Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion
Mike.lifeguard writes: > I think you'll find that whenever you want to have something done that > should actually be done there will be no problem convincing > community members to do it... I think this will make folks > much more comfortable in accepting your guidance. Just so. Thank you, Jimbo. Kim writes: > PERFECT! > > == Me three? == > > In fact, the reason that I haven't been able to convince fellow > admins to retire, is because they really didn't want to lose > their viewing abilities. > > ... it would be really nice to have a similar set of permissions > for "retired" admins and stewards. Please? This is a great idea. We should do it. SJ Dan writes: >>This email is twice as good when you read it in Judge Judy's voice. (Even better, in Kim's grinning impersonation of Judge Judy's voice.) ___ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Joan Goma wrote: > The founder’s flag give to a single man a huge power. I can’t trust on > almost anybody to hold that power. Every steward holds that power. If I remember well, I think that stewards had a couple of more permissions than founder. ___ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > My purpose here is for us to stop chattering about this aspect of > things - which I don't care about. People seem to want to fight me > on it, perhaps expecting me to dig in my heels. Everyone loves a > good fight, even me, but this is not a fight that we need to have. You *did* dig in your heels, once upon a time[0][1], so it isn't outlandish :) - -Mike [0] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Babel/Archives/2009-02#Jimbo_Wales_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_email_.E2.80.A2_contributions_.E2.80.A2_deleted_contributions_.E2.80.A2_all_logs_.E2.80.A2_blocks_.E2.80.A2_deletions_.E2.80.A2_protections_.E2.80.A2_count.29 [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights?page=User:Jimbo+Wales&offset=20090124&limit=4 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkvnHlYACgkQst0AR/DaKHvGJACgruNjqCqlYaEoDXFZ4fAlTGyY tRwAoIb1osKXs1kWJ+Y9f6dNz+Gy9dr/ =ZyJk -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion
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. 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 I think 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. I think that 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. Please 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. I have opened this page on meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Give_funders_flag_back > On 5/9/10 4:18 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > I notice you have kept "protect" and "undelete". Is that intentional? > > If so, can you explain your thinking behind that decision? > > I just removed undelete, manage global groups, and edit membership to > global groups. I did that before I saw your note, so I missed > "protect". It's not important one way or the other. > > My purpose here is for us to stop chattering about this aspect of things > - which I don't care about. People seem to want to fight me on it, > perhaps expecting me to dig in my heels. Everyone loves a good fight, > even me, but this is not a fight that we need to have. > > --Jimbo > > > > ___ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion
On 9 May 2010 18:56, Jimmy Wales wrote: > On 5/9/10 4:18 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> I notice you have kept "protect" and "undelete". Is that intentional? >> If so, can you explain your thinking behind that decision? > > I just removed undelete, manage global groups, and edit membership to > global groups. I did that before I saw your note, so I missed > "protect". It's not important one way or the other. Good man! I think we can ignore you still having the technical ability to protect pages - I assume you don't actually intend to use it? Hopefully we can move on now and discuss what our policy ought to be on pornographic/non-educational images. Thanks, Jimmy! ___ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion
On 5/9/10 4:18 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > I notice you have kept "protect" and "undelete". Is that intentional? > If so, can you explain your thinking behind that decision? I just removed undelete, manage global groups, and edit membership to global groups. I did that before I saw your note, so I missed "protect". It's not important one way or the other. My purpose here is for us to stop chattering about this aspect of things - which I don't care about. People seem to want to fight me on it, perhaps expecting me to dig in my heels. Everyone loves a good fight, even me, but this is not a fight that we need to have. --Jimbo ___ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion
On 9 May 2010, at 17:57, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > >> I've just now removed virtually all permissions to actually do >> things from the "Founder" flag. I even removed my ability to edit >> semi-protected pages! (I've kept permissions related to 'viewing' things.) >> > > The community recognizes that you have given up certain permissions under > controversial circumstances and reminds you that you that those permissions > may not be reinstated without a proper request for permissions on meta. Daft question: the community here being ... you? Or is there a wiki !vote page saying this? Mike Peel ___ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > I've just now removed virtually all permissions to actually do > things from the "Founder" flag. I even removed my ability to edit > semi-protected pages! (I've kept permissions related to 'viewing' things.) > The community recognizes that you have given up certain permissions under controversial circumstances and reminds you that you that those permissions may not be reinstated without a proper request for permissions on meta. ___ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion
