This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jimbo Wales. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It has been announced that by an 8-2 vote, James Heilman has been removed from the WMF Board — the legally governing entity of WMF. The resolution published by the Board LINK is absolutely devoid of any rationale for this radical step. An explanation of why one of three democratically elected community representatives to the Board was summarily removed is to be expected. As JW is one of the 8 Board members voting to remove Dr. Heilman, I ask him here now to comment. Thanks. —Tim Davenport /// Carrite (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Dear all,
Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees voted to remove one of the
Trustees, Dr. James Heilman, from the Board. His term ended effective
immediately.
This was not a decision the Board took lightly. The Board has a
responsibility to the Wikimedia movement and the Wikimedia Foundation to
ensure that the Board functions with mutual confidence to ensure effective
governance. Following serious consideration, the Board felt this removal
decision was a necessary step at this time. The resolution will be
published shortly.
This decision creates an open seat for a community-selected Trustee. The
Board is committed to filling this open community seat as quickly as
possible. We will reach out to the 2015 election committee
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikime<!--
-->dia_Foundation_elections_2015/Committee>
to discuss our options, and will keep you informed as we determine next
steps.
Patricio Lorente
Chair, Board of Trustees
Wikimedia Foundation
I'm going to add me to those asking for a much more detailed response here, whether from you or the Board as a body. If eight people are going to overrule more than 1800, we need a better reason than the current one, which essentially boils down to "Because we can." Maybe this is defensible, but as things stand, it smells very bad. An explanation should have been immediately forthcoming upon the removal of a community Board member elected with overwhelming support. SeraphimbladeTalk to me01:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd just like to thank Doc James for all the work he has done on Wikipedia.
If there is going to be a quick replacement - and there probably should be -
I'll suggest that User:Raystorm, who finished 4th in the election and had the highest number of supports is the obvious choice, followed by User:Phoebe, who finished 5th. Smallbones(smalltalk)02:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Why should there be? Given Dr. Heilman's standing in the community, I think it's fair to say that, pending further clarification, the Board's lack of trust in him reflects a lack of trust in the community as well. If so, why should the community hurry to participate in manufacturing consent for whatever the Board intends? I think the example of the electors of Middlesex in 1769 is much more to the purpose. Choess (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
The explanation could be fairly benign, such as Dr. Heilman consistently being unavailable for WMF business. After all he's a doctor (an ER doctor to boot) and so has lots of unpredictable demands on his time. There are other explanations that would be more concerning -- such as WMF politics or a serious breach of protocol related to confidentiality or the like. The bottom line is that we just don't know. The longer an explanation takes, the more people will speculate. So a timely explanation will be helpful to all concerned. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if it seemed to some that I was rushing things above. I'd claim to be Doc James's biggest supporter on Wikipedia, except that I know there are many others who would also like to claim that honor. I do think that the community should continue to be represented by 3 seats on the board, so a replacement is needed. I do assume good faith by all parties involved. If Doc is not contesting this, there is likely nothing to contest. In short the only possible explanation is that the board and Doc held incompatible views on the direction of the WMF. It would be good to hear what those views are, and get further community input on them. Smallbones(smalltalk)04:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I certainly hope there's a benign explanation for it, and I'm not exactly proud to be out in front shouting "Wilkes and liberty!", but if so, it's remarkably cack-handed. I'm on the board of a much smaller non-profit, and if we had to vote out one of our number, I'd expect us to do so with great deliberation, and to have some sort of explanation at hand when we did so, even if it was rather non-specific. As you say, the longer this goes on, the more people will come to believe they're being given a non-explanation because the explanation can't be made palatable to the community. Choess (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
The argument "Because we can." seems to be in fashion. This is so similar to my issue in the section above this one, of being topic banned for no real reason at all, even in light of my 8 years of thousands of productive edits and no blocks at all, especially the argument "Because we can." as expressed quite ironically by Seraphimblade. Now you all know how I feel! So, I wonder if you'll take this "abuse of discretion" all meek and mild like you expect me to take mine??? In the meantime, I will join you in this fight simply because I am and have been for 8 years a vibrant and constructive member of this community and will continue to be so. "He who sacrifices some freedom for some security deserves neither and will lose both". Benjamin Franklin,Nocturnalnow (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
With respect, your attempt to vary a topic ban is not analogous with the forced removal of a community-elected WMF trustee. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
The "Because we can" mentality at work is all that I am saying is similar. I think this "because we can" mentality and modus operandi was dramatically boosted and promoted by events General Wesley Clarkidentified quite a few years ago: and the subject matter the General is talking about is far more important to Wikipedia and everything else than this or my "because we can" episodes. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I couldn't possibly agree more that this should have been announced with a full and clear and transparent and NPOV explanation. Why didn't that happen? Because James chose to post about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even begun to discuss what an announcement should say. WMF legal has asked the board to refrain from further comment until they've reviewed what can be said - this is analogous in some ways to personnel issues. Ideally, you would have heard about this a couple of days from now when a mutual statement by James and the board had been agreed. For now, please be patient. Accuracy is critically important here, and to have 9 board members posting their own first impressions would be more likely to give rise to confusions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
He was one of the few properly elected members of the board, so there have to extremely severe reasons to ditch him. Just because you can will mean the rest of the board has proven it's untrustworthiness. The communities are the proper sovereigns of the wikiverse, not the more and more disconnected bureaucrats in the foundation. The foundation is just a service organisation,it's bosses are the communities. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)10:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
In what way did I do that? I did not. I merely gave you a very clear, transparent, honest and NPOV explanation of why this was announced in this fashion. We were having a meeting about it, and hadn't begun to discuss how to give the full explanation to the community in fairness to everyone, and James decided to simply announce it without explaining anything. That's just what happened, it's a fact. If you take it as "blaming" him in some way, you are reaching beyond what I said.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales: 1. "this [firing] should have been announced with a full and clear and transparent and NPOV explanation. Why didn't that happen? Because James chose to [do X]".
Jimbo Wales: 2. "I did not [blame blame James for [my, Jimbo's] own actions]".
Either this was a long vented decision, then the explanation should come in syncron with the decision. Or it was some emergency, then at least that should be made clear. This are the only two valid circumstances for this decision against the communities, so some kind of explanation is not only possible but necessary. If you refuse to give any of this two valid explanations, you say that the decision was not valid. It may be valid in a legalistic way, but that's just bollocks. It has to be morally sound and legitimate, everything else cries for a complete new board. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)18:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, tell that to James. He's the one who went public without warning in the middle of the meeting. You are 100% wrong that this is a decision against the community. I know why I voted the way I did - and it has to do with my strong belief in the values of this community and the responsibilities of board members to uphold those values. If a board member fails the community in such a serious way, tough decisions have to be made about what to do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
<squeeze>He was elected by the community, and thus was fully vetted. Most of those who voted against him are just poorly vetted members, without a proper community backing. So this was a vote by more or less random bureaucrats against the community, full stop. If this was not a decision against the community, what do you consider as such? The community should always have the last call over bureaucrats, WMF is just a service organisation for the community. Unfortunately they fail to see this and quite often regard themselves as something better. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)23:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
i am not so much worried about removing a person from the board. there are so many different characters and opinions in this movement that i find it an illusion to believe everybody can work with everybody. it is human, and it is ok. personally i like to read differing opinions and background information about the reasoning as this advances the cause and tends to involve more people, deeper. i like this also in a group like the WMF board - it always frightens me a little when i see 9-0 votes. but _if_ a vote is passed, i'd expect the whole group to stand by it, no matter of the individual opinion in creating this result. what i consider quite paradox though is that we trust ourselves as a community that we can produce wikipedia in a way we define it. Jimmy, why can we not trust this same community to judge if a board member is a good board member, in a legally binding way? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hope the remaining board comes up with a good reason. I've met Doc James personally, and know about his merits in our project; I won't accept any weakish legalese putoff. --MBq (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
From Doc James's statement "I have done what I believe is in the best interest of our movement". If legal takes out a specific explanation of what, specifically, Doc James did and tries to lose it in soft corners and vagaries, I will personally find that insufficient. Doc James took strong positions on matters that divide this community, including some the board has in the past acted on. The community elected him (and should elect his replacement, in my view, no fourth-place runners up please) and needs to know what, specifically, its representative did to get kicked off the board and not go quietly. His not going quietly (evidenced by his vote against) puts this back into the lap of the community. If he had resigned, that would be quite another thing, the matter would be resolved and we might not need to know. I'm content to wait and see, but the community does need to know the utmost possible. We may be dealing from the fallout from this for some time to come, especially if Doc James remains active outside the board or seeks a new mandate from the community, which he has every right to, he has not been banned.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Of course there has to be a new election, and DocJames must take part in it. If the community will elect him again, that's would be a harsh vote of non-confidence towards the non-elected members of that club. Only elected members have a proper vetting to belong there, non-elected members are imho some kind of second class members, they miss any real community backing. And community backing is the absolutely highest level of confidence in a community project. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)14:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
James Heilman is a good Wikipedian in my estimation, but some of the things people write above are without foundation. The winner in his election was by 900 votes nuetral, which means even for the Wikimedians who voted it was not any mandate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jimmy. Thanks for sharing your perspective. You said: "Because James chose to post about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even begun to discuss what an announcement should say." My comment is: The Board went to the meeting knowing that there will be a vote on James' removal, so the Board knew that there was a chance that James would be removed by the end of that meeting. In this case, is it fair to say that the Board should have prepared an announcement before going to the meeting, in case that announcement needed to be used? I understand that the Board members have a lot on their plates, being in the middle of the holiday season doesn't help, and the resources are limited, but given the position the Board has and the importance of this recent vote, I expected some more preparedness. --LZia (WMF) (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't think we should have had a prepared statement in advance. The meeting was entered into in good faith by all parties, and the outcome was in no way a foregone conclusion. It would be premature to prepare a statement before there was a chance to have a full discussion among all the board members, including James. This wasn't a kangaroo court to rubber stamp a pre-written decision and announcement. What would have been better, in my view, is if James had waited to announce it in a time and manner that both his perspective and that of other board members could be presented fully.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Might I gently suggests this sounds like poor planning? If ejecting James was one of the possible outcomes of the meeting, those prepared to do so should have planned for it as a contingency (not a certainty), along with the possibilities that he might resign amicably, or might modify his position on the issue of contention. If the Board wanted time to craft a mutually acceptable statement of the affair with James, perhaps it would have been wiser to remove him after, rather than before, the statement could be prepared.
I can certainly envision scenarios in which the judgment of the majority of Board was correct and James was wrong (say, involving a conflict over funding the editing of medical content). I'm having more trouble imagining a scenario wherein it becomes necessary to remove James from the Board at once, rather than a week from now. There may yet be one. But it seems churlish to remove him from the Board, effective immediately, and then feel aggrieved that he made that event known on the same timeline you provided him. I don't prejudge you, but I hope there was one heck of an emergency to justify these steps. Choess (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I, for one, was shocked Doc James was ever appointed to the board in the first place, just from seeing his work on WP. While probably 80 percent of his edits are positive for the project, he does have some areas of questionable judgment, topics where he creates bitter divides, and acts entirely against the principles of the project. On several occasions, I have questioned his maturity to even handle being an administrator, much less a WMF board member. If this were Guy Kawasaki, I would be shocked, but I know that in the case of Doc James the board must have had its reasons and then some. You will find no criticism of this decision from me. LesVegas (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
No one would expect criticism of the decision from you, given your history of disagreements with James. But I'd at least expect you to refrain from gratuitous grave-dancing, particularly when you (like most of the rest of us) know absolutely nothing about the actual facts underlying the decision. MastCellTalk19:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
No gratuitous grave dancing was intended, merely I was a bit tired of seeing all of Doc James's buddies angry at Jimbo over this and I was simply trying to give another perspective. Sure, nobody knows the details, but I'd be shocked if the (personal attack removed --.js) that I see in Doc James weren't also seen by the board. Unlike his little WP fan-club, nobody on the board worships him as a deity. When that's the case, it's much easier to judge his disposition and makeup. LesVegas (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
For what's it's worth, I don't see anyone particularly angry with me. And if they were, it wouldn't bother me because there's no reason to be angry at me, so if someone is angry at me, then they are mistaken.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Only someone who worships an editor as a deity would think "shortcomings in character" was a PA! Every human being has some shortcomings in character. I happen to believe Doc James has more than many around here perceive, but I suppose that's my opinion, one that I am certainly entitled to. I have my reasons, and many others in the community would also agree, but I agree with Jules that this isn't the time or place to get into all of the specific grievances. I was just simply trying to give Jimmy my support for the board's decision to counterbalance the swath of angry critics. Since I've done that, you won't see me post any more about this. LesVegas (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
You're supporting a decision in total ignorance of the underlying facts, and based solely on your personal distaste for the person affected. That reflects poorly on you, and more pragmatically, it sets you up to look both petty and foolish when the facts come to light. I don't see people treating James like a "deity" in this thread. I see editors expressing concern that a person elected to the Board by popular vote was removed without explanation, and demanding transparency—both of which seem reasonable under the circumstances. MastCellTalk20:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it is important to distinguish between two positions here:
Not being happy that a trustee has been booted without explanation.
Not being happy that Doc James has been booted.
There may very well have been good reasons, if they are supplied most of the critics will shut up. However the complete failure to articulate what is happening is in the finest tradition of bureaucracy, and completely at odds with the principles of the movement. I find it hard to believe that the board is incapable of coming up with a form of words that covers the events leading up to the dismissal, without falling into any legal quagmire, or casting un-needed aspersions.
Sorry, if i disagree with You Jimbo, but "9 board members posting their own first impressions would be" transparency, not giving out any information is exactly what is "more likely to give rise to confusions".--Emergency doc (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
We agree in part and disagree in part. I absolutely agree that "not giving out any information" would be disastrous. Remembering that a man's reputation is at stake here, the responsible thing for the board to do is to consider their statements carefully for absolute accuracy, and also to work with James to ensure that his side of the story is properly heard as well. Bursting onto the wiki with random impressions and thoughts would not be helpful at all. Patience.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure, you (the board) had your reasons, but the way, the information came out was already disastrous. Well, I'll be pantient an waiting for information to come...--Emergency doc (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
To clarify Jimmy's comment "He's the one who went public without warning in the middle of the meeting." The vote had concluded and I had been requested to leave. I had therefore left the meeting before I posted anything and from my perspective the meeting was done.
With respect to board process, the community does not really elect people to the board, there is a community election that provides suggestions to the board that they may or may not approve. Per the board handbook the board is completely within its rights to remove board members without cause by a simple majority. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@Doc James:. A question: are you preparing a statement on this matter? Or will you being issuing a joint statement with the WMF board? There is a lot of consternation on what has happened, I really feel this would help. --Jules(Mrjulesd)22:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
"from my perspective the meeting was done..." No offense, but you not being in the meeting, does not mean the meeting ended and this does seem a little disgruntled, which causes many to become concerned for many reasons. I don't know, but maybe you should not have reacted immediately.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Not knowing Doc James, but sensing from the comments here something about his connection to the community, I would guess he simply felt like sharing with the people he represented as quickly as possible the crucial, bottom line fact of what happened. This is similar to how people react in a family tragedy or major event; immediately get in touch with the the rest of the family with the major news and then soon, very soon thereafter, get into the details. So, I think since he is obviously held in such high regard by many of you, he treated you like family by immediately telling you what he could. It may and is not the way corporate officials are trained to behave....i.e. to wait and come out with a joint and well thought out official statement...but I have a feeling that you should all perhaps be touched that this person who you trust and put his name forth treated you like family when this event happened. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
@Jimbo: If you kick an elected representative out of an official meeting, it is not only predictable that he will asap tell that to his voters, but it is his natural moral obligation to do so (unless he beforehand would have agreed in free will to postpone this information for good reasons). To now attack him that he did so, the (leader of the) board not only shows a huge lack of empathy, but in knowing a bit about the communication tactics of WMF and the board it is clearly visible that the gossip spitting machine called Wikipedia helps putting the outcast in the center of attraction of the gossip investigators and thus drawing the attention away from the honourable persons who casted him out. If this "was" a deliberate communication stragedy one would have to praise it's effectivtiy while it would be morally disgusting.
The still remaining question is: How long will the board (leader/s) let this happen? Until they finally come up with their rendition. The damage is done to the condemned one by not only letting speculations grow and spread what evil he could have done - and never mind the facts, some things will keep sticking on him afterwards. And by writing "a man's reputation is at stake here" and "If a board member fails the community in such a serious way" they even heat up that unsubstantial gossip. Congratulations.
Honestly, Jimmy, please give us a reliable estimate When and where will you give the official statement on this case? (And meanwhile you really should stop circulating rumours.) --.js (((☎))) 07:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
You are reading things into my words that I did not say. I have not attacked him for going public early, I've merely stated the fact. If you think that reflects negatively on him, then that's your judgment and not mine. I will not be giving the "official statement" - that will come from the entire board, and I suppose most likely presented by Patricio in his capacity as Chair. I have circulated no rumors of any kind, so I have no idea what you are talking about in that line.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
To write "a man's reputation is at stake", "If a board member fails the community in such a serious way", "... to quietly resign, as many of us recommended to him", "this should have been announced with a full and clear and transparent and NPOV explanation. Why didn't that happen? Because James chose to post about it before" and "a man's public reputation is at risk here" are rumours and inflammatory. --.js (((☎))) 10:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
There is not "a man's reputation" at stake here, there are 10 men's reputations at stake, and the reputation of the board as such. --Tinz (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Is that board meeting still going on? One would assume that reasons for removal would be very clear for 8-1 vote, and legal check of final wording shouldn't take excessively long either, unless removal itself was somehow legally questionable. Frankly it is starting to look like board never expected that it would need to provide a public explanation, and is now scrambling behind the scenes to put together some polished statement that ruffles as few feathers as possible.--Staberinde (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Why doesn't the Board of Trustees post advance notice of its meetings and the matters it intends to consider?
While there may be matters involving commercial negotiations, pending legal matters or employer-employee issues which would not be suitable for public airing, I see no reason why a community-driven project like Wikipedia shouldn't provide reasonable advance notice to the community of planned actions of sufficient importance to require Trustee review and approval. Why does the WMF seem determined to forestall input by the community which does so much of the work to implement the activities the WMF is trying to encourage? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
The WMF does not want the community to be involved. They want to discourage community input. They will not get involved in the daily activity of improving articles.
Ha ha, your user name just screams loud and clear to me how neutral you will be towards those editors you perceive to be promoting what you feel are "fringe" theories. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Can you give even one example of that ever happening? Is there some lingering question you have from some past event that you'd like to raise with the board?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
"Even one"? Here you are: Superprotect, Media Viewer RfC, Media Viewer RfC on Commons, Media Viewer Meinungsbild in de.wp, Visual Editor, ... tbc... --.js (((☎))) 13:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the WMF board has gotten the message. If Legal needs to review the statement, WMF will release it on their timetable, not one that is desired by Wikipedia editors. Until more information is released, I'm not sure what else can be done here right now. LizRead!Talk!00:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Err Liz, you ever worked with management in situations like this? It shouldn't take too long for the people involved to agree on a statement. 48 hours at most. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Except note that we aren't working "with management" - i.e. not paid staff sitting in an office working on it. We're working with an all-volunteer board living in very different time zones (James is still in Japan as far as I know, some of us are in Europe, some in the US) and working for a consensus statement that is as informative as possible with broad support. Takes time to do well. Think wiki-world, not corporate-world. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Depends how motivated folks are Jimbo, I've seen some statements hammered out quick-smart. And it's not as if the ten of you have a hugely complex statement to make either. I would have thought there was plenty of motivation to dispel all this speculation as quickly as possible.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Jimbo, why should the time or manner that an ejected member chooses to announce the ejection have any bearing at all on when or how the Board chooses to describe the rationale for the ejection to the community?
Will you please support a resolution requiring that board agendas be posted publicly in advance of board meetings, and that the minutes be posted before the next meeting's agenda is finalized, and that votes on unagendized items be deferred until the next meeting?
Would you please support an amendment to the bylaws requiring that a majority of the board be elected by the community? EllenCT (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I think I've explained the answer to the first question quite well already, but let me try again. The ideal pattern here would have been for there to be a clear, transparent and agreed explanation posted by all parties. He announced before we had the chance to formulate a statement that he would approve of. Our choice might have been to post something blunt and damaging to him, but it still seems better that we go slow and make sure that everything is done in a respectful way.
I would support as best practice the public posting of agendas for routine board meetings. I would support that minutes be posted promptly - but before the next meetings agenda is finalized is not really practical because we normally vote to approve the previous meetings minutes at the next meeting - every board I have been on does this. I would not support that unagendized items be deferred until the next meeting - we are working board and we have long board meetings and such a delay would not be helpful in any way.
I do not support any changes to the bylaws around the composition of the board at this time. There is a very unhealthy and plainly false view among some in the community that elected board members are more supportive of the community than appointed. It actually doesn't turn out that way in practice, and with good reason. All board members have a fiduciary duty to the organization, which means that caring about the community - the lifeblood of the organization - comes naturally to everyone.
One more point, which you didn't directly ask about but which I think is relevant - would it have been wise to be public in advance of this board meeting about what we were to consider? Clearly not. Had we made a different decision and allowed James to say, what benefit would there have been to publicly raising a cloud around him. He had made a different decision - to quietly resign, as many of us recommended to him, again there would have been no benefit to making public a cloud around him. It was important to have the meeting privately so that we could talk through the situation before deciding what to do. Remember, a man's public reputation is at risk here. It would be unfair and unwise to go public prematurely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
<squeeze> I don't know whether the elected board members are more supportive of the community or not, that's not the point. They are just better legitimized to be on the board, as they are elected ba the true sovereign of this enterprise, the community, and not some back-room appointment by insiders. You and Larry Sanger have as well a good reason to be there, as founders, and, despite the quite byzantine nomination mode, to some extend the affiliate members. But the only true vetted members are the open elected ones. Nobody should be able to oust one of the few really elected members just because they can, without giving a good reason asap. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)10:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The board's support for the community was seen last year in the Superprotect statement. One of the reasons, the former elected board members are not in the board anymore and Doc James was voted in, was their position towards this affair (at least for my votings it was the main reason). Now he is removed again, while the Superprotect-supporters still fill the board. Whatever explanation will be given in the future, this is another blow for the trust, that I have in the board and their "community-support". --Magiers (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes I was given the option of resigning over the last few weeks. As a community elected member I see my mandate as coming from the community which elected me and thus declined to do so. I see such a move as letting down those who elected me to do a difficult job. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes. It is difficult but whether or not they knew it, or understood it, you were not elected to be beholden or owe duties to them, nor any block of voters; you were elected (that is, recommended by vote) to have fiduciary obligation and loyalty to the Foundation. Some of the comments here by others do not seem to countenance what a fiduciary obligation to a legal entity is, it actually disbars or preempts loyalty to voters or anyone else besides the Foundation, much less to the minority that supported your recommendation to the board. Thus, if the other board members see you as impeding their own fiduciary obligation to the Foundation, whether or not that is your intent (and thus no-fault (or cause) on your part), they are empowered to take action. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know, as I haven't thought through the detailed implications. But in this case, it isn't relevant as this was a removal for cause.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Jimbo, would you support an amendment to the bylaws specifying that removed community-elected trustees be replaced with new community-elected trustees? We can add voting for alternates to the voting process next year so that you would have new trustees ready to go. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Legal protocols: Jimmy, you write just above that "this was a removal for cause". First, didn't the WMF's lawyers read the law and advise the Board that if the removal was "for cause", the cause needed to be embedded in the resolution removing the trustee? To do otherwise was to gamble that the vote would not have been 6–4 (sufficient for removal "with cause", but lacking the 7–3 supermajority required for "without cause"). A 6–4 result would have put the Board in a legal pickle, but even if the numbers for the supermajority had been privately ascertained before the meeting, there was no guarantee that all customers would buy when it came to the transaction; it's not something the WMF's lawyers should have exposed the Board to. So having embedded the "cause" in the resolution, there would have been no fuss now about exactly what the cause was—it would simply have been included in the announcement. Second, didn't the lawyers apprise the Board of the likelihood that that booting Heilman out of the meeting after the resolution was passed would almost certainly result in his announcing it publicly himself, and thus that the Board should have been prepared to do justice to the decision by releasing a statement already prepared? It sounds like the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing—before, during, and indeed well after the meeting, as it now appears. Tony(talk) 08:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe state the cause within 24 hours? How long does it take to craft a reason for some seemingly arbitrary action? If you did not have a clear reason for the action, why the hell did you do it? And why is it so hard to state it that a gross delay is required? Edison (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Because a man's reputation is at stake here, I think it wise to take it slow here. I care more about James' future than I care about your foot stamping impatience.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Jimbo, you are constantly putting more fire into the gossip by saying you will say "something" later, adding tiny needle bits in every second posting. By that you are really doing harm, and I am convinced you know that. If you were interested in deescalation you wouldn't do that. (see my posting above) --.js (((☎))) 09:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I think you are right to not let others rush you into a statement that you wish to consider carefully. Everyone here has been told in more than one way that you intend to explain things in detail before too long.
