Requests for comment/Remove Founder flag

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
The following request for comments is closed. No activity since May 2010, when the rights of the founder group were significantly reduced. Trijnsteltalk 20:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Note there are several polls on this page. See also Petition to Jimbo, commons:Commons talk:Sexual content.

Proposal[edit]

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]

  1. according my opinion Jimmy Wales has abused his rights. If English Wikipedia think, he should have unlimited rights there, lets create him special rights limited just to English Wikipedia. On other projects Jimmy Wales is not able to act with cool mind.--Juan de Vojníkov 00:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  2. I think the days of godkings are way past. We're not on 2002. We have a board, staff, Foundation that have global authority. I think most projects have long grown and matured as to take decisions by themselves in the spirit of a true community, and Jimbo having the power to overrule them goes against this philosophy. Granted, some users may be so problematic than banning from everywhere is in order, but it shouldn't be on Jimbo's shoulder who doens't have the moral authority anymore to do so, the communities are, our institutions can. (Of course Jimbo can always tell the board to do something as pressure or with real arguments, but it's up to the board to act). The matter is, that it's not Jimbo who's taking matters into his own hands by himself. This is also not a comment or view on the wikiversity particular issue. It's about the general principle underlying the whole figure. es:Drini 21:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  3. Wales has had plenty of time and ample chances to speak and clarify his action and position since this request opened; in the end all he had to say was this[2]. Every time Wales comes to Wikiversity he causes problems and disruptions.  Where is the "thoughtful, diplomatic honesty" that he so champions? He would be very welcome if he wants to contribute, but the tools are too dangerous to be in his hand. On top of all these, there is a need for clarification of the relationship between Wikiversity and her host. Wikimedia Foundation doesn't own Wikiversity. And for those who claim Wikiversity needs a safety valve: We have highly qualified and respect academics as well as long time and, yes, responsible, Wikimedians in our rank. And, on the contrary Wales is not a safety valve. He is the problem. Had he not charged into Wikiversity like Sir Lancelot, a Wikiversity Community Review on the contentious project would have followed its natural course and we would have a far more satisfactory result with no drama. With the Founder Flag in his hands, Jimbo Wales turned a specific and hypothetical problem into genuine site-wide, and even inter-wiki, crisis. Hillgentleman 23:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  4. --::Slomox:: >< 01:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  5. I have no idea what caused this, and frankly I don't care. But I agree that with Drini. -Atmoz 02:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  6. Per Drini. Kusma 07:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    The necessity of removal of the flag is demonstrated clearly by the behavior on Commons. Even if the image deletions had been right, this attempt at silencing criticism and this egregious wheel-warring make it clear that Jimbo does not have the attitude necessary to hold admin powers, certainly not anything more powerful, and certainly nothing global that isn't granted by local communities. Kusma 12:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  7. There is absolutely no reason for having the founder group. All tasks that need to be done on any WMF wiki can be done by approved (community-elected) user groups or by WMF staff members (the latter should be an absolute exception, though). --თოგო (D) 16:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  8. [3], ----Erkan Yilmaz 16:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  9. There is no royal road to knowledge, and no place for imperial privilege in a community dedicated to academic discourse, freedom, and values. Mr. Wales continues to comport himself in a discourteous and disruptive manner that interferes with both the calling of teaching and the desire to learn. JonAwbrey 17:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  10. The WMF rightly has emergency methods for dealing with emergency matters, but Jimbo has repeatedly abused his power by improperly using those emergency methods and failing to follow community practices in non-emergency situations. In the recent situation at Wikiversity, Jimbo should have used the "edit" button first and talked to people before deleting pages and blocking privatemusings. Jimbo improperly desysoped a Wikiversity custodian who was following Wikiversity community procedures. --JWSurf 18:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)--
  11. I had intended to merely watch this for its entertainment value however there is enough in some postings to make me change my mind (I particularly liked JW's own one...). Of course nothing will happen as any "democracy" is obviously an illusion however Drini speaks sense --Herby talk thyme 19:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  12. If one considers the founder flag equivalent to a steward flag, then I'm afraid past actions at Wikiversity do not follow the principles outlined at Steward policy. An important point is that "their task is to implement valid community consensus". The communities at the smaller projects are fragile; disregarding them could lead to a loss of participation that a project that has not reached critical mass cannot recover from. -- Adrignola 19:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC) ... Addendum: my position still holds and the coercive method of leadership I've seen is disheartening. -- Adrignola 04:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    • "The time has come," the Walrus said, "to speak of many things: abuse and snits and searing whacks, and clipping Jimbo's wings." —Moulton 20:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    • as per others. although, ultimately, i could hardly care less at this point.. but in principle of possibly making some hopefully positive change in the world, and promoting my websites, i'll add my little vote here. EME44 User:EME44 seems to be a sock. See the talk page ~ R.T.G 21:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  13. Columbus founded the European settlment of Hispaniola. Yet he was such a poor administrator there, abusing so many people (including his former shipmates), that they finally sent him back to Spain in chains. And no more did they put up with his poor people-management after that, either. They let him make a fourth voyage of discovery, but recognized that people honored as navigators aren't necessarily very good at nitty-gritty government. Sorry. Sbharris 00:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  14. Jimbo should not be getting any special privileges. He should not have any privileges at all unless he demonstrates that he is deserving of them, and his recent actions show that he has a very long way to go. Everyking 04:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  15. I just joined Wikiversity a few days before all these unpleasant things happened. I would dearly enjoy creating articles on creative writing, my particular expertise. But I understand that Jimbo Wales asserted his founder's bit, blocked out-of-process, and intimated he might ask the Board to shut Wikiversity down. I want to place my content on a site with proper governance and stability. Respect due process. Remove Jimbo's bit. Use established internal procedures and the consensus of the community to decide contentious issues.Stanistani 05:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  16. Per others --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 07:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  17. Jimbo should not try to own projects. – Kwj2772 (msg) 13:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  18. Nobody should have unlimited power. --Node ue 21:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  19. Why should there be a 'founder' group just for Jimbo? He's an editor too, like the rest of us. True, he's founded wikipedia, but having a group just for him is unnecessary, IMO. BejinhanTalk 12:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  20. I agree with Bejinhan, no-one should have unlimited powers, everyone should follow the same procedures. He should be stripped of his founder bit and any other admin related bits, then a editor review done to get other editors opinion on whether he deserves his privileges, he shouldn't be treated differently to everyone else. Mistreat your privilege and expect to lose them (not keep them in his case), after all that's what the WMF polices say "Abuse your powers and you'll lose them". I support the removal of the "Founder" right 100%. Paul2387 22:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  21. Jimbo don't have so much power. Jan Luca 08:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  22. with great respect to Jimbo's role in the history of the Wikimedia movement, he should not be above the rules (such as election of stewards etc.). Powerek38 14:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  23. This role is stupid, and not defined. If he ever "needs" something done, he can ask a steward, or if he really needs something done, he can ask a a WMF staff developer, who are the real Godkings. I haven't looked at the recent Wikiversity mess, but it strikes me as very odd that Jimmy is using this "founder" role on a project which he hasn't contributed to. There are other people who should be considered the founder of the other WMF projects, and Ward Cunningham has more claim to being the founder of these other "wiki" projects. This mess has now resulted in inappropriate blocks over on English Wikisource because Jimbo hath spoke, without even knowing the options available[4]. I'm over this. John Vandenberg 23:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  24. ... regarding in the current Cxxxxxxxxx action. --Saibo (Δ) 18:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  25. Bull in a china shop indeed. Now alienating Commons editors and admins with overhasty, arbitrarily decided deletions. --Rosenzweig 19:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  26. Definitely. Adam Cuerden 23:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  27. Let's stop that before it goes too far. Nobody should be out of procedure and control. (vote only linked with the commons situation) esby 23:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  28. Admins have earned the trust of the community. Wales has not earned his rights but he has abused them and hurt the project doing so. This can be either a serious encyclopedia project ruled by consensus or Wales's personal playground where he can act out his personal whims. Not both. It is time he be treated like any user, and be expected to follow the same rules as others. Entheta 23:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  29. Strongly disparove last actions on commons, without any concertation of the community. Rhadamante 23:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  30. Per Rhadamante. SM ** =^^= ** 23:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  31. I have the same opinion as Rhadamante. Okki 23:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  32. Cf Rhadamante. Kyro 23:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  33. Per Drini and the most above. --Diego Grez return fire 23:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  34. The fact that you had a brilliant idea some years ago does not have to give you some extra rights. The comunity is to be respected, specially since it's this very comunity that has done what all the foundation projects are. Since you've acted very clearly against this comunity, there is no reason why you should have a special status, given you do not use it wisely. Meodudlye 23:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  35. I agree with esby and Rhadamante. Nemoi 00:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC).
  36. Wikipedia is no longer a pet project of Jimbo Wales. "It stopped being just a website a long time ago. For many of us, most of us, Wikipedia has become an indispensable part of our daily lives". Trycatch 00:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  37. Jimbo has a long history of questionable unilateral decision. Does anyone remember his panicked reaction to Seigenthaler? We were promised a study showing that ordering the devs to turn off anonymous page creation actually, y'know, reduced vandalism. That study has signally not appeared. Anonymous page creation is still disabled. And that's not recent, that's from way back. Why does Jimbo still have these rights, after errors that would cost anyone else their rights? If it's about what he has 'earned', isn't his place in the history books enough of a reward? Do the wikis Jimbo has meddled in lack all oversight, are incapable of governing themselves? Is there no OFFICE? --Gwern 01:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  38. I think his actions are unacceptable, undemocratic and a threat to the freedom of expression within the statutory limits. What a shame... Dnm 01:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  39. For censhorship on Commons. Kick him out! --Ragimiri 02:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  40. Congratulations to Jimbo for being the founder. Not its time to move on. He clearly has lost site of the ideals and goals of this massive and beautiful project. Giving him a special pass, and considering the countless hours of editing and work done by the masses and volitionally. Well, its just not cool. Wait for this to grow on Reddit, and other online communities that edit and utilize Wikipedia. It is already hurting the project. Make it stop, get him out of here.
