Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jimbo Wales

WP:SNOW.I call for the close of this RfC, and continue the discussion at WP:AN/I. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, but I think you need to start an outside view on the main page for endorsement there. I hate duplication of process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. An RfC is appropriate at this time. I'm planning on posting a comment myself, but I'm actually (gasp!) giving it some thought before I post. Please leave the RfC open. --Elonka 23:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing is one thing, deleting is another. This RFC was certified and there was no obvious reason to delete, so it's reasonable that it was restored. Friday (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Certified? Within hours after the discussion started at AN/I, how can the claim be made that there had been efforts to resolve the dispute that had failed? I am as disgusted at seeing the abuse at RfC/U as I am of the abuse that was occurring at CSN. If there is an ongoing discussion at AN/I, where the issue is being dealt with, how can it be certified that other options had failed? Something needs to be done about the abuse of these processes throughout Wikipedia, because it allows users to be railroaded. This RfC is redundant to the AN/I thread. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Certified by who? Endorse closure and archiving. - Crockspot 00:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The certification may or may not be legit. There's generally 48 hours to figure that out. Friday (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Who is going to certify? Zscout? He has resolved his dispute with Jimbo. If this RfC wasn't such a serious abuse of process, it would be a joke. RfC's are not for "class action" suits. Who is even the "initiator" of this request? That isn't apparent on the project page. - Crockspot 02:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Certification requirements are rarely checked, rarely upheld, and the process is a joke, which lends itself to railroading and "voting" before discussing. I hope people will see that now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC) (And for the record, I don't agree with the desysopping. My concern is to stop the abusive actions that railroad users without discussion and thorough analysis of evidence.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• My simple analysis of this cause: Jimmy Wales blocked in error. There was a block warning in place. Administrators should yield to an existing warning and wait to determine if same will hold, even if the administrator is Jimmy Wales. At that very least, Jimmy should have consulted with the administrator that issued the warning. (i.e., Durova.) End of story. It is in Jimmy Wale's court to do the "I am sorry" thing. Once and Forever 03:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Wouldn't that comment belong on the AN/I ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the endorsers was subsequently indef blocked for something else, ie User:A.Z.. Is his endorsement legitimate or should it be removed? SqueakBox 03:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's handled like it's handled other places; you just put a note under it indicating indef block (best not to remove or strike others' comments). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and done, SqueakBox 03:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As someone who supports some of the goals of this RfC, I think this line -

Actions performed as "dictator" will be explicitly stated as such in the future

- is quite extreme and IMO weakens the merits of the RfC. Is it okay if I remove it? (I couldn't really find any helpful guidance in the RfC guidelines... seems like a case-by-case, often gray-area issue.) — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. The sunder king 18:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Once people have endorsed a view, it is not usually a good idea to make changes to that view. - Crockspot 18:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Its been deleted as an invalid afd, an act I support as apparently none of the endorsers were involved in the dispute and so shouldn't have endorsed, SqueakBox 05:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