I was perhaps being too subtle, I was trying to hint that you should not be giving the crowd little tidbits of information until then. You are feeding the frenzy and encouraging speculation. HighInBC19:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Jimbo, is the Legal team actively working on this, or are some of them out of the office over the New Year break? As I mentioned on wikimedia-l, the longer the explanation is forthcoming, the more unfounded rumours will circulate and be taken as fact by some. I see the names of people I trust in that resolution, so I figure there must be some very good reason, but going on without explanation will undermine community trust in the Foundation, which obviously isn't good for anybody. Lankiveil(speak to me)11:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC).
Jimbo has said that he could have said something blunt and damaging. That implies to me that if the story was told bluntly, it would be damaging. In fact, I don't see a way it's not going to be damaging, if my reading of what Jimbo said is correct. But the fact that Doc James also hasn't said anything about the cause for which he was dismissed suggests to me there is dialogue going on that involves him, with a view towards an agreed statement.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The trouble is, the hinting is more damaging than anything. It's been repeatedly said that the removal is for cause and could damage someone's reputation, but no indication what that actually means. That could be anything from "Stole funds and bought a car" to "Pushed too hard in meetings." If it were something toward the first, I suspect we'd have seen a quiet resignation. But the statement must be specific, not some wishy-washy legalese like "Failed to meet expectations of a Board member." We need to know exactly why the Board saw fit to remove a community elected member without even consultation of, let alone referendum to, the community that elected him. Unless what happened was truly egregious, that shouldn't have happened. SeraphimbladeTalk to me13:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The trouble is, the hinting is more damaging than anything[2]i agree with this statement,... logic and objectivity must be clear in any "statement" by the board and verifiable--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
There was no hinting, by the way. "Our choice might have been to post something blunt and damaging to him, but it still seems better that we go slow and make sure that everything is done in a respectful way." - this refers to a knee jerk reaction trying to rush out a statement to meet impatient demands for transparency RIGHT NOW. We could have done that, but we didn't. You'll get an accounting of what happened and it will be written carefully and thoughtfully.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Can you give at least a rough time frame within which we should be seeing such a statement, and an update on progress toward it? I'm not asking for down to the minute, but "We'll have it sometime" is pretty vague. And yes, your statement that James' removal was necessary to uphold the community's values is a hint that he did something very wrong, especially given that he ran on a platform of representing the values of the community on the Board. Maybe he really did, but the trouble is that we have no information. This eventuality (as well as the others, a resignation or a failed removal vote) should have been planned for before the meeting and the vote, unless this was a totally unforeseen emergency. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
It is obvious that giving a community-elected board member the boot will raise eyebrows, to put it mildly. So a really good explanation should be ready pretty damn quickly. However, if the only reason is that Doc was not a yes man on the board, you better hire Olivia Pope for that ;-) Cheers, Stefan64 (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Doc James gives us a reality check
Here, beginning with "With respect to board process", Doc James gives us a splash of cold water in the face to remind us/inform us of the reality of Wikipedia's structure. I think it is worth repeating:
"With respect to board process, the community does not really elect people to the board, there is a community election that provides suggestions to the board that they may or may not approve. Per the board handbook the board is completely within its rights to remove board members without cause by a simple majority."
For me the most important words are "the community does not really elect people to the board" and "remove board members without cause". So, to me this puts into question the comfortable notion that Wikipedia has a democratic component at or near the top of its structure. It also, to me, puts into question the reality of this being a community controlled entity in a structural way. To me this is not all that defining, to what degree a community is democratic, but what I think is defining and important is that people, as individuals, have a clear knowledge, of the degree to which the community they work within is democratic and what exactly are the degree of powers and controls which are retained by top level management of the community. I think that knowing and facing and dealing with the reality of one's circumstances, not the perception of the reality, is the essence of freedom. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, this procedure is utterly anti-community from the beginning. It's more like some centralised entity, that's the very opposite of a community project. The by-laws need to be changed towards more democracy as fast as possible, such irritant dictatorial behaviour must never occur in a community project, those, who partake, show by partaking in it their contempt for the community. With cause should be possible in emergency cases, without is so out of scope, nobody decent would have contemplated the mere possibility. But after the violent putsch with superprotect, and the kowtow to the putschists by the board afterwards, such thing should perhaps have been expected. But especially because the former board members put the dagger in the back of the community, this new members were elected, to finally get some pro-community members. Now one of them was ousted by the old Mafia. Anybody else thinking about Fifa yet? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)16:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I just found an interesting article: Benevolent dictator for life. Not sure how compatible that concept is with the concept of democracy. Also, compare and contrast the very public, often lengthy, sometimes gut-wrenching – and reputation-damaging – process by which the Arbitration Committee removes misbehaving administrators from office. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
While I by no means defend this structure, the "recommendations" thing is a way of getting around Florida law (as others have pointed out), rather than a method of fooling the community. — foxj17:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
We have been assured that the WMF is dealing with this in as timely a matter as possible. People have day jobs, people live in different time zones all of which affect the time it takes to do something that is careful and accurate. We do both James and the foundation a disservice by pushing for answers before they are carefully formulated and by attributing motive and actions to either before the full story has bee released.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC))
With all due respect, @Littleolive oil, this is baloney. There should have been a statement indicating the reason simultaneously with official announcement of the action, which has already happened. Now we are in a situation in which something seemingly anti-democratic has taken place and the cliquemajority faction that caused the event is supposed to be given extraordinary time to explain themselves. We don't need spin, we don't need obfuscation, we don't need to make allowances because "people have day jobs" — we need an official explanation now.Carrite (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
There has been no "official" announcement, the announcement was a post by Doc James. If he wishes to give more information, thats up to him. But right now we are waiting for the official announcement from the WMF. Just as information on living people must be carefully added to the wiki, so must releases of information on living people be released carefully. Pushing isnt going to make it happen any sooner, lawyers are involved at this point according to Jimbo, they never move fast. AlbinoFerret17:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
"There has been no "official" announcement" Well, [3] was posted, with the subject "Announcement about changes to the Board", to the "Wikimedia Announcements" mailing list (and to the "Wikimedia-l" list, as [4]) by Patricio Lorente, who signed it "Chair, Board of Trustees/ Wikimedia Foundation". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits19:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was rejected from a job the other day, I need to wait a few weeks to find out why. When things need to be put together and explained well to outsiders, those not familiar with the full history (as it sounds like this has rumbled on for a while), we should expect to wait. As Jimbo says, if the WMF rush this out, it may well read wrong and create the wrong impression, which will lead to them being criticized - if they take their time and make sure it reads correctly and such like, they get criticized for being too slow. It's a lose-lose situation for them, whatever they do. Mdann52 (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
What we should seek is a quick statement which is factually accurate. These are not mutually exclusive things. Resolutions generally take the form of WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, THEREFORE. Here the WMF Board has published the THEREFORE and said not a word about the WHEREAS. So, let's have it. I'm not saying the Board majority is necessarily in the wrong in their decision; I am saying that when an unelected majority tosses overboard an elected minority, there is grave cause for concern. Carrite (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Since James seems to have jumped the gun on an official announcement, rightly or wrongly, or innocently with the best intentions; we have to deal with the fall out from that which is to wait for the statement that might have accompanied the timely, official announcement. And yes, timely for the volunteers who make up the committee. Demanding an organization operate to suit our impatience won't get us far. I don't see who the speculation and vitriol is helping, not James, and not the foundation, and not Wikipedia. Whipping everything up into a lather just creates a mess in my opinion. I prefer clarity and simplicity. Whatever happened with James, speculation swirling around him will only create a possibly lasting narrative that has ultimately nothing to do with the reality of the situation and is not fair to him or to anyone else. I won't argue this further. Just my opinion and my own impatience with the chaos being created around this issue. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC))
Littleolive oil is quite right. I pointed out in my posts earlier that I believe Doc James has some serious character concerns and people got angry at me for having an opinion, assuming he is flawless and the board is out of line. The fact that Doc James would throw a tantrum and preempt the board from making a timely statement just so he could control the narrative, illustrates precisely what I have been talking about. Nobody yet knows why
DocJames was voted out, but if I am to guess he probably assumed he could do no wrong and then fouled up by acting from within either his own self interests or a misshapen sense of ethics and what is beneficial for the community. LesVegas (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I guess what we need to do is not judge. Whatever the situation it could be painful for all parties; we don't accomplish anything by adding to that.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC))
Yeah, you're right again. I'm only making assumptions before the facts are out, and even though I think I'm right it's probably better to hold off until we know the full story. But once it's out, and if it so happens that DocJames did as I suspect, I will judge him and will relish doing so. Part of the problem is that so many editors practically worship him (I know you're not one of them) and the fact that they swoon and get googoley eyed around him makes them incapable of holding his feet to the fire whenever it needs to be done. I'll hold off on making premature assumptions, but if he did as I think, he needs to be held in shame and spat upon instead of relying on a fanclub driven bolster to puff out his chest in defiance. Or he could be truly innocent and the board could be the bad guys or it could be somewhere in between, but I'd be shocked, and will be the first to apologize. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. LesVegas (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
LesVegas, would your "concerns" over Doc James' character be in any way founded on the fact that you are a tireless apologist for quackery and he is an equally tireless advocate of a reality-based approach to medical topics? I think it is dishonest to make comments about another editor's character without being open about your own history with that user - especially when they are clearly trusted by the community at large. Guy (Help!) 17:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I am not without cynicism regarding the medical profession and its online lobbying, but unless and until someone makes such allegation, why should we assume it? The Board has overridden the will of the community - it's up to them to make a compelling explanation. For Doc James any allegation may be a personal matter, but for the WMF it is a personnel matter. Still, I would welcome if either side would say something to specifically exclude this, as with the other scenarios I've suggested. Wnt (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The essence of 99% of Wikipedia drama is the demand for action/explanation/heads to roll <large>NOW!!!!one!!11eleventy</large>, versus the normal pace of everything at Wikipedia, which is that it will all be sorted before the WP:DEADLINE. I have never known Jimbo withhold an explanation gratuitously. I have known him take his time getting the facts straight first. I personally think there is a serious problem, especially since I trust James and I know he has a deep-rooted sense of fairness, but I don't think demands for anythingright now are going to have any effect whatsoever. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Guy (Help!) 01:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
You can surely point me to some instances of normal pace of everything in wikipedia? That is instances where the rest of the project is kept in the dark about the reasoning behind significant decisions? IIRC the normal procedure is quite the opposite: Reasons are evident and are communicated as such before the decision itself is.---<)kmk(>- (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Another reminder: the best elected selected among "the 3 from the community" was elected selected by 2028 supports among 5167 voters (=39%), while 2583 voters (=50%) were without sufficient knowledge about the candidate to build their opinion. For the second best elected selected, the figures were 36% and 53%. Another remark. On Foundation:Board_of_Trustees, only five members have an "until" date greater than December 2015 (i.e. today's night). Should we draw some conclusions from this factoid? Pldx1 (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
"Neutral" != "No opinion". I had an opinion of every candidate, but still voted neutral on a significant number of candidates. For me a support vote was my preferred candidates, a neutral vote was an acceptable candidate (i.e. someone who I thought would do well on the board, but perhaps didn't speak to my preferences as well as the others) and an oppose vote was reserved for candidates I didn't believe would be appropriate for the Board. Dragons flight (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Remember, this was not an election, but an ordered selection within the volunteers. Thereafter, the best selected were elected by the Board. Corrected accordingly. Any news about the four "out of date" (at least according to Foundation:Board_of_Trustees) ? Pldx1 (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
KaiMartin, how long have you been here? Wikipedia does not do rapid. Everything is always talked to death first. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
In wikipedia "talk to death" is done before decisions are made. Arbcom won't ban you and tell "rationale will be provided in near future as our schedule permits". At this point it seems that they never intended to provide anything more than a generic statement with zero information, like that Patricio's email. Now they need to scramble behind the scenes because unexpectedly the proletariat started demanding explanations.--Staberinde (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Yep. This Board is operating backwards. Knowing that this action would be highly contentious, they should have crafted a resolution containing the facts and reasons, and then voted on it. The act of writing down an explanation and making sure everybody agrees with it is a way to ensure good decision making. The explanation is not just a mere formality to be crafted after the fact. JehochmanTalk14:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
And in any case, it is clearly a necessary protection given that there may be legal ramifications from some articles which cannot be shared. It is a logical extension of WP:OFFICE and one whose necessity is, I think, reasonably obvious. I have seen several situations where people have, in good faith, made edits that have implications they could not possibly understand without being appraised of details that cannot be shared without violating privacy. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
@Tim Starling: Superputsch was implemeted in a cloak and dagger manner by some people inside the WMF especially as a tool against the community, to prevent the community to dare to implement it's will against the putschist in side the WMF. It had no positive meaning at all, it was pure might against right. And it was an overnight implementation by hostile WMFers, don't try to make some fairytales up around this. In a decent organization it would have never been implemented at all, and if some rough devs would have done so, it would have been ditched asap, as soon as somebody became aware of this emanation of community disdain. Some better solution for the implementation of the well-founded community consensus would have been developed by the programmers instead of this sub-standard solution by DaB, and everything would have been fine. But the WMF, and the board, chose not to be with the communitzy, but they acted explicitely against the community, they showed with absolute clearity their disdain and hatred of the unwashed masses. And those involved have yet to make sincere apologies for their completely repellent and disgusting deeds. Rhere was never ever, and especially not in that situation, a need for such a brutal anti-community instrument, full stop. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)18:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Preparation of that particular commit Magiers linked to, which is a configuration patch written by me, was requested on July 31, 2014. But that was just the configuration change. Erik Moeller proposed superprotection as a conflict resolution mechanism for site CSS/JS in November 2011. The relevant software development work was finally done in June 2013. These dates are straight from my email archives, not from memory. -- Tim Starling (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, so he prepared this before, perhaps not as such a hostile device, but it was implemented and used in August with pure hostility without a grain of goodwill towards the community, without any former community input, just to get some vain programmers pet project untouched by well funded complaints by the community. The whole implementation process of superputsch was hostility, might excess and disdain of the community with no goodwill whatsoever. All involved need to apologize sincerely for this extreme bad deed against the core of the wikiverse, the community. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)10:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Tim, thank You for these informations from behind the curtain. I don't know, if I think better of the Superprotect-deployment now, because it seems not an hazardous action of someone loosing his nerves, that just noone could step back from afterwards (which I always assumed), but it was planned long-term (of course July 31 shows still, that it was intendended against the German community, that held an RfC at this time). But nothing against You personally, that You even wrote: "I have not reviewed the situation on de.wp and have no opinion as to whether this is a good idea." The ones, that failed here blatantly were the members of the board, that proove their are not capable and willing to intervene in a severe conflict between WMF and community. This damaged reputation will always stay with them. --Magiers (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems rather odd to have expected a joint statement that both sides would agree when it's pretty clear that both sides had a fundamental disagreement. I am curious, though, as to what in James statement is so disagreeable that every board member couldn't reply individually? James didn't call into question anyone's reputation and it seems even a joint statement could have included every word he wrote - just as it could have included the WMF announcement in full. It's not like a joint statement would have changed what appears to be diametric viewpoints. Eight people voted to remove him, two voted to keep him. If hearing 8 reasons would be so convoluted and confusing to publish, what exactly did the eight vote on that they cannot express coherently? If someones reputation is truly at stake, there should be facts and conclusions drawn from an investigation as a mere philosophical differences of opinion on priorities would not jeopardize anyone's reputation. Who, then, made the motion to remove and what were the facts and conclusions the board adopted prior to dismissal (if I recall Roberts correctly, the board would have heard an outline of transgressions, someone would make a motion to accept the outline as fact, seconded and voted. Following that, another member would make a motion for dismissal, etc, etc).? For such an action as removal, the facts and conclusions should be strong enough to publish, unvarnished, without fear of undeservedly harming reputations. And what words or characterizations did James use that the WMF opposes and paralyzed their response? --DHeyward (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
There is no real reason for a "list of reasons" as all that is necessary is that a majority of the board felt that the person was for any reason not acting in the full and best interest of the board or organization, or that their presence was not benefitting the board or organization. This is not a "stock corporation" for which shareholders have a strong legal right to representation on the board. That said, this was not handled well at all. Coherently or not. Collect (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
There's no list, but in every type of board that operates as WMF does that I'm familiar with (from non-profit Homeowners associations to the City Council to the body the regulates state police certification), the process is the same. Information is presented, motions are made, they are seconded and then voted on. In this case, I cannot see how there were not at least two motions (possibly many more). The first would be accepting some sort of finding of fact regarding misfeasance or malfeasance surrounding trustee conduct, responsibilities, and confidentiality. The second would be the removal motion. People that run for the seat should be entitled to see what is required of them and what is considered misfeasance or malfeasance. There doesn't appear to be anything criminal and is about defining and/or executing roles and responsibilities. The motion that outlined those expectations shouldn't be vague. Most organizations would point to a policy or guideline that was written down or, if not, spell it out in the motion, for all to see. It is one thing if DocJames disagreed with policy/guideline and was removed because they actively opposed it. It is quite another thing if DocJames agreed with the policy/guideline but disagreed that he violated it. We are not entitled to know which of the two situations the board addressed but we are entitled to know what the policy/guidelines are that they enforced through dismissal. Otherwise, how do we vote and what candidates do we choose? Expectations of trustee conduct, responsibilities, and confidentiality should be spelled out. Two out of three community elected members seem confused regarding those expectations. If this were a different problem, we'd call this a fundamental "community gap" of understanding. --DHeyward (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Further statement from Patricio
Here is a further statement from Patricio. From the last paragraph, it looks like it's all we're getting, and we might as well have got nothing, because, with regard to the dismissal, it contains more vagueness, obfuscation and mealy-mouthed weasel words than I have ever seen outside politics. What little it says effectively means "Doc James disagreed with the majority of the board about how to interpret his duties as a board member". That is so bland it won't convince anyone who's sceptical.
Though one can see that he may well not wish to do so, I wish that Doc James will run again. Then his post can be decided on by the people who actually matter – the editors. As far as I am concerned, I voted for him last time and I have no reason not to do so again. BethNaught (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Since the community's vote is merely a recommendation, if he did, and won, they would probably not reinstate James, because his view of the expectations for board members would still differ from the majority's. I see no indication that they plan to hold an election. I would not expect them to, actually. They will probably elect to the board whoever finished fourth, and that will be that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
True, but there's always 2017. Nevertheless if the board hopes to retain any of its credibility it ought to hold a new election. BethNaught (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
They still wouldn't put him on the board. And I think this will be old news by then. There will be some bigger fish to fry by then, as well as the usual shift in community members that happens over a year and a half as people lose interest and others appear. It's just too long. And people would realize it was just a gesture and want to spend their vote elsewhere (which people would quiz James about "How will you get them to seat you?"). At the end of the day, outrage wasn't that big a factor in the ArbCom elections.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
That is a very plausible outcome as regards 2017. However I will say that outrage arguably was a factor in the 2015 board elections where all the old community members were thrown out. Also, I haven't made myself clear – if Doc James were elected again and the board refused to seat him, it might hopefully spark a constitutional crisis in the WMF (which, as you might guess, many would enjoy immensely). Which, when I think about it, means that they will be too scared to hold an interim election... BethNaught (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
..........and if they don't, instead merely appointing someone at their whim, the nature of the power relationship between the En-WP community and the Board and its employed professional staff becomes crystal clear. The operative word in this scenario would be "hubris" — "we don't care what you want or what you think..." The question would then become whether the community could be awakened to organize itself for its interests. (Possible, not likely.) Carrite (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Before we vote again, can we get a copy of the motion the board voted on that described the interpretation of "duty of trustee." They obvously made that finding before voting to dismiss him and we should know those duties beforehand so candidates can prepare themselved and the community will be properly represented. Also, is the board member that dissented in jeopardy now? --DHeyward (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps a bit more detail?
This is mystifying, and typical of those situations were less information leads to more – possibly damaging – speculation, as is already happening at the other place. On the one hand you are saying that Heilman was removed 'for cause', i.e. for some inappropriate action, that he failed the community in some serious but unspecified way ('not upholding the values of the community'). On the other hand there is Patricio's later statement, which suggest there was no specific action involved, only failure to meet expectations, and that the matter had been discussed for some months. This suggests there was no specific action, but rather that Heilman refused to agree some confidential matter that the Board wished to keep secret. So which is correct? I am not saying yours and Patricio's statements are inconsistent, but it is hard to make them so. Peter Damian (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC) [edit] Oh yes, you also said 'a man's reputation is at stake here'. Presumably Heilman's reputation? Add this to the various statements about being better for him to 'quietly resign', to avoid 'raising a cloud' this all suggests he did something very bad, some terribly inappropriate action that it would have been better to keep secret. But I can't believe that's true, and Heilman's actions after the meeting suggest it cannot be true. You or someone else need to provide a bit more context. Peter Damian (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I just stumbled on this discussion after an absence. It might be helpful if someone can summarize the positions of people on both sides for persons like myself just stumbling on this conversation. It is true that the Foundation can kick anyone off its board that it wants. But statements about "lack of trust" do reflect on the character of living persons and bother me. I'd like to see more specificity, if that kind of statement is to be made, and an opportunity for a point-by-point rebuttal. Coretheapple (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Specific question: was Doc James ejected because he refused to sign a nondisclosure agreement?