  41. The fiasco on Commons shows clearly why this global status is dangerous. Let each community choose whether they want to give all powers to a single unaccountable person. R 03:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  42. Per the above. Blurpeace 04:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  43. The Commons mess and Wikiversity episodes clearly show that this flag is all but a good thing. The age of unilateral decision should have been long forgotten. The foundation has a capable staff, well respected by the community, that can handle such issues more professionally and shoowing some tact. Snowolf How can I help? 05:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  44. Due to bulldozing consensus on Commons, apparently against the wishes of the Board. Jimbo has no authority beyond being a board member. Roux 05:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  45. Wikimedia projects, and especially Wikimedia Commons, do not need an autocrat, though “Jimbo” has given much help to the projects. There is a community of users and contributors, and Mr. Wales must respect them and wait for their opinion, instead of having more and more a behaviour of a dictator. Where are the former decisions of the Board of Trustees, giving him the right to do what he has done yesterday (deleting a big lot of images on Commons, a few weeks after the 'Wikiversity' affair)? Please Mr. Wales, resign yourself your position (Founder, with technical rights of a steward) and let the projects live alone and have their own decisions. You should be only an ambassador of the Foundation. It's enough to give you much work all over the world, from an airplane to another. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 06:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  46. A megalomaniac with dictatorial powers can only serve to harm the project. Resolute 06:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  47. --'S[1] 06:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  48. Per most of the above. Tim Song 06:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  49. per reasond written above. After several decisions and actions without any respect to the international community and against projects beside his small focus that I strongly oppose I don't see any reason for AGF -- Achim Raschka 06:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  50. Today, Jimbo became vandal in chief, whatever his reasons. That we couldn't block him as he tore through the projects means the founder flag has to go. --Alecmconroy 06:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  51. Even if Wikimedia projects are not a democracy, they should not be a dictatorship either ; I don't see any valid reason for someone to keep these rights when he uses them without respect for the other contributors. Croquant 06:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  52. I agree with most that has already been said above. Skippy le Grand Gourou 07:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  53. Has completely lost touch with Wikipedia's intention to be an international encyclopedia and enforces censorship beyond matters of the legality of content, i.e. censorship of material decided on matters of taste, i.e. arbitrary cultural bias (pictures of sexuality now, pictures of violence, the prophet Muhammad, i.e. anything "offensive" to anyone later). --Asthma 07:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  54. Per above. Acdx 08:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  55. Kragenfaultier 08:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  56. Someone who shows such egregious disrespect for the project communities shouldn't have any special rights. His actions send the message "You are too stupid or unwilling to do the right thing, so Jimbo has to do it for you." Jimbo knows what is best for you, not necessary to discuss it with the community. By his actions he destroys a core value of the project: decision making by discussion and consensus. Instead we get decision making by "one person knows what's best for everyone." Why do we need deletion rules or desysopping procedures? Just do it on a whim, Jimbo has set the precedent. --Elian 08:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC) his actions could have sent this message. But I'm sure he did the right thing. --Sooonnniii 13:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  57. Grillo 08:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC) (Jimbo calls himself a constitutional monarch. I live in a constitutional monarchy, and if there's something that Jimbo should know about such monarchs, it's that whenever they say anything remotely political, there is a huge controversy. It's time for these special powers to go, since they obviously have never been just ceremonial.)
  58. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 08:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  59. --tpa2067 (Allô...) 08:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  60. Kameraad Pjotr 08:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Disrespect for community consensus, censorship, grave abuse of admin powers, acting as a tyrant.
  61. I had no prior opinion about the case, but I have just seen the recent Commons log. This is a censorship campaign in blatant violation of the Commons policies, in particular with the definition of the project scope. Coming from any user, I would request that he be removed the ability to do that again. --Eusebius 08:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    Edit:Dcoetzee (#201, below) has nicely expressed what I think should be done with this kind of privilege. --Eusebius 22:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  62. the principle of consensus hasn't been respected, also the follow your own rules first. Jimbo should next time wait a little more before applicate only want he want to do --Gdgourou 08:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  63. Agreee with Drini.--Abiyoyo 09:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  64. Grue 09:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  65. per above --Jodo 09:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  66. Absolutely. He has shown many times that this role is not for him. His abuse of it makes a mockery of the entire community. Maedin\talk 09:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  67. --Darwinius 09:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC) With the above, mainly for his recent attitude at Commons. Jimbo disrespected consensus, imposing his own will by brute force, causing significant damage in Commons and many other projects. Many of the images censored by him are already restored, showing how ill thought were his actions, most notably wheel warring to censor works of art by notable artists of the 19th century under the false cover of "out of project scope"[5] [6], as well as attempting to silence criticism. With such egregious abuses, Jimbo has clearly shown he doesn't have the necessary responsibility to hold such a flag. (And I also support Drini statement).
    I reinforce my opinion above after Jimbo's last claim of "self-removing virtually all permissions to do things" while keeping the ability to restore them at will (intentionally keeping globalgrouppermissions).--Darwinius 14:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  68. With the above, mainly for his recent attitude at Commons. Deep silence 09:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  69. I too agree with the proposal. Kodemage 09:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  70. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." --voyager 09:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  71. per Hégésippe, Snowolf, Eusebius and more others... --Chmee2 10:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  72. I was (at least) surprised when I read what happened and more when I saw the actions by my own eyes. These actions can not be qualified as courageous on one hand, as the status of Goodwill dictator is an efficient shield, and on the other hand, it is an abusive use of administrator abilities. Another person would have been blocked. And this is not the first time that Jimbo forget that Wikimedia is build by thousand of users who are not his employees. So ... This exceptional status must be removed. Grimlock 10:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  73. Jimmy Wales has abused his rights. Palu 10:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  74. No absolute power, especially in a consensus-based community. - Mobius Clock 10:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  75. Abusing rights is a serious breaching of ethics. Mr. Wales abused his right. --Matthiasb 10:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  76. Unacceptable. --Howwi 10:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  77. I agree --Florian Adler 10:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  78. +1 right abuse is a serious issue --Julius1990 10:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  79. --Felix Stember 10:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC) serious abuse of rights
  80. Weft 10:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  81. --Leyo 10:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC) deletion wars ([7], [8]), any other admin/user would have been blocked for such a behaviour
  82. Yes, please. I just reviewed some of his actions mentioned on the foundation mailing list. I'm worried he could abuse his power more and more. Barras talk 11:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  83. -- Rlbberlin 11:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  84. INSAR 11:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  85. --Александр Мотин 11:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  86. --Paramecium 11:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  87. Even if the evolutions are partly pertinent (I said "partly" !) there are many clear examples of abuse of power and extreme drifts. Commons is far from being improved with such behaviour ! (NB : I'm mainly active on Commons and on French Wikipedia) --TwoWings 11:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  88. --Isderion 11:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC) see nr. 7 + recent behaviour
  89. PDD 11:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  90. aleichem 11:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  91. -- Cymothoa exigua 11:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  92. agreed --norro 11:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  93. --Micha 11:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC) because such a behaviour simply destroys the project. Why should I work for a community project if one mightful person can overrule the whole community because of his own private ideas?
  94. --08-15 11:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  95. --Revolus Echo der Stille 12:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  96. per Hégésippe (#45). DocteurCosmos 12:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  97. --Orci 12:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  98. Everyone else would lose his rights for this. We are a community. --Jahobr 12:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  99. Jimbo’s behaviour is far from what it should be in such a community. Moipaulochon 12:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  100. Wales should be treated like any other user. Tisane 12:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  101. --Histo 13:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  102. For blatantly misusing his current power. Like any other figurehead their "power" relies on them not actually using it. Once they start doing this against the interest of the community it's time to remove that power. /Lokal Profil 13:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  103. --Tomas e 13:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  104. Per Hégésippe, and others. Xic667 13:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  105. Yellowcard 13:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  106. Noritaka666 13:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  107. I wasn't going to weigh in after the Wikiversity affair (I've pretty much retired from Wikimedia since then, and en.wv is just barely limping along now). While I actually think clearing out a good bit of the pornography on commons is a good idea, I don't think Jimbo's approach to this sort of thing is constructive. In both cases (as well as the "vendetta banning" last week), he gave the impression of treating adult contributors like children, which will inevitably lead to a volunteer admin corps comprised mostly of young people (which is fine for most things, but not so good for gatekeeping against pornography, let alone pedophiles). I don't think he intends to come off that way, but he does, because he's always been a bit separate from the community and doesn't have the "benefit" of having been treated that way by others (and when he has run into situations like that, he simply performed and/or orchestrated a ban). I don't think the idea of having a foundation-appointed "super steward" is necessarily a bad thing, but it should be someone selected for their diplomatic abilities within the community. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 13:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  108. → 30 Rhadamate --Garfieldairlines 13:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  109. Chaddy 13:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC) He latterly behaves like a dictator...
  110. Dodo 13:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  111. Silesianus 13:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  112. --Coyau 13:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  113. I expect public apology from Mr. Jimmy, wikimedia projects are not his own private property, and we are not his own private slaves! --Phyrexian 13:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  114. --Sozi 13:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  115. --Slfi 13:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  116. Joshua06 13:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  117. TheDJ 13:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  118. --Nemissimo 13:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  119. Per all above. Serebr 13:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  120. TimeClock871 14:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  121. --Savant-fou 14:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  122. Wikimedia projects are far too important to be subject to a single dictator, as "benevolent" as he may think himself. As so often, "well-meant" has proven to be the opposite of "well-done". --AndreasPraefcke 14:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  123. BlakFlak 14:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  124. Per Drini. --Vituzzu 14:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  125. Bernhard Wallisch 14:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  126. No doubt. --Kacir 14:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  127. Per Drini's statement. Dodoïste 14:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  128. In nearly every use of the "Founder authority" that I've seen Jimmy Wales use this authority, it has been very disruptive to the community, drove users from the various projects, and created a whole bunch of bad feelings. Back when he was personally footing the bills for the servers and paid for what professional staff were involved, perhaps this sort of remotely made sense. At this point in time, such authority doesn't even remotely make sense and this is a relic from a bygone era. I have no doubt that if Mr. Wales thought there was a problem with one of the projects in some way or another that he opinion on the matter would be given substantial (perhaps even disproportional?) weight within the community and merely by stating that a problem exists would, as social creatures that we are and how the Wikimedia community responds, would likely even see change. No single person ought to have this kind of authority as a super-bureaucrat sans oversight within the Wikimedia projects, and the actions that have happened here show precisely what can go wrong when accountability is thrown out the window. Perhaps Mr. Wales was well meaning and in some ways I happen to agree with his sentiment on the issue of porn and the Wikimedia projects. All that said, he should have taken the issue to the community using the proper channels and not acted as somebody above existing project policies not subject to consensus building. If an action should have happened, consensus should have take place first. --Roberth 14:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  129. per Drini. --Brownout(msg) 14:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  130. We are community based project, not autocracy. --Elm 14:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  131. I sincerely thank Jimbo for co-founding all this stuff here. But it seems to me that, in the last 2/3 years, he was more willing to please US medias every time that they has something to say about us, instead of working for WMF projects. Sorry Jimbo, but we're all peers. -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 14:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  132. --Demart81 (Qualcuno mi cerca?) 14:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  133. --Tilla 14:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  134. One flag to overrule them all, one flag to elide them, one flag to bulldoze all and in chaos leave behind them. In the Wikimedia Commons, where the pornos lie. No thanks.mnh·· 14:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  135. Per Drini and Gwern, see also Petition to Jimbo. --Nemo 14:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  136. Prolog 15:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  137. Deleting porn may be well-done ; speed-deleting media files in use in Wikimedia projects, and art pictures, is abusive. And why didn't Jimbo Wales wait a little time to let Wikimedia Commons' community reach an agreement ? --Edhral 15:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC) (sorry for my bad english)
  138. (per request) User:BarkingFish supports strongly this. His letter to the WMF. --Diego Grez return fire 15:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  139. it's against wiki principles --Rosentod 15:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  140. Per many of the above comments; I would elaborate but a) it's probably been said above, and b) I would then EC for ages.Chzz 15:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  141. This special statut is a non-sens. O2 15:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  142. Liesel 15:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  143. --Ureinwohner 15:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  144. Benevolent my ass. Deleting Art Deco prints as smut in an effort to soothe Fox News? This guy turns out to be not only a bigot, but a menace to the freedom of expression. --Janneman 15:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  145. Ælfgar 16:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  146. --Patafisik 16:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  147. Être le fondateur d'une entreprise ou d'une association ne signifie pas avoir le plein pouvoir dessus. Je pense qu'il en va de même pour Wikipédia et les autres sites de la Wikimedia Foundation. Après avoir analyser l'affaire, je pense que Jimbo Wales a abusé de ses prérogatives et, tout comme on peut enlevé les outils d'administrateur à quelqu'un qui en abuse, on doit retirer les "outils de fondateur" à Jimbo Wales. Ju gatsu mikka 16:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  148. --Julez A. 16:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  149. --Peter Putzer 16:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Most parents realize that they have to let their children live their own lives. Jimbo apparently doesn't.
