Requests for comment/Restore Founder flag

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following request for comments is closed. There is clearly no consensus for the motion put forward in this RfC and it has been inactive for several years. Snowolf How can I help? 20:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


Proposal[edit]

The founder’s flag give to a single man a huge power. I can’t trust on almost anybody to hold that power. But In less than two days Jimbo has resigned of this power.[1] By doing this he has proven that he is one of the sparse people we can trust.

Wikimedia movement is a complex system. Capacity to take decisions is distributed among a lot of stakeholders. Up to now it has worked pretty well.

Along all this discussions several weaknesses of Wikimedia movement arisen: This power on single man hands, the foundation need for money, the power concentration in the hands of the board, the feeling that the members of the project can’t do anything, the possibility of forking and creating a project ruled by the chapters… And I could add more, by example: the flags system is organized in a pyramidal way

Removing a single piece of this system instead of solving any problem can unbalance the whole. More if this piece has proved extraordinary good results in the past and extraordinary positive attitude in the present.

Give Jimbo those flags back. And start altogether a process of rethinking the whole Wikimedia governance. Improve the system as a whole; find the mechanisms allowing that it is not needed that anybody holds this power.

For returning things to previous situation and start a calm dialog to redefine the full governance system[edit]

  1. For the reasons presented in explaining the proposal.--Gomà 20:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  2. --Gus.dan 21:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  3. 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? Maybe it is time for policy change but sister, you have to do with Jimbo in the head and move towards a democracy where everyone shares power and responsibility. --Castor-ca 22:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  4. TeunSpaans 05:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  5. I'm agree to turn back. But, in my opinion, we can't delay to talk about the governance system, it's the wiki movement becoming an Oligarchy?.--Mafoso 06:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  6. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

For using common sense[edit]

  1. Requesting restore is equivalent to voting "oppose remove" on the other polls. This is effectively splitting the debate presenting it as if it was something different. Of course voting "oppose" on the other petition doesn't look as important, so let's redress it. I support closing this and keeping the debate on a single place. es:Drini 21:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    There is nothing to remove he has resigned.--Gomà 21:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  2. I agree with drini. Wikisilki 21:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  3. Wiki:Point. Should be closed since day 1 Loreleil 13:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

To reject this proposal[edit]