One doesn't have to be involved to endorse a summary or view. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a separate space for those supporting but not directly involved as is standard on all rfcs. Having said that, I didn't delete and only know what Will said in his action summary, SqueakBox 05:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, but I think it would help if the editor who wrote the RfC had at least put their name in as certifier. In most RfCs we expect folks to have had direct discussions with the subject as part of the resolution process. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There currently isn't anyone signed under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" which means that this RfC can't be certified at the 48-hour mark, right? Cla68 06:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone just signed as a certifier which means it needs one more certifier if I understand right. Cla68 06:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This is kind of a special case since a heap of users sort of tried & failed to resolve the dispute, but it's hard to point to individuals since Jimbo didn't engage in substantial dialog in response to individual comments. Somewhat unorthodox RFC, but IMO the most appropriate place to have this discussion. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Sounds correct, the one user who has endorsed missed the deadline. And was she involved? SqueakBox 06:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; we shouldn't ignore a certification because the guy was sleeping at the wrong time. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Where do you put the line then? Without bureaucracy there is anarchy and I would greatly prefer the former, SqueakBox 06:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think common sense will do in this particular case. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh I am very much hoping common sense will prevail, and the endorsements of Ryan, Deskana, Jossi and Crockspot indicates that this is likely, SqueakBox 06:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the overwhelming support not to go any further with this RfC this page should at least be courtesy blanked and probably deleted rather soon. I'm tempted to MfD the thing but if people are this insistent that we should go through with it I'll leave it for now. violet/riga (t) 09:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there's plenty of opposition to closing/deleting this, it just appears less vocal since there's no obvious place to express opposition to the "this is worthless" views. Let the flowers blossom, no one is forcing anyone to participate. — xDanielx ^T/_C 09:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleting this page will create more heat/drama than leaving it to run its course. Please, nobody delete it again. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Blanking a page people are using is hardly a "courtesy". Let's not ruleslawyer here; it may be a bit irregular but people are using it in a good faith effort to resolve/understand/comment on the dispute. Some may think this page is pointless- that's perfectly alright; nobody is required to read it or edit it. Friday (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's protected and no longer in use, so I would suggest a courtesy blank would be a good option at some point in the near future. violet/riga (t) 22:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales made what might become an important statement of policy on this page, and he has not requested that the page or any part of it be blanked, so I submit that the page should be retained, notwithstanding any policy of deleting uncertified or problematically certified RfC's that might otherwise be argued to apply. Newyorkbrad 22:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. The discussions seem over now and it doesn't matter that much. violet/riga (t) 22:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added my name as a certifier. Though the original incident involving the block of one user and the de-sysopping of an administrator has been addressed, we still have a larger issue involving out-of-process actions taken by the head of the project which resulted in a great deal of disruption, and seem to have resulted in a violation of WP:POINT. I have attempted to address these issues both on- and off-wiki, but do not feel that the issue has been resolved. Therefore, I am certifying that this RfC is appropriate and should continue. It is my genuine hope that this RfC can be used not to chastise Mr. Wales, but instead to try and focus the community attention on the larger problem, and hopefully even identify successful ways of moving forward so that this problem does not recur. By "problem", I am saying not just that the conduct of the user (Jimbo) should be addressed or critiqued, but I would like to see if we can identify the problems with the current policies and enforcement thereof, that made Jimbo feel that the only possible way for him to deal with the situation was to personally step in and block someone that he regarded as a problem user. I think that many of the thoughtful members of the Wikipedia community agree that there is indeed a current problem on Wikipedia with trolls, griefers and other "conflict-junkies" taking up too much of the time of the other editors, and that dealing with these problem cases is getting in the way of actually building an encyclopedia. I think that Jimbo's actions were a reflection of that frustration. But when we have a situation where the head of the project feels that the only possible reaction is for him to personally block users, that's a problem. We need to figure out a better way to empower the community to deal with its own problems, rather than requiring personal action on the part of Jimbo. Whether this is creating new policies, modifying existing policies, making a community decision on how policies are to be enforced, or some other method, I don't know. But hopefully this RfC will help figure this out. --Elonka 06:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide some diffs to show you were directly involved in the dispute, otherwise you should be with the larger group of those endorsing the presentation of events, SqueakBox 06:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's quite easy to game the system when the subject of the RfC refuses to engage in meaningful debate with the community. If everyone was allowed to do this no user RfC's would ever be certified. EconomicsGuy 11:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am challenging the standing and basis of both editors attempting to certify. No evidence is present that shows that either user is directly involved in the dispute, nor