User talk:Jimbo Wales

James Heilman removed from WMF Board

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)

There is a thread about this at Wikimedia-l but it currently has no further information. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Text from the mailing list:

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
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_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

• — xaosflux ^Talk 02:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:40, 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)

This is shocking. Unless a rock solid explanation is given, then James Heilman should be replaced by . . . James Heilman. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:32, 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)

In any case, I'll add my voice to be keen to hear why. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 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)

I doubt that first explanation. Emergency room physicians tend to work regular, predictable schedules, except during disasters. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:47, 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)

Did you know? John Wilkes fought for the right of his voters—rather than the House of Commons—to determine their representatives. In 1768 angry protests of his supporters were suppressed in the St George's Fields Massacre, when government soldiers opened fire on demonstrators that had gathered at St George's Fields, Southwark in south London. The protest was against the imprisonment of the radical Member of Parliament John Wilkes for writing an article that severely criticised King George III. After the reading of the Riot Act telling the crowds to disperse within the hour, six or seven people were killed when fired on by troops. In 1771, Wilkes was instrumental in obliging the government to concede the right of printers to publish verbatim accounts of parliamentary debates. In 1776, he introduced the first Bill for parliamentary reform in the British Parliament. During the American War of Independence, he was a supporter of the American rebels. Wbm1058 (talk) 05:21, 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 Clark identified 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)

Dear Jimbo, that is really fine to blame James for your own actions. --.js (((☎))) 11:34, 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)

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)

So how exactly has he failed the community, again? odder (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I dunno. Maybe we'll find out when the statement is released. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:38, 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)

+1. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 17:28, 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)

I meant mandate in the strict sense of election victory, nothing more.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 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)

• Will the minutes of the meeting be posted with other meeting's minutes or elsewhere. When can we expect to have them posted? If they will not be posted then why not? Jbh^Talk 18:23, 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. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 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)

You should really stop this. There is a time and place to air your grievances but this not it. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

"shortcomings in character" ← is this kind of PA sanctionable? It probably should be. Alexbrn (talk) 19:36, 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. MastCell ^Talk 20:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it is important to distinguish between two positions here:

1. Not being happy that a trustee has been booted without explanation.
2. 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.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC).

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)

The board could learn a share from the astounding professionalism of the german inner minister: ... please understand why I don't want to give answers to your questions. Why? A part of those answers would irritate the population ... ... oh, did they already? --.js (((☎))) 20:58, 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)

+1 very good point! --.js (((☎))) 07:30, 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.

The people who voted to remove James Heilman from the Board of Trustees are Patricio Lorente, Alice Wiegand, Frieda Brioschi, Jimmy Wales, Stu West, Jan-Bart de Vreede, Guy Kawasaki, and Denny Vrandečić. The reputation of the WMF and the people who voted to remove James Heilman is at stake here. One of the major problems is that "The Wikimedia Foundation has virtually no influence on what is written in Wikipedia." Wales says "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."[1] However, The WMF has failed the community a long time ago. If there were paid editors to deal with the WP:NOTHERE editors things could improve greatly. Admins currently don't police article content. Arbcom does not police article content. Problematic editors continue to make counterproductive edits and try to white-wash articles. The disruption on Wikipedia continues by advocates who are indistinguishable from trolls according to User:Larry Sanger. QuackGuru (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

Perhaps announce some date by which an explanation will be issued. Edison (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I expect they'll just wait for the next thing to distract attention and hope this dies. That seems to be the normal strategy. Intothatdarkness 23:27, 29 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)

The Foundation suppressed the most recent survey of the proportion of female editors for almost two years. Will you please answer my three questions at #Remedies for the future below? EllenCT (talk) 02:35, 31 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)

we need to know what happened--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:03, 30 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. Liz ^{Read! 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)

"Did you know" – that Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania was named after John Wilkes and Isaac Barré? – Wbm1058 (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Remedies for the future

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)

• Jimbo, will you support an amendment to the bylaws prohibiting the removal of community-elected trustees without cause? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:28, 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)

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)

Simply saying that I won't say anything inflammatory is itself inflammatory? That's a very strange way of thinking.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You have said inflammatory things. Please don't twist my words. --.js (((☎))) 10:24, 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.

We should all step back and let Jimbo find his words. HighInBC 09:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, but it isn't me we are waiting on.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

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. HighInBC 19:39, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:20, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:35, 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. — foxj 17:13, 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 clique majority 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. AlbinoFerret 17:43, 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 edits 19:35, 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)

To clarify no organisations or individuals outside of the WMF were justification for my removal. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

A reminder

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 anything right 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)

Agreed that this is a specious reading of election results. Carrite (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2016 (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)

Oh, the Foundation can be very rapid, when they want. Destroying trust in few hours (on a sunday by the way), but taking forever to make an excuse. --Magiers (talk) 10:30, 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. Jehochman ^Talk 14:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Superprotect was not rapid. That commit you linked to from August 10, 2014 was discussed at least as early as July 31. -- Tim Starling (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2016 (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 wonder what the board wants to keep secret... Certain ideas spring to mind. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC).

"Failure to meet expectations?" The board has failed to meet my expectations in this fiasco. Edison (talk) 02:57, 1 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)

Now, if that is the issue, then we really might have a serious moral dilemma in play; because secrecy equates to removing knowledge, which seems the opposite of what an encyclopedia is all about. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:49, 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)

He says he 'under an obligation' not to mention specifics. I don't know why he is under such an obligation though Peter Damian (talk) 11:39, 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 page} 11:03, 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)

Indeed. I disagree with him.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:55, 3 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)

This had nothing do with the NSA, nor with Wikivoyage.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

My statement which hopefully addresses some of the rumors. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Doc James' "Statement Regarding My Removal"
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)

I agree, I do not find "cause" for removing in the above statement --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:52, 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 page} 11:10, 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)

User:Doc_James/Foundation has further information. EllenCT (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, r u subject to a National Security Letter?

