User talk:Jimbo Wales

Everything I did...

This weekend I was out on Lake Pepin in my sailboat. Alone. I was thinking of Wikipedia.

I thought of everything I did to lobby for the creation of the arbitration committee, to make it successful, to strike the balance between transparancy and effectiveness. I thought of the work I did as an early OTRS volunteer to ensure that it was the community and not the paid staff dealing with routine requests. I thought of the community backlash I endured from dealing with an administrator conduct matter where I could not defend myself without disclosing confidential information. I thought of all the times I turned the other cheek, and of all the civility discussions with Anthere, and the efforts to set limits, and lead by example, and to be the light for others to follow. I thought, in short, of everything I did to further the goals of a self-governing community.

And I thought of how we are now on the cusp of the moment where that no longer matters.

Peace

UninvitedCompany 19:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Very thoughtful of you indeed. However, I have been absent for a while, so what “cusp” is it exactly which is almost upon us? Giano (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Aah well, that is the question. Difficult to speculate fully as my crystal ball has gone very cloudy... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

It’s clearly very complex, rather like the people, in the section below, who appear to be supporting a statement which doesn’t exist. I’ve always said The WMF is staffed by very odd people - you have to pay well to get the best people and I expect they don’t. If you need my advice Jimbo, I am back now. Giano (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Support

+1 The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

+1 Jehochman ^Talk 19:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

+1 –Davey2010^Talk 19:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

+1 Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

+1 yes, I have been thinking similar thoughts to this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

+1 Carrite (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• What exactly are you referring to? And what's up with this weird header? Masum Reza^📞 23:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• It is an expression of support for the statement above. - SchroCat (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean Uninvited Company’s statement or another one? Giano (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Giano, this one by Uninvited Company. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

+1 — Ched :  ?  — 15:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC) (to clarify: I agree that it no longer matters what efforts we make - the site will become what the WMF says it will become.)

• No, it will not! There were far worse battles with the hidden powers and creatures of the night back in the early 2000s. We just have a new generation now, who need to learn the same lessons. I for one haven’t forgotten how just speaking German made you an enemy of the office. Soldier on and all will be well. Giano (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'm certainly interested in the how. Even if I have to figure it out on my own, I'm fine with that as long as I have a link to start following. From my perspective, the new generation appear to have the servers in their (or their parents basement) these days and are capable of writing the closing chapters in the manner that they so choose. Still - I'm far from all-knowing, so I'm certainly willing to do a bit of reading ... or follow a bit of direction coming from a well reasoned source. That being said - it's great to see you still about Giano - I hope all is well in real life with you and yours. — Ched :  ?  — 20:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Speaking as a "creature of the night" - so far as Jimbo is concerned anyway - I think that Giano is quite right. It's very easy to roll over, but it's not very seemly, and in the end achieves nothing except having to roll over again and again in the future. Eric Corbett 20:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• @Giano: those battles in the early 2000s were way before WMF became a multimillion dollar enterprise, so the dynamics are different now and yes, the site will indeed become what the WMF makes it. 173.84.211.79 (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

+1 Benjamin (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

+1 Hello UC! How I envy time on that fine lake. And hello Cas and all. A comprehensive + thoughtful self-governing community (replicable in as many languages and facets as can be mustered) is the most interesting and important part of the projects. Let us make it also the most lasting. – SJ + 23:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

-1 Hi UC. I thought about the feelings behind your words "And I thought of how we are now on the cusp of the moment where that no longer matters. Peace" this morning in relation to the effort and contribution to Wikipedia that you made. And I made the connection, however tangential or sublime it may be, with the feelings, perhaps, of a mother and/or father who spends 18 years raising a good son, only to see him sent off, by their government, to die (or, perhaps, become mentally or physically disabled) in a war. This connection might have been stimulated by a 60 minutes episode last night on Ben Ferencz, a Nuremberg Trials prosecutor, wherein he made the unequivocal statement that all wars turn men into savages, full stop. So, with that convincing (to me ) assertion by Ferencz fresh in mind, coupled with my own personal experience of hearing a mother wailing at the funeral of a very good son who returned from Vietnam in a body bag, forces me to see your concern that your own hard work in helping grow an inanimate platform is on the cusp of becoming unimportant, as being, perhaps, trite and self centred, when compared to the daily and continual misuse of governmental authorities to utterly destroy all the hard work by good parents in raising good sons and, in effect, make many of those mothers' feel, I am sure, especially with fraudulent wars like Vietnam or the Invasion of Iraq, that all of that good work "no longer matters" when their sons come home in body bags; 58,000 in Vietnam and 4,000 in Iraq. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow:, I find your comparison offensive and inappropriate at many levels. To characterize Wikipedia as an "inanimate platform" is as fundamentally mistaken as characterizing a town as "mere buildings and roads" or the U.S. Constitution as "words on paper." Wikipedia is many things and serves many goals: It is a community, it is the sum of knowledge, it brings inconvenient facts to light, and it is the embodiment of empowering the individual. Like a town, it has history. Like a constitution, it provides limits on the power of governments. It affects people's lives. You presume to know the extent of my activism in other areas. You presume to know the extent of my personal experience of tragedy and loss. How many more of the people I care about have to die and get raped by their bosses and commit suicide and suffer addiction and deal with discrimination and fight mental illness for me to have your permission to care deeply about Wikipedia? I cannot solve Vietnam or Iraq, but I can lend my expertise to a platform and a movement that shares truths that the powerful find inconvenient. Do you have a better way to stop a war? UninvitedCompany 15:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@UninvitedCompany:, you make very good points. All of them except I am not presuming to know your personal experiences. I did presume to see a lot of passion in your initial comment, which to me is the most important aspect of this and most other matters of importance. MLK displayed passion, all of us have it inside us. I think its cool that you feel and display passion on behalf of Wikipedia, I just disagree with the level of importance you placed upon your efforts ending up being, in your mind, fruitless.