On May 9, 2010, at 7:28 AM, Kim Bruning wrote: > On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 10:46:50AM +0100, Jimmy Wales wrote: >> >> In the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real >> philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I >> acted, I've just now removed virtually all permissions to actually do >> things from the "Founder" flag. I even removed my ability to edit >> semi-protected pages! (I've kept permissions related to 'viewing' things.) > > In the immortal words of Judge Judy; "Perfect, PERFECT!". > > == Perfect == > > I was just about to post about the need to assure the commons community > that there would be no repeat performance. This is a risk-management > issue: why would a commons user take an initiative that might be > marginalized or rendered futile in the near future? > > That kind of situation has a paralysing effect on a community. > > The paralysing effect has now been largely negated. > Perfect. > > == PERFECT! == > > Do you know how long I've been trying to encourage experienced/high profile > admins to hand in their flags? > > Why? It's a Poka-yoke / idiot-proofing measure > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poka-yoke > > As a precaution, one should not take (high profile) actions, without > confirming it with at least one other person in the relevant community.[1] > > By not having the requisite permissions oneself, one is forced to talk > with someone who does, no matter how impatient, panicked, or tired one > is. Obviously this doesn't catch all edge-cases, but it certainly > reduces the number of ways in which things can go wrong. > > In this case, Jimbo Wale's founder flag gave him _Uber_-Admin powers. > That's Got to Lead To Uber-Pain. And It Did. > > > So now that's fixed. I wouldn't be surprised if Jimmy's influence > in the community didn't actually *increase* due to this. [2] > > PERFECT! > > == Me three? == > > Jimmy Wales correctly identifies the fact that experienced > users who do hand in their flag should still be able to view > things, such as deleted pages, etc. > > In fact, the reason that I haven't been able to convince fellow > admins to retire, is because they really didn't want to lose > their viewing abilities. > > > Before, I was but a single voice, calling in the dark. But Now! Now that > the world's most high profile Wikipedian has *de-facto* finally > vindicated my position, after all these years... > > > ... it would be really nice to have a similar set of permissions > for "retired" admins and stewards. Please? > > sincerely, > Kim Bruning > > [1]It is always wise to work in pairs anyway. Ask Ward Cunningham, or > any other Agile-type person you know! > > [2] This wouldn't be immediate. First some wounds will need to heal, > of course. And people still need to vent their catharthic > venting for now. > This email is twice as good when you read it in Judge Judy's voice. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion
I agree that this ends the need for any immediate action by the community in this aspect of things. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 9 May 2010 10:46, Jimmy Wales wrote: >> >> In the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real >> philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I >> acted, I've just now removed virtually all permissions to actually do >> things from the "Founder" flag. I even removed my ability to edit >> semi-protected pages! (I've kept permissions related to 'viewing' things.) >> >> I do not want to be a tyrant or dictator. I do not want us to fight >> about that kind of thing, as it's really a distraction from our work. > > Thanks for this, it is a very good move. I think this will have the > desired effect of allowing us to move on from discussing you and > discuss the actual issue. > > I notice you have kept "protect" and "undelete". Is that intentional? > If so, can you explain your thinking behind that decision? > > As someone else has mentioned in this thread, you have kept the rights > necessary to change your own rights in the future. It would probably > be best to remove them too. I'm assuming you don't intend to give > yourself back rights should you want to use them (that would make this > a meaningless gesture, which I've never known you make before), so you > have no need to keep those rights. > > I think you should also consider your admin rights on English > Wikipedia. I know they are historically a separate issue from your > founder rights, but since you have already voluntarily given up your > enwiki block rights, now might be the time to give up the rest too. > (You can use the founder flag for the various view rights, which I > think you are right to keep.) > > Thank you again for doing this - despite the fact that I've just been > picking holes in it, I really do think that even with these issues it > is an excellent thing to have done. The important this is the good > attitude you've shown in doing this. > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion
On 9 May 2010 10:46, Jimmy Wales wrote: > > In the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real > philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I > acted, I've just now removed virtually all permissions to actually do > things from the "Founder" flag. I even removed my ability to edit > semi-protected pages! (I've kept permissions related to 'viewing' things.) > > I do not want to be a tyrant or dictator. I do not want us to fight > about that kind of thing, as it's really a distraction from our work. Thanks for this, it is a very good move. I think this will have the desired effect of allowing us to move on from discussing you and discuss the actual issue. I notice you have kept "protect" and "undelete". Is that intentional? If so, can you explain your thinking behind that decision? As someone else has mentioned in this thread, you have kept the rights necessary to change your own rights in the future. It would probably be best to remove them too. I'm assuming you don't intend to give yourself back rights should you want to use them (that would make this a meaningless gesture, which I've never known you make before), so you have no need to keep those rights. I think you should also consider your admin rights on English Wikipedia. I know they are historically a separate issue from your founder rights, but since you have already voluntarily given up your enwiki block rights, now might be the time to give up the rest too. (You can use the founder flag for the various view rights, which I think you are right to keep.) Thank you again for doing this - despite the fact that I've just been picking holes in it, I really do think that even with these issues it is an excellent thing to have done. The important this is the good attitude you've shown in doing this. ___ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > In the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real > philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I > acted, I've just now removed virtually all permissions to actually do > things from the "Founder" flag. I even removed my ability to edit > semi-protected pages! (I've kept permissions related to 'viewing' things.) > > I do not want to be a tyrant or dictator. I do not want us to fight > about that kind of thing, as it's really a distraction from our work. Thank you, I think this is actually enormously helpful. I think you'll find that whenever you want to have something done that should actually be done there will be no problem convincing community members to do it. By contrast, if you ask them to do something that shouldn't be done, it may be more likely they won't do it. Of course, your opinion carries much weight, so people are likely to acquiesce, but all the same, I think this will make folks much more comfortable in accepting your guidance. At the same time, it simply removes a large part of what folks have been grappling with this weekend. I think this is quite a positive change, - -Mike -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEUEARECAAYFAkvmupoACgkQst0AR/DaKHsdNQCY3Q8K7Bi+6eTyjkB8vpYOdkTz ewCgz/KvoxTbdV9bau3p4RFCayfgAwE= =2ZMN -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion
On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 10:46:50AM +0100, Jimmy Wales wrote: > > In the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real > philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I > acted, I've just now removed virtually all permissions to actually do > things from the "Founder" flag. I even removed my ability to edit > semi-protected pages! (I've kept permissions related to 'viewing' things.) In the immortal words of Judge Judy; "Perfect, PERFECT!". == Perfect == I was just about to post about the need to assure the commons community that there would be no repeat performance. This is a risk-management issue: why would a commons user take an initiative that might be marginalized or rendered futile in the near future? That kind of situation has a paralysing effect on a community. The paralysing effect has now been largely negated. Perfect. == PERFECT! == Do you know how long I've been trying to encourage experienced/high profile admins to hand in their flags? Why? It's a Poka-yoke / idiot-proofing measure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poka-yoke As a precaution, one should not take (high profile) actions, without confirming it with at least one other person in the relevant community.[1] By not having the requisite permissions oneself, one is forced to talk with someone who does, no matter how impatient, panicked, or tired one is. Obviously this doesn't catch all edge-cases, but it certainly reduces the number of ways in which things can go wrong. In this case, Jimbo Wale's founder flag gave him _Uber_-Admin powers. That's Got to Lead To Uber-Pain. And It Did. So now that's fixed. I wouldn't be surprised if Jimmy's influence in the community didn't actually *increase* due to this. [2] PERFECT! == Me three? == Jimmy Wales correctly identifies the fact that experienced users who do hand in their flag should still be able to view things, such as deleted pages, etc. In fact, the reason that I haven't been able to convince fellow admins to retire, is because they really didn't want to lose their viewing abilities. Before, I was but a single voice, calling in the dark. But Now! Now that the world's most high profile Wikipedian has *de-facto* finally vindicated my position, after all these years... ... it would be really nice to have a similar set of permissions for "retired" admins and stewards. Please? sincerely, Kim Bruning [1]It is always wise to work in pairs anyway. Ask Ward Cunningham, or any other Agile-type person you know! [2] This wouldn't be immediate. First some wounds will need to heal, of course. And people still need to vent their catharthic venting for now. -- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72 ___ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > In the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real > philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I > acted, I've just now removed virtually all permissions to actually do > things from the "Founder" flag. I even removed my ability to edit > semi-protected pages! (I've kept permissions related to 'viewing' things.) > > I do not want to be a tyrant or dictator. I do not want us to fight > about that kind of thing, as it's really a distraction from our work. Thank you Jimmy very much! ___ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > > In the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real > philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I > acted, I've just now removed virtually all permissions to actually do > things from the "Founder" flag. I even removed my ability to edit > semi-protected pages! (I've kept permissions related to 'viewing' things.) You have kept 'protect', which I am guessing overrides the 'autoconfirmed' that you removed. You have also kept 'Edit membership to global groups' and 'Manage global groups', which means you can change these permissions at any time. When you have time, I think it is necessary to explain why you need those, or to relinquish them. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Alec Conroy wrote: > On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: >> >> I've just now removed virtually all permissions to actually do >> things from the "Founder" flag. > > I appreciate this step, but the community has now firmly rejected your > continued status as "Founder flagged"-- you have not been asked to cut > back on your privileges, you are being ordered to relinquish your > founder flag. > > I'm happy that you're beginning to question your earlier actions, but > your founder status is not for you to decide. Currently it's 3-to-1 > against you continuing in this role. If that doesn't change, you > need to abide by it. I disagree. Those objections are not against the idea of a founder flag, but against his rights, or rather the way he used these rights. If those rights are significantly curtailed, we have a different situation, and not everyone who was against the extensive rights will be against the narrower ones as well. In fact, I would say that letting Jimbo remain Founder, but remove several rights from that position would be very fitting in the Wikimedia way of working: Not voting, but searching consensus for a compromise. -- André Engels, [email protected] ___ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Removing questions about me and my role from this discussion
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > > I've just now removed virtually all permissions to actually do > things from the "Founder" flag. I appreciate this step, but the community has now firmly rejected your continued status as "Founder flagged"-- you have not been asked to cut back on your privileges, you are being ordered to relinquish your founder flag. I'm happy that you're beginning to question your earlier actions, but your founder status is not for you to decide. Currently it's 3-to-1 against you continuing in this role. If that doesn't change, you need to abide by it. ___ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