Further to Wnt's question above, are you? Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Even if he was, he couldnt tell you. Read the page linked to in the section header. A NSL comes with a gag order. AlbinoFerret 21:01, 4 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)

"Because We Can" seems correct

After reading Doc James statement above, I am satisfied that the initial concern by Seraphimblade is correct. Doc's statement shows me that the so-called issues behind the axing are pissant bullshit and would only be acceptable reasons to bumpkins. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a remarkable degree of bad faith you show there to the other trustees of the WMF. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean it to appear to be bad faith. Its just my feelings about one decision they made; feelings based upon the information available to me at this time. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:44, 3 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. What happened? Dr. James Heilman was removed from the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees following a 8-2 vote on 28 December 2015. Heilman was appointed to the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees at Wikimania 2015 based on his selection during the 2015 process for community-selected Trustees. Over time, his 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. 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. x y 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 [[<tvar|removalbylawlink>wmf:Bylaws#Section 7. Removal.</>|Bylaws, Article IV, Section 7.]] </translate> <translate> 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. </translate> <translate> 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. </translate> <translate> 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. </translate> <translate> 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 [[<tvar|minuteslink>wmf:Meetings</>|minutes]] and [[<tvar|resolutionslink>wmf:Resolutions</>|resolutions,]] and we openly and transparently maintain our governance standards and processes in the [[<tvar|boardhandbooklink>Wikimedia Foundation Board Handbook</>|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. </translate> <translate> 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 [[<tvar|boardnoticeboardlink>Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard</>|Board noticeboard]]. </translate> <translate> 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. </translate> <translate> 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. </translate>

LINK — Carrite (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Shuffle, avoid eye contact, mumble, obfuscate. "Move along; nothing to see here." Edison (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I have still been given no reason not to trust Doc James. BethNaught (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

This had nothing to do with the NSA or any outside party.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:04, 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)

This had nothing to do with him wanting to go public about any issues.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:04, 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)

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 [6]. And we had a slide describing a "knowledge engine"[7] back in June. It however is still more opaque than it should be. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Finally, some sort of epitope that doesn't taste like polyethylene glycol! John S. and James L. Knight Foundation was set up by the Knights in Knight Ridder (now part of The McClatchy Company) Website here. Funding the Discovery Department (mw:Wikimedia Discovery) for $250,000. In the note cited above, the Discovery Department's deliverables include:

• 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)

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

it seems DocJames wanted more transparency...the rest of them didn't --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Waiting for Jimbo to say "no, that's not the reason" without saying what the "reason" was. --Malerooster (talk) 21:47, 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." [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

"readers' IPs are recorded in site logs."

@Jimbo:Regarding this matter mentioned above: "readers' IPs are recorded in site logs." Should not readers be informed of this on the home page? Perhaps with a prominent top left suggestion that they read the privacy policy before they start reading or contributing? I think that is only fair, perhaps something like this:

Welcome to Wikipedia,

Please read our privacy policy before using Wikipedia,

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

What do you think about that idea? Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Every single website you visit stores pertinent information about the connection. That is how the Internet works. Google, Facebook, YouTube, every news site you ever visited, they probably all store your IP address in their servers. Anyone that uses the Internet should know that. It is 2016 not 1990 and that information should be pretty close to common knowledge by now. If you want to view Wikipedia privately use Tor, you just won't be able to edit without IPBE. --Majora (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not common knowledge, not by a long shot, and since you use the word "probably", perhaps the storage of IP addresses is not as common as you think. More importantly, what we are talking about here is what people read, which a lot of us have been taught is a private matter in a free society and something that has historically been used against perfectly innocent people from time to time; e.g. McCarthyism. In addition, Wikipedia should be a leader in full and up front disclosure to our customers/readers/donors of whatever info about them or their IP address is kept, how it is used and when it is shared. I think providing a prominent link to the privacy policy is the least we should do. Nocturnalnow (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a link at the bottom of the page, which I consider more than sufficient. If you're worried about Wikipedia storing this, remember your ISP can and may store this too, for far longer than you think. Oh, and local intelligence agencies may well capture this too.... Mdann52 (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

With respect, you miss my primary point which is simply one of disclosure to our readers and to a lessor degree to our contributors. Your points about local intelligence agencies or ISP providers are off point, as I am only addressing here what we (Wikipdeia) are doing. Also, the link in teeny tiny font at the bottom of the page is certainly not sufficient, imo. and is something I already noticed, which is why I used the word "prominent" in my suggestion above. People's freedom to select and read material on Wikipedia, without being recorded by Wikipedia, is reasonably assumed by most Americans and Canadians, imo.

But more to the point, what is wrong with making the change I suggest above, i.e.,