As I stated, wars are a much more damaging waste of time and cause much more profound damage to both humanity and nature itself. I don't think that is really debatable, so I am saying that whatever passion you have for Wikipedia could be multiplied exponentially towards, as you signed your comment "Peace". You may want to watch the 60 minutes episode I linked above because that 99 year old man is very passionate and devoted to the cause of peace.

Regarding your question, its not rocket science to stop wars anymore than it was rocket science to stop slavery. Wars are being sanctioned by governments just as slavery once was. All that's needed is for voters to take away the authority of their governments to wage any war other than to stop a direct invasion.

I think that's the way Switzerland does it, but whatever way they do it, that could be a template to start from. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Good admins are the heart of this project; and we're hemorrhaging

If you've lost Beeblebrox and Floquenbeam, that alone should tell you that something is deeply wrong. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Heart of the community is our editors. ..Wikipedia currently has (116,275 active editors that have edited in the last 30 days), and only very very small minority of those contributors participate in community discussions and have no clue that a few dozen administrators are not here.--Moxy 🍁 01:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

They would have an idea that someone wasn't here if the active vandals aren't blocked. (Note: I am not advocating that Admins fail to act, as a protest.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This would be why many decade editors think unbundling tools and allocating some of them to oldtimers would help. Community wouldn't be interrupted by a power struggle by those we entrusted to keep things going.--Moxy 🍁 02:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, Orangemike, if you've lost as many admins in two weeks as you've managed to get in the past two years, something is deeply wrong... Yintan  21:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Upcoming

'News flash / Update' : I believe we now have final signoff and we are just waiting for Christophe to post it. I'll comment further after that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The Board met yesterday to work on a full statement about this. It's not easy getting to consensus with a large group, but overall I think people are going to be happy with the statement and with the things we are asking the WMF staff to do going forward. As one board member wasn't present, we decided to give a bit more time so that we can get to unanimity.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That's nice to hear:-) ∯WBG^converse 11:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Jimbo, thank you for your efforts. We have a 4th ArbCom case request now on this matter. I'm sure you and Doc James know the enormity of the situation. Maybe Pundit also, I've seen them here and there. I hope your fellow board members are also aware of how the community is on fire. starship.paint (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. We've made it abundantly clear. I ask everyone who sees fire to try to soothe people. This is going to go the right way. My own personal view is that drama never helps, but making it clear (through strikes/retirements) that something is unacceptable is a totally respectable and useful way to move the needle in an important way. "There's a giant flame war on the Internet" never really makes a dent. "Our best administrators are writing essays about why this is wrong, and many of them have indicated they will quit" makes a big dent. Also: "The good people protesting are not, for the most part, defending bad behavior. They are asking the WMF to consider how this action undermines our efforts to improve behavior" is helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo - I am asking this because I'm sure lots of other people are thinking it - is there any way you'd be able to put some sort of ball-park estimate to the 'a bit more time' part of your statement - are we talking a few hours, a few days, or a few weeks even? I'm sure you can't be specific, but giving people a rough idea would help, as I think that a lot of us were hoping for some sort of concrete statement today. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Jimbo, a few people have made the suggestion that you personally should reach out to each of the people who have resigned to establish dialogue with them about this crisis. Based on those one-on-one discussions, and in concert with an appropriate response, you could then encourage them to return. Resignation list is available, as is the retirements list. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again, Jimbo. starship.paint (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's uplifting that in the midst of this mega-hullaballoo, there's people who thinks, "Yeah, I should do a Wikipedia:Requests for adminship". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

There are lots of us who are "on strike" but have not formally retired so are not on that retirements list. As I posted on the main "Community response" page, I have not edited in article space since the day WMF blocked Fram and I don't plan to until the fiasco is satisfactorily resolved and three other editors immediately replied that they haven't either and won't either. Who knows how many others there are. And all this out of a supposed desire to attract and keep more editors. Lose, lose, lose.Smeat75 (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Please hurry up. Things are still very tense and threatening to spiral out of control every few hours. The train should leave the station already, whether or not everyone is on board. Jehochman ^Talk 13:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, ↑ this. --Xover (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Depends on the timeline I feel. Waiting an extra day for unanimity is probably good. Waiting 3 weeks, not so much. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I agree with this completely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Just to note… We're now in that awkward period between "probably good" and "not so much". The number of units of time that it is responsible to wait for unanimity is measured in hours not days. One can reasonably disagree, I feel, on the precise number, but not the units of measure.
        There are proxy fights and fallout from this all over the project—three separate case requests at ArbCom, two of which are secondary to the main events—and every one of them creates fractures in the community that are unlikely to ever heal. Shedding admins and bureaucrats (approx. 10% of the actives now, I think) is bad enough, but longer term, the antipathy between members of the community generated by this situation will be the cause of future conflicts that will lose us even more.
        Please hurry! --Xover (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Cool; politicians are always misquoting Voltaire with "Don't Let The Perfect Be The Enemy Of The Good", and we all know how crappy the finished work of politicians are. So, no problem, get it right. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• I hope the controversy will end soon. The incident has made me viewed the WMF differently, but hopefully this time things will be better. Good luck with the consensus! INeedSupport ^{It has gone downhill} 19:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• While I am definitely hoping that the announcement will be as good as promised, I'm withholding any praise or criticism until the statement is released. -- llywrch (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Wow, it's getting late here. I guess the announcement will come soon, because if not, it'll become TOMORROW and that will be disappointing. And yes I know how timezones work. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• In so far as how this crisis has progressed, it was tomorrow >2 weeks ago. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Jam tomorrow, no doubt. Though I don't expect it to be very good jam.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• You’re painting yourself into a corner. The longer you wait the more people expect. This sets them up for disappointment. Jehochman ^Talk 11:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, facts are facts. I can't rush the process. I thought we would have something out a few hours from now - at the moment I am less sure but this isn't about TOMORROW it's about the details and getting everyone on board!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

There are a lot of people "on board" here now. But come tomorrow, if there's still nothing, I think they'll probably be jumping off. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

[Jehochman removed melodramatic comment. Not worth arguing with somebody on the Internet.]