  150. --Aalfons 16:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  151. Same as my reasoning here. Commons did need cleaning up, but delete-everything-and-rebuild-from-scratch isn't the way to go. If anyone other than Jimmy Wales had done this, they'd undoubtedly have been banned from the project altogether; while Jimbo is an important figure in the history of Wikipedia/Wikimedia, the sites are not his personal sandboxes, and his "kill them all and let God sort them out" spree is well over the line into vandalism. Iridescent 16:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  152. As per Powerek38, Hégésippe, Elian and many others. I am all for cleaning Commons from out-of-scope pictures, which does include the porn amongst other subjects. I also believe the Board has the right to define what can be hosted on the WMF servers or not. This is not about that; this is about respecting the rules. If a Board decision is due regarding porn, why not wait and disclose it properly? How can Jimbo think dropping a link to his personal talk page is a normal way to announce policies? Jimbo stepped aside in 2003 and gave the keys to the Foundation. He has to respect his own decisions. Jastrow 16:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  153. --Aka 16:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC) I completely agree that many of the pornographic images where not within the scope of this project. But the way the deletions happend - cleaning up and argueing later about - should never happen again.
  154. --Knopfkind 17:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  155. --Yodaspirine 17:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  156. I don't disagree that Commons needed rid of useless pornographic images, but the method used? No way. OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 17:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  157. XenonX3 17:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Jimbo, that was crap
  158. Per many of the above comments. --Цой падавіўся мацой 17:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  159. per Aka, OohBunnies! and many other above comments. -- Ra'ike 17:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  160. -- Martin Bahmann 17:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  161. -- Torben Schink 17:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  162. --Mabschaaf 17:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  163. Diliff 18:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  164. per Aka --4028mdk09 18:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  165. -- Carbidfischer 18:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  166. --BishkekRocks 18:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  167. Ace^eVg 18:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  168. --Karsten11 18:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  169. A benevolent dictatorship can be a fine thing. But an erratic-dictator-for-life is just an embarrassment. Better to take a step back from the project. —David Eppstein 18:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  170. --Septembermorgen 18:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  171. Yes please. Projects shouldn't have to deal with fallout caused by Wales's ill thought out fits motivated by media criticism. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  172. What Atmoz said. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 18:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  173. --Epiq 18:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  174. --Kolossos 19:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  175. Even "benevolent" dictatorship is a very bad thing. I can reconcile with autocratic intervention as a "necessary evil" in some rare extreme cases where standard decision-making procedures cannot work or work very ineffective, but not every time dictator wish (like in the recent case). Altes 19:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  176. ChristianH 19:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC) It doesn't matter if he's or he's not the project's founder, but following the rules. And the rules were broken.
  177. --Berntie 19:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC), a dictator is never a good thing, be it a "benevolent" or a malevolent one.
  178. Jimbo has consistently demonstrated poor judgment and a willingness to stick his nose in unwanted. It is time to remove his technical ability to do so. The Wordsmith 19:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  179. His recent actions on the Commons have convinced me that he should not be trusted with the powers currently given to him. --Falcorian 19:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  180. --Toter Alter Mann 20:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  181. These interventions show extremely poor judgement, and have done immense harm to the community. I no longer believe that Jimmy is responsible enough to keep these powers. the wub "?!" 20:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  182. --Kuebi 20:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  183. --HanFSolo 20:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  184. --Thi 20:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  185. The very idea of Wikimedia -that of a community project- is in contradiction with this special status. The fact that Jimbo has shown poor judgment is just a reminder of the risk that come with that sort of status. Gede 20:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  186. I agree with Sannita. --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 20:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  187. Per Drini (#2). Even though Jimbo's last editions might have been useful and pertinent, the rules are the same for everyone. And the point is that any other user would have been immediatly blocked for such actions. I greatly acknowledge Jimbo's merits for founding this project, but we, the users, make it live; now it has grown and become mature, perhaps Jimbo has difficulties accepting that he just cannot control it anymore - Neef - 2 20:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  188. There might be a problem with some picture. I must admit I really do not care about it. Nevertheless, I must also admit that I really do not accept this autocratic method. If there is a problem that do not directly originate from legal concerns, the solution has to emerge from discussions and consensus. Not from a "benevolent monarch", that even do not realize that his actions could be problematic. I acknoledge Jimbo for everything he gave to the project. Not for what he is giving now. David Berardan 20:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  189. --Grim.fandango 20:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  190. Джимбо надо бессрочно заблокировать. Он поддерживает терористов Партию операторов из русской Википедии.--Agent001 20:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  191. Suppport this as a temporary measure. He has used his global admin/bureucrat rights to set policy at commons, against consensus. Pohta ce-am pohtit 20:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  192. Support, completely. At least, there should be a public recall discussion. Jimbo is constantly endorsing out of policy, out of consensus behaviour. He did it recently with the unsourced BLP non-problem; he is doing it now again with images on Commons. This has to stop. --Cyclopia 20:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  193. -- chatterDisk 20:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  194. This special status is a call to abuse. Community, not autocraty. Mérôme Jardin 21:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  195. Without commenting directly on the picture story, this flag is an invitation to non-accountability. Schutz 21:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  196. That status has overwhelmed people and the local projects. ZooFari 21:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  197. --Robot Monk 21:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  198. The flag is an an anachronism. As a matter of policy, no one individual should be granted unlimited authority over projects who existence depend on the functioning of community consensus. I think there times when effective leadership is needed, and even heavy-handed leadership, but that should come from the WMF or the collective Board. Such power should not be granted in perpetuity to a single man. Dragons flight 21:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  199. --Michael Kümmling 21:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  200. --D.W. 21:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  201. Jimbo Wales is a great boon to Wikipedia as a figurehead and a spokesman. But he has a history of causing immense conflict whenever he tries to use his autocratic powers. Let's not forget the Userbox Wars and CSD T1, the wheel warring and the desysoped admins then too. This will always be the consequence, no matter what individual carries these powers. His recent actions were particularly hamfisted, demonstrating a fundamental disconnection from the processes and conventions of the Commons community. While I support the Board's privileges to take unpopular action in emergencies, they should do so through an unnamed, impersonal account representing their combined will. I invite Jimbo to voluntarily step down and act as a normal admin subject to the same sanctions and requirements as the rest of us; or failing that, I ask the Board to review his special privileges, to minimise future conflict. Dcoetzee 21:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  202. --Kulac 21:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  203. --Mutter Erde 21:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC) btw: Jimbo had no problem with underaged admins (15 years!), who can view all that deleted smut on commons. In fact, Jimbo has encouraged this boy (see here). btw: ME was the hardest worker on commons. Believe it or not. Mutter Erde 21:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  204. --Factumquintus 22:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  205. — I agree with the proposal. Lycaon 22:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  206. Per Drini´s comment and as i saw his actions on commons. --WizardOfOz talk 22:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  207. --→ «« Man77 »» [de]·[bar] 22:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  208. Sertion 22:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Are there any reasons not to?
  209. --Ankara 22:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  210. --Snotty 22:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  211. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 22:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC) - I didn't know all that stuff was happening. I'm perplexed and disappointed to know Wikipedia's founder disrespects everything he created. That was too much already.
  212. A community has to be able to protect itself. --Foroa 22:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    Jimbo is part of the community. Stephen B Streater 23:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry but no. Or to reformulate, Jimbo is part of the community like any member would be part of it. Commons is not Wikipedia, the communitys are separed, go on the french wikipedia for instance and check who really cares about Jimbo? esby 23:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    And no member of a healthy community ought to be free, like a loose cannon, to inflict indiscriminate damage whenever he announces that he is pursuing the best interests of the community. Tim Song 23:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  213. -- He's lost touch with the need not to ride roughshod over the community. His actions on Wikiversity, his support for summary deletion of unsourced BLPs, and his recent actions on Commons have all shown this. Time for Jimbo to let go. Fences and windows 23:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  214. Agreed with most of what has been said above. I do agree the founder bit should be removed, for two reasons. First reason is that he is abusing it, not respecting community rules (which he should). Second reason is to protect him. He certainly is first line in the press, where he can be very badly attacked. He can also be victim of pressure (for example from some of our big donors). He might also be considered the "owner" of Wikipedia from a legal perspective if he adopts unilateral behavior. As such, it is probably more safe for him and for the projects to prevent him from technically having access to such tools which allow him to impose his opinion. This said.... I am not quite sure how helpful this vote is. I am not convinced that any steward will have the guts to proceed with the change. I would be curious to see what happens if the bit is actually removed (with it be forcebly restored ? Will the steward be removed ? are questions worth asking in the view of the recent events ) Anthere 23:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • At this point, it's a done deal. Jimbo is resigning his tools or the projects will start forking to places like EFF. Nobody's gonna work for a dictator. --Alecmconroy 23:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  215. -- Cecil 23:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC) For what he is doing on Commons everybody else would have been blocked immediately as a vandal. This is nothing short of an amok run. Commons is an international project and actions there have consequences on all other projects. That's why it is important to talk first and only act afterwards. But Wales made it clear that he is only interested in discussion after he is finished with acting out his personal opinion. This is a disrespect to everybody on all projects. And this request here seems to be the only way to stop him.