Welcome to Wikipedia,

Please read our privacy policy before using Wikipedia,

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

???? Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Given the overall context, such a message would be wildly misleading to most non-technical people. IP addresses are recorded as a matter of course at virtually every single website. It's the default for web server logs for all major web server software packages. It's routine. Having a special scary disclaimer would suggest that we are more intrusive of privacy than other websites, when the truth is exactly the opposite: we adhere to absolute best practices of disclosure and - importantly - burning data as quickly as is reasonably practical.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo, I have ran open source servers in the past. From what your saying you get rid of old data. Can you give any information on when the sever logs that store the ip's are deleted? I can bet with a site as big as WP the logs would have to be limited in size before another is started and deleting the old ones would be necessary on probably a weekly or monthly schedule. Perhaps that will help reassure people who fear information collection. AlbinoFerret 14:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo, is there a reason that IP addresses of readers are recorded? I would prefer that we not record the IP addresses of readers, although I am fine with recording the IP addresses of editors. EllenCT (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It is important for statistical reasons, and it should be (and is) deleted as soon as is practical. You'd have to talk to someone at the Foundation about the current precise practices, but every time I have checked, I've been satisfied that the practices are very good indeed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't seem to be radically different from other major websites in terms of IP logs, cookies etc. Here is the BBC's privacy policy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@EllenCT: because the WMF uses this data to improve the site, and to deal with abuse. I think that storing this data is needed for some purposes. I would also note m:Data retention guidelines#How long do we retain non-public data? - and the fact this is less identifying than walking into a library, for example, and having your face caught on CCTV. Mdann52 (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mdann52: That is a fairly good comparison. Libraries may have CCTV cameras ....... but there is a huge range of things they might do with them. Do they throw out old tapes after 48 hours unless there's a vandalism problem, or do they hold them forever? Do they keep them locked in a basement or do they put them on an online server by a third company that might harvest data or consent to police monitoring? Do they run facial recognition, do they cross-index with book withdrawals and create a database that may be taken by hackers?

There are a lot of things that can be done with information. A key question here is: do you keep the IP for as long as you're serving the page, for months, or forever, and who do you share it with? And so far all the changes in policy have been in the wrong direction. Wnt (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Keeep in mind that storing IP adresses is extremely helpful for sock puppet investigations, by a small group of trusted Wikipedia users using the CheckUser tool to find accounts sharing IP addresses. --Distelfinck (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Distelfinck: I hope that readers' IP addresses are not being used in sock puppet hunts. Though it is hard to rule out anything in the quixotic - but ultimately sinister - bureaucratic crusade to identify anonymous editors. Wnt (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: the raw data is only available to WMF ops (AFAIK), and is aggregated and the original data deleted as soon as possible. Mdann52 (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:CHECKUSER data is kept for around 90 days according to a question asked in the past. It is necessary to comply with European privacy law and website privacy policies are often written in a rather vague way to avoid possible legal problems. For example, if the policy said "We keep the data for 90 days" and then a computer glitch caused it to be kept for 91 days, the website could face a host of lawsuits. The Wikipedia and BBC privacy policies both use the same type of wording along the lines of "We log IP addresses and use cookies to improve website experience" which is about as detailed as many policies get.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

What it actually says is "If you are visiting Wikimedia Sites with your mobile device, we may use your IP address to provide anonymized or aggregated information to service providers regarding the volume of usage in certain areas. We use IP addresses for research and analytics; to better personalize content, notices, and settings for you; to fight spam, identity theft, malware, and other kinds of abuse; and to provide better mobile and other applications" Does that sound like a conservative wording to you? Especially note the clever "anonymized or aggregated". Bear in mind that we must have heard a thousand companies say they "store no personal information" because an IP "isn't personal information", so IP addresses are, by definition, anonymized, and so they presumably can share them with mobile phone providers (read, government stooges) at will. Now of course, the providers already have the IP addresses of their own devices, so what IP data are they sharing? Well, maybe the IP addresses are in the cookies, local storage, and collected by tracking pixels that they mention. The effect being that the somewhat difficult to verify data - IP address, which could be anyone visiting a house or hotspot - can be related back to the government identity and tracking records held by the phone companies that do monthly billing. (honestly, I have no idea where the tracking pixels are - are they even on site or in other sites around the web?) The bottom line - the "privacy policy", like any corporate privacy policy on the internet, is a long justification of how whatever they can do they will do and isn't it nice of them to say so? Wnt (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much every website on the internet records the IPs of everyone who visits by defaults. This is true for very near 100% of all of the internet. This is hardly anything to be concerned about. This is exactly common knowledge, and while some people may not know this it is tantamount to saying someone does not know that a car uses fire to move.

For those who don't know, any time you do anything on the internet with any other computers they are announcing their IP, that is how the tubes know where to connect. HighInBC 16:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: "Pretty much every website on the internet records the IPs of everyone who visits by defaults"; Evidence, Please. A google search on the phrase "we do not collect IP addresses" gets a lot of hits. I am still waiting for someone to explain what use Wikipedia has for the IP addresses and pages visited by readers (as opposed to editors).[9] I often read Wikipedia through the Tor anonymity network, which means that Wikipedia has no IP address they can link to me and idea what pages I have read. Can someone explain, in detail, in what way this lack of knowledge has hurt Wikipedia? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I am basing this on my 15 years experience as a web developer. Any major website is going to be subject to hacking attempts and possible denial of service attacks, without IP information defence against such attacks is near impossible. Intrusion detection systems will detect malicious traffic and block is, by the IP. Without this information the people who keep the servers running cannot complete their job.

Please do a bit of research before asking me to prove something that is a standard practice. If you really want you can setup a website and see what the default logging is like. HighInBC 16:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I second this comment.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Also if you actually read what "We do not collect IP addresses" is part of on those websites you will see that they do indeed collect IP addresses and that the sentence you quote is almost always followed by "We do not collect IP addresses for the purposes of". As in they collect them for technical reasons but not contrary to their privacy policy, like we and everyone else does. HighInBC 16:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is some introductory reading on the subject: Do Websites Track and Record IP Addresses?. HighInBC 16:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: When you connect to a website, it inevitably learns the IP you are at. It does not inevitably learn the IP you were at as recorded in a tracking cookie or local storage. Nor can it necessarily correlate where your IP was at with other sites, unless the sites coordinate their records by data sharing or by using tracking pixels.