Jimbo, was the action against Doc James taken because the Board asked him to sign a nondisclosure agreement and he refused? If so, what is the text of the NDA? EllenCT (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Then surely he could speak up for himself as he would not be forbidden to do so. Doc James is being fairly mum, and he is clearly capable of speaking, yet he is confining himself to hopes that this will lead to greater transparency and the like. I'm not prepared to take up the torches and pitchforks when the guest of honor isn't.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
It does not follow that he surely could speak for himself in such a situation- a previously signed NDA could prohibit him from discussing a subsequent NDA that he refused to sign. --Noren (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes - someone else has just pointed this out to me. However (see his reply to my question on his talk page) he has said he will be making a statement at some point. Peter Damian (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
When the first one expires?
Jimbo, if Doc James had been ejected because he refused to sign an NDA, would you be allowed to tell us? Why or why not? EllenCT (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Nothing about any of this had anything at all to do with signing or refusing to sign any NDA of any kind. That's not even remotely relevant to what happened. During the entire discussion, there was never any mention of signing or not signing any NDA, nor am I aware of any controversy of any kind with James regarding signing or not signing any NDA.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Board members are rarely if ever put under NDA's unless they involve things like third party contracts. When people talk about board members having a duty of confidentiality, they're talking about an implied duty of confidentiality derived from the duties of loyalty and care (the fiduciary duties) that a trustee holds to his organization. None of the comments I've heard regarding James alleges that he broke any NDA or broke his implied duty of confidentiality; for instance, he would've been legally absolutely 100% upholding his fidicuariary duty to the WMF by rapidly annnouncing he has been removed as a trustee if he believed that prompt and transparent discussion of that decision was in WMF's best interests. This is true even if other WMF board members did not agree; as a trustee, you duty to place your loyalty to the organization you serve explicitly prevents you from ceding that judgement to any other person, even another board member. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page11:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Outright contradiction
You said "I know why I voted the way I did - and it has to do with my strong belief in the values of this community and the responsibilities of board members to uphold those values. If a board member fails the community in such a serious way, tough decisions have to be made about what to do." talk) 20:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC) That is, you voted for Heilman's removal because you felt he had not upheld the values of this community in a serious, not just a common or garden way. But in the Signpost article, Heilman says "I believe I have a good understanding of large parts of the movement; I share its values; and I'm outspoken. I think many voters probably expected that I'd say and do what I've done." That is, he claims he was upholding the values of this community, and that in resigning he was doing what the community would expect. Peter Damian (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
So what exactly is the disagreement about what the community expects of its elected representative? How is this difference in opinion sufficient cause for removal? Carrite (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Twenty questions
User:Doc James has not told us what the dispute is over, citing some kind of obligation, and whatever statement is coming out of the board and legal department is likely to do anything but reference the real philosophical issues. Whatever it is, you don't want everyone on Earth to know about it, I get that. However our minds are likely to run in a few specific directions, and if we're totally off, each side could say that and we might believe that much and not be fixated on it going forward.
The first thing we're going to think is NSA. I don't think anybody really believes nowadays that a top ten web site anywhere in the world is allowed to exist without helping the international spy apparatus in every way they possibly can. We've watched Wikipedia servers relocate to the national security zone of northern Virginia; we've heard uncompelling explanations of why readers' IPs are recorded in site logs. Though I'm not sure this legally works, I remember once Jimmy Wales said that you could ask him if he was subject to a National Security Letter and see if he still said no. I think it's time to ask that again, and to ask both sides: does Heilman's removal have something to do with mass surveillance or WMF's response to it?
But why stop there? I might as well also ask: does this have anything to do with the Wikivoyage controversy and the suit that was filed against Heilman for inviting some of their people to contribute to WMF projects? I understand if you can't talk about that, but if you can.... please do.
I am not very clued in, so I would suggest those with a better ear to the ground suggest more questions. Wnt (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have been accused of three things by fellow board members:
Giving staff unrealistic expectations regarding potential board decisions. I have always stated to staff that I only represented 10% of the board and have never given assurances that I could convince other trustees. I would be interested in hearing staff weigh in on this accusation but I consider it unfounded.
Releasing private board information. I have not made public, private board discussions during my time on the board. I have however pushed for greater transparency both within the WMF and with our communities. I have made myself informed by discussing issues with trusted staff and community members and used independent judgement.
Publishing the statement about my removal on Wikimedia-l. I was not asked by other board members at any time before its publication to produce a joint statement or to delay publishing the statement I had put together a few days prior. The first proposal to collaborate I believe was by myself here I was also not informed that the meeting was going to continue for the purpose of producing such a statement.
I have always acted in what I believe are the best interests of the movement and the WMF.
Speaking for myself, I am not seeing anything here remotely rising to the level of a removable offense for cause, as has been intimated on this page by Jimmy Wales. The Board seems to be stonewalling with their explanation; they should be expected to provide one. Carrite (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
That's also my concern. I don't carry a torch for Doc James, by any means, but saying it was for cause when cause was not necessary to remove a board member raised an eyebrow from the lawyer side of me. Doc's statement, if it adequately sets forth the matter, still makes me wonder what the "cause" was (if any), and it might be wise either to expand on the "cause" or strike it (though that seems like trying to unring a bell at this point). The confidentiality matter of course could rise to that level, but also if it was purely internal within WMF, as seems to be the case given that the community knew nothing about this for months, could be seen as an outside board member trying to do what he's there for. It's difficult to judge without the full facts, and I urge candor where possible. In any event, if the board allows this to be the only relatively specific word on the subject, James's supporters might argue that a community-selected board member was removed over a question of internal WMF politics. I'm not saying that is so, mind you, I'm just talking about appearances and arguments. YMMV.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Instead of reposting the entire thing here, I've analyzed the situation with the information as currently known here, on wikimedia-l. Although not in Florida, I am quite familiar through past positions with the legal obligations of trustees in California, and also consulted the board manual while writing this. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page11:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
There's a first statement by one of the board members, Dariusz Jemielniak aka Pundit, on the mailing list [5]. I still don't see any valid reason for the ditching of an elected member beyond far too much secrecy. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)11:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
@Doc James: This isn't very meaningful to me... unless I take it as a "not a no" on my first question. Transparency about what? Decisions about what? Wnt (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I see, however if he is not, he could say that he is not I suppose. Also, how can the U.S. government unilaterally issue a gag order on an American when Americans have Freedom of Speech? Seems mutually exclusive to me..."gag order" and "freedom of speech". Maybe the gag order is unconstitutional and Jimbo could fight it if he has been gagged. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Because Americans can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater? If a gag order is issued by a court, it's a courtesy notice that case is a "theater" and yelling "fire!" is not allowed. Many cases have gag orders to preserve rights of the parties involved. Even if he fought it, the hearing would not be public. And also note that the prosecutor also can't discuss it either contrary to other cases where they disclose the accusation. --DHeyward (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I have been trying to research this and it seems that most of these NSL gag orders are not issued by courts but are attached to NSLs which are issued by employees of the government; e.g. "There was no indication that a judge had reviewed or approved the letter, and it turned out that none had".[6] There are even references to non-employee government contractors issuing NSLs with gag orders "attached". Also of interest is the volume of these and how few have been challenged in court.
"To my knowledge, there’s three recipients who have ever challenged the NSL gag. That’s of the hundreds of thousands that have been issued,” said Melissa Goodman, an ACLU attorney"[7]
Finally, the Supreme Court has yet to deal with the legality of these gag orders and lower courts have had mixed decisions. I am confident that any U.S. Supreme Court would rule that a government employee gagging an American citizen, without going through a court process first, is an unconstitutional attack on freedom of speech. So, if Jimbo is subject to a NSL in relation to his Wikipedia activities, I hope for Wikipedia's sake that some of those millions is spent on challenging it all the way to the Supreme Court.Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
@DHeyward: "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a concept that has always been invoked for one and only one purpose: to put innocent people in jail for saying things that needed very badly to be said. It was used to make up a claim that constitutional rights in the U.S. are all enforced "except where there is a compelling state interest", where the compelling interest isn't really very compelling at all, except in the sense that the guy enforcing it has a gun to compel you. When fire is shouted in real theaters, no one is ever prosecuted - the story is always that someone else shouted it, I misheard, smelled smoke, something ... can't send people to jail for causing a real panic because no one knows what happened in a panic. The people who invoke this principle are censors, two-faced liars -- or those who, uncritically, have swallowed every word such liars have told them, when they should know better. Wnt (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
In any event, with the power of the NSA, it would be unwise of anyone getting one of these letters to openly discuss them, in text, in a forum where it is not easy to permanently remove things. Once on the internet, forever on the internet. They can be appealed, sadly to a secret court with a hand picked judge. but thats the only sane option. AlbinoFerret01:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Look, it's well known that people who wish to communicate without leaving an email trail have exploited gmail drafts and other electronic drop boxes (why, even General Petraeus and his girlfriend communicated that way). Like it or not, the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" poses an almost irresistible challenge and opportunity for people to exchange information in ways previously unforeseen and in codes not easily broken. I probably don't need to say much more about this—and I'm pretty sure Jimmy can't comment—but I think I'd rather have Wikipedia in a world of imperfect justice than live in a "perfect world" without it. And in any event, it's not so easy to swim upstream against an NSL. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The idea here, I think, is as a warrant canary. If you're not subject to any kind of secret warrant, when someone asks you if you are, you can answer "no". If you are, you can still legally answer "I can't discuss that". That doesn't illegally reveal information about the warrant, but it does indicate that there is one. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I overlooked this before. No, I am not subject to a National Security Letter. It is perfectly fair to ask me from time to time, and if I am, I will either break it and tell you that I am, or I will not answer at all if that's my only safe legal option.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The dangerous precedent is being set by the Board majority; there's no "bad faith" about it — they need to explain themselves as to why a community-elected member was summarily removed, which they are most certainly not doing. And do remember "Chicago Kelly's Law" (established Jan. 2016): "Any time you have to beg for the assumption of good faith is an indication that you probably do not deserve it." Carrite (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
"Good faith" is appropriate then subject haven't had a chance to explain themselves. If they simply decline to provide a proper explanation, then it can be only "blind faith".--Staberinde (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
At last, an official explanation
Such as it is...
James Heilman Removal FAQ
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Following the removal of James Heilman from the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees in late December 2015, a number of questions regarding this action arose on the mailing lists, wikis, and in private conversations with Trustees. The Board has compiled this list of answers to many of the most common questions.
The Board discussed the topic for several weeks, and the Chair called a special meeting to discuss the matter. During that meeting, after careful consideration, the Board voted to approve a resolution removing Heilman from his position, effective immediately.
Why did Board members believe they could no longer work with James?
A majority of Board members were of the opinion that James was unable or unwilling to maintain certain Trustee commitments around confidentiality, judgment, and discretion. This was not the result of any single action or opinion of James. This was not about a specific action, discussion, or disagreement over broader strategic issues. Many of the Trustees simply felt as though they had lost confidence in James’ ability to meet his obligations as a Trustee, and, in their opinion, James would not be able to regain that confidence.
Confidence regarding Trustee business is very important to the Board. We are often called on to consider sensitive information and make important decisions in our roles as Trustees. This may involve governance of the Wikimedia Foundation, for example through the Board Human Resources Committee, or guidance on movement issues, such as our work with the Affiliation Committee or the Funds Dissemination Committee. Loss in confidence in one Board member affects the full Board's ability to do its work.
In addition to the sensitive information we may handle, some processes or conversations need to be confidential while they are under consideration, so that we can have full, frank, and informed conversations. Even though we are committed to transparency about the outcomes of our decisions, it is important that we are confident we can trust each other as we make decisions together. There are processes and protocols to express dissent and disagreement that ensure full participation and consideration of challenging issues for all Board members.
The majority of the remaining Board members felt that they and James were not able to agree on a common path forward. Despite several weeks of efforts, many of us held the opinion that we could not move forward effectively with James on the Board. Ultimately, given that, we felt it was necessary to resolve this before it further hindered the Board’s ability to do its work, especially before two new members joined the Board.
What was the legal basis for the removal?
The Bylaws of the Wikimedia Foundation allow any Trustee to be removed, with or without cause, by a majority vote of the Trustees then in office. See Bylaws, Article IV, Section 7.
Although the Wikimedia Foundation's offices are now located in San Francisco, California, it was originally founded in St. Petersburg, Florida. We are a 501(c)(3) charity incorporated under the Florida nonprofit statutes.
Why did the Board take this action over the holidays?
The Board has been discussing and working with James on this issue for several weeks. Ultimately, we felt it was necessary to resolve before the new term for appointed Trustees. This unfortunately put us into the holiday season for many of our colleagues and community.
Did James have access to documents for Board decisionmaking?
Yes. James had - as all of us - access to all documents and information which he needed for his work and decision-making on the Board.
Is James still a welcome contributor in other movement roles?
James has proven himself as a Wikimedian in a variety of movement roles, outside the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. This decision is not about his work in other capacities. We look forward to his future contributions to the movement.
Why didn’t the Board share more information immediately?
In most circumstances, messages and statements on major decisions can be prepared in advance. Although we considered some potential draft announcements before last week’s meeting, it wasn’t possible to finalize any single statement. The meeting was to discuss the issue, including possible alternative outcomes. We wanted our discussion to be full and resolved, in order to inform our intended message.
The Board has a responsibility to maintain discretion to protect everyone involved and the Foundation. We initially wanted to work with James to agree on a mutual statement. As that appeared unlikely to happen in a timely fashion, we have been preparing this FAQ and carefully ensuring that we respond to questions where we can.
Ultimately, we have many responsibilities to uphold, high among them being our commitment to keeping the community informed. At the same time, we must balance that with our desire to do what we feel is in the best interests of the movement, and our wish to be respectful and fair to James.
Why isn’t the Board sharing more about what happened?
Transparency is one of the core values of the Wikimedia movement, but legally and ethically the Board is obligated to maintain a certain level of confidentiality to ensure frank conversations to reach the best decisions and to be respectful of others. We have an obligation to govern the Foundation on behalf of the public, in a way that requires some confidentiality and discretion. At the same time, we have to balance sharing information that enables the community to make informed decisions.
The majority of Trustees come from the community, so we understand the community’s strong desire to have full information about any given issue. Sometimes the balance of providing accurate information, without getting into details about sensitive specifics, means that we can’t fully satisfy everyone. At times, this can be frustrating for you, and can be challenging for us.
What is being done to fill the vacancy?
The Board is consulting with the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee for their thoughts. This is a top priority, and we have asked Foundation staff to provide whatever support and resources necessary to make the outcome a success.
Will the Board support and accept the next community-selected member?
We are fully committed to filling the open community-selected seat through a transparent process, and look forward to welcoming the next eligible community-selected Trustee. The Board currently has six members who were active in the community prior to their involvement on the Board. We anticipate that number will be seven once the vacancy left by this removal is filled. We are fully committed to helping the new community-selected Trustee be successful in their role.
Can James be a candidate for a community-selected seat again?
Due to the removal from the Board, James is not eligible to be a candidate for the Board until the 2017 community selection process. Under the Bylaws, the Board oversees the rules and procedures for the community-selection process. If the Board determines that a candidate does not meet eligibility criteria, it may decline to appoint the candidate to the Board.
Why are Trustees appointed?
The Wikimedia Foundation bylaws were written in accordance with Florida law and nonprofit governance best practices to serve the unique characteristics of our movement. The Wikimedia Foundation is not legally a "membership organization" — we work to serve the full public and all audiences. The Bylaws allow the community to select some seats in order to ensure the Board retains community experience, and serves the international, decentralized nature of the Wikimedia community.
Will there be an investigation?
The Board resolution was fully in compliance with Board Bylaws and legal requirements. We took this action as part of our obligation to effective governance of the Wikimedia Foundation. We are confident in the process and outcome. We will not conduct any further inquiries.
Why aren’t Board meetings public?
The Board often handles sensitive or confidential information as part of its governance obligations. Public meetings make it more difficult for the Board to function effectively as the Wikimedia Foundation’s governance body. This does not diminish our commitment to our values of transparency and accountability. We publish Board minutes and resolutions, and we openly and transparently maintain our governance standards and processes in the Board Handbook. The majority of our Trustees are nominated to the Board through transparent, open processes, and as such, are accountable to the Foundation and movement, including its various communities.
What are the Board’s next steps and priorities?
We are committed to a Board that represents the community and strive for the highest standards for governance. This is necessary to effectively make decisions on the Wikimedia Foundation’s support for the Wikimedia movement. As such, filling the open community-selected seat is a top priority. We intend to make an announcement on the roadmap for filling that seat in the coming week.
We want to improve our ability to communicate important information as quickly and clearly as possible. We will continue to have conversations among ourselves, and with you on how to progress in this area. We welcome your feedback and suggestions on the Board noticeboard.
We are also focused on supporting the community and staff to finalize the Wikimedia Foundation strategic plan. More information on the Wikimedia Foundation’s strategic plan development efforts will be coming throughout the month of January.
One of our next priorities is the success of the new Trustees who will join us over the coming weeks. We will welcome and support the new community Trustee who will step into the vacant community-selected seat, as well as the new appointed Trustees.
Well this is frustrating. Heilman is being publicly dismissed for the board not having "confidence in his discretion, judgment, and ability to maintain confidential Board information" ... yet he is not giving us the slightest hint of to whom the board is secretly selling us down the river! What's the point of going to the wall for transparency and then not delivering? Or did the bureaucrats in charge just know that he's inherently too honest to sit down with NSA or some tech company to negotiate a secret betrayal? Wnt (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me that he wanted to go public on some issues. The key phrase above is "...unwilling to maintain certain Trustee commitments around confidentiality, judgment, and discretion". So Doc James wanted greater transparency on certain aspects of the information he had, but the other board members did not want this. So I think the main think to take from this is that Doc James didn't do anything wrong, but just had too many disagreements over transparency then other board members. So Doc James's reputation should remain intact, and this doesn't look particularly favorable on the board members. Since generally speaking transparency is a good thing. --Jules(Mrjulesd)17:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I would disagree with this statement. It had in part to do with me wanting there to be public discussion on our long term strategy. I recommended we introduce it in a Signpost piece and stated that I would be happy to draft something. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@Doc James: were you denied access to documents concerning long term strategy, or asked to keep them secret, or both? I would support a board candidate who ran on an explicit platform of far greater transparency in strategy discussions, and I suspect a vast majority of the international community would too. 50.243.141.59 (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Documents concerning long term strategy were not kept from me in the end. Others were. And yes I was asked to keep the long term strategy documents secret after suggesting they be made more widely known and discussed. I have kept the documents secret. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Implying the WMF board has a secret long term strategy it doesn't want to tell its contributors about. Let conspiracy theories ensue... BethNaught (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
It is not completely secret. We now have a press release [8]. And we had a slide describing a "knowledge engine"[9] back in June. It however is still more opaque than it should be. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
User testing and research on current user flows to understand the search and discovery experience
Creation and maintenance of a dashboard of core metrics to use in product development
Research on search relevancy and the possibility of integrating open data sources
Open discussion with the Wikimedia community of volunteer editors
Creation of sample prototypes to showcase discovery possibilities
That doesn't sound too different from what the mw: page has. Under the circumstances though I might wonder what "user flows" refers to, and where that data goes. Why do they call them "deliverables" - who are they delivered to?
Where it gets perplexing is that the linked document sounds very open, links to a mailing list that is archived, links to a FAQ, etc. It sure doesn't seem like a nefarious project, apart from the probably paranoid issue of the deliverables and the probably parochial fear of mainstream media, even fossil mainstream media money from 1991. And there's the reference to Wikidata, and nothing involving Wikidata ever ends well. So where do we go from here? This sounds like nothing for anyone to get fired over. Wnt (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
"Deliverable" is standard software industry jargon for "goal", often with some kind of implied time frame for when the goal is supposed to be met. And yes, a lot of people make fun of the word's use because it's such stereotypical bureaucratese. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jimbo Wales: How do you account for the discrepancy of views on the "going public" aspect? And if, as it appears, the board has a mostly-secret long term strategy, how is encouraging more transparency about it inconsistent with the values of the Wikimedia movement, which you cited at the beginning of this drama as among your reasons to dismiss Doc James? BethNaught (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
That seems a reasonable reading. It remains for Dr. Heilman to explain the situation as best he is able. Layers of the onion are starting to fall away, slowly... Carrite (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
For me, the vibes coming from this FAQ feel sour, defeatist, and impotent. The vibes feel to me to be reflective of an entity which wishes to conform to a powerful global trend towards secrecy (confidentiality); and/or the other 8 Trustees were unable and/or unwilling to accept the personality and/or values of Heilman into their group. Whatever the reason, the failure to provide more details to the rest of us adds even more to the out of control movement towards what Peter Galison calls Removing (access to) Knowledge from the patronized and ill-informed masses/community/people. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
That's a whole lot of words to use to say nothing at all. Nothing in that statement clarifies anything, and I still have no idea from it why they decided on this course of action. "Lack of trust", alright, sure. That could mean he pushed for greater transparency and that people didn't like it, or that he threatened to unilaterally make it happen. Or, given the suspicions that he was being denied access to documents, it's also possible he was aware of something rotten and threatening to blow the whistle, but was shoved out before he could find proof. Is that necessarily what happened? No, but in the absence of specifics, imagination often tends to assume the worst. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it sounds more like James wanted more autonomy in deciding what was confidential and what was not. Doctors (at least in the U.S., not sure about Canada) take oaths of confidentiality and have laws to guarantee confidentiality yet in no way do those laws supersede obligations to the care of the patient. I find it difficult to believe (actually incredulous), that of the members, a doctor's "fellow Trustees came to the opinion that they lacked sufficient confidence in his discretion, judgment, and ability to maintain confidential Board information about the Wikimedia Foundation governance activities." There must be some cause that lead to this as the opinion would not be formed based on intuition. To view this as a doctor, (or lawyer or any job that has trust obligations), it seems the dispute would be whether "the Wikimedia Foundation governance activities" are healthy or sick and whether that observation changes the nature of the confidentiality agreement. It doesn't appear the Board is making the accusation that he failed to exercise discretion, good judgement or that he released confidential information. The Board appears to not have liked his decision to tweet his removal or to not resign, but that's after the fact - but might have also given insight to the boards opinion. I wonder if all of this could have been solved with a "whistleblower" procedure where concerns about governance activities could be raised or escalated without a blind obligation to confidentiality. Being a project built on openness and free information, I, personally would like to see "maintain confidential Board information about the Wikimedia Foundation governance activities" to "respecting and following the process by which Board information and Wikimedia Foundation governance activities are disclosed to the community and the public." The process is what seems important and is compatible with transparency. The process can include checkpoints what is and is not disclosed. An "opinion" regarding "lack of sufficient confidence" is a "cause" a guess but a pretty weakly worded one. I'm betting lawyers changed "the board came to the conclusion the he lacked discretion, judgment, and ability to maintain confidential Board information" to "fellow Trustees came to the opinion that they lacked sufficient confidence in his discretion, judgment, and ability to maintain confidential Board information." The first is what normal people write when they mean "cause", the latter is what lawyers write when they don't want to define "cause." --DHeyward (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Pete Forsyth's blog post might be relevant here. His concerns seem reasonable: we refuse hundreds of millions from advertisements because of the fear that the advertisers would control us, then it seems stupid to allow hundred thousand restricted grants to control us. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The Knight Foundation describes what we are doing slightly differently than we do "To advance new models for finding information by supporting stage one development of the Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia, a system for discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the Internet." [10]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Another minor technical question regards the statement about a community selected replacement. Does that mean there's going to be an election, and if so when, where, what are the rules for it? As much as I am minded to vote for Doc James no matter what they say, or barring that, to put my support for Incitatus, whom I was considering nominating, I suppose there's a chance that Doc James has a specific replacement in mind, after the style of Aung San Suu Kyi. I don't know if either replacement has a chance of being seated really, but as we see from that case, sometimes it can be a powerful gesture at least to have one. Wnt (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
WMF Audit Committee member's report to the community
This post to the Wikimedia-l by WMF audit committee member Ben Creasy offers a somewhat disturbing alternative perspective of the Dr. Heilman dismissal LINK.