that any other dispute resolution processes have been attempted by them. This is a fraudulent abuse of process. - Crockspot 12:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My certification is appropriate. Also, I have to admit some disappointment with those rules-lawyers who are trying to delete an RfC based on some kind of technicality. May I please point out that I wrote most of the User Conduct RfC instructions,[1][2] and I've spent some time analyzing what RfCs are supposed to be used for. Yes, sometimes they're mis-used, but they can also be tools for good. At its worst, a User Conduct RfC is a lynch mob. At its best, it's a useful tool which allows a focused place for community discussion towards the worthy goal of solving a complex problem. It's my intent that this RfC be used for good purposes. We clearly have a problem here, we clearly have community members who wish to comment. I have my own comments which I wish to post, which I'm spending quite a bit of time thinking about before I post, but I have to admit I'm feeling some frustration here, as though several admins have their fingers poised over the "delete" button and they're desperate to find some technicality which allows them to get rid of this page. Can someone please explain why this RfC is seen as such a threat, as opposed to seeing it as a useful tool which may help improve things? --Elonka 16:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You still have not provided any evidence of direct involvement while Mr.grantevans2 wasn't involved in the dispute either. I agree with Crockspot that both should be challenged. Elonka, its not about lawyering but about ensuring a fair process on one of the people who most needs a fair process on Rfc, SqueakBox 20:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, Elonka. I disagree with the issue being on two fora at once, but I fully support your good faith attempt to sort out how we resolve disputes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved from main page per RfC/U instructions: [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• "When you overide a Jimbo ban, you should expect the possibility of being desysopped" and "Whether you like Jimbo or not, he has ultimate authority here, and if you start messing with that, you lose your bit." trouble me a lot. Since when can he do what the hell he likes? Please link to where it states Jimbo can desysop in retaliation for someone reversing a decision of his that he made as an ordinary user. What he did goes both against steward policies and admin policies. Majorly (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Where does it say he can't? whether you like it or not Majorly, he has the authority to do what he likes here, period. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • If the community disagrees, no he can't.. particularly as this was done as an ordinary admin, and not the "Wikipedia ruler". Majorly (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes he can. This is proved by the fact that he has done and no steward or bureaucrat will overrule him. --Deskana (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
      • It was not done as another admin, he specifically said don't unblock. Zscout unblocked and lost his bit for a week - c'est la vie. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Deskana, what would happen if one did overrule him? Would they lose their bit too? Majorly (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
          • I suspect so. I don't know, there's no precedent. I'm certainly not undoing it and making a precedent. --Deskana (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The one at fault here Zscout370. Let's keep the focus where it should be. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fault for daring to undo another admin's actions? Hmm Majorly (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fault for undoing Jimbo's actions. Stop pretending that it was "any other admin", that's just ridiculous. --Deskana (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No admin should undo any other admin's actions without discussing it with them. There was no emergency. Corvus cornix 22:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Ryan P., per my endorsement above.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Majorly. Fault for unblocking against consensus, and without discussing the unblock first with the blocking admin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Bleh, if a admin gets punished for everytime he blocks someone without another admin concent, half the admins will be desyropped, including some of you guys yourself. Bad yes, but not desyroppable. Jbeach ^sup 22:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• When you see that Jimbo has banned someone, it should be clear that a lot of thought has gone into that ban. Pardon me, Ryan, but that's just silly. You seem to be saying that "Jimbo knows all", and his actions are never to be questioned. That seems your reasoning for the initial ban, and again for your defense of his desysopping of Zscout370. Well, this outside observer sees his action regarding Zscout as petty, vindictive and arbitrary, and one made in haste with9out a thought or care for the community's reaction. This is not the first time he's run a solid admin off of the project. I am glad this Rfc was established. This shows that (to paraphrase Animal Farm) while all editors are equal on Wikipedia, some editors are more equal than others. I have no problem with that, per sé, but Wales should just make that clear and not harp on consensus. If we are actually ruled by fiat, let him say so. Jeffpw 10:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree completely with Jeffpw to the point where he says "let him say so". It's also up to any people being ruled as to whether or not they accept that status. This community may at some point need to reach consensus as to whether it wants or likes to be ruled by fiat.It seems apparent to me that Jimbo is comfortable with that relationship but there is no consensus as to whether the rest of us are comfortable with it as well. The "love it or leave it" approach has always been shallow and a false choice because there is always, in any venue with as many people involved as this venue has, the ability to effect structural and procedural change from within. Notwithstanding the need to address the bigger picture somewhere and sometime, this RfC seems to be an appropriate process to deal with the specific events it itemizes. Mr.grantevans2 13:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Per the instructions on RfC/Us, threaded discussion are not entered on the main page. Outside views can be endorsed by other users. I will notify this editor that I have moved the comment:[4]

