Stewards/confirm/2009/Jimbo Wales

The 2009 steward elections are finished. No further votes will be accepted.

Jimbo Wales[edit]

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki | translate: translation help, statement

English:

Languages: en, de-2
Personal info: statement here

русский:

Языки: en, de-2
Личная информация: (здесь должно быть заявление)

Comments about Jimbo Wales[edit]

The following discussion is closed: By Jimbo's request, the Board requested the creation of a founder group for Jimbo. He has been switched to that group accordingly.

I would say remove because of the silly business re. inactivity on meta, and lack of assistance as a steward. Of course, he should get this right as part of a staff group... Majorly ^talk 00:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as steward, add as staff if he so requests. NuclearWarfare 00:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should rather be in the global staff group, which is more appropriate, since you are not active as a steward and also not regularly available on IRC. --Thogo (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This steward, although perhaps more active in his other roles, ought to retain his stewardship. In my only interaction with him, he seemed knowledgeable and restrained. In other actions I've seen him take, and in actions he has declined to take, he seems judicious. He seems to have the best interests of the project in mind. It's hard to see why his hard work and contributions should be repaid with anything less than full-throated support. David in DC 01:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Full-throated support for adding "staff". Remove steward per Steward_policies#Inactivity. Wales will not lose any access, and this assignment makes much more sense. (And this is not the right forum to discuss the policies; To do so, please go to the appropriate page. ) Hillgentleman 01:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for removing "steward" and adding "staff". --APPER 01:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Jimbo - but so much people working hard in her/his jobs here. You're not a good example as steward. So you should not be a steward. Has nothing to do with you're person as "Father of Wikimedia". But this can't count here - not since thousands of people do a lot of work. An other way is shown. Marcus Cyron 01:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support staff. Romaine 02:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove steward for the higher level staff group. Prodego ^talk 03:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm not sure why he should be added to the staff group because he isn't a staff, he is a board member and so he doesn't get paid. Staff members get paid and I don't think there is any member in the staff global list that is a current board member. Its better if he keeps this steward right instead.--Comet styles 04:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "staff" right is designed for staffs and trustees, whoever needs it. NOt even every paid staff knows enough of MediaWiki to be able to use these tools. 220.142.9.87 05:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in to comment. —Pathoschild 08:51:01, 08 February 2009 (UTC)
He shouldn't be a steward, both due to inactivity and his "higher" userrights. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo Wales@enwiki has founder flag. steward and staff flags are not required.--Kwj2772 05:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the steward flag (just because you are not a steward) and get a staff of founder one (if it does exist) :) --FollowTheMedia 11:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove steward, add staff/founder. Stifle 14:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering why Jimbo was a steward when he doesn't really use steward actions - discussion lead to the idea of steward being removed, and using the staff right. I agree to this idea, so remove steward and keep global staff. The Helpful One 15:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove steward. He seems quite inactive to me. -- Mercy (☎|✍) 16:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove steward, add staff or founder. :) --Ragimiri 16:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure what to do here. Jimbo does take pseudo-steward actions for English Wikipedia. This wouldn't be allowed for a "normal" steward since it's his home project, however we allow it due to tradition. As well, he normally makes these actions on enwiki rather than on Meta. All in all, I don't see that Jimbo does very much for the wider community as a steward. However, he does have need to use the tools in his official capacity. I think (and I may change my mind!) that it'd be best to grant him staff access (which he should already have - I've not checked) and remove steward (but keep "Founder" access on enwiki since he has a special role for that community). I'd welcome others to poke holes in my thinking here. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 17:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to be giving "Staff" to non-Staff members... I think we should rename the group to "Wikimedia" or "Foundation" with a link to the policy instead of foundation:Staff. Cbrown1023 talk 17:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was also thinking about what impression it would give if Board members are automatically given such access. Are they then moderating content? Still thinking out loud... — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 17:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly and for that reason its better if he stays in the steward group for now or we may have to come with a new global group "Board" and give them global "edit" right but not the "userrights" permission...--Comet styles 21:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cbrown, That's reasonable but a name is just a name. Cometstyles, everyone can edit everywhere with er global account. We have had that "developer" flag for a long time, and it isn't really about developing the software. Mike, What do you mean by "moderating content"? Remember "stewards don't decide"? Hillgentleman 00:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant that giving Board members Steward-like powers might give the impression that they moderate content, which isn't the case.