Ben Creasy on Dr. Heilman
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi - my name isn't familiar to most of you,* but I'm another community member and I spoke to James when he visited San Francisco a couple months ago. James [Heilman] was an early mentor of mine when I was editing medical topics a number of years ago, so it was natural for us to meet up for coffee.
As a nonvoting community member of the WMF Audit Committee, I get to see some privileged information and talk to the auditors once a year. If I recall correctly, James thought I might have been receiving emails about some sort of financial situation. When I said no, he didn't reveal any information about what the situation was, but if I recall correctly he said that the board wasn't letting him view some documents.
I'm not a lawyer, but the general rule, mostly codified in state statutes, is that all board members have an equally absolute right to inspect and copy all books and records. See Martin G. McGuinn Jr. 1966 which notes that "a large number of courts have ... termed this right absolute and unqualified". So I told him his rights. We've never talked about it since. The announcement of his dismissal came as a huge shock to me, but I imagine James asserted his rights to some of the board's discomfort.
I did come away with a question mark about what the situation might be and I figured I would bring it up at the next audit meeting (which hasn't happened), but as a nonvoting member I'm really not in a position to rock the boat or demand sensitive information. I can make gentle suggestions and ask questions, but I'm really just there as a courtesy. I imagine this message may spell the end of my tenure.
Commenting on the three points:
1. Putting a few pieces together, it appears that much of the dispute centers around staff relationships. According to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:WMF_Transparency_Gap#Staff_communications_discouraged staff were forbidden to communicate to board members, which implies that there was also an unwritten rule strongly discouraging board members from reaching out to staff as well. Yeah, it's a convention to funnel all communication through the ED, but it's not necessarily a good one. In any case, the board needs to survey staff (quantitatively and qualitatively) to effectively review the Executive Director's performance. Further, this makes WMF sound like a fear-driven organization ("fear is the mind-killer"). The best employees - especially the developers - can easily find other jobs. In any case, we in the community are free to talk to staff all we - and they - want. It's hard to keep things secret in the wiki-world, even if the WMF seems to have done a pretty good job so far. If necessary, the community can organize a group to conduct surveys of willing employees and send it to the board, although I hope that won't be necessary.
2. As far as releasing private information, if anyone got something private, you might think I would have gotten something juicy sitting across a table from James, but I didn't. If the WMF had good evidence of disclosing private information, you'd think they would have revealed it by this point. Also, while there is a convention that "what happens in the boardroom stays in the boardroom", my understanding is that non-executive session discussions are not confidential. Which is not to suggest that James was describing board meetings to people.
3. While James has a great rebuttal, his announcement about his dismissal came after the fact, and it isn't worth cluttering up the more important substantive conversations with it any more.
Incidentally, on the topic of director democracy and its rarity among nonprofits, Dent (2014) concluded in the Delaware Journal of Corporate Law that "NPO boards are effectively self-perpetuating. If the director primacists are correct, the governance of NPOs should be a model of wise, long-term management effected by officers who are clearly subordinate to the board. In fact, however, a remarkable consensus of experts on NPOs agrees that their governance is generally abysmal, considerably worse than that of for-profit corporations". Just because a practice is common doesn't mean it is a best practice.
I've been editing Wikipedia since 2007 under a pseudonym but joined the Wikimedia Audit Committee as a nonvoting community volunteer a year and a half ago. I monitor lots of RSS feeds so I noticed a solicitation by the chair Stu West and submitted an application detailing my accounting and board experience.I monitor but don't really too involved in administrative aspects of Wikipedia. If you connect the dots to my username, please keep it to yourself even tho it's not a big secret.
2. Dent, George W., Corporate Governance Without Shareholders: A Cautionary Lesson from Non-Profit Organizations (2014). Delaware Journal of Corporate Law (DJCL), Vol. 39, No. 1, 2014; Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014-34. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2481646
Well the main thing I got from that, is that maybe Doc James wanted to communicate with staff members, but this was overruled by the board. It's a reasonable inference, although not confirmed in any way. It again fits in with "...confidence in his discretion, judgment, and ability to maintain confidential Board information" above. Any comments from Jimbo? --Jules(Mrjulesd)21:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
As a member of the board, Doc James had an absolute right to communicate with staff members if he believed it was necessary to fulfill his fiduciary duties. It's customary under most situations to inform management of communications board have with staff, but it's not at all required, and it's not atypical in the first 24 months of new management for board to have at least some direct conversations with staff that management is unaware of. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page20:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Why is the WMF Board telling the community things that aren't true?
I'm an old guy. Although I haven't talked about it much here, but I've spent a lot of time working with, against, and at cross purposes with government agencies, higher- and lower- level, especially boards of education and related organizations. The statement ("FAQ") released by the WMF Board of Trustees is typical of bureaucracy at its worst, marked by an exceptional lack of candor, and important instances of statements that are demonstrably false, at least in terms of the ordinary meaning of the English language.
I've read the WMF Bylaws regarding the Trustees with some care. When I read the Board statement, several things jumped out at me, and one in particular sent me back to review the bylaws. "Due to the removal from the Board, James is not eligible to be a candidate for the Board until the 2017 community selection process". There is, of course, no provision to that effect in Article IV of the Bylaws. There is no provision to that effect, so far as I can tell, in the laws of the State of Florida. There certainly are mechanisms which would enable the Board to reinstate Dr. Heilman. It is likely that the Board could reconsider its decision, although there may be time limits on this particular action. It certainly has the authority to rescind its decision. But, most important, there is no obstacle to simply reappointing Dr. Heilman to the position he vacated. The provision of the bylaws which requires the Board to appoint the next-highest vote-getter applies only when a trustee selected by the community is declared ineligible before taking office. In short, the Board's disqualification of Dr. Heilman is something they have made up out of whole cloth'.
Where does the Board claim to derive the authority top disqualify Dr. Heilman? What's going on here is subtle, and intellectually dishonest. There is a provision of Florida law which prohibits an elected director/trustee from being re-elected until the next annual meeting at which directors are to be elected. But Dr. Heilman was not an elected director. He ws appointed by the Board following a community selection process. This is not mere semantics. If the community election were binding, then Florida law provides that "If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or other organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter, unit, or grouping". Moreover, in this case, "Whenever a vacancy occurs with respect to a director elected by a class, chapter, unit, or group, the vacancy may be filled only by members of that class, chapter, unit, or group, or by a majority of the directors then in office elected by such class, chapter, unit, or group". In other words, if Dr. Heilman was an elected director, he may not be replaced by the Board, but only by the community which elected him or by the remaining community representatives.
In short, the Board is trying to have it both ways. For purposes of removing Dr. Heilman, he was not elected by the community, but appointed by the Board. For purposes of disqualifying him from being selected again by the community, however, he was elected by the community. (And, on the third hand, for keeping control of the replacement process, he was not elected, but appointed by the Board.
(There are other matters on which the Board appears to be dissembling a bit, but they require more stringent examination. The WMF Board sounds a great deal like a government agency which knows it doesn't really have the legal authority to keep things under wraps, but is doing its best buck-and-wing to divert people's attention.)
There may be some perfectly good reason for all of this. Having been on arbcom I've certainly been in situations where one set of things is private but clear, but to the outside world they look very different. But this does disturb me in that we're getting a sort of half-baked unclear reason. It largely boils down to "we didn't like what he was doing." We probably won't know much past this due to NDA, but this whole thing is very strange, and leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm certainly no fan of Doc James', I disagree with him on a wide variety of matters, and would not have voted for him in the election. To me, however, this lack of clarity is very concerning. I broadly agree with Seraphimblade. NativeForeignerTalk09:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
@NativeForeigner: - no NDA is involved here. Trustees have a fiduciary duty to the Foundation - essentially a duty to act in what in their best judgement is in the interests of the Foundation. Although that often involves keeping matters confidential, a good fiduciary for an organization will also recognize when a complete lack of expected transparency will do more damage to the organization than help. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page19:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've not kept upt with this very thoroughly. Regardless for numerous reasons many bodies keep internal affairs private, but in this particular case I don't think their mixed approach is doing them any good. NativeForeignerTalk20:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Note also that a trustee's fiduciary responsibility is an individual one. The WMF Board, in claiming that that Dr. Heilman's removal was "for cause", appears to be asserting that he has breached (or is likely to breach) his fiduciary reaponsibility by refusing to go along with the majority. That's appalling. If anybody's failure to carry out their fiduciary duties has been evidenced, it's the Board majority, by refusing to accept the legitimacy of dissenting views. It's disturbingly ironic that that a board which supposedly embodies "a diverse set of talents, experience, and competencies" has become insistent that differences of opinion on important matters cannot be tolerated. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing about his dismissal from the board had anything to do with him "refusing to go along with the majority". Nothing about his dismissal had anything to do with "refusing to accept the legitimacy of dissenting views". Nothing about his dismissael had anything to do with the notion that "differences of opinion on important matters cannot be tolerated".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Look. I think the question here is that if it wasn't for cause, and it wasn't for deviating from majority opinion, then what the heck could it be for? If it's not for cause it's for other reasons (and a vote by majority). If it is for cause, then the reason would be somewhat self evident. I don't contest that it was a good faith removal for good reasons but it just makes absolutely no sense to me from the outside, and seems dodgy and self-contradictory. NativeForeignerTalk11:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The continuing smoke screen, obfuscation, series of little attacks, and lack of a clear statement of why an elected member was thrown off the board casts the Board and even the Jimbo in a bad light. If there is nothing inappropriate behind the dismissal, then come clean and stop beating around the bush. Publish a sensible explanation and we can move on. This is unlikely to just fade from consciousness. Edison (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
In The News
The Examiner (URL is www.examiner.com/article/the-doctor-is-out-says-wmf-board) The doctor is out says WMF board
Please feel free to edit the above list as new news reports, comments on major blogs, etc. appear. It is a convenience to the reader to be able to find all coverage in one place. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Updated 20:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
You appear to have confused our policy for articles with our policy for user talk pages. If this was an article, citations would have to be to reliable sources. Because this is a user talk page, the only criteria is that a well-read site covered the WMF removing Doc James from the board. Even if the content of the pages are complete fabrications (a very real possibility in the case of Reddit) they would still be relevant and worth including in this list. We need to know what people are saying about this, because this has the potential of becoming a public relations disaster. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I just added four more entries. Anyone who has followed the links already may wish to follow the new ones. I found the comments by Witty to be especially interesting. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I've finally figured it out...
You can, too. Just read the Wikimedia-l mailing list closely, with an eye to internal politics. I've spelled out a reasonable reading of what happened elsewhere. The central issue involves the internal politics in San Francisco, opposition by some to the Executive Director's managerial style and content, and newbie on the Board Dr. Heilman "arrogantly" (his word) inserting himself into these internal politics, contravening a tradition of the Board not to engage in such contacts (with staffers being explicitly prohibited from such contact). The ED won a vote of confidence from the board, while Dr. Heilman was ostracized as a meddlesome, muckraking dissident. The majority tried to get him to resign, he declined, so they smoked him while they had a chance, before two new members came on the board who were not already predisposed to purging him off. There were also shenanigans over internal long term planning documents, which seem to have been initially denied him, but ultimately provided.
What the majority of the board didn't factor into their Machiavellian calculation is that James Heilman is our elected representative and that he has our continued support. If there is a new election, he should be re-elected. Carrite (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The board was structured to be populated by people who see and do things as Jimmy Wales likes them seen and done, and has a built-in method for expelling those who won't reliably do so. Nothing legally wrong with that, of course (and just dandy if you think Jimmy's a God-King), but he they really should have been much more clear about that while running "community elections" that give the impression that the WMF is something other than what it is. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 01:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
According to rfc2119, and the usual rules of grammar, the last sentence of User:Carrite only says that, following the opinion of Carrite, the voters have the moral duty to reelect James Heilman. If Carrite was so sure of "[James Heilman] has our continued support", he would have written: "he will be re-elected". Pldx1 (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I doubt he's running, actually, thus the phrasing. I don't doubt he would win in a landslide if he attempts to run again. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
IMHO bearing in mind catastrophically low trust that WMF employees show to they senior executives. I would think it is WMF board's fiduciary duty to contact key employees bypassing the senior executives and hear their concerns. If I were in the board I would insist that every board member interviewed key employees one-on-one without senior executives present to hear their side of the story. Currently 93% of the employees (people in the best position to tell) believe that the senior executives appointed by the board misappropriate the foundation's resources. The board members (the custodians of those resources) would breach their duties if they not investigate the accusations. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
@Elvey:— You will probably be interested in William Beutler's blog, The Wikipedian, and his outstanding summary article "The Crisis at New Montgomery Street," which ties this all together nicely. It seems like there was a revolt of top staffers at WMF against Executive Director Tretiakova's leadership, which Doc James Heilman became embroiled in. The matter went to the Board. The ED won a vote of confidence from the Board majority and Doc James got whacked before the new Board members came on in January, replacing two (anti-Heilman) old-timers. The next layer of the onion is a revelation of the exact nature of the perceived problem with the ED's leadership — and why she received a reprieve from the Board while our democratically-elected representative was smoked in a power play. Carrite (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
@Carrite: I also think I've figured it out, but my speculation leads to a different conclusion. I think this post clarifies things. The way I read it, around the eve of the Board's decision to 'give Lila a second chance' Doc James walked around and talked to staff, despite being told not to do so. He then advertised the Glassdoor staff survey, encouraged WMF staff to participate (check out the sudden November 2015 activity), and took the results to the next Board meeting in order to sway the vote against Lila. That's my interpretation of the exchange on Wikimedia-l which went like this: "I did bring staff concerns forwards to the board but I was simply reporting these concerns" (Heilmann) and the sour reply by Vrandecic. Frankly, if that's what happened, and if I was a sitting member, I would not have been happy either: Most of the 'Don't trust the CEO' comments apply to Sue, not to Lila, the amount of responses is by no means representative, and popularising a review as bad as this one has the potential to do real harm to the WMF. Cheers, --Pgallert (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
And an alternative reading: Instead of the Glassdoor survey Doc James used the WMF-internal survey, which apparently was recent as well as representative. Just then I don't understand what the fuzz is all about, and why this would be a reason to fire him. --Pgallert (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
No matter how unhappy they were with him for raising staff complaints or for contacting staff, the majority had no moral right whatsoever to purge off what they perceived as a pesky muckraking dissident. None at all. James Heilman is one of three elected representatives of the community and just because they could remove him under the bylaws does not mean that they should. Quite the contrary. Even if your least favorable reading of the tea leaves is on the mark, there is nothing remotely close to removing him for cause for the "sin" of having acted as the voice of disgruntled staff on the Board. It seems completely clear that the Heilman purge is related to the politics of the Executive Director's position and a staff revolt against her leadership, can we agree on that? Carrite (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Can we agree on that? -- Not necessarily, as multiple voices mentioned a sequence of actions, not just one. This just might have been the proverbial straw on the back of the camel. Now, entirely hypothetical, of course: If I sit on a Board and somewhat habitually twist data to manipulate decisions, what should the rest of the Board do? They would have to ignore me for the remainder of my term. Given the opportunity to kick me out entirely, would that not be the more honest reaction? --Pgallert (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Or maybe I'm just trying to scrabble around for a rational reason to remove Heilman while there actually was none. --Pgallert (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment I welcome this decision, based on his judgement in September 2015, when he got "involved (Search the page for cherry)". At the time i was like, wow how can he be a board member. prokaryotes (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@Prokaryotes: Can you explain what seems out of place about it? Unless you don't think community board members should edit Wikipedia at all, which is kind of paradoxical, since how can they be part of the community if they don't edit... ? Wnt (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Are you willing to state for the record that Doc James has been sent an email from the board which states the reason for his dismissal? the Subject line of that email? that it has identified to him each instance (including what, when and where) of private information that he is accused of having released? that he's free to disclose the content of the email? If some things keep it from being disclosable, do they include: private information about James? A board member? An executive? A staff member? An administrator? A regular editor? Long term strategy? Survey results? A document James was unable to view? A document James was able to view? Do you agree with or dispute User:Kevin Gorman's claim that "As a member of the board, Doc James had an absolute right to communicate with staff members if he believed it was necessary to fulfill his fiduciary duties?" Do you agree with or dispute Ben Creasy'sUser:Mrjulesd's(corrected attribution, The quote is above on this page.) speculation that "Doc James wanted to communicate with staff members, but this was overruled by the board?"--Elvey(t•c)00:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I am unaware of any such email, so most of your questions don't really apply. I'm not saying that Patricio didn't send him such an email - I doubt it, but I don't know. I not only agree with Kevin Gorman that "As a member of the board, Doc James had an absolute right to communicate with staff members if he believed it was necessary to fulfill his fiduciary duties?" I can say that I have never heard anyone say anything even remotely contrary to that. Board members are in communication with staff regularly. There are obviously important parameters and many ways that a Board member can communicate with staff inappropriately. It is absolutely false that the board ever forbid James from communicating appropriately with staff. It is also false - to my knowledge - that staff was ever generally forbidden from talking to the board. Indeed, there's a whistleblower policy that protects it. At the same time, in the staff->board direction as in the board->staff direction, there is appropriate and inappropriate communication. I'm happy to discuss further what constitutes appropriate or inappropriate communication, but it's not really controversial.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for that reply, and the additional answer below too. I see James writes below:Jimbo would you be willing to publicly share the email you sent me Dec 30th, 2015 as that was the clearest set of accusations I have received? I thus realize my questions to Jimbo Wales merit restatement:
Are you willing to state for the record that Doc James has been sent an email from you which states the reason for his dismissal, including the key specific misdeeds? the Subject line of that email? that it has identified to him each instance (including what, when and where) of private information that he is accused of having released? that he's free to disclose the content of the email? If some things keep it from being disclosable, do they include: private information about James? A board member? An executive? A staff member? An administrator? A regular editor? Long term strategy? Survey results? [One answered question and three questions that subsequent posts were responsive to removed.]--Elvey(t•c)19:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Elvey the email did not contain any specifics regarding what I had supposedly done. It mentions that I mislead staff but no who. It states I breached board confidentiality but now how. I would be interested in being provided these details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Elvey (talk·contribs), generally I post around here under my secret pseudonym, but since you mentioned my name... I didn't speculate anything of the sort. It is clear that James did communicate with staff members, and it is clear that this had something to do with his removal. I think communicating with staff is a good thing; there should be guidelines, but I was quite concerned when I read here that staff contact was forbidden. It's a common topic which Blue Avacado, a popular nonprofit magazine, covers pretty well at Should Staff Contact with the Board Be Restricted?. I've seen management which were comfortable with staff-board contact and those who were super-paranoid, and the paranoia is in my opinion unworkable: it breeds distrust all around.
What I did say is that 'all board members have an equally absolute right to inspect and copy all books and records. See Martin G. McGuinn Jr. 1966 which notes that "a large number of courts have ... termed this right absolute and unqualified"' and that 'I imagine James asserted his rights to some of the board's discomfort'. James has since said that some of the documents he had trouble accessing were revealed to him eventually and others were not. I've been in the same spot as James a few times when I served as a fiduciary for a few years on a couple (extremely different) boards. I've had to point out the statute to fellow board members and legal counsel and quite rarely ran into anyone who knew of it, even among my several Ivy-League educated lawyer friends. Even with the law on one's side, sometimes the delays, foot-dragging, and damaged relationshiops are frustrating to the point that you give up. In general, the academic literature on board governance and the trend in corporate governance is that boards need to be more inquisitive and demanding, not less. In fact, after Enron the audit committees of publicly-traded companies were given additional responsibilities and powers set out in SEC regulation, and many large nonprofits adopted some of the practices which came out like audits of internal control. Incidentally, lots of people think internal control is a financial thing which helps you prevent fraud, but that's not true. Internal control is just a word for the ability of an organization to effectively control itself so that it fulfills its duties to stakeholders. I have a copy of most of the COSO reports and can pontificate on the topic at length. Ultimately, however, the foundation of solid internal control is a tone at the top of uncompromising ethical standards, which was particularly pounded into me when I took auditing and accounting a few years ago in the post-Enron era. Which is the appointment of Arnnon is quite troubling. Ben Creasy (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry! I've corrected the attribution. You had posted (yes, as Ben Creasy) right after and I cut the wrong user name. Good points. I suppose I could add a question about your points. PS:Jimbo, please respond to the questions I asked in starting this section.--Elvey(t•c)19:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll throw in one more answer. As far as I know, James was not denied access to any documents that he had a right to see and there was no sense whatsoever that his dismissal had to do with him demanding documents which he had a right to and the board refused to share. If I'm wrong about that, I encourage James to share the details with me - surely there would be some chain of evidence illustrating the claim. I can certainly say that it was not something that I ever saw him raise to the board at all as being a problem. In my long experience with Wikimedia, I have never seen a case where there was any problem at all with board members having full access to all relevant materials. If James felt that things were being withheld from him, it's a shame if he never raised the issue in a board meeting or on the board mailing list, nor with me personally. I would suggest it is more likely to be something like his previous claim which was absolutely and conclusively refuted by the unanimous statement of all board members.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
So what documents would a board member not have a right to see? That looks like the crux of the issue right there. JbhTalk15:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Jimbo, Doc James would be violating his fiduciary duties and the law if he didn't contact staff to the extent he believed was necessary to fulfill his duties (or accept contact from staff.) On most non-profits I've participated in, it's generally accepted that it's a good thing to inform management when staff-board contact occurs, with the significant exception of situations where the purpose of that communication may have it's purpose undercut if management is informed. It's a bad thing if staff-board contact directly undermines management because a board member is trying to micromanage staff or is doing things like promising things they can't deliver, or trying to speak for the entire board when they aren't able to do so. However, multiple WMF staffers have explicitly come forward to say that his communication with them was NOT problematic. The fact that Ben and James have both suggested that James was denied access to documents he believed were necessary to fulfill his fiduciary duties is also problematic. If James believed (and remember, it's his belief that matters) that he needed access to any particular set of documents to fulfill his fiduciary duties, I can think of about two situations where he would not have the absolute right to access those documents. If James released confidential information (and I see no evidence that he did - for the love of god, he's been removed and he's still not leaking!,) unless there was a secondary contractual obligation to confidentiality, if he believed releasing that information was in the best interests of the Foundation, he was literally legally obligated to do so. The statements that have been released from the board so far are utterly lacking in credibility. Patricio's statement that one of the issues involving James was that agreement could not be agreed regarding confidentiality concerns with him is extremely troubling in note of Arnnon's appointment. Arnnon Geshuri has been explicitly been found by a federal judge to have allowed Google's board members to run wild with abandon and fail to follow their basic duties. Removing James over 'confidentiality concerns' and immediately replacing one of the appointed trustees with someone who was previously found to facilitate illegal anti-solicitation agreements and to allow a board to completely ignore their legal duties makes everything sound worse. On top of that, there are things in the board statements that are explicitly wrong. Since we've very clearly drawn the distinction between 'community elected' and 'community selected' trustees, it's just flat out not true to say that James cant stand for selection again until Wikimania 2017.
