User talk:118.96.58.172/sandbox2

Everything I did...

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

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

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

Peace

UninvitedCompany 19:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is time for Katherine Maher to Go

Four more administrators down:

* Ad Orientem

* Beeblebrox

* Jonathunder

* DoRD

Awww, but no worries, there are 1,200 administrators, right? Carrite (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, most of those admins are from the active admins list, which has 520 names on it right now (and hasn't been updated with several recent resignations, so it'll have fewer tomorrow once the bot runs to update it). And that list only is based on activity as an editor, some on that list do very little with admin tools. This isn't the usual bit of a few admins getting removed because they hadn't been around in a year anyway; those had already left (at least for the time being) and their desysops were a formality. So, yeah, around 20 admins leaving matters. (That's not to say the non-admins who have left don't; many of those will be missed as well, but some of those will just quit editing and not say why). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

My belief is the actual number of administrators on the front lines doing admin-type tasks on a daily or weekly basis is approximately 200. Generating that precise number would be a good topic for research. The community has approved five new Administrators this year, and if we get to double-digits, I will shout a round of beer. Carrite (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Carrite, You might find this table helpful S Philbrick(Talk) 14:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Carrite, you might also be interested in this table, which hasn't been updated for a couple of months but appears to be accurate before then. Although the recent unpleasantness has caused a drop in the 'active admin' count to 520, that still just brings it back to where it was in January, thanks to inactive admins returning in the meantime. Obviously that 520 figure doesn't take into account people who aren't acting in an admin capacity until this is resolved but don't see the point in formally resigning until it's clear which way the Board is going to jump (I have no idea of numbers but I assume there are quite a few), but in terms of raw numbers the resignations just bring us back to where we'd expect to be in terms of long-term decline trend. ‑ Iridescent 19:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Sphilbrick's table is extremely useful, but in terms of activity judged not solely by logged edits, Carrite's estimation of around 200 is probably more realistic and I would venture to say it's possibly even much less. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Now a positive program for a way out of this mess

1. It starts with an "I'm sorry." WMF needs to acknowlege that behavior-banning is not their purview (particularly secretly deliberated, unappealable behavior banning!); they need to acknowledge that they should have stepped back instead of digging in.

2. No matter what WMF thinks of him, Fram's ban needs to be immediately terminated "without prejudice" for being implemented later by Arbcom if the evidence so indicates.

3. Whatever Fram is accused of having done, behavior-wise, should be turned over to the proper channel for this to be handled, which is Arbcom. There has never been a case on this for him, the foundation made an end run around the system here. Let the system work, Arbcom works under non-disclosure agreements of non-public information.

4. Jan Eissfeldt needs to be immediatelty reassigned within the WMF establishment. He doesn't necessarily need to be fired (although that would send a message), but he absolutely needs to be removed from his current position of authority, having lost the confidence of the volunteer community.

5. If WMF is actually interested in some sort of "Universal Code of Behavior," this must be negotiated and debated with the various language communities (not just English-WP). Implementation by fiat would be a catastrophe like the Fram Affair, amplified, simultaneously occurring across multiple wikis.

6. There absolutely needs to be a written constitution delineating roles of the two entities, the paid staff and the volunteer communities. Let each community elect delegates, one for every 500 or 1,000 very active editors (100+ edits per month) or something like that, to meet either in person or with a series of conference calls to hash out details. There needs to be institutional "buy in." Perhaps the "universal code" negotiation could be made part of this.

7. Jimmy Wales needs to personally contact each resigning administrator individually, by email or on-wiki, makes no difference, passing along what has been done and what will be done going forward with respect to the Fram Affair, behavior policing in general, and asking each to reconsider their decision since we do need their talent and the way to stop the quits is by turning around the school bus.

8. The WMF board should start looking for a new ED by the end of the year. This is not strictly essential, politically, but it is getting untenable for the current ED to continue given the magnitude of the mishandling of this affair.

-- Tim Davenport /// Carrite (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Excellent plan. With emphasis on a new constitution, with broader changes, because the current one is at the fundamental root of this problem and many others. North8000 (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Carrite's plan is a path forward, Jimbo. The departure of so many excellent editors and administrators is shocking and disheartening to me and countless others. Things cannot continue like this. Do something. Do the right thing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• I concur with the above. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Point by point, this is the best way out of this mess, with the exception that Eissfeldt should leave the WMF entirely given the entire de.wp superprotect debacle. He's unlikely to have much trust in the communities after this. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 18:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Carrite, Sorry, this is a non-starter. I understand the sentiment, but to assert that the WMF should give up the authority to ban an editor for behavioral reasons isn't happening. That's not to say that this incident was well-handled, and there's room for imprving the prcess, but I cannot imagine that the WMF would remotely agree that they would never institute such a ban. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

