User talk:Jimbo Wales

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Blocking and deleting here

Hi I would like to ask you what entitle you to block here users? As I see you are not and administrator here (see special:listAdmins) nor a steward (see meta:Stewards#List of stewards). So after hard searching I came to this page: w:Wikipedia:User access levels#Founder and can read there "However, as 'local founder actions' are usually of great interest to the local community, and are only relevant to the English Wikipedia"…. So it would be nice to clarify your possession.

It is the second time you use the right created for the use on English Wikipedia (see: [1]) and I don't think, you are the founder of English Wikiversity. So this behavior (and I am sorry to say that) seems as dictatorship in here. If you have a problem with someone, there is a broad list of Custodians you can ask for a help or broad list of stewards potentially.

The "Moulton case" was bad for wv and many good editors and custodians also left the project because of your "founder" blocking, if you haven't noticed that. And now it comes for the second time:-(((--Juan de Vojníkov 08:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

See here. Jimmy, you need to talk before doing things like this, not demand that people talk to you before undoing it. --SB_Johnny talk 10:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you should tell us what the block was for before going ahead and doing it. I know you are allowed to use your Founder rights, but it is the community's interest to know why a certain user was blocked. I would appreciate if you clarified the reason of the block. Pmlineditor  11:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think whether the actions are appropriate or not, that these actions are harmful to the Wikiversity community because it tends to fracture and polarize the community, and good contributors leave. People don't really know you here, and thus I doubt the community would trust you with custodian/sysop tools if you were to go through the normal Wikiversity process. I believe these are part of the reasons why even stewards are not suppose to act on local projects unless it is an emergency situation and there are no sysops available to act. -- darklama  11:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur with above - more information and discussion first, please. What's the background/history? What other related events have occurred on other WMF projects? What's the related policy? Why is this done by founder as opposed to say working through the local community and/or stewards? Is this way WMF "best practice"? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A note

You have stated: "The key is that this needs to be a serious, responsible, professional project, and not a haven for "breaching experiments" and attacks on Wikipedians."

However, I deleted the material of the project 12 days before you arrived. This was known by both the community and RTG that the page was deleted before RTG posted on your user talk page. RTG's post at your user talk page was completely misleading and did not state the actuality of the situation.

Wikiversity does not host guides on how to sock puppet. Wikiversity does not encourage sock puppetry or the violation of rules at other Wikimedia projects. I ensured that these two statements were true. I ensured that these two statements were true 12 days before you came to this project.

I am saddened that RTG failed to mention this. I am saddened that the already solved matter, with Privatemusings promising to discontinue any promotion of problematic behavior, was reopened in such a fashion. I am saddened that no one bothered to come to me first, even though I already ensured that there would not be another Moulton like situation. I doubt you will see this note, since you only use Wikipedia and I am unable to post on your talk page there. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ottava, rest assured - I appreciate your efforts, which were certainly steps in the right direction.--Jimbo Wales 01:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Question on closure

Dear Mr. Wales! I had some questions here and I would be glad, if you can find some time to answer them. Thank you! --Gbaor 19:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your behaviour in Wikiversity

Dear Mr. Wales, this is my second post on your talk page. So I hope, that you will answer it. I am very sad seeing your recent activity in here. If every Wikimedian will disagree with the way were wv is going, he will use a Meta to talk about the problem. So be so kind and follow the way of every other Wikipedia, please. Well, you are the founder of Wikipedia, but that does not nominate you to be upper than every simple Wikimedian.

You probably don't mind that your first blocking disrupted the English Wikiversity community and it looks like you don't think about your deeds in here, and what you are saying. Your deeds in here are disrupting Wikiversity community again and your words about stopping the project endamage the project itself. In this case, I hope the Wikimedia Foundation will dissociate from you.