  216. Peter boelens 23:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Acting before asking is not the way forward.
  217. Per Dcoetzee and Anthere. --5ko 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  218. I can't explain to my children the deletions of pieces of art. --Sargoth 23:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  219. But I’m not sure that the flag is not the real problem. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 23:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  220. I don't trust someone who obviously breach Wikimedia Commons rules and abuse his rights. Noone, even Mr. Wales, can't act like a dictator. Sorry Jimbo but what YOU did is totalitarian practice. --Faigl.ladislav 00:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  221. --Leithian 00:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  222. Rgoodermote 00:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  223. This is clearly abusive behavior, and would have resulted in the automatic desysopping of anyone else. Under these circumstances, keeping the flag implies that we're all contributing at Jimbo's pleasure, and that he has veto power over everything we do. (I'm okay with him keeping the flag on enwiki where he's actually had that historical role, and where the community accepts that role.) --Gribeco 00:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  224. The problem is this has been totally destructive. Files have been deleted that were either useful or in use. Good people have been demoralized. Did Jimbo really think we were creating porno-pages on the Wikipedia? Couldn't he look? See the arguments and consensus building over such things as illustration? Google any sex term and you'll get a load of porn, but the first thing you'll get is a Wikipedia page. You may love that or hate it, but there's a social responsibility there (just like with the medical pages), that exists irrespective of your feelings. People are getting phoney information from an ocean of porn: so be disgusted, but don't just "clean up" the one (attempted at least) source of good, clear, verified and well illustrated facts. If Jimbo says that anything goes is not OK I'll agree with him and I would actually have supported positive leadership towards a more socially responsible Wikipedia and Commons. Worldwide, AIDS is now the leading killer of women of child bearing age and knowledge is the only defense anyone has. --Simonxag 00:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  225. IMHO Jimbo is the single most disruptive user the projects have ever seen. Far and above higher than any other. There is no function served by giving anyone free license to do whatever he likes and then having a board/foundation do nothing but try to spin it into a service. Jimbo should not only have his founder flag removed, he should be community-banned as well.Wjhonson 00:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  226. +1 drini/anthere MIRROR 01:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  227. --Steef 389 01:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  228. --Chaoborus 01:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  229. Overdue. --auburnpilot talk 01:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  230. Boréal 02:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  231. Grumble. Speaking as an admin from en.Wikipedia, I agree with the consensus there. If he had done a similar deletion process on en.Wikipedia, and he were anyone other than Jimbo or BetaCommand, he would be permanently banned from the project. Even BetaCommand would have been blocked. Unless he wants to take personal responsibility, and take control back from the Board, he shouldn't have any special powers except those bestowed by the Board. (And, contrary to some assertions on the discussion on Commons:, the Board has not approved his actions; some Board members have, and some have said his actions were ill-considered.) — Arthur Rubin T C (en: U, T) 06:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  232. Going all the way back to the Bedford desysopping years ago, I've noticed the lack of fairness and due process in some of Jimbo's actions. He often seems to make knee-jerk reactions, rather than well thought out ones in using his authority. His opinions of course should be given a high level of respect, but unless something is a true emergency, he needs to defer to the community. Unless the board or the community has sacntioned his actions, he needs to think twice before doing them. That said, I doubt anything will come of this poll. 67.142.164.34 02:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  233. The shit! I'm totally disgusted with Jimbo's recent actions, it's plain vandalism and sysop flag abuse. They need to make Wikipedia children-friendly, huh? What the hell of a reason is that? Wikipedia is NO KIDDIE STUFF and had never been. We create damn encyclopedia here that naturally contains information about sex. We're not going to write some sanitized and censored stuff you can safely show to your 2-yr-old toddler. That totally won't do. Maybe Commons need to get some things cleaned up, but this must be done as a regular procedure — first discuss, then delete. No one can act as a dictator here in an international community. Ari Linn 02:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  234. Respectfully, I am behind Anthere. Rama 03:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  235. Long overdue. Tarc 03:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  236. Graoully 03:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  237. There is sometimes a need to take emergency action when community action is not possible or practical, but the most recent action was taken in direct defiance of community opinion in an ongoing discussion. Some people here have said that someone must have this power, and i would respond that it is precisely the issue that nobody can be allowed to have this power, for it will inevitably be misused. DGG 03:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  238. Jimbo must be held accountable for his actions, just as we would for anyone else. Silver seren 04:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  239. Long overdue indeed, for the good of the projects. As a school kid in 1976, we had this song explaining the American Revolution entitled No More Kings!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  240. Jimbo has good ideas, but he tends to be incredibly clumsy in implementing them. Taking away the Founder flag will be one step towards limiting the damage he can do. --Carnildo 05:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  241. --SibFreak 05:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  242. Wikipedia needs no dictator who puts media above the community. —Guy Peters 05:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  243. Remove. I've largely gone inactive on en due to censorship concerns myself. If Jimbo thinks the board will make a ruling, let him wait for it. Giving in to hysteria on Faux News is unacceptable. Disrupting a project (Commons) that all other projects depend on is extremely poor judgment. Engaging in wheel wars, threatening desysopping, and driving away several Commons admins and contributors, when it's clear the community is not behind the actions (to the point that several Commons admins have resigned adminship) is, to put it flatly, abusive use of the tools. If Jimbo can no longer resist pressure from outside influences, as it appears that he cannot, then he should not have the power to act at their behest. He can put in his suggestions, request adminship, and be subject to having it removed, just like the rest of us. Seraphimblade 07:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  244. DerHexer (Talk) 07:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  245. BARBARE42 07:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  246. Manoillon 07:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  247. The Wikimedia Foundation has grown far beyond the stage where we need a king for life. If Jimbo wants rights on Wikimedia projects, he should have to earn them like the rest of us.--Danaman5 07:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  248. see elian (#56)--Wolfgang H. 07:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  249. Shmuel 07:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  250. Matty the Damned 08:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  251. 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, what I witnessed and couldn't react. Masur 08:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  252. --Exorcist Z 08:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  253. --Andim 08:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  254. I don't want Wikimedia projects to go politicaly correct, based on a few people's opinion, while the rest of the community tries to make them as complete and neutral as possible. Mankind and its culture are not politicaly correct : if we want to represent them correctly, we'll always make some people angry. Today "pornography", tomorrow religious stuff? No thanks. Jimbo should have stopped deleting files as soon as he saw that some people disagreed with him, and should have consulted the community about this matter first. Alchemica 08:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  255. -- My trust in his moral qualifications in leading such a project (if we need such a "lead" at all) had been destroyed already during the Essjay affair, and many things have accumulated on top of this in the meantime. -- Arcimboldo 08:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  256. DingirXul 09:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  257. p-e 09:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  258. Zimak 09:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  259. --Zivax 09:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  260. Jimbo should not be the editorial manager of Wikimedia's projetcs. The founder flag leads to confusion. --Serein 09:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  261. There is no need for such flags.--NSX-Racer 09:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  262. No reason for the founder to have special rights. Like all of us, he MUST act with the agreement of the communities. Pymouss Tchatcher - 09:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  263. Jimbo is not the king of Wikimedia and he should not be acting unilaterally. The only ones who should have this kind of special flag are Sue Gardner on behalf of the Foundation and her designates. The examples that other have given of Jimbo's wheel waring make me wonder if he would pass an RFB. Arctic.gnome 09:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  264. Per above. Maurreen 09:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  265. The Founder flag is undemocratic in principle. This is a flag that could never be obtained by anyone else, and grants blanket powers. Even so, I'd be alright with it if its holder acted in a highly restrained and measured way. While I'm sure Jimbo has good intentions, I just don't see 'restrained' and 'measured' so much as I see 'bull' and 'China shop'. --TsukiToHoshiboshi 09:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  266. GL 09:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  267. In theory, such "superuser" flags have a use - occasionally, there may be need for emergency measures that cannot be obtained by the regular methods (a bit like the "reserve powers" of democratic heads of states). The idea is that such powers should be used sparingly, if at all. Thus, whoever wields them should keep a cool head. It seems to me that Jimmy did not keep a cool head in the face of the Fox News scandal. Furthermore, Jimmy's actions, on this issue and on earlier ones that appeared in the media, make it seem as if he were some kind of editor-in-chief. That's not good, if only for legal reasons - because he could then be held personally accountable, or be considered to be acting in an official editorial capacity for the Foundation. David.Monniaux 10:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    • In the rare case of a real emergency, there is always the executive director or her deputy who can call on an entire team of staff, sysadmins and devs. Most of the time Wales uses his tools to short-circuit the community discussion. Mind you, if you want to be really efficient, you can always learn from certain Chinese websites. Hillgentleman 10:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  268. Awersowy 10:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  269. Szymon Żywicki 10:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  270. I respect Jimbo's role in the English Wikipedia and suspect a majority of wikimedians do, but his role in other projects is problematic. I support removal of his powers across all projects. Those children have grown up and are independent. He may still have these powers on he English Wikipedia. --Bduke 10:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  271. Erdrokan 10:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  272. Milek80 10:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  273. He does not respect users' opinions, and we users and editors are the reason why Wikimedia and all its projects exist. Either he cooperates with us or he leaves. This is a community and he *must* obey its rules!! --Bucephala 10:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  274. A humble and objective founder who stepped in under only the most extreme circumstances would be one thing; Jimbo is quite another. Rvcx 11:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  275. Zaijaj 11:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  276. Jakubhal 11:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  277. Per Drini and Ævar. ^demon 11:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  278. No reason to have such a special status, which is - in many ways - incompatible with Wikipedia spirit and usage. --Jean-Christophe BENOIST 11:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  279. If Jimmy hadn't had the access, he wouldn't have been able to cause the mayhem. This is exactly why in many wikis inactive admins are desysopped. Siebrand 11:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  280. --Ca$e 11:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  281. Jimmy is the founder of the English Wikipedia and I have no problem with him having the access there, but having it across all projects is problematic. While I broadly support what Jimmy did, the way he went about doing it has caused more problems than it has solved. The flag should be suspended for now and each community should be able to come to its own conclusion about what special powers (if any) he should have. Craig Franklin 12:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC).
  282. A lot of bright comments above. Barraki 12:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  283. Everyone has to obey the rules. There is no exceptions. Andrzej19 12:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  284. Per wikiversity and commons issues. Zil 13:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  285. --Don-kun 14:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  286. A72 14:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  287. We can read Its roles [of founders] in various Wikimedia projects are not yet defined. This role is enough fuzzy to be removed -- Xfigpower (yak yak) 14:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  288. --Paulis 14:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  289. Fruggo 14:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC) I have long felt that Jimmy Wales, as founder of Wikipedia, should deserve our highest respect. The last few years however, he has demonstrated in several cases that he can be very rash, and acts on an opinion that is not necessarily shared by the community. Of course, the community can get it wrong, and Wikip/media is not a democracy, but mr Wales is taking it too far. For me, his actions regarding the "porn-issue" proves that he no longer has the best interest of the Wikimedia projects in mind.