• Comment: Not seemly, I should think...to have a court (RFC) that does not allow the accused any form of defense? (i.e., gag the witness so he or she cannot speak?) It appears, to me, Mr. Wales blocked while a legitimate warning was in place. Is it not right, that administrators yield to each other in a dispute? If Jimmy cast the first stone, in error, clearly he could step up and admit same? Once and Forever 13:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, saying that the RfC is "invalid" on some procedural ground is a pretty darn bureaucratic position to take. This isn't moot court; we're not following Robert's Rules of Order here. Calling the RfC invalid is just kind of an empty assertion - why not say what you think about the content instead? What profit is there in deciding that it isn't "valid"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're responding to here, GTB (my sig is here only because I moved that comment from the RfC to the talk page), but rushing to vote on RfC when there is ongoing discussion on AN/I can also be considered "a pretty darn bureaucratic position to take". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Um... I wasn't talking to you. I was "replying to Crockspot's view". I don't consider an RfC to be something that is "voted" on. Calling it a vote seems bureaucratic to me. What I see on that page is human beings, talking about what they think - nothing more. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's better, thanks. Hard to tell here with a comment by one user to another user's post on another page over my sig. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

GT, I will have to strongly disagree with you. A user conduct RfC is structured, and has rules, for a very good reason, so as not to do unnecessary harm to editors. If you want to have a free form discussion, take it over to one of the several discussions that are running concurrently off of ANI. If you, as an admin, cannot see the need for a strict structure in a user conduct RfC, then we have a huge problem here at Wikipedia. Personally, I think that these user-conduct RfCs should go the same route of extinction as the CSN. - Crockspot 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Um... this is going to do unnecessary harm to... Jimbo? Seriously? This is Jimbo's house; we can't harm him by having a slightly irregular RfC. The page is what it is; what concrete harm will come from it? Please note that I'm not saying anything about you in this comment. You seemed to feel it necessary to say something about me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you say that I can take it to one of the several discussions running off of AN/I. Um... I'm participating actively in those, and I haven't participated in the RfC at all. Have you? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was well underway when I found it, and I participated so far as objecting to its existence, and to endorse other objections. Sorry if it sounded as though I was criticizing you personally, or telling you what to do. It was directed more generally. - Crockspot 23:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo is not the only editor who has ever had a user conduct RfC called upon him. Are you suggesting that we treat Jimbo like any other editor, EXCEPT when we are smacking him around? - Crockspot 21:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, that's not what I'm saying. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also request that you answer my direct question above. Did you miss it, or think it rhetorical? It wasn't. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Which question? I see several question marks. The one I want to address does not have a question mark, which is that I did not intend to single you out specifically, but you as a typical admin to have the view that a user conduct RFC for anyone should not have to be properly certified disturbs me, because I believe you are a typical admin, and it is clear that you are not the only admin who would hold that view. The harm is to the community, for a waste of time on a process that is already playing out (with some resolution) in other venues. Harm to Jimbo, because it's yet another "official" page about how much he sucks. - Crockspot 23:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No end of grief is caused here by people thinking of pages as "official". I find myself much happier not thinking of anything that way.

I also don't see this as being a page about how much Jimbo sucks, at all. It looks to me like a page where he clarifies his role, and although some people seem disgruntled, he seems to maintain a strong level of community support. Nobody's time is wasted by the page except people (such as yourself) who choose to give it time.

I'm really not certain that I'm a "typical admin". I s'pose I'd be the last to know...