Don't be so melodramatic, it only hurts the cause. PackMecEng (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, since I feel that dramatic is one of the apt descriptions of the current situation, let me quote a comment, since removed, that I think communicated the sense of urgency I feel aptly: Please understand exactly what's at stake. We had an incident two days ago that threatened to create yet another ArbCom case and huge community disruption. We defused it, just barely. Yesterday there was the Signpost incident which went to ArbCom, where it has been contained, but with lots of damage. Editors who've worked together for years are getting into fights, and several will probably retire as a result. This is tearing the community apart. Every hour inflicts further costs. Please consider these costs in your calculus. This is not the time for people holding out to try to get more of whatever they want. Come together and move ahead.

Feel free to rag on me for feeling that way and wanting Jimbo to know it. --Xover (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Jimbo, you've had three weeks for "getting everyone onboard!". The community has been incredibly patient with you and the WMF. You can see the scale of the damage that has been done. Now it's out in the mainstream press, contributions to WMF will doubtless be hit. To sum up, get on with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I had expected the statement to be out by now but there were some last minute edits that are being discussed. I'm pushing hard. If something can't be agreed by the entire board in the next 12-16 hours, at least I will make my own public statement on the matter and give my own personal advice to the community about next steps. Three weeks, as you say, is long enough. My past statements will give you an idea of what I will have to say about this, but it will be time to be considerably less diplomatic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jimbo - both for giving the ballpark expected timeframe, and for reiterating your own frustration with how long this is taking. I hope that the board's statement will be released within your expected timeframe; if not, I look forward to reading your views and recommendations. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 21:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for your efforts. After you finish trying to corral board members to get to unanimity on a statement about this three week old crisis, you may want to consider asking your fellow board members to mandate the hiring of an experienced communication professional. The various communications from Katherine, Jan, Qgil, and board members broadcasts that the WMF is doesn't have a unanimity of purpose, let alone a unanimity on a statement. By the way, when a WMF spokesperson says that a statement will come "tomorrow", and then tomorrow comes and there is no statement or explanation, people no longer trust what that spokesperson says. That lack of trust tends to accrue to the organization itself.- MrX 🖋 13:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• It's always good to plan to provide something tomorrow, rather than to promise, because when you fail, the realization that the plan wasn't a good one can provide a "learning and development" opportunity. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Who knows the statement might be released this century.... At this rate we're all going to die of old age before a statement is even released..... –Davey2010^Talk 14:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

We really need the leadership to step forward, and that means the ED, the Chair, and yourself, and, sorry to be direct, but we need it now, from at least one of you, as well as the collective Board. Perspective like User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)#No more delays sums it up; the fact is that too much time has passed. People actually did wait, but weeks are too long, and now we are losing scarce talent, and skills that took years to 1.5 decades to build. And I endorse the above comment re. the need for professional communication support - but with a caveat. What WMF and the communities don't need is "PR cover" - it's good to see people out here "for real" - but mass messaging could be better handled, to keep the fires banked better. All this said, and as a first time visitor here, thanks for the vision and the projects, they've added to my life, and those of many others I know. All the more reason to get things back on track quickly, restore community as the centre of everything, and reset "scope creep" of what was always meant to be a *support* organisation. Best,SeoR (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

News "flash"

Jimbo, you posted that a few hours ago, what is being posted, where and when? This is becoming truly tiresome. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

There’s a good soccer game. 7 minutes of extra time remain. Jehochman ^Talk 20:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, although I fear the result won't be so good... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I give the WMF 12 more hours to fix this mess or I'm out. Of course I'm fully aware my deadline won't make any difference to them but I don't want to give my time and energy to an organisation that has proved to be utterly inadequate in dealing with its volunteers. This has been going on for three weeks now. Three weeks of eloquent CorporateSpeak, skillfully avoiding the main issue, and one shitty tweet to boot. It's a disgrace. Yintan  21:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, gross negligence followed by utter incompetence. All being paid for by virtue of this community's voluntary efforts to enrich the world, yet be treated like shit when it suits WMF. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• The board statement has been posted here. Stephen 00:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I've read it and posted my views there. Long story short: it's far from good enough, sorry. Yintan  06:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

More suggestions for greater WMF/Community harmony

Now that there are several hundred WikiMedia projects and official spin-offs, the WMF tends to forget that the en.Wiki is nevertheless very much the flagship project and that without it, the WMF's raison d'être ceases to exist. The Executive Director may therefore wish to rekindle something like Sue Gardner's initiative where from 2009 to 2015 (or thereabouts) she sat in on WMF 'Office Hours', a weekly IRC in which she she engaged with the community. I never took part but only because I can't abide any kind of online chat rooms due mainly to the trolling that goes on there - even on the informal 'Office Hours' (the chats were logged).

The point I wish to make however, is that while enjoying her high flying executive lifestyle on the funds our unpaid work provides, it would be good if she were to take a genuine interest in what goes on at ground level rather than just assume that her colleagues are dong a good job and that we volunteer minions in the WikiMedia owned communities are doing ours.

By the same token, there should be some mechanism whereby our Executive Directors are constantly answerable to the Board of Trustees, also preferably in the form of a weekly audience with them. Even a Prime Minister of the UK, despite his or her heavy schedule, has to answer to Parliament in Question Time once a week, and attend a weekly private meeting (no minutes taken) with the Queen.