I also neglected to mention above that the privacy policy doesn't in any way seem to disparage the collection of information by "third parties", who are not subject to the privacy policy, except that you can report it to a WMF IP address. So there's no specific guarantee I see that a site like a company running the Wikipedia shop (which I remember doing this a while back) can't legitimately hotlink to images on their own pages, thereby potentially getting their own collection of IP records to play with. Wnt (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb for privacy on the internet, "If you are on the Internet, it is probably not private". Even if the Foundation fails to properly track your actions the NSA will be sure to get it. If you see any suspicious external links let me know and I will look into it. HighInBC 16:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

To try to give an explanation maybe more accessible to laypeople (I'm a programmer myself): the Internet is a bunch of computers that talk to each other. Every computer on the Internet has a number called an IP address that identifies it (let's ignore proxies and NAT and all that to keep things simple). Every message a computer sends over the Internet contains its own IP address (the source) and the destination's IP address. This is how the computers that sit between them (the "Internet backbone", loosely speaking) know where to send the messages. Analogies are often drawn with the postal system. If I want to send you a letter, I need to know your address and put it on the envelope so the postal system knows what to do with it. And if I don't include my address as the return address you won't know where to send a reply (assume for the sake of the analogy that it doesn't work well to put my address inside the envelope); in this analogy the postal service automatically rejects anything without a return address. So you can see from this that every computer you talk to over the Internet knows your IP address, by virtue of how the Internet works. The computer can, of course, immediately throw this information away after it's done talking to you, but such things are up to whoever controls the computer. And it's true that, as touched on above, retaining logs of who talked to you and when, at least for some period of time, is routine for servers; it's helpful for a lot of things, including diagnosing problems. To debug complex network issues you pretty much need to log network activity. Another point worth making is that every computer between you and the other end also knows who you're talking to. They also know everything you say if your communications aren't encrypted. This is the "low-hanging fruit" of mass surveillance programs: you simply tap the Internet backbone and read all the messages as they pass back and forth. Intelligence agencies have engaged in other programs as well that involve more active measures, but that's another topic. I'm not trying to advance any particular position, just trying to be helpful. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Prominent Disclosure Placement is an issue that needs addressing, imo. There has been no compelling argument here as to why we should not have something like this:

"Please read our privacy policy before using Wikipedia"

at the top of our main page.

It is important, imo, that we prominently make our readers aware of the policy and encourage them to have a look at it, because most will not assume that they are subject to so much monitoring and recording of their reading activities.

I have not read much of our privacy policy as yet and I have already come upon wordings that surprised me: e.g.

We use some downloaded products, like MaxMind’s GeoIP City DB, which allows us to internally determine the approximate ::location of our users..........the data we retrieve is unlikely to be good enough to have a sandwich delivered.

Other times, we may use third-party providers to help us manage the information we store or use.

independent researchers have been able to link non-personal and aggregate information from different sources to particular users. While we try to avoid this by seeking to anonymize information before sharing it for research purposes, we want to make you are aware of this risk.

IP addresses associated with contributions from unregistered users are visible in an article’s revision history indefinitely

You are consenting to the use of your information in the U.S. and to the transfer of that information to other countries in connection to providing our services to you and others.

So sometimes we use third-party service providers or contractors who help run or improve the Wikimedia Sites for you and other users. We may give access to your personal information to these providers or contractors as needed to perform their services for us or to use their tools and services.

Bottom line is, if we are happy with our privacy policy, why not take the link to our privacy policy out of the fine print at the bottom of the page and place it in a prominent, top of the page position? Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Should they also have an alert to let readers know their computers are connected to the internet and the page they are viewing is not on their PCs? I've ran websites, forums and FTP sites in the 90's. Every time you connect to a server, your IP is logged. This is not new information. Dave Dial (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, Jimbo's talk page really isn't the place to have this discussion. If you want to place something new on the main page I recommend starting a RfC on Talk:Main page. If consensus is on your side so be it. But again, I have to agree with Dave Dial. Every website you visit logs your IP. Wikipedia is not doing anything different and a disclaimer at the top is a little silly if you ask me. --Majora (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. So, I put the Rfc there, I hope I did it right.Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Who has access to readers' IP addresses, and how long are they kept? Can we turn off collection of them except when abuse such as DDoS attacks are occuring? 168.103.81.4 (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's the story as it reached my ears: The logs are kept for a few weeks. Ops uses the aggregate data to figure out problems. The two main problems are due to ISPs between Wikipedia and readers (e.g., "We're getting complaints from Indonesia that pages aren't loading, and the logs confirm that traffic to that IP range is lower this week compared to last week") and the occasional external process gone bad (anyone else remember when Amazon.com got blocked?).

If you want any kind of individual data, then you have to go through both Legal and then trial by ordeal with James A. It's remarkable how little information is kept, how painful it is to extract individual information from the logs, and how nearly useless that information is for any purpose except web traffic management. A list of IP addresses and date stamps just doesn't get you very far in the real world.