I'd say that a cause of your misunderstanding me here is that you're trying to abstract some general principle from what I say about this one situation, but I'm not speaking in general terms. Thus, I may be saying that this RfC is fine to let run for a while without proper forms filled out in triplicate, but that doesn't mean that I'm applying that judgment to any other situation, whether or not it might involve Jimbo. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also really weird to hope to sweep or keep stuff under the carpet on an open and free internet site. I think that the open fighting and disagreements are one of the best things about Wikipedia. The Jimbo's authorities vs. Community authorities conundrum is also something that forces us to think outside the box about what is really going on here and how to progress the work at hand. I recently saw a really old Ponderosa episode where the old patriarch father had allowed Little Joe to do some management with the ranch. Then little Joe did something the old guy didn't like so the old guy took over the situation. Little Joe was furious and he yelled at his dad "But you gave me the power". The old guy then looked really disappointed and pissed off and squared off against Little Joe and said "Nobody gives you power; if you want power you have to take it!" Maybe that's what Jimbo is hoping and waiting for whether he knows it or not? After all, I read where he was setting up a commercial project I think. So, let's stop blaming him for anything at all. He definitely does not suck and he obviously helped create something pretty amazing. The question is whether the crew is ready to and wants to take over control of the ship from the ship builder and I'd say the answer is no. Mr.grantevans2 22:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

2007 appears to be the year where Wikipedia is starting to falling apart. It appears that this year has been the subject of more controversy, drama, dispute and problems than any other in its history. People won't want to come and edit wikipedia if this is what they hear about all over the internet. Basically this case though appears that wikipedians don't understand that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Basically if Jimbo says jump, we jump. We don't to tell him what's right or wrong. Delete again per WP:SNOW by the looks of things this page is going to get us nowhere but into deeper and more violent arguments, and WP:ANI has already covered this. The sunder king 18:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

2007 appears to be the year where Wikipedia is starting to falling apart? Wikipedia has been online just a few years with tremendous success and unparalleled growth and momentum. This type of project has never been attempted before in history, so it is expected that these issues will manifest. There will be more, no less in the next few years. Hold on to your hats! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, 2007 does appear that way. As did 2006 and 2005. I'd like to think that this year will turn out no worse than those did. —Random832 19:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

How can we expect to improve as an encyclopedia and a community if we don't face controversy and dispute? Although this RFC is closed, I think it provides some food for thought both about the workings of IAR and Jimmy's so-called "God King" status. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 21:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Many of the Wikipedia forks are doing quite well, and are providing tens of thousands of credible scholarly expert-approved articles using the original Wikipedia material as a starting point. Perhaps that's Wikipedia's ultimate destiny. To be a giant vat from which the raw materials for more useful things can be dredged. Enrico Dirac 23:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In the same fashion that you would ask a checkuser before undoing a checkuser IP block, or asking the Arbitration Committee before undoing a ban, you need to talk to Jimbo before undoing his administrative action.

The premise is false. Admins aren't required to ask a checkuser before undoing any block by someone who happens to be a checkuser, or to assume that any block by an arbcom member is a ban. While Jimbo is free to SAY that he is banning someone, or (either say, or imply by saying it's sockpuppetry) that he is blocking based on checkuser data, etc, it is not and should not be implied by the fact that it is Jimbo who is blocking. Just as a block from User:Charles Matthews should not be taken (unless he says it is) to mean that Arbcom has banned someone, or a block from User:Voice of All should not, without at the very least a claim of sockpuppetry, be taken as a block by a checkuser qua checkuser, neither should a block from Jimbo be automatically taken to mean either. —Random832 20:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the term "checkuser block" is used in block summaries to mean a block based specifically on checkuser information, which should not be undone without consultation by other admins who don't have access to the information. You are right that it doesn't refer to any block by an admin who happens to also be a checkuser. Newyorkbrad 20:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sean's view, though, is that any block by an admin who happens to be Jimbo should be considered a "Jimbo block", though. That was my point - the analogy falls flat. If Jimbo wants to ever act as a normal admin, he shouldn't be exempt from the comment box. —Random832 20:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo makes his call and the rfc is closed an hour and a half later. Live in the UK, or Europe, or Japan, or Africa, or Australia, or Asia? Well, obviously nobody needs you to endorse... and yar-boo if you live outside the US timezone.

For the record;

Response by Jimbo Wales - users who endorse this summary;

• Excellent, making the distinction is vital. LessHeard vanU 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I would wish that some were a little more trusting in allowing some outside of Jimbo's immediate locality the opportunity in expressing their thoughts. LessHeard vanU 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I was stuck in traffic, so did not get the chance to endorse, but I would have wholeheartedly. - Crockspot 23:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good - well, clearly we will need to keep this page as a record of these pearls of wisdom emanating from our great leader, although I wonder where this leaves "assume good faith".