These are initiatives that the ED could call for herself without being pressured into them by us. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between PMQs, in which a prime minister is confronted by a hostile opposition, and anything that would be allowed on Wikipedia, where all heretical dissenting voices have to be silenced. Wikipedia is culturally more suited to the Spanish Inquisition. Eric Corbett 19:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

lol! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Sitting in my comfy chair, I have to say that I did expect this particular inquisition. The WMF has demonstrated incompetence on a number of occasions, and are still doing so now. While I understand and appreciate the willingness of people to wait for the Board of Trustees to issue a statement and get it right, the lack of movement is frankly absurd. I've noted this elsewhere; can you imagine the savaging that United Airlines would have endured if they had made no official statement for three weeks after the United Express Flight 3411 incident? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• I initially believed this whole affair was just a monumental office cock-up - the sort of thing that happens when a new intern decides to show initiative without running it past his superiors first. However, I am now coming to the conclusion it was a deliberate and planned power grab and display of strength. The writing is on the wall for Wikipedia, it’s now going to be run as a business by the WMF, becoming far more commercialised and with no management input from the editorship at all. Some people will have huge salaries and bonuses. This has been a coup d'état, and its going to soon become obvious that we individually have a choice of going or staying, and, quite frankly, it will make little difference to the content and future huge profitability of Wikipedia which we decide to do because new more accepting people will always come along to do the writing and the chores in return for a pat on the head or $100 prize money. A few scraps will shortly be thrown our way, but that’s the bleak picture I’m afraid. Giano (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• There's an old saying; "Never ascribe to malice that which can be ascribed to incompetence" (see also Hanlon's razor). I don't believe, given how many other times the WMF has screwed up, that the WMF has a fraction of the ability to keep secret such a grand plan for a power grab. They simply lack the competence to do so. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I sincerely hope you’re right, but for how many more weeks should they be given the benefit of doubt? Giano (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I suggest none. This endemic kicking into the long grass is way beyond absurd. Eric Corbett 21:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• I think it's a combination of the two things. They wanted to expand their power to moderate enwiki (for what they probably saw as very good and necessary reasons), without realizing just how dramatic of a power-grab it would look like from enwiki's perspective. In addition, they'd previously changed a number of policies that led to this without many people noticing and therefore with little backlash; from their perspective this was just them using powers they thought they'd already uncontroversially assigned themselves (hence Jan's plaintive insistence that T&S decisions cannot be appealed - something he doubtless considered to be a settled matter and beyond question - not realizing how unworkable that position was when discussing conduct bans and without realizing he was throwing oil in the fire every time he tried to assert it.) I think another factor is that they underestimated the scale of enwiki in several respects - in terms of its culture, in terms of the problems they were trying to address, in terms of how sustained its pushback could be if it felt its independence was threatened and so on. They went for the sort of "screw it, we're in charge and we'll just ban the bad people" solution you'd use if you were running a small forum in the late 90's, rather than something that could work for the fifth largest website in the world. --Aquillion (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'd say that's a pretty good summary.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait, WMF actually does think they're in charge? Is this likely to be reparable, or are we doomed? --Yair rand (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

And if so, then my first instinct was to say "and that's a tragedy" - but no, the mass of the work of the encyclopedia is flowing along, even with much-felt absences. What it is a wake-up call, received and answered, and a learning opportunity. I really, really look forward to the coming statement, resolution, some reworking of the support organisation, and an improved way forward. There are many years and articles in this project and community yet...SeoR (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Contributing on Wikipedia is Wastage of Time

This is very unfortunate that experienced editors on Wikipedia discourage new users. I still didn't understand what was promotion in Gandhi Mandela Award article. And how can you decide that i am a paid user. Do you think that Government will pay me for creating an incomplete Wiki page? That was my own interest to create an article for my nation. Now it seems like contributing on Wikipedia is only the wastage of time. Lastin4 (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

By the look of things you need to beef up sourcing, if it is notable there will be plenty of 3rd party reliable sources. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lastin4: I recommend looking at WP:NORG to see how you can make your organization reliable. Always keep this in mind, just because you think it's significant does not mean others will see it as significant at all. You need to prove to others that it is reliable. WP:NORG will help you with that. I tried creating an article that I thought it was significant, but others thought it wasn't and declined my draft. However, after finding more sources that proves its significance, I finally was able to publish the draft and it's now in Wikipedia. INeedSupport ^{It has gone downhill} 18:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

We do engage in a lot of "wastage of time," to be sure, but we feel the project is important. Carrite (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Seems like an obvious Merge / Redirect to the parent organization. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

News you can use

Wikipedia’s “Constitutional Crisis” Pits Community Against Foundation- MrX 🖋 16:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Ain't this just the pits. But no wing walk for Jan Eissfeldt, it seems Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

This Slate article is actually a great advertisement, imo, with some funny lines like: "As of Tuesday morning, at least 21 Wikipedia administrators and one bot have resigned in protest against the ban." It shows Wikipedia to be an interesting and fun place to be, full of drama, controversy and passion. The author's own analysis is sophomoric and shallow, but overall, I think we could get a lot more good editors joining up. Turning lemons into lemonade so to speak. That is also a helluva great and comprehensive Signpost report Smallbones. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for the habitual facetiouness. I think it's a fair article. But as for "a great advertisement", I think it's about as attractive as these. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Misreading

Sory Jimbo, but I did read this as "waiting for Christmas to post it..." — O Still Small Voice of Clam 20:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Reading

3 July

Franz Kafka: Das Schloss
... about about alienation, unresponsive bureaucracy, the frustration of trying to conduct business with non-transparent, seemingly arbitrary controlling systems ...