All of this is about readers. If you edit a page while logged out, then your IP address is permanently displayed in the history tab. Anyone who wants to know who edited Embarrassment or Dispute can go look it up, without needing access to any of the private logs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Why does this have to be "the story as it reached your ears"? Why can't there be a simple standing order on record: all Wikimedia employees are advised that if they are in possession of IP addresses of readers from more than 30 days previous, they should securely delete them, post in [some public location] why they were in possession of them, or else post in [some public location] what data they have and say low long they need to keep it? Why isn't there a standard clause in every contract awarded by WMF that the contractee has to securely delete the data within a certain time frame, and notify the users in a public location of any errors? Wnt (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Because deletions are done as a courtesy and any promise to delete all data after a fixed amount of time is either illegal (Court orders to save a data set), opens up a host of legal problems (what if the process to automatically drop the table is halted), or makes the lives of researchers infinitely harder. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Wnt, I thought you were interested in knowing what's involved in getting access to the logs. "Not-getting" access to the logs is much simpler. The rules for most staff, including me, are quite straightforward: "If you touch this, then you're fired" – no delete-within-30-days option involved. (Also, it's in the staff handbook under "Confidentiality Agreement", rather than individual contracts, and it covers quite a bit more than reader privacy.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've been involved in a number of network forensics projects as part of my litigation consulting. Even if Wikipedia didn't keep server logs, or deleted them after 30 days, it would be possible to get logs from Wikipedia's ISP(s) which contain much the same info. ISPs keep their logs for a long time. If your connection to Wikipedia is secure (HTTPS), the request is encrypted, including the URL and any parameters. So, if Wikipedia ditches their logs, it would be possible for somebody with sufficient legal access to know that you were accessing Wikipedia, when, and how many times, but they would not know which pages unless they could decrypt SSL. However, by matching HTTPS request timestamps with a page history, they could probably show it was you editing a particular page. It is possible that government actors can decode SSL. One theoretically easy way for them to do this is to install an SSL interception proxy at the ISP. (See [10]) So, it boils down to whether you trust ISPs in general, or you believe that ISPs might be working with government to intercept and decrypt SSL. If you think Chinese ISPs aren't decrypting SSL, I think you are being naive. Jehochman ^Talk 15:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Privacy issues all depend on the specific threat. People who edit face the most risk from IP tracking, but we shouldn't neglect the importance of people who read. For example, it's possible the next time some idiot sets off a pressure cooker bomb and Boston goes under a lockdown declaring a formal State of Cowardice, they run around bashing in the doors of everyone in town who read pressure cooker bomb in the past six months. It might not lead to serious prosecution, but it would certainly have harmful effects on Boston and on Wikipedia, so it is best to take reasonable precautions to deter and dissuade this from happening. Also note that Wikipedia's ISPs won't have access to an IP address that was stored in a cookie or local storage when a visitor accessed from a different IP. Wnt (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Just because you have a list of IP addresses, assuming Wikipedia cooperated instead of fighting the subpoena, doesn't mean you have an physical address. You have to take the IPs to the relevant ISP, along with date and time info, and ask them to dox the user. ISPs generally comply without much fuss, but it can take weeks to get an answer and you have to pay them. The data can be misinterpreted too. Dragnets like you mention are theoretically possible, but aren't easy. You have manage risks according to what's likely. The risk you speak about is probably less likely than other risks. For instance, a hacker could pwn your computer and use it to run a surreptitious web server that distributes kiddie porn. The cops track it down, break in your door and arrest you. This has actually happened to people, and they have a lot of expense and trouble to prove that they weren't running the server, a hacker was. Worry about and manage the big risks, and don't sweat the small ones. Keep your OS patched! Jehochman ^Talk 16:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You're describing the pre-CISPA situation, but does this apply now? How much more readily are the ISPs sharing data now that doing so frees them from potential liability? Wnt (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Jehochman may know more about this than I do, but I think you're underestimating the hassle and overestimating the value involved. Let's run a little thought experiment and pretend that you have managed to obtain a complete list of IPs and exact times for every single one of the 20,000+ users who viewed pressure cooker bomb in the last six months (which isn't even possible, because the logs aren't kept even close to that long). Now what?

Now you have to figure out which of the ~7,000 American ISPs (currently) controls each of those IP addresses. No problem, because it's not like you have either a budget or a deadline to meet, right? And you have to figure out which of the thousands of non-US ISPs controls the non-US-based ones. Then you have to figure out how to contact each and every one of those ISPs, confirm that you are with law enforcement, and send them the list of IPs and times. Then you wait for a response. Then – assuming that the ISPs you contact can and do answer your question at all – they'll send back thousands of street and/or billing addresses, from all over the world – many of them to businesses, dormitories, coffee shops, and other multi-user environments. (Also, they'll send back a list of IPs that they didn't control at that time, and now you get to go re-track-down the ISP of record at the time of the viewing, and start over.)

And then what? Are you going to spend the rest of your career walking into coffee shops and saying things like, "Does anyone remember who was using the wifi here, at 10:16:34 a.m. three Thursdays before the bombing?" Phoning up businesses and saying "I need to know which of your 600+ employees was using the internet at work back three days before Halloween?"

This isn't effective, and that's why law enforcement doesn't do that. You may read in the news that a known suspect had been searching the internet for relevant information, but you never read that law enforcement tried to track down thousands of people who read about a subject on the internet, in the hope that one of them would turn out to be suspicious. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

For the scenario I described, it would be one city. In the U.S. it is common (though I didn't check it's the case in Boston) for cable TV companies to have a "franchise" that gives them de facto monopoly for cable TV lines, and thus to have 30% or so of the total internet business in an area. One or two phone companies may have some similar kind of access to "compete" with them. For the government to track down every coffeeshop patron is ridiculous - they wouldn't bother. They'd say look, we can subpoena three companies - or just review the files of data they already have shared under CISPA - have a computer cross-reference 70% of the Wikipedia requests from within the city, spit out a list of a dozen doors to break down. Bing, bang, boom. Wnt (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

How Completely Messed Up Practices Become Normal

For those interested in Wikimedia/Wikipedia reforms, I highly recommend the following: How Completely Messed Up Practices Become Normal by Dan Luu.

Key quote:

new person #1 joins

new person#1: WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF

old hands: yeah we know we’re concerned about it

new person #1: WTF WTF wTF wtf wtf w…

new person #1 gets used to it

...

new person #2 joins

new person #2: WTF WTF WTF WTF

new person #1: yeah we know. we’re concerned about it.

In my opinion, this describes much of Wikimedia (at least the parts visible to us -- I am sure that there is a lot going on behind the scenes that runs smoothly and doesn't generate any drama) and some parts of Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it describes much about Wikimedia as an organization in particular, which is a much more normal organization than most people hope or fear. Obviously all organizations have that sort of thing. It does, however, pretty accurately describe a lot about Wikipedia and I think one of the reasons does have something to do with Wikimedia. In the past (things are improving) the Foundation underinvested in engineering/product. This means that we are stuck with software that has not improved to keep pace with modern developments and our own learnings.