I think it would muddy the situation to add him to the staff global group, actually. As long as he's doing steward-y things for enwiki he should remain as a steward. In that case, I'd prefer to have the rights assigned to the Founder group on enwiki removed so he uses Meta for desysopings etc. I think there's no real issue letting him change rights on enwiki, given his unique relationship with that community. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 12:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as steward, add as staff. Razorflame 21:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cbrown here. It adds more confusion to add him to the Staff group as Jimmy is not part of Wikimedia's staff. --MZMcBride 21:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No issues with keeping steward flag. --Charitwo 23:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the possible options (Staff, Steward, etc), I think leaving him a steward is the best all around choice. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with staff or founder flag. - Mailer Diablo 04:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As above: remove and replace with staff due to inactivity. --Deon555 07:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or you all could just leave the poor Jimbo alone. He's our founder, ffs. It's not important that he's inactive on the steward or whatever group. DarkoNeko 07:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is there actually any reason to remove? It's never come up before; no need for it to be an issue now. —Sean Whitton / 18:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't do any work at all as a steward, for one. Majorly ^talk 19:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The opposition to Jimbo Wales holding steward is boggling. Staff is not appropriate because it's strictly for paid staff of the foundation (and is generally granted and removed by me, and I have no authority over board member rights). I suggest people check their motives here. (I'm in favor of his keeping his steward rights, btw) bastique ^demandez! 18:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The staff flag was originally proposed as something like the steward flag, but for official uses. Since when it came to be strictly for paid staff? Thank you. Hillgentleman 01:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
just beacause all the WMF staff is paid :) btw, it's not completely like steward flag--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 01:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but that is not a very satisfactory answer. Let us recall the original proposal for the staff flag: Requests_for_comments/Wikimedia_Foundation_staff_permissions
In this proposal, as written, we simply add one more user group, "staff", which is given to those users who are either paid employees of the Wikimedia Foundation, a member of its Board of Trustees, an Officer, or are otherwise performing work on behalf of the Foundation as chosen and directed by the Board such as members of the Ombudsman commission.
-- Hillgentleman 03:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support not keeping jimmy as steward is splitting hairs imho --oscar 22:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm -- I don't see why not. — Dan | talk 00:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm anyway.--Jusjih 03:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---Zyephyrus 22:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not. There is no problem with keeping it.-- BlueDevil ^Talk 03:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rights - can't really see any significant reason to think otherwise - Peripitus 10:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rights - Jimbo Wikipedia's founder. _~Innv^s: 12:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm. I'm not sure I see the point in the current crusade on meta to take Jimmy's flags away. Personally, I've no desire to be at the forefront of the anti-Jimbo revolution. Avruch 00:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would support keeping Jimbo's flags. Symbolic actions have their place, but in this case the meaning would be completely unclear, the effects would be nonexistent (except perhaps for some possible nuisance depending on what Jimbo were trying to do), so what's the point? Chick Bowen 01:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but for a perhaps-odd reason: There are, between the various thick layers of procedure and bureaucracy on WMF projects, still gaping holes where situations arise from time to time that need someone to have the right combination of charisma, following, and permissions to change what needs to be changed. Perhaps at times, we've had our faith shaken, and perhaps we've grown to the point where we think that the various interactions between projects are "fine", but as a regular here, I think it's safe to say that there is a significant lack of central guidance...other than Jimbo...that keeps the various projects glued together. Perhaps in the future, he can act as little more than a figurehead with a custom, ceremonial global right that does nothing, but at this moment we're still reliant on someone capable of stepping in when needed. Kylu 03:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove fr33kman ^{t - c} 05:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the steward rights and add other rights (staff). The fact that Jimbo is wikipedia-co-founder is not a 'lifetime right' for the steward status, where he seems to be quite inactive. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 09:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Steward rights. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a relatively new member of the community: (1) I assume Mr. Wales has legitimate reason(s) for having the steward bit turned on. (2) There are cases where the why should not be articulated (e.g., some matters of security, but not limited to those). (3) It is my understanding we would not be discussing any of this if Mr. Wales had not performed the role he has performed, and therefore he has unlimited "credits" with respect to labors performed. (i.e., See #1) Proofreader77 10:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obiously remove as a steward per blatant inactivity. Get the rights if you need them, give them back if you don't. There is no "he's Jimbo" exception. guillom 11:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo does some pseudo-steward things on enwiki no? I seem to recall he has removed admins for example. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is part of his "founder" (i.e. local steward) status. If the local en.wikipedia community tolerates Jimbo Wales's "benevolent dictatorship", fine for them. But his actions there (such as removing admins) cannot be considered as steward tasks; otherwise he would summarily lose his stewardship as a blatant violation of the steward policies (including Don't decide and Avoid conflicts of interest). guillom 14:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noted that in my comments above. A failure to recognize Jimmy's special relationship with (only) the English Wikipedia is just that: a failure. As long as he is doing that sort of thing for enwiki, I am comfortable with him staying on as a Steward (though I would prefer that such actions be taken on Meta). — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 17:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Avruch above. Woudloper 11:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cary. Finn Rindahl 12:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Em dúvida, he's Jimbo, but also inactive. :s Alex Pereira ^falaê 16:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Bastique and Kylu. Alefbe 20:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral aleichem 11:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the discrete steward bit. He holds steward rights (and all other rights) by virtue of the Founder bit, does he not? Or somesuch. Xdenizen 14:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per Bastique - Wutsje 23:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Support for a gratuitous slap in Jimbo's face suggests the ultimate elevation of process over substance. It also suggests a level of cluelessness best captured by humorist Dave Barry when he once wrote of someone "[h]e couldn't find a clue if he was in the middle of a field of clues, during clue rutting season, doused in clue pheromones". I'm just sayin'. David in DC 12:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
POINT OF ORDER: That's not a Dave Barry quote. DS 21:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
remove per inactivity.--Bapti 15:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Guil2027 18:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If can add him "Staff", then remove as Steward. Else have to keep as Steward. --Elijah/אליהו (Eliyahu)/إلياس (Ilyas) (Me!) 16:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Steward, replace with staff. Juliancolton 00:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove If he wants to help out, he can try his hand at editing. These privileges for Jimbo serve only to bolster his ego and do nothing to benefit the project. Everyking 06:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I don't think that the Board members should have steward rights. Besides that, no expressed will (statement) to stay between stewards. If he needs steward rights for presentation purposes, I don't think that there will be any issue to give those rights to him temporary. But, again, he should express what does he want or need. --Millosh 13:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the "remove Jimbo's rights" movement we've occasionally seen just strikes me as egotistical and pointless. If Jimbo needs a flag to do something, he is going to have it and removing it just for the sake of doing so is pointless. --B 14:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
remove; maybe set a special global group just for him, whatever. --FiliP × 17:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]