Who will write the best short story Kafka style about the incident and its consequences, unresponsive bureaucracy and non-transparent, seemingly arbitrary controlling systems, in short, about frustration? Better: end the frustration? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Proud co-author of the Kafka article, I started a similar thread on several pages, and you could go by the image links to find out more. Two interesting discussions developed, one suggesting a simple solution and touching Gestapo, on User talk:Beetstra (see also below), the other on User talk:Iridescent focused on the term "toxic behaviour" which has been used in the Board statement. I think it's a vague term that we better avoid altogether instead of basing actions on it. What is toxic behaviour? What is perceived as toxic behaviour, and by whom? (The term is better than the earlier used "incredibly toxic personalities", though.) In the discussion, I remembered the 2014 Wikimania speech aiming at more "kindness, generosity, forgiveness and compassion". In the name of that, and for more transparency, Fram should be unbanned (best by those who banned him), and the normal community procedures of conflict resolution could take place. Repeating from both discussions: I had my conflicts with Fram but he was more often right than I was, and always factual. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

A statement at ARC

Any chance you could formulate a statement at WMF and Fram to clarify the points you've made elsewhere, since those are key issues there? --Xover (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I will have to think about it, but I'm pretty sure it is neither necessary for useful to have the WMF as a party to a case. It strikes me as unnecessary if the purpose of the case is to determine what sanctions or not should be placed on Fram for his problematic behavior, given the full context of matters. For the ArbCom to reduce, eliminate, confirm, or extend the block is one thing - to suggest that they can or should place sanctions on WMF staff members is, well, let's just say that raises a whole new world of constitutional questions that are best addressed in a big picture facilitated community consultation about things going forward.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh. I'm sorry, I wasn't clear on what I meant. The early statements on the case request were based on the Board's statement and were uncertain about whether ArbCom had actually been handed jurisdiction over the case, or if the statement merely meant T&S would let them give advice and then do what they wanted. I feel that a statement there making the same clarification you did here, here, here would help avoid that distraction.

And I agree that having the WMF as a party is a bad idea: the only sensible scope is Farm's behaviour. Anything more would only complicate matters. If there are other matters that need to be addressed by ArbCom that would best be handled in separate cases; and the governance issues are a wider community issue that doesn't belong in an ArbCom case. --Xover (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Problematic behaviour? Pre-judging much Jimbo? Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not judging at all, much less pre-judging. At the same time, quoting Fram, "I'm not a model admin or editor" I don't think it controversial at all to say that his behavior has been problematic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I think a lot of people have formed opinions about Fram's behaviour. I have too, but I don't share it because it isn't particularly well founded. Heck, even Fram has admitted that there have been problem's with their behaviour. The question has always been how problematic and what manner of response is merited, and, of course, whose bailiwick it is to deal with it. --Xover (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Precisely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Reach out to the collateral damage resignations. Argue the case that the proper safeguards will be erected and the reason they resigned for is no longer actively a threat. You can do so much to heal. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• I don’t know where this false narrative came from. There is no contemplation of sanctioning WMF staff. The idea behind naming them as parties is for notification purposes and because they have an interest in following the case. Nothing more. Jehochman ^Talk 16:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)←
  • That's not what a "party to a dispute" is. —Cryptic 16:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Are you a lawyer? I ask because I don’t want to insult you. My understanding as a non lawyer who went to law school and took Covil Procedure is that a party is anybody who has an interest in a dispute. WMF asserted their interest in this dispute when they involved themselves. Jehochman ^Talk 16:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Meh. It's an easy mistake to make. The case request is titled "WMF and Fram", the two WMF accounts are named as parties, and the previous WJBScribe case request both named WMFOffice as a party and proposed it be sanctioned. It's not that important; it's been clarified. --Xover (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like we are all in agreement. My comment was only meant to clarify, and it sounds like that's been clarified now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• What do you think about my thesis that it is best to receive a case request from the community, with comments from the community about how the case should be framed and how evidence should be presented? My thinking is that people like to follow established rituals, and that trust is generated by giving people a chance to participate in decisions important to them. I don't think it will be healthy for ArbCom to meet with T&S and then announce what kind of case they are going to have. It should be a bottom up process, instead. Jehochman ^Talk 18:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know of any reasonable process whereby that can happen in a reasonable period of time. I think ArbCom should look at the Fram situation, on the basis of their elected and traditional authority, and make things as right as they can there. And I think everyone - me, you, the WMF, random people in the community, should respect that and support it even if we have minor quibbles about this and that - this isn't the time to have fights over minor quibbles.

In terms of the real longterm issue, I agree with you completely. I'd like to see a combination of bottom-up proposals, WMF assistance in facilitating and encouraging real work by people in the community (including flying relevant key players for face-to-face workshopping of ideas) to find ways to improve. We have a problem, widely perceived, that some types of longterm incivility aren't being resolved appropriately. We have a very strong view, widely held, that the WMF swooping in to smite people without possibility of appeal and so on, isn't the solution. So we have to roll up our sleeves and get to work: we believe in community, we know we have great people here, we know we have a nearly universal desire to improve the environment, and we have a nearly universal desire to solve it in the community. That's something I'm optimistic about, despite all the noise!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree. I think we need to develop a standard structure for issuing sanctions and a standard criteria for determining what is harassment, and a standard set of safe-harbor provisions defining what administrative and editorial behavior is not harassment. There can be exceptions, of course, but there should be defaults that work for most cases. As an example, look at this AN thread where a user has been blocked more than a dozen times for disruption, gone through three accounts and multiple socking incidents over 12 years, yet they are still here generating long threads on AN/I! Then we have Fram who's first sanction was a one year ban. I can understand why people are resigning because it looks like we practice selective enforcement. Jehochman ^Talk 18:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

We have a very strong view, widely held, that the WMF swooping in to smite people without possibility of appeal and so on, isn't the solution. Thank you. That is exactly what has been alienating me since it happened. Glad you are in agreement and thanks for listening to us.Smeat75 (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Jimbo, you may think this is a "minor quibble" but I have a bit of a concern over this part of Katherine's statement: " in response to ArbCom’s open letter to the Board which set out its preparedness to review the User:Fram ban, the Foundation has completed its preparation of the case materials it can release to the committee."