No doubt we shall find out in due course who is on the hit list to be liquidated, but I can think of a number of prominent "silly sausages" who would benefit from some forceful encouragement to be more civil. Even greater use of block buttons by admins is bound to achieve that end.

Now, where was that encyclopedia were were writing? -- !! ?? 11:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Mr. Wales has one problem with this quote:

"I make no apologies for either of my actions, which were consistent with both written policy and longstanding tradition, and which have already been enormously helpful in making clear that some policies I set down at the beginning of this project are still policies." (Taken from the response section of the RFC.)

The problem? The statement is not true. His block was not consistent with policy; there was, in fact, an administrator warning in place at the time Jimmy Wales blocked Miltopia. The warning came from Durova. Respect for an existing administrator's actions, is indeed policy. That was not followed in this cause. The initial block was done in error and in violation of policy. A consultation with the warning administrator should have taken place. Yielding to an existing administrator is a good thing. Peace. (Here is the thread indicating that a block warning was issued by Durova:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Miltopia#Block_warning Once and Forever 00:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC))Once and Forever 22:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This conclusion is mistaken. Jimbo was indeed in contact with me prior to his block and I made no objection. Zscout could have contacted me, but didn't. Neither did the editor who advances this speculation. Durova^Charge! 05:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• I believe the timeline is pretty much all there, Durova. Yes indeed, about 5 hours. You must have spoken to Jimbo via private mail. Sorry for my lack of trust and good faith here. Now I am blocked forever! Once and Forever! 202.150.223.5 01:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and I know your main account also. Tread lightly. Durova^Charge! 00:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well well well, closed and locked. Is anyone really surprised? However, it is still not too late to have a much needed discussion on Jimbo's role. Sole-Founder and God-king just aren't working anymore. The project and community have simply grown too large, too complex and too diverse for a single individual, no matter how well-intentioned, to effectively exercise absolute power over. The very notion of such an office is increasingly at odds with the open, voluntary and consensus-driven nature of the project and community.
A 'Constitutional monarchy, on the other hand, might just work. Sure he would be giving up some powers, but he would also be giving up certain responsibilities and liabilities which he clearly does not enjoy having to deal with. It could be a win for him, the project and the community. It could spare us all further embarrassments and possibly help to fend off the decline Wikipedia is now experiencing.
I therefore cordially and earnestly invite Mr.Wales to participate in an open and civilized forum. A forum where we shall discuss major issues and big-deals and not minor incidents such as this one. A forum where we won't try to "lay blame" upon you or anyone for the current state of affairs, but rather to discuss what you do right, what you do well and how we can arrange it so you can do what you do best given the increasing size of the project and your increasingly busy schedule.
There are growing sentiments, both outside the project and inside of it, which think this is a fool's errand. That you are a dictator/absentee landlord who is out of touch and cannot be reasoned with or reformed. Here is a prime opportunity for you to prove them wrong, to show your good faith in the community and help set things back on course. I strongly suggest you take it. Remember, we live in an age where even god-kings can be shelved.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Why think of Wikipedia in terms of systems of government at all? Is it not possible to jettison that whole layer of interpretation, and to think of this as a new thing, that's not a legal system? I mean, there are plenty of people just working on the project, oblivious to all this drama and strife.