A nuclear option should remain in the new constitution, but treated as such. But in the big picture, the "WMF agrtee" is the tail wagging the dog. If they won't agree that the new constitution is binding, we'll replace them. North8000 (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• This is the cleanest way to resolve the community concerns at this point. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• I mostly concur with this proposal, but would leave the firing and demoting to the people empowered to deal with that. I would also add, that there needs to be a forum for active, ground level dialog between the WMF and the enwiki community. A central noticeboard would work pretty well for that, but it would require that whatever WMF employees are assigned to liaise with the community actually respond to good faith questions and engage as equal partners. Anything short of that should be regarded as failure.- MrX 🖋 19:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  @MrX, AFAIK Whatamidoing (WMF) is the usual WMF ambassador to we peasantry. In my experience she's generally fairly quick to respond to good-faith questions, even if the answer is just "I don't know, I'll need to get back to you". ‑ Iridescent 19:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, I thought Whatamidoing was more of a technical liaison.- MrX 🖋 19:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, my assignments have always been tech-related, and officially, they still are. But in practice I'm interested in anything that affects my (volunteer-me's) 'internet home'. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• I think this is certainly a great way forward, The WMF have had 2 (nearly 3!) weeks to say something or even do something and so it's about time it was moved forward be it through them or us, I appreciate things take time and all but 2 weeks of waiting as well as generic walls of text in the first few days doesn't cut it. –Davey2010^Talk 19:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• I heartily concur with Carrite's plan. Except that it doesn't go far enough - this is a golden opportunity for a thorough shake up of the WMF's structure and responsibilities, and something on the lines of MrX's suggestion while devolving much of the WMF's work to the communities or a joint community committee, with all major developments and castle-in-the-sky plans for the future to be decided by community referendum. That would avoid some of the stupid wastes of money. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Carrite has spoken some good sense. Is anyone that matters (in this instance, at the WMF) listening? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• I support the plan, too. I'd especially like to encourage you to do #7. The many resignations represent a very severe hemorrhage of the project, and you are in a position to do some meaningful healing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• I don't think #2 can happen without removing T&S entirely. However, this seems a better plan than those proposed in WP:FRAMBAN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• On #1, I would want them to continue handling bans related to law enforcement type stuff, such as child protection or threatening violence, but anyone who does those things should be banned globally and permanently, not for a year from a single project. However, what we should do is to codify exactly what situations will be handled that way, and then to ban someone for any reason outside of those would actually constitute libel. I also don't like the idea of a "rules committee"; each project should decide on its own rules (and in reality, the committee proposal would result in the English Wikipedia essentially setting the rules for everyone, and I doubt that's a situation other projects would welcome with open arms; we'd most likely see reactions very much like ours to the FRAMBAN). Let each project continue to set its own rules. But outside of that, I think this is a good starting point for discussion, especially actually codifying the respective roles of the WMF and volunteer communities. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• I'll put a link to Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#The WMF is disconnected from the editing community because I think it would be good for Jimmy to look at it. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support, except perhaps for number 7. I, for one, don't need any message from Jimbo about anything. Deor (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you, Carrite. Unfortunately, I suspect your advice will fall on deaf ears. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• There is nothing in this proposal that suggests an effective way to handle editor harassment which is at the heart of this whole issue. ArbCom's open letter today states that they have not handled it well, at all. The Signpost article states that multiple editors had complained that they experienced harassment. WMF felt they had to step in because Wikipedia hasn't effectively addressed harassment and stalking when it occurs. I can't support a proposal that asks for replacement of WMF staff members when it doesn't provide a self-reflective critique on how Wikipedia can improve its inept mishandling of harassment complaints. If ArbCom admits that they aren't handling harassment complaints well, then of course, WMF will step in to fill the void of inaction.

Let's make the situation here one where WMF won't feel the need to step in because Wikipedia can handle policing itself. Now that is a proposal I would sign off on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• He Jimbo, this is just a note to indicate that there are people who don't agree with the mob, please take us into account as well. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

For goodness sake don't stop w just Fram!!!

Jimb I'm one of not a few wiki peasants thirsty for a full reign of terror on caustic admins and other prolific eds to begin. ( - Btw from your pic w/i the BuzzFeed piece looks like you should start walking around the block more. I was there a month or so ago & it's worked for me. :~)--20:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I should be careful of what you wish for, remember Maximilien Robespierre and Philippe Égalité! However, also be aware Jimbo is not too fond of comparisons to the French Revolution. Giano (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Ouch. So you're saying Jimbo is just a bit too fond of cake, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Most certainly not, that would be “pot and Kettle” in my case.Giano (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

That's just the Good Ol' Alabama Boy FINALLY starting to show up. Nothin' he can do about it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Enwiki also has problems in this area. Maybe this will be a little kick in the butt to also work on those. North8000 (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Heart of the community is our editors. ..Wikipedia currently has (121,345 active editors that have edited in the last 30 days), and only very very small minority of those contributors participate in community discussions and have no clue that a few dozen administrators are not here.--Moxy 🍁 01:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Upcoming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

News "flash"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More suggestions for greater WMF/Community harmony

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contributing on Wikipedia is Wastage of Time

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

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

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

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

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

News you can use

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

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

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

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

Misreading

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

Reading

3 July

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

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

A statement at ARCA

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

Statement by Katherine

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