Arbcom, so far as I am aware, are trusted to see all en.wp related confidential material, and would need to do so to arrive at a fair conclusion. What concerns me is that if the "case materials [which can] be release[d] to the committee" are something along the lines of: "well, he did these half a dozen pretty naughty things, which we can give you full details of, but there are also these other 'x' number of terrible things he allegedly did which we can't give you any details of, but trust us they were dreadful", then that puts arbcom in a pretty awful position. They then have to either say "ok, we can only act based on the things you've given full details of", which pisses off T&S, and may not be fair if the secret things are real, or they can say "ok, we believe you" and act on revealed and unrevealed things. They then also have to decide how much of this "horse-trading" they can reveal to the community, and that decision may or may not incur various amounts of righteous community dissatisfaction, or suspicion.

Maybe I'm over-thinking it, but it still seems as though this process could be messy and unsatisfactory. I hope I'm wrong and a good path can be found, but it'd be difficult for me to say I'm convinced that can happen yet. -- Begoon 19:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Any assertion connected to a "trust us" should be discounted to zero value. If they have something really horrible, global lock and say so. If they don't, give ArbCom what ArbCom can see, and let them decide on that basis. They can only do what's possible, not what's perfect. Jehochman ^Talk 19:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the value you suggest attaching to intangibles. I still have a concern about "grey areas" because if there are none, and a full and complete sharing of information is the intent, it seems odd to need to "prepar[e] the case materials it can release to the committee", rather than "prepar[e] all of the case materials it can [for] release to the committee". Yes, it's an imperfect situation - but I'm hoping for maximum trust (in sharing) between the two bodies, not 'selective' trust -- Begoon 19:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

WMF should be a party in the case. Even if ARBCOM cannot sanction, they can certainly make recommendations to WMF. I've said as much in my statement at ARC. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Katherine

On her user talk page Katherine has posted a statement. I haven't read it yet, I'm just posting it here as I assume people will want to read it!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

This statement (and I invite everyone to read it) leaves me much more hopeful than the WMF-statement...thank you. Lectonar (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I do find at least glimmers of hope in her statement, as opposed to the tone deaf and absolutely unacceptable WMF statement, which basically does nothing to resolve the main question of separation of powers. By the way, there are two more administrators who have resigned tools, Dirk Beetstra and Voice of Clam. See: Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• I don’t see any glimmer of hope. I see an empty justification for presiding of a kangaroo court and no justification at all for naive and puerile tweets. The only thing I read there is a plea not to be fired. Ms Maher has proven that she is not up to the job. It would be better and less painful for all if she resigned with some vestige of honour, before she is pushed, which without a shadow of doubt will happen at some time in the future. Giano (talk) 08:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Jimmy, having read and digested (and slept on) the board's statement, and having read your follow-up comments, I want to thank you and the board for the efforts you have made and for the results. There's a lot of early negativity, but I hope that's simply because of the slight vagueness of parts of the write-by-committee statement, and I think you have clarified any ambiguity nicely. In a way, I'm sorry we never got to see your potentially "much more pointed statement", but I guess it's a better result that we didn't need to :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Second that. And also that it’s probably better not to have had to see Super Powers deployed. Now, while leaving Katherine and her team to act as asked - with, importantly in my life experience, of non-profits even more than corporates, a deadline or set of timed checkpoints - could you, Jimbo, reach out to some of the lost or disenchanted advanced users. I agree with a note elsewhere that simple Editor is the core job, but we do need Admins, Bureaucrats, CUs and so on too, and already did not have enough. I think such an outreach is perfect for the Old Peculiar role of Founder!SeoR (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. The Old Peculiar Role, I like that expression. I saw somewhere that there was a resignation list, can you remind me where I saw that?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: all of last month's admin changes are in the Administrators' newsletter, there is also a running list at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/List of Fram related strikes. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, That would be at WP:FRAMSUM#Resignations. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bellezzasolo: thanks, the annotated bibliography feel to that one helps call out the quotes well. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

As a recently resigned admin (like Boing above) I want to echo his thanks. The statement from the board was a pleasant surprise, and while questions remain, the statement was, in my view, a big step in the right direction. It directly addressed some of concerns I and others have had about this from the beginning, and I appreciate the work you've done on this. I look forward to seeing how this develops and I hope it is a significant milestone on the path towards our community and the foundation working together as partners rather than combatants. 28bytes (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Something inspirational

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GA5AtPl5EY Apologies if you are not a fan. (edit, it is a key scene from a Peter Jackson epic) -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome![1] EllenCT (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Retirement notice from Curly Turkey

Mr Wales,

You're probably not familiar with my name, but I'm a long-term editor: 100,000 edits, 24 FAs, 33 GAs, 248 new articles. That's by way of introduction, not to toot my horn.

I'm retiring from Wikipedia today—both as an editor and reader—over grave concerns I have with the handling of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics case and its total disregard for WP:CCPOL (and a mountain of other issues I won't bother you with).

I opened the case over persistent POV-pushing and stonewalling bahaviour at the SNC-Lavalin affair article. This is a sensitive Canadian politics article, and the editing appears to be pushing to influence the upcoming federal election in October. An example is editwarring to highlight a fringe dogwhistle term in the lead—this was shot down in an RfC that closed "no consenses" against the majority.[2]

Though the ArbCom case was opened to examine this months-long behaviour that had ground progress on the article to a halt, the Arbs did not examine any of it—it's not that they rejected it, but that they failed even to acknowledge any of it, and refused to respond to queries about not doing so.

The most convenient way for the Arbs to end the conflict was to shut me up, while leaving the root problem undiagnosed and untreated, so it can fester and grow.

The WP:CIVILPOV essay was written way back in 2007, and it appears no progress has been made to deal with these problems. The Arbs fairly consistently play right into the hands of the Civil POV-pushers: restricting exasperated editors from articles, thus giving free reign to the POV pushers. That's what's happened at SNC-Lavalin affair—I've been ABANned until after the election, and the first item on the POV-pushers' agenda is to relitigate the RfC I mention above to reinstate the fringe dogwhistle term.