So this is my warning to you Mr. Wales, if you will continue to violate and destabilize the project, I should block you. So I hope that after the potential provision from my side to Mr. Jimmy Wales, other custodians will behave like a man/woman and not continue of blocking. If so it is your way…--Juan de Vojníkov 23:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have the full support of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is not my intention to destabilize the project, it is my intention to support those who want to see it flourish and succeed. The first step toward that is to draw a firm line against trolling.--Jimbo Wales 22:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. If there is a full support of WMF it is how it is. But it is important to note, that the way which WMF used to change this project was not good and leads to destabilization. I don't think that users such as Gbaor, SB Johnny or McCormack wanted Wikiversity to be the place promoting range. But they are gone, because of your interventions. So as its mentioned below, it would be better to establish the direct communication between English Wikiversity (or Wikiversities?) and Wikimedia Foundation. Maybe some people who are neutral might be elected for this.--Juan de Vojníkov 21:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Mr. Wales, I would like to have a point clarified. Did you get foundation authorisation before or after your sysop actions without community support? Regards. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 09:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "I have the full support of the Wikimedia Foundation" <-- I'd like to see a public record of the vote by the Board where the Board members all agreed that someone from outside of the Wikiversity community can, in a non-emergency situation, over-ride the Wikiversity community procedures for page deletion, blocking and desysoping. --JWSchmidt 14:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    I think Sue Gardener's statement that Jimbo had the backing of the WMF would be enough to validate that he had the authority of the WMF. Sue Gardner has the authority to make such declarations. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocking for cross-wiki issues

If you block for cross-wiki issues [2], could you please include a link(s) to relevant discussion, presumably on m: to facilitate review by others here? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, it's fine. Do we really need to let obvious trolls who try to disrupt multiple WM projects here? Pmlineditor  07:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Precisely. I think it is much more important to focus on real policy changes, and the issues around that are sufficiently subtle and complex that thoughtful people will have a hard enough time sorting it out without wasting a ton of time dealing with people who clearly aren't here primarily to contribute to the goals of Wikiversity, but rather primarily to disrupt.--Jimbo Wales 11:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Jtneill, I guess pertinent info could be found here or here. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The question is if the community agrees with cross-wiki issues for blocking. If Jimbo Wales would be an elected wv custodian, I would not set this question. But as he was not elected by the community its important to know, if he respect the wv-way.--Juan de Vojníkov 21:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeh, I guess the issue for me is that if the founder blocks indef and cites cross-wiki issues without links to evidence or rationale or consensus, then as a custodian do I (a) assume good faith and judgement on the part of the founder and just carry on (ignore); (b) take my own time to investigate and satisfy myself whether this action is the best way; (c) start a community review to check/clarify whether good action has been taken; (d) raise/followup the issue on meta. We haven't had much experience in the past with founder-level actions, so we are learning about this now. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion with the WMF board

Could you advise about how the WV community might have direct, open, productive discussion with the WMF board about the project? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You could email them? But I can tell you that there is no ongoing discussion of Wikiversity going on there now, and no pending actions.--Jimbo Wales 11:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think email counts as a means for "open" discussion - it'd only be between sender and recipient without 'external' contribution or viewing, i.e. by the rest of the community. — Kurr 17:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm unaware of any way to talk to the board as a whole other than by email. But possibly you have in mind the wrong party for discussion? I mean, is it really the board you want to talk to? The board does not get involved in the details of day to day project management.--Jimbo Wales 18:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Kurr seems to be an SPA.--Jimbo Wales 18:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I've made a few contributions on Wikipedia, and, if I recall correctly, I have some contribs dotted around some Wikia wikis. I'm active on other independent wikis under another username, but I'd rather not divulge that information. I like keeping an eye on the Signpost on Wikipedia, which is how I came about editing here. I'm not sure whether you're assuming bad faith with your conclusion, but I'll assume good faith and assume you're not assuming bad faith. Or something. But anyway, I'm not sure why that is significant :p. — Kurr 19:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm prepared to block User:Kurr for being a sock puppet. Of his limited cross wiki edits, this shows that he created a monobook from his first edit, which is something a new person lacks the capability of doing. Jumping over here and involving himself in politics shows the actions of a good hand/bad hand type of socking. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Just for the point of showing off some of our fancy tools: [3]. Philippe (WMF) 22:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jimbo. It's good to see input from Sue, Sj etc. now appearing on the Community Review as well. That's basically what I was after/hoping for so that WV users can better understand what is/was being discussed about WV at WMF board level - and have some direct, open conversation about that. (I'm generally not a big fan of email/IRC etc. - I'd rather see our sharings out in the open.) -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