  1. That a person with unlimited power would even think it's reasonable to threaten those who disagree with (blocks, bans, desysopping, etc.) is outside the bounds of common decency. In such a situation, those threatened have no choice but to leave the project. That sort of destructive power can never be put into the hands of a single person who holds the position that threats are reasonable.Wjhonson 21:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    Is it safer to put it in the hands of a small group of persons? I think it is even more risky because groups perpetuate and reproduce themselves.--Gomà 09:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  2. Considering the result of the proposal for remove the founder flag this proposal is ridiculous and it is a provocation. --Matthiasb 20:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  3. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 20:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  4. --Don-kun 20:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  5. --Niabot 20:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  6. Of course not. Everyking 20:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  7. --Darwinius 23:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC) This proposal is en:WP:POINT and should be cancelled.
  8. Chaddy 23:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  9. --Abd 00:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Some wikis may want Jimbo to have administrative authority, some not. The decision should come from one of two places: first, from each community. (If community consensus at a local wiki is to grant these powers to Jimbo, who would, here, object to that?) But if a community does not want this of Jimbo, it's clear that the consensus here does not want it imposed on them, the error was in doing that from meta in the first place. The other source of this restoration would be from the WikiMedia Foundation, as a Board decision, perhaps there is some emergency situation. However, it would be better not to place Jimbo, as more or less the public face of Wikipedia, into the position of making actual content and user decisions at each wiki, and if this were to be done, it should be backed by an official Board decision. It's a waste of Jimbo's time, actually. If the Board wants to appoint a governor, so to speak, for a wiki that it sees as being in trouble, it could do so; it could do it as an emergency measure on its own initiative, or it could consult with the community on whom the community would want to fill that position. But Jimbo? No. Bad idea, Bad for Jimbo, bad for the WMF, and bad for each wiki. Jimbo's decision to resign the extra privileges was wise. Let it be. --Abd 00:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    Why should we trust in the Board more than in a Jimbo? Why the stewards should have almost the same power Jimbo resigned? Would it be safer if nobody could hold simultaneously the possibility to actuate in the project and the possibility to change user’s rights? I honestly believe that the concentration of power in a single man hands is not a good idea for the health of any project but changing a single piece in a system that is working doesn’t guarantee the things will work better.--Gomà 09:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    The WMF owns the projects, legally. It has liability if a project causes harm, for example, and is obligated for debts. With responsibility must come power or it's an impossible burden. The Board of the Foundation may, at its choice, decide to appoint "supervisors," so to speak, for projects, but it may wisely do something else as well. WMF projects generally depend on massive volunteer labor, so the Board, in deciding to act or not act, must weigh the effect on the volunteers and how that will affect the necessary labor and, as well, some of the donations that support the WMF. As editors, we may certainly complain to the WMF, but as long as we store our work on WMF servers, we are and must be under WMF authority as to what happens on the wiki. If we don't like that situation, we can copy content somewhere else and take responsibility ourselves for extending it and maintaining it and paying the bills. What I've seen, however, is a tendency to demand that the WMF do this or that, which is, in fact, juvenile. WMF cannot coerce us to volunteer, and we cannot coerce them to do what we want. If we cooperate, we can help each other, that's all. --Abd 01:15, 1 June 2010
  10. Let's not start this again, a day after a 3:1 vote to strip the powers. Adam Cuerden 01:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  11. Hell no. Seriously, trying to undo the last vote moments after it got results? It doesn't work that way. Shmuel 03:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    This is not trying to undo the last vote. This is trying to go further not focusing in a single (or a couple of anecdotes). The actuation related to sexual content images (or the closure of wikiversity project). What about sticking with the names imposed by fascism for the Catalan towns in Spanish wikipedia? Seriously, we need a mechanism to guarantee we hold untouched the objective of providing uncensored and free educational content and simultaneously being respectful with laws, with dignity of living persons, with sensitivity of social groups... The actual system perhaps is not the best, Jimbo actions perhaps has not been the most polite, but he acted making the community review a lot of things. Who will do this job now? --Gomà 09:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    Who will do this job now? The community, of course. This is sort of the whole point of the wiki approach. Shmuel 06:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    It applies or not the policy of etiquette in wikimedia? What you just said is an shameful insulting political attack to all the wikipedians in es:wiki, and I ask you to apologize for it. As you use the catalan names for the spanish towns in ca:wiki, we have to use the spanish ones in our project, just because we have to write it in spanish. That's all, and there is no further reason for it. Besides, this has nothing to do with the matter on discussion, and much with your own personal political issues. Wikisilki 14:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  12. I don't see the point, where we can trust Mr. Wales longer. If the en:WP need him as Dictator, it's up to the en:WP to accept this. The whole rest of the Wikimedia-projects don't need him in this way. It was not the first time, he was abuse his position and his rights. We should remember: Mr. Wales never was the Founder of Wikipedia. He was the Co-Founder of Nupedia. Wikipedia was a by-project which was going his own way. It ever was a product of the Authors. He's not a god, he don't need a godmode status. And @ Gomà: stop commenting every word you don't like! Marcus Cyron 11:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    It is deeply unfair to qualify Jimbo as a dictator. Unfortunately I have lived under the rule of a true dictator and this is a completely different situation. I agree he is not a god and we don’t need a goodmode status but perhaps we need a voice of conscience status. This is a request for comment. You ask me to stop commenting every word you think I don’t like. Sorry but I’ll comment all words I think it is worth to comment I don’t live any more under a dictatorship.--Gomà 17:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  13. --Felix Stember 12:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC) see Marcus Cyron
  14. I don't see any reason to make him Jimbo-Gott again -- Achim Raschka 17:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  15. --Peter Putzer 19:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  16. Let me get this straight: Jimbo screwed up big time and the community responded very harsh. Instead of removing the founder flag, as lots of people have requested an seems to be consensus on the other proposal, he just strips himself of some more controversial rights and keeps the rest. And this is demonstrating that we can trust him? Uh...no! --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  17. not necessary --Saibo (Δ) 23:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  18. There are too many contributors from too many places to have one man with the power to do as he pleases. LiberalFascist 06:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  19. I would not be able to explain that to my children. --Sargoth 07:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  20. See Abd's comment.--Nemissimo 08:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  21. What's the point of this RFC after Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag? — Arkanosis 09:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  22. Just make sure that such a bull-in-the-china-shop-action must never ever happen again. If you think you have the best arguments then convince the community but don't break the rules or insist on Godmode-rights. No need for more equal animals. --Proofreader 14:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  23. The revenge of the Jimbo Groupies... --voyager 14:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  24. Please take a breath and think for two days before initiating a survey that is certain to fail. -- Arcimboldo 14:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
    It is a pity if people think this as a survey. This is a request for comment. And there is nothing wrong in failing. But up to now nobody analysed the system. Nobody analyzed the roots of the problem and nobody proposed global solutions instead of being very happy because a piece of this system has been changed. --Gomà 17:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
    Maybe because nobody wants global solutions because of the globe has no interest in moral standards set by FOX TV crap believing fundamentalist. --Matthiasb 19:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
    Gomà, I think what you mean is that nobody came up with the same conclusion as you did. (Which would also be an overstatement -- quite a few people did; they were just a minority -- but let that pass.) The discussions that were started before this one certainly had the implications to the overall system front and center, and this really brings nothing new to the table. Shmuel 06:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    Discussions on the discussions page please, this is a content page. Everybody may give a vote and a short statement but (esp. @Gomà) don't comment the votes and don't comment the comments ... Thanks. --Proofreader 14:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  25. Sorry but no. esby 15:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  26. Nope --Herby talk thyme 14:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  27. Absolutely not under any circumstances should these flags be restored. History has shown that when you concentrate power into the hands of a few, that such power is often and usually is abused in some fashion that does more harm than good. For myself, I think it is bad for even the founder flag to remain even an option, but under no circumstances should that flag be given any additional authority that the current "compromise". Perhaps, and this is a big stretch, such authority was needed when the social institutions and policies were still immature that there needed to be some executive authority to get things to happen in a hurry. I really fail to see why that is needed now, and nothing that Jimmy Wales has done with these flags over the past couple of years is something that would have been impossible to do without some other process that would have involved the community. In every case there was already a community process to resolve the dispute, and dedicated administrators and bureaucrats on the various projects who were much more familiar with the actual processes necessary to get things to happen and a finger on the pulse on how much was too far before you started to drive many project participants away. Restoring this authority does more harm than good to Wikimedia projects. --Roberth 16:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  28. I was going to say something but then I noticed Matthiasb already said everything I was going to say, just more succinctly. Titoxd(?!?) 20:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  29. If this flag would be restored, I just could not trust in Wikipedia, I would think: « this is the truth? Or only the truth of Jimmy?» --Phyrexian 20:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  30. Rejecting this proposal... Hydriz 15:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)