After the number of years these issues have continued without serious attempt to take action, I don't expect the community, you, the WMF, or anybody to actually do anything. I've known of these kinds of issues for a long time, but I never took them to heart as, I suppose, it didn't obviously affect the areas I normally edit (which tend to be boringly uncontroversial). The situation reinforces itelf as the POV-pushers' representation in the community increases, and those who would check their abuses leave or are forced out.

The project is not what I thought it was. It undermines its own stated values. A community so easily gamed has left me feeling helpless and hopeless.

So long, and thanks for all the fish. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Very sorry to see that CT. I agree that WP:Civil POV pushing is Wikipedia's greatest danger and it is one reason that I am reluctant to join "let's be nice" campaigns because they seldom acknowledge that outbursts are usually for a reason, and a sanction against the person who loses their cool might simply reward POV pushers. Johnuniq (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom drives another pillar of the community off in order to make the project safer for a POV-pushing SPA. Great work. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

CurlyTurkey, I am sad to see this. You should have consulted the ultimate guide to arbitration, and I missed telling you, sorry. It clearly says as a nutshell: "Arbitrators usually work from broad impressions and do not consider details, nuance, or context.", then more detailed: "If you have anything important to say make sure to say it at the start – the Request for Arbitration, which is the only page that most arbitrators can be relied upon to read. Here you have a chance to make one clear and concise point, with just enough diffs to show that you've done your homework. Do not make nuanced arguments that require careful reading or critical thought." I found that true when I was subjected to arbitration, but read the guide only afterwards. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow. I could have used that advice too. Then maybe Arbcom wouldn't have chased me away by accusing me of 'unprofessional behaviour' for editing Wikipedia in my spare time. Hans Adler 09:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree fully with Gerda, but I would go further to say that this is a major problem with ArbCom (and the encyclopedia that relies on them as the highest court of appeal for inter-editor conflicts), since it means, essentially, that context and content do not matter at all. In the long run something is going to need to be done: this is a bigger, much more serious issue than any of the current FRAMBAN stuff, and has been going on for years. What's really weird is that, in the one case I can recall where they did look at both context and content (the Wikicology case) they only seem to have done so because community consensus was already unanimous (read: it wasn't really in ArbCom's purview to begin with). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Fram & ArbCom

You made the statement (several times) that ArbCom has the full authority to overturn Fram's ban, and that the WMF has to help in providing as much information as they can. I think that that is a very important step forward, and I thank you for that clarification.

However, it is unlikely that ArbCom will do any investigation, or can do any investigation, when they are not presented sufficient information. That could possibly result in an impasse where WMF cannot present enough information to ArbCom and hence they do not have enough information to have a case. That would make even that promise of you an empty shell. Would you mind to share your thoughts on such a scenario. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I can't speak for anyone in particular and I can't violate any confidences, but I can say a few words about this that I think will be helpful. I sat in on a call yesterday evening (UK time) with ArbCom and T&S, and T&S will be sharing a very large file of what sounds like basically everything with, as I understand it, certain names redacted. The ArbCom members on the call seemed happy to hear that, but of course hadn't seen the file yet. I am happy to say, therefore, assuming good faith all around, that ArbCom will have the information they need to come to a fully independent judgment.

I also think that everyone - including strong partisans on the anti-Fram and pro-Fram sides of things - should personally prepare to support the ArbCom decision as this is the elected traditional body of the community and they need the will of the community behind them.

The alternative, I fear, is anarchy and/or WMF top-down control. (This is an empirical observation of things in the abstract, and obviously oversimplified, and not something that I think is in any way good.)

We need to get better at dealing with toxic behavior on the site. Our best hope is ArbCom in this case, and a big community consultation to figure out how we are failing and how we can build institutions inside the community that are fair and just - and firm against personal attacks of all kinds.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I think dealing with the toxic behaviour of the 'Trust & Safety' Committee before it can completely replace Wikipedia's established structures and turn into a Committee of Public Safety is a very good start. There is a real problem, but this doesn't help. I am glad there is a good solution in sight. Hans Adler 11:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, and ArbCom will get my support whatever their decision. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you. You are basically reassuring me that such a scenario is extremely unlikely. I am looking forward to the proceedings of the case. I hope that we will get regular updates from ArbCom (even if most of the material stays private), and that Fram gets a proper chance to defend their case. That should lead to a positive outcome to this situation, and then I will support their decision. I however don't think that for most people this is a case of pro-Fram/anti-Fram, it certainly is not for me.

There is no 'or' there. A WMF top-down control will go together with anarchy (seen that none of the editors on strike/that resigned have reverted that decision yet, this can still slide into anarchy if this situation lingers). I have no doubt that a top-down approach by WMF will never be accepted by this community.

I agree that we have to get better at dealing with 'toxic behaviour' on this site. But that needs a bottom-up approach, and that is where the WMF should have helped (and that has been requested), not the top-down approach that WMF currently seems to have adopted.

I look forward to resume editing, requesting my bit back, turning the bot back on, and continue the bottom-up approach to maintaining Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

We need more arbitrators, and they need to be paid

After wading through Framgate I think what I can contribute is of the need for more people with the "Old Peculiar Role". ;)

I control 2 wikis outside Wikimedia. They deal with international organizing. It is a combination of some centralized activity, and mostly decentralized activity. Kind of like English Wikipedia. I am just one of many with the "Old Peculiar Role" of you, Jimbo. There are many regional organizing people and lists who the community respects. They are the heart and soul.

I have learned the hard way that it is important to continually encourage others to take on more responsibility. I get asked for help often. I tell them to go to the many relevant local, regional, and national Facebook groups worldwide, and ask around for help and advice. It almost always works.

ArbCom is the core of Wikimedia. It is Facebook before there was Facebook. Just like with Facebook people come and go. Tyrants are abandoned since anybody can create another local or regional Facebook group for the organizing we do.