I do wonder how you would set up a forum of Wikipedians and convince them not to try and "lay blame". There are some committed blame-layers around. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy himself has stated many times (including recently on this very subject) that WPISNOT:Anarchy. So if it is not an anarchy, then what is it? Some Wikicritics have dubbed it a dysfunctional social network. Others, a cult or a dictatorship. I think we can all agree that none of these states is desirable. Especially not for a system built on VOLUNTEER labor! Currently, members of this labor force are pretty much expendable cogs in the machine. When they wear/burn out they are simply replaced by new cogs. This is all well, if not entirely good, for the short run, as long as there are fresh cogs. But there is strong evidence now that this is no longer occurring. Want more proof? Look how slowly the fundraising drive is going compared to last year's. In the long term, this spells decline, breakdown and failure, especially if the desire is to produce a quality, reliable work we can be proud of. Doubtless there are many here who will carry on without a clue or care. Nations in the midst of chaotic events often still manage to function to some extent at some basic level (Remember, even on the Titanic the band played on). The mail is still delivered, trains still run, albeit with greater delays. Until one day the mail doesn't arrive and the trains stop running...and the band falls silent. By then it is usually too late.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 14:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And who do we blame for that? :) - Crockspot 16:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there is more than enough blame to go around (and plenty of trigger-happy admins who would love to ban anyone who dares point fingers at them or their friends). But dishing it out would serve no real purpose, except perhaps a forensic one:).--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 14:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Most people go through life mostly unaware of the legal niceties of government but that does not mean we don't need government in real life. And as we are here to write an encyclopedia I don't think creating a new system of governance that is not a legal system is on the agenda. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it's not on the agenda because it's already been done. It's precisely what we've got. What's really not on the agenda is creating a system of governance that is a legal system. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, nor an experiment in government, nor a system of courts. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy or legal system but it needs both in order to function and that is entirely uncontroversial, if it didn't have them it would be pure anarchy. We don't have governments and bureaucracies because people want them but because societies need them and wikipedia does too. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That is neither uncontroversial nor true. Wikipedia has no legal system, and yet is not pure anarchy. Wikipedia has no government, and needs no government. Those words belong to the wrong model. What we're doing here doesn't fit that paradigm. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What you say is true to some degree. We don't want, or need, a system of strict laws to create a Wikigovernment. But denying that anything like a government exists just prevents any problems with it from being fixed. -Amarkov moo! 23:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. What if the problems we have with our system can be fixed by people not thinking of it as a system of laws? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Brilliant; absolutely brilliant and I'm not kidding one bit. Mr.grantevans2 14:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikilaw, such that it is, comes from six basic sources:

• The Five Pillars, along with the various corollaries, commentaries and expansions thereupon.
• Longstanding community practices, customs and traditions (Such as the 75% consensus to promote in Rfa or the 3R rule etc).
• Previous Arbcom rulings and findings (IE Wiki-Case Law ).
• Foundation-level policies.
• Various pronouncements, decrees and sayings by Jimbo.
• Whatever the fashion or fetish of the month happens to be.

This morass makes for a perfect playgroup for Wiki-lawyers, wanna-be bureaucrats and others who want to game the system for their own ends rather than to further the goals of the project or for the greater good of the community. A "Wiki-Constitution" would help immensely to clean up this mess and to make clear which laws matter most in spirit and not only word.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 14:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(There is, of course, something tricky about solutions that involve a lot of other people changing the way they think. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC))

Yes,that's a fact. The 9/11 commission suggested "thinking outside the box" is necessary for the future in order to combat terrorism. It may also be necessary for the future of Wikipedia; but how many of us can really change our own thought processing and thought construction habits? How many of us can get outside of our own little thinking boxes to think in a different way? I have no idea how many,if any,including myself. Perhaps these things like Wikipedia simply evolve naturally in relation to the mentality of the people involved. I think that Veropedia might attract some of those subjected to Rote learning and that may help ease the stress; but stress is also quite useful for growth so I'm not saying that would be a good thing in the long run. Mr.grantevans2 14:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Changing how people think is not as difficult as you may think. Nor should it be for a community which prides itself on being open, different and, dare I say, revolutionary:). I'm sure we can agree on what WP is officially and aspires to be: A project to build an open and free encyclopedia by a community of VOLUNTEERS. Projects and communities need, nay demand, some form of governance. In determining which form would be best, we must consider which would best serve the project's goals. WPISNOT:A Democracy. Duh, obviously. Nor am I suggesting it should be. For our goals here democracy would be only slightly more desirable than anarchy, and less fun in some ways:). Given that the project is run by a non-profit corporation utilizing a volunteer labor pool, the corporate model is inadequate also. After carefully studying this question for over a year, I'm convinced that the answer lies in a hybrid-system, combining a form of Sociocracy with elements of a Constitutional Monarchy. To me this would be a more desirable evolutionary adaptation of where the community is headed, as opposed to a revolutionary one, which would involve "Off with their heads! Against the wall muthas!" etc:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 14:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In other news Nelson laugh I made y'all discuss reforms! Now if we could just get Jimmy or some of the other big wigs to join us, this party could get started proper!:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 14:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