  290. If he wants special local rights in a project, he can candidate as administrator in it. And if the project community trusts him, he gets the rights. --Morten Haan 14:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  291. Enough is enough. Time and again, Mr. Wales overreacts to bad publicity in draconian ways. There is no comprimise and does not appear to be much contemplation about the long-term effects of Mr. Wales knee-jerk decrees. Time and again, when comprimise and amicable solutions exist, Mr. Wales supports draconian measures. What is worse, Mr. Wales fosters a company culture and editors which the media has called "combative" "bullying" and "short sighted". The number of Wikipedia editors are plummeting because of the bullying atmosphere Mr. Wales has helped create. How long before donations start dropping? Thank you for being the co-creator of Wikipedia Mr. Wales, for the good of the project, please step down amicably before you completely destroy Wikipedia, or are forced out. Okip 15:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  292. I'm not explicity against "Founder" flag, as long as this does not coincide with "GODMODE" powers... --WikiKiwi 15:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  293. His recent unlateral deletions on Commons have shown his contempt for the community. Emergency (due to media attention) is not an excuse. On the contrary, it only proves a lack of organisation and the inability to take care of problems in due time, as most of those deleted images have been there for months, if not years. Organisation and respect are the main two qualities I expect from a leader. — Xavier, 15:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  294. --Bunnyfrosch 15:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC) there is a antagonism between censorship and free knowlege
  295. If he wants special local rights in a project, he can candidate as administrator in it. And I'm agree with Alchemica's opinion. Buisson38 15:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  296. --Sir James 15:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  297. Jimbo rarely ever acts, but when he does, it almost always goes poorly. According to Jimbo, his actions in this case were done so that the story in the media would be that Wikipedia cleaned up the porn. However, even days later, no major media outlet other than Fox has covered the story. If they do, we'll be lucky if they don't still paint us in a negative light for bending to pressure from conservative media, for deleting historical artworks, or for driving dozens of contributors away in the process. Mr.Z-man 15:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    And it appears that the press critical to Jimbo's actions has begun. Mr.Z-man 20:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    Google translation. #::More media from Google news.
  298. This guy has way too much power. --Geekux 16:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  299. --84.176.214.146 16:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC) - it's me: --Geos 16:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  300. Taketa 16:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC) - Just because you are qualified in one field, does not mean you are qualified in another. A Nobel Prize winner in physics can probably not fix my fridge and good grace I'd never trust him with a pacemaker. You are the founder, yet if you can't fix the simplest of problems on Wikimedia projects (see commentary), then good grace you should not be playing steward. Please take a step back, think and accept a more advisory position. Stick with what you are good at. Let the communities, your communities handle practicle application.
  301. « Because his founder flag has not been removed... ». He remains founder, but I ask to remove his founder flag, accorging to, for exemple, the Hégésippe argumentation (n°45) --Acer11 16:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  302. Because of my view of well organzied community projects (refers not to WMF) – democracy with strong limited elements of technocracy. In this spirit: per Morten Haan.
    Annotation, not part of the reasons for this decision: If a media like FOX is going to hazard the reputation and so called "public relations" of the projects, there should be at first the reflection in dimension of harassment. The projects are globally well-established, one single US-media with in parts bad reliability should not initiate such a quarrel and hectic rush. If we unterstand the projects in the relation to media like this – in the role of the impotent victim – we get smaller just because of our own, fictitious helplessness. --Hæggis 16:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  303. Wikisilki 16:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  304. The funny thing is that I would have been even glad to get rid of most of those pictures. But what has happened is Wikimedia being driven by the right wing propaganda machine of the USA. I am seriously thinking that a fork might be the right way to go, as the Spanish Wikipedia has already done once. --Ecelan 16:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  305. Syrcro 16:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  306. Sadly, yes. Generating more issues than it solves. Stifle 16:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  307. ----habakuk 17:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  308. Dreitmen 17:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  309. --myself488 17:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  310. --Poco a poco 17:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  311. --Mannen av börd 17:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Per NSX-Racer
  312. --Mik.c.OS 19:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  313. --Momotaro 17:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  314. -- Marcus Cyron 18:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  315. --WiseWoman 18:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC) If EN lets you play godking there, so be it. But Commons belongs to the community. And when you remove material in other wikis, you are overstepping a boundary. Time to retire.
  316. --Pommesgabel 18:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC) per most of the above
  317. --Marcl1984 18:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  318. --DuncanHill 19:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  319. He acts the part of Macbeth --FSHL 19:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  320. --Cartinal 19:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  321. Diegusjaimes 19:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  322. --Poko 20:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  323. --Ecemaml 20:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  324. In my opinion this was an abuse of privileges. It was not the first time Jimbo acted overly prude on censoring sexual content. I remember Jimbos intervention on the german wikipedia when the article Vulva was featured. –MovGP0 21:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  325. Against shotgun approaches and single man policies imposed down the throat of individual projects, against the silencing of dissident speech (this inst USSR) against "moralist" massive deletions without a community approach started by someone that 10 years ago made a living of pornography (how ironic?), against "king rule". Tm 21:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  326. Either remove it completely or make it a purely cosmetic flag. en:Chilling effect (term) on top of what everyone else said. -- RichiH 22:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  327. --Anghy 22:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  328. --Si! SWamP 22:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC) no idea of another inventive comment.
  329. -- Neozoon 22:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC) clear case for me
  330. --Tolanor 22:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC) evidently no sense for important values, e. g. the freedom of art
  331. If something that Jimbo wants done really needs to be done, it should be done through the proper channels. Regardless of whether an autocratic action is right or wrong, it's the wrong way to do it in a project that now has a proper foundation and board structure. --Stormie 01:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  332. Noodle snacks 03:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  333. There's no need for this flag. Jimbo can use the proper channels like anyone else. Regarding Jimbo's supposed status as "Godking" on enwiki, I'd like to point out that he has no real power there anymore. His special status was effectively removed by the ArbCom/the community and the people who kept him in power have either been gagged by ArbCom or left. It has been years since Jimbo tried to force his opinions through on enwiki and he understands that this isn't the proper approach. Why on earth he thought he could get away with this on Commons is beyond my imagination. Vyvyan Ade Basterd 05:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  334. KveD (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  335. --Eresthor 06:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  336. Remove all special powers that Mr. Wales has not gained through the appropriate processes (i.e. RfA, etc.) --Torritorri 06:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  337. Acaro 07:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  338. I totally agree with Hégésippe's vote (see N°45), moreover Mr Wales should respect the basis of his own creation: The fact he wished WP free mustn'st be undone by the same man who would act like god himself deciding alone of what should be or shouldn't. Mythe, Angers, France, may the 10th, 2010 (9:38 am)
  339. --Kuebi 07:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  340. Stef48 08:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  341. Jimmy Wales has abused his rights. Koko90 09:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  342. Flag not needed. Mirgolth 09:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  343. It seems that he has not understand he can't do whatever he wants just as he's founder. He has abused his rights by deleting pages on Commons and desysopping users on the Wikiversity. In the same way, he tried many times to hide global operations, for instance by adding himself the sysadmin group on the english Wikiversity, and by "making adjustments" without any consensus to his own group yesterday. We can't trust him. -- Quentinv57 10:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
    @Quentinv57:Let me get this straight: you vote to remove his founderflag partly because he has himself removed the rights to do active admin-actions from that user group (per your last link), "without consensus" but according to the wishes expressed a majority on this page. That doesn't make much sense to me. Finn Rindahl 10:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  344. To prevent further lapses of judgment having such an impact. Deleting a page of mild criticism? That's dictatorship, and has nothing to do with legal situations. Repeatedly deleting historical works by famous artists because someone at FOX may have a heart attack when seeing it is counterproductive. If you want to have a community, then you have to respect the community. Fram 10:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  345. Abuse of special power. I support the removal Kirtap 11:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  346. Lukas9950 11:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  347. M-J 11:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  348. We are grateful to Mr Wales for what he has done for Wikipedia etc. but I cannot see why he should have a status different from other people, especially if we cannot trist him anymore. Remi Mathis 12:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  349. Several clear abuse of his status; when this status wasn't clearly allowed by the community. He, by his action, has clearly been the cause of the troubles ! Loreleil 12:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  350. Please disconnect Jimbo of Wikimedia. --ArséniureDeGallium 13:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  351. Well, after two days informing myself, I vote for removal. My point is to keep the fundamental of Wikimedia, which is a wiki, ain't it ? Liorek 13:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  352. Jarke 14:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  353. Madbros 14:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  354. STRONG support. Abuse of powers; this is severely damaging Commons. Ecw.technoid.dweeb 14:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  355. SteMicha 14:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  356. Smuliman 14:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  357. Long overdue, for a multitude of reasons. Amerique 14:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  358. -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  359. Long overdue, 1789 has passed for more than two centuries. Fossa 16:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  360. Support removal of special rights because of blatant wheel war and disrespect of consensus and removal of status because this actually leads to confusion since nobody has editorial authority. — Arkanosis 17:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  361. Agree. Wikipedia cannot bend to an agenda scheduled by external media and work under threatening of getting funds cut because of the nature of its contents. Wikipedia must respect law, not moral. -- Blackcat 17:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  362. Agree. --Birczanin 18:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  363. Support Vuvar1 18:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  364. Support. Marg bar wiktator. --Stlemur 18:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  365. Support Ludo29 18:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  366. Abuse of power, rodrigotalk 19:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC).