The WMF is not Wikipedia. Arbcom is. But it sounds like they are overwhelmed. We need more arbitrators. And paying them would help a lot. They would do more much-needed work. And that means less work for us with the "Old Peculiar Role". -- Timeshifter (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

If WP:FRAMBAN has taught us anything, it's that ArbCom needs to be independent from WMF which is incompatible with being paid. Paying ArbCom members would immediately lead a significant number of editors to believe that they are not independent from WMF and most likely completely wreck their credibility. Also, while their work is important and time consuming, so is the work many others do as well, e.g. someone investing hours to craft a perfect article. Regards SoWhy 12:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The whole point of the community working for free is that it should give us power over the WMF who are our paid domestic servants. $307k salary is too much for a flunky - the position should be abandoned and the money put to better use. For example, it would pay for a further 150 scholarships to Wikimania, or a lot of travel costs for volunteers to regular WMF-Community meetings. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Absolutely not, no. I agree with SoWhy and Kudpung here. The whole point of Arbs is that they are our independent elected representatives and they need to be free to support the community against WMF when necessary (as indeed they have done in their open letter to WMF). Being paid by WMF would create an insurmountable conflict of interest and would make trust by the community impossible. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, there are ways to deal with that financially, but that does not mean them being paid it is a good idea. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

There is always going to be a conflict somewhere, and I would rather it be the desire to get re-elected (into an unpaid position) than the desire to get paid. No matter who pays their salaries they will be pressured into favoring those people. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

At least two past arbitrators have taken paid jobs at WMF. There is a danger that the Arbs will try to please WMF so that they too can get these financial rewards. What WMF needs to understand is that we are the most important people in their world. Without of free effort and irreplaceable skills, they wouldn’t have their cushy jobs. Also, WMF ought to move as many jobs as they can out of San Francisco to some other nice place with a much lower cost of living. I recommend CT, but I’m biased. Jehochman ^Talk 13:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• I was having a conversation with a friend who was a paid forum administrator for America Online back in their heyday; he was interested in what was going on with WP in this crisis. I had to try to put the issue into AOL-comparable terms; that it was basically a struggle to maintain the "forum administrator's" autonomy and decision-making ability when being unilaterally overridden by the AOL home office, which was making irreversible decisions over the forum sysop's head. That is the nexus of the problem viewed from one side. (This is also my own perspective.)

On the other hand, there is another perspective in conflict with this view. It is a perception that there is no institutional fetter upon what might be tactfully called "officiousness" — the use of, for example, notability rules as a cudgel that has the effect of stomping out good-faith initiative of article creators working on things like "women in science," sourcing for which is on average apt to be less robust than for their older male colleagues. Fram is seen by them as particularly problematic in this regard, and they have no confidence that ArbCom represents a solution to the problem, so they have slowly built a new alternative way to smite their foes. Local autonomy to them is almost an undesirable thing, since they have full faith and confidence in WMF and co-mingle freely and frequently with WMF staff in person at WP events. This is the other side.

Moving forward, it seems that what is needed is a mechanism to rein in overzealous or bad-faith behavior in the article creation and article deletion processes. It's not really a matter of ArbCom needing to get serious about civility enforcement, I think the whole matter of naughty words and "civility" is a red herring or at best a proxy for perceptions of behavior at Articles for Deletion. Anyway, that's what I've learned today. Carrite (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Alleged scammer posing as ″billionaire″ (has a Wikipedia page)

Hi Jimbo!

I want to share with you (and with people watching this page) what our regional news portals published in the past days.

It started with the meeting of our president (and other high officials) with the Vietnamese-German “billionaire” Mai Vũ Minh. They discussed possible investments, economic cooperation and so on, nothing unusual in that.

Then, some portals started to report that this person is not real billionaire, but some kind of a scammer, and they started to ridicule our leaders for meeting with him. There are dozens of news stories about that in the last two weeks, and I will select and link some of them below:

(Google translated to English)

• https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=sr&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bizlife.rs%2Fbiznis%2Fposlovne-vesti%2Flazni-biznismen-prevario-dodika-zahvaljujuci-fotosopu-od-korporacije-samo-d-o-o%2F
• https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sr&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.b92.net%2Finfo%2Fvesti%2Findex.php%3Fyyyy%3D2019%26mm%3D06%26dd%3D25%26nav_category%3D167%26nav_id%3D1558849
• https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=bs&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.klix.ba%2Fvijesti%2Fbih%2Fkako-je-lazni-biznismen-iz-vijetnama-prevario-milorada-dodika-i-zeljku-cvijanovic%2F190625018
• https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=bs&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fdepo.ba%2Fclanak%2F190491%2Fraskrinkavanje-kako-je-lazni-milijarder-iz-vijetnama-preveslao-dodika-ko-je-zapravo-glasoviti-mai-vu-minh

So, according to media reports:

• His SAPA Thale Group which is headquartered in the city of Thale (Germany) is not multi-billion dollar company, but an obscure GmbH which is worth only about €25.000.
• Pictures of him with world leaders (Trump, Putin, Xi Jinping...) which can be found here are, for the most part, photoshopped in a way that interventions are obvious to amateurs.
• Article about him on Vietnamese Wikipedia is full of inaccuracies, which can contribute to more people being tricked into believing that he is real billionaire, specially since his Wikipedia entry is the first result when someone Googles his name.

I don't know all the facts, since I don't speak German or Vietnamese, and I can't check the sources written in those languages. I will say that I found several articles about him on IBTimes (all written this year) that present him as influential investor (is it possible that he tricked them too?)

As for the article about him on Vietnamese Wikipedia - as I understood from the talk page, this person approached members of their community on their ″fan page″ and ask them for help in writing an article. The article states in the intro that Minh is ranked in the list of large and secretive investors in the world, influencing the global financial world and the governments of the countries.

I would appreciate assistance from users who speak German and/or Vietnamese in uncovering the background of this story. Thanks!--В и к и T 16:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)