In the chain of WMF command (is there an org. chart?) - who is ultimately responsible for WV? Is it the board or the CEO or someone else? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"Ultimately responsible" is the board, for everything. The board gives advice and guidance to Sue, but she's the CEO and manages the organization on a day to day basis. In terms of the details of policy here it would be quite unusual for either Sue or the board to get involved. (Indeed, it's quite unusual for me to get involved, and I plan to be out of your hair as soon as possible.)--Jimbo Wales 10:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


Thekohser has made a request on his talk page to be unblocked. Whilst I note that you've made it clear to SB Johnny that he shouldn't be unblocked, I'd welcome some clarification regarding this issue. Would it be appropriate to consider this request or should it simply be declined? Would there ever be an appropriate time or set of conditions which would allow for him to be unblocked to contribute here if he wishes? Adambro 15:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have addessed this here so thanks for the clarification of the situation. Adambro 10:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


I sent you an email. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

something that gave me an ironic smile :-)

G'day Jimbo - I posted on my talk page in response to your feeling that I had been rude to you, and I didn't really have the intention to pop by here, but stumbled across this diff on my wiki travels this arvo. - reading the end of the 1st para, it raised a smile with me that you considered the application of a 'fact' tag to be rude - as I mentioned at my talk page, I'd hoped it was clear that I was trying to make / reiterate a substantive point in good humour - really that you should clarify what you mean by 'before I took action on Wikiversity, I sought, and obtained, the full backing and support of the Wikimedia Foundation' - who did you speak to, and what did they say?

We have a situation currently where it's difficult or impossible to arrange for a photo of a 16 year old girl masturbating to be removed from commons servers (I'd appreciate your support by the way in ensuring that the existence of that photo is reported to an appropriate agency) - but the foundation can very quickly act to support the deletion of a page here on wikiversity... silly huh.

Anywhoo, I'm sorry you found me rude, I'm usually trying to be witty when that happens, and I guess some feel that I'm half way there - perhaps, as you mentioned, you'd prefer I told you, with a smile and a wink, of course, to fuck off? ;-) cheers, Privatemusings 06:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)this entire post is sent in good humour also, if for any reason it can't be received in that spirit, please feel free to remove it, Jimbo :-)

Is my page a violation?

Dear Jimbo or trusted associate: Wikiversity is attempting to get w:Wikipedia:Wiki Ed installed on Wikiversity. Does this attempt at a workaround violate Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point? I hope not. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 15:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I can't see how this could be perceived as a disruption. It looks like a good faith attempt to advance learning. The extension appears to require quite a bit of work before it can move forward here. --mikeu talk 14:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks mikeu. I had two concerns: (1) it would be misinterpreted as a workaround, and (2) others might misuse the software. Regarding (2), the need to program wikitext in a high level language will render any misuse so awkward that nobody will bother. It's like the joke about two brothers in the woods where the older one explains that he will run away if they see a bear. When the younger brother points out that nobody can outrun a bear, and the older brother responds, "But I can outrun you". There are much easier ways to make mischief on Wikipedia.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 15:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I took the liberty of "enrolling" you in a course

A while back I created a wiki-node at and created private wikis for college students to use. I added a link to your Wikiversity user page, but stated that you were not involved in any way. Feel free to request a deletion. (Page is at ) --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 17:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)