Hillgentleman 01:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There is now only one special privilege that isn't simply a privilege to comprehensively view the database, and that is suppressrevision; that could not be withdrawn without withdrawing the privilege to view suppressed revisions. It's a bug of a kind and there appears to be an intent to fix it. It would dot the it and cross the t if Jimbo would simply say that he won't use it except to view. As to viewing content, the Founder privileges that remain, I, for one, would be very uncomfortable with attempts to remove that from him, without evidence of serious abuse. Nothing here has risen to that level, i.e., betraying the trust involved in being able to see deleted or suppressed content. It's time to take off the battle dress, and be grateful that this particular affair is done. This RfC should be closed, promptly, it accomplished its mission, spectacularly, confirming my long-term faith in Jimbo. By the way, what about granting those privileges to Larry Sanger, also? Ah, so many questions, so little time. --Abd 01:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Larry Sanger was recently discussed on en:WP:AN for banning purposes, so no, that would not be a good idea. 85.204.164.26 05:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC) The idea of banning Mr. Sanger was roundly rejected at en.wiki, and who is this IP? If people don't want to consider granting Founder flags to Mr. Sanger, fine, but I dislike it being rejected for silly reasons. --Abd 00:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

A word of thanks to Jimbo [ edit ]

Despite the fallout from Jimbo's recent error on Commons and other past conflicts, I think he has shown tremendous maturity today - and faith in the community - in limiting his own technical privileges. I hope he will remain an active and respected participant in the communities in which he is a member, and that others will help me to thank him for this thoughtful decision. Dcoetzee 01:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. (The message box at the top detailing his current rights changes like ever hour or so, but I assume this is happening only for technical reasons, rather than changes in determination.) Pohta ce-am pohtit 02:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the above, with the belief that this crisis is finally over. I also want to express my gratitude for Jimbo's dignity in self-removing the contested rights, so that discussion can now develop in more productive fields, as is already happening at Commons.--Darwinius 02:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The outcome of this petition and RfC looks very satisfying to me, and I'm glad Mr Wales understood our position and waived some of his administrative tools. I hope he'll continue to serve the projects by representing them, even though I certainly don't agree with everything he does or says. If someone used to Meta procedures could put some kind of "closed poll" box around the votes, it would now be great. --Eusebius 06:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Kudos - Jimbo showed that he not only cares for, but also highly respects the community. Pundit 09:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to thank Jimbo for taking the time to join us for our meet up in the UK yesterday. In the discussion, he showed great humility, respect for the members of our community, and open-mindedness. I suspect many of Jimbo's critics have not met the man. Stephen B Streater 15:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Seconded. I was there also and he took a lot of time to explain his position on this difficult issue. Peter Damian 17:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I add my thanks and appreciation for Jimbo's hard choice. Anybody can make mistakes, and people on both sides of this issue acted out of turn, but it says a lot about Jimbo that he took responsibility and admitted his limitations. Lusanaherandraton 12:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Generally agree. While perhaps he suffered a lapse of judgment in regards to some of these actions, at the very least he should realize that the community can take care of itself now. His little baby has grown up and is doing fine without him. I admire Jimmy Wales so far as he took a risk to get Wikipedia going in the first place (both fiscally and in terms of time spent on the idea) and on the whole he is an excellent spokesman for all of the Wikimedia projects. I know his heart is in the right place and generally does more good than harm. Certainly I don't have any hard feelings against him other than to encourage him to work with the community than against it. --Roberth 13:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

For dropping this very civil hint of closure [16] when Wikiversity participants and custodians didn't want to follow your lead. But commons, of course, is another story. Hillgentleman 14:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Media calling for Jim Wales to step down [ edit ]

Blankenhorn, Dana. Long past time for Wikimedia to grow up Zdent. (May 12, 2010).

"Despite its enormous reach, Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation have generally been run out of Jimmy Wales’ back pocket.

They’re not really institutions, and they’re not an entrepreneurial company. They’re Jimmy’s thing...

That’s unhealthy....

Whatever you think of Fox’ or Sanger’s actions, the important lesson here is that Wikimedia is threatened from all sides by virtue of its size and reach. It’s too big to be run out of Jimmy’s back pocket any more.

[Wikipedia] needs to become a real institution, one with the knowledge and heft to pick its battles carefully...It’s obvious that, despite the color of the Wikimedia Foundation, policies are still created ad hoc and it is this which has to change."

Okip 17:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not surprised some media seeks to rein in JW. That same media often "runs out of the back pocket" of certain special interests. Hence the need to rein in JW to clear the field for that media's POV. I know JW will do the right thing and not cave to the special interests. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 06:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC) So, instead, we should allow Jimbo Wales to cave to Fox News, who is notable for regularly "running out of the back pocket of certain special interests", and institute massive disruption by... um.... doing the wrong thing and caving to the special interests of Fox News? Adam Cuerden 18:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)



The issues arose from Wikiversity - not from Fox, and has little to do with porn etc. but rather has to do with what was seen as arbitrary and capricious uses of power (including a very ill-considered post about closing WV down entirely). As far as I can tell, the consensus here is that the "Founder" tag ceases to be properly in use, with or without any powers attached to it at all. Collect 16:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)