Requests for comment/Remove Founder flag

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Requests for comment
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by John Vandenberg (talk | contribs) at 23:02, 5 May 2010 (→‎For removal: I'm over this). It may differ significantly from the current version.

This is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

Proposal

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 dit 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)[reply]

For removal

  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  4. --::Slomox:: >< 01:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  6. Per Drini. Kusma 07:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  8. [3], ----Erkan Yilmaz 16:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)--[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    • "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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  16. Per others --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 07:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Jimbo should not try to own projects. – Kwj2772 (msg) 13:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Nobody should have unlimited power. --Node ue 21:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  21. Jimbo don't have so much power. Jan Luca 08:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]

Against removal

  1. Contrabassoon? X! 01:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --TK-CP 03:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC) This is absolutely silly in the extreme.[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  5. - David Gerard 12:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  7. Troll is trollingly trolling.--Ukexpat 14:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  14. This is an important safety valve, and I have total trust in Jimmy's judgment. --Philippe 23:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  16. 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)[reply]
  17. Nonsense. I fully trust Jimbo. --Gaeser 17:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --Yair rand 19:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. [5] I was making light not cussing as you seem to be suggesting. ~ R.T.G 20:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Okay Ottava. Not all will agree with that. ~ R.T.G 06:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. --.snoopy. ✉ 08:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Tiptoety talk 15:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. 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)[reply]
  23.  fetchcomms☛ 03:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. –BruTe talk 09:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Per Pmlineditor. --Church of emacs talk · contrib 13:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. 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).[reply]
  27. I don't see how this will fix anything. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. 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)[reply]
  29. 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)[reply]
  30. 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)[reply]
  31. Per Pmlineditor. Griffinofwales 23:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. SM ** =^^= ** 12:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. 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)[reply]
  34. Support for Gavia immer point about "benevolent dictator" --Rjecina2 12:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. 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)[reply]
  36. What a great honour to be blocked or desysoped by Jimbo himself ;-) --Holder 09:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    Uh, no. I did. The reasons are here. DarkoNeko 20:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    wikimania: everyone can read here themselves what the situation really is: wikiversity:Wikiversity:Colloquium#Migrating_the_2005_Wikimania_proceedings, ----Erkan Yilmaz 09:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]

Wait and see

  • 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[6] educator User:Leighblackall , and here). Hillgentleman 05:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • (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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]

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 )[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • Tango, I'm afraid you are simply mistaken about this.--22:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimbo Wales (talk)
        • NB: The above post is from Jimbo. Oh? And how exactly would you enforce your will against a rebellious community? Or are you saying I'm mistaken about you not being foolish? --Tango 22:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

Compromise Proposal

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)[reply]

Your proposal only lacks a demand that Mike Godwin resign - David Gerard 01:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Finkelstein, Gerard may be ad hominem, but everybody has his right to speak. Hillgentleman 11:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

For

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)[reply]

Against

Founder policy, role and responsibilities

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)[reply]

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

  • I Second. Hillgentleman 07:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Dismissing genuine concern on community stability [7] 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • This is not a matter to discuss here or now. Cenarium 22:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Wikiversity_open_letter_project/WMF_Board_March_2010

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag&oldid=1960522"