There is no way that this issue is going to go away unless and until WMF Board agrees to a third party review of both this incident, and governance practices more generally. You have me posting angry rants on your talk page. You have Tim Starling, the WMF's longest standing developer, calling bullshit on the board to the point of offering to help cover a board member's legal expenses if telling the truth lead to any legal expenses. You have multiple WMF employees and multiple long time community members completely unconvinced, and the fact that the board has explicitly not told the truth regarding at least some issues regarding James' removal at the same time that it's failed to due basic due diligence in appointing Arnnon means that this is just not something that is going away until the Board provides outside review and satisfactory answers. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page04:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The page https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Appointing_Arnnon_Geshuri_as_Board_Member says: Resolved, that Arnnon Geshuri is appointed to the Board of Trustees, for a term beginning on Jan 1, 2016 and continuing until December 31, 2017. Ten names are below, James Heilman among them and a date: 2015-12-09. Maybe James Heilman wasn't given a copy of this resolution before voting (and even after). Maybe, the whole resolution is a fake, shamefully fabricated by the San Francisco Conspiracy Corporation. Maybe James Heilman simply missed to Google search Arnnon Geshuri before the vote, despite the fact this was a part of his fiduciary duty and obligation of due diligence. Occam, maybe ?Pldx1 (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
It's pretty common for the vetting of non-profit board members to be performed by a subcommittee of the board, and for them to bring their recommendations before the entire board afterwards. Although each board member should be doing further due diligence, it's pretty common for board members - especially new board members - to accept the nominations o the subcommittee that is suggesting new trustees without putting much investigation in to it themselves. That's not a good thing, but it's 100% clear that the WMF board as a whole failed their obligations regarding Arnnon. That does not change a single thing about my post above, and unless WMF wants to hemorrhage both social capital AND talented staff, these points must be addressed. This situation represents one possible failure state for Wikimedia if it is not addressed. As founder of the projects and holder of the founder seat on the board, @Jimbo Wales:, you must absolutely take action to correct this situation. Something is really fucked up when staff not only felt the need to directly approach a board member with their concerns, but actually literally have been approaching me within the last couple weeks hoping I can fix internal problems that they feel they cannot. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page16:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
"...staff not only felt the need to directly approach a board member with their concerns, but actually literally have been approaching me within the last couple weeks hoping I can fix internal problems that they feel they cannot" Kevin is this statement really true? Why on earth are they approaching you? We've all been lead to believe that you were only a poorly underpaid intern for a very short period hundreds of years ago. Is that not the case? While I'm sure Mr Wales is greatly appreciating your perception and advice here - I can't help wondering if you are not getting a little carried away with your own importance. Giano(talk)18:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Giano, in this particular case I'm perfectly willing to believe Kevin and suggest you give him the benefit of the doubt. I can testify—and I'm sure you can as well—that when you acquire a reputation as a critic of some aspect of Wikipedia, complete strangers do email you with their concerns, and as I understand it Kevin has been very vocal on the off-wiki mailing lists about this so it wouldn't surprise me to see people approaching him with their problems regarding this incident. ‑ Iridescent18:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Iridescent, I have no difficulty in believing that Kevin is very vocal off-wiki. Regarding the whole topic of this debate: Kevin and I are almost on the same side. I have no problems believing that where the board and Foundation are concerned there is probably something very nasty on the woodshed - I do have a problem though with Kevin as Seth Starkadder. Giano(talk)19:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Since Iridescent has responded I'm not going to delete your comments Giano, but I'd remind everyone present that Jimmy has previously invited people to delete Giano's comments on sight. I was an unpaid intern or four or five months, with a desk at 149 New Montgomery street. I know almost all staff who were there then, as well as some later additions from my grants contract and WiRship at UCB - plus general socialization. So yes, I'm being 100% serious in saying that. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page21:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Not to worry, you are rather prone to mistakes Kevin so apology accepted. We do, however, both share a desire to see a greater transparency in governance here - I mean proper governance, not the Arbcom and those who foolishly believe that the community placed them in their exalted positions. The Foundation takes money from the public; it's only correct that its doing are also public, and whiter than white. Giano(talk)18:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Contrarian Viewpoint, or, Maybe the sky isn't falling
Concepts from out here in the real world:
There is, of course, no conceptual / philosophical difference between the en-wiki Arbitration Committee keeping its deliberations private and the WMF Board keeping its deliberations private. Supporting the former whilst criticizing the latter is not logically consistent and smacks of hypocrisy.
Community: "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means." Inigo Montoya. The Washington Post analysis notes "nearly 100,000 volunteers from around the world actively contribute content " so 5167 votes is barely significant. As the Post notes "much of this tension goes unnoticed by the vast majority of Wikipedia’s volunteer editors, who are more interested in the actual task of writing encyclopedia articles."
En-wiki routinely tolerates misanthropy as long "the cause is just." Anyone who believes in treating all editors respectfully and has had the misfortune to encounter Doc James on-wiki knows he does not play well with others who do not hew to a narrow worldview, so his inability to get along on a real world collaborative board should not be a surprise -- that it is says far more about en-wiki culture than it does about the board. I understand I'm not supposed to say that per "grave dancing," but if haranguing JW over this for three weeks is okay, pointing out the obvious should be okay, too.
Speaking of JW, repeatedly asking the same question with different words is illogical and boring. Q: Jimbo, can you tell us why the Board removed Doc James? A: No. Q: Jimbo, can you tell us why Doc James was removed by the board? -- you're not going to get a different answer, folks. NE Ent16:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, NE Ent, we weren't given any answer at all by JW about the removal, only his objections to Dr. Heilman's representation of the situation and to other various theories. What happened and why has had to be deduced, but we know by now what has gone on. Whether you like Dr. Heilman or not, whether he is a saint or a prick when dealing with people who disagree with him about article content, is pretty much irrelevant. The fact is that he was our elected representative to the Board and he was removed by a majority group, almost all of whom were not our elected representatives to the Board. This should not stand unless some sort of cause can be demonstrated. JW hasn't delivered the first snippet of serious evidence as to why the nuclear option was necessary in this case. We of the volunteer community should make sure that if Dr. Heilman still has a taste for participation on the Board that he is given that opportunity in the next election. These sort of Machiavellian shenanigans have to be fought at every point. They are undemocratic, they are elitist, they invite corruption, and they stink. Carrite (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the disagreement goes down to the differences in two points of view regarding the relations between WMF and the community. One is that there is a large informal movement created by J. Wales that wants to collect the knowledge of the world and give it to people. The informal movement creates a formal service organization as legal front-end, that is named WMF. The organization pays for the servers, collects donations, etc. but completely responsible and accountable to the much broader movement aka "the community". The other point of view is that there is a private entity created by J. Wales named WMF. The entity can do whatever is pleased it. If any individuals want to contribute their voluntary work or their money to support WMF they are obviously welcome, but it is not imply any control or accountability of WMF to those individuals. Thus, it is a silly to request explanations of the WMF board changes or furniture expenses from Wikipedia editors as a Facebook user requesting explanations from Mark Zuckerberg over Facebook financials. Legally, of course the second point of view is correct. Legally "the community" simply do not exist and WMF is free in their grace to either accept some editors to the board or eject them. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Alex, there is also a possible third point of view. The old fashioned Honor system, defined by us as "a philosophical way of running a variety of endeavors based on trust, honor, and honesty". Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Nocturmal, I agree that WMF must be following some third point of view. If they feel accountable to "the community", then they could not have possibly provided a patented bullshit as the explanation of removing Dr. James. If they do not feel accountable then why have they actually bothered to provide any explanation at all? Because we can, would be quite sufficient. Thus, they must follow a third way, I am just not sure that "based on trust, honor, and honesty" is the right description for that POV Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Alex, I agree 100% with your "bullshit" definition of the explanation. However, I think we need to remember that history shows that @Jimbo Wales: and most of the WMF have had a POV "based on trust, honor, and honesty". But, and its a big "but", my past work experience shows me that the overall board's POV is in the process of being hijacked by the newly imported Modus operandi of the 2 google boys and I'll show you exactly how and when they did/are doing it, but I'll need to start a new heading as this is really important info, I think. Nocturnalnow (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Can I ask a simple question to @Jimbo Wales:? Is in your opinion any difference between the relations of Facebook with the community of their users and the relations of WMF with the community of wikieditors? Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
WMF board's POV is being hijacked
Step 1: Denny Vrandecic, of Google, tells us how the removal of Doc began. Its important to notice Freudian slips while also entertaining (not assuming, just entertaining) the idea that manipulation is afoot: "I rewrote the mail because I had concerns about James' being on the Board , as I had lost my trust in him." At the next executive session I raised this issue to the whole Board.
Now I want to say that Denny and Arnnon are likely not bad people, but are very likely to employ the type of wordsmithing and selective disclosure/transparency which are common and maybe even necessary in the corporate world and politics of most boards of directors. So, step 1 was to get rid of the guy who would be the biggest obstacle to running the board the way corporate "sharks" are used to running them.
Step 2: Bring in an ally. Arnnon, formerly of google. Arnnon's Modus operandi is obvious in 2 ways. Firstly, he did not give Jimbo and the other trustees a full disclosure of the extent of his bad societal behavior when at google. Secondly his mentality can be clearly seen in his own words: "Eric, On this specific case, the sourcer who contacted this Apple employee should not have and will be terminated within the hour. We are scrubbing the sourcer’s records to ensure she did not contact anyone else. In general, we have a very clear ‘do not call’ policy (attached) that is given to every staffing professional and I reiterate this message in ongoing communications and staffing meetings. Unfortunately, every six months or so someone makes an error in judgment, and for this type of violation we terminate their relationship with Google. Please extend my apologies as appropriate to Steve Jobs. This was an isolated incident and we will be very careful to make sure this does not happen again. Thanks, Arnnon"
which if you read carefully is 100% self serving. Also, it screams typical corporate non-logic by saying that "every six months or so" that kind of mistake happens while simultaneously promising "to make sure this does not happen again". Also, the complete absence of empathy for the terminated employee is amplified by refering to what she did as simply an "error in judgment".
So, I'm thinking that hopefully Jimbo and others of WMF will wake up to what is happening and quickly correct these recent errors in judgment that they have made. Nocturnalnow (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Wow, I don't think I have seen such a clear example of how NOT to "assume good faith" in a long time. "So, step 1 was to get rid of the guy who would be the biggest obstacle to running the board the way corporate 'sharks' are used to running them." That's total and complete nonsense which it is absolutely possible [update: I meant to write 'impossible'] to reach from the comment that Denny made. The removal of Doc came when many board members decided that they could not trust him. If you want to know why, notice how he spread a claim about why he was removed that I got EVERY SINGLE ONE of the board members - me, community members, long time members, to tell you was false. That is exactly the kind of behavior that led us to believe that he was not trustworthy. I don't trust him, the board didn't trust him, and he was not a proper person for a board where honesty and transparency are so incredibly important. It's as simple as that. Dreaming up some kind of wild "Google conspiracy theory" is silly.
Let me go one step further James voted in favor of Arnnon. The two things are entirely and completely unrelated. Denny is a community member, and very very far from being a "corporate shark". You do know that he works as a researcher, right? That he has a PhD in computer science? That he's a longstanding community member with an excellent reputation who was elected by the community?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Good points. Maybe you are correct, in every way, but maybe you are so close to the issues that objectivity is less than you think? e.g., Should not Arnnon have shared with the board, or at least you, all of the details of the already published accounts/emails of his extensive involvement in the antitrust scandal? After all, a 435 million dollar settlement for wrongdoing is a really big deal that you should have been told all the details of before he accepted the position, at least I think so. Are you really ok with him not sharing with you those details? Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that trustees primarily, perhaps exclusively, must be trusted by the people or the organization they are working for, in this case, the community/movement. They/you are not trustees for each other, that would be a club.
I also think that Denny, because he works for Google research and Google is largely a resource for getting information, has an obvious Conflict of Interest when acting as a trustee for another resource for getting information, i.e. Wikipedia. However, since the community elected him, so be it. More importantly though, I would really like to get your thoughts regarding my question about whether you are ok with Arnnon not sharing the antitrust details with you before he was made trustee? Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
There was no wrongdoing as you falsely claim. In fact he did exactly what everybody in his position would do, to fire the person responsible. And he was the guy who had to make this decision. Ofc, they could have ignored Steve Job's request, or not make such an agreement in the first place. prokaryotes (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
JW: "Let me go one step further". He is "is a community member ... far from being a "corporate shark" ... a researcher ... has a PhD ... a longstanding community member ... excellent reputation ... elected by the community?" -- That's a leap not a step further! Proves that he would qualify as a WMF board member! Now who were we talking about again? -DePiep (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Enough already. The WMF will do what the WMF will do, and there's not a damn thing us peons can do about that (other than -- as trustee Jan-Bart has recommended to those who disagree with WMF's actions -- leave the project). You're just wasting time and precious electrons. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
As previously stated I support an independent review. Jimbo would you be willing to publicly share the email you sent me Dec 30th, 2015 as that was the clearest set of accusations I have received? My reply to that email is here. We obviously have different perspectives on what occurred and why. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I think this request deserves at least a yes or no. Doc: quite a few of us have had "that email addendum" from Jimmy chastising anyone for even thinking about publishing an email where he says something that doesn't quite line up with public statements. It's silly, and you shouldn't feel obliged to keep it hidden if it clarifies the real series of events. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 17:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes that email would clarify what JW has accused me of. The more interesting documents would be the application and associated documents surrounding the Knight grant that were requested Jan 8th. Not sure if those have been provided yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I guess Jimmy's going to let the archive bot answer for him again. Doc James, please interpret that as a "sure, I don't care" and add it to your page, because it's just going to end up happening to the next person if you don't. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 02:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Trustees are not elected with the requirement they must be trusted by each other, they are elected because they are trusted by the organization for which they are trustees; in this case the broad population of the Wikipedia community. In fact, it is preferable that the trustees are not all buddy buddy so that if something untoward pops up, there will be at least one or two of the trustees to blow the whistle. Doc James was fired under the false and contrary illusion that trustees must trust each other. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
With respect; I think what you are saying is dead wrong. "Fidiciary duty" is related to managing money and assets, and the generalized and poorly substantiated (by very weak examples) accusations of "untrustworthy" tossed at Doc James have not even implied that he misused Wikipedia's money or assets in any way. Also, the statement that "each trustee (is required) to independently determine if each other trustee can be trusted" is totally bogus, imo. Please provide a source for that assertion if there is one. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
What? Now, you want sources, after making your unsourced statement after unsourced statement on this page? Your statements are just uninformed about boards and fiduciary obligation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
With respect, I propose that anyone interested in whether or not its required that trustees on a board of a non-profit/charity trust each other can easily find that out for themselves by reading Trustee. What is required, is that wetrust the trustees.
The bottom line is that the organization as a whole, in this case the community at large, elects or appoints trustees that they trust to manage the organization, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Jimbo, was the WMF board fully aware of Arnnon Geshuri's central role in a major anticompetitive scandal at Google when they approved his appointment? In 2010, the Justice Department shut down the illegal collusion between Google and five other Silicon Valley corporations. Geshuri helped manage that collusion for Google. A class action lawsuit forced those companies to pay $415 million in compensation to 64,000 employees whose careers were damaged by the conspiracy that Geshuri was part of. Geshuri was directly involved in the ugly and humiliating termination of a woman who did not comply with the illegal scheme. He was chastised by federal judge Lucy Koh for attempting to pull Facebook into the conspiracy, and threatening retaliation if they didn't. Details can be found at User:Cullen328/Arnnon Geshuri. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I cannot speak for the entire board. As for myself, I was aware (from googling him and reading news reports) that he had a small part in the overall situation when he was told by Eric Schmidt that Google had a policy of not recruiting from Apple, and that a recruiter had done it, and that the recruiter should be fired, and he agreed to do so. As for your other allegations, that he "helped manage that collusion", the part about some "ugly and humiliating" termination, and chastisement by a Federal Judge, I don't (yet) know anything about that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Even if none of those details hold up, it is still a very poor substitute for a community elected leader who is accused only of being too open about planning. We have traded a coon for a fox here, and now we are on the menu. Wnt (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Wnt, did you read any of what I've written about this. James was not accused of being too open about planning. That had absolutely nothing to do with his dismissal from the board. I am a very strong advocate of the community, of transparency, and I would be the first to object, publicly and loudly, if the board had any intention of restricting open community discussion of planning for the future and deeply integrated community participation in planning. Don't believe the false narrative.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Up to now no reason whatsoever was given by any of the nay-sayers, just trust me, and, to put it simple: I don't. Tons of weaselling, content-less buzzwords and whole sentences with no content at all, so nobody knows the reasons, why one of the three properly vetted members was ditched by less legitimate, members. Here it is again in regard of this fishy trustee: He was involved in scandal, that was completely unacceptable, and the very opposite of everything the wikiverse should stand for. There has to be a massive Saul/Paul event in his live to make him trustee material. Can you elaborate about his complete change in attitude, that would justify his appointment? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)18:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jimbo Wales: The problem is he's essentially debating an empty seat. "multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee conduct, responsibilities, and confidentiality" on which you failed to reach a "common understanding" ... that tells me nothing. His version appears to be that he was accused of talking to staff (without claiming he knew how the vote would go), and of releasing private information of some sort (which he denies though he said he pushed for transparency). The third thing about his post-vote announcement is beneath discussion - you don't hold a vote to throw someone off the board unless you know how it's going to go. His version is what I was reflecting above; you can say that's not true, but I don't know if that's because of some minor error in my interpretation or something major.
Now my mind is not made up - I could be convinced that Doc James had to go, given some unlikely scenarios at the back of my mind. But you're in a credibility hole right now, because you've (a) annulled an election, (b) surprised us with two trustee appointments unexpectedly, (c) increased corporate background by doing so at a time when there is already too much, (d) in the background of already having issues with a super-hierarchical power structure - superprotect, suppression, an executive director I don't know why you need to have at all, etc. (e) have serious deficits in existing privacy policies regarding third parties and use of information for research, (f) have ongoing development at Wikidata and elsewhere that seems more directed toward making API information available for third-party companies than for development within Wikipedia. I am not saying that you are lying to us per se, but I think you may be insufficiently wary of corporate influence and associated ways of thinking. Wikipedia got stung before in a purely amateur-hour operation with the private Gibraltarpedia DNS lookups ... I shudder to think what the pros can think of. Wnt (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Plenty of references to reliable sources documenting what I said can be found in the essay about Geshuri that I linked to above. I am concerned that it seems like I was able to learn more about Geshuri's problematic involvement in a major scandal in a couple of hours on my smart phone than you were when completing your "due diligence" with all the resources at your disposal. I encourage you and anyone else here to familiarize yourself with the facts, and reconsider this ill-advised board appointment. Cullen328Let's discuss it16:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I've been working on the Arnnon Geshuri BLP, thus, learning a lot about him. He seems to be, in a great way, really dedicated to Tesla's future and making it a great company in a lot of ways. I particularly like his "kid in a candy store" metaphor in this CBS video. His background and public personality come across to me as consistent with a hard driving "whatever it takes" corporate executive. If that's someone who is useful in some way for WMF or not, I am not knowledgeable enough about WMF to say. But I can guarandamnteeya that the future of Tesla Motors will come first in his time and importance priorities, ahead of WMF, which should not be a surprise to anybody, and which I would bet he would readily admit himself...you can see his excitement for Tesla in the CBS video.
@Jimbo Wales: I don't know what your understanding was at the time you voted to appoint Geshuri. But when you say "I was aware" but imply (and this is supported by what Dariusz wrote) that other board members were not aware, it is disturbing. This information should have been shared with the other members to inform their vote. Your characterization is not correct. As you can see from the documents, he wrote, "In general, we have a very clear ‘do not call’ policy (attached) that is given to every staffing professional and I reiterate this message in ongoing communications and staffing meetings. Unfortunately, every six months or so someone makes an error in judgment, and for this type of violation we terminate their relationship with Google." This means it was not a reaction to Schmidt suddenly informing him of this do-not-contact policy ("he was told by Eric Schmidt"). Nor was Geshuri's role "a small part". It was a long-term policy that Geshuri had been enforcing. Schmidt apparently didn't even say (at least not in the email chain) that the recruiter should be fired, just that it should be stopped. That was Geshuri's way of enforcing the illegal and unethical deal. Mattflaschen - Talk07:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
These are about our new trustee
Jimbo, can you please expand your explanation above concerning why he is suitable to be a trustee in light of the info below?
Nocturnalnow (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Sure, I'll offer my views when the time is right. At the moment, I'm waiting for a staff report and some board discussion to take place. It would be inappropriate for me to offer a public opinion at this early stage.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
"In response, Google's director of staffing, Arnnon Geshuri, wrote that the employee who contacted the Apple worker would be "terminated within the hour.""
"What happened next is just one of many specific examples of how people’s lives were impacted by the Techtopus wage-theft cartel that was taken down by the Department of Justice antitrust division, and is currently being litigated in a landmark class action lawsuit.
The Google recruiter’s email—in which she identified herself as “a Recruiter for the ‘Google.com Engineering’ team formerly known as the ‘Site Reliability Engineering’ team”— was sent out on the morning of March 7, 2007.
That evening, Steve Jobs forwarded her email to Eric Schmidt with this note:
"Eric, I would be very pleased if your recruiting department would stop doing this. Thanks, Steve"
The next day, March 8, Schmidt sent a hurried email to Google’s top HR people:
"I believe we have a policy of no recruiting from Apple and this is a direct inbound request. Can you get this stopped and let me know why this is happening? I will need to send a response back to Apple quickly so please let me know as soon as you can. Thanks Eric"
Google’s Senior Staffing Strategist Arnnon Geshuri (now at Tesla) replied almost immediately, assuring Schmidt that the recruiter would be fired, and that Google HR did all it could to make sure that its recruiters were aware of the illegal non-solicitation agreements. The language is brutal, and as you’ll see, there’s an almost sadistic, military glee on all sides with the way in which the Google recruiter is “terminated”:
"Eric, On this specific case, the sourcer who contacted this Apple employee should not have and will be terminated within the hour. We are scrubbing the sourcer’s records to ensure she did not contact anyone else. In general, we have a very clear ‘do not call’ policy (attached) that is given to every staffing professional and I reiterate this message in ongoing communications and staffing meetings. Unfortunately, every six months or so someone makes an error in judgment, and for this type of violation we terminate their relationship with Google. Please extend my apologies as appropriate to Steve Jobs. This was an isolated incident and we will be very careful to make sure this does not happen again. Thanks, Arnnon"
Apologizing and groveling to Steve Jobs is a recurring theme throughout these court dockets... as is the total disregard for all of the not-Steve Jobs names whose lives and fates are so casually dispatched with, like henchmen in a Hollywood film. Geshuri’s decision to “terminate within the hour” the recruiter was enthusiastically seconded by Google’s VP for Human Resources, Shona Brown:
"Arnnon-Appropriate response. Please make a public example of this termination within the group. Please also make it a very strong part of new hire training for the group. I want it clear that we have a zero-tolerance policy for violating our policies. This should (hopefully) prevent future occurrences."