Let me give just one simple example. To respond to you I had to write ':' before each line. That's not so bad, but after I comment, you'll respond and it'll be '::'. Others will chime in and pretty soon we are up to '::::::' is that 5 or 6? It's madness. Anyone new thinks: WTF WTF WTF. It isn't like a proper threaded message system *even including the features that are special to wiki* (such as that anyone can remove anyone else's comment if they are being sufficiently a jerk, etc.) is impossible. But here we are.

Or, imagine that person A just doesn't get along with person B. Anywhere else, A just blocks B, B blocks A, and the software keeps them with minimal visibility of each other, especially in personal discussion spaces. Here, the main solution to that kind of personal conflict is to complain publicly and ratchet up the drama even more. It's madness. Anyone new thinks: WTF WTF WTF. It isn't like 'blocking' is impossible. But here we are.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Guy, if you consider Wikipedia/Wikimidia to be so dysfunctional, why do you contribute here so much? A serious and sincere question. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd: as Guy has already informed you, this kind of reasoning is fallacious, often referred to as the false dilemma. Ironically, you have unintentionally proven Guy's point about the problem with community decision making, which is mired in fallacies, groupthink, and inflexibility—all of the very things that stand in the way of Wikipedia's growth and evolution. Your mistake is in assuming that Guy's concern is misplaced and unhealthy, when it is exactly the opposite: your black and white thinking is precisely the problem. Viriditas (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Well whatever you think, it was a question I was genuinely interested in having an answer to. But to be frank I don't really understand people who are very unhappy with Wikipedia but still wanting to contribute. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I wish there was an easy way to reach you to help you understand why your thought process is very problematic. Since everyone has to eat to survive, let's use a food analogy: there's a favorite restaurant you go to with your friends and family. You have a good rapport with the staff and they try their best to service you and your needs. One day, you discover to your surprise, your regular order isn't cooked properly. You also notice that the service has changed a bit for the worse since the business let go of the last manager, who ran a very tight ship. The new manager might not be aware that things have gone downhill. What do you do? According to your argument, you should get up out of your comfy seat and walk out the door and never come back. That's simply wrong for a multitude of reasons. One, as a regular, valued customer, the business depends on your patronage and would benefit from criticism. They would also like to know if something is wrong so they can fix it, as a problem usually impacts more than just one person and could damage their reputation and eventually their business itself. There's also the employees who depend on the business for their livelihood. Finally, there's all the other people who enjoy the restaurant. So by not saying anything, by walking out and leaving for good because you we unhappy, you are essentially failing to do your job as a responsible patron, customer, and member of the community. Another way to understand this imperative is to review the fantasy films It's a Wonderful Life and Groundhog Day. While both are fiction, they illustrate fundamental philosophical truths about the role each individual plays in the greater fabric of reality. This is best illustrated by the concept of Indra's net. In other words, by arguing that unhappy people should just leave instead of trying to change things, you are failing to take responsibility for yourself and others, because every action you take impacts everyone, and not taking action or ignoring a problem is an action by itself. To summarize, you are compelled to act in every moment, and by failing to act you are directly responsible for the problem. Viriditas (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

But by the same token, if I visited a restaurant, and the service and food was invariably poor, my patience would eventually wear thin, and I would less likely to visit, how ever much I cared about any staff members.

Really, the main problem I see is that a lot of criticism seems to me to be non-constructive. I think that's what strikes me a lot reading this page and others. And I suppose that's I'm responding to in a way. When people moan, but don't suggest ways in which things can be improved. Also I see a lot of moaning that I don't really understand either. Obviously some aspects can be improved. But overall, on balance, I see Wikipedia in a fairly positive light. So when people make blanket statements like "everything is dreadful, and the sky's falling" it disheartens me because it doesn't seem to me to be rational, and also doesn't seem like a constructive criticism. I don't believe they really believe that either, because their contributions suggest otherwise, at least to my way of thinking. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

In my experience and erudition, the only people who object to criticism like this are those who subscribe to hardcore cult psychology which promotes conformism as a core value. You see this kind of thinking in political partisanship, in the ranks of sports fans, religious believers, corporate employees, and the military. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't object to constructive criticism, only non-constructive criticism and general woe betiding. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 02:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you read Guy's original comment and external link? It's entirely on point and constructive. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I was more responding to you calling my thinking fallacious, and to generalized points on contributors who are unhappy here but still contribute. My responses to Guy are below. But anyway, I think I've said enough on this issue, I probably wont respond any further. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 03:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Your question contains an assumption that the only reasonable response to problems in an organization is to leave. It does not consider the possibility that a reasonable response to problems in an organization is to attempt to fix the problems. In addition, as I was careful to point out, many parts of the Wikimedia Foundation are not dysfunctional. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

OK I suppose I should explain my angle. If I honestly thought that it was seriously dysfunctional here I don't think I would be motivated to continue. But overall I agree with most things that happen here. Not everything, but the majority of decisions seem to make sense to me. But if that stopped being the case I expect that i would probably not want to contribute. My contributions have been modest, but at same time they have taken me some time to achieve.

Following on from your original statement, what do you see as the biggest problems here? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation financial development 2003–2014. Green is revenue, red is expenditure, and black is assets, in millions of US dollars.