  367. Voice-of-All 19:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  368. Gdarin | talk 19:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  369. Remove all special powers. -Harbelser 21:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  370. Support --Xkoalax 22:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  371. In the last few years, every time Wales directly intervenes in any of the Wikimedia projects (okay, I can only attest to every time on en.wikipedia), it is immediately clear that he has no clue about how the community functions. At best, he acts with incredible clumsiness, alienating even individuals who support his goals; at worst, he will make a bad situation worse. (Not to say the rest of us are experts about our communities, & never make mistakes -- but at least most of us know we aren't experts, & admit it.) There has to be some way to make him realize that he can't be a cowboy any more. (PS, lots of folks on en.wikipedia are tired of his arbitrary acts there, probably more than on any other Wikimedia project.) -- Llywrch 23:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  372. Support. Jimbo Wales should have the "founder" bit removed, and ultimately the bit itself should be eliminated from the project as a whole. It serves no useful purpose to the community. If specialized privileges are needed on one project or another, he can submit himself through that process on a case-by-case basis. JBsupreme 23:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  373. --Taichi - (あ!) 23:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  374. Yes, I see no need for a special founder group. Ganeshk 03:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  375. - John Belushi 06:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  376. -- Widescreen ® Everyone can see, that its not a good idea to let an Entrepreneur be the "head" of an enzyklopedia. The Projekt is build to collect free contents. 07:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  377. I have defended Jimbo in the past - but a "Founder flag" which has no powers at all is a paper crown at best. It is time for the flag to be excised. Collect 10:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  378. Remove the flag --Cvf-ps 10:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  379. This has become one of Wikipeida's greatest liabilities and is an archaic relic of the past. Arsenikk (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  380. Support - Our founders actions have been erratic and arbitrary lately, and I am glad he is reducing his ability to override consensus on a whim. He should lead by words and sentiment, not by rash deeds. Judgesurreal777 18:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  381. --Dedda71 18:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  382. I do not think it is necessary or wise for Jimbo to have these powers. It would be better for the community to make major decisions about Wikimedia projects. Captain panda 19:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  383. Was a liability in the past and is only a decoration at present. Get rid of it once and for all. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  384. Fale 14:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  385. per Hégésippe and anthere. Bapti 16:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  386. - Many others, from Drini on down this list, have already made the argument better than I could. cmadler 18:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  387. --79.41.36.220 20:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  388. Multichill 12:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  389. Remember the Essjay affair.--Insert coins 19:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  390. The lack of a clearly-defined role for the Founder group makes the group unnecessary; the increasing distrust of Jimbo in multiple communities makes the role harmful. Just remove the user group. Titoxd(?!?) 20:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  391. I'm not that upset over the recent events, but I don't see how the Founder flag helps wikipedia become a better encyclopedia (or how it helps any other project for that matter). Keeping it just causes unnecessary friction. Pax:Vobiscum 16:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  392. Consider this long overdue. Jimbo's been trying to live on historical legacy for long enough. Historical fact of having founded this whole thing does not override poor judgment and incompetence. Heimstern 16:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  393. Support — Remove the flag. Tanvir 17:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  394. I support the removal of the flag; its abuse here by Jim Wales has proved harmful. Turtleduck 19:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  395. Even after Jimbo's recent partial abdication, remove flag entirely. Jimbo has exhibited a consistent inability to respect consensus. Lethe 06:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  396. Yep, the time has come to remove this anachronism. And apart from anything else, we should not be happy with the systemic privileging of the English WP over the other WPs, which the founder's flag inevitably represents. Tony1 10:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  397. Samuel Contré 20:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  398. This is an anachronism. Time for the project to mature and move on. GiacomoReturned 21:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  399. Notwithstanding the dubious validity of the complaint, I will not comment on it to avoid occluding the fundamental principle in question. With all due respect to our esteemed founder, and all that he has done for the project, the project is now bigger than any one person. They days when the wisdom of one can overrule collective wisdom, or the days when some animals are more equal than others, are gone; the flag belongs in the bin. The King is dead, Long Live the King! Ohconfucius 07:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  400. Jimbo doesn't need a badge and a non-profit educational foundation doesn't need a cop. Worldwide celebrity, near absolute editorial sway and mutual respect should be enough. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  401. I'm not aware of whatever's gone on recently re. Jimmy Wales' actions, I just don't see the logic in a community project of an individual having absolute power and the community having no say in that. I don't see a good reason for this individual to have special powers - surely Jimbo being acknowledged as the founder of the project is enough. --Michig 16:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  402. Per Drini Ask21 23:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  403. Compare President George Washington with just about any other founder of a nation, who yielded to calls from his fans to become President for Life. Washington had fans who wanted him to agree to be the USA's President for Life, or even its King. He declined, and retired to private life after two terms. Is there anyone who doubts, in retrospect, Washington made the right decision? Geo Swan 11:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  404. Kallerna 17:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  405. Time to cut the cord. Carrite 00:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Against removal[edit]

  1. Contrabassoon? X! 01:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  2. --TK-CP 03:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC) This is absolutely silly in the extreme.
  3. Someone taking a spoon and stirring tea in a pot shouldn't be interpreted as the first storm of the Atlantic hurricane season. Much ado about nothing, fits. -- Cimon Avaro 06:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    While I have some considerable sympathy for Millosh'es decicion below to reconsider, the "recent actions" do have other players than Jimbo, more than tacitly supporting him. I am speaking specifically of the Wikimedia Foundation board. Barring a return a Wikimedia Foundation board with a stronger representation from rank and file editors of the various Wikimedia Projects, this sort of thing would still be bound to happen, only Jimbo wouldn't be taking the heat from flareups of this kind of community outrage. I still haven't maken up my mind (but am thinking furiously) whether what is happening is simply the pangs of a natural maturation process of our community, or the end of an era. Need to think some more before I finally decide on which side to cast my lot with. -- Cimon Avaro 10:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  4. Caveat: my comments are directed at no one person in particular, they apply to all Wikimedia projects and that in general intervention from the Office / Board / Founder is not necessary. Maybe when the community and those elected to hold advanced user permissions realise that Wikimedia projects are made available by the Wikimedia Foundation with the hard-earned money donated by the general public and corporations for the dissemination of knowledge and not for playing silly games, Jimmy won't feel the need to intervene. Wikimedia projects, whichever they may be, are not personal playgrounds. There are free blogs for that sort of thing. I do note however, that the comment about closing Wikiversity seem a tad maladroit in this particular context. ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) 08:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  5. - David Gerard 12:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  6. Silly. The whole case is about a troll having been slapped properly and then crying manslaughter. Moreover I don't think we should vote about it more than vote about grass being blue. He's the founder, no matter what you vote, and he have to make exceptionally tougher errors to even consider this way of action. And of course the board can reverse his moves altogether, so there is no danger to wikipedia, only petty quarrels and lots of yelling from an extremely small group of people. [Of course I'm not a reliable source being a founder myself. :-) Yet I'm entitled to have my opinions.] --grin 14:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    Disparaging other editors you disagree with, calling them trolls, does this really help build consensus and comprimise? Where in the world would you learn such behavior? Oh yeah, Jimmy Wales himself, I quote: "I am stating here my public support for admins who are prepared to enforce quality standards and get rid of a large quantity of what can only be characterized as trolling images of people's personal pornography collections."[9] For everyone who is parroting Wales insulting those who do not share his views, thanks for proving the 300+ editors point that Wales needs to step down permanently. Okip 12:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  7. Troll is trollingly trolling.--Ukexpat 14:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  8. A revolution because the constitutional king does his job? Hardly. I am not a yes man, and I can imagine (and have seen) situations where the community would be justified to tell Jimbo to be a bit more cautious. But this isn't even one of them. Hans Adler 14:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  9. If Jimbo was rash to act in the way he did, it would be equally rash to rush to remove his Founder flag. Nevertheless, the intervention of the WMF and Jimbo specifically is to be expected since they have the responsibility of looking after the WMF's interests. That some members of the community will oppose such actions is inevitable since in many instances Jimbo/WMF intervention wouldn't be necessary if the community had been able to deal with the problem themselves. Adambro 15:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  10. This page is pointless. He acted with the full approval of the Board of Trustees. As such, the proposed removal of his founder flag based on these events strikes me as a rather childish disagreement. (Disclaimer: I support the actions taken at Wikiversity to prevent deliberate project disruption, which this evidently was, whatever is being said to portray it in a positive light.) PeterSymonds 15:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  11. A needless proposal with no obvious motivation other than causing drama. Even if there were any chance of changing the flag bits, you'll not be changing the obvious fact that Jimbo is Jimbo. JzG 22:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    An absurd idea. A large number of people seem to agree that Commons scope had crept in a bad way, and this appears to be a clear case of shooting the messenger. JzG 17:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  12. I currently trust Jimbo to use his position when necessary to advance Wikimedia's mission in the face of community consensus that would impede it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  13. Outrage is an appropriate response to seeing people attempt to screw up Wikiversity with standard trollish crap copy/pasted from Wikipedia user pages. Wikimedia needs people who are bold enough to act on that sort of thing. -- Tim Starling 22:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  14. This is an important safety valve, and I have total trust in Jimmy's judgment. --Philippe 23:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  15. Jimmy knows what he's doing. Not that I agree with the deletion/blocking without informing the community, but this discussion is needless drama... he didn't do anything that warrants removal of his Founder rights. Pmlineditor  15:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    Without global ArbCom, we need final authority in conflict resolution and Board is not that instance. I wouldn't agree that Jimmy did an excellent job at en.wv, but it is better to have the final instance, than not to have it. Advice for those who think that Jimmy shouldn't interfere in communities issues is logical: work on creation of the Global ArbCom. BTW, this is a completely different issue from removing Founder flag. Board decided that Jimmy should have Founder flag, so if this RfC is just about that flag, the right address for asking removal is not community, but Board. --Millosh 15:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC) After recent events I've reconsidered my position. --Millosh 09:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  16. Nonsense. I fully trust Jimbo. --Gaeser 17:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  17. --Yair rand 19:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  18. I informed Jimbo about the project on Wikiversity. At the same time, I posted at the discussion forums of Wikiversity and Meta. They did not respond, point blank. Then or now. On the same day and for some days afterwards the recent changes on Wikiversity were listing several days edits i.e. there was no activity on the site, someone had been building a project all about sockpuppeting and hoaxing Wikipedia for three months on a silent site with only the most cautious input against it and practically zero discussion. Some notable figures such as User:SirFozzie had left their concerns and opposition noted at the bottom of the project page which were absolutely ignored both then and now. As the project was concerning itself invasively with a sister site, it is only fitting that the sister site was capable of responding appropriately. There is no other site than Wikiversity I believe has the possible scope for an invasion of another site (to research what would happen) except for perhaps Meta in an altogether different way. In the "For removal" section above contributors are writing things like Jimbo didn't make himself available for discussion, with a quote suggesting it was the only debate he entered into, signed by User:Hillgentleman. Well Hillgentleman has been in direct discussion with Jimbo. Jimbo has made lots of discussion edits on Wikiersity and reinstated the users he blocked, once they agreed not to make sockpuppeting/hoaxing projects or to interfere with his trying to acheive that agreement. I gave Jimbo a Barnstar of Integrity for his reaction. There was no discussion before Jimbo acted and since he did, all discussion here and most on Wikiversity has been about him rather than the problem. While ye were all waiting to squabble over ye're handbags, Jimbo nipped something very small but significant in the bud. If you stopped him doing it again, what would ye squabble over next week? Didn't Meta close some of the simple.wiki projects because they were not a language? That was very good of you wasn't it. I must tell that to some of the Simplified Chinese projects also. Jimbo does more than just wield his mop. If you want someone to make a video about giving the laptops to 3rd world kids with Wikipedia 1.0 installed, who does the commentary? Who goes around giving lectures and gathering donations to keep the sites alive? Go and tell those kids and those investors that the guy who made and promotes the sites got removed of all privelidge because he stopped someone for messing. Kick him out and close the door while you all formulate a circular about "How we laid down the law to the last of the depreciated founders." They will love that over on Wikiversity The Movie (and I'm not messing go and see). Most people will not read this or will claim that they didn't understand any of it but that's just the way that some people rattle on. It was a matter of superseding neglect which is all that is so far offered by Meta and WV in the matter. Well done. Round of applause Jimbo. Boo Meta and Boo Wikiversity who have either reacted scarcely at all or only under duress. ~ R.T.G 01:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
    Your statements have direct factual inconsistencies and do you no favor. You came to Jimbo's talk page and made an inflammatory post that misrepresented the actuality of Wikiversity. Furthermore, you directly knew that the project was deleted (as you were in a discussion to undelete it) and you continue to misrepresent the facts of the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
    That is rubbish Ottava. The project was not deleted before I posted to Jimbos page. How could he have deleted it then if it was already deleted? Haven't you been making posts to say that you were offended that I did not post to your talk page instead of Jimbos? Here is the "inflammatory" text. [10] I was making light not cussing as you seem to be suggesting. ~ R.T.G 20:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
    This shows that on 02:51, 12 March 2010 Privatemusings is asking the project to be undeleted. This shows it was deleted on 1 March. You responded to the request for undeletion. That proves that you knew about it. If you continue to lie about the events and continue to mislead people, you will be banned from Wikiversity indefinitely for trolling. You caused trouble through these lies and such disruption is not acceptable conduct. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
    That shows a sub-page of the project was deleted but this shows that the project was not deleted before Jimbo got the message on his talk page. I was not the only person to agree that the project was encouraging the things which it did. I am sorry you feel so strongly and that your project was too disruptive but you are mistaken in claiming that I am lying. Are you upset that I poked fun at WV discussion project coordination>? Well this is the site that coordinates the projects not WV and this really isn't the place to discuss all this anyway. Jimbo was right no matter how upset you are and it certainly was worth poking a bit of fun at the supposed innocence of that project, the one run by the sock puppeteer, right? ~ R.T.G 00:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
    The "howto" was the guide that promoted active disruption. The rest only analyzed past disruptions except for your proposal to try and manipulate an admin or steward to delete a project, which your actions with Jimbo match. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
    Okay Ottava. Not all will agree with that. ~ R.T.G 06:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  19. --.snoopy. 08:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  20. Tiptoety talk 15:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  21. Not necessary, counter-productive. Wikimedia projects need more leadership, not less; the failure of leadership on one project required outside intervention. Understandably, people who feel their own prerogatives have been bypassed are upset. Nathan T 19:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  22.  fetchcomms 03:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  23. BruTe talk 09:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  24. Per Pmlineditor. --Church of emacs talk · contrib 13:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  25. The actions at Wikiversity risked bringing the whole foundation into disrepute. Jimbo acted appropriately and to my mind has never abused his powers. If you don't like him holding the power, then I suggest you fork. Craig Franklin 13:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC).