But in the back-and-forth involving this illegal arrangement, nothing summed up the contempt the executives in the wage-theft cartel had for those lower down than Steve Jobs’ response to this episode, in an email that was unsealed last week by Federal Judge Lucy Koh. (That email is embedded below, along with the other emails in the thread.)/ "
Geshuri "oversaw all aspects of recruitment" at Google.
Google class action lawsuit re: our Trustee
The publicly available claim, published by the D&O DIARY journal, accuses our trustee on page 5, pdf page 8 of 72, item numbered 14.
Our trustee is accused of;
being a "conduit" in "implementing the illegal scheme" as well as
"He( our trustee ) created the formal "Do Not Call" list." and
"enforced the agreement".
Also, an unsettled shareholder law suit filed March 15, 2015, names our trustee as a defendant and accuses our trustee on page 13, pdf page 14 of 72, item numbered 38.
Accusations against our trustee in this suit are:
"Defendant Arnnon Geshuri (“Geshuri”) has served as Google’s Director of Recruiting at all times relevant to this lawsuit. Defendant Geshuri was involved in developing and perpetuating the illegal collusive scheme alleged herein. Defendant Geshuri knowingly, recklessly, or with gross negligence: (i) oversaw the creation of the protocols governing anticompetitive hiring agreements between Google and other companies; (ii) caused or allowed Google to enter into such illegal anticompetitive agreements; (iii) allowed Defendants Page, Brin, and Schmidt to dominate and control the Google Board of Directors with little or no effective oversight; and (iv) failed to implement adequate internal controls to ensure that Google complied with federal laws and regulations."
additional information
All Board defendants ....did not do due diligence ...to preserve their position on the Board , their professional relationships, and their compensation and power pdf [11] ("Board" in regards to the PDF, not WMF) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The new appointment seems like someone who would use the power accorded to Board members for their own interests, especially given the irrefutable evidence pointing towards their involvement in a corrupt scheme. Esquivaliencet01:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
...The Washington Post.... "Geshuri was associated with the high profile “do-not-poach” hiring controversy in 2010 when he was an executive... Department of Justice later pursued an antitrust class action lawsuit" [12]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Great record
Even though above some editors comment his actions in regards to what is now known as the High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, company success stories he helped to shape through his job as a chief recruiter (Google and Tesla) speak for themself. That he fired someone in response to Job's email, is really a non issue, a common practise i would assume. I rather have someone like him at the Board of Trustees then someone who regularly involves himself in edit conflicts and on the administration boards, or is disputed among his/her peers. His addition appears to improve Wikipedia on the executive level. Wikipedia wants to thrive in the next 15 years, and someone so close to successful visionaries like Elon Musk might bring the right ideas to the table, who else? The best people work at Tesla (and Google), and this is exactly what Wikipedia needs. Great that he agreed to join! And btw, don't kid yourself if Wikipedia wants to improve it needs to establish regulars who get paid. prokaryotes (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
"Smack, smack!" (as we hear loud kissing- up noises):"company success stories he helped to shape." "I rather have someone like him at the Board of Trustees," "The best people work at Tesla (and Google),"" bring the right ideas to the table, who else," "successful visonaries.") Edison (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales, from what you say above, you obviously did not have full disclosure regarding the extent of Arnnon's involvement in the anti-competitive scandal that cost the shareholders of several companies, including Google, 415 million dollars, and within which Arnnon terminated an employee within an hour for not adhering to the illegal policy. Since you did not have full disclosure, are you able to terminate him within an hour? That would seem to be a fair "good for the goose is good for the gander" approach maybe. Since you have not done this yet, then maybe either you can not or do not want to do this. What are your and/or the board's options? Also, what are our(the rest of the community) options if we wish to rescind the appointment? Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
A) It was his job to hire and presumably to fire staff. B) There was no wrong doing in firing someone. C) The WMF can remove WMF members as it pleases, and this has already been answered above. Nothing to see here, except a few editors who use this page like it were a forum, continuously pushing, not dropping the stick. prokaryotes (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
No wrongdoing, Prokaryotes? Really? Are you saying that the Justice Department shut down this operation for no wrondoing? That that the companies settled a civil lawsuit for $415 million even though there was no wrongdoing? That defies logic. Cullen328Let's discuss it01:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
All i read was that he fired someone, which appears to be part of his job. Did the case concluded that he was responsible for the agreement, that he was behind it? I did not find anything remotely related to that in the coverage. The notion was only brought up here on the talk page. From the case data, "...Focusing on the network of connections around former Apple CEO Steve Jobs, the Complaint alleges "an interconnected web of express agreements, each with the active involvement and participation of a company under the control of Steve Jobs...and/or a company that shared at least one member of Apple's board of directors." The alleged intent of this conspiracy was "to reduce employee compensation and mobility through eliminating competition for skilled labor." And Google even had a limited definition of cold calls, "... Google's own definition of cold calling, which doesn't necessarily eliminate recruiting by letter or email but only the actual process of calling on the telephone". prokaryotes (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The main problem with Geshuri is that he was one of the people responsible for Google loosing $400+ millions. Google has deep pockets and can afford such a loss, but we do not. According to what I read he was a key figure of implementing an illegal questionably legal scheme and then fired an employee involved in this scheme for not following this scheme. That was a sure case to test the legality of the scheme in the court of law and in the court of public oipinion and the testing was not pretty. That shows Mr. Geshuri as quite a reckless person, hardly suitable for a board of such charity as WMF. On the other hand Tesla obviously aware of the incident and still finds Geshury suitable for his position, obviously they do know something we do not. HR good for Tesla is probably good for WMF as well and the board has as i understand bad HR problems Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Part of the problem with these concerns is that they are from some seven years ago and hind-sight is 20-20, and they apparently occurred in a wild-west phase of an industry (and 400 millions among them all is not really that much). Those who have been around awhile have seen boom-bust in this industry often on the backs of idea people, and the loss of idea people - who literally (and I mean literally) wind up standing on the street in milling crowds - as the doors are unceremoniously shut. Now, yes, he was a key figure in implementing his bosses' and the entire industries' recruitment schemes, presumably he's learned something from that about proper recruitment. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
No matter the time this occurred his actions show a major failing of moral character which incompatible with being a trustee of a charitable institution, particularly one where a strong moral character is required to separate any actual or perceived conflict of interest with his primary employer.
That said this is all pretty much a waste of text space - maybe the WMF would change its mind with mainstream press criticism or if someone with standing to sue made a complaint. There might even be some basis for such a suit, depending on how the "elections" were presented to the community, wherein even if the WMF is not a membership organization they may be prevented from terminating a board member represented as being elected by the community under some form of promissory estoppel. I am not a lawyer and I am even less familiar with Florida law than even that would imply. JbhTalk16:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. And that he now works at Tesla which offers highest wages does not fit a narrative of a wage and employee suppressing philosophy. prokaryotes (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
<ec> Not for life, but at least until he proves, he has changed from Saul to Paul. His illegal deeds then are so fundamentally contrary to our values, there have to extreme good reasons, and really good validated, why he should be in a ruling function in our organisation. He may be fine as a rank and file employee, but that's not the kind of position he has been appointed to. He's a proven crook, how has he proven to have changed? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)17:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Sänger ♫, name calling a WMF employee, i think you should better retract that. Hint: The company he worked for had to pay a litigation, and you ignore that his current company is doing the opposite of what amounted to the litigation. prokaryotes (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
He ain't no employee, he's an appointed board member, extremely more moral requirements as a mere employee. And people being complicit in illegal acts is what I call crooks, I won't say mobster or Enron board member. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)17:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
By your standards you should leave the project, unless you intend to keep contributing under the guidance of the Board you disagree with (Not sure what this would be called following your terminology). prokaryotes (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
False logic. This board doesn't "guide" my work as a Wikipedian any more than the Republican Congress "guides" my life as an American. Both institutions seem to be in dire need of change, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The board has to guide the WMF, so that it properly follows the values and pillars of the wikiverse. The wikiverse is first a community, that's building an encyclopaedia. Once it got too big for self rule alone, it decided to get a bit more professional an founded some kind of service agency, to professionalise maintenance and funding. That agency was the WMF. Unfortunately some of them don't get this right and try to be some kind of government, which they are clearly not. The wikiverse is a non-profit, charitable, educational, grass-roots movement, that has grown beyond being able to live further without some legalistic structures. But these structures have to adhere to our core values and goals, and none of them are compatible with the stuff Arnnon did @Google, not even remotely. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)18:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with general WMF issues, but in my opinion it is better to have a small group of people make decisions (more people mostly means less results). In my experience as an editor, Wikipedia is for the most parts working just fine. Though, i would drastically change the way community decisions are made, which are far to often rather subjective and based on presentation and current available users. However, to get back to the topic here, as Alanscottwalker pointed out, it is very flawed to judge based on vague self judgement based on a single incident from years ago. More recent actions involving Geshuri show exactly the opposite of what has been criticized, what according to the litigation case originated from Apple's executive at the time. As i tried to point out, there are reasons like high wages, or take the amount of woman employees at Tesla (though not executive level) - which are about 25% (2012 data). This is a good argument in light of the current discussion of 90% white male contributors. And when you add someone from the most innovative companies (2015) then this is a huge plus in my book. Anyway i have made my point and see only a handful user complains, de facto a non issue. prokaryotes (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Just because a person comes from X company, asserting anecdotal evidence that people in that company are automatically fit to be a high-ranking member of an organization, does not mean that they are fit to be a high-ranking member of an organization. Additionally, the proportion of female employees and wages have absolutely nothing to do with the fitness of employees originating from a company in a role of representation and leadership. There is no observable remorse or even mention by Geshuri regarding his role in the corrupt scheme. The premise that Tesla offers the highest wages in its industry Geshuri has not participated in wage-suppression schemes is questionable to the highest degree, as Geshuri does not have a significant influence in Tesla's payroll. Esquivaliencet03:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay Cullen328, legally not then but try to look at it realistically, he was at the beginning of his career there, and entered into an environment which was poisoned by Apple's connections. Should he have quit his job? I suppose 95% or more of the people which judge him today - for a vague single incident, would have done the same. To judge him you need to know his involvement, his actions - but we don't know that. We know he fired 1 person in response to Steve Jobs, that is all. prokaryotes (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
He was what? At the beginning of his career there? So you really want to say that a Senior Director of HR and Staffing is a job for noobs, the beginning of ones career? No, it was a well paid senior position, that comes with personal responsibility for ones deeds. Rank-and-file employees may have a right for the I-just-followed-orders cop-out, senior directors not. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)12:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
There's a huge difference between fired and fired. He voluntarily fired within an hour a person, who did nothing wrong besides not adhering to an illegal agreement. Even if you discard the for me completely unfathomable possibility of firing anyone within an hour, that's completely anti-social, as such and think there is such a possibility, it should only be admonished in cases of felony or other massive misconduct, not such stuff. No, he's proven, that he has no moral compass, that's suited to an educational, charitable, moral, based on values, entity in any leading position. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)14:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
When you come up with a way that will force the WMF to listen to its own 'community' ..do come and tell us...sometimes a 'pointless gesture' is all thats needed to make a point...the real answer though is, what will the WMF do next, accept the community ruling or do what it has always done, ignore them completely?....Keep watching this space.--Stemoc16:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I noticed within the Support votes a number of references to Wikimedia policies which give great authority to an expression of this kind by the Wikimedia community. I think everyone involved has a mentality which prefers consensus decision making to forced decision making. Therefore, notwithstanding the WTF aspects to the Board of Trustees' recent weirdness, I fully expect they will have the gonads to adhere to the voice of the community, as well as to the voices of common sense, integrity, and logic, and quickly get the resignation from Arnnon Geshuri that is already long overdue. I would not be surprised if they get substantial resistance from Arnnon as people of certain ethical behaviour tend to continue that same behaviour; and the one thing we have all been quite forgiving of is his accepting this position without giving full disclosure of his "record" which he, being obviously smart, had to know is a liability and problematic for a non-profit/charity foundation like ours. I do actually blame him more than the board for this predicament as the board's errors are more along the line of naivety, which I think is much more forgivable than behaviour flowing from, and into, illegal human resources' manipulation as well as bordering on psychopathic psychological abuse of an employee. The other thing is Geshuri made the decision to fire and to do it "within the hour" and since he is specifically educated in "Master's degree in industrial and organizational psychology", he knows full well the type of psychological harm that he was/could be doing to that employee that he made an example of. I am pulling for @Jimbo: and the rest of our board in their dealings with a guy like this. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
under what circumstances should Wikipedia be used to directly imply that a family participated in crimes against humanity?
Talk:Vehbi_Koç#Discussion represents my understanding of Wikipedia policy regarding such, but other editors feel that if a property is, according to reliable Armenian sources, confiscated entirely from an Armenian family, and a Turkish family later (quite later per the sources), ends up with the property, that it is proper for us to imply that the Turkish family was complicit in the Armenian Genocide in some manner. My position is that Wikipedia should never be used to promote any inference of "guilt by association" without exceedingly strong sources beyond those furnished. Any other opinions? Collect (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Where is policy named WP:SYNTH that I believe answers the question. If a reliable neutral source makes the conclusion we can report it, if the source is notable we might report this, otherwise the answer is no. Usually in ethnic conflicts we do not consider sources belonging to one of the sides to be neutral. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
And alas - that is exactly the issue -- where an editor has written on the talk page: So I actually propose to make a note on how the state legally sanctioned the right for one to occupy property of displaced persons there is a strong suggestion that such is the desire of that editor. Like it or not, and whether you feel "guilt by association" is fine done in Wikipedia's voice, I do not. We differ. Collect (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Never. We should clearly state what reliable sources have to say on the subject, and what reliable sources have to say on the significant opinions of others on the subject. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 02:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC).
The sources say the property had been owned by Armenians. They also say the person owned the property by 1944. The issue is the desire to link the two separate facts to imply the person was in any way complicit in the genocide. Simple. Collect (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd rather we refrain from the WP:FORUMSHOPing here Collect. Besides, none of the sources are "Armenian", as Collect wants us to believe. Quite the opposite, they're from the other side of the spectrum. They're from Turkish scholars and thus would be nearly impossible to have any sort of partisanship for genocide related studies as advocates for Armenians. Moreover, these scholars are noted to be the top in the subject of Turkish Republican history and have been awarded the highest distinctions to that effect. So there's no question as to why these sources cannot be considered reliable and strong enough already. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
He was actually noted as being rather nice to Armenian employees per sources - thus this attempt to link him to complicity in a genocide is exceedingly ill-wrought. Collect (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Aren't sources rather saying that "In 1942, Vehbi Koç, who had not played any role in the Varlik Vergisi, saw the opportunities it afforded him... through public auction at a price significantly below value[1]" and "Koç, nevertheless, hired many of the former owners and treated them with fairness[2]". Nice definition of being nice to his employees, isn't it ? Pldx1 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you understand how a "public auction" works? If you win a lot at (say) $10,000, would you then pay $50,000 because "it was too cheap"? Really? In normal parlance, "public auctions" are open to anyone making a higher bid - just as we find people currently having foreclosed homes in the US being sold at 1/3 what the owners had paid for them. By the way, 1942 was significantly after the time frame of the "genocide" entirely (by more than two decades) - so implying that he condoned the genocide in some way by buying property during World War II at public auction is really a bad idea. I would point out that some houses in the US which had sold for more than $100,000 in 1928, sold for under $10,000 in the 1930s. Far under "value"? And had he been anti-Armenian, it is likely he would not have even hired any - which was the unfortunate case in parts of Turkey. In short, your sources exactly confirm my opinions on this. Collect (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
^E.P. Nowill: Constantinople and Istanbul: 72 Years of Life in Turkey. Troubador Publishing, 2011. p. 77
The answer is simple Collect...when the sources make the claim and there are multiple, strong, reliable third party sources to verify it. That seems pretty simple.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
According to adopt_a_conspiracy.com, it is highly unbelievable that User:Collect was not knowing that it suffices to click on a blue link like Varlik Vergisi to obtain access to another web page. Moreover, it is highly unbelievable that this user was also ignoring the existence of google search. Even on google.com.tr, one can find many accounts about the 1942 Varlık Vergisi. Building a conspiracy theory encompassing all the known facts is left as an exercice to the reader. Pldx1 (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Congrats on the Wikipedia Snark Award. The issue is whether Koc was complicit in a genocide as is the clear implication being made - where the genocide was more than two decades prior to his buying the property at public auction. We do not list Americans who bought Japanese properties by auction during WW II, as far as I can tell. Nor do we shame those Americans who bought Russian artifacts sold by the Bolsheviks. The issue is Koc's implied complicity in a crime, not his acquisition of property by auction. Had it been given him for his support of the genocide, that would be a different matter. But, so far, no source provided makes that claim. Collect (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The "implication" exists only in your febrile imagination. We saw another example quite recently here. Do you get entertainment from fomenting this sort of thing? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Um -- do you give a rat's ass about WP:NPA, mon cheri? Using a blog to imply more than what the blog actually states is improper no matter what the eff your opinion is - and I find your position to be untenable for an actual encyclopedia. I do not chase you around to make "comments", Nomo. Febrility, indeed! Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
During WW II, the US had a 100% "wealth tax" on Japanese-Americans, and a 100% "wealth tax" on all properties owned by nationals or corporations of Axis nations, and of some Axis-controlled areas. It is interesting that an economist writing about "wealth distribution" suggested such taxes should be used to get redistribution of wealth. IMO, such "taxes" are inherently evil no matter their ostensible rationales, but the "official" rates for the Turkish tax were 12.5% on "war profits" for Muslims and 50% on non-Muslims, and a zero rate on Muslim personal rate, and a maximum rate of 50% on non-Muslim personal wealth. The problems lay in how local officials "estimated" wealth, which is another matter entirely. (source appears to be Faik Okte, The Tragedy of the Turkish Capital Tax). The actual source for the "effective tax rates" was from " C.L. Sulzberger, "Turkish Tax Kills Foreign Business," The New York Times, Sept. 11, 1943." (TURKISH TAX KILLS FOREIGN BUSINESS; Capital Levy Up to 232 Per Cent is Required to Be Paid in Cash Within a Month RATES ARE SECRETLY LAID Inequities Are Attributed to Local Boards, From Which There Is No Appeal). (At the time of the NYT piece, Turkey was generally deemed "pro-Axis, by the way.) As the sources state that the auction was in 1942, and the reliable sources clearly state that the auction was held before the person would be hit by the tax hike. In any event, there are no sources liking Koc to being behind anything approaching the Armenian genocide nor even of acting improperly at a public auction. Basta? Collect (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
US "excess profits tax" during WW II was officially at a flat 90% rate. The problem in Turkey was not the official rate (for which the NYT is a very poor source, in fact) but the arbitrary determination of "wealth" by local officials. Even today, there are some who accuse the IRS of "arbitrariness" <g> and occasional rates over 100%. Some foreign nations have had official marginal tax rates on income well over 100%. Collect (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC) .
Why is this discussion taking place here rather than on the article talk page? Breaking discussion up like this - particularly with such a biased title and presentation -, even if Jimbo says it is not canvassing or forum shopping, is very bad for the history of the article. This discusion will not be in the talk page archives for reference by later editors nor will it be in the other places where editors typically search like WP:BLPN etc.
I suggest one of the article regulars or an uninvolved editor move this thread to Talk:Vehbi_Koç where it belongs. I also suggest that editors who bring issues currently under discussion at other places use neutral wording, the same as is required at the noticeboards, otherwise it looks as if the intention is to stir up drama or support for a particular position rather than advance the discussion because this page is by tradition exempt from WP:CANVASS, whether that is the intent or not. JbhTalk14:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion there. My issue is at what point should the issue of implying a person was complicit in genocide by something requiring exceptional sources. By the way, I had thought using "crimes against humanity" was more neutral that "complicit in genocide" but your mileage may differ. Cheers for dropping in. Collect (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, here is how people should think about this page. It's a good place for a more philosophical discussion of editorial policy, which often means using specific contemporary and meaningful examples, since philosophical arguments about pure hypotheticals can easily lead to the wrong answer and more heat than light. So in this case, the particular editorial dispute should be resolved on the talk page of the article itself, but we may productively chew on the principles here.
I would say that, per usual BLP logic, "implying that a family directly participated in crimes against humanity" needs really solid sourcing. But in this particular example, it seems the complex question revolves around what counts as "implying". It appears undisputed as a factual matter that "Vehbi Koç lived in a vineyard estate located in the Keçiören district near Ankara. The property, which was left vacant after the Kasapyan family escaped the Armenian Genocide, was acquired by Koç and became the Vehbi Koç museum in 1944 after a thorough renovation." So the remaining question is whether that sentence may lead the reader (correctly or incorrectly - I don't know) to assume that he 'participated' in the genocide or in some way benefitted from it. It doesn't say it, and it doesn't really even suggest it, but it is pretty hard to read it without raising that question in the mind of the reader, and whether or not that question needs to be raised really does depend on the sources and the full context - and I don't know the full answer. There are too many unanswered questions. The Aremenian Genocide is normally said to have been from 1914-1918. At some point between then and 1944 it was acquired and then later became a museum. When did he acquire it? If it was in 1916, then the link seems worth noting. If it was in 1938, two decades later, and if in the intervening years it had been state property or owned by others, then at some point, the past history really has nothing to do with Koç.
But if I'm worried about the implication that he benefitted from the terrible events there, or if I think that it needs to be noted that he did, then surely there are other parts of this biography that are much more specific. "In 1942, Vehbi Koç, who had not played any role in the Varlik Vergisi, saw the opportunities it afforded him as a businessman and took over many collapsed or confiscated companies."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
He appears to have purchased it at public auction in 1942. I have this unfortunate belief that such wording in Wikipedia's voice as might suggest he had a role in the genocide (when he was 14 years old as he was born in 1901) might be improperly seen by readers as indicating complicity in the genocide. The purchase was made before the "war profits tax" was instituted, which also seems a bit problematic, but nowhere as near as the implication that he was involved in genocide. The grossly unfair tax (vide US wealth appropriation from Japanese-American citizens in WW II) was clearly unfairly weighed and enforced, but there is no indication that this person was involved in that personally. Thank you for noting that this is of far broader implication than a single article. Collect (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, on this issue, I would at the moment lean in your direction of thinking that it seems a bit unfair. If people want to point out that he made a lot of money buying up properties from people who had to sell due to an unfair tax, even if he didn't push to get the tax passed, etc., that does seem relevant to his biography. That someone fled between 1914-1918 when he was a teenager, and that he ended up buying the property decades later, does seem pretty minor overall, and very minor by comparison. My view would change upon someone producing reliable quality contemporary sources showing that there was a big issue about the property's history.