The number of admins promotions via RfA per year since 2002

Accountability to the community
Does the Wikimedia fundraising survey address community concerns?
Donate to Wikipedia and Pay for… What Exactly?
Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer
Revolting peasants force Wikipedia to cut'n'paste Visual Editor into the bin
Wikipedia faces revolt over VisualEditor
Flow no longer in active development
--Guy Macon (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

What are "Millionen", please? Who prepared the charts with those legends? On my computer it was hard even to see that was the legend, it looked like "MIIIIonen" and I was embarrassed to ask. MPS1992 (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@MPS1992: if you click on the image, you will discover that it was created in the German language. Using Google translate reveals that "millionen" is German for "millions". Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

OK well that's quite a lot to discuss. But let's start with the revenue/expenditure/assets graph. What do you see particularly wrong with it? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Generalising per se not particularly helpful. All are different. Visual editor well intentioned but clumsy. Having a big asset base makes economic sense, especially if you can use interest for grants etc. Ummm...more specifics? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Does someone who is brainwashed realize they are brainwashed? There is another way, its called Critical thinking. Also,S. I. Hayakawa wrote that faulty communication is the cause of most human problems and conflicts. Regarding both situations there are degrees. One example, when I was a boy we had civil defense drills and hid under our desks....yeah, really...preparing for "the Russians are coming". Much later I got to know a woman who grew up in communist Poland where, as a girl, they had the same drills and hid under her desk because "the Americans are coming". It was as unthinkable to her as it was to me that our respective side would attack first, yet we both were brainwashed into fearing the other "evil" side. I heard an audio of LBJ telling McNamara about the Vietnam War that "our job there is to train those people, and our training is going good?" Maybe the only important decision any of us really have to make in life is to what degree we think for ourselves. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

If Jules cannot see that The WMF spending more and more money every year during a period when readership is down, the number of active editors are down, the number of active administrators are down, and the costs of actually hosting the website are down, further argument is unlikely to enlighten him. Spending $2 million a year for travel (more than $10,000 per employee)[11] is a problem. Refusing to answer reasonable questions about how money is spent [12][13] is a problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Spending more money would be unwise if the biggest problem was getting money. Since the movement does have some problems, most of which are not financial, and it is able to raise money then of course it is appropriate to spend money to try to better understand and ideally solve the problems that face us. The investment in Visual Editor was a prime example of using money to solve a perceived problem. As for your examples of problems, until recently our readership was growing faster than the internet, it may still be doing so, but with a growing proportion of people reading our content via mirrors rather than coming directly to Wikipedia. Numbers of active editors depends on your definition of activity; those who edit 5 or more times in one month are definitely down on 2007, but much of that drop is simply that the edit filters have stopped many vandals who previously would have done five vandalisms and been blocked. Editors who save over 100 edits a month in mainspace did drop between 2007 and 2014, but 2015 saw a recovery and recent months have been between the 2011 and 2010 levels. RFA is a problem and only partially explained by unbundlings such as Rollback. ϢereSpielChequers 10:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Disclosure. I was one of the volunteers who got a WMF scholarship including travel costs to attend Wikimania in Mexico, and a partial scholarship to Haifa. I'm also entitled to claim travel costs from Wikimedia UK for various events I have been a volunteer trainer at. Did the $2 million travel costs of "$10,000 per employee" that the article criticises, include the cost of volunteer travel? If so I think the comparison is wrong. Instead of comparing the travel costs to the number of employees it should compare the travel costs to those of other global organisations. ϢereSpielChequers 11:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

We got by just fine in 2010 by spending ten million dollars. Why did we need to spend fifty million dollars in 2015? What is the WMF accomplishing now that they failed to accomplish five years ago? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a spokesperson for the WMF, If you want to ask those questions I'm the wrong person to ask. I know the Commons upload wizard came in since 2010 and I think the second datacentre, for all I know that could be the highlights of the last five years or the petty cash. I haven't looked in detail at either budget and don't have an opinion as to whether the expanded spending is an overall success. Do you have any comment on the points I made? I have been keeping tabs on the numbers of >100 mainspace edits a month editors since my article in the signpost and the trend continues at least as recently as the November data. ϢereSpielChequers 14:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is relatively new (at least to those with long memory). Fewer editors, etc. maybe a widespread realization that encyclopedia writing, a thing known in the last century to have been done by specialists, is not in fact for everyone, but rather specialization is natural to the enterprise (thus the pages and pages this site uses to begin to explain how to do it) -- even when given away for free. Specialization is often attended with higher costs of production, education, recruitment, and presentation. So, turning this topic sideways, it becomes, How Messed Up Practices Evolve, sometimes becoming less or more messed up. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps our "Completely Messed Up Practices" are subliminal imitation?

Maybe the human condition is such that the "practices" of the leadership of societies are imitated at a subconscious level by sub groups within the societies? It is quite humbling to entertain, but what if Wikimedia/Wikipedia "messed up practices" are not self-directed but simply the result of osmosis from the trickling down of the "messed up practices" by those perceived to have the most authority, power and control over all of us? Here is an example of such "messed up practices" that I have been monitoring with wonderment for over 10 years:

See: "Narcotics" section

Mr. Chairman, what concerns me most is the way the threats become intertwined. In this case, there is ample evidence that Islamic extremists such as Usama Bin Ladin use profits from the drug trade to support their terror campaign.

Which is supported by this

And yet we had this, and then this, and then for the most visual representation of this example of "messed up practices becoming normal", Figure 1 on page 12 of this.

So, perhaps our Wikipedia example of Completely Messed Up Practices Becoming Normal is simply a reflection of today's "new normal". Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Long Response to User:Guy Macon and others

User:Guy Macon has posted a short statement on How Completely Messed Up Practices Become Normal followed by multiple links and two charts, which have provoked lengthy commentary, but it doesn’t appear that the commentary is getting anywhere. As to the two charts, I think that they are essentially unrelated, because one has to do with the English Wikipedia, and the other has to do with the WMF.