  26. I don't see how this will fix anything. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
    This is not even our call, and I find Jimbo's actions on Wikiversity to have been within his authority (and I support them). Consider however to open a request for comment on the problems with wikiversity; every time I hear of it, it's because of disruption. Cenarium 22:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
    I withdraw my opposition in light of recent events at Commons. The Commons' community was entirely capable of handling the matter and those reckless actions impacted hundreds of articles of local projects using some of the deleted images. The WMF shall determine how to act on this RFC. Cenarium 13:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  27. While it is legitimate to question the decisions Jimbo makes in his role as god-king, this is not the time for a revolution to overthrow him. He performs a valuable and necessary service to the Wikimedia project by acting as the ultimate authority, and I have confidence in his ability to use that authority wisely. Robofish 23:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
    That action was bad, and may have serious consequences ; but that RfC happening now might probably only make things worse. DarkoNeko 20:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry, that last action on commons was really too reckless. what the meow, seriously. DarkoNeko 15:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  28. Per Pmlineditor. Griffinofwales 23:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  29. Projects as large as the Wikimedia umbrella need a point of final authority ("benevolent dictator"), to avoid the situation where bad things happen because no one feels they have the authority to say "Don't do that". This looks like an attempt to abolish that final authority - a recipe for bad governance - or else to propose to punish the holder of that final authority for using it - a recipe for terrible governance. Gavia immer 01:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  30. Support for Gavia immer point about "benevolent dictator" --Rjecina2 12:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  31. If the Wikiversity admins would take responsibility for their project, it wouldn't be necessary for Jimbo to intervene. Kaldari 15:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  32. What a great honour to be blocked or desysoped by Jimbo himself ;-) --Holder 09:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  33. The wording of the proposal is unjust and disgraceful. Independent from this has Jimbo Wales my trust and he continues to be IMHO the most important link between the WMF and its projects. This may lead to conflicts but individual projects have also a responsibility to stay within the mission of the WMF. --AFBorchert 14:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  34. All of us on every project edit at the sufferance, and with the permission, of the foundation. The projects were allowed (by Jimbo and the Foundation) to almost completely control their governance, but the projects were not given the right to throw the foundation, or Jimbo, out completely. They can, if they wish, pull the plug today and we are all out of any 'pedia project. If they wish to have Jimbo's rights removed, so be it, but it is not within the purview of the projects, as I understand it, to make foundation-level decisions. -- Avi 19:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  35. --Túrelio 23:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  36. Obelix 23:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC) This is a illegit poll and should be ended immediately. Jimbo Wales is the founder to the wikimedia projects and has a obvious right to the tools. This is an issue for the Wikimedia Foundation committee to take a stand on and not something to vote on!
  37. Oppose Contra I'm a supporter of acient greek philosophers as Platon. Democracy is the best way to live freely and untroubled but in the end it's always up to one person to decide what's "right" or "wrong". If I were founder of a project like this, I'd have created a similiar position for me, 'cause I don't want my project to take a line contrary to my beliefs. I'm glad, Jimbo Wales still feels responsible for what he created! axpdeHello! 08:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  38. Oppose Contra the will or the decisions of the community should be normally the reason for deletions, blocking etc.; but the "discussion" here from the very beginning is another extreme mostly without any will to stay objectively in this matter (and many users forget that there is no unrestricted freedom to abuse commons by uploading of every shit they photographed with their cameras); kindly regards -jkb- 08:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  39. I see no problem with Jimbo´s founders flag. --Cinik 08:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  40. For once, in support of the recent brave actions. Peter Damian 09:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    You call deletion of pictures which are shown in museums brave actions? --Matthiasb 11:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  41. Gz260 11:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  42. This is not a private playground for the benefit of the editors. This is a not for profit for the benefit of our readers. When the editors stray from what benefits the readers they need to be slapped down. Filceolaire 11:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    +1. But you've voted in the wrong section. R 12:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  43. --Hagar1 12:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  44. -- OlEnglish 12:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  45. --Jayen466 13:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  46. TeunSpaans 13:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Jimbo is imho doing what needs to be done TeunSpaans 13:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  47. Joris1919 13:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Agree with TeunSpaans, this mess should be cleaned.
  48. This petition is being abused as part of a greater campaign that stands in the way of doing what is right on Commons and cleaning it up. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  49. -- AKA MBG 14:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  50. I can't support such mass hot-headed action. --Milda 14:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    I don't think it was hot headed. I have started the proposal some days after I calm down. And now after few month I am having the same opinion. Founder with big F, is not salvation for Wikimedia communities and he will not treat all diseases, which came and will come, with the social and community development.--Juan de Vojníkov 17:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  51. --Skydrinker 14:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  52. Frakir 14:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  53. Nironen 15:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  54. Against because consensus is sometimes wrong, often too slow especially in a place filled with barracks-room lawyers. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 16:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  55. DeansFA 17:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  56. EWR 17:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  57. --UW 18:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  58. Wales is only doing what needs to be done.--Goodyfun
    It might be helpful if you could cite some examples demonstrating while this intervention was required and why the necessary outcome couldn't have been achieved through a less disruptive community process. --Gmaxwell 18:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  59. I think, that there is conflict of interests with Fox News. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Photo_manipulation - some votes to remove flag can be votestacking, inspired by this organisation, that draws yellow teeth to their opponents. Isn't it? --X-romix 18:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  60. I'm sorry, but this is insane.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 19:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  61. Wikipedia takes another step into the real world. Jimbo knows what he is doing. A bold action like this will stimulate the relevant debate. Useful images can always be restored once the new guidelines are determined. The overall goal of having free information readily available is not helped by such a large collection of pornography. Stephen B Streater 19:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  62. Silly, indeed. --Ms Anna Nass 19:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  63. Pucesurvitaminee 19:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  64. Who cares? He founded the site, it's a symbol of that. Stop being a bunch of babies --Charitwo 19:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    It is not just a symbol, it is a flag that makes him a superadministrator on every project, including those that he did not found. Kusma 20:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  65. --Chaps the idol 20:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  66. This is silliness. Killiondude 20:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    Not that it would matter, but the idea is plain silly. Someone must do the public relations for us, and Jimbo is overall quite good at it. I am not sure he got every detail right in this case, but that's no reason for such drastic symbolic action. Hans Adler 21:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC) – I just realised that this is the old proposal where I !voted before. Hans Adler 08:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  67. Grow up! Wikipedia is not about personal grievances, how can you remove founder status? It's as if you said Jimbo wasn't Wikipedia founder (although he certainly is). However, I do not agree that founder flag gives him super-administrator privileges on all projects. This also does not mean I do not support nude in art by notable artists on Wikipedia/Commons, (children) pornography, however should be immediately deleted. Smihael 22:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    No one requested for Wikipedia's history to be rewritten. The question is whether Jimbo should keep his "super-administrator privileges on all projects". If you think that he shouldn't, then you've voted in the wrong section. R 00:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  68. Well, I'm far away from "total trust in Jimmy's judgment" but this seems ridiculous to me. I fully agree with Milda's, -jkb-'s, or Hans Adler's comments. --Pan BMP 23:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    What's ridiculous about *not* giving absolute power to someone to someone you do *not* have total trust in? R 00:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    I don't have "total trust" in anybody but I have still some respect. I don't care about Wikiversity, the main controversy is now Commons, right? These deletions are problematic... it is ok, that most of these images have been deleted (no one will miss them), the rest of them heve been restored again. I don't thing, Jimbo will delete them again (even with founder flag).