As a completely irrelevant side note, while I know about internment camps in this shameful episode in US history, I don't know very much about "wealth appropriation" in that context. Obviously people will have incurred great losses to the extent they were forced to sell all their possessions quickly and move into camps, but that's different from the government taking their wealth through outright expropriation or unfair taxes. I'm not trying to make any point at all in the current discussion, obviously: I'm just interested to learn more.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The Japanese-American citizen internment, a truly horrid occurrence, was accompanied in many cases by loss of vast agricultural holding in California etc. http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=74 is clear.
Nearly 70,000 of the evacuees were American citizens. The government made no charges against them, nor could they appeal their incarceration. All lost personal liberties; most lost homes and property as well. Although several Japanese Americans challenged the government’s actions in court cases, the Supreme Court upheld their legality.
The speed of the evacuation forced many homeowners and businessmen to sell out quickly; total property loss is estimated at $1.3 billion, and net income loss at $2.7 billion (calculated in 1983 dollars based on the Commission investigation below).
The farmers could never regain their own land - and there is some evidence that neighboring landowners sought the land for minimal cost.
Japanese Americans controlled less than 4 percent of California’s farmland in 1940, but they produced more than 10 percent of the total value of the state’s farm resources.
Well, yes, appropriated property (land, art, etc.) is unsurprisingly valuable and other identified individuals benefit from appropriation to a degree that others (eg., scholars) comment upon. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
This part seems far far too specific for this talk page and should be on the article talk page. I'm unable to read Turkish so the source means nothing to me. Let's stick here to the high level philosophical questions.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I relied on the version given above. So at the age of 22 he bought a major property at auction? http://www.agos.com.tr/en/article/10956/in-1915-the-state-openly-declared-war-upon-its-armenian-citizens does not back the claim you assert, alas. It states: During the debate over how the Çankaya Mansion had changed hands, Edward Çuhacı, a member of the Kasapyan family, had sent Agos a letter in April 2007. In that letter, he stated that their estate home in Keçiören now belonged to the Koç family. But if serious research were to be carried out on the basis of companies, then one would have to refer to the records of Chambers of Commerce. However, even that would be a difficult task. In this context, the İzmir Chamber of Commerce has published its records. When you look into those records, you see statements such as, “The abandoned property bail brought by the A company has been accepted”. That means: since the abandoned properties registered in the company’s name would be considered part of the company’s capital, they show this document so that their classification can be determined. Can you furnish an actual solid source that this 22-year-old bought the mansion? Clearly the Cankara Mansion was not bought by Koç in 1923. The Wikipedia article on the confiscated propertied does not mention Koç. (I fear I am learning far too much Turkish at this point). Re "Singer Binasi": your source is not readily available, making it impossible for me to verify that the source says a 22 year old person who operated a tiny grocery store had enough money to buy much of anything. ("Singer Binasi" = "Singer Building" AFAICT) http://www.haberturk.com/polemik/haber/787272-ataturk-olsa-varlik-vergisi-olmazdi is a recounting from a person who does not actually state that Koç was the initial purchaser - only that the initial auction of some property in 1942 had brought only 36 thousand pounds, that the tax asked for was 1 million pounds, and that Koç paid 450,000 pounds for the person's share in another building. Not giving a year, or saying anything about Koç getting the building for free or anything remotely like that. What cinches this for me as not being an accusation of Koç is his section: "Vehbi Koç (Businessman ) ' I've paid 600 thousand pounds ' "It was discretionary tax base of this tax . Each provincial commission was established . This commission put their objections to tax , there was no appeal and Turkish history husband was a unique tax . To get the largest tax in the regions they are located , civil service chiefs had entered the race. The cost of the two factories in Gemlik 48 thousand pounds when 40 thousand pounds of asset tax, 100 thousand pounds Anamur came in at 200 thousand pounds in property taxes to the lead mine . Look 's approach to tax millions falling on me at tax written here. after a long struggle , repeated tax appreciated me by proving that the written wealth Tax to have revealed 600 thousand pounds we pay for it all. "" In short Mr. Koç was himself badly hit by the tax from which he was accused of benefitting. Is this in inapt reading of this source? Your source you proudly give https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/tutanaklar/TUTANAK/TBMM/d09/c008/b095/tbmm090080950404.pdf mentions a 1944 payment - and has no relation to your claim of 1923 at all. So far you have zero reliable sources for your claim that the 22 year old bought the Singer Building where the person involved stated it was 1942 in a retrospective article, and the court record is from 1944. Collect (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Now can you give a remotely available reliable source for his getting the Kecioren estate for nothing? The sources clearly demonstrate that he was a aggrieved as anyone on the wartime tax. Collect (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Field Marshal Fevzi Çakmakappears to be the person who sold the house you are interested in during that period after WWI. I can not find out how much he paid for it, nor the amount he was paid, though I doubt a Field Marshal would be forced to sell all that cheap, nor which member of the family actually bought the house (Koç's mother appears to have come from a major family as he took her name). No sign of complicity in anything much, though Çakmak may or may not be the person you really would want to implicate. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The basic premise of this talkpage thread appears to be false. I don't see any actual evidence of an effort to imply that the article subject "participated in crimes against humanity". There is an ongoing RfC at Talk:Vehbi Koç over whether to include the sentences: Vehbi Koç lived in a vineyard estate located in the Keçiören district near Ankara. The property, which was left vacant after the Kasapyan family escaped the Armenian Genocide, was acquired by Koç and became the Vehbi Koç museum in 1944 after a thorough renovation. There's a clear consensus at the RfC that this wording is appropriate, with Collect the only dissenter. Reasonable observers would not infer from the text at issue that Koc "participated in crimes against humanity"; instead, the sentences provide brief historical context.
The high-level philosophical issues here are pretty simple: a) in an encyclopedia full of actual BLP problems, this sort of careless false-alarmism actually harms the cause of BLP compliance; and b) when a complainant appears on this talkpage, it's always best to verify independently that their presentation of the dispute is accurate, as it often is not. MastCellTalk16:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Again you show up -- and insist "Collect is the only dissenter" -- Frankly if it is a BLP or NPOV violation, then being the "only dissenter" is a great and wonderful badge to wear. And calling this "false-alarmism" does you no credit at all. I recall those who opposed guilt-by-association arguments in the past have been called "false-alarmists" and yet I rather think that this is the best position for me to take. I am sure, of course, that you would zealously protect the non-negotiable policies of Wikipedia. "Category:Armenian Genocide" is heavily populated, and the main article has links to a massive number of Wikipedia articles. Examine please [15] which placed in an article subject to WP:BLP:
The wealth of the Koç family, however, originates from money and property which was appropriated through the Armenian Genocide in 1915.
Which makes clear the specific and deliberate intent to link this family and its living representatives directly with the Armenian Genocide which seems about as clear-cut an example as Jimbo might wish to see. Collect (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Just one question - in what way is it relevant to Vehbi Koç by whom and under what circumstances the property had been abandoned a couple of decades before? This is a serious question - there must be some connection that is important to people, or they'd be fine with removing it. Wikipedia doesn't work based on voting, so counting up how many people on each side isn't really persuasive to me. I'd just like to understand: what does that fact tell the reader about the life of this man?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I note above one clearly NPOV compliant <g> edit which makes the specific and direct charge that the family got their money "through the Armenian Genocide in 1915". Thank you. If I am too "zealous" for some on BLP and other NPOV issues, I wear that charge with pride. Collect (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Which would be nice if and only if 1. we establish through reliable sources that Vehbi was the direct and specific purchaser from the state (which we do not have) and 2. we establish Vehbi did not purchase it from the noted Field Marshal - where the sources seem to agree he did. We also have the catenation of the 1942 purchase which was also raised as indicating complicity in the genocide but which seems to have fallen by the wayside were it not for editors making such a connection by implication regarding that property. Clearly, moreover, linking the abandoned properties act to genocide is at least one step to far as far as Vehbi is concerned. Collect (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Update: Sources are now clear that it was the father of Vehbi who purchased the property in 1923, from a Field Marshal of Turkey, who was presumably a proper holder of the property. There is no indication that Vehbi, himself, actually owned the property itself until 1944 when he repurposed it as a museum. Thus no actual reason (presuming that the sins of the father are not visited upon the son) to link Vehbi to the Armenian Genocide at all. Collect (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
New source from you - but the snippet view does not seem to aver that he owned the property in 1923 by any means - does it give a date for when he bought or inherited it from his father? In any event, he was definitely not the original purchaser, nor even the second purchaser, right? Collect (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Once again, there is not one mention that Koç was culpable in genocidal activity against the Armenian people in the proposed wording, so I believe it’s time to refrain from groundlessly accusing me of that as if it’s sort of generally accepted fact. As for your question: the list of his assets is dated from 1931. However, he states that these properties were owned even before then, in the first years of his life as a businessman to be precise (Turkish: İlk işe başladığım seneler hakkımdaki ranseyman bu). This basically means he had, without a doubt, a stake in the purchase of that property simply because he attained ownership of the property without actually buying it or initiating a new purchase. This could be through entitlement or inheritance. This is also clear by the deed being worth as much as his father’s initial purchase. But I don’t see why such nit-picking of details is even important. After all, the wording still doesn’t make it appear that he was guilty of genocidal acts against Armenians. So the initial premise as to why we are having this conversation is simply meaningless. Moreover, why are we having this discussion here? This discussion should be dealt with at the talk page of the article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
My posts try to be succinct. You say Vehbi said he owned the property in 1931. And yet you would like to have the genocide mentioned in his biography? To what actual purpose? He had naught to do with the genocide, he was not the purchaser in any improper manner, his valuation in 1931 in lira of the property was not greatly in excess of the value in 1923 at all. He clearly did not financially benefit as a result in such a case (noting the lira was lower in value in 1931 than in 1923 as far as I can tell in financial charts). Seems to be the end of the discussion - thus "genocide" should not be cited in his biography in any way. Collect (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I suggest getting away from the "complicit" or "not complicit" arguments and wording - these terms will always be pov. Is someone who profited financially through his father having obtained assets as a result of that genocide complicit in the actual genocide or not? Is someone who uses the circumstances of the Varlik Vergisi together with his own ethnic status to purchase Armenian-owned businesses for under their actual value complicit in the Varlik Vergisi events, or is he not complicit because he did not actually devise the Varlik Vergisi, and if he had not been a good businessman and taken advantage of its "opportunities" someone else would have? Better to get rid of value-laden words like complicit and just state what happened. "Vehbi Koç, who had not played any role in the Varlik Vergisi, saw the opportunities it afforded him..." reads just awful. Reminds me of an American archeological report on Ani I saw once that went "nobody knows when the bridge collapsed, or who or what destroyed it, but the Turks were not responsible." Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
What do you propose? We get rid of the Internet? Should Jimbo help with this task or are you blaming him or the project in some way, or just reporting the news?--Malerooster (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I've downloaded the full report to read tomorrow, but my first inclination is that it's actually sad that Technology Review, which I normally trust, would run such a "clickbait" interpretation as "Sadly, the Internet isn't making the World a Better Place". It seems obvious that the benefits of access to information will accrue first to those who first have access, and that this will likely cause an increase in inequality to some extent. That would argue for a continued push to make access as widely available as possible as quickly as possible... slowing it down means that only those relatively better off will get the benefits.
As a side note, quickly looking through it for 'Wikipedia' I found this: "For example, there are more contributions to Wikipedia from Hong Kong SAR, China, than from all of Africa combined, despite the fact that Africa has 50 times more internet users." To me this doesn't imply that we should try less hard to grow the project in Africa out of a fear that we'll cause inequality in Africa. It implies that we should at least consider as a proposition for thought that we should be spending 50 times as much in Africa as we do in Hong Kong.
Or, to give an example with numbers that I happen to have handy - Wikimedia UK spent just over $900,000 on the last financial report I could find (2013-2014). Equivalent per-capita spending on Africa chapters would mean $15-16 million. (If we determined that chapters were the best way to grow participation and readership in Africa.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Proposing a nicely heretical position: It is not information which is the key, but thought processes - which make too many people into people who "believe it because it is on the Internet" rather than into actual thinkers ("information" is not the same as "knowledge" on a philosophical basis). To the extent that information makes people cease asking real questions about "life, the universe and everything", the Internet may, alas, be a step backward in human evolution. What might be needed is not scads of information but a means of allowing people to actually think independently - even if they hold heretical views. The "number of editors" metric may be the wrong thing to look at in the long run - perhaps what is needed is not a "comprehensive list of Pokémon characters" but a "what are the questions you should ask yourself" or "list of ways of thinking" online symposium. Right now, some of the places from which vast numbers of edits come might not be actually representative of the general worldview of potential readers? Collect (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Rather than the creativity of the of earlier generations' autodidacts we have the growing conformity of a world of "wikididacts" who simply gain conversational knowledge from Wikipedia to engage with others who have done the same. JbhTalk15:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I wouldnt say clickbait, its a similar headline (possibly a bit less extreme) wherever it is covered. The BBC's tech correspondant Rory Cellan-Jones explicitly makes the wikipedia connection as well, however I am more concerned about his take on "the coming robot revolution"... Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the headline is presumably a reaction to the naive, credulous techno-optimism which pervades Silicon Valley (and which was parodied ably on Silicon Valley). The concern is that technological solutions are promoted at the expense of neglecting more basic, "analog" needs. There's a tendency to view access to technology as a panacea for all human problems. Internet access is great—but in areas where women can't vote, drive, or decide when to have children (for instance), it's foolish to expect Wi-fi access to have the same benefits that it does here in the US. In some ways, this is a zero-sum game: if a corporation has a set budget for philanthropy, then funding balloon-based wireless Internet comes at the expense of funding a malaria vaccine, or clean-water projects, or family planning resources. I'm assuming that the report is an attempt to puncture the social and conceptual bubble in which a lot of tech-driven philanthropy seems to exist. MastCellTalk21:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Original report is here. If you really want to be depressed check out their tally of "free and fair" elections, which has steadily dropped from 80% in 1982 to 40% in 2012. At this rate, 2042 will see the last honest election on Earth. The central argument about internet is:
"When the internet delivers scale economies for firms but the business environment inhibits competition, the outcome could be excessive concentration of market power and rise of monopolies, inhibiting future innovation.
When the internet automates many tasks but workers do not possess the skills that technology augments, the outcome will be greater inequality, rather than greater efficiency.
When the internet helps overcome information barriers that impede service delivery but governments remain unaccountable, the outcome will be greater control rather than greater empowerment and inclusion."
I don't want to be too uncritically accepting of the World Bank, but I think these three things occur to some extent within the little world of Wikipedia - serial deletionists have been able to sell their influence to help firms avoid having their pages wiped out, the more arcane aspects of the site (such as Javascript and even Lua) have tended to favor a small group of users over others, and, well, while I'm not quite sure how to interpret the first part of the third we've certainly seen the unaccountability and control issue recently. Wnt (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Are you happy to see Commons try to acitvely deny credit to users (for no reason other than liking to make them feel unwanted, it would seem)?
I don't think that asking for credit, and for all your work to be found in one place, linked to from all instances of that work, is so much to ask. I'm not adding a huge template, I merely wanted a category.
But, no, Commons would, apparently, rather deny credit, and hound someone off the site - someone who's been managing about 50-80 featured pictures a year, carefully restored.
I'd like a good reason not to refuse all further work to Commons. But I also think one should never volunteer to do work where you're not getting basic respect as a human being. Adam Cuerden(talk)03:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Being a drama queen is a poor strategy for convincing others to give you a pony.
You have already received full credit as specified by the license you chose to release your work under. Any additional credit not required by the license would be an example on a pony, which if you recall you can't have.
And Wikipedia wonders why it has issues with user retention. Credit is a basic legal right under copyright. I can require it any way I want. A Pony is something that isn't a right, @Guy Macon:. This is very basic, I'm sorry you were too busy being condescending to bother to think things through. Look, I'm not going to work somewhere I'm disrespected. It's becoming increasingly clear I - nor any any other user - is actually respected here. Adam Cuerden(talk)10:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, now that you two have banged bellies, maybe we should take this from the top. @Adam Cuerden, so this is about a refusal by Commons to allow categories relating to uploader? Such as, for example, "Category:Restorations by Adam Cuerden"??? Is the lack of such categories really the same as denial of "credit"? What I do myself (not at Commons, which I boycott, but at En-WP) is make clear my contribution in the original upload. "Digital editing by Tim Davenport ("Carrite") for Wikipedia, no copyright claimed for the work, file released to the public domain without restriction" is my stock phrasing. Anyone making use of the file isn't apt to be crediting the work of a restorer or a digital editor in any case, so it seems rather pointless worrying about anything more. You obviously do great work and haven't been barnstarred enough for it, but that's true for just about every serious content person at WP. Don't sweat the small stuff, our mission is much more important. Carrite (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
It looks like the crux of the issue is how much effort and skill it takes to do the restorations you do. It's obvious that basic encyclopedic principles require the categorization of original artwork by its author, e.g. Category:Cartoons by Latuff. Whereas (lacking your skills) it's extremely improbable that I could get a Category:photos cropped and tweaked by Wnt. So if your work is sufficiently distinguishable, surely we should have a category. There is a complication that ideologically, we don't want to do anything to acknowledge a claim that the photo restorer's work is so original as to get a new copyright, since this would interfere with our noble looting of the museum websites of the world - indeed, we would much regret to allow a new copyright to those responsible for the restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes, no matter how amusing it might be as an indictment of their work. Nonetheless, as some works are not copyrightable, I think we can recognize that authorship is not limited to copyrightable authorship, and allow that a Wikipedian with some skill can be allowed an author-like category in our archive. So if you want to make your case here to a new group of people, I think the most important thing is to explain what kind of thought process and technique goes into your restorations, that make them different from what a duffer might do with the same source photo. Wnt (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
It's hard to explain perfectly without actively teaching someone to do it, but a few points might help get an idea.
First of all, I live in the UK, where one can generate copyright ridiculously easily. The threshold of originality is very low, and, as such, my having copyright - which I think, under UK law, I do, would need to be argued separately for other countries and their threshholds.
So, let's have a look at what it is I do. This is a relatively simple restoration, which will do to show the basic idea of how one does restoration. It's a zoom-in of File:Sébah & Joaillier - Sultan Mehmed VI.jpg
before
after
Some of this is simple. The spots in the lower left, the line in the upper middle, and the narrow scratches are quite trivial; the larger areas of damage over the pattern, however (it's part of a piece of furniture) need to be done so as to blend in with other areas of the pattern seamlessly. And there some creativity is necessary.
Things scale up from there. I try to choose images where there's not too much damage to the most encyclopedically relevant parts of the image. For instance, reconstructing a sleeve won't hurt the encyclopedic value of a photo of a person much. If the nose is missing, however, or an eyeball, the value of the image is probably lost before you start. Damaged parts are, however, a distracticn, and, as such, cleaning them up can help keep the focus on the correct parts of the image. Let's look at another.
Before
After
There are several new techniques here, but this isn't a complete lesson, so suffice to say that the basic idea is to salvage what information one can, then reconstruct. Most work went into the middle line of the image, as you can imagine, and there's LOTS of reconstruction in that narrow area.
In a similar vein is
There's a LOT of reconstruction on the divisions and on missing bits.
It all varies by the image. The type of damage, where it is, and the like will all affect restoration choices, the goal being an encyclopedically useful copy without the distraction of damage pulling focus from the material. Others are relatively simple.
While skill certainly helps with this image, it's also true that there's not that much damage that isn't fairly obvious to fix. The lower right hand corner of the photograph is probably the most difficult.
I think this gives a very, very rough idea. I've, of course, chosen the ones that are easiest to explain here. It's easier to point to the middle of the Puck image, for example, than to point you to less obvious landmarks. But I think you at least have some idea now. Adam Cuerden(talk)19:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
File:Sample of Sébah & Joaillier - Sultan Mehmed VI - before restoration.jpg
I wouldn't brush off this request as totally unreasonable, if only for the possibility to present a portfolio of own work. This is related to a discussion on meta: meta:2015 Community Wishlist Survey/Moderation and admin tools#List of contributors. There are many cases where, for me, a [[Category:Conference slides of Peter Gallert]] would be useful, too. Ponys aside, if I encountered the above cartoon image on Commons and wanted to use it in an own publication, I would as a matter of course credit the artist and the restorer. By the way, this is awesome work! --Pgallert (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: Looking at these images makes me feel favorable to your request for a category. I think what you do is essentially a form of authorship. For example, you could foul up enough in filling in the pattern that someone with a different copy might take a look and say "say what?" about some detail. As an encyclopedia we should not hesitate to categorize works by author. Technically, it is possible to have a separate credits page, assembled by bot or something, that would be at User:Adam Cuerden/My restorations or something, but it doesn't make sense for a true authorship-based categorization - people set up folders like that just to show what they think ought to be featured, or is pretty (indeed, I very much disagree with certain puritanical efforts to discourage them for doing it simply for erotic appreciation...). That mechanism would be the fall-back I would have favored if I did not think this rose to the level of authorship. Wnt (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Why is this thread here?
Why is this thread here and not at Commons:Village pump? English Wikipedia has no control over what happens on the fiercely independent Commons, and Jimmy Wales (fairly notoriously, as Pricasso can testify) has no influence at all regarding Commons, and hasn't edited there since 2013 (aside from two edits a couple of years ago). If I were active at Commons (which thank the Lord I'm not, sir), I'd feel quite justified in getting annoyed at what looks like an attempt to drum up support off-wiki; how would any of those posting above feel if someone were posting on Commons trying to canvass support to overturn a decision on en-wiki? ‑ Iridescent19:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden, credit is NOT a basic legal right under copyright. It is a condition that you may or may not choose to impose when granting someone a right to copy your work. This is an important distinction. For example, on this file that I created, I have zero rights to any form of credit or attribution.
You released your work under a license that specified exactly what form of credit you would find acceptable. Then, after the fact, you tried to impose further restrictions, and got a clear answer: "no". You could have released it under some other license with the form of credit you require, and then Commons would have removed it because they would consider your modified license to be a non-free license. Feel free to do exactly that if you make any future contributions.
By clicking the "Save page" button, you agreed to our Terms of Use and you irrevocably agreed to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution. I am sorry that you now have decided that you don't like the license terms you irrevocably agreed to, but you can't have a pony can't change the terms that you agreed to. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: I'm not asking for previous work to be deleted. I'm asking whether I should continue contributing. As you say, I can choose at time of upload. If the policy is going to be unacceptable, then I leave the project.