My role is not now and never has been one of God-King. It already is that of Constitutional Monarch. So unless R.D.H. has some specific changes to suggest, it is essentially impossible to move forward in any reasonable way here. What exactly does he think should change? Increae the size and scope of the ArbCom? Alter the ways in which policy are made? What, exactly?--Jimbo Wales 09:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

First, thank you Jimmy for taking time out from your busy life to indulge us here. However I must beg to differ regarding the matter of your Divine Monarchy. A highly influential and none too small cadre still perceives you as such, whether or not it is the case. And as your friend Stephen Colbert points out, perceptions often can become reality (elephants not withstanding:). So if they believe you to be a god-king and treat you accordingly then, effectively, you are one, like it or not. If you are truly a constitutional monarch, then you are one without a true constitution, hence the ambiguity of your role. What would be the harm, then, in simply making it official by putting it in writing and outline your special role as the project's and community's leader? Plus as a mortal monarch, you could claim to have just as much right to screw up as anyone else, and demand they cut you the same slack:).

As for specific proposals, I have many if you have the time and inclination to further indulge me:) Expanding the size and scope of the ArbCom is certainly one to consider. There are far too few active Arbs to adequately handle the growing case load. And its role is already expanding from a judiciary which primarily interprets policy, to a policy-making body, to now increasingly determining content as well. Recognizing and codifying this fact might be inevitable. Another possibility to consider is to expand the role of the WikiProject Council. The projects are fast becoming Wikipedia's main workhorses. By giving them and their members greater say in how things are run you would acknowledge and encourage their fine work and cooperation. You could also encourage the projects to develop their own dispute resolution, mediation and peer review processes. Two other changes I feel strongly about are drastically reforming, or scrapping and replacing, Rfa and AFD. You, yourself, have witnessed just how dysfunctional and unpleasant these processes have become. Along these lines here are some more proposals:

• Limit voting rights on any issue to Wikipedians in good standing, defined here as at least 500 mainspace edits and six months activity.
• Automatically grant these same Wikipedians basic sysop functions such as the roll-back button and semi-protection.
• Grant new articles a 3 month Grace period to grow, develop and perhaps gain notariety before they may be nominated for deletion. Should they survive the vote, then extend them another 3 months before they may renominated.

There...I think that's enough to get us started for now:)But if you want more ideas, again, I'm full of them...just ask my old friend Kirill. You know the Military History Project's Task Force concept? That started out as my idea:)[5] Once again, thanks for indulging me:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to have an official non-profit legally constituted organization that represents the English language Wikipedia contributors like the one the German community has; one that raises funds for legal defense of editors; one that allows editors to choose a representative so that we may have a House of Representatives (that uses no single factor in deciding membership as edit count and socks can be used to rig any mechanical deciding method). Oh, and to be a representative, you have to be known by your real life name and identity; and be of legal age where you live. For example, there could be a template that I put on my user page that identifies my representative as Jimbo Wales which is automatically kept track of in real time providing instantaneous feedback on the health of the community and the opinions of its editors. For example if you get sued, then the English language Wikipedia community legal defense fund can be used providing yet further evidence that the Foundation is a service provider and not a content publisher. This would be an organization that represents the content providers - we, the editors. WAS 4.250 19:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a very intriguing idea WAS, and exactly the sort I'm trying to encourage here. How has this users' Bundestag worked out on DE:Wiki? If it has then we might be on to something. Moreover, this House of Reps, or Commons, could choose its own representatives to sit on the Board of Trusts and the ArbCom as non-voting observers, liasions and Tribunes of the plebs.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom could certainly be benefited if the current ammount of arbitrators is increased seeing that the scope of the commitee is automatically increasing by itself. - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)