    I'm afraid that other media will join FNC with this "campaign" becouse sex scandals are always popular, the worst thing Wikimedia could do for it's "PR" is to "kik Jimbo out". I don't want to be part of a project which is gamplig with it's reputation just to keep some porn pics...--Pan BMP 03:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  69. I trust Jimbo with the founder flag. Blockinblox 23:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  70. "All reforms, no matter how necessary, will be weak minds be carried to excess... which will itself need reforming." Deleted images can be restored, and the actions of CommonsDelinkerBot can be reverted. Removing the flag would be an overreaction to an overreaction. DS 00:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  71. The only thing worse than an unelected dictator in charge is no one in charge. The wikis have a totally inadequate decision making structure, and simply do not respond to ethical concerns - Jimbo is (unfortunately) all we have.--Scott MacDonald 00:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  72. Every once in a while he can Ignore All Rules. -- Swtpc6800 00:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  73. --Rauenstein 02:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  74. JohnWBarber 03:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  75. Pretty much per Scott. There are some decisions which required a rather big prod in a certain direction. Cleanup of commons images (before issues arose down the track with access in schools etc. which is/was only a matter of time) is a big one. Worthwhile commons images deleted can be restored too. Having been involved in decision making areas, I believe the structure as it stands makes change, even necessary change, extremely difficult. Note I am basing this on the commons issue. I am not familiar with the wikiversity issue. Casliber 04:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  76. Why can't a founder have access over each project? Silly discussion. Nifky? 04:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    Jimmy didn't found commons. There are other people who could argue some claim for that, but not him. --Gmaxwell 05:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  77. From my understanding of the issue (Wikiversity is out of my purview, so I won't comment on it), it seems that people are crying hell over what appears to be one man's personal stand on the issue. I would agree that what Jimbo did is irrational and contrary to procedure, but it can be justified. I wouldn't like the media breathing down my back (and all our backs) as well, but we have to consider that what might have been done could be in the greater interest of the projects as a whole. There are mechanisms to reverse the decisions if need be, and those mechanisms can be exploited in this case if the communities involve believe that it is in their greater interest to do so. Despite that, Jimbo serves as a viable check against controversial actions, and we need people with the iron to take controversial actions to counter similarly controversial actions wherever they may happen. We can cry to high heaven about his acts, but they can be easily rectified through current channels, and our whining doesn't really solve anything. People learn to work under pressure like we all do. --Sky Harbor (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  78. Sebleouf 08:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  79. I agree with Sky Harbor. Founder actions can be undone if necessary and it's good to have one like Jimbo. Sometimes the community (especially on Commons) is unable to take action when it's needed. --egg 08:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  80. Cédric Boissière 09:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  81. We need someone who is capable of taking decisive action in the overall interest of the project in exceptional circumstances, even if such actions may be controversial. Sandstein 09:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  82. --Ilario 10:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  83. Patrol110 12:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  84. --Podzemnik 13:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  85. Krisstian 15:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  86. We've seen a serious lapse of judgement. But there is reason to assume it won't happen again. Removing the flag should only be done to protect the projects and I can't see any need for that. --h-stt !? 15:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  87. Per Charitwo. --Lcawte 17:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  88. --Ioannes Pragensis 17:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  89. Sobol2222 18:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  90. Hjvannes 18:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    --Rauenstein 19:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC) nonsense Double vote, see #73 -- Arcimboldo 20:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  91. --Euku 20:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  92. --Bab dz 21:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  93. I trust Jimbo's judgment in general; sure, I don't dispute the move was a bit of an overreaction, but everyone will make mistakes eventually, including the founder. He knows, overall, what he's doing. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  94. I trust Jimbo with the founder flag --Gus.dan 21:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  95. This is ridiculous, bad style and childish.... --Flyout 22:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  96. The fact that we're here, with this petition, and so many items undeleted, tells us that Jimbo Wales' power is limited. To remove it entirely means concentrating that power somewhere else, such as in the Wikimedia Board, and how much do we really know about their intentions? But the founder bit is not Wales' power; that is more in who he knows and who he can persuade—another man might have worked entirely behind the scenes and we would never even know why things happened. Let's not be stampeded into anything. Wnt 22:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  97. All systems of government make mistakes so even if Jimbo has made an occasional error, we are better off having his guidance (the alternative is a full constitution with fallback to lawyers to interpret it). The fact that Jimbo found so much muck to delete shows that the community failed to respond to the obvious flaw of having an anyone can upload porn server farm. Johnuniq 02:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  98. I oppose any hasty and reactionary poll. Even with 300 plus in favor, that's only 300 of the noisiest voices out of tens of thousands of people (if not more) actively editing Wikimedia projects. I, for one, assume that Jimmy will continue to act in good faith, even if I don't always like a particular action he may take. Steven Walling (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  99. This poll looks crazy to me, I don't see the point and I don't see any real reason. Jotempe 05:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  100. FrankyLeRoutier 06:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  101. This poll is absurd trolling. Icewedge 06:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
    Hundreds of people, including Anthere, expressing their concerns is trolling? The opposition is certainly aggressive. 193.109.254.20 16:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
    Yes. Even the best of us can troll at times. Seems to me like the reasons that many people have showed up here to vote in favor of removing the founder flag are similar to the ones that cause anons to bait and flame. I suspect many are here not truly because they feel that the founder flag is actually causing problems but because being a rebel and challenging authority has a certain special glamor. Icewedge 21:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
    The flag is the problem. I don't know J. Wales nor do I care. Hillgentleman 00:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  102. --Robert Niedźwiedzki 08:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  103. somebody has to have all the buttons. I hope it is Jimbo. --El bes 09:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  104. --Falense 11:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  105. --Amarvudol 11:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  106. --Lectonar 12:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  107. --GenJack 13:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  108. --Yopie 13:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  109. --Sukarnobhumibol 13:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  110. Full trust for the founder. Off2riorob 16:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  111. All power entails responsibility, or at least that is what I was taught as a kid. In Jimbo was wrong? Yes. But those who oppose it would rather leave the office to apologize and continue to play it?. We are all human and as humans we are wrong. Some of those who have the power to act according to their own convictions and what separates them from what Jimbo has done? Nothing, but they are not saying anything. If Jimbo lamented his actions with his apology, would not be goodwill on the part of the community that forms the project grant him that power again? --Castor-ca 17:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Castor, You are missing the kernel of truth, that J. Wales would have done the job much much better had he used persuasion rather than brute muscle force and wheel-warring. He doesn't use his tools well and he doesn't need them either - there are corps of sysops who will do his biddings. Contrary to most who voted against, this matter is nothing personal and don't take it that way.Hillgentleman 17:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  112. I have full faith and trust in Jimbo. Kaldari 18:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  113. He is a useful lightning-rod, and self-aware of his status as such. I'd prefer to keep a singular entity with good intentions, rather than just a committee ("a creature with six or more legs and no brain."). Quiddity 00:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  114. Grzegorz Dąbrowski § 01:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  115. --Wuyouyuan 05:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC) When at war, Rome in Republican time had dictators, to cut talk and act. After war, the dictator retires and the talk resumes. Now it seems Wikimedia is under legal threat for futile reasons (a lot of inept images kept for the gratification of who uploaded it). Wikimedia is here to share knowledge, not give gratification to individuals.
    It is not under any legal threat. It is just a form of FUD employed by journalists who have nothing better to write about. 82.11.39.166 10:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    If there is any real legal threat it is plainly wrong to rush to action without seeking advice from wikimedia's very own legal counsel. Hillgentleman 11:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    Wuyouyuan , I do respect your vote, though I have to say there is no legal theatening involved. There's only a silly and (please American readers don't get me wrong!) tipically American press campaign to skip the freedom of press and thought: if you can't curtail any of them you spread bias through the media in order to cut funds to the voice you want to silence. Today are "contested" (not illegal) pictures; tomorrow will be the turn of "unpleasant" political comments; the day after tomorrow what? Many contributors joined Wikipedia in order to contribute freely and with no censorship. If the founder abuses of his flag for self-censoring the project no one is going to contibute any longer. Again, half of what's contained in en.wiki might be considered outlaw in China, or illegal or pornographic in Iran. What shall we do? We have to serve objectivity and respect the law, not make political considerations and listen to press campaign against alleged "immorality". Sorry for my English, I wrote very fast, hope it's understandable (any misunderstanding is my fault anyway) ... -- Blackcat 11:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  116. Oppose Contra Jimbo wanted to protect children! You ought to be ashamed of yourself to claim this. --Sooonnniii 12:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    We can as well offering him the honorary presidency of this, if he really wanted to do that. -- Blackcat 12:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  117. Very Strong Oppose - As the founder of Wikimedia projects, Jimbo deserves to use the founder's flag. It shouldn't be taken away. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ messagechanges) 12:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  118. --Nazareth 19:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  119. Support for founder and morality --DeeMusil 11:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
    That's ironic, considering JW ignoring all prior discussions and generally being undemocratic is usually considered unethical (even more irony if you're reminded of what he was involved in when he ran Bomis). 193.109.254.19 15:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  120. Pathetic dramamongering. Angus McLellan (enwiki talk) 17:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  121. If the community is too stupid to delete these awful pictures accurately timed, he had no other possibility.--Katharina die Große 15:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  122. Vic'Fede 19:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  123. Oppose Oppose There was good reason for Jimbo's action. Sv1xv 05:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  124. Jimbo created this. He gets to keep full rights over his creation and do whatever he likes. Do you want full control over anything? Create it yourself. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  125. He's the founder, He should have all powers and abilities, beacasue he made it. its like saying that the founder of a company should have no powers and be removed because they dont like his logo design even though he owns everything about it and made it, and on top of that started everything. leichterj 10:29 8 August 2010
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)
  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. 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)
  5. 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. {{Sonia|talk|simpleWP}} 08:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 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)
  6. 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)
  7. 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)
  8. 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)
  9. 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 • contribs) .
        • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Oppose 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! axpdeHello! 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)


Wikiversity letter[edit]

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)

  • Oppose Contra No abuse observable to me axpdeHello! 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 says: “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+ 21:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

Boycott Wikimedia[edit]

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)
  • Support 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)
  • 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)
  • ~ R.T.G 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

That's a bit narrow as a view. Yes, the RfC originated from Jimbo using the Founder flag at Wikiversity, and doing other things that may have damaged Wikiversity seriously, or not, it's controversial (personally, I don't think it helped, for sure). However, the RfC was running 2:1 against the proposal, until Jimbo also intervened at Commons. I've half-joked, "You can take away our academic freedom, who cares? But take away our porn? You've gone too far!" In fact, the issue was identical, the right of the local community to control content by consensus, and it is just that Commons had far more people involved who were being disregarded. Wikiversity is tiny, so, politically, it was easy for a "Jimbo can do no wrong" faction to prevail. (I hold, however, no assumption that all those voting against the proposal were like that.) Once the Commons community was aroused, we see the results, which does, quite likely, represent a broader consensus. The sequence, though, shows how discussions can certainly fail to represent real consensus. --Abd 01:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)