As to the second chart, the WMF financial profile, it is characteristic of successful non-profits. Income (mostly from contributions), expenses, and cash all tend to increase. As we see, WMF is a very successful non-profit. The flip side to that is that, as available money increases, if mission is not very clearly defined, and it isn’t that clearly defined for Wikimedia, there isn’t enough scrutiny as to whether the money is being spent wisely. Does Guy Macon or anyone else have any specific suggestions as to how the money ought to be retargeted? I would favor spending less on large software development efforts, which have included impressive failures, and more of the development budget on fixes and maintenance to existing software. I would also suggest reducing the overall development budget. I would also suggest spending money (something User:Jimbo Wales has mentioned in the past) on professional mediators to supplement the corps of volunteers in dispute resolution. I am sure that other suggestions can be made for where more money should be spent and for where less money should be spent. I would also suggest that one use of the cash reserve would be to deal with legal threats against specific editors, to establish that the WMF, with millions in reserves, will indemnify and defend individual editors against the occasional legal troll. (Legal trolls know better than to threaten defamation actions against the WMF, because it not only will throw money at the lawsuits, but recover its own costs.) That is just one thought. The multi-year profile of WMF finances indicates a successful non-profit, and so indicates that it needs to consider how to use its financial resources. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The other chart is RFA. Either RFA was too easy in 2007, or it has become toxic, or both. I think both. At the same time, nothing is likely to be done about it in the next few years, because the WMF has a policy that each of the language Wikipedias is self-governing, and the WMF does not plan to solve any problems specific to specific language Wikipedias. However, the English Wikipedia is too diverse and fractious to be capable of self-government in its present quasi-anarchic form. It needs some sort of governance reform, but the WMF policy of non-intervention mean that a community that needs governance reform but can’t agree on anything won’t get governance reform. The English Wikipedia won’t and can’t solve the RFA problem. The WMF can but won’t solve the governance problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to ask Guy Macon, who is normally a problem-solver, to explain whether he thinks that anything in particular is dysfunctional and can be solved. There are some editors who like to say that the English Wikipedia is a toxic environment. Do they mean that it is toxic and should be abandoned, or that it is toxic and something should be done? If so, what? I disagree with the statement that the English Wikipedia is a toxic environment, and I think that Guy Macon also at least partly disagrees, because he does still try to solve problems rather than just complaining. I would say that the English Wikipedia has toxic editors, and that some of the editors who see a toxic environment are looking in a mirror because they are toxic. What in particular does Guy Macon think should be addressed for problem-solving? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia: hello!

It's a pleasure to be here, Mr. Wales, sir. I just created my account 5 days ago and am just getting started. I'm currently starting off fresh by making several improvements to articles, and I wish you and every user here the best of luck. To be honest, if we ever met in real life, we'd definitely be shaking hands right now. John "Soap" MacTavish 23:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

soap? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.3.157 (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

How may I help you? But please, do remember to sign your comments with ~~~~. John "Soap" MacTavish 05:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Joseph Jobs paying us a visit... Carrite (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

xtools

Cyberpower768 says that Hedonil changed the xtools code and he can't do anything. WMF must maintain important tools.--223.176.3.157 (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know anything about any of that. :-( --Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It's best to courtesy notify @Cyberpower678: @Hedonil: when discussing them here. Wnt (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It would seem that someone else is maintaining the tools, on GitHub at the moment, but I would appreciate more developers be active in the maintenance of the code. I no longer have the time to maintain them myself.—^cyberpower_{Happy 2016:Online} 14:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that one of the core businesses, where the multimillions the WMF is haveing in te overfull coffers should be spent, instead of of unwanted pet projects like Flow? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 16:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

There were a number of proposals for WMF maintenance and/or development of tools at the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey, but those related to xtools didn't make the top 10. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

If xtools was working fine at the time, contributors to that wishlist probably didn't see a need to add it at the time. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Why use acronyms like "WTF"?

Jimbo, do ordinary human beings really go around engaging in an internal mental conversation consisting of a series of WTFs? That is certainly not how I think or how I imagine that the vast majority of productive encyclopedia editors think.

You say "In the past (things are improving) the Foundation underinvested in engineering/product. This means that we are stuck with software that has not improved to keep pace with modern developments and our own learnings. Let me give just one simple example. To respond to you I had to write ':' before each line. That's not so bad, but after I comment, you'll respond and it'll be '::'. Others will chime in and pretty soon we are up to '::::::' is that 5 or 6? It's madness. Anyone new thinks: WTF WTF WTF."

Are people who sincerely want to become encyclopedia editors really deterred by learning wikicode, including the convention of indenting with colons? In my case, I learned this easily and effortlessly in my early days of editing. If wikicode was so hard to learn, then how have we created this English encyclopedia with five milion articles, and all the other wonderful encyclopedias in a surprising number of languages? How did we ever accomplish this, if indenting with colons is so onerous?

There have been a few successful software improvemements. "Thanking" and "pinging" come to mind. But in my view as an active editor, the major WMF software initiatives are all failures. Massive amounts of money spent without making editing easier, either for newbies or for experienced editors. Of course, things could change in the future. Where's the evidence?

In my opinion, the success of this project is almost entirely due to the volunteer encyclopedists. The rank and file editors. The big money, rarified "Silicon Valley North/Davos/hobnobbing with celebrities" world of WMF board meetings and career opportunities for dozens of coders has brought us very little. I think we need to return to our roots, and turn the WMF over completely to people like Doc James. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

• News and notes: The WMF's age of discontent

• In the media: Impenetrable science; Jimmy Wales back in the UAE

• Arbitration report: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 case been decided

• Featured content: Featured menagerie

• Recent research: Teaching Wikipedia, Does advertising the gender gap help or hurt Wikipedia?

• WikiProject report: Try-ing to become informed - WikiProject Rugby League

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)