@Guy Macon: You're one of the most level-headed posters I see around here, so please ... quit with the pony. I don't know what it is about ponies that drives sensible people batty, even the tiny handful of sorely-needed Pirate Party legislators. That essay was overly nasty even in regard to generic edit warring; it certainly is nasty when it comes to the question of whether someone doing work like this deserves author-like attribution, which is a significant philosophical question. Wnt (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The fact that we are discussing images is important, and the fact that you are quoting the save page message, Guy, suggests you are unfamiliar with the issue. We offer a wide variety of licenses for issues, some freer than others. I could freely release my own images into the public domain, or I could use a certain GNU license (technically free, if unworkable for reusers...), and that is entirely my prerogative as a contributor. If Adam, as restorer, is asking that Commons allow him to categorize his own work in a way he thinks will most easily help him enforce his copyright (which, under UK copyright law, he has the right to do), and it does no harm to the project, I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to do so.
If the current guideline is against having non-hidden user categories, then it's quite possible the guideline needs to be revised. Hidden categories are, by definition, not shown by default to all users. Even for those of us who can see them, they aren't nearly as prominent. If someone is looking to see an editor's other contributions, but doesn't have hidden categories displayed, they can't. That is ultimately harmful to the project, as it limits reuse. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Quick question. Why did you start this thread here when you already have a, still active, thread at Common's Village Pump? I have to agree with Iridescent here. It looks like you are trying to drum up off-wiki support for a problem on Commons. Even if you were to get the entire enwiki community behind you that would not make one bit of difference. The different wikis are completely separate and one cannot override the other. At best this looks like you are trying to go around whatever the Commons's community decides. At worse, it looks like forum shopping. So why don't you wait until the Village Pump thread is at least closed over there before jumping right into an appeal to Jimbo? --Majora (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
@Majora: I don't know why exactly, but when you click on a Wikipedia image that is served from Commons, you land at a page, e.g. [16], that is on Wikipedia. There is even a link "add local description", though I hesitate to monkey with it because I'm not altogether sure it won't ruin display of the picture even to create the page. But in theory, I think we could allow this category for attribution, or some other special attribution mechanism, entirely independently of Commons. Additionally, this page has long been touted as immune from canvassing restrictions. Yeah, it's a huge loophole, but it's one that a lot of people have driven trucks through. So I think this discussion is germane and potentially productive, even apart from the other. Wnt (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for misremembering what wording was on the image upload page; I should have checked. Nonetheless, Adam Cuerden first claimed that credit is a basic legal right under copyright law -- it isn't -- and then threatened to leave if we didn't give him what he wanted, meanwhile loudly proclaiming to all and sundry that those who disagree with him are are scoundrels, rakes, and people of low moral fiber ("I can't do volunteer work for a group that apparently views me as no better than their slave", "for no reason other than liking to make them feel unwanted", "Drive him off Commons! The peasant has views above his station!")
I like the work that Adam Cuerden does. I hope he doesn't leave. I would have supported his request to have a non-hidden category if he had simply asked nicely. But I also don't like bullies. I don't think Wikipedia or Commons should reward Adam for making a claim about copyright law that is false on the face of it. I don't think Wikipedia or Commons should reward Adam by paying the slightest attention to any argument that is based upon a threat to leave if he doesn't get his way. And I don't think Wikipedia or Commons should reward Adam for his over-the-top accusations. Rewarding this sort of behavior would set a really bad precedent. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: There is a lot of that kind of thinking on Wikipedia, but it's wrong. We should not vandalize our policies and philosophies just to spite someone - nor should we do it to be nice. Either the category is appropriate or it isn't, and how we feel has nothing to do with that either way. Also, it doesn't make sense to have high paid suits sitting around in some room halfway across the world from wherever they live every year, talking about how to improve editor retention, and at the same time as volunteers make ourselves an immovable obstacle when an editor comes out and tells us what will and won't retain him. Wnt (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Per AGF, maybe there are multiple interpretations of "right" and "credit" here. In many copyright regimes, and in particular under the Berne convention, there is the droit à la paternité, i.e. the right of the creator to be recognised as the creator. As far as I understand it, that right is absolute and non-transferable. That does not, of course, imply the necessity of a separate byline on each piece of artwork. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
If, as you claim, the "right of the creator to be recognized as the creator" is "absolute and non-transferable", how do you explain the fact that I, the creator of the file 500_x_500_SMPTE_Color_Bars.png have no such rights? By choice, I have zero rights to any form of credit or attribution for that image, and thus can only conclude that the "right" you claim is not a right a all, but rather a requirement that the owner of an image may choose to impose as a condition when granting someone a limited right to copy the work. I could have required attribution by choosing to release it as CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution instead of CC0, but I could also have released it under a license that requires that anyone copying it recite The Jabberwocky in Latin. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Just because you have a right does not mean you have to exercise it. Indeed, you can even waive some rights. But you cannot transfer the right to be recognised as the author of a copyrighted work under the Berne convention. Note also that the right to be recognised as the creator is not the same right as the right to explicit attribution. It means you can claim authorship, and nobody else can claim authorship (assuming its a work with a single creator), and indeed you can sue people who deny your authorship. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Give the man the category. This is ridiculous. Does good work. Category doesn't violate policy, and does a service. --Elvey(t•c)23:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
This is my second time here to ask for help. Last time an affiliate of yours said because the incident happened in other Wikipedia projects I have no juristifiction there! But this time , is diffrend both incidents happened in projects that are under your direct juristification (Commons, English).
Currently I am in constant harassment by a gang of UsersTaichi, Yeza from the third world Latin American countries (forgive me for using the word gang, but I can't think of a better word to describe their actions!). One from Panama and the other one I am not so sure, but maybe from the same country. Infact, that doesn't matter because there are both two sides of the same coin.
This nightmare has started since I tried to correct an error or a "misinformation" on a Biography of living person at Spanish Wikipedia less than a week ago. First, I tried to make my point at the discussion board there, but Instead I got blocked (for a week,) see here es:Usuario discusión:Mona778 harrased
[17] and been followed from Wikipedia Spain to Wikipedia Commons, and now Wikipedia English by these two Users (they are both administrators at Spanish Wikipedia). They went (both) first to my User talk page at Wikipedia Commons and reinstated the messages that I deleted [18] here [19] and here
[20] (contrary to wikipedia policy ) Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings"
Removal of comments, notices, and warnings
"WP:BLANKING" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:Blanking.
Shortcuts: WP:UP#CMT
WP:BLANKING
WP:REMOVED
See also: Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments, § Deleting your user page or subpages and § Deletion of user talk pages
Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their user page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually ==users should not be forced to do so.== It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters if needed.
A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:
Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices.
Miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is in progress).
Speedy deletion tags and requests for uninvolved administrator help (an administrator will quickly determine if these are valid or not; use the link embedded in the notice to object and post a comment, do not just remove the tag).
For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address and/or to whom the IP is registered, although very old content may be removed.
Note that restoring talk page notices is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule".
And then next, (one ) went to my User talk page at English Wikipedia and did the same as they did at Commons, which to reinstate my deleted messages and even threaten me that I will be reported If I keep deleting readed messages at my User talk page see here[21] see also here[22] here[23] here[24] again contrary from Wikipedia rules and regulation as mentioned above.
Then, as the situation progressed I felt panicked and forced to respond left a message at one of those Users talk page to stop harrassing me , and leave me alone.[25] But contrary to what they demand from the ordinary User (unlawfully of couse ) rules made up by themselves, my message was reverted by the other member of the gang! see this [26]
These people think that the administratorship at Spanish Wikipedia is a gift given to them, and that makes them feel special and powerful (above the law)! Like they can do whatever they wish without fear of punishement! (That's not true of course, the administratorship can be revoked at anytime for reasons specified by wikipedia foundation .) Like go to someone's User talk page and reinstate, revert messages espicialy when you have the same status as the the other user (not an administrator there (diffrent Wikipedia projects). Why blame them! If you are someone born and raised in countries run by the dictators, and haven't experienced, none, freedom and human rights in your life, then this sort of actions (bullying, Intrusion, etc) are normal! you must live to learn, and must learn to live! I Know Without law there can be no civilization . But I also know it must be respected by all the people!
Mr. Wales I am sure that you're a kind and a human loving person . Specialy in a world we're living today (wars, famin, extremism, poverty, etc) and that spirt of loving, caring for others help you in this endeavor, wich was to creat Wikipedia foundation. Although in view of some (like our professor at University) small, but for me very big contribution to educational field . Alas , that spirt and contribution is tarnishing by the very people , whom should care for it the most! Thank you , and wish luck , success in your life and future projects whatever maybe . (Mona778 (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC))
User:Taichi is editing wrongly at your talkpage on English Wikipedia. So I have given them advice on their talkpage. Some of your posts are difficult to read because of formatting, so you should pay attention to this. I do not know about Commons or about what Mr Wales thinks of this. MPS1992 (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
This is also on ANI, and I'll handle it there. The other editor was wrong in restoring those warnings, but launching a jeremiad on This Here Talk Page is out of proportion. Also, where this gang (ahem) is from is irrelevant. Anyway, Taichi should not have done what they did, but I'll read them the riot act elsewhere. Carry on Jimmy, and Roll Tide. Drmies (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Is Methusulah really the world's oldest living person?
Jimmy my friend, your encyclopedia needs some work if discussions like this are the norm. You're really going to be a laughingstock is Methasulah is supposed to be the world's oldest living person on earth. And to think you have your admin corp on board with this idiocy, comical. 166.170.47.184 (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
for this negligent response"] And then, when he received a response by an Administrator in charge there which he clearly didn't like
[http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents "
Aiaiai where to start. First of all, removing warnings is just fine. If y'all block for that on the Spanish wiki, power to you, but that is not how we roll here. Second, I looked at the warnings and what they were for. ClueBot's was wrong; there was nothing wrong with this edit. AKS.9955's warning was wrong too: this revert on AKS's part means either they didn't look to see what they reverted or they don't read English. And then you come by and restore two incorrect warnings and a couple of old things from Ponyo. No, that's not OK, Taicho; maybe y'all have different rules but here you'll have to play by ours. And don't go casting stones at MPS1992, who was absolutely correct. Best thing for you to do: apologize to Mona for incorrectly reinstating useless warnings (that's two different things you did wrong) and then move along"],
he became tense and more agitated to directly go to User talk page of the adminstrator in charge at Administrators notice
board/incidents to insult, and even worse try to bribe, yes bribe an admnistrator in charge in return for a favor! It looks like these people
have mistaken an Administrator of a nonprofit organization with a member of a drug ring!
It's amazing, because none of those two (Taichi nor Yeza) seems to be sure as to why I got blocked at Spanish Wikipedia! According to
Taichi, I was blocked because I always erased my messages at my User talk page even though I was only a member there (less than a week)
before the Intiation of the block. Also, they dysfunctioned (talk page cleaning) with a protection the same day I become a member
there. Then I ask You how would I be able to erase my User talk page if it was protected in the first place!? see this "Blanqueo de página de discusión"
As for the other User Yeza's claim that my block was because I tried to impose my version of edit on a article disregard of
the source (not sources,) because I was the one with the sources but was overruled in favor of other User (Pawita)! Further, he
And finaly, this was the last reply from the Adminstrator in charge to them
[http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Drmies"Taichi, I don't have a problem in your wiki: you seem to have a problem in mine. If you are embarrassed, I'm sorry for you; but this edit and this edit are just not done. You get onto someone's talk page to restore, against all our guidelines, an unjust warning from three months before? Have you read WP:OWNTALK, the part where it says "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages.... The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user"? Did you read the warning, and what it was for? It was this edit--now look at it and tell me why that had to be reverted. And then you make it even worse with this edit. So, "integrity"? You don't have a leg to stand on, and the more you argue, the sillier you look.
Yeza, what this editor did on the Spanish wiki is of no interest to me at all, but if Taichi acts there the way they're trying to act here, I feel for those editors. Please look at Mona's edits on the English wiki and tell me what they did wrong. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC).]
Now, I am not in position to tell you what to do about them Mr Wales, of course It's up to you to decide after taking all the facts into
conclusion after all it's your foundation. It was your vision and hard work that made it happen. But as I said before, it's pity to see
how people like these tarnish great contribution and service to educatinal field!
These people want two separate laws! One to use for themselves, and one for others! They told me at the discussion board (Spanish Wikipedia) that
But then again, when it comes to themselves they choose otherwise. This is a true example of hypocrisy! The guy Taichi says I am a User
since 2005, but then it seems he forgets that doesn't matter how many years you're a member or User, You can be a King, President, Judge
or whatever for years and years, but if you break the law you become a felon, and therefore deserves punishment. For me Spanish
Wikipedia is finished. And I will never, ever go there again. Specially, not when people like those two (Taichi and Yeza) are in charge
for sure! Their behaviour is like members of Mexcian drug cartels, and wouldn't suprise me at all if one day I fell at their mercy to
have the same fate as the victims of those cartels! Have a nice day, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to serve and be a
member of your community.
P.S. Yeza says I use many Ips, but then it seems he's unaware that we're living in a 21 Century! Specially for people like me who goes to University and
You may be interested in an ongoing RFC regarding a new top-level article for the conflict. The current confusing situation of having three separate primary articles on the topic may have been behind a factual error in your opinion piece. For more, see here. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
maxarchsize=250000 and the last archive pushed /Archive 199 from 249,750 bytes (just under the max) to 344,159 bytes – well over the max. So the next archive should create /Archive 200. Don't suppose this is some sort of "Y2K problem"? Wbm1058 (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Apparently this page used to be archived by MiszaBot, which is currently inactive. Ignore the commented out code for the former archiving configuration. This page, as probably the most active personal talk page on the 'pedia, is likely to test the limits of the archiving bots' algorithms. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I see, User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis § Example: Changing from MiszaBot to ClueBot III mentions a reported bug. Perhaps this relates to that. I see that Cluebot III was doing fine until 07:46, 24 October 2015, but then people started using OneClickArchiver at 11:01, 31 October 2015. I also see that ClueBot III woke from its slumber at 23:33, 9 November 2015 to archive 22 discussions. We should determine why it went to sleep, and what woke it up. In the meantime, I suppose it can't hurt to update counter and numberstart, though theoretically, per the documentation, we shouldn't need to do that, in practice, they should be kept up to date for the benefit of OneClickArchiver, should that ever be used here again. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
People started using OneClickArchiver because CB3 stopped archiving the page for whatever reason and the page started getting too long. As to what has caused CB3 to stop archiving last time and this time you would be best to ask its admins @Cobi:@DamianZaremba:@Rich Smith:. In the meantime I have used OneClickArchiver to archive it.--5 albert square (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@SB Johnny: All of them haven't been commented for some time, some of them for a couple of weeks. Given that the bot is set to archive discussions that are 36 hours old, how are they considered active? You've confused me.--5 albert square (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah ok, apologies I read that as over the 36 hours. But then why revert threads that haven't been commented on for 10 days? Surely they're not still active?--5 albert square (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I reverted all because it was one button to do so. No worries, feel free to archive the threads that are actually moribund if you want (but please actually check them). Subthreads (more than 2 "=") don't generally get archived by the bot if the main thread (or other subthreads under that thread) is/are active. Makes the archive page a sloppy mess if you don't do it that way. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 02:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I posted a message on ClueBot III's talk page. That, combined with your pings here, means the bot-operators have just recently been notified. I also see from User talk:ClueBot Commons/Editnotice that an email might get their attention faster. Can you send them one; as I'm on Yahoo mail, last I checked sending mail wasn't easy for me because my mails get bounced back to me. It would be nice if they could triage this and let us know if it's an easy fix or not; if not then we can begin archiving. I'll do it tomorrow if there's no response before then. I agree it's reasonable to archive most of these, but care must be taken, and I'd use some admin-discretion and be perhaps a bit more liberal than a bot would be in determining what's ready to archive. The burden is on the person archiving to do it right; there's no burden on the rollbacker to take extra time to selectively revert. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know whether editing any of the bot's files might wake it up or not. Also don't know the extent to which one-click-archiving might disrupt the bot's system here. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Munged for human reuse, yes. But not for CB3 reuse. More details. For the Header column, this comes from using html links in section titles, i.e. using [http://.... ], instead of wp double brackets. For the Archive column: when using relative links, the brackets should be recoded using %5B ... %5D, i.e. replacing line 2 by line 2bis. This supposes to understand the difference between anchor and wikicode !
I cleaned up the Archive 199 Detailed Indices. Right, this may not "wake the bot" on this page, but, as the bot continues to update some other editors' talk pages, I'm thinking that the bot is not literally down, but rather is choking on data somewhere. Just not easy to figure out where. Unless the operators have divided up the tasks and "the" bot is really multiple bots running on multiple machines, and only one of those machines is actually down. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
If something on this page is blocking bot-archives, then the bot's likely to remain blocked until whatever is blocking it is removed – possibly by a manual-archive. Checking the obvious, I see that User:AnomieBOT/Nobots Hall of Shame shows only one page using Template:Bots to block ClueBot III, and it's not this page. Nor do I see any of Jimbo's pages on the "block all bots" list. Wbm1058 (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: I'm wondering if it has something to do with the size of the first two threads at the top of this page? They are rather big, however every time someone archives them they get undone saying that the discussion isn't over. I emailed Rich the other day as ClueBot NG was also not working but not had any response. I'll give it another day or two and if no response I'll email all the bots admins through Wikipedia.--5 albert square (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Auto-archiving on this page broken? Providing a test case
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What is appropriate Board of Trustees/staff communication?
@Jimbo:, I see you offered to "I'm happy to discuss further what constitutes appropriate or inappropriate communication(re: board>staff communication)"
One of the interesting things about our board is that many of us are both board members and members of the community and therefore have multiple roles. I work a lot in communications as spokesperson which means that I work a lot with Katherine and the rest of the comms team. It is important that in that role I always make it clear that I work for them. I am not their manager and I should not assign them work out of process. So that's my first example.
Another example would be discussing matters that might be sensitive to people's job positions in a way that would cause drama or concerns. Let's make a hypothetical which is ridiculous just so it is clear that it is a hypothetical. Suppose the board were planning to consider a proposal to outsource all engineering and get rid of all software development people. A board member discussing that directly with junior programmers in such a fashion to cause them unjustified fear and uncertainty and to cause them to potentially divert time and resources into lobbying the board or whatever - that's not sensible. (No such proposal has ever been considered! I deliberately made it ridiculous. But there have been cases where board members should not discuss willy-nilly with staff things that will be discussed at the board level in the future.)
A particularly egregious type of example would be campaigns to staff against other board members or against other staff members.
I could keep going but I think you begin to see the kinds of things that are generally considered bad things for board members to do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Yes, I'm getting the picture. Just one follow up, what is the process for you assigning them work, do you go through their manager? Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't assign people work. They assign me work. :) I should clarify what I mean, though. As you may have seen, Wikimedia recently announced the creation of an endowment with a $1 million donation and the intention to raise $99 million more. Obviously, that falls into the realm of something I can help with because I know a lot of billionaires. So that's something I'm working on. The person hired to work on it contacted me just before Davos (where I am now) asking if I needed support in terms of doing research on people I'm having meetings with or whatever. I said, no, actually, what I need is a quick summary that I can hand to relevant people. So he produced that and sent it over. You might say that I "assigned him work" but I wouldn't classify it as that. It's central to his job to support me in raising that money. We work together. I wouldn't, on the other hand, assign him a major project like "here's a list of everyone who is coming to Davos, with the ones I know highlighted, please produce an analysis of who is most likely to donate so that I can prioritize meetings" without making sure that his manager agrees with that idea. (It's probably something I'll do myself before next year's Davos.)
Do you see the distinction I'm making? And do you see how of course there is a huge gray area. My view is that board members should be very very careful to stay out of that gray area as much as is reasonable.--84.227.103.153 (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
This message appears as signed by a Single Purpose Account IP. But another explanation seems possible too. Pldx1 (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't see Jimbo in Category:Wikipedians with alternative accounts. Since public computers at Davos can have password-stealing malware installed, users may register an alternative account to prevent the hijacking of their main accounts. Since word got out that Angela Merkel was hacked, I'm sure all our world leaders there are taking all precautions. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
That thread (with subthreads) had become 200 kb, where the archive page-size limit has been 250 kb. I think some mobile phones cannot copy/paste when a Wikipedia page gets very large, and so the paste operation (such as level dots "::::::") might abort their edit of the whole page (when trying to reply to multiple threads in a single edit. --Wikid77 (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@Wikid77 and Elvey: Elvey, if you are going to undo an archival you have to undo it in the actual archive too. Else the archives get messed up. I have done that for you. However, this is getting ridiculous, this page is over 335,000 bytes and it is starting to cause issues. Something has to be done and it has now been archived and unarchived twice. --Majora (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
How about an answer with content from the co-founder about the removal of Doc James, up to now there was no reason given for this slap in the face of the communities besides I don't like him and countless blahblah. Same goes for the second unfathomable decision by the board, the appointment of a disgraced new member. Once there is a meaningful answer, those topics are done with, and can be archived. As long as Jimbo keeps them simmering by not answering any questions with real answers, they keep simmering and thus not get archived. Tough luck for mobile users, but not the fault of those who ask valid questions. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)20:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
(ec) I undid the archival, because I ran into an edit conflict; I was replying in the thread while it was being archived, and which has open questions directed at Jimbo. I was about to take care of the archive syncing. Thanks. I wasn't aware it has been archived before. Are *you* unable to edit from a mobile phone, Wikid77? Majora? Which phone? Mobile phone editors can edit a section of the page... --Elvey(t•c)21:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
If page size is a concern (and if we're going to continue the discussion about Heilman), can't we just move the entire thread to a subpage of Jimbotalk (for example, User talk:Jimbo Wales/James Heilman removed from WMF Board) and put a note at the top of this page to the effect of The thread "James Heilman removed from WMF Board" has been moved to User talk:Jimbo Wales/James Heilman removed from WMF Board due to page size concerns. Please direct all related discussions to that page. Thank you.? That way, the thread isn't archived and people can still edit it, and this page doesn't have to be so large. CabbagePotato (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I just tried it on my phone (Android) and Google hanged and didn't even load the screen. So yes, I have difficulty loading it on mobile which means other people are as well. I like CabbagePotato's idea of moving the entire thing to a subpage and leaving a note at the top. --Majora (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Could those who want to have this discussion removed from here with flimsy "reasons" please at least get those paragraphs here, that have been edited in the last couple of days? BTW: I've got no problems on my Sony X3 compact. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)12:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I just did a web search for the alleged 250kb "technical page-size limits for some mobile-phone access" and could not find any evidence of it existing. I saw a few pages about staying within the cache for fastest access when you hit the back button, but those pages were from 5-10 years ago and were talking about limits in the 5MB range - twenty times the size of the 250kb range claimed here. Does anyone have any info on this? Perhaps I missed something. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I am connecting through an RFC1149RFC2549RFC6214 wireless connection, and the delays are roughly the same whether the page is 10 bytes, 10 kilobytes or 10 megabytes. I suspect that the results for a 10 gigabyte page would depend on the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
People have advised to edit a large page by section-edit. Otherwise editing near the bottom of the page, when over 350,000 bytes long, can cause a character echo of over 4-12 seconds on somesmart phones, with other apps running at the same time. The time delay might be due to suggested spelling corrections when editing the talk-page. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:42/22:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
before
after
Before
After
_by_Nadar_-_Original.jpg)
_by_Nadar.jpg)
![[16]](http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Charles_Gounod_%281890%29_by_Nadar.jpg){kind=link}